Current Topics
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died
by perotista
31 minutes 10 seconds ago
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by perotista
51 minutes 42 seconds ago
Portland. A Turning Point?
by pdx rick
Today at 05:04 AM
The Republican Platform
by pdx rick
Today at 04:01 AM
Global warming predictions
by pondering_it_all
09/20/20 09:04 PM
RoundTable for Summer 2020
by jgw
09/20/20 04:47 PM
Half of troops have an unfavorable opinion of President Bone Spurs
by CPWILL
09/20/20 07:42 AM
West Coast Burning
by NW Ponderer
09/19/20 06:57 PM
Bob Woodward's book details Trump's chaotic and dysfunctional White House
by Greger
09/19/20 06:57 PM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by pondering_it_all
09/18/20 05:18 AM
The Boogaloo Bois
by pondering_it_all
09/17/20 08:17 AM
How the world sees U.S. and Trump
by jgw
09/16/20 09:01 PM
The Trump campaign is broke
by pdx rick
09/15/20 12:20 PM
Barr is acting as ‘personal henchman’ of Trump
by Greger
09/13/20 09:33 PM
Covid Long Haulers
by jgw
09/07/20 06:23 PM
A post, on facebook, by my granddaughter that covers it all pretty good!
by pondering_it_all
09/02/20 07:27 PM
The Democratic Fight
by jgw
09/02/20 06:09 PM
voters who don't
by pondering_it_all
09/01/20 08:35 AM
There needs to be a ‘real reckoning’ for Trump’s abuses if Biden wins
by pdx rick
08/31/20 12:43 AM
WV woman goes to Mexico with her daughter and series of TOP SECRET U.S docs
by pondering_it_all
08/30/20 08:06 PM
Forum Stats
6292 Members
60 Forums
16994 Topics
302861 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 7 of 10 < 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#314403 - 08/28/19 10:59 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: NW Ponderer]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 10335
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I don't intend to be derisive, my friend, but your assertions are so far from rational or coherent that they are hard to take seriously.

I recently stopped posting on a righty (Regressive) blog site because there really wasn't anything left to say but, "Yer insufferably stupid." Every attempt to discuss any topic was met with: a) derision; b) deflection; c) lies and canned propaganda; d) insults to my (dead) mother. I am currently in a reflective mood trying to figure out how to relate to the "other side". It's a puzzle...
_________________________
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller

Top
#314405 - 08/28/19 11:11 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17429
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: Greger
I don't think any of us are especially proud of Bubba Clinton's antics between the sheets. But he was impeached for his shenanigans. Do you, Senator, also endorse the impeachment of President Trump?

Since Pres. Trump has done nothing that justifies an attempt impeach him, I do not endorse it being done. The trumped up charges that have been made against him are worthless. (Pun intended.)
I had thought, at least at some time in your history, my friend, that you supported things like the "rule of law", "honoring one's oath", probity, and other conservative virtues. How, then, is it, that you cannot acknowledge the obvious when it comes to Trump? "Pres. Trump has done nothing that justifies an attempt impeach him" - Emoluments? (It's in the Constitution, yanno.) Corrupt practices? Violations of the Federal Election laws? Obstruction of Justice? Do any of these things ring your conservative bell?

Top
#314406 - 08/28/19 11:13 PM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: NW Ponderer]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 10335
Loc: One of the Mexicos
You forgot compulsive lying.
_________________________
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller

Top
#314410 - 08/28/19 11:39 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: logtroll]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Long before the Laffer Curve was created cutting taxes raised government revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20...g/#64465fc8799e

You are equating tariffs with income taxes.

No, I am not. Tariffs and income taxes have been used as sources of government revenue. The example I posted shows that when governments cut taxes, whether they are tariffs or on income, their revenue goes up.

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Note that Trump is drastically increasing tariffs (and not for a stated purpose of raising revenues). This unreasonable increase of tariff/taxes appears to be hastening the economy into a recession.

While I strongly disagree with Pres. Trump raising tariffs I can see and understand why he is doing it. He is doing it as way of bargaining with other countries. When people or countries bargain they start out asking for the what is the most beneficial for them. Their counterpart's offer is what is best them. That is done not with the expectation of getting all of what they want but in an attempt to get the best deal that they can.
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Perhaps you could explain how cutting income taxes on the wealthy serves to raise government revenues?

Why do stores seek to keep their prices as low as possible? They do so to get as much business as possible. When taxes are low those who have the most money, the wealthy, will not actively look for ways to avoid paying taxes. People don't work their ass off so they can pay most of what they earn in taxes. Low prices = a lot of business. Low taxes = a lot of revenue.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314411 - 08/28/19 11:51 PM Re: Good bye? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 10335
Loc: One of the Mexicos
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Long before the Laffer Curve was created cutting taxes raised government revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20...g/#64465fc8799e

You are equating tariffs with income taxes.

No, I am not. Tariffs and income taxes have been used as sources of government revenue. The example I posted shows that when governments cut taxes, whether they are tariffs or on income, their revenue goes up.

Except you ignored my request for an example of cutting income taxes causing revenues to got up.

Let's make it easy - use the most recent income tax cut to show how it has increased revenues.
_________________________
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
– R. Buckminster Fuller

Top
#314416 - 08/29/19 12:12 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: rporter314
If Sec Clinton had been elected and she had done what Mr Trump has done, wouldn't the list of impeachable offenses be long? I mean didn't she order Seth Rich to be assassinated? or run a child porn operation out of a Pizza joint? didn't Pres Clinton get some kind of emolument from the Russians for a speech which he donated to the Clinton Foundation? can you imagine Sec Clinton trying to get dirt on Mr trump from the Russians or making deals to lift sanctions?

Let me tell ya, if Sec Clinton had done the things Mr trump has done, I would have led the charge to impeach her.

It seems you don't have a problem with Sec. of State Clinton rigging the Democrat's primaries. If she had been elected rigging the primaries would have been grounds to impeach her.
https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...broken-the-law/
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314418 - 08/29/19 12:17 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: rporter314
You are simply restating your belief, since Pres Madison was "father" of Constitution it implies we should only believe what he believed, which fails to comprehend the whole document was a compromise between people who wanted a strong federal government and those who essentially did not want a central government. Should we conclude Pres Madison also believed some men were property and should be only accounted as 3/5's of white folk. Perhaps we should apply Madisonian beliefs on black folks?

Did you not read where I said that Madison had help from a lot of very intelligent men in writing our Constitution? Or did you ignore it? It appears that you ignored it. Again you are bringing race into this discussion thus showing who the real racists is. Unfortunately, without the 3/5 compromise our Constitution would never have been written. Because of Article V, which was created by the committee of the whole, the idea that a black man only counted as 3/5 of a person was removed from our Constitution.
Originally Posted By: trporter314
The Constitution allows laws to be written without hindrance of applying for Constitutional amendments. Pres Madison was the stickler but all other people involved in writing the Constitution immediately upon being elected to federal office began the expansion of the government. One has to know what the boundaries are, and there are boundaries, as is evidenced by the SC ruling on laws which they deemed as unConstititional.

Our Constitution created the legislative branch of our government for the express purpose of writing laws that do not require amending it. In Madison's plan for our Constitution he wanted our federal government to have the power to negate state laws. Fortunately he lost that argument.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
So again I ask, why arbitrarily select Pres Madison's view and not Hamilton's.

There are several reasons why that should be done.
1) Hamilton was only at the Constitutional Convention about half the time it was in session.
2) He was not an active participant in the convention. The aforementioned Pickneys were more active in the convention than Hamilton was.
3) The New York delegation to the convention originally consisted of three men; John Lansing Jr., Robert Yates, and Alexander Hamilton. Lansing and Yates left the convention early and never returned to it.

The rules of the convention required that a majority of the delegates from a state must agree on what is being discussed for the state to vote on it. Each state had one vote. Since Hamilton was the only delegate from New York at the convention he was not allowed to vote on what was being discussed. Because Hamilton was not there all of the time and wasn't an active voting member of the convention he did not have as much the influence on the writing of it that Madison did. Hamilton's opinions of our Constitution only became influential when he helped write The Federalist Papers.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
aside: just musing .... I have to wonder what written in stonists view of modern government would look like from the 1790 perspective of Pres Madison? no army ... no air force ... 4 cabinet positions ... no judicial review ... NO INCOME TAX!!!!. Kinda looks like 50 independent countries with about 35 of them 3rd world nations /// sweet

Because the men at the Constitutional Convention wrote Article V our government has changed when it has been necessary to do so.

You completely ignored this rporter314.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314432 - 08/29/19 01:13 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: Senator Hatrack]
rporter314 Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 7271
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Yikes!!!!

Let me start by commenting on your source. Far right bias with mixed political factual reporting. Now that being said let's examine your claim "If she had been elected rigging the primaries would have been grounds to impeach her."

Originally Posted By: Investor Business Daily
It may have been illegal.
Wait a sec ... you claimed she committed a crime. From your own source the editorial says maybe and there is nothing about being elected. The writer is insinuating a crime because people like yourself would rather believe something dishonest rather than believe the facts.

Now there is something else mentioned which the FEC would investigate had an actual criminal violation taken place i.e. laundering money through the DNC. Again just an insinuation meant for people like you. Why are you so gullible???

Any real evidence you have of any real criminal activity please contact your local Trump loyal FBI office or the FEC. otherwise stop the propaganda.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Get off the crazy train!!! ... dump Trump

Top
#314433 - 08/29/19 01:15 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Does Pres. Trump act solely for his own benefit? No, he does not. If he did he would not have run for the presidency and thus subjecting himself to all of the abuse he has received. Although to some extent Trump, like everyone else, does act for his own benefit. Doing so is a part of human nature.

Originally Posted By: rporter314
You completely ignored my rebuttal, so I am forced to conclude you have arbitrarily determined nothing Mr Trump does is in any respect controversial. So should I also conclude if Sec Clinton had done or said the same things Mr Trump has done or said she is also absolved? LOOK!!!! Had she done or said the same things Mr Trump has done or said I would excoriate her and bring the tar. Your partisan tolerance is disconcerting.

If I ignored your rebuttal it is because I didn't see it. Your conclusion that I don't think Pres. Trump has done anything controversial is wrong. There are plenty of things Sec. of State Clinton did that was controversial. The Clinton Foundation tops the list of the controversial things she has done. Despite that you probably voted for her. (I don't if you did but it is a safe guess that you did.) Since I wasn't on the CHBRR I don't know if excoriated her it.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
When you do you your conclusions are wrong. They are because they are clouded by liberal bias.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Should my conclusions be wrong (and certainly they could be but I am pretty objective when I analyze stuff) please point it out but don't point out a conclusion which offends you when it is valid.

You are objective? Like I said you're liberal bias prevents you from being objective.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Show me some praise Trump has received from a liberal. Show me something for which he is deserving of praise!!!!! I keep asking and you continue to ignore my begging.

I did not say Trump has received praise from a liberal. What I said was that he should receive some from liberals. No one is always in the wrong but liberals can only see what Trump does wrong and ignore it when he does something right. Here is praise for Trump from a liberal. https://freebeacon.com/politics/teamsters-president-praises-trump-hes-off-good-start/

Quote:
When any of our elected officials do something that deserves praise I will give them the praise they are due.
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Yes I see you praised Mr Trump for his actions during the campaign for currying Russian favor, requesting assistance, and when the FBI became suspicious of possible criminal activities Mr Trump obstructed their investigation .... and you praised him. Do you really believe Pres Madison had that in mind for our republic????

When did do that? The claim of Russian collusion was debunked by The Mueller Report. Only delusional partisans bring the lie of Russian collusion by Trump and his campaign. That you do shows that you are not as objective as you think you are.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Why are you injecting race into this discussion? I never mentioned Pres. Obama's race! If Trump had a mission to rescind what Obama did it was because he disagreed with what Obama did. NOT because of Obama's race!
Originally Posted By: rporter314
I think you better read what Mr Trump has said. He is the one who uses racist memes for which you reject as being racist. I can only conclude Mr Trump only walks and talks like a racist but is the rara avis of not being what he is.

My comment was about how you rporter314 injected race into this discussion. You did it by referring to Pres. Obama as a "black president."
Originally Posted By: rporter314/
]I have no problem with Mr Trump rescinding policies which does not comport with conservative ideals, but everything Pres Obama did was bad!!!! Really!!!! Maybe you didn't hear about Mr Trump leading Obama birtherism. Mr Trump lied about doing an investigation so the only thing left which was true and valid was his racism.

Trump apologized for doing that. An objective person would have accepted his apology and forgotten about it. You didn't. Again you show that you are not as objective as you think you are.
Quote:
The difference was the spike in unemployment rates during the Obama administration that started to decline in 2010.
OK ... and ...what?

Quote:
Pres. Obama deserves praise for the start of the decline in the unemployment rates in the last two years of his administration.
I guess you haven't seen the stats. It started in 2010 with big government economic packages aimed at turning a severely contracted economy around. The unemployment rates started declining in 2010 as a direct result of those economic policies enacted, and they continued to decline throughout the next 7 years of the Obama administration.

You can say you don't like the way it was done but you can't say it didn't work. Of course I can ask what policies would you have enacted to achieve the same of better results. At the time conservatives said do nothing. Maybe you had a different prescription.

Quote:
That Trump has continued what started during the Obama administration is a good thing.
Again, I guess you have not seen the stats.

Job Gains :: Mr Trump has not bested the jobs gains under Pres Obama

Unemployment Rate :: it has fallen 1% since Mr Trump took office. It has been falling since 2010.

Growth :: Looks about the same as Pres Obama's stats for last few years or nothing to write home about.

Middle Class income :: higher but it was already rising the last few years of Obama's term. Should be expected as more people are working.

Stock Market :: Under Pres Obama DJIA up 46% at same time as Mr Trump's 25%. A bit misleading as Mr Trump is reaping the benefits of Pres Obamas bootstrap of the market.

and so forth. For all the bluster from Mr Trump he has not done much of anything except not blow it up. Now that could be BIG, as he is the chaos in chief and he is in the start of a trade war which every rational economist says will not end well for America and maybe the world. So while Mr Trump hasn't blown it up yet .... give him some time, he is working on it

So again .... what has Mr trump done or said which deserves my praise???

Please provide links to back up your claims.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#314434 - 08/29/19 01:20 AM Re: Good bye? Nope! I'm sticking Around! [Re: rporter314]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1655
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Yikes!!!!

Let me start by commenting on your source. Far right bias with mixed political factual reporting. Now that being said let's examine your claim "If she had been elected rigging the primaries would have been grounds to impeach her."

Originally Posted By: Investor Business Daily
It may have been illegal.
Wait a sec ... you claimed she committed a crime. From your own source the editorial says maybe and there is nothing about being elected. The writer is insinuating a crime because people like yourself would rather believe something dishonest rather than believe the facts.

Now there is something else mentioned which the FEC would investigate had an actual criminal violation taken place i.e. laundering money through the DNC. Again just an insinuation meant for people like you. Why are you so gullible???

Any real evidence you have of any real criminal activity please contact your local Trump loyal FBI office or the FEC. otherwise stop the propaganda.

An objective person does not take one sentence out of a page long article in an attempt to prove their point. Doing so is known as cherry picking or taken a quote out of context.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
Page 7 of 10 < 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 27 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Superfly, GreatNewsTonight, danarhea, RoughDraft274, CPWILL
6292 Registered Users
A2