Hardly

Automatik;1804572 wrote:Well good chance "it's over" then. Where do you plan to relocate?



My post was made in jest.

I don't run and hide like liberal pussies. I will remain and defend liberty and advocate for fiscal sanity.

QuakerOats;1804568 wrote:No it isn't. It is decades with a majority of radically liberal supreme court justices who continue to write law from the bench.

First, why are we expecting all these justices to keel over in the next four years? There's nearly a decade gap between Breyer and Clarence Thomas. I can't see this much concern over Thomas or anyone below him.

That leaves three: RBG, Kennedy, and Breyer. Two of them were already Democratic appointments.

So really, this mostly boils down to a single Justice: Kennedy. Replacing RBG and Breyer with Democratic Party appointees will be like replacing six with half a dozen. It'll end up a wash.

And frankly, Clinton is probably less of a Democrat purist and more of a sheer opportunist than our current president. She's also more disliked, which means she's less likely to be able to talk her way into getting what she wants. I sincerely doubt Congress will play nicely with her even as much as they have with Obama.

And as long as we're talking opportunists, what makes you think Trump is going to nominate some Reagan-esque shining beacon of conservatism to the bench? He's been on the record as saying that he supported a universal healthcare system and that, generally speaking, he was more liberal on social issues.

QuakerOats;1804568 wrote:We are at the teetering point with producers and takers; once we go over the edge (and we will with that lying, criminal bitch), then it is over.

Look, I dislike Clinton every bit as much as I dislike Trump, but these sorts of predictions are silly.

For examples, see below:

QuakerOats;1310593 wrote:

isadore;1310570 wrote:despite your raving and whining our economy is in recovery mode thanks to president obama.

No it is not. It is on life support and if obama is re-elected you can pull the plug.

QuakerOats;1295985 wrote:If obama is re-elected this nation will collapse prior to 2016; you'll have Dictator obama to contend with then. Good luck with that.

Any vote that helps elect obama is not only a wasted vote, it is a vote for the end of the republic; sorry to say.

QuakerOats;1804584 wrote:Hardly

Who then? ISIS has been around a while. The were gonna "rise" regardless of who was in office.


So basically you're going to just continue to piss and moan on a half-assed sports webforum? Enjoy!

O-Trap;1804586 wrote:First, why are we expecting all these justices to keel over in the next four years? There's nearly a decade gap between Breyer and Clarence Thomas. I can't see this much concern over Thomas or anyone below him.

That leaves three: RBG, Kennedy, and Breyer. Two of them were already Democratic appointments.

So really, this mostly boils down to a single Justice: Kennedy. Replacing RBG and Breyer with Democratic Party appointees will be like replacing six with half a dozen. It'll end up a wash.

And frankly, Clinton is probably less of a Democrat purist and more of a sheer opportunist than our current president. She's also more disliked, which means she's less likely to be able to talk her way into getting what she wants. I sincerely doubt Congress will play nicely with her even as much as they have with Obama.

And as long as we're talking opportunists, what makes you think Trump is going to nominate some Reagan-esque shining beacon of conservatism to the bench? He's been on the record as saying that he supported a universal healthcare system and that, generally speaking, he was more liberal on social issues.



Look, I dislike Clinton every bit as much as I dislike Trump, but these sorts of predictions are silly.

For examples, see below:

Doom and gloom is his game. He showed a few seconds of happiness during the Cleveland victory, but it was short lived. Back to your normal programming...SKY IS FALLING.

QuakerOats;1804585 wrote:I don't run and hide like liberal pussies. I will remain and defend liberty and advocate for fiscal sanity.

No, you just post like an overdramatic little bitch. A REAL IMPROVEMENT!!!!!

"this nation will collapse prior to 2016", lolfail.

Automatik;1804572 wrote:My post was made in jest.

Whew. You scared me.

Sadly, I hear those being used sincerely.

bases_loaded;1804573 wrote:The numbers are all over the place but at best he inherited around 40 million from his father and his net worth is 4.1 billion. Now lets compare that to a true idiot. Paris Hilton...60 million inheritance, current net worth 100 million.

The distinction is that I'm not just talking about the inheritance. He also seemingly benefited from the nepotistic decision to name him CEO just three years after graduating from college.

And even beyond that, he was able to raise capital on his dad's credit.

He has increased his business to his credit, but let's stop pretending he's a self-made man. He was born with the assets and instruction manual to build what he has built.

QuakerOats;1804578 wrote:Really. How did he win then?

And these were just "political decisions" from a 'rookie', and he won.

You don't win the primaries (or even the general election) with political decisions. You win them with marketing decisions. I doubt anyone would disagree with the notion that Trump was the best marketer in the Republican primaries.

IGNORE THE PROBLEM Quaker...MOAR muslim refugees.

Ahh more broad sweeping generalizations. My favorite.

QuakerOats;1804585 wrote:I will remain and defend liberty and advocate for fiscal sanity.

Welcome to the Libertarian Party, where we generally oppose tax-funded foreign overreach, as well as universal healthcare, both things Trump appears to support.

O-Trap;1804592 wrote:Welcome to the Libertarian Party, where we generally oppose tax-funded foreign overreach, as well as universal healthcare, both things Trump appears to support.

Until a viable candidate, by viable I mean one that can win, your vote only ensures more establishment politicians.

bases_loaded;1804593 wrote:Until a viable candidate, by viable I mean one that can win, your vote only ensures more establishment politicians.

As does yours.

Why do people think that a third-party candidate is going to go from zero to contention in a single election? Things like this will either build or they won't happen at all.

O-Trap;1804594 wrote:As does yours.

Why do people think that a third-party candidate is going to go from zero to contention in a single election? Things like this will either build or they won't happen at all.

Not in this election. This isn't Romney vs Obama, Clinton vs Bush, or Clinton vs Bush.

bases_loaded;1804596 wrote:Not in this election. This isn't Romney vs Obama, Clinton vs Bush, or Clinton vs Bush.

You can shuffle the cards, but they're part of the same deck. Trump may have a few ideological differences from the other recent Republican candidates, but he's hardly anti-establishment.

Note: One of those differences is NOT his view on healthcare, which he apparently shares with Obama, Clinton, and Romney.

bases_loaded;1804551 wrote:Yet he can buy and sell you a million times. So dumb luck or is he playing the game better than anyone in history?

He uses leverage and money to get his way in a lot of his deals. It's much easier to negotiate when you are in a position of strength and for Trump he inherited that position of strength in the form of money and family name. None of this is going to help in on the world political stage; other countries don't care about his money.

He's an average negotiator and businessman who started with a lot of money and pretends that he built his business from scratch to billions. He's a fraud to most of the business community and has so many failed business ventures he can't reasonably considered an elite businessman.

He turned 40 million into 4 billion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well then surely he can defeat ISIS!

Bill Gates is worth 80 billion. I'm writing him in!

QuakerOats;1804581 wrote:I don't know how you could be so wrong. Unlike obama who vetoed the repeal of obamacare last February; Trump will sign it. Unlike obama who will not cut taxes, Trump will sign tax reform. Unlike obama who is crushing industry with marxist federal edicts, Trump will roll them back, and congress will back him all the way. Shall I continue ....

Trump can't even get half the Republican party to endorse him and you think he's going to get anything done in Congress? That's even assuming he has a red congress in the first place.

He's a lame duck at best.

Automatik;1804608 wrote:Well then surely he can defeat ISIS!

Bill Gates is worth 80 billion. I'm writing him in!

You are arguing something I am not. I'm arguing the he's a dumb ass point. I provided someone who inherited more(Paris Hilton) than him who we can all agree is a dumbass and showed the difference between what a dumbass is and what someone who seems to be successful has done.

QuakerOats;1804582 wrote:So, we should give the reins to the person(s) who gave rise to ISIS.


Fucking brilliant.

Right HRC is the reason ISIS exists.

Again, Trump's plan to eliminate ISIS is to commit war crimes and kill innocent brown people. Very presidential of him.

bases_loaded;1804607 wrote:He turned 40 million into 4 billion.

As I said, he turned a $40 million inheritance, a nepotistic CEO position, and the family's credit options into $4 billion.

Were you to have had the same, you could have done it, too.

Automatik;1804608 wrote:Well then surely he can defeat ISIS!

Bill Gates is worth 80 billion. I'm writing him in!

Gates-Buffet '16
"We Don't Need Campaign Manipulation"

bases_loaded;1804611 wrote:You are arguing something I am not. I'm arguing the he's a dumb ass point. I provided someone who inherited more(Paris Hilton) than him who we can all agree is a dumbass and showed the difference between what a dumbass is and what someone who seems to be successful has done.

There's a spectrum for this, though. Moreover, nobody is trying to put Ms. Hilton in the White House ... well, I mean if Billy C. was the first husband, then maybe she'll be in from time to time, but ...

First, why are we expecting all these justices to keel over in the next four years? There's nearly a decade gap between Breyer and Clarence Thomas. I can't see this much concern over Thomas or anyone below him.

That leaves three: RBG, Kennedy, and Breyer. Two of them were already Democratic appointments.

Scalia as well.

bases_loaded;1804607 wrote:He turned 40 million into 4 billion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's just plain untrue. He was also promoted to CEO of the business his father built and happens to own a lot of wealth in real estate. Asset prices have exploded to the fed policy of easy money and low interest rates. Must be nice to get credit for monetary expansion while you hold steady on prime real estate your dad owned. LOL

Not to mention, some people don't even put Trump as a billionaire anymore. We won't really have a good net worth estimate until he releases his tax returns which I doubt he will ever do.

sleeper;1804616 wrote:Scalia as well.

Good call, and fair enough.

sleeper;1804605 wrote:He uses leverage and money to get his way in a lot of his deals. It's much easier to negotiate when you are in a position of strength and for Trump he inherited that position of strength in the form of money and family name. None of this is going to help in on the world political stage; other countries don't care about his money.

He's an average negotiator and businessman who started with a lot of money and pretends that he built his business from scratch to billions. He's a fraud to most of the business community and has so many failed business ventures he can't reasonably considered an elite businessman.

knock, knock, all political decisions are made from the point of power related to money. What the hell do you think lobbyist do all day long?