Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 1:30:20 GMT -5
Just watched part of the vp debates. I really, really like this Pence guy. This is the chess player of the bunch. This is the guy that can be the man behind the man. I'm all about this guy. Cold and calculated. Articulated. Somewhat witty...in an appropriate manner. Made Kaine look like a beta cuck. And made it look easy. No matter what happens this election, I hope Pence tries to run in 2020. How much did you watch and what was your impression of Kaine? Please be as detailed as possible. I wound up watching all of it, started doing some work towards the end so just kind of tuned in and out. I want to say I paid pretty close attention for most of it. It was actually better than the debate between Shill and Trump. Let's start from the first question...Kaine was asked how he would be able to be a good president if it came down to it. He spent his entire time babbling on about...nothing. He never answered the question. Kaine seemed as if he had a hard time controlling himself, had to resort to butting in over and over again. While Pence came off cool and collective, Kaine came off nervous, fidgety and defensive. Pence made some great points about Hillary's failures. Kaine came off as over protective not just over these comments, but also the comments that were directed towards him regarding his failures during his tenure in Virginia. Kaine seems to have a misunderstanding of basic economics. He also slung a whole lot of mud about Trump, but when confronted by Pence, he couldn't back any of it up. He liked to just blurt out lines such as "You and Trump want to raise taxes on the middle class", to where Pence brillantly would just roll his eyes a bit and continue on. At one point he accused Trump of not wanting to "pay for vets, for police, etc, but not paying taxes". Pence responded with a simple "Do you not use what deductions are allowed?" No response from Kaine. Pence looked like a relaxed guy up there that knew he was could crush his opponent at anytime if he wanted to. And IMO, he was and he wasn't really trying. Pence did go on and on a bit, but it was mostly him defending Trump and trying to break down what Kaine clearly did not understand. Honestly, Kaine seems like a closet homosexual and I don't mean that in a derogatory way in any way at all. He legit comes off gay at times. Just kind of shines through at times.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 6, 2016 10:19:10 GMT -5
Very interesting. This is the impression I had as well. Kaine was sort of . . . crazed, manic, like the first time you do coke and you can't control it. I also got the vibe that he's not been in many debates before where people make points and respond and you need to back-up your statements with logic. It was more like a drive by shooting of slurs and insults and then . . . squirrel. Could you fucking imagine this spaz as the US President? Good fucking god, man. This smirking, hyper, neurotic metrosexual, yipping doggy is Hilary's health away from the fucking Presidency. Kaine is like that dude at a party that won't STFU during a good conversation and then you catch him in the back room later blowing a dude and you're like WTF, Tim? Your wife is in the other room! And he's like dude promise me you won't say anything. Look, it's fine, Tim. I don't care. But get a hold of yourself, man. You're a mess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 10:55:22 GMT -5
The guy is an snl skit waiting to happen. If this was trumps guy, the media would be coming down on him big time.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Oct 6, 2016 11:03:20 GMT -5
I watched about 15 minutes of that spectacle and WTF? Tim Kaine reminds me of Smithers from the Simpsons. He has the nervous giggle thing yet also smugness that is very off putting. But I think this is the strategy and the Hillary clan is not going to answer anything and instead hope they win via others hating Trump, and their pied piper strategy of telling everyone they can magically give them free shit.
|
|
|
Post by TitoOrtizIsAPunk on Oct 6, 2016 13:34:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hammerfaust on Oct 6, 2016 14:25:02 GMT -5
... people make points and respond and you need to back-up your statements with logic. It was more like a drive by shooting of slurs and insults .... Could you fucking imagine this spaz as the US President? Good fucking god, man. You talking about Trump?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 20:24:09 GMT -5
I only recently discovered Politifact. Here's the link for the site: www.politifact.com/subjects/You all can say it's bullshit, but this is a true UNBIASED FACT checking site and it won the pulitzer prize. I THINK that the first numbers are for statements made by the candidates, and the second for how much of their overall percentage of truthfulness these statements account for: Here are the stats for Hilary and Trump: HIlary: Hillary Clinton's file Clinton Democrat from New York Hillary Clinton is the 2016 Democratic nominee for president. She served as U.S. Secretary of State during the first four years of the Obama administration. She is formerly a U.S. senator from New York, first elected in 2000. She was a candidate for president in 2008. She previously served as first lady when her husband, Bill Clinton, served two terms as president. She was born in Chicago in 1947, graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree at Yale Law School. She and her husband have one daughter. The PolitiFact scorecard True 60 (23%) Mostly True 73 (28%) Half True 58 (22%) Mostly False 39 (15%) False 27 (10%) Pants on Fire 6 (2%) This one is for Trump: True 12 (4%) Mostly True 31 (11%) Half True 39 (14%) Mostly False 48 (17%) False 97 (35% ) Pants on Fire 48 (17%) If this site is as legit as it is supposed to be (and it is supposed to be a legit fact checking site that is neither right or left leaning) then it indicates that Hilary is a much more truthful person than Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 20:29:03 GMT -5
You need to read through the actual links though. There are quite a few times I have read a "mostly true" on a bullshit technicality or something is false because they said the person insinuated something. It is still a left leaning site with their grading system but a lot of the content is thought out. I remember the "women make 73% of what men make" was deemed true because if you do not factor in ANYTHING then that is true but nearly all economists call that stat bullshit but it was rated true because a Democrat said it and it is "true" if you don't consider any context but other times they use context to say someone is lying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 20:29:22 GMT -5
For those who claim the site is bullshit, here is info from their site on how it is supposed to work.
I haven't read through it entirely yet, but they have legit standards or they probably wouldn't have won the pulitzer prize:
Editor’s note: We often get questions about how we select claims to check and how we make our rulings. So a couple of times a year, we publish this overview of our procedures and the principles for Truth-O-Meter rulings.
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others who speak up in American politics. PolitiFact is run by editors and reporters from the Tampa Bay Times, an independent newspaper in Florida, as is PunditFact, a site devoted to fact-checking pundits. The PolitiFact state sites are run by news organizations that have partnered with the Times. The state sites and PunditFact follow the same principles as the national site.
PolitiFact staffers research statements and rate their accuracy on the Truth-O-Meter, from True to False. The most ridiculous falsehoods get the lowest rating, Pants on Fire.
PolitiFact checks claims by elected officials, candidates, leaders of political parties and political activists. We examine officials at all levels of government, from county commissioners to U.S. senators, from city council members to the president.
We also check claims by groups involved in the discourse -- political parties, advocacy groups and political action committees -- and examine claims in widely circulated chain emails.
PunditFact checks claims from pundits, columnists, bloggers, political analysts, the hosts and guests of talk shows, and other members of the media.
Choosing claims to check
Every day, PolitiFact and PunditFact staffers look for statements that can be checked. We comb through speeches, news stories, press releases, campaign brochures, TV ads, Facebook postings and transcripts of TV and radio interviews. Because we can't possibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones.
In deciding which statements to check, we ask ourselves these questions:
Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable? We don’t check opinions, and we recognize that in the world of speechmaking and political rhetoric, there is license for hyperbole.
Is the statement leaving a particular impression that may be misleading?
Is the statement significant? We avoid minor "gotchas" on claims that obviously represent a slip of the tongue.
Is the statement likely to be passed on and repeated by others?
Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?
Transparency and on-the-record sources
PolitiFact and PunditFact rely on on-the-record interviews and publish a list of sources with every Truth-O-Meter item. When possible, the list includes links to sources that are freely available, although some sources rely on paid subscriptions. The goal is to help readers judge for themselves whether they agree with the ruling.
Truth-O-Meter rulings
The goal of the Truth-O-Meter is to reflect the relative accuracy of a statement.
The meter has six ratings, in decreasing level of truthfulness:
TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.
MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.
HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
FALSE – The statement is not accurate.
PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
Principles in Truth-O-Meter rulings
Words matter – We pay close attention to the specific wording of a claim. Is it a precise statement? Does it contain mitigating words or phrases?
Context matters – We examine the claim in the full context, the comments made before and after it, the question that prompted it, and the point the person was trying to make.
Burden of proof – People who make factual claims are accountable for their words and should be able to provide evidence to back them up. We will try to verify their statements, but we believe the burden of proof is on the person making the statement.
Statements can be right and wrong – We sometimes rate compound statements that contain two or more factual assertions. In these cases, we rate the overall accuracy after looking at the individual pieces.
Timing – Our rulings are based on when a statement was made and on the information available at that time.
Process for Truth-O-Meter rulings
A writer researches the claim and writes the Truth-O-Meter article with a recommended ruling. After the article is edited, it is reviewed by a panel of at least three editors that determines the Truth-O-Meter ruling.
Corrections and review
We strive to make our work completely accurate. When we make a mistake, we correct it and note it on the original item. If the mistake is so significant that it requires us to change the ruling, we will do so.
Readers who see an error should contact the writer or editor. Their names are listed on the right side of every Truth-O-Meter item. Clicking on their names will take you to their bio pages, where you can find their email addresses.
When we find we've made a mistake, we correct the mistake.
In the case of a factual error, an editor's note will be added and labeled "CORRECTION" explaining how the article has been changed.
In the case of clarifications or updates, an editor's note will be added and labeled "UPDATE" explaining how the article has been changed.
If the mistake is significant, we will reconvene the three-editor panel. If there is a new ruling, we will rewrite the item and put the correction at the top indicating how it's been changed.
We respect that reasonable people can reach different conclusions about a claim. If you disagree with a ruling, we encourage you to email the writer or editor with your comments about our ruling. You can also post comments to our Facebook page or write a letter to the editor. We periodically publish these comments in our Mailbag feature.
PolitiFact has two other features:
The Flip-O-Meter, which rates whether an elected official has been consistent on an issue.
Promise meters, such as the Obameter and the GOP Pledge-O-Meter, that rate the status of elected officials' campaign promises.
The Flip-O-Meter
The Flip-O-Meter rates an official's consistency on an issue. The rating is not making a value judgment about a politician who changes positions on an issue. Indeed, voters often like politicians who are flexible and have the ability to compromise or adapt their positions to the wishes of constituents. Still, accusations of shifting positions are so common in politics that it is valuable to have us provide an analysis of a shift and rate the amount of change. The Flip-O-Meter has three ratings:
No Flip – No significant change in position.
Half Flip – A partial change in position.
Full Flop – A complete change in position.
The writing, editing and rating process for Flip-O-Meter items is the same as the process for Truth-O-Meter items.
The Promise meters
To create our promise meters, staffers pore through speech transcripts, TV appearances, position papers and campaign websites looking for promises.
However, a promise is not a position statement. We define a promise as a prospective statement of an action or outcome that is verifiable. All of our promises list the source.
The promise meters have six levels. The first three provide a broad picture of whether the official is making progress; the final three indicate whether he or she kept the promise.
Not Yet Rated — Every promise begins at this level and retains this rating until we see evidence of progress — or evidence that the promise has stalled.
In the Works — This indicates the promise has been proposed or is being considered.
Stalled — There is no movement on the promise, perhaps because of limitations on money, opposition from lawmakers or a shift in priorities.
Compromise — Promises earn this rating when they accomplish substantially less than the official’s original statement but when there is still a significant accomplishment that is consistent with the goal of his original promise.
Promise Kept — Promises earn this rating when the original promise is mostly or completely fulfilled.
Promise Broken – The promise has not been fulfilled. This could occur because of inaction by the executive or lack of support from the legislative branch or other group that was critical for the promise to be fulfilled. A Promise Broken rating does not necessarily mean that the executive failed to advocate for the policy.
Promise ratings change whenever the circumstances change. For some promises, it's possible that the status could initially go to In the Works, but then move back to Stalled if we decide the proposal has hit a lull, and then go back to the In the Works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 20:31:30 GMT -5
You need to read through the actual links though. There are quite a few times I have read a "mostly true" on a bullshit technicality or something is false because they said the person insinuated something. It is still a left leaning site with their grading system but a lot of the content is thought out. I remember the "women make 73% of what men make" was deemed true because if you do not factor in ANYTHING then that is true but nearly all economists call that stat bullshit but it was rated true because a Democrat said it and it is "true" if you don't consider any context but other times they use context to say someone is lying. If I want to actually know all the facts I'll read through each issue, but it's not supposed to be leftward leaning, it's supposed to be comprised of ACTUAL FACTS comprised by independent researchers...or at least that is the claim. Practically everything seems to have a lean these days, BUT, a fact is still a fact no matter what you try to say about it. One thing that is for sure is that it is a LOT more legit than a lot of the random links thrown around here.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Oct 6, 2016 20:39:52 GMT -5
Did it mentioned Hillary being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, when he & his sherpa guide, Tenzing Norgay reached the summit of Mt. Everest? When she was 7 yrs old?
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Oct 6, 2016 20:46:04 GMT -5
Toehold -
Can you give an examples of why you are considering or will vote for Hillary? Without it having to do with Trump.
As an example:
I am voting for Trump because I prefer someone outside the beltway without long standing terms as a politician. I believe Trump is less likely to be beholden to special interest groups and has no need to "pay them back" for money or prior assistance in gathering voter
I am voting for Trump because he believes in lowering taxes for EVERYONE and i believe that is econonically sound. I don't believe any politician that claims raising taxes will increase prosperity.
I am voting for Trump because he has provided his potential list of Supreme Court Justices
I am voting for Trump because he has stated he believes we need to enforce immigration law
I am voting for Trump because I believe his business acumen is far better than any current politician
Do you have any particular list of reasons why you would vote for Hillary? I promise not to criticize your opinion but just wondering where you see a benefit to the country or you individually if she is elected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 21:07:00 GMT -5
Just a couple, but I don't feel like getting into a serious discussion about it.
A lot of my reasons are more because IMO Trump is worse on certain things than she is better, even though you say not to mention Trump, I don't really feeling like leaving him out because he's an essential part of this. I mean if he wasn't voting against her I might not vote for her at all so I have to bring him up:
Because she wants to get rid of Citizens United
Because I personally Don't believe Trump wants to lower taxes for the middle class, but rather the upper class, while Hilary wants to primarily lower taxes for the middle and lower classes and supports the idea that more than 90% of financial gains go to the top 1% so they should be taxed more
Because she wants to raise the minimum wage, while, IF I am correct, Trump doesn't
Because she wants to expand social security, while, IF I am correct, I thought I heard Trump wants to get rid of it altogether
Because she says she wants to support Israel's security
Because she's laid out a plan for going after ISIS (whether or not you believe it will work is a different story)
She wants to support EVERYONE'S rights, regardless of race, sex, etc, and I honestly don't really believe Trump does
I think she's more for (in her own words) "comprehensive immigration reform" and isn't as "gung ho" about just throwing all or most of them out of the country like Trump is
I think she overall has a cooler temperament than Trump
So, you asked for a few and those are a few.
Granted, I don't follow politics as much as you or most of the people on this board do, admitadly, and I'm trying to learn more.
So I don't want people to ask me to come up with a billion and one reasons to support my opinions because I feel for me I'm still doing the ground work of even trying to figure out what I believe in the first place while it seems like most of this forum is already pretty "set in stone" regarding every single belief they have.
I'm NOT...and many of my opinions probably will change in the future.
All this bullshit with this election has just made me want to learn more, but I really don't know that much about politics in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 21:09:48 GMT -5
Did it mentioned Hillary being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, when he & his sherpa guide, Tenzing Norgay reached the summit of Mt. Everest? When she was 7 yrs old? I don't know, check the site yourself. I just discovered it yesterday. There's a lot of info on there, and for those who think it's biased towards liberals there ARE quite a few of Hilary's biggest lies pointed out there. It mentions true and false statements from all important figures from all parties.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Oct 6, 2016 21:21:54 GMT -5
It is easier to say in public that you're voting for Trump instead of publicly supporting Hillary. You could get away with "Why not?" when it come to Trump. With Hillary, it's like admitting you suck dick for meth & you can see people judging you & trying to explain that sucking dick ain't all that bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 22:03:00 GMT -5
It is easier to say in public that you're voting for Trump instead of publicly supporting Hillary. You could get away with "Why not?" when it come to Trump. With Hillary, it's like admitting you suck dick for meth & you can see people judging you & trying to explain that sucking dick ain't all that bad. Not around here it is certainly not easier. Which is why I feel I want to vote for the guy.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 6, 2016 22:41:17 GMT -5
She doesn't want to get rid of citizen United, she makes good money from it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 22:56:49 GMT -5
Raising minimum wage will make EVERYONE more poor... Fact. Anyone who wants the minimum wage to be raised doesn't understand the basics of how the economy works.
Right now there are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of manufacturing products that are still made in our borders because it is still cheaper to make them here. If you raise the minimum wage all of those jobs will leave our country because it will now be cheaper to make them in mexico and ship them back here. That means you now have less GDP which means there is less money in our economy and more money outside of our borders.
In addition to a decreased GDP, you will have all goods and services raised in price because the break-even profit point is artificially raised. That means that your dollars are worth less. Also, this will require an increase in welfare, unemployment, and food stamps payouts, which will then require an increase in taxes.
So what it boils down to is raising minimum wage will worsen the lives of poor people, take money from working people, and increase the wealth of people and business' outside of our country... making us more poor.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Oct 6, 2016 23:17:34 GMT -5
Just a couple, but I don't feel like getting into a serious discussion about it. A lot of my reasons are more because IMO Trump is worse on certain things than she is better, even though you say not to mention Trump, I don't really feeling like leaving him out because he's an essential part of this. I mean if he wasn't voting against her I might not vote for her at all so I have to bring him up: Because she wants to get rid of Citizens United Because I personally Don't believe Trump wants to lower taxes for the middle class, but rather the upper class, while Hilary wants to primarily lower taxes for the middle and lower classes and supports the idea that more than 90% of financial gains go to the top 1% so they should be taxed more Because she wants to raise the minimum wage, while, IF I am correct, Trump doesn't Because she wants to expand social security, while, IF I am correct, I thought I heard Trump wants to get rid of it altogether Because she says she wants to support Israel's security Because she's laid out a plan for going after ISIS (whether or not you believe it will work is a different story) She wants to support EVERYONE'S rights, regardless of race, sex, etc, and I honestly don't really believe Trump does I think she's more for (in her own words) "comprehensive immigration reform" and isn't as "gung ho" about just throwing all or most of them out of the country like Trump is I think she overall has a cooler temperament than Trump So, you asked for a few and those are a few. Granted, I don't follow politics as much as you or most of the people on this board do, admitadly, and I'm trying to learn more. So I don't want people to ask me to come up with a billion and one reasons to support my opinions because I feel for me I'm still doing the ground work of even trying to figure out what I believe in the first place while it seems like most of this forum is already pretty "set in stone" regarding every single belief they have. I'm NOT...and many of my opinions probably will change in the future. All this bullshit with this election has just made me want to learn more, but I really don't know that much about politics in general. Ok, well if the election has you paying more attention that may be a good thing. Trump's tax plan is out there for the world to see. Rather than me explain why I think it is vastly superior to what Hillary is offering, I suggest reading both of their websites and look at the plans. Trumps is much easier to read and understand so take a look. I will say one very easy to read point you will see regarding the "middle class". Trump wants a 12% tax on the first $75,000 if income, will raise the deduction for a married couple to $15K each, or $30K for a couple and provides a much larger child care deduction AND allows the use of family as child care. A couple making $75K is FAR better off under Trump than Hillary. If you want to focus on an issue, read their tax plans. Hillary is focused on the message of "the wealthy need to pay more" and that is a huge philosophical difference between two schools of thought. You can look up who is actually paying what. Families with incomes over $250,000 pay more than 50% of all federal income tax collected in the United States. People with income under $50,000 pay about 5% of the total federal income tax collected in the US. Somehow, we have a societal shift to focus on those already carrying a monsterous tax burden and saying they should pay more? It's makes no sense to me philosophically, but it is also economically absurd. We want to encourage people to spend, invest, create, innovate, etc, and not penalize them, IMO. But read their tax plans and see what you think.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Oct 6, 2016 23:23:57 GMT -5
It is easier to say in public that you're voting for Trump instead of publicly supporting Hillary. You could get away with "Why not?" when it come to Trump. With Hillary, it's like admitting you suck dick for meth & you can see people judging you & trying to explain that sucking dick ain't all that bad. Why do you gotta drag Vegeta in to this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 12:37:42 GMT -5
Toehold just found Politifact?
Oh man....
Toehold, I know they like to jibber jabber about how they are unbiased. But they are not. Not in the least bit. They are very left leaning. To the point that they lean more than the tower in Pisa. Just look at their stuff on Hillary and her server. It's complete bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 15:51:59 GMT -5
Just read pages 3 through 10 of this thread while on lunch. I have decided that the Giant Meteor is the only way to go.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Oct 7, 2016 17:40:54 GMT -5
I found this pretty shocking and frankly rather sad in regard to what it says about our culture then vs now. In 1997 Trump openly wrote about his now infamous $900-million loss and the NYT, now doing hit-jobs with illegally leaked tax returns on the same fucking story, already published it back in '97 as an inspirational story of resilience, comeback, moxy, and NYC toughness. Guess '97 wasn't an election year. Chapter 1: The Billion Dollar Loss Do you also find it shocking that for the last 30+ years (minus the last two since he aimed for the presidency) has had political views that would be deemed more liberal than Clinton? Name some. This is typical claptrap
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 7, 2016 19:51:25 GMT -5
Do you also find it shocking that for the last 30+ years (minus the last two since he aimed for the presidency) has had political views that would be deemed more liberal than Clinton? Name some. This is typical claptrap Until his "run" for Presidency... 1. States forced to give homosexuals equal treatment and full rights. Hillary wasn't for this until more recently. 2. Open Borders 3. A form of a universal healthcare and education system 4. Closing the tax loopholes (yes the ones he uses). 5. Raising the income tax rates on the wealthy (granted it offset somewhat by the decreasing corporate taxes) I'm sure someone like Tony who claims to have loved and followed Trump for so long can bring up more. Anyways news on the leak front, looks like Hillary's speeches to Wall Street, at least to Goldman Sachs.
|
|
|
Post by Hunter on Oct 7, 2016 20:46:54 GMT -5
Raising minimum wage will make EVERYONE more poor... Fact. Anyone who wants the minimum wage to be raised doesn't understand the basics of how the economy works. Right now there are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of manufacturing products that are still made in our borders because it is still cheaper to make them here. If you raise the minimum wage all of those jobs will leave our country because it will now be cheaper to make them in mexico and ship them back here. That means you now have less GDP which means there is less money in our economy and more money outside of our borders. In addition to a decreased GDP, you will have all goods and services raised in price because the break-even profit point is artificially raised. That means that your dollars are worth less. Also, this will require an increase in welfare, unemployment, and food stamps payouts, which will then require an increase in taxes. So what it boils down to is raising minimum wage will worsen the lives of poor people, take money from working people, and increase the wealth of people and business' outside of our country... making us more poor. Quoted for truth. Raising the minimum wage is a terrible idea.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Oct 8, 2016 11:01:59 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 11:52:23 GMT -5
Curious was to what you guys think about this. My feelings are mixed, I mean I have had dirtier conversations with my girlfriends. And this was a candid convo that wasnt meant for public consumption. But the part I have a problem with is how he said he can do just about anything because he is famous. (Paraphrasing there.) Also hearing the word pussy come out of his mouth turned my stomach a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 8, 2016 12:07:02 GMT -5
Curious was to what you guys think about this. My feelings are mixed, I mean I have had dirtier conversations with my girlfriends. And this was a candid convo that wasnt meant for public consumption. But the part I have a problem with is how he said he can do just about anything because he is famous. (Paraphrasing there.) Also hearing the word pussy come out of his mouth turned my stomach a bit. Clinton (both) said worse shit all the time, retired Secret Service Agents have said just as much. I've heard much dirtier, much more offensive stuff on a regular basis just out and about at a Target or grocery store (yes even in the toy aisle *GASP*). My issue is more he was boring about it. Lacking details, relying on furniture shopping, etc... As for how he can do just about anything because he is famous, guess what, that is the country we live in. He's not the only one to have said it. Hillary has said it, and proved it. Sanders have said it, many celebrities have said it (many of them who were expressing surprise at what they get away with early into their celebrity). What is worst though, is if you are a contributor to the campaigns, or the foundations, you can get away with anything too. Well look who is taking money from all the corporate CEOs, many who have our lives in their hands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 15:12:07 GMT -5
Toehold just found Politifact? Oh man.... Toehold, I know they like to jibber jabber about how they are unbiased. But they are not. Not in the least bit. They are very left leaning. To the point that they lean more than the tower in Pisa. Just look at their stuff on Hillary and her server. It's complete bullshit. Well you think Fox news or Breitbart aren't EXTREMELY right leaning?? Cause they are. Most sources are biased in one direction or another, but a fact is still a fact. The problem is IMO, ON BOTH sides, that people try to interpret facts differently. I wish we could just stick to EXACTLY what is and isn't true across the board, but somehow someone, whether they are democrat, republican or in the middle, always has a way of saying someone else's facts aren't "the real facts". Republicans will say that the democrats "facts" are bullshit but that republican and Trump supporters' "facts" are 120% legit when they could never be, and the democrats do the same thing. So I don't know if you think politifact is some completely bullshit site, but if you do, I'd suggest it's no more bullshit than the sites you probably go to and ask for some kind of proof that it's not.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Oct 8, 2016 15:12:10 GMT -5
Curious was to what you guys think about this. My feelings are mixed, I mean I have had dirtier conversations with my girlfriends. And this was a candid convo that wasnt meant for public consumption. But the part I have a problem with is how he said he can do just about anything because he is famous. (Paraphrasing there.) Also hearing the word pussy come out of his mouth turned my stomach a bit. Clinton (both) said worse shit all the time, retired Secret Service Agents have said just as much. Oh, in that case, all is forgiven
|
|