OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[Xoo]

She's not looking good lately...

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg appeared to erroneously label South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham as one of the "women of the Senate" on Monday.

"I thought back to the 1993 confirmation of my nomination to the court—the hearing was altogether civil, the vote was 96 to 3. For Justice Scalia, the vote was unanimous," Ginsburg said. "Let's hope members of Congress, the members that Allegheny College has already honored — Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John McCain, the women of the Senate, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham — let's hope that they and others of goodwill will lead in restoring harmonious work ways.""

Source, full story:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ru...rticle/2619955

Calling Linsey Graham a woman isn't really that much of a mistake. I sure hope ***Ginsburg))) croaks (or retires) in the next four years but I'm not counting on it.

[siablo14]

For your version of events to stand even a chance of taking place, you'd have to assume an aggressive response by Russia/Iran/Syria--and bad strategy, on our part.

I don't; I don't believe they're stupid enough to challenge, once they see we're serious.

They'll scatter, and the base will be ours just by using drones.

Anyone tries coming back, we light 'em up. They won't return any time soon.

Now, if they were somehow crazy enough to put up a fight, we win that battle, too, and we could take the base conventionally, if needed (which, again, I seriously doubt). Even in that scenario, air-fighters would in all likelihood be enough to force a retreat.

But let's say we did take the base conventionally; there won't be any response. They cannot compete with our military strength, period, and they know this.

Again, if they wish to commit suicide, then God help them.

That's my position on this battle scenario.

You're free to believe these comparatively weaker countries will launch an all-out assault to retake the base, but that seems quite farfetched in my book.

When I move, I move, and I'd make sure they know I'm not merely messing around. I'd tell them, even, in a press conference.

They mess around with me or get in my way, and I will nuke them. I don't give a shiz.

This whole BS world of oppressing others stops now.

Admittedly, this would (hopefully) function as a mere bluff on my part that succeeded, as I really wouldn't want to nuke anybody, but don't question my willingness to do so.

This world is horrible, and I would not stand by and let what's going on in Syria continue. Are they willing to die over that base?

Because I am.

MAD doesn't scare me, and they will be forced to blink first or face the consequences.



Call me crazy, if you want, but people like Putin have gotten their way in this world solely based off of people thinking they're crazy.

I'm just fighting fire with fire. He will take his spanking like a good boy, or he will die.

Because I'm crazier than he is.



That base is mine. No, all of Syria is mine. Crimea goes back to the Ukraine, and he stays the F out of my way from now on.

The world's about to change.

*cue dramatic music*

Why was he banned this time?

[BronsonBoxer]

Why was he banned this time?

This is Mega's excuse:

I was trying to give the dude a second chance and then I started researching what he did to 1bad65 as far as releasing his personal info. I decided at that point he doesn't deserve a second chance and should be permabanned.

This is my response:

"You cowardly mother****er lol

I was going to stay away, and let you get over this tantrum of yours, but I won't have you bull****tin' about me on here as an excuse.

You either accept this publicly as censorship, or I won't be going anywhere. I'll keep popping up.

Not even iamachamp will believe your cowardly excuse for censoring me this time; Mega, YOU were there the night the 1bad65 thing happened.

I was reporting Iamachamp for releasing my personal information, and I warned you to do something, or I would retaliate.

You ignored me and an hour later, I leaked 1bad65's sparring footage. That's when you decided you all of a sudden wanted to enforce forum rules, specifically by banning me.

Now you wanna come up in here, AFTER you unbanned me for doing that, and use it again as an excuse? You coward LOL You were there you sick ****. lmao

Researching my ass.

You're just mad, for the billionth time, that I'm owning your friends in debates. So, since they've been crying to you about it, you wanna mess around with me to save face. Punk.

1bad65 himself told me he didn't care about the sparring video; he specifically told me he was fine with it, so you have nothing to go on. And, again, keep in mind that nothing was done about my personal info being leaked you *****.

I was also in the middle of trying to end my beef with Gloveking, by the way. He also doesn't care, so don't even try using that as an excuse, either.

Decide; you either accept this as pure censorship to save your friends from embarrassment, or I own you.

Which one is it?"

You were also there that night siablo; you saw all of it as it went down; this Mega guy isn't even bothering to come up with plausible excuses for censorship anymore.

He's a coward. He's insulting his friends' intelligence, too, by literally dragging me away from them.

Psh.

[BronsonBoxer]

It's funny to talk to SunSpace.

You give him a lil rope.

He hangs himself.

He'll say something dumb or wrong.

You point it out then he rambles 10 paragraphs trying to play off his error.

Keep replying to him, he keeps rambling and rambling.

Longer and longer.

More and more jibberish.


He always thinks he won an argument but everyone 1. Doesn't read what he writes. 2. Thinks what he wrote is stupid.

He always lose, he just doesn't know it.

This is the internet. The guy who works the hardest. Lose.

lol dude I just got banned for the lil' debate I had with you right now;

Does that look like "losing?"

If I'm the one being censored, I don't think so.

[siablo14]

This is Mega's excuse:



This is my response:

"You cowardly mother****er lol

I was going to stay away, and let you get over this tantrum of yours, but I won't have you bull****tin' about me on here as an excuse.

You either accept this publicly as censorship, or I won't be going anywhere. I'll keep popping up.

Not even iamachamp will believe your cowardly excuse for censoring me this time; Mega, YOU were there the night the 1bad65 thing happened.

I was reporting Iamachamp for releasing my personal information, and I warned you to do something, or I would retaliate.

You ignored me and an hour later, I leaked 1bad65's sparring footage. That's when you decided you all of a sudden wanted to enforce forum rules, specifically by banning me.

Now you wanna come up in here, AFTER you unbanned me for doing that, and use it again as an excuse? You coward LOL You were there you sick ****. lmao

Researching my ass.

You're just mad, for the billionth time, that I'm owning your friends in debates. So, since they've been crying to you about it, you wanna mess around with me to save face. Punk.

1bad65 himself told me he didn't care about the sparring video; he specifically told me he was fine with it, so you have nothing to go on. And, again, keep in mind that nothing was done about my personal info being leaked you *****.

I was also in the middle of trying to end my beef with Gloveking, by the way. He also doesn't care, so don't even try using that as an excuse, either.

Decide; you either accept this as pure censorship to save your friends from embarrassment, or I own you.

Which one is it?"

You were also there that night siablo; you saw all of it as it went down; this Mega guy isn't even bothering to come up with plausible excuses for censorship anymore.

He's a coward. He's insulting his friends' intelligence, too, by literally dragging me away from them.

Psh.

Damn. Mega at it again. After he extended the olive branch. That ol' timer needs to make up his mind.

[BronsonBoxer]

Damn. Mega at it again. After he extended the olive branch. That ol' timer needs to make up his mind.

Mega has no shame, and it's all because posters like 1bad65 keep begging him to censor me since they're afraid of my intelligence.

It's pathetic. Then they wanna act like they're "alphas" doing this coward shiz. Beta *****es. Can't take Ls in debates like men, so they wanna get rid of me.

And I know how this goes; next, they'll ban me for "mod bashing," and that'll be the new excuse for a permaban.

Basically, Mega couldn't find a legitimate reason to censor me, so he's going to create one himself.

Then, when people ask what happened, T-Bear will pop up talkin' bout "respecting other mods decisions" and "mod bashing."

He knows what they do. He's in on it. Buncha sniveling cowards. LOL

[bigjavi973]

This gun' be good!

[ИATAS]

Right now, I'm thrilled about Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the SC.

He promised to nominate someone from a list he released. Gorsuch was on that list. Huge campaign promise kept.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and my apologies for the delay, I haven't had much time to get on the longue lately.

Gorsuch was a W. Bush guy so I'm not surprised you're thrilled. But to be honest, I was more interested in the "draining the swamp" and filling that swamp back up with very questionable people. Although SC is definitely very important, glad you brought it up.

I mean let's be perfectly honest, its just a longue thread anyways, Trump has appointed Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks to head his cabinet. So Im curious how his supporters can justify this. Is this "draining the swamp?"

Let's just take a peek:


Steven Mnuchin - Golden Sachs. Net worth $500m
This guy was involved in a string of lawsuits over questionable foreclosures, and settled several cases for millions of dollars. This is our Secretary of the Treasury.


Rex Tillerson - Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil. Net Worth $245 million.
This big buddy of Saudi Arabia as  CEO made business deals on behalf of Exxon with Russian President Vladimir Putin and  previously been the director of the joint US-Russian oil company Exxon Neftegas. This is our Secretary of State.


Betsy DeVos - I'm not even going to say anything here other than I can only ASSUME you would absolutely oppose her being appointed to Secretary of Education. I mean this one, at the very least, you can agree and say "yeah man, Trump either wants to destroy education or this was a big mistake".

Wilbur Ross - banker - net worth of $2.5 billion. He specializes in leveraged buyouts and distressed businesses. He has a massive list of shadiness, lawsuits and payouts in the hundreds of millions. This is our Secretary of Commerce.

Ben Carson. The guy believes Joseph built Egypt’s pyramids to store food as well as ****sexuality is a choice, evolution is an idea encouraged by the devil and, most famously, Obamacare is “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.”
This is our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

And it goes on. And I'll purposely exclude the fascist Steve Bannon for the moment or my personal favorite, "Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people" Sean Spicer in my signature (I wish I could be joking on Spicer and hopefully he just had a massive brain fart but he kept digging himself further and führer)

Are you to tell me that Trump stuck to his word and drained the swamp? Are you tell me the people he chose, the bankers, CEOs, multimillionaires/billionaires of big business, with a combination of military war hawks, is draining the swamp?

I do not feel betrayed at all. The only thing he's went back on is not appointing a special prosecutor to look into Hillary Clinton. Yes, he hasn't kept a promise. But wasn't a huge issue to me. I'm more concerned with other promises that will more directly effect me and my life and the country.

See above.

I do have optimism, and to be honest I have alot of it about Trump. I;m beyond thrilled to see a business man in that office (especially as opposed to another lifer politician).

I lived through the 1980s. I saw the prosperity and the peace of that time. Wages went up, GDP soared, gas was cheap, Americans got along with each other alot better, and we beat our sworn enemies without engaging in shooting wars that killed thousands of young Americans.

I was born May Day, 1980. And I saw first hand the destruction of Reaganomics. You and I discussed this in the past and had opposite views, probably because you apparently weren't effected by the negative consequences to the Reagan Adminstrations destructive policies. Here is a snippet in a post directed at you and tbh I felt you were being incredibly deceitful in that thread or purposely ignorant (refusing to acknowledge any harm caused by his policies whatsoever despite a large amount of factual data provided to you):

Reagan was horrible for the black community. It isn't difficult to find information online regards the war on drugs under Reagan and the negative effect that had on the black community in America. I've already provided information, information you refused to acknowledge.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act was brought by Reagan, which handed out a minimum five-year sentence for a dealer or user caught with five grams of crack, an amount typically handled by black and poor people, the mostly white and rich users and dealers of powder cocaine—who operated in neighborhoods with fewer police—had to be caught with 500 grams to receive the same five-year minimum sentence. That, in itself, would disproportionately arrest and incarcerate African Americans. This isn't up for debate, that is exactly what happened. The prison population quadrupled between 1980 and 2000 due entirely to stiffer sentencing policies, not more crime. Between 1985 and 2000, drug offenses accounted for two-thirds of the spike in the inmate population.

By 2000, black people comprised 62.7 percent of all drug “offenders” in state prisons—and not because they were selling or using more drugs. That year, the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that 6.4 percent of white people and 6.4 percent of black people were using illegal drugs. Racial studies on drug dealers usually found similar rates. One 2012 analysis, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, found that white youths (6.6 percent) were 32 percent more likely than black youths (5 percent) to sell drugs. But black youths were far more likely to get arrested for it.
(This is all available on thr National Household Survey on Drug Abuse website)

And it gets worse. In 1996, after Reagan's policies were in full force and implemented in inner cities across the country, two-thirds of the crack users were white or Latino, yet 84.5 percent of the defendants convicted of crack possession were black. A general rule applied that still applies today: Wherever there are more police, there are more arrests, and wherever there are more arrests, people perceive there is more crime—which then “justifies” more police and more arrests. Reagan, while president and for his war on drugs, his answer was to “put drug abuse on the run through stronger law enforcement.” This actually came at a time when Drug crime was declining. Only 2 percent of Americans viewed drugs as the nation’s most pressing problem. By beefing up law enforcement in the inner cities, and the militarization of law enforcement**, creates more arrests, more people sent to prison, which was disproportionately black people.

**Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act was passed in 1981. The legislation was promoted during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan in the context of the War on drugs, and is considered a part of a general trend towards the militarization of police. source

Two sides two very different views. We can take a look further at this prosperity of the 80s you speak of, but really that's another topic entirely and for sake of staying on topic we probably shouldn't dive down that road again, although I'd be happy to bump that older thread.

The reason those great things happened were the policies implemented back then. Trump promises to implement many of those same policies. Policies such as tax cuts and simplification, regulation rollbacks, shrinking of the scope of government, and a strong military.

You realize you just inadvertently described both Bush administrations right? They both looked to Reagan and Reaganomics. They both tried to make Reagan a hero and used the same ideology. I think if you're talking about the economy during the 80s it's the same mistake Democrats make when saying how good things were under Bill Clinton, ignoring the internet boom that took place during his presidency, which had little to do with his policies. Look at the 70s and the economy, gas/oil crisis and various other factors we can get into if you want, and Reagans presidency coming at a time when there was already beginning to be an economic turnaround. It's the same mistake as the Democrats, people look to Reagan and this "golden era" (if you happened to be on the right side) and economic prosperity without understanding, or ignoring, the many factors that led to that. It's why the Bushes, especially Dubya, Reaganomics didn't work! We didn't have economic prosperity even though the two Adminstrations were very similar in ideology.

But really my point here is look no further than George W. Bush to show how well Reaganomics is. There are many great in-depth articles I can link you to on this very topic. Here is a quick snippet of one small topic:

that the current $16.7 trillion federal debt is about $11 trillion more than it was when George W. Bush took office. Not only did Bush’s tax-cut-and-war-spending policies send the debt soaring over the next dozen years but it was those policies that eliminated the federal surpluses of Bill Clinton’s final years and reversed a downward trend in the debt that had “threatened” to eliminate the debt entirely over the ensuing decade.

President Clinton left office in January 2001 with the federal budget in the black by $236 billion and with a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. The budgetary trend lines were such that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan began to fret about the challenges the Fed might face in influencing interest rates if the entire U.S. government debt were paid off, thus leaving no debt obligations to sell.

Thus, Greenspan, an Ayn Rand acolyte who was first appointed by Ronald Reagan, threw his considerable prestige behind George W. Bush’s plan for massive tax cuts that would primarily benefit the wealthy. In that way, Bush and the Republicans “solved” the “problem” of completely paying off the federal debt.

When Bush left office in January 2009 amid a meltdown of an under-regulated Wall Street there was no more talk about a debt-free government. Indeed, the debt had soared to $10.6 trillion and was trending rapidly higher as the government scrambled to avert a financial catastrophe that could have brought on another Great Depression.

And this is what you want to return to. No thank you. But I understand this isn't about me, I'm asking for your thoughts and views but I can't help but to point out that we saw Reaganomics fail under Bush. Again, happy to post some in-depth studies on the parallels of Reagan and Bush. "Policies such as tax cuts and simplification, regulation rollbacks, shrinking of the scope of government, and a strong military" does not equal economic prosperity or happy times of the 80s that you remember from your childhood; au contraire mon frère!

Couple those policies with a strong leader who 'speaks softly and carries a big stick' and I believe you have the recipe for a generation of American prosperity.

Well, I have no problem with having a strong leader who carries a big stick, I think there is something to be said for leaders like Putin, something people honestly like and desire, not that I'm a fan of Putin by any means, but I think there is truth to that in a lot of ways. I don't know if I consider Trump a strong leader. A strong leader demands respect and so far I haven't seen that with Trump, quite the opposite in fact I think he's viewed as a bit of joke across the globe, but it's still early. He started to shift the tide a bit when it comes to perception of "a strong leader" with the strikes on Syria, so to this point I have no problem with your statement.

Trump advocates all of those policies. Whether he is the type of leader I say we need remains to be seen. I think he will be just that, or I'd never have voted for him.



If you'd like to delve further into anything specific, etc, just ask. It's nice talking to you.

This is a good starting point I think, add anything you'd like. There have been quite a few mini disasters from this Adminstration that I've never seen before in such a short period of time in my lifetime and the constant need for Trump to be tight and never wrong to the point where he lies so frequently is both hilarious and alarming to me. But for the most part, these types of things are almost cosmetic, the Russian controversies notwithstanding.

But basically, to sum up this post, you're happy because of Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the SC and because you're optimistic about Trump being a strong leader who carries a stick largely in part because of the economic prosperity you enjoyed growing up under Reagan, is that about it. In other words, besides Gorsuch, much of your satisfaction with the Trump administration is based on what you hope he will do in the future?

[ИATAS]

No, he didn't.

He clarified what he said, but you superfans see a Zinger! so you refuse to accept it.

Do you really honestly believe that the Trump Administration didn't know Hitler gassed millions of people???

Why even try to defend it though in the first place and disagree with Hanz's joke that he went full ******?

Yes, he "clarified" and by doing so actually made it worse by saying he didn't use it on his own people (they were his own people- all the German Jews, German communists, German gypsies, German Freemasons, German ****sexuals, Germans with certain disabilities and so on). And then try to say well he didn't drop it from the sky in a manner that Assad did. lol it was a bad **** up. It's one of those things you just got to admit to the mistake and move on.

That's why I don't get why some Trump supporters get so defensive over stuff like this, like you just did to HanzGruber. No need to get defensive and/or try to rationalize it or defend it. Dude made a bad **** up, nothing more. A general rule as a politician is never compare anyone to Hitler or bring him up (unless there is a very specific reason to like during a speech about WWII or the Holocaust). That was the first mistake then it just fell off the wheels from there.

[Left Hook Tua]

lol dude I just got banned for the lil' debate I had with you right now;

Does that look like "losing?"

If I'm the one being censored, I don't think so.

Doesn't mean you were " winning" either.

A ban is just a ban. It's no barometer for anything.