TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 88 of 170
SECOND you are representing what others want Trump to say his plan is as Trumps actual plan. He has no policies or plans other than the ones he states himself. And they are no more extensive than talking points.
A big thing that has not been spoken much about here is that two democrats from NY are the nominees. One of which recently changed his positions so he could run as a republican.
Imagine our two dummy trolls ( SIG, 1kiki ) trying to sell here that Hillary is the liar. That's precious.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I guess if Hillary wins and starts a nuclear WWIII, we're all fucked, royally fucked, proper fucked!
Yeah, it's a fucked up thing. Well, Donald has sealed the deal. No sense in placing bets on if she'll be a good president since you know best. WE ARE DOOMED! Between now and the first 100 days, I figure we have a little under 200 days of living to do. After that, kiss your ass goodbye!
Good Bye Cruel World!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And second - you proved my point. Shame on you for extreme selective quoting to address a point I never made, because you really ARE that dishonest! No wonder you like hillary so much. You're peas in a pod. And of course shame on people who believe your version of my post, because they really ARE that gullible.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It’s possible that half of undocumented US immigrants have paid more taxes than Donald Trump. Given that Trump has refused to release his income tax returns, it’s unclear how exactly any tax payments stack up against those of unauthorized immigrant workers. In the past, Trump has said that he pays “federal tax,” though that doesn’t necessarily mean he pays personal federal income tax—as opposed to the federal tax on gasoline or jet fuel he purchases, for example.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
people really are that gullible.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
sgg
I have bets with people at work that we and Russia will be shooting at each other within a year. (Let's not count the fact that the US already bombed and strafed the Syrian army for over an hour despite calls to US command, so Russia bombed a 'secret' US outpost in Syria in retaliation.)*
*And what's with the US keeping all this a 'secret', anyway? The Russians know, and our fearless leaders know they know. It's not like putting that information out there is going to be a tactical advantage or disadvantage for anybody. Why are us poor schmucks, the people, the only ones left in the dark?
Meanwhile you can keep on ignoring hillary's results of abysmal failure in every military adventure she supported Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria. Hail saint hillary the perfect!
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki, your post was your usual. We've seen it a hundred times before: “hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.”
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And second - you proved my point. Shame on you for extreme selective quoting to address a point I never made, because you really ARE that dishonest! No wonder you like hillary so much. You're peas in a pod. And of course shame on people who believe your version of my post, because they really ARE that gullible.
1kiki, you think you’re Cassandra -- doomed to know the future but nobody at fireflyfans.net (other than Signym) believes your prophecies. I think you’re the Anti-Cassandra -- doomed to be always wrong about the past and what actually happened back then. As for the future, 1kiki can predict the date of New Year's Day because it is marked on the calendar.
For 1kiki, I have an article that begins: "Nobody believes it, but politicians mostly keep their promises.
There is probably no politician in American history whose dealings have been as extensively researched, investigated, FOIAed, subpoenaed, hacked, and WikiLeaked as Hillary Clinton. Despite this, many people regard her as sphinx-like and unknowable — yearning for even more secret documents to reveal what she really thinks and what she will really do as president.
Academic research on politicians and promises suggests a simpler method: Check her campaign website." -- www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/21/13317060/politicians-keep-p
romises
1kiki, would it really slow down your word (or work) production to know what you are writing about before writing at enormous length?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
About that article that you cite, SECOND ...
You cited it in another thread, and I cited a different article, a far more robust one, which disproves your article, here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60930
Which you have not had the temerity to dispute since it was posted 24 hours ago. Since others may not want to go to a link to find another link, here is the original paper
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens
_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
What it shows, over approximately 1,800 policy decisions, is that mostly Americans and the elite decide in the "same direction" when it comes to policy, but when they conflict, the elite get their way.
So I noticed you abandoned your disputation on the other thread but carried it here, because yes, you ARE that dishonest, and you are desperate to make your pro-Hillary point. The part that you abandoned is this
Quote:
The paper that I cited indicates that "people" mostly get what the wealthy want, because "people" and the wealthy mostly want the same decisions.
HOWEVER, even when a majority of people want something that the wealthy don't want, they don't get it. Example: the public option health insurance.= SIGNY
Academic research on politicians and promises suggests a simpler method: Check her campaign website. In other words, Clinton’s promises tell us a lot about what will happen if she wins the election, and they tell us even more about what she will seriously, energetically try to do.= SECOND
"Do. Or do not. There is no try."
The reason why politicians are able to keep many of their promises, as shown in the paper that I linked, is because most of the time there is no serious elite opposition to most of their promises. However, those promises which seriously skin the elite in some way won't be fulfilled.
That's why I focused in Hillary's tax plan as the least likely to make it through, which puts many of her other domestic plans in jeopardy. She will either get only minor tax concessions, spend as planned, and let the Federal debt go higher,
Or she will have to cut back on her plans in order to not increase the debt. My guess is that she will let the debt go higher, because it is more painless, in the sort run, to put everything on credit.- SIGNY
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your article did not persuade me.
Trump promised a tax-cut for the rich. He would have kept that promise because it is aligned with the long term plans of the GOP. Hillary promised a tax increase for the wealthy. She might not succeed because in reality she will be opposed by every Republican in Congress. If Hillary can’t get almost every Democrat in Congress behind her position, the GOP wins again. Then Signym will be saying Hillary did not keep a promise because she was secretly working for the elite GOP, but that won't be what happened. What happened instead is the GOP killed another good law.
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/final-numbers-are-trumps-t
ax-plan-huge-windfall-wealthy 
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
About that article that you cite, SECOND ...
You cited it in another thread, and I cited a different article, a far more robust one, which disproves your article, here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60930
Which you have not had the temerity to dispute since it was posted 24 hours ago. Nut since others may not want to go to a link to find another link, here is the original paper
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens
_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
What it shows, over approximately 1,800 policy decisions, is that mostly Americans and the elite decide in the "same direction" when it comes to policy, but when they conflict, the elite get their way.
So I noticed you abandoned your disputation on the other thread but carried it here, because yes, you ARE that dishonest, and you are desperate to make your pro-Hillary point. The part that you abandoned is thisQuote:
The paper that I cited indicates that "people" mostly get what the wealthy want, because "people" and the wealthy mostly want the same decisions.
HOWEVER, even when a majority of people want something that the wealthy don't want, they don't get it. Example: the public option health insurance.= SIGNY
Academic research on politicians and promises suggests a simpler method: Check her campaign website. In other words, Clinton’s promises tell us a lot about what will happen if she wins the election, and they tell us even more about what she will seriously, energetically try to do.= SECOND
"Do. Or do not. There is no try."
The reason why politicians are able to keep many of their promises, as shown in the paper that I linked, is because most of the time there is no serious elite opposition to most of their promises. However, those promises which seriously skin the elite in some way won't be fulfilled.
That's why I focused in Hillary's tax plan as the least likely to make it through, which puts many of her other domestic plans in jeopardy. She will either get only minor tax concessions, spend as planned, and let the Federal debt go higher,
Or she will have to cut back on her plans in order to not increase the debt. My guess is that she will let the debt go higher, because it is more painless, in the sort run, to put everything on credit.- SIGNY
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, it sounds like my article DID persuade you because you are trying to use its principles
Your article did not persuade me.
Quote:"GOP" or not, it is in line with the prospect of NATIONAL capitalists: i.e those who make their money inside the USA, are subject to USA tax laws, and who can't or don't hide their wealth in offshore corporate tax havens, foundations, and offshore accounts. That usually means medium-to-small businesses, because the biggest (international) entities which avoid taxes are already doing so:
Trump promised a tax-cut for the rich. He would have kept that promise because it is aligned with the long term plans of the GOP.
Quote:That includes corporations like Apple, which makes obscene profits by offshoring jobs to China (paying $20 for the production of a $600 phone) and then offshoring its profits in Ireland.
All told, American Fortune 500 corporations are avoiding up to $695 billion in U.S. federal income taxes by holding $2.4 trillion of “permanently reinvested” profits offshore. In their latest annual financial reports, 27 of these corporations reveal that they have paid an income tax rate of 10 percent or less in countries where these profits are officially held, indicating that most of these monies are likely in offshore tax havens.
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2016/03/fortune_500_companies_hold_a_record_
24_trillion_offshore.php
I would be extremely interested in the calculation that estimates tax savings under the Trump plan. I doubt that it takes these loopholes into account.
Quote:Also, many Democrats. There is an unfortunate game that Democratic politicians play in Congress, and that is if there is legislation which is offensive to their corporate backers, they will designate just enough votes to look like they are "trying" but not enough votes to actually... yanno.. pass. Where Democratic (and Republican) ethics are REALLY put to the test is when they have a majority in Congress, AND have the White House. You know, like OBAMA 2008-2011, when the donkey labored and brought forth a mouse.
Hillary promised a tax increase for the wealthy. She might not succeed because in reality she will be opposed by every Republican in Congress.
Quote:It depends on whether the Dems achieve a majority in Congress or not.
If Hillary can’t get almost every Democrat in Congress behind her position, the GOP wins again. Then Signym will be saying Hillary did not keep a promise because she was secretly working for the elite GOP, but that won't be what happened. What happened instead is the GOP killed another good law.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Having majority for the next two years will not fix what is fundamentally wrong with the US Constitution.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It depends on whether the Dems achieve a majority in Congress or not.
Irresolvable conflict is, unfortunately, baked into America’s system of government — a system that really only works if the political parties aren’t ideologically disciplined and polarized. Except the D and R’s have never been more polarized.
America's constitutional democracy is going to collapse some day just like crappy democracies in Latin America because, in retrospect, the Founding Fathers made some very poor decisions while writing the US Constitution. Matthew Yglesias explains why other countries with constitutions modeled after the US Constitution have had the very same troubles that the USA is now having between Democrats and Republicans.
www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed
“Voiced in another register, my outlandish thesis is actually the conventional wisdom in the United States. Back when George W. Bush was president and I was working at a liberal magazine, there was a very serious discussion in an editorial meeting about the fact that the United States was now exhibiting 11 of the 13 telltale signs of a fascist dictatorship. The idea that Bush was shredding the Constitution and trampling on congressional prerogatives was commonplace. When Obama took office, the partisan valence of the complaints shifted, but their basic tenor didn't. Conservative pundits — not the craziest, zaniest ones on talk radio, but the most serious and well-regarded — compare Obama's immigration moves to the actions of a Latin-American military dictator. . . .
The breakdown of American constitutional democracy is a contrarian view. But it's nothing more than the view that rather than everyone being wrong about the state of American politics, maybe everyone is right. Maybe Bush and Obama are dangerously exceeding norms of executive authority. Maybe legislative compromise really has broken down in an alarming way. And maybe the reason these complaints persist across different administrations and congresses led by members of different parties is that American politics is breaking down.”
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1kiki, you think you’re Cassandra
No, I don't. And thanks for lying about me - AGAIN.
Meanwhile, I'll keep posting until someone addresses my points - one of which isn't 'what' but HOW. HOW is hillary going to get all her promises through a republican Congress?
As for addressing what * I * posted, instead of the voices in your head, YOU have failed to do so at every opportunity.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME