Trump can't find any US trade surpluses. Here you go, Mr. President
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
More worried about the fact that Americans, even WVU fans, can defend Trumps constant lies with the only defense being that Obama and HRC lied too. This friggin baffles me. Lying is lying
You may believe that, I do not. I believe some lies are much more significant than others. Particularly those that involve the lives of individuals.
As I told another poster, if you did not come down on Obama with his myriad of lies, that were on extremely important subjects, then you have no standing to criticize Trump.
When Trump lies on something on an equal scale, I'll join you in condemning him.
This balance of trade issue is a non-issue. We have a huge trade deficit that no one can disagree with.
And don't even start with the WVU fan nonsense. Obama nearly destroyed the economy of the state. Hillary would've finished it off with the banning of fracking. And yet you supported both (or Bernie) of them full-fledged. They truly were enemies of the state of West Virginia, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Yea, but the Left's silence when your side was caught in its lies is laughable now as you all are so suddenly upset about dishonesty.
You have no credibility.
I read somewhere (undoubtedly fake news) that had Trump's father's assets been put in an index fund back in the 70s, Trumplethinskin would be worth more than he is.
Last edited:
If he's not a successful businessman RPJ how would you describe his level of failure relative to yours?
He's declared bankruptcy 4 more times than I have. And I pay all my bills unlike him. So there's that. Plus, I started with nothing as opposed to inheriting $50 million. And, I'm not full of **** like he is.
You ok? You seem frustrated of late? Need a Pelosi tear episode to make you feel better?
First of all, I have always called lies and many times on this forum I have been adamant about HRC's lies. (Especially Benghazi) So for you to call me dishonest is flat wrong.
Hard to call the left "my side" when I am pretty damn moderate. I have nothing in common with the Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' of the party.
But again, I ask you and your fellow right wingers on here, why are these Trump lies OK? Are you that morally bankrupt that you just shrug off everything he says? And how come you and Pax FLAT OUT REFUSE to address Trump's unending lying without invoking Obama and Clinton?
Again OM, I apologize if I mistakenly accuse you of being a Leftist. I quite frankly don't know what a "moderate" is?
If you're not in the pool (ie: arena of ideas) are you a dry spectator? If you're in the "water polo" scrum, you're wet!
But to your point, Trump is not lying about our balance of trade deficit. He misspoke when he suggested we have a deficit with all nations (that is not true) but he is correct suggesting we need to improve our overall deficit.
I'm not sure why you consider that a "lie" because he is stating a true fact, even if some details are incorrect. However a much larger Truth is exposed here. If Trump is deliberately lying to us about our trade deals, I will join you in calling him out to be a liar.
Obama blatantly lied to the American people about the ACA (so did Congressional Dems as well as his architect Jonathan Gruber) and then they bragged about their lies. The Media and many on the Left never called them on those lies, and now the majority of Americans are suffering under the ACA because of that dishonesty.
Trump on the other hand is trying to improve our balance of Trade deficit, and I don't understand why you are holding him accountable for telling "lies" to accomplish that benefit for the Country?
For the last year, Trump has lied, exaggerated, stretched the truth, and screamed fake news when indeed the news was a fact. Until about August, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now I just see him as a person willing to say anything to make himself look smart, better, or more powerful. This isn't about his agenda (much of which I support) but instead about his behaviors and constant unprofessional and mindless remarks.
Being somebody who considers themselves to be moderate, I can't even understand how a person can see everything from one side and only one side. Doesn't mean I don't get wet. Just means I move from pool to pool.
OK....but a 'moderate' to me is someone who doesn't know what they actually believe? What's the moderate position on murder? Lies? Deceit? Can you be "half Pregnant?" "Half dead?"
"Half alive?"
Truth is not relative OM 1.
But, it's a free country so carry on.
So it is against the rules to be pro gun, pro Christ in schools, pro military, pro death penalty and for the ACA, support a women's right to choose (with limits) and for an independent Federal Reserve?
It's called having the ability to make up my own mind and not follow the masses. Maybe I am half dead, half retired and half Sidney Crosby. Who knows. But at least I am not a half wit .....
Trump has stated that his father gave him a $1 million loan. He Is now worth $10 billion. Putting $1 million in the market in 1980 would not come close to $10 billion.
OK so moderate this "limit" for me OM1 (since you suggested a moderate position on a Woman's right to "choose" to kill her her Offspring within certain "limits") correct?
So to make her choice really moderately easy, I propose extending the limit of her choice to kill the kid to up to a full two hours after its Birth, rather than only 20 minutes just before it. I think that's (20 minutes) too limiting for a 'moderate view' of the procedure.
Under current Law, that's the limit for Partial Birth Abortion...she (Mother) can choose to kill the kid only up to 20 minutes before it's delivered from the womb. In fact as long as it's still in the womb, the Abortionist can hold it there to collapse its skull and suck its brains out (that's called intact dilation and extraction) without being charged with murder.
But I suggest moderating that Law to actually allowing the Mother to see the Child, sample it, hold it, hear its cry, and then decide if it's worth keeping. I think that's a much less extreme position than current Law, and "moderates" the Mother's decision or choice to the point where it's actually more convenient and less "messy" than the Brain sucking thingy. That's just so uncivilized in today's modern moderate society.
So let's "moderate" the Abortion procedure to the point where there are fewer extreme questions. This way it's quick, clean, efficient, and less of a hassle to just give the unwanted freshly Born Baby a lethal dose of iodine before it's tossed into the trash dumpster like a used disposable diaper. (that's what happens to it after an IDE)
Surely a "moderate" as yourself wouldn't be against such an accommodating moderate position on such a hotly debated issue that draws only 'extremist' views from either the Pro Choice or Pro Life sides of the debate?
So how would a "moderate" such as yourself interpret that plainly "moderate" view between the Pro Life or Pro Choice extremes?
Last edited:
I love your use of the term kid. You're so genuine.
You turn a thread about trade into an abortion debate.
Don't you think you are being a little too restrictive? You cannot have enough information on the little darling with your suggested timing. Can you at least extend that into teenage years? You get a little better opportunity to see what the little ***** are going to be. I don't know what you do with the little creature at that point, but momma would probably object to sending it back to where it came from. As we get older, you may want to consider each case individually and extend some situations to 50th birthday.
Just a suggestion for you to give further consideration to incremental steps.
I hadn't thought of that, but it would certainly give the Mother or Parents of the unwanted offspring more time to make an informed decision on killing the kid wouldn't it?
In the World of "moderation" you might just have an excellent alternative for those moderates who just can't seem to make up their minds on if a human Life is worth preserving?
Your suggestion should help them tremendously.