Will Trump win again???

Started by Planktonmd
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
Status
Not open for further replies.
Anybody else relieved to see with the 0.5% Native American and her lackeys came up with to find M4A?

Finally there’s a plan to fund it without middle class tax increases oh boy!

$20T over 10 years. So basically they are going to cut 33% of current HC spending right off the bat. I’m sure that all insurance company greed and will have no effect on anyone actually practicing medicine. No sir.

Heard she’s doing great in Iowa and NH. Guess I’ll be making a slow walk to the exit.
 
52T
[OTE="RadsWFA1900, post: 21350759, member: 941485"]
Anybody else relieved to see with the 0.5% Native American and her lackeys came up with to find M4A?

Finally there’s a plan to fund it without middle class tax increases oh boy!

$20T over 10 years. So basically they are going to cut 33% of current HC spending right off the bat. I’m sure that all insurance company greed and will have no effect on anyone actually practicing medicine. No sir.

Heard she’s doing great in Iowa and NH. Guess I’ll be making a slow walk to the exit.
[/QUOTE]
 
To reduce the plan’s costs:
  • Change the way Medicare pays for certain types of hospital stays, such as paying a package rate rather than different fees for surgical services, and paying doctors in hospital-owned practices the lower prices paid to those in private practices. ($2.3 trillion)
  • Assume that the Medicare for all program itself can operate very leanly. The Urban Institute estimated that Medicare would devote about 6 percent of its health budget on administrators to decide what and how Medicare would pay for things, and to prevent fraud. In Ms. Warren’s plan, that rate is 2.3 percent. ($1.8 trillion)
  • Assume very aggressive drug discounts. Ms. Warren believes a government system will be able to reduce spending on drugs substantially, including lowering the prices of branded prescription drugs by 70 percent. ($1.7 trillion)
  • Assume slower growth in health spending over time. The federal government now thinks health spending will increase by 5.5 percent a year; the Warren campaign assumes 3.9 percent growth under Medicare for all, closer to the rate of growth in gross domestic product. ($1.1 trillion)
  • Assume lower payments to hospitals. The campaign believes hospitals can be paid around 110 percent of what they are currently paid by Medicare, a number that would cause some hospitals to operate at a loss. Currently, private health insurers often pay a lot more to hospitals than Medicare for similar procedures. ($600 billion)
To pay for the plan:
  • Employers would be required to pay fees to the federal government, equivalent to 98 percent of what they now spend on their employees’ health care. Some companies would be exempt, and companies with unionized work forces would be able to lower this payment if they increased workers’ wages. Currently, companies vary greatly in the cost and generosity of their health benefits, so this fee would vary substantially by firm. ($8.8 trillion)
  • States and local governments would be required to make payments to the federal government, similar to what they currently spend on government employee benefits and their share of Medicaid expenses. ($6.1 trillion)
  • Corporate taxation would be increased. ($2.9 trillion)
  • Tax collections would increase through improvements to I.R.S. enforcement, which Ms. Warren believes could raise a lot of money. ($2.3 trillion)
  • The top 1 percent of individual earners would pay new taxes on their capital gains; they would pay taxes on increases in investment value annually, instead of waiting until assets are sold. ($2 trillion)
  • Income tax collections would increase, since workers would no longer pay part of their salaries for insurance premiums, which are not taxed now. ($1.4 trillion)
  • Billionaires would pay a higher wealth tax than the rate Ms. Warren has previously proposed: 6 percent, up from 3 percent. ($1 trillion)
  • A new financial transactions tax would be imposed on stock trades. ($800 billion)
  • Pentagon spending from an overseas contingency fund, often criticized as a slush fund, would be eliminated. ($800 billion)
  • Income earned by immigrants, following the passage of her immigration overhaul plan, would provide new tax revenues. ($400 billion)
  • A risk fee on the liabilities of banks with more than $50 billion in assets would be introduced. ($100 billion)
 
Matty44 said:
Of course. Getting fake tits and taking some estrogen for a year doesn’t undo a life time of male biology, testosterone, muscle structure and function, and training. It’s an utter joke, and it makes my brain hurt to think that there are people out there allegedly devoid of psychiatric problems that think things like this are acceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

One of the biggest misconceptions in transgender participation in sport is that estrogen and testosterone levels are viewed as exclusive surrogate markers for female or male performance. A transgendered female with the same sex hormone levels of a biological female should even the playing field right?! This couldn't be further from the truth. E and T levels are only part of the equation. The anatomical and biomechanical advantages of a male body in its optimization for physical performance are significant over that of a female body. Not to mention muscle fibre composition, and a whole lot of molecular and endocrinological nuances and differences that we don't yet fully understand.

As obvious exemplifications of enormous male advantage in physical sport, glance no further than weightlifting. The women's world record deadlift in completely unrestricted competition (meaning they can take as many steroids as they want, often times attaining supraphysiologic testosterone levels that are 400%+ higher than reference range male testosterone) is about the same as what any conditioned college football player would lift not taking any steroids whatsoever. So a woman can take all the steroids she wants, have 4x higher testosterone than any natural male, train her entire life for this one lift optimizing every facet of training and lifestyle imaginable... and still get easily bested by countless drug-free varsity male athletes who only deadlifts as part of his workout to get better at football and not as an event in and of itself. The contrast is stark. With such a profound gap in performance even when women have higher T levels than the men, it's no wonder that when a moderately athletic man suppresses his T-levels to that of a woman he wins national competitions and breaks world records after swapping his gender. There is far more to physical performance than testosterone levels. It's really a joke to think that it is even remotely fair.

Yes, I understand that transgendered athletes don't want to feel excluded from sport, that's fair enough. But it's not fair that they compete with a massive advantage against biologically born women and essentially make it impossible for an XX woman to win a contest or break a record as long as there are XY "women" usurping the podium. A few possibilities to make competition more fair might include:

- M to F transgenders compete in the mens league in accordance with their XY chromosomes
- M to F transgenders compete with women but have separate performance records and separate podium from XX women
- M to F transgenders compete against themselves in their own league/category

All of these options bring different problematic considerations, but I think one of the above must be better than letting XY women continue to dominate women's sports leaving XX women who train their whole life for a contest in tears as they get blown away by any average athletic dude who identifies as a woman.
 
ChiDO said:
To reduce the plan’s costs:
  • Change the way Medicare pays for certain types of hospital stays, such as paying a package rate rather than different fees for surgical services, and paying doctors in hospital-owned practices the lower prices paid to those in private practices. ($2.3 trillion)
  • Assume that the Medicare for all program itself can operate very leanly. The Urban Institute estimated that Medicare would devote about 6 percent of its health budget on administrators to decide what and how Medicare would pay for things, and to prevent fraud. In Ms. Warren’s plan, that rate is 2.3 percent. ($1.8 trillion)
  • Assume very aggressive drug discounts. Ms. Warren believes a government system will be able to reduce spending on drugs substantially, including lowering the prices of branded prescription drugs by 70 percent. ($1.7 trillion)
  • Assume slower growth in health spending over time. The federal government now thinks health spending will increase by 5.5 percent a year; the Warren campaign assumes 3.9 percent growth under Medicare for all, closer to the rate of growth in gross domestic product. ($1.1 trillion)
  • Assume lower payments to hospitals. The campaign believes hospitals can be paid around 110 percent of what they are currently paid by Medicare, a number that would cause some hospitals to operate at a loss. Currently, private health insurers often pay a lot more to hospitals than Medicare for similar procedures. ($600 billion)
To pay for the plan:
  • Employers would be required to pay fees to the federal government, equivalent to 98 percent of what they now spend on their employees’ health care. Some companies would be exempt, and companies with unionized work forces would be able to lower this payment if they increased workers’ wages. Currently, companies vary greatly in the cost and generosity of their health benefits, so this fee would vary substantially by firm. ($8.8 trillion)
  • States and local governments would be required to make payments to the federal government, similar to what they currently spend on government employee benefits and their share of Medicaid expenses. ($6.1 trillion)
  • Corporate taxation would be increased. ($2.9 trillion)
  • Tax collections would increase through improvements to I.R.S. enforcement, which Ms. Warren believes could raise a lot of money. ($2.3 trillion)
  • The top 1 percent of individual earners would pay new taxes on their capital gains; they would pay taxes on increases in investment value annually, instead of waiting until assets are sold. ($2 trillion)
  • Income tax collections would increase, since workers would no longer pay part of their salaries for insurance premiums, which are not taxed now. ($1.4 trillion)
  • Billionaires would pay a higher wealth tax than the rate Ms. Warren has previously proposed: 6 percent, up from 3 percent. ($1 trillion)
  • A new financial transactions tax would be imposed on stock trades. ($800 billion)
  • Pentagon spending from an overseas contingency fund, often criticized as a slush fund, would be eliminated. ($800 billion)
  • Income earned by immigrants, following the passage of her immigration overhaul plan, would provide new tax revenues. ($400 billion)
  • A risk fee on the liabilities of banks with more than $50 billion in assets would be introduced. ($100 billion)
Click to expand...

The aggressive taxation of “billionaires” and businesses is a laughable but convieniant because businesses aren’t
People and most people don’t know a billionaire.

No national health system would rely on such an unreliable source of income as billionaires. They will need to go deeper into the millionaires and even lower to make it work.

I am under no illusion that her supports don’t care about any of this. She could have said she would tax Santa clause and the North Pole and they’d still vote for her.

Also, lest you forget this isn’t the only tax grab on the table if she is elected president mind you.
 
Still reading this. Wow, just wow!

www.theatlantic.com

Unfit for Office

Donald Trump’s narcissism makes it impossible for him to carry out the duties of the presidency in the way the Constitution requires.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

Anybody who reads it cannot re-elect this guy in good conscience. One can't love both America and Donald Trump.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP said:
Still reading this. Wow, just wow!

www.theatlantic.com

Unfit for Office

Donald Trump’s narcissism makes it impossible for him to carry out the duties of the presidency in the way the Constitution requires.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

Anybody who reads it cannot re-elect this guy in good conscience. One can't love both America and Donald Trump.
Click to expand...


I support his platform.

Why would I change my mind and vote in socialists?
 
dr doze said:
Because he is a vile, corrupt, immoral man who is unworthy of any political office.
Click to expand...

So I should vote for a socialist? That's insane.

Bill Clinton is documented to have raped Juanita Broderick. Funny how he was voted in. Twice.
 
Mikkel said:
So I should vote for a socialist? That's insane.

Bill Clinton is documented to have raped Juanita Broderick. Funny how he was voted in. Twice.
Click to expand...

there aren’t any socialist candidates, but some do want socialized medicine which is a risky proposition at best.
 
I can’t afford to virtue signal at this stage. Politics are not about morals. They aren’t about who gets what from whom.

Do what’s in your best interest forget about their behavior.
 
For those so entrenched in their party politics and those who willfully consume propaganda pablum, I say this: You have a choice.

You can continue to bury your heads in the sand and not see what is really occurring. You can continue to writhe in indignation and incredulity and be miserably confused. Or you can open your eyes, expand your thinking, listen to others, and begin the process of figuring out what is (and has) actually been going on all around us.

You can choose to stay ignorant or you can choose to begin learning and understanding. But, rest assured, even if you don't embrace the truth of the times in which you are living, there will be history books written about these times and you will be able to get caught up. Your choice.
 
Leon'sMom said:
For those so entrenched in their party politics and those who willfully consume propaganda pablum, I say this: You have a choice.

You can continue to bury your heads in the sand and not see what is really occurring. You can continue to writhe in indignation and incredulity and be miserably confused. Or you can open your eyes, expand your thinking, listen to others, and begin the process of figuring out what is (and has) actually been going on all around us.

You can choose to stay ignorant or you can choose to begin learning and understanding. But, rest assured, even if you don't embrace the truth of the times in which you are living, there will be history books written about these times and you will be able to get caught up. Your choice.
Click to expand...

Indeed! There is literally a political party whose platform is:

Restriction of free speech
Gun seizure
Wealth seizure
Government takeover of healthcare
Decriminalizing illegal immigration
Surrendering the economic future of the United States to foreign powers
Enforcing and encouraging institutional racism.


I pray to God that we don't go down the road of socialism, it is genuinely scary how so many young Americans have been brainwashed into thinking it's an acceptable economic structure.
 
Mikkel said:
Indeed! There is literally a political party whose platform is:

Restriction of free speech
Gun seizure
Wealth seizure
Government takeover of healthcare
Decriminalizing illegal immigration
Surrendering the economic future of the United States to foreign powers
Enforcing and encouraging institutional racism.


I pray to God that we don't go down the road of socialism, it is genuinely scary how so many young Americans have been brainwashed into thinking it's an acceptable economic structure.
Click to expand...

All the **** they’ve been pushing in academia for the last 60 years. It’s only when they get out of the university bubble when they start paying taxes and working in their job that they realize they don’t want to be working half the year for someone else.
 
GravelRider said:
For the record, I think all this transgender stuff is a psychiatric illness. I’m pretty liberal, but I have never met a transgender person that did not have some other concomitant psychiatric disorder.
Click to expand...
Well, consider all of the cisgender people whom you've met (a MUCH larger sample space), and how many of them (most?) have some other concomitant psychiatric disorder.
 
Apollyon said:
Well, consider all of the cisgender people whom you've met (a MUCH larger sample space), and how many of them (most?) have some other concomitant psychiatric disorder.
Click to expand...
Just look at all those people who vote for Democrats or Republicans nowadays.
 
FFP said:
Still reading this. Wow, just wow!

www.theatlantic.com

Unfit for Office

Donald Trump’s narcissism makes it impossible for him to carry out the duties of the presidency in the way the Constitution requires.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

Anybody who reads it cannot re-elect this guy in good conscience. One can't love both America and Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

Left-wing magazine screeches about Trump for the 93,215th time.

YAWN.

Will say it again - show me someone else who advocates America-First policies/visions, and I'll consider voting for that candidate. Until then, it's Trump. We know he's an a-hole, but he's an a-hole on behalf of our country, and sometimes, that's what's needed.
 
radsisrad said:
Left-wing magazine screeches about Trump for the 93,215th time.

YAWN.

Will say it again - show me someone else who advocates America-First policies/visions, and I'll consider voting for that candidate. Until then, it's Trump. We know he's an a-hole, but he's an a-hole on behalf of our country, and sometimes, that's what's needed.
Click to expand...
You didn't even bother reading it, did you? But you think you're a big patriot.

I like some of Trump's policies, and can't stand some of those one on the left. But Trump is a disgrace for the office. Anybody who cannot see that deserves to live in a "sh-thole country", because those are the only ones who have similar leadership. There is a huge difference between nationalism and corruption (of moral and every other values dear to many Americans).

What the trumpists call strategy and vision looks very much like mental disorder to many unbiased people. The entire concept of thinking that a spoiled selfish multimillionaire does things for the little people is downright dumb, hence the increasing national debt that will put all of us in the poorhouse. That's why TDS should be a DSM diagnosis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
radsisrad said:
Left-wing magazine screeches about Trump for the 93,215th time.
.
Click to expand...

Guess who George T. Conway III, the author of the article, is. Guess his party affiliation. I know, I know, you still wont care because your head is too deeply buried in the sand. But the rest of us still chuckle that an op-ed that vicious could be written by an attorney who represented Paula Jones against Bill Clinton.
 
radsisrad said:
Left-wing magazine screeches about Trump for the 93,215th time.

YAWN.

Will say it again - show me someone else who advocates America-First policies/visions, and I'll consider voting for that candidate. Until then, it's Trump. We know he's an a-hole, but he's an a-hole on behalf of our country, and sometimes, that's what's needed.
Click to expand...
Left wing— the Atlantic has been existence for over a 150 years and has more Pulitzers than you can shake a stick with ....
 
"Trump is a disgrace for the office."

To this I say: That's YOUR opinion, fine. But what exactly is that opinion based on? Because President Trump has a lot of supporters. What exactly are WE getting wrong, in YOUR opinion?

Is it based on his personality? Some of us don't vote for a President because we want to be pals with him/her. When I have a boss, I don't care if I like their personality. I care if they can do their job, and my respect for them is based upon their performance in their role as boss. I don't have a personal relationship with him/her. It is a business relationship, and that is how I view the President of the United States. Therefore, in my opinion, President Trump is doing an excellent job for this country, and I respect his performance. Performance should be the number one concern of the voters. However, due to the constant ineptitude of our elected officials to accomplish anything, we've grown accustom to non-performance and accept it way more than we should.

If you listen to the court jesters and you focus on the rodeo clowns, you are surely missing the main event. These propaganda rags and these Hollywood prostitutes have no weight in MY opinions. Why would I listen to them? They are paid shills. They have sold their souls to the devil (figuratively and literally in some cases) in order to lead lives of wealth and fame. They certainly are not people that I would be friends with or respect. I didn't prostitute myself on some casting couch in order to get my job, keep my job, or get promoted. They do. I didn't sweep such abuse of myself or others, including CHILDREN, under the rug in order to get my job or keep my job. They did. I didn't relinquish all rights to my own thoughts and opinions (personally and professionally) in order to get a job. They do. On and on and on I could go. My point is: These people that I am supposed to be listening to and be influenced by are all dirtbag scum. The lowest of the low in my opinion. Anyone who would KNOWINGLY take money to look the other way when they themselves, others, or CHILDREN are being sexually abused, is a disgusting human being. There is NO LOGICAL explanation for doing so, UNLESS they are totally under the control of the power brokers in their business (Hollywood and Media). I have NO respect for them or anything they say. I think for myself. I don't allow the flood of comedians, op-ed writers, or so-called serious journalists to convince me of something that isn't so.

And the longer something has been in existence (The Atlantic), the longer it has been allowed to be corrupted. The more awards, the more it has been purposefully propped up. I don't take any awards to mean anything. It is all about powerful people picking winners and losers in order to create the mythology that something/someone is infallible. I feel this way about many things: Newspapers, Ivy League/elite schools, Financial Investor Gurus, Winners of globalist prizes, Academy Awards. It is ALL designed to create a strata of influence, wealth, and power. And, I for one, don't buy into it. Hence why MY opinion may be different than YOUR OPINION. Because, after all, you and I are merely opining on a topic based on our own perspectives.

It is often said that there is no reality, only our perception of reality. While it is true that perception (and conditioning) play a huge role in how one will interpret information around them, I do believe that there is a reality. And I have faith that reality (in part) will be revealed once the TRUTH is revealed. We've got IG Horowitz's and US AG Durham's report coming out soon. Better buckle up because your world may be rocked.
 
Leon'sMom said:
And the longer something has been in existence (The Atlantic), the longer it has been allowed to be corrupted. The more awards, the more it has been purposefully propped up. I don't take any awards to mean anything. It is all about powerful people picking winners and losers in order to create the mythology that something/someone is infallible. I feel this way about many things: Newspapers, Ivy League/elite schools, Financial Investor Gurus, Winners of globalist prizes, Academy Awards. It is ALL designed to create a strata of influence, wealth, and power. And, I for one, don't buy into it. Hence why MY opinion may be different than YOUR OPINION. Because, after all, you and I are merely opining on a topic based on our own perspectives.
Click to expand...

Wait a second.....are you telling Obama didn't EARN his Nobel peace prize?!?!?!?! But he worked so hard those first few days in office....

Blasphemy!
 
As for the actual article posted, I don't have time right now to do a thorough critique of it and point out all of it's shortcomings. I may do that at another time if anyone has interest in hearing my opinions, otherwise, I won't waste my time on it.

As for George Conway, I have a couple of working theories on him, but I don't feel inclined to share them with you at this time.
 
Matty44 said:
Wait a second.....are you telling Obama didn't EARN his Nobel peace prize?!?!?!?! But he worked so hard those first few days in office....

Blasphemy!
Click to expand...
What next, Obama was not at HLS, he did not graduate and you want to know his GPA...surprise alert, I can give provide that information to you.
 
Leon'sMom said:
As for the actual article posted, I don't have time right now to do a thorough critique of it and point out all of it's shortcomings. I may do that at another time if anyone has interest in hearing my opinions, otherwise, I won't waste my time on it.

As for George Conway, I have a couple of working theories on him, but I don't feel inclined to share them with you at this time.
Click to expand...
Is this the same Leon’s mom that referred to black men as “boys” in a previous post, aka, a bastion a titular head of enlightenment and inclusion?
 
BoolaHI said:
Is this the same Leon’s mom that referred to black men as “boys” in a previous post, aka, a bastion a titular head of enlightenment and inclusion?
Click to expand...

Dude, is your goal just to immediately yap back at any conservative opinion, no matter if you have anything useful or relevant to say? We made a simple comment that Obama’s peace prize was a joke. Most liberals would even agree with that...Why the need to frantically attack regardless of anything useful to say?

Do YOU think he earned it in any way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Was Obamacare repealed and replaced?
Have healthcare costs gone up or down since 2016?
How much wall has been built?
How much of it has Mexico paid for?
What percentage of their income did middle-class people get back in the tax cut vs large corps and capital gainers?
How much of the coal industry has been saved? Are there any government programs to help miners transition to new work in energy fields?
Have soybean and other farmers been positively or negatively affected by trade policy?
Did the ban against Muslims from "terror" countries hold up in court?
Did opioid deaths increase or decrease between 2016 and now?





The "I'm not pals with the president, I treat it as a business relationship and evaluate him based on performance alone"-line would maybe pack some punch if it weren't 100% fcking delusional and inaccurate.
 
vector2 said:
My bad, forgot the sycophants he put on the court were as bigoted as he is.


Regardless, we're what....1 for 6 on the major campaign issues Trump wouldnt stfu about? Great record, there.
Click to expand...

You got it. The Supreme Court rules in his favor cause they’re racist bigots. That must’ve been it.

Sheesh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matty44 said:
You got it. The Supreme Court rules in his favor cause they’re racist bigots. That must’ve been it.

Sheesh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Blanket banning muslims from particular countries instead of evaluating INDIVIDUALS on a case-by-case basis? Absolutely bigoted, and I'll say as much if the shoe fits. God only knows what kind of insular community you live in, but I've known a few residents and fellows from Libya, Syria, and Somalia, and it's deeply antithetical to American values that these folks would be banned from our country based solely on where they came from.


Also, it's still not lost on everyone reading that you cant address that King Trump is 1/6 on his promises
 
Matty44 said:
Dude, is your goal just to immediately yap back at any conservative opinion, no matter if you have anything useful or relevant to say? We made a simple comment that Obama’s peace prize was a joke. Most liberals would even agree with that...Why the need to frantically attack regardless of anything useful to say?

Do YOU think he earned it in any way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Matty44 said:
Dude, is your goal just to immediately yap back at any conservative opinion, no matter if you have anything useful or relevant to say? We made a simple comment that Obama’s peace prize was a joke. Most liberals would even agree with that...Why the need to frantically attack regardless of anything useful to say?

Do YOU think he earned it in any way?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Hmmmn,,from our very conservative friends at the National Review, lest we preemptively accuse this as fake news from MSM, Sondland Confirms He Told Ukrainian Official That Military Aid ‘Likely’ Depended on Announcement of Burisma Probe | National Review
 
vector2 said:
Blanket banning muslims from particular countries instead of evaluating INDIVIDUALS on a case-by-case basis? Absolutely bigoted, and I'll say as much if the shoe fits. God only knows what kind of insular community you live in, but I've known a few residents and fellows from Libya, Syria, and Somalia, and it's deeply antithetical to American values that these folks would be banned from our country based solely on where they came from.
Click to expand...

No, it’s actually not. Sorry. Rant all you want. When you have a large group being infiltrated by terrorists and you don’t know how to sort em out, it’s just logical to halt immigration from those countries. I know you’re obligated to cry racist at least once every 7 1/2 hours, but you’re wrong here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Matty44 said:
No, it’s actually not. Sorry. Rant all you want. When you have a large group being infiltrated by terrorists and you don’t know how to sort em out, it’s just logical to halt immigration from those countries. I know you’re obligated to cry racist at least once every 7 1/2 hours, but you’re wrong here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Laziness or incompetence in vetting is not an excuse for blanket bigotry. Sorry you're too ignorant to realize that.
 
vector2 said:
Blanket banning muslims from particular countries instead of evaluating INDIVIDUALS on a case-by-case basis? Absolutely bigoted, and I'll say as much if the shoe fits. God only knows what kind of insular community you live in, but I've known a few residents and fellows from Libya, Syria, and Somalia, and it's deeply antithetical to American values that these folks would be banned from our country based solely on where they came from.


Also, it's still not lost on everyone reading that you cant address that King Trump is 1/6 on his promises
Click to expand...
Indeed, over a billion Muslims in the world. On my own block, there are are two mosques....should we start the judeo-Christian persecution with Matty and his band of proud boys and pepe the frog leading the patriotic charge. Oh, I forgot, he has an adopted brother from Africa so he is all good and has standing with the homies...
 
"The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged. The issue is at the heart of the impeachment investigation into Mr. Trump, which turns on the allegation the president abused his power to extract political favors from a foreign power.
...
Mr. Sondland’s testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. He provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.
"


Lol, Sondland's lawyers were like "dude, you're gonna gonna get indicted for perjury if you don't just come out and tell the truth." And good luck painting Sondland, a guy who donated $1m to the inauguration, as a never trumper.
 
vector2 said:
"The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged. The issue is at the heart of the impeachment investigation into Mr. Trump, which turns on the allegation the president abused his power to extract political favors from a foreign power.
...
Mr. Sondland’s testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. He provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.
"


Lol, Sondland's lawyers were like "dude, you're gonna gonna get indicted for perjury if you don't just come out and tell the truth " and good luck painting Sondland, a guy who donated $1m to the inauguration, as a never trumper.
Click to expand...
Yep, the problem with licking someone’s butt, is you get crap all over your mouth....
 
vector2 said:
Laziness or incompetence in vetting is not an excuse for blanket bigotry. Sorry you're too ignorant to realize that.
Click to expand...

So it’s trump fault our vetting system wasn’t working well enough? He saw a problem and made a decision. You guy seriously need to chill out and not scream hatred and racism at everything if you ever want anyone other than extreme libs to take you seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.