POLL: Majority of Trump voters would support him even if he colluded with Russia

[Conservative]

Your question has an assumed premise, arising out of your projecting into my comment a mindset that exists for you, but not me.

The progressive approach to tax policy is to shift the burden of the cost of society to those who benefit from the system the most, and allow those who cannot afford to pay taxes not have to pay them. This is just and promotes job growth.

That's really all you need to know about the progressive tax proposal, and your question is either answered, or it is moot, by the above statement. take your pick.

The statement arises out of emotion, and, as such, your reasoning is clouded.

In short, you are projecting onto reality something that isnt there.


its not about "me". But, you want to maneuver the conversation as if it were, because you want the conversation
shifted away from a policy argument, to it being about a guy (me, in this case ) who is "jealous", and wants to take away money from rich people because he can't stand seeing people be rich. See, if you frame the conversation that way, it is easier for you to attack it, because you have reduced a policy argument to a petty thing. Sorry, I'm not playing your game.

you're off by $299,700,000, that changes the dynamic of my example.

You operate from the concept that a person is entitled to keep all of his or her earnings. That is false.

Moreover, you use loaded words, like "evil rich people", i.e, you are projecting a mindset which only exists for you.



You are operating from a typical right wing mindset, "that government assistance" equals "mooching off hard working people" and equals "not taking responsiblity".

It's a mindset, and you would have to jump out of your own skin to see how silly it is, that you are projecting
on how liberals base policy, but like Truman in the Truman show, you'll never see it as long as you live in that bubble




Your loaded terms betray your mindset. "bureaucrat" is a slur to government workers. If there is anything rational about
such a term, your logic, in essence says, government jobs are not legitimate. As if someone on a government job is a lesser
human being than someone who is.

So, let's take the poisoned well from which a loaded term like that springs, to it's logical conclusion.

"Bureaucrat" implies illegitimacy, it's not a definition, but it's intrinsic to the meaning.

So, if a government job is not legit, then let's eliminate all government jobs.

So, a nation without a government is anarchy.

Name one successful country that has no government.

Therefore, we can see the absurdity of your mindset.


Wishful thinking, this is typical how the right projects onto the left. You need to do this so you wont' have to feel guilty.
You are going to lose that battle, and the world is becoming increasingly how republicans cheat in order to win, since
they have trouble winning when lots of people vote, and since they have trouble garnering a majority.



A little ( okay, Mass. District 6, wonderful, you got me), but Repubs have taken it gerrymandering to extreme (29 states). Here is a scholarly treatise on the subject.

Gerrymanders, Part 1: Busting the both-sides-do-it myth


When more people vote democratic in a state that sends more repubs than dems to congress, not only is the dem message
resonating, gerrymandering becomes even more of an issue. You are way off here.



Sorry,
Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million. That reveals that it was Trump who was rejected, and only took the whitehouse by a fluke of the electoral college.

So tell me what would President Hillary be doing and what exactly did she do other than become a multi millionaire on the public dole? What results have been generated by Trump that truly bother you, and I mean actual results not speculation, predictions? Hillary won California by 4 million votes so again that skewed the popular vote so stop making a bigger deal out of this than it is. No one in this country believes the socialist republic of California should be electing the President just because of population

There is a reason people are fleeing your state and the only ones coming in are the freeloaders, homeless and those looking for free handouts which your state provides. how are they going to pay for those handouts with taxpayers leaving the states/

When you say a state sends more Democrats to Congress than Republicans that would mean Democrats control the House and the Senate. Your state is so screwed up that those in the central part and even part of San Diego are voting on a three state solution this fall being sick and tired of the leftwing lies, distortions, and handouts.

 

[Conservative]

and he brought it all about through pro business rhetoric. Amazing, just amazing.

Dow tumbles as China responds to latest Trump threat



Trade wars are good, and easy to win.

Election day the market was 18.5, today it is 24.5, not a bad return on any investment. Trade wars are nothing more than typical leftwing bull**** as if you truly care

 

[Dittohead not!]

Election day the market was 18.5, today it is 24.5, not a bad return on any investment. Trade wars are nothing more than typical leftwing bull**** as if you truly care

So, now Trump is engaging in leftwing bull****. Good to know. I've said all along he was a retreaded Democrat.

 

[ClaraD]

Exactly right, and collusion is less of a crime than murder.... is collusion a crime at all?

Obstruction of justice is, however.

The conservatives were going nuts on another thread about a West Point grad writing he was a communist in his cap...and yet, colluding with our enemies isn't an issue? Oh, because it is Trump the guy who is going to bring about a useless wall right?

 

[Dittohead not!]

The conservatives were going nuts on another thread about a West Point grad writing he was a communist in his cap...and yet, colluding with our enemies isn't an issue? Oh, because it is Trump the guy who is going to bring about a useless wall right?

He's making America great again, after all, starting with walling off the border.

Well, the southern border at least.

If he keeps pissing off the Canadians, they just might build one of their own.

 

[Conservative]

So, now Trump is engaging in leftwing bull****. Good to know. I've said all along he was a retreaded Democrat.

You have said a lot of things most of which don't jive with reality

 

[Conservative]

He's making America great again, after all, starting with walling off the border.

Well, the southern border at least.

If he keeps pissing off the Canadians, they just might build one of their own.

Hope they do so we don't have to continue to defend them. let them take care of themselves or be overrun like Europe is being overrun and your state as well

 

[Dittohead not!]

Hope they do so we don't have to continue to defend them. let them take care of themselves or be overrun like Europe is being overrun and your state as well

Oh, just wall off the whole country. Who needs the rest of the world anyway?

 

[Dittohead not!]

You have said a lot of things most of which don't jive with reality

But you agreed with that one.

 

[OscarLevant]

Oh, it's tiring, so many logical fallacies here, you make me work, but I will, nevertheless

So tell me what would President Hillary be doing and what exactly did she do other than become a multi millionaire on the public dole?

She's earned money for giving speeches and writing Books. When you become famous, the free market, which you seem to believe in, except when it comes to Hillary, people place a higher value on you and subsequently are willing to pay a higher price for your speeches, give bigger advances on books, etc. But, you didn't say that bout repub presidents, or secretaries of states. Do I detect hypocrisy here? Hmmm? you tell me.

AS for waht she would be doing, she's a democrat. Dems have a platform, just look it up. But she wouldn't have torn down the EPA, removed many scientists or caused them to resign, or deleted EPA climate data from it's websites, and allowing polluters to get away with their polluting, and she wouldn't have pulled out of the Paris Accord, maybe TTP ( I believe she would sign it, after a little time ) and the Iran deal. She wouldn't have repealed DACA, and she would work with dems in congress to fix ACA. She supports raising the minimum wage to $12 ( that's about right ). Stuff like that. She would have appointed a better judge than Gorsuch ( who has alienated other judges on the court for his arrogance ). She would not have told the parents of the slain soldier in Yemen "He knew what he was signing up for", which is a mindbogglingly stupid thing to say to a parent of a fallen son. Trump says all kinds of stupid things, and Hillary won't be saying all the stupid things, the gloating, the baiting, the incessant sucking up all the oxygen on TV because he's such a narcissist he must be on TV ALL THE TIME, and on and on and on and on. I really could take up pages, don't have the time and space, Trump is exhausting.

What results have been generated by Trump that truly bother you, and I mean actual results not speculation, predictions?

Go purchase the book, "It's even worse than you think: what Trump is doing to America". It's all there.

Hillary won California by 4 million votes so again that skewed the popular vote so stop making a bigger deal out of this than it is. No one in this country believes the socialist republic of California should be electing the President just because of population

That's interesting. You consider votes in California "skewing the vote" but, of course, you dont consider votes in Texas, as skewing.

Please explain to me how votes in Texas are more American and more valuable, more important, than votes in California?

The last time I checked, California is part of America, every bit as American as any other state.

But the logical fallacy you have offered in that comment isn't apparent to you, is it? I didnt think so.

Last time I checked, populations elect presidents. One person, one vote. Remember that concept?

There is a reason people are fleeing your state and the only ones coming in are the freeloaders, homeless and those looking for free handouts which your state provides. how are they going to pay for those handouts with taxpayers leaving the states/

Logical fallacy. 39 million people choose to live here. It's beautiful, and the weather is nice, and has several large cities. So, it's going to have more of everything. That many people is going to cause property values to go up, congestion in big cities, as well as people leaving because of it. Yet 39 million remain and this is the sixth largest economy IN THE WORLD. If you were homeless, where you would rather live? In Chicago? Or California? Oh, you didn't consider how stupid your comment was, did you?

When you say a state sends more Democrats to Congress than Republicans that would mean Democrats control the House and the Senate. Your state is so screwed up that those in the central part and even part of San Diego are voting on a three state solution this fall being sick and tired of the leftwing lies, distortions, and handouts.

NO, I said that gerrymandering send more repubs to congress than dems disproportionately, or words to that effect.

The three state solution was put on the ballot by a rich guy. Any rich person can hire kids to get signatures to put something on the ballot.
It's just coffee table conservation stuff, a proposition cannot create states. I've talked to a lot of people about it, and everyone I know think's a bad idea, and not only that, they don't take it seriously. Leave to fox news to make hay out of a straw.

 

[shades]

The conservatives were going nuts on another thread about a West Point grad writing he was a communist in his cap...and yet, colluding with our enemies isn't an issue? Oh, because it is Trump the guy who is going to bring about a useless wall right? [/QUOTE]

God I hope so, that wall would go a long way to at least funneling the varmint to a controlled crossing point

 

[Conservative]

Oh, it's tiring, so many logical fallacies here, you make me work, but I will, nevertheless



She's earned money for giving speeches and writing Books. When you become famous, the free market, which you seem to believe in, except when it comes to Hillary, people place a higher value on you and subsequently are willing to pay a higher price for your speeches, give bigger advances on books, etc. But, you didn't say that bout repub presidents, or secretaries of states. Do I detect hypocrisy here? Hmmm? you tell me.

AS for waht she would be doing, she's a democrat. Dems have a platform, just look it up. But she wouldn't have torn down the EPA, removed many scientists or caused them to resign, or deleted EPA climate data from it's websites, and allowing polluters to get away with their polluting, and she wouldn't have pulled out of the Paris Accord, maybe TTP ( I believe she would sign it, after a little time ) and the Iran deal. She wouldn't have repealed DACA, and she would work with dems in congress to fix ACA. She supports raising the minimum wage to $12 ( that's about right ). Stuff like that. She would have appointed a better judge than Gorsuch ( who has alienated other judges on the court for his arrogance ). She would not have told the parents of the slain soldier in Yemen "He knew what he was signing up for", which is a mindbogglingly stupid thing to say to a parent of a fallen son. Trump says all kinds of stupid things, and Hillary won't be saying all the stupid things, the gloating, the baiting, the incessant sucking up all the oxygen on TV because he's such a narcissist he must be on TV ALL THE TIME, and on and on and on and on. I really could take up pages, don't have the time and space, Trump is exhausting.

Go purchase the book, "It's even worse than you think: what Trump is doing to America". It's all there.

That's interesting. You consider votes in California "skewing the vote" but, of course, you dont consider votes in Texas, as skewing.

Please explain to me how votes in Texas are more American and more valuable, more important, than votes in California?

The last time I checked, California is part of America, every bit as American as any other state.

But the logical fallacy you have offered in that comment isn't apparent to you, is it? I didnt think so.

Last time I checked, populations elect presidents. One person, one vote. Remember that concept?



Logical fallacy. 39 million people choose to live here. It's beautiful, and the weather is nice, and has several large cities. So, it's going to have more of everything. That many people is going to cause property values to go up, congestion in big cities, as well as people leaving because of it. Yet 39 million remain and this is the sixth largest economy IN THE WORLD. If you were homeless, where you would rather live? In Chicago? Or California? Oh, you didn't consider how stupid your comment was, did you?



NO, I said that gerrymandering send more repubs to congress than dems disproportionately, or words to that effect.

The three state solution was put on the ballot by a rich guy. Any rich person can hire kids to get signatures to put something on the ballot.
It's just coffee table conservation stuff, a proposition cannot create states. I've talked to a lot of people about it, and everyone I know think's a bad idea, and not only that, they don't take it seriously. Leave to fox news to make hay out of a straw.

You don't have a lot of credibility living in one of the highest cost of living states in the country with the worst quality of life, worst poverty, worst homeless, and the most illegals and yet this is the state you want to elect the President?

Gerrymandering is just another excuse for losing the battle of ideas and values. In your personal life do you always blame someone else for your own personal failures?

More than one rich guy put the three state solution on the ballot in California but from what I can see you are totally out of touch with reality, defending your state might be noble but it sure lacks credibility

As for the population, here is your problem, the only ones moving to the state are the illegals, homeless and others looking for a handout

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/cal...ousing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html

Who is going to pay for these people?

 

[shades]

The three state solution was put on the ballot by a rich guy. Any rich person can hire kids to get signatures to put something on the ballot.
It's just coffee table conservation stuff, a proposition cannot create states. I've talked to a lot of people about it, and everyone I know think's a bad idea, and not only that, they don't take it seriously. Leave to fox news to make hay out of a straw.

we understand your "concern" Oscar" over losing such a large head start in national elections, but truth be told California, like no other state has become less representative of the voice of the people because of the large than normal urban populations in LA, Frisco and a few others.

Divide Texas up anyway you like and you will still get a red vote, Cali not so much huh? That worries you, and it should

 

[Conservative]

Oh, it's tiring, so many logical fallacies here, you make me work, but I will, nevertheless



She's earned money for giving speeches and writing Books. When you become famous, the free market, which you seem to believe in, except when it comes to Hillary, people place a higher value on you and subsequently are willing to pay a higher price for your speeches, give bigger advances on books, etc. But, you didn't say that bout repub presidents, or secretaries of states. Do I detect hypocrisy here? Hmmm? you tell me.

AS for waht she would be doing, she's a democrat. Dems have a platform, just look it up. But she wouldn't have torn down the EPA, removed many scientists or caused them to resign, or deleted EPA climate data from it's websites, and allowing polluters to get away with their polluting, and she wouldn't have pulled out of the Paris Accord, maybe TTP ( I believe she would sign it, after a little time ) and the Iran deal. She wouldn't have repealed DACA, and she would work with dems in congress to fix ACA. She supports raising the minimum wage to $12 ( that's about right ). Stuff like that. She would have appointed a better judge than Gorsuch ( who has alienated other judges on the court for his arrogance ). She would not have told the parents of the slain soldier in Yemen "He knew what he was signing up for", which is a mindbogglingly stupid thing to say to a parent of a fallen son. Trump says all kinds of stupid things, and Hillary won't be saying all the stupid things, the gloating, the baiting, the incessant sucking up all the oxygen on TV because he's such a narcissist he must be on TV ALL THE TIME, and on and on and on and on. I really could take up pages, don't have the time and space, Trump is exhausting.

Go purchase the book, "It's even worse than you think: what Trump is doing to America". It's all there.

That's interesting. You consider votes in California "skewing the vote" but, of course, you dont consider votes in Texas, as skewing.

Please explain to me how votes in Texas are more American and more valuable, more important, than votes in California?

The last time I checked, California is part of America, every bit as American as any other state.

But the logical fallacy you have offered in that comment isn't apparent to you, is it? I didnt think so.

Last time I checked, populations elect presidents. One person, one vote. Remember that concept?



Logical fallacy. 39 million people choose to live here. It's beautiful, and the weather is nice, and has several large cities. So, it's going to have more of everything. That many people is going to cause property values to go up, congestion in big cities, as well as people leaving because of it. Yet 39 million remain and this is the sixth largest economy IN THE WORLD. If you were homeless, where you would rather live? In Chicago? Or California? Oh, you didn't consider how stupid your comment was, did you?



NO, I said that gerrymandering send more repubs to congress than dems disproportionately, or words to that effect.

The three state solution was put on the ballot by a rich guy. Any rich person can hire kids to get signatures to put something on the ballot.
It's just coffee table conservation stuff, a proposition cannot create states. I've talked to a lot of people about it, and everyone I know think's a bad idea, and not only that, they don't take it seriously. Leave to fox news to make hay out of a straw.

So writing a book and making speeches qualify her to be President of the United States and our 19.5 trillion dollar economy? No budget experience, no executive experience, no management experience, terrible record in public service with a lot of causes supported but very few if any significant accomplishments but a dead Ambassador, Arab Spring, dodging bullets in Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, Uranium Deal, Russia reset all of course helping the American people, right?

 

[Conservative]

Oh, just wall off the whole country. Who needs the rest of the world anyway?

As I have posted over and over again, actual results mean nothing to you because whatever makes you feel good is more important. let's just wall off California, lock all the illegals in there and let the Rich Californians pay for all their services. LA, SF do not represent the values of this country although apparently representing yours. That is out of touch with reality.

 

[Dittohead not!]

As I have posted over and over again, actual results mean nothing to you because whatever makes you feel good is more important. let's just wall off California, lock all the illegals in there and let the Rich Californians pay for all their services. LA, SF do not represent the values of this country although apparently representing yours. That is out of touch with reality.

The only "actual result" is the growth of the economy, which I'm sure you attribute to Trump simply being in the WhiteHouse, since he hasn't done anything to bring it about.

Keep clinging to that "actual result." We'll soon see the results of his trade wars and isolationism, and it won't be good for him or for the Republican Party.

Remember, I've said all along that Trump is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in a long time. Let's see what happens in the next couple of elections. We'll know if I'm right or not.

 

[Dittohead not!]

So writing a book and making speeches qualify her to be President of the United States and our 19.5 trillion dollar economy? No budget experience, no executive experience, no management experience, terrible record in public service with a lot of causes supported but very few if any significant accomplishments but a dead Ambassador, Arab Spring, dodging bullets in Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, Uranium Deal, Russia reset all of course helping the American people, right?

If only she had done something significant, like starring in reality TV or something.

 

[Conservative]

If only she had done something significant, like starring in reality TV or something.

Or actually running a business and creating private sector jobs!!

 

[Conservative]

The only "actual result" is the growth of the economy, which I'm sure you attribute to Trump simply being in the WhiteHouse, since he hasn't done anything to bring it about.

Keep clinging to that "actual result." We'll soon see the results of his trade wars and isolationism, and it won't be good for him or for the Republican Party.

Remember, I've said all along that Trump is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in a long time. Let's see what happens in the next couple of elections. We'll know if I'm right or not.

It has become obvious to me that the education system in California is lacking as it creates nothing but little leftwing robots who have no idea as to how the private sector works, no understanding of leadership, and the power of the bully pulpit. Trump's role back of all of Obama's anti Growth EO's sent a powerful message to the private sector that is delivering on the results Obama supporters can only dream of.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It has become obvious to me that the education system in California is lacking as it creates nothing but little leftwing robots who have no idea as to how the private sector works, no understanding of leadership, and the power of the bully pulpit. Trump's role back of all of Obama's anti Growth EO's sent a powerful message to the private sector that is delivering on the results Obama supporters can only dream of.

That may be true in some ideological fantasyland. Here in the real world, Trump's actions and words are a disaster for his party. Lindsey Graham was right about Trump: "My party has gone bat**** crazy" So was Rick Perry: "Trumpism A Toxic Mix Of Demagoguery, Mean-Spiritedness That Will Lead The Republican Party To Perdition"

 

[Conservative]

That may be true in some ideological fantasyland. Here in the real world, Trump's actions and words are a disaster for his party. Lindsey Graham was right about Trump: "My party has gone bat**** crazy" So was Rick Perry: "Trumpism A Toxic Mix Of Demagoguery, Mean-Spiritedness That Will Lead The Republican Party To Perdition"

Again, RESULTS MATTER so no matter how you want to spin it the American people are better off today than when Trump took office and that is what really matters. Your "Rodney King" attitude is coming from someone who doesn't understand the private sector, leadership, or even the art of negotiation. Trump is pissing off the establishment in both parties and I LOVE IT

 

[Dittohead not!]

Again, RESULTS MATTER so no matter how you want to spin it the American people are better off today than when Trump took office and that is what really matters. Your "Rodney King" attitude is coming from someone who doesn't understand the private sector, leadership, or even the art of negotiation. Trump is pissing off the establishment in both parties and I LOVE IT

I agree that results matter. I just disagree that the results of the Trump presidency have been positive. The only thing he has going for him at this point is a growing economy, and he inherited that. Let's wait and see what happens to that growing economy when his tariffs start to kick in.

 

[YorkshirePete]

This has been crystal clear to anyone with any awareness and an ability to read the news objectively from the start, and this is an OLD story, so hopefully is OK, IDK, but it's certainly relevant, and scares the hell out of me, and I dare say, maybe most rational observers. How can anyone be OK with a crime, on the part of the chief


I find it DEEPLY disturbing, far more disturbing, than the crimes themselves, that a good quarter of America, the quarter that pretends at being suppoortive of law an order is willing to throw out their ethics for love of a demogogue.:roll:

Ever seen a brown guy at a trump nazi rally?
They are dreaming of the old horse and buggy days

 

[Conservative]

I agree that results matter. I just disagree that the results of the Trump presidency have been positive. The only thing he has going for him at this point is a growing economy, and he inherited that. Let's wait and see what happens to that growing economy when his tariffs start to kick in.

your opinion noted just like all others with no data to support you. why is it with the growing economy you claimed did the GOP win Congress and White House?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative]

Ever seen a brown guy at a trump nazi rally?
They are dreaming of the old horse and buggy days

hate is a terrible trait for you to have
Dem marketing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk