I assume he got banned. A moderator brings up racist posts being reported, and Heisman hasn't posted anything racist in a few hours - which is a record for him.
Trump Jr needs to run for office. He was absolutely incredible.Most eclectic list of speakers I can remember for a convention. Alot of good things said.
Trump jr was definitely the highlight, for sure
Seriously? Based on the abominable, barbarous behavior of the Far Left at various Trump rallies, San Jose in particular, and based on the recent cop-killings from Far Left radical scum, I can only conclude the combustion occurs in the event of a Trump victory. It will go beyond the usual SJW squawking on Tumblr and Twitter; there may well be riots. In the event of a Clinton victory, I predict a fair amount of grumpiness, and no violence. My opinion as to the disparate reactions to the alternate scenarios is largely based on the reprehensible behavior from the Far Left over the past few months.Yeah this thread went to shit. It wouldn't be so bad if they owned their craziness, but it's "PRASE LORD JEBUS!" in one post and "Fk the liburals, leave are country!" the next. Pretty typical behavior of "Christians" though.
At least that lunatic KlansmanWildcat got banned. I bet that dude is SEETHING right now.
This thread may spontaneously combust in November. Whew. I worry about some of you guys if Hillary is elected. Seriously.
As I've said, my issues with the libertarians is foreign policy. We'd be attacked left and right and 10 years after the isolation mentality we'd be hit even harder. Evil is evil because it's evil, not because America improperly invaded or defended itself. America must be the worlds police, there's no way around it. Every time we back up or sit back, the world becomes more dangerous. China, Russia, and the Middle East are waiting on America to nominate an isolationist. It's their wet dream.
I agree with them on several big government issues, that's about it.
I consider myself a strategic conservative. I don't give a shit if you pray to God, and it's been overblown by the anti-religious crowd who really just hates religion in general, and becomes obsessed with God fearing men. It's a bit ridiculous. I care that a leftist is not in power first and foremost.
I also don't care if you're non religious as long as you defend the J-Christian foundation and respect it.
I support trump as many Christians do. We are able to look past religious affiliation, whereas modern day anti-religious voters cannot.
Been thru the ringer myself. We seem to be very similar, I just still havnt caught on to the whole Christian thing yet. I believe in something, just not religious yet. Maybe one day.
That was my next point, if anyone local knows ur handle, I would delete all that crap. You'll get an SJW screaming thst you didn't care enough about him to get him proper help.
Depends on what your looking at pertaining to "foreign policy". My issue isn't the boogie man, it's his trade policies. They aren't, from an economics standpoint,rational. Specifically his trade policies with China. He has to know this but is pandering to a low information voter on this aspect. I wouldn't consider myself an economics genius but I do have an economics degree and a MBA. Most of what he says is nonsense in this category.
First, the entire premise of Trump’s plan to retaliate against China is erroneous. Trump cites the U.S.-China trade deficit as proof that the dominant Chinese, via pernicious currency manipulation, are taking America’s manufacturing jobs, thereby justifying his tariff plans.
However the U.S. manufacturing sector has been (until the last month or so) setting production (and export!) records, and almost 90 percent of the decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010 was caused by productivity gains (robots and computers), rather than import competition. So, unless he plans on destroying robots, those jobs are gone forever.
Furthermore, the idea that the U.S.-China trade balance proves that we’re “losing” at trade is the height of economic ignorance. For one thing, there’s actually a strong correlation between American economic growth and an expanding American trade deficit.
Lastly, basic economics teaches and common sense says that trade balances reflect national savings, consumption and investment, NOT trade policy. Thus, every dollar traveling overseas to buy imports (in excess of our exports) eventually comes back to the United States in the form of investment, and our “trade deficit” is matched by a surplus. In other words, we buy goods and services from foreigners, and they buy an equal amount of our exports PLUS our financial assets
I don't expect the common voter with not much economic knowledge to get that, but that would be a Libertarians issue with part of his foreign policy. His nonsensical 1950esq vision of handling international trade...and that's just with China. Hillary doesn't have anything better in place...but that's the glaring issue with Trump. I could get in more about our supposed "debt" to China but I don't feel like teaching an international commerce class on rivals. Lol.
Libertarian isolationism would've prevented 9/11 and the middle east wars while saving the national debt trillions and trillions cheaper.
Depends on what your looking at pertaining to "foreign policy". My issue isn't the boogie man, it's his trade policies. They aren't, from an economics standpoint,rational. Specifically his trade policies with China. He has to know this but is pandering to a low information voter on this aspect. I wouldn't consider myself an economics genius but I do have an economics degree and a MBA. Most of what he says is nonsense in this category.
First, the entire premise of Trump’s plan to retaliate against China is erroneous. Trump cites the U.S.-China trade deficit as proof that the dominant Chinese, via pernicious currency manipulation, are taking America’s manufacturing jobs, thereby justifying his tariff plans.
However the U.S. manufacturing sector has been (until the last month or so) setting production (and export!) records, and almost 90 percent of the decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010 was caused by productivity gains (robots and computers), rather than import competition. So, unless he plans on destroying robots, those jobs are gone forever.
Furthermore, the idea that the U.S.-China trade balance proves that we’re “losing” at trade is the height of economic ignorance. For one thing, there’s actually a strong correlation between American economic growth and an expanding American trade deficit.
Lastly, basic economics teaches and common sense says that trade balances reflect national savings, consumption and investment, NOT trade policy. Thus, every dollar traveling overseas to buy imports (in excess of our exports) eventually comes back to the United States in the form of investment, and our “trade deficit” is matched by a surplus. In other words, we buy goods and services from foreigners, and they buy an equal amount of our exports PLUS our financial assets
I don't expect the common voter with not much economic knowledge to get that, but that would be a Libertarians issue with part of his foreign policy. His nonsensical 1950esq vision of handling international trade...and that's just with China. Hillary doesn't have anything better in place...but that's the glaring issue with Trump. I could get in more about our supposed "debt" to China but I don't feel like teaching an international commerce class on rivals. Lol.
Depends on what your looking at pertaining to "foreign policy". My issue isn't the boogie man, it's his trade policies. They aren't, from an economics standpoint,rational. Specifically his trade policies with China. He has to know this but is pandering to a low information voter on this aspect. I wouldn't consider myself an economics genius but I do have an economics degree and a MBA. Most of what he says is nonsense in this category.
First, the entire premise of Trump’s plan to retaliate against China is erroneous. Trump cites the U.S.-China trade deficit as proof that the dominant Chinese, via pernicious currency manipulation, are taking America’s manufacturing jobs, thereby justifying his tariff plans.
However the U.S. manufacturing sector has been (until the last month or so) setting production (and export!) records, and almost 90 percent of the decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010 was caused by productivity gains (robots and computers), rather than import competition. So, unless he plans on destroying robots, those jobs are gone forever.
Furthermore, the idea that the U.S.-China trade balance proves that we’re “losing” at trade is the height of economic ignorance. For one thing, there’s actually a strong correlation between American economic growth and an expanding American trade deficit.
Lastly, basic economics teaches and common sense says that trade balances reflect national savings, consumption and investment, NOT trade policy. Thus, every dollar traveling overseas to buy imports (in excess of our exports) eventually comes back to the United States in the form of investment, and our “trade deficit” is matched by a surplus. In other words, we buy goods and services from foreigners, and they buy an equal amount of our exports PLUS our financial assets
I don't expect the common voter with not much economic knowledge to get that, but that would be a Libertarians issue with part of his foreign policy. His nonsensical 1950esq vision of handling international trade...and that's just with China. Hillary doesn't have anything better in place...but that's the glaring issue with Trump. I could get in more about our supposed "debt" to China but I don't feel like teaching an international commerce class on rivals. Lol.
Bob Barker and Pikachu. Easy
Summation? Would like to avoid his voice.The Politico podcast with Cruz is freaking fascinating
Obviously I hate Cruz more than almost anybody else, but it's a very easy listen. 52min talking about voter analytics, campaign finance/burn rate, how Donald won and how he would've lost. Just a whiff of policy discussion.Summation? Would like to avoid his voice.
Twitter Permanently Bans Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos Over ‘Harassment’ http://trib.al/BJFZB0G
Guy is pretty over the top but how do you figure out whom to ban in that cesspool?
It was parked in the parking lot of our hotel, so I just laughed.I hope you did the right thing.
And flipped them off.
What countries are more free market than our own? I was under the impression that most other countries were more protective and regulated. (Obviously not all--but most.)
Trickle down doesn't work. Trickle up doesn't work. The fact is jobs are what drives the economy, but tax cuts are easier done then creating enough jobs to catapult the economy back to where it should be. Now...if deciding what works best between tax cuts for the rich or more free money to the poor: tax breaks work best every single time.Just say Trump's political adviser on CNN and he talked nothing but trickle-down theory. That we need more tax cuts for the rich to spur imaginary growth that will lift all boats.
Good lord, I will drop Trump like a hot rock if he is another trickle-down idiot.
Evidently you have no idea what the word "liberal" means.I am not under cover about my liberalism nor my open, sustained, repeated support for Trump. He is going to advance more liberal causes in crushing the globalists than any Democrat ever could, plus, as a side benefit, he just might destroy the Republican Party while he is at it. Win, win.
Overreaction many times is due to personal preference and the lack of unbiased judgment. Seen it on here a few times. It has been said before, thinned skinned people need not post here. The same could be said for Moderation.Heisman was a good dude. I didn't agree with him on most things, but he was passionate and honest. He lacked tact, but who in the *(^(* logs onto an internet message board for tact?
As I also said, Trump has been repeatedly compared to an orangutan so while the comparison to Michelle to a gorilla was unfortunate it shouldn't have been fatal and I respectfully submit that was a drastic overreaction if he has indeed been banned. Be nice to know it was only a temporary one if that is in fact what happened.