More lying at the DNC

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And the public is hoodwinked into believing that big government is fighting big business.

this is the democrat(progressive) mantra....which is why it seems odd that democrats who understand and claim not to like the relationship would think that making government even bigger, more expensive and wider in scope...which is what the democrat nominee and every other before her is proposing(except when Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over he was probably being sarcastic )... would somehow think doing so could change the cozy relationship unless they believe if government gets big enough it could eventually run or at least regulate through stringent governmental control(fascism) all of these corrupt, bothersome businesses itself, making everything nice and fair for everyone....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is the democrat(progressive) mantra....which is why it seems odd that democrats who understand and claim not to like the relationship would think that making government even bigger, more expensive and wider in scope...which is what the democrat nominee and every other before her is proposing(except when Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over he was probably being sarcastic )... would somehow think doing so could change the cozy relationship unless they believe if government gets big enough it could eventually run or at least regulate through stringent governmental control(fascism) all of these corrupt, bothersome businesses itself, making everything nice and fair for everyone....

thats not my quote thats detbuch take it up with him

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

thats not my quote thats detbuch take it up with him

you said you don't disagree with him...I think Detbuch and I agree conceptually ...how do you square support for someone promising to expand government's role, expense and power if you believe this is a problem....and how will bigger government alleviate the problems and cozy relationships that exist, particularly as we know they exist and have been exploited by the democratic nominee promising even bigger government ?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

you said you don't disagree with him...I think Detbuch and I agree conceptually ...how do you square support for someone promising to expand government's role, expense and power if you believe this is a problem....and how will bigger government alleviate the problems and cozy relationships that exist, particularly as we know they exist and have been exploited by the democratic nominee promising even bigger government ?

Because I don't think Trump will shrink government and the GOP has never done it in the the past 50 years ... Its about having a stable Government and trump wont bring that to the table

[Fly Rod]

After trumps rant about the muslim parents that lost thier son, he does not stand a chance to B president.....maybe he should have said he was sorry for the loss, that he was aganist the country getting involved, that hillary voted for it.

As far as dems saying he has done nothing for the country his rebuttal should have been that neither hillary nor obama did anything for our country....well, they R helping to destroy it....

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

After trumps rant about the muslim parents that lost thier son, he does not stand a chance to B president.....maybe he should have said he was sorry for the loss, that he was aganist the country getting involved, that hillary voted for it.

As far as dems saying he has done nothing for the country his rebuttal should have been that neither hillary nor obama did anything for our country....well, they R helping to destroy it....

He pointed out how Muslims treat women in situations like the DNC where they should remain silent. To say she didn't speak because she was still traumatized and in morning over her sons death 13 years earlier is just an attempt to hide the way Muslims treat women.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

After trumps rant about the muslim parents that lost thier son, he does not stand a chance to B president.....maybe he should have said he was sorry for the loss, that he was aganist the country getting involved, that hillary voted for it.

I thought making fun of the disabled reporter was his most shameful moment (with so many to choose from) but his calling out the mother was just reprehensible. I'd note Jim pre-empted it with his remarks in the initial post to start this thread.

Using bigotry to disparage the grieving mother of a US war hero. Nice job Jim.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I thought making fun of the disabled reporter was his most shameful moment (with so many to choose from) but his calling out the mother was just reprehensible. I'd note Jim pre-empted it with his remarks in the initial post to start this thread.

Using bigotry to disparage the grieving mother of a US war hero. Nice job Jim.

"I thought making fun of the disabled reporter was his most shameful moment "

That was up there.

"with so many to choose from"

That was up there.

"his calling out the mother was just reprehensible"

OK. Yet you didn't have jack sh*t to say, when Hilary called Patricia Smith (lost her son in Benghazi) a liar. In fact, you said it was shameless of the GOP to exploit her grief. But you have no quarrel, I'm sure, with the DNC doing the same exact thing to attack Trump?

Still waiting for my history lesson Spence. I am waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong when I say that Republicans did the heavy lifting to end segregation and secure the right of blacks to vote. Since it is historical fact that 100% of the Democrats voted against the 15th amendment, I cannot wait for you to tell us how it was the Democrats that get credit for its passage.

Hmmm?

And with all due respect to the father, he went out of his way to wave the Constitution around, and speculate that Trump hasn't read it. I asked before, and I'll ask again...where in the Constitution does it say we have to take everyone, from everywhere? Because unless it says that, then regardless of what you think of Trump's proposed plan, it's not unconstitutional, and no one should say that it is.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Because I don't think Trump will shrink government and the GOP has never done it in the the past 50 years ... Its about having a stable Government and trump wont bring that to the table

how can you have a "stable" government that is 20 Trillion dollars in debt and growing??

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that conservatives and specifically Christian conservatives have any love or loyalty to Trump....those that might support so do so grudgingly from what I see.....his coalition is made up of loosely connected voters and his challenge will be to convince the conservative base that they need to show up and vote for him to thwart Hackery....that support is tepid at best

great article from a high profile #nevertrump guy that offers a ton of insight and is fairly entertaining

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/438525/print

[wdmso]

[QUOTE=scottw;1105546]how can you have a "stable" government that is 20 Trillion dollars in debt and growing??


On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: "Gentlemen ... the national debt ... is PAID."

That was the one time in U.S. history when the country was debt free. It lasted exactly one year.

its been said time and time again our military has been conducting war time operations Since Sept 11th and not paid for all put on the National debt .. Its what Americans wants .. ( but have no idea on what it is costing the country nor do the care ) yet the Right loves to uses the debt as another tool of fear for votes and try to convince the public the debt has increased because of immigrants getting benefits and welfare ..
not because of the cost of war keeping them safe .. again fact dont matter

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1105616]

Originally Posted by scottw

how can you have a "stable" government that is 20 Trillion dollars in debt and growing??


On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: "Gentlemen ... the national debt ... is PAID."

That was the one time in U.S. history when the country was debt free. It lasted exactly one year.

its been said time and time again our military has been conducting war time operations Since Sept 11th and not paid for all put on the National debt .. Its what Americans wants .. ( but have no idea on what it is costing the country nor do the care ) yet the Right loves to uses the debt as another tool of fear for votes and try to convince the public the debt has increased because of immigrants getting benefits and welfare ..
not because of the cost of war keeping them safe .. again fact dont matter

I think many Americans view debt incurred to ensure national security as one thing...debt incurred on programs that do nothing for anybody (except help politicians buy votes) is something else. There's so much useless pork and waste...does the debt not increase because of illegals getting benefits?

I think you are correct that there is some hypocrisy among conservatives who didn't object when Bush added to the debt, but now act like it's the end of the world. But Obama has increased the debt by far more than anyone else. And the stimulus, which was very expensive, didn't come close to meeting Obama's claim that it would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. But many economists say it did eventually help the economy. I can see both sides. I don't think anyone can argue, that there is a ton of waste there. While Obama didn't invent that, it did get worse under his watch.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

...how do you square support for someone promising to expand government's role, expense and power if you believe this is a problem....and how will bigger government alleviate the problems and cozy relationships that exist, particularly as we know they exist and have been exploited by the democratic nominee promising even bigger government ?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemc.../#405934162348

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemc.../#405934162348

I guess "might and could" can get you a long way....