"Exactly!! When will you guys make one truthful statement thats not biased or wrong!"Says the true side of hate intolerance and exclusion. You know, the side that you either agree or you're the enemy! You libs have been regurgitating the same useless lines for years now! Please listen to the voices after Trump wins again!
Posted by a man(?) whose president has told over 15000 documented falsehoods. Originally Posted by stikiwikit
- winn dixie
- 01-19-2020, 08:11 PM
- Precious_b
- 01-19-2020, 08:15 PM
All ya'll big ol mean mens cant even handle one lil ol gal? Bahahahaha Shes whooping ya'lls ass!Who's being mean?Originally Posted by winn dixie
Speed just saying ellen shaking pom poms.
A few making assumptions on political leanings.
*Me* just asking a simple question and waiting to get an answer that isn't a misdirection from an Occam deduction.
Does that make me mean?
- Dev Null
- 01-20-2020, 05:09 AM
Posted by a man(?) whose president has told over 15000 documented falsehoods. Originally Posted by stikiwikitAnd whose handlers will never let him testify under oath because he's almost certain to commit perjury.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...chment-inquiry
"It would be a great thing if Trump testified, and the chances he will do so approximate zero. First off, his lawyers won’t let him, especially now that the Roger Stone trial produced evidence that Trump may have lied in his evasive written answers to Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III about his contacts with Stone. He is simply incapable of keeping his story straight, and his penchant for lying would put him at real risk of generating another article of impeachment with his testimony."
- SpeedRacerXXX
- 01-20-2020, 07:32 AM
Poor Hillary. She's just out there thinking "WTF?" I don't see how she could join so late but anything can happen. I'll tell you who the dem nominee will be - Joe Biden. I think it's going to be Biden and Trump. I'm still shaking my head over that but that's how I see it. I think the house will go Republican. I think the senate will stay Republican.Well, it's nice you admit you were wrong about Hillary.
Colorado could go either way but Arizona - I think that will go red. Alabama - could go either way.
Bootom line - there is a reckoning coming and it will be reflected in the polls.
The following is a good example of what I believe.
Read Why Trump will win again in 2020 - https://spectator.us/trump-win-again...-davis-hanson/ Originally Posted by Austin Ellen
I am not sure if The Spectator article you cited is from the American or English version of the publication but both are extremely right biased, so of course they would favor Trump.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-spectator-usa/
There are just as many, maybe more, predicting a loss by Trump in 2020 as there are predicting a victory.
Why Trump will lose in 2020
With unemployment at a 50-year low and the stock market near record highs, President Trump should be a shoo-in for reelection. He’s not.
In fact, Trump could very plausibly lose in November. Perhaps by a wide margin. Here are 4 reasons why:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-t...133414780.html
Opinion: Five reasons Trump won’t win in 2020
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fi...020-2019-06-19
2020 predictions: Trump will lose — if not in the Senate, then with the voters
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...ith-the-voters
Trump Will Lose in 2020
https://www.thenation.com/podcast/po...tion-politics/
Trump will lose in 2020 if this happens, regardless of who the Democrats nominate, says Peter Schiff
https://www.kitco.com/news/2019-12-1...-nominate.html
Right now it's a pure guessing game as to who will win. Biden leads Trump in polling in most battleground states, and is neck-and-neck with him in others.
You mention the polls. What has been unseen in presidential polls since their inception is how little variance there has been with Trump. He does something perceived by most to be positive and the polls don't move much. He does something perceived by most to be negative and the polls don't move much. 1 month ago his approval rating spiked up and now it is back down. Overall approval ratings don't mean much to me -- it is the approval ratings in battleground states that are. And they should be watched closely.
Very little likelihood your predictions on the House and Senate will be correct. Absolutely nothing points to Republicans gaining control of the House. Why do you think that way?
Very doubtful both Colorado and Arizona go Republican. Both states have become more blue in recent years and both current Senators in those states are not well liked.
- Why_Yes_I_Do
- 01-20-2020, 08:17 AM
- SpeedRacerXXX
- 01-20-2020, 01:09 PM
Ellen, I read your cited article. It is based on very little that is objective. The author could be 100% correct but everything he says is subjective and based on his opinion.
- 00 gauge
- 01-20-2020, 01:45 PM
We are now exactly one year away from Trump's second inauguration ..... 
- Austin Ellen
- 01-20-2020, 03:12 PM
Yes. But I agree with his opinion. Folks are so tired of the hypocrisy. And the disrespect that is given to our President. They may not like Trump but they hate what the Dems are more. But we shall see. As you said, anything can happen. I'm lucky to be able to visit people at a retirement center. They are a hoot. The little old ladies are like - So do you like our President? and I say "yes" and then they start talking and talking. And more talking - mainly how the Dems are out to get their money. One lady told me that if she found out that her granddaughter voted for someone else she would disinerit her. I thought that was a little extreme but I didn't say that to her. Actually, I don't get in alot of talking when I visit there. lol
Ellen, I read your cited article. It is based on very little that is objective. The author could be 100% correct but everything he says is subjective and based on his opinion. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
- SpeedRacerXXX
- 01-20-2020, 04:42 PM
Yes. But I agree with his opinion. Folks are so tired of the hypocrisy. And the disrespect that is given to our President. They may not like Trump but they hate what the Dems are more. But we shall see. As you said, anything can happen. I'm lucky to be able to visit people at a retirement center. They are a hoot. The little old ladies are like - So do you like our President? and I say "yes" and then they start talking and talking. And more talking - mainly how the Dems are out to get their money. One lady told me that if she found out that her granddaughter voted for someone else she would disinerit her. I thought that was a little extreme but I didn't say that to her. Actually, I don't get in alot of talking when I visit there. lol Originally Posted by Austin EllenI assume the old folks realize that it was Democrats who gave them Social Security, on which many of them solely depend, and are much more diligent than Republicans on making sure their benefits are not reduced.
As for disrespect given to Trump. I'm sure you are aware of the disrespect given to Obama not only while he was in office but up to this day. Have you ever read any positive comments on Obama by Trump supporters on the national political forum? I don't see anyone respecting anyone who is politically opposed to them. Sad.
- Precious_b
- 01-20-2020, 08:01 PM
Speed, I wonder why they even let Obama live rent free in their minds. You don't hear the former Chief saying anything about it on repetitive, frequent basis.
- Precious_b
- 01-20-2020, 08:02 PM
I tend to prefer Alt-Write...You get ellen to answer my question and i'll defer to the title you desire.Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
- Why_Yes_I_Do
- 01-21-2020, 06:05 AM
I assume the old folks realize that it was Democrats who gave them Social Security Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXXDemonicrats gave them a ponzi scheme and called it social security. But with age comes wisdom and the freedom to enjoy the fact that for every old folk receivin Social Security (not counting all the other freeloading that goes on) 7 young'uns have to foot the bill for it.
- SpeedRacerXXX
- 01-21-2020, 08:15 AM
Demonicrats gave them a ponzi scheme and called it social security. But with age comes wisdom and the freedom to enjoy the fact that for every old folk receivin Social Security (not counting all the other freeloading that goes on) 7 young'uns have to foot the bill for it.You can call Social Security whatever you like. The fact is that without it many senior citizens, myself included, would be far worse off.
"Without Social Security benefits, about 4 in 10 Americans aged 65 and older would have incomes below the poverty line, all else being equal, according to official estimates based on the 2018 Current Population Survey. Social Security benefits lift more than 15 million elderly Americans out of poverty, these estimates show."
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social...ocial-security
When I was working I was footing the bill for those on social security. Now others are footing the bill for me. And someday others will be footing the bill for them. Yes, changes must be made to keep it going, but it will keep going.
A Ponzi scheme? Hardly.
Resurrecting Another ‘Big Lie’: The Myth of Social Security as ‘Ponzi Scheme’
https://billmoyers.com/story/resurre...-ponzi-scheme/
- Dev Null
- 01-21-2020, 08:29 AM
Also this:
https://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ocial-securit/
The term originates with Charles Ponzi, a Boston swindler who conned investors out of millions in 1920 by promising returns of up to 100 percent in 90 days on investments in foreign postal coupons. After first-round investors harvested those profits, others flocked to Ponzi, unaware his "profits" consisted of money paid in by other investors.
That strategy is unsustainable.
In contrast, Social Security is more like a "pay-as-you-go" system transferring payroll tax payments by workers to retirees. A 2009 Social Security Administration online post stated: "The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days."
Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. We will summarize Zuckoff’s comments from an earlier fact-check:
• "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."
• Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted." While Social Security faces a huge burden due to retiring Baby Boomers, it can be and has been tweaked, and "the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."
• Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme. ... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see 'Social') resolved to create a safety net (see 'Security') in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud."
https://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ocial-securit/
The term originates with Charles Ponzi, a Boston swindler who conned investors out of millions in 1920 by promising returns of up to 100 percent in 90 days on investments in foreign postal coupons. After first-round investors harvested those profits, others flocked to Ponzi, unaware his "profits" consisted of money paid in by other investors.
That strategy is unsustainable.
In contrast, Social Security is more like a "pay-as-you-go" system transferring payroll tax payments by workers to retirees. A 2009 Social Security Administration online post stated: "The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days."
Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. We will summarize Zuckoff’s comments from an earlier fact-check:
• "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."
• Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted." While Social Security faces a huge burden due to retiring Baby Boomers, it can be and has been tweaked, and "the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."
• Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme. ... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see 'Social') resolved to create a safety net (see 'Security') in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud."
- Austin Ellen
- 01-21-2020, 09:50 AM
Oh oh. Clinton blasted Bernie. She said "nobody likes him and no one wants to work with him." I thinks Bernie just bit the dust. Now all Trump has to do is pit the true Clinton/Warren supporters with the Bernie Bros and it will get interesting. Ima getting my popcorn ready.