info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Trumps Tax Plan and why it will work
196 views
Skip to first unread message
T
Jan 7, 2016, 4:26:13 AM1/7/16
to
Hi All,
I promised Stormin and Maggie a write up on why Trump's
tax plan will work and lowering taxes will also work.
And Oren, here is your class room lesson your requested.
On 01/05/2016 05:17 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 1/5/2016 6:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
>>>
>>> Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.
>>>
>>
>> His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
>> on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
>> to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
>> partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
>> plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.
>>
>
> Not going to dig out the specifics. But when taxes
> are too high, the economy slows down. Reducing tax
> rates can raise overall revenue, as the economy
> starts moving again. So the reduced rate might well
> have increased revenues.
Both Maggie and Stromin is correct here. What The RINO and
Dem are missing is that the economy taxes are a dynamic
equation not a static equation. The Dems and RINO are
basing all their "partisan tax organization" analysis on
a static equation. And also why Stormin' assertion
that these analysis are worse than weather forecasts
are correct.
In short, if I tell you I am going to punch you in the
nose, you will move.
To quote Ibn Khaldûn (1332-1406) that when taxes go up:
The result is that the interest of the subjects
in cultural enterprises disappears, since when
they compare expenditures and taxes with their
income and gain and see the little profit they make,
they lose all hope.
The Dems and RINO think "cultural enterprises" (13th
century words for "Business") won't notice.
Here is Trump's tax plan:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
It scares the unholy crap out of the Dems and RINOs.
And why it is endorsed by Arthur Laffer.
Trumps wants to bring "cultural enterprises" back to
American Soil by reducing the penalty they now
pay for doing business here. Tax revenue will
go up and we all will benefit from the increase
in "cultural enterprises".
This has been tried by Harry Truman (cut the fed by 15%
across the board), Kennedy, and Reagan and has always
worked. The Dems and RINOs yelled bloody murder too.
When you come right down to it, what Trump wants to
do is reduce the power of the Fed to control our lives
though the tax program. This is the real reason
why the Dems and their RINO collaborators are screaming.
Dems and RINO collaborator, Obama Care and Romney Care,
a difference without a distinction. No wonder we
lost the last presidential election. Why get a watered
down democrat when you can get a real one. And the base
stayed home.
The choice is limited government or tyranny. When government
grow, liberty always suffers. Dems and RINOs don't
get this. Or just don't care. Power is more important to them.
Other (real) Republicans have interesting plans too.
-T
Below is a lesson in Economics that should be mandatory reading
for every American.
Taken from: http://www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm#note-0
The great Arab historian Ibn Khaldûn (1332-1406) clearly anticipated the
Laffer Curve. While most of his political enemies regarded Ronald Reagan
as an ignorant fool, Reagan actually majored in economics in college and
long remembered Ibn Khaldûn's wisdom. Supply Side economics was nothing
new to him.
It is thus of some interest to quote the full explanation than Ibn
Khaldûn gives for his assertion:
It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation
yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the
dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.
The reason for this is that when the dynasty follows the ways of
Islam, it imposes only such taxes as are stipulated by the religious
law, such as charity taxes, the land tax, and the poll tax. These have
fixed limits that cannot be exceeded.
When the dynasty follows the ways of group feeling and (political)
superiority, it necessarily has at first a desert attitude, as has been
mentioned before. The desert attitude requires kindness, reverence,
humility, respect for the property of other people, and disinclination
to appropriate it, except in rare instances. Therefore, the individual
imposts and assessments, which together constitute the tax revenue, are
low. When tax assessments and imposts upon the subjects are low, the
latter have the energy and desire to do things. Cultural enterprises
grow and increase, because the low taxes bring satisfaction. When
cultural enterprises grow, the number of individual imposts and
assessments mounts. In consequence, the tax revenue, which is the sum
total of (the individual assessments), increases.
When the dynasty continues in power and their rulers follow each
other in succession, they become sophisticated. The Bedouin attitude and
simplicity lose their significance, and the Bedouin qualities of
moderation and restraint disappear. Royal authority with its tyranny and
sedentary culture that stimulates sophistication, make their appearance.
The people of the dynasty then acquire qualities of character related to
cleverness. Their customs and needs become more varied because of the
prosperity and luxury in which they are immersed. As a result, the
individual imposts and assessments upon the subjects, agricultural
labourers, farmers, and all the other taxpayers, increase. Every
individual impost and assessment is greatly increased, in order to
obtain a higher tax revenue. Customs duties are placed upon articles of
commerce and (levied) at the city gates. Then, gradual increases in the
amounts of the assessments succeed each other regularly, in
correspondence with the gradual increase in the luxury customs and many
needs of the dynasty and the spending required in connection with them.
Eventually, the taxes will weigh heavily upon the subjects and
overburden them. Heavy taxes become an obligation and tradition, because
the increases took place gradually, and no one knows specifically who
increases them or levied them. They lie upon the subjects like an
obligation and tradition.
The assessments increase beyond the limits of equity. The result is
that the interest of the subjects in cultural enterprises disappears,
since when they compare expenditures and taxes with their income and
gain and see the little profit they make, they lose all hope. Therefore,
many of them refrain from all cultural activity. The result is that the
total tax revenue goes down, as individual assessments go down. Often,
when the decrease is noticed, the amounts of individual imposts are
increased. This is considered a means of compensating for the decrease.
Finally, individual imposts and assessments reach their limit. It would
be no avail to increase them further. The costs of all cultural
enterprise are now too high, the taxes are too heavy, and the profits
anticipated fail to materialize. Finally, civilization is destroyed,
because the incentive for cultural activity is gone. It is the dynasty
that suffers from the situation, because it profits from cultural activity.
If one understands this, he will realize that the strongest
incentive for cultural activity is to lower as much as possible the
amounts of individual imposts levied upon persons capable of undertaking
cultural enterprises. In this manner, such persons will be
psychologically disposed to undertake them, because they can be
confident of making a profit from them.
['Abd-ar-Rah.mân Abû Zayd ibn Khaldûn, The Muqaddimah, An Introduction
to History, Franz Rosenthal translation, abridged and edited by N.J.
Dawood, Bollingen Series, Princeton University Press, 1967, pp.230-231]
I promised Stormin and Maggie a write up on why Trump's
tax plan will work and lowering taxes will also work.
And Oren, here is your class room lesson your requested.
On 01/05/2016 05:17 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 1/5/2016 6:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
>>>
>>> Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.
>>>
>>
>> His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
>> on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
>> to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
>> partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
>> plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.
>>
>
> Not going to dig out the specifics. But when taxes
> are too high, the economy slows down. Reducing tax
> rates can raise overall revenue, as the economy
> starts moving again. So the reduced rate might well
> have increased revenues.
Both Maggie and Stromin is correct here. What The RINO and
Dem are missing is that the economy taxes are a dynamic
equation not a static equation. The Dems and RINO are
basing all their "partisan tax organization" analysis on
a static equation. And also why Stormin' assertion
that these analysis are worse than weather forecasts
are correct.
In short, if I tell you I am going to punch you in the
nose, you will move.
To quote Ibn Khaldûn (1332-1406) that when taxes go up:
The result is that the interest of the subjects
in cultural enterprises disappears, since when
they compare expenditures and taxes with their
income and gain and see the little profit they make,
they lose all hope.
The Dems and RINO think "cultural enterprises" (13th
century words for "Business") won't notice.
Here is Trump's tax plan:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
It scares the unholy crap out of the Dems and RINOs.
And why it is endorsed by Arthur Laffer.
Trumps wants to bring "cultural enterprises" back to
American Soil by reducing the penalty they now
pay for doing business here. Tax revenue will
go up and we all will benefit from the increase
in "cultural enterprises".
This has been tried by Harry Truman (cut the fed by 15%
across the board), Kennedy, and Reagan and has always
worked. The Dems and RINOs yelled bloody murder too.
When you come right down to it, what Trump wants to
do is reduce the power of the Fed to control our lives
though the tax program. This is the real reason
why the Dems and their RINO collaborators are screaming.
Dems and RINO collaborator, Obama Care and Romney Care,
a difference without a distinction. No wonder we
lost the last presidential election. Why get a watered
down democrat when you can get a real one. And the base
stayed home.
The choice is limited government or tyranny. When government
grow, liberty always suffers. Dems and RINOs don't
get this. Or just don't care. Power is more important to them.
Other (real) Republicans have interesting plans too.
-T
Below is a lesson in Economics that should be mandatory reading
for every American.
Taken from: http://www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm#note-0
The great Arab historian Ibn Khaldûn (1332-1406) clearly anticipated the
Laffer Curve. While most of his political enemies regarded Ronald Reagan
as an ignorant fool, Reagan actually majored in economics in college and
long remembered Ibn Khaldûn's wisdom. Supply Side economics was nothing
new to him.
It is thus of some interest to quote the full explanation than Ibn
Khaldûn gives for his assertion:
It should be known that at the beginning of a dynasty, taxation
yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the
dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.
The reason for this is that when the dynasty follows the ways of
Islam, it imposes only such taxes as are stipulated by the religious
law, such as charity taxes, the land tax, and the poll tax. These have
fixed limits that cannot be exceeded.
When the dynasty follows the ways of group feeling and (political)
superiority, it necessarily has at first a desert attitude, as has been
mentioned before. The desert attitude requires kindness, reverence,
humility, respect for the property of other people, and disinclination
to appropriate it, except in rare instances. Therefore, the individual
imposts and assessments, which together constitute the tax revenue, are
low. When tax assessments and imposts upon the subjects are low, the
latter have the energy and desire to do things. Cultural enterprises
grow and increase, because the low taxes bring satisfaction. When
cultural enterprises grow, the number of individual imposts and
assessments mounts. In consequence, the tax revenue, which is the sum
total of (the individual assessments), increases.
When the dynasty continues in power and their rulers follow each
other in succession, they become sophisticated. The Bedouin attitude and
simplicity lose their significance, and the Bedouin qualities of
moderation and restraint disappear. Royal authority with its tyranny and
sedentary culture that stimulates sophistication, make their appearance.
The people of the dynasty then acquire qualities of character related to
cleverness. Their customs and needs become more varied because of the
prosperity and luxury in which they are immersed. As a result, the
individual imposts and assessments upon the subjects, agricultural
labourers, farmers, and all the other taxpayers, increase. Every
individual impost and assessment is greatly increased, in order to
obtain a higher tax revenue. Customs duties are placed upon articles of
commerce and (levied) at the city gates. Then, gradual increases in the
amounts of the assessments succeed each other regularly, in
correspondence with the gradual increase in the luxury customs and many
needs of the dynasty and the spending required in connection with them.
Eventually, the taxes will weigh heavily upon the subjects and
overburden them. Heavy taxes become an obligation and tradition, because
the increases took place gradually, and no one knows specifically who
increases them or levied them. They lie upon the subjects like an
obligation and tradition.
The assessments increase beyond the limits of equity. The result is
that the interest of the subjects in cultural enterprises disappears,
since when they compare expenditures and taxes with their income and
gain and see the little profit they make, they lose all hope. Therefore,
many of them refrain from all cultural activity. The result is that the
total tax revenue goes down, as individual assessments go down. Often,
when the decrease is noticed, the amounts of individual imposts are
increased. This is considered a means of compensating for the decrease.
Finally, individual imposts and assessments reach their limit. It would
be no avail to increase them further. The costs of all cultural
enterprise are now too high, the taxes are too heavy, and the profits
anticipated fail to materialize. Finally, civilization is destroyed,
because the incentive for cultural activity is gone. It is the dynasty
that suffers from the situation, because it profits from cultural activity.
If one understands this, he will realize that the strongest
incentive for cultural activity is to lower as much as possible the
amounts of individual imposts levied upon persons capable of undertaking
cultural enterprises. In this manner, such persons will be
psychologically disposed to undertake them, because they can be
confident of making a profit from them.
['Abd-ar-Rah.mân Abû Zayd ibn Khaldûn, The Muqaddimah, An Introduction
to History, Franz Rosenthal translation, abridged and edited by N.J.
Dawood, Bollingen Series, Princeton University Press, 1967, pp.230-231]
trader_4
Jan 7, 2016, 7:40:16 AM1/7/16
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 4:26:13 AM UTC-5, T wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I promised Stormin and Maggie a write up on why Trump's
> tax plan will work and lowering taxes will also work.
> And Oren, here is your class room lesson your requested.
>
> On 01/05/2016 05:17 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> > On 1/5/2016 6:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.
> >>>
> >>
> >> His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
> >> on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
> >> to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
> >> partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
> >> plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.
> >>
> >
> > Not going to dig out the specifics. But when taxes
> > are too high, the economy slows down. Reducing tax
> > rates can raise overall revenue, as the economy
> > starts moving again. So the reduced rate might well
> > have increased revenues.
>
> Both Maggie and Stromin is correct here. What The RINO and
> Dem are missing is that the economy taxes are a dynamic
> equation not a static equation.
Trump's plan has been analyzed by credible tax policy analysts
> Hi All,
>
> I promised Stormin and Maggie a write up on why Trump's
> tax plan will work and lowering taxes will also work.
> And Oren, here is your class room lesson your requested.
>
> On 01/05/2016 05:17 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> > On 1/5/2016 6:56 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything you disagree with? Seriously.
> >>>
> >>
> >> His tax plan doesn't add up. You can't reduce the rate to 20%
> >> on earned income, 15% on capital gains, for people making $100K
> >> to $300K and not significantly widen the deficit. Every non-
> >> partisan tax organization that has looked at it has said the
> >> plan doesn't add up, increases the deficit.
> >>
> >
> > Not going to dig out the specifics. But when taxes
> > are too high, the economy slows down. Reducing tax
> > rates can raise overall revenue, as the economy
> > starts moving again. So the reduced rate might well
> > have increased revenues.
>
> Both Maggie and Stromin is correct here. What The RINO and
> Dem are missing is that the economy taxes are a dynamic
> equation not a static equation.
that are not using dynamic, not static, models and every one
has said that it will increase the deficit by a huge amount,
~$10 tril over ten years.
The Dems and RINO are
> basing all their "partisan tax organization" analysis on
> a static equation. And also why Stormin' assertion
> that these analysis are worse than weather forecasts
> are correct.
>
tax organization and the WSJ. This is the typical Trumpie lie,
anyone who disagrees with Trump based on reality, is "partisan"
or the "establishment". Meanwhile, where is Trump's analysis?
What models, what experts did he use in coming up with his plan?
We don't know because he won't say. In all likelihood, it's as
made up as his "I saw thousands and thousands of Arabs celebrating
in JC on 9/11." I have yet to see a single analysis that shows
that Trump's plan doesn't greatly reduce federal revenues. If
you have it, if Trump has it, where is it?
> In short, if I tell you I am going to punch you in the
> nose, you will move.
>
> To quote Ibn Khaldûn (1332-1406) that when taxes go up:
>
> The result is that the interest of the subjects
> in cultural enterprises disappears, since when
> they compare expenditures and taxes with their
> income and gain and see the little profit they make,
> they lose all hope.
>
> The Dems and RINO think "cultural enterprises" (13th
> century words for "Business") won't notice.
>
is that you have no actual attempt at analysis, no models, nothing
to base the actual plan on. This is like saying because putting a
pound of nitrogen on your lawn will make it green, putting a hundred
pounds on will work even better and is a good idea. Why not cut taxes
to zero and then we'll have infinite revenue.
> Here is Trump's tax plan:
> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
> It scares the unholy crap out of the Dems and RINOs.
> And why it is endorsed by Arthur Laffer.
>
> Trumps wants to bring "cultural enterprises" back to
> American Soil by reducing the penalty they now
> pay for doing business here. Tax revenue will
> go up and we all will benefit from the increase
> in "cultural enterprises".
>
> This has been tried by Harry Truman (cut the fed by 15%
> across the board), Kennedy, and Reagan and has always
> worked. The Dems and RINOs yelled bloody murder too.
>
proposing. Their plans had analysis behind them that showed
they would work.
Figures that's the depth of your "analysis". In other words,
there is no analysis. You just believe that you can cut taxes,
at any time, by any amount, and it boosts the economy enough
so that you wind up with the same or more revenue. It's obviously
silly and a total misrepresentation of the Laffer curve, which
clearly says that it only works if you are on the right part of
the curve. On the rest of the curve, tax cuts result in less
revenue and that's where Trump's plan is.
The truth:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/09/29/Even-Conservatives-Admit-Trumps-Tax-Plan-Would-Add-Trillions-Deficit
The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, a D.C. think tank dedicated to tax policy issues...
"Our analysis finds that the plan would reduce federal revenues by $11.98 trillion over the next decade," wrote the Tax Foundation's Alan Cole. "However, it also would improve incentives to work and invest, which could increase gross domestic product (GDP) by 11 percent over the long term. This increase in GDP would translate into 6.5 percent higher wages and 5.3 million new full-time equivalent jobs. After accounting for increased incomes due to these factors, the plan would only reduce"
And on another point, Trump runs around claiming that carried interest is
a big deal, that eliminating it will be a big factor in helping make up for
his tax cuts. From the above source:
"Experts say closing the carried interest loophole would save something on the order of $18 billion over ten years - or about 0.2 percent of the figure Trump's proposal would add to the deficit."
More about it here:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
How about the conservative Cato Institute?
http://www.cato.org/blog/trump-tax-plan-would-increase-tax-eaters?gclid=CKr1rPPUl8oCFc6RHwod220G1w
Presidential candidate Donald Trump says that he would take another 31 million off the tax rolls, in addition to what he says are 42 million current nonpayers. As you can see, the Trump and TPC data do not match regarding the current number of nonpayers.
So a missing detail from the Trump proposal is his plan for the EITC. By zeroing out income tax for 31 million additional tax filers, he would automatically be boosting spending through the EITC. The refundable, or spending, part of the EITC is already $60 billion a year. Would Trump push that spending even higher?
http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/22/pf/taxes/donald-trump-tax-plan/
Tax cuts for all, but a boon for the rich
The Tax Policy Center analysis estimates that Trump's tax plan would cut taxes for everyone.
But the biggest tax benefit by far would go to the very wealthiest households.
And contrary to Trump's assertions that he would crack down on investment fund managers who benefit from a very low tax rate on some of their income today, the Tax Policy Center found those managers could see a windfall under Trump's plan.
Trump's campaign never responded to the Tax Policy Center's questions about his proposals.
A serious deficit buster
The analysis estimates that Trump's tax plan would increase deficits by at least $9.5 trillion over a decade and by another $15 trillion in the second decade.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/is-trumps-tax-plan-revenue-neutral/
Donald Trump claims his tax plan is "revenue neutral," but tax experts say that just isn't so. Not by a long stretch.
Even assuming the tax cuts would promote economic growth, the pro-business Tax Foundation estimates the Trump plan would reduce revenues to the Treasury by more than $10 trillion over 10 years.
We take no position on the merits of Trump's tax plan. But Trump has failed to provide evidence that he can keep his promise to cut taxes at the level he has proposed and raise enough new revenue elsewhere to make his plan revenue neutral.
-- Robert Farley
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/29/big-tax-cuts-and-deep-deficits-seen-in-donald-trumps-plan/
One basic problem for Mr. Trump's plan is that its rate reductions are so large that it's hard to find enough raisers to offset them, Tax Foundation officials suggested. The Trump plan would lower the top rate for individuals to 25% from 39.6%, and the top rate on all business income to 15%. The current top corporate rate is 35%.
The plan also would place a 0% rate on incomes of $50,000 or less for married couples, $25,000 for singles. The 0% rate by itself cuts government revenues by $4.7 trillion, one Tax Foundation analyst said.
Middle-income households would see their taxes cut by an average of $2,700, or 4.9% of after-tax income. Those in the top 0.1%, however, would see their taxes reduced by an average of $1.3 million, or 19% of their after-tax-income.
burfordTjustice
Jan 7, 2016, 8:02:30 AM1/7/16
to
T
Jan 7, 2016, 11:25:46 PM1/7/16
to
trader_4
Jan 8, 2016, 7:03:52 AM1/8/16
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:25:46 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
>
> Makes your head spin.
Typical level of analysis from a Trumpie. And for Trump too. I haven't
seen any analysis, any models, any explanation of on what basis his
tax plan is revenue neutral from Trump either. We have no idea who
created it or what it was based on. He just spews out crap and you
Trumpies buy it, without question.
I suppose you're cool with his new line of attack on Cruz, starting
in with the birther nonsense too. And that's another example of
flip-flopping Trump. He's on video from Sept, being asked about
Cruz being born in Canada and Trump says that he understands all
the lawyers have looked at it, they've all said the same thing,
there is no problem, Cruz is fine. Now because Cruz is steadily
gaining on him, ahead of him in Iowa, Trump resorts to this crap.
And Trump lies and says he's doing it to help Cruz. If Obama or
Hillary did that, why you'd be in an uproar.
>
> Makes your head spin.
Typical level of analysis from a Trumpie. And for Trump too. I haven't
seen any analysis, any models, any explanation of on what basis his
tax plan is revenue neutral from Trump either. We have no idea who
created it or what it was based on. He just spews out crap and you
Trumpies buy it, without question.
I suppose you're cool with his new line of attack on Cruz, starting
in with the birther nonsense too. And that's another example of
flip-flopping Trump. He's on video from Sept, being asked about
Cruz being born in Canada and Trump says that he understands all
the lawyers have looked at it, they've all said the same thing,
there is no problem, Cruz is fine. Now because Cruz is steadily
gaining on him, ahead of him in Iowa, Trump resorts to this crap.
And Trump lies and says he's doing it to help Cruz. If Obama or
Hillary did that, why you'd be in an uproar.
trader_4
Jan 8, 2016, 8:44:52 AM1/8/16
to
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:25:46 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
>
> Makes your head spin.
Here's another fine example of what Trump really thinks of you Trumpies
>
> Makes your head spin.
and how he will use you:
Thousands of people stood in line for hours waiting to get into the Burlington event after the campaign distributed 20,000 free tickets to the Flynn Center for the Performing Art, which has just 1,400 seats.
To whittle down the crowd, rally-goers with tickets in hand who'd waited for hours in the cold were asked as they entered the venue whether or not they supported Trump.
Those who said they didn't were promptly escorted out of the building.
Trump defended the decision, describing it a matter of loyalty.
"We have more than 20,000 people that showed up for 1,400 spots. I'm taking care of my people, not people who don't want to vote for me or are undecided. They are loyal to me and I am loyal to them," he said in a statement released by his campaign."
So, he deliberately issues 20,000 tickets for a venue that only holds
1400, and with thousands standing in line for hours in the cold, he then
demands they take a loyalty oath. How very classy and American.
What he really wants is a ruckus and the resulting media coverage, at the
expense of his own supporters.
Shade Tree Guy
Jan 8, 2016, 11:57:13 AM1/8/16
to
Robert Green
Jan 8, 2016, 1:18:30 PM1/8/16
to
"trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:5ccf14c4-
<Trump's plan has been analyzed by credible tax policy analysts
that are not using dynamic, not static, models and every one
has said that it will increase the deficit by a huge amount,
~$10 trill over ten years.>
His plans to carpetbomb Muslims and expel all illegal immigrants will add a
few trillion to that.
<Baloney. Below I give you references to a respected conservative
tax organization and the WSJ. This is the typical Trumpie lie,
anyone who disagrees with Trump based on reality, is "partisan"
or the "establishment". Meanwhile, where is Trump's analysis?
What models, what experts did he use in coming up with his plan?
We don't know because he won't say. In all likelihood, it's as
made up as his "I saw thousands and thousands of Arabs celebrating
in JC on 9/11." I have yet to see a single analysis that shows
that Trump's plan doesn't greatly reduce federal revenues. If
you have it, if Trump has it, where is it?>
Looking at the response you got from T and Bufo (some nonsense about Debbie
and spinning heads) they're not interested in economic facts nor do I think
could they understand the intricacies of economics. When noted economist
Stormie (sarcasm) tries to explain Laffer, etc. I know I am going to be for
lots of entertainment but very little actual information. But that's
exactly who Trump appeals to. I'd love to see how some of these AHR
economic "experts" would do on an ECON 101 midterm.
> To quote Ibn Khaldūn (1332-1406) that when taxes go up:
see them "losing all hope." Besides, the person I would least likely take
economic advice from (after Stormie, of course) would be a Muslim circa
12th century. That's REALLY grasping at straws.
<No one is disagreeing that the effect exists. But the problem
is that you have no actual attempt at analysis, no models, nothing
to base the actual plan on. This is like saying because putting a
pound of nitrogen on your lawn will make it green, putting a hundred
pounds on will work even better and is a good idea. Why not cut taxes
to zero and then we'll have infinite revenue.>
I am sure that our resident economic "experts" are all for that idea. They
are the same folks who acted surprised and upset when the forced Federal
shutdowns closed parks and other Federal services that they liked. To me,
that shows that they might not even understand the simple principle that
when you turn off the lights, it gets dark.
<None of them ever instituted the huge cuts that Trump is
proposing. Their plans had analysis behind them that showed
they would work.>
Exactly. It's wonderful when people compare apples with bowling balls and
think it's valid. But in the end, Trump won't ever be able to do 1/10 of
what he is proposing because there's that pesky Congress that has to
actually change the tax laws. They might not be so easily duped as the
people who love Trump's tax fairy-tale (I can't bring myself to call it a
plan - it's just electioneering talk to bamboozle the type of
low-intelligence voters that believe it's a cure for America).
<Figures that's the depth of your "analysis". In other words,
there is no analysis. You just believe that you can cut taxes,
at any time, by any amount, and it boosts the economy enough
so that you wind up with the same or more revenue. It's obviously
silly and a total misrepresentation of the Laffer curve, which
clearly says that it only works if you are on the right part of
the curve. On the rest of the curve, tax cuts result in less
revenue and that's where Trump's plan is.>
Laffer has lost a lot of credibility in recent years:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/laughing-at-the-laffer-curve.html
<<Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The
research has shown this a thousand times. Enough already.>>
Laffer wasn't much concerned with the money liberated from taxation and
where it goes. IMHO, much of the Bush tax cuts for the very rich helped
fuel the derivative and bundled mortgage craze that helped crash the economy
in 2008.
<The truth:>
Don't waste your time with cogent analysis and actual facts, Trader. Your
debate partners aren't up to it especially when their argument consists of
quotes from centuries-dead Muslim scholars.
<Tax cuts for all, but a boon for the rich>
And a starvation of the Federal government at a time when China's building
military outposts in the South China Sea and laying the keel for their first
truly "home built" aircraft carrier. Very few tax-cutters seem to realize
this is VERY dangerous.
<Trump's campaign never responded to the Tax Policy Center's questions about
his proposals. >
Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that it's just nonsense he's feeding to the
undereducated and uninformed just to get elected? That's my opinion. Read
my lips! (-: Politicians always make promises they find they can't keep once
elected.
--
Bobby G.
<Trump's plan has been analyzed by credible tax policy analysts
that are not using dynamic, not static, models and every one
has said that it will increase the deficit by a huge amount,
His plans to carpetbomb Muslims and expel all illegal immigrants will add a
few trillion to that.
<Baloney. Below I give you references to a respected conservative
tax organization and the WSJ. This is the typical Trumpie lie,
anyone who disagrees with Trump based on reality, is "partisan"
or the "establishment". Meanwhile, where is Trump's analysis?
What models, what experts did he use in coming up with his plan?
We don't know because he won't say. In all likelihood, it's as
made up as his "I saw thousands and thousands of Arabs celebrating
in JC on 9/11." I have yet to see a single analysis that shows
that Trump's plan doesn't greatly reduce federal revenues. If
you have it, if Trump has it, where is it?>
and spinning heads) they're not interested in economic facts nor do I think
could they understand the intricacies of economics. When noted economist
Stormie (sarcasm) tries to explain Laffer, etc. I know I am going to be for
lots of entertainment but very little actual information. But that's
exactly who Trump appeals to. I'd love to see how some of these AHR
economic "experts" would do on an ECON 101 midterm.
> To quote Ibn Khaldūn (1332-1406) that when taxes go up:
>
> The result is that the interest of the subjects
> in cultural enterprises disappears, since when
> they compare expenditures and taxes with their
> income and gain and see the little profit they make,
> they lose all hope.
Some Scandavian countries have much higher taxes than the US and you don't
> The result is that the interest of the subjects
> in cultural enterprises disappears, since when
> they compare expenditures and taxes with their
> income and gain and see the little profit they make,
> they lose all hope.
see them "losing all hope." Besides, the person I would least likely take
economic advice from (after Stormie, of course) would be a Muslim circa
12th century. That's REALLY grasping at straws.
<No one is disagreeing that the effect exists. But the problem
is that you have no actual attempt at analysis, no models, nothing
to base the actual plan on. This is like saying because putting a
pound of nitrogen on your lawn will make it green, putting a hundred
pounds on will work even better and is a good idea. Why not cut taxes
to zero and then we'll have infinite revenue.>
are the same folks who acted surprised and upset when the forced Federal
shutdowns closed parks and other Federal services that they liked. To me,
that shows that they might not even understand the simple principle that
when you turn off the lights, it gets dark.
<None of them ever instituted the huge cuts that Trump is
proposing. Their plans had analysis behind them that showed
they would work.>
think it's valid. But in the end, Trump won't ever be able to do 1/10 of
what he is proposing because there's that pesky Congress that has to
actually change the tax laws. They might not be so easily duped as the
people who love Trump's tax fairy-tale (I can't bring myself to call it a
plan - it's just electioneering talk to bamboozle the type of
low-intelligence voters that believe it's a cure for America).
<Figures that's the depth of your "analysis". In other words,
there is no analysis. You just believe that you can cut taxes,
at any time, by any amount, and it boosts the economy enough
so that you wind up with the same or more revenue. It's obviously
silly and a total misrepresentation of the Laffer curve, which
clearly says that it only works if you are on the right part of
the curve. On the rest of the curve, tax cuts result in less
revenue and that's where Trump's plan is.>
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/06/laughing-at-the-laffer-curve.html
<<Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The
research has shown this a thousand times. Enough already.>>
Laffer wasn't much concerned with the money liberated from taxation and
where it goes. IMHO, much of the Bush tax cuts for the very rich helped
fuel the derivative and bundled mortgage craze that helped crash the economy
in 2008.
<The truth:>
Don't waste your time with cogent analysis and actual facts, Trader. Your
debate partners aren't up to it especially when their argument consists of
quotes from centuries-dead Muslim scholars.
<Tax cuts for all, but a boon for the rich>
military outposts in the South China Sea and laying the keel for their first
truly "home built" aircraft carrier. Very few tax-cutters seem to realize
this is VERY dangerous.
<Trump's campaign never responded to the Tax Policy Center's questions about
his proposals. >
undereducated and uninformed just to get elected? That's my opinion. Read
my lips! (-: Politicians always make promises they find they can't keep once
elected.
--
Bobby G.
T
Jan 9, 2016, 4:01:27 AM1/9/16
to
On 01/08/2016 10:12 AM, Robert Green wrote:
> Some Scandavian countries have much higher taxes than the US and you don't
> see them "losing all hope."
European socialist toilets. There is not a lot of hope
> Some Scandavian countries have much higher taxes than the US and you don't
> see them "losing all hope."
going around in them. Fun to visit. I would not want to
live in one.
> Besides, the person I would least likely take
> economic advice from (after Stormie, of course)
They only want to maintain power and control over
others.
> would be a Muslim circa
> 12th century. That's REALLY grasping at straws.
It is very foolish to ignore his words
trader_4
Jan 9, 2016, 6:55:25 AM1/9/16
to
foolish is to use his words as the sole justification for Trump's
huge tax cuts. Did Ibn Khaldûn say that you can cut any tax, any
time and the results will be revenue neutral or an increase in
revenue? That's the essence of the problem. And once again,
you have no analysis to point to that was done by Trump's
people to support what it does to revenue. Trump just saying
it, doesn't make it so. Every tax organization that I've
seen analyze it, including conservative ones, say that it
increase the deficit to the tune of ~$10 tril over ten years.
That's because you can't cut taxes so deeply, by about a third,
on the vast majority of people paying the bulk of taxes and
not have it decrease revenue. It would be a nice bonanza,
especially for the rich, including Trump.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
Uncle Monster
Jan 9, 2016, 7:21:04 AM1/9/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Vote Monster
trader_4
Jan 9, 2016, 7:29:15 AM1/9/16
to
his offensive remarks, his personal attacks, his history, I don't want him anywhere near the WH or the Republican Party. It would be a s** show
I don't want to see and to be blamed on the GOP.
Uncle Monster
Jan 9, 2016, 8:09:55 AM1/9/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Certain Monster
>>>Ashton Crusher
Jan 9, 2016, 8:14:27 PM1/9/16
to
periods leading up to his birth you don't know if he's eligible or
not.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
>>>Ashton Crusher
Jan 9, 2016, 8:15:55 PM1/9/16
to
Another fine example of cognitive dissonance by you. Contrary to your
implication, it is a fine example of what Trump thinks of his
trujmpies. He values them. He had limited seating so he gave it to
his SUPPORTERS. Only a fool would think that somehow shows disdain
toward the supporters.
implication, it is a fine example of what Trump thinks of his
trujmpies. He values them. He had limited seating so he gave it to
his SUPPORTERS. Only a fool would think that somehow shows disdain
toward the supporters.
Oren
Jan 9, 2016, 9:17:32 PM1/9/16
to
..Attendees were given a 'loyalty oath' test before entering the event
Can't make it up folks
<http://video.foxnews.com/v/4693446739001/trump-demands-guards-confiscate-coat-from-vermont-heckler/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips>
<https://tinyurl.com/j3bd5qo>
T
Jan 10, 2016, 2:36:14 AM1/10/16
to
trader_4
Jan 10, 2016, 8:57:23 AM1/10/16
to
only holds 1400, then after there are long lines standing in the cold
for hours, require a loyalty oath to enter? Both parts of that
are disrespectful. And it's not like Trump drawing large crowds
is a new or unusual thing. He constantly brags about the crowds
he draws. He sure did use and diss those people. That's what
Trump is all about. He will use, abuse, say or do anything. Yet
some people think he's way better than a typical politician. Go
figure.
Shade Tree Guy
Jan 10, 2016, 11:21:02 AM1/10/16
to
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 5:57:23 AM UTC-8, trader_4 wrote:
> So, if you were hosting a party, you'd invite 20,000 to a venue that
> only holds 1400, then after there are long lines standing in the cold
> for hours, require a loyalty oath to enter? Both parts of that
> are disrespectful. And it's not like Trump drawing large crowds
> is a new or unusual thing. He constantly brags about the crowds
> he draws. He sure did use and diss those people. That's what
> Trump is all about. He will use, abuse, say or do anything. Yet
> some people think he's way better than a typical politician. Go
> figure.
The "future" of America in Trump's wettest of dreams:
> So, if you were hosting a party, you'd invite 20,000 to a venue that
> only holds 1400, then after there are long lines standing in the cold
> for hours, require a loyalty oath to enter? Both parts of that
> are disrespectful. And it's not like Trump drawing large crowds
> is a new or unusual thing. He constantly brags about the crowds
> he draws. He sure did use and diss those people. That's what
> Trump is all about. He will use, abuse, say or do anything. Yet
> some people think he's way better than a typical politician. Go
> figure.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b9/68/39/b96839bb75c53537f26f04d64d9ae9c6.jpg
Oren
Jan 10, 2016, 12:59:45 PM1/10/16
to
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:36:11 -0800, T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> I suppose you're cool with his new line of attack on Cruz, starting
>>> in with the birther nonsense too. And that's another example of
>>> flip-flopping Trump. He's on video from Sept, being asked about
>>> Cruz being born in Canada and Trump says that he understands all
>>> the lawyers have looked at it, they've all said the same thing,
>>> there is no problem, Cruz is fine. Now because Cruz is steadily
>>> gaining on him, ahead of him in Iowa, Trump resorts to this crap.
>>> And Trump lies and says he's doing it to help Cruz. If Obama or
>>> Hillary did that, why you'd be in an uproar.
>>
>> Unless you know the whereabouts of Cruz's mother for certain time
>> periods leading up to his birth you don't know if he's eligible or
>> not.
>>
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
>>
>
>He could always lie his ass off and say he was born in Hawaii
Trump is wrong about Cruz not being eligible to run. He is trying to
>>> I suppose you're cool with his new line of attack on Cruz, starting
>>> in with the birther nonsense too. And that's another example of
>>> flip-flopping Trump. He's on video from Sept, being asked about
>>> Cruz being born in Canada and Trump says that he understands all
>>> the lawyers have looked at it, they've all said the same thing,
>>> there is no problem, Cruz is fine. Now because Cruz is steadily
>>> gaining on him, ahead of him in Iowa, Trump resorts to this crap.
>>> And Trump lies and says he's doing it to help Cruz. If Obama or
>>> Hillary did that, why you'd be in an uproar.
>>
>> Unless you know the whereabouts of Cruz's mother for certain time
>> periods leading up to his birth you don't know if he's eligible or
>> not.
>>
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
>>
>
>He could always lie his ass off and say he was born in Hawaii
cast doubt to ignorant voters. It's the game he plays. Trumpies took
the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Cruz is eligible. Period.
Ed Pawlowski
Jan 10, 2016, 1:10:31 PM1/10/16
to
On 1/10/2016 12:59 PM, Oren wrote:
>
> Trump is wrong about Cruz not being eligible to run. He is trying to
> cast doubt to ignorant voters. It's the game he plays. Trumpies took
> the bait, hook, line and sinker.
>
> Cruz is eligible. Period.
>
You have to be "natural born" so if his mother had a C-section he can't
>
> Trump is wrong about Cruz not being eligible to run. He is trying to
> cast doubt to ignorant voters. It's the game he plays. Trumpies took
> the bait, hook, line and sinker.
>
> Cruz is eligible. Period.
>
be President.
Oren
Jan 10, 2016, 1:23:18 PM1/10/16
to
with it...
Shade Tree Guy
Jan 10, 2016, 1:37:06 PM1/10/16
to
On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 10:10:31 AM UTC-8, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> You have to be "natural born" so if his mother had a C-section he can't
> be President.
(snickering)
> You have to be "natural born" so if his mother had a C-section he can't
> be President.
Uncle Monster
Jan 10, 2016, 5:18:30 PM1/10/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Truthful Monster
Uncle Monster
Jan 10, 2016, 5:24:24 PM1/10/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Respectful Monster
Uncle Monster
Jan 10, 2016, 5:29:32 PM1/10/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Noisy Monster
Uncle Monster
Jan 10, 2016, 5:31:59 PM1/10/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Cloned Monster
Oren
Jan 10, 2016, 6:29:19 PM1/10/16
to
have had two fathers and he could be an ass-hole baby.
T
Jan 11, 2016, 2:12:50 AM1/11/16
to
Micky
Jan 11, 2016, 2:20:33 AM1/11/16
to
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 04:29:04 -0800 (PST), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 7:21:04 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:55:25 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
>> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 4:01:27 AM UTC-5, T wrote:
>> > > On 01/08/2016 10:12 AM, Robert Green wrote:
>> > > > Some Scandavian countries have much higher taxes than the US and you don't
>> > > > see them "losing all hope."
>> > >
>> > > European socialist toilets. There is not a lot of hope
>> > > going around in them. Fun to visit. I would not want to
>> > > live in one.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Besides, the person I would least likely take
>> > > > economic advice from (after Stormie, of course)
>> > >
>> > > Better than the advice you get from the establishment.
>> > > They only want to maintain power and control over
>> > > others.
>> > >
>> > > > would be a Muslim circa
>> > > > 12th century. That's REALLY grasping at straws.
>> > >
>> > > That Muslim from the 12th century makes total sense.
>> > > It is very foolish to ignore his words
>> >
>> > No one here is ignoring your renaissance man's words. What is
>> > foolish is to use his words as the sole justification for Trump's
>> > huge tax cuts. Did Ibn Khaldūn say that you can cut any tax, any
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 7:21:04 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:55:25 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
>> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 4:01:27 AM UTC-5, T wrote:
>> > > On 01/08/2016 10:12 AM, Robert Green wrote:
>> > > > Some Scandavian countries have much higher taxes than the US and you don't
>> > > > see them "losing all hope."
>> > >
>> > > European socialist toilets. There is not a lot of hope
>> > > going around in them. Fun to visit. I would not want to
>> > > live in one.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Besides, the person I would least likely take
>> > > > economic advice from (after Stormie, of course)
>> > >
>> > > Better than the advice you get from the establishment.
>> > > They only want to maintain power and control over
>> > > others.
>> > >
>> > > > would be a Muslim circa
>> > > > 12th century. That's REALLY grasping at straws.
>> > >
>> > > That Muslim from the 12th century makes total sense.
>> > > It is very foolish to ignore his words
>> >
>> > No one here is ignoring your renaissance man's words. What is
>> > foolish is to use his words as the sole justification for Trump's
>> > time and the results will be revenue neutral or an increase in
>> > revenue? That's the essence of the problem. And once again,
>> > you have no analysis to point to that was done by Trump's
>> > people to support what it does to revenue. Trump just saying
>> > it, doesn't make it so. Every tax organization that I've
>> > seen analyze it, including conservative ones, say that it
>> > increase the deficit to the tune of ~$10 tril over ten years.
>> > That's because you can't cut taxes so deeply, by about a third,
>> > on the vast majority of people paying the bulk of taxes and
>> > not have it decrease revenue. It would be a nice bonanza,
>> > especially for the rich, including Trump.
>> >
>> > http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
>>
>> Can we agree to keep another Democrat/Commiecrat out of The White House? ?.?
>> > revenue? That's the essence of the problem. And once again,
>> > you have no analysis to point to that was done by Trump's
>> > people to support what it does to revenue. Trump just saying
>> > it, doesn't make it so. Every tax organization that I've
>> > seen analyze it, including conservative ones, say that it
>> > increase the deficit to the tune of ~$10 tril over ten years.
>> > That's because you can't cut taxes so deeply, by about a third,
>> > on the vast majority of people paying the bulk of taxes and
>> > not have it decrease revenue. It would be a nice bonanza,
>> > especially for the rich, including Trump.
>> >
>> > http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
>>
>>
>> [8~{} Uncle Vote Monster
>
>As long as the candidate running isn't Trump. From what Trump has said,
>his offensive remarks, his personal attacks, his history, I don't want him anywhere near the WH or the Republican Party. It would be a s** show
Don't forget his constant lying. Mostly his lying about facts, but
>> [8~{} Uncle Vote Monster
>
>As long as the candidate running isn't Trump. From what Trump has said,
>his offensive remarks, his personal attacks, his history, I don't want him anywhere near the WH or the Republican Party. It would be a s** show
he also lies about what he meant when he insulted someone. If he
weren't a constant liar about facts, I might sort of believe him when
he gave his ridiculous "explanations" to try to account for why his
insults weren't insults. But he lies constantly and he's lying then
too.
He probably started as a child talking to his parents, and then got
deep in the habit when he was making business deals. No one he
might deal with, in Congress, business, or the rest of the world will
trust a word he says. Except for Trumpies who might strongly overlap
Ditto-heads.
T
Jan 11, 2016, 2:43:22 AM1/11/16
to
On 01/10/2016 11:20 PM, Micky wrote:
> Don't forget his constant lying. Mostly his lying about facts, but
> he also lies about what he meant when he insulted someone.
That is mostly name calling by his detractors
> Don't forget his constant lying. Mostly his lying about facts, but
> he also lies about what he meant when he insulted someone.
Zak W
Jan 11, 2016, 2:43:24 AM1/11/16
to
T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:n6vkgb$qci$2...@dont-email.me:
> It was the Washington Post. Trump just commented on it.
>
I'm voting for Trump.
> It was the Washington Post. Trump just commented on it.
>
Uncle Monster
Jan 11, 2016, 2:54:55 AM1/11/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Cruise Monster
Uncle Monster
Jan 11, 2016, 3:00:20 AM1/11/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Square Monster
Micky
Jan 11, 2016, 3:18:31 AM1/11/16
to
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:16 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
<uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:43:22 AM UTC-6, T wrote:
>> On 01/10/2016 11:20 PM, Micky wrote:
>> > Don't forget his constant lying. Mostly his lying about facts, but
>> > he also lies about what he meant when he insulted someone.
>>
>> That is mostly name calling by his detractors
No it's not. Are you deaf? He's told more than 40 separate lies
<uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:43:22 AM UTC-6, T wrote:
>> On 01/10/2016 11:20 PM, Micky wrote:
>> > Don't forget his constant lying. Mostly his lying about facts, but
>> > he also lies about what he meant when he insulted someone.
>>
>> That is mostly name calling by his detractors
just since last spring. And days he doesn't come up with a new lie,
he usually repeats an old one.
>
>What politician doesn't lie?
>All I know is that Democrats must be removed from The Executive Branch. I don't care who the Republican candidate is, that will be who I must vote for. Where is Sponge Bob Square Pants when you need him? O_o
seriously. Well, maybe that's true, that you dont' want it, but
you're plainly serious. Whatever I said about that still stands.
>[8~{} Uncle Square Monster
Uncle Monster
Jan 11, 2016, 3:29:16 AM1/11/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster
trader_4
Jan 11, 2016, 7:26:31 AM1/11/16
to
all the lawyers, the experts have looked into it and there is no
problem, that Cruz is fine in that regard. Now, because Cruz is
ahead of Trump in Iowa, Trump changes his position. See how that
works? Any different than what so many career politicians would do?
trader_4
Jan 11, 2016, 7:35:15 AM1/11/16
to
his detractors? Trump said he saw thousands and thousands of Arabs
celebrating in JC on 9/11. That's an example of a lie. He mocked
the disabled NY Times reporter who refuted Trump's claim about the Arabs,
saying "Have you seen that guy.....", then doing exaggerated body
movements. When confronted with what he did, he lies and says that
he doesn't even know what the reporter looks like, that he was
disabled at all. An obvious lie,
because the mocking, on video, starts with him saying "have you seen
that guy". Plus the reporter covered Trump in the past and says
they were on a first name basis.
They aren't from his detractors, they are from Trump, in his own words.
trader_4
Jan 11, 2016, 7:39:24 AM1/11/16
to
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:18:31 AM UTC-5, Micky wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:16 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
> <uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:43:22 AM UTC-6, T wrote:
> >> On 01/10/2016 11:20 PM, Micky wrote:
> >> > Don't forget his constant lying. Mostly his lying about facts, but
> >> > he also lies about what he meant when he insulted someone.
> >>
> >> That is mostly name calling by his detractors
>
> No it's not. Are you deaf? He's told more than 40 separate lies
> just since last spring. And days he doesn't come up with a new lie,
> he usually repeats an old one.
>
> >
> >What politician doesn't lie?
>
> None nearly as much as he does.
>
+1
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:16 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
> <uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 1:43:22 AM UTC-6, T wrote:
> >> On 01/10/2016 11:20 PM, Micky wrote:
> >> > Don't forget his constant lying. Mostly his lying about facts, but
> >> > he also lies about what he meant when he insulted someone.
> >>
> >> That is mostly name calling by his detractors
>
> No it's not. Are you deaf? He's told more than 40 separate lies
> just since last spring. And days he doesn't come up with a new lie,
> he usually repeats an old one.
>
> >
> >What politician doesn't lie?
>
> None nearly as much as he does.
>
And the whole love of Trump by the Trumpies is supposed to be because
having not been in politics, he's not like a politician. The other
hypocrisy is the Trumpies running around calling every other GOP a
Rino. Yet it's Trump who since 2000 has been a Reform Party candidate,
an independent, had no party affiliation, and been a Democrat. He
spent most of the 2000 decade as a registered Democrat, switching to
GOP in 2008, when it was convenient because he was toying with running.
Frank
Jan 11, 2016, 7:54:54 AM1/11/16
to
for Trump any day over what the Dems have to offer.
Scott Lurndal
Jan 11, 2016, 10:28:35 AM1/11/16
to
T <T...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>On 01/08/2016 10:12 AM, Robert Green wrote:
>> Some Scandavian countries have much higher taxes than the US and you don't
>> see them "losing all hope."
>
>European socialist toilets. There is not a lot of hope
>going around in them. Fun to visit. I would not want to
>live in one.
Wow. Just wow.
>On 01/08/2016 10:12 AM, Robert Green wrote:
>> Some Scandavian countries have much higher taxes than the US and you don't
>> see them "losing all hope."
>
>European socialist toilets. There is not a lot of hope
>going around in them. Fun to visit. I would not want to
>live in one.
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 11, 2016, 10:49:28 AM1/11/16
to
Per Zak W:
Cresswell Predicts: Then that vote would be wasted because the Dems will
win against Trump.
I really wish the Repubs would get their act together.
I see myself as conservative to the bone and, frankly, they could have
me if they would just explain a few things about how the crash of 2008
happened after 8 years on their watch and what corrective measures they
plan to take to avoid a recurrence....... and also give me some way to
separate the crazy stuff their candidates say to pander to "The Base"
from what they really believe.
--
Pete Cresswell
>
>I'm voting for Trump.
Only if he gets the nomination.
>I'm voting for Trump.
Cresswell Predicts: Then that vote would be wasted because the Dems will
win against Trump.
I really wish the Repubs would get their act together.
I see myself as conservative to the bone and, frankly, they could have
me if they would just explain a few things about how the crash of 2008
happened after 8 years on their watch and what corrective measures they
plan to take to avoid a recurrence....... and also give me some way to
separate the crazy stuff their candidates say to pander to "The Base"
from what they really believe.
--
Pete Cresswell
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 11, 2016, 10:55:16 AM1/11/16
to
Per Micky:
his assessment of the critical thinking skills of the people he is
addressing. It goes back to my contention that these are not nice
people.... and what matters are results.
Trump is especially egregious in that respect.... but so was Nixon...
and Nixon cut quite a wide swath.
If it turns out he is wrong about that assessment... then I would hold
that against him. But if it turns out he is right AND he actually
makes it all the way to POTUS.... Oh well... Should be an "Interesting"
four years.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell
>No it's not. Are you deaf? He's told more than 40 separate lies
>just since last spring. And days he doesn't come up with a new lie,
>he usually repeats an old one.
Strangely, I wouldn't hold that against him too much. It just reflects
>just since last spring. And days he doesn't come up with a new lie,
>he usually repeats an old one.
his assessment of the critical thinking skills of the people he is
addressing. It goes back to my contention that these are not nice
people.... and what matters are results.
Trump is especially egregious in that respect.... but so was Nixon...
and Nixon cut quite a wide swath.
If it turns out he is wrong about that assessment... then I would hold
that against him. But if it turns out he is right AND he actually
makes it all the way to POTUS.... Oh well... Should be an "Interesting"
four years.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 11, 2016, 11:02:27 AM1/11/16
to
Per T:
I've got relatives in the UK and in Germany.
Only reason I wouldn't want to live in Germany is that it is too foreign
a culture for me to adapt to and proper German is an extremely difficult
language.... otherwise everything is vastly better: houses, educational
system, roads, health care, general cleanliness...
Main reason I couldn't live in the UK is that they drive on the wrong
side of the road.
--
Pete Cresswell
>European socialist toilets. There is not a lot of hope
>going around in them. Fun to visit. I would not want to
>live in one.
Which ones have you visited ?
>going around in them. Fun to visit. I would not want to
>live in one.
I've got relatives in the UK and in Germany.
Only reason I wouldn't want to live in Germany is that it is too foreign
a culture for me to adapt to and proper German is an extremely difficult
language.... otherwise everything is vastly better: houses, educational
system, roads, health care, general cleanliness...
Main reason I couldn't live in the UK is that they drive on the wrong
side of the road.
--
Pete Cresswell
Uncle Monster
Jan 11, 2016, 12:04:59 PM1/11/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Angry Monster
>>>Ashton Crusher
Jan 11, 2016, 2:58:16 PM1/11/16
to
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:36:11 -0800, T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 01/09/2016 05:12 PM, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 04:03:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:25:46 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Makes your head spin.
>>>
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:25:46 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Makes your head spin.
>>>
>>> Typical level of analysis from a Trumpie. And for Trump too. I haven't
>>> seen any analysis, any models, any explanation of on what basis his
>>> tax plan is revenue neutral from Trump either. We have no idea who
>>> created it or what it was based on. He just spews out crap and you
>>> Trumpies buy it, without question.
>>>
>>> seen any analysis, any models, any explanation of on what basis his
>>> tax plan is revenue neutral from Trump either. We have no idea who
>>> created it or what it was based on. He just spews out crap and you
>>> Trumpies buy it, without question.
>>>
>>> I suppose you're cool with his new line of attack on Cruz, starting
>>> in with the birther nonsense too. And that's another example of
>>> flip-flopping Trump. He's on video from Sept, being asked about
>>> Cruz being born in Canada and Trump says that he understands all
>>> the lawyers have looked at it, they've all said the same thing,
>>> there is no problem, Cruz is fine. Now because Cruz is steadily
>>> gaining on him, ahead of him in Iowa, Trump resorts to this crap.
>>> And Trump lies and says he's doing it to help Cruz. If Obama or
>>> Hillary did that, why you'd be in an uproar.
>>
>> Unless you know the whereabouts of Cruz's mother for certain time
>> periods leading up to his birth you don't know if he's eligible or
>> not.
>>
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
>>
>
>He could always lie his ass off and say he was born in Hawaii
Where someone way back then conspired with the local Hawaii newspapers
>>> in with the birther nonsense too. And that's another example of
>>> flip-flopping Trump. He's on video from Sept, being asked about
>>> Cruz being born in Canada and Trump says that he understands all
>>> the lawyers have looked at it, they've all said the same thing,
>>> there is no problem, Cruz is fine. Now because Cruz is steadily
>>> gaining on him, ahead of him in Iowa, Trump resorts to this crap.
>>> And Trump lies and says he's doing it to help Cruz. If Obama or
>>> Hillary did that, why you'd be in an uproar.
>>
>> Unless you know the whereabouts of Cruz's mother for certain time
>> periods leading up to his birth you don't know if he's eligible or
>> not.
>>
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
>>
>
>He could always lie his ass off and say he was born in Hawaii
to print a fake birth announcement.
>>>Ashton Crusher
Jan 11, 2016, 3:04:31 PM1/11/16
to
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 05:57:09 -0800 (PST), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 8:15:55 PM UTC-5, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> Another fine example of cognitive dissonance by you. Contrary to your
>> implication, it is a fine example of what Trump thinks of his
>> trujmpies. He values them. He had limited seating so he gave it to
>> his SUPPORTERS. Only a fool would think that somehow shows disdain
>> toward the supporters.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 05:44:44 -0800 (PST), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 8:15:55 PM UTC-5, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> Another fine example of cognitive dissonance by you. Contrary to your
>> implication, it is a fine example of what Trump thinks of his
>> trujmpies. He values them. He had limited seating so he gave it to
>> his SUPPORTERS. Only a fool would think that somehow shows disdain
>> toward the supporters.
>>
>>
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:25:46 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Makes your head spin.
>> >
>>
>> >On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:25:46 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Makes your head spin.
>> >
>> >Here's another fine example of what Trump really thinks of you Trumpies
>> >and how he will use you:
>> >
>> >Thousands of people stood in line for hours waiting to get into the Burlington event after the campaign distributed 20,000 free tickets to the Flynn Center for the Performing Art, which has just 1,400 seats.
>> >
>> >To whittle down the crowd, rally-goers with tickets in hand who'd waited for hours in the cold were asked as they entered the venue whether or not they supported Trump.
>> >
>> >Those who said they didn't were promptly escorted out of the building.
>> >
>> >
>> >Trump defended the decision, describing it a matter of loyalty.
>> >
>> >"We have more than 20,000 people that showed up for 1,400 spots. I'm taking care of my people, not people who don't want to vote for me or are undecided. They are loyal to me and I am loyal to them," he said in a statement released by his campaign."
>> >
>> >
>> >So, he deliberately issues 20,000 tickets for a venue that only holds
>> >1400, and with thousands standing in line for hours in the cold, he then
>> >demands they take a loyalty oath. How very classy and American.
>> >What he really wants is a ruckus and the resulting media coverage, at the
>> >expense of his own supporters.
>
>> >and how he will use you:
>> >
>> >Thousands of people stood in line for hours waiting to get into the Burlington event after the campaign distributed 20,000 free tickets to the Flynn Center for the Performing Art, which has just 1,400 seats.
>> >
>> >To whittle down the crowd, rally-goers with tickets in hand who'd waited for hours in the cold were asked as they entered the venue whether or not they supported Trump.
>> >
>> >Those who said they didn't were promptly escorted out of the building.
>> >
>> >
>> >Trump defended the decision, describing it a matter of loyalty.
>> >
>> >"We have more than 20,000 people that showed up for 1,400 spots. I'm taking care of my people, not people who don't want to vote for me or are undecided. They are loyal to me and I am loyal to them," he said in a statement released by his campaign."
>> >
>> >
>> >So, he deliberately issues 20,000 tickets for a venue that only holds
>> >1400, and with thousands standing in line for hours in the cold, he then
>> >demands they take a loyalty oath. How very classy and American.
>> >What he really wants is a ruckus and the resulting media coverage, at the
>> >expense of his own supporters.
>
>So, if you were hosting a party, you'd invite 20,000 to a venue that
>only holds 1400, then after there are long lines standing in the cold
>for hours, require a loyalty oath to enter? Both parts of that
>are disrespectful. And it's not like Trump drawing large crowds
>is a new or unusual thing. He constantly brags about the crowds
>he draws. He sure did use and diss those people. That's what
>Trump is all about. He will use, abuse, say or do anything. Yet
>some people think he's way better than a typical politician. Go
>figure.
I guess you support the US simply letting in whoever arrives at our
>only holds 1400, then after there are long lines standing in the cold
>for hours, require a loyalty oath to enter? Both parts of that
>are disrespectful. And it's not like Trump drawing large crowds
>is a new or unusual thing. He constantly brags about the crowds
>he draws. He sure did use and diss those people. That's what
>Trump is all about. He will use, abuse, say or do anything. Yet
>some people think he's way better than a typical politician. Go
>figure.
borders, first come first serve, doesn't matter whether they love the
US or hate us.
trader_4
Jan 11, 2016, 8:58:07 PM1/11/16
to
On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 3:04:31 PM UTC-5, >>>Ashton Crusher wrote:
> >
> >So, if you were hosting a party, you'd invite 20,000 to a venue that
> >only holds 1400, then after there are long lines standing in the cold
> >for hours, require a loyalty oath to enter? Both parts of that
> >are disrespectful. And it's not like Trump drawing large crowds
> >is a new or unusual thing. He constantly brags about the crowds
> >he draws. He sure did use and diss those people. That's what
> >Trump is all about. He will use, abuse, say or do anything. Yet
> >some people think he's way better than a typical politician. Go
> >figure.
>
> I guess you support the US simply letting in whoever arrives at our
> borders, first come first serve, doesn't matter whether they love the
> US or hate us.
Only a Trumpie could make that spurious logical connection from
> >
> >So, if you were hosting a party, you'd invite 20,000 to a venue that
> >only holds 1400, then after there are long lines standing in the cold
> >for hours, require a loyalty oath to enter? Both parts of that
> >are disrespectful. And it's not like Trump drawing large crowds
> >is a new or unusual thing. He constantly brags about the crowds
> >he draws. He sure did use and diss those people. That's what
> >Trump is all about. He will use, abuse, say or do anything. Yet
> >some people think he's way better than a typical politician. Go
> >figure.
>
> I guess you support the US simply letting in whoever arrives at our
> borders, first come first serve, doesn't matter whether they love the
> US or hate us.
what I posted.
rbowman
Jan 11, 2016, 9:25:40 PM1/11/16
to
On 01/11/2016 09:02 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Only reason I wouldn't want to live in Germany is that it is too foreign
> a culture for me to adapt to and proper German is an extremely difficult
> language.... otherwise everything is vastly better: houses, educational
> system, roads, health care, general cleanliness...
Now if they can just get rid of Mutti. She was doing pretty good until
> Only reason I wouldn't want to live in Germany is that it is too foreign
> a culture for me to adapt to and proper German is an extremely difficult
> language.... otherwise everything is vastly better: houses, educational
> system, roads, health care, general cleanliness...
she invited the rapugees in.
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 11, 2016, 9:38:38 PM1/11/16
to
Per trader_4:
Anybody know the term-of-art for that ?
I was trying to find it yesterday, but struck out.
--
Pete Cresswell
>> I guess you support the US simply letting in whoever arrives at our
>> borders, first come first serve, doesn't matter whether they love the
>> US or hate us.
>
>....that spurious logical connection ....
>> borders, first come first serve, doesn't matter whether they love the
>> US or hate us.
>
Anybody know the term-of-art for that ?
I was trying to find it yesterday, but struck out.
--
Pete Cresswell
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 11, 2016, 9:44:09 PM1/11/16
to
Per rbowman:
Lots of luck to somebody who wants to get rid of her.... that is one
crafty lady.
The German electorate chooses a frumpy woman with a Phd in quantum
chemistry to lead their county.
We get offered Sarah Palin..... guess which country seems to be on the
way down ? Only ray of hope is that Sarah didn't make it.
(I have no clue what "quantum chemistry" is.... but am guessing the
nobody with a Phd in it is anything but really, REALLY smart.....)
--
Pete Cresswell
>Now if they can just get rid of Mutti. She was doing pretty good until
>she invited the rapugees in.
I've read three magazine-length biographies on Merkel so far.
>she invited the rapugees in.
Lots of luck to somebody who wants to get rid of her.... that is one
crafty lady.
The German electorate chooses a frumpy woman with a Phd in quantum
chemistry to lead their county.
We get offered Sarah Palin..... guess which country seems to be on the
way down ? Only ray of hope is that Sarah didn't make it.
(I have no clue what "quantum chemistry" is.... but am guessing the
nobody with a Phd in it is anything but really, REALLY smart.....)
--
Pete Cresswell
rbowman
Jan 12, 2016, 1:02:37 AM1/12/16
to
On 01/11/2016 07:44 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Lots of luck to somebody who wants to get rid of her.... that is one
> crafty lady.
Kräftig but she has to hold her government together. The CSU in Bavaria
> Lots of luck to somebody who wants to get rid of her.... that is one
> crafty lady.
is feeling the brunt of the immigration and the SPD is on the fence.
Schröder lost a vote of confidence in 2005 and Merkel got in after the
dust settled with the grand coalition.
European politics is more interesting than the US. If you don't mind
subtitles, 'Borgen' is a Danish political drama series that shows the
cat herding involved. Merkel is rapidly becoming an island in Europe as
the gates slam in the other countries. The mess in Köln isn't helping any.
T
Jan 12, 2016, 1:42:46 AM1/12/16
to
On 01/11/2016 07:49 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Cresswell Predicts: Then that vote would be wasted because the Dems will
> win against Trump.
You will tell us who you fear the most. Right now that
> Cresswell Predicts: Then that vote would be wasted because the Dems will
> win against Trump.
sound like Trump!
And, do you notice that the ones that you think can win
against the dems are almost exactly like dems? And
they never win against dems anyway: why get a luke warm
dem when you can get the real thing. Romney Care was
what Oboma Care was based on: no wonder we lost!
T
Jan 12, 2016, 1:43:34 AM1/12/16
to
T
Jan 12, 2016, 1:45:21 AM1/12/16
to
On 01/11/2016 08:02 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Which ones have you visited ?
In the 70's I was all over the free part of Europe.
> Which ones have you visited ?
I loved Greece.
Wow has Greece ever turned into a European Socialist Toilet.
We are headed that way too.
T
Jan 12, 2016, 1:47:44 AM1/12/16
to
suspicion that he is actually tell us what he thinks!
T
Jan 12, 2016, 1:48:19 AM1/12/16
to
On 01/11/2016 12:00 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> Where is Sponge Bob Square Pants when you need him?
Where is Daffy Duck when you need him!
T
Jan 12, 2016, 1:49:33 AM1/12/16
to
On 01/11/2016 12:18 AM, Micky wrote:
> No it's not. Are you deaf? He's told more than 40 separate lies
> just since last spring. And days he doesn't come up with a new lie,
> he usually repeats an old one.
He could say the sun was shining and his detractors would
> No it's not. Are you deaf? He's told more than 40 separate lies
> just since last spring. And days he doesn't come up with a new lie,
> he usually repeats an old one.
calling him a liar and a racist to boot.
It is not working any more, thank goodness
T
Jan 12, 2016, 1:50:42 AM1/12/16
to
On 01/11/2016 09:04 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> I'll vote for Sponge Bob Square Pants(R) if he's all that's available. ┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘
I prefer Daffy Duck, but would vote for Sponge Bob if
> I'll vote for Sponge Bob Square Pants(R) if he's all that's available. ┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘
he was on the ticket. :'(
trader_4
Jan 12, 2016, 7:14:37 AM1/12/16
to
of the lies, racist and offensive remarks quoted here, in Trumps own
words. No, just deflect it and pretend it's all made up. Yet if the
libs did that, what would you say then?
trader_4
Jan 12, 2016, 7:30:05 AM1/12/16
to
The vast majority of illegals coming here are rapists, drug runners,
people with problems, not like you and you and you.
That he saw thousands and thousands of Arabs celebrating in Jersey
City on 9/11
That John McCain is no war hero.
That he prefers vets who were not POWs.
That Megan Kelly has blood coming out of her wherever.
He attacked the severely disabled NY Times reporter, complete
with exaggerated body movements, mimicking his movements.
He then told us he didn't know the reporter was disabled,
doesn't even know what he looks like, despite having started
his mimicking attack with "Have you seen that guy"? And
the reporter covered Trump for many years and says that they
were on a first name basis.
Note that he refused to correct, or apologize for any of the
above.
He's expressed admiration and praise for Putin, not a word
about his annexing the Crimea, holding half the rest of the
Ukraine, shooting down of MH17, etc.
When he was confronted with what he'd said about Putin,
and told that Putin kills opponents and journalists, Trump
said "Well our country does a lot of killing too".
He just expressed some more admiration for the methods of
Kim Jong-un, what a strong, tough, successful leader he is,
how he dealt with his opponents. (In case you don't know,
he murdered them, fed his uncle to the dogs.)
I'll keep this list and update it as we go along or I remember
more horrific comments Trump has made.
trader_4
Jan 12, 2016, 7:31:23 AM1/12/16
to
Sarah Palin never ran for president and she sure isn't the president
now. Gee, who is?
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 12, 2016, 10:37:25 AM1/12/16
to
Per T:
Or fear the most as a contender from one of the party's perspectives ?
--
Pete Cresswell
>You will tell us who you fear the most.
Fear the most if/when they got elected ?
Or fear the most as a contender from one of the party's perspectives ?
--
Pete Cresswell
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 12, 2016, 10:45:50 AM1/12/16
to
Per trader_4:
But she was offered up as a VP candidate, to become a heartbeat (or
heart failure) away from the presidency.....
I don't think there any fools on the Republican National Committee, and
if they offered up the likes of Sarah Palin, I think that reflects a
realistic assessment of the electorate.
I was halfway ready to vote for McCain, but his acceptance of Palin as
his running mate put that to rest.
--
Pete Cresswell
>. And last time I checked,
>Sarah Palin never ran for president
My bad... left out the "Vice-". Call it a mental typo....
>Sarah Palin never ran for president
But she was offered up as a VP candidate, to become a heartbeat (or
heart failure) away from the presidency.....
I don't think there any fools on the Republican National Committee, and
if they offered up the likes of Sarah Palin, I think that reflects a
realistic assessment of the electorate.
I was halfway ready to vote for McCain, but his acceptance of Palin as
his running mate put that to rest.
--
Pete Cresswell
Shade Tree Guy
Jan 12, 2016, 10:59:28 AM1/12/16
to
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 7:45:50 AM UTC-8, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> I was halfway ready to vote for McCain, but his acceptance of Palin as
> his running mate put that to rest.
> --
> Pete Cresswell
John McCain and Colin Powell WERE the only two GOPers I had any respect for @ all.
> I was halfway ready to vote for McCain, but his acceptance of Palin as
> his running mate put that to rest.
> --
> Pete Cresswell
And then there was one
T
Jan 13, 2016, 3:42:34 PM1/13/16
to
On 01/12/2016 07:37 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per T:
>> You will tell us who you fear the most.
>
> Fear the most if/when they got elected ?
>
> Or fear the most as a contender from one of the party's perspectives ?
>
Think of it this way: how does one best choose a wife?
> Per T:
>> You will tell us who you fear the most.
>
> Fear the most if/when they got elected ?
>
> Or fear the most as a contender from one of the party's perspectives ?
>
Bring a bunch of girls home to meet your mother. The
one your mother hates the most is the one you marry.
:-)
T
Jan 13, 2016, 4:09:18 PM1/13/16
to
would be much more intellectually honest!
You Dems have your own party. Why keep trying to co-opts
ours!
Oren
Jan 13, 2016, 6:54:51 PM1/13/16
to
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:42:30 -0800, T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Think of it this way: how does one best choose a wife?
You mean like Trump? How many has he been through.
>Think of it this way: how does one best choose a wife?
--
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.-- James Madison
Oren
Jan 13, 2016, 7:01:03 PM1/13/16
to
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:09:13 -0800, T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>I wish those two RINOs would just change their party. That
>would be much more intellectually honest!
>
>You Dems have your own party. Why keep trying to co-opts
>ours!
Todd,
>I wish those two RINOs would just change their party. That
>would be much more intellectually honest!
>
>You Dems have your own party. Why keep trying to co-opts
>ours!
I've started thinking (I know that is dangerous) but you sound like a
DINO to get Trump nominated so Hillary can win.
T
Jan 13, 2016, 7:05:58 PM1/13/16
to
On 01/13/2016 03:54 PM, Oren wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:42:30 -0800, T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Think of it this way: how does one best choose a wife?
>
> You mean like Trump? How many has he been through.
>
Hi Oren,
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:42:30 -0800, T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Think of it this way: how does one best choose a wife?
>
> You mean like Trump? How many has he been through.
>
Did you ever see the interview where he was asked if he'd learned
anything about marriage after he married his last wife? He
said that he learned that you "have to stop dating after
you get married". I almost puked I laughed so hard.
Hey, he grew up.
You an always ask him about it when you get sworn in for your
new senate seat!
:-)
-T
And yes, if I had tried that, I'd be laying on the floor
in a pool of my own blood with my wife standing over me
asking with her sweet voice "How do I reload this thing?"
T
Jan 13, 2016, 7:17:53 PM1/13/16
to
On 01/13/2016 04:00 PM, Oren wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:09:13 -0800, T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I wish those two RINOs would just change their party. That
>> would be much more intellectually honest!
>>
>> You Dems have your own party. Why keep trying to co-opts
>> ours!
>
> Todd,
>
> I've started thinking (I know that is dangerous) but you sound like a
> DINO to get Trump nominated so Hillary can win.
>
Hi Oren,
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:09:13 -0800, T <T...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I wish those two RINOs would just change their party. That
>> would be much more intellectually honest!
>>
>> You Dems have your own party. Why keep trying to co-opts
>> ours!
>
> Todd,
>
> I've started thinking (I know that is dangerous) but you sound like a
> DINO to get Trump nominated so Hillary can win.
>
I seriously do not think Hillary will be their candidate! She
is going to jail as soon as she gets enough delegates to
throw a brokered convention.
Don't buy Lefties and RINO's cool aide. They say the only way,
the Republicans can win is to run someone more like the Dems.
Every time we have done that we lose. Think John McCain
(RINO-AZ) anbd Mitt Romney (RINO-MA). Hell Bush W. (RINO-TX)
just barely squeaked by Al Gore who is a lunatic!
And if you don't like Trump, Cruz (R-TX) is a real republican.
-T
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 13, 2016, 7:28:35 PM1/13/16
to
Per T:
ISIS-held areas ?
""We will carpet bomb [ISIS] into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can
glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out..."
i.e. as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing
--
Pete Cresswell
>And if you don't like Trump, Cruz (R-TX) is a real republican.
Do you think Cruz actually meant it when he called for carpet-bombing
ISIS-held areas ?
""We will carpet bomb [ISIS] into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can
glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out..."
i.e. as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing
--
Pete Cresswell
T
Jan 13, 2016, 7:38:05 PM1/13/16
to
On 01/13/2016 04:28 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per T:
>> And if you don't like Trump, Cruz (R-TX) is a real republican.
>
> Do you think Cruz actually meant it when he called for carpet-bombing
> ISIS-held areas ?
I am a Vietnam era vet. I know what carpet bombing is.
> Per T:
>> And if you don't like Trump, Cruz (R-TX) is a real republican.
>
> Do you think Cruz actually meant it when he called for carpet-bombing
> ISIS-held areas ?
And yes I hope Cruz (R-TX) meant it.
And I don't think he or Trump (R-NY), who said he would bomb
the hell out of them, were saying exactly how they would do
it. I believe both were saying they would take ISIS very
seriously.
Right now, under Dear Leader, more that 70% of our bombers
come back without dropping ordnance as they can't get
permission from the pansy in chief. What an embarrassment!
Oren
Jan 13, 2016, 8:03:12 PM1/13/16
to
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:28:29 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:
>Do you think Cruz actually meant it when he called for carpet-bombing
>ISIS-held areas ?
Not really. Maybe he meant sending in nuclear Cruz Missiles in,
disturb the dirt. Send in two Army Ranger battalions and a Marine
expeditionary force to make fresh parking lots.
And teach the dirty hats how to grow lawn turf and sell on the free
market. Where is the bad in that? Obama wants to kiss their ass
without them washing their ass.
wrote:
>Do you think Cruz actually meant it when he called for carpet-bombing
>ISIS-held areas ?
disturb the dirt. Send in two Army Ranger battalions and a Marine
expeditionary force to make fresh parking lots.
And teach the dirty hats how to grow lawn turf and sell on the free
market. Where is the bad in that? Obama wants to kiss their ass
without them washing their ass.
Micky
Jan 14, 2016, 3:04:09 AM1/14/16
to
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:55:10 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:
>Per Micky:
>his assessment of the critical thinking skills of the people he is
>addressing.
So what? That he thinks people are stupid and will believe his lies
is no excuse for lying.
He's a scum sucking piece of crap.
>It goes back to my contention that these are not nice
>people.... and what matters are results.
>
>Trump is especially egregious in that respect.... but so was Nixon...
Comparing him to Nixon does him no good.
>and Nixon cut quite a wide swath.
>
>If it turns out he is wrong about that assessment... then I would hold
>that against him.
So if he can lie his way into office, you don't hold his lying againt
him. I'm disappointed in you.
> But if it turns out he is right AND he actually
>makes it all the way to POTUS.... Oh well... Should be an "Interesting"
>four years.... -)
wrote:
>Per Micky:
>>No it's not. Are you deaf? He's told more than 40 separate lies
>>just since last spring. And days he doesn't come up with a new lie,
>>he usually repeats an old one.
>
>Strangely, I wouldn't hold that against him too much. It just reflects
>>just since last spring. And days he doesn't come up with a new lie,
>>he usually repeats an old one.
>
>his assessment of the critical thinking skills of the people he is
>addressing.
So what? That he thinks people are stupid and will believe his lies
is no excuse for lying.
He's a scum sucking piece of crap.
>It goes back to my contention that these are not nice
>people.... and what matters are results.
>
>Trump is especially egregious in that respect.... but so was Nixon...
Comparing him to Nixon does him no good.
>and Nixon cut quite a wide swath.
>
>If it turns out he is wrong about that assessment... then I would hold
>that against him.
So if he can lie his way into office, you don't hold his lying againt
him. I'm disappointed in you.
> But if it turns out he is right AND he actually
>makes it all the way to POTUS.... Oh well... Should be an "Interesting"
>four years.... -)
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 14, 2016, 9:20:39 AM1/14/16
to
Per Micky:
The notion of Trump becoming POTUS is too scary to even contemplate.
The other day I *think* I heard a pundit say that if Trump takes Iowa,
said pundit is emigrating to New Zealand..... Hopefully I misunderstood
him... -)
But a politician lying ? That's what they *do*.... and I suspect
that the really skillful ones don't even think they are lying. Remember
the infamous "I never had sex with that woman...." ? I am pretty sure
he believed it as he said it.
--
Pete Cresswell
>
>So if he can lie his way into office, you don't hold his lying againt
>him. I'm disappointed in you.
I would hold the simple fact of being Donald Trump against him.
>So if he can lie his way into office, you don't hold his lying againt
>him. I'm disappointed in you.
The notion of Trump becoming POTUS is too scary to even contemplate.
The other day I *think* I heard a pundit say that if Trump takes Iowa,
said pundit is emigrating to New Zealand..... Hopefully I misunderstood
him... -)
But a politician lying ? That's what they *do*.... and I suspect
that the really skillful ones don't even think they are lying. Remember
the infamous "I never had sex with that woman...." ? I am pretty sure
he believed it as he said it.
--
Pete Cresswell
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 14, 2016, 9:23:33 AM1/14/16
to
Per T:
without any regard to civilian casualties?
If so, and if one accepts the fact that ISIS embeds itself into the
civilian population, it would seem that Cruz is basically advocating
butchery...... and getting substantial boosts in the polls out of it.
--
Pete Cresswell
>I am a Vietnam era vet. I know what carpet bombing is.
Would you agree that carpet bombing is total destruction of an area
without any regard to civilian casualties?
If so, and if one accepts the fact that ISIS embeds itself into the
civilian population, it would seem that Cruz is basically advocating
butchery...... and getting substantial boosts in the polls out of it.
--
Pete Cresswell
T
Jan 15, 2016, 12:21:55 AM1/15/16
to
How about you adding up the civilian deaths by going after these
bastards versus the deaths their continued existence will and
has caused?
Those that hide in the civilian population are the ones morally
responsible for their safety, not those that go after them.
You are confusing the two.
It totally sucks if you the one who has to give the order, but
that is what a real leader is all about. I would add "what
a real man is all about".
To quote Ralph Peters on Obama:
"I mean this guy is such a total pussy, it’s stunning!"
I would have said it differently than Trump or Cruz. I would
have said:
"I will unleash the full might and fury of the United
States military on the heads of these wicked evil doers
such that they will think that the gates of hell will
have open up them."
I would warn those around them that their safety was in
mortal danger by being around these bastards and to get as
far away from them as possible, then kill every single
one of these bastards regardless of where they hide.
Don't be a pussy too. Think of the many lives to be saved,
not the few you will have to take. Yes, it sucks.
No more pussies. Time for real men to lead this country.
-T
T
Jan 15, 2016, 12:49:48 AM1/15/16
to
On 01/14/2016 06:20 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Micky:
>>
>> So if he can lie his way into office, you don't hold his lying againt
>> him. I'm disappointed in you.
>
> I would hold the simple fact of being Donald Trump against him.
>
> The notion of Trump becoming POTUS is too scary to even contemplate.
Maybe you should think of buying stock in Depends?
> Per Micky:
>>
>> So if he can lie his way into office, you don't hold his lying againt
>> him. I'm disappointed in you.
>
> I would hold the simple fact of being Donald Trump against him.
>
> The notion of Trump becoming POTUS is too scary to even contemplate.
Uncle Monster
Jan 15, 2016, 6:52:39 AM1/15/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Horrified Monster
Uncle Monster
Jan 15, 2016, 7:08:38 AM1/15/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Shielded Monster
T
Jan 15, 2016, 4:19:58 PM1/15/16
to
help them, they will stop. It is a numbers game. Kill
a few non combatants versus them continuing their demonstrated
pattern of butchery.
And it totally sucks to be the one to have to give that order.
Uncle Monster
Jan 16, 2016, 1:00:07 AM1/16/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Targeted Monster
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 16, 2016, 10:21:47 AM1/16/16
to
Per Uncle Monster:
bombing of Dresden.
--
Pete Cresswell
>Would you think that it bothers American bomber pilots when they believe the target has
>innocent civilians who could be killed because they are to close to the action?
>From what I've read it certainly does.
Then maybe attitudes/beliefs have changed since the firebombing/carpet
>innocent civilians who could be killed because they are to close to the action?
>From what I've read it certainly does.
bombing of Dresden.
--
Pete Cresswell
T
Jan 16, 2016, 10:44:24 PM1/16/16
to
Uncle Monster
Jan 17, 2016, 6:41:35 AM1/17/16
to
[8~{} Uncle City Monster
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 17, 2016, 11:32:53 AM1/17/16
to
Per Uncle Monster:
the Soviet army's advances in The East were taking refuge here - only to
be burned alive.
I get the sense that, after the war, at least some Germans tended to
keep quiet on the subject because their consciences told them that, as a
people, they deserved it.
--
Pete Cresswell
>The bombing of Dresden was awful because it wasn't a military target or even had anti aircraft defenses.
Compounded by the fact that thousands upon thousands of refugees from
the Soviet army's advances in The East were taking refuge here - only to
be burned alive.
I get the sense that, after the war, at least some Germans tended to
keep quiet on the subject because their consciences told them that, as a
people, they deserved it.
--
Pete Cresswell
rbowman
Jan 17, 2016, 3:37:20 PM1/17/16
to
On 01/17/2016 04:41 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> The bombing of Dresden was awful because it wasn't a military target or even had anti aircraft defenses. One of the only reasons I can think of that it would be attacked was because it was a German city and the Allies were at war with Germany and from what I've read it was meant to shock Germany like the atomic bomb attacks on Japan.
Dresden is the most famous but many small towns were bombed during the
> The bombing of Dresden was awful because it wasn't a military target or even had anti aircraft defenses. One of the only reasons I can think of that it would be attacked was because it was a German city and the Allies were at war with Germany and from what I've read it was meant to shock Germany like the atomic bomb attacks on Japan.
last days of the war. The Allies had the bombs and the planes and were
working down the checklist of places they hadn't bombed.
rbowman
Jan 17, 2016, 3:48:38 PM1/17/16
to
On 01/17/2016 09:32 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> I get the sense that, after the war, at least some Germans tended to
> keep quiet on the subject because their consciences told them that, as a
> people, they deserved it.
There was some sort of collective guilt that hasn't quite worn off,
> I get the sense that, after the war, at least some Germans tended to
> keep quiet on the subject because their consciences told them that, as a
> people, they deserved it.
unfortunately. Besides, the winners control the story. Ever hear of the
Cap Arcona?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Cap_Arcona_%281927%29
Isn't that a kick in the butt? Survive the prison camps in the east only
to die one day before Germany's unconditional surrender when the RAF
sinks your ship.
"RAF Pilot Allan Wyse of No. 193 Squadron recalled, "We used our cannon
fire at the chaps in the water... we shot them up with 20 mm cannons in
the water. Horrible thing, but we were told to do it and we did it.
That's war."
Don't expect a movie starring Leonard DiCaprio anytime soon.
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 17, 2016, 3:58:50 PM1/17/16
to
Per rbowman:
Now I have.
Part of me wishes I had not...
--
Pete Cresswell
> Ever hear of the
>Cap Arcona?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Cap_Arcona_%281927%29
>
>Isn't that a kick in the butt? Survive the prison camps in the east only
>to die one day before Germany's unconditional surrender when the RAF
>sinks your ship.
Never had heard of it.
>Cap Arcona?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Cap_Arcona_%281927%29
>
>Isn't that a kick in the butt? Survive the prison camps in the east only
>to die one day before Germany's unconditional surrender when the RAF
>sinks your ship.
Now I have.
Part of me wishes I had not...
--
Pete Cresswell
Uncle Monster
Jan 18, 2016, 5:34:33 AM1/18/16
to
[8~{} Uncle Avenging Monster
Uncle Monster
Jan 18, 2016, 5:38:12 AM1/18/16
to
[8~{} Uncle War Monster
Robert Green
Jan 18, 2016, 7:31:48 AM1/18/16
to
"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
<stuff snipped>
> Dresden is the most famous but many small towns were bombed during the
> last days of the war. The Allies had the bombs and the planes and were
> working down the checklist of places they hadn't bombed.
Sadly, that included bombing and shooting down Allies:
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/09/19/fatal-errors-the-worst-friendly-fire-incidents-of-world-war-two/
<<The plan, codenamed Cobra, originally called for British and American
planes to drop their payloads as they flew east to west along the length of
the enemy lines. Instead, the aircraft came in from the north and unloaded
on both the Americans and Germans simultaneously.[2] Low cloud cover
prevented the pilots from spotting the friendly forces on the ground.
Amazingly, the disaster was a repeat of a similar debacle that occurred only
the day before in which 25 Americans were killed. Among the dead on the
second day’s raid was Lt. Gen. Leslie McNair. He would turn out to be the
highest ranking American officer killed in battle in the entire war
(ironically a victim of friendly fire). Out of sheer rage, American troops
knowingly opened fire on their own planes following the incident. >>
But we weren't alone. The Nazis bombed their own troops at the very end:
<<Planned to support the two-week old Ardennes Offensive (aka The Battle of
the Bugle), the German high command scraped together the last remaining
fighters and bombers for one final aerial blitz aimed at reigniting the
stalled push into Belgium. The operation called for 900 aircraft to strike
at British and American airfields in the region. Unfortunately, the plan was
kept so secret that not even Axis units operating in the area were aware
that it was taking place. Assuming the planes suddenly overhead were British
and American, German anti-aircraft batteries along the front opened fire on
the planes. In all, 300 aircraft were destroyed and more than 200 pilots
died. It was the largest loss ever suffered by the Luftwaffe in a single
day.>>
--
Bobby G.
<stuff snipped>
> Dresden is the most famous but many small towns were bombed during the
> last days of the war. The Allies had the bombs and the planes and were
> working down the checklist of places they hadn't bombed.
http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/09/19/fatal-errors-the-worst-friendly-fire-incidents-of-world-war-two/
<<The plan, codenamed Cobra, originally called for British and American
planes to drop their payloads as they flew east to west along the length of
the enemy lines. Instead, the aircraft came in from the north and unloaded
on both the Americans and Germans simultaneously.[2] Low cloud cover
prevented the pilots from spotting the friendly forces on the ground.
Amazingly, the disaster was a repeat of a similar debacle that occurred only
the day before in which 25 Americans were killed. Among the dead on the
second day’s raid was Lt. Gen. Leslie McNair. He would turn out to be the
highest ranking American officer killed in battle in the entire war
(ironically a victim of friendly fire). Out of sheer rage, American troops
knowingly opened fire on their own planes following the incident. >>
But we weren't alone. The Nazis bombed their own troops at the very end:
<<Planned to support the two-week old Ardennes Offensive (aka The Battle of
the Bugle), the German high command scraped together the last remaining
fighters and bombers for one final aerial blitz aimed at reigniting the
stalled push into Belgium. The operation called for 900 aircraft to strike
at British and American airfields in the region. Unfortunately, the plan was
kept so secret that not even Axis units operating in the area were aware
that it was taking place. Assuming the planes suddenly overhead were British
and American, German anti-aircraft batteries along the front opened fire on
the planes. In all, 300 aircraft were destroyed and more than 200 pilots
died. It was the largest loss ever suffered by the Luftwaffe in a single
day.>>
--
Bobby G.
trader_4
Jan 18, 2016, 9:22:10 AM1/18/16
to
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 12:21:55 AM UTC-5, T wrote:
> On 01/14/2016 06:23 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per T:
> >> I am a Vietnam era vet. I know what carpet bombing is.
> >
> > Would you agree that carpet bombing is total destruction of an area
> > without any regard to civilian casualties?
> >
> > If so, and if one accepts the fact that ISIS embeds itself into the
> > civilian population, it would seem that Cruz is basically advocating
> > butchery...... and getting substantial boosts in the polls out of it.
> >
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> How about you adding up the civilian deaths by going after these
> bastards versus the deaths their continued existence will and
> has caused?
>
That doesn't make carpet bombing the only solution or even an
> On 01/14/2016 06:23 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> > Per T:
> >> I am a Vietnam era vet. I know what carpet bombing is.
> >
> > Would you agree that carpet bombing is total destruction of an area
> > without any regard to civilian casualties?
> >
> > If so, and if one accepts the fact that ISIS embeds itself into the
> > civilian population, it would seem that Cruz is basically advocating
> > butchery...... and getting substantial boosts in the polls out of it.
> >
>
> Hi Pete,
>
> How about you adding up the civilian deaths by going after these
> bastards versus the deaths their continued existence will and
> has caused?
>
acceptable solution. The deaths of civilians are now on the hands
of ISIS. Do you really want massive civilian deaths on the hands
of the USA? Pictures of dead women and children from American B52's?
How is that any different than the war crimes Assad is committing
by dropping barrel bombs in civilian areas?
> Those that hide in the civilian population are the ones morally
> responsible for their safety, not those that go after them.
> You are confusing the two.
>
two very different things.
> It totally sucks if you the one who has to give the order, but
> that is what a real leader is all about. I would add "what
> a real man is all about".
>
trader_4
Jan 18, 2016, 9:23:29 AM1/18/16
to
> And it totally sucks to be the one to have to give that order.
Uncle Monster
Jan 19, 2016, 4:19:42 AM1/19/16
to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision-guided_munition
[8~{} Uncle Guided Monster
T
Jan 19, 2016, 7:00:51 AM1/19/16
to
On 01/19/2016 01:19 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> The military has something now that was not available in WWII or Vietnam. It's PGM, Precision Guided Munition which in most cases make carpet bombing unnecessary. It's my understanding that an attacking aircraft can send one through the window of a building. From what I've read, the military is using what's called a small diameter bomb because less explosive is needed for a precision strike. PGM's are supposed to limit collateral damage by design. ^_^
Yes, I was Air Force when they started to get good at PGM's.
> The military has something now that was not available in WWII or Vietnam. It's PGM, Precision Guided Munition which in most cases make carpet bombing unnecessary. It's my understanding that an attacking aircraft can send one through the window of a building. From what I've read, the military is using what's called a small diameter bomb because less explosive is needed for a precision strike. PGM's are supposed to limit collateral damage by design. ^_^
Being able to hit what you bomb turned war on its head.
There is a place for both, especially when the enemy spreads out to
nullify the effect of PGM's.
Also remember, in the words of General Patton, the one who musters
the most violence, wins.
ISIS needs to think hell has opened up upon the heads. All day
and all night, ISIS needs to be shitting in their pants over
the noise of constant, unrelenting explosions. What we
don't hit needs to get no sleep and be scared out of their
minds.
trader_4
Jan 19, 2016, 9:05:20 AM1/19/16
to
in the desert with troops, tanks, artillery, massed where carpet
bombing could work. You had that in Iraq, with the first Gulf
War, so it was possible and it was done. What you have now is
ISIS intermixed in cities with the overwhelming numbers of
people being civilians. ISIS is actually the government of
those cities now. Carpet bombing in that context would be another
Dresden or Tokyo, which is exactly what ISIS would like.
And note that bombing really hasn't been able to solve the Muslim
terrorist problem. They are in many countries and just spring up
again. To some extent, there is truth in many people saying that
the more you get involved, the more the US bombs, the more Muslims
around the world want to join the radicals.
rbowman
Jan 19, 2016, 10:08:26 AM1/19/16
to
On 01/19/2016 02:19 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> The military has something now that was not available in WWII or Vietnam. It's PGM, Precision Guided Munition which in most cases make carpet bombing unnecessary. It's my understanding that an attacking aircraft can send one through the window of a building.
Chinese embassies, Doctors Without Borders hospitals, ...
> The military has something now that was not available in WWII or Vietnam. It's PGM, Precision Guided Munition which in most cases make carpet bombing unnecessary. It's my understanding that an attacking aircraft can send one through the window of a building.
Robert Green
Jan 19, 2016, 11:09:13 AM1/19/16
to
re: PGMs
> Chinese embassies, Doctors Without Borders hospitals, ...
There are always outliers. (-: The unforseen problem of PGMs and drones is
that we've gone from people accepting wartime collateral damage to them
expecting now that there won't ever be any.
Besides, the Chinese were probably trying to jam our guidance systems and
deserved what they got. Some people believe DWB patches up wounded enemy
combatants and deserve what *they* got.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/11/doctors-without-borders-blasts-us-government-hospital-airstrike
<<In a report released Thursday, Doctors Without Borders acknowledged that
the hospital was treating "wounded combatants from both sides of the
conflict in Kunduz.">>
All in all, PGM's have made some of the political aspects of war more
difficult even though they ironically (mostly) greatly reduce collateral
civilian damage. Just like most people expect every medical surgery to go
without a hitch, they expect the same of "surgical strikes." That won't
happen until we radio collar or chip our enemies. (-:
--
Bobby G. (How do you tell VC from non-VC? If he runs he's VC, if he stands
still, he's well-disciplined VC - FMJ)
> Chinese embassies, Doctors Without Borders hospitals, ...
that we've gone from people accepting wartime collateral damage to them
expecting now that there won't ever be any.
Besides, the Chinese were probably trying to jam our guidance systems and
deserved what they got. Some people believe DWB patches up wounded enemy
combatants and deserve what *they* got.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/11/doctors-without-borders-blasts-us-government-hospital-airstrike
<<In a report released Thursday, Doctors Without Borders acknowledged that
the hospital was treating "wounded combatants from both sides of the
conflict in Kunduz.">>
All in all, PGM's have made some of the political aspects of war more
difficult even though they ironically (mostly) greatly reduce collateral
civilian damage. Just like most people expect every medical surgery to go
without a hitch, they expect the same of "surgical strikes." That won't
happen until we radio collar or chip our enemies. (-:
--
Bobby G. (How do you tell VC from non-VC? If he runs he's VC, if he stands
still, he's well-disciplined VC - FMJ)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages