Trump launches re-election campaign, presents himself as outsider and victim

[heybruce]

53 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

"If you like your healthcare insurance, you can keep it." "If you like your doctor, you can keep him."  "The cost of your healthcare insurance will decrease."   Lying to US citizens is not something uniquely Trump...

Those are three statements that were true for some people and false for others.  Unlike "Mexico will pay for the wall". "millions of undocumented voted for Hillary", "largest inauguration crowds in history", etc.  Those are unqualified lies.

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, BestB said:

Do you think it does not require to work just as hard to keep the money?

No, I think it is much easier to keep money than to make money, and it is especially difficult to make money if you start out in poor and/or in debt.  Trump wasn't born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, Trump was born up by millions and thinks that somehow makes him superior.

[bristolboy]

34 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

According to Gary Cohn (Goldman Sachs stooge) who ramroded the tax bill through, Trump wanted to increase taxes on the wealthy and Cohn said he convinced him not to do it as he was a Republican now and that is not something a Republican would do if he hoped to get re-elelected.

I've googled for that in vain. But even if it's true, then it contradicts what you claimed before:

"To be fair that was entirely a Goldman Sachs construct. Trump got played just like everyone else."

Now you're claiming that Trump knew it would be good for the rich.

[bristolboy]

30 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

And how you know it was a Goldman Sachs construct is that he left Goldman Sachs to join Trumps team and when the tax bill was passed he promptly left government to return to the private sector to reap the rewards for delivering the goods.

False. "Following his departure from the White House, Cohn became a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School^[9]

And even if it were true that he returned to the private sector, that would be evidence that it was a goldman sachs construct? All the other players essentially counted for little or nothing? Given the kind of nonsense you're peddling here, you should be writing for a conspiracy website.

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I've googled for that in vain. But even if it's true, then it contradicts what you claimed before:

"To be fair that was entirely a Goldman Sachs construct. Trump got played just like everyone else."

Now you're claiming that Trump knew it would be good for the rich.

No, that's not what I said. I said that it was his intent to tax the rich more but Gary Cohn talked him out of it. Remember he's not really a president, you know with deas and issues. He's manipulated by others much more than he directs others.

 

Huh, I got it in one:

 

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/09/10/Trump-Wanted-Higher-Taxes-Rich-and-Print-Lots-Money-Woodward

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

False. "Following his departure from the White House, Cohn became a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School^[9]

And even if it were true that he returned to the private sector, that would be evidence that it was a goldman sachs construct? All the other players essentially counted for little or nothing? Given the kind of nonsense you're peddling here, you should be writing for a conspiracy website.

 

I like talking to young people because they have no hesitation to state the obvious. They haven't yet developed the ability to rationalize away what is patently obvious.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

No, that's not what I said. I said that it was his intent to tax the rich more but Gary Cohn talked him out of it. Remember he's not really a president, you know with deas and issues. He's manipulated by others much more than he directs others.

 

Huh, I got it in one:

 

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/09/10/Trump-Wanted-Higher-Taxes-Rich-and-Print-Lots-Money-Woodward

Let's say that quote is true. It still doesn't square with your assertion that Trump got scammed. He approved of the tax bill knowing that it would give tax cuts to the wealthy. And apparently he had a huge change of heart since real estate partnerships were disproportionately benefited.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I like talking to young people because they have no hesitation to state the obvious. They haven't yet developed the ability to rationalize away what is patently obvious.

I have little use for demonologists. Whether the demon they assign all the blame for evil acts is Satan or Goldman Sachs. 

I think the reason you like talking to them is that they tend to be less knowledgeable and so are easily persuadable by a dubious concatenations of facts. Even if some of those "facts" like Gary Cohn returning to the private sector to be rewarded turn out to be false.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

I have little use for demonologists. Whether the demon they assign all the blame for evil acts is Satan or Goldman Sachs. 

I think the reason you like talking to them is that they tend to be less knowledgeable and so are easily persuadable by a dubious concatenations of facts. Even if some of those "facts" like Gary Cohn returning to the private sector to be rewarded turn out to be false.

 

Actually I spend more time listening than talking. Try it some time.

[Jane Dough]

Trump is 5/4 favorite on one of the biggest international betting markets. 

 

Four more years looks very, very likely. 

 

In Gawd We Trust

 

Rooster

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Actually I spend more time listening than talking. Try it some time.

 Assertions about one's private life are inherently unreliable in a forum such as this where the posters are anonymous. So all I can reasonably conclude from your statement about yourself is that you used it as a setup for an insult. 

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 Assertions about one's private life are inherently unreliable in a forum such as this where the posters are anonymous. So all I can reasonably conclude from your statement about yourself is that you used it as a setup for an insult. 

 

Consider this. It could be both truthful AND a setup for an insult.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Consider this. It could be both truthful AND a setup for an insult.

And it could be a lie but in either case it is a setup for an insult.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

And it could be a lie but in either case it is a setup for an insult.

Why would I lie? Do you see a record of lying in my posting history? C'mon man.

 

By the way, IMO anonymity is more likely to garner truthful staements than false IMO.  Bob agrees:

 

"When somebody's wearing a mask, he's gonna yell you tell you the truth--when he's not wearing a mask, it's highly unlikely." ~Bob Dylan

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

Why would I lie? Do you see a record of lying in my posting history? C'mon man.

 

By the way, IMO anonymity is more likely to garner truthful staements than false IMO.  Bob agrees:

 

"When somebody's wearing a mask, he's gonna yell you tell you the truth--when he's not wearing a mask, it's highly unlikely." ~Bob Dylan

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

Is that a "One More Cup Of Coffee" reference? Or, you could be lying.

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Is that a "One More Cup Of Coffee" reference? Or, you could be lying.

 With good reason, the mods frown on these kind of conversations.

[candide]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

And how you know it was a Goldman Sachs construct is that he left Goldman Sachs to join Trumps team and when the tax bill was passed he promptly left government to return to the private sector to reap the rewards for delivering the goods.

The GS hypothesis may make sense. However, I am afraid there a more simple hypothesis: that it benefited Trump himself! 

Well, the two hypotheses are not in opposition with each other anyway.

[candide]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

No, that's not what I said. I said that it was his intent to tax the rich more but Gary Cohn talked him out of it. Remember he's not really a president, you know with deas and issues. He's manipulated by others much more than he directs others.

 

Huh, I got it in one:

 

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/09/10/Trump-Wanted-Higher-Taxes-Rich-and-Print-Lots-Money-Woodward

The other topic in your linked article is priceless: 

"Trump had some unusual idea about the national debt: Another anecdote involving Cohn, the former director of the National Economic Council, claims that Trump suggested printing money to pay off the national debt: "Just run the presses — print money," the Woodward book quotes Trump as saying. 

Cohn, who appears to have been an important source for the book, reportedly told Trump that printing huge amounts of money is seen as inflationary, but the president maintained an interest in the idea.

Cohn also said that Trump floated an idea for making money off of rising interest rates: "We should just go borrow a lot of money, hold it, and then sell it to make money," Trump reportedly said."

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Jane Dough said:

Trump is 5/4 favorite on one of the biggest international betting markets. 

 

Four more years looks very, very likely. 

 

In Gawd We Trust

 

Rooster

What did these betting markets say before the 2016 election?

[Krataiboy]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

You're sad.

 

You make a claim, back this up by a link, but the link when read does not back up your claim at all. And as a response you state 'that;s because they don't want to'.

 

Total nonsense this discussion, your claim is simply not backed up by your link.

No, what is truly sad is your pathetic inability, shared by the anti-Trump BBC, to give credit where it is due.

 

The facts about the healthier US economy in the BBC article speak for themselves: GDP at 4.2 percent, unemployment just 3.7 percent and wages at 2.9 percent outstripping inflation.

 

Here's another link which doubtless will have you spitting blood: 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/10/donald-trump-gives-the-economy-a-boost/

 

If you actually read the BBC report (which I am beginning to doubt) you will know that it had to dig back more than half a century - to the post-war boom years of the Fifties and Sixties - to find comparably impressive figures, before grudgingly conceding "The indicators currently are good - but not the best ever."

 

Talk about damning with faint praise! Fortunately, the soaring US stock market shows investors have faith in Trump's handling of the economy. . . 

 

 

 

[riclag]

16 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Trump raises $24.8 million dollars in 24 hours smashing the record. A large amount of it from small donors. Here is a brilliant line from Trump that basically sums up the dems in their totality.

 

"Our political opponents look down with hatred on our values and with utter disdain for the people whose lives they want to run."

 

 

I participated in  that! If you are a proud American, black, white, .brown ,rich or poor and get a sense of awe and pride when you here thousands  shouting  and cheering your country ,USA USA,USA USA! The liberals and socialist won't be chanting that ! That's for sure

[Jane Dough]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

What did these betting markets say before the 2016 election?

Hillary by a mile....so there is hope yet!

 

Rooster

[stevenl]

32 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

No, what is truly sad is your pathetic inability, shared by the anti-Trump BBC, to give credit where it is due.

 

The facts about the healthier US economy in the BBC article speak for themselves: GDP at 4.2 percent, unemployment just 3.7 percent and wages at 2.9 percent outstripping inflation.

 

Here's another link which doubtless will have you spitting blood: 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/10/donald-trump-gives-the-economy-a-boost/

 

If you actually read the BBC report (which I am beginning to doubt) you will know that it had to dig back more than half a century - to the post-war boom years of the Fifties and Sixties - to find comparably impressive figures, before grudgingly conceding "The indicators currently are good - but not the best ever."

 

Talk about damning with faint praise! Fortunately, the soaring US stock market shows investors have faith in Trump's handling of the economy. . . 

 

 

 

And you continue to ignore the by the BBC stated cause for the good numbers: policies already implemented before Trump took office.

 

And no, even if Trump would be the cause of good numbers that would not have me spitting blood. But using a 2 years old article to try that is pathetic.

[mikebike]

37 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

No, what is truly sad is your pathetic inability, shared by the anti-Trump BBC, to give credit where it is due.

 

The facts about the healthier US economy in the BBC article speak for themselves: GDP at 4.2 percent, unemployment just 3.7 percent and wages at 2.9 percent outstripping inflation.

 

Here's another link which doubtless will have you spitting blood: 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/10/donald-trump-gives-the-economy-a-boost/

 

If you actually read the BBC report (which I am beginning to doubt) you will know that it had to dig back more than half a century - to the post-war boom years of the Fifties and Sixties - to find comparably impressive figures, before grudgingly conceding "The indicators currently are good - but not the best ever."

 

Talk about damning with faint praise! Fortunately, the soaring US stock market shows investors have faith in Trump's handling of the economy. . . 

 

 

 

???? You were doing soooo good until you posted the image!!

 

Can you define a "trend line" in statistical analysis for me now please? ????????

[Orton Rd]

Wonderful speech, he will crush pervy Biden or comrade silly Sanders. Trump is a great communicator, expect 4 more years of screaming at the sky by vindictive clueless democrats ????

[Jingthing]

Wonderful speech, he will crush pervy Biden or comrade silly Sanders. Trump is a great communicator, expect 4 more years of screaming at the sky by vindictive clueless democrats [emoji25]

Be careful calling Biden pervy considering the documented sexual history of dear leader.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[jany123]

22 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

You don't think the Russia probe was an assault on him, his family, and his associates?  If you quit listening to MSNBC & CNN for 5 minutes you might hear something besides Russia! Impeach! Trump is deranged! The country is in great peril because of the liar Trump!

 

Typical liberal BS is to attack their opponents rather than engage in meaningful conversation...you sir are the one challenged...can not see past your own vitriol...sad really...????

Lol.... the question was “under assault, why?”... not how. We all know what your answer to “how.” Is... but why?

 

you let your trump delusional syndrome off the leash, there, didn’t you?

 

but oh so beautifully put.... “typical liberal bs is to attack your opponent”... my god but that’s a stunning amount of delusion on display. Your wee rant there is proof positive that you will never ever be able to see past your own vitriol, so perhaps worry less about others, for your healths sake, not mine.

[Puchaiyank]

23 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Lol.... the question was “under assault, why?”... not how. We all know what your answer to “how.” Is... but why?

 

you let your trump delusional syndrome off the leash, there, didn’t you?

 

but oh so beautifully put.... “typical liberal bs is to attack your opponent”... my god but that’s a stunning amount of delusion on display. Your wee rant there is proof positive that you will never ever be able to see past your own vitriol, so perhaps worry less about others, for your healths sake, not mine.

That's it?  That's your comeback? Not even one original thought.  Plagiarism at it's finest...DA.

[jany123]

2 minutes ago, Puchaiyank said:

That's it?  That's your comeback? Not even one original thought.  Plagiarism at it's finest...DA.

What do you mean, is that it?

 

your posted in response to my question “under assault, how?”, (a claim made by you... ie... that he was under assault) and for the second time, you have responded without answering the principle question that I asked

 

By not answering, I can only assume that you are in complete denial about the needs of transparency in government, and that transparency includes the actions of the office of the president..., and that your unable to grasp the not so finer points of why the American government (your government) instigated an investigation into the trump.

 

obviously, you have no obligations to explain your comments, but that doesn’t mean I can’t ask that you explain yourself, or in the event that your unable to explain yourself, challenge your assertions and hilight that you got nothing, other than plagiarizing the trumps tweets.