3 minutes ago, hyku1147 said:

Please provide sources.

My post was a reply and a refutation of a Trump pumping post. I noticed you did not ask for sources from that post. But I'll play the game. Here you go:

 

 

Record Corporate Debt (used for stock buybacks) https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-corporate-debt-10-trillion-record-percentage-economy-expert-warnings-2019-12-1028731031

 

Lack of corporate R&D and Zombie Companies http://theconversation.com/the-surprising-decline-of-entrepreneurship-and-innovation-in-the-west-124552

 

Record Student Loan Debt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-17/u-s-student-loan-debt-sets-record-doubling-since-recession

 

Length of Car Loan https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-05/u-s-average-auto-loan-length-balloons-to-all-time-high

 

US National Debt 23 Trillion https://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-trump-how-it-compares-obama-bush-clinton-2019-11

 

For Nafta and the No Deal Deal with China, see my other posts on TVF. I've posted many times about these sham agreements that are nothing but Trump surrenders and have provided links repeatedly.

 

As for the failed negotiations and foreign policy failures. Maduro still there. Kim testing LR missiles in Trump's face, Iran shooting down American aircraft, Erdogan taking Russian missiles and telling Trump to stuff it, while setting up a military base in Libya. All this front page news. Repeatedly.

 

Cheap Dollar. See daily tweets from Trump demanding zero interest rates and more QE and threatening to fire Powell if he doesn't do it.

11 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Maybe you should be able to see the open bias of "the news" crafting a narrative instead of reporting the news. Both sides of it. But that doesn't meet your needs does it? 

Ever one really liked the tweet from the Washington Compost after the vote. Their reporters went out and celebrated the impeachment.  I think it went like we are celebrating Christimpeachment with a picture, while giving a toast. Its easy to find on the net. She then took it down like 3 minutes later. I guess that call from the office was not good as in (what the hell is your drunk ass doing, we are not suppose to let the people know how much of leftist we are!)

55 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

give me a brake, Bloomberg is beginning to compete with Methusalem

 

why do you desire that geriatrics run the US  of A?

 

no reason to turn Whouse into a home for geriatrics,

if you walk up Penn Ave and across to G town I am sure you could find suitable places for Bloomberg

 

 

I am simply looking at the alternatives. Four more years of the human wrecking ball, Warren, or Sanders? Come on. I am a centrist, and do not want either of those two super liberals. Bloomberg is great. He is far sharper than Trump, and just a few years older, but not nearly as feeble, thin skinned, criminal, destructive, or illiterate. Plus, he can negotiate!

6 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Maybe you should be able to see the open bias of "the news" crafting a narrative instead of reporting the news. Both sides of it. But that doesn't meet your needs does it? 

Exactly which parts are so difficult to understand?

Trump asked the Ukraine PM to do him a favor to investigate a political adversary and he held back 400 million USD.

And later Trump did not allow lots of people who could tell the truth to testify in congress. Obstruction!

 

Let's make it simple: The senate should call Trump and all his inner staff to testify in front of the senate and tell the whole truth about what they did. If Trump is innocent then that shouldn't be a problem, correct?

But obviously Trump does not want that these people, who know the truth, testify. Now why would he do that? It's obvious!

2 hours ago, luckyluke said:

"Followers" may be not a good translation. 

I refer to the ones who "admire" him. 

He is lying frequently, I suppose that's not a crime. 

Is his telephone call to be considered as a crime? 

We will never know, as there will not be an impartial judgement on it :

Guilty for Democrats, Not guilty for Republicans. 

 

Who was the president who got caught out $hagging his secretary and denied it, wasn't he a Republican. The woman's name was Lewinsky and their cavorting made her a household name all over the world.

 

There was even a bar named after her in Soi 13/2 in Pattayaland when it was the heart of that town's red light district.

 

A fine state of affairs when the POTUS is caught rumping his secretary in the actual White House. How could anybody be expected to trust him after that especially his wife.

 

It makes Trump look like a choirboy.

5 minutes ago, zydeco said:

My post was a reply and a refutation of a Trump pumping post. I noticed you did not ask for sources from that post. But I'll play the game. Here you go:

 

 

Record Corporate Debt (used for stock buybacks) https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-corporate-debt-10-trillion-record-percentage-economy-expert-warnings-2019-12-1028731031

 

Lack of corporate R&D and Zombie Companies http://theconversation.com/the-surprising-decline-of-entrepreneurship-and-innovation-in-the-west-124552

 

Record Student Loan Debt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-17/u-s-student-loan-debt-sets-record-doubling-since-recession

 

Length of Car Loan https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-05/u-s-average-auto-loan-length-balloons-to-all-time-high

 

US National Debt 23 Trillion https://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-trump-how-it-compares-obama-bush-clinton-2019-11

 

For Nafta and the No Deal Deal with China, see my other posts on TVF. I've posted many times about these sham agreements that are nothing but Trump surrenders and have provided links repeatedly.

 

As for the failed negotiations and foreign policy failures. Maduro still there. Kim testing LR missiles in Trump's face, Iran shooting down American aircraft, Erdogan taking Russian missiles and telling Trump to stuff it, while setting up a military base in Libya. All this front page news. Repeatedly.

 

Cheap Dollar. See daily tweets from Trump demanding zero interest rates and more QE and threatening to fire Powell if he doesn't do it.

Your TDS kicking in, Take your Meds!

2 minutes ago, allen303 said:

Your TDS kicking in, Take your Meds!

Thanks for your refutation of the facts straight from Romper Room.

50 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Yes,  Bloomberg, the guy that wants to take away your BigGulp, but give you a new needle and a safe place to bang dope.

 

Free needles but no straws!!!

Both great ideas. Who on earth needs 32-40 oz of sugar water? Society has no discipline. And I think legalizing ALL drugs is as smart as it gets. You eliminate the cartels in 60 days. I love Bloomberg. He would make a great president. Who else is there? Let's get rid of the orange wrecking ball.

1 hour ago, earlinclaifornia said:

She did win the popular vote. She lost the Electorial college by a combined 77,000 votes. Good luck repeating that with 40% approval. Never has seen any positive approval rating. Just saying.

There was never a peep heard by either party about how the popular vote might be better for the country than the electoral vote prior to the actual 2016 election. 

 

But we hear it all the time now. Why is that? It genuinely puzzles some of us limeys. Has it been sorted out for 2020?

13 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Who was the president who got caught out $hagging his secretary and denied it, wasn't he a Republican. The woman's name was Lewinsky and their cavorting made her a household name all over the world.

 

There was even a bar named after her in Soi 13/2 in Pattayaland when it was the heart of that town's red light district.

 

A fine state of affairs when the POTUS is caught rumping his secretary in the actual White House. How could anybody be expected to trust him after that especially his wife.

 

It makes Trump look like a choirboy.

You know old Bill lied under oath in the federal civil right testimony about her. If you or I lie about this under oath, even if it’s a civil trial, we will go to federal prison.

 Had a police officer who was totally worthless, run out of our Sheriff’s department. The local city in the north county gave him a job.  Because his daddy was a big-time donor to the DNC party in the area. He ended up meeting stripers from the south end at night while he was on duty. The FBI came in to see if it was a civil right violation. It was all voluntary on their part, so no civil right problem.

 

But he lied about it at first to the FBI, 3 months in a minimum-security federal prison.

So bottom line, Clinton did commit a Felony, not debatable.

3 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

There was never a peep heard by either party about how the popular vote might be better for the country than the electoral vote prior to the actual 2016 election. 

 

But we hear it all the time now. Why is that? It genuinely puzzles some of us limeys. Has it been sorted out for 2020?

You're wrong. It's not a new issue at all! 

 

Sorted? 

 

No and it won't be either. 

 

 

That would take passing a constitutional amendment. Almost impossible to do with this issue. 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, allen303 said:

You know old Bill lied under oath in the federal civil right testimony about her. If you or I lie about this under oath, even if it’s a civil trial, we will go to federal prison.

 

 Had a police officer who was totally worthless, run out of our Sheriff’s department. The local city in the north county gave him a job.  Because his daddy was a big-time donor to the DNC party in the area. He ended up meeting stripers from the south end at night while he was on duty. The FBI came in to see if it was a civil right violation. It was all voluntary on their part, so no civil right problem.

 

 

 

But he lied about it at first to the FBI, 3 months in a minimum-security federal prison.

 

So bottom line, Clinton did commit a Felony, not debatable.

 

Well that's Republicans for you, think they can just $<deleted> and lie their way through life and get away with it.

 

Hold on, wasn't Clinton a Democrat?

This is a farce and a waste of time, and virtually guarantees a Trump win next year. Come on Dems, come up with something we can vote for.

2 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

This is a farce and a waste of time, and virtually guarantees a Trump win next year. Come on Dems, come up with something we can vote for.

I guess you missed the democratic debate that just aired. The democrats have plenty of things to offer to vote for. 

 

Your election predictions are very premature. 

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Same poll that said Hillary would win in 2016  ????

It has been explained to you and your lot over and over and over again: she won the popular vote by over 3 Million!

No poll, whatsoever, can predict the outcome of that "thing", that you have over there, called the electoral college, where a bunch of rednecks decides the fate of the rest of the country!
 

13 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

There was never a peep heard by either party about how the popular vote might be better for the country than the electoral vote prior to the actual 2016 election. 

 

But we hear it all the time now. Why is that? It genuinely puzzles some of us limeys. Has it been sorted out for 2020?

Really?

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-described-the-electoral-college-as-a-disaster/&ved=2ahUKEwiZh76GqMPmAhXqILcAHbdDB7kQFjANegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw26GHjj2-399D5kUlC4jn93

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Yes,  Bloomberg, the guy that wants to take away your BigGulp, but give you a new needle and a safe place to bang dope.

 

Free needles but no straws!!!

As much as I don't give two hot ones about Bloomberg, but taking away sugar from an obese nation and trying to make sensible drug- policies to get junkies out of criminality and into a healthier environment...yeah...that is kind of devil's work, isn't it!

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're wrong. It's not a new issue at all! 

 

Sorted? 

 

No and it won't be either. 

 

 

That would take passing a constitutional amendment. Almost impossible to do with this issue. 

 

 

 

I'm not wrong!

 

I have never said nor implied that it was a new issue. Nor an old one.

 

I just said that no one objected to it nor complained about it from what we heard about the set up in the UK.

 

I just indicated that we heard no complaints about it before the election but now that Trump has won the other side have been going on about it for three and a half years.

 

And are still doing so here and now in this very topic.

4 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

I'm not wrong!

 

I have never said nor implied that it was a new issue. Nor an old one.

 

I just said that no one objected to it nor complained about it from what we heard about the set up in the UK.

 

I just indicated that we heard no complaints about it before the election but now that Trump has won the other side have been going on about it for three and a half years.

 

And are still doing so here and now in this very topic.

Just because you never heard it yourself, doesn't prove anything.

Ask any American that lived through BUSH vs. GORE and you would retract your misinformed opinion.

 

http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/controversial.htm

11 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

Really?

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-described-the-electoral-college-as-a-disaster/&ved=2ahUKEwiZh76GqMPmAhXqILcAHbdDB7kQFjANegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw26GHjj2-399D5kUlC4jn93

That article is dated 2012 isn't it? That was six years before your last election when you elected Trump. Oh, well done by the way.

 

As I said I'm a limey and you can't really expect us to trawl the backwoods of the internet from 2012 about about the ins and outs of your electoral system any more than we would expect you to do the same regarding ours. You would not be interested anyway.

 

And till I saw your link I had never heard of 'Snopes' so I doubt many Americans had either

 

We have various TV and radio news stations and newpapers that tell us the basics of your presidential election but that's about it. All we got told was that Trump had no chance and Hillary was the odds on favourite to be the next resident of the White House. There was no mention of any electoral colleges.

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed.

 

A post using a trolling meme has been removed as well as the replies. 

 

A troll post using a trolling representation of a politician's name has been removed. 

3 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

That article is dated 2012 isn't it? That was six years before your last election when you elected Trump. Oh, well done by the way.

 

As I said I'm a limey and you can't really expect us to trawl the backwoods of the internet from 2012 about about the ins and outs of your electoral system any more than we would expect you to do the same regarding ours. You would not be interested anyway.

 

And till I saw your link I had never heard of 'Snopes' so I doubt many Americans had either

 

We have various TV and radio news stations and newpapers that tell us the basics of your presidential election but that's about it. All we got told was that Trump had no chance and Hillary was the odds on favourite to be the next resident of the White House. There was no mention of any electoral colleges.

I don't see the merit in bragging about how superficial your knowledge is of the American election process.

BTW -- Snopes is extremely well known by Americans.

 

42 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Just because you never heard it yourself, doesn't prove anything.

Ask any American that lived through BUSH vs. GORE and you would retract your misinformed opinion.

 

http://archive.fairvote.org/e_college/controversial.htm

I've not tried to prove anything and neither have I claimed to have done so. And you can't indicate a word I've typed that says otherwise.

 

And are you seriously suggesting that I trawl through a long boring archival article about controversial American presidents since 1800 that have absolutely no bearing on who is gonna win the next American Presidential election.

 

I can give you a link to Herbert Asquith being elected to Number 10 Downing Street if you wish. Or if you're interested. 

 

 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

That article is dated 2012 isn't it? That was six years before your last election when you elected Trump. Oh, well done by the way.

 

As I said I'm a limey and you can't really expect us to trawl the backwoods of the internet from 2012 about about the ins and outs of your electoral system any more than we would expect you to do the same regarding ours. You would not be interested anyway.

 

And till I saw your link I had never heard of 'Snopes' so I doubt many Americans had either

 

We have various TV and radio news stations and newpapers that tell us the basics of your presidential election but that's about it. All we got told was that Trump had no chance and Hillary was the odds on favourite to be the next resident of the White House. There was no mention of any electoral colleges.

Perhaps you should not have claimed there was never a peep about it before 2016 then? 

6 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

I've not tried to prove anything and neither have I claimed to have done so. And you can't indicate a word I've typed that says otherwise.

 

Ans are you seriously suggesting that I trawl through a long boring archival article about controversial American presidents since 1800 that have absolutely no bearing on who is gonna win the next American Presidential election.

 

I can give you a link to Herbert Asquith being elected to Number 10 Downing Street if you wish. Or if you're interested. 

I don't claim expert knowledge about national political systems about which that I lack such knowledge. Though of course everyone is welcome to comment on U.S. politics and occasionally I comment on U.K. politics as well. (But I avoid discussing Thai politics like the plague since … (y'all know).)

27 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't see the merit in bragging about how superficial your knowledge is of the American election process.

BTW -- Snopes is extremely well known by Americans.

 

Explain how and where I've 'bragged' about anything, especially my knowledge of the American election process.

 

I have admitted that I'm not fully aware of all aspects of it but if anything that is the opposite of bragging. 

 

Bragging is another word for boasting. If so inclined someone could brag or boast about how much the know about a certain subject but hardly do so about how much they don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

Explain how and where I've 'bragged' about anything, especially my knowledge is of the American election process.

 

I have admitted that I'm not fully aware of all aspects of it but if anything that is the opposite of bragging. 

 

Bragging is another word for boasting. If so inclined someone could brag or boast about how much the know about a certain subject but hardly do so about how much they don't know.

Congratulations. I award you the last word. 

17 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

Perhaps you should not have claimed there was never a peep about it before 2016 then? 

I said I never heard a peep about it in the MSM and I didn't, I never heard about it till the Democrats started wailing about it when Trump got elected.

 

Wasn't your previous president a Democrat, why didn't his government try and get it changed?

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Interesting to watch the Democrat party destroy itself.

 

Go Nancy go!

"Go Nancy go!"

 

Are you rooting her on or asking her to resign? ???? 

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Most of us are well aware of limits, and probably do not believe that Trump has crossed the line of a "High Crime or Misdemeanor worthy of impeachment. For goodness sake, even Clinton hadn't done anything bad enough, IMO, and it was just a witch hunt by the GOP to remove him, IMO.

Far as I'm concerned there hasn't been a president in my adult life time ( except Carter ) that hasn't done some bad stuff along the line. Only ones bad enough to be impeached, IMO, were Reagan and Bush the younger, and no one even tried.

TBL - Curious as to what you think Reagan did to rise to such a level. Thanks!