Asiantravel Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) " Release college & passport records by 17:00 on Oct 31 and Trump will donate $5 million to the charity of Obama's choosing".No brainer......do it and let a charity be 5 million better off. Don't do it........selfish bastard! That's one way of looking at it. Another way might be: Do it and take part in a sleazy extortion and dignify an insidious insinuation. Don't do it and behave as a President who is above such absurd and ugly theatrics. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap Oh come on Obama loves theatrics? Otherwise why would he appear on so many television shows and want to mingle so often with the Hollywood crowd? Edited October 25, 2012 by Asiantravel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Poll shows Arkansans backing Romney over Obama by wide margin HOUSTON, Oct. 24 (Xinhua) -- Voters in the U.S. state of Arkansas prefer Republican candidate Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama and remain worried about the economy, according to a poll released Wednesday. Arkansas. Not a swing state. Of no relevance to this election. Only a few states MATTER. Even mighty New York state and California ... do not matter. I hope to see Obama win and Romney win the popular vote. Then both parties will have been burned in recent history and there is a chance to abolish the ridiculous, archaic electoral college. Edited October 25, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 " Release college & passport records by 17:00 on Oct 31 and Trump will donate $5 million to the charity of Obama's choosing".No brainer......do it and let a charity be 5 million better off. Don't do it........selfish bastard! That's one way of looking at it. Another way might be: Do it and take part in a sleazy extortion and dignify an insidious insinuation. Don't do it and behave as a President who is above such absurd and ugly theatrics. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap Oh come on Obama loves theatrics? Otherwise why would he appear on so many television shows and want to mingle so often with the Hollywood crowd? It's called campaigning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 " Release college & passport records by 17:00 on Oct 31 and Trump will donate $5 million to the charity of Obama's choosing".No brainer......do it and let a charity be 5 million better off. Don't do it........selfish bastard! That's one way of looking at it. Another way might be: Do it and take part in a sleazy extortion and dignify an insidious insinuation. Don't do it and behave as a President who is above such absurd and ugly theatrics. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap Oh come on Obama loves theatrics? Otherwise why would he appear on so many television shows and want to mingle so often with the Hollywood crowd? Yes, a President who seeks and uses publicity and image-making...it is ODD. I wonder why he does it.... You too seem to have missed crucial adjectives: what I posted was, "absurd and ugly theatrics". Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) This is amazing. Dave Lettermman admits that Obama was dishonest in the debate. http://www.mrctv.org/embed/117788 Letterman didn't really understand the issue. Romney advocated a banktuptcy chapter 11 reorg of the auto companies, WITHOUT government funding, and that would have failed to save them. (which I agree with). Obama advocated and did a managed reorganization WITH government funding, and that is what saved them. BTW, Bush Jr. started this. Romney is an old skool free market economic darwinist, but that doesn't play well in Detroit, his home town. Letterman makes a statement, with the intent of provoking his guest to make a response. The clip does not mention who the guest is, and neither (more importantly) does it show the response. The response could well have shot Letterman's assertion out of the water. Do Republicans now cite Letterman as an icon of political sagacity? I thought right wingers hated Letterman. If someone wants to tarnish another person's reputation (as Republicans do toward Obama) then it's easy to do so when taking clips of opinion statements from others - particularly if it's clipped to not show the full discourse. All in all, the clip is a cheap shot, and doesn't show any response from the guest. To me, it looked like a hypothetical question geared to elicit a response. It's not much different than If Obama says, "There is no way we will allow Iran to possess a nuclear arsenal." Then some Republican attack squad member clips it to read: "We will allow Iran to possess a nuclear arsenal." .....and publishes it all over the media and Youtube. It's a low blow, and shows two things: How desperate the R and R campaign is becoming in the last days, and how they're avoiding talking about real issues with anything more than burnished sound bites. Where are the details Romney's better plan for health care? What sorts of weapons systems will Romney want to buy with the additional 2 trillion dollars he wants to borrow from China (added armnaments which the military says it doesn't want or need)? How is the already-in-debt US going to pay for the 2 trillion $$'s or so of added expenditures, if he refuses to raise taxes on the most wealthy? .....his bosom buddies who squirrel billions of $$'s away in foreign countries. Edited October 25, 2012 by maidu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asiantravel Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 " Release college & passport records by 17:00 on Oct 31 and Trump will donate $5 million to the charity of Obama's choosing". No brainer......do it and let a charity be 5 million better off. Don't do it........selfish bastard! That is the thing: he is trying to wedge Obama. Shoddy wedge you ask me. If he is going to donate $5m, then he should just do it - as the Nike ad says. No conditions. Sounds like a pander to the birthers and the other angry tin-foil hatters by way of blackmail of sorts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Don't do it and behave as a President who is above such absurd and ugly theatrics. I'm not so sure Obama has behaved like a president, I don't think any of them do once elected. I think if he called Trump for what he is and produced the goods, he would win this election in a canter.........and a charity of his choice would be very happy. Small issue though about effectively blackmailing a president don't you think? Rather a silly comment about blackmailing. Real blackmail would be if Trump already had Obama's transcripts and demanded he (Obama) pay him (Trump) $5 Million or he (Trump) would release them (transcripts) to every media outlet. In this instance, he (Trump) is asking him (Obama) to release information he (Obama) has blocked from the public since it could possibly contain embarrassing information to him (Obama). It is really more like Trump rewarding a deserving charity for Obama doing the right thing for a change. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asiantravel Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Small issue though about effectively blackmailing a president don't you think? Rather a silly comment about blackmailing. Real blackmail would be if Trump already had Obama's transcripts and demanded he (Obama) pay him (Trump) $5 Million or he (Trump) would release them (transcripts) to every media outlet. In this instance, he (Trump) is asking him (Obama) to release information he (Obama) has blocked from the public since it could possibly contain embarrassing information to him (Obama). It is really more like Trump rewarding a deserving charity for Obama doing the right thing for a change. wherever Obama is involved there always seems to be more questions than answers? Glenn Beck Connects the Dots in Benghazi Attack: ‘This Is Fast and Furious Times 1,000′ During his show on TheBlazeTV Wednesday night, Glenn Beck said President Barack Obama has “crossed a line” concerning the “lies” about the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi on Sept. 11. In fact, he claims “Benghazi-gate” is “Fast and Furious times 1,000.” “I don’t think that we are going to have time to be able to get this out to the American people before the election, because the press is of no help,” Beck said. “You need to try to listen and get your friends to listen next door because this isn’t about politics. This truly is about the future of the country because we are in grave, grave danger.” During his radio show on Wednesday, he said arming the enemies of the United States — for any reason — is grounds for treason, adding that people may “go to jail” over this scandal. Watch Beck explain his gun-running theory and why he believes the president is lying: http://www.theblaze....ous-times-1000/ Edited October 25, 2012 by Asiantravel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 This is amazing. Dave Lettermman admits that Obama was dishonest in the debate. http://www.mrctv.org/embed/117788 Letterman didn't really understand the issue. Romney advocated a banktuptcy chapter 11 reorg of the auto companies, WITHOUT government funding, and that would have failed to save them. (which I agree with). Obama advocated and did a managed reorganization WITH government funding, and that is what saved them. BTW, Bush Jr. started this. Romney is an old skool free market economic darwinist, but that doesn't play well in Detroit, his home town. Letterman makes a statement, with the intent of provoking his guest to make a response. The clip does not mention who the guest is, and neither (more importantly) does it show the response. The response could well have shot Letterman's assertion out of the water. Do Republicans now cite Letterman as an icon of political sagacity? I thought right wingers hated Letterman. If someonw wants to tarnish another person's reputation (as Republicans do toward Obama) then it's easy to do so when taking clips of opinion statements from others - particularly if it's clipped to not show the full discourse. All in all, the clip is a cheap shot, and doesn't show any response from the guest. To me, it looked like a hypothetical question geared to elicit a response. It's not much different than If Obama says, "There is no way we will allow Iran to possess a nuclear arsenal." Then some Republican attack squad member clips it to read: "We will allow Iran to possess a nuclear arsenal." .....and publishes it all over the media and Youtube. The guest was Rachel Maddow who anchors an hourly political show on the Obama network, MSNBC. She is known as a 100% bona fide manic Obama supporter. Look up some of her stuff on YouTube. You will probably enjoy it. I personally find it disgusting and nearly as offensive as some of the crap Chris (leg tingler) Matthews comes out with on the same network Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) People like Donald Trump and Romney are particulary good at one thing: borrowing money. They use their dynamic personalities to win over the loaners. Sometimes they convince the loaners that, if they don't loan the money, it will be deep doo doo for greater region. Example: When Trump goes to the bank loan agents in NYC, he tells them, "if you don't loan me a big load of added money, then many people will be without jobs, and I'll move my real estate leveraging business to another city." When Wall Street execs and/or Auto industry CEO's or AIS go to Washington, they say, "Hey, you gotta give us a giant heap of money, or there will be crap flying all over the place." (or words to that effect). The banks always acquiesce, as does Washington. Those are Romney's type of people. Thaksin is similarly-minded. They all think that throwing big money at big problems will solve them. If Romney gets in the White House, he'll do what Reagan did: He'll balloon the federal deficit to stratospheric proportions, because all those big shot businessmen believe there's no problem you can't borrow and spend your way out of. Edited October 25, 2012 by maidu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beechguy Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 People like Donald Trump and Romney are particulary good at one thing: borrowing money. They use their dynamic personalities to win over the loaners. Sometimes they convince the loaners that, if they don't loan the money, it will be deep doo doo for greater region. Example: When Trump goes to the bank loan agents in NYC, he tells them, "if you don't loan me a big load of added money, then many people will be without jobs, and I'll likely move my real estate leveraging business to another city." When Wall Street execs and/or Auto industry CEO's or AIS go to Washington, they say, "Hey, you gotta give us a giant heap of money, or there will be crap flying all over the place." (or words to that effect). The banks always acquiesce, as does Washington. Those are Romney's type of people. Thaksin is similarly-minded. They all think that throwing big money at big problems will solve them. If Romney gets in the White House, he'll do what Reagan did: He'll balloon the federal deficit to stratospheric proportions, because all those big shot businessmen believe there's no problem you can't borrow and spend your way out of. And how is that different from Obama's course of action the last 4 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Don't do it and behave as a President who is above such absurd and ugly theatrics. I'm not so sure Obama has behaved like a president, I don't think any of them do once elected. I think if he called Trump for what he is and produced the goods, he would win this election in a canter.........and a charity of his choice would be very happy. Small issue though about effectively blackmailing a president don't you think? Rather a silly comment about blackmailing. Real blackmail would be if Trump already had Obama's transcripts and demanded he (Obama) pay him (Trump) $5 Million or he (Trump) would release them (transcripts) to every media outlet. In this instance, he (Trump) is asking him (Obama) to release information he (Obama) has blocked from the public since it could possibly contain embarrassing information to him (Obama). It is really more like Trump rewarding a deserving charity for Obama doing the right thing for a change. Back here on planet earth, responding to an ego mainiac with an over hyped estimation of himself and a bad wig isn't a good look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Ryan resembles Reagan in more ways than Right Wingers might want to acknowledge......... According to the Office of Management and Budget's historical data, during his presidency, Reagan saw federal spending increase by 22 percent. Additionally, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the federal deficit nearly doubled under Reagan, going from about $790 billion to $1.55 trillion. Reagan also signed debt ceiling increases 18 times during his presidency. Similarly, Ryan's most recent budget would explode the deficit over the next decade. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center, in March 23 post concluded that Ryan's most recent tax proposals would "add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade." And A March 20 Center for American Progress post broke down Ryan's budget and concluded that based on the actual, specific taxing and spending proposals Ryan has made, "[t]he national debt, measured as a share of GDP, would never decline, surpassing 80 percent by 2014, and 90 percent by 2022." source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 People like Donald Trump and Romney are particulary good at one thing: borrowing money. They use their dynamic personalities to win over the loaners. Sometimes they convince the loaners that, if they don't loan the money, it will be deep doo doo for greater region. Example: When Trump goes to the bank loan agents in NYC, he tells them, "if you don't loan me a big load of added money, then many people will be without jobs, and I'll likely move my real estate leveraging business to another city." When Wall Street execs and/or Auto industry CEO's or AIS go to Washington, they say, "Hey, you gotta give us a giant heap of money, or there will be crap flying all over the place." (or words to that effect). The banks always acquiesce, as does Washington. Those are Romney's type of people. Thaksin is similarly-minded. They all think that throwing big money at big problems will solve them. If Romney gets in the White House, he'll do what Reagan did: He'll balloon the federal deficit to stratospheric proportions, because all those big shot businessmen believe there's no problem you can't borrow and spend your way out of. And how is that different from Obama's course of action the last 4 years? I don't agree with Obama's kowtowing to Wall St. and big biz. However, Romney (had he been in power instead of Obama) may have given even more federal hand-outs to big biz. Why do I think so? Because Romney is big business. Many of those CEO's are buddies of his. They go to the same country clubs, they fly similar private jets, they hide their money in similar overseas accounts. You get the picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) People like Donald Trump and Romney are particulary good at one thing: borrowing money. They use their dynamic personalities to win over the loaners. Sometimes they convince the loaners that, if they don't loan the money, it will be deep doo doo for greater region. Example: When Trump goes to the bank loan agents in NYC, he tells them, "if you don't loan me a big load of added money, then many people will be without jobs, and I'll move my real estate leveraging business to another city." When Wall Street execs and/or Auto industry CEO's or AIS go to Washington, they say, "Hey, you gotta give us a giant heap of money, or there will be crap flying all over the place." (or words to that effect). The banks always acquiesce, as does Washington. Those are Romney's type of people. Thaksin is similarly-minded. They all think that throwing big money at big problems will solve them. If Romney gets in the White House, he'll do what Reagan did: He'll balloon the federal deficit to stratospheric proportions, because all those big shot businessmen believe there's no problem you can't borrow and spend your way out of. Actually, I agree with a lot of what you've said today in other posts about that idiot blowhard "alleged" billionaire, Trump, and I do believe he is a swindler of the highest caliber, but really Romney is fundamentally different here. He did not borrow money at Bain to invest in companies, he solicited and received investment from large pension funds, and then invested that money into companies. Similarly, Romney opposed government bailout of Detroit, he favored normal chapter 11 insolvency proceedings, and let the strong survive. The biggest problem is not the auto bailout, it was Wall street bailout, and continued wrong regulation. Neither Romney nor Obama are proposing to fix that. If your contention is that Romney is private club buddies with many of Wall St.'s scions, yes, and to that extent he won't reform Wall st. Edited October 25, 2012 by keemapoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Back here on planet earth, responding to an ego mainiac with an over hyped estimation of himself and a bad wig isn't a good look. Joe Biden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beechguy Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 People like Donald Trump and Romney are particulary good at one thing: borrowing money. They use their dynamic personalities to win over the loaners. Sometimes they convince the loaners that, if they don't loan the money, it will be deep doo doo for greater region. Example: When Trump goes to the bank loan agents in NYC, he tells them, "if you don't loan me a big load of added money, then many people will be without jobs, and I'll likely move my real estate leveraging business to another city." When Wall Street execs and/or Auto industry CEO's or AIS go to Washington, they say, "Hey, you gotta give us a giant heap of money, or there will be crap flying all over the place." (or words to that effect). The banks always acquiesce, as does Washington. Those are Romney's type of people. Thaksin is similarly-minded. They all think that throwing big money at big problems will solve them. If Romney gets in the White House, he'll do what Reagan did: He'll balloon the federal deficit to stratospheric proportions, because all those big shot businessmen believe there's no problem you can't borrow and spend your way out of. And how is that different from Obama's course of action the last 4 years? I don't agree with Obama's kowtowing to Wall St. and big biz. However, Romney (had he been in power instead of Obama) may have given even more federal hand-outs to big biz. Why do I think so? Because Romney is big business. Many of those CEO's are buddies of his. They go to the same country clubs, they fly similar private jets, they hide their money in similar overseas accounts. You get the picture? Oh I got the picture alright, for Obama, substitute the unions etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 People like Donald Trump and Romney are particulary good at one thing: borrowing money. They use their dynamic personalities to win over the loaners. Sometimes they convince the loaners that, if they don't loan the money, it will be deep doo doo for greater region. Example: When Trump goes to the bank loan agents in NYC, he tells them, "if you don't loan me a big load of added money, then many people will be without jobs, and I'll likely move my real estate leveraging business to another city." When Wall Street execs and/or Auto industry CEO's or AIS go to Washington, they say, "Hey, you gotta give us a giant heap of money, or there will be crap flying all over the place." (or words to that effect). The banks always acquiesce, as does Washington. Those are Romney's type of people. Thaksin is similarly-minded. They all think that throwing big money at big problems will solve them. If Romney gets in the White House, he'll do what Reagan did: He'll balloon the federal deficit to stratospheric proportions, because all those big shot businessmen believe there's no problem you can't borrow and spend your way out of. And how is that different from Obama's course of action the last 4 years? Where would the US have been if it hadn't bailed out wall street and the car industry? Interesting question. I'd like to know what people think where unemployment would be, how liqiud the financial industry would be, and what job growth would be like. Down the toilet my educated guess. But if you think it was good - then why would it be so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Back here on planet earth, responding to an ego mainiac with an over hyped estimation of himself and a bad wig isn't a good look. Joe Biden? touche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Where would the US have been if it hadn't bailed out wall street and the car industry? Interesting question. On a slow and very painful path to real recovery, and ABSOLUTELY, Obama or any Preisdent would not be re-elected, but he would have done the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Where would the US have been if it hadn't bailed out wall street and the car industry? Interesting question. On a slow and very painful path to real recovery, and ABSOLUTELY, Obama or any Preisdent would not be re-elected, but he would have done the right thing. I dare say most people would then be saying he (or any other president) had done the 'wrong' thing in that circumstance - especially if the credit markets ground to a halt. One reason why I'd never want to be a politican. You get no credit for doing things right, and all the blame for getting it 'wrong'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maidu Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I believe the auto industry should not have been bailed out, so in that respect, I disagreed with the Obama administration's tactic on that. It turned out alright, though, as the US auto industry appears to be ok, so perhaps I was wrong on that. In the big picture of things, Detroit has been making a lot of poor decisions for a long time, particularly from an environmental perspective. Example: they nipped a blossoming electric car niche in the bud, because they didn't want to annoy their buddies in Big Oil. If one or more of the Big Three filed for bankruptcy, it wouldn't be the end of the world. New managers would take over, the facilities would still be there, most of the workers would probably go back to work - but it would likely be a better run company. If that's similar to what Romney was advocating in 2008 and '09, then I'm behind him. I believe the same for Wall St. If a company, no matter how big, is badly run, it should be allowed to die, .....and smarter better-run businesses will sprout up in its place. D.C. won't allow that to happen, mainly because the economic whizzes dictating policy are all from the upper echelons of Wall Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chuckd Posted October 25, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted October 25, 2012 People like Donald Trump and Romney are particulary good at one thing: borrowing money. They use their dynamic personalities to win over the loaners. Sometimes they convince the loaners that, if they don't loan the money, it will be deep doo doo for greater region. Example: When Trump goes to the bank loan agents in NYC, he tells them, "if you don't loan me a big load of added money, then many people will be without jobs, and I'll move my real estate leveraging business to another city." When Wall Street execs and/or Auto industry CEO's or AIS go to Washington, they say, "Hey, you gotta give us a giant heap of money, or there will be crap flying all over the place." (or words to that effect). The banks always acquiesce, as does Washington. Those are Romney's type of people. Thaksin is similarly-minded. They all think that throwing big money at big problems will solve them. If Romney gets in the White House, he'll do what Reagan did: He'll balloon the federal deficit to stratospheric proportions, because all those big shot businessmen believe there's no problem you can't borrow and spend your way out of. Are you somehow saying Obama ballooning the national debt by nearly $6 Trillion in four years isn't a little over the top? One thing I have wondered about is why are people more concerned about how Romney spends his own money than how Obama spends taxpayer money. Anybody? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I believe the same for Wall St. If a company, no matter how big, is badly run, it should be allowed to die, .....and smarter better-run businesses will sprout up in its place. D.C. won't allow that to happen, mainly because the economic whizzes dictating policy are all from the upper echelons of Wall Street. This is one of the huge reasons we need financial reform, to keep the heads of Goldman Sachs etc, from being appointed to places where they can dictate policy. The Fox guarding the henhouse.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Small issue though about effectively blackmailing a president don't you think? Rather a silly comment about blackmailing. Real blackmail would be if Trump already had Obama's transcripts and demanded he (Obama) pay him (Trump) $5 Million or he (Trump) would release them (transcripts) to every media outlet. In this instance, he (Trump) is asking him (Obama) to release information he (Obama) has blocked from the public since it could possibly contain embarrassing information to him (Obama). It is really more like Trump rewarding a deserving charity for Obama doing the right thing for a change. Back here on planet earth, responding to an ego mainiac with an over hyped estimation of himself and a bad wig isn't a good look. Would that be anything like Obama responding to Putin and Medvedev (sans the wig)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolley Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I believe that Obama used many of the same people that Bush used and some of these people were in part responisble for the economic crisis eg ex Goldman and Sach personnel. Thererfore it seems very unlikelly it would make any big difference as to who got in power in regards to reforming the economy or turning around the US economy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Small issue though about effectively blackmailing a president don't you think? Rather a silly comment about blackmailing. Real blackmail would be if Trump already had Obama's transcripts and demanded he (Obama) pay him (Trump) $5 Million or he (Trump) would release them (transcripts) to every media outlet. In this instance, he (Trump) is asking him (Obama) to release information he (Obama) has blocked from the public since it could possibly contain embarrassing information to him (Obama). It is really more like Trump rewarding a deserving charity for Obama doing the right thing for a change. Back here on planet earth, responding to an ego mainiac with an over hyped estimation of himself and a bad wig isn't a good look. Would that be anything like Obama responding to Putin and Medvedev (sans the wig)? Those clowns had the ability to turn off the EU's gas supply at a snap. They also had nukes. Granted, TheDonald has bequeathed this great earth one truely stunning daughter, so that deserves some brownie points, but beyond that, the bloke is a blowhard and is best ignored - for everone's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Small issue though about effectively blackmailing a president don't you think? Rather a silly comment about blackmailing. Real blackmail would be if Trump already had Obama's transcripts and demanded he (Obama) pay him (Trump) $5 Million or he (Trump) would release them (transcripts) to every media outlet. In this instance, he (Trump) is asking him (Obama) to release information he (Obama) has blocked from the public since it could possibly contain embarrassing information to him (Obama). It is really more like Trump rewarding a deserving charity for Obama doing the right thing for a change. Back here on planet earth, responding to an ego mainiac with an over hyped estimation of himself and a bad wig isn't a good look. Would that be anything like Obama responding to Putin and Medvedev (sans the wig)? Let's see...interaction with the former and current heads of state of a nuclear armed country. Responding to ridiculous attention grabbing by a reality TV star of zero consequence on the world stage.... Hmmm...I'm going to say, those are two different things. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Romney was not my first choice either, but he does have a large amount of management experience.... He's good at clandestinely shuffling some of his tens of millions of $$'s to Caribbean and overseas' numbered accounts. He's good at buying faltering businesses and shutting them down or hiring Chinese to replace the US workers. He's good at garnering large loans (he's done that for businesses he's bought, and he will do that for the US economy). I remember an ABC News story about a bridge being built in San Francisco with stimulus money which angered the unions and California Democrats because they used Chinese steel to build it. Then there was this cool car company in Finland that stimulus money went to, so not only did Chinese workers benefit from US Taxpayer stimulus money, but so did Finnish workers. Then there was also something about Obama sending money to Brazil to help them drill for oil offshore while blocking it (and the Keystone pipeline) in America (might have to hire American workers for drilling in America and we can't have that) Alternatively, Romney has never had any charm or likability to speak of, and has flip flopped all over the map, but at least he has kept his credibility intact. I don't quite agree. I think Romney has the charm of a cadillac salesman. I'd probably buy one from him just because he exudes so much confidence and is likeable. A cadillac is beyond my budget, by Romney could convince me that I'll get a better job soon, so no problem. Romney can convince you to buy a Cadillac you can't afford? Well, Obama took out a multi-trillion dollar loan to buy everyone a Rolls Royce without promising any job at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Would that be anything like Obama responding to Putin and Medvedev (sans the wig)? Let's see...interaction with the former and current heads of state of a nuclear armed country. Responding to ridiculous attention grabbing by a reality TV star of zero consequence on the world stage.... Hmmm...I'm going to say, those are two different things. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap This is interesting that you seem to approve Obama making some sort of secret arrangement "after" his election is perfectly acceptable. You must not be familiar with Chicago politics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts