TRUMP: Best President ever Topic

Doug, I have a question for you.
11/20/2017 3:59 PM
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 9:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/19/2017 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 7:54:00 PM (view original):
The president can have a huge effect on the economy with regulation and trade policy. The best way a president can encourage economic growth is to get out of the way. Every new regulation that is added costs businesses money, which means less available funds for hiring and reinvestment of capital.
Which, assuming that you are correct, proves my point.
How you mean?
Because if what you say is correct, that the best way a president can help the economy is to stay out, then they are not that important in my eyes.
11/20/2017 5:18 PM
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/20/2017 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/19/2017 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 11/19/2017 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/19/2017 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2017 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 11/18/2017 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 11/18/2017 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/18/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):
I mean, we don't have a 'smoking gun' on TRUMP himself, necessarily, but we do know that people in his campaign were linked and he and his family had the direct means to get info from Russia. So it's very likely that he colluded. Right now, he will not be convicted. Later? We will see.
So, the answer the question is, despite all the Libs / Dems doing all the digging they possibly can, into everything and anything they possibly can, they have NOTHING AT ALL linking Trump to any type of crime. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Obstruction is a crime right? Trump admitted himself that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. Be patient padawan. It's coming.
Well, I will agree that there is a better chance of Trump being charged of something than there is of me ever being your student.

That doesn't change the fact that as of now, the answer is still NO. (Nor is anything remotely imminent.) Make all the "brilliant" forecasts you like, but none of those ever seem to work-out for people touting Trump's demise.

Maybe all that time, effort and money would be better spent on trying to better this Country.
Getting rid of Trump will better this country.
Explain how

I think getting rid of people like you would make this country better. Please move. ASAP.
that is what most Trump supporters say. If you don't like it here, leave. My response would be "If you don't like it here, work to improve things."
They say this because so many Hillary supporters threatened to leave if Trump won. It appears that the left has lost all pride in this great country. I know this is stereotyping and I do understand that a large percentage of democrat voters still love America, but the people on the left with a pedestal give off the impression that they hate everything about America.
I love America! I don't love our president or where we are going.
You love America so much you refuse to believe that Islam is a threat....
All you have posted on this topic is a video which I agreed with. Make your point that Radical Islam is bad, but your argument that Islam=Terrorism has gone no where.
11/20/2017 5:20 PM
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/20/2017 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Doug, I have a question for you.
SHOOT
11/20/2017 5:41 PM
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 9:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/19/2017 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 7:54:00 PM (view original):
The president can have a huge effect on the economy with regulation and trade policy. The best way a president can encourage economic growth is to get out of the way. Every new regulation that is added costs businesses money, which means less available funds for hiring and reinvestment of capital.
Which, assuming that you are correct, proves my point.
How you mean?
Because if what you say is correct, that the best way a president can help the economy is to stay out, then they are not that important in my eyes.
Yes, but they can be detrimental.
11/20/2017 5:45 PM
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/20/2017 5:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 9:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/19/2017 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 7:54:00 PM (view original):
The president can have a huge effect on the economy with regulation and trade policy. The best way a president can encourage economic growth is to get out of the way. Every new regulation that is added costs businesses money, which means less available funds for hiring and reinvestment of capital.
Which, assuming that you are correct, proves my point.
How you mean?
Because if what you say is correct, that the best way a president can help the economy is to stay out, then they are not that important in my eyes.
Yes, but they can be detrimental.
Sure. However, as I said before I am not knowledgeable on the economy and would consider myself knowledgeable and opinionated on other issues.
11/20/2017 6:53 PM
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 6:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/20/2017 5:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 9:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/19/2017 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 7:54:00 PM (view original):
The president can have a huge effect on the economy with regulation and trade policy. The best way a president can encourage economic growth is to get out of the way. Every new regulation that is added costs businesses money, which means less available funds for hiring and reinvestment of capital.
Which, assuming that you are correct, proves my point.
How you mean?
Because if what you say is correct, that the best way a president can help the economy is to stay out, then they are not that important in my eyes.
Yes, but they can be detrimental.
Sure. However, as I said before I am not knowledgeable on the economy and would consider myself knowledgeable and opinionated on other issues.
I have found that you are very passionate about the environment, which is awesome. We definitely need to be better stewards of our environment. The problem is that I feel the only way we can win both economically and with the environment is to change a cultural mindset. The left appears to think that our environment can only be bettered through government regulation. I think this is a very cynical viewpoint of the American people and also is damaging to our economy.

There is a fallacy that most wealthy people care only about profits and don't care about our environment or social equality. I read A LOT of books by the wealthy and about the wealthy and this simply is not true. The point to saying this is that we can have a better environment without damaging regulations.

Also, I would gander that it's tough to be knowledgeable of other world issues without a basic knowledge of the economy as almost every issue is impacted by or has an impact on the economy.
11/20/2017 7:37 PM (edited)
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/20/2017 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/19/2017 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 11/19/2017 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/19/2017 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2017 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 11/18/2017 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 11/18/2017 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/18/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):
I mean, we don't have a 'smoking gun' on TRUMP himself, necessarily, but we do know that people in his campaign were linked and he and his family had the direct means to get info from Russia. So it's very likely that he colluded. Right now, he will not be convicted. Later? We will see.
So, the answer the question is, despite all the Libs / Dems doing all the digging they possibly can, into everything and anything they possibly can, they have NOTHING AT ALL linking Trump to any type of crime. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Obstruction is a crime right? Trump admitted himself that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. Be patient padawan. It's coming.
Well, I will agree that there is a better chance of Trump being charged of something than there is of me ever being your student.

That doesn't change the fact that as of now, the answer is still NO. (Nor is anything remotely imminent.) Make all the "brilliant" forecasts you like, but none of those ever seem to work-out for people touting Trump's demise.

Maybe all that time, effort and money would be better spent on trying to better this Country.
Getting rid of Trump will better this country.
Explain how

I think getting rid of people like you would make this country better. Please move. ASAP.
that is what most Trump supporters say. If you don't like it here, leave. My response would be "If you don't like it here, work to improve things."
They say this because so many Hillary supporters threatened to leave if Trump won. It appears that the left has lost all pride in this great country. I know this is stereotyping and I do understand that a large percentage of democrat voters still love America, but the people on the left with a pedestal give off the impression that they hate everything about America.
I love America! I don't love our president or where we are going.
You love America so much you refuse to believe that Islam is a threat....
All you have posted on this topic is a video which I agreed with. Make your point that Radical Islam is bad, but your argument that Islam=Terrorism has gone no where.
Islam does not equal terrorism, but we are not the only culture with a fear of them. I have plenty of Hindu friends who are scared to death of muslims. The problem is the non-radical muslims need to get control of the radicals.

I am a Christian, but I understand that a lot of people are turned off by Christianity because some are very quick to judge other people. I definitely think homosexuality is a sin. It is undoubtedly a sin in Christianity and is a sin in most religions, but I am still going to treat my friends and family who are gay with love.
11/20/2017 7:45 PM (edited)
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/20/2017 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 6:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/20/2017 5:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 5:18:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 9:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/19/2017 9:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 7:54:00 PM (view original):
The president can have a huge effect on the economy with regulation and trade policy. The best way a president can encourage economic growth is to get out of the way. Every new regulation that is added costs businesses money, which means less available funds for hiring and reinvestment of capital.
Which, assuming that you are correct, proves my point.
How you mean?
Because if what you say is correct, that the best way a president can help the economy is to stay out, then they are not that important in my eyes.
Yes, but they can be detrimental.
Sure. However, as I said before I am not knowledgeable on the economy and would consider myself knowledgeable and opinionated on other issues.
I have found that you are very passionate about the environment, which is awesome. We definitely need to be better stewards of our environment. The problem is that I feel the only way we can win both economically and with the environment is to change a cultural mindset. The left appears to think that our environment can only be bettered through government regulation. I think this is a very cynical viewpoint of the American people and also is damaging to our economy.

There is a fallacy that most wealthy people care only about profits and don't care about our environment or social equality. I read A LOT of books by the wealthy and about the wealthy and this simply is not true. The point to saying this is that we can have a better environment without damaging regulations.

Also, I would gander that it's tough to be knowledgeable of other world issues without a basic knowledge of the economy as almost every issue is impacted by or has an impact on the economy.
(I created a 2 paragraph response to this but WIS glitched and it did not post. SHORT VERSION:)
I believe that environmentally healthy solutions to problems can be cheaper if we wanted them to be. Trump and his business friends are blocking climate progress. Obama at least tried to take initiative but he accidentally made climate partisan.
11/20/2017 8:05 PM
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/20/2017 7:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/20/2017 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/19/2017 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 11/19/2017 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/19/2017 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2017 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 11/18/2017 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 11/18/2017 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/18/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):
I mean, we don't have a 'smoking gun' on TRUMP himself, necessarily, but we do know that people in his campaign were linked and he and his family had the direct means to get info from Russia. So it's very likely that he colluded. Right now, he will not be convicted. Later? We will see.
So, the answer the question is, despite all the Libs / Dems doing all the digging they possibly can, into everything and anything they possibly can, they have NOTHING AT ALL linking Trump to any type of crime. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Obstruction is a crime right? Trump admitted himself that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. Be patient padawan. It's coming.
Well, I will agree that there is a better chance of Trump being charged of something than there is of me ever being your student.

That doesn't change the fact that as of now, the answer is still NO. (Nor is anything remotely imminent.) Make all the "brilliant" forecasts you like, but none of those ever seem to work-out for people touting Trump's demise.

Maybe all that time, effort and money would be better spent on trying to better this Country.
Getting rid of Trump will better this country.
Explain how

I think getting rid of people like you would make this country better. Please move. ASAP.
that is what most Trump supporters say. If you don't like it here, leave. My response would be "If you don't like it here, work to improve things."
They say this because so many Hillary supporters threatened to leave if Trump won. It appears that the left has lost all pride in this great country. I know this is stereotyping and I do understand that a large percentage of democrat voters still love America, but the people on the left with a pedestal give off the impression that they hate everything about America.
I love America! I don't love our president or where we are going.
You love America so much you refuse to believe that Islam is a threat....
All you have posted on this topic is a video which I agreed with. Make your point that Radical Islam is bad, but your argument that Islam=Terrorism has gone no where.
Islam does not equal terrorism, but we are not the only culture with a fear of them. I have plenty of Hindu friends who are scared to death of muslims. The problem is the non-radical muslims need to get control of the radicals.

I am a Christian, but I understand that a lot of people are turned off by Christianity because some are very quick to judge other people. I definitely think homosexuality is a sin. It is undoubtedly a sin in Christianity and is a sin in most religions, but I am still going to treat my friends and family who are gay with love.
That's quite admirable of you. I am also a Christian, what denomination are you?

I think that the non-radical Muslims get overshadowed by the radical ones, unfortunately. I hope someday that the mindset will change.
11/20/2017 8:07 PM
Yup, like responsible gun owners get overshadowed by the nuts that shoot up churches and schools.
11/20/2017 8:30 PM
Posted by The Taint on 11/20/2017 8:30:00 PM (view original):
Yup, like responsible gun owners get overshadowed by the nuts that shoot up churches and schools.
It would be far worse to ban Muslims than to put RESTRICTIONS on guns.
11/20/2017 8:48 PM
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 8:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/20/2017 7:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/20/2017 8:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/19/2017 4:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by strikeout26 on 11/19/2017 4:29:00 PM (view original):
Posted by wylie715 on 11/19/2017 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by cccp1014 on 11/19/2017 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2017 3:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 11/18/2017 3:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/18/2017 2:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 11/18/2017 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tangplay on 11/18/2017 10:35:00 AM (view original):
I mean, we don't have a 'smoking gun' on TRUMP himself, necessarily, but we do know that people in his campaign were linked and he and his family had the direct means to get info from Russia. So it's very likely that he colluded. Right now, he will not be convicted. Later? We will see.
So, the answer the question is, despite all the Libs / Dems doing all the digging they possibly can, into everything and anything they possibly can, they have NOTHING AT ALL linking Trump to any type of crime. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Obstruction is a crime right? Trump admitted himself that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation. Be patient padawan. It's coming.
Well, I will agree that there is a better chance of Trump being charged of something than there is of me ever being your student.

That doesn't change the fact that as of now, the answer is still NO. (Nor is anything remotely imminent.) Make all the "brilliant" forecasts you like, but none of those ever seem to work-out for people touting Trump's demise.

Maybe all that time, effort and money would be better spent on trying to better this Country.
Getting rid of Trump will better this country.
Explain how

I think getting rid of people like you would make this country better. Please move. ASAP.
that is what most Trump supporters say. If you don't like it here, leave. My response would be "If you don't like it here, work to improve things."
They say this because so many Hillary supporters threatened to leave if Trump won. It appears that the left has lost all pride in this great country. I know this is stereotyping and I do understand that a large percentage of democrat voters still love America, but the people on the left with a pedestal give off the impression that they hate everything about America.
I love America! I don't love our president or where we are going.
You love America so much you refuse to believe that Islam is a threat....
All you have posted on this topic is a video which I agreed with. Make your point that Radical Islam is bad, but your argument that Islam=Terrorism has gone no where.
Islam does not equal terrorism, but we are not the only culture with a fear of them. I have plenty of Hindu friends who are scared to death of muslims. The problem is the non-radical muslims need to get control of the radicals.

I am a Christian, but I understand that a lot of people are turned off by Christianity because some are very quick to judge other people. I definitely think homosexuality is a sin. It is undoubtedly a sin in Christianity and is a sin in most religions, but I am still going to treat my friends and family who are gay with love.
That's quite admirable of you. I am also a Christian, what denomination are you?

I think that the non-radical Muslims get overshadowed by the radical ones, unfortunately. I hope someday that the mindset will change.
I wasn't saying that for kudos. I was just trying to compare the stigmas around both. I am Pentecostal.

The only way to change that mindset is to defeat the radicals, which I am not sure is possible as they have integrated into many different societies. I think this spurs the fear of them. There is no way of knowing who has been radicalized of the ones that live within our communities.
11/20/2017 8:55 PM
Posted by tangplay on 11/20/2017 8:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 11/20/2017 8:30:00 PM (view original):
Yup, like responsible gun owners get overshadowed by the nuts that shoot up churches and schools.
It would be far worse to ban Muslims than to put RESTRICTIONS on guns.
I respectfully disagree. Areas with legal guns are more safe. Google crime rates in Kennesaw, GA. A law was enacted there in 1982 and that every homeowner must own a gun. The crime rate in that city has plummeted 89% since the law was enacted. Gun crimes seem to happen more in "gun-free" zones.
11/20/2017 9:04 PM

Googled:


According to the graphic shown here, Kennesaw mandated gun ownership for all households in 1982, and as a result, crime rates dropped dramatically.

But even the most basic element of the claim, about the imposition of mandatory gun ownership in that town, wasn’t quite true. The law in question stated:

Sec. 34-21. – Heads of households to maintain firearms.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

In other words, Kennesaw residents were required to own guns … save for those Kennesaw residents who couldn’t afford guns, couldn’t use guns, couldn’t legally own guns, or simply didn’t want to have guns. Essentially, Kennesaw residents were never actually required to own guns, making most assertions about mandatory gun ownership and crime rates in that town highly problematic.

That law was a direct response to a (since repealed) 1981 handgun ban implemented in Morton Grove, Illinois. An important point of distinction was that Kennesaw’s law was largely symbolic and was never intended to be enforced; as such, it is clearly not an exceptionally good indicator of the effect of such a mandate on crime statistics.

As Kennesaw Police Department’s Lt. Craig Graydon explained in a February 2013 article, gun ownership wasn’t truly compulsory in Kennesaw (or ever intended to be):

Kennesaw’s 1982 gun mandate was a direct response to a gun ban enacted a year earlier in Morton Grove, Illinois. That was later deemed unconstitutional, but Kennesaw’s law is still on the books.

Added Lt. Graydon, “It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun. It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens’ second amendment rights to own firearms.”

Homeowners in Kennesaw who don’t buy a gun are not punished. In fact, there are several exemptions, including religious objections, if someone is a convicted felon, has a mental illness or simply can’t afford a weapon.

Lt. Graydon’s sentiment was echoed earlier in an April 1987 New York Times article in which then-Mayor J.O. Stephenson was quoted as saying:

Mayor Stephenson says that in the five years since the gun ordinance was adopted the city has never prosecuted anyone for refusing to keep a gun. Officials concede that the ordinance is, for all intents, unenforceable.

“We’re not interested in searching people’s houses,” said the Mayor. “Mostly, what we wanted to do was make a statement, to make people sit up and take notice. And they did, and we’re proud of that.”

Much of the claim hinged on the passage of time for plausibility. Hard statistics for the crime rate in a small Georgia city before 1982 were difficult to come by in 2015 (more than three decades later), but the author of a 18 March 1982 New York Times editorial titled “The Guns of Kennesaw” squeezed those numbers from the initially “reticent” Mayor Darvin Purdy and Chief of Police Robert Ruble:

The jovial officials turn more reticent when talk turns to crime statistics in their community of 7,000. Chief Ruble says overall crime in 1981 was up 16 percent from 1980. But you have to ask to find out the details. Armed robberies did soar — from one in 1980 to four in 1981. Homicides declined, from two in 1980 to none in 1981.

Soon afterwards, the narrative claiming a reduction in crime had begun to develop (even as Mayor Stephenson conceded he had no idea how many residents newly became gun owners because of the law):

In 1981, the year before the ordinance was adopted, Kennesaw recorded 55 house burglaries. The next year there were 26, and in 1985 only 11.

As the news excerpt referenced above indicated, a drop in homicides owing to a mandatory gun ownership law would be difficult to measure, as the number of murders that took place in Kennesaw the year prior to the law’s implementation was zero as therefore could drop no lower. And the increased number of armed robberies from 1980 (one) to 1981 (four) represented a sample so low that a subsequent reduction in such crime didn’t provide any meaningful data from which a conclusion about “mandatory” gun ownership and crime rates could be drawn.

Another aspect to consider is whether Kennesaw’s crime rates were observed elsewhere in the state. In the decade bracketing the law’s passage (1976 through 1986) there was a significant drop in murders, burglaries, property crimes, the property crime rate, and the burglary rate in Georgia as whole (despite Kennesaw’s outlier status with the gun law in question). Statewide, the murder rate similarly dropped in a fairly dramatic fashion after 1982 without a statewide law requiring gun ownership.

The graphic is correct in that Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a law in 1982 mandating all residents own a gun. But it neglected to mention that officials (who incidentally strongly supported the law) said repeatedly over the years that the law was symbolic and unenforceable, openly admitting that there was no information on whether even one additional gun was purchased due to its passage. In 1982, Kennesaw’s mayor and chief of police told the New York Times that their crime rate had always been low, and the entire state of Georgia experienced a drop in all crimes cited (burglary, property crime, and murder) in the years immediately following the law. So while the law remained on the books, there was functionally no “requirement” anyone own a gun, the already low crime rate of Kennesaw didn’t “plummet,” and the absence of the law’s enforcement rendered it virtually meaningless.

11/20/2017 9:13 PM
◂ Prev 1...19|20|21|22|23...922 Next ▸
TRUMP: Best President ever Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.