Why i'm a conservative republican.

[Need answers]

which proves beyond any doubt that it's NOT the President who is responsible for "dividing" society. And so a favorite claim of the opposition party bites the dust. Thank you.

They really do hate republicans but claim to be tolerant.

 

[The Barbarian]

which proves beyond any doubt that it's NOT the President who is responsible for "dividing" society.

Looking at the different terms Americans use for him, it's very obvious that he has. He's extremely divisive, and is proud of it. It's what demagogues do. Yes, most of the terms are negative, but then he's never had the support of most Americans. What he's done is exacerbate the differences for political gain.

And this list demonstrates the division he has caused. As you now sort of admit, in a backhanded kind of way.

Thank you

 

[GACfan]

Looking at the different terms Americans use for him, it's very obvious that he has. He's extremely divisive, and is proud of it. It's what demagogues do. Yes, most of the terms are negative, but then he's never had the support of most Americans. What he's done is exacerbate the differences for political gain.

And this list demonstrates the division he has caused. As you now sort of admit, in a backhanded kind of way.

Thank you

Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of being divisive and derisive. It would be disingenuous of any conservative to attempt to place the blame entirely on the Democrats for causing division in this country. It's not as if Republicans are perfect little angels and it's only Democrats who are causing all the political strife. Conservatives especially can't claim innocence in this matter if they support Trump, who maliciously insults and mocks other people. As you can see in these articles, he has done more than his fair share of causing strife. It would be disingenuous of his supporters to claim otherwise.

Trump's most memorable insults and nicknames of 2018

The expansive, repetitive universe of Trump’s Twitter insults

Trump's tactic to attack black people and women: insult their intelligence

A guide to Trump's nicknames and insults about the 2020 Democratic field

Here’s A List Of Countries And Leaders Trump Has Insulted Since His Election

 

[The Barbarian]

Thatsnot what what was stated by the
Of course it was legal, and it was tax payers money too.

By law tax refunds, subsidies, contract payments for work done, and so on, are the property of those who get them.
Do you deny that?

The point is, those funds, which also include money for work done on federal contracts, would be disbursed regardless of whether or not Obama got it back because of the bailout. That money was legally disbursed for reasons totally unrelated to the profit made by Obama's program.

They used tax dollars to pay back the loans, something you denied.

No. Once disbursed, those are not tax dollars. They belong to whoever gets them, by subsidy, tax return, payment for services, or whatever. Obama had no control of those, and they would have been disbursed because the government was legally obligated to do so, by law. For reasons unrelated to Obama's program (which as you know made a large profit for us).

The program made a profit for one reason; it earned more money than it disbursed. Just that simple.
You denied it, and have been proven wrong. Can't you admit when you are wrong?

We bailed them out, and then payed back their loans for them too.

If we had given them money to pay back the loans or to buy back stock, that would have been the case. But as you know, that wasn't the case. No such funds were given.

But according to you the tax payers didn't pay back those loans.

The subsidies, tax refunds, and contract monies, most of which were done by republican presidents and congresses, was paid for by taxpayers. But once disbursed, they belong to the companies to use as they wish. Some of them used it to buy back their stock or pay off the loans.

You know this, but continue to deny it. Why not just admit the fact?

Perhaps the scale of the thing confuses you. Let's take something simpler.

Suppose you have a business, and because you think education makes people better employees, you give an extra $100 dollars to them, if they have a certain number of college hours, and you have subsidized day care for your employees, where you give them a certain amount of money for day care of their kids.

Suppose one them owes you money for some other reason, and uses the day care or education subsidy to pay you back. When they take it out of their account and give it to you, is that your money or their money? What if it's just from their salary?

Does that help?

 

[The Barbarian]

Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of being divisive and derisive.

If you asked a hundred random Americans for the most divisive politician in America, who would be most frequently mentioned?

Yep. I rest my case.

 

[Albion]

Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of being divisive and derisive. It would be disingenuous of any conservative to attempt to place the blame entirely on the Democrats for causing division in this country.

You are right. However, if we are to be candid about this, there are several other facts that should be acknowledged.

First, the opposition to Trump has been much more savage than anything that he's given back, and second, Republicans haven't made it a point to call the Democratic candidates for president "divisive" or people who've destroyed civility in this country...but it's a favorite allegation of the people who deride the president.

 

[Need answers]

No. Once disbursed, those are not tax dollars.

They are tax payer dollars before they get dispersed! What kind of fuzzy math are you trying to use here?

 

[Need answers]

You are right. However, if we are to be candid about this, there are several other facts that should be acknowledged.

First, the opposition to Trump has been much more savage than anything that he's given back, and second, Republicans haven't made it a point to call the Democratic candidates for president "divisive" or people who've destroyed civility in this country...but it's a favorite allegation of the people who deride the president.

Just google unhinged liberal goes berserk and you will see how violent and crazy liberals can get.

 

[The Barbarian]

First, the opposition to Trump has been much more savage than anything that he's given back

You seriously believe that?

Trump's vindictiveness is legendary. He once withheld critically-needed insurance coverage from a very ill nephew, as a way to pressure his parents in a lawsuit.

He fired Lt. Col Vindman for doing his duty, but also fired Vindman's twin brother for no other reason than he was his brother.

He has the values of a Mafia don.

And remember, he was the one peddling the Obama is a Muslim/Kenyan story. We all knew that the first black president was going to infuriate the sewer creatures, but it seems no story was too crazy for those people to believe. The "not an American" story was just one of milder ones.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. Once disbursed, those are not tax dollars.

They are tax payer dollars before they get dispersed!

Then they aren't tax dollars anymore. They belong to whoever lawfully received them. Look at my simplified model, and maybe you can figure it out.

What kind of fuzzy math are you trying to use here?

It's always funny when someone without a clue about math talks about "fuzzy math." Learn about it here:

In layman's terms...

Usually, a fuzzification of mathematical concepts is based on a generalization of these concepts from characteristic functions to membership functions. Let A and B be two fuzzy subsets of X. Intersection A ∩ B and union A ∪ B are defined as follows: (A ∩ B)(x) = min(A(x),B(x)), (A ∪ B)(x) = max(A(x),B(x)) for all x ∈ X. Instead of min and max one can use t-norm and t-conorm, respectively ,[4] for example, min(a,b) can be replaced by multiplication ab. A straightforward fuzzification is usually based on min and max operations because in this case more properties of traditional mathematics can be extended to the fuzzy case.

A very important generalization principle used in fuzzification of algebraic operations is a closure property. Let * be a binary operation on X. The closure property for a fuzzy subset A of X is that for all x,y ∈ X, A(x*y) ≥ min(A(x),A(y)). Let (G,*) be a group and A a fuzzy subset of G. Then A is a fuzzy subgroup of G if for all x,y in G, A(x*y−1) ≥ min(A(x),A(y−1)).

A similar generalization principle is used, for example, for fuzzification of the transitivity property. Let R be a fuzzy relation in X, i.e. R is a fuzzy subset of X×X. Then R is transitive if for all x,y,z in X, R(x,z) ≥ min(R(x,y),R(y,z)).
Fuzzy mathematics - Wikipedia

(WFTM-I)

 

[Albion]

You seriously believe that?
There is no doubt of it.

Trump's vindictiveness is legendary.

Possibly, but although he's often called a counterpuncher, his insults simply pale in number and viciousness when compared with what the "RESIST!" movement has called him--for years on end. And that's to say nothing of their verbal attack on his family members, calls for attacking the homes and livelihoods of his supporters and even people suspected of having voted for him, vandalism of his property, and on and on.

He fired Lt. Col Vindman for doing his duty...

He fired Vindman for the same reason a lot of previous presidents fired their advisors. If they are found to be disloyal, they obviously shouldn't be in those positions, and when Vindman admitted to leaking and undercutting his president by advising corrupt Ukrainian officials to defy his own country, that was enough. He really ought to be satisfied that, although no longer a presidential advisor, he was sent on to an even cushier job in the military.

As for the "doing his duty" comment, that is simply your editorial, not a statement of fact.

 

[Need answers]

No. Once disbursed, those are not tax dollars.


Then they aren't tax dollars anymore. They belong to whoever lawfully received them. Look at my simplified model, and maybe you can figure it out.



It's always funny when someone without a clue about math talks about "fuzzy math." Learn about it here:

In layman's terms...

Usually, a fuzzification of mathematical concepts is based on a generalization of these concepts from characteristic functions to membership functions. Let A and B be two fuzzy subsets of X. Intersection A ∩ B and union A ∪ B are defined as follows: (A ∩ B)(x) = min(A(x),B(x)), (A ∪ B)(x) = max(A(x),B(x)) for all x ∈ X. Instead of min and max one can use t-norm and t-conorm, respectively ,[4] for example, min(a,b) can be replaced by multiplication ab. A straightforward fuzzification is usually based on min and max operations because in this case more properties of traditional mathematics can be extended to the fuzzy case.

A very important generalization principle used in fuzzification of algebraic operations is a closure property. Let * be a binary operation on X. The closure property for a fuzzy subset A of X is that for all x,y ∈ X, A(x*y) ≥ min(A(x),A(y)). Let (G,*) be a group and A a fuzzy subset of G. Then A is a fuzzy subgroup of G if for all x,y in G, A(x*y−1) ≥ min(A(x),A(y−1)).

A similar generalization principle is used, for example, for fuzzification of the transitivity property. Let R be a fuzzy relation in X, i.e. R is a fuzzy subset of X×X. Then R is transitive if for all x,y,z in X, R(x,z) ≥ min(R(x,y),R(y,z)).
Fuzzy mathematics - Wikipedia

(WFTM-I)

And your point is? Its still tax dollars going to bankers to pay off loans. I cant believe your denial.

 

[Need answers]

There is no doubt of it.

Trump's vindictiveness is legendary.

Possibly, but although he's often called a counterpuncher, his insults simply pale in number and viciousness when compared with what the "RESIST!" movement has called him--for years on end. And that's to say nothing of their verbal attack on his family members, calls for attacking the homes and livelihoods of his supporters and even people suspected of having voted for him, vandalism of his property, and on and on.


He fired Vindman for the same reason a lot of previous presidents fired their advisors. If they are found to be disloyal, they obviously shouldn't be in those positions, and when Vindman admitted to leaking and undercutting his president by advising corrupt Ukrainian officials to defy his own country, that was enough. He really ought to be satisfied that, although no longer a presidential advisor, he was sent on to an even cushier job in the military.

As for the "doing his duty" comment, that is simply your editorial, not a statement of fact.[/QUOTE]


Nancy Pelosi is vindictive and childish. The SOTUS proved that.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. Once disbursed, those are not tax dollars. When they belong to someone else, then they aren't tax dollars anymore. They belong to whoever lawfully received them. Look at my simplified model, and maybe you can figure it out.

And your point is?

You seem to be blaming Obama for what previous presidents did. He didn't invent tax refunds, subsidies, or federal contracts, but you act as though they were part of his program. As you realize, the bailout made a huge profit. But you seem to think that if the federal goverment had previously authorized tax refunds, subsidies, and contract payment, it doesn't count. For some reason, you're unable to explain why. I urge you to read my simplified model and see if that clears it up for you.

Its still tax dollars going to bankers to pay off loans.

If they lawfully belong to private corporations,they aren't tax dollars. Obama's program made a huge profit, because it paid out much less than it got back. Your denial is puzzling.

 

[The Barbarian]

Possibly, but although he's often called a counterpuncher, his insults simply pale in number and viciousness when compared with what the "RESIST!" movement has called him--for years on end.

But you can't find anything to match the stuff his followers were saying about Obama? There's a reason for that.

He fired Vindman for the same reason a lot of previous presidents fired their advisors.

Show me another president who fired an advisor for reporting an illegal act by the president. They exist, but who it was, will be instructive for you. And no, it isn't just my opinion; Trump's own GAO says it was illegal.

If they are found to be disloyal

Vindman, as you know, was fired for being loyal to his oath and his code of conduct as a soldier. He was fired for not putting loyalty to Trump above loyalty to his country.

they obviously shouldn't be in those positions, and when Vindman admitted to leaking and undercutting his president by advising corrupt Ukrainian officials to defy his own country,

Nope. That's just a story Trump people tell to cover up.

As for the "doing his duty" comment, that is simply your editorial, not a statement of fact.

Nope:
Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy confirmed on Friday afternoon that there are "no investigations" into Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

"Col. Vindman was scheduled to come back to the Army — he was detailed to the National Security Council — by a May, June timeframe, so we brought him back," McCarthy said at the National Press Club. "He's got basically a bridging assignment for a couple months, at HQDA, and then will be heading on to a senior service college this summer."

"There's no investigations there."
Army Secretary confirms there are 'no investigations' into Lt. Col. Vindman

John Kelly defends Vindman: ‘He did exactly what we teach them to do’

The former White House chief of staff said Vindman’s decision to escalate his concerns about Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president was in line with military training.

“He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly said at an event at Drew University in New Jersey, according to The Atlantic. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.”
...
“We teach them, Don’t follow an illegal order. And if you’re ever given one, you’ll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss,” Kelly said Wednesday of Vindman’s flagging of the call, during which Trump pressured Zelensky to open foreign probes into his domestic political rivals.
John Kelly defends Vindman: ‘He did exactly what we teach them to do’

Nancy Pelosi is...

Sorry, no bunny trails for you, today.

 

[Need answers]

Obama's program made a huge profit, because it paid out much less than it got back. Your denial is puzzling.

Isn't it Bush's program? If you should be praising anyone for how well it worked shouldn't it be him?

 

[The Barbarian]

Isn't it Bush's program?

Some of it. Obama expanded and administered it. That's why it was so profitable.

If you should be praising anyone for how well it worked shouldn't it be him?

Bush did the right thing in this case. Why shouldn't we give him credit for it, too?

 

[Need answers]

Some of it. Obama expanded and administered it. That's why it was so profitable.



Bush did the right thing in this case. Why shouldn't we give him credit for it, too?

Actually the biggest part, 700 billion, was from Bush's program.

 

[Quartermaine]

Just google unhinged liberal goes berserk and you will see how violent and crazy liberals can get.

i di just that and was shocked and disgusted by the promotion and use of violence and threats of violence i found, especially disturbing is how often this violence was directed towards children. ....Then i noticed i had accidentally googles "unhinged hateful conservatives"

 

[Yarddog]

I dont believe that Trump or any politicians are the best people in the world, but i do believe that someone has to stand against these liberal socialists.

Who's gonna stand against all of the conservative socialist?

These so called democrats want our guns,

No they don't.

our freedom of speech and our money.

No they don't.

The biggest problem is how they try to silence pro gun and pro life people, and anyone who stands in their way.

They don't want to silence either.

That's not very democratic is it?

Since none of this is true, then democratic has nothing to do with it.