The Disavowal Game--Republicans Only Please
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
what a non sequitor that is.
You know I am for a smaller federal govt and and a govt which follows the constitution.
I despise this executive order crap.
The ideal president would use the bully pulpit to ferret out the traitors congress and make sure they are ridden out of town during the primary process. For instance he would also support candidates from any side of the isle who support legislation that is good for taxpayers and union people and those americans who wish to become tax payers... by not bringing in any more aliens at least, until we have very good employment and much higher wages. We could then use the tax receipts to help refugees in other countries to some degree if you wish to be compassionate.
You know I am for a smaller federal govt and and a govt which follows the constitution.
I despise this executive order crap.
The ideal president would use the bully pulpit to ferret out the traitors congress and make sure they are ridden out of town during the primary process. For instance he would also support candidates from any side of the isle who support legislation that is good for taxpayers and union people and those americans who wish to become tax payers... by not bringing in any more aliens at least, until we have very good employment and much higher wages. We could then use the tax receipts to help refugees in other countries to some degree if you wish to be compassionate.
Last edited:
And yet you're saying you hope Trump does not "work with" all those individuals. Maybe the hyper-partisanship which clouds your thinking makes you forget that those people you mention are on our side, they are Americans, with a different viewpoint from your own. If Trump will not work with anyone, except his sycophants, then he is a dictator.
you jest... these congressional leaders are on whose side?
your analysis is comical. not working with the establishment does not mean your a dictator.
You have been really off your logic lately.
hyper - partisanship? for which side... I dislike them both? I told you I would vote for oprah or dr phil over the establishment if they supported taxpayers and those who wish to have jobs by closing our borders till jobs and wages came back and went up.
your analysis is comical. not working with the establishment does not mean your a dictator.
You have been really off your logic lately.
hyper - partisanship? for which side... I dislike them both? I told you I would vote for oprah or dr phil over the establishment if they supported taxpayers and those who wish to have jobs by closing our borders till jobs and wages came back and went up.
That doesn't really make him a dictator, because he can't carry out everything he wants by himself. That ol' pesky checks and balances thing.
Yep, and that realization is going to make him very angry. It aint like the boardroom, Drumpf.
So now you know Trump personally? Who gives a damn if he gets angry. While I'm not a Trump fan, I give him much better chances at negotiation and working things out than "the Great Uniter".
By that rationale do you consider Obama a dictator??
I look forward to your many examples of how Obama has worked with anyone other than his boot lickers.
Last edited:
"Our first priority will be to ensure Obama is a one term president."
"We will not consider anyone, no matter who, that Obama nominates for scotus."
Number of vetoes by president:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/vetoes.php
Ok, maybe Obama's not a dictator, but just a narcissist... ?
"Charles Krauthammer has told Fox News that President Obama is a narcissist. And he should know, because once he was a psychologist.
"His evidence? Obama apparently says “I” too much. He’s all into himself instead of the country he’s supposed to be running. “Count the number of times he uses ‘I’ in any speech, and compare that to any other president,” limns Doctor Krauthammer. “Remember when he announced the killing of Bin Laden? That speech I believe had 29 references to ‘I’—on my command, I ordered, as Commander-in-Chief I was then told, I this.”
"But as linguist Mark Liberman notes at Language Log, the president used the word “I” exactly 10 times in that speech. Meanwhile, when Ronald Reagan made a speech in an analogous situation about Lebanon and Grenada, he used “I” exactly, um, 29 times. Yet to Krauthammer, who coined the term “Reagan Doctrine,” the Gipper was what a president is supposed to be. Why can’t Obama refer to himself as much as Reagan?
"Kruathammer isn’t alone in bridling at our president’s referring to himself in public addresses. George Will has complained about this too, and yet the whole notion is complete BS. A useful example: Conservative writer Howard Portnoy claimed Obama was “I”-ing up the place ungraciously during his debates with Mitt Romney. In fact, in the first debate, Romney said “I” 227 times to Obama’s 122; in the second, 260 to Obama’s 176; and in the third, 198 times to Obama’s 108.
"Clearly, it isn’t that Obama refers to himself to any notable degree. It’s that these pundits rankle inwardly when they hear the man saying “I”—because they deeply dislike him. Their innards seethe to see him expressing confidence, or otherwise reminding them that he, and not Mitt Romney, is the leader of the country. They want him down. They wish he’d go away. It’s ugly."
More >>
Last edited: