Neither does your whimpering. What won this debate was my deployment of logical arguments rooted in accurate factual information. Learn from that and you'll do better next time.
Trump's Business Acumen
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
Neither does your whimpering. What won this debate was my deployment of logical arguments rooted in accurate factual information. Learn from that and you'll do better next time.
buzz off. take that sanctimonious know it all somewhere else.
you still confuse collusion with conspiracy, you don't understand our military or the role of Pax Americana-
as opposed to Chinese hegemony ( and their rapid pace of military build up), military prowess/readiness
or why Russia and China are now strategic allies ( very bad -Russian engineering & Chinese money)
or Trumps de-regulation that is bringing us a booming economy-even while the feds raise rates
how you measure it SQUAWK! how you measure it SQUAWK! how you measure it SQUAWK! how you measure it SQUAWK!
Idiot thinks Lincoln was the problem. 
It is the case; Obama was the most inexperienced dunce ever to sit in the White House. For you morons who support him to bloviate about experience is laughably stupid.
Here's Obama himself admitting it, is he lying?
Obama says he's not ready to be President
No surprise there; because if you were aware you are an idiot, you could do something about it.
This is moronic in it's lunacy.
Poverty peaked to a historic high under Obama and didn't start diminishing until 2014.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/
As for median incomes, only Bush 41 did worse than Obama in the last 10 Presidencies.
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/median-income-president
STFU, seriously.
My God; are you really this fucking stupid?
Barack Obama's budget deficit was $6.69 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit.
Obama Has Presided Over 5 of 6 Largest Deficits in U.S. History
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...presided-over-5-6-largest-deficits-us-history
MSNBC Parrot says:
you'll need to find the courage to answer my questions first. And you're still cowering SQUAWK!
you'll need to find the courage to answer my questions first. And you're still cowering SQUAWK!
you'll need to find the courage to answer my questions first. And you're still cowering SQUAWK!
you'll need to find the courage to answer my questions first. And you're still cowering SQUAWK!
I've never claimed to know it all. I do, however, know the definition of collusion and of conspiracy and I know the facts in the matter of the Trump Tower meeting. That's what led to the conclusion that the meeting constituted a conspiracy and collusion. Whether or not it also results in criminal charges remains to be seen. There's some wiggle room there for prosecutors, since the particular crime they were conspiring to commit was made illegal by a statute that could be argued to infringe on the First Amendment if interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning. Basically, the argument would be that although the campaign finance law clearly makes it illegal for foreigners to give something of value to a campaign, if that is applied even to valuable information then it's a burden on the right of free speech, and so a court should reinterpret that law to allow the kind of assistance the Russian government was trying to provide here -- e.g., valuable docs and information to use against a political opponent. I think the best way to test that theory is to bring the case and allow the defendants to plead the first amendment as a defense. That makes more sense then prosecutors taking it on themselves to decide that the law should be ignored.
What makes you think that?
Isn't it true that the economy has been growing since mid-2009, including the period since mid-2011 when the Fed started hiking rates? What makes you think Trump's de-regulation has caused this boom that started seven and a half years before he took office?
Quiet? What’s wrong, shitstain? Can’t read? Here I am, fucktard. Right here.
Those comments are reserved for Havana only. Not you, cunt. Comprende, dumbshit?
You haven't scratched the surface. I had a debate once with him as you are having. His only point was to try and dox me or prove I was not a lawyer.
Was I or not was neither here nor there to me. It seemed vitally important to him. In so doing, he demonstrating to any objective observer he
was in way over his head and did not even understand the very basics of US jurisprudence, all while never yielding a bit. He was unaware of the common law
in the US. He thought the US operated on pure code jurisprudence. Obviously he had zero ability to perform case analysis. In his zeal to unwork me
he laid bare his ignorance, and nothing more. And never once in that journey of self degradation did he bring forth any facts or law on his side.
You are wasting your time. I wasted mine with him. I won't again. You've been forewarned.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Trump is a fraud. His success shouldn't be heralded as exemplary - he's more on the Madoff end of the scale. I don't put him in the same category of the Jobs, Turners & Gates of the world...
Funny little bitch. Sucking the TD dick. It looks like we have more than one waterboy, punk.
How is he a fraud snowflake? You idiots on the left think you can just erupt with buffoonish nonsense like this unchallenged?
Reread. I clearly identified the problem and it wasn't Lincoln.
As you're now aware, Obama had years of political experience, both in and out of government, including in the Senate. By comparison, we've had four presidents who had no political experience at the time they took office. As for the idea Obama was a dunce, keep in mind that he's someone who worked his way from obscurity to the highest ranks of academic accomplishment without any connections other than those he forged for himself, and without the advantages coming from wealth can afford. That doesn't sound like a dunce, does it?
Do you imagine he's admitting to what you said about him?
Incorrect. The poverty rate was nowhere near an historical high. Even at its post-Great Recession worst, in 2010, the poverty rate peaked at just 15.1%. The historical high is 22.4%, in the Eisenhower years. 15.1% just brought it back to where it was at one point during the Bush years, and didn't even equal the Reagan-era peak (15.2%). I'm happy to continue to act as your tutor on American history, but I'm going to have to ask you to also do some outside reading, because you have a whole lot of work to do to get to the point of basic competence in the subject.
Incorrect. From 2010 to 2013, it fell from 15.1% to 14.8%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/
Incorrect. Your link dates to March 2015, at which time the most recent income data was for 2013 (click on the Excel link to confirm). Thus, it leaves out Obama's three best years. Include those and you'll spot your error.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-households/h05.xls
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-families/f06ar.xls
As you can now see, real median household income rose 5.05% on Obama's watch. while median real family incomes rose 5.78%. That makes his number better than Bush, Bush, Carter, and Ford.
I'm curious, do you ever get tired of humiliating yourself this way? I mean, when you read and see I've spotted yet another glaring error you made ("oh, Christ, I used dated data from 2013"), do you just cringe? I've never been so incompetent as you at something like this, so I'm wondering what it feels like.
Hehe. You're using a dated link again -- once again the data stops at 2013. Yet, even then, you can see the improvement from Bush's last budget year, with a deficit of $1,415,724,000,000, according to your link (though actually it was just $1.2 trillion when Obama took office, as my earlier link showed), to Obama's last listed budget year, with a deficit of $680,276,000,000, according to your link. As you can see, that's an improvement by over half, according to your own source's data.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Awww....lying liberal dumbfuck triggered!!
That's our Dumber alright!
As a non-lawyer myself, I initially felt a little uncomfortable talking law, since it was clearly an area outside my core competence (math/finance/economics). But relative to the right-wingers here, I feel like Learned Hand. Even the most basic concepts of how our legal system works --the interaction of statutes, regulations, case-law, and the Constitution-- is beyond them.
The great depression saw unemployment at 30% and soup lines.
Obama oversaw real estate rebound putting a trillion $ back in homeowners' financial statements
The stock market went from 7000 to 15000
there was never a hint of inflation
the economy went from actual contraction to growth again
the one blemish was stubborn unemployment rates but still upon his exit they came down to about 6 or so.
He is widely credited with if not salvaging the world economy, but certainly US automotive industry.
Take your racist inspired falsehoods back to Rush Limbaugh radio.
Obama oversaw real estate rebound putting a trillion $ back in homeowners' financial statements
The stock market went from 7000 to 15000
there was never a hint of inflation
the economy went from actual contraction to growth again
the one blemish was stubborn unemployment rates but still upon his exit they came down to about 6 or so.
He is widely credited with if not salvaging the world economy, but certainly US automotive industry.
Take your racist inspired falsehoods back to Rush Limbaugh radio.
Which was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are not. Though you like to lie about it.
Legal training is not important here, but somehow it can intimidate some people so they want to run you down if you've done that. Basic logic and ability to marshal facts are the important things,
well strike that, the most important thing is to have some damn integrity and admit the other side has some good points too. That's the most frustrating thing about
unmoderated inconsequential for lack of a better term...unadjudicated "debate" is the failure for adversaries to give the devil his due.
Anyone wants my respect, first thing to do is make a concession of some kind. It's alot like personality disorders to me. If a person is unwilling to make a joke at their own expense,
I'm pretty certain that is a person with some serious issues and probably someone I don't care to know well.