Jump to content

Can I LOL this?


westend1

Recommended Posts

Politics

Trump Says He Doesn't Want Poor People In Charge Of The Economy

710c91c0-4b9c-11e7-8912-374be9390b1b_H-1 Nick Visser,HuffPost 11 hours ago 
President Donald Trump spoke to a crowd of thousands in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Wednesday. (Jonathan Ernst / Reuters)

President 

This is the hidden content, please
, addressing criticism that 
This is the hidden content, please
 and others in his Cabinet are too rich, said at an Iowa rally Wednesday that he doesn’t want poor people in charge of the economy.

“These are people that are great, brilliant business minds, and that’s what we need, that’s what we have to have so the world doesn’t take advantages of us,” Trump, told 

This is the hidden content, please
 in Cedar Rapids. “We can’t have the world taking advantage of us anymore. And I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I just don’t want a poor person. Does that make sense? Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stevenash said:

But some people will take/interpret his statement and then say  Trump said he hates poor people.  And the bots sheep will regurgitate at breakneck speed.

Yep, that's the interpretation I'm predicting also. I bet we hear "Trump hates poor people" for at least 4 more years (hopefully 8 years). I would also bet this line will splinter to "Republicans hate poor people". Of course, that's already a prevalent theme from Liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see, many on the left don't think Trump should be the president because he has no experience in running any government program. He has no clue what he is doing. He should leave it to the career politicians that know how things work. 

Okay, so Trump wants people that know how to spur growth in charge of the economy... but now the left is saying, hey, experience is not needed. Middle class Americans need to be in charge of what is good economically. 

I don't know if Trump is correct but I understand his concept. I don't want a college dropout that is organizing anti-military peace rallies to be in charge of the Department of Defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Let's see, many on the left don't think Trump should be the president because he has no experience in running any government program. He has no clue what he is doing. He should leave it to the career politicians that know how things work. 

Okay, so Trump wants people that know how to spur growth in charge of the economy... but now the left is saying, hey, experience is not needed. Middle class Americans need to be in charge of what is good economically. 

I don't know if Trump is correct but I understand his concept. I don't want a college dropout that is organizing anti-military peace rallies to be in charge of the Department of Defense. 

But do they all have to be super rich?   He hires donors.  Drain the swamp my rear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats wrong with this line of thinking?  By the time  one is in the autumn of his life and has become very accomplished at his or her particular endeavor, there is a very good chance that doing well in that particular field of endeavor has allowed one to accumulate a meaningful sum of material wealth.  In contrast, those who have done an average job or slightly above or below average were unable to accumulate as much.  Should we hire those who have done exceptionally well or should we hire the near average person so doing so can seem more politically correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Whats wrong with this line of thinking?  By the time  one is in the autumn of his life and has become very accomplished at his or her particular endeavor, there is a very good chance that doing well in that particular field of endeavor has allowed one to accumulate a meaningful sum of material wealth.  In contrast, those who have done an average job or slightly above or below average were unable to accumulate as much.  Should we hire those who have done exceptionally well or should we hire the near average person so doing so can seem more politically correct?

If we go for below average, and someone who didn't donate to Trump, I'm your man.  What's it pay?

And I don't wanna here no "dollar a year" bovine feces.  High 6 figures or low seven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Whats wrong with this line of thinking?  By the time  one is in the autumn of his life and has become very accomplished at his or her particular endeavor, there is a very good chance that doing well in that particular field of endeavor has allowed one to accumulate a meaningful sum of material wealth.  In contrast, those who have done an average job or slightly above or below average were unable to accumulate as much.  Should we hire those who have done exceptionally well or should we hire the near average person so doing so can seem more politically correct?

There you go, holding the little man down again by requiring he be qualified.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,978
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Tomball takes wild 2nd game 8-6. Both teams had 3 E's. Tomball gave up a late lead but first game pitching star Sampson nailed a 3 run homer to push Tomball to victory. 
    • My understanding is that the falsification of records was the crime that he was convicted of… but for it to have been a felony act, it had to have occurred in the furtherance of another criminal act. The prosecution had to first prove that the criminal act of falsifying documents had occurred. IF the jury believed that records were falsified, they were given three possible criminal acts… any one of the three would allow a felony conviction. The instructions stated that for any of the 34 charges, all twelve of the jurors had to agree that records were falsified, but they also had to believe that the records were falsified in the furtherance of at least one other, different crime. Six jurors could believe that Trump was falsifying records to avoid paying taxes… the other six could believe that it was skirt around election laws. The jurors didn’t have to agree on which of the three alleged criminal acts Trump was trying to further by falsifying records, just so long as they agreed that a) the falsification occurred and that it b) occurred to help him cover up another crime (for which he wasn’t charged and never proven to have committed or to have even occurred, for that matter).     Complete pile of crap as a prosecution, in my opinion.     But, we shouldn’t cry if our nominee is the kind of man who bangs porn stars while his wife is at home with the kid, then tries to buy her silence, then breaks the law in regards to falsifying documents to hide the evidence of the coverup.    If you’re wondering why falsifying those records might be illegal, it’s this. Money paid to your attorney for services performed can be deducted from one’s taxes as a legal expense. If the money is paid to a person to settle a personal claim, then the amount would be taxable-the falsification would have been done to avoid taxation. On the other hand, if campaign funds were spent to pay hush money and the records were falsified to hide the violation of campaign laws, then the felony occurred.    The bottom line is this…. They didn’t have enough evidence to indict trump on any of those three things that allegedly happened… but they DID have evidence that the financial records were falsified, so they point at these other acts which can’t be proven to bump the charges on falsification to a felony.    And the reason Trump didn’t take the stand is that he can’t go on the record about whether or not he had sex with Daniels… I’m certain that they can prove it and hang him up on perjury too.    The most delicious irony is this… Trump gave his supporters too much credit for their integrity. He thought they’d turn on him if they found out what he’d done, when in reality they wouldn’t have given a care… Trump’s whole falsifying records and quest for secrecy wasn’t even needed… his followers don’t have moral objections to his sinful acts.  
    • Wake is about to go from Preseason #1 to the 1st team eliminated 
    • The Republican Party is dying because of folks like you who want to compromise with socialists and folks that proclaim “from the river to the sea” in reference to Israel.  I don’t want a party that folks such as yourself want to save, may as well be democrats, which you apparently are. My standards haven’t changed, yours have.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...