Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Trump v. Hillary [TheForge] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Blah blah blah blah... Sure, ACA is a turd if you view it as a finished product or nearly so, not debating that (although like Dan I see it as more of a necessary step towards something else). But that's just details; the larger point was/is that simply rolling with the status quo in 2008 was not really a defensible option, so Obama took the risk of pushing for something else when there's obviously no guarantee of positive results ~ and that now you trumpet (pun intended) the ability to take action despite naysayers and not being afraid to fail as components of good leadership in your guy, but refuse to recognize that same coat when the other guy is wearing it (and instead vilifying him, to use your own word).

Cliffs notes version:

(from your own prior post) Trump does something stupid, fails. = "Well, at least he deserves credit for having the balls to try."

Obama tries to pick up a turd by the cleaner end, gets shit on his hands. = "What a dumbass."


Is that about right?
Quote Reply
Re: Trump v. Hillary [IHOP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
IHOP wrote:
Goobdog wrote:
IHOP wrote:
You obviously don't know how it works or what he did.

Turn off msnbc and read a little. - I RARELY watch MSNBC. I've been over this in another thread somewhere. For some reason when someone has an opposing view on this forum, the first call out is usually, "Turn off MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc... and read a little."


How about you consider the fact that there is more than one interpret how Trump sells his bankruptcies? When I, and others hear him talk, it sounds like bragging. Obviously you and others hear something differently.

Then look at what really happened with the auto industry bailouts. Bankruptcy would have been a MUCH better option for the company, tax payers and the legal bond holders. - I disagree, the fallout of the suppliers, workers, banks, etc... would have been devasting. The homebuilder I was with during the downturn eventually declared Chapter 11, while this was on a MUCH smaller scale than the auto industry, this severely crippled hundreds to thousands tied to the company I was associated with. Multiply that by a larger number and throw that at the auto industry and the effects are pretty damning.

At the very least, trump bankruptcies were done legally while the auto bail outs were illegal and violated contract law. - I can't speak intelligently against the legality of the auto bailout. If I had to make an argument, why hasn't any group filed suit challenging these actions? Trumps bankruptcies were legal. No argument here. Again, my complaint is the pride that I see him take in them

Let's also not forget where the Chrysler headquarters are located and to which country they pay taxes. - Auburn Hills. If your point in your open statement is that they avoid taxes because they are majority owned by Fiat, I agree tax dodging is an issue that needs to be addressed and corrected for Chrysler and many many other US companies. I don;t see either the Republicans or Democrats really trying on this issue. If you believe Trump and his corporations aren't playing this same game, I say release those tax returns!

Ummm no... Not Auburn hills but I don't blame you for not knowing the answer since you didn't hear Oblamer moaning about the inversion style change because he gave the company to Fiat in exchange for the $4 billion + payout Fiat made directly to the UAW.

http://www.automobilemag.com/...hq-moving-to-london/

The GM bankruptcy only screwed the legal bond holders and paid off the UAW. The bond holders tried fighting this illegal act but finally caved after immense federal (Obama directly) pressure. There's only so much you can do when the king commands his ransom.

The entire bailout was done as a giant UAW payoff. To say nobody else would have bought Chrysler was a monster sized load of bull shit... Like nobody wanted the Jeep brand or the hot selling Ram trucks. 100% pure bullshit.

The bankruptcy would have been a restructuring and not a closing of the business. The reason Oblamer would not allow this to happen is it would have allowed GM to renegotiate the UAW contracts and that's a no go for Oblamer and his crooked supporters.

If you look into this, also follow the money trail through Cerberus and you'll see how they were paid off as well.

The auto bailout cost the tax payers a fortune all for the benefit of the UAW.

http://m.townhall.com/...166-billion-n1952771
Quote Reply
Re: Trump v. Hillary [OneGoodLeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Its easy for a politician to take a risk when he has done little to become president and it isn't his money or his skin in the game. That isn't the kind of risk that betters society. He pushed the fucker through without support.

But keep washing Obama's balls. I guess somebody has to.


"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden
Quote Reply
Re: Trump v. Hillary [Sanuk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sanuk wrote:
He's a bit more measured and paced as he's reading from teleprompter.

He was against teleprompters, then used one, then was against them and now back to using them.





Share with me a video of President Obama giving a speech without one.

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012
Quote Reply
Re: Trump v. Hillary [Goobdog] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Goobdog wrote:
IHOP wrote:
Goobdog wrote:
IHOP wrote:

You obviously don't know how it works or what he did.

Turn off msnbc and read a little. - I RARELY watch MSNBC. I've been over this in another thread somewhere. For some reason when someone has an opposing view on this forum, the first call out is usually, "Turn off MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc... and read a little."


How about you consider the fact that there is more than one interpret how Trump sells his bankruptcies? When I, and others hear him talk, it sounds like bragging. Obviously you and others hear something differently.

Then look at what really happened with the auto industry bailouts. Bankruptcy would have been a MUCH better option for the company, tax payers and the legal bond holders. - I disagree, the fallout of the suppliers, workers, banks, etc... would have been devasting. The homebuilder I was with during the downturn eventually declared Chapter 11, while this was on a MUCH smaller scale than the auto industry, this severely crippled hundreds to thousands tied to the company I was associated with. Multiply that by a larger number and throw that at the auto industry and the effects are pretty damning.

At the very least, trump bankruptcies were done legally while the auto bail outs were illegal and violated contract law. - I can't speak intelligently against the legality of the auto bailout. If I had to make an argument, why hasn't any group filed suit challenging these actions? Trumps bankruptcies were legal. No argument here. Again, my complaint is the pride that I see him take in them

Let's also not forget where the Chrysler headquarters are located and to which country they pay taxes. - Auburn Hills. If your point in your open statement is that they avoid taxes because they are majority owned by Fiat, I agree tax dodging is an issue that needs to be addressed and corrected for Chrysler and many many other US companies. I don;t see either the Republicans or Democrats really trying on this issue. If you believe Trump and his corporations aren't playing this same game, I say release those tax returns!


Ummm no... Not Auburn hills but I don't blame you for not knowing the answer since you didn't hear Oblamer moaning about the inversion style change because he gave the company to Fiat in exchange for the $4 billion + payout Fiat made directly to the UAW.

http://www.automobilemag.com/...hq-moving-to-london/

The GM bankruptcy only screwed the legal bond holders and paid off the UAW. The bond holders tried fighting this illegal act but finally caved after immense federal (Obama directly) pressure. There's only so much you can do when the king commands his ransom.

The entire bailout was done as a giant UAW payoff. To say nobody else would have bought Chrysler was a monster sized load of bull shit... Like nobody wanted the Jeep brand or the hot selling Ram trucks. 100% pure bullshit.

The bankruptcy would have been a restructuring and not a closing of the business. The reason Oblamer would not allow this to happen is it would have allowed GM to renegotiate the UAW contracts and that's a no go for Oblamer and his crooked supporters.

If you look into this, also follow the money trail through Cerberus and you'll see how they were paid off as well.

The auto bailout cost the tax payers a fortune all for the benefit of the UAW.

http://m.townhall.com/...166-billion-n1952771


Weird, is there another headquarters the rest of the world isn't aware of?

http://bfy.tw/6Qsv


I tend to loose faith in your ability to conduct an argument when you go straight to the Oblamer, Obummer, King, etc... especially when it was the previous administration that proposed the bailout. That being said, whether it was Bush or Obama, the bailout was the painful, but best decision to make.


If there were buyers ready to purchase the GM Chysler group, who were they and why didn't they make an offer? The stock price at one time was under $1 ripe for someone to sweep in and make that offer. The Ram truck and Jeep weren't a hot seller back then. This was a company bleeding through money. Whether it was a restructuring or closing of business is impossible to say what the final outcome would have been had the bailout not been implemented. What is for certain, that restructuring did take place and was a gradual roll out that eased suppliers & laborers out of the hit they would have taken at once had the bankruptcy moved forward.
Quote Reply
Re: Trump v. Hillary [TheForge] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
TheForge wrote:
Its easy for a politician to take a risk when he has done little to become president and it isn't his money or his skin in the game. That isn't the kind of risk that betters society. He pushed the fucker through without support.

But keep washing Obama's balls. I guess somebody has to.

Uh, let's review basics... he made that one of, if not the central, planks in his campaign platform, and proceeded to win the election by the biggest margin since your hero Ronnie. Back here on Earth, that's called support.

Again, you can point back at the ACA now and say Congress ended up pushing out a turd and I won't disagree, but the fact remains he at least tried to address a widely-recognized and growing problem rather than continue to kick it down the road like his predecessors ~ meanwhile, you're happy to give Drumpf credit for taking action alone regardless of poor results. THAT is the dissonance you appear blind to.
Quote Reply

Prev Next