#NotTiredofWinning

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,564
2,165
743
Where else but Stillwater
#81
Link? And I mean a legitimate link. BTW, you should look at snopes. They say you're a liar.
I'm not a liar in my post. If there is one, it's David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer prize winning reporter. He has been watching Donald Trump since the 1980s. Trump and his businesses have been involved in over 3000 legal cases.
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,474
23,849
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#86
YES! Trump sure as hell was successful when it comes to taking off real estate business losses when figuring his income taxes. More successful than anybody else doing it.
Billion Dollar Loser: NYT Report on Trump’s Taxes & Massive Losses May Prompt Fraud Investigation

"He is a con artist. He’s a criminal. He is a fraud. And once the banks realized that they had been had, nobody would loan money to him anymore, except Deutsche Bank, which was the preferred bank for Russian oligarchs—that is the criminal gang around Vladimir Putin—to launder their money."
Liberal Logic 101:
Government is good, but people who legally use the system that government puts in place are bad.
Well some of them are bad, those that we deem as good are still good, those we don't like are bad.
Those we determine are bad, should be investigated and thrown out of office so that we can bring back the kind of politicians who created the loopholes that Trump took advantage of in the first place.....all so that other rich people that we deem are good and wish to pay back for their donations, can continue do what Trump did (which we didn't care about at the time because Trump was a Democrat and thus good).
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,737
8,315
1,743
#90
I'm not a liar in my post. If there is one, it's David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer prize winning reporter. He has been watching Donald Trump since the 1980s. Trump and his businesses have been involved in over 3000 legal cases.
Whoa... a Pulitzer prize winning reporter! That makes this cat like ultra-uber credible, right?

Like George Dohrmann levels of reporting credibility? :derp: :facepalm:
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,307
49,536
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#91
Liberal Logic 101:
Government is good, but people who legally use the system that government puts in place are bad.
Well some of them are bad, those that we deem as good are still good, those we don't like are bad.
Those we determine are bad, should be investigated and thrown out of office so that we can bring back the kind of politicians who created the loopholes that Trump took advantage of in the first place.....all so that other rich people that we deem are good and wish to pay back for their donations, can continue do what Trump did (which we didn't care about at the time because Trump was a Democrat and thus good).
1557414200615.png
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,686
2,464
1,743
So Cal
#94
So it's not a good time, so far, to advocate abolishing the Electoral College. Trump has Bush II beat for being a better president for the time being.
not a good time? When would anybody ever want to eliminate the Republic?

What exactly do you propose replacing it with? You can't just abolish the Republic without having a replacement form of government.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,567
3,164
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#95
The Republicans moved to the center, not the right, and Trump wasn't the cause of the move, he is the result of it. Conservatism is all but dead in the GOP and the voters lashed out at the establishment, we got Trump. Unfortunately, in their blind rage, the Rep voters nominated yet another moderate, but at least this time they nominated one who is definitely NOT a part of the GOP establishment the way Bush, McCain and Romney are/were.

The funny thing is if the Dems weren't so crazy insane over Trump in his first term, I bet he would be MUCH more pliable to work with them on more left moderate items if he wins a 2nd term (he IS a moderate after all). My fear from the start is that Trump would support some kind of Dem sponsored assault weapons ban in a 2nd term (since he won't have to worry about re-election) but the bitterness between him and the Dems might just last long enough to prevent any kind of cooperation at all.
Funny thing is, Trump is a Dem. I think he would love to work with them if they would allow it. But that would be seen as "winning" and we can't have any of that.
 
Jul 20, 2018
1,468
214
143
77539
#96
Funny thing is, Trump is a Dem. I think he would love to work with them if they would allow it. But that would be seen as "winning" and we can't have any of that.
You know? That's a really good point. He should change his political affiliation to the democrats and keep doing exactly what he's been doing. The dims are so stupid, they would vote for him because he's now one of them and the republicans would vote for him because he's doing what they want done. Brilliant!!!!!
 
Nov 16, 2013
3,139
1,981
743
33
tractor
#97
You know? That's a really good point. He should change his political affiliation to the democrats and keep doing exactly what he's been doing. The dims are so stupid, they would vote for him because he's now one of them and the republicans would vote for him because he's doing what they want done. Brilliant!!!!!
That would be a moment that is priceless. Should he ride the escalator down at Trump Tower to a press conference
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,564
2,165
743
Where else but Stillwater
#98
not a good time? When would anybody ever want to eliminate the Republic?

What exactly do you propose replacing it with? You can't just abolish the Republic without having a replacement form of government.
In the past, national leaders haven't been afraid of reducing the Republic by successfully sponsoring a constitutional amendment to allow citizens to vote for both of their senators, instead of continuing letting state legislatures worry about it. Doing it the old way didn't always go well. You may very much hate it now, but that is just too bad.

When Republicans start winning the popular vote and losing the Electoral College, it will be a better time to talk about replacing it, especially if they still rule. Trump still hasn't been bad enough to justify talk of ending the Electoral College, but he still has a long way to go before he is out of there. By the way, the majority of Americans, including President Trump, if he hasn't changed his mind, favor abolishing the Electoral College.
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,686
2,464
1,743
So Cal
In the past, national leaders haven't been afraid of reducing the Republic by successfully sponsoring a constitutional amendment to allow citizens to vote for both of their senators, instead of continuing letting state legislatures worry about it. Doing it the old way didn't always go well. You may very much hate it now, but that is just too bad.

When Republicans start winning the popular vote and losing the Electoral College, it will be a better time to talk about replacing it, especially if they still rule. Trump still hasn't been bad enough to justify talk of ending the Electoral College, but he still has a long way to go before he is out of there. By the way, the majority of Americans, including President Trump, if he hasn't changed his mind, favor abolishing the Electoral College.
don't even try to snowball me with your nonsense.... The 17th amendment was passed when the radical libs and Marxists were in power, and those political winds have shifted back toward the wisdom and genius of our founding.

I'm not much interested in your "polls" about what "people want", since they don't even know what it even means. If asked about the electoral college they apparently say replace it (barely, and declining), but if you asked the same people a similar question about ending the Republic and installing a pure democracy, how do you think the responses would go?

Study: Americans Don't Know Much About History
There's an epidemic of historical and political ignorance, says report
A majority of Americans from all backgrounds struggled to come up with the correct answers in a quiz about American history by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). More than 2,500 randomly selected Americans took ISI's basic 33 question test on civic literacy and 71% of them received an average score of 49% or an "F."

Ian Bremmer Is democracy essential? Millennials increasingly aren't sure — and that should concern us all.

According to a study published in October 2017 by Pew Research, there’s a division of opinion in many countries today on whether states are more effectively governed by “experts” or elected officials. In advanced economies, young adults are more likely than older people to prefer technocracy to democracy. The study found that in the U.S., 46 percent of those aged 18 to 29 would prefer to be governed by experts compared with 36 percent of respondents aged 50 and older.

A study from Harvard’s Yascha Mounk and the University of Melbourne’s Roberto Stefan Foa published in the Journal of Democracy in January 2017 produced an even more striking result. Perhaps most alarming was the revelation than one quarter of millennials agreed that “choosing leaders through free elections is unimportant.” Just 14 percent of Baby Boomers and 10 percent of older Americans agreed.