Are the Democrats trying to get Trump reelected?

Check the scoreboard, loser:

# of Private sector jobs created in Obama's last 25 months: 5.3M

# of private sector jobs created in Trump's first 25 months: 4.9M

WTF is that supposed to mean you moron? The jobs that were being created during Obamunism were low wage part time jobs. Not the case right now.

Why use the last 25 months? Don't like how it pans out with his last year in office versus Trumps first year? STFU you willful idiot.

Obama's first four years in office saw a LOSS of -2,893,000 jobs. Trumps first two years saw an increase of 4,325,000.

Yet only 20,000 jobs were created, and 0.4% wage growth among all workers, or just those at the top? Take out the 1%'s wage growth from that 0.4% and what does wage growth actually look like for 99% of workers?
You haven't bothered to do that work, have you? It's OK to admit you're lazy.

You fucking moron; Trump has seen a net increase of 7,218,000 jobs his first two years versus Obama in four years. Stop being such a dishonest moron bloviating unadulterated bullshit.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.pdf
 
They haven't taken over anything, and being a loudmouth racist bigot is not being antiglobalist, it's being fascist.

Secondly, there's that present tense hedge again..."taking". Not "took", but rather "taking". So once again, you haven't accomplished anything, you've just made promises about what you will do. At some point, present tense becomes past tense, and presently, you have not accomplished a thing. That's why you're speaking only in present terms like "we are" or "is happening".

Sounds like when a researcher is late in getting their feedback to me and tells me that they're "working on it". That doesn't fill me with confidence when I hear someone hedge like that. So I don't know why it's acceptable to you. Wait - I know why...because of your inherent bias.

Your inherent bias makes allowances for present-tense assurances as opposed to past-tense accomplishments. You just keep putting the accomplishments off and off and off until it's January 2021 and Trump's gone, and you have nothing to show for it other than an election loss.




It's more insidious because it's fascism.

I wouldn't get too comfortable, fascism has a short shelf-life.

lol. globalism, being perfect for corporatism, is actually the new fascism. internationalist fascism, to be precise.

the new world order is failing. only bad people want it.
 
Get the government out of both and we'd be just fine

The government got into Medicare because at the end of 1962, about half of seniors had health care coverage.

By 1966, 100% of seniors had health care coverage.

The government isn't causing high health care costs, private sector greed is.
 
Except when it comes to health care and education. Then it's OK for the US to rank below countries like Estonia because SOSHILIZM!!!!!

Liberals love to use selective data for their bullshit. I don't see a lot of immigrants knocking down Estonia's doors to get in, do you? How about France? Or Spain? Moron.
 
globalism, being perfect for corporatism, is actually the new fascism. internationalist fascism, to be precise.

And now you're at the point in the debate where you set arbitrary personal standards, thus spiking any serious discussion because you haven't given this any serious thought.

You just react because it's most comfortable for you and your lizard brain.


the new world order is failing. only bad people want it.

There's that present tense again; "is failing". Why hasn't it already failed? Why hasn't that already happened? Why do you keep making assurances and promises that something will happen when you know it won't?

Simple; it makes you feel better about yourself.

Who's the real snowflake here?
 
The government got into Medicare because at the end of 1962, about half of seniors had health care coverage.

By 1966, 100% of seniors had health care coverage.

The government isn't causing high health care costs, private sector greed is.
The government got into medicare because it wanted to use healthcare as a means to take control of the people - a Trojan Horse, so to speak. ;)
 
And now you're at the point in the debate where you set arbitrary personal standards, thus spiking any serious discussion because you haven't given this any serious thought.

You just react because it's most comfortable for you and your lizard brain.




There's that present tense again; "is failing". Why hasn't it already failed? Why hasn't that already happened? Why do you keep making assurances and promises that something will happen when you know it won't?

Simple; it makes you feel better about yourself.

Who's the real snowflake here?

good luck in your battle with logic and reason.

you're good at indentifying verb tense, there may be a future there for you. meanwhile, the world is passing you by, right now, in the present.
 
The government got into medicare because it wanted to use healthcare as a means to take control of the people - a Trojan Horse, so to speak.

This is paranoia.

The government created Medicare because only half of seniors had health care coverage, and many were dying in poverty.

Health insurance – In 1962, approximately 51% of all persons over the age of 65 had private health insurance; 49% did not.
https://rodgers-associates.com/blog/medicares-50th-anniversary-remember-when/

Today, 100% of seniors have health insurance.

Your "free market" determined that seniors shouldn't have health care because it's too limiting to insurance company profits to cover seniors at a reasonable cost.
 
The government got into Medicare because at the end of 1962, about half of seniors had health care coverage.

By 1966, 100% of seniors had health care coverage.

The government isn't causing high health care costs, private sector greed is.

Another moronic bloviation; you seem to be quite full of them. The high costs of health care are attributable to many factors; R & D, doctors wages, demand, supply and litigation.

But what you morons on the left promote would throw R&D out the window, cause shortages in doctors, higher costs buried in massive taxation and long waiting times for basic care. None of which are good for anyone.

I do wish you asshats had brains.
 
Trump wrote the best selling book on negotiation.

Trump wrote the best selling book on negotiation. Maybe you should pick it up sometime and learn what it means?

Oh I know what it means but "If I don't get what I want 100% I'll shut the government down" is not negotiation sport! Maybe You should learn that just because Trump has an R after his name doesn't automatically make him right all the time.


How was the government in England dysfunctional? They had a KING!

That is exactly what made it dysfunctional. Sane or insane the king had absolute power no checks and balances. Damn you are dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to civics.


The legislature contains a House and a Senate. Both function in entirely different ways. Both require a lot of deliberation in order to get anything done. It is a messy process. Then after all that, the President can veto their shit and send it back to them for more deliberation. If they had wanted something to work easily, they could have designed an autocracy.

What the fuck do you think they were escaping from dumb ass? What you just described is the reason our system works better than any other on earth.


I always have good points; I just need you to follow the logic through.

wJ9RJZ4.jpg
 
This is paranoia.

The government created Medicare because only half of seniors had health care coverage, and many were dying in poverty.

Health insurance – In 1962, approximately 51% of all persons over the age of 65 had private health insurance; 49% did not.
https://rodgers-associates.com/blog/medicares-50th-anniversary-remember-when/

Today, 100% of seniors have health insurance.

Your "free market" determined that seniors shouldn't have health care because it's too limiting to insurance company profits to cover seniors at a reasonable cost.
Really? Do homeless seniors have heath insurance?
 
these people dont get how trumps appeal was not to republicans, it was to americans. most republicans are globalist sellouts, like aoc, pelosi, and shumer.
 
good luck in your battle with logic and reason.

I believe that you've staked out your position not because it makes any sense, but because it's easier than doing the actual, necessary critical thinking.

There is no way any of your assurances will come to fruition. You're not going to "win". You're only going to lose. Then you will have to reconcile with yourself why you got suckered into thinking you won, when you didn't. Personally, I don't know if you're mature enough to have that reconciliation. I think coming to terms with the fact that you're not as clever, smart, informed, or savvy as you want everyone to believe, is frankly too threatening to your ego. You pride yourself on your personal judgment and instincts to steer you in the right path. But if those instincts and judgment are questioned, then that has the trickle-down effect, house of cards, sweater thread pull on your persona. Which means an identity crisis. Which, for those on the right, almost always means a violent outburst.


you're good at indentifying verb tense, there may be a future there for you. meanwhile, the world is passing you by, right now, in the present.

You haven't accomplished shit, and you never will because you don't put your full ass into anything. Only half of it.

That's why everything is a future hedge; "is happening", "are winning", etc.

The tense is a good indication of false promises and bullshit.
 
This is paranoia.

The government created Medicare because only half of seniors had health care coverage, and many were dying in poverty.

Health insurance – In 1962, approximately 51% of all persons over the age of 65 had private health insurance; 49% did not.
https://rodgers-associates.com/blog/medicares-50th-anniversary-remember-when/

Today, 100% of seniors have health insurance.

Your "free market" determined that seniors shouldn't have health care because it's too limiting to insurance company profits to cover seniors at a reasonable cost.
So tell me, smart guy, if 100% of seniors have healthcare, why is the government still in healthcare? Shouldn't it be passing healthcare back to the private sector?
 
Back
Top