Attacks against Trump backfire on the conspiracy of dunces

[Peter1469]

Attacks against Trump backfire on the conspiracy of dunces (http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/attacks-against-trump-backfire-for-the-conspiracy-of-dunces/)

The New York Post asks a timely question:


Are President Obama, Hillary Clinton and violent leftists in cahoots to elect Donald Trump? Or are they just idiots?

I would say idiots.


The evidence is overwhelming that they all belong to a conspiracy — either of secret GOP sympathizers or of dunces. Those are the only options after Democrats took turns denouncing Trump in ways that actually bolstered the potency of his arguments. Three examples tell the tale.

First, Obama traveled to Indiana to deliver what aides called his first attempt to influence the election. That’s a lie, of course, but not the biggest one of the day. No. 1 would be Obama’s touting the economy as a roaring success.


“If what you care about in this election is your pocketbook; if what you’re concerned about is who will look out for the interests of working people and grow the middle class,” the president claimed, “if what you’re concerned about is the economy, then the debate is not even close.”


He crowed about “progress” made during his tenure, and said sticking with Democrats was the only sensible option.

I do question the hard left's sanity when it runs on Obama's record. If that isn't cognitive dissonance, what is?

[OGIS]

Attacks against Trump backfire on the conspiracy of dunces (http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/attacks-against-trump-backfire-for-the-conspiracy-of-dunces/)

The New York Post asks a timely question:



I would say idiots.



I do question the hard left's sanity when it runs on Obama's record. If that isn't cognitive dissonance, what is?


What else can they do? He's a Dem. He's the President (nominal leader of the party). If they don't own it, that says a lot more in negatives.

As for conspiracy to make Trump look good, I've thought for a while that Trump may have a series of deep-cover false flag ops going. Look at, for example, the two black Trump boosters Diamond and Silk; they just apparently dropped from the skies. And if I were Trump, I would pay good money for those violent demonstrations against his supporters.

[MisterVeritis]

What else can they do? He's a Dem. He's the President (nominal leader of the party). If they don't own it, that says a lot more in negatives.

As for conspiracy to make Trump look good, I've thought for a while that Trump may have a series of deep-cover false flag ops going. Look at, for example, the two black Trump boosters Diamond and Silk; they just apparently dropped from the skies.And if I were Trump, I would pay good money for those violent demonstrations against his supporters.
This, alone, shows that you are not Trump. Why pay money for something others will provide to you at no cost to you? I suppose you would also pay good money for advertisements rather than call into every news show, give interviews to anyone who asks and use all of the social media effectively...

[OGIS]

OGIS>>>>>And if I were Trump, I would pay good money for those violent demonstrations against his supporters.


This, alone, shows that you are not Trump. Why pay money for something others will provide to you at no cost to you? I suppose you would also pay good money for advertisements rather than call into every news show, give interviews to anyone who asks and use all of the social media effectively...

This, alone, shows that you are, bizarrely, not really all that cognizant of old, deeply American tropes and memes. You should address that; it affects your ability to posture on the Internet. "...Why if I were [x] I'd pay good money to...." is a figure of speech that has been around so long that the edges are worn off it. Did you, possibly, just arrive from Mars? Or were you simply so anxious to score some points on a lazy Sunday morning that you really didn't think things through?

Attempting to build their egos up by trying to tear down the egos of others is an ancient custom of second-handers, all over the world. It works, but only superficially. And the lurking problem is that if/once the second-hander decides to become honestly introspective, the patina of excellence flakes off, the soul is inspected, and the only rational options are generally either alcoholism or suicide.

[MisterVeritis]

OGIS>>>>>And if I were Trump, I would pay good money for those violent demonstrations against his supporters.



This, alone, shows that you are, bizarrely, not really all that cognizant of old, deeply American tropes and memes. You should address that; it affects your ability to posture on the Internet. "...Why if I were [x] I'd pay good money to...." is a figure of speech that has been around so long that the edges are worn off it. Did you, possibly, just arrive from Mars? Or were you simply so anxious to score some points on a lazy Sunday morning that you really didn't think things through?

You used it. I called you on it. Your move.

[OGIS]

What else can they do? He's a Dem. He's the President (nominal leader of the party). If they don't own it, that says a lot more in negatives.

As for conspiracy to make Trump look good, I've thought for a while that Trump may have a series of deep-cover false flag ops going. Look at, for example, the two black Trump boosters Diamond and Silk; they just apparently dropped from the skies. And if I were Trump, I would pay good money for those violent demonstrations against his supporters.


This, alone, shows that you are not Trump. Why pay money for something others will provide to you at no cost to you? I suppose you would also pay good money for advertisements rather than call into every news show, give interviews to anyone who asks and use all of the social media effectively...


This, alone, shows that you are, bizarrely, not really all that cognizant of old, deeply American tropes and memes. You should address that; it affects your ability to posture on the Internet. "...Why if I were [x] I'd pay good money to...." is a figure of speech that has been around so long that the edges are worn off it. Did you, possibly, just arrive from Mars? Or were you simply so anxious to score some points on a lazy Sunday morning that you really didn't think things through?

Attempting to build their egos up by trying to tear down the egos of others is an ancient custom of second-handers, all over the world. It works, but only superficially. And the lurking problem is that if/once the second-hander decides to become honestly introspective, the patina of excellence flakes off, the soul is inspected, and the only rational options are generally either alcoholism or suicide.


You used it. I called you on it. Your move.

So.... you're doubling down on admitting that you are a clueless ignoramus?

[Tahuyaman]

I do question the hard left's sanity when it runs on Obama's record. If that isn't cognitive dissonance, what is?

Let's see if they run on the Obama record after the conventions when the real one on one contest begins?

In the off year elections, Democrats running for reelection for the most part have distanced themselves from the Obama agenda and record. People running for office for the first time got elected by running against the Obama record.

[Peter1469]

Good point.

[Tahuyaman]

Right now, Hillary Clinton has no choice but to throw the partisan red meat at the other partisans who support the administration's agenda no matter what it is. Those same partisans will throw their support to her on Election Day, but she risks alienating them and sending them to the Sanders camp if she attacked the Obama agenda.

Once she secures the nomination and Sanders endorses her, which he will, she doesn't need to show the outgoing party leader any loyalty. She will view herself as the new party leader. Now she can run on her agenda.

[AZ Jim]

Attacks against Trump backfire on the conspiracy of dunces (http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/attacks-against-trump-backfire-for-the-conspiracy-of-dunces/)

[/URL]




I would say idiots.



I do question the hard left's sanity when it runs on Obama's record. If that isn't cognitive dissonance, what is?
Presidential job approval: Approve 49.4, Disapprove 47. It appears you and others of your ilk find yourselves in the minority.
[URL]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html)

[MisterVeritis]

So.... you're doubling down on admitting that you are a clueless ignoramus?
If that is your interpretation it is evidence of a failure in you, not in me.

[Peter1469]

I agree with your comments. :smiley:

[OGIS]

I agree with your comments. :smiley:


14875

[Captain Obvious]

14875

http://www.grit.com/~/media/Images/GRT/Editorial/Articles/Magazine Articles/2007/03-01/Mule and Donkey Definitions/mule-and-donkey-definitions.jpg

[zelmo1234]

Presidential job approval: Approve 49.4, Disapprove 47. It appears you and others of your ilk find yourselves in the minority.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

So how are you liking No Cost of living Raises in your SS?

Just wondering how you think he is doing?

[Crepitus]

So.... you're doubling down on admitting that you are a clueless ignoramus?
Daily occurrence here.

[AZ Jim]

So how are you liking No Cost of living Raises in your SS?

Just wondering how you think he is doing?That is Congress not the President.

[zelmo1234]

That is Congress not the President.

Funny, I thought it was tied to Inflation? How does that work.

PS. It was the Obama administration that took Energy and Food out or the Inflation equation, because they are too volatile.

[OGIS]

Funny, I thought it was tied to Inflation? How does that work.

PS. It was the Obama administration that took Energy and Food out or the Inflation equation, because they are too volatile.

So as far as "[taking] Energy and Food out or [sic] the Inflation equation" was it:
(1) Obama himself who did it?
(2) an Obama appointee who did it?
(3) did Obama order the appointee to do it?
(4) was it someone appointed by a prior administration?

I would seriously like to know, because I'm pissed that I didn't get a COL adjustment for 2016, either.

Who exactly did it? What was the exact process involved? Do you even know?

Or are you just going "WAAAAAAAA! OBAMA'S A MEANIE!!!!" which is actually pretty damned useless (except for getting the clueless troops riled up)?

>>>>"PS. It was the Obama administration that took Energy and Food out or the Inflation equation, because they are too volatile."

Documentation? Do you have anything? Or is it just more RWNJ whining?

[zelmo1234]

That is Congress not the President.

That is entitlement spending, Not subject to budgets.

[zelmo1234]

So as far as "[taking] Energy and Food out or [sic] the Inflation equation" was it:
(1) Obama himself who did it?
(2) an Obama appointee who did it?
(3) did Obama order the appointee to do it?
(4) was it someone appointed by a prior administration?

I would seriously like to know, because I'm pissed that I didn't get a COL adjustment for 2016, either.

Who exactly did it? What was the exact process involved? Do you even know?

Or are you just going "WAAAAAAAA! OBAMA'S A MEANIE!!!!" which is actually pretty damned useless (except for getting the clueless troops riled up)?

>>>>"PS. It was the Obama administration that took Energy and Food out or the Inflation equation, because they are too volatile."

Documentation? Do you have anything? Or is it just more RWNJ whining?

I will try and find the information. I was reading through my parents statements when I found it.

But I confess I do not know every detail behind it.

I will do my best.

[OGIS]

I will try and find the information. I was reading through my parents statements when I found it.

But I confess I do not know every detail behind it.

I will do my best.

An honest answer to an honest question. Good. Please let us know if you find anything.

The only info that was on my benefits letter I got in January was:

"We review Social Security benefits each year to make sure they keep up with the cost of living. The law does not permit an increase in benefits when there is no increase in the cost of living. So your benefit will staty the same in 2016. There was no increase in the cost of living during the past year based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the Department of Labor. The CPI is the Federal government's official measure used to calculate cost of living increases."

So it was something determined from the Dept. of Labor.

Who? What? When? How? Why?

[Peter1469]

The formula to calculate the cost of living was changed. Presumably to save costs on entitlements.

[OGIS]

The formula to calculate the cost of living was changed. Presumably to save costs on entitlements.

Mmmm.... we know that. That's exactly the point we are discussing. The issue is WHO ordered it changed. Was it Obama (personally)? Was it an Obama appointee, with specific instructions from Obama to change it? Was it an Obama appointee, withOUT specific instructions from Obama to change it? Was it someone from a prior administration?

[Bob the Slob]

Attacks against Trump backfire on the conspiracy of dunces (http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/attacks-against-trump-backfire-for-the-conspiracy-of-dunces/)

The New York Post asks a timely question:



I would say idiots.



I do question the hard left's sanity when it runs on Obama's record. If that isn't cognitive dissonance, what is?
Clinton has always been a neoliberal which is basically what bush was. I think she thought donald would win the nomination and then democrats and republicans would vote for her because he would make himself so repugnant that no one would vote for him. It sure backfired. SHE is the most corrupt and repugnant candidate around. I seriously doubt the DNC and the crooked super delegates vote for her. She can't beat trump, she is so despised by the sander supporters she used voter suppression and election fraud against; not to mention her facing federal crimes in the fall.

[Bob the Slob]

The formula to calculate the cost of living was changed. Presumably to save costs on entitlements.

I don't think they spare any expense on the oil, gas, farm, etc entitlements the corporations get.

[Peter1469]

I don't think they spare any expense on the oil, gas, farm, etc entitlements the corporations get.

Most of those are normal deductions business get related to capital and depreciation.

[Cigar]

The only thing Attacking Trump is his own Big Mouth :laugh:


https://38.media.tumblr.com/d39acd81d961ab33c08c1f9fae7b68bf/tumblr_noh7v30KqG1tbt5dxo1_400.gif

[Bob the Slob]

Most of those are normal deductions business get related to capital and depreciation.

No, there are subsidies....Trump gets $35 million per year in "subsidies". Welfare checks he doesn't even pay taxes on. He wasn't lying when he said he contributed to democrats campaigns...he bought himself the same subsidies the oil companies get....corrupt Washington DC is due to those welfare checks for corporations.

[Peter1469]

No, there are subsidies....Trump gets $35 million per year in "subsidies". Welfare checks he doesn't even pay taxes on. He wasn't lying when he said he contributed to democrats campaigns...he bought himself the same subsidies the oil companies get....corrupt Washington DC is due to those welfare checks for corporations.

What are these subsidies?