President Donald J. Trump

[21st Century Man]

Claims the shill, Trumptard and hyper-partisan idiot.

Well, 2 of those points fit you to a tee!  Shill.  Hyper indeed.  Partisan, even more so.  Hillshill extraordinaire, to be exact.  lol

[136 or 142]

Well, 2 of those points fit you to a tee!  Shill.  Hyper indeed.  Partisan, even more so.  Hillshill extraordinaire, to be exact.  lol

Childish.

[21st Century Man]

How childish.

I'm just sinking to your level. lol.

[136 or 142]

I'm just sinking to your level. lol.

That's your constant excuse.  Take responsibility for your own actions.

[21st Century Man]

That's your constant excuse.  Take responsibility for your own actions.

Bwaaaaaa-haaaaaa-haaaaaaa.

That's HI-larious coming from you.

Bwaaaaaaa-haaaaaaa-haaaaaaa.

[136 or 142]

Bwaaaaaa-haaaaaa-haaaaaaa.

That's HI-larious coming from you.

Bwaaaaaaa-haaaaaaa-haaaaaaa.

How so?

[21st Century Man]

How so?

If you can't see it then I can't help you there, pard.

<chuckle>

[136 or 142]

If you can't see it then I can't help you there, pard.

<chuckle>

So, you can't explain how so?

[21st Century Man]

So, you can't explain how so?

Grasshopper, you can't see the forest through the trees.  How can I help the blind see?

[136 or 142]

Grasshopper, you can't see the forest through the trees.  How can I help the blind see?

"There is none so blind as a Trumptard."

[albrecht]

Grasshopper, you can't see the forest through the trees.  How can I help the blind see?

I know it is compelling to respond to ridiculous arguments but you realize you likely get getting this guy paid? (Though there is a counter argument that the money paid to his types takes funds from whatever Foundation, donor, PAC, or billionaire supporting Billary so a good thing.) So keep up the good work!

[21st Century Man]

"There is none so blind as a Trumptard."

Wow, did you make that up?  I'm impressed......not, Hillshill.

You treat others with contempt and I'll serve you back with contempt.

[21st Century Man]

I know it is compelling to respond to ridiculous arguments but you realize you likely get getting this guy paid? (Though there is a counter argument that the money paid to his types takes funds from whatever Foundation, donor, PAC, or billionaire supporting Billary so a good thing.) So keep up the good work!

I'm about to end my dialogue with the Hillshill anyway.  I'm getting sleepy.

[136 or 142]

Wow, did you make that up?  I'm impressed......not, Hillshill.

You treat others with contempt and I'll serve you back with contempt.

I've already commented on this.  I don't treat people who make valid arguments with contempt.  Of course I'm contemptuous of shilling Trumptards like you.  You don't deserve to be treated with any respect when all you do is post lies. 

[21st Century Man]

I've already commented on this.  I don't treat people who make valid arguments with contempt.  Of course, I'm contemptuous of shilling Trumptards like you.

Says the Hillshill.    I'm done with you for the night.  You're boring me.

[136 or 142]

Says the Hillshill.    I'm done with you for the night.  You're boring me.

Such a shame.

[Value Of Pi]

I assume you mean by 'honest forthright ignorance' willful lies?

No, these are two different things, both of which he's guilty of. There are the outright lies, where he knows he's lying and many of his supporters do as well, but they're all okay with it. His birther lie is a good example.

Then there is all the ignorant bullshit he spouts, which he and his supporters think has more value than hard facts, knowledge and common sense, which by a strange coincidence they happen to lack. He and they are choosing bullshit over facts because it better supports their core beliefs about who the good guys are and who the villains are. Facts are hard to manage and tend to get in the way.

But Trump honestly doesn't care about how he deals with reality and his supporters see this as authenticity, which they respect. OTOH, I see it as the kind of authenticity which doesn't deserve any respect. So, the whole thing is a bit paradoxical but it does make sense -- just in a twisted way.

[136 or 142]

As far as the insults go,  You come on here and attack GS, SciFiAuthor and others because they won't yield to your supposed incontrovertible facts taken from left-wing rags. They don't call you names but simply dispute your "facts" and you can't take the heat.  You degrade the discussion by resorting to name-calling. 

You say the IRS scandal has been debunked yet you don't know who Lois Lerner is.  You clearly don't have all the facts and draw your conclusions from whatever information you have gleaned from the websites/rags that you subscribe to.

1.The Atlantic may or may not be a 'left wing' publication, but the writer of this article, Norman Ornstein works for the conservative leaning American Enterprise Institute.  If I recall correctly, he used to be a center right conservative, but, like many of them, he's appalled with the far right takeover of the Republican Party.   If you want to refer to him as a 'shill for Hillary Clinton' that's fine, but unlike you, he is actually concerned with being accurate, because, unlike you, he has integrity.  Of course, integrity is something that no Trumptard could even begin to comprehend.

What he wrote backs up what I wrote, if you have any complaint over it, I want details, not just 'it's from a left-wing publication, durrr, durrr, durrr'
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-show-trial-of-irs-commissioner-john-koskinen/488147/

"So how can groups like Crossroads GPS, the Karl Rove-crafted 501(c)4 that has poured millions upon millions into campaign ads in the past several election cycles, qualify? The answer, given the plain language of the law, is that they should not. The appropriate ISR classification for groups like Crossroads GPS is under section 527 of the IRS Code, for political organizations. So why opt instead for 501(c)4 status? Because 527s have to disclose their donorsâ€"and 501(c)4s do not. Bingo!

To be sure, the ability of sham social-welfare organizations like Crossroads GPS to apply for 501(c)4 status stemmed from a bureaucratic decision by the IRS decades ago to redefine “exclusively” as “primarily,” a step taken to give a tiny bit of flexibility and discretion to the agency. But as dark money proliferated in the aftermath of Citizens United, campaign-finance lawyers pushing the envelope of the law decided that they could use a standard of 50 percent of the organizations’ funds going for social welfare to meet the standard of “primarily,” knowing that an understaffed and beleaguered agency would probably not intervene.

In 2010, the IRS was hit with a veritable flood of applications for 501(c)4 status, overwhelming its resources. Career employees, seeking to separate real social-welfare organizations from those that were political ones, developed a set of keywords and terms, including many conservative and some (but fewer) liberal ones, in part because the lion’s share of the applications came from conservative groups."

Just because I had initially some difficulty remembering the name Lois Lerner does not mean I'm not familiar with this phony scandal.  I have no idea why Lois Lerner would not testify, that does not negate anything Ornstein wrote.

On Ornstein:  Ornstein doesn’t pretend to be a conservative movement, Republican scholar. “He’s as conservative a Democrat as there’s ever been,” suggests his friend David Frum. Back when Al Franken had a radio show, Ornstein would come on to talk politics and find areas of agreement. Franken would play him in with a Bruce Springsteen song for which he’d written new lyrics: Noooooorm in the U.S.A.! Nooooooorm in the U.S.A.!

“Ornstein’s an intellectual,” says Citizens United president David Bossie. “He's a guy who's never been part of the conservative movement, and he's never been part of the conservative establishment or organizations on any policy.”

[GravitySucks]

This is just one of the groups that has filed suit against the IRS. Research the number of government agencies that came to inspect their small business and all of the harrassment they received while the IRS was holding their application. Their original lawsuit was thrown out once the IRS admitted their wrongdoing and granted their status. It was reinstated on appeal because they did not get made whole. This whole affair of as never "debunked". The IRS commisoner is being grilled in hearings this week as the Congress is pushing for his impeachment. Your statement that it was debunked is totally specious. Evidince was destroyed. Perjury was committed by the IRS Commissioner, and it is not over yet. 
https://truethevote.org/true-vote-wins-appeal-irs-lawsuit

Harassment of the founders (IRS ATF AUDITS AND NUMEROUS SITE VISITS because they tried to start True the Vote as a 501(c)3: https://www.google.com/amp/townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/07/true-the-vote-president-catherine-engelbrecht-slams-irs-abuse-weaponizing-of-government-n1791240%3famp=true?

And then read about this part of the IRS targetting of conservative groups by going after their donors.
http://conservativetribune.com/irs-auditing-conservatives-more/

[WOTR]

Just because I won't vote for your champion.  Give me a break. I think Trump has proven to be a lousy excuse for a human being but at least he lets it all hang out.  You know what you get with Trump.

Do you really?  Was he willing to say to the American people while he accused the Clintons of using their charity for personal gain that he was doing the exact same thing- or did he try to cover that up?  (The quarter million that he used from his charity to pay for his legal troubles...)

Yes, he lets the world see a small portion of what a rotten human being he is.  And that is why it is disconcerting to find that he is probably even worse than he lets on.

[21st Century Man]

Do you really?  Was he willing to say to the American people while he accused the Clintons of using their charity for personal gain that he was doing the exact same thing- or did he try to cover that up?  (The quarter million that he used from his charity to pay for his legal troubles...)

Yes, he lets the world see a small portion of what a rotten human being he is.  And that is why it is disconcerting to find that he is probably even worse than he lets on.

I won't defend Mr. Trump.  I will say that the Clinton's have had access to much more foundation money than Trump.  Look, I have no yearning to vote for the guy but he is the only one who has promised to nominate  strict constructionist justices to the courts.  That is my issue.  I wouldn't be surprised if he later changes his mind.  This election cycle sucks but I do not want to see a Clinton presidency.  She will get us involved in more wars with McCain and Graham covering her back.  She is crooked. I'm simply not going to vote for her .  Simply put, I'm voting against her more than I'm voting for Donald Trump.

[136 or 142]

This is just one of the groups that has filed suit against the IRS. Research the number of government agencies that came to inspect their small business and all of the harrassment they received while the IRS was holding their application. Their original lawsuit was thrown out once the IRS admitted their wrongdoing and grant d their status. It was reinstated on appeal because they did not get made whole. This whole affair of as never "debunked". The IRS commisoner is being grilled in hearings this week as the Congress is pushing for his impeachment. Your statement that it was debunked is totally specious. Evidince was destroyed. Perjury was committed by the IRS Commissioner, and it is not over yet. 
https://truethevote.org/true-vote-wins-appeal-irs-lawsuit

Harassment of the founders: https://www.google.com/amp/townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/02/07/true-the-vote-president-catherine-engelbrecht-slams-irs-abuse-weaponizing-of-government-n1791240%3famp=true?client=safari

And then read about this part of the IRS targetting of conservative groups by going after their donors.
http://conservativetribune.com/irs-auditing-conservatives-more/

You clearly didn't read Ornstein's article.  If you read it, then you can come back to me if you disagree.

[136 or 142]

I won't defend Mr. Trump.  I will say that the Clinton's have had access to much more foundation money than Trump.  Look, I have no yearning to vote for the guy but he is the only one who has promised to nominate  strict constructionist justices to the courts.  That is my issue.  I wouldn't be surprised if he later changes his mind.  This election cycle sucks but I do not want to see a Clinton presidency.  She will get us involved in more wars with McCain and Graham covering her back.  She is crooked. I'm simply not going to vote for her .  Simply put, I'm voting against her more than I'm voting for Donald Trump.

"Strict Constructionalist" is another meaningless right wing term.  You only want justices appointed to the Supreme Court who believe they can read the minds of the framers of the Constitution?

Trump has now said he would appoint Peter Theil to the Supreme Court.  Does he meet your definition of a 'strict constructionalist'?

[GravitySucks]

You clearly didn't read Ornstein's article.  If you read it, then you can come back to me if you disagree.

I read it. They were applying for a 501(c)3. He referenced (c)4. And the evidence was still destroyed and perjury did occur. The IRS commisioner apologized under oath yesterday for lying to congress when he said no emails had been deleted. You don't know the history. Lois Lerner using a psuedonym to avoid record retention and then subsequent destruction of her hard drive so the emails could not be recovered.

You said it had been debunked. If by debunked, you mean the IRS Commisioner agreed it did in fact occur, then Canadians must use debunked differently.

He doesnt address the IRS demanding all donor lists and then using those lists for targeting indivdual audits as a form of harassment.

And you obviously did not read the links I provided.

[136 or 142]

2.To paraphrase the quote of Daniel Moynihan, everybody is entitled to their own interpretation of the facts, but right wing rags aren't allowed to write fiction and claim it as 'alternative facts.'  That you fall for the lie that they're actually telling you the truth while the 'left wing rags' (like who?) are lying to you, does not make it so, but only proves you are a shill and a Trumptard.

I have a background in accounting and economics.  I've said that I have a diploma in accounting but do have not worked in accounting (or bookkeeping for years) and that while I've taken a number of 1-3 level economics courses, I do not have a degree in economics, but I've continued to read widely on it and I think I know all of the core economics concepts.

I state these things to be open about my background in areas where I state some expertise because I also believe in integrity.

When it comes to economics, I routinely read falsehoods from conservatives, but no similar falsehoods from liberals.  I, of course, can't know for certain where the conservatives get their information from, but I can only assume it's from right wing radio, television or print.

1."Unemployment statistics are derived from unemployment claims.  When the person is no longer receiving unemployment payments, they are no longer counted in the statistics."  False

The numbers used for unemployment statistics are derived from a monthly survey of 60,000 households (that number shifts around a bit though) conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  There is no connection with the BLS survey and the number of people who claim unemployment.

2."There are 93 million Americans unemployed."  I suppose de jure true, but de facto false.
This is based on the Labor Force Participation Rate.  This number is a count of all Americans (maybe excluding a couple fairly small groups, but largely employed groups, I forget a few of the details) from the age of 15 or 16 up.  It's one of those ages in Canada and the other in the United States.  It isn't 15 or16 to 65, it's 15 or 16 up 'til death.  While it can be considered technically true that anybody over the age of 65 is 'unemployed' in most cases they are retired.  So, referring to them as 'unemployed' is not an accurate representation in this context.

There are also lies regarding 'tax cuts pay for themselves' and other aspects of Reaganomics, but those are more partisan debates.  These two examples are just outright falsehoods based on either deliberately false use of the statistics being measured (93 million Americans unemployed) or deliberately false explanations of the way the numbers are counted (how the BLS compiles their statistics.)

In regards to accounting and the Clinton Foundation.  I've already addressed why the claim that the Clinton Foundation grants very little money to charity is false: because the Clinton Foundation not only provides grants, but runs its own charitable organizations.  This lie about the Clinton Foundation started with a right wing dissembling operation but was reported as fact by the supposedly 'left-wing' rags until some accountants told them they were being lied to.

The other two things on this come from the recent interview known liar Jerome Corsi conducted with Noory.  To be fair, while Corsi works for World Nut Daily and his books are published by them, World Nut Daily apparently makes no claim to their accuracy and Corsi is apparently a free agent, just as Norm Ornstein is a free agent at the American Enterprise Institute.

He made two claims about the Clinton Foundation that he thought were somehow part of something nefarious, but only showed that he doesn't understand non profit financial statements.

1.He claimed that he couldn't see how the Clinton Foundation's revenues and the expenses were connected.  Observant of Corsi to notice that, but that's because
with non profit agencies there is no direct connection between revenues and expenses.  The main basis for accrual accounting of profit seeking entities is to match the expenses to the revenue.  When a business makes a product, the direct expenses are reported as an asset, frequently in 'inventory' and are only expensed when the product is sold.  This can be done using NIFO, LIFO or FIFO. (Next in First Out) (Last In First Out) or (First In First Out.)  There is no such connection with not for profit agencies.  What he seemed to believe is a scandal in the Clinton Foundation Financial Statements is just an observation of reality.

2.He claimed that the Clinton Foundation didn't provide details of its donors in the financial statements or a large breakdown of its expenses. True, the list of donors is reported elsewhere and, in regards to the breakdown of its expenses, the Clinton Foundation provides the same breakdown required of all not for profits.

So, I routinely hear falsehoods from right wing dissemblers in areas where I have some expertise, but I just don't hear the same thing from those on the left.  Not the liberal left anyway, if you go to the further left, you also get insanity.

In regards to other things, one of the most frequent falsehoods I've heard is the false claim that I've heard mentioned  here recently that 'Saddam Hussein ordered the weapon's inspectors to leave Iraq.'  I don't read this much anymore, but I used to read and here it so frequently that I can only assume it came from some lying right-wing rag.

In fact, nobody ordered the weapon's inspectors to leave, but George W Bush advised them, and other Americans still in Iraq, to get out of that country because of the imminent U.S invasion.

The only lie I've seen commonly from liberals, since I do fact check as best I can every claim I read from sources who I have no knowledge of, is that Mitch McConnell said his first legislative priority was to ensure Obama be a one term President.  in fact, McConnell did not say this until the 2010 midterms, not right after Obama was first elected in 2008, and more importantly, he was asked what his first 'electoral priority' was. 

Pretty bad, but I don't think it rises to the level of lies repeatedly made in right-wing rags.

[136 or 142]

I read it. They were applying for a 501(c)3. He referenced (c)4. And the evidence was still destroyed and perjury did occur. The IRS commisioner apologized under oath yesterday for lying to congress when he said no emails had been deleted. You don't know the history. Lois Lerner using a psuedonym to avoid record retention and then subsequent destruction of her hard drive so the emails could not be recovered.

You said it had been debunked. If by debunked, you mean the IRS Commisioner agreed it did in fact occur, then Canadians must use debunked differently.

He doesnt address the IRS demanding all donor lists and then using those lists for targeting indivdual audits as a form of harassment.

And you obviously did not read the links I provided.

Townhall is a lying right wing rag, I have no interest in reading them.  Find me a non partisan, respected source like Norman Ornstein is.  What was debunked was the claim that the things you site were done for nefarious purposes rather than the result of simple human error.

As to ConservativeTribune, Norman Ornstein addressed the reason why more conservative charitable organizations were targeted than liberal ones, and the write-up there does not dispute that (it simply doesn't mention it.)

Anyway, now we know what your 'news' sources are.

[GravitySucks]

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

If you have a health insurance plan you can keep that plan.

ACA will cut costs for the average family by $2500 per year

[21st Century Man]

"Strict Constructionalist" is another meaningless right wing term.  You only want justices appointed to the Supreme Court who believe they can read the minds of the framers of the Constitution?

Trump has now said he would appoint Peter Theil to the Supreme Court.  Does he meet your definition of a 'strict constructionalist'?

Bork was a strict constructionist .  You spelled it wrong.  The term has been used for decades and is not just used by right wingers. It is all about original intent.  There are plenty of essays written by the framers so we can gather what their original intent was.  As a matter of fact, the Constitution itself is easy to read and understand.  It is very plainly written and only a moron couldn't understand it or an illiberal such as yourself. Today's educators and politicians try to warp the words to suit their own needs and make it a "living and breathing document."  Now there's a left wing hack term if I ever heard one.  It is only living and breathing in the sense that it can be amended.  It is not living and breathing in the sense that it opens itself to many interpretations.  Like I said, it is plainly written.

[Value Of Pi]

I won't defend Mr. Trump.  I will say that the Clinton's have had access to much more foundation money than Trump.  Look, I have no yearning to vote for the guy but he is the only one who has promised to nominate  strict constructionist justices to the courts.  That is my issue.  I wouldn't be surprised if he later changes his mind.  This election cycle sucks but I do not want to see a Clinton presidency.  She will get us involved in more wars with McCain and Graham covering her back.  She is crooked. I'm simply not going to vote for her .  Simply put, I'm voting against her more than I'm voting for Donald Trump.

Which Supreme Court decisions are you hoping will be set right by strict constructionist judges? What do you want changed or reversed? Is the problem actually the rulings themselves or more about the fact that you think justices have legislated from the bench and overstepped their authority? What is it about, say, a moderate court that would scare you more than the full-on effects of a Trump presidency?

[136 or 142]

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

If you have a health insurance plan you can keep that plan.

ACA will cut costs for the average family by $2500 per year

Those were lies told by the Obama Administration. 

Canadian medical doctor responding to the dishonest Republican talking points of the Canadian Medicare system: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4486962/dr-danielle-martin-senator-richard-burr