|
Trump *was* treated unfairly
A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not
personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H.
wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
|
Trump *was* treated unfairly
|
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H. wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged" bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them. That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did it with General Motors. And none of the others were asked *any* questions about their financial background. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On 8 Aug 2015 17:49:10 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H. wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged" bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them. That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did it with General Motors. any new polls showing impact of GOP presentations on standing of wannabes? Will the Trumpster rise or fall in the company of colorless or crazies? Will the answer improve your honesty? What organization in Vietnam did your work for? -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On 8/8/2015 2:04 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H. wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged" bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them. That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did it with General Motors. And none of the others were asked *any* questions about their financial background. -- Ban idiots, not guns! A financial/business background is all that Trump has, so asking questions about it seems pertinent. As POTUS he would have financial and executive responsibilities. Others (the professional politicians) were asked about past positions on political issues or actions while they held office. Well, except Doc Carson. I guess Kelly and crew couldn't come up with any questions about brain surgery. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On 8/8/2015 1:49 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H. wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged" bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them. That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did it with General Motors. any new polls showing impact of GOP presentations on standing of wannabes? Will the Trumpster rise or fall in the company of colorless or crazies? I haven't paid much attention to anything the media has reported since the debate. I have enough on my hands discussing it with Mrs.E. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 14:16:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 8/8/2015 2:04 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H. wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged" bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them. That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did it with General Motors. And none of the others were asked *any* questions about their financial background. - Ban idiots, not guns! A financial/business background is all that Trump has, so asking questions about it seems pertinent. As POTUS he would have financial and executive responsibilities. Others (the professional politicians) were asked about past positions on political issues or actions while they held office. Well, except Doc Carson. I guess Kelly and crew couldn't come up with any questions about brain surgery. Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was 'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On 8/8/2015 3:13 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 14:16:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/8/2015 2:04 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H. wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged" bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them. That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did it with General Motors. And none of the others were asked *any* questions about their financial background. - Ban idiots, not guns! A financial/business background is all that Trump has, so asking questions about it seems pertinent. As POTUS he would have financial and executive responsibilities. Others (the professional politicians) were asked about past positions on political issues or actions while they held office. Well, except Doc Carson. I guess Kelly and crew couldn't come up with any questions about brain surgery. Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was 'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX. -- Ban idiots, not guns! I agree that it appears Fox had it in for Trump as evidenced by the first question and show of hands. I think they picked Kelly to deliver the most potentially embarrassing questions, mainly because they were of a sexist nature and she's a woman. I had never seen her before this debate. Do all the Fox women look like her? Might have to tune in more often. BTW ... the reference she made to a contestant on the "Apprentice" being forced to her knees was apparently quite a stretch of a tale. The episode in question was found and the contestant was interviewed. She didn't have a specific memory of what happened but said in no way was she insulted. She had very positive things to say about Trump and her experience of being on his show. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H.
wrote: Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was 'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX. === I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:57:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was 'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX. === I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out. Whether or not he should be president wasn't the point. The point was the way he was treated by FOX. I agree - they went for Trump's throat. I don't think that was appropriate for a 'debate'. If they wanted to show his 'true colors', I'm sure he'd be glad to be interviewed, one on one, by the FOX network. Then he wouldn't have to share the spotlight with anyone. He'd love it. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
John H. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:57:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was 'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX. === I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out. Whether or not he should be president wasn't the point. The point was the way he was treated by FOX. I agree - they went for Trump's throat. I don't think that was appropriate for a 'debate'. Poor Donald. Proceed. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On 8 Aug 2015 22:00:20 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:
John H. wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:57:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was 'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX. === I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out. Whether or not he should be president wasn't the point. The point was the way he was treated by FOX. I agree - they went for Trump's throat. I don't think that was appropriate for a 'debate'. Poor Donald. Proceed. It would not have even been fair to you, Krause, and we all know how you lie. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
John H. wrote:
On 8 Aug 2015 22:00:20 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: John H. wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:57:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was 'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX. === I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out. Whether or not he should be president wasn't the point. The point was the way he was treated by FOX. I agree - they went for Trump's throat. I don't think that was appropriate for a 'debate'. Poor Donald. Proceed. It would not have even been fair to you, Krause, and we all know how you lie. -- It was perfectly fair to Trump, and it is likely his many supporters in the GOP relish his actions and his comments about women, Mexicans, other candidates, etc. Trump speaks for many in the GOP, including white racist trash like you. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H. wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged" bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them. That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did it with General Motors. The Atlantic City/Gaming bankruptcies were big and ugly. He tried to deflect by saying he screwed big players and bad guys but a ****load of people lost their jobs and many more go hurt by his dubious business practices. He's as loose and fast in business as he is with his mouth. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On 8/8/2015 7:25 PM, jps wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H. wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged" bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them. That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did it with General Motors. The Atlantic City/Gaming bankruptcies were big and ugly. He tried to deflect by saying he screwed big players and bad guys but a ****load of people lost their jobs and many more go hurt by his dubious business practices. He's as loose and fast in business as he is with his mouth. I hear you but again, that's the way things are in big business and it's two-sided. It's why I got out when the getting was good ... before I had to deal with being part of a public company and all that goes with it. I witnessed how small banks deal with business investments, lines of credit or financing in another company that I worked for before I started mine. Banks aren't your "partner" like they try to promote themselves as. One quarterly downturn in business and missing one of the covenants associated with your agreement and you can find yourself out of business fast with a bunch of unemployed employees. When I started my company I swore I'd never do any form of bank financing ... and I didn't. Never had a bank line of any kind. All of the growth financing was organic, based on profits made on an increasing volume of contracts. Trump plays with the *really* big boys for financing and I am sure it's a big reason of why he is what he is and how he acts. I can't even imagine it. Have to admit though, Trump's places in Atlantic City were impressive when they were in their prime. One of my stops on the way to Florida with the boat was the Trump Marina/Casino. I don't particularly care for those places though. Gives me a creepy feeling watching all the retired people blowing their money trying to hit it big. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 20:23:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 8/8/2015 7:25 PM, jps wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H. wrote: A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal questions. Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here over the past three days. When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should be fair game. I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged" bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them. That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did it with General Motors. The Atlantic City/Gaming bankruptcies were big and ugly. He tried to deflect by saying he screwed big players and bad guys but a ****load of people lost their jobs and many more go hurt by his dubious business practices. He's as loose and fast in business as he is with his mouth. I hear you but again, that's the way things are in big business and it's two-sided. It's why I got out when the getting was good ... before I had to deal with being part of a public company and all that goes with it. I witnessed how small banks deal with business investments, lines of credit or financing in another company that I worked for before I started mine. Banks aren't your "partner" like they try to promote themselves as. One quarterly downturn in business and missing one of the covenants associated with your agreement and you can find yourself out of business fast with a bunch of unemployed employees. When I started my company I swore I'd never do any form of bank financing ... and I didn't. Never had a bank line of any kind. All of the growth financing was organic, based on profits made on an increasing volume of contracts. Trump plays with the *really* big boys for financing and I am sure it's a big reason of why he is what he is and how he acts. I can't even imagine it. Have to admit though, Trump's places in Atlantic City were impressive when they were in their prime. One of my stops on the way to Florida with the boat was the Trump Marina/Casino. I don't particularly care for those places though. Gives me a creepy feeling watching all the retired people blowing their money trying to hit it big. An ugly side to America, for certain. Those entities did a lot to help my business grow but when the going got tough, they didn't mind reneging on their promises. Bean counters. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 20:23:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Have to admit though, Trump's places in Atlantic City were impressive when they were in their prime. One of my stops on the way to Florida with the boat was the Trump Marina/Casino. I don't particularly care for those places though. Gives me a creepy feeling watching all the retired people blowing their money trying to hit it big. I was in AC real early in the gambling game. The guys spent a night at Ballys and moved enough chips to get a couple of rooms comped. Although I broke about even Bally lost money on us. We also decided to see what was outside the casino. I knew then that this was a doomed "rejuvenation" of that slum city. As soon as you walked out of the casino, the place was a **** hole and there were not many people even adventuring outside. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:27:43 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Do all the Fox women look like her? Might have to tune in more often. Pretty much but some are brunettes. Ailes likes pretty girls. They do tend to say dumb **** tho. Trump did not help himself on the right by picking a fight with Kelly. You don't want to be a republican candidate that Fox goes after. I still think he is going to tell us he doesn't have time to be president soon because his business interests are to demanding on him. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
|
Trump *was* treated unfairly
wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 20:23:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Have to admit though, Trump's places in Atlantic City were impressive when they were in their prime. One of my stops on the way to Florida with the boat was the Trump Marina/Casino. I don't particularly care for those places though. Gives me a creepy feeling watching all the retired people blowing their money trying to hit it big. I was in AC real early in the gambling game. The guys spent a night at Ballys and moved enough chips to get a couple of rooms comped. Although I broke about even Bally lost money on us. We also decided to see what was outside the casino. I knew then that this was a doomed "rejuvenation" of that slum city. As soon as you walked out of the casino, the place was a **** hole and there were not many people even adventuring outside. I was in AC in the early 80's. You were definitely correct about built in failure. Growing up and visiting Reno often as a kid. Dad liked to gamble, mom watched shows, the overall town was clean, not a nasty, dangerous slum looking area next to the casinos. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 10:12:44 -0500, Califbill billnews wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 20:23:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Have to admit though, Trump's places in Atlantic City were impressive when they were in their prime. One of my stops on the way to Florida with the boat was the Trump Marina/Casino. I don't particularly care for those places though. Gives me a creepy feeling watching all the retired people blowing their money trying to hit it big. I was in AC real early in the gambling game. The guys spent a night at Ballys and moved enough chips to get a couple of rooms comped. Although I broke about even Bally lost money on us. We also decided to see what was outside the casino. I knew then that this was a doomed "rejuvenation" of that slum city. As soon as you walked out of the casino, the place was a **** hole and there were not many people even adventuring outside. I was in AC in the early 80's. You were definitely correct about built in failure. Growing up and visiting Reno often as a kid. Dad liked to gamble, mom watched shows, the overall town was clean, not a nasty, dangerous slum looking area next to the casinos. I think the main reason why New Jersey could not duplicate the success of Nevada was because gambling was suddenly everywhere and they started with a large built in population of welfare addicted poor people. In the late 40s and early 50s, Nevada was sparsely populated and the people who came , came there for the casino business. If they couldn't make it, they moved back where they came from. The slums in AC were already there and they had more low skill people than they had jobs for. The senior management came in with the casino companies and sent most of the money back out of state. I see it as being similar to the "spring training baseball" scam the northern clubs have foisted off on southern towns. The promised jobs bonanza and economic stimulus never seems to bear fruit. A few rich people get a little richer but little of it trickles down to the community. Trump was just a metaphor for the rest of the carpet baggers who swooped into AC, made a lot of money and left scorched earth behind when they bailed out. If the world was fair, the lenders could have clawed back some of those profits in the bankruptcy but the accountants and lawyers managed to isolate the money he took away from the assets he left behind. |
Trump *was* treated unfairly
On 8 Aug 2015 22:48:29 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:
John H. wrote: On 8 Aug 2015 22:00:20 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: John H. wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:57:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H. wrote: Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was 'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX. === I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out. Whether or not he should be president wasn't the point. The point was the way he was treated by FOX. I agree - they went for Trump's throat. I don't think that was appropriate for a 'debate'. Poor Donald. Proceed. It would not have even been fair to you, Krause, and we all know how you lie. -- It was perfectly fair to Trump, and it is likely his many supporters in the GOP relish his actions and his comments about women, Mexicans, other candidates, etc. Trump speaks for many in the GOP, including white racist trash like you. As I was as involved in killing as you were, you should not leave out the word 'murderous' in your name-calling. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com