rec.sport.tennis@googlegroups.com
Google Groups
Topic digest
View all topics
OT: can we just call him The Donald again - 1 Update
OT: w/out working class... - 6 Updates
Huge anti trump in NYC & Chicago right now - 2 Updates
OT: new cabinet position - 4 Updates
America Votes: One Mistake Too Many - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International - 2 Updates
Worse than TT's simulation. - 2 Updates
Democratic Party must burn for a new start - 1 Update
Would Sanders have defeated Trump? - 7 Updates
OT: can we just call him The Donald again
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Nov 10 06:10AM +0200
10.11.2016, 4:00, bob kirjoitti:
> yes/no?
> i mean, obama did.
> bob
Biff Tannen would be fitting. Let's call him Biff.
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear. Absolutely"
Back to top
OT: w/out working class...
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 09 09:16PM -0500
...how would the ultra rich get their money?
for ex charles koch, worth 45billion. (i.e. could buy and sell court1
many many times over). so, without people working in paper plants
making toilet paper, and oil refineries refining oil, how would he
make this 45bil?
don't they realize they're rich cause of many many thousands of people
doing something to make it for them?
courty, comments??
bob
PeteWasLucky <Waleed.Khedr@gmail.com>: Nov 09 06:22PM -0800
Yes, we cut his taxes even more.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 09 09:26PM -0500
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:22:57 -0800 (PST), PeteWasLucky
>Yes, we cut his taxes even more.
taxes are fine, but not when it costs jobs. it's a balancing act. i
mean, why not tax him 95% then??
i'm referring to the fact he can't spread the INCOME around his
employees.
bob
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Nov 09 09:31PM -0500
> i'm referring to the fact he can't spread the INCOME around his
> employees.
> bob
I was sarcastic.
Trump wants to cut taxes more for the top 1? which contradicts
with what you are discussing.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Nov 10 06:05AM +0200
10.11.2016, 4:16, bob kirjoitti:
> ...how would the ultra rich get their money?
> for ex charles koch,
Why not Donald Trump...
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear. Absolutely"
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Nov 10 06:09AM +0200
10.11.2016, 4:26, bob kirjoitti:
> mean, why not tax him 95% then??
> i'm referring to the fact he can't spread the INCOME around his
> employees.
And Trump shares income with his employees? Don't you see that Trump is
opposite to everything you believe in. And you still voted for him. What
a puppet.
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear. Absolutely"
Back to top
Huge anti trump in NYC & Chicago right now
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 09 09:05PM -0500
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:00:54 -0800 (PST), PeteWasLucky
>The same thing would have happened if Hillary won.
highly doubt it.
>I actually started to believe the division this country has now will get worse every year and in every new election.
i think that will depend on gov't and the economy of the lower wage
earners. i've been preaching forever that the 1 VS 99%ers has to
decrease. this, IMO, was the chance.
>It's not about two parties, it's about young generation, different races, religions, political views, economy, etc.
>We may end up splitting the country into many independent nations.
i agree it's a sorely divided nation. my take is it's an income
differential problem. fix that, mainly fix the problem. that's my
stance, and it's a serious one.
if you think it's all those things listed then your belief is
different peoples cannot tolerate each other and the nazis creating a
pure race and homegeneous society had it right. i'll defer to max on
that.
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Nov 09 08:07PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:05:59 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> i agree it's a sorely divided nation. my take is it's an income
> differential problem. fix that, mainly fix the problem. that's my
> stance, and it's a serious one.
And how will Trump fix the actual problem of income inequality? By perhaps creating jobs for many working class by bringing manufacturing jobs back from Mexico/China? That doesn't really address the specific income inequality issue. There will still be an income divide between the educated/non-educated. There will always be some degree of income inequality.
Politicians use this income inequality situation and how to "fix" it as a ruse to get mostly idiots to vote for them. If people want to be paid more what they need is to be given an opportunity to succeed in a capitalist society. In this model some will succeed and earn more and others won't but don't bitch about the system if you are not able to better yourself when you are given opportunities.
Do you think there should be some rule of law where all people from all educational backgrounds are paid exactly the same salaries by doing different jobs? Would that be fair?
In short, how do you really put an end to income inequality and even if you better income inequality (which should be done IMO) won't there always be many people who complain? It's a conundrum which has no easy answers.
Back to top
OT: new cabinet position
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Nov 09 06:05PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:05:43 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> clintons
> i can live with that.
> bob
LOL. Let's see if the elite billionaire Trump will help these desperate working class moaners and groaners and what tune you will be singing about Trump in a couple of years.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 09 09:09PM -0500
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:05:19 -0800 (PST), Court_1
>> i can live with that.
>> bob
>LOL. Let's see if the elite billionaire Trump will help these desperate working class moaners and groaners and what tune you will be singing about Trump in a couple of years.
i don't know if anyone can "help" them. i'd like to see some policies
that can bring mfg jobs back in some semblance to them.
you really hate the working class, don't you?
bob
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Nov 09 06:45PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:09:08 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> >LOL. Let's see if the elite billionaire Trump will help these desperate working class moaners and groaners and what tune you will be singing about Trump in a couple of years.
> i don't know if anyone can "help" them. i'd like to see some policies
> that can bring mfg jobs back in some semblance to them.
So would I. I agree with Trump that NAFTA was a cancer for N. American manufacturing.
But all of this time you've been shouting about an anti-establishment candidate who would help with income inequality isn't that right? So let's see if Trump is your guy or if he (as a billionaire elitist) will benefit mostly the upper classes. If he doesn't help them, you better be the first to admit it.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Nov 10 06:00AM +0200
10.11.2016, 3:05, bob kirjoitti:
>> If his cabinet is anything like his campaign then you'll be pulling your
>> hair couple months after his presidency
> TT, you've taken a decidedly different tone. i'm not so dumb anymore?
I still think anyone voting for Trump is an idiot. No ifs and buts.
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear. Absolutely"
Back to top
America Votes: One Mistake Too Many - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
soccerfan777 <zepfloyes@gmail.com>: Nov 09 06:56PM -0800
And so does Waleed. This will go nowhere..
Haha
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Nov 10 05:57AM +0200
10.11.2016, 1:47, Shakes kirjoitti:
>> Shakes give it a rest. Let's Waleed speak his mind. This is an open newsgroup.
> You are right, Raja.
> Waleed, I withdraw my statement.
Sort of like Comey.
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear. Absolutely"
Back to top
Worse than TT's simulation.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Nov 09 06:58PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 7:55:30 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> i told you a long time ago the polls were wrong because lots of people
> were going to vote trump but not admit it.
Right, right. *rolls eyes*
You "told us" the polls were wrong yet you were shitting bricks last night and telling us up to the last minute that Hillary would win. Nobody predicted this kind of election result with Trump winning all of the crucial swing states.
Do you ever stop bullshitting?
I'll tell you one person in this whole thing I would want on my team and that is Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway. What a pit bull she is.
TT <ascii@dprk.kp>: Nov 10 05:44AM +0200
10.11.2016, 4:58, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> You "told us" the polls were wrong yet you were shitting bricks last night and telling us up to the last minute that Hillary would win. Nobody predicted this kind of election result with Trump winning all of the crucial swing states.
> Do you ever stop bullshitting?
> I'll tell you one person in this whole thing I would want on my team and that is Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway. What a pit bull she is.
Also, polls were probably wrong in rust belt because Trump had many
rallies there in final days where he blatantly lied that he'll "bring
steel back". There wasn't time for that to be reflected in the polls.
This election undermined whole US electoral process. What we learned...
It's ok to lie.
It's ok insult everyone and call them names, including your opponent.
It's ok to grope women because you're famous.
It's ok not to release your taxes
It's ok for Russia to interfere in elections.
It's ok for FBI to interfere in elections
It's ok for a party to be obstructionist, to the extent on not allowing
vote for supreme court judge (or lower court judges) for a year.
This sort of behaviour was punished for giving the perpetrators
presidency, supreme court, house and senate. Well done America.
What democrats should do is AT LEAST hold supreme court nominees for
another four years. Unless it's Garland. Fair is fair.
--
"He did touch my vagina through my underwear. Absolutely"
Back to top
Democratic Party must burn for a new start
PeteWasLucky <waleed.khedr@gmail.com>: Nov 09 10:22PM -0500
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/opinions/democratic-party-burn-tasin
i/index.html
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Back to top
Would Sanders have defeated Trump?
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Nov 09 06:07PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 5:35:52 PM UTC-8, bob wrote:
> >> Yes, there were polls showing him with better chances than Hillary
> >> to beat Trump.
Doesn't matter, bob. He said the "S" word. The guy wanted universal health care, free education, and higher wages for those below the poverty line. You must realize that life as we know it in the US of A would have come to a crashing halt and everyone would be forced to wear red coveralls and call each other "comrade" if those things happened. Cause he did say the "S" word after all.
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 09 09:13PM -0500
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:07:09 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
>> >> Yes, there were polls showing him with better chances than Hillary
>> >> to beat Trump.
>Doesn't matter, bob. He said the "S" word. The guy wanted universal health care, free education, and higher wages for those below the poverty line. You must realize that life as we know it in the US of A would have come to a crashing halt and everyone would be forced to wear red coveralls and call each other "comrade" if those things happened. Cause he did say the "S" word after all.
and the funny thing is many of the people who most need the "S" system
are the ones who hate that word most. and the courty's daddys of the
world of course.
bob
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Nov 09 06:15PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 6:13:04 PM UTC-8, bob wrote:
> and the funny thing is many of the people who most need the "S" system
> are the ones who hate that word most. and the courty's daddys of the
> world of course.
agree. :)
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Nov 09 06:19PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 8:59:44 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> >But I just said above look at how accurate the polls were with respect to Hillary vs Trump!
> hillary came within a whisker of winning.
No she didn't. She lost freaking FL, NC, Ohio,all states she was projected to win easily. Hillary lost badly.
> if bernie was polling 5%
> higher than her, against the donald, he'd win.
Polls are inaccurate! Bernie wasn't winning this election. These desperados are looking for somebody with a capitalist vision, somebody they 'think' will create jobs for them, not some Socialist with pie in the sky ideals.
> > Haven't you told us time and time again on RST that polls cannot be trusted? Or are they only not to be trusted when it suits your agenda?
> sigh. polls were wrong in the trump case for 1 reason,
More BS excuses from you? If you are going to say polling is inaccurate be consistent. By the way, was this election "fixed" like you've be crowing about for months? Why aren't you continuing on with that theme now that Hillary lost? *hypocrite alert*
> however, when comparing relative %'s, like how well hillary did
> against trump VS bernie VS trump, comparisons can be made. the fact
> was he always polled FAR higher against trump than she did.
Sanders wouldn't have likely defeated Trump for the reason I highlighted above. Sanders' policies wouldn't have created jobs for these people. These are desperate people looking for any way out of their nightmare lives. They think Trump, an outsider and businessman, will be their savior.
Court_1 <olympia0000@yahoo.com>: Nov 09 06:24PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:07:10 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> > >> Yes, there were polls showing him with better chances than Hillary
> > >> to beat Trump.
> Doesn't matter, bob. He said the "S" word. The guy wanted universal health care, free education, and higher wages for those below the poverty line. You must realize that life as we know it in the US of A would have come to a crashing halt and everyone would be forced to wear red coveralls and call each other "comrade" if those things happened. Cause he did say the "S" word after all.
Stop being a moron Gracchus. The point is that these working class people are looking for a different kind of person to run the country and Trump as an outsider/businessman offered a capitalist vision with a glimmer of hope of creating jobs for some of these people. Sanders' policies didn't offer that vision for them.
Now we're going to find out if Trump will actually help the working class or if he will continue to benefit the privileged (a more likely scenario.)
bob <bob@nospam.net>: Nov 09 09:24PM -0500
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:19:01 -0800 (PST), Court_1
>> >But I just said above look at how accurate the polls were with respect to Hillary vs Trump!
>> hillary came within a whisker of winning.
>No she didn't. She lost freaking FL, NC, Ohio,all states she was projected to win easily. Hillary lost badly.
hillary lost 5 key battleground states by about 1% each.
>> if bernie was polling 5%
>> higher than her, against the donald, he'd win.
>Polls are inaccurate! Bernie wasn't winning this election. These desperados are looking for somebody with a capitalist vision, somebody they 'think' will create jobs for them, not some Socialist with pie in the sky ideals.
yes, polls are wrong, but they are wrong in a predictable and relative
way. (well, for most of us anyway)
>> > Haven't you told us time and time again on RST that polls cannot be trusted? Or are they only not to be trusted when it suits your agenda?
>> sigh. polls were wrong in the trump case for 1 reason,
>More BS excuses from you?
? it's very simple.
> If you are going to say polling is inaccurate be consistent. By the way, was this election "fixed" like you've be crowing about for months? Why aren't you continuing on with that theme now that Hillary lost? *hypocrite alert*
i said the system was rigged to give hillary an unfair advantage. it
was. she still lost.
>> against trump VS bernie VS trump, comparisons can be made. the fact
>> was he always polled FAR higher against trump than she did.
>Sanders wouldn't have likely defeated Trump for the reason I highlighted above. Sanders' policies wouldn't have created jobs for these people. These are desperate people looking for any way out of their nightmare lives. They think Trump, an outsider and businessman, will be their savior.
go donald!
bob
Gracchus <gracchado@gmail.com>: Nov 09 06:34PM -0800
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 6:24:12 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> > > >> to beat Trump.
> > Doesn't matter, bob. He said the "S" word. The guy wanted universal health care, free education, and higher wages for those below the poverty line. You must realize that life as we know it in the US of A would have come to a crashing halt and everyone would be forced to wear red coveralls and call each other "comrade" if those things happened. Cause he did say the "S" word after all.
> Stop being a moron Gracchus. The point is that these working class people are looking for a different kind of person to run the country and Trump as an outsider/businessman offered a capitalist vision with a glimmer of hope of creating jobs for some of these people. Sanders' policies didn't offer that vision for them.
Ah, of course. Sanders just wanted to give the laziest bums from the underclass free handouts taken from the hands of those who worked hardest to ascend the economic ladder. I keep forgetting.
> Now we're going to find out if Trump will actually help the working class or if he will continue to benefit the privileged (a more likely scenario.)
Then you'll be singing his praises soon enough.
Back to top
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.tennis+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.