Forum Thread

Chelsea"s condo.


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 46 - 54 of 54 Prev 1 2 3 4
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote:

    Chet, The only hate that I currently have is about those who are constantly saying negative things about the democratic nominee. Make no mistake, I don't think that she is a gift to humanity or an answer to all of our problems. There are 4 choices at this point. Write that down because I honestly don't think that you fully understand this. #4 has zero chance, #3 has 1% chance, #2 has 40% chance and automatically discounts the worth of 65% of the people on this planet. Then there was #1. If you're sold on any of the others that is your choice to make. My hate is the fools across America who want to hate her because A. She has a political background/history, B. She's not dirt poor, C. She's not a white man, or D. because her husband made a mistake 20 years ago. Well, if we eliminate those who are in families where a person made a regrettable mistake, there's nobody left. Everybody has a close relative who's done something they shouldn't have. Not everybody is fighting against the repubs who will distort the truth, lie, preach, and mock everything except the product that they are selling. We've been subject to their insane dogmatic approach to politics. They are wearing us all down. Then we have "so called" democrats who in republican style bash the democratic candidate all day every day.

    If you continue saying negative things about "our candidate" I will just refuse to reply to any comment that you make. I would encourage others (who actually want a democrat to win) to do the same. I'm not the only one to question what you've put out there. Spew garbage if you like. It will be invisable to me. I'm not saying anyone should agree with everything any candidate says but you're determined to disqualify her and there's not a better option.

    Dutch, Much of the above pertains to you as well. Know where to find those fine politicians that you miss so much......yes you do. They were so great, so perfect, so fair that you got the hell out of there as quickly as you could. Don't waste your time telling us how in Europe it's so much better because if it was so great you'd still be enjoying it. I don't have colored glasses on but I can see what's best between the 4 choices that we have. Write in Bernie if you want. Him getting .0000042% of the total will show that you can make a good statement.

    Nobody is saying that Hillary Clinton will win a Nobel peace prize, or any other dignified award. She's the best choice that we have right now. Bigots will disagree because they're having a wet dream about their hateful jerk who actually has a chance to win. The logistics of getting rid of all of the undesirables is another matter. Could always fill in the Grand Canyon. Hmmmmm

    Tony you have no clue on how I got into this country and why. Neither do you have an clue about how you are fooled by the clowns who are running. So just wait for the results in November then we talk again. Down here I see more and more Trump signs in yards, so is that an good omen? Like I said neither candidate can solve the middle east crisis, because neither candidate understands it; it will be their noose around their necks. Then all the promises will end up in the garbage bin. You can disagree all you like; but don't play the hypocrite afterwards.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This thread started out as Chet bitching about Chelsea's condo, like it's the second most important topic in the world, right after the CFMA (Commodities Futures Modernization Act), another of Chet's obsessions and topic of zero interest. I do not see that the subject of Chelsea's condo has any redeeming value for discussion in this forum. It's just like a troll attacking anything on the Clintons.

    Chet you are all over the place. I cannot understand your logic on much of what you write. You cannot stay on topic. You remind me of Kellyann Conway in her numerous TV interviews denying and shifting the discussion.

    For me your many posts are time wasters. I could leave it to you and Dutch to have a conversation amongst yourselves about how much you both hate the Clintons, but then I would be doing just what the media is doing.

    Quite a while ago I offered you the opportunity to go to Hillary Clinton's website and comment on a specific proposal. It would have required you to read and think about it. You said you would do it, and then all you've ever written about since then is the Clintons and how bad they are. This website is called the Democratic Hub. Look at one of the forum rules:

    Forum Rule : No Harming Democratic Party Candidates Chances of Winning General Election

    I would suggest closing this thread. The title itself has no redeeming value.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    This thread started out as Chet bitching about Chelsea's condo, like it's the second most important topic in the world, right after the CFMA (Commodities Futures Modernization Act), another of Chet's obsessions and topic of zero interest. I do not see that the subject of Chelsea's condo has any redeeming value for discussion in this forum. It's just like a troll attacking anything on the Clintons.

    Chet you are all over the place. I cannot understand your logic on much of what you write. You cannot stay on topic. You remind me of Kellyann Conway in her numerous TV interviews denying and shifting the discussion.

    For me your many posts are time wasters. I could leave it to you and Dutch to have a conversation amongst yourselves about how much you both hate the Clintons, but then I would be doing just what the media is doing.

    Quite a while ago I offered you the opportunity to go to Hillary Clinton's website and comment on a specific proposal. It would have required you to read and think about it. You said you would do it, and then all you've ever written about since then is the Clintons and how bad they are. This website is called the Democratic Hub. Look at one of the forum rules:

    Forum Rule : No Harming Democratic Party Candidates Chances of Winning General Election

    I would suggest closing this thread. The title itself has no redeeming value.

    Sure Schmidt; I mostly agree with you, but in this case (read all my mail about my point of view) then you are not helping the Democratic cause, if you stick your head in the sand. Be honest and look at things with an open mind. I hope you agree that if Hillary continuous this way that she will loose; therefore I put suggestions forward to prevent such. Sorry I'm not the only one who views things that way. Read the European newspapers they say the same. I hope you noticed that I'm an independent; so I look at the weak points of both candidates. You should also note what I wrote about Trump. So I "balance" my comments evenly. By stating: No harming Democratic Party Candidates......; is nuts. How about the Wasserman woman, did she not harm the party? What about if this was not disclosed? What I said about the Party is not new, ask Bernie. He at least did not get in bed with the rich like Hillary does.

    Schmidt, I have nothing against you, you are an great guy and always admit when you are mistaken. So don't see this as that I am against you, but see it as how things could be improved upon in this country. An two party system is asking for problems and polarization, so nothing gets done. So my feeling is that it is time to change the system here. The Trumper's are an example of that people are fed up with the present system.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, You don't get it. Cant you understand the incredibly positive effect Chelsea selling the 10.5 million dollar condo would have on the Clinton Campaign and the Clinton image. Chelsea making the most positive statement ever by selling the condo to help her mother could turn the election for Hillary. You don't read my posts so you shouldn't comment on them. You saying I said Hillary should try and be more likable which I never said is proof. I can only reason that you are upset that you have been so wrong about Trump while I have pointed out how he was going to succeed and how to counter him that you can only attack what I write. Even at this late time you can't see your way clearly on how to help Hillary and hurt Trump. You could probably get my message on how to undermine a charismatic Trump through to somebody in the campaign. Are you going to do that ?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "Forum Rule : No Harming Democratic Party Candidates Chances of Winning General Election"

    I am the only person on this sight to identify the reason for Trump's popularity and how to undermine it. An objective person would be looking into Clinton negatives and how to turn negatives into positives. The condo is a huge liability. Research it and see how bad it could be. Schmidt, it alone could win or lose the election.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There are 4 choices. My pick (D) is the one who should win. If you support another, fine, explain why you do. Bottom line is make your pick and be happy while hoping that they win. I'll select _______ but speak negatively about __________ the entire time. Obvious that you don't like team sports because there are concepts called team work, team support, loyalty, that are important but being entirely missed.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    TJ Wrote: There are 4 choices. My pick (D) is the one who should win. If you support another, fine, explain why you do. Bottom line is make your pick and be happy while hoping that they win. I'll select _______ but speak negatively about __________ the entire time. Obvious that you don't like team sports because there are concepts called team work, team support, loyalty, that are important but being entirely missed.
    TJ, It is clear to me that you are not interested or care or believe that I know how to and have been telling how to undermine Trump. It also seems to be the consensus of the rest of the forum. I'll stop talking about it. If that is not enough then I'll quit writing on the forum.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    deep breaths everybody. in, out. in, out.

    ok. chelsea clinton's condo is irrelevant. it is as irrelevant as the house bought by obama for after the presidency. it is as irrelevant as whatever houses the bush daughters live in.

    now as for wealth that is a subject for discussion. wealth in and of itself means nothing. the manner in which wealth is gained is an issue if it is done criminally. it is also an issue if it is done to foster access to influence political decisions, policies and the like. wealth itself is no bar to public service nor should it be. fdr was wealthy. plenty of other presidents have been wealthy. the same applies to congresscritters and senators.

    now for some specific points. sorry tj, clinton continued the war for the greater middle east with bosnia and somalia. clinton also benefited greatly by the tech boom in terms of balancing the budget. the nonsense that there would be balanced budgets far into the future was just that, nonsense. of course bush hurried the collapse of the budget mythology but that is something else entirely. yes, dutch, problems must be solved using brains. but whether or not people pay someone, generally a politician or wealthy person to make speeches is irrelevant. it is entirely possible and perhaps likely depending upon the person that solutions can be proposed by those speeches and integrated into policies and actions. thus i don't care what someone makes for giving a speech. i do think that most speaking fees are overinflated but if the payer is stupid enough to pay it then so be it.

    now as for laughingstock, yep, we are. from a political standpoint. that people want to come here doesn't mean our politics aren't worthy of being derided. they are. and how many who come here actually succeed? how is success defined? the center in a political hegemony always attracts people. this is not surprising. but as social mobility upward is stunted and curtailed more and more of those who come here will find themselves outside looking in and in a country where their customs may be considered suspicious or subject to ridicule by the wonderfully open-minded american populace.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This is the latest email I got from Hillary's campaign :

    "We can't change how the press covers this race -- that's on them. We can't just hold our breaths and hope they start reporting what the rest of us can see with our naked eyes."

    There is an element that is in denial of the dire situation the campaign is in. The same denial extends to the strategy of the campaign. Hillary is doing nothing different than Trump's opponents did in the Republican primary and she is getting the same results. They have 48 hours to knock the wind out of Trump and Chelsea's condo can do it. If Chelsea would get on the news and say she is selling her apartment to give the money to Hillary for her campaign that would be the news of the day and automatically give the debate to Hillary. Then the campaign would have people seeing Hillary like they are asking for. Trump could parade is family platoon in front of the camera but Chelsea would have more attention by herself. It would be win, win win. It would overshadow any negatives including her son in law.