Does anyone actually think that Donald Trump would make a good President?

[Boss]

And let me just add... I have nothing against your graphic. I think it only needs to be pointed out that the number of people in the Top 5% is much higher now than it was in 1967, as my graph confirms. So... not only are the middle class moving to the upper class, they are also making more money at it than ever before. Capitalism is working well to continue producing more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Can't wait for the next round of national polling, prolly to come out later this week.

Why, with all these Trumpian Neutron Bombs going off, I am not sure the pollsters will be able to keep up to record the carnage....

 

[Skylar]

Why $75,000 dollars? That's remarkably specific.....but rather arbitrary. Most assessments of of middle class are based on a percentage of median income. With most measurements of the middle class topping out at about 200% median. Or roughly $100,000 a year nationally. Or between $75,000 and and $144,000 depending on the state you live in.

Why do you define middle class as topping out at $75,000?

The incomes are adjusted to 2009 dollars, the ranges are selected because you have to have ranges if you're going to distinguish between ranges. What it sounds like you want is to compare a sliding scale dynamic income you can manipulate and call what you please to conform to your meme. Is that how "middle class" works in your mind? We change it depending on what result we want to show? Sometimes $75k is upper income and sometimes it's middle income?

I got that. My question is....why 75k? Why is that your measure of 'middle class'? Almost all measures of middle class use some percentage of median income. You use an apparently arbitrary number.

Why that number? What is its significance. And why do you use it to define 'middle class'?

Well darling, it's not MY measure or MY graph.

Um, kiddo.....you're citing it. Its your graph now. If you know nothing behind it, have no clue why it drew its arbitrary lines where they did, then perhaps you should dig a little deeper into your own sources before quoting them.

I've given you ample opportunity to explain yourself. You clearly have no such explanation for why such an arbitrary number was used. Nor can you rationally justify 75k as the threshold of 'upper income'. And without a rational reason, there's no reason to use it.

With the lowest, 2nd lowest and middle quintile essentially stagnant despite in 2013 dollars (and actually in decline since 2007), how can you rationally argue that the middle income group is becoming an upper income group. The middle quintile is at roughly the same place it was 50 years ago.

You'll note that the information comes from the US Census Bureau. I'm just passing along information, you can take it however you please. Is there some magical dollar amount one reaches and suddenly becomes a different class? What IS "middle class" to you? Is it just whatever amount it needs to be in order to make the point you are making at the moment?

You'll note that the Census Bureau doesn't draw the line for 'upper income' at 75,000. Your source does.......for some reason even you don't know. Nor bothered to find out before citing it. If you ever do, feel free to share it.

Meanwhile, the Quintile system is used by the Census Bureau, giving us ample reason as to why its being used now. And it shows stagnation and decline in 3/5ths of American households. With moderate growth in the 2nd highest quintile, dramatic growth among the upper quintile and wild growth in the upper 5%.

If the American worker is producing double what he did 50 years ago.....why is the increases in income missing 3/5ths of the US population?

I don't need to get into a pissing contest with you over a graphic from the US Census. No lines were "arbitrary" or drawn to make some tricky political point.

Then explain why you using $75,000 as your 'upper income' group. And why you're using only 3 groups, when the Census Bureau uses at least 5. IF they're not arbitrary, then there will be some objective reason why. Is it a percentage of mean income, like most measures of middle class? Is it the quintile system that the Census Bureau uses?

Explain it to us.

You can't. You have no idea why you're using the lines you are. You have no reason, no rationale for why you're using the numbers you are. Nor any reason why you're defining 'middle class' as below $75,000. With no rational reason, your definitions are objectively meaningless.

So much for your 'degree of common sense'.

What exactly are you quibbling about?

Sigh....for the third time;

With the lowest, 2nd lowest and middle quintile essentially stagnant despite in 2013 dollars (and actually in decline since 2007), how can you rationally argue that the middle income group is becoming an upper income group. The middle quintile is at roughly the same place it was 50 years ago.

What about these 2 whole sentences confound and confuse you so completely that it require *three* recitations before you can comprehend them?

Sound them out if you have to, sweetheart. Oh, and the bottom 3 have been in decline since 2000.....not 2007.

And seriously? Are you going to actually try to make an argument that increased production over the past 50 years has nothing to do with technology and is all produced by the work force? Sounds like what you seem to think.

The per capita productivity of the American worker has doubled.since the 60s. Undoubtedly technology plays a role. Yet the benefits of the increases in productivity have essentially skipped the bottom 3 quintiles, with their wages essentially stagnant. And in decline since 2000.

And focused overwhelmingly in the upper quintile, with the most stark increases in income coming in the upper 5%. In both real dollars and percentage of increase.

 

[Skylar]

And let me just add... I have nothing against your graphic. I think it only needs to be pointed out that the number of people in the Top 5% is much higher now than it was in 1967, as my graph confirms. So... not only are the middle class moving to the upper class, they are also making more money at it than ever before. Capitalism is working well to continue producing more millionaires and billionaires than any system ever devised by man.

The number of every quintile is higher now than it was in 1967. As our population has gone up. Adjusted for inflation however, the bottom 3 quintiles has been essentially stagnant. With the middle quintile being at roughly the same place today as it was in 1967. And in decline since 2000.

The middle class may include more than the middle quintile. But every definition of middle class includes them. And their best year was 2000. They've been in a slow slide since then.

 

[Boss]

The incomes are adjusted to 2009 dollars, the ranges are selected because you have to have ranges if you're going to distinguish between ranges. What it sounds like you want is to compare a sliding scale dynamic income you can manipulate and call what you please to conform to your meme. Is that how "middle class" works in your mind? We change it depending on what result we want to show? Sometimes $75k is upper income and sometimes it's middle income?

I got that. My question is....why 75k? Why is that your measure of 'middle class'? Almost all measures of middle class use some percentage of median income. You use an apparently arbitrary number.

Why that number? What is its significance. And why do you use it to define 'middle class'?

Well darling, it's not MY measure or MY graph.

Um, kiddo.....you're citing it. Its your graph now. If you know nothing behind it, have no clue why it drew its arbitrary lines where they did, then perhaps you should dig a little deeper into your own sources before quoting them.

I've given you ample opportunity to explain yourself. You clearly have no such explanation for why such an arbitrary number was used. Nor can you rationally justify 75k as the threshold of 'upper income'. And without a rational reason, there's no reason to use it.

With the lowest, 2nd lowest and middle quintile essentially stagnant despite in 2013 dollars (and actually in decline since 2007), how can you rationally argue that the middle income group is becoming an upper income group. The middle quintile is at roughly the same place it was 50 years ago.

You'll note that the information comes from the US Census Bureau. I'm just passing along information, you can take it however you please. Is there some magical dollar amount one reaches and suddenly becomes a different class? What IS "middle class" to you? Is it just whatever amount it needs to be in order to make the point you are making at the moment?

You'll note that the Census Bureau doesn't draw the line for 'upper income' at 75,000. Your source does.......for some reason even you don't know. Nor bothered to find out before citing it. If you ever do, feel free to share it.

Meanwhile, the Quintile system is used by the Census Bureau, giving us ample reason as to why its being used now. And it shows stagnation and decline in 3/5ths of American households. With moderate growth in the 2nd highest quintile, dramatic growth among the upper quintile and wild growth in the upper 5%.

If the American worker is producing double what he did 50 years ago.....why is the increases in income missing 3/5ths of the US population?

I don't need to get into a pissing contest with you over a graphic from the US Census. No lines were "arbitrary" or drawn to make some tricky political point.

Then explain why you using $75,000 as your 'upper income' group. And why you're using only 3 groups, when the Census Bureau uses at least 5. IF they're not arbitrary, then there will be some objective reason why. Is it a percentage of mean income, like most measures of middle class? Is it the quintile system that the Census Bureau uses?

Explain it to us.

You can't. You have no idea why you're using the lines you are. You have no reason, no rationale for why you're using the numbers you are. Nor any reason why you're defining 'middle class' as below $75,000. With no rational reason, your definitions are objectively meaningless.

So much for your 'degree of common sense'.

What exactly are you quibbling about?

Sigh....for the third time;

With the lowest, 2nd lowest and middle quintile essentially stagnant despite in 2013 dollars (and actually in decline since 2007), how can you rationally argue that the middle income group is becoming an upper income group. The middle quintile is at roughly the same place it was 50 years ago.

What about these 2 whole sentences confound and confuse you so completely that it require *three* recitations before you can comprehend them?

Sound them out if you have to, sweetheart. Oh, and the bottom 3 have been in decline since 2000.....not 2007.

And seriously? Are you going to actually try to make an argument that increased production over the past 50 years has nothing to do with technology and is all produced by the work force? Sounds like what you seem to think.

The per capita productivity of the American worker has doubled.since the 60s. Undoubtedly technology plays a role. Yet the benefits of the increases in productivity have essentially skipped the bottom 3 quintiles, with their wages essentially stagnant. And in decline since 2000.

And focused overwhelmingly in the upper quintile, with the most stark increases in income coming in the upper 5%. In both real dollars and percentage of increase.

I'm not "using" anything, and the Census Bureau isn't "using" anything, they record all kinds of information and various people compile that information and create graphics based on it.

Now, this is the graph I posted:

The graph simply defines upper, middle and lower incomes based on pretty reasonable criteria, I think... you don't seem to be able to articulate what your problem is with how we are defining terms... except that now you want to blur distinction of "middle class" to look at something else.... doesn't make sense to me. The point of my graph is to show that the middle class IS declining in America... they are becoming the New Rich! This is because we are free enterprise capitalist system where people have that opportunity. They aren't satisfied being middle class, they want more out of life.

The per capita productivity of the American worker has doubled.since the 60s. Undoubtedly technology plays a role. Yet the benefits of the increases in productivity have essentially skipped the bottom 3 quintiles, with their wages essentially stagnant. And in decline since 2000.

You keep saying "the productivity of the worker" but that's very misleading. Technology has increased production, not the worker working harder. So... yes, technology has greatly increased in 50 years, meaning that technical workers have increased. The graph you are looking at doesn't show changes in the groups, it assumes the same people are in each group for all of that time and that isn't true. Some people kept up with training in new technology and now they make more money than people who didn't. The lowest quintile will remain stagnant unless we have some demand for low-skilled workers. As technology advances, the higher quintile will earn more and more because their skills are needed more and more.

 

[sealybobo]

Where are all the trump fans? Do you agree about McCain?

I told you he never wanted to win. Trump is just in it to rally the nuts. He's the Ron Paul or Ross Perot 2016

 

[dcraelin]

There's been a lot of Trump support recently on the boards, but it's almost always been couched in anti-liberal rhetoric - along the lines of "I like Trump because he makes liberals upset". I have yet to see anyone put there cards on the table and publicly state that they think he would be a good President.

So here we go. Let's here some positive things about Donald Trump from the resident supporters.

What qualities does Donald Trump have that would make him a good President?

You're overthinking it. This isn't about quality or even policy. Its about feeling. He's the emotional choice. You'll only **** it up if you start injecting useless criteria like qualification or whether or not he'd actually be good at the job.

Don't ruin this for me!

Like Hillary isn't the emotional choice for liberals who decided they just had to elect their first black president, and now want their first woman one. Yeah, she's really qualified.

And yet with zero executive experience, zero military experience, and no relevant qualifications or experience....Trump is the front runner in the GOP.

Either qualifications matter to you, Trump fails the qualification standard and your critique of Obama and to a lesser extent Hillary are consistent. Or qualifications don't matter to you, Trump's qualifications are irrelevant, and your criticism of Obama and Hillary are gloriously hypocritical.

As you genuinely don't give a shit.

Pick one, recognizing it will apply to everyone.

I don't understand your logic. All three people are "qualified" to be president, (if you don't consider Obama's lack of a birth certificate). The Constitution lays out the qualifications very clearly. All three people have "experience" at something. Most of Obama's is in community organizing and being a politician.... and golf! Hillary has built a resume of experience dodging subpoenas and obstructing justice. Trump's experience is making winners out of losers.

I find it quite ironic that you are chastising Trump for not having military experience... would you like to disclose your glorious Messiah-in-Chief's military record for us? That's right... Zippola! Oh okay, well let's look at Billary's military records? What? Nothing there either? Wow... and you have the audacity to raise this issue with Trump or ANYONE?

Trump said, “He (McCain) was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Trump of course, was never captured because he hid out in grad school, choosing to leave the fighting to someone else by applying for a deferment.

While Trump was cooling his heals in graduate school. John McCain volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam. He was shot down, captured and a POW suffering from a crushed shoulder and a bayonet wounds. Meanwhile, Trump graduated with his degree in business and joined his father in the real state business. John McCain returned home a decorated wounded soldier.

Trump made a big mistake attacking McCain, one that will come back to haunt him in months to come.

except McCain called anyone supporting Trump, or even just those going out to hear him speak, crazies.

How come the media isnt highlighting that part?.......

After his bomb bomb Iran ditty, and calling Cruz a wacko-bird on the Senate floor....perhaps the media should be questioning McCain's sanity.

 

[sealybobo]

You're overthinking it. This isn't about quality or even policy. Its about feeling. He's the emotional choice. You'll only **** it up if you start injecting useless criteria like qualification or whether or not he'd actually be good at the job.

Don't ruin this for me!

Like Hillary isn't the emotional choice for liberals who decided they just had to elect their first black president, and now want their first woman one. Yeah, she's really qualified.

And yet with zero executive experience, zero military experience, and no relevant qualifications or experience....Trump is the front runner in the GOP.

Either qualifications matter to you, Trump fails the qualification standard and your critique of Obama and to a lesser extent Hillary are consistent. Or qualifications don't matter to you, Trump's qualifications are irrelevant, and your criticism of Obama and Hillary are gloriously hypocritical.

As you genuinely don't give a shit.

Pick one, recognizing it will apply to everyone.

I don't understand your logic. All three people are "qualified" to be president, (if you don't consider Obama's lack of a birth certificate). The Constitution lays out the qualifications very clearly. All three people have "experience" at something. Most of Obama's is in community organizing and being a politician.... and golf! Hillary has built a resume of experience dodging subpoenas and obstructing justice. Trump's experience is making winners out of losers.

I find it quite ironic that you are chastising Trump for not having military experience... would you like to disclose your glorious Messiah-in-Chief's military record for us? That's right... Zippola! Oh okay, well let's look at Billary's military records? What? Nothing there either? Wow... and you have the audacity to raise this issue with Trump or ANYONE?

Trump said, “He (McCain) was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Trump of course, was never captured because he hid out in grad school, choosing to leave the fighting to someone else by applying for a deferment.

While Trump was cooling his heals in graduate school. John McCain volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam. He was shot down, captured and a POW suffering from a crushed shoulder and a bayonet wounds. Meanwhile, Trump graduated with his degree in business and joined his father in the real state business. John McCain returned home a decorated wounded soldier.

Trump made a big mistake attacking McCain, one that will come back to haunt him in months to come.

except McCain called anyone supporting Trump, or even just those going out to hear him speak, crazies.

How come the media isnt highlighting that part?.......

After his bomb bomb Iran ditty, and calling Cruz a wacko-bird on the Senate floor....perhaps the media should be questioning McCain's sanity.

It is a bit hypocritical that McCain can call names and disrespect other Americans but he's off limits? I have a feeling they want Democrats to have fun with this and so it backfires on us because at this point nobody believes Trump is a serious candidate.

By the way I'm listening to a very well spoken thoughtful intelligent Republican on NPR explaining why conservative economics work and he makes a lot of sense. How come none of us clowns can sound as intelligent as him?

Seriously if we could go back to how Republicans behaved during the Reagan era maybe I could swallow Republicans leading again. But let's be honest Reagan wouldn't even get the nomination in today's Republican Party. He'd be considered too liberal

 

[Slyhunter]

Where are all the trump fans? Do you agree about McCain?

I told you he never wanted to win. Trump is just in it to rally the nuts. He's the Ron Paul or Ross Perot 2016

Being a pow doesnt make you a hero.

 

[dcraelin]

Like Hillary isn't the emotional choice for liberals who decided they just had to elect their first black president, and now want their first woman one. Yeah, she's really qualified.

And yet with zero executive experience, zero military experience, and no relevant qualifications or experience....Trump is the front runner in the GOP.

Either qualifications matter to you, Trump fails the qualification standard and your critique of Obama and to a lesser extent Hillary are consistent. Or qualifications don't matter to you, Trump's qualifications are irrelevant, and your criticism of Obama and Hillary are gloriously hypocritical.

As you genuinely don't give a shit.

Pick one, recognizing it will apply to everyone.

I don't understand your logic. All three people are "qualified" to be president, (if you don't consider Obama's lack of a birth certificate). The Constitution lays out the qualifications very clearly. All three people have "experience" at something. Most of Obama's is in community organizing and being a politician.... and golf! Hillary has built a resume of experience dodging subpoenas and obstructing justice. Trump's experience is making winners out of losers.

I find it quite ironic that you are chastising Trump for not having military experience... would you like to disclose your glorious Messiah-in-Chief's military record for us? That's right... Zippola! Oh okay, well let's look at Billary's military records? What? Nothing there either? Wow... and you have the audacity to raise this issue with Trump or ANYONE?

Trump said, “He (McCain) was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Trump of course, was never captured because he hid out in grad school, choosing to leave the fighting to someone else by applying for a deferment.

While Trump was cooling his heals in graduate school. John McCain volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam. He was shot down, captured and a POW suffering from a crushed shoulder and a bayonet wounds. Meanwhile, Trump graduated with his degree in business and joined his father in the real state business. John McCain returned home a decorated wounded soldier.

Trump made a big mistake attacking McCain, one that will come back to haunt him in months to come.

except McCain called anyone supporting Trump, or even just those going out to hear him speak, crazies.

How come the media isnt highlighting that part?.......

After his bomb bomb Iran ditty, and calling Cruz a wacko-bird on the Senate floor....perhaps the media should be questioning McCain's sanity.

It is a bit hypocritical that McCain can call names and disrespect other Americans but he's off limits? I have a feeling they want Democrats to have fun with this and so it backfires on us because at this point nobody believes Trump is a serious candidate.

By the way I'm listening to a very well spoken thoughtful intelligent Republican on NPR explaining why conservative economics work and he makes a lot of sense. How come none of us clowns can sound as intelligent as him?

Seriously if we could go back to how Republicans behaved during the Reagan era maybe I could swallow Republicans leading again. But let's be honest Reagan wouldn't even get the nomination in today's Republican Party. He'd be considered too liberal

well, I agree on this line anyway: "It is a bit hypocritical that McCain can call names and disrespect other Americans but he's off limits?"

 

[Skylar]

Like Hillary isn't the emotional choice for liberals who decided they just had to elect their first black president, and now want their first woman one. Yeah, she's really qualified.

And yet with zero executive experience, zero military experience, and no relevant qualifications or experience....Trump is the front runner in the GOP.

Either qualifications matter to you, Trump fails the qualification standard and your critique of Obama and to a lesser extent Hillary are consistent. Or qualifications don't matter to you, Trump's qualifications are irrelevant, and your criticism of Obama and Hillary are gloriously hypocritical.

As you genuinely don't give a shit.

Pick one, recognizing it will apply to everyone.

I don't understand your logic. All three people are "qualified" to be president, (if you don't consider Obama's lack of a birth certificate). The Constitution lays out the qualifications very clearly. All three people have "experience" at something. Most of Obama's is in community organizing and being a politician.... and golf! Hillary has built a resume of experience dodging subpoenas and obstructing justice. Trump's experience is making winners out of losers.

I find it quite ironic that you are chastising Trump for not having military experience... would you like to disclose your glorious Messiah-in-Chief's military record for us? That's right... Zippola! Oh okay, well let's look at Billary's military records? What? Nothing there either? Wow... and you have the audacity to raise this issue with Trump or ANYONE?

Trump said, “He (McCain) was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Trump of course, was never captured because he hid out in grad school, choosing to leave the fighting to someone else by applying for a deferment.

While Trump was cooling his heals in graduate school. John McCain volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam. He was shot down, captured and a POW suffering from a crushed shoulder and a bayonet wounds. Meanwhile, Trump graduated with his degree in business and joined his father in the real state business. John McCain returned home a decorated wounded soldier.

Trump made a big mistake attacking McCain, one that will come back to haunt him in months to come.

except McCain called anyone supporting Trump, or even just those going out to hear him speak, crazies.

How come the media isnt highlighting that part?.......

After his bomb bomb Iran ditty, and calling Cruz a wacko-bird on the Senate floor....perhaps the media should be questioning McCain's sanity.

It is a bit hypocritical that McCain can call names and disrespect other Americans but he's off limits? I have a feeling they want Democrats to have fun with this and so it backfires on us because at this point nobody believes Trump is a serious candidate.

By the way I'm listening to a very well spoken thoughtful intelligent Republican on NPR explaining why conservative economics work and he makes a lot of sense. How come none of us clowns can sound as intelligent as him?

Seriously if we could go back to how Republicans behaved during the Reagan era maybe I could swallow Republicans leading again. But let's be honest Reagan wouldn't even get the nomination in today's Republican Party. He'd be considered too liberal

He's not off limits. You can call him names if you'd like. But attacking his war record? That's the mistake of a rank amateur.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not "using" anything, and the Census Bureau isn't "using" anything, they record all kinds of information and various people compile that information and create graphics based on it.

Then show us the Census bureau using your arbitrary $75,000 metric.....anywhere. Ever.

You can't. Its completely arbitrary, made up and without a rational basis. The only reason you're using it is because a blog picture does. You have no idea why, can't offer us an explanation where that number came from, or justify its use or methodology.

You're merely repeating what you were told to think......by a ******* picture. And this you call 'common sense'? I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Meanwhile, the quintile and top 5% standard is that used by the Census Bureau itself:

Table F-1. Income Limits for Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families

Table F-2. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families


Table F-3. Mean Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Families

Historical Income Tables - Families - U.S Census Bureau

That's why I'm using it. Its the metric used by the Census Bureau. And since I'm citing Census Bureau data, I'm using Census Bureau methodology. And using the very quintile and top 5% standard the quitile distribution demonstrates that the lower 3 quintiles are essentially stagnant. And have been in decline since 2000.

While the upper quintile sees strong growth. With wild growth among the top 5%.

Explicitly contradicting your narrative that the middle class has 'become' the upper income earners. They clearly haven't.

The graph simply defines upper, middle and lower incomes based on pretty reasonable criteria, I think... you don't seem to be able to articulate what your problem is with how we are defining terms... except that now you want to blur distinction of "middle class" to look at something else.... doesn't make sense to me.

And why is $25,000 and $75,000 'reasonable criteria'? You don't even know why you're using those numbers. They're completely arbitrary, with no rational basis. And yet you insist they define the middle class and must be 'reasonable'.

Um, no. They don't. Your arbitrary made up numbers define nothing objectively. Meanwhile, you're ignoring the fact that the lower 3 quintiles have been essentially stagnant for the last 50 years, and in decline since 2000.

Ignore as you will. But your willful ignorance and arbitrary numbers don't magically make the data change. Or the stagnation of the lower 3 quintiles, including the middle quintile which is undeniably middle class, disappear.

The point of my graph is to show that the middle class IS declining in America... they are becoming the New Rich!

They aren't. The lower three quintiles are essentially stagnant. The middle quintile earns roughly the same in inflation adjusted 2013 dollars now that they did in 1967. That's not becoming the 'new rich'. That's stagnation. Worse than stagnation. The middle quintile has been in decline since 2000. That's not becoming the 'new rich'. That's economic decline.

You pretend it isn't happening, making up your own definition for middle class for reasons even you can't explain and have no rational basis for. And ignore the standards and methodology of the Census Bureau despite the fact that the methodology explicitly contradicts your bullshit narrative.

 

[Flopper]

You're overthinking it. This isn't about quality or even policy. Its about feeling. He's the emotional choice. You'll only **** it up if you start injecting useless criteria like qualification or whether or not he'd actually be good at the job.

Don't ruin this for me!

Like Hillary isn't the emotional choice for liberals who decided they just had to elect their first black president, and now want their first woman one. Yeah, she's really qualified.

And yet with zero executive experience, zero military experience, and no relevant qualifications or experience....Trump is the front runner in the GOP.

Either qualifications matter to you, Trump fails the qualification standard and your critique of Obama and to a lesser extent Hillary are consistent. Or qualifications don't matter to you, Trump's qualifications are irrelevant, and your criticism of Obama and Hillary are gloriously hypocritical.

As you genuinely don't give a shit.

Pick one, recognizing it will apply to everyone.

I don't understand your logic. All three people are "qualified" to be president, (if you don't consider Obama's lack of a birth certificate). The Constitution lays out the qualifications very clearly. All three people have "experience" at something. Most of Obama's is in community organizing and being a politician.... and golf! Hillary has built a resume of experience dodging subpoenas and obstructing justice. Trump's experience is making winners out of losers.

I find it quite ironic that you are chastising Trump for not having military experience... would you like to disclose your glorious Messiah-in-Chief's military record for us? That's right... Zippola! Oh okay, well let's look at Billary's military records? What? Nothing there either? Wow... and you have the audacity to raise this issue with Trump or ANYONE?

Trump said, “He (McCain) was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Trump of course, was never captured because he hid out in grad school, choosing to leave the fighting to someone else by applying for a deferment.

While Trump was cooling his heals in graduate school. John McCain volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam. He was shot down, captured and a POW suffering from a crushed shoulder and a bayonet wounds. Meanwhile, Trump graduated with his degree in business and joined his father in the real state business. John McCain returned home a decorated wounded soldier.

Trump made a big mistake attacking McCain, one that will come back to haunt him in months to come.

except McCain called anyone supporting Trump, or even just those going out to hear him speak, crazies.

How come the media isnt highlighting that part?.......

After his bomb bomb Iran ditty, and calling Cruz a wacko-bird on the Senate floor....perhaps the media should be questioning McCain's sanity.

McCain didn't call anyone supporting Trump crazies. McCain said, "“Because what he (Trump) did was he fired up the crazies.” Obviously, Trump's rhetoric is designed to fire up the far right which it's doing rather successfully.

There is plenty of coverage of McCain's remarks, particular questioning whether his motive was to prod Trump into a personal attack. I suspect others are going to follow suit hoping to get other remarks from Trump that can be used to paint him as a vindictive hot head.

The commentator who interviewed Trump said this morning, he believed Trump was not going to back out of the race which raised the real possibility of a 3rd party run. This of course is scaring the shit out of the GOP and delighting the Democrats.

 

[dcraelin]

Like Hillary isn't the emotional choice for liberals who decided they just had to elect their first black president, and now want their first woman one. Yeah, she's really qualified.

And yet with zero executive experience, zero military experience, and no relevant qualifications or experience....Trump is the front runner in the GOP.

Either qualifications matter to you, Trump fails the qualification standard and your critique of Obama and to a lesser extent Hillary are consistent. Or qualifications don't matter to you, Trump's qualifications are irrelevant, and your criticism of Obama and Hillary are gloriously hypocritical.

As you genuinely don't give a shit.

Pick one, recognizing it will apply to everyone.

I don't understand your logic. All three people are "qualified" to be president, (if you don't consider Obama's lack of a birth certificate). The Constitution lays out the qualifications very clearly. All three people have "experience" at something. Most of Obama's is in community organizing and being a politician.... and golf! Hillary has built a resume of experience dodging subpoenas and obstructing justice. Trump's experience is making winners out of losers.

I find it quite ironic that you are chastising Trump for not having military experience... would you like to disclose your glorious Messiah-in-Chief's military record for us? That's right... Zippola! Oh okay, well let's look at Billary's military records? What? Nothing there either? Wow... and you have the audacity to raise this issue with Trump or ANYONE?

Trump said, “He (McCain) was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Trump of course, was never captured because he hid out in grad school, choosing to leave the fighting to someone else by applying for a deferment.

While Trump was cooling his heals in graduate school. John McCain volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam. He was shot down, captured and a POW suffering from a crushed shoulder and a bayonet wounds. Meanwhile, Trump graduated with his degree in business and joined his father in the real state business. John McCain returned home a decorated wounded soldier.

Trump made a big mistake attacking McCain, one that will come back to haunt him in months to come.

except McCain called anyone supporting Trump, or even just those going out to hear him speak, crazies.

How come the media isnt highlighting that part?.......

After his bomb bomb Iran ditty, and calling Cruz a wacko-bird on the Senate floor....perhaps the media should be questioning McCain's sanity.

McCain didn't call anyone supporting Trump crazies. McCain said, "“Because what he (Trump) did was he fired up the crazies.” Obviously, Trump's rhetoric is designed to fire up the far right which it's doing rather successfully.

There is plenty of coverage of McCain's remarks, particular questioning whether his motive was to prod Trump into a personal attack. I suspect others are going to follow suit hoping to get other remarks from Trump that can be used to paint him as a vindictive hot head.

The commentator who interviewed Trump said this morning, he believed Trump was not going to back out of the race which raised the real possibility of a 3rd party run. This of course is scaring the shit out of the GOP and delighting the Democrats.

well I dont see how you can make your first Statement.....saying he was firing up the crazies is calling them crazy.

McCain is an ass

Yes I hope, especially if they kick him off the stage, that Trump goes 3rd party.....but democrats shouldn't be happy, I'm one democrat who will consider voting for him.

 

[Boss]

That's why I'm using it. Its the metric used by the Census Bureau. And since I'm citing Census Bureau data, I'm using Census Bureau methodology. And using the very quintile and top 5% standard the quitile distribution demonstrates that the lower 3 quintiles are essentially stagnant. And have been in decline since 2000.

Look, you can keep on insisting that your information is better than mine for whatever lame ass reason but out information comes from the same source. The Census Bureau doesn't "use methodology" or whatever... they record information, lots of information. Your graph shows mean income from each of 5 quintiles... my graph shows distribution of families based on income... two entirely different statistics.

As I have explained, the problem with the lower quintile is they aren't skilled and there is little demand for unskilled labor these days. The good news is, there are fewer people in that lower quintile today than in 1967. Many of those people have become skilled in new technology and subsequently make more money and are in a higher quintile now. They make more as a quintile because skilled labor with knowledge of new technology is in higher demand than it was in 1967.

 

[sealybobo]

Where are all the trump fans? Do you agree about McCain?

I told you he never wanted to win. Trump is just in it to rally the nuts. He's the Ron Paul or Ross Perot 2016

Being a pow doesnt make you a hero.

I love it! I was saying this back when he ran against Obama and my republican friends wanted to shoot me for disrespecting the prick.

He did suffer and sacrifice for our country, I'll give him that. But the laws he has passed or went along with since becoming a Senator wipes all that away. He's just a greedy selfish hypocrite.

Do you realize this scum sucker McCain is married to a multi millionaire and he gets a god damn Senator's salary yet somehow he collects 100% disability pension from the military? HE ******* WORKS! Why is he collecting disability? If he couldn't work I'd understand but he does work.

Disclosed separately was pension income of $58,358 that went untaxed.

Monday, McCain’s staff identified the retirement benefit to The Times' Ralph Vartabedian as a “disability pension” and said the candidate “was retired as disabled because of his limited body movements due to injuries as a POW.”

But when proving he was fit to be president, The 71-year-old pointed out he had recently hiked the Grand Canyon with a son and vowed to "out-campaign" them all.

Why does John McCain receive 100% for injuries than are far less serious than other soldiers who receive less disability?

For example, Jessica Lynch. She only gets 80% disability.

John McCain s disability pay Raise your hands if you object Hot Air

UPDATED McCain is getting 58k yr for being disabled

 

[sealybobo]

And yet with zero executive experience, zero military experience, and no relevant qualifications or experience....Trump is the front runner in the GOP.

Either qualifications matter to you, Trump fails the qualification standard and your critique of Obama and to a lesser extent Hillary are consistent. Or qualifications don't matter to you, Trump's qualifications are irrelevant, and your criticism of Obama and Hillary are gloriously hypocritical.

As you genuinely don't give a shit.

Pick one, recognizing it will apply to everyone.

I don't understand your logic. All three people are "qualified" to be president, (if you don't consider Obama's lack of a birth certificate). The Constitution lays out the qualifications very clearly. All three people have "experience" at something. Most of Obama's is in community organizing and being a politician.... and golf! Hillary has built a resume of experience dodging subpoenas and obstructing justice. Trump's experience is making winners out of losers.

I find it quite ironic that you are chastising Trump for not having military experience... would you like to disclose your glorious Messiah-in-Chief's military record for us? That's right... Zippola! Oh okay, well let's look at Billary's military records? What? Nothing there either? Wow... and you have the audacity to raise this issue with Trump or ANYONE?

Trump said, “He (McCain) was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Trump of course, was never captured because he hid out in grad school, choosing to leave the fighting to someone else by applying for a deferment.

While Trump was cooling his heals in graduate school. John McCain volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam. He was shot down, captured and a POW suffering from a crushed shoulder and a bayonet wounds. Meanwhile, Trump graduated with his degree in business and joined his father in the real state business. John McCain returned home a decorated wounded soldier.

Trump made a big mistake attacking McCain, one that will come back to haunt him in months to come.

except McCain called anyone supporting Trump, or even just those going out to hear him speak, crazies.

How come the media isnt highlighting that part?.......

After his bomb bomb Iran ditty, and calling Cruz a wacko-bird on the Senate floor....perhaps the media should be questioning McCain's sanity.

McCain didn't call anyone supporting Trump crazies. McCain said, "“Because what he (Trump) did was he fired up the crazies.” Obviously, Trump's rhetoric is designed to fire up the far right which it's doing rather successfully.

There is plenty of coverage of McCain's remarks, particular questioning whether his motive was to prod Trump into a personal attack. I suspect others are going to follow suit hoping to get other remarks from Trump that can be used to paint him as a vindictive hot head.

The commentator who interviewed Trump said this morning, he believed Trump was not going to back out of the race which raised the real possibility of a 3rd party run. This of course is scaring the shit out of the GOP and delighting the Democrats.

well I dont see how you can make your first Statement.....saying he was firing up the crazies is calling them crazy.

McCain is an ass

Yes I hope, especially if they kick him off the stage, that Trump goes 3rd party.....but democrats shouldn't be happy, I'm one democrat who will consider voting for him.

Why do we even care what has been McCain or Chaney thinks or says? They have guys like this say things that the 14 other GOP candidates don't have the balls to say. Pussies.

 

[HenryBHough]

A relative term, "good".

From how things look just now "excellent" would be easy to consider. Relatively speaking, of course.

 

[Boss]

Where are all the trump fans? Do you agree about McCain?

I told you he never wanted to win. Trump is just in it to rally the nuts. He's the Ron Paul or Ross Perot 2016

Here's what I think... It's amazing to see liberals who attacked McCain viciously in 2000 and 2004, now whining and emoting over his "war hero" status. McCain continues to be the Left's personal POW. Abused and neglected until he is exploitable in making some point. Oh, you're all slapping him on the back and praising him when he is voting against his party and supporting your loony ideas but when he opposed your candidate he became the worst person on the planet. Now, he is suddenly a hero again.

 

[sealybobo]

Where are all the trump fans? Do you agree about McCain?

I told you he never wanted to win. Trump is just in it to rally the nuts. He's the Ron Paul or Ross Perot 2016

Here's what I think... It's amazing to see liberals who attacked McCain viciously in 2000 and 2004, now whining and emoting over his "war hero" status. McCain continues to be the Left's personal POW. Abused and neglected until he is exploitable in making some point. Oh, you're all slapping him on the back and praising him when he is voting against his party and supporting your loony ideas but when he opposed your candidate he became the worst person on the planet. Now, he is suddenly a hero again.

Funny because I agree with trump.

It is you cons who don't seem to like McCain. In fact I've heard your side call him a rino. So its you trying to give McCain to us. We don't want him.

So who's side are you guys on boss? Don't worry about what us liberals think or say.

Either you agree with trump and **** McCain or not. Do you agree McCain's no hero? Then you agree with me 2007 and today.