Trannies for Trump

[natina]

This popped up on my Twitter feed. Comments from the peanut gallery are most welcome.

"Yes, that’s right — a growing number of transsexuals are coming round to the hottest, coolest, most charismatic Presidential candidate in recent memory. And why wouldn’t they? Particularly if you’re a male-to-female tranny, I expect Trump is irresistible — as he is for me."

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...ies-for-trump/

undoccumented
ms13 trannies for trump

x

[Stavros]

Yes, tariffs on our allies, because...wait for it...business.
I challenge any one of you auto-resisters and contrarians to give even one good reason we shouldn't tax the countries we protect, at great expense to ourselves, to the extent we deem fit. Just one.

To begin with, if you believe in free markets then you cannot also believe in tariffs, but if you don't believe in tariffs then you don't believe in taxation, full stop. George Washington wanted to disband the Continental Army because he knew that to sustain a standing army in the newly-created United States of America, it could only be paid for through taxation to which he was opposed in principle. It may even be the case that the 2nd Amendment was designed to provide the USA with an 'armed militia' if it decided to disband its standing army without compromising the defence and security of local communities, though it is clearly a contradiction to have both. The reality is that it is not possible to establish a modern state without taxation, so the questions then surround the level of and purposes of taxation.

Tariffs are a means of inserting the state between two parties to a deal, so unless States withdraw from the market they will always seek ways of reaping some benefit from their ability to trade with others. On this basis, the USA cannot 'tax its allies' but it can, as it has done in the past, 'share resources' with the long term benefit to the parties that this intends. The Marshall Plan is one example, the Lend-Lease arrangements with the UK another. In both cases, funds were released by the Americans to enable the reconstruction of a badly damaged Europe, and in all cases the USA, having benefited financially from the Second World War, also benefited in the long term as the USA has -far from taxing its allies- been on the receiving end of billions if not trillions of inward investment from Europe.

You may be proud of Exxon, but it was the Anglo-Dutch Company Shell that invested in the deep water exploration that has transformed the Gulf of Mexico petroleum industry since the 1980s; just as BP was the innovator of the Alaska industry, and it would be a brave man who tried to unravel all the other direct investments in the USA made by Europeans. Just as China's phenomenal growth since the bleak days of 1989 would not have been possible without American capital. There will always be winners and losers in capitalism, that is the nature of the beast. But with this latest 'tariff war' there is little but incoherence from a President who slaps tariffs on UK steel that are no threat at all to US security but comprise specialised products the USA cannot make, which if anything weakens US security. Just as the President makes the utterly ridiculous claim that Canada has made 'billions' from trade with the USA when it is the USA that has always been in surplus in that relationship.

Instead of 'taxing' its allies, the USA should be co-operating with us, just as, instead of taking rights away from Transgendered Americans, he should, as office of President obliges, be protecting them.

[natina]

undoccumented
ms13 trannies for trump

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...uals-for-trump

[Nick Danger]

Ouch, you got me good,
1) What percentage of local patrons are white at your local Walmart?
2) Who was the intellectual superior, Trump or Obama?
3) Who are your top 3 favorite conservative spokespeople?

Valid questions, Buttslinger, nice.

1. I live in an almost all-white city called St. George UT where you might go a month without seeing a black person. It has been called a "Whitopia. I'll attach the video where I saw that. That's my choice but it's not because I'm racist, it's because I'm culturally white. I like rock music, golf, classic cars with the original rims, near-zero crime, and plenty of peace and quiet - the income level around here is more important than the racial mix. But one of my two transgender girlfriends was black, and I'm currently dating a Mexican GG. To answer your question, 0-2% - our Walmart is right off the interstate and 2 hours from Vegas (90 minutes if you ride with me).

2. Intellect is fluid. Obama is very well-rounded intellectually and would probably beat Trump at chess or Trivial Pursuit. Trump, on the other hand, is very sly and would probably come out on top in any negotiation between the two.

3. I love Rush Limbaugh because he's so over-the-top he makes me laugh. Milo Yiannopoulos is whip-smart and mean af. And I'd love to grudge-fuck Kellyanne Conway while she spins the news for me.

[Nick Danger]

To begin with, if you believe in free markets then you cannot also believe in tariffs, but if you don't believe in tariffs then you don't believe in taxation, full stop. George Washington wanted to disband the Continental Army because he knew that to sustain a standing army in the newly-created United States of America, it could only be paid for through taxation to which he was opposed in principle. It may even be the case that the 2nd Amendment was designed to provide the USA with an 'armed militia' if it decided to disband its standing army without compromising the defence and security of local communities, though it is clearly a contradiction to have both. The reality is that it is not possible to establish a modern state without taxation, so the questions then surround the level of and purposes of taxation.

Tariffs are a means of inserting the state between two parties to a deal, so unless States withdraw from the market they will always seek ways of reaping some benefit from their ability to trade with others. On this basis, the USA cannot 'tax its allies' but it can, as it has done in the past, 'share resources' with the long term benefit to the parties that this intends. The Marshall Plan is one example, the Lend-Lease arrangements with the UK another. In both cases, funds were released by the Americans to enable the reconstruction of a badly damaged Europe, and in all cases the USA, having benefited financially from the Second World War, also benefited in the long term as the USA has -far from taxing its allies- been on the receiving end of billions if not trillions of inward investment from Europe.

You may be proud of Exxon, but it was the Anglo-Dutch Company Shell that invested in the deep water exploration that has transformed the Gulf of Mexico petroleum industry since the 1980s; just as BP was the innovator of the Alaska industry, and it would be a brave man who tried to unravel all the other direct investments in the USA made by Europeans. Just as China's phenomenal growth since the bleak days of 1989 would not have been possible without American capital. There will always be winners and losers in capitalism, that is the nature of the beast. But with this latest 'tariff war' there is little but incoherence from a President who slaps tariffs on UK steel that are no threat at all to US security but comprise specialised products the USA cannot make, which if anything weakens US security. Just as the President makes the utterly ridiculous claim that Canada has made 'billions' from trade with the USA when it is the USA that has always been in surplus in that relationship.

Instead of 'taxing' its allies, the USA should be co-operating with us, just as, instead of taking rights away from Transgendered Americans, he should, as office of President obliges, be protecting them.

I like you, Stavros, you're an intelligent guy - I daresay more intelligent than me. More knowledgeable fo' shizzle.

But you are an idealist.

The thing about the USA is, yeah, we're the richest country in the world. But because of our income inequality, there's a lot of complaining from the lower end and even the middle of the income spectrum. Totally valid complaining I would say.

It's not possible in the USA to just "get a job" and make a living anymore. You might be able to barely squeak by working at, say, Walmart or somesuch, but you couldn't buy a house, couldn't drive a nice car and afford the maintenance, wouldn't have much discretionary income, and so on. We've become a nation of roommates and basement dwellers.

Now, were I an ARCH-conservative like my father, I might take a hard line about that. "Get some job skills!" was one of my father's favorite quotes. "Equality of opportunity doesn't equal equality of outcome!"

But I'm a pretty empathetic person who is able to put myself in the other guy's shoes. I get it - starting from nothing here is almost impossible, and not everyone receives the kind of fathering that leads to proper personal motivation. Sometimes, a job at Walmart is the best someone can hope for, and it's not as if they're going to be able to save money and advance their position.

This is a problem - a problem that leads to crime and mental illness - and that's why you're seeing "America First" as the new economic paradigm.

What we should be doing for other countries is no longer as important as what we now must do to stabilize our own problems.

Still, the USA is a fairly generous overlord. Most people don't have a clue how much we give away. When I was younger I worked as a deckhand for a tugboat company in New Orleans. The majority of my work was, surprisingly to me, for the U.S. Government - hauling giant barges of surplus food to poor Caribbean countries and just...giving it to them. Did you know that all the rice in Jamaica comes from the USA? At no charge? Bet you didn't.

In any case, Stavros, yeah, in an ideal world we should help our allies economically, and traditionally we have. But circumstances have changed.

Also, I never said I was a Libertarian.

[buttslinger]

one last question, Nick, if Pence were put in as President ....would he be the same as Jeb Bush?

[Nick Danger]

one last question, Nick, if Pence were put in as President ....would he be the same as Jeb Bush?

I honestly don't know much about Pence, Buttslinger. Trump is immortal anyway. From what I have seen of Pence, he'd probably be more of an off-camera Gerald Ford type of President, I don't think he's very comfortable behind the podium. Pence is a guy who's probably smart enough to listen to his advisors, and not much smarter than that.

What I do know about Jeb Bush, though, is that Donald Trump stripped him of his manhood in front of the entire country, and did us all a huge favor by doing so. What a pathetic milquetoast!

Hopefully we'll never find out what either would do with the highest office.

[buttslinger]

OK Danger, ....I think it's probably a good thing neither you or I be President, the leader of the free world should meet certain criteria........which we don't need, and of which Trump meets NONE!!!
So you're telling me Trump is the guy you've wanted all along? And that's the way you all feel?

[Nick Danger]

OK Danger, ....I think it's probably a good thing neither you or I be President, the leader of the free world should meet certain criteria........which we don't need, and of which Trump meets NONE!!!
So you're telling me Trump is the guy you've wanted all along? And that's the way you all feel?

Not sure who "you all" are, I'm not a member of any group. But I wouldn't trade Trump for anyone, I honestly believe he is the right man for the job at the right time.

I knew I was going to vote for him from the moment he first threw his hat into the ring, but back then it wasn't because I thought he would be a great President. It was because, like, how could you NOT want to see what he'd do as President. My whole extended family lives in NYC and I grew up watching Donald Trump make a world-class spectacle of himself.

But now, I'm simply impressed as hell, the guy's a goddamn prodigy - a President who truly and actually doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks, with balls of pure adamantium.

Yeah, that's really how I feel, Buttslinger. I think forget Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump is our first cowboy President.

[buttslinger]

..... forget Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump is our first cowboy President.

I guess it's going to boil down to Nancy Vs Donald to see who's got the biggest Dick on the Hill. Like the WWF.