Trump's feud with Amazon

[CAA Flagship]

le fer

succhialo

iss mich

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I love it!



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Are you even in the market, Alpacatroll?

I'm in both markets

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Are you even in the market, Alpacatroll?

I'm in both markets

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Walmart and Kroger don’t count.

[JohnStOnge]

It's the same as it ever was. Trump is attacking by making false statements. Misinformation. It's his whole approach. He cons. He misleads. He lies.

It's bearing false witness. You know, breaking one of the Ten Commandments. And Trump does it all the time. But it doesn't bother the hypocrites in the White Evangelical movement.

https://www1.cbn.com/questions/bear-false-witness

Frequently people say untrue things about others. Marriages are broken up because of false rumors that someone has spread. Reputations of honest and honorable people are damaged. I can think of several times when rumors have started about me. Christian people not only believe falsehoods but also pass these stories on without even stopping to investigate. Starting lies about someone or spreading them is bearing false witness, a terrible offense in the sight of God.[

That's Pat Robertson. I think it's pretty easy to guess who he voted for.

phpBB [video]

[Ivytalk]

It's the same as it ever was. Trump is attacking by making false statements. Misinformation. It's his whole approach. He cons. He misleads. He lies.

It's bearing false witness. You know, breaking one of the Ten Commandments. And Trump does it all the time. But it doesn't bother the hypocrites in the White Evangelical movement.

https://www1.cbn.com/questions/bear-false-witness

Frequently people say untrue things about others. Marriages are broken up because of false rumors that someone has spread. Reputations of honest and honorable people are damaged. I can think of several times when rumors have started about me. Christian people not only believe falsehoods but also pass these stories on without even stopping to investigate. Starting lies about someone or spreading them is bearing false witness, a terrible offense in the sight of God.[

That's Pat Robertson. I think it's pretty easy to guess who he voted for.

phpBB [video]

Good God, that old coont ran for President 30 years ago. Seems like yesterday, and he’s the same pious fraud now that he was then.

[Ibanez]

It's the same as it ever was. Trump is attacking by making false statements. Misinformation. It's his whole approach. He cons. He misleads. He lies.

It's bearing false witness. You know, breaking one of the Ten Commandments. And Trump does it all the time. But it doesn't bother the hypocrites in the White Evangelical movement.

https://www1.cbn.com/questions/bear-false-witness

Frequently people say untrue things about others. Marriages are broken up because of false rumors that someone has spread. Reputations of honest and honorable people are damaged. I can think of several times when rumors have started about me. Christian people not only believe falsehoods but also pass these stories on without even stopping to investigate. Starting lies about someone or spreading them is bearing false witness, a terrible offense in the sight of God.[

That's Pat Robertson. I think it's pretty easy to guess who he voted for.

phpBB [video]

Dude- we know. You have completely missed the reason that Trump was elected. We all know he’s a liar. A self-aggrandizing, insecure buffoon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Dude- we know. You have completely missed the reason that Trump was elected. We all know he’s a liar. A self-aggrandizing, insecure buffoon.

I don't think John is as confused as he's portrayed on this sight
He makes a valid point about The Evangelical Right

and by the way:
If there was ever a more fraudulent moral position than the American Evangelical Right
I'd like to have that pointed out because what we're seeing today is absolutely dumbfounding



Talk about surrendering the moral high ground
they've burned it to a crisp

[UNI88]

Dude- we know. You have completely missed the reason that Trump was elected. We all know he’s a liar. A self-aggrandizing, insecure buffoon.

I don't think John is as confused as he's portrayed on this sight
He makes a valid point about The Evangelical Right

and by the way:
If there was ever a more fraudulent moral position than the American Evangelical Right
I'd like to have that pointed out because what we're seeing today is absolutely dumbfounding



Talk about surrendering the moral high ground
they've burned it to a crisp

John isn't confused, he's myopic. Both sides are hypocritical and John either doesn't see it or won't admit the extent of the hypocrisy. I do agree with you that the Evangelical right has taken the hypocrisy to a new level.

[Ibanez]

I don't think John is as confused as he's portrayed on this sight
He makes a valid point about The Evangelical Right

and by the way:
If there was ever a more fraudulent moral position than the American Evangelical Right
I'd like to have that pointed out because what we're seeing today is absolutely dumbfounding



Talk about surrendering the moral high ground
they've burned it to a crisp

John isn't confused, he's myopic. Both sides are hypocritical and John either doesn't see it or won't admit the extent of the hypocrisy. I do agree with you that the Evangelical right has taken the hypocrisy to a new level.

This fuvknf this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

It's the same as it ever was. Trump is attacking by making false statements. Misinformation. It's his whole approach. He cons. He misleads. He lies.

It's bearing false witness. You know, breaking one of the Ten Commandments. And Trump does it all the time. But it doesn't bother the hypocrites in the White Evangelical movement.

https://www1.cbn.com/questions/bear-false-witness



That's Pat Robertson. I think it's pretty easy to guess who he voted for.

phpBB [video]

Dude- we know. You have completely missed the reason that Trump was elected. We all know he’s a liar. A self-aggrandizing, insecure buffoon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you a person the exit pollsters would have categorized as "white born-again or evangelical christian?"

And the primary reason Trump got elected is because the Democrats had a candidate who was under FBI investigation then had that resurface about 10 days before voting day. As is always the case there were a number of factors. But that was the most important one.

Again: If Obama could have run for a third term he'd have blown Trump out worse than he blew McCain and Romney out.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think John is as confused as he's portrayed on this sight
He makes a valid point about The Evangelical Right

and by the way:
If there was ever a more fraudulent moral position than the American Evangelical Right
I'd like to have that pointed out because what we're seeing today is absolutely dumbfounding



Talk about surrendering the moral high ground
they've burned it to a crisp

John isn't confused, he's myopic. Both sides are hypocritical and John either doesn't see it or won't admit the extent of the hypocrisy. I do agree with you that the Evangelical right has taken the hypocrisy to a new level.

I don't dispute the fact that both sides are hypocritical. The hypocrisy associated with the left when Bill Clinton was being accused of sexual misconduct was completely over the top. All that "believe the woman" stuff went completely out the window. The National Organization of Women was particularly bad.

But back then I thought I'd never see something that overtly hypocritical from the other side. And now I'm seeing it.

Plus there's something particularly extreme about what the White Evangelical Christians are doing because of the way they've historically represented themselves.

[Ibanez]

Dude- we know. You have completely missed the reason that Trump was elected. We all know he’s a liar. A self-aggrandizing, insecure buffoon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you a person the exit pollsters would have categorized as "white born-again or evangelical christian?"

And the primary reason Trump got elected is because the Democrats had a candidate who was under FBI investigation then had that resurface about 10 days before voting day. As is always the case there were a number of factors. But that was the most important one.

Again: If Obama could have run for a third term he'd have blown Trump out worse than he blew McCain and Romney out.

Who cares about “what if”? Obama couldn’t have run in 2016- why waste your time?



Oh yes- you’re obsessed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Dude- we know. You have completely missed the reason that Trump was elected. We all know he’s a liar. A self-aggrandizing, insecure buffoon.

I don't think John is as confused as he's portrayed on this sight
He makes a valid point about The Evangelical Right

and by the way:
If there was ever a more fraudulent moral position than the American Evangelical Right
I'd like to have that pointed out because what we're seeing today is absolutely dumbfounding



Talk about surrendering the moral high ground
they've burned it to a crisp

*site

[JohnStOnge]

Are you a person the exit pollsters would have categorized as "white born-again or evangelical christian?"

And the primary reason Trump got elected is because the Democrats had a candidate who was under FBI investigation then had that resurface about 10 days before voting day. As is always the case there were a number of factors. But that was the most important one.

Again: If Obama could have run for a third term he'd have blown Trump out worse than he blew McCain and Romney out.

Who cares about “what if”? Obama couldn’t have run in 2016- why waste your time?

The point is that if you think Trump won because of a social change involving rejection of what Obama represents you are mistaken. Trump got a lower percentage of the popular vote than Romney did. He did not get a majority of the vote in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. It was much more a case of decrease in people supporting the Democrat and instead going "third party" than it was an increase in support for the Republican.

The fact that there was a highly credible Seltzer & Company poll that came very close on the Clinton over Trump popular vote margin estimating that if it'd been Obama vs. Trump Obama would've won the popular vote by 12 percentage points tells you something. What happened wasn't a rejection of what Obama represents. It was a rejection of Clinton in particular under some very unique circumstances involving a FBI investigation.

[Chizzang]

Plus there's something particularly extreme about what the White Evangelical Christians are doing because of the way they've historically represented themselves.

This ^ is the key distinction
When you've based your entire position on Biblical Morality
and have made it an absolute point of contention with the opposing party

Then you just about face
and flip the Bible in the trash can

You're not allowed to go back and dig it out of the trash
Wipe the coffee grounds and tuna sandwich off of it
and pretend you didn't throw it away
when it suits you later

The Moral High Ground has been surrendered (Period)

[GannonFan]

Who cares about “what if”? Obama couldn’t have run in 2016- why waste your time?

The point is that if you think Trump won because of a social change involving rejection of what Obama represents you are mistaken. Trump got a lower percentage of the popular vote than Romney did. He did not get a majority of the vote in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. It was much more a case of decrease in people supporting the Democrat and instead going "third party" than it was an increase in support for the Republican.

The fact that there was a highly credible Seltzer & Company poll that came very close on the Clinton over Trump popular vote margin estimating that if it'd been Obama vs. Trump Obama would've won the popular vote by 12 percentage points tells you something. What happened wasn't a rejection of what Obama represents. It was a rejection of Clinton in particular under some very unique circumstances involving a FBI investigation.

This is a dumb point you keep bringing up over and over again. Most modern second term Presidents, if they could have run for a third term, would've won again. Eisenhower would've thumped Kennedy, Reagan would've beaten Dukakis (and heck, Reagan running for a 4th term would've beaten Clinton), Clinton would've beaten W, and yes, Obama would've beaten Trump. The only one who wouldn't have won was W and his was a very unique set of circumstances that led to that. And in almost every case it has absolutely nothing to do what the President represents (policies for instance) and is almost always about the cult of personality - the incumbent is a very strong position, and a twice incumbent even more so.

[Pwns]

I wish I could find the link I posted before that showed that Obama voters put Trump over the top in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Anyone who thinks it's only Fox News watchers and Rush Limbaugh listeners that have reservations about Hillary Clinton is kidding themselves. The Donks lost because of who they nominated. You could've nominated a complete bore like John Kerry and I think he would've defeated Trump.

[JohnStOnge]

The point is that if you think Trump won because of a social change involving rejection of what Obama represents you are mistaken. Trump got a lower percentage of the popular vote than Romney did. He did not get a majority of the vote in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. It was much more a case of decrease in people supporting the Democrat and instead going "third party" than it was an increase in support for the Republican.

The fact that there was a highly credible Seltzer & Company poll that came very close on the Clinton over Trump popular vote margin estimating that if it'd been Obama vs. Trump Obama would've won the popular vote by 12 percentage points tells you something. What happened wasn't a rejection of what Obama represents. It was a rejection of Clinton in particular under some very unique circumstances involving a FBI investigation.

This is a dumb point you keep bringing up over and over again. Most modern second term Presidents, if they could have run for a third term, would've won again. Eisenhower would've thumped Kennedy, Reagan would've beaten Dukakis (and heck, Reagan running for a 4th term would've beaten Clinton), Clinton would've beaten W, and yes, Obama would've beaten Trump. The only one who wouldn't have won was W and his was a very unique set of circumstances that led to that. And in almost every case it has absolutely nothing to do what the President represents (policies for instance) and is almost always about the cult of personality - the incumbent is a very strong position, and a twice incumbent even more so.

Do you have polling data you can cite to support that assessment for "Most modern second term presidents?"

I can cite polling data on the Obama vs. Trump thing. Can you cite polling data on the Eisenhower vs. Kennedy thing? If you can that's fine. It doesn't really matter.

The point is that Trump winning was not a rejection of the Obama era.

And BTW Sanders would've blown Trump out as well.

[CAA Flagship]

Do you have polling data you can cite to support that assessment for "Most modern second term presidents?"

Holy Shitballs.

[BDKJMU]

This is a dumb point you keep bringing up over and over again. Most modern second term Presidents, if they could have run for a third term, would've won again. Eisenhower would've thumped Kennedy, Reagan would've beaten Dukakis (and heck, Reagan running for a 4th term would've beaten Clinton), Clinton would've beaten W, and yes, Obama would've beaten Trump. The only one who wouldn't have won was W and his was a very unique set of circumstances that led to that. And in almost every case it has absolutely nothing to do what the President represents (policies for instance) and is almost always about the cult of personality - the incumbent is a very strong position, and a twice incumbent even more so.

Do you have polling data you can cite to support that assessment for "Most modern second term presidents?"

I can cite polling data on the Obama vs. Trump thing. Can you cite polling data on the Eisenhower vs. Kennedy thing? If you can that's fine. It doesn't really matter.

The point is that Trump winning was not a rejection of the Obama era.

And BTW Sanders would've blown Trump out as well.

Oh baloney. The crazy old man might have beaten Trump, but he's too much of a wing nut to have blown Trump out. Even some on the left acknowledge that..

Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump? Not so fast
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... p-election

[JohnStOnge]

Do you have polling data you can cite to support that assessment for "Most modern second term presidents?"

I can cite polling data on the Obama vs. Trump thing. Can you cite polling data on the Eisenhower vs. Kennedy thing? If you can that's fine. It doesn't really matter.

The point is that Trump winning was not a rejection of the Obama era.

And BTW Sanders would've blown Trump out as well.

Oh baloney. The crazy old man might have beaten Trump, but he's too much of a wing nut to have blown Trump out. Even some on the left acknowledge that..

Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump? Not so fast
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... p-election

Yes I've seen that article before and it's nonsense. It wasn't just one poll that suggested that Sanders would've blown Trump out. It was always like that once we got into 2016 according to numerous polls. Sanders was a much stronger candidate against Trump than Clinton was. At the point where RealClearPolitics stopped tracking Trump vs. Sanders on June 6, 2016 Sanders was up 10 percentage points on Trump while Clinton was up 2 percentage points.

It was a very unique situation. Again: Clinton spent most of the campaign under FBI investigation and it was very public. Then she had Comey bring that up again 10 days before the election.

And to say Sanders is a "wing nut" while what we're talking about here is Trump is a bit much. If you're looking for a nut job you're not going to find a better example than Trump.

[BDKJMU]

Oh baloney. The crazy old man might have beaten Trump, but he's too much of a wing nut to have blown Trump out. Even some on the left acknowledge that..

Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald Trump? Not so fast
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... p-election

Yes I've seen that article before and it's nonsense. It wasn't just one poll that suggested that Sanders would've blown Trump out. It was always like that once we got into 2016 according to numerous polls. Sanders was a much stronger candidate against Trump than Clinton was. At the point where RealClearPolitics stopped tracking Trump vs. Sanders on June 6, 2016 Sanders was up 10 percentage points on Trump while Clinton was up 2 percentage points.

It was a very unique situation. Again: Clinton spent most of the campaign under FBI investigation and it was very public. Then she had Comey bring that up again 10 days before the election.

And to say Sanders is a "wing nut" while what we're talking about here is Trump is a bit much. If you're looking for a nut job you're not going to find a better example than Trump.

There you go again with "the polls". Yeah, just like all the Spring/Summer 2016 polls that suggested Clinton was going to blow Trump out.
The last Trump/Sanders hypothetical polls on RCP were done in May 2016, 5-6 months before the election.
Hypothetical matchup polls 5-6 months before an election, before most people even start paying attention, between 2 candidates who never faced each, other are pretty meaningless.

Bernie’s got a lot of past history that most average American voters who don't know about because they start paying attention until after the matchup was set that summer between Trump/Clinton or even until the fall.. With the spotlight Trump v Sanders after more voters were paying attention Sanders would have come off as an even bigger wingnut than Trump. We have no idea how a Trump/Sanders would have played out. Its like saying you know how a football game is going to play out 5-6 months beforehand..

[JohnStOnge]

Yes I've seen that article before and it's nonsense. It wasn't just one poll that suggested that Sanders would've blown Trump out. It was always like that once we got into 2016 according to numerous polls. Sanders was a much stronger candidate against Trump than Clinton was. At the point where RealClearPolitics stopped tracking Trump vs. Sanders on June 6, 2016 Sanders was up 10 percentage points on Trump while Clinton was up 2 percentage points.

It was a very unique situation. Again: Clinton spent most of the campaign under FBI investigation and it was very public. Then she had Comey bring that up again 10 days before the election.

And to say Sanders is a "wing nut" while what we're talking about here is Trump is a bit much. If you're looking for a nut job you're not going to find a better example than Trump.

There you go again with "the polls". Yeah, just like all the Spring/Summer 2016 polls that suggested Clinton was going to blow Trump out.
The last Trump/Sanders hypothetical polls on RCP were done in May 2016, 5-6 months before the election.
Hypothetical matchup polls 5-6 months before an election, before most people even start paying attention, between 2 candidates who never faced each, other are pretty meaningless.

Bernie’s got a lot of past history that most average American voters who don't know about because they start paying attention until after the matchup was set that summer between Trump/Clinton or even until the fall.. With the spotlight Trump v Sanders after more voters were paying attention Sanders would have come off as an even bigger wingnut than Trump. We have no idea how a Trump/Sanders would have played out. Its like saying you know how a football game is going to play out 5-6 months beforehand..

Sanders consistently ran stronger against ANY Republican candidate than Clinton did for as long as he was in the race. To say we have "no idea" is absurd. Do we know for SURE with 100% confidence how it would've played out? No.

But it was a situation in which Sanders consistently polled much better against Trump than Clinton did for as long as such polling was going on AND it was a situation in which Clinton was under investigation by the FBI through much of the Democrat primaries then had the issue raised again about 10 days before the election. That would not have happened with Sanders.

Trump is not popular. Trump was not popular on election day. The fact that he's in office right now is a testament to how unpopular and burdened with various issues his opponent was. And even with that he lost the popular vote.

And I honestly don't think most people give sufficient weight to what was going on with the FBI investigation of Clinton and how things played out in that regard. There has never been anything like that before.

[GannonFan]

And I honestly don't think most people give sufficient weight to what was going on with the FBI investigation of Clinton and how things played out in that regard. There has never been anything like that before.

Agreed, we never had such an establishment and willfully and openly corrupt candidate like Clinton before. She was one of a kind. She's what Nixon running for a third term would've looked like.

[JohnStOnge]

And I honestly don't think most people give sufficient weight to what was going on with the FBI investigation of Clinton and how things played out in that regard. There has never been anything like that before.

Agreed, we never had such an establishment and willfully and openly corrupt candidate like Clinton before. She was one of a kind. She's what Nixon running for a third term would've looked like.

Trump is more openly corrupt than Clinton is/was. And very openly. It's really obvious. To this day I don't get how any reasonably intelligent person would choose Trump over Clinton based on the idea that Clinton is corrupt. That'd be fine if her opponent wasn't more corrupt than she is. But her opponent was/is more corrupt than she was/is.