cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Are you really trying to draw morale equivalence between robbery and murder and illegal immigration? Really??

And if the police come arrest you for murder, they will call social services to come pick your kids up and get them to a relative or in foster care. These kids were left alone. There was no plan to deal with them. Neighbors were picking up crying children and taking them to a community center. The foster care system in most US states is a whole other can of worms.

---

Just because you don't like the equivalence doesn't change the point. The fact remains that in all instances the law has been broken to some extent, and there are guidelines within the law to deal with each instance.

The foster care system in most US states may be a whole other can of worms, but kids of US citizens get dumped in there daily. We don't want to treat the kids of illegal immigrants any differently then we do kids of US citizens after all.

---

We did treat them differently. No one in ICE coordinated with social services. That's not how we handle Americans. Whoever authorized this sting without a plan in place for the kids should be fired.
If you don't think that this part of the sting is a massive embarrassment to the Federal Government, I don't know what to say. We don't hold kids responsible for the sins of their parents in this country. We expect that someone steps in to take care of them if the parents are incarcerated or incapacitated.

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I would argue that if the illegal immigrants are deported then it would increase wages. The fact is that if the company can't find anyone to work they will increase the wages for the job until someone takes it.

---

The wages will increase for the work that can afford it. For the work that can't be filled due to a labor shortage, you will have bottlenecks in production, reduction in supply, cost increases for the end consumer. None of that is good for an economy that is already starting to show signs of slowing down.

---

Increasing the wage always increases cost for the end consumer. What do you think will happen when the minimum wage is finally increased to whatever rate the democrats want to increase it to?

You will end up with a short term supply in reduction, but you will also end up with new companies forming who see a gap there and a way to make money. That will fix the supply issue.

As far as the bottleneck in production the increase in wage for new employees that take the place of the illegal immigrants will fix that.

---

Which is why a national $15 minimum wage is a bad idea. You're conflating two completely separate issues.

Also, explain your last statement because it make no sense at all. Raising the cost of labor has no correlation with reducing bottlenecks in production. We are talking about low skill labor here, primarily manufacturing, cleaning, and farm work. Hiring more Americans at a 50% higher wage will not have any effect on production speed.

---

You don't understand that a higher wage will correct for a bottleneck in production?

Let me give you an example: I can't find people to come work in my store because they don't like the conditions. I ended up hiring a bunch of illegal immigrants who would do the job for next to nothing. My workforce of illegal immigrants was arrested and deported because they all broke the law. Now since i have a shortage of labor i also have a shortage of production. Now i raise the wage i am willing to pay to get people to come work and do the same jobs. All of a sudden people come out to work for me because i am paying more than the guys down the road to do a job and people like money. Bottleneck in production solved.

So easy a caveman could do it...

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I would argue that if the illegal immigrants are deported then it would increase wages. The fact is that if the company can't find anyone to work they will increase the wages for the job until someone takes it.

---

The wages will increase for the work that can afford it. For the work that can't be filled due to a labor shortage, you will have bottlenecks in production, reduction in supply, cost increases for the end consumer. None of that is good for an economy that is already starting to show signs of slowing down.

---

As industries raise wages, the price of their good will increase. Competition from foreign markets increase and some businesses may fold due to consumers buying elsewhere. At the absolute minimum you've reduced consumer surplus.
And there aren't a ton of Americans lining up to work in meat packing plants. Its crappy low skill work and we all benefit from in the form of prices. If they can't fill the gap with US workers, they instead invest in automation, killing additional jobs.

---

The jobs aren't there for US citizens now.....so how are they killing the jobs for citizens by investing in automation?

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

The US government has a whole department that deals with situations just like this...its called the US Department of Health and Human services. You can read about what they do regarding children here: https://www.childwelfare.gov/

Since this happened in Missouri they also have a department in place and you can read about that here: https://dss.mo.gov/cd/


US citizens in this country are separated from their children every day when a crime is committed. We aren't treating the children of illegal immigrants any differently then your children would be treated if you committed a crime and were incarcerated.

---

And ICE has no responsibility to coordinate with these agencies to ensure the kids are taken care of? That is asinine. Law enforcement does this.

---

Do the local police coordinate with child protective services before they go and arrest someone? I can answer that one for you.....nope. That's all done the arrest has taken place.

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I would argue that if the illegal immigrants are deported then it would increase wages. The fact is that if the company can't find anyone to work they will increase the wages for the job until someone takes it.

---

The wages will increase for the work that can afford it. For the work that can't be filled due to a labor shortage, you will have bottlenecks in production, reduction in supply, cost increases for the end consumer. None of that is good for an economy that is already starting to show signs of slowing down.

---

Increasing the wage always increases cost for the end consumer. What do you think will happen when the minimum wage is finally increased to whatever rate the democrats want to increase it to?

You will end up with a short term supply in reduction, but you will also end up with new companies forming who see a gap there and a way to make money. That will fix the supply issue.

As far as the bottleneck in production the increase in wage for new employees that take the place of the illegal immigrants will fix that.

---

Which is why a national $15 minimum wage is a bad idea. You're conflating two completely separate issues.

Also, explain your last statement because it make no sense at all. Raising the cost of labor has no correlation with reducing bottlenecks in production. We are talking about low skill labor here, primarily manufacturing, cleaning, and farm work. Hiring more Americans at a 50% higher wage will not have any effect on production speed.

---

You don't understand that a higher wage will correct for a bottleneck in production?

Let me give you an example: I can't find people to come work in my store because they don't like the conditions. I ended up hiring a bunch of illegal immigrants who would do the job for next to nothing. My workforce of illegal immigrants was arrested and deported because they all broke the law. Now since i have a shortage of labor i also have a shortage of production. Now i raise the wage i am willing to pay to get people to come work and do the same jobs. All of a sudden people come out to work for me because i am paying more than the guys down the road to do a job and people like money. Bottleneck in production solved.

So easy a caveman could do it...

---

And here you've completely ignored all the previous comments about the negatives that come from raising wages. Lost jobs, increased prices paid by consumers, and foreign competition.

Have you ever worked in manufacturing? Because making up for the loss in several hundred workers is absolutely going to cause a bottleneck in production. Find workers who show up on time and can pass drug tests is already a problem. There aren't enough qualified people standing by looking for a job in these areas to fill in. Including training you are looking at months of lowered production.

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

As industries raise wages, the price of their good will increase. Competition from foreign markets increase and some businesses may fold due to consumers buying elsewhere. At the absolute minimum you've reduced consumer surplus.
And there aren't a ton of Americans lining up to work in meat packing plants. Its crappy low skill work and we all benefit from in the form of prices. If they can't fill the gap with US workers, they instead invest in automation, killing additional jobs.

---

The jobs aren't there for US citizens now.....so how are they killing the jobs for citizens by investing in automation?

---

Because 100% of their workers are not made up of illegal aliens. Citizens and legal immigrants usually work in the same facilities.

statefan91 said:

---

And the unemployment rate is already 3.7% - there are no "new workers"

---

The unemployment rate is a BS number...always has been

3.7% is the number of people that are receiving unemployment benefits. This means that if you are not filing for unemployment benefits you don't count in this number. For NC this means that if you don't have a job after you run out your 20 weeks of benefits, you are no longer considered unemployed.

I would lean more on the workforce participation rate to determine how many people are actually working in this country. Than number was at 63% for the July 2019 (according to Bureau of Labor Statistics). That rate is calculated by using the number of employed in the country, divided by the total adult population. Even if you take into account folks who are disabled, stay at home mothers, etc, that probably takes into account another 10-15%, which leaves probably 18-20% of adults in this country that could be working but aren't

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I would argue that if the illegal immigrants are deported then it would increase wages. The fact is that if the company can't find anyone to work they will increase the wages for the job until someone takes it.

---

The wages will increase for the work that can afford it. For the work that can't be filled due to a labor shortage, you will have bottlenecks in production, reduction in supply, cost increases for the end consumer. None of that is good for an economy that is already starting to show signs of slowing down.

---

Increasing the wage always increases cost for the end consumer. What do you think will happen when the minimum wage is finally increased to whatever rate the democrats want to increase it to?

You will end up with a short term supply in reduction, but you will also end up with new companies forming who see a gap there and a way to make money. That will fix the supply issue.

As far as the bottleneck in production the increase in wage for new employees that take the place of the illegal immigrants will fix that.

---

Which is why a national $15 minimum wage is a bad idea. You're conflating two completely separate issues.

Also, explain your last statement because it make no sense at all. Raising the cost of labor has no correlation with reducing bottlenecks in production. We are talking about low skill labor here, primarily manufacturing, cleaning, and farm work. Hiring more Americans at a 50% higher wage will not have any effect on production speed.

---

You don't understand that a higher wage will correct for a bottleneck in production?

Let me give you an example: I can't find people to come work in my store because they don't like the conditions. I ended up hiring a bunch of illegal immigrants who would do the job for next to nothing. My workforce of illegal immigrants was arrested and deported because they all broke the law. Now since i have a shortage of labor i also have a shortage of production. Now i raise the wage i am willing to pay to get people to come work and do the same jobs. All of a sudden people come out to work for me because i am paying more than the guys down the road to do a job and people like money. Bottleneck in production solved.

So easy a caveman could do it...

---

And here you've completely ignored all the previous comments about the negatives that come from raising wages. Lost jobs, increased prices paid by consumers, and foreign competition.

Have you ever worked in manufacturing? Because making up for the loss in several hundred workers is absolutely going to cause a bottleneck in production. Find workers who show up on time and can pass drug tests is already a problem. There aren't enough qualified people standing by looking for a job in these areas to fill in. Including training you are looking at months of lowered production.

---

Actually i worked in manufacturing and construction for almost 10 years. Most of it was in operations and strategic planning. I've got a pretty good idea of what i am looking at, as i have done it

cowboypack02 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

And the unemployment rate is already 3.7% - there are no "new workers"

---

The unemployment rate is a BS number...always has been

3.7% is the number of people that are receiving unemployment benefits. This means that if you are not filing for unemployment benefits you don't count in this number. For NC this means that if you don't have a job after you run out your 20 weeks of benefits, you are no longer considered unemployed.

I would lean more on the workforce participation rate to determine how many people are actually working in this country. Than number was at 63% for the July 2019 (according to Bureau of Labor Statistics). That rate is calculated by using the number of employed in the country, divided by the total adult population. Even if you take into account folks who are disabled, stay at home mothers, etc, that probably takes into account another 10-15%, which leaves probably 18-20% of adults in this country that could be working but aren't

---

That's not how unemployment is calculated. There is a sample taken each month of 60,000 households. You can find the method they use in the link below.

3.7% is the U3 number, the one most economists use. U6 is "Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force"
U6 is the highest rate that they track and even includes part timers who would like full time work. It's currently 7%, still very low. U6 is "Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force."



https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.pdf

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

And here you've completely ignored all the previous comments about the negatives that come from raising wages. Lost jobs, increased prices paid by consumers, and foreign competition.

Have you ever worked in manufacturing? Because making up for the loss in several hundred workers is absolutely going to cause a bottleneck in production. Find workers who show up on time and can pass drug tests is already a problem. There aren't enough qualified people standing by looking for a job in these areas to fill in. Including training you are looking at months of lowered production.

---

Actually i worked in manufacturing and construction for almost 10 years. Most of it was in operations and strategic planning. I've got a pretty good idea of what i am looking at, as i have done it

---

While I've been away from manufacturing for 5 years, I worked as an industrial Engineer in a packaging plant. It was always very hard to find new workers, and unemployment was higher back then. Over half of the line workers were immigrants. Most of the american's couldnt show up on time consistently or stay clean for drug tests. No one was illegal (that I know of), but if 20% of that plant was suddenly arrested, it would cause a massive disruption and take months to replace them all.

It looks like Koch foods will be losing millions due to disruptions in operations. I can't say I'm sorry for the manager and owner (the people who actually should actually be arrested), but there is a spiraling economic impact.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/manufacturing/immigration-raid-cost-koch-foods-millions

Yea it doesn't work like that chief. I think we could all agree that a $100,000 dollar a year salary is a well paying job these days. Let's say your average illegal immigrant makes a salary of $30,000 dollars a year. You bump that salary up to $100,000 and I bet that in the range of 75-90 percent of those jobs won't get filled by Americans. Let's be honest illegal immigrants do our **** jobs. Yes we need a better system in place and we need to know who comes here and for them to do it the right way but if you came here illegally and are paying taxes and not committing a crime I see no reason why you can't be granted citizenship easier then you can be deported.

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

And here you've completely ignored all the previous comments about the negatives that come from raising wages. Lost jobs, increased prices paid by consumers, and foreign competition.

Have you ever worked in manufacturing? Because making up for the loss in several hundred workers is absolutely going to cause a bottleneck in production. Find workers who show up on time and can pass drug tests is already a problem. There aren't enough qualified people standing by looking for a job in these areas to fill in. Including training you are looking at months of lowered production.

---

Actually i worked in manufacturing and construction for almost 10 years. Most of it was in operations and strategic planning. I've got a pretty good idea of what i am looking at, as i have done it

---

While I've been away from manufacturing for 5 years, I worked as an industrial Engineer in a packaging plant. It was always very hard to find new workers, and unemployment was higher back then. Over half of the line workers were immigrants. Most of the american's couldnt show up on time consistently or stay clean for drug tests. No one was illegal (that I know of), but if 20% of that plant was suddenly arrested, it would cause a massive disruption and take months to replace them all.

It looks like Koch foods will be losing millions due to disruptions in operations. I can't say I'm sorry for the manager and owner (the people who actually should actually be arrested), but there is a spiraling economic impact.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/manufacturing/immigration-raid-cost-koch-foods-millions

---

Maybe we just had different luck as far as hiring. I always made it a point to get to know everyone that was hired personally during the hiring process. After they were hired i personally did a 30, 60, and 90 day interview to discuss the company, products, and what the employee had interest in doing from a company standpoint. From here i made sure do my best to place the employee in a job that aligned with their interest and trained them for that job. I also made it a point to spend a few minutes of my day on the floor working, because people tend to work harder for a manager when they see that manager with his hands in the dirt. I also always made it a point to make sure that every employee had the opportunity to see the end product and get the same experience that the end client does.

Do I have turnover? Yep. But i also had a well trained, hard working workforce.

Your are right through...to lose 20% of the company at once would cause massive disruptions, so i made it a point to not do things like hire illegal immigrants to avoid such things.

As far as the owners and managers, if they broke the law then they should face whatever punishment that is allowed under said law. If they didn't break the law they losing 20% of their workforce and millions of dollars in disruptions caused by the interruption or their daily workflow will hopefully teach them a lesson about who to hire going forward

PackDaddy said:

---

Yea it doesn't work like that chief. I think we could all agree that a $100,000 dollar a year salary is a well paying job these days. Let's say your average illegal immigrant makes a salary of $30,000 dollars a year. You bump that salary up to $100,000 and I bet that in the range of 75-90 percent of those jobs won't get filled by Americans. Let's be honest illegal immigrants do our **** jobs. Yes we need a better system in place and we need to know who comes here and for them to do it the right way but if you came here illegally and are paying taxes and not committing a crime I see no reason why you can't be granted citizenship easier then you can be deported.

---

I would disagree. I used e-verify to make sure that none of my employees were here illegally, didn't have to pay them some outrageous amount and didn't have trouble finding people to work. If you had trouble finding labor that's on you. From a conditions standpoint everyone worked in a metal building with no AC in North Carolina heat and its a dirty job

We have a system in place to handle people who come here illegally now. We should follow that law and send folks back who break our laws by coming here illegally. If you commit a crime you don't get to keep the spoils of that crime, which in this instance is staying here in the US.

Castro qualifies. That makes #10. Tulsi Gabbard made another qualifying poll. She still needs 1 or 2 more. Steyer is close too. It's possible they don't make the September debate, but do make October.

So it looks like there could be as many as 12 in round 2. It's still going to be a crapshoot. But 2 nights with 6 each is much more manageable than 10 each.

Moulton and Inslee out, down to only 21 candidates!

IseWolf22 said:

---

Moulton and Inslee out, down to only 21 candidates!

---

I think it's gonna come down to Biden, Sanders, and Warren to be honest with you.

Warren and Bernie will be limited as long as both are in the race.
Biden will probably win IMO, but he is so gaffe prone it could all come tumbling down in an instant. One we get down to 8 or so, people will be able to focus on the others and someone could surge if Biden does stumble

I wish Biden could keep his train of thought... worried he's going to flame out.
I'm not the biggest Biden fan, but he's a far better alternative than Bernie, Warren, Harris, or Trump.

I like some of the smaller candidates, but none are making a splash right now (or they aren't even debating tonight)

Biden is definitely most palatable for the moderates. I think if people really listened to Warren and her plans they'd like her but I think people are bucketing her with Bernie and tuning her out.

I actually like Yang a good bit and Mayor Pete.

Warren is self rightous and a populist in her own right. Her refusal to say shed raise taxes on the middle class is just classic politician as well.

This is a long article, but it lays out a lot of why I don't like Warren.

https://reason.com/2019/09/10/elizabeth-warrens-plans-dont-add-up/

On this stage I like Koubuchar the most.

I like Yang and Buttigege a lot as people. Id like to hang out with both. As president.... eh, but better than most other choices.

Biden after that and then pretty much no one else on the stage. Off the stage, I really like Bullock. Gabbard And Delaney are options

Biden is probably the only one with a realistic chance at sniping off the moderates that feel bad about voting for Trump the first time around but don't want the country going all the way to the left.

I disagree with that. Warren, Bernie, and De Blasio are the only ones who I think have no shot at peeling off moderates.
It's a tall order for Harris, Castro, and Booker. O'rourke has recently endorsed mandatory gun buybacks so that would be a major obsticle as well. I think Harris would shift in the general into whatever she thought would make her win, the question would be if voters believe she's sincere.

I think pretty much anyone else could make a play for moderates. Bullock and Biden would win easily. But Yang, Buttigege, Kloubuchar, Delaney, Ryan, and Bennet could all make major plays for centrist voters

IseWolf22 said:

---

Warren is self rightous and a populist in her own right. Her refusal to say shed raise taxes on the middle class is just classic politician as well.

This is a long article, but it lays out a lot of why I don't like Warren.

https://reason.com/2019/09/10/elizabeth-warrens-plans-dont-add-up/

---

I think Warren's point on taxes vs. cost is a good one though, at least in terms of Medicare for All.

Currently I pay about $60/paycheck (bi-weekly) for my high deductible plan. So let's call it $1500/yr.
Then I also have an HSA where I contribute $5000/yr to cover medical costs from pre-tax income.
So, total of $6500/yr, though the $5000 can be rolled over if not spent.

Now my deductible is $7000/yr. So if I had a medical emergency or multiple procedures, I would have to liquidate my HSA balance to pay my deductible, on top of the paycheck payments. After that I would pay 10% of costs for most procedures with no lifetime maximum (based on my current, very good, Fortune Top 15 company plan).

This also doesn't take into account separate vision, dental, and RX costs.

Are there any estimates of how much this would cost per person? I'm spending $6500/yr out of the gate without any actual medical issues.

My main point is that in two debates now, she's been directly asked, "will taxes be raised on the middle class with medicare for all?"

She refuses to say, "Yes." She can then talk about cost and we can debate the pros/cons, but when she refuses to say "yes" after being asked repeatedly, it just makes me roll my eyes. At least Bernie will say it straight. Every country with a version of Medicare for all finances with middle class taxes. There is just not enough of the rich and they are too good at hiding their money when given incentive to do so. Most countries that have tried a "wealth tax" like Warren proposes have found that they've raised little money as rich people have left or found loopholes to shield their wealth.


Now, will costs go down? The short answer is it's unclear because health policy experts have been arguing about this for years. There are a ton of assumptions in any analysis, and there are unknowns like how consumer behavior changes in a different market.

Some quick numbers. Medicare for all is estimated at $30 Trillion over 10 years, for 325 Million people. That's about $9250 per person, per year. Probably comparable to what you pay when you throw in employer contributions.
However, $30 trillion is a best case estimate using current medicare rates. Hospitals with majority medicare patients are struggling. Rates would likely have to be raised to keep providers in business. You also would likely have more people using services as they are now free. Most socialized health systems do not cover vision and dental as well.
National healthcare is in theory more efficient, but requires we have a competently run federal government. My insurance company is easier to deal with than the VA

Eh, I guess I just don't see the big deal with answering the question to get to the end result.

If your taxes go up but your overall costs go down, why shouldn't that be stated? Isn't that what matters the most, how much money is coming out of your pocket?

statefan91 said:

---

Eh, I guess I just don't see the big deal with answering the question to get to the end result.

If your taxes go up but your overall costs go down, why shouldn't that be stated? Isn't that what matters the most, how much money is coming out of your pocket?

---

Then why won't she just say that? " Yes, taxes will be raised but your total cost will be lower because of X, Y, Z".

It's classic politician, avoiding a direct answer due to fear of the soundbite. Be straightforward and defend your position. Again, Bernie has no problem doing this. Warren won't and she's been asked repeatedly.

I would assume because any and every political ad against her in the future would include her saying "yes your taxes will go up" and not include "but your total costs will go down and you won't have to start a gofundme to be able to pay your medical bills should you get diagnosed with cancer and your insurance denies your claim"

Unfortunately anything and everything you say will be used against you and there is no context anymore in politics. That's why she's not coming out and saying "yes your taxes will go up."

At least that's my guess.

statefan91 said:

---

I would assume because any and every political ad against her in the future would include her saying "yes your taxes will go up" and not include "but your total costs will go down and you won't have to start a gofundme to be able to pay your medical bills should you get diagnosed with cancer and your insurance denies your claim"

Unfortunately anything and everything you say will be used against you and there is no context anymore in politics. That's why she's not coming out and saying "yes your taxes will go up."

At least that's my guess.

---

Trump has broken that paradigm. Say whatever you want and never be held accountable lol

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I would assume because any and every political ad against her in the future would include her saying "yes your taxes will go up" and not include "but your total costs will go down and you won't have to start a gofundme to be able to pay your medical bills should you get diagnosed with cancer and your insurance denies your claim"

Unfortunately anything and everything you say will be used against you and there is no context anymore in politics. That's why she's not coming out and saying "yes your taxes will go up."

At least that's my guess.

---

Trump has broken that paradigm. Say whatever you want and never be held accountable lol

---

I would say Obama and the first bush took care of that. Trump has just added to it.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I would assume because any and every political ad against her in the future would include her saying "yes your taxes will go up" and not include "but your total costs will go down and you won't have to start a gofundme to be able to pay your medical bills should you get diagnosed with cancer and your insurance denies your claim"

Unfortunately anything and everything you say will be used against you and there is no context anymore in politics. That's why she's not coming out and saying "yes your taxes will go up."

At least that's my guess.

---

Trump has broken that paradigm. Say whatever you want and never be held accountable lol

---

I would say Obama and the first bush took care of that. Trump has just added to it.

---

Playing with the truth vs. setting it on fire

I wasn't a fan of either of the past presidents. This one has ratcheted things up significantly

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I would assume because any and every political ad against her in the future would include her saying "yes your taxes will go up" and not include "but your total costs will go down and you won't have to start a gofundme to be able to pay your medical bills should you get diagnosed with cancer and your insurance denies your claim"

Unfortunately anything and everything you say will be used against you and there is no context anymore in politics. That's why she's not coming out and saying "yes your taxes will go up."

At least that's my guess.

---

Trump has broken that paradigm. Say whatever you want and never be held accountable lol

---

I would say Obama and the first bush took care of that. Trump has just added to it.

---

Playing with the truth vs. setting it on fire

I wasn't a fan of either of the past presidents. This one has ratcheted things up significantly

---

"Read my lips, no new taxes." "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it " I consider both of those "setting it on fire." No playing with the truth in either of those statements just as there isn't any with Trump's.

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Playing with the truth vs. setting it on fire

I wasn't a fan of either of the past presidents. This one has ratcheted things up significantly

---

"Read my lips, no new taxes." "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it " I consider both of those "setting it on fire." No playing with the truth in either of those statements just as there isn't any with Trump's.

---

He's lied in public over 12,000 times dude. He just doesn't give a crap about even appearing to be truthful. It's not on the same scale

IseWolf22 said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Playing with the truth vs. setting it on fire

I wasn't a fan of either of the past presidents. This one has ratcheted things up significantly

---

"Read my lips, no new taxes." "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it " I consider both of those "setting it on fire." No playing with the truth in either of those statements just as there isn't any with Trump's.

---

He's lied in public over 12,000 times dude. He just doesn't give a crap about even appearing to be truthful. It's not on the same scale

---

Show me a politician that hasn't lied in public thousands of times Dude. Damn, I ain't a trump supporter but a lie is a lie is a lie, don't matter how many you tell.