LumRaiderFan

link?

Got your refund yet? My taxes are lower...so are yours. Good trade deal = higher taxes (tariffs) on manufacturing and consumers. lol...keep up with what's going on. A good trade deal is bad...sounds like a Democrat talking point. Less regulation means more pollutants in our air and water. A lot of that was done by fiat. Ok for your guy, but not the other side. Wrong, it would mean anything petroleum / coal related is higher for the consumer...you seem to be concerned about that only when it suits your argument. Supreme court was luck of the draw and elimination of cloture. Hardly fair in my book. Don’t point to Obama for doing same on lower court appointments. Obstructionist republickans would not let any of his on the floor. Again, ok for your side, cheating if the other side does it. You mean the Biden rule? Can you tell me what laws they broke while cheating?

[Hidden Content]

The answer for many of our problems is to not allow the fed gov the power to "solve" them for us. I realize we are way too far down that path and our electorate is way too ignorant and dependent, but, as WOSdrummer99 echoed as well, that's the answer.

Lower taxes, less regulation, conservative SC justices, better trade deals...I like this movie, Trump should win best actor.

[Hidden Content] From the article: “Dear @AOC: Let me serve as your private professor here. The Berlin Wall was meant to keep people inside the socialist/communist utopia and stop them from fleeing to the decadent capitalist west. So as the New Millennial Lenin, you might want to refrain from using this example,” Gad Saad, an evolutionary behavioral scientist at the John Molson School of Business, tweeted. She's constantly getting schooled on how wrong she is.

Nash beat me to the Tawana response. $harpton has been around long enough to at least fake his response.

[Hidden Content] From the article: "OK, so, I (Kamala Harris) will say this about that case," she said. "I think that the facts are still unfolding, and, um, I’m very, um, concerned about obviously, the initial, um, allegation that he made about what might have happened. "And it’s something we should all take seriously whenever anyone, um, alleges that kind of behavior, but there should be an investigation," Harris added. "And I think that once the investigation has concluded then we can all comment, but I’m not going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation." On Sunday, Harris' fellow senator and Democratic presidential candidate, Cory Booker, told reporters he would "withhold" judgment on the matter "until all the information actually comes out from on-the-record sources." Booker also referred to the alleged Jan. 29 attack on Smollett as "an attempted modern-day lynching" and pushed Congress to pass legislation making lynching a federal hate crime. So NOW they want to wait for an outcome of the investigation before commenting...smh...Democrats.

Agree

[Hidden Content] Top news story at cnn...lol.

Never realized Nigeria had such zealous Trump fans.

How would you expect a city like Detroit to ever bring business in without incentives?

Well, I do! Welfare is unconstitutional, Obamacare is unconstitutional. Lots of things the Fed Gov control now is unconstitutional. The Constitution gives the Fed Gov VERY limited powers, and what is not given to them falls to the states. The Feds have been slowly chipping away at that for years while folks sit by and go, oh well, who am I to say what is or isn't Constitutional. Sad that you don't feel you have the ability to question decisions that lawmakers make, but the Fed Gov appreciates you.

[Hidden Content]

Of course I would...that's our rulebook. The SC also says it's OK to kill babies...unlike you, I don't agree with anything they spew out just because they are "scholars". I guess if the SC ruled that slavery was OK you would go along with it? The interpretation of any case is based solely on whether the SC is tilted conservative or liberal...if these folks were all experts and knew it all, the vote would always be 9-0.

You knew what? By the way, have you ever read the Constitution?

[Hidden Content]

Federal gov should have no role in food stamps or any other entitlement, whether it's a good or bad investment...not in the Constitution. States and communities have the right to provide whatever incentives or entitlements they want, whether it's a good or bad investment...it's THEIR right. Let me ask you this, who should have the power to keep a state or city from providing tax incentives?

[Hidden Content] Amazon seems to blame liberals.

Don't need this guy...not sure he would govern much different than a Democrat.

Local/State government should be able to provide any incentive they choose. Are you saying a city shouldn't be able to provide tax incentives to bring in business?

How about let states and communities work their own deal as they see fit...you know, the free market. Sounds like you were involved in negotiating a bad deal.

Agree, but all they see is the big bad company getting tax breaks, never mind the taxes and local spending that 25,000 workers and their families provide.

smh...what was the motive here? Publicity? Trump hater? Both?

It’s all about getting Trump, no matter the means. Kinda like Obamacare.