Ask Me Help Desk

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

To be determined.....but Donald Trump would be a good choice. He at least has a clue about actually running a business.

Hello smoothy:

That disqualifies him.. Government ISN'T business and can't be run like one. Oh, you have to know about MONEY, and running a large organization, but that's as close as it gets.

Biden would get the job as far as I'm concerned (Constitutionally too). I don't know what possed Obama.. He had time to go to the UN. He had time to consult with NATO. He had time to talk with the Arab League - but he didn't have time to consult with congress?? He should go.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

.....but Donald Trump would be a good choice. He at least has a clue about actually running a business. And is pretty good at it.

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello smoothy:

That disqualifies him.. Government ISN'T business and can't be run like one. Oh, you have to know about MONEY, and running a large organization, but that's as close as it gets.

Biden would get the job as far as I'm concerned (Constitutionally too). I dunno what possed Obama.. He had time to go to the UN. He had time to consult with NATO. He had time to talk with the Arab League - but he didn't have time to consult with congress??? He should go.

excon

Obama never ran anything in his life... and his Government experience was voting Present most of the time.

Yeah I know Biden is next in Line... and Bohner would move up to VP.

How do you think Gerald Ford made it to be president... I was old enough to see that happen. I know you was too, being older than me you was likely more aware of it than me at that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia isn't really all that reliable a source... even if it might be convenient.

Trump is still far more successful then Obama ever was. Obama is an utter failure as president... and as a leader. What did he ever succeed at that disn't involve scamming someone?

At least Trump has made a lot of money... Obama has just wasted record ammounts of money. He did quadruple the national debt in just 2 years time. Trump understands a buget... Obama thinks they are optional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Obama never ran anything in his life.....and his GOverment experience was voting Present most of the time.

Voting Present in Illinois and a few other states means, "Take it back to the drawing board and fix it, you dummy! It's unacceptable as it stands"

Voting Present in Illinois does NOT mean "I abstain."

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Wikipedia isn't really all that reliable a source......even if it might be convienient.

Hello again, smoothy:

Wikipedia is the epitome of the free market at work. You're not saying, are you, that it needs regulation to be reliable? Parrish the thought.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Wikipedia is the epitome of the free market at work. You're not saying, are you, that it needs regulation to be reliable?? Parrish the thought.

excon

It is what it is... I actually know one of the many editors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Voting Present in Illinois and a few other states means, "Take it back to the drawing board and fix it, you dummy! It's unacceptable as it stands"

Voting Present in Illinois does NOT mean "I abstain."

Voting present means he doesn't have the balls or conviction to vote yes or no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Voting present means he doesn't have the balls or conviction to vote yes or no.

Not true, smoothy. Illinois doesn't work that way. It is as I had explained in my earlier post.

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal – to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Not true, smoothy. Illinois doesn't work that way. It is as I had explained in my earlier post.

Fact is... He was fence straddling. If he was FOR something he should vote yes... if he was against it she should vote no... anything else is waffling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Fact is..... He was fence straddling. If he was FOR something he should vote yes....if he was against it she should vote no....anything else is waffling.

You've never said "I'm not sure" or "maybe, lemme think about it" or "you need to work on that more before I can agree with it"? You immediately agree or disagree with every question you are asked? (If you say yes to that, I want to be connected with your wife.)

Saying only yes or no in a state legislature's voting is even more dicey than saying only yes or no in a marriage.

I would rather "waffle," as you call it, than give a yes or no that later comes back to bite me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

To be replaced by whom?

Doesn't seem to be an issue anywhereelse why should it be an issue in the US or is it the alternatives are too frightening to contemplate

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Doesn't seem to be an issue anywhereelse why should it be an issue in the US or is it the alternatives are too frightening to contemplate

I was being facetious.

The record of his campaign donations indicates that he may be using the conservative talking points without conviction.
Here are some of the recent ones :

•11/8/2010- $2,700-Democratic Party of Delaware
•10/21/2010 -$2,400- Anthony Weiner (D)
•9/20/2010- $10,000 – Democratic Committee of New York City
•2/18/2010 – $2,000- Anthony Weiner (D)
•4/7/2010 -$1,000 Charles Schumer (D)
•3/26/2009- $2,400 – Harry Reid (D)
•8/11/2009 -$2,000 – Bill Nelson (D)
•5/20/2009 – $2,000 -Charles Schumer (D)

Out of his 31 donations 21 of them went to very liberal Democrats or Democratic Committees, 7 went to Republicans, 2 went to Independents (both of those to Charlie Crist who defected from the Republicans ).
Donor Lookup: Find Individual and Soft Money Contributors | OpenSecrets

I hope this gets back on point . But to answer the question To be replaced by whom?
Right now there are 2 serious candidates . Both would be a better President ;but forced to vote between them ,I'd go with T-Paw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

You've never said "I'm not sure" or "maybe, lemme think about it" or "you need to work on that more before I can agree with it"? You immediately agree or disagree with every question you are asked? (If you say yes to that, I want to be connected with your wife.)

Saying only yes or no in a state legislature's voting is even more dicey than saying only yes or no in a marriage.

I would rather "waffle," as you call it, than give a yes or no that later comes back to bite me.

When there is a vote on a bill... the correct answer is to vote for it to pass it or vote no to reject it. There isn't a third, fourth or even fith option. If they don't have the balls to take a stand... then they should stay home that day, or resign.. they aren't cut out for politics.

If you don't agree with it... you vote no, fix the problem then bring it back up for a vote.

Anything else is a political cowards way out to try to claim to be on both sides of the fence... or neither. A position that as a politician... you can't possibly be in. It's their job to be on one side or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

Its their job to be on one side or the other.

Hello again, smoothy:

Still waiting for the published job description for a state senator... You SEEM to know their job pretty good, but I think you're making it up... In fact, you have NO clue what the job of a state senator is, or not.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Still waiting for the published job description for a state senator... You SEEM to know their job pretty good, but I think you're making it up... In fact, you have NO clue what the job of a state senator is, or not.

excon

Well, apparently in Michigan... they aren't even required to be in the state, much less show up for work and still get paid. Its universally assumed, if you don't show up for something you are paid to do... you are committing an act of fraud... be it a contractor... Teacher... dishwasher... or senator.

I need that job. I'll worry less about how long I'll have the job I actually have to show up to, before I can expect to be paid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothy

I actually have to show up to, before I can expect to be paid.

Hello again, smoothy:

Your frame of reference appears to be blue collar. After all, you can't pound a nail if you're not THERE. But, some workers don't have a "there". They can actually "show up" by picking up the phone, or answering an email. That can be done from ANY place in the world, these days - even a un-disclosed location in Illinois.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Both would be a better President ;but forced to vote between them ,I'd go with T-Paw.

There is no one named "T-Paw".