Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has released a new ad that reveals that either he doesn’t understand Social Security or he wants to galvanize opposition to Social Security. Either way, his rhetoric undermines our collective security.
Both the red and blue parties DO UNDERSTAND that workers' Social Security contributions fund a huge pot of money that politicians from both parties have used as their ATM to provide ever expanding corporate welfare.
The only difference between the red and blue is their excuses for raiding the fund.
Are you saying that Trump is right about Social Security or that criticizing Trump is not permitted? I didn't see a pro-Clinton message there at all, just one pointing out that Trump isn't right about Social Security, so...shouldn't we be allowed to say that?
With this ad Trump is clearly trying get his racist base angry to they come out to vote for him. Many of his supporters believe that illegal immigrants get Social Security benefits regardless of the facts. This ad seems designed reinforce their beliefs as he tries to hold on to their support while he flip-flops on his immigration policy to try to get white suburban college-educated voters which he seems to need in greater numbers to have any real chance of winning. The big question now seems to be whether Trump can hold on to his base without promising to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants.
At the end of the day, we could count the children dressed in Trump the Clown costumes and compare the number to that for those dressed as Hillary the Witch. Loser wins the (haunted) White House and the right to rent rooms in said house...
How much do the rooms rent for on airbnb ?
He does understand this much: he doesn't need to collect Social Security.
End of topic for Don.
I guess it really all just is in the eye of the beholder.
You say I attacked you. I say I offered a counterpoint to your post.
You say that "this is a pro-Hillary piece." I say that's it's not about HIllary at all, it only points out something that Trump is not being honest about. Since it's not about Clinton, it's pretty clear that your position is that anything that corrects what Trump says is really pro-Hillary.
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
Reading back over what I wrote, I don't think it was an attack at all. I asked two questions. I also didn't put any words in your mouth at all.
Your tone toward me, however, is rather hostile.
I'm still not sure if you think that criticizing Trump is okay. I guess not, based on what you wrote. You a Trump follower?
Donald Trump is the village idiot.
He's not suppose to understand anything.
1) a pox on both Trump and Clinton, there are far more and better possibilities than those two and their backers are prepared to publicly entertain.
2) If the world ever decides to sensibly manage its population then Social Security and Medicare (and a few more programs) are needed to support the elderly because with small families the burden of supporting elderly parents exceeds what can reasonably be sustained by the children, especially when Austerity Politics are being applied to us.
3) It seems to me that part of the problem is how money flows in our economy. Ideally it should flow through many hands but increasingly it seems that when it gets created it is placed where it will flow directly to those at the top while bypassing the rest of us. Instead it needs to be placed where it can flow through a lot more hands before it gets into the hands of the greedy. Possibly we will need to socialize part of the creation of money so that when money is created it can be put it into needed programs such as social security, medicare, and the like. With public control over part of the creation of money the real-estate bubbles can be weaned off of the newly created money that is being used inflate them. With more of the money placed into the hands of those of us at the bottom of the heap the greedy will need to provide services (or cons) to those of us on the bottom if they are to get the money into their accounts. This would create more of a "needs driven" economy to provide some balance to the "supply side" economy and some serious opposition to the "rentier" economy that is replacing it. That money does not flow sensibly and fairly through the economy is a combination of stupidity, ignorance, and corruption - mostly the latter.
Those are pretty good thoughts RandB, but ditch the "manage its population" rap. That's a loser unless you admire Hitler's philosophy.
It never fails. Let CD have anything critical of Trump and his progressive defense team rushes in to attack Clinton, and CD for being unfair to Trump.
Do you really feel the world is fretting about how you vote? Vote for Stein. Vote for whoever you like. That is a simple political decision. Why do you feel this reflexive need to answer anything critical of Trump?
Maybe just not a Trump apologist. Why do you rush to his defense?
You didn't say how the win/loss is determined.
You attacked, and continue to attack, the very idea of criticizing Trump. I don't think your reasoning is subtle at all. Phooey on Clinton. OK, now address the criticisms of Trump.
But if he's drawn wages, or paid self-employment tax, for enough quarters, he is eligible at age 70. I wonder if that's why he doesn't want to release his tax returns, or at least one of the reasons?
All vox did was offer a counterpoint. If he's a paid poster, something you crudely imply, he failed to earn his pieces of silver.
Then why bother with them (or us)?
Easy. The mainstream media will pick the winner.
Fewer costumes wins the W.H.