Revenge of the ‘Deplorables’

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
When you have a President Elect that appointed 3 ex-Goldman Sachs executives to cabinet positions but call his opponent "the Goldman Sachs candidate" you kind of lose your credibility on the basis you're obviously heavily mentally impaired.
actually I think its 4
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2016/12/why_trump_keeps_hiring_goldman_sachs_bankers.html

Bannon is also ex-Goldman, ironically Goldman supported Hillary pretty universally. Strange things!
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
you got it.
What we've "got" is that you don't understand your own original post. It was liberal propaganda founded on a false premise. Once your propaganda was shredded, you degraded your argument to name calling. You hang on to your claim because, as with Newt, for you feelings > facts

About the only thing we can agree upon is Hillary Clinton was not far enough to the left to satisfy your wishes.

Did you even vote in this past election?
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The thing you have to understand is most "big donors" back EVERYONE they think might possibly win.
what our mentally defective friend is really missing is that the dfonations come from individuals who work at these companies, not the companies themselves.

and since companies like goldman sachs require a fair amount of education, and since education is anathema to voters for new king trump, they were bound to go hillary's way.

new king trump loves the uneducated.
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
what our mentally defective friend is really missing is that the dfonations come from individuals who work at these companies, not the companies themselves.

and since companies like goldman sachs require a fair amount of education, and since education is anathema to voters for new king trump, they were bound to go hillary's way.

new king trump loves the uneducated.
But the fact remains that even large PAC donors hedge their bets...

It's literally how the rich make their living.
 

MisterBouncyBounce

Well-Known Member
What we've "got" is that you don't understand your own original post. It was liberal propaganda founded on a false premise. Once your propaganda was shredded, you degraded your argument to name calling. You hang on to your claim because, as with Newt, for you feelings > facts

About the only thing we can agree upon is Hillary Clinton was not far enough to the left to satisfy your wishes.

Did you even vote in this past election?
none of you can fess up to yourselves that you voted for a republican can you. you can't take the pain of having been so fooled and be so wrong.

And here is a news flash for you......I'm not far left.........that's how far right all you Clintonheads are.

you and bucky and a few others know deep down you don't have a clue about how things actually work.
you wait for thoughts to be delivered to you. you see things through a pundit's lens and talk in their language.
It's all empty yakking............and that's why you know very little about reality and how power flows.

one just needs to read politico, the post, the times, cnn and msnbc to know what you and some others here are thinking.

you all aren't just CliontonBots, you are just Bots.

and get over the butt hurt i made you feel already.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
When you have a President Elect that appointed 3 ex-Goldman Sachs executives to cabinet positions but call his opponent "the Goldman Sachs candidate" you kind of lose your credibility on the basis you're obviously heavily mentally impaired.
Donald Trump doesnt owe Goldman Sachs anything while Hillary Clinton owed them for millions in campaign donations and other compensation.

Lets see what he does before condemning his presidency.
 

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Donald Trump doesnt owe Goldman Sachs anything while Hillary Clinton owed them for millions in campaign donations and other compensation.

Lets see what he does before condemning his presidency.
Owed them? Owed them what? Not a damn thing. Is she currently in debt to them?
How is she repaying them?

Campaign contributions are not a fucking contract.

I'll bet if somebody offered to PAY you to be objective for 24 hours, you wouldn't be able to collect.

Babbling fool.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
none of you can fess up to yourselves that you voted for a republican can you. you can't take the pain of having been so fooled and be so wrong.

And here is a news flash for you......I'm not far left.........that's how far right all you Clintonheads are.

you and bucky and a few others know deep down you don't have a clue about how things actually work.
you wait for thoughts to be delivered to you. you see things through a pundit's lens and talk in their language.
It's all empty yakking............and that's why you know very little about reality and how power flows.

one just needs to read politico, the post, the times, cnn and msnbc to know what you and some others here are thinking.

you all aren't just CliontonBots, you are just Bots.

and get over the butt hurt i made you feel already.
Nobody is butt hurt. Maybe you are, I don't know. Your post was shredded because it was based on a false premise. There isn't much else to comment on except to say next time post something that is based on the truth.

Trump was the Goldman candidate and candidate of the super rich.

You were shagged.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
The thing you have to understand is most "big donors" back EVERYONE they think might possibly win.

You think he appponted all those dudes for nothing in return?

Come on now...
no, Wallstreet clearly picked Hillary as their big donation candidate, also the Goldman Sachs $500k speeches.
 
Top