US Elections: Groper in Chief

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And some point, when nominal rates return to something that looks normal, some sort of "austerity" will need to be imposed. The natural candidate for that would be eliminating the Trump tax cuts. But, the Republicans will probably oppose that, arguing instead the need to cut things like Social Security and Medicare.

Ye, the profit said "For it is better to starve a thousand grannies than to deprive one billionaire of his Trump tax cuts." 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, LongRider said:

Ye, the profit said "For it is better to starve a thousand grannies than to deprive one billionaire of his Trump tax cuts." 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that profit supply side Jesus?

[felice]

49 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

I disagree. Are you really sure about this? It's too much to ask that wealthy feminist politicians not stay married to rapists?

There's a big difference between "pick-up artist" and "rapist"! Which is it? I haven't followed his activities that closely, beyond knowing that the Republicans tried to impeach him over an apparently consensual affair.

1 hour ago, Ariadne23 said:

I don't want to rally behind an uninspiring figure whose personal decisions are unfathomable to me when I could've been supporting Elizabeth Warren for President

Yes, Warren may well have been a better option.

[The Marquis de Leech]

53 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Blurting them out in contexts where they dont belong without explanation renders them meaningless. It becomes just a thing you blurt out when you don't like something someone said.(Or you don't like the person who said it ) "False equivalency" has become that.

OK. I'll apologise. You're not engaging in False Equivalency.

False Equivalency would be giving you too much credit.

Rather than merely saying "but Hillary is racist too!", you're bending over backwards to defend Trump and his backers (who include the KKK) as not being racist - apparently one cannot even call them racist, no matter their rhetoric. You invoke a quote from over 50 years ago to somehow prove Hillary's racism - that wasn't even made by her.

You're either trolling or intellectually dishonest.  

[LongRider]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that profit supply side Jesus?

The very one. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that profit supply side Jesus?

"It is easier for a needle to pass through the eye of a rich man than for a camel to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Supply-side Jesus hated camels.

[OldGimletEye]

29 minutes ago, LongRider said:

The GOP is back in town boys!

Guess who just got elected today

Them wild eyed real conservatives that had been away

Haven’t change at all to say

But man, I still think them fuckers are crazy

 

They were askin if any social programs were around

Where it was, and if any cuts could be found…...

[Castel]

9 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

The whole 'rights for LGBT' thing does little but arouse the ire of large segments of the population.

So does abortion - which get right down to it, is difficult to justify from a moral perspective.

Sometimes parties hold views that other segments of the population don't necessarily hold, cause other parts do. There's a balance.

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

OK. I'll apologise. You're not engaging in False Equivalency.

False Equivalency would be giving you too much credit.

Rather than merely saying "but Hillary is racist too!", you're bending over backwards to defend Trump and his backers (who include the KKK) as not being racist - apparently one cannot even call them racist, no matter their rhetoric. You invoke a quote from over 50 years ago to somehow prove Hillary's racism - that wasn't even made by her.

You're either trolling or intellectually dishonest.  

What on earth does ANY of this have to do with the comments you accused of being false equivalency???

Here's what it was in case you forgot:

-During Bush's terms liberals were the tin foil hatists. Then during Obama, conservatives were the tin foil hatists. Now looks like the liberals are going back to the tin foil hat pile. That's not meant as a putdown to either side. Im a conspiracy guy so im always prone to believe a juicy conspiracy. I'm always gonna be labeled tin foil hat.-

 

^^^^This is what you called false equivalency. 

[LongRider]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Guess who just got elected today

Them wild eyed real conservatives that had been away

Haven’t change at all to say

But man, I still think them fuckers are crazy

 

They were askin if any social programs were around

Where it was, and if any cuts could be found…...

You deserve it!  Well done.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Dr. Pepper,

For clarity's sake I'm not saying there is nothing to worry about.  I'm saying rolling back Marriage Equality is not something that can be easily done.

[ummester]

12 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Meh, on some things he's different. But, on lot of things he's not that different. Under Trump we're going to get:

1. de-regulation of the Financial Industry

2. Probably repeal of the ACA.

3. Supply Side Tax Cuts, which will mainly benefit the wealthy.

4. Probably no attempt to take on Monopolies or Monopsonies.

5. Nothing on minimum wage or  the strengthening of collective bargaining rights.

Now, as I have said before, Trump's huge tax cuts, which will mainly benefit the wealthy, will generate aggregate demand which is certainly needed and will be helpful. However, there are better and more efficient ways to generate aggregate demand than tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy.

And some point, when nominal rates return to something that looks normal, some sort of "austerity" will need to be imposed. The natural candidate for that would be eliminating the Trump tax cuts. But, the Republicans will probably oppose that, arguing instead the need to cut things like Social Security and Medicare.

 

It won't be enough - he was elected on a different platform, of genuine economic change. If he doesn't provide it, the country will turn against him and the establishment.

America has now been promised isolationism, just as Britain has now been promised Brexit. The system may dick around with it (as is happening in the UK) but, if it isn't delivered, things will get nasty.

I don't think the majority voters are racist, bigots as the media and progressives make out. They know what they want. They want economic change and they are prepared to risk a buffoon like Trump or a concept like Brexit to get it.

[LongRider]

6 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

"It is easier for a needle to pass through the eye of a rich man than for a camel to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Supply-side Jesus hated camels.

He'd be happy to sell the needles tho, with only a small, h'eh, markup.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 So let's say you're a thief. You don't mind being robbed, because you've done it to others? Maybe we deserve it karmically, but I sure as hell would like to know if someone managed to pull the same trick on us, wouldn't you?

What I think this means is that any Native Americans that break into his house have full right to take anything they choose. 

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, LongRider said:

You deserve it!  Well done.

Thanks!

[ThinkerX]

Again, sadly, I feel vindicated.  And apparently, a respected (?) journalist reached more or less the same conclusion:

 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/president-trump-how-america-got-it-so-wrong-w449783

Back then, I thought Trump had a real chance at the presidency. But later I made the same mistake most every other reporter did. I listened to polls and media outlets, instead of people.

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, ummester said:

I don't think the majority voters are racist, bigots as the media and progressives make out.

Live here and you might change your tune.

 

3 minutes ago, ummester said:

They know what they want. They want economic change and they are prepared to risk a buffoon like Trump or a concept like Brexit to get it.

Do 'they' really know what they want?  No, I think they want to stick it to the other because that's what Trump's vague promises are all about. Some how, tax cuts and sticking it to the other (the Mexican other, the Muslim other the inner city other) and the Chinese will bring great jobs and so much winning we'll all be tired of it.

M'eh.

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, ummester said:

It won't be enough - he was elected on a different platform, of genuine economic change. If he doesn't provide it, the country will turn against him and the establishment.

Well, I think a lot of people are in for a rude awakening.

7 minutes ago, ummester said:

America has now been promised isolationism, just as Britain has now been promised Brexit. The system may dick around with it (as is happening in the UK) but, if it isn't delivered, things will get nasty.

I don't think Trump's free trade plans are all that well thought out. In fact, I don't think the Republican Party is even capable of coming up with a sane policy on free trade issues. You have crude protectionist like Trump and then you have dogmatic free traders in the Republican Party, whose only solution to problems caused by free trade is to do selected readings from Ayn Rand.

[Kalbear]

Here's a terrifying factoid.

 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Again, sadly, I feel vindicated.  And apparently, a respected (?) journalist reached more or less the same conclusion:

 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/president-trump-how-america-got-it-so-wrong-w449783

 

He's also wrong about why Trump won, according to math.

It's almost as if people do a really good job of remembering when they were right and totally suck at remembering when they were wrong.