## Donald Trump

• 6.2k
What it's like to talk to Trump supporters.

• 6.2k

"Even if it's right next to you, you can't see it."
• 6.2k
I don't know what you can do at this point except laugh at this shit.
• 5.8k
Marilyn "Lockheed": Secret Identity of Wonder Woman Revealed!
• 912
Clean the cosmoline off your rifle and give serious thought as to the circumstances under which you will justify its use. In the US we are seeing a subtle and not-so-subtle corruption of law. So far "they" are going after the helpless and marginalized, all the while serving up a constant spread of lies while loading up on "law" for you and me. Trump himself, in my opinion, is just not that interested in becoming a dictator, but he has a coach who both is, and is interested. That is, I don't think Trump is author of his own playbook. And I think his coach is interested in doing absolutely as much damage as possible.

I do not think seriously that I will have to shoot anyone, even if I could. But by God if I have to, to be an American, I am going to try mighty hard to do just that, if it become necessary. And I think it's important for the enemies of freedom and America to know that.
• 3.9k
GW crashed the economy through idiotic policies of financial deregulation which Obama had to reverse, so he didn't continue what GW set in motion. He reversed a negative trend set in motion by GW. Trump is continuing a positive trend set in motion by Obama. I don't think that's hard to grasp.

Right, Obama's TARP program bailed out the banks that the Republicans deregulated and caused to crash. It's a good argument except that the banks were deregulated equally by both parties (and notably by the Democrats who wanted to increase home ownership for everyone) (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/)., and it was Bush, not Obama, who instituted the TARP program. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-think-obama-not-bush-enacted-bank-bailouts-poll-shows/ Not too hard to grasp.

Let's now talk about how hawkish Bush was and how dovish Obama was and try to ignore all the facts.
• 3.9k
The effective corporate tax rate is 18.6%. Companies are the largest users of energy, natural resources, air and water and their related infrastructures. What exactly is the justification that private individuals pay more to maintain those infrastructures than those that actually use it?

There needn't be a moral justification, only a pragmatic one, meaning that the question isn't fairness, but what will maximize the wealth of the individual. There is certainly a point of diminishing returns where if we overtaxed corporate revenues than the economy would be less productive and the individual would suffer. If not, we'd just tax corporations at 100%, considering they have no moral worth to begin with.

The bulk of total tax revenues comes from individuals, although I could not find a per capita figure, comparing the average tax revenue per corporation versus the average individual revenue. My point being that I expect that in raw dollars, the average corporation pays taxes greatly exceeding the average citizen, meaning they are paying for more of our roads and whatever else.
• 1.3k
It's a good argument except that the banks were deregulated equally by both parties.

The man who squashed efforts to regulate derivatives was Greenspan. The crisis went far beyond housing. The crash just started with the implosion of the housing bubble.

You are an extremely unreliable historian and you're unapologetic about it. Definitely to be ignored.
• 213
The bulk of total tax revenues comes from individuals, although I could not find a per capita figure, comparing the average tax revenue per corporation versus the average individual revenue. My point being that I expect that in raw dollars, the average corporation pays taxes greatly exceeding the average citizen, meaning they are paying for more of our roads and whatever else.

The government could burn every tax dollar it gets, and still buy anything it wants with a key stroke. Economically, the only real purpose of taxes in a country with a fiat currency, and the good faith of debt holders, is purely to control inflation. It has a million other political reasons, none of them that matter - other than to get votes.

Economically, taxes should have no impact at all on corporate performance, investment, employment, etc. If all competitors in a market are taxed fairly it is just a base that the market operates on top of. Success or failure of any competitor is indifferent to an equal tax to all.
• 5.8k
• 4.3k
Was Trump a conscious choice by the Republican party, during the primaries?
• 2.5k

• 3.9k
The man who squashed efforts to regulate derivatives was Greenspan. The crisis went far beyond housing. The crash just started with the implosion of the housing bubble.

You are an extremely unreliable historian and you're unapologetic about it. Definitely to be ignored.

A few things:

- The cite I provided specifically referenced the federal reserve's involvement in the financial crisis, so I'm not sure why you're pointing out something that was not omitted from my prior post and claiming it was omitted. .

- Nothing you've said contradicts anything that I've said, which is (1) there were multiple hands from both sides that that played a role in the financial crisis, and (2) Bush instituted TARP.

- My point was that no one gets a pass, as @Baden was suggesting that the Republicans caused the entire mess.

- Your post is obviously retaliatory from my comments in a prior thread where you were repeatedly corrected on your historical inaccuracies, so now you're saying "You are what you said I am." This post is your attempted zinger comeback.
• 1.3k
My point was that no one gets a pass, as Baden was suggesting that the Republicans caused the entire mess.

The "mess" was very clearly a result of a central column of economic conservatism: leave the economy unregulated. This principle was extended to investment entities whose insane practices actually caused the catastrophe. Regular banks were involved, but if they alone had been the problem, no one would have appeared before Congress asking for money to keep the global economy from falling apart.

Your post is obviously retaliatory from my comments in a prior thread where you were repeatedly corrected on your historical inaccuracies, so now you're saying "You are what you said I am." This post is your attempted zinger comeback.

Very funny. You were the one who was repeatedly incorrect and never once admitted it.

I joined a group on reddit. It's pretty cool, but I decided to start my own anyway. While rustling up patronage on facebook for my group, I got invited to a private group there. On queue I don't feel like talking about philosophy anymore. :roll:
• 954
So, y'all decided to just go hook line and sinker on Hanover's deflection from "yeah, he's a racist, but how much of a racist is he"?

:brow:
• 6.2k

Well, I asked Hanover a couple of direct questions above on the racism issue, which he ignored. That's his prerogative, so I'm not going to bang my head against a brick wall on that one. If anyone has made their feelings clear about all that, it's me.

My point was that no one gets a pass, as Baden was suggesting that the Republicans caused the entire mess.

Generally speaking they did. Clinton handed GW a booming economy and a budget surplus* and in eight years he turned it into a huge financial crisis and the worst deficits and debt you ever had, and in the meantime killed a huge number of people in a couple of pointless wars. Trump will find it hard to top that in terms of pure destruction. Of course, it's obvious any Dem congressmen who voted with GW both on the war and on reckless financial deregulation also deserve condemnation. They just had a much smaller part to play overall. And my basic point anyway was that less than two years in, the economy is not all Trump's doing. He's had an influence obviously, but like GW, he got handed a decent deal by his predecessor. It's not like things would have been much different if Clinton had been in power for a year and a half. And what extra impetus you got, Trump bought with a huge addition to your debt, so your kids will be paying for his ego boost. It's short-term fakeonomics. Enjoy it while it lasts.

*"annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998,$76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and \$46 billion for fiscal year 2000. "

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
• 954
If anyone has made their feelings clear about all that, it's me.

I appreciate that. Just wondering why he isn't following his Huckabee cues and screaming about how Brennan is a traitor. Talking about GW and Obama's economy is just so day 100 of Trump's presidency.
• 917
Clinton handed GW a booming economy and a budget surplus* and in eight years he turned it into a huge financial crisis

To be fair, Clinton did sign the repeal of Glass-Steagall, declaring it "no longer appropriate".
• 954
More Trump stupidity ;

"During a cabinet meeting, Trump and other officials downplayed the role of climate change on wildfires, while discussing the abundance of fallen trees creating a natural accelerant.

“It’s not a global warming thing, it’s a management situation,” said Trump. “And one of the elements that he talked about was the fact that we have fallen trees, and instead of removing those fallen trees, which get to be extremely combustible, instead of removing them, gently removing them, beautifully removing them, we leave them to burn.” "

• 954

Well, it wasn't, 70 years later. And at that point it was advantaging investments outside the US, specifically giving the London market a huge advantage.

Although, in hindsight, and probably also in foresight, a simple and full repeal probably wasn't a bright idea. In fact, the complete opposite, such as a tightening of regulations allowing for US banks to create UK filials purely to avoids Glass-Steagall would have been a better way to go.
• 1.3k
be fair, Clinton did sign the repeal of Glass-Steagall, declaring it "no longer appropriate".Maw

The crisis was a result of derivatives. No American president had anything to do with that.
• 163
The Trump presidency has exposed the man behind the curtain pulling the levers of power, like in the Wizard of OZ. Trump was an outsider, like Dorothy, who had a need and was naively not intimidated by the holographic projection of the wizard; swamp. He is showing everyone this illusion is run by men and women, who are evil nerds, and not illusionary monsters.

Washington is run by nerds and Trumps reminds them of the football quarterback who may have stuffed them in the locker back in the day. Trump is loud, crude, resourceful and confident. The revenge of the nerds is in affect, using projected illusions of monsters, to intimidate and control. This exercise has shown that not all nerds are nice people. As a quarterbackTrump has practice under fire. Trump is starting to stuff some of the evil nerds into lockers, to the delight of those who had been intimidated by the illusions.

What I also learned was there are too many lawyers in Washington. These lawyers used law for profit, campaign donations and to railroad and intimidate people, while also allowing crimes to go unpunished for others.

We need an oversight committee on lawyers, which allow lawyers to be sued if they use law to games theo system. We d not allow doctors to oversee all doctors, so the same needs to be true of lawyers. Lawyers are considered less trustworthy than doctors yet we use oversight over doctors by people who are not doctors. How about doctors oversee lawyers? They can use a more moral standard for behavior where there are penalties even of done legally using tricks. Trick law helped Hillary avoid crimes while trick law was used to intimate the innocent. This would result in fines and/or jail.
• 917
The crisis was a result of derivatives. No American president had anything to do with that.

Derivatives amplified the effects, but they certainly were not the sole cause of the financial crisis.
• 664
Trump is starting to stuff some of the evil nerds into lockers, to the delight of those who had been intimidated by the illusions.

That must be really hard to do with their pockets so full of cash.
• 5.8k
Surely Trump is more like the scarecrow than Dorothy. Although the scarecrow wanted a brain, whereas Trump already thinks he has one.
• 912
A social system must be able to absorb any number of things without being threatened in its general course. What we learn 1965-current is that the American system is slow in its ability to resolve certain kind of crises. The lie that used to come by horse but leave on foot now comes at the speed of light and from as many directions as possible, yet our means of disposing of them, resolving them, is still locked in 18th century mechanisms. It occurs to me that a remedy is to criminalize lying. We already have it in slander and libel laws, but unless I'm overlooking it (which can happen), I do not see any protection for the body politic itself. Yet that is what is attacked.

And perhaps we should distinguish between two kinds of lies, or at least these two. First is the lie that wants to represent a falsehood as truth, and that is dispensed with on exhibiting what the truth really is. The second kind of lie is indifferent to whether the lie is accepted as true. The purpose of this second kind of lie is to undermine the acceptance of all truth. This second is a real problem. I would accept putting away such liars for a long time as they constitute a real danger to the social system.

Free speech? I am pretty sure there is no freedom to lie. There are merely very few penalties for it. Maybe it's time there should be. Against this is the consideration that any cure might be worse than the disease. That too must be considered.
• 6.2k

:lol:

• 917
The media is criticizing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for excluding them from two otherwise public town-hall meetings during which immigrants, victims of domestic abuse, and people with medical concerns will speak about their perspectives and concerns. I wonder how often they criticize politicians who hold private, media-excluded events with big donors? Jesus Christ, the inane vitriol against her is absurd.
• 2.9k
I agree it is a little over the top but she does need to jockey to a new position to remain proactive with the media.

Some of the gaffs she has made remind me of Gary Johnson's "Aleppo" answer. There is just no taking that gaff back.
• 917
She is very proactive with the media - who didn't pay much attention to her before she won a primary two months ago and are now demanding they attend every single event she is part of. She did have some unfortunate gaffs, and she needs to burnish some talking points, but Gary Johnson was running for President - somewhat of a different realm. Either way, politicians make gaffs all the time. After all, you voted for the greatest gaff-maker in modern Presidential history!
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal