Why is Trump President Anyway?????

Let me be very clear - I love Trump - he does not cheat or lie to the American people- that's just your opinion - Thank God, it's not the rest of America's opinion. Anyway, you need to grow up -- grow some balls and-- be a man - quite crying like a baby - you sound like the world's biggest pussy - whaaaaaaaaaaa. Disgusting.
Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

Day one!

He spent his first full day as President LYING to the CIA and the media through his obviously unhappy lapdog Sean Spicer. And then Kelly Anne Cockbite doubled down today, saying Spicer were just presenting "alternative facts!"

About the size of his, ahem, crowd. Holy. shit.

Kiss the First Amendment goodbye!

SMH, Ellen. I'm sure youve got to be disappointed. If you're not, then please defend Twitler's lying first day in office. Oh yeah... the truth is not opinion. Black isn't white. 2+2 isn't 5.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

Day one!

He spent his first full day as President LYING to the CIA and the media through his obviously unhappy lapdog Sean Spicer. And then Kelly Anne Cockbite doubled down today, saying Spicer were just presenting "alternative facts!"

About the size of his, ahem, crowd. Holy. shit.

Kiss the First Amendment goodbye!

SMH, Ellen. I'm sure youve got to be disappointed. If you're not, then please defend Twitler's lying first day in office. Oh yeah... the truth is not opinion. Black isn't white. 2+2 isn't 5.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Please cut out the HAHAHA attempts at ridicule. It only makes you look like a troll. Ellen might be right or wrong, but there's no need for attempts at ridicule.

As for Trump's veracity let's be clear about this. He has none. I voted for him and I support him. But he doesn't tell the truth when he speaks. And the way he speaks cannot be taken seriously. He exaggerates everything. Just like when he said he "grabbed pussy." That was another one of his exaggerations and he doesn't really do it. Most people when listening to him speak can perceive that he's an exaggerator and a showman and a bullshit artist.

But is doesn't matter.

The fact is that all his competitors, except for Sanders, also are liars. Hilary, Jeb, Christy, Graham, and all the others just lie and lie and lie. The difference is that they've all taken on this conventional way of speaking that makes most people believe what they say. They comport themselves to a particular kind of political speech to make them look credible. But they are all liars.

Only Sanders actually believed what he said. And that's a good thing because what he believes is not what most Americans want.

I don't give a shit what Trump believes or doesn't believe. I only care that he performs on the agenda he set out. I don't know if he even really intended to do anything once in office. But Pence, Kellyanne (bless her heart) and others have taken the reigns and are pushing everything through regardless of what Trump might otherwise do.

They've formed policy teams of very able people and are coordinating everything with McConnell and Ryan and they're really going to do these things. He didn't put Giuliani or Christy or Newt into any positions. He went way outside of political circles and chose senior executives for all important posts. Frankly I'm impressed. He actually took that process seriously. The SECSTATE is the former CEO of EXXON. Imagine that. Not a politician or a diplomat. We have an executive in that post. We'll see what happens.

Just wait and see what happens.

I was right about these matters so far, and everything I've said would happen has happened so far.

And we will see where Trump Administration policies on immigration, trade and taxes take us. You have your opinion that his ideas will work. I believe many other crucial things will be sacrificed by the means used. Trickle down Trump urine economics will surely fail our country and only magnify the chasm between the filthy rich and the poor and middle class.

I don't care to waste time explaining in detail why Trump's policies won't work, nor will I bother explaining to YOU why Democratic policies are far better for middle Americans. I know there is ZERO chance that you would understand.

Now that the alt-right has the reins, we will see what happens with your approved methods. Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

I'm a Democrat btw. I voted against both Bushes and Reagan. I voted for Bill Clinton and lived to regret it.

The policies of the Dems have been NEO-LIBERAL. They have de-regulated trade, immigration, financial transfers, banking, utilities and everything else that we must have regulated to maintain our interests, that of the middle class and the nation as a whole.

Both Dems and Republicans have ballooned the debt to unsustainable levels, and they've done so because without this level of stimulus the economy would go into a depression. This is because wages are so low due to foreign competition that aggregate demand can't sustain the economy.

The Federal Reserve has been pumping trillions of dollars into the banks which have access to the credit they create, the "Fed Window," and all this money is used to leverage speculation by wealthy individuals and banks but little of it is required to enter the credit markets used by companies or families for the credit they require. Both Dems and Republicans have supported this because their contributors are the beneficiaries.

If thing are not changed America will hit a wall of unsustainable debt and then there will have to be AUSTERITY and that will cause a depression from which AMERICA WILL NEVER EMERGE. There will be no recovery, ever, if that happens.

In 1941 the American economy had been in depression for ten years and there had been no improvement at all. From 1933 when FDR took office until 1936 there was some improvement. But then in 1937 another shock came and then everyone was right back where they started. The economy was much smaller than it was all the way back in 1923! All the growth of the 1920s expansion was WIPED OUT. FDR knew if he didn't massively increase Federal spending that the economy would stay in depression forever. Germany under the Nazis had pulled itself out of depression in only one year because of massive government employment projects. Germany had eliminated unemployment by 1935 and by 1938 wages there had doubled. FDR couldn't expand Federal programs because the Supreme Court struck down all those efforts, so out of desperation he tried to pack the Court with new appointments to save the country. But when he did this he was called a "fascist" and shouted down. So Federal programs were never expanded and the economy got worse and worse. It wasn't until the war that Federal spending was increased to levels necessary to solve the problem. The Supreme Court couldn't block defense spending.

U.S Government Debt to GDP percentage has only been rising in the low single digits (<5%) for the last 5 years. This is after about a 50% increase between 2006 to 2010, but it has leveled off dramatically. We are still ranked #11 in the world, at 104.2, at less than half of Japan's 229.2, and nowhere near Greece's 176.9.

Compare this to the European social democracies that the GOP loves to hate: Germany 71.2, the Netherlands 65.1, Finland 63.1, Sweden 43.4, Denmark 40.2, and Norway 31.7. If government debt is your bellwether, maybe they're on to something.

U.S Government Debt to GDP percentage has only been rising in the low single digits (<5%) for the last 5 years. This is after about a 50% increase between 2006 to 2010, but it has leveled off dramatically. We are still ranked #11 in the world, at 104.2, at less than half of Japan's 229.2, and nowhere near Greece's 176.9.

Compare this to the European social democracies that the GOP loves to hate: Germany 71.2, the Netherlands 65.1, Finland 63.1, Sweden 43.4, Denmark 40.2, and Norway 31.7. If government debt is your bellwether, maybe they're on to something. Originally Posted by Dev Null

Yeah, Texas is bigger than those countries you mentioned. We prolly spend 10x on our military than they do combined.

https://mises.org/blog/how-us-states...s-size-and-gdp

Pretty sure when you call someone else a racist bigot with useless opinions.... that you're putting yourself in that "bigot" spotlight.

[QUOTE=Cap'n Crunch;1059098010]

You are being way too dramatic. What page are you talking about? You can post whatever you want on your "page"and I can post what I want on mine--- did someone hurt your feelings and tell you to stop posting? Awwwwww,poor baby.[/QUOTE

Awwwwww,poor baby? Is that how its going to be, poor grandma ellen? You can't read? Why are you asking if someone hurt my feelings? I didn't write it and you didn't read it. I posted it because it gave answers to why people will resist wherever they can for the next 4 years. But either you want to ignore the facts about Trump OR you agree with what he has done and said.

You don't give a shit whether Trump lies and cheats and deceives the American public. To you it was all about winning and being all white about it. So you and likeminded old white folk can take your victory lap. We will see whether his presidency even helps the white racist and bigots who so fervently support him. The only thing I know is it will help a lot of filthy rich white people get even filthier rich, at our expense. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

haha yes because that has not happened with any other (Democrat) presidents. Wake up bud, they'e all corrupt and the money stays in those wealth circles. Think Clinton would have been any better...maybe you have not read the information regarding the sudden drop in foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation now that Hillary is out.

Yeah, Texas is bigger than those countries you mentioned. We prolly spend 10x on our military than they do combined.

https://mises.org/blog/how-us-states...s-size-and-gdp Originally Posted by bambino

Actually, Germany alone has over twice the GDP of Texas.

Actually, pussycat, you seem to be full of yourself.

I know the rules around here and I'll laugh at whomever I choose whenever I choose and for what I choose.

You might say, I'm pro choice!

And I choose to LMAO at you.

In 1941 the American economy had been in depression for ten years and there had been no improvement at all. From 1933 when FDR took office until 1936 there was some improvement. But then in 1937 another shock came and then everyone was right back where they started. The economy was much smaller than it was all the way back in 1923! All the growth of the 1920s expansion was WIPED OUT. Originally Posted by pussycat

Not quite, pussycat. Here's a graph to guide you better. It plots US real GDP from 1920-1940. As you can see, the US economy began to nosedive in 1929. It hit rock-bottom in 1933. The plunge wiped out all the gains of the previous decade. Then output bounced back smartly until 1937, when there was a (comparatively) mild and temporary recession that still left real GDP higher than it was in 1929. By 1940, the economy was actually 20% larger than at the start of the Great Depression and over 60% higher than its 1933 trough. I wouldn't call that "no improvement at all."

Maybe read what I say. I said Supreme Court nominations in post you commented on. I don't know much more clearer I can be saying SC. I mean I said those words. You're the one arguing. You responded to a comment I made and then in your next comment tried to school me saying what I said and then can't just say I didn't see that. Instead you tell me I didn't make it clear. If I'm so unclear don't respond to me. Because you are responding to something you dont understand if it's unclear. Again nowhere in my comments did I mention federal, I specifically said SC. I won't clarify something that was plain and simple but you inferred something and then tell me I don't get it. I won't ask you to say you messed up because I'm sure in you're head you didn't, I did. Originally Posted by Milly23

Ok, relax. I re-read your post #21 and accept that you were referring to Supreme Court nominations only, which remain open to filibuster. Again, I don't think there is any serious talk among Senate Republicans of extending Harry Reid's rule changes to this exception. And Trump is unlikely to nominate anyone to fill Scalia's seat right away.

I also take issue with your claim that Republicans would be “screwed” if they do follow Reid's example and then “lose control of the Senate and/or House in 2018.” They will control the White House at least until 2021, and only the President can nominate anyone to the SCOTUS. So nuking the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations (something I don't see them doing) couldn't come back to bite them in the ass until 2021 at the earliest.

U.S Government Debt to GDP percentage has only been rising in the low single digits (<5%) for the last 5 years. This is after about a 50% increase between 2006 to 2010, but it has leveled off dramatically. Originally Posted by Dev Null

Here's a useful graph:

https://mises.org/blog/how-us-states...s-size-and-gdp Originally Posted by bambino

Interesting comparisons. They were compiled from 2 wikipedia pages.

We prolly spend 10x on our military than they do combined. Originally Posted by bambino

Here's a graph showing 22 out of 27 NATO countries weren't pulling their weight in 2015:

Actually, Germany alone has over twice the GDP of Texas. Originally Posted by Dev Null

2015 Nominal GDP:
Germany $3.36 trillion
California $2.45 trillion
Texas $1.64 trillion

Interesting comparisons. They were compiled from 2 wikipedia pages.




Here's a graph showing 22 out of 27 NATO countries weren't pulling their weight in 2015:






2015 Nominal GDP:
Germany $3.36 trillion
California $2.45 trillion
Texas $1.64 trillion Originally Posted by lustylad

My point was, you can't compare countries in Europe to the US. Especially the smaller ones. There are states with bigger economies and could provide their citizens with a Cadillac social safety net if it wasn't for the Feds redistributing their wealth.

Ok, relax. I re-read your post #21 and accept that you were referring to Supreme Court nominations only, which remain open to filibuster. Again, I don't think there is any serious talk among Senate Republicans of extending Harry Reid's rule changes to this exception. And Trump is unlikely to nominate anyone to fill Scalia's seat right away.

I also take issue with your claim that Republicans would be “screwed” if they do follow Reid's example and then “lose control of the Senate and/or House in 2018.” They will control the White House at least until 2021, and only the President can nominate anyone to the SCOTUS. So nuking the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations (something I don't see them doing) couldn't come back to bite them in the ass until 2021 at the earliest. Originally Posted by lustylad

Trump won't nominate some one right away, but if he does what he said he would do, he will be naming one sooner rather than later. Ask Obama how controlling the White House works when it comes to SC nominations. If they block the nomination for 2 years and then win control of Congress in 2018, then Trump could lose the opportunity to get a nominee appointed. And since there's no rule on how many justices sit on the Court and Republicans just gave them cover by letting the seat be vacant for a period of time, they could let the fight drag on until they 2018 (get Congress) and then let it drag on until 2020. So there's some reasons to nuke it to prevent that. But when 2020 comes and the lost Congress, they would be in a position where they could bite them, especially with the ages of Republican justices and Ginsburg likely retiring if Democrats win in 2020.