ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
It is a troll post but not to make the right look bad.... but to troll and antagonize the libtards.
Correct. Making the right look bad is just a natural consequence of the fact that it's what 99% of them actually think. Who needs The Onion when you can just talk to your local friendly MAGA chode for 5 minutes?
Nah I think both your choices are horrible I just call out the lefts hypocrisy that you have one standard for Trump and another for Biden
No, when you say something like this:
See you need to understand Liberals or Democrats as they are called . What they would like is to jail Trump without a trial, end the electoral college, stack the supreme court, ban voter ID, censor free speech, approve the candidates that can run and than they have saved democracy
You're either being deliberately misleading by not mentioning you don't mean these beliefs are widely held by the party, especially not all of them together, or outright lying if that is what you mean, because I know you're smart enough to understand that isn't the case. Neither is a good look, but unfortunately not surprising as your posting slowly slides to that of a mouthpiece for the right derposphere.
Saying CEO salaries grew way faster than other employee salaries over a 40 year period isn't proof that trickle down doesn't work. You need to prove that over the last 40 years we were using trickle down and show what CEO salaries grew way faster than other employee salaries (and other economic indicators) would have done without trickle down.
Sorry to beat the same drum again, but you made the same mistake montreal did.
Put in another way, d
.
Baham , what final result trickle down economic should result to, in your opinion, to say it’s successful ?
Do wages for median income and the poor has any weight in your expectation?
About wealth accumulations ?
About government debt level ?
Is it solely about gdp going up regardless of everything else ?
Or Is there any good “intentions” behind the trickle down economics you think should result into ?
to me trickle down economic doesn’t just mean gdp going up .
About you ?
What's most disheartening about Trump's continuing popularity is that rather than being caused by Trump changing or pretending he will, it's happening in spite (because, for some) of his constant reminders that he's exactly the same guy as he was before.
At their Friday meeting in Mr Trump's Mar-a-Lago mansion, the former US president praised his guest. "There's nobody that's better, smarter, or a better leader than Viktor Orban. He's fantastic," he said.
That if instead of taxing an extra (Example) 100 billions from very productive people, to spend on consumption for poor people to make them live better, you don't take those 100 billions, a good portion of them will be ... spent on research and infrastructure, which is what companies do, and the 100 billions saved by the people who would have otherwise paid those in taxes primarily go in stocks and real estate (and real estate is actual rea
That doesn’t make any sense at all !
Stock prices going up produce absolutely nothing in gdp terms .
And what all those wealthy people and corporations do with their increase in wealth is just by more stock, more gold, and bids higher costly real estate ,etc.
That is just pure mis allocation of capital .
Gdp goes up when the economy (all the working participants even those at 7$/h) creates/produces something like goods and services .
If more people have more money in their hands they can consume more goods and services which obviously creates more demands for goods and services -> gdp goes up !
How in the hell gdp go up because stock prices goes up from the richest people biding on stocks due simply to too much cash ownership by them ?
There is a reason for the last 10-15 years corporations have made tremendous amount of shares buybacks and stock prices went through the roof, they got too much unproductive money !
Yes that’s right , abusing too much of one factor of production ( like capital in this instance) at the expense of others factors ( in this case workers ) will always bring diminishing return ….
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law....
For example, if a factory employs workers to manufacture its products, at some point, the company will operate at an optimal level; with all other production factors constant, adding additional workers beyond this optimal level will result in less efficient operations.
The law of diminishing returns is not only a fundamental principle of economics, but it also plays a starring role in production theory.
You can use that concept for any means of production !
The concept of capital being solely an exponential positive factor regardless the amount, how it is distributed or utilize is simply not true .
That is why too much wealth inequality will always lower gdp growth in the long run and that is what’s been happening for decades …
You can see it in real gdp or nominal gdp and strangely the downtrend started when ?
1980 -> Reagan /Tatcher (trickle down economics).
We have two political parties who have been at odds of one another for a long time. Although both of these parties claim their #1 goal is to do what is best for the country their real #1 goal is always staying in power and reducing the power of the other party.
One way to do that is to treat a politician on the other side like he is crazy/old/has dementia (biden) or is a crazy/mean/hateful person (trump). Biden has shown signs of mental dec
That makes sense, especially in an election year. The two parties are obviously going to attack each other and disagree with each other's viewpoints, just for the sake of it. But it just feels it has been going on ever since 2016 when Trump was first elected. From reading the news in two different countries for a couple of years now (my original home country, and where I live now), it's so clear to see that they are only writing about Trump when they can put a negative spin on it. Along with occasionally getting local 'experts' weighing in on how important this election is for democracy in the US and calling Trump a facist etc.
In general, politics in most countries seems to have developed more and more into personal attacks, rather than trying to find common ground and doing what is best for the people. But it increasingly feels more like 98% of politicians are in it for themselves only, either benefit financially or position themselves for career opportunites. They are certainly not worrying about how ordinary people can get a better life, and many of these 'career politicians' have probably long forgotten how it is to live as a regular citizen.
But why is Donald Trump so controversial, and why is there a big fraction of people + 99% of mainstream media who seems to completely hate everything with his politics and evertyhing the man stands for?
Anyone that is paying attention knows that the only thing Donald Trump stands for is Donald Trump.
That makes sense, especially in an election year. The two parties are obviously going to attack each other and disagree with each other's viewpoints, just for the sake of it. But it just feels it has been going on ever since 2016 when Trump was first elected. From reading the news in two different countries for a couple of years now (my original home country, and where I live now), it's so clear to see that they are only writing about Trump
The two sides attacking each other rather than arguing for their own merits has been going on since well before Trump. It has certainly got a lot worse recently but it's also worth noting that a lot of what you're saying has been happening in the coverage of Trump "ever since 2016" was in no small part brought on by Trump in the first place. He is the person who did away with norms by just straight up insulting his rivals when he was first running in the Republican primaries and then his general election campaign was run on the back of the motto "lock her up" almost as much as it was MAGA.
The second paragraph is also steeped in irony as while there's some truth to it in general terms there might not be anyone who embodies the reality of a politician being purely self-serving more than Trump does.
We went through this already. He said that both Mussolini and Berlusconi were too collectivist for his taste.
I don't think Luciom wants to live in a fascist regime. It would be more accurate to say that he wants live in a country ruled by an emperor that shares his views about the proper size of government.
He wants to live in a society that would eliminate him himself from it if it were to exist today
He spends an awful lot of time pointing out how certain people are "beneath" others...
Never mind that that paradigm exists for several reasons other than his continual purporting of meritocracy, he himself is beneath somebody and, if in the wrong neighborhood, might as well be dead
It's literally what he espouses every day in this forum. He's either very naive in his elitist mentality or simply OK with being put on the chopping block if his day ever comes (the meritorious society will decide that for him)
The two sides attacking each other rather than arguing for their own merits has been going on since well before Trump. It has certainly got a lot worse recently but it's also worth noting that a lot of what you're saying has been happening in the coverage of Trump "ever since 2016" was in no small part brought on by Trump in the first place. He is the person who did away with norms by just straight up insulting his rivals when he was first
It's not symmetric though. Both sides attacking each other is massively better for one side.
It's like shooting ourselves in the foot because the other side shoots us in the foot.
What's most disheartening about Trump's continuing popularity is that rather than being caused by Trump changing or pretending he will, it's happening in spite (because, for some) of his constant reminders that he's exactly the same guy as he was before.
I am not sure why you guys think Orban isn't absolutely ok a person, he even voted for Ukrainian aid and for Sweden to join NATO, they were both obviously things he just used to get leverage for Hungary.
He got something and he voted for that, how is a politician that does anything in his power to have his country gain something anything but moral? That's the core moral imperative of any leader.
Soros himself financed Orban studies and him as a politician for a while
The two sides attacking each other rather than arguing for their own merits has been going on since well before Trump. It has certainly got a lot worse recently but it's also worth noting that a lot of what you're saying has been happening in the coverage of Trump "ever since 2016" was in no small part brought on by Trump in the first place. He is the person who did away with norms by just straight up insulting his rivals when he was first
Trump got away with behavioral norms, but the gentlemanly norms between parties disintegrated earlier.
Republicans tried everything to make Obama a one term president (unsuccessfully), democrats nuked the filibuster for judicial nominations in response early in the second term, Trump happened *after that*.
The two sides attacking each other rather than arguing for their own merits has been going on since well before Trump. It has certainly got a lot worse recently but it's also worth noting that a lot of what you're saying has been happening in the coverage of Trump "ever since 2016" was in no small part brought on by Trump in the first place. He is the person who did away with norms by just straight up insulting his rivals when he was first
Well, Trump was already rich before entering politics. Other politicians have mysteriously 100x'ed their own net worth while on Government salaries. And although these salaries are probably quite handsome in the US compared to what I know about Govnernment pay (in Norway), it's still quite suspicious to see.
Either way, that's a derail, and it seems like your post - and another one above - is more focused on his character. I realize that is a big part of his persona, but I'm more curious to what it is about his politics that is so off-putting for certain people? Most of it sounds like very sensible ideas to me, at least from what I have read ('Agenda47').
Of course, this is politics, so a fraction of the pledges will actually go through, but still. Even if 10% of those ideas could be completed, it would still mean a huge progress.
Seen from the outside of course, maybe you people who actually live in the US thinks everything is great as it is now, and live have never been better. For me, who only visits a couple of times I year I don't notice drastic changes - apart from sadly seeing too many homeless people.
Trump got away with behavioral norms, but the gentlemanly norms between parties disintegrated earlier.
Republicans tried everything to make Obama a one term president (unsuccessfully), democrats nuked the filibuster for judicial nominations in response early in the second term, Trump happened *after that*.
Behavioural is kind of the point of the negative coverage Trump receives though. My response was specifically in reference to the common claims that Trump gets unwarranted negative coverage when the truth is that he brought most of it on himself with the way he conducted his campaigns.
Incidentally nuking the filibuster was in direct response to unprecedented obstructionism by Republicans in approving appointments, not some retaliation to unrelated political machinations. In the first 5 years of Obama's presidency Republicans filibustered 4x as many appointments as in the entirety of GWB's two terms. Once Republicans retook the senate in Obama's last 2 years they returned to the same tactic and there were over 100 unfilled positions when Trump took over because of it. Nuking the filibuster is often mentioned as some extreme and uncalled measure the Democrats took but it was in direct response to Republicans deliberately doing everything they could to grind the entire government to a halt despite not having a majority in either house.
Behavioural is kind of the point of the negative coverage Trump receives though. My response was specifically in reference to the common claims that Trump gets unwarranted negative coverage when the truth is that he brought most of it on himself with the way he conducted his campaigns.
Incidentally nuking the filibuster was in direct response to unprecedented obstructionism by Republicans in approving appointments, not some retaliation to un
I wrote republicans tried everything then democrats nuked the filibuster.
I am not saying it was a bad move to nuke the filibuster (it has pros and cons).
But please be careful , democrats had a trifecta only in 2008-09, after that republicans controlled the house from 2010 to 2016.
And the Senate the last two years of Obama second term (that's how they "stole" the SCOTUS seat)
I wrote republicans tried everything then democrats nuked the filibuster.
I am not saying it was a bad move to nuke the filibuster (it has pros and cons).
But please be careful , democrats had a trifecta only in 2008-09, after that republicans controlled the house from 2010 to 2016.
And the Senate the last two years of Obama second term (that's how they "stole" the SCOTUS seat)
Right sorry that was worded poorly. I meant to say that the use of the filibuster in their obstructionism in the senate, where they didn't regain a majority until 2015, was a continuance of their overall approach that began when they didn't have the majority in either house.
And I made the point about the filibuster because it's very common for people to bring it up as if nuking it was some huge norm breaking thing the Democrats did out of the blue that completely changed the way the government works when the reality is that it was direct response to Republican norm breaking in their deliberate abuse of it to grind as much of the government to a halt as they physically could.
Right sorry that was worded poorly. I meant to say that the use of the filibuster in their obstructionism in the senate, where they didn't regain a majority until 2015, was a continuance of their overall approach that began when they didn't have the majority in either house.
And I made the point about the filibuster because it's very common for people to bring it up as if nuking it was some huge norm breaking thing the Democrats did out of t
It was a huge (and completely legal to be clear) norm breaking.
It had a lot of rationale (as you explained) and it came in response to previous (perfectly legal as well) norm breaking by republicans.
As I said what was already destroyed pre Trump was gentlemen norms between the parties.
Some naive people look at Trump and think he caused all the polarization while imho Trump is just the con guy who benefited the most from the polarization that already existed without him, and would and will exist when he is out of the picture (unless something else very major changes in American society).
After all if you check the 2012 elections and what the left thought of Romney, he (and Ryan) were already demonized as literally Hitler
It was never about Trump in particular. For the american left anyone strongly disagreeing with them on policy is Hitler, since at least 12 years ago
Well, Trump was already rich before entering politics. Other politicians have mysteriously 100x'ed their own net worth while on Government salaries. And although these salaries are probably quite handsome in the US compared to what I know about Govnernment pay (in Norway), it's still quite suspicious to see.
Either way, that's a derail, and it seems like your post - and another one above - is more focused on his character. I realize that is
Fwiw I'm not in or from the US myself either (in fact in the last ~25 posts I think only 3 have been from Americans).
In my opinion though the key point is that the bolded isn't really a thing. Trump's politics are what he thinks will make people like him most - it's at most loosely based on any sort of personal philosophy or belief that something will be good for the country. It results in him frequently taking positions that are essentially appeals to the lowest common denominator.
The reality is that in 90%+ of things Trump would be equivalent to a bog-standard republican because most of politics is "boring" and if he can't use it to make himself look good he'll just go with the path of least resistance. When he does take any sort of firm stance of his own he does things like calling people marching with neo-nazis "very fine people" and sucking up to authoritarian leaders while disparaging US allies. It's the combination of lowest denominator popularism and authoritarianism that generates the hate while it's the 90%+ bog-standard republicanism that people like bahbah and Luciom defend (people voting for) him for.
Well, Trump was already rich before entering politics. Other politicians have mysteriously 100x'ed their own net worth while on Government salaries.
Which politicians in the US increased their net worths by 100x while in office? You probably could find a politician who entered office with a net worth of $10k, stayed in office for 15-20 years and left with a net worth of $1 million. But I'd be quite surprised if you could identify a politician whose net worth increased from $1 million to $100 million while in office.
Luciom, finding some random guy who called Paul Ryan a Nazi doesn't come close to proving that Democrats thought Paul Ryan was as dangerous to American democracy as Trump.
Nor does it come close to proving that Democrats routinely described Paul Ryan in much the same way they describe Trump
Luciom, finding some random guy who called Paul Ryan a Nazi doesn't come close to proving that Democrats thought Paul Ryan was as dangerous to American democracy as Trump.
Nor does it come close to proving that Democrats routinely described Paul Ryan in much the same way they describe Trump
Ok the chairman of the biggest state Democratic party is a random guy .
Fact it when asked now, they will clearly say Trump is worse. But normal opposition candidates were already Hitler for them. Everyone is Hitler for them since at least 12 years ago.
And if you wonna bet, after Trump, anyone the republicans will nominate would be at least as bad as Hitler.
Ron de Santis was hitlerized VERY QUICKLY when he was a potential nominee for president. Like in 2-3 months we had 24/7 coverage about RDS Nazism.
According to your guy Reich (another random guy? Or a lifelong democrat with a zillion jobs in democrat administrations and a lot of clout in democratic circles?), he was even "worse than Trump"
For the american left anyone running on any platform that is sufficiently opposite to their own is Hitler
