Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
pgwenthold said:
The only thing the House has for it is that all spending bills have to originate there. But given that, all they do is slop something together and let the Senate deal with the hard work, if they want to.
Click to expand...

It's even worse than that. These days the President (well, and his assistants, cabinet, etc.) put together a massive budget document and hand it over to the House.
 
Trump is helping the US car manufacturing industry by making cars more expensive and giving that money to Mexican workers.
 
theprestige said:
Hmmm... Net worth ultimately comes from two places, right? Investors, or revenues.
Click to expand...
No. If I invest $5 in your next harebrained scheme, you are not $5 richer because you owe me more then $5 in return.

ETA: Covered by others more effectively.
 
Last edited:
Stacko said:
Self made from a small loan from my father.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

It must be nice to think of $413 million as a small loan.
Click to expand...

My method is admittedly flawed. However, looking at that $413 million figure. The Edwards Jones broker in the strip mall near my house is a better business person than Trump. With moderate risk, he/she could turn that into six billion dollars in ten years and I bet he/she isn't a flaming ******* with freakish and disgusting pod children.
 
The $413M include funds his father had to inject into Trump businesses that would otherwise have collapsed.
 
"I'm not a drinker. I can honestly say I've never had a beer in my life"

"...it's one of my only good traits" - Donald J. Trump
 
Venom said:
"I'm not a drinker. I can honestly say I've never had a beer in my life"

"...it's one of my only good traits" - Donald J. Trump
Click to expand...

Wow! Trump and I agree on something. But, personally, I'd prefer if he was a drunk.
 
Looks like the New NAFTA is indeed incrementally better for the US than the original - bonus points to Trump for that.
But it came at a tremendous cost to US reputation; we can be certain that China is taking notes and will not let itself get forced into a one-sided deal.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Looks like the New NAFTA is indeed incrementally better for the US than the original - bonus points to Trump for that.
But it came at a tremendous cost to US reputation; we can be certain that China is taking notes and will not let itself get forced into a one-sided deal.
Click to expand...


Better for some, maybe. But not for everybody.
A handful of major industries scored big wins in President Trump’s North American trade agreement — at times at the expense of ordinary consumers in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The winners include oil companies, technology firms and retailers, but chief among them are pharmaceutical companies, which gained guarantees against competition from cheaper generic drugs.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...inners-730pm:homepage/story-ans&noredirect=on
 
There's a thread for Kavanaugh, but I'm putting it here too

President Donald Trump for the first time directly mocked Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by casting doubt on her testimony during a campaign rally.

Before the crowd Tuesday night in Southaven, Mississippi, Trump imitated Ford during her testimony, mocking her for not knowing the answers to questions such as how she had gotten to the high school party where she says Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

"I had one beer. Well, do you think it was -- nope, it was one beer," Trump said, mimicking Ford's testimony last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"How did you get home? I don't remember. How'd you get there? I don't remember. Where is the place? I don't remember. How many years ago was it? I don't know."

Trump's comments were met with laughter and applause from the crowd. "I don't know. I don't know," the President continued. "What neighborhood was it in? I don't know. Where's the house? I don't know. Upstairs, downstairs -- where was it? I don't know -- but I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember."

...

He called Democrats who are against Kavanaugh "evil people" who want to "destroy people."

He reiterated his earlier claims Tuesday that nowadays you are "guilty until proven innocent," and stepped up his line of argument that men are under attack in America, without mentioning survivors of sexual assault.

"Think of your son. Think of your husband," Trump told the rally, noting he has had "many false allegations" against him.

He launched into a hypothetical riff about a young man who got a job at IBM or General Motors but is falsely accused of sexual assault. "What do I do, Mom? What do I do, Mom?" Trump said, role-playing a conversation between a son and mother.

"It's a damn sad situation, OK? And we better start as a country getting smart and getting tough."
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Last edited:
Presidential alert system will work on most USA citizen mobile devices beginning tomorrow. POTUS has been informed that it is to be used only for national emergencies.

Expect "No Collusion" message tomorrow.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Presidential alert system will work on most USA citizen mobile devices beginning tomorrow. POTUS has been informed that it is to be used only for national emergencies.

Expect "No Collusion" message tomorrow.
Click to expand...



I expect as the Dolt descends further into madness, he’ll use it as his personal broadcast system.
 
Belz... said:
Yeah but the article is immediately guilty of a bit of misdirection though:



Yeah, harmful stuff tends to harm. But we're exposed to radiation every day, constantly. It's not crazy to think that low-levels of radiation are not harmful. The question is, how much is, and it's not very ethical to test this on humans.
Click to expand...

Absolutely because it is not as if normal people get cancer; only radiation workers get cancer?

The issue is that the increased risk for any one individual at any particular time may be low, but if the exposure affects many people for many years then the number of people getting cancer as a consequence becomes significant.
 
especially if you consider that certain groups (children, pregnant women, immuno-compromised etc.) are especially vulnerable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom