• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Trump Presidency 15

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare. How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!
Click to expand...
Okay that last sentence is really weird.

That race as in American Citizens?

Or that race as in the Latin Immigrants?
 
The Atheist said:
When you make things up, who the post was to is irrelevant.

You know this, but are dishonest enough to try to cover for the fact that you used strawman.
Click to expand...

Dude, I even highlighted the quote I was referring to for you. Do you even know what a straw man is, bro? Quite clearly you don't.

I can only spell things out for you; I can't force you to open your eyes to actually see them. You are a complete and dishonest waste of my time.

Here it is again, just so every one can see what a liar you are:

Segnosaur said:
Yes, its true... Trump's popularity is under water. However, that doesn't mean we should feel happy or comfortable about the situation.

After years of scandal after scandal, after a Mueller report that pointed out evidence of various crimes, and after the most recent rape accusation, his popularity is not only stable but GOING UP. (Assuming its not just some statistical error.) And there is nothing I can think of that might justify the increase... no big legislation that he managed to help pass through congress, no big international problem he's helped to address. The only thing that i can think of is maybe the Iranian situation, but its hard to see how "I was going to bomb them but decided not to" would really affect his popularity.

That doesn't give much leeway for the democrats. Pick the wrong candidate, or have some unexpected November surprise, and Trump may still pull off a victory.

I want to see Trump lose, and not just by a few percentage points... I want to see him utterly humiliated, and I want to see the entire republican party dragged down with him, followed by at least a decade of them being shut out from any hint of power, as a warning to them that picking a racist con-artist as your leader and engaging in underhanded shenanigans can lead to ruin.

Well given the fact that a waltz is a form of physical activity, I can't see Trump waltzing anywhere (unless he can figure out how to do it while driving a golf cart).

Seriously, I think you're getting hung up on the phrasing here. Yes, "waltzing to victory" implies an easy win, but I think the term could apply to to the 2016 election... Trump's campaign was often labeled a "dumpster fire", but he still managed to pull off a victory, despite not putting any effort into coming up with decent policies or making any serious attempts to appeal to voters outside of his base.
Click to expand...


...to which I responded...

Cabbage said:
Oh, and calling Trump's win in 2016 a "waltz to victory" completely ignores how close it was and a lot of shady stuff going on.

In no way does that qualify as a "waltz".
Click to expand...

...which you called a straw man. LMFAO!!!!

Keep digging that hole you're in, bro! You entertain me!
 
The Atheist said:
If you were a Republican and fancy your chances of becoming president, you'd wait until 2024, because Trump would beat any candidate out of sight.
Click to expand...

....not if your immediate goal was to hurt Trump's chance of being reelected. I could easily see a Republican (perhaps Kasich?) running 3rd party, not with the intention of becoming president, but the intention of pulling away some of Trump's support.

At this point, you should probably just give up on trying to "analyze" things, dude. Leave it to those who have some knowledge to work with, bro. LOL!
 
Solitaire said:
Still it's early in the process. But I wonder, where are the twenty republican
candidates for president? Shouldn't we at least hear a name or two in the press?
Click to expand...

Yeah over a year ago, it was announced that the RNC and the Trump re-election campaign would be working very closely with each other so that they could share resources in a more effective manner. At that point it was discussed whether or not to cancel Republican primaries.

Anyone who tries to challenge President Trump’s claim on the candacy is going to be driven from the party with all the vengeance that President Trump can muster.
 
Ladewig said:
Yeah over a year ago, it was announced that the RNC and the Trump re-election campaign would be working very closely with each other so that they could share resources in a more effective manner. At that point it was discussed whether or not to cancel Republican primaries.

Anyone who tries to challenge President Trump’s claim on the candacy is going to be driven from the party with all the vengeance that President Trump can muster.
Click to expand...

They didn't just announce that they'd be working together, they replaced otherwise competent (as considered by others in the GOP) people with Trumpistas. That witch he's always quoting is just the first such example. And they've done the same in Ohio and other states. Trump controls the GOP, now.
 
Originally Posted by Segnosaur:

And just in case you didn't think Trump has increase the deficit enough, or given enough benefits to the wealthy....

From: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wh...ort-2019-06-27
The White House is considering a plan to index capital gains to inflation -- and do so in a way that bypasses Congress...Such a move would likely draw legal challenges over whether it has such authority. The top 1% would receive 86% of the benefit from such a move...and would cost $102 billion over a decade. So we have a potential plan that 1) helps the rich, 2) takes away power from congress, and 3) increases the debt even more.
Click to expand...


Regardless of its results, indexing capital gains seems logical and fair.

If one holds an asset that doubles in value over a time span during which prices also double, one has had no real net gain. Taxing what was basically holding one’s own, not a real gain, seems illogical and unfair.

As to bypassing Congress to enact that indexing, on that I’m totally opposed.

But maybe worthy of its own thread?
 
Last edited:
Do wage earners also get indexed to inflation?

If not, this is yet another benefit where the majority is given away to a narrow class of people.

But also, apparently the executive now gets to fiddle with the revenue side as well as the spending side.

May as well just disband Congress.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Not directly, but in general wages tend to increase over time to keep pace with inflation.
Click to expand...

Do investment returns not in general increase over time?

But that doesn't even address the fact that this change disproportionately benefits those who need it the least.

Add a "for the first $100,000 earned per year and I'd find it far more palatable. Especially since the loss in revenue will eventually lead to more public service cuts.

Not wages, per sé, but our Social Security checks are indexed for inflation, which is only fair.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the growth of SSI deductions and benefits was changed to "chained" CPI which assumes that price rises in goods will result in consumers finding an alternative (read: lower quality) product. Given this assumption is ongoing, I expect that means when I retire, I'll be eating cat food for dinner.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Do investment returns not in general increase over time?

But that doesn't even address the fact that this change disproportionately benefits those who need it the least.

Add a "for the first $100,000 earned per year and I'd find it far more palatable. Especially since the loss in revenue will eventually lead to more public service cuts.



If I recall correctly, the growth of SSI deductions and benefits was changed to "chained" CPI which assumes that price rises in goods will result in consumers finding an alternative (read: lower quality) product. Given this assumption is ongoing, I expect that means when I retire, I'll be eating cat food for dinner.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean a lower quality product.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
If I recall correctly, the growth of SSI deductions and benefits was changed to "chained" CPI which assumes that price rises in goods will result in consumers finding an alternative (read: lower quality) product. Given this assumption is ongoing, I expect that means when I retire, I'll be eating cat food for dinner.
Click to expand...
Retirees are already eating cat food. You'll be eating dry cat food.

BobTheCoward said:
No, it doesn't mean a lower quality product.
Click to expand...
The feasts shall be quite fancy indeed.
 
CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/29/politics/trump-khashoggi-bin-salman/index.html

President Donald Trump said Friday he was "extremely angry and very unhappy" about the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi but claimed that "nobody has directly pointed a finger" at Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, despite the conclusions of the CIA and a United Nations report.

"I'm extremely angry and unhappy about a thing like that taking place," Trump said when asked by CNN's Jim Acosta about Khashoggi.

[snip]

And despite Trump's claim that "nobody has directly pointed a finger" at bin Salman, his own CIA, according to a senior US official and a source familiar with the matter, concluded the Saudi ruler authorized the brutal murder, CNN reported in November 2018. A United Nations report released last week also implicated bin Salman.

“I did mention it to him very strongly," Trump said when asked about raising the brutal murder. "That was a bad event."
"I asked him what was happening," Trump told reporters.
When asked about the CIA's assessment by US intelligence sources that bin Salman authorized the murder of Khashoggi, according to a senior US official and a source familiar with the matter, Trump said he "cannot comment on intelligence."
"We can declassify ... the truth is I don't want to talk about intelligence," Trump said.
Trump more broadly defended his relationships with world leaders, including the Saudis and Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying he gets "along with a lot of people."
Click to expand...

Well, as long as he mentioned it “very strongly.”


ETA
and I suspect President Trump has never in his life spoken truer words when he said, “I don’t want to talk about intelligence.”


MORE ETA
extremely angry. I just want to emphasize the extremely part.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Like what?
Click to expand...
Sorry. There's a whole Internet world out there for someone who wants to know how researchers come up with statistics like that. It's off topic and I posted it to answer a question, not to get into a big debate about it.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Sorry. There's a whole Internet world out there for someone who wants to know how researchers come up with statistics like that. It's off topic and I posted it to answer a question, not to get into a big debate about it.
Click to expand...

Although I don't see your answer as actually addressing my question, I do agree that it's off topic and not worth getting into a debate about.
 
He also said he would allow US companies to continue to sell to Huawei.

Does that mean that that National Emergency is over?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom