Will our democracy survive Trump?

[LumberJackSker]

19 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Yes, yes we must. From the likes of a$$h@!e presidents who openly question on Twitter the validity of every election that doesn't go their way.

i'm sure trump will be happy to know three democrats in arizona officially won tonight 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Still waiting for the tiniest shred of proof for the President's claim that 3,000,000 people voted illegally in 2016, coincidentally the same number by which he lost the popular vote.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 11/10/2018 at 8:53 AM, HuskerNation1 said:

 

If you want to rely on polling around 9/11 and its aftermath go for it...Bushs numbers were inflated across all groups.  As for Reagan I was 2 when he became President but you got me that it was technically during my lifetime.  I think you are onto something bringing Reagan into this discussion as Trump seems to be following his policies that benefit all Americans of all races.

 

In the 2016 GOP debates, Ronald Reagan would have been the fuzzy liberal apologist on stage.

 

And in a close analysis of Reagan's policies 30 years later, even the Chicago School of Economics where the Supply Side Theory was born, confirms they did not work as promised, and leaned towards the exact opposite --- concentrating money in fewer and fewer hands, shipping the actual jobs overseas, and hiding tax revenue in offshore accounts. The middle and working classes have taken huge hits, and the 2017 tax cut is genuinely cruel. It's baffling how conservative voters keep buying into this. 

 

But you may be right: if you're in the Top 1% you're doing great, regardless of race (but chances are really good you're a white dude) 

[Landlord]

I have conservative friends telling me that the process of accounting for votes includes things like overseas votes, where if 100 people request an absentee ballot and 1 million vote, then the state will declare 1,000,100 votes, and it's proof of voter fraud that the number of declared votes keeps rising. Can someone help me debunk this plz lol

[commando]

5 minutes ago, Landlord said:

I have conservative friends telling me that the process of accounting for votes includes things like overseas votes, where if 100 people request an absentee ballot and 1 million vote, then the state will declare 1,000,100 votes, and it's proof of voter fraud that the number of declared votes keeps rising. Can someone help me debunk this plz lol

i sure can't follow their logic on that 1.   every vote is looked at by a person from each party and they agree wether it's a legal vote or not.   if the republican and democrat both want to call an illegal vote legal i will eat a truckoad of maga hats.

[HuskerNation1]

8 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

In the 2016 GOP debates, Ronald Reagan would have been the fuzzy liberal apologist on stage.

 

And in a close analysis of Reagan's policies 30 years later, even the Chicago School of Economics where the Supply Side Theory was born, confirms they did not work as promised, and leaned towards the exact opposite --- concentrating money in fewer and fewer hands, shipping the actual jobs overseas, and hiding tax revenue in offshore accounts. The middle and working classes have taken huge hits, and the 2017 tax cut is genuinely cruel. It's baffling how conservative voters keep buying into this. 

 

But you may be right: if you're in the Top 1% you're doing great, regardless of race (but chances are really good you're a white dude) 

 

The notion that the Tax cuts only benefitted the rich is yet another lame talking point from the Left.  The top 1% has been doing great for a LONG period of time across both Dem and GOP Presidents, and a big part of that wealth is generated from smart business people who have built successful companies and/or made good investment decisions in the market.  Moreover, with Trumps focus on tariffs and leveling the trade playing field, you are seeing more manufacturing jobs come back now than in a long time.  These were jobs that Obama claimed could NEVER come back.  Also, the difference with the Tax Cuts that were passed is that they actually focused on reducing corporate rates which have triggered all the economic records we have seen the past several months.  When companies are hampered by high taxes and regulations, they stop growing and contract, leading to more people without a job.  When companies have more Americans who are jobless to choose from, they do not have to offer as competitive of a salary which contributes to little growth in wages.  The biggest complaint I have with Republicans and Dems is the lack of focus on cutting spending.  There needs to be broad cuts across the board to entitlements and defense.  

 

https://www.watchdog.org/national/study-everyone-gains-from-trump-republican-tax-cuts-not-just/article_239607ca-a54e-11e8-be59-eb8947350f3d.html

[Moiraine]

14 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

Moreover, with Trumps focus on tariffs and leveling the trade playing field, you are seeing more manufacturing jobs come back now than in a long time.  These were jobs that Obama claimed could NEVER come back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 Also, the difference with the Tax Cuts that were passed is that they actually focused on reducing corporate rates which have triggered all the economic records we have seen the past several months.

 

 

I wish you would stop just saying things. You've been shown again, and again, and again, that Trump has continued trends that were already in place. You've mentioned both stocks and unemployment. He continued those trends. Good for him. If 6 years from now we look back and he kept on that pace, it will have been a major success. Why make stuff up to make it look like he's increased rates or "triggered" an event/s that he didn't trigger?

[Guy Chamberlin]

7 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

The notion that the Tax cuts only benefitted the rich is yet another lame talking point from the Left.  The top 1% has been doing great for a LONG period of time across both Dem and GOP Presidents, and a big part of that wealth is generated from smart business people who have built successful companies and/or made good investment decisions in the market.  Moreover, with Trumps focus on tariffs and leveling the trade playing field, you are seeing more manufacturing jobs come back now than in a long time.  These were jobs that Obama claimed could NEVER come back.  Also, the difference with the Tax Cuts that were passed is that they actually focused on reducing corporate rates which have triggered all the economic records we have seen the past several months.  When companies are hampered by high taxes and regulations, they stop growing and contract, leading to more people without a job.  When companies have more Americans who are jobless to choose from, they do not have to offer as competitive of a salary which contributes to little growth in wages.  The biggest complaint I have with Republicans and Dems is the lack of focus on cutting spending.  There needs to be broad cuts across the board to entitlements and defense.  

 

https://www.watchdog.org/national/study-everyone-gains-from-trump-republican-tax-cuts-not-just/article_239607ca-a54e-11e8-be59-eb8947350f3d.html

 

 

You are right about the top 1% doing great for a long period of time, across both Dem and GOP Presidents. That was implicit in the 35 years of the recent supply side experiment. And likewise, it's also true that the record numbers we are seeing now are 10 years in the making, not the sudden beneficiary of Trump directives. But it's a stone cold fact that the consolidation of wealth, the type of jobs available, the wages, prices, healthcare costs, and new tax laws put the burden and risk on middle and working class taxpayers, while protecting the people who need it the least. This is the first generation of Americans expected to fare worse than their parents. 

 

You'll be hearing a lot from Trump about how obstructionist Democrats are starting to hurt the economy and spook the stock market, but given a market that hates uncertainty, Trump's tariff gambit and childish personal behavior is the more likely culprit. Even more likely is a market correction that was always in the cards, regardless of who is in the White House.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

21 hours ago, LumberJackSker said:

i'm sure trump will be happy to know three democrats in arizona officially won tonight 

 

Here's a fun fact nobody knows what to do with:

 

The new Democratic Senator Sinema actually voted the Trump agenda more often than many of her Republican colleagues. 

[HuskerNation1]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish you would stop just saying things. You've been shown again, and again, and again, that Trump has continued trends that were already in place. You've mentioned both stocks and unemployment. He continued those trends. Good for him. If 6 years from now we look back and he kept on that pace, it will have been a major success. Why make stuff up to make it look like he's increased rates or "triggered" an event/s that he didn't trigger?

 

I wish you would stop using the trend line for every scenario. I already explained how the economic trends you seem to want to give Obama credit for does not work. Had Obama passed all the tax cuts that Trump did, and cut regulations that Trump did, your logic would make sense. Yet Obama added regulations qnd did not cut them. He also did not pass such tax relief including cutting the corporate rate. Please just stop with this trend crap related to the benefits generated from Trump policies.

[HuskerNation1]

54 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Here's a fun fact nobody knows what to do with:

 

The new Democratic Senator Sinema actually voted the Trump agenda more often than many of her Republican colleagues. 

 

Most of the times she voted with Trump was on the bipartisan bills passed that go unnoticed. She goes against Trump on the big issues including Tax cuts and Immigration and signaled a no vote for Kavanaugh.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Most of the times she voted with Trump was on the bipartisan bills passed that go unnoticed. She goes against Trump on the big issues including Tax cuts and Immigration and signaled a no vote for Kavanaugh.  

 

I guess she's okay then.

[HuskerNation1]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

 

You are right about the top 1% doing great for a long period of time, across both Dem and GOP Presidents. That was implicit in the 35 years of the recent supply side experiment. And likewise, it's also true that the record numbers we are seeing now are 10 years in the making, not the sudden beneficiary of Trump directives. But it's a stone cold fact that the consolidation of wealth, the type of jobs available, the wages, prices, healthcare costs, and new tax laws put the burden and risk on middle and working class taxpayers, while protecting the people who need it the least. This is the first generation of Americans expected to fare worse than their parents. 

 

You'll be hearing a lot from Trump about how obstructionist Democrats are starting to hurt the economy and spook the stock market, but given a market that hates uncertainty, Trump's tariff gambit and childish personal behavior is the more likely culprit. Even more likely is a market correction that was always in the cards, regardless of who is in the White House.  

 

I agree a market correction is due, but according to some of the fatalists on here, Trumps entire first 2 years have been uncertain, he has continued to push for tariffs the entire time, and his personality has been consistent whether you love or hate him.  Now if the Dems focus on investigations and impeachment this is a threat to a very pro-growth POTUS so that would be a fair claim to make about the Dems. If instead they focus on policy for a change that would be a difft story.

[HuskerNation1]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I guess she's okay then.

 

Honestly Flake was already a Dem so there may not be much difference.

[commando]

18 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Honestly Flake was already a Dem so there may not be much difference.

lol.....he was a dem? wouldn't that mean he voted against kavanaugh?   heck    i don't know if you need more than 1 hand to count how many times he voted against trump.