TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #12476
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Let's break down how much each president added to the budget during their tenure by year.

    Obama:

    2017 - $671 billion
    2016 - $1.423 trillion
    2015 - $327 billion
    2014 - $1.086 trillion
    2013 - $672 billion
    2012 - $1.276 trillion
    2011 - $1.229 trillion
    2010 - $1.652 trillion

    Trump:

    Projected 2020 - $1.281 trillion
    2019 - $1.260 trillion
    2018 - $1.271 trillion

    It looks like Trump is matching Obama nearly 1:1, having not slowed down government spending in the least, despite claims to the contrary. If Trump gets two terms in office, he'll at least match him in money spent.

    I expect when this happens, the Trump defenders will start comparing the two not by dollars spent, but by percentage added to the deficit to better excuse it. Here's how I imagine these conversations will go then.

    "Yeah? So what if Trump spent $9-10 billion! He only increased the deficit by 50%! Odipshit jumped it up by nearly 75%! That's the most of any president in history!"

    "If you're going by percentages, then Obama's the 5th most expensive president. Reagan increased the deficit by nearly 200%, and W. Bush by around 100%. Obama's only the most expensive if you go by pure dollar amount, and don't account for inflation."

    "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA, LIBTARD?"

  2. #12477
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Not only that, they'll conveniently forget all about the recession Obama inherited.

  3. #12478
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    he did not inherit shit, he campaigned for it.
    trump is indeed worse than obama, that clown is kicking the can down the road and he was supposed to be the "fiscal conservative" .. libtards, republitards, libertariantards, we are ALL going to pay for the shit when the bill is due.

  4. #12479
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    The question is, who's gonna force us to pay the bill? It's mostly money the government owes to itself on our behalf. It's less "we borrowed a ton of money from the banks,and eventually we'll have to mortgage the house", more "sorry, we used the money you gave us for social security on war."

    Now, don't get me wrong. Having a high deficit isn't exactly great, because eventually paying the interest on it will become something of a burden. But don't make the mistake of assuming government debt is the same as the debt you or I have. If there ever comes a point where it becomes a true problem, it means the economy is in the process of imploding in upon itself, and the American people won't care, because we'll be too busy fighting each other in the streets over the last bags of affordable beef jerky.

    ...and then it won't be a problem at all, because the government will probably fall soon after, then it won't owe money to itself anymore. We'll have a new government soon enough, with a brand new economy, probably based around bartering.

    Wow. Perpetual growth capitalism really is a self-correcting system.

  5. #12480
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    don't we owe china a bit?
    why beef jerky? meat is murder my friend, try tofu instead.

  6. #12481
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Ain't no one gonna murder each other in the street for damn tofu.

    And yeah, China owns about $1 trillion of our debt, housed in treasury holdings. Thing is, they can't do anything with it, since if they decided to collect on it all at once, it'd immediately devalue the dollar, sending both of our economies into a tailspin. Massive amounts of money would be lost all around for nothing more than a political stunt.

    See, we're not really borrowing from China, at least not exactly. It's not that we're asking them to lend us a buck because we're short on change, but as a vote of assurance upon our mutual continued prosperity. Our debt with China grows as the dollar strengthens, because the worth of the treasury holdings they own rise in value alongside it.When it comes to foreign debt, think of it less as a loan, and more as an investment they've paid into us that we're obligated to honor. They're shareholders in the US economy.

  7. #12482
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    CAPITALISM FTW......
    I need to figure out how to explain that to some chinese hookers in a way that benefits me...........

  8. #12483
    Member
    Registered: May 2003
    Location: Minecraft
    If meat is murder, tofu is suicide.

  9. #12484
    The question is, who's gonna force us to pay the bill? It's mostly money the government owes to itself on our behalf. It's less "we borrowed a ton of money from the banks,and eventually we'll have to mortgage the house", more "sorry, we used the money you gave us for social security on war."
    The problem isn't being forced to pay the bill. Runaway deficit spending works as long as you can get someone to buy the debt. Once they stop buying the debt then you've got massive problems and the only option the central bank has is to monetize the debt.

    Wow. Perpetual growth capitalism really is a self-correcting system.
    It actually is. Capitalism is called as such because it empowers usury capital, which requires exponential growth to work while driving up the costs of almost everything in the economy through parastic "rent seeking" investment behavior. That's why it takes you 30 years to pay off your mortgage instead of 10.


    Catholic Europe was onto something when they banned compounding interest.

    **

    RE: the election:

    I'm noticing that people don't really learn much from either their victories or their losses. Ridiculing Bernie for example as a doddering communist loser proves that GOPers have learned nothing from Trump's election in 2016 when their own candidate was roundly dismissed by the opposition as an un-electable buffoon, and hence didn't bother to put up much of a fight until it was too late.

    Most folks just want to indulge in righteous wrath against whatever they've been coded to hate and it clouds their ability to think either rationally or strategically. One would think that if Bernie managed to do this well despite the DNC machine being out to crush him that he would at least be granted the status of a cunning enemy to be taken seriously and dealt with as such. But if he gets the nomination then I suspect the GOP crowd will fall back to lame, derisive meme wars not realising that such strategies only work in undermining power, not protecting it where it already rests.

    Most people don't even realise how much higher the deck has been stacked against Trump this time around by Silicon Valley. Those memes aren't even going to see the light of day outside of "far right" echo chambers.

    But as usual not many people will be interested in playing out these issues on their merits as they appear to the voting public. They will be reduced to blasting people with heretic status just like the Hillary supporters did when people said "but don't you think Trump has a point when he says...".

    And that's how you lose the middle.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 23rd Jan 2020 at 11:54.

  10. #12485
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Adam Schiff may not look like much, but his yesterday's performance at the Senate trial was one for the history books. The way Sekulow and Cipollone blustered and lied was nothing short of Fox News, only for their arguments to be taken apart by Schiff moments later. If you're a fan of history, this whole thing is amazing to watch.
    Case in point, Adam Schiff's closing argument yesterday, easily on par with historical moments like, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?":


  11. #12486
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Who Knew? America invented the WHEEL!

    “We have to protect Thomas Edison—we have to protect all of these people that came up with originally the light bulb, and the wheel, and all of these things, and he’s one of our very smart people,” Trump added.
    I'd hate to be the Trump staffer who has to break the sad news about Thomas Edison.

  12. #12487
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Never mind Edison, wait until he finds out who first invented the wheel in America. It was Mexicans.

    Meanwhile, Judge Jeanine doesn't seem to understand what the job of a prosecutor is:

    https://twitter.com/JudgeJeanine/sta...11606868914176

    Prosecutor Adam Schiff says @realDonaldTrump is not innocent! Way to go Democrats. No presumption of innocence, no constitutional guarantees. Welcome to America under Democrat rule. #outrage #prejudice #unfair #unjust #unconstitutional
    Not that it really stands out at the propaganda network she works for:

    https://www.vox.com/2020/1/23/210783...trial-coverage

    As the impeachment trial got underway in the Senate on Wednesday, Fox News covered it in a way that gave the appearance of journalism but was actually propaganda.

    In fairness, the network did cover the entirety of Rep. Adam Schiff’s two-hour opening statement. But after that, while CNN and MSNBC continued to broadcast the trial, Fox News turned to spin.

    Back in November, Fox News spun the House impeachment hearings by featuring short, out-of-context clips of Republicans defending President Trump that portrayed things in the best possible light for them. But that option wasn’t available on Wednesday, as the entirety of the day was allotted to Democratic impeachment managers.

    Starting with The Five, the network’s early evening roundtable commentary show, and continuing throughout the evening, Fox News broadcast portions of screen-in-screen video of the trial. But instead of playing the audio, network hosts provided the normal Trumpian spin. So while someone who just looked at the screen may have concluded Fox News was covering the trial, in fact it wasn’t covering it at all.

    The network went as far as to broadcast screen-in-screen video of the trial during commercial breaks — but, again, without the sound that was necessary to make any sense of what was being discussed.

    [...]

    During the 9 pm hour — just before Schiff closed the day’s proceedings by emotionally imploring Republican senators to have the same courage that witnesses like Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman did in coming forward to testify, even at risk of their careers — Sean Hannity began his show by immediately cutting away from the trial, telling his viewers “none of this will matter,” and describing Schiff as a “lunatic” (a characterization at odds with other primetime segments that criticized the trial for being boring).

    Hannity later played a supercut of snippets of Schiff’s testimony that framed things in the most demeaning possible light.
    [...]

  13. #12488
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    PRAY/SAY/TELL Starker, what IS the prosecutors job?

  14. #12489
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    To prosecute people who they believe to be guilty. To explain to a jury that the plaintiff is, in fact, guilty, and to provide evidence of such. How many times has the prosecution gone before a judge saying "okay, we think that Bill maybe possibly murdered his wife, but we can't say for a fact since everyone is presumed innocent." Never. They're always up there saying that the defendant is guilty, and they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Hell, the Republicans went on live TV, proclaiming Hillary Clinton's guilt every chance they got, so it's not like they have any room to talk. LOCK HER UP!

  15. #12490
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    An impeachment trial is not a criminal trial so Jeanine Pirro is doubly wrong, firstly for not knowing that while a criminal trial presumes innocence, investigators and prosecutors are under no such requirement. Secondly, apples and fucking oranges, biatch!
    Last edited by Nicker; 24th Jan 2020 at 15:59.

  16. #12491
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Overall I think the House Managers made their argument well, but there was a lot of repetition. And Adam Schiff sure likes hearing himself talk. I expect we'll see a Presidential run from him in the future.

    The defense side will be interesting. I expect some people's credibility will be strained.

  17. #12492
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    So, according to Lindsey Graham et al, apparently it's imperative that the impeachment trial be over by the State of the Union for some reason. Even though Clinton delivered a State of the Union without a problem while his trial was going on. The way Republicans are behaving right now, voting against witnesses and trying to rush the process and playing with fidget spinners, the attack ads are just writing themselves:



    Going to be interesting to see how the impeachment will play out in the elections. Whether it's the Republicans or the Democrats who will reap the whirlwind.

  18. #12493
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    So, Biden's "rapid response" director appears in a long-winded response video to respond to the Ukraine thing in a timely manner for it to get buried in the impeachment news and as a nice finishing touch, it's set in a in noisy sports bar with loud repetitive background music. A true marvel to behold:


  19. #12494
    BANNED
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    To prosecute people who they believe to be guilty. To explain to a jury that the plaintiff is, in fact, guilty, and to provide evidence of such. How many times has the prosecution gone before a judge saying "okay, we think that Bill maybe possibly murdered his wife, but we can't say for a fact since everyone is presumed innocent." Never. They're always up there saying that the defendant is guilty, and they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Hell, the Republicans went on live TV, proclaiming Hillary Clinton's guilt every chance they got, so it's not like they have any room to talk. LOCK HER UP!
    we have far too many innocent people in jail due to overzealous biased prosecutors.

    anyways WWE president sure knows his crowd

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-mar...181209549.html


    WHY do you NEED any more "witnesses" if it was all hashed out in the house?

  20. #12495
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    we have far too many innocent people in jail due to overzealous biased prosecutors.
    True, but on that same note, prosecuting is their job. Were this a criminal case, the prosecution claiming his guilt would be totally par for the course.

    WHY do you NEED any more "witnesses" if it was all hashed out in the house?
    Because that was evidence gathering, now we're in the trial, where the witnesses will make their statements, and be crossed examined in front of a jury that will determine the defendant's guilt or innocence.

    ...or at least that'd be the case were the senate treating it per their Constitutional oath. They're all supposed to be impartial jurors, but they're actively coordinating with the defendant, acting more as his personal lawyers, and throwing spanners into the works to keep him from facing the full brunt of the accusations against him.

  21. #12496
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Case in point, Adam Schiff's closing argument yesterday, easily on par with historical moments like, "Have you no sense of decency, sir?":


    Wow....


    You really know how to pick your "moments".

    The comment made by Army Counsel Joseph Welch's toMcCarthy for allegedly having outed Welch assistant Frederick Fisher as a former member of the National Lawyers Guild, an officially cited Communist front. Omitted from this morality play was that Fisher had already been outed to the press and public as a former member of the Guild—by none other than Joe Welch, six weeks before this spat with McCarthy.

  22. #12497
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    You might as well ask why have a trial at all, if it was all hashed out in the House.

  23. #12498
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Wow....

    You really know how to pick your "moments".
    Well, ACCCTTTUUUAAALLLLYYYY...

  24. #12499
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Another way the criminal trial analogy is interesting (and the fact that this isn't one) is that it seems the facts of the case aren't really credibly in dispute.

    If it were a real trial, there wouldn't even be jurors involved because they only decide on matters of fact. (They might come up with some alternative bizarro narrative, but the evidence is pretty one sided, unambiguous, and all a matter of public record, but even aside from that, the defendant himself admits the facts and says there's nothing wrong with them.)

    If the facts aren't in dispute, then it's just a summary decision by the judge as a matter of law, asking do the indusputable facts violate the legal standard or not. So we see this really weird "prosecution" speech working around that, doing what you don't need to do in a real trial, which is to say "you know this. Everybody knows this." If this were a trail we'd skip this part because it'd go in the record automatically. But here we have to pretend facts are true.

    It makes it look like one of those deep south 1930s trials where the white guy confesses and the jurors say to themselves, welp the dedendant is black. That's all I need to know to convict. That's the "we're lost part".

    Law and their beloved constitution are only as good as people actually bothering to follow them and know a clear fact when they see it.

  25. #12500
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Yeah, I thought the "we're lost" speech encapsulates and puts into words how a lot of people feel about it just like "no decency" crystalised everything that was wrong about McCarthyism. Right matters. Or at least it should. And of course there's all the backdrop of the man who first said it having been slimed by Lord Dampnut's toadies. Just like with McCarthy, the public has seen relentless bullying, evasion of duty, lying, and attacks on anybody who dares to disagree and speak out.

    As they say, history rhymes, and McCarthy was in many ways similar to Lord Dampnut. Both men are the products of vicious Republican politics and McCarthy was just as ready to spin constant falsehoods, use underhanded tactics, and bait the media. The "no decency" moment is a remarkable piece of history and I encourage anyone to go check it out in the documentary Point of Order. Just the juxtaposition of these two characters alone... Welch, playing the gentle country lawyer and mocking the histrionics of McCarthyism by needling Cohn and McCarthy not understanding he has long stepped over the line and obliviously continuing to press the issue, finally culminating in the famous line by Welch. Reportedly, he was so clueless, he asked, "What did I do? What did I do?" after the backlash.

    Of course, this was far from the coup de grāce it's sometimes depicted as. The red scare didn't start or end with McCarthy and indeed it wasn't the first red scare in US history. And there were several other moments like these, like the Declaration of Conscience and the famous "not descended from fearful men" address. But it was one of the outstanding moments to signal that people had finally had enough. Stalin was dead, the Korean War was over, and the Cold War no longer seemed quite as scary, so GOP support of McCarthyism gradually started to wither and it lost its bite.

    Oh, and btw, by this point in time I don't have to explain why exactly Tony is full of it, right? We can just take it as given?
    Last edited by Starker; 25th Jan 2020 at 10:54.

Page 500 of 558 FirstFirst ... 250400450455460465470475480485490495496497498499500501502503504505510515520525530535540545550 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •