Donald Trump and US politics
"I bet you don't even have a WSJ subscription. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
|
I dont give a shit 4 or 17 they lie. Or have we forgot about WMDs Iraq. Roving incubators. Yellow cake Niger. Etc.
I want proof. And even with proof. Here is a small incomplete list of coups we have performed... fair is fair... I certainly hold no ill will towards Russia if they did. Kinda like all counties spy on each other. All countries can do coups if USA does it. * 1949: Syria coup d’état * 1953: Iran coup d’état * 1954: Guatemalan coup * 1961: Dag Hammarskhjold * 1961: Ecuadorian coup * 1961: Patrice Lamumba * 1963: Dominican Republic * 1963: The Diem Brothers * 1964: Brazilian coup * 1965: Indonesian coup * 1965: Greek coup * 1967: Che Guevara * 1968: Peruvian coup * 1970: Salvadore Allende * 1975: Australian coup * 1979: El Salvadorian coup * 1986: Iran/Contra scandal * 1989: Panamanian coup * 1991: The Gulf War * 1993: Haitian coup * 2011: Libya coup d’état Then you still have to prove trump had anything to do with it. Nothing burger Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep#3474 on Jun 29, 2017, 10:45:48 PM
|
|
" Apparently, they can mean anything when used by anyone. The article listing Trump's "lies" interpreted a term in a very narrow meaning. A meaning that the general public would not use, and was not indicated by Trump's usage - especially noted by the quotation marks. The fact remains that Trump's team was eavesdropped on using electronic means in Trump tower. The story linked could have left quite a few of things out and had some decent accuracy. Instead, they chose to leave false narratives in - things they knew to be false, and furthermore claimed they were fact checked. That claim was a lie built on a lie reinforcing a lie. There are plenty of things the president has promised on a time line and has not been able to deliver yet. Some he has tried to do, and others he has not. There are plenty of exaggerations and stretching of the truth by Trump. He has made mistakes in citing facts, and tends to go for the gist of the information rather than the details. Unlike the smartest president the world has ever known - Barack Obama - he hasn't talked about "visiting all 57 states" though. The people who elected Trump didn't do so because of Trump's photographic memory for details, nor even the details of what would get passed into law. He was elected on some broad policies, and to date, he is still pursuing those policies. The MSM can lie all they want, the public knows, and further the public remembers how much Hillary lied and yet the MSM didn't report on that. " I don't know that Trump knew it was unmasking, or even foreign parties doing the espionage at the time. He may have just been informed that his team was being listened to or monitored. Conversely, he might have been told the full story and as Trump is wont to do, vastly simplify it. It makes no difference - the essential truth of his statement and what happened match up. " This is where knowledge of the economy and of spending habits comes into play. Typically, there is a seven fold return of spending in a local economy from any taxes (Federal, local, etc) that a person saves. Given that the total tax burden is about 35-50% in most places (property, gas, utilities, phone fees, sales tax, income tax, etc) every hundred dollars returned and spent generates two hundred and forty five dollars plus in tax revenue. There is a limit to that of course, because people are primarily spending on things they have needed or really want, but haven't been able to buy. Typically, a very small amount of that money doesn't get spent locally. The biggest chunk to come out that isn't spent locally is people trying to catch up on bills and paying off debt. When you get into the wealthiest people, they typically have most of what they want already. In a few cases, they might want a bigger yacht or another island, but that kind of spending won't be contingent on a tax break. People and large companies usually want their money to make even more money. Give them the opportunity to invest and they will. Penalize them for investing and they will squander that money in safe places. The former drives a growing economy, the latter dooms an economy. What might seem odd to people who rely on numbers alone, is that the biggest determinant of growth or contraction is optimism or the lack thereof. " " The middle class does not pay anywhere near the same amount as the wealthy do, and past a certain point, they will not spend extra or invest it, but rather try to build a financial buffer for the next time when the economy goes south. Wealthy people and big companies almost always have this buffer of funds, so they can react a lot quicker. If you think the CEO/Owners of a company get most of the money made, you are mistaken. They can and do get paid very well, but the bulk of the revenue goes towards operations. In some companies - research and development (fashion designers and fashion shows ) is a big chunk of expenses. For some, advertising eats up a large part of the budget. Employee expenses are usually quite high for most companies - the percentage dependent on the type of company. Whatever wage someone is earning typically costs 30-50% more when all the relevant fees (labor and industry for example) and benefits are paid. In some places, the benefits may cost as much the labor. Long story made short - for most firms with large revenue, netting 10% profit on a continuing basis is a very good mark. If D&G personally received $5,000 of that $50,000 dress I would be very surprised. I would guesstimate they probably made about $200-250 off that dress. Consider that jointly D & G hold ~82% of the the company's private stock, and with the company valued at 5.3 billion - the difference between their estimated wealth (4.3 B) and the company stock held (4.34 B) is less than a hundred million. Their revenue over the last 20 years is easily over 15 billion dollars, so they are probably netting 0.5 - 1% before taxes. A big chunk of that 50K went into materials, shipping, labor, advertising, facilities etc. " While it's a pleasant thought to think so, that line of thinking has not historically played out well. The real problem we do have with our economy is that we are allowing too many medium sized companies to consolidate and dominate markets. Without real competition, they will do what they want. " " Who do you think the working class is? They are one and the same. We aren't talking about a handful of executives - the bulk of the jobs and payroll for almost all companies is toward the workers. A company run any other way tends to go bankrupt fairly quickly. The less executives or owners you have, the bigger their pay can be per person, but the overall percentage has to stay low. " One of the most widely cited "failures' was caused by intentional market manipulation (OPEC) which drove a panic in the economy which caused a collapse. Supply side economics (using the term trickle down automatically paints your argument as heavily biased and less likely to be factual) is extremely simple - more opportunity will translate into greater production. It is what made America prosperous in the first place - vast stretches of land to develop. Huge amounts of natural resources. The people used those financial opportunities to develop the largest economy in the world. Potentially, in a perfect world, with perfect people and a perfect economic program, a government could allocate money and resources in the most efficient way to grow an economy and help people out. What reality has shown us, is that the government by nature is almost always the most inefficient and least competent at doing these things. The only saving grace of the government, is that it is composed of enough competing interests that usually a few people can't control it all and steal everything for themselves. " The top rate actually paid - due to tax loopholes - was around 50%, only a few people (three well known baseball players, iirc) actually paid the full taxes at the time. The post WWII economy, when taken into context had a huge amount of growth, without which the economy could have collapsed. Follow that with the baby boom, and now your economy is even bigger. "If that were all that was paid, it wouldn't be too bad. When you add in state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, vehicle licensing, utility taxes etc - that 35% is often over 50% in taxes. What we also haven't discussed is the small business owner - the person with 3- 15 employees. That small business owner used to employ over 85% of American workers. It used to be that just about anyone with the drive could start up and run their own business. As the taxes and regulations climbed, that fell to the wayside. Who benefitted? The large, giant companies. To the average taxocrat - everyone who makes more than they do is filthy rich and should be heavily taxed. " There are other analyses where even those that favor heavy taxes say that trying to return to a 65% rate would be national suicide. Go back through the economic links you read, and look at how many of them mention the growing dual income family as a major reason for economic growth. Without it, our country would have died under that those tax burdens. If the 'economists' you've been reading don't mention dual earners, their analyses aren't even worthy to be used as toilet paper. " Because it works. Excepting those that inherit money and never do much with it (they tend not to have a lot of income for taxes anyways) - the majority of people with truck loads of money tend to want to make even more money. Bank interest rates don't even keep up with inflation, so they need to invest to make more. Investment that yields economic growth is a great thing. Investment that is just money flipping is bad for the economy, and eventually will cause a bubble bursting collapse. How to reform investment returns and taxes without causing more harm than good is not something I have seen good solutions for. " As a hyperbolic hit piece, that was a nice sideshow for the uninformed. The majority of people living through that time frame know it to be otherwise. Take a look at 3:09 on the video. She takes the top 1% from 1980-1990, then rather than compare middle class America, she takes the entire bottom 90%. She shows an income of $21,742 in 1990 from $21.072 (about 3% of growth). If you look at the real data, it is vastly different, which means Maddow is manipulating the numbers  Maddow was 7 years old - 17 years old during that time frame. She has zero experience to base that off of. Economic growth and expansion were very real during that time frame. In order to get legislation passed, Reagan, like Clinton did a lot of compromising, and congress spent very heavily as well. The importation of illegal workers also began to become a growing issue that would undermine wages and jobs across the country. (check how many of your economic sources list that bit - the ones that don't, you might as well burn). More and more companies began offering health insurance. Not surprisingly health care costs began to shoot up a few years after that (I don't recall if it was about 5 years or ? but, it wasn't that long after). Housing construction went up, people were buying all sorts of gadgets no one had ever needed before. VCRs, CD players, even Cable TV was a luxury that everyone had to have. In early to mid 80's these were on almost every rooftop:  People had disposable income (unlike Maddows complete BS story) - and companies wised up to this very quickly. Between corporate greed and rising costs attributable in large part to fuel costs (the OPEC crisis under Jimmy Carter was only solved by jacking the price through the roof) inflation set in. The Fed we had at that time was nowhere near as knowledgeable or experienced as what we now have. Cost of living increases weren't common at the time, hence inflation became a very real concern. Conversely, the economic 'good times' under Clinton were largely a bubble driven by the idea that you could never ever ever ever (repeat that ever 142 times) go wrong with buying and selling land. Buy a house, spend a couple thousand fixing it up and sell it for a huge profit. Loan money like there is no tomorrow (because property investment can never ever fail) and rinse and repeat until you have major bank collapses. This is exactly why using the internet as a sole source for history is like having someone do your surgery based off of a Youtube video they kind of watched (in between texting). If you have an accessible library, I suggest curling up with a good historical book on something you find interesting. Try to find something written within 5-10 years of the time frame the book discusses. Find a couple more about the same time frame and subject and skim them for comparison. Now go online and see how things match up and how things are omitted. I can put it this way - if internet accuracy holds, 30 years from now, Path of Exile will be listed in Wikipedia as a Turn Based game with virtual dice and six choices of virtual figurines. People will shill about Turn Based Deniers. PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 29, 2017, 10:31:47 PM
|
|
|
It's hilarious how these tweets triggered so many snowflakes.
 Remember when I won a screenshot contest and made everyone butt-hurt? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
|
|
" I wouldnt blame him. Operation Mockingbird still in effect. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-28/top-german-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep#3474 on Jun 29, 2017, 10:43:12 PM
|
|
"Well, you would be wrong. I have had a WSJ sub for the past six years (maybe longer). I read it every day except Sunday. I am not a big fan of their editorial page; I do like Peggy Noonan. But Their general news is pretty good and I follow the tech, book related and financial pages pretty closely. "Gratitude is wine for the soul. Go on. Get drunk." Rumi
US Mountain Time Zone |
|
" Trumps an asshole and perhaps not that skilled in social decorum. Trust me I'm same way. But I wouldnt be dumb enough to run for president. Dude needs to chill. Thats beneath that office and sets a bad example IMO. Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep#3474 on Jun 29, 2017, 11:08:01 PM
|
|
" every action has an equal and opposite reaction The snowflakes and SJW whined for years and years and pursued their political correctness agenda full of shit..... This created Trump, their opposite monster. And to be honest, I enjoy watching them crying torrent of tears as this guy just doesn't give a fuck and continue what he's been doing for months :3 |
|
"I find it hilarious that when you are confronted by truth you always leap to the unidentified "they", the boogeyman, the deep state, the CIA, the unknown secret agents of SPECTRE who are manipulating the whole world as those who are responsible for making up all the fake news that goes against your delusions. Given that you believe in the deep state manipulations against all things you like, have you considered that they are actually manipulating you? If they are so powerful that they control all the MSM and more, managing a naive 21 year old would be pretty easy. But maybe you are smarter than everyone else. "Gratitude is wine for the soul. Go on. Get drunk." Rumi
US Mountain Time Zone |
|
|
[Removed by Support] There is a leading journalist telling you CIA runs the media. Evidence is overwhelming really I've talked about it over and over. Continue on blue pill. [Removed by Support]
Git R Dun! Last edited by Nav_GGG#0000 on Jun 30, 2017, 1:46:24 AM
|
|
