Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Surtur
Surprised this topic has not been made yet:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/donald-trump-2016-announcement-elections/

Already at least two lies have been pointed out from his announcement speech. Apparently he said he was worth 8 billion, but is only worth 4. He also said the Islamic State has built a hotel in Syria, which is also a complete fabrication, no such hotel exists in Syria like that.

So it seems he shot himself in the foot already. He had to of known people would pick apart the "facts" he was using.

Bardock42
This is German, but it's on point: http://www.der-postillon.com/2015/06/historische-chance-donald-trump-will.html

Headline:

"Historical Chance: Donald Trump wants to be the first clown to move into the White House"

BackFire
Donald Trump owns several hotels, so it makes sense that he thinks everyone else owns at least one as well.

Surtur
He also talks about how he is good for the country due to being a good business man. Yet he has filed for bankruptcy on more than one occasion.

Star428
Originally posted by Bardock42
This is German, but it's on point: http://www.der-postillon.com/2015/06/historische-chance-donald-trump-will.html

Headline:

"Historical Chance: Donald Trump wants to be the first clown to move into the White House"


I'd take the "clown" Trump over the traitor sitting in the WH right now anyday. At least Trump actually cares about the country and wouldn't try turning it into a socialistic regime like Obama is and Hillary most certainly will try too.

Bardock42
Trump/Star428

Surtur
Yep, Trump cares so much he makes shit up in his announcement speech for no reason.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Star428
I'd take the "clown" Trump over the traitor sitting in the WH right now anyday. At least Trump actually cares about the country and wouldn't try turning it into a socialistic regime like Obama is and Hillary most certainly will try too.

Why do you use the word socialist like it's a bad thing?

Shakyamunison
It's just a PR stunt. I guess the rating on his TV show are slipping.

Robtard
PR,

Because the US political Right makes socialism out to be were the poor (who are inherently lazy, because that's what makes someone poor in the US) get to sit around and be lazy, while the 'good, honest and hardworking red-blooded Americans' have to give all their money to support their laziness.

-Pr-
Originally posted by Robtard
PR,

Because the US political Right makes socialism out to be were the poor (who are inherently lazy, because that's what makes someone poor in the US) get to sit around and be lazy, while the 'good, honest and hardworking red-blooded Americans' have to give all their money to support their laziness.

That's borderline retarded.

Astner
Socialism is communism in disguise. Trust me, I come from a socialist country.

jaden101
Can't wait til the media starts releasing their plethora of stories on him they've been gathering for years waiting for him to do this. Bribery, corruption, bullying and harassment of citizens, going into business with people linked to organized crime. It's gonna be hilarious

Mindset
Already voted 3 times for him.

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Surtur
He also talks about how he is good for the country due to being a good business man. Yet he has filed for bankruptcy on more than one occasion.


So you're not convinced he's a good business man?

Stoic
Originally posted by Star428
I'd take the "clown" Trump over the traitor sitting in the WH right now anyday. At least Trump actually cares about the country and wouldn't try turning it into a socialistic regime like Obama is and Hillary most certainly will try too.

You do realize that the next President's obligations will be to complete what President Obame began right? Donald Trump would make an absolutely horrible President.

Surtur
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
So you're not convinced he's a good business man?

I mean I would guess that he can't be that crappy since he is worth billions. On the other hand if he is going to run on the premise of business expertise then multiple filings for bankruptcy don't help.

Originally posted by jaden101
Can't wait til the media starts releasing their plethora of stories on him they've been gathering for years waiting for him to do this. Bribery, corruption, bullying and harassment of citizens, going into business with people linked to organized crime. It's gonna be hilarious

One would of thought if there were juicy stories they would of come out by now..or at least once his reality show got popular.

Nemesis X
Originally posted by Bardock42
Historical Chance: Donald Trump wants to be the first clown to move into the White House

First?

jaden101
Originally posted by Surtur


One would of thought if there were juicy stories they would of come out by now..or at least once his reality show got popular.

That's not how the media operate. They'll sit on stories for years and publish to damage people at key times. Last time he flirted with running for president a few stories came out and he was quoted as saying "Nobody said it was going to be easy, but I had no idea I would get hammered in the way I've been hammered the past few weeks,"

Q99
Originally posted by Star428
I'd take the "clown" Trump over the traitor sitting in the WH right now anyday. At least Trump actually cares about the country and wouldn't try turning it into a socialistic regime like Obama is and Hillary most certainly will try too.


That's not what a traitor is, and we're not socialistic. Not even close.


Did you know that something like Obamacare has been in place in one US state for 30 years? It's true.


Someone passing laws you don't like =/= traitor.

Obama was elected by popular vote and the laws of the nation, and he was elected in large part on passing healthcare and similar policies that he did.


Like it or not, that's what the American people wanted, and if you call doing what the populace wanted the president to do being a 'traitor,' you have messed up standards, and not a lot of respect for the 'for the people, by the people' standard.



Now on to Trump:

Originally posted by Surtur
I mean I would guess that he can't be that crappy since he is worth billions. On the other hand if he is going to run on the premise of business expertise then multiple filings for bankruptcy don't help.


You'd think so, wouldn't you? But seriously, he's a joke. He's gone backrupt multiple times, like you say. And the way he's done that is he's suckered people into helping him get back on his feat each time, but in short, he's actually pretty bad at running a business, and a lot of what he does is he uses image, fancy buildings and boats and such, to convince people he's more wealthy than he is, and therefore a safe investment, and therefore they give him money to do stuff, and he gets his head above water again. For a time, but then his projects fail and he declares bankruptcy again.

Overstating his wealth by a factor of two is not only common for him, but part of his whole strategy.

If he's *that* bad at running a business, what's he supposed to bring to the presidency? 'Pretending to be richer than you are to get investors' is not exactly a useful skill to have in the job.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
That's not what a traitor is, and we're not socialistic. Not even close.


Did you know that something like Obamacare has been in place in one US state for 30 years? It's true.


Someone passing laws you don't like =/= traitor.

Obama was elected by popular vote and the laws of the nation, and he was elected in large part on passing healthcare and similar policies that he did.


Like it or not, that's what the American people wanted, and if you call doing what the populace wanted the president to do being a 'traitor,' you have messed up standards, and not a lot of respect for the 'for the people, by the people' standard.



Now on to Trump:




You'd think so, wouldn't you? But seriously, he's a joke. He's gone backrupt multiple times, like you say. And the way he's done that is he's suckered people into helping him get back on his feat each time, but in short, he's actually pretty bad at running a business, and a lot of what he does is he uses image, fancy buildings and boats and such, to convince people he's more wealthy than he is, and therefore a safe investment, and therefore they give him money to do stuff, and he gets his head above water again. For a time, but then his projects fail and he declares bankruptcy again.

Overstating his wealth by a factor of two is not only common for him, but part of his whole strategy.

If he's *that* bad at running a business, what's he supposed to bring to the presidency? 'Pretending to be richer than you are to get investors' is not exactly a useful skill to have in the job.

Oh look at this goody.

What exactly is Hilary supposed to bring to the presidency besides a failed foreign policy and foreign donations/bribes.

I forgot though, those are all prime candidacy trades of liberal candidates. God forbid a man that can pay for his own campaign and doesn't have to take them from people expecting a return on their investment.

You wanna talk about bankruptcy's vs failed foreign policies? I'd vote for a guy that goes bankrupt and comes back to be a billionaire over and over, over a crooked politician any day. But doesn't mean I'm voting for him because he will never make the primary.. Besides America is bankrupt anyways, read the news. Maybe Obama should put tariffs on Chinese goods, but I know you have an answer for that too on why he does not. After all that would bring jobs back to the US..laughing out loud

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Surtur
I mean I would guess that he can't be that crappy since he is worth billions. On the other hand if he is going to run on the premise of business expertise then multiple filings for bankruptcy don't help.






I don't know..,that seems to suggest resilience and experience.

Mindset
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

What exactly is Hilary supposed to bring to the presidency besides a failed foreign policy and foreign donations/bribes.

Bill.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindset
Bill.

A good reason to not vote for her. She should divorce him.

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh look at this goody.

What exactly is Hilary supposed to bring to the presidency besides a failed foreign policy and foreign donations/bribes.



A far superior economic policy that doesn't result in failure and recessions where it's tried (and since we're talking elections, yes, we do have to compare it to the Republican one), a superior track record on civil rights, continued support of the successful healthcare policy (came in *under budget* and gives better healthcare to tens of millions. A long-term positive investment), and, oh yes, while he foreign policy isn't great, it still surpasses that of the Republicans.

That's one of the things, even in the areas where the Democrats are weak, the Republicans tend to be even weaker. The Bush 2 administration foreign policy was the more unsuccessful during my lifetime due to it's aggressive-yet-very-shortsighted stances, and most Republican candidates have said that they're going to break deals that keep our enemies in check, which would furthermore make the US untrustworthy in the eyes of the world.

When compared to incompetence like her opposition, Hillary doesn't need to be great to be better. But in some areas like economy, health care, marriage rights, and such, she is much better, so Clinton has those selling points as well.







America isn't bankrupt, people who say so have a fundamental misunderstanding of how debt works. Our debt isn't even near the highest it's been as percentage of GDP, and we can easily pay off more if we want to boot by returning to the tax level we had in the 50s-60s.


And tariffs? Hah, that would cost us more money *and jobs* from lost trade!

We sell China huge amounts of stuff, if we put on tariffs, they'd simply do the same back and we'd both lose out.


Read up on the history of the Great Depression. The initial economic hit wasn't that big, but because everyone went protectionist with the tariffs, it became so bad.


Furthermore, the US unemployment rate is 5.4% and still improving. That's pretty darn good (better than Bush 2's performance, at least comparable to Reagan's). We need better jobs, to be sure, but we are not particularly in need of low-end manufacturing jobs of the type China provides anyway, so we're better off continuing to sell them the more advanced stuff we provide rather than getting in a trade war.


As for Trump, the method he used to recover, i.e. getting people to give him money for new projects, simply doesn't work on a national level. We're the richest starting off, and under Obama/Democratic economics we're getting richer. For Trump's method to come into play, we'd have to fall severely, then turn to other countries- like China, who you just advised pissing off- to bail us out. And even then, that's not making money, that's getting back to where he was before... temporarily, because poor management *does* cause him to fail again and again.



And that is why one needs to be educated about economics. A lot of people aren't even aware of how different policies do against each other, or how we're doing right now!

We've had a steady 6 year recovery at the same time that Europe and the UK underwent multiple-dip recessions, due to using the same austerity policies that the Republicans advocate, while meanwhile those countries that haven't used austerity, like the US, have been doing fine and recovered from the great recession better.

Time-Immemorial
Funny China has Tariffs on us and it does not cost them money or jobs.

Get a grip.

We can't easily pay out debt off, do you know anything?

Star428
Anyone who thinks we aren't destined for an economic collapse within the next few years or so is living in a dreamworld. I've posted several links in past threads (one was in the "Bad Ammo" thread)showing how we are trapped with no way out of our coming collapse. It's not a question of "if" it's ever going to happen but "when". It won't matter who President is either. People like Q99 need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Time-Immemorial
The "We could easily pay our debt off part" is hilarious and seated in dreamworld. The system of the Federal Reserve and the fractional reserve banking system they employ to create money out of thin air and then loan that fiat money out at interest insures the debt will never be paid and that the U.S. will always be in debt. Q99 is not only misinformed but delusional.

Q99
Originally posted by Star428
Anyone who thinks we aren't destined for an economic collapse within the next few years or so is living in a dreamworld. I've posted several links in past threads (one was in the "Bad Ammo" thread)showing how we are trapped with no way out of our coming collapse. It's not a question of "if" it's ever going to happen but "when". It won't matter who President is either. People like Q99 need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The "We could easily pay our debt off part" is hilarious and seated in dreamworld. The system of the Federal Reserve and the fractional reserve banking system they employ to create money out of thin air and then loan that fiat money out at interest insures the debt will never be paid and that the U.S. will always be in debt. Q99 is not only misinformed but delusional.


Fun fact: This is not the highest percentage of national debt-to-GDP ratio we've had in our nation's history. That would be directly after WW2. Or in other words, we've come back from bigger.

Second fun fact: We can raise taxes very significantly and inject a lot of currency... while still keeping it at levels that not only have we had before, but downright prospered under, proportionally more prosperity than we did during any low-tax time (50-60s > 80s-00s). We literally did it using the same methods that people like Star428's links say will lead to our collapse, and it was the most prosperous part of last century.


Third fun fact: The last time the debt went down was under a Clinton, and were on the tend to continuing to decrease it significantly over the long term were it not for the Bush 2 tax cuts.

Fourth fun fact: Paying off the debt isn't the only way to lower it's effect, as the economy is continually growing. Indeed, we did not pay down the national debt after WW2, we simply outgrew it. If your debt increases at X% a year, but your economy grows more than that, then your proportional ability to pay it off increases every years, while it's relative impact decreases.

Fifth fun fact: We are by no means the most in-debt country in comparison to GDP. Japan has twice as much proportionally, and it has yet to significantly impact them, and they are still regarded as a safe stable economy it's very safe to loan to. Yes, we could double our debt and still be in zero danger of bankruptcy.

Sixth fun fact: Interest rates are currently so low that someone buying debt is essentially them paying the government to keep their money safe. Furthermore, debt is itself traded as an asset, creating economic activity and, yes, more money for us. Raising the debt in exchange for spending on infrastructure projects and similar would actually be quite profitable, and some economists are actually recommending such.

Seventh fun fact: The national debt was spent to zero precisely once, under Andrew Jackson. It immediately caused an economic crash, because the debt is such a stable investment (see 'it gets traded around' under 6) that it's lack causes instability.

Eighth fun fact: Every country on earth uses fiat money, because guaranteeing it against a government's promise is actually more reliable than commodity money like gold, which by nature loses value half the time, and gains the other half, and deflationary spikes cause regular small recessions because it makes holding money more valuable than investing it. Furthermore, gold being so valuable is, itself, purely a matter of supply and demand, it does not have the inherent value needed to truly be useful in it's own right, and thus the gold standard is not a way to avoid fiat currency, but rather a worst-of-both-worlds, half fiat system. Not using fiat currency is flat-out stupid.


Or to put it another way, your uninformed dismissal may be pithy, but in fact you're not familiar with the economics of the situation at all, the fact that we have not just one but multiple ways of lowering the debt, the fact that lowering the debt, keeping it even, or even raising it all have pros as well as cons, and is not the boogieman many wrongly assume it to be.

About the only 'we're doomed' move one can make is defaulting, aka declaring we aren't paying the debt any more, which immediately yoinks a huge chunk of the economy into oblivion by declaring it to not have value in exchange for no gain. No government has ever done so, because it's suicidal- and would be whether they used dollars, gold, or salt.





It turns out listening to soundbites from people who don't know economics- which is clearly what both of you have done- is no replacement for actually knowing economics and the specific history of the national debt, including the fact that we've been here before and did great during that time.

Robtard
Doom-n-gloomers don't care about fun facts.

Any day now...

Mindset
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A good reason to not vote for her. She should divorce him. Racist.

Q99
Oh yea, and raise your hand if you've spent a significant time studying macroeconomics and the history and don't just take someone else's word for it.

*Sees own hand raised*

Oh, it seems it's me!



Originally posted by Robtard
Doom-n-gloomers don't care about fun facts.

Any day now...


I wouldn't quite call them doom-n-gloomers, as Republican/rightwing shills (Time claims to not support the Republicans that much, while at the same time gullibly swallowing every talking point they have about the Democrats and advocating for right-wing economics here), who gullibly follow the narrative of 'We're doomed unless you do exactly what we say,' because that seems to be the tactic used by that side to try and attract people, rather than actually puff up the benefits of theirs they try and present the other side as scary/doomed/etc..

Despite all evidence that exactly what they say has failed in the past, and heck, failed in the present, when the countries that did the opposite of what they said recovered well, while Ireland, the country that most followed the Republican's preferred methods, went to 14% unemployment, stayed their for several years, and then *finally* got down to 10% just recently.

And meanwhile, not knowing that the debt-as-percentage of GDP in the US is... already down from it's peak, due to growth.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart4p02.png


They simply don't know anything about economics or the respective performance of different economic strategies in situations exactly like ours or worse. Personally, I take the strategies that work, but of course that requires knowing what strategies work, which in turn requires knowing what economic policies do and what the numbers mean, not just assume 'debt bad' or whatever.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
Fun fact: This is not the highest percentage of national debt-to-GDP ratio we've had in our nation's history. That would be directly after WW2. Or in other words, we've come back from bigger.

Second fun fact: We can raise taxes very significantly and inject a lot of currency... while still keeping it at levels that not only have we had before, but downright prospered under, proportionally more prosperity than we did during any low-tax time (50-60s > 80s-00s). We literally did it using the same methods that people like Star428's links say will lead to our collapse, and it was the most prosperous part of last century.


Third fun fact: The last time the debt went down was under a Clinton, and were on the tend to continuing to decrease it significantly over the long term were it not for the Bush 2 tax cuts.

Fourth fun fact: Paying off the debt isn't the only way to lower it's effect, as the economy is continually growing. Indeed, we did not pay down the national debt after WW2, we simply outgrew it. If your debt increases at X% a year, but your economy grows more than that, then your proportional ability to pay it off increases every years, while it's relative impact decreases.

Fifth fun fact: We are by no means the most in-debt country in comparison to GDP. Japan has twice as much proportionally, and it has yet to significantly impact them, and they are still regarded as a safe stable economy it's very safe to loan to. Yes, we could double our debt and still be in zero danger of bankruptcy.

Sixth fun fact: Interest rates are currently so low that someone buying debt is essentially them paying the government to keep their money safe. Furthermore, debt is itself traded as an asset, creating economic activity and, yes, more money for us. Raising the debt in exchange for spending on infrastructure projects and similar would actually be quite profitable, and some economists are actually recommending such.

Seventh fun fact: The national debt was spent to zero precisely once, under Andrew Jackson. It immediately caused an economic crash, because the debt is such a stable investment (see 'it gets traded around' under 6) that it's lack causes instability.

Eighth fun fact: Every country on earth uses fiat money, because guaranteeing it against a government's promise is actually more reliable than commodity money like gold, which by nature loses value half the time, and gains the other half, and deflationary spikes cause regular small recessions because it makes holding money more valuable than investing it. Furthermore, gold being so valuable is, itself, purely a matter of supply and demand, it does not have the inherent value needed to truly be useful in it's own right, and thus the gold standard is not a way to avoid fiat currency, but rather a worst-of-both-worlds, half fiat system. Not using fiat currency is flat-out stupid.


Or to put it another way, your uninformed dismissal may be pithy, but in fact you're not familiar with the economics of the situation at all, the fact that we have not just one but multiple ways of lowering the debt, the fact that lowering the debt, keeping it even, or even raising it all have pros as well as cons, and is not the boogieman many wrongly assume it to be.

About the only 'we're doomed' move one can make is defaulting, aka declaring we aren't paying the debt any more, which immediately yoinks a huge chunk of the economy into oblivion by declaring it to not have value in exchange for no gain. No government has ever done so, because it's suicidal- and would be whether they used dollars, gold, or salt.





It turns out listening to soundbites from people who don't know economics- which is clearly what both of you have done- is no replacement for actually knowing economics and the specific history of the national debt, including the fact that we've been here before and did great during that time.

Everything you jus said is wrong, and its clear you have no clue what fractional reserve banking is and how its a complete fraud to the American people. And no Clinton did not reduce the deficit. Lol

I think you clearly have some blinders on.

Time-Immemorial
Here is a fun fact for you. Take it and deal with it

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
Fun fact: This is not the highest percentage of national debt-to-GDP ratio we've had in our nation's history. That would be directly after WW2. Or in other words, we've come back from bigger.

Second fun fact: We can raise taxes very significantly and inject a lot of currency... while still keeping it at levels that not only have we had before, but downright prospered under, proportionally more prosperity than we did during any low-tax time (50-60s > 80s-00s). We literally did it using the same methods that people like Star428's links say will lead to our collapse, and it was the most prosperous part of last century.


Third fun fact: The last time the debt went down was under a Clinton, and were on the tend to continuing to decrease it significantly over the long term were it not for the Bush 2 tax cuts.

Fourth fun fact: Paying off the debt isn't the only way to lower it's effect, as the economy is continually growing. Indeed, we did not pay down the national debt after WW2, we simply outgrew it. If your debt increases at X% a year, but your economy grows more than that, then your proportional ability to pay it off increases every years, while it's relative impact decreases.

Fifth fun fact: We are by no means the most in-debt country in comparison to GDP. Japan has twice as much proportionally, and it has yet to significantly impact them, and they are still regarded as a safe stable economy it's very safe to loan to. Yes, we could double our debt and still be in zero danger of bankruptcy.

Sixth fun fact: Interest rates are currently so low that someone buying debt is essentially them paying the government to keep their money safe. Furthermore, debt is itself traded as an asset, creating economic activity and, yes, more money for us. Raising the debt in exchange for spending on infrastructure projects and similar would actually be quite profitable, and some economists are actually recommending such.

Seventh fun fact: The national debt was spent to zero precisely once, under Andrew Jackson. It immediately caused an economic crash, because the debt is such a stable investment (see 'it gets traded around' under 6) that it's lack causes instability.

Eighth fun fact: Every country on earth uses fiat money, because guaranteeing it against a government's promise is actually more reliable than commodity money like gold, which by nature loses value half the time, and gains the other half, and deflationary spikes cause regular small recessions because it makes holding money more valuable than investing it. Furthermore, gold being so valuable is, itself, purely a matter of supply and demand, it does not have the inherent value needed to truly be useful in it's own right, and thus the gold standard is not a way to avoid fiat currency, but rather a worst-of-both-worlds, half fiat system. Not using fiat currency is flat-out stupid.


Or to put it another way, your uninformed dismissal may be pithy, but in fact you're not familiar with the economics of the situation at all, the fact that we have not just one but multiple ways of lowering the debt, the fact that lowering the debt, keeping it even, or even raising it all have pros as well as cons, and is not the boogieman many wrongly assume it to be.

About the only 'we're doomed' move one can make is defaulting, aka declaring we aren't paying the debt any more, which immediately yoinks a huge chunk of the economy into oblivion by declaring it to not have value in exchange for no gain. No government has ever done so, because it's suicidal- and would be whether they used dollars, gold, or salt.





It turns out listening to soundbites from people who don't know economics- which is clearly what both of you have done- is no replacement for actually knowing economics and the specific history of the national debt, including the fact that we've been here before and did great during that time.

Only in America can you meet some bozo's online and think saying ****** is ok, fractional reserve banking is ok, being taxed on imports to China while saying if we do the same, we will lose jobs here. That a billionaire declaring bankruptcy is worse then a complete failure of foreign policy and foreign donation's to a campaign and fund. And don't get me started on Hilary's Email SNAFU.

This place is bogus circle jerk of retards without any common sense.

I'd like you to tell me how the fck being in debt 18 trillion dollars is ok and then say "Well Japan is worse" as that is supposed to smooth the situation over and make it better. I guess you don't know how fcked Japan is, and its only getting worse cause of Fukushima.

Your only solution is to "RAISE TAXES" which you keep saying. Yea sure raise the taxes, cause we all know taxes only get raised on the little guys, and the liberals who are billionares like Gates and Buffet sneak outa them. Your brain is so small thats the only way it works for you RAISE TAXES..

How about bring manufacturing back to America.
Throw the EPA out the window and start over.
Start requiring large corporations to offset there energy usage with solar, wind and other renewables.
Quit trying to save bait fish in California and dumping trillions of gallons in the ocean for them. (OMEGA) The wetlands left California 30 years ago, and California has been liberal for way longer, so I don't wanna hear it, its their own fault.
Raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
Cut out all the government waste and the billion dollar black ops projects that we never see.
Quit giving Middle East our money with Oil.
Start exporting Natural Gas, and using it as a wide produced fuel source in America.

Thats just a start of some fun facts. Carry on.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
Oh yea, and raise your hand if you've spent a significant time studying macroeconomics and the history and don't just take someone else's word for it.

*Sees own hand raised*

Oh, it seems it's me!






I wouldn't quite call them doom-n-gloomers, as Republican/rightwing shills (Time claims to not support the Republicans that much, while at the same time gullibly swallowing every talking point they have about the Democrats and advocating for right-wing economics here), who gullibly follow the narrative of 'We're doomed unless you do exactly what we say,' because that seems to be the tactic used by that side to try and attract people, rather than actually puff up the benefits of theirs they try and present the other side as scary/doomed/etc..

Despite all evidence that exactly what they say has failed in the past, and heck, failed in the present, when the countries that did the opposite of what they said recovered well, while Ireland, the country that most followed the Republican's preferred methods, went to 14% unemployment, stayed their for several years, and then *finally* got down to 10% just recently.

And meanwhile, not knowing that the debt-as-percentage of GDP in the US is... already down from it's peak, due to growth.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart4p02.png


They simply don't know anything about economics or the respective performance of different economic strategies in situations exactly like ours or worse. Personally, I take the strategies that work, but of course that requires knowing what strategies work, which in turn requires knowing what economic policies do and what the numbers mean, not just assume 'debt bad' or whatever.

The government could not even run the US Postal Service. The government is the only corporation that can keep its doors open and run at a loss, how? Because they know they can just get the fed do some some "Magic Money" and create money out of thin air.

I love your US Government spending chart too. laughing
I guess since Obama is in office that chart is correct? I mean if you had pulled that chart when Bush was is office would it have been legit?

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Here is a fun fact for you. Take it and deal with it

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png

Not sure why you said "Clinton did not lower. Lol" when this graph shows it being lower when he left office than it was went he went into office.

Time-Immemorial
He balanced the budget, he didn't lower the over all debt by much of anything, he dipped it down a tad due to huge military/intelligence cuts that lead to 9/11.

He didn't do anything to prevent 9/11 happening, then Bush walked into a nightmare of national security and we got attacked, then democratic congress voted for the war, and the death soared.

Its Clintons fault we had the sub prime collapse. <-Canon

And where is Obama's deficit pay down? Its skyrocketed.

Robtard
The graph you posted shows that it was over 60% when he took office and it was under 60% when he left. So sorry, but the graph does now support your narrative.

Time-Immemorial
End result was He caused Sub prime, 9/11 and the deep recession. His impact was worse then his pithy pay down of nominal figures. Look what happened with Bush. Bush inherited Clintons/Gore/Franks disaster.

Don't be black and white and say "OH LOOK THE NUMBERS!" Anyone who can understand economics with the economic meltdown can see right through those numbers.

Bentley
So you bring numbers so we don't make conclusions out of them? confused

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
End result was He caused Sub prime, 9/11 and the deep recession. His impact was worse then his pithy pay down of nominal figures. Look what happened with Bush. Bush inherited Clintons/Gore/Franks disaster.

Don't be black and white and say "OH LOOK THE NUMBERS!" Anyone who can understand economics with the economic meltdown can see right through those numbers.

If it's going to be the "pass-the-blame-game", then Clinton inherited the Reagan/Bush mess. Deficit skyrocketed under those two, under 40% to over 60%. Osama Bin Laden was trained by US military operatives under those two. What we call now "Islamic extremist" were armed under those two. Saddam Hussein was supported and armed under those two (Iran-Iraq War 80-88).

So really, it all goes back to Reagan/Bush under your rules.

Time-Immemorial
Well we can pass it all the way back to Wilson who enacted the federal reserve and then stated he has ruined his country

God Bless America

Flyattractor
You Lefties are so funny.....but not in a fun way.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Well we can pass it all the way back to Wilson who enacted the federal reserve and then stated he has ruined his country

God Bless America

Stop being so dramatic.

Flyattractor
You first

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Robtard
Stop being so dramatic.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
~ Woodrow Wilson"

Flyattractor
Just like how Obama and the Democrats are all shills to Wall Street and the Big Corporations.

Some things never change.

Q99
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Just like how Obama and the Democrats are all shills to Wall Street and the Big Corporations.

Some things never change.


Here's the thing: Both parties are shills to Wall Street and special interests (which special interests varies, and some of 'em are in turn much more preferable than others in various areas, but I digress). And even corporations have different interests- The RIAA wants to clamp down the internet, Google wants the opposite, for example. I root for Google in that fight.


What policy they do in pursuit of this still noticeably changes, and how much those policies help or hurt everyone else is still purely a material thing.


Economics, ultimately, is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of numbers. This does that, this makes that number goes up, that makes this number go down.

The two parties, currently, are each arguing for economic policy where the numbers, and their effect, are very well known and documented.


There is one policy that, fairly consistently, has caused economic growth, drop in unemployment, and so on.

There is another that has, in the last few years alone, caused multiple recessions in various countries worldwide, and going back further, has always driven up debt (more-so than their competitors) despite the party's supposed anti-debt stance.

Furthermore, this one party has suggested and fought for, repeatedly, a policy that would cause an economic collapse. And in pursuit of this goal, has actually done numerous smaller activities that have cost the US tens of billions of dollars, purely for ideological-economic reasons, and not for any economic benefit that any economist of any side could see to any numbers (I'm talking the debt default here).



Motives-wise, I find one party's ties more questionable than another, but even aside from that, we have a choice between two sets of economic policies, one which has, objectively, done one set of things, and the other, objectively, has done another set.


I think I'll go for the one that actually has helped the middle class, lowered unemployment almost by half, and grown the economy, and not the one that is worse at all of those things and gave some European countries multi-dip recessions while we chugged along on our recovery.

Robtard
Q99, he's just trolling for attention, if this thread had more Rightwingers/Republicans, his comment would have read as:

'Just like how Republicans are all shills to Wall Street and the Big Corporations.' or similar

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Well we can pass it all the way back to Wilson who enacted the federal reserve and then stated he has ruined his country

God Bless America


Fun fact: Both the number and severity of economic downturns has decreased significantly, and the amount of growth has increased, over time and definitely since the formation of the reserve. The reserve is also directly tied to our recovery from the recession, due to it being more free to conduct stimulus due to congress blocking other avenues.


You're relying on soundbites hand-picked by people with confirmation bias, ignoring numbers.


You are choosing to believe something is bad purely because someone told you it was bad, without actually looking at the numbers or history.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4c99d2da7f8b9a7973ed0a00-582-423/gold-recessions.gif

The gray bars are the recessions. The number decreased some after 1913- though they didn't become truly rare until the gold standard was eliminated.



Now, one can either chose the policy that decides the numbers based on soundbites detached from reality, or one can decide based on numbers that don't change no matter who you are.

I pick the latter.

Q99
Originally posted by Robtard
Q99, he's just trolling for attention, if this thread had more Rightwingers/Republicans, his comment would have read as:

'Just like how Republicans are all shills to Wall Street and the Big Corporations.' or similar

Nah, he's one of those "I'm against both parties!... I just dislike the Democrats more so I only focus on them," types.

Like the Federal Reserve talk and such, that's a right-wing talking point.

Robtard
Okay then, have fun.

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Here is a fun fact for you. Take it and deal with it

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png


Note how that graph is incomplete. Note how it goes down under Clinton, *up* under Bush despite him not having, and as we all know, the initial surge in debt under Obama was due to activities done to combat the great recession that began under Bush.

And that chart is a few years out of date.

You see where I'm going with this?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/FederalDebt1940to2012.svg/630px-FederalDebt1940to2012.svg.png

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart4p02.png

(With some near-future predictions)


Ohh yes, it's no longer increasing (in respect to portion of GDP) and is on track to go on decline by the end of Obama's term.


Despite him literally dealing with the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression, he's able to nudge it onto a downward course, while Bush left it pointed up from beginning to end.



Aren't charts wonderful? Sure, if you pick and choose one to leave off precisely where the fun starts, you can make it *look* bad, but nah,


And note how unemployment during this time was...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/US_Employment_Statistics.svg/675px-US_Employment_Statistics.svg.png

Going down constantly during this time, and noticeably lower than when he took office (note that chart is almost a year out of date, we're lower still now)

And gross domestic product...

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/20121105-fred-rgdp-0109-0709.jpg


Also up.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Q99
Fun fact: Both the number and severity of economic downturns has decreased significantly, and the amount of growth has increased, over time and definitely since the formation of the reserve. The reserve is also directly tied to our recovery from the recession, due to it being more free to conduct stimulus due to congress blocking other avenues.


You're relying on soundbites hand-picked by people with confirmation bias, ignoring numbers.


You are choosing to believe something is bad purely because someone told you it was bad, without actually looking at the numbers or history.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4c99d2da7f8b9a7973ed0a00-582-423/gold-recessions.gif

The gray bars are the recessions. The number decreased some after 1913- though they didn't become truly rare until the gold standard was eliminated.



Now, one can either chose the policy that decides the numbers based on soundbites detached from reality, or one can decide based on numbers that don't change no matter who you are.

I pick the latter.

Which sound bites and hand picked people am I relying more on? I missed that part or you have made it up in that dual personality you have.

Flyattractor
OMG.....they have actually started using charts and graphs.....*jumps out the window before this place goes from a message board to a Board Meeting*

Surtur
So I have to say now I kind of somewhat support Trumps stance on illegal immigration. Not the whole "they are all rapists and murderers" but we definitely need some major changes to happen, look at this disgusting story:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-kathryn-steinle-death-pier-14-shows-need-border-n386646

Here is the most important/messed up part:

"Sanchez is an undocumented immigrant who has been deported from the U.S. five times. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Sanchez was turned over to San Francisco authorities in San Francisco on March and that the agency had asked for him to remain in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. That request was not honored,"

Been deported several times, was requested to remain in custody until they could deport him again, but SF said nope because they are a "sanctuary city" and now an innocent person is dead. I'd honestly be looking into suing the city or whoever I could over this if I was related to the person killed.

I honestly hope maybe the article got some details wrong or something, because I can't wrap my head around the fact this guy had already been deported several times and yet they refused to hold him in custody.

psmith81992
If we play the blame game, we can find a shitstorm from either party running the country, which makes this an exercise in futility.


People really need to stop using unemployment charts because the number of people who are no longer part of the employment numbers (they gave up) is increasing dramatically. But this entire thread is about each side posting favorable statistics to his side.

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Astner
Socialism is communism in disguise. Trust me, I come from a socialist country.

Yeah thats what i was trying to tell the Big Bamaiststs Obama did did exactly the opposite of everything he set out to do. And he did it well

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Robtard
PR,

Because the US political Right makes socialism out to be were the poor (who are inherently lazy, because that's what makes someone poor in the US) get to sit around and be lazy, while the 'good, honest and hardworking red-blooded Americans' have to give all their money to support their laziness.
Originally posted by -Pr-
That's borderline retarded.

And to think, a lot of the older, voting generation think like this, because they get almost all of their political news and views from a conservative, fear-mongering, hate-spewing program. (Hint: Fox News)

Originally posted by Astner
Socialism is communism in disguise. Trust me, I come from a socialist country.

That's not even semantics; that's just plain wrong.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Surtur
So I have to say now I kind of somewhat support Trumps stance on illegal immigration. Not the whole "they are all rapists and murderers" but we definitely need some major changes to happen, look at this disgusting story:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-kathryn-steinle-death-pier-14-shows-need-border-n386646

Here is the most important/messed up part:

"Sanchez is an undocumented immigrant who has been deported from the U.S. five times. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Sanchez was turned over to San Francisco authorities in San Francisco on March and that the agency had asked for him to remain in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. That request was not honored,"

Been deported several times, was requested to remain in custody until they could deport him again, but SF said nope because they are a "sanctuary city" and now an innocent person is dead. I'd honestly be looking into suing the city or whoever I could over this if I was related to the person killed.

I honestly hope maybe the article got some details wrong or something, because I can't wrap my head around the fact this guy had already been deported several times and yet they refused to hold him in custody.

Trump belittles what is the largest minority group in the US just because he wants to pander to people who are afraid of paying for immigrants, despite all being descendants of immigrants themselves. Oh, and Mexico being a shithole people should rightly want to leave. Taking an exceptional example to make a sweeping judgment is always a fallacy, in any case.

Originally posted by psmith81992
If we play the blame game, we can find a shitstorm from either party running the country, which makes this an exercise in futility.


People really need to stop using unemployment charts because the number of people who are no longer part of the employment numbers (they gave up) is increasing dramatically. But this entire thread is about each side posting favorable statistics to his side.

Really, you can find charts and stats to favor either side. Considering the corruption in the government agencies anyways, self-reporting is a crapshoot.

However, I can tell you from personal experience that job hunting is much easier now than five years ago.

psmith81992
You must not be talking about white collar jobs that you need graduate degrees for.

Star428
LOL. Being "illegal immigrants" is not the same as being descendants of those who settled this country and fought for/won it's independence. Major fail, dude.

If immigrants want to live here so phucking bad then they should go thru the proper procedures of becoming naturalized citizens. If they're not willing to do that then their asses have no goddamn right to be here. PERIOD. END OF STORY. Quit making lame ass excuses for them being here illegally. If you don't mind millions of illegal aliens being in this country then why don't you let them come live with you? You can take care of all of them instead of expecting true red-blooded Americans to pay for taking care of them.


I have no problem with immigrants being here as long as they do it legally.

Lestov16
LOL "Settled" aka mass genocide/forced relocation/slavery

Mexicans have more relation to America's original inhabitants than we do.

psmith81992
Originally posted by Lestov16
LOL "Settled" aka mass genocide/forced relocation/slavery

Mexicans have more relation to America's original inhabitants than we do.

There wasn't mass genocide. 96% of the Indian population died of plague before the Puritans arrived.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by psmith81992
There wasn't mass genocide. 96% of the Indian population died of plague before the Puritans arrived.

Those particular numbers sound suspect. Regardless, having been the direct cause of such a mass wipe out and then (as opposed to helping the natives rebuild and repopulate, as they would have done) choosing to to wipe out the weakened remnants of their civilization, utterly destroy their culture and take all of their land away from them for all time...

... doesn't actually go n the 'morally ok' book, so your comment that it wasn't a genocide is rather disingenuous. American settlers stole native land on top of the natives' dead bodies, and added to the dead body heap if they tried to resist. There's no way out of it.

Of course, by now it's just one of those facts of history- plenty of crappy things done in history- but Lestov's original statement does have a point that you cannot dismiss by saying 'disease weakened them first'.

psmith81992
My question is what are we determining the kill count to be before we start using "mass genocide"?

Robtard
Apologist are funny

psmith81992
Originally posted by Robtard
Apologist are funny

You mean apologists? Lol.

Also who is being an apologist? I'm simply correcting the guy above me in terms of history. Good try thumb up

Lestov16
Didn't millions of natives die when settlers deliberately gave them blankets coated with smallpox?

Robtard
Originally posted by psmith81992
You mean apologists? Lol.

Also who is being an apologist? I'm simply correcting the guy above me in terms of history. Good try thumb up

Yeah, that's what I said.

You seem mighty defensive.

Robtard
Originally posted by Lestov16
Didn't millions of natives die when settlers deliberately gave them blankets coated with smallpox?

This guy tells it like it is:

"I'm the first to admit we took this country from the indians but what were they doing with it anyway; shooting off bows and arrows and using seashells for money." - N. Arbuthnot

psmith81992
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, that's what I said.

You seem mighty defensive.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

Robtard
So you're still losing it over the omission of a single letter/typo. You must really be butthurt; just how deep did I get in your head last time.

psmith81992
Originally posted by Robtard
So you're still losing it over the omission of a single letter/typo. You must really be butthurt; just how deep did I get in your head last time.

Poor rob. That's twice you've made yourself look like a fool. I admire your desperate attempts at a rationalization laughing out loud

Robtard
Deep, very deep, apparently.

But maybe you could tell us more stories of how the Native Americans just died of natural causes.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Lestov16
Didn't millions of natives die when settlers deliberately gave them blankets coated with smallpox?

No. That was a single situation/event. But millions did die from the germs the Europeans brought over. Captain Simeon Ecuyer is the gent you are thinking of (he's the dude that sent out the blankets and handkerchiefs). But, by that time, millions had likely perished already from the diseases.

Bentley
Originally posted by psmith81992
There wasn't mass genocide. 96% of the Indian population died of plague before the Puritans arrived.

It was a genocide alright. Talking about victims of sickness to deflect the attention from methodical extermination isn't erasing the murders.

psmith81992
Originally posted by Bentley
It was a genocide alright. Talking about victims of sickness to deflect the attention from methodical extermination isn't erasing the murders. I wasn't trying to I was correcting your historical inaccuracy.


Rob, please stop crying, it's embarrassing.

Robtard
Says the guy flipping out over an obvious typo as a means to deflect from his foul-ups. BTW, learn the difference between "there" and "their". YW, smithy.

psmith81992
Still crying. Just embarrassing.

Robtard
More delicious flips thumb up

psmith81992
Originally posted by Robtard
More delicious flips thumb up

My lord, just stop embarrassing yourself already. You were wrong, move on. It's getting awkward.

Bentley, here:

http://www.examiner.com/article/apocalypic-mysterious-plague-killed-millions-of-native-americans-the-1500s

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

Robtard
Oh my. Jared Diamond supports that settlers/conquers caused nigh genocide in parts of the Americas.

If you're not seen the documentary, it's excellent. Could pick up the book too.

Bentley
Originally posted by psmith81992
I wasn't trying to I was correcting your historical inaccuracy.

You must be confusing me with someone else, this is the first thing I post in the subject.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by psmith81992
There wasn't mass genocide. 96% of the Indian population died of plague before the Puritans arrived.
Yes, and that remaining 4% (assuming that number is accurate) was then further cut down by genocide and exploitation.

psmith81992
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes, and that remaining 4% (assuming that number is accurate) was then further cut down by genocide and exploitation.

Yup

Omega Vision
I think the point of contention you have is with the word "mass" in mass genocide. So let's shelve that and just focus on the word "genocide." I don't think we need to reach a specific number to call it genocide, I think the only criteria necessary are proportion and intent. If there's 90 tribespeople on an island and you kill 85, 70, or even 45 just because of who they are, that's genocide. There's a mountain of evidence that where settlers went, the native populations were eventually either forced away or wiped out, and in many cases the settlers themselves would admit that it was because of race. I'm fairly certain there's even a line in the Declaration of Independence that calls natives (or at least the ones fighting with the British) "Godless savages."

I don't think you're trying to deny that this happened, but by quibbling so vehemently over something like whether most Indians were killed by plague or violence and by objecting to the word "genocide" (with mass in front of it or otherwise) it might be seen as trivializing what happened just for the sake of being technically more correct historically.

psmith81992
You're right, I was only doing it for the sake of historical continuity. I agree that our founders engaged in genocide.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by psmith81992
You're right, I was only doing it for the sake of historical continuity. I agree that our founders engaged in genocide.
Well do you see how that might be misconstrued though?

psmith81992
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well do you see how that might be misconstrued though?

Yea, I suppose so. But most people aren't aware that the majority of the Indian population died out before we got there so if one were to say "we killed them all", one would be speaking from ignorance.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by psmith81992
Yea, I suppose so. But most people aren't aware that the majority of the Indian population died out before we got there so if one were to say "we killed them all", one would be speaking from ignorance.
Even if there hadn't been any intentional violence, if Columbus and every explorer and settler following had all been as nice and gracious as possible to the Natives, just bringing smallpox to them would be something worth regretting. At this point the only context in which the breakdown of deaths from disease vs deaths from violence and exploitation (and resource destruction--don't forget that the Americans actually had a policy of wiping out the buffalo to starve the plains Indians during the middle 19th century) would matter would be in a discussion between historians.

Robtard
Was that actually a policy, or were they overhunted for the hides? Though I guess both could work in conjunction.

Omega Vision
IIRC it was a policy of the railroad companies, whose business depended on a manageable Indian population, so they hired hunters to basically kill the buffalo. The meat and hides were a benefit.

Star428
So what if our ancestors engaged in genocide? I don't really see what that has to do with anything. They came. They saw. They conquered. It's not like the rest of the world back then didn't engage in stuff like that. African civilizations like the Zulu engaged in it against other African civilizations. The American indians themselves, long before Columbus set foot on the continent, wiped out other tribes over things like having access to hunting grounds. Some asian civs engaged in it also and probably (though not sure about this one) some south american tribes too.


Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about our ancestors being "murdering bastards" when the rest of the world was no better than they were.

Robtard
"So what if modern America was founded on oppression, genocide and slavery, other people did it too!" Spoken like a "true" Christian thumb up

IMO, you always condemn actions like that, that way there's less of a chance of it happening again.

psmith81992
This sounds like a self hating American. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Also not sure what being "Christian" has to do with this. Is this some predetermined secularist rebuttal? I'm confused.

NemeBro
No, it's a rebuttal specifically targeted at Star, who is a Christian.

Robtard
Originally posted by psmith81992
This sounds like a self hating American. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. Also not sure what being "Christian" has to do with this. Is this some predetermined secularist rebuttal? I'm confused.

That was me mocking Star's "So what if genocide happened" post.

The "true" Christian part was me implying that he's a C.I.N.O., considering his attitude. Edit: That's 'Christian In Name Only'.

Do you always go loony at imagined threats to Christianity?

Robtard
Originally posted by NemeBro
No, it's a rebuttal specifically targeted at Star, who is a Christian.

See, this guy got it.

Stealth Moose
Oppression, genocide and slavery are often black and white. In any case, an overwhelming majority of Americans are descendants of immigrants who - surprise - didn't do anything legally. They took over, set up shop, and now pretend to be under threat. It's retarded. Mexico is a legacy of Spanish imperialism that never recovered from said yoke and further suffered thanks to American meddling and the drug trade we finance. But when people try to escape to make a better life for themselves, we try to deport them or give them shit jobs a gringo wouldn't be caught dead doing.

#makessense.

NemeBro
psmith is Jewish.

psmith81992
This is understating the entire immigration issue. You forgot to add "come here illegally and don't try to become citizens". You also forgot to add crime statistics on foreigners, the drug trade, etc. You really forgot to add a whole slew of information.


Lol what? Pretend? It seems like you have a lot of anger and not a lot of facts here. Also, now the drug trade is our fault? The drug trade was there before we started "financing" it.


No, only when you emotionally rant about Christianity. And yea, I am Jewish.

Stealth Moose
Which makes his pogrom all the more amusing.

Robtard
Originally posted by psmith81992
This is understating the entire immigration issue. You forgot to add "come here illegally and don't try to become citizens". You also forgot to add crime statistics on foreigners, the drug trade, etc. You really forgot to add a whole slew of information.




Do you have some statistics to support your Donald Trump-like "They're all rapist" POV?

Cos from a quick search, it seems to be the opposite: "◾According to a 2008 report from the conservative Americas Majority Foundation, crime rates are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates."

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-evidence-setting-record-straight-immigrants-and-crime-0

Originally posted by psmith81992

No, only when you emotionally rant about Christianity. And yea, I am Jewish.

Well, you just did, as I wasn't attacking Christianity, you kneejerked. I don't care if you're a Jew, notice how I didn't ask.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Star428
So what if our ancestors engaged in genocide? I don't really see what that has to do with anything. They came. They saw. They conquered. It's not like the rest of the world back then didn't engage in stuff like that. African civilizations like the Zulu engaged in it against other African civilizations. The American indians themselves, long before Columbus set foot on the continent, wiped out other tribes over things like having access to hunting grounds. Some asian civs engaged in it also and probably (though not sure about this one) some south american tribes too.


Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about our ancestors being "murdering bastards" when the rest of the world was no better than they were.
You don't think that America should be held to higher moral standards than the rest of the world, considering the noble ideals America is supposedly founded on?

psmith81992
They're all rapist pov? At this point I doubt you read as much as make up arguments to refute. I've made no such claims


Notice how I didn't ask if you asked. You sure are an emotional fella.

Robtard
Originally posted by psmith81992
They're all rapist pov? At this point I doubt you read as much as make up arguments to refute. I've made no such claims


Notice how I didn't ask if you asked. You sure are an emotional fella.

"You also forgot to add crime statistics on foreigners" That was what you said, care to support this, or will you continue to make disparaging claims and then dance away when put to the task?

You responded directly to me telling me you're Jewish when I didn't ask you your denomination. Do you feel special about it or something. Geez.

psmith81992
I will add statistics when you stop making up arguments to refute. It's sad on your part. After further review, there appears to be no correlation between immigrants and crime. My issue is with those entering illegally and then committing crimes..


You're crying again. Move on.

Robtard
Originally posted by psmith81992
I will add statistics when you stop making up arguments to refute. It's sad on your part. After further review, there appears to be no correlation between immigrants and crime.

My issue is with those entering illegally and then committing crimes..


You're crying again. Move on.

So your claim was faulty. Glad you admit it thumb up

As compared to American citizens committing crimes.

You're doing flips again.

psmith81992
That's your rationalization every time you look foolish. It hasn't worked the other few times, not sure why you keep trying it. You don't need to convince yourself, do you? Maybe you'll learn to debate the matter at hand instead of making up arguments for other people.


https://stancarey.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/futurama-fry-should-i-lol-or-roflmao.jpg

Also, it's rapists laughing out loud You seem to have a problem with plurals.

Robtard
Oh my. That was lighthearted humor to your 'Immigrants and Crime' rant considering this thread is about "Donald Trump" and his recent scathing remarks towards immigrants. See.

It seems you were too emotionally invested to get the joke, maybe have a light chuckle, move on and then support your claim.

Easy: My "S" key is sticky, what's your excuse for not knowing the difference between "there" and "their"?

psmith81992
A little late on the "I know you are but what am I" comments. thumb up

Robtard
Oh my, just isn't your day again. If you recall, I implied you were emotional first on page 4 with the "butthurt" comment. So if you're going to try childish tactics to deflect away from your multiples fouls-ups in here again, it is you who is copying me. Sorry, guy.

Or you can put on your big boy pants, move on and focus of the meat of the thread thumb up I'd prefer that.

psmith81992
Just wow. Not only are you lagging here, but you're clearly angry about copying me that you just repeat everything back to me, and constantly feel the need to express yourself with each subsequent post. This is most embarrassing yet again, Rob. And despite what you may have heard, copying me is NOT a sincere form of flattery. Keep your chin up Rob and don't get so emotional thumb up




Speaking of.

Surtur
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Trump belittles what is the largest minority group in the US just because he wants to pander to people who are afraid of paying for immigrants, despite all being descendants of immigrants themselves. Oh, and Mexico being a shithole people should rightly want to leave. Taking an exceptional example to make a sweeping judgment is always a fallacy, in any case.

Well why should hard working people have to pay for illegal immigrants? "They are descended from immigrants" doesn't matter. Being descended from an immigrant isn't the same as being an illegal immigrant. For me it is simple: if you were born in this country then you are a citizen.

As for Mexico being a shithole...why is that our fault? If the country is so awful then who is to blame? Those that live there.

I also think this is one of those things where it needs to be an all or nothing thing. We need to make changes that prevent stuff like this from happening, even if just once in a blue moon. When you are told to hold an illegal in jail, you should do it, period.

I get that some illegal immigrants just want to make a better life for themselves and everyone has the right to want that. What they don't have the right to do is to go about getting that in illegal ways. It is that simple. If it is okay for one group of people to break the law in order to "make a better life" then why isn't it okay for everyone to do that?

Robtard
Originally posted by psmith81992
Just wow. Not only are you lagging here, but you're clearly angry about copying me that you just repeat everything back to me, and constantly feel the need to express yourself with each subsequent post. This is most embarrassing yet again, Rob. And despite what you may have heard, copying me is NOT a sincere form of flattery. Keep your chin up Rob and don't get so emotional thumb up




Speaking of.

IOW: "I said 'chin' first!"

More ranting and child-tactics and it's already been addressed. Next time you make a claim, just support it. Thanks thumb up

psmith81992
As usual, you're still crying and projecting. Next time don't make up other people's arguments to try and refute, otherwise you'll continue looking foolish. Just a heads up thumb up

Surtur
Look it needs to be said Trump was wrong when he generalized all Latino's that way. What he wasn't wrong about was the overall idea that the system needs to change. This is why he shot himself in the foot. If he wouldn't of ran his mouth like that, and just focused on making it tougher to illegally enter this country..he might of gotten more people on his side.

Since even when someone is making a valid point..if they are racist or obnoxious about it..it tends to fall on deaf ears. He could of spoken about the need to make it tougher to get here illegally without calling an entire group of people rapists.

I don't think either way he would of had a shot at winning, but I think he would of at least gotten more votes. Even worse: even if he truly believed what he was saying..he should of known better then to say it in public. Most racists I have met do not announce it to the world. So someone dumb enough to shoot himself in the foot like that probably can't cut it as a politician. He's probably wined and dined some politicians in the past and this makes him believe he can be one.

Robtard
Trump's a clown and that's what clowns do.

psmith81992
It's funny how angry he makes people. Most know he does it for shits and giggles, but boy, the backlash is hysterical.

Robtard
Calm yourself.

psmith81992
Originally posted by Robtard
Calm yourself.

http://commentphotos.com/gallery/CommentPhotos.com_1405786188.jpg

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Surtur
Well why should hard working people have to pay for illegal immigrants?

They pay taxes and live in poverty. The amount of money the individual spends on them is a fraction of what is spent on legal American social programs and military spending. In any case, I'd rather spend my dollar on people trying to better themselves then drones.



Yes it ****ing does. Because people like you and I could barely if at all pass the immigration tests. Because they can have children here who, by the logic of your statement, are valid citizens because of GPS coordinates during the act of birth. It's a stupid system.



Except that common citizens in Mexico lack things we take for granted, like the ability to make social change without being shot by cartels and corrupt cops. Mexicans are a HUGE number of minority people already in America; denying any more because they should "deal with their own shit" is short sighted. Their country is far more broken than ours.



Because blind obedience to the law worked great for the SS.



Again, could you or I do it legally as is? How is accident of birth more valid than a simple relocation and desire to work here and pay taxes and raise a family?



This is a rather narrow minded view of the law as the ultimate arbitrator of what is right. Again, the law as is makes becoming a citizen very difficult. And you and I received free citizenship and all its benefits by absolute accident of birth. How is a virtual genetic lottery a valid and ethical way of treating people?

Clue: It's not.

psmith81992
Sure.. IF they pay taxes. IF they're trying to better themselves.


That's sad if you can't pass the immigration test. And the fact that most Americans can't doesn't improve your point on immigration. You come here? You become a citizen like everyone else. My parents did it, their friends did it, and we didn't swim across a border, instead flying across the world. Why are they any different?


And "everything our leaders do is stupid just because I don't like it and it doesn't work for me" worked great for the hippies.


So if it's an issue about children of immigrants born here, that's different. I wish our immigration laws were on Switzerland's level though.

psmith81992
Also I wrote this at 7AM so if I missed a lot, I'll get back to it.

Star428
[email protected] "people like u and I couldn't pass the immigration tests". Maybe u can't, but you don't speak for me, dude, or any other American born here. Whether or not what you say is true is so phucking irrelevant anyway and just shows how desperate you are in your argument of defending illegal aliens. Reality check for you: Americans born here are under no obligation to pass the test , dummy. That's the benefit of being born here as opposed to being an immigrant. Duh. But, anyone who goes to the trouble of becoming a citizen legally obviously loves the country so they deserve to be an American citizen. Ones who aren't willing to go thru it the legal way clearly don't give a shit about this country and just are looking for a handout. The test is a good way to weed out the bad ones.

Most true Americans agree with Trump it seems:


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Rasmussen-Donald-Trump-immigration-americans/2015/07/07/id/653885/?ns_mail_uid=94127627&ns_mail_job=1626919_07082015&s=altdkt_nbr=mipglttu

Bardock42
Originally posted by Star428
[email protected] "people like u and I couldn't pass the immigration tests". Maybe u can't, but you don't speak for me, dude, or any other American born here. Whether or not what you say is true is so phucking irrelevant anyway and just shows how desperate you are in your argument of defending illegal aliens. Reality check for you: Americans born here are under no obligation to pass the test , dummy. That's the benefiit of being born here as opposed to being an immigrant. Duh.

Most true Americans agree with Trump it seems:


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Rasmussen-Donald-Trump-immigration-americans/2015/07/07/id/653885/?ns_mail_uid=94127627&ns_mail_job=1626919_07082015&s=altdkt_nbr=mipglttu

YEAH, Lincoln and Washington didn't single handedly beat up King Henry VIII and Geronimo so that some ******* asks TRUE Americans to understand any of their history or civic obligation. FREEDOM!!1!

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Star428
[email protected] "people like u and I couldn't pass the immigration tests". Maybe u can't, but you don't speak for me, dude, or any other American born here. Whether or not what you say is true is so phucking irrelevant anyway and just shows how desperate you are in your argument of defending illegal aliens. Reality check for you: Americans born here are under no obligation to pass the test , dummy. That's the benefit of being born here as opposed to being an immigrant. Duh. But, anyone who goes to the trouble of becoming a citizen legally obviously loves the country so they deserve to be an American citizen. Ones who aren't willing to go thru it the legal way clearly don't give a shit about this country and just are looking for a handout. The test is a good way to weed out the bad ones.

Most true Americans agree with Trump it seems:


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Rasmussen-Donald-Trump-immigration-americans/2015/07/07/id/653885/?ns_mail_uid=94127627&ns_mail_job=1626919_07082015&s=altdkt_nbr=mipglttu

Please cut down on the swearing, Star.

psmith81992
Someone is ANGRY.

Omega Vision
"True Americans."

You're always right when you live in a bubble where no one can disagree with you.

Surtur
Originally posted by Stealth Moose


They pay taxes and live in poverty. The amount of money the individual spends on them is a fraction of what is spent on legal American social programs and military spending. In any case, I'd rather spend my dollar on people trying to better themselves then drones.

I'd rather spend my dollar on bettering those here legally, call me crazy. Oh and just to be clear...100% of illegals here pay taxes, right?



The solution is don't come here illegally and then have some damn kids. Come legally and do it. Don't put yourself in a situation to get taken from your kids or have to leave.



None of it is a reason to allow people to break the law. Their country is more broken, but ours stills needs a crap load of work. We should focus on those problems first.



Oh please, if the country is so f*cking great they want to be here COME LEGALLY or do not come at all. Bottom line.



None of this excuses them being here illegally. You don't get to say "I want a better life, let me break the law".



None of this excuses them being here illegally. Here is the bottom line: they can break the law to better themselves..then EVERYONE in this country can.

Stop acting like it is our job to take care of every f*cking wayward soul in the world. We have enough shit to deal with without adding more and more to the problem. Because their country is a pile of shit that means they can illegally come here? That is almost as insane as the people who think we should police the entire damn planet.

Oh and I know quite well some laws are silly, but this isn't one of them. If you feel it shouldn't be illegal or should be less strict..well okay, but then those changes need to be made to the system instead of circumventing it. It's not perfect, nobody will tell you it is.

Q99
Originally posted by Surtur
I'd rather spend my dollar on bettering those here legally, call me crazy. Oh and just to be clear...100% of illegals here pay taxes, right?

Yep. Sales tax, heck, even income tax- They still get withholdings from their paycheck, they just don't get anything from it. It's fairly messed up.




The horse has left the barn long ago on that one. We need to deal with the situation as it is, not as it was a long time ago.


Ironically, back when the border was more open, much fewer lived here. They'd come here for work, work some, then go back home, as visiting seasonal workers.

Border tightened up, and while they still came here for work, it no longer became reasonable to go back.

Surtur
That's fine, then focus on keeping more illegals from coming in. Something needs to be done. But if we find illegals here, we sure as hell should ship them back.

But sure then, focus on keeping more out. No matter how you spin it..shit needs to change, better laws need to be put in place.

Also, I don't find it messed up if they pay taxes yet don't get anything from it. See, they don't get anything because they are illegal. You can't come here illegally, take jobs from others by accepting far far less pay, and then be upset you pay taxes without receiving anything. If you were here legally you could.

I mean that is why the illegals take the jobs people claim "nobody else wants to do". It is not out of the kindness of their hearts, it is because they are here illegally and thus a job that pays far less then minimum wage is something they need to accept. So then I don't blame people here legally for wanting a job that pays a fair wage, a minimum wage. If they forced the people in charge of these jobs to pay a fair wage, would we have to rely on illegals? Since don't act like only illegals will do physical labor, I know PLENTY of legals who have no problem doing a hard days work as long as the pay is fair. But that is all I hear "they do the jobs we won't" without anyone wondering why they are so willing to do those jobs..and it's not because they are humanitarians or because everyone here legally is lazy.

Unless all the hard working legal immigrants I know that perform similar jobs are just lying and totally here illegally. They must be lying, since you always here illegals will do the jobs absolutely nobody else wants to do. I know people out of work, of all races, that are here legally and would jump at a chance to do these jobs if they actually paid a fair wage. Nobody talks about that, nobody talks about why only illegals will do these jobs, merely that they are the "only ones" doing it. The implication being "lets not fix the issues we have that force us to rely on illegal labor".

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Also, I don't find it messed up if they pay taxes yet don't get anything from it. See, they don't get anything because they are illegal. You can't come here illegally, take jobs from others by accepting far far less pay, and then be upset you pay taxes without receiving anything. If you were here legally you could.


The problem with this view is that consumers (probably including you) directly benefit from those illegals taking jobs for shit wages.

Would you be happy if a box of strawberries you normally paid $1.99 for went up to $3.99 because "true Americans" were doing the jobs and the farming companies had to pay them proper wages?

Flyattractor
I would glady play $3.99 FOR berries picked by "true americans" if it meant that the over all cost on my taxes and such went down because I didn't have to pay for Healthcare, education and welfare for a few million illegals.

Robtard
It isn't just "berries". How much do you pay in taxes for illegals now?

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
The problem with this view is that consumers (probably including you) directly benefit from those illegals taking jobs for shit wages.

Would you be happy if a box of strawberries you normally paid $1.99 for went up to $3.99 because "true Americans" were doing the jobs and the farming companies had to pay them proper wages?

Uh, so this is what it has come to? Illegals are good because they take shitty jobs and accept shitty pay so instead of fixing the system so we don't have to rely on illegal labor..we do what?

If the only thing preventing people from taking these jobs is the pay is so absurdly low that illegals are the only ones willing to take it and thus the people get used to being able to pay out shit wages and only want to hire more illegals or people willing to work for shit wages. That is the biggest reason I hear: they do the jobs we won't. Instead of examining why people here don't want to do them(paid not even minimum wage, etc.) Nobody talks about ways to make it so we don't need to rely on illegal labor. They immediately go to "this is a valid reason we should look the other way".

You know what? I'd rather our tax dollars go to making these jobs pay fair wages then, for example,then to letting a teenager get his dick cut off for free. I'd rather increase taxes for stuff like that then some of the utterly asinine ideas some have come up with here that would cause vast increases in taxes(like policing the whole friggin world).

So yes, I'd totally pay more for berries if it meant people here legally could earn a decent wage and we did not have to rely on illegal labor. Because making it so we don't have to rely on illegal labor is actually a worthy goal for this country to aspire to. As opposed to other stuff we seem to want to aspire to lately. Illegal Latino's are not the only people willing to take jobs with physical labor, not by a long shot. They are just the only ones who will accept dog shit pay. Do they accept these jobs because they just love the country so much they want to give us cheap berries? Nah, not even close. They don't have a choice due to the whole "not here legally" thing. Pay people a proper wage..then come back and talk about "these are the only people who will do these jobs".

Robtard
It's not necessarily a "good" thing, it's just a fact of life.

Again, if the wages were raised, it would have a rippling effect on prices and then people would be shouting over that. I'd go from "They took our jobs!" to "We can't afford to eat!" It's a lose-lose situation as it is now.

What's a "fair wage"? The federal minimum? You'd still have a hard time finding "true Americans" to do the work in today's America though, at least in the numbers needed.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
It's not necessarily a "good" thing, it's just a fact of life.

Again, if the wages were raised, it would have a rippling effect on prices and then people would be shouting over that. I'd go from "They took our jobs!" to "We can't afford to eat!" It's a lose-lose situation as it is now.

What's a "fair wage"? The federal minimum? You'd still have a hard time finding "true Americans" to do the work in today's America though, at least in the numbers needed.

But again, it seems like it conveniently comes down to "the best thing to do is allow this illegal labor". Why? You know what, I'd say changes are needed still. We can't sit here and pretend like there isn't a reason these people are the only ones willing to do these jobs. It's not that they are just *that* much more hard working then any other race in existence.

I don't know what a fair wage would be, all I know is that they currently can't give one, and that is why we rely on illegals. Some people act like they come here out of the kindness of their hearts to do cheap labor, instead of pointing out it is a necessity because they are illegal, not because people from Mexico just love picking fruit.

I'm not saying other systems don't need fixing, our entire way of doing things is a gigantic clusterf*ck. This is just one part of a bigger issue. It isn't just this, we have messed up everything in the way we do it. The way we handle abortion, adoption, child support, alimony, our job system, our court system, our police system. The list goes on, but we need to start making changes somewhere.

Robtard
The jobs they often take are many a time are unskilled labor, because they're unskilled laborers looking for a better opportunity.

On the minimum wage thing, not sure how it is in Chicago, but here in the San Francisco/Bay area, the majority of minimum wage jobs are done by Latinos and not all of them are illegals, many have green cards, were born here or have work visas. Why? Because other people don't want the jobs now; especially for $7.25hr.

Time-Immemorial
Trump employs more Hispanics then any other canidate. So his comments abouts Mexico sending us their worst was not racist, it was the truth. Considering the drug kingpin broke out of jail and is already tweeting death to Trump. I find it funny anyone disagrees.

Robtard
Criminals coming over from Mexico isn't in dispute. Criminals also come over from Canada. Those facts don't change his disparaging comments though.

Yeah, I saw something about "El Chapo" and Trump on my FB news feed, didn't give it much attention though.

Time-Immemorial
Why not? Issuing death threats isn't a big deal to you?

Robtard
Because "El Chapo" imposed over a pic of Trump Tower didn't seem too interesting.

Time-Immemorial
Im sure you would have a problem if he made that threat to Obama.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Im sure you would have a problem if he made that threat to Obama.

Odd. But Obama has received death threats before; I don't recall flipping out, as I apparently should be over something about "El Chapo" and Trump.

Stealth Moose
Originally posted by Flyattractor
I would glady play $3.99 FOR berries picked by "true americans" if it meant that the over all cost on my taxes and such went down because I didn't have to pay for Healthcare, education and welfare for a few million illegals.

It's amusing. You can jack up gas prices, inch up consumer product prices or the price of produce, scale up cost of education and social programs, spend billions upon billions blowing up brown people who 'might' threaten you on the other side of the world, but this guy's worried about the sales tax burden of illegals on his ****ing berries.

The myopic attention to detail is astounding.

Omega Vision
So...now Trump thinks John McCain isn't a "war hero" because he got captured?

Surtur
Yeah this is why part of me now wonders if this is actually about him running for president or if he just wants to get his name out there. He is now just saying outrageous things for really no reason whatsoever.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>