EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6288
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
Republican President/House/Senate 1921-1929 = Great Depression Republican President/House/Senate 2001-2007 = Great Recession https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png And now we see people moving away from bonds into stocks and regulations being stripped away (exactly what caused the above): http://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-could-trigger-the-great-unwind-in-markets-134854872.html This isn't a hard call and I want to go on the record now: Trump's Presidency will put us into a recession by the end of his term. Remember it Trumpsters. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6205 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 23 2016 04:47 RvB wrote: Huge crises like the great depression and recession have causes which stretch back for decades. Blaming them on one party is laughable. Deregulation causing those crises is also heavily debated. The next president was going to have to do deal with a recession regardless of who was elected. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 23 2016 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Have the water protectors in ND just not been on people's radar, or do the state/corporate sponsored profit enforcers just not bother people? It's pretty horrific what's happening out there, seems peculiar that it's basically a non-event here/in corporate media. That's almost always the case for protesting. The US corporate media doesn't like to extensively cover things that are bipartisanly supported but make the US look bad (Drone Strikes, US surveillance, Protests). | ||
|
oBlade
United States5570 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On November 23 2016 04:50 xDaunt wrote: The next president was going to have to do deal with a recession regardless of who was elected. Only if they got a second term. Both candidates planned on bringing in trillions from offshore, which will goose the economy and hide the problems for a bit (possibly make room for them to get worse). Also, on Trump's conflicts of interests, I don't think he's doing anything especially new, he just cut out some middlemen. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
clinton states in particular doing pretty well. much of that is IP related stuff but hey, trickle down. not tax trickle down mind you, but 'anchor institution/industry' leading regional development. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 23 2016 00:48 Biff The Understudy wrote: Look, there are two possible positions: 1- You attack the media for doing a bad job. That's ok. But then, I ask you to start with Breitbart and Fox, because they are the number one provider of desinformation, intellectual dishonesty and brutal propaganda. Otherwise I simply call you a hypocrite. The mainstream media is not meaningfully better than Fox or Breitbart. They only seem so to you because Fox and Breitbart push different narratives than what you're accustomed to. The difference between you and me is that I acknowledge that all media outlets are biased, whereas you apparently won't. 2- Second option, you attack medias when they are not on your side. That's an attack on plurality of opinions, on free speech and on democracy. That's what Trump is doing by the way, attacking the NYT for stories that are obviously true. And the problem is that independent journalism is essential to a democracy. If you are part of a democracy you have to accept the voice of people who don't like you. And it should REALLY worry you if the president uses his power against people who express skepticism and report on the crap he says. This is laughable. Trump put these media fools in a room and scolded them. Big deal. They'll have a big cry, some will express some anger, but they'll get over it. Wake me up when Trump starts nationalizing the media and using the force of government to shut down dissenting voices. Now you will ask me: oh, but the media is liberal. That's not true. The media goes from Breitbart and Fox to the NYT and Washington Post. And the high end in terms of quality, fact checking and simple honesty is not in favour of the conservative media. Should I remind you the amazing way Fox News helped GWB to basically steal an election? This is incredibly duplicitous, and you know it. To say that media isn't liberal and justify that statement by saying that the media incorporates a range of views from Breitbart and Fox to the NYT and Washington Post completely misses the point. The preponderance of the media very clearly is liberal, especially when you look at the "legacy" media outlets. Then you say ok, but the media is against Trump, even when it's conservative or neutral. But mate, look, Nobel Prize winners are against Trump, scientists are against Trump, highly educated people are against Trump, artists are against Trump, and the whole rest of the world is against Trump. Trump has 9% approval in Europe. 9 fucking percents. And all of those people can suck my balls. They can have their opinions, but I don't really care what they think. They don't have the same agenda that I and other Trump supporters do. All those people are against Trump not because of another bizarre conspiracy or because they are all sold to some shadowy interest, but because he is a proto-fascist serial liar with a narcissistic personality disorder rarely seen outside of psychiatric institutions. You attack the press for being generally hostile to your horrendous guy. And then what? Are you gonna attack the artists, nobel prize winners, scientists, educated people and the rest of the world? Or juste accept that in a free society, it may happens a lot of people think that your guy is horrendous. It's not because the media is sold to the liberals that no serious newspaper endorsed him. It's because he is fucking terrible. And you are not doing a service to your country by cheering for a future president when he attacks one of the absolute cornerstones of democracy (if you care at all about that). This is sheer hysteria. I almost feel bad for you. You've bought the retarded mainstream media narrative on Trump so hard that you aren't even willing to wait and see what he does before damning him as a fascist and failure of a president. Have a drink. Hit a bong. Relax. You'll feel better. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On November 23 2016 05:39 xDaunt wrote: you aren't even willing to wait and see Hah. No one has to wait and see. He's already building up a queue of things that he's going to do ASAP which a portion of the country finds terrible. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802/text Assuming (quite reasonably) that he gets to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, this is going to be law until either A) The composition of the Supreme Court changes enough that it leans against this law B) Democrats take control of the House in addition to the Senate and Presidency C) Enough House Republicans decide to vote with Democrats to repeal it D) Democrats get control of the Senate and basically attach repealing it to every bill the Senate passes. Those are listed in order of likelihood in my opinion. The First Amendment Defense Act is probably going to be law for at least 15 to 20 years. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
Hit a bong. Do it while you can, who knows what Trump's AG might do, the guy is a complete, unadulterated, moron when it comes to cannabis. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 23 2016 05:51 Doodsmack wrote: To be fair you weren't so hot on Trump when news that he's an embarrassment was fresh. You in fact called him a clown. Rape tapes aren't born in media newsrooms. Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On November 23 2016 05:51 Kyadytim wrote: Hah. No one has to wait and see. He's already building up a queue of things that he's going to do ASAP which a portion of the country finds terrible. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2802/text Assuming (quite reasonably) that he gets to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, this is going to be law until either A) The composition of the Supreme Court changes enough that it leans against this law B) Democrats take control of the House in addition to the Senate and Presidency C) Enough House Republicans decide to vote with Democrats to repeal it D) Democrats get control of the Senate and basically attach repealing it to every bill the Senate passes. Those are listed in order of likelihood in my opinion. The First Amendment Defense Act is probably going to be law for at least 15 to 20 years. This is the same person who like 30 years ago said if the country needs him to president, he will put his business life on hold, become president and save it. Now the initial portion of that is reality despite every single prediction and "analysis". This is the last person you should be pre-judging or underestimating, he did something extraordinary and I'd wait and see how he does with his 4 years. Even democrats are already getting ready to work with him because he has some ideas for both sides. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
less educated voters in particular are more susceptible to trump style macho talk. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 23 2016 05:59 biology]major wrote: fox is actually not bad, because the people on that channel who are openly shilling for conservatives are proud of it. They aren't hiding behind any false pretense of journalism. That's what makes CNN and the like so disingenuous, because they pretend to be news networks. There's also quite a few people on fox who are balanced and give reasonable analysis. Fox actually has a slogan that's a false pretense. It's hard to get more dishonest than that, but the more incredible thing is that people believe it. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On November 23 2016 05:58 xDaunt wrote: Clearly I and a lot of other people badly underestimated Trump. He's an embarrassment who got lucky. Can you fathom Ben Carson in the cabinet? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On November 23 2016 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Have the water protectors in ND just not been on people's radar, or do the state/corporate sponsored profit enforcers just not bother people? It's pretty horrific what's happening out there, seems peculiar that it's basically a non-event here/in corporate media. Native Americans have been disenfranchised for decades and only now do supposed progressives start to care? What about their unemployment rate? What about alcoholism and rape in tribal lands? What about the after effects of their land and culture wrenched from them? Shouldn't we give them reparations? Shouldn't we give them increased funding? Shouldn't we give them more and more of their land back? Oh wait, they're just a talking point progressives use to complain about democrats. So much hate. | ||
| ||
