Jump to content

Why Trump Will Not Be President in 2018


Caecus
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Rozalia said:

Just going to be quick in my response and address some things.

You talk about Trump's zealous base and then think Republicans will dare remove him? Trump gets removed by Republicans and those people walk from the Republican party, that simple. Without said people the Republicans will get massacred and they know it. The establishment in the Republican party has since Romney (so not that long ago I suppose) wanted to move... "left", as in like the Democrats take a couple of considered left-wing positions, in their case on immigration. They did not believe that the opposite to that, being harsh on immigration could bring in the people like it did for Trump.

The GOP doesn't hate Trump's "stupidity", the opposite in fact. Let me show you how recent events have worked.

GOP: We got this bill Trump, real nasty stuff so we need some cover fire yeah? Take the attention off.
Trump: Sure thing. *Sends Tweet*
Democrats+MSM: COMMUNISTS ARE AT THE GATES, AMERICA HAS FALLEN!

Oh and... FORGET THE BLOODY TWEETS MAN! Damn. Intentional or not they play you and the rest of your lot every time. 

The Trump stupidity thing. If you lost to a stupid idiot then how stupid are you? There is no money in slamming your opponent in such a manner, zero. Democrats already did it and look where it went. They put out that Trump was the stupidest and weakest candidate ever... and then lost to him. If he stupid and weak then they are braindead and anemic. You, the Democrats, and media really do need to start showing Trump some respect. Not for Trump's sake, but for your own. Also... Trump was smart enough to campaign in key states while Clinton decided to run up her popular vote total (meaningless) in Cali. Who is dumb in that?

You say the destablising the middle east thing a lot... but any actually evidence? No, you have none. Saudi Arabia have no choice but to keep friendly and supporting dictators like Assad (as far as not inciting rebellions and arming terrorists against him is supporting) is a stable thing to do. I get you are like Rahl and see America changing course as being a destabilisation but yeah, no. If Trump doesn't set his sites on ripping apart a country like Obama did with Libya and Syria then he'll have been much more stable in the area. 

I'm going to be quicker in my response and address your things:

You didn't read what I wrote. Republicans will distance themselves from Trump when Trump's base erodes. I'm betting that his base will erode when the economy fails under his watch. 

Lol. People keep thinking that Trump's tweets are part of some grand master plan. If it is just a huge fake out, they still suck at passing the healthcare bill. Also doesn't speak well for Trump when his healthcare bill !@#$ his own base.

Why should I forget about the tweets? The tweets is Trump unfiltered. That's about as true to Trump's real nature and personality as it gets. Not my fault that his personality and real nature turns out to be dumb as shit. 

Again, all you can do is point to Trump winning the election. By that standard, Clinton is smart, Bush is smart. Al Gore is dumb as shit. Romney is dumb as shit. There is wide-spread evidence of Trump being dumb as shit. Because of the overwhelming evidence of Trump being dumb as shit, one might wonder if the smart person in the Trump campaign was Kellyanne, instead of Trump. 

Qatar. Israel. Is there Middle East peace yet, Kushy?

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Caecus said:

I'm going to be quicker in my response and address your things:

You didn't read what I wrote. Republicans will distance themselves from Trump when Trump's base erodes. I'm betting that his base will erode when the economy fails under his watch. 

Lol. People keep thinking that Trump's tweets are part of some grand master plan. If it is just a huge fake out, they still suck at passing the healthcare bill. Also doesn't speak well for Trump when his healthcare bill !@#$ his own base.

Why should I forget about the tweets? The tweets is Trump unfiltered. That's about as true to Trump's real nature and personality as it gets. Not my fault that his personality and real nature turns out to be dumb as shit. 

Again, all you can do is point to Trump winning the election. By that standard, Clinton is smart, Bush is smart. Al Gore is dumb as shit. Romney is dumb as shit. There is wide-spread evidence of Trump being dumb as shit. Because of the overwhelming evidence of Trump being dumb as shit, one might wonder if the smart person in the Trump campaign was Kellyanne, instead of Trump. 

Qatar. Israel. Is there Middle East peace yet, Kushy?

No I did. You yourself said it doesn't matter how much !@#$ he grabs or how many veteran families he insults.

Like I told. Intentional or not, you're getting played. The distinction is Trump playing you or you playing yourself but little difference when it comes to the results.

Because it is a distraction and contributes to this narrative that Trump is so weak and stupid so we got this. No... you don't. Same attitude was shown already to give horrible results with Democrats losing at every level.

Your point is? All you need to be is smart where it counts. If I call up the firemen I expect them to be smart on fire related business and not all that smart on other subjects. Trump is an expert in self promotion, a key thing in politics. He is an expert at misdirecting both towards himself and towards others. He knows little on many other areas of course. There is a term for such things https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot savant

ISIS is nearly wasted. Assad will have full control of Syria in time with the rebels no longer getting US support. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

No I did. You yourself said it doesn't matter how much !@#$ he grabs or how many veteran families he insults.

Like I told. Intentional or not, you're getting played. The distinction is Trump playing you or you playing yourself but little difference when it comes to the results.

Because it is a distraction and contributes to this narrative that Trump is so weak and stupid so we got this. No... you don't. Same attitude was shown already to give horrible results with Democrats losing at every level.

Your point is? All you need to be is smart where it counts. If I call up the firemen I expect them to be smart on fire related business and not all that smart on other subjects. Trump is an expert in self promotion, a key thing in politics. He is an expert at misdirecting both towards himself and towards others. He knows little on many other areas of course. There is a term for such things https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot savant

ISIS is nearly wasted. Assad will have full control of Syria in time with the rebels no longer getting US support. 

No, you didn't, because what you said is entirely irrelevant. 

Like I said, Trump doesn't have the intellectual capacity to play people. Otherwise, he would have gotten his agenda through instead of wasting the first 6 months of his presidency. 

Boo hoo, dems lose. Still doesn't change the fact that Trump is weak and stupid af. 

36% isn't good promotion. 36% is a joke. 

Qatar and Israel. It's like you don't know how to read.  

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Parryx said:

1. I'm already tired of argumenting that. (Feel free to stop discussing it. Your lack of understanding and me clarifying it is doing nothing to help you.) This would work if your debt remain stable or increased less than debt. (It already has worked) Then among time (it would last for lots of years) you would be able to pay the debt. But the debt is increasing every time more than the devaluation of your currency, so it won't work. (It's already happening. It's been happening for at least a year at the moment.) The simple proof that debt isn't reducing is just the debt over nominal GDP. Debt over nominal GDP has been increasing (2015 was 105%). Inflation also increases nominal GDP so debt over nominal GDP would decrease if inflation increase was bigger than debt increase. The simplest proof that debt is increasing more than inflation is that: Debt over GDP is increasing Which grants the United States revenue. I've already explained it. Google if you can't figure it out.2. The news say that Toyota decided to invest in Mexico in 2015, moving their plant of production of the Corolla from Canada to Mexico. After Trump tweeted against imported cars some days ago Toyota announces a 10b investment in USA. The news doesn't say anything about 2013. Those are facts, read the BBC also please. Per your email of "sources" specifically regarding this issue via the Reuters story (again, a citation from YOU): http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autoshow-toyota-idUSKBN14T1NN:

Quote

 

"DETROIT (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) will invest $10 billion in the United States over the next five years, the same as in the previous five years"

"The Japanese automaker has come under fire by President-elect Donald Trump for its plans, announced in 2015, to shift production of its Corolla to Mexico from Canada."

3. No comments, i'm quite tired about that. Say what you want, most people in Syria don't want an Islamic government. According to whom?

4. It's obviously true. China has most of your production because they moved the factories that were profitable to move. That means tax borders+cost of sending the product. If you make a free trade agreement with them you remove the tax borders so even more factories will move there because they will be more profitable to move there. Can you understand that? I haven't misunderstood it. I just don't agree with you. Given how weird your beliefs are I'd've imagined you'd be more accustomed to that. That is what happened with Obama and DR-CAFTA. If you increase tax borders (products produced in China are mainly for exports) then less factories will be profitable to move to China and export to USA so they will come back. Correct, except there's no "if" involved. That is the economic reality. Obviously this has a limit because you also have to import some products but doing free-trade agreements with countries with less cost of production than yours is a bad idea. ANY economist would say that. Have you spoken with them all? Including all of the other schools of economic thought aside from your preferred one? If not, your claim has no basis.

5. Sure, joining EU was a bad idea but here we enter in politicians, how they lie people or do marketing so people vote them. I was just explaining EU policies and quotes of production so you can understand why Ukraine lost that much GDP (I didn't require that and don't believe I read your post). Russia has not troops. Yes, it does. Besides the captured RUSSIAN SOLDIERS that Ukraine has caught inside their borders, most of the advanced weapons systems being brought into the Western Ukraine would require experienced Russian personnel in order for them to be operated. Some russian citizens moved to east Ukraine and asked to join the militias there but Russia hasn't troops there. This isn't a discussion. Russia has deployed Russian troops and equipment into the Western Ukraine. Keep saying what you're saying, but they're still going to be there. As some people of Spain that went to west Ukraine to join ukraine army but Spain hasn't troops there, easy to understand. And obviously Russia gives money and weapons to novorossiya, as EU/USA does to Ukraine. (Where's your evidence of this, by the way? It's the second or third time you've claimed this and appears to be entirely generated by you alone.) My friend and his family didn't give their support to Russia. In fact they were against the russian adquisition of Crimea or the independence of east ukraine. The problem is that they are left-wing and members of the government are nazis so nazis tried to killed them not because they support Russia (because they didn't), because they were left-wing. Those aren't elements of fascism? Not a formal part, no. This is how fascism is determined; Putin scores 13/14 http://rense.com/general37/fascism.htm Stabbing jews, burning left-wing people alive, banning all the left parties, shooting citizens because they are left? Hitler banned the communist party during the fake election he won, he sent sections of the SA to the voting posts to make people be afraid, killed and chased jews, shooted and killed political rivals. So yeah, Ukraine government is fascist. 1: None of this relates to fascism, no. 2: If it did, it would be neo-Nazi due to the racial aspects. Putin also makes the same with the left parties in Russia, he ordered to beat and sent to jail the secretary of the communist party of russia. Is a fight between fascist governments. How could that be without Russia having sent soldiers, which you earlier denied?

There are more schools. Obviously Austrian school isn't a school of economics, but there are others. Anyways, all of them would understand that if your debt increases more than inflation you don't reduce the real monetary value of the debt. That's easy. Again, unless you've spoken with every economist in the world please avoid pretending you're speaking about what some economists think about a certain issue, let alone all of them. You speaking for them makes your post absolutely pointless for lack of evidence.

PS: As always you just ignore what you don't want to answer. You haven't answered why you said that Glass-Steagall is useless. I don't recall calling it useless.

 

1 hour ago, Rozalia said:

Just going to be quick in my response and address some things.

You talk about Trump's zealous base and then think Republicans will dare remove him? Trump gets removed by Republicans and those people walk from the Republican party, that simple. LOL, not a chance.  Without said people the Republicans will get massacred and they know it. The establishment in the Republican party has since Romney (so not that long ago I suppose) wanted to move... "left", as in like the Democrats take a couple of considered left-wing positions, in their case on immigration. They did not believe that the opposite to that, being harsh on immigration could bring in the people like it did for Trump.

The GOP doesn't hate Trump's "stupidity", the opposite in fact. Meaning the GOP supports Trump's stupidity? Let me show you how recent events have worked.

GOP: We got this bill Trump, real nasty stuff so we need some cover fire yeah? Take the attention off.
Trump: Sure thing. *Sends Tweet*
Democrats+MSM: COMMUNISTS ARE AT THE GATES, AMERICA HAS FALLEN!
Ah, now we can learn this is an authentic Rozalia post. If you ever question whether Rozalia is the one using Rozalia's account look for the fake quotations. It's a dead giveaway. Russia is a declared opponent to the United States that Trumpler gave to our opponent's leader, the fascist Putin. Who cares how many people may have died to acquire that intelligence?

Oh and... FORGET THE BLOODY TWEETS MAN! Damn. Intentional or not they play you and the rest of your lot every time. His twitter account is now a part of the official record of his administration. Looking like a child fifty years from now when it's reviewed is going to be hilarious that we had a president in favor of sexual assaults, tax evasion, corporate bankruptcy, acting like an infant on Twitter, admitting to a complete lack of understanding necessary to alter healthcare, restarting our torture program, lying about building a wall that's not needed, lying about who would be funding the wall, lying about how much it costs, mismanaging North Korean diplomacy to the point where Russian troops and equipment are massing on their border with North Korea and China is doing the same on theirs, among many other things? Both Russia and China have indicated they'll support North Korea and the last time all it took to beat UNC troops was Chinese involved with relatively primitive weapons. Now we're adding Russia and going to win?

The Trump stupidity thing. If you lost to a stupid idiot then how stupid are you? There is no money in slamming your opponent in such a manner, zero. Democrats already did it and look where it went. They put out that Trump was the stupidest and weakest candidate ever... and then lost to him. If he stupid and weak then they are braindead and anemic. You, the Democrats, and media really do need to start showing Trump some respect. Why? Not for Trump's sake, but for your own. Also... Trump was smart enough to campaign in key states while Clinton decided to run up her popular vote total (meaningless) in Cali. Who is dumb in that? Trump. Same reason Trump had FAPSI forge a cache of emails claimed to have been from the DNC and then having FAPSI thinking if that's a good idea, hacking Trump to blackmail him if he won would be an even better idea for them.

You say the destablising the middle east thing a lot... but any actually evidence? No, you have none. Saudi Arabia have no choice but to keep friendly and supporting dictators like Assad (as far as not inciting rebellions and arming terrorists against him is supporting) is a stable thing to do. Saudi Arabia doesn't support Assad. They're Sunni; Assad and his government are Alawaite, an off-shoot of Shia Islam and heretical to Saudi Arabia. I get you are like Rahl and see America changing course as being a destabilisation but yeah, no. If Trump doesn't set his sites on ripping apart a country like Obama did with Libya and Syria then he'll have been much more stable in the area. The Libyans did their own revolt of their own accord. We don't get to boss them around. Syria's war started years ago, again without American involvement; even now the most we're doing is duplicating a pseudo-cooperation system with the parties involved in Syria as we do with East African piracy.

.

56 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

ISIS is nearly wasted. Assad will have full control of Syria in time with the rebels no longer getting US support. What makes you think the rebels in Syria would surrender or lose support? Assad will never be permitted to remain in his position and the war will continue until a replacement government is installed that's popular enough with the Syrians that they agree to it.

 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will answer only to the economic stuff because the other I say the same and you answer the same all time. If you say that neonazis aren't fascists then open a book. 

1. Debt. Let's start from 0. GDP is production*prices of an economy. Nominal GDP (that is GDP without deflacting it) has in itself the effects of the inflation. That means that if prices increase 1% and production stays the same, the new GDP will be 1% bigger than before. When you say that debt will be reduced (real, not nominally) due to inflation that means that GDP will grow (due to inflation) so Debt/GDP will decrease because GDP will increase (because inflation will increase). What actually happened is that debt/GDP (debt over GDP) has increased. Not because a reduction on the GDP, but of a bigger increase on debt than the increase on GDP. The inflation effect is already in the nominal GDP so you can't count it two times. If inflation increased more than debt that would mean that GDP would increase more than Debt so Debt/GDP would reduce. What actually happened is that Debt/GDP increased during this time and is continue increasing. Why? Because increase of debt is bigger than increase of inflation so the debt isn't losing value, it is increasing. So you are not reducing debt, you are increasing it. No school of economics is against that because that is simply MATHS. 

Debt/GDP= Debt/(Price*Q) so, if Debt/(Price*Q) increases that means that increase in debt is bigger than increase in inflation so the debt doesn't lose value. Can you understand that?

2. About free trade agreements. It isn't anything about a school of economics. It's simply human behaviour. If you could produce the same with less costs would you choose that? Obviously. That was why tax border was created. To increase the cost and make it less profitable to move the industry to another country. That's why every state try to make free trades with countries with more cost of production than them. To take the production process and export the product to the other country. It's true that is happening with tax borders because there are some stuff that the cost production difference is HUGE so moving the plant of production is worth even with tax borders. But reducing/eliminating them it's not a solution. That's why free trade agreements with countries with less cost production isn't good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doc Martini said:

Whole thread is bait. Stupid, stupid bait.

Tell me Doc, what's more stupid? The stupid bait or the people taking the stupid bait? 

It's kinda mean to just go onto a thread, insult everyone, and leave like you know any better. Because you don't, you don't know what we are talking about. :P

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Parryx said:

I will answer only to the economic stuff because the other I say the same and you answer the same all time. If you say that neonazis aren't fascists then open a book. I suspect the book I've read is Mussolini's explanation of what fascism is. I didn't deny Neo-Nazis weren't fascist, just that by including racial elements it moves to a secondary (but ultimately almost identical) system of government.

1. Debt. Let's start from 0. GDP is production*prices of an economy. Nominal GDP (that is GDP without deflacting it) has in itself the effects of the inflation. That means that if prices increase 1% and production stays the same, the new GDP will be 1% bigger than before. When you say that debt will be reduced (real, not nominally) due to inflation that means that GDP will grow (due to inflation) so Debt/GDP will decrease because GDP will increase (because inflation will increase). What actually happened is that debt/GDP (debt over GDP) has increased. Not because a reduction on the GDP, but of a bigger increase on debt than the increase on GDP. The inflation effect is already in the nominal GDP so you can't count it two times. If inflation increased more than debt that would mean that GDP would increase more than Debt so Debt/GDP would reduce. What actually happened is that Debt/GDP increased during this time and is continue increasing. Why? Because increase of debt is bigger than increase of inflation so the debt isn't losing value, it is increasing. So you are not reducing debt, you are increasing it. No school of economics is against that because that is simply MATHS. So we've now moved beyond you even considering which economists believe what, now you're just doing your own thing. As I said, I've already had classes in economics. None of your explanation was necessary. National debt is entirely different from personal or business debt and doesn't work the same way. Example: The UK just recently finally finished paying off its debt from the Crimean War 150 years ago. You have your opinion, but calling it fact is inaccurate and of no use. We're currently earning money off the debt and the majority came from Reagan and Bush W. Bush couldn't even keep the balanced budget Clinton left to him.

Debt/GDP= Debt/(Price*Q) so, if Debt/(Price*Q) increases that means that increase in debt is bigger than increase in inflation so the debt doesn't lose value. Can you understand that? I've understood what you've been saying. You're just wrong is the real issue.

2. About free trade agreements. It isn't anything about a school of economics. It's simply human behaviour. If you could produce the same with less costs would you choose that? Obviously. That was why tax border was created. To increase the cost and make it less profitable to move the industry to another country. That's why every state try to make free trades with countries with more cost of production than them. To take the production process and export the product to the other country. It's true that is happening with tax borders because there are some stuff that the cost production difference is HUGE so moving the plant of production is worth even with tax borders. But reducing/eliminating them it's not a solution. That's why free trade agreements with countries with less cost production isn't good idea.(to you). As you're not a living representation of the United States your opinion of it (and mine as well) are irrelevant.

 

17 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Tell me Doc, what's more stupid? The stupid bait or the people taking the stupid bait? It doesn't matter; it's fun.

It's kinda mean to just go onto a thread, insult everyone, and leave like you know any better. Because you don't, you don't know what we are talking about. :P

 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Caecus said:

Take it from the "Real News" itself. Again, I still don't think you read what I wrote. 

With all due respect, I have read what you wrote.  You make lots of intellectual points that smart people would easily understand and appreciate.  The problem is Congressional Republicans represent anti-intellectual constituencies who treat intellectualism as if it's elitist.  

You're also ignoring the depth of politics by taking Trump's tweets at face value.  He says what he says to sway public opinion, not to actually portray what he believes.  On top of that, just because he believes something doesn't make it true.

Heck, just read this: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/what-congressional-republicans-really-think-about-trump-and-russia/533784/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Caecus said:

No, you didn't, because what you said is entirely irrelevant. 

Like I said, Trump doesn't have the intellectual capacity to play people. Otherwise, he would have gotten his agenda through instead of wasting the first 6 months of his presidency. 

Boo hoo, dems lose. Still doesn't change the fact that Trump is weak and stupid af. 

36% isn't good promotion. 36% is a joke. 

Qatar and Israel. It's like you don't know how to read.  

Just saying things like you do doesn't make them the case. You have a real problem with showing respect and taking people seriously don't you? 

Just keep ignoring that I each time have taken that into consideration and said that if he ain't playing you, then you're playing yourself. It is up to debate which is worse certainly, but whatever the case the result is the same.

Again, tearing people down does you no favours. If your opponent is weak, stupid, and all the rest and you then lose... what does that say about you? Look at Spite, Rahl, and other losers. They thought they were so smart and that their opponent was so stupid and look what happened. Shown up to not be in touch what was happening in both Britain and America. Like them you can certainly talk and repeat conventional wisdom (with the disgracable barbs thrown in as a bonus), however conventional is not always the way to go. When you get to these times people aren't so hot for such things.

Incorrect. He has brought more people into the fold which added to the base that will vote Republican basically no matter what allowed him to win, and the Republicans by extension to win at all levels. Clinton by comparison couldn't keep people Obama brought in and then seemed to do everything in her power to lose the Progressive faction that supported Sanders overwhelmingly. As long as Trump maintains his own diehards and the Republican ones he will win unless the Democrats can get the Progressive faction back to supporting them in full... which they seem to not want to do considering they want to anoint a Clintonite to succeed the queen herself. 

Qatar I know is currently in it's spot, some say due to American pressure. Israel is... Israel? How is it destabilised exactly? Spare me the dramatics of insulting me and then saying nothing, actually explain when asked for once. 

7 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Milton Nonsense

Learn what a quote is, or just anything in general buddy.

Are you seriously using America now not taking down Assad for Saudi Arabia as a... bad thing? The hilarity of you when you start shouting out these Neo-Con arguments just because you hate Trump so much is always delicious. Yeah sorry Neo-Con boy but Trump ain't too hot on ruining countries for profit. Deal with it.
 


From the start with Libya and Syria I called these things. Saying that America was in on it and provoked it and then supported "moderates", aka fanatic scum, is a very safe bet. So yeah, sorry Mr. Warmonger, but few believe your warmongering lies anymore. Please now do defend the CIA as you have before, give us more laughs.

Lol! I know you're gutless but it's worth a shot. Want to step up like Caecus and put your continuing presence on these forums (Social Hub) on the line on that? Tell you what, I'll even stack it against myself. If the "rebels" or ISIS beat Assad then I'll never post here in the Social Hub again. If Assad beats them both (for ISIS that means no longer owning any good degree of land, being a terrorist group and all they can survive landless and in other countries) then you never post here in the Social Hub again. How about it? You sound so sure but based on former evidence it seems clear you cannot actually put it on the line, because you know you're wrong and the mighty Roz is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

With all due respect, I have read what you wrote.  You make lots of intellectual points that smart people would easily understand and appreciate.  The problem is Congressional Republicans represent anti-intellectual constituencies who treat intellectualism as if it's elitist.  

You're also ignoring the depth of politics by taking Trump's tweets at face value.  He says what he says to sway public opinion, not to actually portray what he believes.  On top of that, just because he believes something doesn't make it true.

Heck, just read this: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/what-congressional-republicans-really-think-about-trump-and-russia/533784/

My point is, I agree with you. I do think that Republicans are unlikely to impeach Trump. But I gave a special scenario where that might possibly happen. You can disagree with that special scenario where that could happen. If so, please, by all means, present your argument.  

But I'm afraid you might be discounting Trump's tweets, and being selective of what you hear from the president. Fact of the matter is, nobody know better than the president of the United states than when Republicans don't back up the president of the United States. If Trump is an unreliable source on that, what can you really rely on him for?

The Atlantic!? You disgust me! This is Fake News! Sad. Also, that article is commentary [commentary in which I disagree with]. It also doesn't address the special scenario where the economy comes into play. 

11 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Just saying things like you do doesn't make them the case. You have a real problem with showing respect and taking people seriously don't you? 

Just keep ignoring that I each time have taken that into consideration and said that if he ain't playing you, then you're playing yourself. It is up to debate which is worse certainly, but whatever the case the result is the same.

Again, tearing people down does you no favours. If your opponent is weak, stupid, and all the rest and you then lose... what does that say about you? Look at Spite, Rahl, and other losers. They thought they were so smart and that their opponent was so stupid and look what happened. Shown up to not be in touch what was happening in both Britain and America. Like them you can certainly talk and repeat conventional wisdom (with the disgracable barbs thrown in as a bonus), however conventional is not always the way to go. When you get to these times people aren't so hot for such things.

Incorrect. He has brought more people into the fold which added to the base that will vote Republican basically no matter what allowed him to win, and the Republicans by extension to win at all levels. Clinton by comparison couldn't keep people Obama brought in and then seemed to do everything in her power to lose the Progressive faction that supported Sanders overwhelmingly. As long as Trump maintains his own diehards and the Republican ones he will win unless the Democrats can get the Progressive faction back to supporting them in full... which they seem to not want to do considering they want to anoint a Clintonite to succeed the queen herself. 

Qatar I know is currently in it's spot, some say due to American pressure. Israel is... Israel? How is it destabilised exactly? Spare me the dramatics of insulting me and then saying nothing, actually explain when asked for once. 

Respect is earned, not demanded. Too bad Trump doesn't understand that either. Once in a blue moon you genuinely deserve it, but not here. 

So you admit, there is a possibility that Trump is too damn stupid to play anyone. Okay. 

Boo hoo, dems lose. So what? I'm hedging my bet that in about 6 months, it will be known that it wasn't a fair election. The only people who still care about the 2016 election are Trump supporters when they have to justify electing a dumbass to the presidency. 

36%. That's 32% of independents (of which he had closer to 60 when he was inaugurated), 10% of Dems, and 80% of Republicans. You know nothing, Jon Snow. 

Which is stupid, because Qatar is home to one of the largest American air bases. Instead of uniting the Middle East against ISIS and the threats of radical terror, Trump divides them and goads Saudi Arabia on, presumably because the Saudis know how to treat people like a king when they visit their country. As for Israel:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40703103

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-terror-and-the-Middle-East-Top-five-diplomatic-crises-500579

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Second-Gaza-rocket-in-24-hours-hits-southern-Israel-500563

Where are you Kushy!? SOLVE THIS SHIT NOW KUSHY!! Oh, sorry Kushy. I didn't know you were in a Senate Intelligence committee hearing on your role with the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. Oops. Keep on Kushing, Kushy. Middle East peace can wait after you solve the debt, domestic policy, China, North Korea, and everything else except golf. 

Edited by Caecus

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Caecus said:

Tell me Doc, what's more stupid? The stupid bait or the people taking the stupid bait? 

It's kinda mean to just go onto a thread, insult everyone, and leave like you know any better. Because you don't, you don't know what we are talking about. :P

I don't give a shit if you think its mean.

And this is also bait.:P

Edited by Doc Martini
Bait
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc Martini said:

I don't give a shit if you think its mean.

And this is also bait.:P

Aw, this fishy is a smart cookie, no bites. I was prepared to laugh my ass off at the thought of you taking the bait. :/

 

  • Upvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Caecus said:

My point is, I agree with you. I do think that Republicans are unlikely to impeach Trump. But I gave a special scenario where that might possibly happen. You can disagree with that special scenario where that could happen. If so, please, by all means, present your argument.  

But I'm afraid you might be discounting Trump's tweets, and being selective of what you hear from the president. Fact of the matter is, nobody know better than the president of the United states than when Republicans don't back up the president of the United States. If Trump is an unreliable source on that, what can you really rely on him for?

The Atlantic!? You disgust me! This is Fake News! Sad. Also, that article is commentary [commentary in which I disagree with]. It also doesn't address the special scenario where the economy comes into play. 

Yea, lol.  The Atlantic's known for being liberal, so a fortiori, it should be acknowledged.

In any case, your economic scenario you're talking about ignores the fundamental reality of the workforce participation rate sinking under Obama as well as the fact that it's already starting to stabilize under Trump: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

You're also ignoring how Trump's anti-establishment platform resonated with the belief that anything new done can only be an improvement.  If something bad does happen, Trump will just blame it on the establishment sabotaging his efforts.  Impeaching him while that's going on is like getting rid of Trump when he declared bankruptcy - it ignores how the assets he ran were more valuable because of his brand name.  If Trump's impeached, it will just verify his claims on establishment sabotage.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Just saying things like you do doesn't make them the case. You have a real problem with showing respect and taking people seriously don't you? 

Just keep ignoring that I each time have taken that into consideration and said that if he ain't playing you, then you're playing yourself. It is up to debate which is worse certainly, but whatever the case the result is the same.

Again, tearing people down does you no favours. If your opponent is weak, stupid, and all the rest and you then lose... what does that say about you? Look at Spite, Rahl, and other losers. They thought they were so smart and that their opponent was so stupid and look what happened. Shown up to not be in touch what was happening in both Britain and America. Like them you can certainly talk and repeat conventional wisdom (with the disgracable barbs thrown in as a bonus), however conventional is not always the way to go. When you get to these times people aren't so hot for such things.

Incorrect. He has brought more people into the fold which added to the base that will vote Republican basically no matter what allowed him to win, and the Republicans by extension to win at all levels. Clinton by comparison couldn't keep people Obama brought in and then seemed to do everything in her power to lose the Progressive faction that supported Sanders overwhelmingly. As long as Trump maintains his own diehards and the Republican ones he will win unless the Democrats can get the Progressive faction back to supporting them in full... which they seem to not want to do considering they want to anoint a Clintonite to succeed the queen herself. 

Qatar I know is currently in it's spot, some say due to American pressure. Israel is... Israel? How is it destabilised exactly? Spare me the dramatics of insulting me and then saying nothing, actually explain when asked for once. Who are you talking to?

Learn what a quote is, or just anything in general buddy. Is that why you skipped the immense amount of text that made you look stupid out of your response?

Are you seriously using America now not taking down Assad for Saudi Arabia as a... bad thing? No. I didn't say anything of the kind. I said they're the home of Sunni Islam and the religious sect which Assad and all of his government belong to is a Shiite off-shoot, which both Saudi Arabia and Iran would agree is heretical. If you could start reading what's said and not making it up (Thanks for doing it and verifying an authentic Roz post) The hilarity of you when you start shouting out these Neo-Con arguments just because you hate Trump so much is always delicious. Yeah sorry Neo-Con boy but Trump ain't too hot on ruining countries for profit. Deal with it. i do. For one, I'm not a con, let alone a Neo-Con. 
 

From the start with Libya and Syria I called these things. Saying that America was in on it and provoked it and then supported "moderates", aka fanatic scum, is a very safe bet. Not really, no. There's no evidence of that and it doesn't even make sense that they'd do so. The Syrians stopped accepting arbitrary torture, oppression and summary executions so they rebelled. No American support at the time. Libya no longer like Quadaffi so they removed him. Western relations with Quadaffi were actually improving substantially before his people decided they'd have quite enough of him and rebelled. So yeah, sorry Mr. Warmonger, but few believe your warmongering lies anymore. Please now do defend the CIA as you have before, give us more laughs. When did I defend the CIA?

Lol! I know you're gutless but it's worth a shot. Want to step up like Caecus and put your continuing presence on these forums (Social Hub) on the line on that? Tell you what, I'll even stack it against myself. If the "rebels" Which rebels? or ISIS beat Assad then I'll never post here in the Social Hub again. If Assad beats (I assume you mean the Russians protecting Assad. He doesn't really have anything left to fight with.) them both (for ISIS that means no longer owning any good degree of land, being a terrorist group and all they can survive landless and in other countries) then you never post here in the Social Hub again. How about it? No, thanks. You'd wriggle out of it if I won. You sound so sure but based on former evidence it seems clear you cannot actually put it on the line, because you know you're wrong and the mighty Roz is right. You can't even use quotation. It's more the complete lack of trust I have in you that prevents me accepting. You'd never live up to it so it's a moot point.

 

9 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Why are you "fake quoting" me Milton? I never said "Who are you talking even talking to?".

So come now. Do you take up the challenge or do you cower away and thus admit you're wrong?

 

2 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Where would you find tax evasion on a Form 1040? It just wouldn't be there. 

Sounds like there's no reason not to disclose it.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Sounds like there's no reason not to disclose it.

I know a few good reasons why he wouldn't want to disclose it. 

1. People could see if he did or didn't buy a home in Florida and sell it a few years later for way more to a Russian oligarch. Depending on what the home was listed as, it may or may not say how much money he put into the home. Regardless, I'm willing to bet very few people on the left would even look to see how much he put into the home and automatically assume it's a Russian-Trump conspiracy. 

2. People could see his foreign tax credits and people would assume it automatically assumes he has foreign ties (see: Russian), despite Trump's 2005 form (the one Maddow obtained part of) had ~4 times less than Hillary's. 

3. Some of his properties may have a high value and be losing money. It's real estate. Regardless, I'm willing to bet some people on the left would think that automatically means he is inflating his property values, thus making it another Russian-Trump conspiracy. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

I know a few good reasons why he wouldn't want to disclose it. 

1. People could see if he did or didn't buy a home in Florida and sell it a few years later for way more to a Russian oligarch. Depending on what the home was listed as, it may or may not say how much money he put into the home. Regardless, I'm willing to bet very few people on the left would even look to see how much he put into the home and automatically assume it's a Russian-Trump conspiracy. 

2. People could see his foreign tax credits and people would assume it automatically assumes he has foreign ties (see: Russian), despite Trump's 2005 form (the one Maddow obtained part of) had ~4 times less than Hillary's. 

3. Some of his properties may have a high value and be losing money. It's real estate. Regardless, I'm willing to bet some people on the left would think that automatically means he is inflating his property values, thus making it another Russian-Trump conspiracy. 

But does it really matter? Everyone on the left already thinks Trump fellates the Russian president. Releasing any of the information above can only lead to conjecture, not actual evidence of collusion. You can spread your conjecture all you like, Mueller wouldn't be able to do anything because conjecture doesn't hold up in court. So if Trump's business dealings only involve the three things you said, he shouldn't have a problem releasing it. It would present no change in the status quo and would prove once and for all there is no Russian money pouring into our election. Hell, it would even make him look good, since it would also show people that the left is just a bunch of crazy jackasses who just hate Trump and want to get rid of him. 

Besides:

1. That was before the election, unless the Russians had the foresight of a !@#$ing genie, nobody expected Trump to get the nomination, much less the presidency. 

2. That wouldn't necessarily be strange, considering that Trump has business dealings in multiple countries. The only time that would be strange if it had a sudden increase in 2016 from one country or source which doesn't account for extra business ventures or revenue. 

3. Inflating property values is irrelevant to Trump-Russian collusion. The only condition where that would be of interest is an inflated property value was purchased during the 2016 election by a Russian official or someone closely tied to the Kremlin, and even then, you would have to prove there was a quid-pro-quo attached to it. Also a nothing burger if that was the case. 

But, seeing as how Trump and his lawyers are collectively shitting their pants at the idea of Mueller going through his tax returns despite knowing more about any criminal proceedings [and how to thwart those proceedings] than I do, I imagine there might be something more interesting in those tax returns. Conjecture, but nonetheless, the behavior of the Trump administration doesn't help sway me from that conclusion. 

I also like the fact that conservative media (Mah Han Man) is already priming people to shit on Mueller in anticipation for the day when he finds Trump's bullshit. Mueller is evil everyone! He's a liberal! He pockets Dem money! He's a liberal conspiracy ready to hunt down Trump and all of his associates. 

48 minutes ago, Dubayoo said:

Yea, lol.  The Atlantic's known for being liberal, so a fortiori, it should be acknowledged.

In any case, your economic scenario you're talking about ignores the fundamental reality of the workforce participation rate sinking under Obama as well as the fact that it's already starting to stabilize under Trump: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

You're also ignoring how Trump's anti-establishment platform resonated with the belief that anything new done can only be an improvement.  If something bad does happen, Trump will just blame it on the establishment sabotaging his efforts.  Impeaching him while that's going on is like getting rid of Trump when he declared bankruptcy - it ignores how the assets he ran were more valuable because of his brand name.  If Trump's impeached, it will just verify his claims on establishment sabotage.

lol. 

If a stable workforce participation were the sole indicator of a good economy, you would imagine that the economy was stable at the bottom of the housing market in 2008. In any case, I fail to see how workforce participation means anything in the context of over-speculation and consumer confidence. I'm basing my guess on things that look like the housing crisis, things like title loans and payday loans which are taking up larger parts of the economy. Dr. Doom's predictions too, I suppose, but he's a rather liberal economist (perhaps a little too liberal for my tastes). 

Perhaps. That is a possibility that could happen. But it's rather hard to blame the establishment when your party controls all branches of the government. Sure, you can try and spin it off to liberal media and so-on, but I'm hedging my bets that Trump's administration will not be able to do anything about an economic crisis even with 3 branches of government. I imagine people would eventually stop blaming a (shadow) liberal media and establishment politics and start blaming someone who commands the most powerful position in the world. Obama initially tried to blame Bush for the debt and the housing crisis, but even his supporters didn't want to hear it from someone who spouts hope and change, but can't deliver when he's the most powerful man in the world. I imagine that Trump supporters will come to the same conclusion, primarily because a good chunk of his supporters were Obama supporters. I could be wrong though, Trump supporters have surprised me in the past with their boundless religious devotion to a cheeto and their lack of foresight. 

  • Upvote 1

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/07/2017 at 3:22 PM, Caecus said:

Respect is earned, not demanded. Too bad Trump doesn't understand that either. Once in a blue moon you genuinely deserve it, but not here. 

So you admit, there is a possibility that Trump is too damn stupid to play anyone. Okay. 

Boo hoo, dems lose. So what? I'm hedging my bet that in about 6 months, it will be known that it wasn't a fair election. The only people who still care about the 2016 election are Trump supporters when they have to justify electing a dumbass to the presidency. 

36%. That's 32% of independents (of which he had closer to 60 when he was inaugurated), 10% of Dems, and 80% of Republicans. You know nothing, Jon Snow. 

Which is stupid, because Qatar is home to one of the largest American air bases. Instead of uniting the Middle East against ISIS and the threats of radical terror, Trump divides them and goads Saudi Arabia on, presumably because the Saudis know how to treat people like a king when they visit their country. As for Israel:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40703103

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-terror-and-the-Middle-East-Top-five-diplomatic-crises-500579

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Second-Gaza-rocket-in-24-hours-hits-southern-Israel-500563

Where are you Kushy!? SOLVE THIS SHIT NOW KUSHY!! Oh, sorry Kushy. I didn't know you were in a Senate Intelligence committee hearing on your role with the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. Oops. Keep on Kushing, Kushy. Middle East peace can wait after you solve the debt, domestic policy, China, North Korea, and everything else except golf. 

I demanded nothing. You simply don't show even the slightest of basic respect and it is quite the defect. 

Admit? You should go back and read my comments again, I've been saying that he is either playing you or you're playing yourself. I don't need to commit on which it is, both have the same result. 

Ah yes, Putin-sama and his Communist agents hacked the machines and added +60,000,000 votes to Trump across the country. Trump, the man who had the entire establishment, media, and countries across the world endorsing his opponent... he was the one who had the deck stacked for him... yes. 

Will you people ever learn? Polling often will radically change as the date for a vote closes in and at other times is bunk. 

??? The ISIS that is on the brink of defeat?

NOW YOU SEE THIS TEXT HERE MILTON? THIS IS THE ONLY TEXT THAT APPLIES TO YOU. ON THE BASIS THAT YOU AGAIN PRETENDED AS IF A STATEMENT MEANT FOR CAECUS WAS FOR YOU, I'M GOING TO IGNORE THE REST OUTSIDE THE END BIT. THE ROZ IS HONEST AND WOULD NOT TAKE A BLACK MARK ON HIS HONOUR THAT GOING BACK ON A BET LIKE THIS WOULD GRANT. YOU DO NOT REFUSE TO TAKE PART BECAUSE OF THAT, FOR SOMEONE WHO FEELS THEY ARE SURE TO WIN HAS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. YOU HAVE QUALMS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU'LL LOSE IF YOU DO, AND THEN PERHAPS IT WILL BE YOU GOING BACK ON YOUR WORD. SO COME ON THEN, LETS GO BOYO. YOU DARE STAND UP TO THE ROZ OR ARE YOU GUTLESS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rozalia said:

I demanded nothing. You simply don't show even the slightest of basic respect and it is quite the defect. 

Admit? You should go back and read my comments again, I've been saying that he is either playing you or you're playing yourself. I don't need to commit on which it is, both have the same result. 

Ah yes, Putin-sama and his Communist agents hacked the machines and added +60,000,000 votes to Trump across the country. Trump, the man who had the entire establishment, media, and countries across the world endorsing his opponent... he was the one who had the deck stacked for him... yes. 

Will you people ever learn? Polling often will radically change as the date for a vote closes in and at other times is bunk. 

??? The ISIS that is on the brink of defeat?

No, you demand my attention and you are simply frustrated that I don't hand it out like cookies. 

So, the person who doesn't have good "attention to details" is really a mastermind who is manipulating me. Sure. I'll believe that when Trump can get his party together and pass a bill. Is not being "detail-orientated" a trait of the stupid or the incompetent? 

Seriously. Only Trump supporters care about the 2016 election anymore. I've heard of sore losers, but I've never heard of sore winners. 

So you admit your statement was wrong then. The statement where you said Trump has expanded his base. It's only going to expand in the future, but you don't know that for certainty. In other words, you are wrong. 

Whooptie doo dah, you are still ignoring what I said. Just admit it, Trump is a shit show who can't maintain a unified Middle Eastern alliance against the single-most hated terror group in the world. It's sad. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Caecus said:

No, you demand my attention and you are simply frustrated that I don't hand it out like cookies. 

So, the person who doesn't have good "attention to details" is really a mastermind who is manipulating me. Sure. I'll believe that when Trump can get his party together and pass a bill. Is not being "detail-orientated" a trait of the stupid or the incompetent? 

Seriously. Only Trump supporters care about the 2016 election anymore. I've heard of sore losers, but I've never heard of sore winners. 

So you admit your statement was wrong then. The statement where you said Trump has expanded his base. It's only going to expand in the future, but you don't know that for certainty. In other words, you are wrong. 

Whooptie doo dah, you are still ignoring what I said. Just admit it, Trump is a shit show who can't maintain a unified Middle Eastern alliance against the single-most hated terror group in the world. It's sad. 

??? Odd statement. 

Why revert to this? A wise person doesn't rule out all the possibilities. As I've said, and I will repeat, he is either playing you or you are playing yourself. It doesn't matter which it is in the end. Think he is an idiot and you're playing yourself? Sure, the result is the same.

The losers who to cover for a loss are pushing Red Scare 2.0... is telling me that the winners are sore? 

Two statements have zero relation to each other. My statement from expanding base was based on the 2016 election where yes, he did bring many new people into the fold. For 18 and 20 we'll see however if you believe this polling now then well, what can be said. In Britain for example May was polling double what Corbyn was for quite a while and then as time moved closer to election day that lead got smaller and smaller. People sure of polls granting them invincibility will soon find themselves having a rude awakening.

ISIS on the brink of defeat is shrug worthy now? Your statement was on him messing up in getting an alliance going in the fight against ISIS... who are near defeat... it doesn't work as an attack no. If ISIS was going strong then that would be one thing, but they ain't and have never been weaker. When they inevitably lose you know full well Trump will claim the credit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.