Donald Trump 2019

[Incredulity 11,646]

5 minutes ago, Lobo said:

What about we kill two birds with one stone?  Instead of Cash for Clunkers, we do Corn for Cars, or Clunkers for Cattle?  

Clunkers for Cluckers.

because Sonny Perdue.

[Eskimohorn 5,630]

Is this the bargaining stage of grief?
”prove” to you? That’s a fucking joke.  
I don’t support Trump and think he is an absolute clown.
 I wholeheartedly agree with the 17 tax cuts and hope more happen.  The regulatory role back of the last 3 years has been much needed relief and I could provide a half dozen anecdotes that have specifically helped projects I have worked on.
 

While flying a Boeing 737 MAX over Port Neches you’ll enjoy a preview of the benefits of regulatory rollbacks.

[Chrispy_ 105]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fantastic.

Super-fantastic.  Because....

 

There are dozens of posters on this forum alone who have been around and posting for a LONG time on this and predecessor forums, and who have a consistent history of voting for many repbulicans, supporting/and or defending W's administration (or at least elements of it), etc.  You can look up our history -- it's out there.  Seriously, there are a shitload of people who, for their whole lives, were generally moderate Republicans, who want absolutely NOTHING to do with the cult that exists today.

But for me, and I know I speak for others, there actually is something to be grateful about regarding this admin -- it's been eye-opening as hell.  Many of us have seen that we were suckers, we were flat-out wrong, for a long time.

In my younger days, I believed in trickle-down economics, that sort of shit.  But...and here's the important distinction....I've watched us try it over and over and over again, and I've seen it FAIL.  Maybe I believed for a long time that if you flapped your arms hard enough, you could fly.  But after watching a buncha guys try it, jump off a cliff, and go splat, I've realized I was wrong.  But Incredulity and Chrispy are still standing there, saying 'this time, it will work!"

Trump has been effective at creating a new political class -- ex-Republicans.  Now, what happens to that class is anyone's guess.  We range from pretty conservative to downright progressive, so not easy to deal with as a group.  But make no mistake, we all lament the shit out of the death of facts, truth, and reason.  While y'all happily wallow in the bullshit and get it all over you.  No thanks.

I’m sorry to hear you’re no longer a Republican. I’ve spoken to more than a few Republicans that would favor some tinkering wrt economic theory, as the feeling is that trickle-down seems to have underestimated our inclination towards greed. Or properly estimated, depending with whom you’re discussing. 

On the other hand, I will also say that the revulsion towards the Democrats on this topic is almost palpable. The sense that they want to throw the baby out with the bath water is the overwhelming conclusion, so it’s a no go. Some Republicans are there for the taking, to be sure, but the Democrats have alienated them for the most part. 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

41 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes.  And I'm dealing with a dispute over massive flooding because a developer paved over hundreds of acres with no 404 permit (yep, there were real-deal wetlands) or SWPPP.  You'll be thrilled, the developer is pocketing tens of millions.  When you pave over that previously farmed property....what's going to happen to the stormwater that falls on that land now?  Where's it going?  What about the neighbors?  Developer makes a lotta money.

The people who live at the end of the floodwater outlet he's created....well, fuck them.  

Maybe....just maybe....and I know this is a shock...some of those regs actually exist for a reason.  "Regulations" isn't a bad word.  Well, I mean, it is if you're looking to make a mint with no repercussions.  But if you're a citizen who wants his property protected, you know, they can be actually -- what's the word I'm looking for -- oh yes, "important."

And this is why I appreciate the regulatory rollback.  You don't want regulation through agency rulemaking?  Ok.  You'll get regulation through litigation.  Because the common law grants people various rights not to be completely fucked over by their neighbors.

Yeah, it's less efficient.  I know.  But it does make litigators a ton of money.  So at least there's that.

[wildcat09 29,338]

13 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

 

While flying a Boeing 737 MAX over Port Neches you’ll enjoy a preview of the benefits of regulatory rollbacks.

 

"We need to repeal shitloads of regulations!"

"Repealing regulation A regulation killed 400 people."  "Well I wasn't talking about that one!"

"Repealing regulation B resulted in an industrial company dumping mercury in a river."  "Well I wasn't talking about that one!"

"Repealing regulation C led to a storm flooding Houston much more severely than it would have otherwise." "Fuck them, that got me paid. REPEAL MORE REGULATIONS!"

[Incredulity 11,646]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And this is why I appreciate the regulatory rollback.  You don't want regulation through agency rulemaking?  Ok.  You'll get regulation through litigation.  Because the common law grants people various rights not to be completely fucked over by their neighbors.

Yeah, it's less efficient.  I know.  But it does make litigators a ton of money.  So at least there's that.

You know as well as I that litigators are going to get theirs either way.

[Cosimo de' Medici 121]

1 hour ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

Yeah, screw the unborn taxpayers who are going to have to pay for them. 

Lol, now you shapeshifters care about future societies carrying the load. Where the fuck was that 09-16?

The hypocrisy is laughable. 

 

...and no, your mom can carry MY load.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Cosimo de' Medici

[tx 3 putt 76,863]

Trump is right, he better be worried if Warren gets the nomination and makes a hard push on student loan debt. That’ll probably encourage enough young voters to get to the polls and sway this election 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,433]

3 minutes ago, Cosimo de' Medici said:

Lol, now you shapeshifters care about future societies carrying the load. Where the fuck was that 09-16?

The hypocrisy is laughable. 

Well speaking for myself It was in 2001 and 2003 when I told people on hornfans who are still on this board today that the tax cuts WOULD result in massive structural deficit and debt expansion that would absolutely explode during the next recession, and I also correctly stated on this board that the 2017 tax cuts would result in revenue shortfalls despite stimulating modest GDP expansion, and further predicted that this would intensify during the next cyclical recession, except for this time we would be out of dry powder because rates are already unnecessarily low. That's where I was. Where were you?
 

[seven 1,367]

Everyone shut up and let's see these beautiful anecdotes 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

I don’t support Trump and think he is an absolute clown.

 

56 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Literally nobody here believes you when you say this. Not a single person. You know that, right?

Not exactly. What I mean is, Incredulity could think Trump is an absolute clown. But, if he/she casts a vote for Trump but rationalizes that it is an anti-vote against the Democrats then is that considered a Trump supporter?

Incredulity- perhaps if you consider the President to be an absolute clown and find it against your entire ethos to vote for the Democratic nominee, you could preserve your dignity by either abstaining from voting or by writing in a preferred candidate who is not Trump. That way, provided Putin doesn't hand Trump the election in 2020 or the newly resurgent ISIS doesn't kill all of us; when the Democratic candidate wins the Presidency we can finally have a balanced budget.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,433]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

Not exactly. What I mean is, Incredulity could think Trump is an absolute clown. But, if he/she casts a vote for Trump but rationalizes that it is an anti-vote against the Democrats then is that considered a Trump supporter?

I have no doubt that Incredulity thinks Trump is an absolute clown. He even took the time to spell clown correctly. However, the only "support" that matters is his vote. If he votes for Trump he is a Trump supporter, because his thoughts are irrelevant without political action. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

@Bozo_Casanova that seems fair.

[Incredulity 11,646]

9 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

Not exactly. What I mean is, Incredulity could think Trump is an absolute clown. But, if he/she casts a vote for Trump but rationalizes that it is an anti-vote against the Democrats then is that considered a Trump supporter?

Incredulity- perhaps if you consider the President to be an absolute clown and find it against your entire ethos to vote for the Democratic nominee, you could preserve your dignity by either abstaining from voting or by writing in a preferred candidate who is not Trump. That way, provided Putin doesn't hand Trump the election in 2020 or the newly resurgent ISIS doesn't kill all of us; when the Democratic candidate wins the Presidency we can finally have a balanced budget.

Bless your heart.

[BradInATX 9,208]

He parrots every single one of Trump's talking points

He lives and breathes "lib tears" and "but Hillary/Obama/whoever"

He votes for Trump

 

It's like saying "I own tons of burnt orange apparel, I have season tickets to DKR, I go to every game and cheer for the Longhorns, but I'm not a Longhorn fan".

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Even if said duck walks around telling everyone it's not a duck.

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by BradInATX

[BrickHorn 18,216]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of Trumpian populists is “these geniuses probably have a ton of student debt.”  

Edited December 6, 2019 by BrickHorn

[Biff Tannen 45,661]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

He parrots every single one of Trump's talking points

He lives and breathes "lib tears" and "but Hillary/Obama/whoever"

He votes for Trump

 

It's like saying "I own tons of burnt orange apparel, I have season tickets to DKR, I go to every game and cheer for the Longhorns, but I'm not a Longhorn fan".

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Even if said duck walks around telling everyone it's not a duck.

 

It's almost like he's embarrassed or something.

[Biff Tannen 45,661]

2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

LOL that Trump thinks student debt is an issue for the populist mob that supports him.  

No shit.  "The uneducated" don't generally have student debt.

[Brisketexan 105,050]

57 minutes ago, Chrispy_ said:

I’m sorry to hear you’re no longer a Republican. I’ve spoken to more than a few Republicans that would favor some tinkering wrt economic theory, as the feeling is that trickle-down seems to have underestimated our inclination towards greed. Or properly estimated, depending with whom you’re discussing. 

On the other hand, I will also say that the revulsion towards the Democrats on this topic is almost palpable. The sense that they want to throw the baby out with the bath water is the overwhelming conclusion, so it’s a no go. Some Republicans are there for the taking, to be sure, but the Democrats have alienated them for the most part. 

"tinkering wrt economic theory?"  Here's the fucking problem -- THERE IS NO GOP ECONOMIC THEORY.  Everything told/sold to you as a GOP voter is a lie, intended to get your buy-in for the only outcome that matters: further concentration of wealth in the hands of the already wealthy.  Seriously, there's no theory, just a single outcome -- more money to the folks who already have most of it.

The recent past should show you that.  The GOP is anti-protectionist...but now gets a boner over tariffs, and trade wars are easy to win.  The GOP thinks that increasing deficits are an existential threat....and now celebrates the 2017 tax cut that has exploded the deficit.  The GOP thinks that people should be responsible for their own retirement and save....but now wants debt-saddled grads to drain their 401k to pay off student loans.  We could go on.  For pages.  THERE IS NO PHILOSOPHY.  Just concentration of wealth.  It's the one and only constant.  When everything else falls away, but ONE THING remains constant, guess what?  That's your belief.  That's what you stand for.

"Throw the baby out with the bath water?"  THAT'S what you call wanting to address systemic failures like healthcare debt being a factor in FORTY SIX PERCENT of personal bankruptcies?  THAT'S what you call wanting to address massive $1.5 TRILLION in student loan debt, which is a result of the cost of a degree inflating at a rate way over inflation the past 30 years, resulting in a huge bubble of the American population that can't support our consumer economy by buying a car or a home because they're drowning in debt?  That's not a baby in the bathwater, it's a floating turd, and it should be flushed.

GOP economic theory is to consume our seedstock in the name of further fattening the fatties of today, and investment in the future and costs in the future be damned.  Almost any other economic theory is an improvement.  Don't sell your bullshit around here.  99% of us aren't so stupid as to buy it.  Try pitching it at a Trump rally, where you'll see signs to "Keep the Government's Hands offa my Medicare!"  You'll have a much better success rate.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Brisketexan

[jimmyjazz 45,880]

25 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Well speaking for myself It was in 2001 and 2003 when I told people on hornfans who are still on this board today that the tax cuts WOULD result in massive structural deficit and debt expansion that would absolutely explode during the next recession, 

I remember that.  I think I talked to you about the effects of tax cuts (among many other things) at . . . maybe Flying Saucer?

Speaking of cuts, that place shouldn't have closed.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,570]

Furthermore, the age-old conservative commitment to de-regulation applies almost exclusively to the more well-off, wealthy, developers, corporations, etc...

Proposed or enacted regulations/requirements from the party that has used Rolling Back Regulations and Freedom as a mantra as it pertains to those at the other end of the economic spectrum have all been tightened.

Work requirements for food assistance- tightened (while successfully opposing raising the minimum wage)

Qualifications for student debt relief under existing fraud laws- tightened

Qualifications re: application for citizenship- tightened

Rules for those seeking asylum- tightened

 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45,880]

9 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of Trumpian populists is “these geniuses probably have a ton of student debt.”  

Yeah, a campaign platform for attacking student loan debt is definitely gonna resonate more left than right.  It's why he's terrified.  He'll either have to propose something similar (which he'll renege on) or take the beating.

[Biff Tannen 45,661]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Furthermore, the age-old conservative commitment to de-regulation applies almost exclusively to the more well-off, wealthy, developers, corporations, etc...

Proposed or enacted regulations/requirements from the party that has used Rolling Back Regulations and Freedom as a mantra as it pertains to those at the other end of the economic spectrum have all been tightened.

Work requirements for food assistance- tightened (while successfully opposing raising the minimum wage)

Qualifications for student debt relief under existing fraud laws- tightened

Qualifications re: application for citizenship- tightened

Rules for those seeking asylum- tightened

 

 

 

Yeah, but those are all just coincidences.

[Brisketexan 105,050]

4 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Furthermore, the age-old conservative commitment to de-regulation applies almost exclusively to the more well-off, wealthy, developers, corporations, etc...

Proposed or enacted regulations/requirements from the party that has used Rolling Back Regulations and Freedom as a mantra as it pertains to those at the other end of the economic spectrum have all been tightened.

Work requirements for food assistance- tightened (while successfully opposing raising the minimum wage)

Qualifications for student debt relief under existing fraud laws- tightened

Qualifications re: application for citizenship- tightened

Rules for those seeking asylum- tightened

 

 

 

Let's not forget infinite regulations and penalties for poor people who get a traffic citation, etc.

Poor folks need LOTS of regulations and penalties.  But the well-off?  Well, they've demonstrated their virtue (because in AmericaChristendomProsperityGospelLand, the only proof of virtue is wealth), so they can be trusted.

Republicans aren't opposed to regulations.  That is a flat-out lie.  They are opposed only to regulations that cost them money.  They love regulations that 1) make them money, 2) impede their competition, or 3) keep...you know....those people....in their place.

[Mdhorn 5,945]

2 hours ago, tantric superman said:

You certainly have to admit that the tax relief as structured puts a big burden on future taxpayers and citizens and was designed in a way that provided maximum benefit to wealthy citizens with, to date, very little trickle down focused on citizens who need the relief the most.

I don't mind a preference for lower taxes and less regulation.  But to argue that it should be done in a way that hamstrings future taxpayers and creates safety and health concerns (EPA regs) down the line?

 

Middle class got a tax break for two years while it became permanent for the rich.  Sounds like a brief respite and then, for the middle class, it's back to pulling an even heavier wagon.  I don't understand the idiots that believe this to be a good thing.  They can't wait to throw the yolk on and start pulling.  And they will do it while decreasing their health insurance!  How great is that for the 1%ers, in a free country where people vote to be straddled?  

Edited December 6, 2019 by Mdhorn

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,390]

This Cosimo guy seems like he sucks. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

23 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's almost like he's embarrassed or something.

Imagine being so embarrassed by who you are and what you've supported and enabled that you have to invent an entire "both sides!" persona and facade for a message board full of strangers. There isn't a single Republican left on this board that will own up to what they are vs. feebly trying to convince everyone that they're a both-sider intellectual.

At least the hicks with MAGA hats at his rallies admit what they are instead of walking around pretending to be something they're not like a bunch of pussies.

Edited December 6, 2019 by BradInATX

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

At least the hicks with MAGA hats at his rallies admit what they are: Russians and FOPs (friends of Putin)

FIFY.

[Cosimo de' Medici 121]

Dodge 2009-2016 why don't you

[BrickHorn 18,216]

1 hour ago, Chrispy_ said:

I’m sorry to hear you’re no longer a Republican. I’ve spoken to more than a few Republicans that would favor some tinkering wrt economic theory, as the feeling is that trickle-down seems to have underestimated our inclination towards greed. Or properly estimated, depending with whom you’re discussing. 

Wait.  You mean to tell me that the whole economic foundation of the GOP for nearly four decades might have been a self-serving lie?  That maybe - just maybe - giving rich people even more money doesn’t result in spontaneous fits of charity, employment, and investment?  That perhaps what every reasonable, honest person recognized all along as a transparent self-dealing windfall perhaps was based on slight economic miscalculations?  

I refuse to believe your leftist propaganda. 

[tantric superman 4,667]

11 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

This Cosimo guy seems like he sucks. 

Seems like a real jerk.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Dude's going to set a Surly record for time-to-crowdsourced GTFO. Well done, whichever retread you are.

Edited December 6, 2019 by BradInATX

[Tuco 5,076]

26 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

No shit.  "The uneducated" don't generally have student debt.

I think you guys are underestimating the success of the for-profit business model had for preying on the poor.  And, even non-profit and state colleges have a ton of people drop out their freshman year, and spend the next 10 years paying off the debt.  And anything federally backed was not dischargeable in bankruptcy.  My wife used to do bankruptcy for Legal Aid - Kaplan, ITT, Phoenix, etc. were frequently major creditors, and she would just get so pissed. As a country, we spent 100s of millions of dollars to feed these leaches and permanently bury our citizens in debt. 

[Biff Tannen 45,661]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Dude's going to set a Surly record for time-to-crowdsourced GTFO. Well done, whichever retread you are.

Doing my part over here.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,570]

Yeah, but those are all just coincidences.

...as are the wildly differing levels of enforcement. It's why all the undocumented workers in ICE raids at poultry plants get incarcerated while the management and owners who hired remain free.

Remember the Texas woman who's serving the 5 year prison sentence for unsuccessfully trying to cast a provisional ballot due to her previous criminal record? Do you recall what her previous incarceration was for?

Tax fraud.

You know who else has been convicted of tax fraud? Twice?

[Guest Lobo]

Convicted?   No, not convicted. 

[Chrispy_ 105]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"tinkering wrt economic theory?"  Here's the fucking problem -- THERE IS NO GOP ECONOMIC THEORY.  Everything told/sold to you as a GOP voter is a lie, intended to get your buy-in for the only outcome that matters: further concentration of wealth in the hands of the already wealthy.  Seriously, there's no theory, just a single outcome -- more money to the folks who already have most of it.

The recent past should show you that.  The GOP is anti-protectionist...but now gets a boner over tariffs, and trade wars are easy to win.  The GOP thinks that increasing deficits are an existential threat....and now celebrates the 2017 tax cut that has exploded the deficit.  The GOP thinks that people should be responsible for their own retirement and save....but now wants debt-saddled grads to drain their 401k to pay off student loans.  We could go on.  For pages.  THERE IS NO PHILOSOPHY.  Just concentration of wealth.  It's the one and only constant.  When everything else falls away, but ONE THING remains constant, guess what?  That's your belief.  That's what you stand for.

"Throw the baby out with the bath water?"  THAT'S what you call wanting to address systemic failures like healthcare debt being a factor in FORTY SIX PERCENT of personal bankruptcies?  THAT'S what you call wanting to address massive $1.5 TRILLION in student loan debt, which is a result of the cost of a degree inflating at a rate way over inflation the past 30 years, resulting in a huge bubble of the American population that can't support our consumer economy by buying a car or a home because they're drowning in debt?  That's not a baby in the bathwater, it's a floating turd, and it should be flushed.

GOP economic theory is to consume our seedstock in the name of further fattening the fatties of today, and investment in the future and costs in the future be damned.  Almost any other economic theory is an improvement.  Don't sell your bullshit around here.  99% of us aren't so stupid as to buy it.  Try pitching it at a Trump rally, where you'll see signs to "Keep the Government's Hands offa my Medicare!"  You'll have a much better success rate.

I’m not trying to sell you or anyone else in this thread on anything, I think many of you are too dig in, including myself. I say tinkering because the latest jobs report was better than I anticipated, unemployment is at a 50 year low, and stocks an all time high. Times are very good, but I also understand there can always be improvements, as there is no perfect system. Especially when it comes to the wealth disparity; I think more republicans are willing to listen to this issue if the Democrats provide a cogent argument. Government isn’t the enemy Reagan made it our to be, but it also isn’t the savior the modern Democrats make it out to be either. They seem to be missing their opportunity, though, with these silly ideas of free healthcare, free college, Green New Deal, etc. 

 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,570]

Army material. Ah well...

[Cosimo de' Medici 121]

38 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

This Cosimo guy seems like he sucks. 

How negative, divisive and intolerant you and your band of whack jobs are

[Loco 3,752]

6 minutes ago, Chrispy_ said:

I’m not trying to sell you or anyone else in this thread on anything, I think many of you are too dig in, including myself. I say tinkering because the latest jobs report was better than I anticipated, unemployment is at a 50 year low, and stocks an all time high. Times are very good, but I also understand there can always be improvements, as there is no perfect system. Especially when it comes to the wealth disparity; I think more republicans are willing to listen to this issue if the Democrats provide a cogent argument. Government isn’t the enemy Reagan made it our to be, but it also isn’t the savior the modern Democrats make it out to be either. They seem to be missing their opportunity, though, with these silly ideas of free healthcare, free college, Green New Deal, etc. 

 

 

How's the environment, education, deficit, infrastructure, international standing ?   oh...

[Brisketexan 105,050]

15 minutes ago, Chrispy_ said:

I say tinkering because the latest jobs report was better than I anticipated, unemployment is at a 50 year low, and stocks an all time high.

And under the horrible, awful, evil, no good, very bad Democratic regime of 2009-17 (see our crowdsourced moron friend, your pal).....how were all of those things trending, before Trump ever stepped foot in the WH?   Hmmmm......

It seems that figures like the unemployment rate are a benchmark for governmental success in your mind.  Why, I agree!  You and I are on the same page, so let's run with it!  Who lowered the unemployment rate more than any president in the past 50 years?

You should ADORE that president!  You should praise his policies, which obviously worked -- the proof is in the statistics that matter (you know, the ones that you yourself say matter)!  Huzzah! Cheers for .....OBAMA!

You fucking moron.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Brisketexan

[Chrispy_ 105]

2 minutes ago, Loco said:

How's the environment, education, deficit, infrastructure, international standing ?   oh...

I think there’s reasonable debates to be had about all of those topics, well except international standing. These countries grandstanding do make me chuckle, though, as they stand in line for milk from our tit. 

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of Trumpian populists is “these geniuses probably have a ton of student debt.”  

Trump University wasn't free.

[wildcat09 29,338]

49 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Let's not forget infinite regulations and penalties for poor people who get a traffic citation, etc.

Poor folks need LOTS of regulations and penalties.  But the well-off?  Well, they've demonstrated their virtue (because in AmericaChristendomProsperityGospelLand, the only proof of virtue is wealth), so they can be trusted.

Republicans aren't opposed to regulations.  That is a flat-out lie.  They are opposed only to regulations that cost them money.  They love regulations that 1) make them money, 2) impede their competition, or 3) keep...you know....those people....in their place.

There's a very simple reason for this. It's because "conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." 

[BradInATX 9,208]

20 minutes ago, Chrispy_ said:

 I think more republicans are willing to listen 

 

 

😂😂😂

[Chrispy_ 105]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And under the horrible, awful, evil, no good, very bad Democratic regime of 2009-17 (see our crowdsourced moron friend, your pal).....how were all of those things trending, before Trump ever stepped foot in the WH?   Hmmmm......

It seems that figures like the unemployment rate are a benchmark for governmental success in your mind.  Why, I agree!  You and I are on the same page, so let's run with it!  Who lowered the unemployment rate more than any president in the past 50 years?

You should ADORE that president!  You should praise his policies, which obviously worked -- the proof is in the statistics that matter (you know, the ones that you yourself say matter)!  Huzzah! Cheers for .....OBAMA!

You fucking moron.

A but Obama? You don’t hear that very much anymore, that’s impressive. Almost as impressive as the current Trump economy. I’ll mark you down as a maybe for MAGA 2020? 
 

Anyway, my point was that there are Republicans concerned about some of the same issues and could be had, even during these good times. 

[Brisketexan 105,050]

4 minutes ago, Chrispy_ said:

A but Obama? You don’t hear that very much anymore, that’s impressive. Almost as impressive as the current Trump economy. I’ll mark you down as a maybe for MAGA 2020? 
 

Anyway, my point was that there are Republicans concerned about some of the same issues and could be had, even during these good times. 

No, follow me here you brainless twit.  

Your proposition: economic indicators like unemployment rate are proof of presidential success.

Fact: unemployment (and every other economic indicator you cited) trended overwhelmingly to the positive under Obama.

ERGO: Obama was a successful president.

Your rule, I just applied it to the facts.  Yet, you won't apply that rule to the facts, because it would require you to 1) acknowledge that, according to your own metrics, Obama was a wildly successful president, and 2) Trump hasn't actually accomplished that much (his rate of improvement in those categories trails Obama).  

In short, I'm calling you out on your utter and complete bullshit.  Your support for Trump has NOTHING to do with those economic indicators, because if those WERE the driver of your support, you would have been an enormous Obama fan.  You weren't and aren't.  Therefore, we now know with certainty that economic indicators do NOT matter to you in your preference of president.  It must be something else.  And when you take those out of the equation, Trump is left with a track record of....international incompetence, naked corruption, an unprecedented and relentless volume of lies, happily stoking the fires of racism and xenophobia....all of which tells us that you are a tremendous piece of shit of a human being.

Don't state rules if you don't want those same rules to hang you by your shriveled ballsac.

[jimmyjazz 45,880]

9 minutes ago, Chrispy_ said:

Anyway, my point was that there are Republicans concerned about some of the same issues and could be had, even during these good times. 

No there aren't.  You're a liar.

[Cosimo de' Medici 121]

I look forward  to a very entertaining 2020 watching a trifecta of Democrat meltdown. 

January - Trump vindicated in senate. Uses as carte blanche in pushing every button on the liberal apocalypse panel. Still getting shit done in the background. 

May - RBG goes tits up and all hell breaks loose. Nuke option deployed. Heads explode.

November - The impossible happens AGAIN. Heads explode again after the voters punish the whacko majority in the house. 

EABOD

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,433]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I remember that.  I think I talked to you about the effects of tax cuts (among many other things) at . . . maybe Flying Saucer?

Speaking of cuts, that place shouldn't have closed.

Thats right. You sold me a pre-amp for the low cost of one pint of beer. It still works.