Chat Forum
It is currently Thu May 28, 2020 12:21 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112614 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2647, 2648, 2649, 2650, 2651, 2652, 2653 ... 2816  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8276
penguin wrote:
Backwoodsman1 wrote:
Well fortunately we have sites like the excellent Conservative Treehouse to deconstruct what the Dems and their deep state cronies are trying to do to save their skins.
It wont work of course , Ukraine has issued a warrant for the arrest of the former head of Bursima , who is currently on the run.

'' It is all coordinated. The “new evidence” relates to information turned over by Lev Parnas, an SDNY indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. The Lawfare purpose is to bolster their premise that President Trump was trying to force Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s corrupt activity around the Ukrainian company Burisma.

The Lawfare crew behind Schiff waited until the last minute to push the new “evidence” because they didn’t want republicans to deconstruct it during the impeachment evidence gathering phase. Aditionally, the Lawfare crew anticipate a Trump impeachment defense surrounding actual evidence of the Biden corruption, which makes the Trump request to Zelensky valid.''


That's...one way of looking at things. :lol:


There might actually be a reason to look into the Bidens, but that doesn't make what Trump did legal or valid. It is also possible Trump does have an actual defence, I've no idea what that might be but we haven't heard from Pompeo and Mulvaney so it's possible


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 8:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2565
piquant wrote:
penguin wrote:
Backwoodsman1 wrote:
Well fortunately we have sites like the excellent Conservative Treehouse to deconstruct what the Dems and their deep state cronies are trying to do to save their skins.
It wont work of course , Ukraine has issued a warrant for the arrest of the former head of Bursima , who is currently on the run.

'' It is all coordinated. The “new evidence” relates to information turned over by Lev Parnas, an SDNY indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. The Lawfare purpose is to bolster their premise that President Trump was trying to force Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s corrupt activity around the Ukrainian company Burisma.

The Lawfare crew behind Schiff waited until the last minute to push the new “evidence” because they didn’t want republicans to deconstruct it during the impeachment evidence gathering phase. Aditionally, the Lawfare crew anticipate a Trump impeachment defense surrounding actual evidence of the Biden corruption, which makes the Trump request to Zelensky valid.''


That's...one way of looking at things. :lol:


There might actually be a reason to look into the Bidens, but that doesn't make what Trump did legal or valid. It is also possible Trump does have an actual defence, I've no idea what that might be but we haven't heard from Pompeo and Mulvaney so it's possible

If the Bidens broke the law they should be investigate by law enforcement, not the executive branch. There's a good reason why we don't give police powers to politicians.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
6.Jones wrote:
piquant wrote:
penguin wrote:
Backwoodsman1 wrote:
Well fortunately we have sites like the excellent Conservative Treehouse to deconstruct what the Dems and their deep state cronies are trying to do to save their skins.
It wont work of course , Ukraine has issued a warrant for the arrest of the former head of Bursima , who is currently on the run.

'' It is all coordinated. The “new evidence” relates to information turned over by Lev Parnas, an SDNY indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. The Lawfare purpose is to bolster their premise that President Trump was trying to force Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s corrupt activity around the Ukrainian company Burisma.

The Lawfare crew behind Schiff waited until the last minute to push the new “evidence” because they didn’t want republicans to deconstruct it during the impeachment evidence gathering phase. Aditionally, the Lawfare crew anticipate a Trump impeachment defense surrounding actual evidence of the Biden corruption, which makes the Trump request to Zelensky valid.''


That's...one way of looking at things. :lol:


There might actually be a reason to look into the Bidens, but that doesn't make what Trump did legal or valid. It is also possible Trump does have an actual defence, I've no idea what that might be but we haven't heard from Pompeo and Mulvaney so it's possible

If the Bidens broke the law they should be investigate by law enforcement, not the executive branch. There's a good reason why we don't give police powers to politicians.


That's right. You should use the police to investigate your political opponents. Like Obama.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32549
Location: in transit
The Redneck Rebuttal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20420
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Strange how Obama never so much as leaked a suggestion that Trump was under investigation prior to the election. It's almost as if.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8276
They had an interview with Alan Dershowitz on Radio 4 this morning, part of the Trump legal team, and he stated point blank Trump is guilty of the charges put before him, but they do not rise to the level of impeachable and removal from office. And then he went on to misunderstand high crimes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:13 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17017
Fat Old Git wrote:
Strange how Obama never so much as leaked a suggestion that Trump was under investigation prior to the election. It's almost as if.....


I think part of Seneca's problem is that he finds it impossible to believe that Trump is untruthful.

Thus, if Trump states that Obama was using the Intelligence infrastructure to undermine Trump's campaign, then it is an indisputable fact.

Most of us are not that gullible, though, and we would like to see evidence before we blindly buy into the veracity of Trump's version.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7993
Rinkals wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Strange how Obama never so much as leaked a suggestion that Trump was under investigation prior to the election. It's almost as if.....


I think part of Seneca's problem is that he finds it impossible to believe that Trump is untruthful.

Thus, if Trump states that Obama was using the Intelligence infrastructure to undermine Trump's campaign, then it is an indisputable fact.

Most of us are not that gullible, though, and we would like to see evidence before we blindly buy into the veracity of Trump's version.


Surely he knows he lies but sees it as showmanship or media savviness, a tactic where the lies mask a truthful cutting to the core in his actions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:48 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17017
penguin wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Strange how Obama never so much as leaked a suggestion that Trump was under investigation prior to the election. It's almost as if.....


I think part of Seneca's problem is that he finds it impossible to believe that Trump is untruthful.

Thus, if Trump states that Obama was using the Intelligence infrastructure to undermine Trump's campaign, then it is an indisputable fact.

Most of us are not that gullible, though, and we would like to see evidence before we blindly buy into the veracity of Trump's version.


Surely he knows he lies but sees it as showmanship or media savviness, a tactic where the lies mask a truthful cutting to the core in his actions.

Then why does he refer to Obama's illegal surveillance as if it actually happened?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:26 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11049
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
In more Obama related obsession news, Trump is looking to roll back healthy eating guidelines for schools as championed by Michelle Obama.

Meanwhile, the environment takes another kicking as the regulations relating to impact assessment look set to be eviscerated.

But I'm sure the backers, donors and dead eyed sociopath brigade will be delighted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2565
Seneca of the Night wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
piquant wrote:
penguin wrote:
Backwoodsman1 wrote:
Well fortunately we have sites like the excellent Conservative Treehouse to deconstruct what the Dems and their deep state cronies are trying to do to save their skins.
It wont work of course , Ukraine has issued a warrant for the arrest of the former head of Bursima , who is currently on the run.

'' It is all coordinated. The “new evidence” relates to information turned over by Lev Parnas, an SDNY indicted former associate of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani. The Lawfare purpose is to bolster their premise that President Trump was trying to force Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s corrupt activity around the Ukrainian company Burisma.

The Lawfare crew behind Schiff waited until the last minute to push the new “evidence” because they didn’t want republicans to deconstruct it during the impeachment evidence gathering phase. Aditionally, the Lawfare crew anticipate a Trump impeachment defense surrounding actual evidence of the Biden corruption, which makes the Trump request to Zelensky valid.''


That's...one way of looking at things. :lol:


There might actually be a reason to look into the Bidens, but that doesn't make what Trump did legal or valid. It is also possible Trump does have an actual defence, I've no idea what that might be but we haven't heard from Pompeo and Mulvaney so it's possible

If the Bidens broke the law they should be investigate by law enforcement, not the executive branch. There's a good reason why we don't give police powers to politicians.


That's right. You should use the police to investigate your political opponents. Like Obama.

Today's broadcast comes to you from the town of Whataboutery.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2565
Rinkals wrote:
penguin wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Strange how Obama never so much as leaked a suggestion that Trump was under investigation prior to the election. It's almost as if.....


I think part of Seneca's problem is that he finds it impossible to believe that Trump is untruthful.

Thus, if Trump states that Obama was using the Intelligence infrastructure to undermine Trump's campaign, then it is an indisputable fact.

Most of us are not that gullible, though, and we would like to see evidence before we blindly buy into the veracity of Trump's version.


Surely he knows he lies but sees it as showmanship or media savviness, a tactic where the lies mask a truthful cutting to the core in his actions.

Then why does he refer to Obama's illegal surveillance as if it actually happened?

Because that's how he lies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Quote:

That's right. You should use the police to investigate your political opponents. Like Obama.

Today's broadcast comes to you from the town of Whataboutery.[/quote]

I don't think that's technically whataboutery. It would be whataboutery if I said 'but Obama used his personal lawyer to investigate trump.'

But for those watching closely the entire trump presidency, including his election, has been about whether or not there is a hidden permanent bureaucracy in Washington allied to the Democrats running rampant.

Almost no one I've seen suggests Obama had to know about this, but given who will rid me of this troublesome priest phenoms and buck stops here principles it matters not : it was on his watch.

The show goes on. The problem for the Republic now is that if no one goes to prison over this for half the country that will be proof the deep state exists. Watch and learn grasshoppers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2565
You're right. It's not really whataboutery. Justifying your man's actions based on behaviors you deplored in his opponent is hypocrisy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:07 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17017
6.Jones wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
penguin wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Strange how Obama never so much as leaked a suggestion that Trump was under investigation prior to the election. It's almost as if.....


I think part of Seneca's problem is that he finds it impossible to believe that Trump is untruthful.

Thus, if Trump states that Obama was using the Intelligence infrastructure to undermine Trump's campaign, then it is an indisputable fact.

Most of us are not that gullible, though, and we would like to see evidence before we blindly buy into the veracity of Trump's version.


Surely he knows he lies but sees it as showmanship or media savviness, a tactic where the lies mask a truthful cutting to the core in his actions.

Then why does he refer to Obama's illegal surveillance as if it actually happened?

Because that's how he lies.

Trump or Seneca?

If it's the latter, you risk being reported to the Mods and a string of shrill hysterical posts demanding your banning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2565
Rinkals wrote:
Trump or Seneca?

If it's the latter, you risk being reported to the Mods and a string of shrill hysterical posts demanding your banning.

Trump. I'm having a bad comprehension day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Quote:
Trump or Seneca?

If it's the latter, you risk being reported to the Mods and a string of shrill hysterical posts demanding your banning.


Remember Rinkals I only have to be lucky once then the perma ban hammer comes down on you, oh yes.

Mmmmwwwaaaahhhhaaaa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20420
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
I wonder what impact reports that Trump's campaign was being investigated would have had prior to the election?

"FBI investigated meeting with Russians" etc. Would Hillary have been able to use "Lock him up!" To good effect in her campaign?

Iirc, she took a hit when it was announced they were reopening the done to death investigation into her emails just before the election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
Fat Old Git wrote:
I wonder what impact reports that Trump's campaign was being investigated would have had prior to the election?

"FBI investigated meeting with Russians" etc. Would Hillary have been able to use "Lock him up!" To good effect in her campaign?

Iirc, she took a hit when it was announced they were reopening the done to death investigation into her emails just before the election.


The email thing should have knocked her out cold as a candidate from the off. Bizarre and incomprehensible and either excuse - stupidity or malice - is unacceptable.

But as everyone can see now clearly, it was a stitch up candidacy. For various reasons the democrat hierarchy are really really scared of Bernie Saunders.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8276
Doesn't it remain the case the Trump campaign wasn't under surveillance, but despite surrounding himself with the best people some people who became (tangentially or otherwise) associated with the Trump campaign were under surveillance because they were suspected or known to be doing things they shouldn't?

Why the above is more interesting today than Trump's lawyer saying damn right he's guilty I don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37132
piquant wrote:
Doesn't it remain the case the Trump campaign wasn't under surveillance, but despite surrounding himself with the best people some people who became (tangentially or otherwise) associated with the Trump campaign were under surveillance because they were suspected or known to be doing things they shouldn't?

Why the above is more interesting today than Trump's lawyer saying damn right he's guilty I don't know.


Nothing is interesting about the impeachment rubbish. Let it go.

Edit: I take that back. It will be intersting to watch the course of the rest of Adam Schiffs life, and at what point the men in White coats come for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2565
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
I wonder what impact reports that Trump's campaign was being investigated would have had prior to the election?

"FBI investigated meeting with Russians" etc. Would Hillary have been able to use "Lock him up!" To good effect in her campaign?

Iirc, she took a hit when it was announced they were reopening the done to death investigation into her emails just before the election.


The email thing should have knocked her out cold as a candidate from the off. Bizarre and incomprehensible and either excuse - stupidity or malice - is unacceptable.

But as everyone can see now clearly, it was a stitch up candidacy. For various reasons the democrat hierarchy are really really scared of Bernie Saunders.


I wonder what Dawn French has to say about that?

But you're right. You're absolutely right the Democrats are an oligopoly, and Sanders threatens that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:32 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:30 am
Posts: 4813
The Man Without Fear wrote:
In more Obama related obsession news, Trump is looking to roll back healthy eating guidelines for schools as championed by Michelle Obama.

Meanwhile, the environment takes another kicking as the regulations relating to impact assessment look set to be eviscerated.

But I'm sure the backers, donors and dead eyed sociopath brigade will be delighted.


Just taking his foot off the hose


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1743
6.Jones wrote:
You're right. It's not really whataboutery. Justifying your man's actions based on behaviors you deplored in his opponent is hypocrisy.

I think I'm becoming beady eyed.
I'm seeing hypocrisy everywhere.
Nothing but hypocrisy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6880
Location: emmerdale
BillW wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
You're right. It's not really whataboutery. Justifying your man's actions based on behaviors you deplored in his opponent is hypocrisy.

I think I'm becoming beady eyed.
I'm seeing hypocrisy everywhere.
Nothing but hypocrisy.

tis true. if only there was some way to pull back the curtain on it all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 12:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20420
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
I wonder what impact reports that Trump's campaign was being investigated would have had prior to the election?

"FBI investigated meeting with Russians" etc. Would Hillary have been able to use "Lock him up!" To good effect in her campaign?

Iirc, she took a hit when it was announced they were reopening the done to death investigation into her emails just before the election.


The email thing should have knocked her out cold as a candidate from the off. Bizarre and incomprehensible and either excuse - stupidity or malice - is unacceptable.

But as everyone can see now clearly, it was a stitch up candidacy. For various reasons the democrat hierarchy are really really scared of Bernie Saunders.


Yeah, it's hard to believe that an elderly women may not of had a complete understanding of how her IT system was set up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
Seneca of the Night wrote:
Trump comes in, takes his foot off the pipe (YOU'RE NOT MEANT TO DO THAT!), system is unblocked. Amazing.


Where is the flow coming from the unblocked hose? What are the concrete results that can be put firmly on Trump's credit? (Genuine question).

Second question - do these new policies benefit everybody, most, half or a minority of the US population?

Is Trump delivering a better today?

A better tomorrow?

And a better after tomorrow?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
Quote:

You see, the thing is I agree with almost all of that. The billionaire class are mainly rentiers who won a lottery [although there are some exceptions who built real businesses.]

The question is whether you can just throw a spanner in the works and it goes better. I know we've discussed this. You know I think Trump is a cunning media operator but not much else. Can you just take the foot off the pipe and everything works? It depends if economics is more like a bath or a space shuttle.

Like a motor taken apart by someone who doesn't know about details, a lot of the parts Trump is throwing away are there for a reason. Environmental protections gave the world clean skies and water to drink. There's more to progress than money. Otherwise why progress at all?

And in the meantime, he could involve us all in a war, by idiocy. I hope that gives you pause to wonder if Trump is as good as you want him to be. I hope he is too.


But, first of all, isn't Trump one of these phony billionaire?

Second, isn't he known for a succession of scams, bankruptcy and the like that left a lot of people in the streets? On this basis how can one think that he cares about the good of others (at least the US citizens) and that he can actually be a successful President? He wasn't even a successful businessman.

Third, he appears driven by a hate of all that is Obama and most of his policy has been about undoing what Obama did. Is that a true political vision?

Those are the questions I ask myself.

How can people hope that Trump is a man that has any interest in changing the USA for the better when all his life has been about himself?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
6.Jones wrote:
One thing proper economists agree on is supply side economics is snake oil. There's no evidence that tax cuts to the rich increases growth. It increases savings.

Back to the foot off the pipe, the one thing Trump has done to encourage that, and only within the United States, is deregulation.


In France, a study done on the impact of Macron's controversial decision to cancel the tax on the richer people in France (ISF - impot sur la fortune) showed that it costed more to the State than it actually brought in terms of collective benefits, with little of that money saved by the rich being reinvested in the French economy.

As for deregulation, the USA example show that less regulations doesn't create a more competitive market benefiting the majority. Collisions between firms result in day light robbery (clue : the cost of TV + internet, the shit american airlines level of service), while at the same time putting tremendous pressure on the weaker ones to accept always less paid jobs, less benefits, less protection.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Straya cunt
These will come in handy when they invade the forest moon of Endor...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canad ... GQTqXzCT8Y

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 5:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17064
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11286
Can't believe the Republicans and Trump continuously ranting about the impeachment being an attack on the Americans' right of vote, duly ignoring that Americans gave by their votes a majority to the Democrats in the House


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 6:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20420
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
The American democratic system is an attack on democracy tbf. Not all votes are equal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17064
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8276
TheFrog wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
One thing proper economists agree on is supply side economics is snake oil. There's no evidence that tax cuts to the rich increases growth. It increases savings.

Back to the foot off the pipe, the one thing Trump has done to encourage that, and only within the United States, is deregulation.


In France, a study done on the impact of Macron's controversial decision to cancel the tax on the richer people in France (ISF - impot sur la fortune) showed that it costed more to the State than it actually brought in terms of collective benefits, with little of that money saved by the rich being reinvested in the French economy.

As for deregulation, the USA example show that less regulations doesn't create a more competitive market benefiting the majority. Collisions between firms result in day light robbery (clue : the cost of TV + internet, the shit american airlines level of service), while at the same time putting tremendous pressure on the weaker ones to accept always less paid jobs, less benefits, less protection.


One thing proper economists would hopefully agree on is that supply side economics isn't snake oil, and more it depends on the situation. Though they'd certainly agree it isn't always the right answer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm
Posts: 2565
piquant wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
One thing proper economists agree on is supply side economics is snake oil. There's no evidence that tax cuts to the rich increases growth. It increases savings.

Back to the foot off the pipe, the one thing Trump has done to encourage that, and only within the United States, is deregulation.


In France, a study done on the impact of Macron's controversial decision to cancel the tax on the richer people in France (ISF - impot sur la fortune) showed that it costed more to the State than it actually brought in terms of collective benefits, with little of that money saved by the rich being reinvested in the French economy.

As for deregulation, the USA example show that less regulations doesn't create a more competitive market benefiting the majority. Collisions between firms result in day light robbery (clue : the cost of TV + internet, the shit american airlines level of service), while at the same time putting tremendous pressure on the weaker ones to accept always less paid jobs, less benefits, less protection.


One thing proper economists would hopefully agree on is that supply side economics isn't snake oil, and more it depends on the situation. Though they'd certainly agree it isn't always the right answer

I guess I should've specified the Laffer Curve and trickle-down theory practised by Republicans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5890
6.Jones wrote:
piquant wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
6.Jones wrote:
One thing proper economists agree on is supply side economics is snake oil. There's no evidence that tax cuts to the rich increases growth. It increases savings.

Back to the foot off the pipe, the one thing Trump has done to encourage that, and only within the United States, is deregulation.


In France, a study done on the impact of Macron's controversial decision to cancel the tax on the richer people in France (ISF - impot sur la fortune) showed that it costed more to the State than it actually brought in terms of collective benefits, with little of that money saved by the rich being reinvested in the French economy.

As for deregulation, the USA example show that less regulations doesn't create a more competitive market benefiting the majority. Collisions between firms result in day light robbery (clue : the cost of TV + internet, the shit american airlines level of service), while at the same time putting tremendous pressure on the weaker ones to accept always less paid jobs, less benefits, less protection.


One thing proper economists would hopefully agree on is that supply side economics isn't snake oil, and more it depends on the situation. Though they'd certainly agree it isn't always the right answer

I guess I should've specified the Laffer Curve and trickle-down theory practised by Republicans.


The only thing trickling from republicans is dribble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36009
Location: Planet Rock
TheFrog wrote:
Can't believe the Republicans and Trump continuously ranting about the impeachment being an attack on the Americans' right of vote, duly ignoring that Americans gave by their votes a majority to the Democrats in the House

I can believe it. I get that they are talking to their base who have shit for brains.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20420
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Anonymous. wrote:
TheFrog wrote:
Can't believe the Republicans and Trump continuously ranting about the impeachment being an attack on the Americans' right of vote, duly ignoring that Americans gave by their votes a majority to the Democrats in the House

I can believe it. I get that they are talking to their base who have shit for brains.


Their response to just about everything is a version of "no you are!".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 19, 2020 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20420
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Trump's legal team are an interesting lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112614 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2647, 2648, 2649, 2650, 2651, 2652, 2653 ... 2816  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A5D5E5, anonymous_joe, bimboman, Bing [Bot], Blackrock Bullet, BokJock, bravo, camroc1, CrazyIslander, duke, Google Adsense [Bot], Leinster in London, Leinsterman, Mog The Almighty, Mullet 2, Nieghorn, P in VG, Salanya, sewa, Stjudes, sturginho, TheFrog, The Man Without Fear, VBall, Yer Man and 109 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group