Trump Victory Thread

As usual, when faced with the WHOLE TRUTH, neocons/*********s/fibbertarians all seem to take either the myopic approach or a revisionist version that depends more on (sometimes) subtle supposition and conjecture. From my source:

The notion of Kennedy as supply-side forerunner is a powerful myth, but it is a myth. Context is key. Conservatives love to quote a speech Kennedy gave at the Economic Club of New York in December 1962. Here's one quote—I've italicized the crucial part often left out: "Our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." JFK was not expounding an implacable economic philosophy; he was speaking about a very specific circumstance. The top marginal tax rate was 91 percent, which JFK wanted reduced to a "more sensible" 65 percent. Compare that with today's 35 percent top rate, and ask: If supply-siders are so enamored of JFK's tax policies, would they advocate a return to a "more sensible" 65 percent top rate? Applying Kennedy's tax talk to the current structure, JFK biographer Robert Dallek says, is like comparing "apples and watermelons."



Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.
Republicans, by contrast, argued that while tax cuts were desirable, running an $11 billion deficit, "with no hope of a balanced budget for the foreseeable future, is both morally and fiscally wrong." That balanced-budget fixation was the ruling GOP philosophy until the rise of supply-side economics, which saw tax cuts as a way to boost investment (the supply side versus the Keynesian demand side) by helping the wealthy and business. Deficits were handled with the magical declaration that tax cuts pay for themselves.

It's a notion that the new House GOP majority has taken to bizarre and irresponsible extremes, eliminating "pay-go" rules mandating that new tax cuts or new spending be offset by tax increases or spending cuts. Instead the House now has "cut-go" rules, which require only that new spending be offset with spending cuts—tax cuts need not be offset and tax increases don't count as offsets. This from the party that oversaw deficit explosions in the Reagan and George W. Bush years, then claimed the mantle of fiscal responsibility in last year's elections. At least JFK and his partisan descendants are intellectually honest about deficits.

 

Actually, you're welcome to meet a simple burden of proof. YOU made the declaration, so PROVE it. That's how it works, son....ask any high school English/debate squad teacher.

 

So you're one of those who think that the economic policies that were enacted during 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush Sr. just magically disappeared under Clinton? Or that 8 years of Bush Jr. using reaganomics on steroids had NO effect on the economy? You do remember that the Shrub's economic policy went into effect in the 1st year of Obama's Presidency, right? Or that Obama actually EXTENDED the Bush tax cuts instead of letting them "sunset", as a concession to the GOP congress, right? I mean, you DO remember TWO near depressions in the last 36 years, right?

Take a deep breath, do some honest research or ask a nearby adult to explain it to you. This is 2016...try being less willfully ignorant.

 

So let me get this straight...you're not even an American, yet you parrot the same BS done by the willfully ignorant and low information folk who voted for him? What's your axe to grind? National Front peanut gallery not doing it for you anymore? Jeez!

 

Research? LOL, They know nothing unless the media spoon feeds them, the problem is they are being fed lies. It was funny to watch them attack Bush at the same time demand to keep the Bush tax cuts.

 

He's a typical flabby chested racist who thinks he's clever in his bigoted propaganda, as the oft disproved and consistently exposed Breitbart News has demonstrated. Allowing him anywhere near true national influence/power will NOT bode well for the country. Trump brings him on board, which speaks volumes as to where his head is at. Oh and junior isn't crossing the pond, as he'd prefer being a 'subject' than a citizen.

 

Don is half-British so of course I take an interest in him becoming the most powerful man on earth..
Incidentally 26 Brits died at the Alamo (12 English/ 10 Irish/ 4 Scots) defending the USA, and there you go calling me names! Huh you try to be nice to people (sniffle)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alamo_defenders

 

So you were/are reaganomics a'la Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.?

 

I'm heavily Scottish

- - - Updated - - -

Can you embellish on the failures of reaganomics or are you all talk?

 

I am 'one of those' that prefers to deal with reality instead of lefty memes.

 

Yeah, America is made up of IMMIGRANTS who LEFT THEIR NATIVE LAND BECAUSE THEY EITHER DIDN'T LIKE, COULDN'T CUT IT THERE OR WERE LOOKING FOR NEW BUSINESS OPS (sans the rights of the natives and on the backs of black slaves)

The Alamo doesn't mean a damn thing to me, son....both sides screwed over the native population that had been there for a millennium, and they sure as hell didn't give a damn about black folk in slavery.

And Trump's also got German ancestry from his Pop's....you know, the folk your country signed a non-aggression pact with before nearly being bombed into the Stone Age by?

You can't defend the racist/sexist/class segregating bilge this orange faced cretin has spewed to press and audio over the decades, nor can you deny how it laced his campaign. All you can do is blow smoke.

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: he can't logically or factually refute or disprove what I stated, so he just parrots empty rhetoric.

 

What you stated was liberal bilge. You just don't seem to comprehend how ridiculous the liberal media memes are. Apparently you live in a media land of mirrors where everyone agrees and you are told what to think and say. I am truly sorry for you.

 

I see you live in Long Island mate, don't you mind squatting on the land of the 13 tribes who used to live there?..

 

See "voter base." As if you needed any proof. You're in denial, kid. The heathens and Marxists have taken over your party with the votes of and control over single moms, poor minorities and gender obsessed.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)

 

As the chronology of the posts shows, when necessary I can validate what I say with documented fact. Junior here can't, so he tries to substitute his opinion, supposition and conjecture for facts and logic. Someone needs to clue him in on how absurd that stance is.

 

For your education, genius:

http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/library/libspc_soli.pdf


Long Island presents another point of Indian-black admixture. Of the Shinnecock on the south shore, Gatschet in 1889 5 observe “There are, 150 individuals now going under this name, but they are nearly all mixed with black blood, dating from the times of slavery in the Northern states.” Still later M. R. Harrington 6 notes the occurrence in many individuals of both Indian and black somatic characters. These Shinnecock evidently have not been so completely Africanized as some authorities believe. The remnant of the Montauk in East Hampton are reported by W. W. Tooker 7 to be mixed with blacks, though still recognizable by their aboriginal features. The region of Chesapeake bay furnishes evidences of Indian-black inter-mixture. The fact, pointed out by Brinton 8 that the list of the numerals 1-10 given as Nanticoke in a manuscript of Pyrlaeus, the missionary to the Mohawk, dating from 1790, is really Mandingo or a closely related African language, indicates contact or inter-mixture.

https://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/black-indian-history.htm

 

Not sure i understand you mate, I googled around and the consensus is that there were 13 Indian tribes on Long Island.
If you don't mind squatting on their land, neither do I, but between you and me I think they deserved to have their land taken off them, they'd owned it for centuries and hadn't built a single theme park or golf course in all that time..

 

An where in your link does it label the "Marxist" FACTION of the Democratic Party? Nor do I see Marxism defined as a "voter base" for anyone. I didn't see that title OR A DESCRIPTION OF MARXISM BEING A BASE FOR ANY OF THE FACTIONS....if you can't copy and paste it, that makes you out to be DEAD WRONG.

 

Okay, I can see that you're just being a crank who resorts to attempts at sarcastic humor when you can't logically or factually defend your statements or assertions. Bottom line, YOU tried to play off the FACT that in previous exchanges I proved you wrong as you tried to wave the flag at me by somehow equating my existence on Long Island as equal to the descendants of European colonialist. Absurd, being that my people were slaves brought here not by free will. However, there was enough inter-marriage among blacks and native people to make US a native presence here. If they have no problem with me living here, then I'm not "squatting"....if you knew better you'd know that the problem is YOUR cousins NOT honoring treaties. Instead of "googling around" you should have read carefully and comprehensively the information I provided.

Long son, you're just cranking your bigotry and racism about Trump and you're making a fool of yourself. Why not just stick to your side of the "pond" and deal with your own versions of this BS....saves you humiliation and me reading/responding to your bilge.

 

Steady on, 26 of us Brits died at the Alamo, and Trump himself is half-British! Huh you try to be nice to people (sniffle)..
By the way if you're saying Don is a racist I ain't buying that..

 

Trump supports are arguing from emotion not facts. They cannot argue from facts otherwise they would realise what a twonk he is (Twit With Opinion No Knowledge).

 

Being nice to the black man in front of a camera is not an indication he is not racist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

 

Don's line up of contestants on the Apprentice are black, white, oriental, gay, lesbian, hispanic, latino etc, so if he's racist or homophobic I'm Mary Poppins..

 

It is an entertainment tv program ! To boost viewers you need a wide range of "celebrity hopers" wanting their 15 minutes of fame.

Did you really think that The Apprentice is a serious business program?

 

You don't really deny the Marxism in virtually all Democratic themes, do you? Where do you think the Democratic party's anti-capitalism ideals come from?