Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

Here's one for Nate Silver fans--some leftie folks see him as I do. With one nuance. Cenk Uygur & Co. think Silver doesn't know what he's doing when it does his bias thing.

I think he totally knows what he's doing.

At least they see it. Of all the leftie folks, I like Uygur the best. I'm often at odds with him, and he can get biased as all hell, but I never doubt his honesty toward his viewers.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, PDS said:

Now let me put my money where my mouth is:.  If Trump signs a budget bill that reduces federal spending, I will send $500 to OL and I will personally send you a taxidermed crow.    I will be happy to do so, and happy to be wrong on this point.    And you are welcome to remind me should I forget this in this future.  

David,

Thank you for your donation to OL.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PDS: If Trump signs a budget bill that reduces federal spending . . . .

The non-betting guy on the sidelines wants to get his two cents in. Does that bet need to be more specific? The Progressives like to mess with the definition of “IS.” Maybe Trump will too. Another version of the bet could be that Trump will spend fewer actual dollars than Obama did in his lowest spending year while in office, with no adjustments for inflation. Nor will Trump pay for something one year with next years projected surplus or taxes, etc. You know - the “hidden lies.”

The reality I would like to see is that Trump spends less and reduces the debt. Does anybody want to bet that won’t be the case? Would Paul Ryan now take that bet after their supposedly, fruitful meeting? Which so called experts will provide the proof? Krauthammer is saying Ryan said there is now a chance to unite the Party which means nothing was solved. That’s where we were before the meeting. How about a bet that Trump will reduce spending in his first sixty days and put into action a plan to reduce spending even more? No excuses about how Trump hasn’t had time to do his really huge, good deeds?

Will Trump stop the Washington bullshit? It doesn’t look like it.

Peter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter said:

PDS: If Trump signs a budget bill that reduces federal spending . . . .

The non-betting guy on the sidelines wants to get his two cents in. Does that bet need to be more specific? The Progressives like to mess with the definition of “IS.” Maybe Trump will too. Another version of the bet could be that Trump will spend fewer actual dollars than Obama did in his lowest spending year while in office, with no adjustments for inflation. Nor will Trump pay for something one year with next years projected surplus or taxes, etc. You know - the “hidden lies.”

The reality I would like to see is that Trump spends less and reduces the debt. Does anybody want to bet that won’t be the case? Would Paul Ryan now take that bet after their supposedly, fruitful meeting? Which so called experts will provide the proof? Krauthammer is saying Ryan said there is now a chance to unite the Party which means nothing was solved. That’s where we were before the meeting. How about a bet that Trump will reduce spending in his first sixty days and put into action a plan to reduce spending even more? No excuses about how Trump hasn’t had time to do his really huge, good deeds?

Will Trump stop the Washington bullshit? It doesn’t look like it.

Peter 

Why do you want the debt reduced? What would that do?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have not yet answered Robert Campbell and some friendly passive/aggressive gossip shit William is trying to stir up backstage. :) 

Life is short, but this stuff can get awfully long...

Speaking of which, here's some of William's P/A caca now. (It is awfully long, but you should have seen it before he edited it! :lol: 

REB

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is supposed to be in Trump's taxes? I am more worried about his tax plan. Now Hillary has some real crony, take the money and run, and then pay back the crooks with government contracts, problems.

Brant asked, “Why do you want the debt reduced? What would that do?”

Who am I talking to, Alfred E. Newman? I get your feigned “duh.” Unfortunately, Trump is not worried though he did briefly mention a coming crash . . . unless we elect him. Progressive / Communist economist Paul Krugman was asked whether he thought the U.S. was in danger of a collapse, a stall, OR a crisis and he says we CAN ALWAYS PRINT MORE MONEY!

“. . . First of all ... that trillion dollar deficit is overwhelmingly the result of a depressed economy, and when the economy’s depressed, it’s good to run a deficit. You don’t want the government to try and balance its budget right now,” Krugman said.

As the Beatles sang, “Falling, yes I am falling, we are falling in debt again. My credit card is crashing, I have no cashing, and she keeps calling me back again.”

Peter

Some excerpts from Wikipedia: For every dollar of intragovernmental debt, there is an obligation to specific program recipients, generally non-marketable securities such as those held in the Social Security Trust Fund. Adjustments that reduce future deficits in these programs may also apply costs to future generations, via higher taxes or lower program spending.

CBO reported in September 2011: "The nation cannot continue to sustain the spending programs and policies of the past with the tax revenues it has been accustomed to paying. Citizens will either have to pay more for their government, accept less in government services and benefits, or both."

Interest and debt service costs, Components of interest on the debt: Despite rising debt levels, interest costs have remained at approximately 2008 levels (around $450 billion in total) due to lower than long-term interest rates paid on government debt in recent years. However, interest rates may return to higher historical levels. The cost of servicing the U.S. national debt can be measured in various ways. The CBO analyzes net interest as a percentage of GDP, with a higher percentage indicating a higher interest payment burden. During 2015, this was 1.3% GDP, close to the record low 1.2% of the 1966-1968 era. The average from 1966 to 2015 was 2.0% of GDP.

However, CBO estimated in 2016 that the interest amounts and % GDP will increase significantly over the following decade as both interest rates and debt levels rise: "Interest payments on that debt represent a large and rapidly growing expense of the federal government. CBO’s baseline shows net interest payments more than tripling under current law, climbing from $231 billion in 2014, or 1.3 percent of GDP, to $799 billion in 2024, or 3.0 percent of GDP—the highest ratio since 1996."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Hey, Michael. Can you put this in your pipe and smoke it?

Brant,

I'm not a big fan of lies presented as truth. John Fund is one of the National Review sore losers. He's done good work in the past and I hate to see him acting like ThinkProgress or MediaMatters. But there it is. He's turned into a partisan hack on a mission to take Trump down and is willing to lie to his own public to see what sticks.

I saw Trump on Greta (yesterday or the day before) and she asked him straight up about this.

He replied he never said he would not release the tax returns before the election, that he wanted to release them as soon as possible, but that he will only release them after the IRS audit is finished. His own lawyers are telling him to do it this way.

Then he asked her, as a lawyer, would she recommend that he release his tax returns to the public before an audit is over? She said of course not.

This article is press puffery by the press and wishful thinking by you if you are taking it as truth.

When I smoke a pipe, I need puffs, not puffery.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Peter said:

What is supposed to be in Trump's taxes? I am more worried about his tax plan.

Peter,

They will probably find out that Trump takes advantage of every tax break his lawyers can find. I, for one, am fine with this because in his shoes, I would do the same.

Unlike you, I'm not worried per se about Trump's tax plan. I think it will be a great one. But I agree with you that the focus should be on Trump's tax plan instead of his own personal taxes. His plan will affect you, his personal taxes will not.

This insistence about his personal taxes is coming from Mitt Romney. I wonder what would happen if we started scratching around in Romney's business concerns from the lens of foreign trade crony capitalist benefits, I wonder, I wonder? 

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

I'm not a big fan of lies presented as truth. John Fund is one of the National Review sore losers. He's done good work in the past and I hate to see him acting like ThinkProgress or MediaMatters. But there it is. He's turned into a partisan hack on a mission to take Trump down and is willing to lie to his own public to see what sticks.

I saw Trump on Greta (yesterday or the day before) and she asked him straight up about this.

He replied he never said he would not release the tax returns before the election, that he wanted to release them as soon as possible, but that he will only release them after the IRS audit is finished. His own lawyers are telling him to do it this way.

Then he asked her, as a lawyer, would she recommend that he release his tax returns to the public before an audit is over? She said of course not.

This article is press puffery by the press and wishful thinking by you if you are taking it as truth.

When I smoke a pipe, I need puffs, not puffery.

:) 

Michael

You're probably right. Why didn't Fund write his article 6 months ago except to keep it in reserve as a last ditch effort to screw up Trump at the convention? I can understand Trump giving up if his tax returns reveal he's worth very little, but what do tax returns have to do necessarily with net worth?  But this thread has to know what's going on, right? So I put in the link.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a live broadcast Newt Gingrich just did on Facebook.

He is so articulate that he exudes clarity. He explains Trump well. I hope he's tapped as Trump's VP.

(How do two old white guys sound for those of you who are multicultural PC Nazis? :evil:  )

When Newt spoke about having the right to dream in that video, he was absolutely inspiring.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newt is 72. And not Hispanic or a female. He can't pull in a major electoral state that Trump is not already guaranteed. Newt is a great speech writer though press secretary may be beneath his skill level. Trusted (paid) advisor?

I see Obama is demanding public schools open their bathrooms to what is *reputed to be going on* in a kid's heads rather than their physical gender. I hope this is the last straw. He needs to be chastised by the parents, the states, the congress, and every PTA and teacher's union in America. This should be a decisive issue.

Peter    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What had me wondering was when will the Clinton machine kick in? Can Trump sustain his free media scrutiny? Well today I heard the Washington Post had assigned 20 reporters to cover Trump. How is that possible unless they are digging for dirt? And the new headline is "Rich Trump is seeking big donors to finance his campaign!" Who? George Clooney? The Saudis? Rich crony capitalists? That's cutting into Hillary territory. Is Donald about to transition from a laugh and a headline a minute, to, "Ho Ho my god, look what I dug up! I'm getting a raise because this will lose him 5 percent of the vote. Is it about time for the IRS to leak some sordid details? OMG! Trump is turning his money into gold and silver at Roseland Capital! He has a bunker. The debt asteroid is about to strike earth.

Peter   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump just shared the following on his Facebook feed here:

 

Quote

HOUSE CHAIRMEN ENDORSE DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT

(Washington, DC) May 13, 2016 – Today, nine Chairmen in the U.S. House of Representatives – Steve Chabot (Small Business), Michael Conaway (Agriculture), Jeb Hensarling (Financial Services), Candice Miller (House Administration), Jeff Miller (Veterans’ Affairs), Tom Price (Budget), Pete Sessions (Rules), Bill Shuster (Transportation and Infrastructure), and Lamar Smith (Science, Space and Technology) – endorsed Donald J. Trump for President and released the following statement:

“We stand on the precipice of one of the most important elections of our lifetime. This great nation cannot endure eight more years of Democrat-control of the White House. It cannot afford to put Democrats in charge of Congress. It is paramount that we coalesce around the Republican nominee, Mr. Donald J. Trump, and maintain control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.”

“Any other outcome is a danger to economic growth, puts our national security in peril, enshrines ObamaCare as the law of the land, entraps Americans in a cycle of poverty and dependence, and undermines our constitutional republic.”

“There is a path to winning in November, and it comes through unity. To solidify this partnership, we endorse Mr. Trump as the Republican nominee for President and call upon all Americans to support him.”

In response, Mr. Trump released the following statement upon news of the endorsements:

“It is tremendous to be working with these leaders and their colleagues on winning solutions that will really move us forward. A strong House Republican Majority is imperative to fixing the problems facing America and making our country better and stronger than ever before.”

Mr. Trump has surged in recent polls against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, both nationally and in key battleground states such as Ohio, where he leads Clinton by a significant margin.

 

Chuggin'... chuggin'... chuggin'... 

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't know the source of the following gif.

I only know it's one hell of a great gif.

For gif makers, this one is worth study, even if you don't like Trump. This person put some serious work into it.

TrumpOnTank.gif

 

:)

Michael

Looks like ol' Blood & Guts (Patton) on the offense. Go get em!  -J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachel Maddow, of all people, just blew the crap out of the Never Trump movement in Washington and, ultimately, in the Republican party. She makes an excellent case. This whole Trump resistance controversy, including Paul Ryan's refusal to endorse Trump so far (based on worry about the re-elections of the members of Congress), is mostly made up--especially in relation to the amount of media coverage it is getting. 

And she provided some very interesting information on New York state government corruption (both Republican and Democrat). Actually, that part is pretty stunning, with jail sentences as proof.

Here. Let her speak for herself. This time around, she's not even being partisan. This same report could have been made by any number of conservative news celebrities without hardly any changes and be perfectly coherent as a conservative report.

The facts in this video are great news for Trump supporters.

And they constitute an object of despair for anti-Trump folks.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Rachel Maddow, of all people, just blew the crap out of the Never Trump movement in Washington and, ultimately, in the Republican party. She makes an excellent case. This whole Trump resistance controversy, including Paul Ryan's refusal to endorse Trump so far (based on worry about the re-elections of the members of Congress), is mostly made up--especially in relation to the amount of media coverage it is getting. 

And she provided some very interesting information on New York state government corruption (both Republican and Democrat). Actually, that part is pretty stunning, with jail sentences as proof.

Here. Let her speak for herself. This time around, she's not even being partisan. This same report could have been made by any number of conservative news celebrities without hardly any changes and be perfectly coherent as a conservative report.

The facts in this video are great news for Trump supporters.

And they constitute an object of despair for anti-Trump folks.

Michael

Time to roll out the  guillotine.  Rachel, on occasions,  does have her splendid sparkling moments.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On May 12, 2016 at 8:55 AM, PDS said:

I have no desire to rehash the particulars, but am interested in the underlying principle:  why are actions that don't align with his stated  principles okay when it involvies Trump, but different when involving Ryan?

Where did you get the idea that I think it's okay for Trump's actions to not be in alignment with his stated principles, but that it's different when involving Ryan?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2016 at 11:28 AM, Peter said:

Newt is 72.

Peter,

Well, Trump is 70.

His campaign was not themed on the title of a Cormac McCarthy book: No Country for Old Men.

:) 

btw - As of last night, at the very least, O'Reilly thinks Newt is going to be VP, too.

And Newt is looking an awfully lot like the cat who ate the canary.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheldon Adelson is putting some of his chips ($100 million) on Trumps table.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/14/report-gop-mega-donor-adelson-to-give-trump-up-to-100-million.html

"Sheldon Gary Adelson (pronounced /ˈædəlsən/; born August 4, 1933) is an American business magnate. He is the chairman and chief executive officer of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, which owns the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore and is the parent company of Venetian Macao Limited which operates The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino and the Sands Expo and Convention Center. He also owns the Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.[3] Adelson, a lifelong donor and philanthropist to a variety of causes, founded with his wife's initiative the Adelson Foundation.   "As of June 2015, Adelson was listed by Forbes as having a fortune of $28 billion, and as the 18th richest person in the world.[4] He is a major contributor to Republican Party candidates, which has resulted in his gaining significant influence within the party". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now