SURVEY: Do you want Trump to finish his first term?

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

WOW what a meltdown.

Cheesy.

 

[riclag]

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Cucks? In case people don't know, anyone that uses that word is representing the disgusting white supremacist, misogynist ALT-RIGHT movement. It's basically hate speech and based on extremist TROLLING and provocative meme play (Pepe). It exists mostly on the internet but has bled into real life with the election of what the alt-right people call their "God Emperor" -- "trump."  But I appreciate when people out themselves so openly. No need to guess. 

didn't know that ,Sources please

 

[Jingthing]

The epic lying continues.

Part of his game is to do it so much, so often, that we don't notice it anymore, and everyone gets totally numb to it.

This tactic is pretty effective. 

Resist it!

 

Quote

 

From voter fraud to a migrant caravan in Mexico, the president struggled over the facts.

President Trump’s capacity to make things up is one of the defining features of his presidency. His loose adherence to the truth, when it suits his political purposes, seems to know few limits.

 

 

http://www.paywallnews.com/news/Analysis-|-President-Trump-and-truth--Another-difficult-week.HknHxL8if.html

[UncleTouchyFingers]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Cheesy.

 

Fascinating. 

 

You know what is messed up though? 

 

Calling someone you dont know - at all - a white supremacist, racist, misogynist hate-speech using bigot for using a 4 letter made-up word. 

 

[Slip]

14 minutes ago, riclag said:

didn't know that ,Sources please

 

Lannarebirth posted a link in #1439.  It is a pretty unpleasant term with racist overtones used by the alt-right.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Slip
sticky keys.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Fascinating. 

 

You know what is messed up though? 

 

Calling someone you dont know - at all - a white supremacist, racist, misogynist hate-speech using bigot for using a 4 letter made-up word. 

 

I did no such thing. I suggest you read more carefully. That said -- goodbye.

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, Slip said:

Lannarebirth posted a link in #1439.  It is a pretty unpleasant term with racist overtones used by the alt-right.

It's a hate speech SLUR and it's current usage origin is very well known -- ALT-RIGHT. 

 

QUOTE:

‘Cuck’: a modern swear word that’s as dirty as the old ones

...
The derogatory connotations of "cuck" make it every bit as offensive as all those other words that can't actually be printed here. Think of it as your new all-purpose racist, sexist super-slur. A bad word invented by bad men for the purposes of humiliating and shaming the good men among us into renouncing their tolerance and decency.
...

 

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/cuck-a-modern-swear-word-thats-as-dirty-as-the-old-ones/article33876354/

Edited April 7, 2018 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

6 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

What I am saying is that after a year Trump has actually started implementing economic policy that will have either a , positive, negative or neutral effect on the current market. What we are seeing is that his two interventions so far (tax and  trade) have caused marked negative effects.

 

This stuff takes years to work through the economy but I'll grant you the tax plan was misconstructed in my view and I think it is likely that it also made false assumptions about future growth and spending. Trade is bad and getting worse for the US. I have no objections to disruptions in the status quo with respect to trade. That so many people are concerned that we may upset our chief supplier of crappy goods who is the world's greatest polluter, a totalitarian state, and human rights abuser doesn't bother me in the least. What people who think this way have become concerns me much more.

[bendejo]

I'm waiting for DT to say "the stock market was too high, I wanted it to go down, it's better this way."

 

 

[bendejo]

8 hours ago, Silurian said:

Winning! The current WH administration is winning so much that fellow Republicans feel they no longer need to be a congressman!

 

Hey hey, the midterms are still seven months away, the numbers are still coming in.

Is House Speaker Paul Ryan running this year?

 

 

[heybruce]

14 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You didn't learn that in any economics class. That is made up BS. If anything it works the other way round. You don't need a store of US Dollars to buy treasuries. You can buy them with any currency you like and the money is converted on purchase. Currencies are fungible.

When you buy US treasuries in a foreign currency, the currency is converted to US dollars for the purchase.  This may be done in a method transparent to the purchaser, but the currency is converted. 

 

Our trade deficit leaves other countries with a dollar surplus.  Some of that is used to invest in US businesses, but a large portion is used to buy treasuries, thereby financing the federal debt.

 

I'll make this deficit thing as simple as possible:  You have a deficit when you consume more than you produce, and borrow to cover the difference.  You borrow from someone who has a surplus.  The simplest way to end the trade deficit, or any deficit, is to produce more than you consume, which results in savings.

 

The US as a whole is consuming more than it produces.  That is why we have a federal deficit.  US citizens don't save enough to cover the federal deficit, so the government borrows, through the sell of treasuries, from sources outside the country.  These outside sources have savings to loan because of the trade deficit.

 

If this is still too complicated for you, consider this:  The US would not have any kind of deficit if we were producing more than we consume.  That is why Trump's trillion dollar budget deficits guarantee the US will continue to run a large trade deficit.

[Jingthing]

What really has made America great.

Hint -- it's the opposite of what demagogue white nationalist "trump" is doing. He's actively making it much LESS great. Decent Americans that understand core American DEMOCRATIC values get that. 

 

 

Quote

 

NEW YORK TIMESWill We Stop Trump Before It’s Too Late?

Fascism poses a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II.

...

We should also reflect on the definition of greatness. Can a nation merit that label by aligning itself with dictators and autocrats, ignoring human rights, declaring open season on the environment, and disdaining the use of diplomacy at a time when virtually every serious problem requires international cooperation?

 

http://www.paywallnews.com/life/Opinion-|-Will-We-Stop-Trump-Before-It’s-Too-Late-.ry1AXAEjG.html

 

 

[Jingthing]

Expanding on the recent discussion of the use of the disgusting slur word 'cuck' relating to the disturbing phenomenon of the ALT-RIGHT and that movement's relationship to the tragic election of a con man demagogue president named "trump." It was surprising to me that most everyone isn't aware of this stuff yet so, be aware.

 

The snippet below brings up an interesting point I've heard many times before. "trump" is indeed doing LOTS of damage to the very core of the American democracy. But our best hope to get through this and recover from that is that personally he's such an incredibly incompetent buffoon. That's luck. But the next guy like him is more likely to be much more competent.

 

Quote

 

 NEW YORK TIMES A Political Movement, Defining Itself by What It Hates

...

The fact that a shameless huckster like Donald Trump managed to turn such a disparate movement into a somewhat effective political force does not bode well. The alt-right would be easy pickings for a more competent demagogue.

 

 

 

http://www.paywallnews.com/life/A-Political-Movement--Defining-Itself-by-What-It-Hates.S1_CufBiM.html

Edited April 8, 2018 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Humor break -- Alec Baldwin is back!

 

 

 

 

[EVENKEEL]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Humor break -- Alec Baldwin is back!

 

 

 

 

Still can't compete with Will Farrell as Gdub.  

[lannarebirth]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

When you buy US treasuries in a foreign currency, the currency is converted to US dollars for the purchase.  This may be done in a method transparent to the purchaser, but the currency is converted. 

 

Our trade deficit leaves other countries with a dollar surplus.  Some of that is used to invest in US businesses, but a large portion is used to buy treasuries, thereby financing the federal debt.

 

I'll make this deficit thing as simple as possible:  You have a deficit when you consume more than you produce, and borrow to cover the difference.  You borrow from someone who has a surplus.  The simplest way to end the trade deficit, or any deficit, is to produce more than you consume, which results in savings.

 

The US as a whole is consuming more than it produces.  That is why we have a federal deficit.  US citizens don't save enough to cover the federal deficit, so the government borrows, through the sell of treasuries, from sources outside the country.  These outside sources have savings to loan because of the trade deficit.

 

If this is still too complicated for you, consider this:  The US would not have any kind of deficit if we were producing more than we consume.  That is why Trump's trillion dollar budget deficits guarantee the US will continue to run a large trade deficit.

That's nonsense. The US could make it illegal for the Chinese to buy our debt tomorrow and that debt will get bought by someone else. We could make tax deferred retirement accounts exclude everything but US Treasuries. The debt gets bought. If demand ever slows the rate that is paid will go up and that debt gets bought. People are paying to own Bunds and you think we are dependant on the Chinese to carry our paper? That's laughable.  It is the fact that the debt always gets bought that allows for the deficits.  If nobody bought it we couldn't spend more than we have. Say, there's a thought.

[Khun Jean]

The problem is inflation and low interest rates (among many others of course).

Both encourage people to spend the money as soon as they have it in their hands.

Fixing it is difficult as it will lead to immense number of problems.

A quick "controlled" crash and then rebuild seems to be the fastest way out of it. (War was always the solution for unsolvable economic problems before. Currency war -> Trade War -> Real War.)

Restart with at least 6% interest rates on savings and no more then 2-3% inflation.

And keep savings banks and investments banks completely separate. This was after all the cause of the problems.

[heybruce]

48 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

That's nonsense. The US could make it illegal for the Chinese to buy our debt tomorrow and that debt will get bought by someone else. We could make tax deferred retirement accounts exclude everything but US Treasuries. The debt gets bought. If demand ever slows the rate that is paid will go up and that debt gets bought. People are paying to own Bunds and you think we are dependant on the Chinese to carry our paper? That's laughable.  It is the fact that the debt always gets bought that allows for the deficits.  If nobody bought it we couldn't spend more than we have. Say, there's a thought.

Are you intentionally missing the point?  Why are you posting about China?  I didn't mention China.

 

It doesn't matter who buys our debt--China, Rwanda, Estonia, bankers, bakers or candlestick makers.  Countries, institutions and individuals outside the US are buying our debt, effectively loaning us money to consume more than we produce.  If we stop borrowing money we would stop having a deficit--we would be producing as much or more than we consume. 

 

Trump's trillion dollar deficits will have to be financed by someone, and the financing will come from outside the US--countries with dollars from selling us stuff will finance the deficit.  The US budget deficit is driving the trade deficit.

 

If we stop borrowing, we will have to live within our means, we will have to produce as much as we consume.  That will end the trade deficit.  However when the Republicans are in office they love to borrow even more than the Democrats.

[lannarebirth]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Are you intentionally missing the point?  Why are you posting about China?  I didn't mention China.

 

It doesn't matter who buys our debt--China, Rwanda, Estonia, bankers, bakers or candlestick makers.  Countries, institutions and individuals outside the US are buying our debt, effectively loaning us money to consume more than we produce.  If we stop borrowing money we would stop having a deficit--we would be producing as much or more than we consume. 

 

Trump's trillion dollar deficits will have to be financed by someone, and the financing will come from outside the US--countries with dollars from selling us stuff will finance the deficit.  The US budget deficit is driving the trade deficit.

 

If we stop borrowing, we will have to live within our means, we will have to produce as much as we consume.  That will end the trade deficit.  However when the Republicans are in office they love to borrow even more than the Democrats.

 

I know this Republican/Democrat stuff is like a religion for you guys where you cast one as Savior and the other as Satan, but the fact is under all administrations, and this one is no different, National Debt and Trade Deficits are increasing. You claim our trade deficits are increasing because our national debt is increasing but you've got it the wrong way around. You cannot tax what you do not produce, unless you favor tariffs, which I'm given to understand you do not.

 

http://www.industryweek.com/blog/there-relationship-between-our-trade-deficit-and-our-national-debt

[heybruce]

30 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I know this Republican/Democrat stuff is like a religion for you guys where you cast one as Savior and the other as Satan, but the fact is under all administrations, and this one is no different, National Debt and Trade Deficits are increasing. You claim our trade deficits are increasing because our national debt is increasing but you've got it the wrong way around. You cannot tax what you do not produce, unless you favor tariffs, which I'm given to understand you do not.

 

http://www.industryweek.com/blog/there-relationship-between-our-trade-deficit-and-our-national-debt

Your editorial from an anti-free trade blogger does not address my point:  Massive federal deficits are caused by spending (consuming) more than the government takes in (produces).  This would not be a problem if the deficit were funded internally (requiring US citizens to buy all US treasuries) but US citizens will not voluntarily buy this quantity of treasuries unless the treasuries pay much more in interest.  This would drive up the cost of servicing the debt, so the government sells treasuries to international buyers who will accept a lower interest rate.

 

US citizens borrow also, but largely from US sources.  This results in debtors and debt holders in the US, but does not affect the trade deficit.

 

If the US government stopped borrowing trillions from abroad, foreign powers would have to find something else to do with the dollars they earn by selling us stuff.  They could either invest in the US and make us a more efficient producer of goods to sell to the world, reducing the trade deficit, use the dollars to buy more stuff from the US, reducing the trade deficit, or decide they no longer want US dollars and stop selling us stuff, also reducing the trade deficit.

 

I can't think of any other way to explain it.  A deficit implies debt and is caused by consuming more than one produces.  Eliminating deficit spending and debt forces one to produce as much as one consumes. 

 

I'll make a prediction--Trump's massive increase in the federal deficit will coincide with a massive increase in the trade deficit.  We'll probably see this within a year.

Edited April 8, 2018 by heybruce

[Langsuan Man]

As my sainted father once told me as a young investor:

 

Until someone figures out a way to eat a dollar bill, it eventually has to come back in the form of payment for something from the US

[lannarebirth]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Your editorial from an anti-free trade blogger does not address my point:  Massive federal deficits are caused by spending (consuming) more than the government takes in (produces).  This would not be a problem if the deficit were funded internally (requiring US citizens to buy all US treasuries) but US citizens will not voluntarily buy this quantity of treasuries unless the treasuries pay much more in interest.  This would drive up the cost of servicing the debt, so the government sells treasuries to international buyers who will accept a lower interest rate.

 

US citizens borrow also, but largely from US sources.  This results in debtors and debt holders in the US, but does not affect the trade deficit.

 

If the US government stopped borrowing trillions from abroad, foreign powers would have to find something else to do with the dollars they earn by selling us stuff.  They could either invest in the US and make us a more efficient producer of goods to sell to the world, reducing the trade deficit, use the dollars to buy more stuff from the US, reducing the trade deficit, or decide they no longer want US dollars and stop selling us stuff, also reducing the trade deficit.

 

I can't think of any other way to explain it.  A deficit implies debt and is caused by consuming more than one produces.  Eliminating deficit spending and debt forces one to produce as much as one consumes. 

 

I'll make a prediction--Trump's massive increase in the federal deficit will coincide with a massive increase in the trade deficit.  We'll probably see this within a year.

 

You don't need to explain it to me. I'm pretty well versed on the subject. Your patronising pap notwithstanding.

[soalbundy]

I would rather like him to be finished after his first year.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

I would rather like him to be finished after his first year.

 

That's what I had in the betting pool, January 2018. It's come and gone.

[Silurian]

Drain the Swamp! And fill it back up again with your own personal kind of swamp creatures!

 

 

 

[BuriramSam]

The people voted him in. Show cause to remove any president or suck out up. That's democracy.

[Jingthing]

19 minutes ago, BuriramSam said:

The people voted him in. Show cause to remove any president or suck out up. That's democracy.

By a minority vote.

Impeachment requires both impeachable offenses and the political clout to act on them.

Your post simplifies that reality.

"trump" is at great risk for impeachable offenses to be revealed from multiple fronts, including the still in process Mueller investigation.

But even with that, the votes in congress would need to be there to both impeach and convict.

The midterms bring a great chance of that happening in the house but less so in the senate to convict. That would require a good number of republicans to decide to throw him under the bus which would be a very sensible decision for them. 

Of course a disgraced president with impeachable offenses revealed may also decide to resign, as did Nixon.

 

Cheers. 

[BuriramSam]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

By a minority vote.

Impeachment requires both impeachable offenses and the political clout to act on them.

Your post simplifies that reality.

"trump" is at great risk for impeachable offenses to be revealed from multiple fronts, including the still in process Mueller investigation.

But even with that, the votes in congress would need to be there to both impeach and convict.

The midterms bring a great chance of that happening in the house but less so in the senate to convict. That would require a good number of republicans to decide to throw him under the bus which would be a very sensible decision for them. 

Of course a disgraced president with impeachable offenses revealed may also decide to resign, as did Nixon.

 

Cheers. 

Presidential elections aren't decided by majority vote. I have no idea if Mueller will find impeachable offenses. I amfine with letting the justice system run its course.

 

Cheers.

[Jingthing]

Presidential elections aren't decided by majority vote. I have no idea if Mueller will find impeachable offenses. I amfine with letting the justice system run its course.

 

Cheers.

Agreed of course. But you're ignoring political complexities. The current U.S. political situation can't be described in such simple terms. Traditionally when a president wins but loses the popular vote she works very hard to unify a divided nation. "trump" has done the opposite catering only to his rather narrow base and creating even worse divisions. Civil war level divisions. It is a risky tactic because more traditional Republicans may throw him under the bus as soon as being complicit with his demagogue style costs them more than leaving him. Another reason the midterms are so important. The complicit republicans will be paying a price. The only question is how big.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You don't need to explain it to me. I'm pretty well versed on the subject. Your patronising pap notwithstanding.

You began your previous reply with:

 

"I know this Republican/Democrat stuff is like a religion for you guys where you cast one as Savior and the other as Satan..".

 

Now you describe my reasoned reply, with no personal observations, as patronizing pap.  Did I strike a nerve?

Edited April 9, 2018 by heybruce