President Trump, If You're Reading This...

[phill4paul]

Trump's made no significant changes; he's just continued the trend. This economy was on the verge of recession, thanks to structural problems that Trump made worse, before anyone heard of the virus. And now he's acting like any other politician, doing his best FDR impersonation (as he would have in the ordinary recession that was coming anyway). Trump is Obama is Bush etc etc. He's not important enough to even bother hating, an historical mouse fart.

What'evs.

[phill4paul]

I'm confused - you agree your method of fighting the deepstate gets you killed, and prevents you from making changes? I'm not sure what formula was derived for having 2 months to make changes, but it seems to me like if they have the power to kill you, you were going to make an instantly devastating change in 2 months, it seems to me like they would just kill you two months sooner.

I'd have to agree with Phil, there's what you want, and what you can get. I'll take cutting regulations, lowering taxes, and calling the MSM fake news at press conferences.

To note, I don't see your summary as accurate:




No, it's being said that liberty-folk are arguing over moot points and non-options.

-There would and will be stimulus, even if Congress has to override a veto. Trump has never been considered a scholar and intellectual, for him to fall on the sword of "the markets will fix themselves" will be the end of his presidency and have Austrian economics laughed at for another 20 years, with Trump being the new face of it.

My issue is that, as best I can tell, there's a large number on this forum that loves to complain and has no solutions. Nothing will ever be good enough, so it's all $#@!, bring on the collapse. That's great. At the rate of how I'm hearing Trump is the worst thing to ever happen, ever, (he's even no different from socialist Sanders) then no one should be complaining about how the collapse is taking too long. It should happen plenty fast if there is a drunken monkey at the helm, revenues being reduced via tax cuts, spending going out of control, fed intervention like mad. The collapsatarians should be happy as a clam. It can't get any better for them. But I guess that's not good enough either.

And, so, when a solution is pressed for, it seems like the answer is "We need a Ron Paul" ... We already had one. That solution failed. Under what people argued was the most consistent statesman with the most intense grassroots support. Under more amicable conditions then, than there will be today (because everything is getting worse, in the contrarian view). So there is no solution being offered. Just a fairytale.

-Here's where I'd like to be productive and offer something constructive, to make lemonade out of lemons, but I'd have to do a lot of thinking and I don't think it'll offer much.

Many of the people here, had Ron Paul not lived up to their libertarian purity, over the smallest possible thing, would be here trash talking the $#@! of him. Some people just like to bitch and moan.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump is not Ron Paul. He is not an ideologue. He is a populist. Has been from day one. He wants a second term. ANY sitting president that bucked a Federal money dump during this crises would effectively be a one term president. If Ron Paul had been nominated and been faced with this, HE would have been a one term president and we would all be sitting here bitching about how stupid the American people were. And nothing else on his agenda would ever be accomplished because there would be no second term.
FFS you would think that Ron Paul people would have learned by now how this game is played. There's what you WANT and then there is what you can GET. Trump's accomplishments have been vast. From conservative judges to deregulation and an economy that would be totally decimated by this 'crises' had he not strengthened it during his first 3 years. Trump has been able to implement a great deal of good things during his first three years and he wants another term. That's not so $#@!ing hard to understand. If he were to refuse to pass these spending measures then the House would over-ride him, the media would skewer him, and the ignorant masses would turn on him as a heartless S.O.B. in a heartbeat.

+Rep

[r3volution 3.0]

+Rep

I seem to recall you swearing that you'd drop Trump if he did something or other with guns (don't recall what exactly).

But you have no problem with him demanding and cheering on trillions of dollars of money printing and deficit spending?

[Swordsmyth]

I seem to recall you swearing that you'd drop Trump if he did something or other with guns (don't recall what exactly).

But you have no problem with him demanding and cheering on trillions of dollars of money printing and deficit spending?

Read what I plus repped carefully.

And Guns are more important than money, the money situation is already out of control, giving some money to the people the government is harming with the overreaction to the virus and who have been robbed for generations on a temporary basis isn't going to really hurt anything.

Even Amash is calling for it.

[PAF]

I seem to recall you swearing that you'd drop Trump if he did something or other with guns (don't recall what exactly).

But you have no problem with him demanding and cheering on trillions of dollars of money printing and deficit spending?

His goal is abandonment of individual liberty, throwing false hope around to divide and keep the duopoly chugging along. They are good at throwing bones to those not principled. Folks like me, us, we irritate him to no end, to which he resorts to calling us names.

[PAF]

Read what I plus repped carefully.

And Guns are more important than money, the money situation is already out of control, giving some money to the people the government is harming with the overreaction to the virus and who have been robbed for generations on a temporary basis isn't going to really hurt anything.

Even Amash is calling for it.

You have no clue about Austrian Economics.

You hate on Justin. But the case where he is wrong and where I part and disagree, of course you agree with him on this one issue, and use him to fulfill your nationalist/socialist agenda.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm confused - you agree your method of fighting the deepstate gets you killed, and prevents you from making changes? I'm not sure what formula was derived for having 2 months to make changes, but it seems to me like if they have the power to kill you, you were going to make an instantly devastating change in 2 months, it seems to me like they would just kill you two months sooner.

I'd have to agree with Phil, there's what you want, and what you can get. I'll take cutting regulations, lowering taxes, and calling the MSM fake news at press conferences.

To note, I don't see your summary as accurate:




No, it's being said that liberty-folk are arguing over moot points and non-options.

-There would and will be stimulus, even if Congress has to override a veto. Trump has never been considered a scholar and intellectual, for him to fall on the sword of "the markets will fix themselves" will be the end of his presidency and have Austrian economics laughed at for another 20 years, with Trump being the new face of it.

My issue is that, as best I can tell, there's a large number on this forum that loves to complain and has no solutions. Nothing will ever be good enough, so it's all $#@!, bring on the collapse. That's great. At the rate of how I'm hearing Trump is the worst thing to ever happen, ever, (he's even no different from socialist Sanders) then no one should be complaining about how the collapse is taking too long. It should happen plenty fast if there is a drunken monkey at the helm, revenues being reduced via tax cuts, spending going out of control, fed intervention like mad. The collapsatarians should be happy as a clam. It can't get any better for them. But I guess that's not good enough either.

And, so, when a solution is pressed for, it seems like the answer is "We need a Ron Paul" ... We already had one. That solution failed. Under what people argued was the most consistent statesman with the most intense grassroots support. Under more amicable conditions then, than there will be today (because everything is getting worse, in the contrarian view). So there is no solution being offered. Just a fairytale.

-Here's where I'd like to be productive and offer something constructive, to make lemonade out of lemons, but I'd have to do a lot of thinking and I don't think it'll offer much.

+Rep

[Swordsmyth]

You have no clue about Austrian Economics.

You hate on Justin. But the case where he is wrong and where I part and disagree, of course you agree with him on this one issue, and use him to fulfill your nationalist/socialist agenda.

You have no clue about the practicalities of politics that are required if we are ever going to implement Austrian economics.

Even Amash understands better than you.

[r3volution 3.0]

Read what I plus repped carefully.

I was commenting on you plus-repping a generally pro-Trump comment, at a time when Trump is looting trillions.

The details of phill's comment (which you plus-repped in whole, anyway) aren't relevant.

And Guns are more important than money

What was the policy that I couldn't remember?

It wasn't a total gun ban (no one was thinking that Trump might do that).

Was it an "assault weapons" ban?

Let's say that was it.

Which would you prefer: a ban of "assault weapons" or a hyperinflationary depression caused by the kinds of policies Trump is pursuing?

N.B. I'm not calling for an imminent hyperinflation, but that's where we're heading in the end, because of policies like Trump's

the money situation is already out of control, giving some money to the people the government is harming with the overreaction to the virus and who have been robbed for generations on a temporary basis isn't going to really hurt anything.

ZIRP and $700 billion in QE, for instance, are "giving some money to the people..."?

Even Amash is calling for it.

Source?

[Swordsmyth]

I was commenting on you plus-repping a generally pro-Trump comment, at a time when Trump is looting trillions.

The details of phill's comment (which you plus-repped in whole, anyway) aren't relevant.



What was the policy that I couldn't remember?

It wasn't a total gun ban (no one was thinking that Trump might do that).

Was it an "assault weapons" ban?

Let's say that was it.

Which would you prefer: a ban of "assault weapons" or a hyperinflationary depression caused by the kinds of policies Trump is pursuing?

N.B. I'm not calling for an imminent hyperinflation, but that's where we're heading in the end, because of policies like Trump's

ZIRP and $700 billion in QE, for instance, are "giving some money to the people..."?



Source?

I'd prefer the collapse to the gun ban.

And here is Amash:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1240331015832428546

[phill4paul]

You have no clue about Austrian Economics.

You hate on Justin. But the case where he is wrong and where I part and disagree, of course you agree with him on this one issue, and use him to fulfill your nationalist/socialist agenda.

More I'm more libertarian than you, blah, blah, bull$#@!? Well, yeah you probably are. A useless ideologue that can only bitch and moan.

[phill4paul]

His goal is abandonment of individual liberty, throwing false hope around to divide and keep the duopoly chugging along. They are good at throwing bones to those not principled. Folks like me, us, we irritate him to no end, to which he resorts to calling us names.

Like calling people un-principled? $#@!ing useless ideologue.

[PAF]

You have no clue about the practicalities of politics that are required if we are ever going to implement Austrian economics.

Even Amash understands better than you.

Practicalities = Continuance

While I support most of Justin, he does not understand me and my individual needs, NOR do you. This why I am an Agorist and he is not. No comment required, that way of living is well beyond your comprehension.

As for trump understanding Austrian economics... he know just about as much as you, which is little to nil. Which is exactly why he is not equipped for the job. He is a NY Lib, after all, and you support him and his little bones.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'd prefer the collapse to the gun ban.

An honest answer is always refreshing, even if psychotic, so thank you.

And here is Amash:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1240331015832428546

He's talking about cash to people for living expenses, which is a small part of what's being done and will yet be done.

He's not talking about bailouts, fiscal or monetary, which is the bulk of the impending avalanche.

[106459]

I seem to recall you swearing that you'd drop Trump if he did something or other with guns (don't recall what exactly).

But you have no problem with him demanding and cheering on trillions of dollars of money printing and deficit spending?

So, there are a couple issues at play here. And for those who have already made up their minds, I'll go ahead and provide the strawman: "Republicans don't care about deficits when Republicans are in office".

At this point, I don't believe the debt can ever be paid off, regardless of who takes office. We had 8 years of trillion dollar deficits under Obama. We will have 8 years of trillion dollar deficits under Trump. At some point, who knows when, there will be a fiscal crisis and/or collapse. The debt is not going to be repaid. Multiple people have already posted they believe this as well. How would we possibly pay it, when the books show it as over 100% debt to GDP, not counting any of the "unfunded" liabilities of SS and Medicare, etc. We're pretty much at the historical point where most empires collapse, I don't see how this is going to be any different.

So, if you want, you can do "the right thing" - which is to eliminate the deficits and repay the debt, you can collapse the current economy. Most people on here will rejoice - as we are 'liquidating the malinvestment'. And we would be. Until the masses revolted and put someone into office who would "fix their problems" (ie, a socialist).

So, we can only make the best lemonade out of the lemons that we have. You can reduce taxes and start giving people their money back. You can maneuver to try to bring manufacturing back, so that when our paper is worthless, all the goods aren't 7,000 miles away. Or you can hardline commit to your ideology, which is going to assume people will act in a rational manner, which they won't. So the "best" "perfect" solution that is being offered is really just putting a socialist back in office, with extra fervor.

[Swordsmyth]

So, there are a couple issues at play here. And for those who have already made up their minds, I'll go ahead and provide the strawman: "Republicans don't care about deficits when Republicans are in office".

At this point, I don't believe the debt can ever be paid off, regardless of who takes office. We had 8 years of trillion dollar deficits under Obama. We will have 8 years of trillion dollar deficits under Trump. At some point, who knows when, there will be a fiscal crisis and/or collapse. The debt is not going to be repaid. Multiple people have already posted they believe this as well. How would we possibly pay it, when the books show it as over 100% debt to GDP, not counting any of the "unfunded" liabilities of SS and Medicare, etc. We're pretty much at the historical point where most empires collapse, I don't see how this is going to be any different.

So, if you want, you can do "the right thing" - which is to eliminate the deficits and repay the debt, you can collapse the current economy. Most people on here will rejoice - as we are 'liquidating the malinvestment'. And we would be. Until the masses revolted and put someone into office who would "fix their problems" (ie, a socialist).

So, we can only make the best lemonade out of the lemons that we have. You can reduce taxes and start giving people their money back. You can maneuver to try to bring manufacturing back, so that when our paper is worthless, all the goods aren't 7,000 miles away. Or you can hardline commit to your ideology, which is going to assume people will act in a rational manner, which they won't. So the "best" "perfect" solution that is being offered is really just putting a socialist back in office, with extra fervor.

Well said.

And we will have guns when the collapse comes.

[106459]

I'd prefer the collapse to the gun ban.

An honest answer is always refreshing, even if psychotic, so thank you.

Correct me if I'm wrong - doesn't Austrian economics explicitly state there are boom and bust cycles?

If you aren't advocating for an economic collapse over a gun ban, then you're being silly. Collapse is inevitable. $#@! happens. Literally. All you're advocating for is a guaranteed collapse, and guaranteed that no one will have guns to defend themselves. It sounds like you're arguing we can give up liberty to achieve safety.

[r3volution 3.0]

So, there are a couple issues at play here. And for those who have already made up their minds, I'll go ahead and provide the strawman: "Republicans don't care about deficits when Republicans are in office".

That's obviously true; I'm not sure why you call it a strawman.

At this point, I don't believe the debt can ever be paid off, regardless of who takes office. We had 8 years of trillion dollar deficits under Obama. We will have 8 years of trillion dollar deficits under Trump. At some point, who knows when, there will be a fiscal crisis and/or collapse. The debt is not going to be repaid. Multiple people have already posted they believe this as well. How would we possibly pay it, when the books show it as over 100% debt to GDP, not counting any of the "unfunded" liabilities of SS and Medicare, etc. We're pretty much at the historical point where most empires collapse, I don't see how this is going to be any different.

Agreed

So, if you want, you can do "the right thing" - which is to eliminate the deficits and repay the debt, you can collapse the current economy. Most people on here will rejoice - as we are 'liquidating the malinvestment'. And we would be. Until the masses revolted and put someone into office who would "fix their problems" (ie, a socialist).

That's likely true.

So, we can only make the best lemonade out of the lemons that we have. You can reduce taxes and start giving people their money back.

Taxes have increased since Trump took office.

You can maneuver to try to bring manufacturing back, so that when our paper is worthless, all the goods aren't 7,000 miles away.

That would be a tax increase.

Or you can hardline commit to your ideology, which is going to assume people will act in a rational manner, which they won't.

People are acting in a rational manner, namely in their own material self-interest.

That is, those on the dole don't want to give it up, and want more.

I expect nothing else.

So the "best" "perfect" solution that is being offered is really just putting a socialist back in office, with extra fervor.

I think you may be misunderstanding my point.

There is no solution here. The trend toward socialism is inevitable.

I'm merely suggesting that those who should know better not cheer it on.

Correct me if I'm wrong - doesn't Austrian economics explicitly state there are boom and bust cycles?

That boom bust cycles occur is an observation, not a matter of theory.

Austrian Economics has a theory explaining why they occur (in short, because of policies such as Trump is now pursuing).

If you aren't advocating for an economic collapse over a gun ban, then you're being silly. Collapse is inevitable. $#@! happens. Literally. All you're advocating for is a guaranteed collapse, and guaranteed that no one will have guns to defend themselves. It sounds like you're arguing we can give up liberty to achieve safety.

There will not be a popular pro-liberty revolution, if that's what you're implying.

The people don't want liberty; they're not going to vote for it, they're certainly not going to fight for it.

The reason to support private ownership of firearms, apart from general respect for private property, is to reduce crime rates.

And we will have guns when the collapse comes.

See above

[106459]

Taxes have increased since Trump took office.

For whom? This has already been disagreed with in this thread: "Joe Walsh: 'I'd rather have a socialist in the White House than a con man'". I did math with one of the available tax calculators, looks like taxes are decreased to me. I paid less taxes.

That would be a tax increase.

-No, the cost of a functioning civilization is not a tax. When there are economic collapses, which there always have been, if you can't manage to keep yourself alive (by having methods of producing your critical drugs, etc, etc), then you decided to enjoy a short-lived fairytale. And then you die. Painfully.

People are acting in a rational manner, namely in their own material self-interest.
That is, those on the dole don't want to give it up, and want more.
I expect nothing else.

-Sure. People 'act rationally in their own self interest', to the detriment of global/national rationality, and ultimately back to their own self well-being. More importantly, you don't disagree that it is not a major problem, and that trying to do the "best" (ideological pure) solution will lead to worse outcomes.

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. There is no solution here. The trend toward socialism is inevitable.

Ok. Now we're at the crux of the issue. You don't have a solution. Neither do I. But I can perform advocacy for better, actually existing, alternatives. I can advocate for a lower tax bill, and to have my way of life protected (goods that I need for my way of life not being held hostage by a singular foreign nation 7,000 miles away).

...As opposed to you, which has typed out all this thus far to offer ... what?

There is no solution here. The trend toward socialism is inevitable.

...Thanks buddy, but I don't think we need your help on this one.

[r3volution 3.0]

For whom? This has already been disagreed with in this thread: "Joe Walsh: 'I'd rather have a socialist in the White House than a con man'". I did math with one of the available tax calculators, looks like taxes are decreased to me. I paid less taxes.

Spending has increased; therefore taxes have increased.

The method of taxation has changed: e.g. less being taken from paychecks, more being taken by inflation.

No, the cost of a functioning civilization is not a tax. When there are economic collapses, which there always have been, if you can't manage to keep yourself alive (by having methods of producing your critical drugs, etc, etc), then you decided to enjoy a short-lived fairytale. And then you die. Painfully.

Tariffs are taxes, obviously.

...As opposed to you, which has typed out all this thus far to offer ... what?

The suggestion that those who ostensibly oppose the movement toward socialism stop defending the guy presently leading that movement

Or, if people really believe that Trump's leftist policies are necessary to prevent even more leftist policies, they should say so.

...contra pretending that his policies aren't leftist.

Nope - not what I was implying. The reason for firearm ownership can be one of who knows how many reasons. Really because you have a god-given right to defend yourself.

I think you overlooked the fact that people should have the right to self-determine after a collapse, rather than being helpless to 'whoever has the guns' after the collapse and they decide they want to consolidate power. Much harder when there are thousands of people with guns, instead of thousands who are unarmed.

Collapse the US economy (lots of guns) and the French economy (almost no guns) and the result will be much the same.

I'm not sure what you think widespread firearm ownership will accomplish.

Again, I'm not opposed, but it's not going to have the kind of effect that you and many others seem to think it will.

P.S. To clarify, you seem to imagine that everyone having guns prevents concentrations of power; that's not so.

[106459]

There will not be a popular pro-liberty revolution, if that's what you're implying.

The people don't want liberty; they're not going to vote for it, they're certainly not going to fight for it.

The reason to support private ownership of firearms, apart from general respect for private property, is to reduce crime rates.

Nope - not what I was implying. The reason for firearm ownership can be one of who knows how many reasons. Really because you have a god-given right to defend yourself.

I think you overlooked the fact that people should have the right to self-determine after a collapse, rather than being helpless to 'whoever has the guns' after the collapse and they decide they want to consolidate power. Much harder when there are thousands of people with guns, instead of thousands who are unarmed.

[106459]

Spending has increased; therefore taxes have increased. The method of taxation has changed: e.g. less being taken from paychecks, more being taken by inflation.

Yeah - this is an ideological argument that doesn't have an answer. Taxes increased for whoever got the bill, and whatever the bill says it was. Sounds like that could be debated ad nauseam all eternity.

Tariffs are taxes, obviously.

Yep, I'm not a fan of tariffs and protectionism over higher standards of living that could otherwise be achieved via mutually beneficial trade. Que endless debates about China artificially dumping product, stealing industry, etc, etc. Could go on ad nauseam.

Offering:

The suggestion that those who ostensibly oppose the movement toward socialism stop defending the guy presently leading that movement, or, if people really believe that Trump's leftist policies are necessary to prevent even more leftist policies, they should say so.
...contra pretending that his policies aren't leftist.

Like Phil did:

Trump is not Ron Paul. He is not an ideologue. He is a populist. Has been from day one.

If he were to refuse to pass these spending measures then the House would over-ride him, the media would skewer him, and the ignorant masses would turn on him as a heartless S.O.B. in a heartbeat.

I think this is about fleshed out.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah - this is an ideological argument that doesn't have an answer. Taxes increased for whoever got the bill, and whatever the bill says it was. Sounds like that could be debated ad nauseam all eternity.

No, it's an economic argument.

If the state consumes some quantity of X, then that quantity of X isn't available for use by the private sector.

Hell, it's just a matter of logic, or physics, nevermind economics.

Congressional decrees don't cause additional units of land, labor, or capital to magically descend from the sky.

All the state can do is re(mis)allocate those resources.

Like Phil did

Phill was applauding Trump's "vast" accomplishments.

I'm saying the opposite; i.e. he's made the situation worse.

Now, again, if you want to say that slowing the decline is the best available option, fine, but that's not what Phill was saying.

[phill4paul]

No, it's an economic argument.

If the state consumes some quantity of X, then that quantity of X isn't available for use by the private sector.

Hell, it's just a matter of logic, or physics, nevermind economics.

Congressional decrees don't cause additional units of land, labor, or capital to magically descend from the sky.

All the state can do is re(mis)allocate those resources.



Phill was applauding Trump's "vast" accomplishments.

I'm saying the opposite; i.e. he's made the situation worse.

Now, again, if you want to say that slowing the decline is the best available option, fine, but that's not what Phill was saying.

That's exactly what I was saying so quit putting words in my mouth, asshat.

[Warlord]

If Trump was an honest man he would have explained that the debt, the deficit and the budget is out of control and done something about it. He hasn't. He is the continuation of Bush/Obama. I would add Clinton as well though amazingly he did produce a surplus I think (I can't remember) and then you have the first Bush and the first Iraq war and 'read my lips'. That's nearly 30 years of lying politicians. Most people have had enough and that's why Trump was ironically elected but he's done nothing to 'drain the swamp' and fix the REAL problems such as the budget, the Fed etc. He has simply carried on the work of his predecessors.

[106459]

If Trump was an honest man he would have explained that the debt, the deficit and the budget is out of control and done something about it. He hasn't. He is the continuation of Bush/Obama. I would add Clinton as well though amazingly he did produce a surplus I think (I can't remember) and then you have the first Bush and the first Iraq war and 'read my lips'. That's nearly 30 years of lying politicians. Most people have had enough and that's why Trump was ironically elected but he's done nothing to 'drain the swamp' and fix the REAL problems such as the budget, the Fed etc. He has simply carried on the work of his predecessors.

So: Trump is not Ron Paul, who could not, and will never be elected. (Because the arguably most ardent grassroots support still failed to nominate him, in better conditions back in 08.)

Trump isn't an honest man. That's fine. Practically 0 Presidents/politicians have been for the past 100 years, barring the extremely few exceptions. Yes - you can argue that Trump is a continuation of Bush/Obama/Bill Clinton. So it'd be great if people could stop posting the autistic Orange Man Bad memes, and trying to throw him into the "meh - he's just a socialist anyways" bucket. Didn't see that happening with the previous presidents.

-Honestly, it really is just a way to stupefy and stymy any discussion. It removes any thoughtful and insightful discussion and turns it into "nah, you're just a $#@!ing idiot"

In my lifetime, Trump is the most conservative President I've seen. And go for it, laugh about how pathetic that is. I'm sure that'll lead to the outcome you want.

No. Reasonable people should be able to capitalize on any breadcrumbs that exist, and hope to get them expanded upon. To make things even better the next time. Not talk endless $#@!, hand elections to the "other guy" who they themselves will agree has advocated objectively worse policies, but somehow "that's how we're gonna make it better".

-I don't see how Trump giving us more of our money back, and calling CNN fake news is bad for us. Period.

-But, no, we've got the "Anti-DeepState Detectives" on here who are the first to sow division with "Haha, you moron, this is clearly controlled opposition, you herded sheep". It's so stupid. And it works on a ton of people: it gets them completely disengaged.
-Here's the problem: I've swung back around, and I'm tired of their "I'm so much smarter than you but I have none of the answers". By the constructs of their own arguments, they're the ones who are arguing "nothing can ever be changed, everything is controlled by the DeepState cradle to grave". If that's your ideology, then fine. Quit being a $#@!ing moron and posting on a political activism forum then. Change is hopeless. You're wasting your $#@!ing time. Get smart enough to do something productive with your day then.

Even more laughable is Trump objectively lowered taxes. The tax rate is cut. I paid less taxes. But we've still got $#@!ing 1000 IQ intellectuals on here who will bald-face try to say "Nah - you paid more taxes". Dude. You're an idiot for saying that. Sorry. Maybe you're real good at other things, but God Damn do you make 0 sense on that subject.

-It's just a stupid intellectual circle jerk. No. I definitely paid less in taxes. And the idea that "nah, government spending went up, therefore the only possible outcome is you paid more taxes".
-#1, spending would have gone up anyways. Arguing moot points.
-#2, no, that's not the only possible outcome. Your constructs are flat-out wrong. How about this alternative: The government magicked money out of thin air, deceived China with false value, and now the Chinese just gave us tangible goods for our bull$#@! toilet paper. Sounds like they're the ones with problems. Not us.
-But, sure, lets continue that intellectual circle jerk of that economic debate, rather than trying to give less money to the government.

Edit: Just want to add this post isn't projecting animus at anyone, just when I write, the original draft tends to be crass and "pointed" (using 'you', rather than 'whomever').

[r3volution 3.0]

That's exactly what I was saying so quit putting words in my mouth, asshat.

It sure didn't sound like it, but fine.

[Swordsmyth]

So: Trump is not Ron Paul, who could not, and will never be elected. (Because the arguably most ardent grassroots support still failed to nominate him, in better conditions back in 08.)

Trump isn't an honest man. That's fine. Practically 0 Presidents/politicians have been for the past 100 years, barring the extremely few exceptions. Yes - you can argue that Trump is a continuation of Bush/Obama/Bill Clinton. So it'd be great if people could stop posting the autistic Orange Man Bad memes, and trying to throw him into the "meh - he's just a socialist anyways" bucket. Didn't see that happening with the previous presidents.

-Honestly, it really is just a way to stupefy and stymy any discussion. It removes any thoughtful and insightful discussion and turns it into "nah, you're just a $#@!ing idiot"

In my lifetime, Trump is the most conservative President I've seen. And go for it, laugh about how pathetic that is. I'm sure that'll lead to the outcome you want.

No. Reasonable people should be able to capitalize on any breadcrumbs that exist, and hope to get them expanded upon. To make things even better the next time. Not talk endless $#@!, hand elections to the "other guy" who they themselves will agree has advocated objectively worse policies, but somehow "that's how we're gonna make it better".

-I don't see how Trump giving us more of our money back, and calling CNN fake news is bad for us. Period.

-But, no, we've got the "Anti-DeepState Detectives" on here who are the first to sow division with "Haha, you moron, this is clearly controlled opposition, you herded sheep". It's so stupid. And it works on a ton of people: it gets them completely disengaged.
-Here's the problem: I've swung back around, and I'm tired of their "I'm so much smarter than you but I have none of the answers". By the constructs of their own arguments, they're the ones who are arguing "nothing can ever be changed, everything is controlled by the DeepState cradle to grave". If that's your ideology, then fine. Quit being a $#@!ing moron and posting on a political activism forum then. Change is hopeless. You're wasting your $#@!ing time. Get smart enough to do something productive with your day then.

Even more laughable is Trump objectively lowered taxes. The tax rate is cut. I paid less taxes. But we've still got $#@!ing 1000 IQ intellectuals on here who will bald-face try to say "Nah - you paid more taxes". Dude. You're an idiot for saying that. Sorry. Maybe you're real good at other things, but God Damn do you make 0 sense on that subject.

-It's just a stupid intellectual circle jerk. No. I definitely paid less in taxes. And the idea that "nah, government spending went up, therefore the only possible outcome is you paid more taxes".
-#1, spending would have gone up anyways. Arguing moot points.
-#2, no, that's not the only possible outcome. Your constructs are flat-out wrong. How about this alternative: The government magicked money out of thin air, deceived China with false value, and now the Chinese just gave us tangible goods for our bull$#@! toilet paper. Sounds like they're the ones with problems. Not us.
-But, sure, lets continue that intellectual circle jerk of that economic debate, rather than trying to give less money to the government.

Edit: Just want to add this post isn't projecting animus at anyone, just when I write, the original draft tends to be crass and "pointed" (using 'you', rather than 'whomever').

We must take and build on incremental progress, Trump is a minimal good and we won't get anything better if we don't support him.

[106459]

We must take and build on incremental progress, Trump is a minimal good and we won't get anything better if we don't support him.

...Yeah, I don't even need them to support Trump. Just acknowledge the suffocating political reality we currently exist in. And it's unfortunate that criticism of posts is seen as "you just want this to become the Trump forums". I guess the issue is that there are two different lenses you can read the posts through.

The more ""hard right""/self-preservationist conservatives already see the bad policies as bad. Making the post that a bad policy is bad doesn't doesn't do much for us. Unfortunately, there is a multitude of factions on RPF, the "lefties" (some of which will even advocate for Sanders), who love to use these threads as ammunition to further conflate "Orange Man Bad". So, yeah, they love to fan the flames, and people who are tired of the negativity have to respond "yeah, dude, you clearly aren't putting this into context. ..Have you really ran the scenarios, of what would happen in the real world, with the available alternatives?" Because substituting a fairytale is silly. Just go full fairytale at that point.

So. I get it. The bailout sucks. Given the current climate, there really isn't a way around it. I'm glad that the idea of suspending the payroll tax was suggested by Trump, sucks that it's not going to go anywhere. Maybe we can try to highlight positive proposals like those, get good press going, and get better from the next guy. It beats putting the Universal Healthcare and UBI guy in office. Yeah, those presidential speeches would really piss me off.