Yang for Prez

I really like this guy, his Platform is to prepare for the changing nature of work coming due to automation and AI. Seems super smart, motivated by a desire to help people and is a big picture thinker. Very interesting guy, not very politicianry.

Here with Pakman:
https://youtu.be/DlGgO2sYXZA

With Sam Harris:
https://youtu.be/XHYYVM0rJAw

And recently with Rogan:
https://youtu.be/cTsEzmFamZ8

The Yangman has got over the threshold to make it to the first round of the debates. No here love the Yang? Not even W2W?

Yang and Buttiegeg would both be great to have in the debates. Unfortunately they will be crowded out by worthless chaff like Gillibrand.

I like Yang, but Beto is my choice out of the candidates this far.

Originally Posted by wake77

I like Yang, but Beto is my choice out of the candidates this far.

Beta O'Dork is long on style and short on substance. Personally I think the US needs a technocrat in the Oval rather than another social media personality. Time to change the script.

Originally Posted by wake77

I like Yang, but Beto is my choice out of the candidates this far.

Of course he is. Robert Francis O’Rourke. No one has ever heard or seen anything like this candidate: a hyperactive limb-flailing imbecile, babbling compulsively in a torrent of extremist nonsense barely couched in comprehensible syntax. No idea is too stupid to be endorsed in terms of absolute finality: “If we do not abolish all fossil fuels within twelve years, everything on the planet will be dead. The scientists are 100 percent united on this. Just as Americans of the past had to fight at Normandy, we have to fight this now, and save our planet.”

I actually listened to an interview with Howard Schultz and he seems quite smart and very business minded. He dislikes things on both sides of the isle. He believes each of these important things like health care, illegal citizens should, be able to be resolved by smart men and women and look for resolution. The issue for him is that as an independent he has not chance. If he picks a party, then he has to give up half of the things he deems important. He is BIG on America and bringing back American jobs and fixing our Schools/Police/Fire and continue our military, so lots of things I like to hear.

I do think we need a business man in the oval office. I do believe that 2020 will go to Trump, but after that it is almost a lock that it will be a democrat. Might be good to hav an independent at some point, right?I know Trump is a business man, but just has too much baggage and craziness to really bring the two parties together.

Originally Posted by buffalow

I actually listened to an interview with Howard Schultz and he seems quite smart and very business minded. He dislikes things on both sides of the isle. He believes each of these important things like health care, illegal citizens should, be able to be resolved by smart men and women and look for resolution. The issue for him is that as an independent he has not chance. If he picks a party, then he has to give up half of the things he deems important. He is BIG on America and bringing back American jobs and fixing our Schools/Police/Fire and continue our military, so lots of things I like to hear.

I do think we need a business man in the oval office. I do believe that 2020 will go to Trump, but after that it is almost a lock that it will be a democrat. Might be good to hav an independent at some point, right?I know Trump is a business man, but just has too much baggage and craziness to really bring the two parties together.

I think the Dems are fools to ignore Schultz & do so at their own peril. I'd vote for him

watching Andrew Yang on JRE. seems like a smart guy. this robotics/automation BS could bring some serious change to our economy and productivity. throw in his idea of everyone getting a "dividend" of $1000 per month, seems like Trumps next real opponent.

Yang has the balls to go on the daily wire with Shapiro:
https://youtu.be/-DHuRTvzMFw

Originally Posted by wombat2wombat

Of course he is. Robert Francis O’Rourke. No one has ever heard or seen anything like this candidate: a hyperactive limb-flailing imbecile, babbling compulsively in a torrent of extremist nonsense barely couched in comprehensible syntax. No idea is too stupid to be endorsed in terms of absolute finality: “If we do not abolish all fossil fuels within twelve years, everything on the planet will be dead. The scientists are 100 percent united on this. Just as Americans of the past had to fight at Normandy, we have to fight this now, and save our planet.”

My thoughts exactly. This doesn't surprise me.

"a hyperactive limb-flailing imbecile, babbling compulsively in a torrent of extremist nonsense barely couched in comprehensible syntax."

Couldn't have coined a more precise description of Trump.

I like Yang too. Donated to him already. As someone that works in data at a tech company, I really think AI/Automation is the elephant in the room for the next 10-20 years. If we're proactive and create good outcomes for all, it will greatly benefit the world. If we don't do anything, there are going to be a lot of people on the streets. It's not as simple as installing UBI, but I still like Yang's freedom dividend as a start.

So Yang supports a $12,000 a year universal basic income for everyone. So that’s $2.4 trillion a year which is over half of the tax revenue we current take in. How is that supposed to work?

Originally Posted by rdlangston13

So Yang supports a $12,000 a year universal basic income for everyone. So that’s $2.4 trillion a year which is over half of the tax revenue we current take in. How is that supposed to work?

According to his website:

How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:

1. Current spending. We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

2. A VAT. Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3. New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

4. We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

What's the PC word for welfare? Human services or some BS? anyway, it's a broken system and needs a revamp. I just don't see how handing essentially everyone $1000 per month as the solution.
Is he not just buying votes? I heard very little of what he said other than 1000/pp/month....

Originally Posted by denverd1

I heard very little of what he said other than 1000/pp/month....

Possibly why you can't understand the principle.....

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

According to his website:

How would we pay for Universal Basic Income?
It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value-Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

The means to pay for a Universal Basic Income will come from 4 sources:

1. Current spending. We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of Universal Basic Income because people already receiving benefits would have a choice but would be ineligible to receive the full $1,000 in addition to current benefits.

2. A VAT. Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

3. New revenue. Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy would grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $500 – 600 billion in new revenue from economic growth and activity.

4. We currently spend over one trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200 billion as people would take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. Universal Basic Income would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

Line 4 is BS.

Anytime I see or hear "paying their fare share", I automatically think that a 8 year old wrote it.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Line 4 is BS.



Anytime I see or hear "paying their fare share", I automatically think that a 8 year old wrote it.

Do you think the author is 8 because they can’t spell fair?

Are taxes exactly fair right now?

everyones in favor of any bracket but their own being raised blows my mind. We all should be saying enough is enough. Take from this group to give to that group is peanuts compared to whats taken from everyone collectively. The middle man is keeping the biggest cut, and its apparent that the robin hood mentality has not, nor will it ever work.

Originally Posted by bass10after

everyones in favor of any bracket but their own being raised blows my mind. We all should be saying enough is enough. Take from this group to give to that group is peanuts compared to whats taken from everyone collectively. The middle man is keeping the biggest cut, and its apparent that the robin hood mentality has not, nor will it ever work.

so taxes should be zero? No schools, no highways, no police, no courts, no jails, no military, no fire department?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

so taxes should be zero? No schools, no highways, no police, no courts, no jails, no military, no fire department?

Right wingers: We need more police, jails and cruise missiles.
Also right wingers: Tax is theft!
Lol.

Originally Posted by ralph

Right wingers: We need more police, jails and cruise missiles.
Also right wingers: Tax is theft!
Lol.

The thing everybody seems to say is that taxes are unfair (whether too high for me or too low for "them") The thing nobody (of any political stripe) seems to be able to say is when taxes are "just right."

Can we assume if the deficit is back on it's way up in the "best economy in history" that they are too low?

Originally Posted by fly135

Can we assume if the deficit is back on it's way up in the "best economy in history" that they are too low?

I’ll disagree here and say that spending is too high.

Originally Posted by rdlangston13

I’ll disagree here and say that spending is too high.

So we can agree that taxes are too low for the current level of spending. Right?

Originally Posted by fly135

So we can agree that taxes are too low for the current level of spending. Right?

How about spending is too high for the current level of taxes?

Originally Posted by DealsGapCobra

How about spending is too high for the current level of taxes?

tastes great / less filling

Either way the same. But we can all agree (assuming we are capable of reading graphs) that in our lives pretty much during all Republican Presidents the govt raises deficit spending and during Democrat Presidents the govt lowers it.

Originally Posted by fly135

Either way the same. But we can all agree (assuming we are capable of reading graphs) that in our lives pretty much during all Republican Presidents the govt raises deficit spending and during Democrat Presidents the govt lowers it.

Depends who is in charge of congress and what is driving the economy. During Clinton we had a Republican congress but we also had unpresidented foreign investment in all things internet. Lots of money to capture.

Bush we had continued spending on the housing bubble where everyone was pulling money out of the properties fake value then it all burst. Also a war to pay for. We also had a mostly democrat congress at that time

During Obama, there was never a new budget passed. It was almost all continuing resolutions until the deal was made for the automatic sequestration which cut 10%.

Point is, not sure I can make an absolute case. The president does not pass a budget. I don't believe congress has used the presidents numbers ever cart blanche

During Trump the Republicans raised deficit spending with zero excuses that you can attribute to the Democrats. Obama cut the deficit from well over a trillion to around 3/4 trillion. The Republicans are raising it back up to over a trillion after Obama lowered it, lowered unemployment and over doubled the stock market. Hard to wiggle out of that one. Point is.... Democrat President, deficit spending goes down. Republican President, deficit spending goes up. You can dance on the head of a pin all day with excuses, but those are the facts.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Bush we had continued spending on the housing bubble where everyone was pulling money out of the properties fake value then it all burst. Also a war to pay for. We also had a mostly democrat congress at that time

I think you need to explain your definition of "mostly." Rs had house 2000-06. Senate was essentially 50/50 the whole time, with neither side ever amassing a fillabuster-proof majority.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I think you need to explain your definition of "mostly." Rs had house 2000-06. Senate was essentially 50/50 the whole time, with neither side ever amassing a fillabuster-proof majority.

Spending Bills start in the house. Senate they have to have a compromise. Presidents do not control the budget. They can veto it, however they do not have a vote as to what goes in the budget.

Originally Posted by fly135

During Trump the Republicans raised deficit spending with zero excuses that you can attribute to the Democrats. Obama cut the deficit from well over a trillion to around 3/4 trillion. The Republicans are raising it back up to over a trillion after Obama lowered it, lowered unemployment and over doubled the stock market. Hard to wiggle out of that one. Point is.... Democrat President, deficit spending goes down. Republican President, deficit spending goes up. You can dance on the head of a pin all day with excuses, but those are the facts.

Presidents do not have input into the budget. They will ask for certain thing but they do not get to write the budget. For instance and I know this for a fact, Trump has asked for a greatly reduced budget in many areas but congress did not pass his requests along.

Obama - they did not pass a budget. They passed continuing resolutions.

Sometimes it is the luck of the draw on whether or not you are going to get a strong economy. Usually the policy changes you make take years to take hold. It is a big ship to make always statements.

Except when the historical evidence is "always". Then you can say "always" until it changes. I understand what you are saying. Except the America people think in terms of who's in the WH.

Heck Republicans imagine all kinds of things when a Democrats in the WH. They imagine the President as tax and spend even when he lowers taxes and spending as Obama did. Then they imagine Trump draining the swamp as he's filling it. They imagine Obama as a liar even though they only can think of one or two lies he told. Then when Trump entered office they imagined that lies no longer matter.

Americans imagine the US as a moral nation even though it's constantly at war and selling more weapons than any other nation in the world. They imagined that sending kids fresh out of high school to their deaths halfway around the world fighting for the independence of a country they wouldn't even want to live in as a noble cause. Just not noble enough to risk their own lives.

They imagine that Germany is declaring war on the US by taking over the internet under the influence of the Roman Empire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=EsSG9dNXLIE

And they imagine there is a magic man in the sky that will fix everything after they f**k up the planet with pollution and war.

But there is one thing you can always count on without having to imagine.... The GOP raising America's deficit spending.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Spending Bills start in the house. Senate they have to have a compromise. Presidents do not control the budget. They can veto it, however they do not have a vote as to what goes in the budget.

So for the eight years of the GWB presidency, two years of dem control of the house (06-08) means “mostly”?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

So for the eight years of the GWB presidency, two years of dem control of the house (06-08) means “mostly”?

Sure. He had a war. The budgets minus the war was actually well in line. Not bad considering he was given the housing bubble bomb that went off due to the relaxing of the safe guards on the system.

Originally Posted by fly135

Except when the historical evidence is "always". Then you can say "always" until it changes. I understand what you are saying. Except the America people think in terms of who's in the WH.

Heck Republicans imagine all kinds of things when a Democrats in the WH. They imagine the President as tax and spend even when he lowers taxes and spending as Obama did. Then they imagine Trump draining the swamp as he's filling it. They imagine Obama as a liar even though they only can think of one or two lies he told. Then when Trump entered office they imagined that lies no longer matter.

Americans imagine the US as a moral nation even though it's constantly at war and selling more weapons than any other nation in the world. They imagined that sending kids fresh out of high school to their deaths halfway around the world fighting for the independence of a country they wouldn't even want to live in as a noble cause. Just not noble enough to risk their own lives.

They imagine that Germany is declaring war on the US by taking over the internet under the influence of the Roman Empire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=EsSG9dNXLIE

And they imagine there is a magic man in the sky that will fix everything after they f**k up the planet with pollution and war.

But there is one thing you can always count on without having to imagine.... The GOP raising America's deficit spending.

Obama did not such thing. They did not even pass a budget when he was in the White House so I don't know how he can get a credit for spending less.

Obama lied on a couple of big policy decisions that impacted millions. Trump says what he says but you guys only listen to him. I have not heard a single speech he has given because I know when a president is speaking, it is usually a sales pitch.

On draining a swamp? You believe that is why people voted for him? There are only so many people who know how to transition a government. You will never completely drain anything.

You think all war is immoral or just the ones you don't like?

I still don't know what you are going on about Germany and the Roman Empire. If you want a case for the Roman Empire, we certainly seem to be following in the same footsteps. Other than that, I don't know what you keep referencing.

That was on last weekends OTA TV Sunday morning religious programming. LOL! Just a nice current sample of the crazy stuff people imagine to be true.

I don't need to argue with you over the deficit being cut during the Obama administration. It's a matter of historical fact. But you can imagine otherwise.

Originally Posted by fly135

That was on last weekends OTA TV Sunday morning religious programming. LOL! Just a nice current sample of the crazy stuff people imagine to be true.

I don't need to argue with you over the deficit being cut during the Obama administration. It's a matter of historical fact. But you can imagine otherwise.

There are crazy people everywhere.

We don't have to argue over spending. Just because people tie presidents to economy does not make them correct. People who know how real life is, knows where spending originates and there are lead and lags of policy. The presidents get too much credit and too much blame for the economy.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Sure. He had a war. The budgets minus the war was actually well in line. Not bad considering he was given the housing bubble bomb that went off due to the relaxing of the safe guards on the system.

What are you saying? That the republican profligate war spending was the dems fault? That they "spent themselves dem"? Go look at house and senate for 2000-08. It was NOT "mostly dems."

And if you are counting the bursting of the housing bubble, surely you're giving Obama the benefit of the doubt of being handed such a mess?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

What are you saying? That the republican profligate war spending was the dems fault? That they "spent themselves dem"? Go look at house and senate for 2000-08. It was NOT "mostly dems."

And if you are counting the bursting of the housing bubble, surely you're giving Obama the benefit of the doubt of being handed such a mess?

I don't give any president credit or blame for the economy as a general rule. There are always exceptions. If the president forces a certain spending through veto, then a president can get some blame. If congress goes along with a presidents budget then a president can get some blame.

At the end of the day, the economy will go down and go up on it's own. If there is a partial collapse, then the really rich and foreign investors will see value and invest and so goes the cycle. What changes incoming and outgoing money is foreign policy, environmental policy, regulations in general. There are more than one economic model so the whole theory of economics is in constant debate, yet you are willing to argue that a single president who are typically lawyers and one with a career or community organizing was an economic genius?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I don't give any president credit or blame for the economy as a general rule. There are always exceptions. If the president forces a certain spending through veto, then a president can get some blame. If congress goes along with a presidents budget then a president can get some blame.



At the end of the day, the economy will go down and go up on it's own. If there is a partial collapse, then the really rich and foreign investors will see value and invest and so goes the cycle. What changes incoming and outgoing money is foreign policy, environmental policy, regulations in general. There are more than one economic model so the whole theory of economics is in constant debate, yet you are willing to argue that a single president who are typically lawyers and one with a career or community organizing was an economic genius?

Let’s get clarity on this “mostly” thing first.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

What are you saying? That the republican profligate war spending was the dems fault? That they "spent themselves dem"? Go look at house and senate for 2000-08. It was NOT "mostly dems."

And if you are counting the bursting of the housing bubble, surely you're giving Obama the benefit of the doubt of being handed such a mess?

As far as housing bubble. During Clinton's time they never should have relaxed the safeties that were in place on banking. They did it as a social experiment to get poor people access to money. At the some time, the rules also allowed everyone else to take advantage. I am sure that was in the minds of some of the people as well. You had the .com ramp up and when it busted, the hot economy was kept alive for a while due to fake home loans and people using the equity to fuel consumer spending. That lead to higher tax receipts. Not as high as the .com where the government was collecting large amounts of taxes from the trade in of stocks.

What exactly did Obama really do? He did nothing just like Clinton and Bush did nothing about the hot markets created by fake money. They couldn't. The president does not pass laws. I think most people agree that trying to bail out companies actually makes recovery longer. Those companies that failed did so due to poor business practices.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Let’s get clarity on this “mostly” thing first.

No clarity needed. You can have your mostly. Let's get clarity on how Obama actually performed some sort of economic magic.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

No clarity needed. You can have your mostly. Let's get clarity on how Obama actually performed some sort of economic magic.

He hired well trained economists, and took their advice. And then had some decent luck to boot.

If you have HBO, the Vice doc on the 2008 financial crisis does a pretty good job. https://www.hbo.com/vice/special-rep...nancial-crisis

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Let’s get clarity on this “mostly” thing first.

Also, for 6 or the years, the Republicans never had a majority in the Senate. All 8 years, the repulicans never had a filabuster proof majority. If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion. If you can not get your agenda through then you don't really have control.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

He hired well trained economists, and took their advice. And then had some decent luck to boot.

If you have HBO, the Vice doc on the 2008 financial crisis does a pretty good job. https://www.hbo.com/vice/special-rep...nancial-crisis

I am sure he did, however he does not pass law. Other economists say that bailing out companies with poor business plans prolongs recoveries. IF they recovered quickly, then they really never needed the money in the first place.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Also, for 6 or the years, the Republicans never had a majority in the Senate. All 8 years, the repulicans never had a filabuster proof majority. If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion. If you can not get your agenda through then you don't really have control.

It’s called a stalemate. Gridlock. It’s not control.

Contrast 2016-18 where Rs had both houses but not filibuster proof majority. They managed to get a lot done, because they did have control.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

It’s called a stalemate. Gridlock. It’s not control.

Contrast 2016-18 where Rs had both houses but not filibuster proof majority. They managed to get a lot done, because they did have control.

The things they did get done is because they changed the rule of engagement on proceedings. Mostly on judges.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Also, for 6 or the years, the Republicans never had a majority in the Senate. All 8 years, the repulicans never had a filabuster proof majority. If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion. If you can not get your agenda through then you don't really have control.

You have it reversed - gop had majority 6 of the 8 years. And it looks like neither party has had 60 since the late 70s.

Originally Posted by pesos

You have it reversed - gop had majority 6 of the 8 years. And it looks like neither party has had 60 since the late 70s.

SENATE-
Republican Control Jan-June 2001
Democrat Control July 2001-December 2002 Republican Jefferies swapped and started to caucus with the Democrats
Republican Control Jan- 2003- Dec. 2006
Democrat Control January 2007-2008

So 4.5 years R to 3.5 years D? With most of the D years including two caucusing independents?

Originally Posted by pesos

So 4.5 years R to 3.5 years D? With most of the D years including two caucusing independents?

Even when the republicans had the numbers, the democrats had the independents that caucused with them. They only had 2 real years were they had actual Republican majority. Even then, they did not have 60 as to the rules of the Senate. Point is, there was no real agenda based politics able to get through.

No they had 4.5 years. The years where independents pushed the dems to 51 votes count as dem years. Duh. The highest imbalance in those years was repubs with 55.

Originally Posted by pesos

No they had 4.5 years. The years where independents pushed the dems to 51 votes count as dem years. Duh. The highest imbalance in those years was repubs with 55.

Yes, 2 years of an actual majority. The rest was nearly 50-50 usually 50-49. The last 2 years the democrats had the majority regardless of independents. Point is, they did not have enough to push straight agenda (democrats included) You needed 60 votes for that.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I don't give any president credit or blame for the economy as a general rule. There are always exceptions. If the president forces a certain spending through veto, then a president can get some blame. If congress goes along with a presidents budget then a president can get some blame.

At the end of the day, the economy will go down and go up on it's own. If there is a partial collapse, then the really rich and foreign investors will see value and invest and so goes the cycle. What changes incoming and outgoing money is foreign policy, environmental policy, regulations in general. There are more than one economic model so the whole theory of economics is in constant debate, yet you are willing to argue that a single president who are typically lawyers and one with a career or community organizing was an economic genius?

Or a President that sucked off his daddy's teet for his entire life to garnish any type of success (other than successfully duping about 50 million dumbasses to vote for him a couple of years ago) and any business that he created, failed miserably. Yet, you Trumpster's consider him "an economic genius".

Originally Posted by wake77

Or a President that sucked off his daddy's teet for his entire life to garnish any type of success (other than successfully duping about 50 million dumbasses to vote for him a couple of years ago) and any business that he created, failed miserably. Yet, you Trumpster's consider him "an economic genius".

Can you show me one sentence where I considered him a economic genius? I'll wait.

From the research I found on him after these discussions came up I believe the numbers of successful business he started was on the order of 85% successful. Business genius? Don't know, however from the research I did that is a pretty good number.

Can you tell me how a lawyer with an occupation in communist organizing is the person we need to rely on for business advice? Not sure how people get ahead, but I am sure their was some teet sucking going on to get into harvard, communist organizing, 1 term state senate to 1 term congress to president. If one was to have actually worked for it, I am not sure the one in this paragraph would be that guy.

Back to Trump. He may be no genius but at least he could figure out, like many of us, that we had to many funds heading out of the country and too many of our businesses having to compete with slave labor. He is addressing it. He also knows that illegals are killing our democracy and overwhelming many of our states. Does that take a genius? Probably not. Those things are pretty easy to figure out and are actually known to everyone. Difference is, we have one group who wants those things to happen on purpose because they are idealogically driven to allow those things. Trump and the rest of America are idealogically driven to be for Americans.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion.

You say that a small republican majority is not “actual control” - and yet somehow a democratic minority equates to control lol. Interesting (one-sided) logic.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Can you show me one sentence where I considered him a economic genius? I'll wait.

From the research I found on him after these discussions came up I believe the numbers of successful business he started was on the order of 85% successful. Business genius? Don't know, however from the research I did that is a pretty good number.

Can you tell me how a lawyer with an occupation in communist organizing is the person we need to rely on for business advice? Not sure how people get ahead, but I am sure their was some teet sucking going on to get into harvard, communist organizing, 1 term state senate to 1 term congress to president. If one was to have actually worked for it, I am not sure the one in this paragraph would be that guy.

Back to Trump. He may be no genius but at least he could figure out, like many of us, that we had to many funds heading out of the country and too many of our businesses having to compete with slave labor. He is addressing it. He also knows that illegals are killing our democracy and overwhelming many of our states. Does that take a genius? Probably not. Those things are pretty easy to figure out and are actually known to everyone. Difference is, we have one group who wants those things to happen on purpose because they are idealogically driven to allow those things. Trump and the rest of America are idealogically driven to be for Americans.

"85% successful"? You have to be joking. Without his dad's real estate connections in NYC and NJ, the million dollar "loan" he received from his father, and the inheritance from his father, we wouldn't be discussing this.

We didn't need to listen to Obama for "business advice". He hired experts for that. Trump hires fellow reality stars or former Fox News hosts. So you can slam Obama's "lack of experience" all you want. He wasn't advising other countries to use "air tankers" to extinguish building fires. Obama knows how to spell hamburger.

Originally Posted by pesos

You say that a small republican majority is not “actual control” - and yet somehow a democratic minority equates to control lol. Interesting (one-sided) logic.

Let's go with this. If you are facing an army that had the numbers and had offensive capabilities and your side was able to hold them off from going where they were trying to go. What would you say about the defenders? Would you say they controlled the situation? Lost ground? What would the narrative be? By definition the defense (minority party) is at a disadvantage. They have zero power on what gets brought up for vote. If your position not of power and you don't let the powerful get what they want, you by definition are exercising some sort of control.

Originally Posted by wake77

"85% successful"? You have to be joking. Without his dad's real estate connections in NYC and NJ, the million dollar "loan" he received from his father, and the inheritance from his father, we wouldn't be discussing this.

We didn't need to listen to Obama for "business advice". He hired experts for that. Trump hires fellow reality stars or former Fox News hosts. So you can slam Obama's "lack of experience" all you want. He wasn't advising other countries to use "air tankers" to extinguish building fires. Obama knows how to spell hamburger.

Can you take a million and turn it into a billion? Like there are not thousands of multimillionaires and a few billionaires in New York and New Jersey that were not trying to compete with him and/ or take him down? Please. Nice Monday morning quarterbacking.

Piling money into a business does not make a business successful. If you have a bad model, then it becomes a sink hole for money. Even you can do that math on that. There are millions in the world who try and create businesses and majority fail. Even the rich ones. You can try and frame his record with ya butts all you want. The facts are the facts. He has a pretty good success rate from what I can see and the little research I did. Before I looked at it, I really did not care and never really liked the guy from based on his tv persona.

As a lawyer I would hope that Obama could spell. That is the only thing he was good at besides pushing communist agendas.

If you think Trump turned a million into a billion, then you could probably be tooled into believing anything.

Originally Posted by fly135

If you think Trump turned a million into a billion, then you could probably be tooled into believing anything.

Everyone keeps touting that he got a million from his dad. a million to a billion is 1,000 times. 10 mill to a bil is 100 times.

How about this. Anyone in this room take $1000 and turn it into a million? Or even $100,000. Even a standard investment at age 30 by the time you hit 65 will only double 5 times with good historic returns for a grand total of 32,000 by letting it ride.

Not saying he is a genius but it takes a bit to get a 1,000 times return on investment. Could be wrong and that is why I am just a working stiff but seems impressive enough.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Let's go with this. If you are facing an army that had the numbers and had offensive capabilities and your side was able to hold them off from going where they were trying to go. What would you say about the defenders? Would you say they controlled the situation? Lost ground? What would the narrative be? By definition the defense (minority party) is at a disadvantage. They have zero power on what gets brought up for vote. If your position not of power and you don't let the powerful get what they want, you by definition are exercising some sort of control.

I see that you edited your original reply (I assume it's because you realized the denial was absurd since your statement is still up above for anyone to read).

What you wrote was "If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion."

Anyone with half a brain can see how one-sided that is, because you are only giving this flim flam minority control business to the democrats - you aren't counting it when the republicans are in the minority and doing the obstructing.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

The facts are the facts. He has a pretty good success rate from what I can see and the little research I did.

You kind of have a pattern of researching stuff till you find facts you like and then stopping tho. I could show you a picture of the sky at sunset and it's purple and red and orange. That's not evidence that the sky isn't blue.

Originally Posted by pesos

Yang and Buttiegeg would both be great to have in the debates. Unfortunately they will be crowded out by worthless chaff like Gillibrand.

Still feeling this way, Wes?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Everyone keeps touting that he got a million from his dad. a million to a billion is 1,000 times. 10 mill to a bil is 100 times.

How about this. Anyone in this room take $1000 and turn it into a million? Or even $100,000. Even a standard investment at age 30 by the time you hit 65 will only double 5 times with good historic returns for a grand total of 32,000 by letting it ride.

Not saying he is a genius but it takes a bit to get a 1,000 times return on investment. Could be wrong and that is why I am just a working stiff but seems impressive enough.

I've turned zero into $3mil a year. But your premise is completely flawed, and comparing $1,000 to $1,000,000 without factoring in everything else (cost of living of your average joe with $1,000 vs. 1mil to a rich boy who already has millions in the bank from dad).

Little Don was a millionaire by age 8. And his dad actually "loaned" him closer to $60mil ($140 mil in today's dollars) - it wasn't paid back so it's a gift, not a loan. There's also the millions upon millions shifted to him and his sister later - don himself got roughly $413 mil (the sister recently retired to prevent a judicial inquiry following the NY times tax report) and - even more importantly - the fleet of daddy's lawyers at his disposal to lawnmower over all the small business he screwed over.

If he had simply stuck the money he was given in the s&p back then, he'd easily be worth over 2 bil today.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Still feeling this way, Wes?

which part lol

Originally Posted by pesos

which part lol

Mayor Pete.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Mayor Pete.

That he's doing well? I think it's great that he will be included.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Everyone keeps touting that he got a million from his dad. a million to a billion is 1,000 times. 10 mill to a bil is 100 times.

How about this. Anyone in this room take $1000 and turn it into a million? Or even $100,000. Even a standard investment at age 30 by the time you hit 65 will only double 5 times with good historic returns for a grand total of 32,000 by letting it ride.

Not saying he is a genius but it takes a bit to get a 1,000 times return on investment. Could be wrong and that is why I am just a working stiff but seems impressive enough.

Last report I heard is that he inherited $400M. Previous to that it was a $100M. Either way, you could have just put that money in the stock market and made a billion with zero effort over the past 40 years, without having to lie and cheat people out of their money along the way.

Originally Posted by fly135

without having to lie and cheat people out of their money along the way.

;-) let other people do it for you like the rest of us!

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

You kind of have a pattern of researching stuff till you find facts you like and then stopping tho. I could show you a picture of the sky at sunset and it's purple and red and orange. That's not evidence that the sky isn't blue.

I am sure this sounded good in your head when you typed it, however you have not provided a counter.

Originally Posted by pesos

I see that you edited your original reply (I assume it's because you realized the denial was absurd since your statement is still up above for anyone to read).

What you wrote was "If the Republicans did not have actual control then they mostly had democrat control in my opinion."

Anyone with half a brain can see how one-sided that is, because you are only giving this flim flam minority control business to the democrats - you aren't counting it when the republicans are in the minority and doing the obstructing.

Actually if you read above, I included democrats. At the end of the day, you are not countering what I wrote now are you?

Originally Posted by fly135

Last report I heard is that he inherited $400M. Previous to that it was a $100M. Either way, you could have just put that money in the stock market and made a billion with zero effort over the past 40 years, without having to lie and cheat people out of their money along the way.

Last reports that I read for the last 2 years, he was colluding with Russia. Just can't tell about reports these days.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Last reports that I read for the last 2 years, he was colluding with Russia. Just can't tell about reports these days.

But this is more about the credibility of claiming he inherited anything close to only a million.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Last reports that I read for the last 2 years, he was colluding with Russia. Just can't tell about reports these days.

There seems to be some evidence of that in the Mueller report that was just released. You just refuse to believe any "report" that has anything negative about Trump.

Originally Posted by wake77

There seems to be some evidence of that in the Mueller report that was just released. You just refuse to believe any "report" that has anything negative about Trump.

Get off the crack pipe. Even CNN is not posting collusion articles.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Get off the crack pipe. Even CNN is not posting collusion articles.

What do you call this:

{Directly from the Mueller report}

"the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."