Trump Economic Adviser... "Deficit coming down"

[JohnStOnge]

This stuff of people thinking Hillary Clinton was worse than Trump is just insane.

[JohnStOnge]

I would vote for ANYONE running against Hillary Clinton if she EVER runs again too. The woman is the spawn of Satan's asshole.

Trump IS Satan's asshole.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO isn't a conk.

Where do Ganny, 93 and I fall on your fantasy spectrum?

We're all complicated cases.

I won't speak for the two of you, but my stance on the issues I really care about are all over the political spectrum.

Guns: right
Abortion: left
Environment: left
Immigration: right
Corporate responsibility: left

But it doesn't matter who I vote for, because it's going Democrat every time. My vote in Delaware truly doesn't matter.

In retrospect, I should have voted Libertarian in 2016 instead of made Aleppo jokes about their pothead candidate, if for nothing else than to add one grain of sand on the scale in favor of a third party.

Labels are labels. I'll use the issues listed to State my positions and you can decide what label I should bear.

Guns: Guns? The Amendment doesn't refer to guns alone. It refers to "arms." And it's clearly referring to military arms. There's no qualification on it. And the reference to a militia does not, linguistically, mean the right is limited to those in a militia.

Abortion: Abortion ends the life of a living member of our species. It should be illegal except in cases where there is a choice between either the life of the mother or the life of the unborn individual. No exceptions for things like rape and incest as it's not the unborn individual's fault that their father was a rapist or guilty of incest.

Environment: We need to be cognizant of our impact upon our environment. However, I think that there is a preservationist bias in Environmental Science and we need to be careful about that. What we should focus on is the well being of our own species. We shouldn't be doing things like trying to avoid the extinction of other species just to avoid extinctions.

Immigration: If someone made the decision to come into the country illegally and they are caught/identified, they should be deported. No person who entered the country illegally should ever be granted citizenship. Legal immigration should be maintained at a healthy level. But I don't know what that level is.

Corporate responsibility: Corporations are responsible for maximizing shareholder benefits.

I'll add a couple:

Affirmative Action: Completely against it.

The "Diversity" Thing: I think that's an artifact of egalitarian bias in the social sciences. I think it was noted that fair competition would not result in various groups being proportionately represented in various areas. So they came up with the idea of diversity being a benefit and set about conducting biased observational studies to support the idea.

Label me as you wish.

[AZGrizFan]

OK Karl.

Anytime Governor Brownback.

Never heard of him/her...

[93henfan]

Label me as you wish.

Retarded.

[93henfan]

This stuff of people thinking Hillary Clinton was worse than Trump is just insane.

Not really.

She would have been far worse than Trump.

[css75]

We're all complicated cases.

I won't speak for the two of you, but my stance on the issues I really care about are all over the political spectrum.

Guns: right
Abortion: left
Environment: left
Immigration: right
Corporate responsibility: left

But it doesn't matter who I vote for, because it's going Democrat every time. My vote in Delaware truly doesn't matter.

In retrospect, I should have voted Libertarian in 2016 instead of made Aleppo jokes about their pothead candidate, if for nothing else than to add one grain of sand on the scale in favor of a third party.

Labels are labels. I'll use the issues listed to State my positions and you can decide what label I should bear.

Guns: Guns? The Amendment doesn't refer to guns alone. It refers to "arms." And it's clearly referring to military arms. There's no qualification on it. And the reference to a militia does not, linguistically, mean the right is limited to those in a militia.

Abortion: Abortion ends the life of a living member of our species. It should be illegal except in cases where there is a choice between either the life of the mother or the life of the unborn individual. No exceptions for things like rape and incest as it's not the unborn individual's fault that their father was a rapist or guilty of incest.

Environment: We need to be cognizant of our impact upon our environment. However, I think that there is a preservationist bias in Environmental Science and we need to be careful about that. What we should focus on is the well being of our own species. We shouldn't be doing things like trying to avoid the extinction of other species just to avoid extinctions.

Immigration: If someone made the decision to come into the country illegally and they are caught/identified, they should be deported. No person who entered the country illegally should ever be granted citizenship. Legal immigration should be maintained at a healthy level. But I don't know what that level is.

Corporate responsibility: Corporations are responsible for maximizing shareholder benefits.

I'll add a couple:

Affirmative Action: Completely against it.

The "Diversity" Thing: I think that's an artifact of egalitarian bias in the social sciences. I think it was noted that fair competition would not result in various groups being proportionately represented in various areas. So they came up with the idea of diversity being a benefit and set about conducting biased observational studies to support the idea.

Label me as you wish.

Trump’s policies fall in line with yours very much. Hillary is for taking guns, killing babies, open borders, and affirmative action. Yet you think this skank was better than the Donald. Look at results, not style.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Good job Treep

You trolled even the Mighty Clitzoris into cataloguing (in bullet form I might add) and explaining their positions like they're running for the school board

you still know nothing about me though - but the info is right here in this here forum

or you can ask Jelly

(he has a dossier)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Guns: right
Abortion: left
Environment: left
Immigration: right
Corporate responsibility: left

Guns: right

Abortion: center:
-Should remain legal with 3 caveats. No taxpayer funding unless mothers life is in danger. Parental consent. It is a medical operation. Minors have to have parental consent for medical operation. Simple. No partial birth.
-Roe v Wade should be overturned. Nothing to do with religion but the Constitution. States rights. Let each state do their own laws.

Environment: center (although many would label me right). Care about the environment, but put the economy and America 1st..

Immigration: right

Corporate responsibility: center. You know advocating for ‘left’ there means smaller TSP/401k returns..But playing field should be tilted more toward small & medium sized businesses, more America 1st..

[houndawg]

No they don't. The Democrats do not do things like claim that the deficit is coming down when it's not.

On this you are absolutely correct

Democrats in the past have simply denied that deficits were a big deal - that's the only real way to debate deficit spending... question whether or not it matters

The problem with the Democrats' past stance on the deficit is that it denies a century worth of evidence to the contrary - and ignores what is happening to countries (right in front of our eyes) that have outspent their GDP and borrowed for too long


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny... the last time I heard a high-level official say deficits didn't matter it was that pinko Democrat Dick Cheney....

[JohnStOnge]

Trump’s policies fall in line with yours very much. Hillary is for taking guns, killing babies, open borders, and affirmative action. Yet you think this skank was better than the Donald. Look at results, not style.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Look at the long term. I've written this kind of stuff many times but I'll write it again. A few years ago the Republican Party realized that it's got a long term viability problem. It realized that it needs to change the underlying dynamic in order to remain competitive in the long term. In nominating then rallying behind Trump it did exactly the opposite of what it determined that it needed to do. It won the Presidency because of the Electoral college. But it lost among the overall vote of the People for the 6th time in the past 7 Presidential elections. And, in terms of the popular vote, it got a lower percentage than it got in 2012.

The system helps. There's the Electoral College. There's the Senate where each State gets 2 Senators whether it's got 0.6 million people (Wyoming) or it's got 40 million people (California). And there's gerrymandering in play for the House. But at some point the dam is going to break. At some point the Republicans will need to convince the actual majority of the People in the country in order to sustain themselves. And them associating themselves with Trump is not helping in that regard.

Aside from that: Is there any point in which the nature of the person would, for you, override the short terms considerations over policy? If you found out with 100% certainty that Trump is using his position to enrich himself in an unethical manner, for example, would you say, "That's OK because I'm getting the policies I want right now?"

If you found out Trump's campaign did collude with Russia and was paying Russia back for its help right now by virtue of its foreign policy, would that make a difference to you? At what point would you say that the level of corruption is unacceptable even if you are, for now, getting the policies you want?

[AZGrizFan]

Trump’s policies fall in line with yours very much. Hillary is for taking guns, killing babies, open borders, and affirmative action. Yet you think this skank was better than the Donald. Look at results, not style.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Look at the long term. I've written this kind of stuff many times but I'll write it again. A few years ago the Republican Party realized that it's got a long term viability problem. It realized that it needs to change the underlying dynamic in order to remain competitive in the long term. In nominating then rallying behind Trump it did exactly the opposite of what it determined that it needed to do. It won the Presidency because of the Electoral college. But it lost among the overall vote of the People for the 6th time in the past 7 Presidential elections. And, in terms of the popular vote, it got a lower percentage than it got in 2012.

The system helps. There's the Electoral College. There's the Senate where each State gets 2 Senators whether it's got 0.6 million people (Wyoming) or it's got 40 million people (California). And there's gerrymandering in play for the House. But at some point the dam is going to break. At some point the Republicans will need to convince the actual majority of the People in the country in order to sustain themselves. And them associating themselves with Trump is not helping in that regard.

Aside from that: Is there any point in which the nature of the person would, for you, override the short terms considerations over policy? If you found out with 100% certainty that Trump is using his position to enrich himself in an unethical manner, for example, would you say, "That's OK because I'm getting the policies I want right now?"

If you found out Trump's campaign did collude with Russia and was paying Russia back for its help right now by virtue of its foreign policy, would that make a difference to you? At what point would you say that the level of corruption is unacceptable even if you are, for now, getting the policies you want?

You don’t think the Clintons and Bush’s and Obamas enriched themselves in their position as president?

[CID1990]

Trump’s policies fall in line with yours very much. Hillary is for taking guns, killing babies, open borders, and affirmative action. Yet you think this skank was better than the Donald. Look at results, not style.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Look at the long term. I've written this kind of stuff many times but I'll write it again. A few years ago the Republican Party realized that it's got a long term viability problem. It realized that it needs to change the underlying dynamic in order to remain competitive in the long term. In nominating then rallying behind Trump it did exactly the opposite of what it determined that it needed to do. It won the Presidency because of the Electoral college. But it lost among the overall vote of the People for the 6th time in the past 7 Presidential elections. And, in terms of the popular vote, it got a lower percentage than it got in 2012.

The system helps. There's the Electoral College. There's the Senate where each State gets 2 Senators whether it's got 0.6 million people (Wyoming) or it's got 40 million people (California). And there's gerrymandering in play for the House. But at some point the dam is going to break. At some point the Republicans will need to convince the actual majority of the People in the country in order to sustain themselves. And them associating themselves with Trump is not helping in that regard.

Aside from that: Is there any point in which the nature of the person would, for you, override the short terms considerations over policy? If you found out with 100% certainty that Trump is using his position to enrich himself in an unethical manner, for example, would you say, "That's OK because I'm getting the policies I want right now?"

If you found out Trump's campaign did collude with Russia and was paying Russia back for its help right now by virtue of its foreign policy, would that make a difference to you? At what point would you say that the level of corruption is unacceptable even if you are, for now, getting the policies you want?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

You don’t think the Clintons and Bush’s and Obamas enriched themselves in their position as president?

No I do not. I think they benefited from their position as President afterwards. But I do not think that, while in office, they were doing things comparable to what Trump is doing in funneling business to his hotels, resorts, etc.

[css75]

Trump’s policies fall in line with yours very much. Hillary is for taking guns, killing babies, open borders, and affirmative action. Yet you think this skank was better than the Donald. Look at results, not style.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Look at the long term. I've written this kind of stuff many times but I'll write it again. A few years ago the Republican Party realized that it's got a long term viability problem. It realized that it needs to change the underlying dynamic in order to remain competitive in the long term. In nominating then rallying behind Trump it did exactly the opposite of what it determined that it needed to do. It won the Presidency because of the Electoral college. But it lost among the overall vote of the People for the 6th time in the past 7 Presidential elections. And, in terms of the popular vote, it got a lower percentage than it got in 2012.

The system helps. There's the Electoral College. There's the Senate where each State gets 2 Senators whether it's got 0.6 million people (Wyoming) or it's got 40 million people (California). And there's gerrymandering in play for the House. But at some point the dam is going to break. At some point the Republicans will need to convince the actual majority of the People in the country in order to sustain themselves. And them associating themselves with Trump is not helping in that regard.

Aside from that: Is there any point in which the nature of the person would, for you, override the short terms considerations over policy? If you found out with 100% certainty that Trump is using his position to enrich himself in an unethical manner, for example, would you say, "That's OK because I'm getting the policies I want right now?"

If you found out Trump's campaign did collude with Russia and was paying Russia back for its help right now by virtue of its foreign policy, would that make a difference to you? At what point would you say that the level of corruption is unacceptable even if you are, for now, getting the policies you want?

There was no collusion. That ship has sailed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Look at the long term. I've written this kind of stuff many times but I'll write it again. A few years ago the Republican Party realized that it's got a long term viability problem. It realized that it needs to change the underlying dynamic in order to remain competitive in the long term. In nominating then rallying behind Trump it did exactly the opposite of what it determined that it needed to do. It won the Presidency because of the Electoral college. But it lost among the overall vote of the People for the 6th time in the past 7 Presidential elections. And, in terms of the popular vote, it got a lower percentage than it got in 2012.

The system helps. There's the Electoral College. There's the Senate where each State gets 2 Senators whether it's got 0.6 million people (Wyoming) or it's got 40 million people (California). And there's gerrymandering in play for the House. But at some point the dam is going to break. At some point the Republicans will need to convince the actual majority of the People in the country in order to sustain themselves. And them associating themselves with Trump is not helping in that regard.

Aside from that: Is there any point in which the nature of the person would, for you, override the short terms considerations over policy? If you found out with 100% certainty that Trump is using his position to enrich himself in an unethical manner, for example, would you say, "That's OK because I'm getting the policies I want right now?"

If you found out Trump's campaign did collude with Russia and was paying Russia back for its help right now by virtue of its foreign policy, would that make a difference to you? At what point would you say that the level of corruption is unacceptable even if you are, for now, getting the policies you want?

There was no collusion. That ship has sailed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He’s not asking from a legal standpoint. He’s asking from a principled standpoint.

[AZGrizFan]

You don’t think the Clintons and Bush’s and Obamas enriched themselves in their position as president?

No I do not. I think they benefited from their position as President afterwards. But I do not think that, while in office, they were doing things comparable to what Trump is doing in funneling business to his hotels, resorts, etc.

OBama’s net worth entering office: $800,000
Obama’s net worth 8 years later: $12 million

[css75]

There was no collusion. That ship has sailed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He’s not asking from a legal standpoint. He’s asking from a principled standpoint.

JSO has no principles.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

He’s not asking from a legal standpoint. He’s asking from a principled standpoint.

JSO has no principles.

What makes you say that..? (because you disagree)
I've been reading his posts for over 10 years and I couldn't disagree with you more

It makes me wonder if you know what principles are

[CID1990]

I think JSO is extremely principled

Some of those principles are arguably sociopathic but he's fairly consistent in his pathos (principles)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HI54UNI]

No I do not. I think they benefited from their position as President afterwards. But I do not think that, while in office, they were doing things comparable to what Trump is doing in funneling business to his hotels, resorts, etc.

OBama’s net worth entering office: $800,000
Obama’s net worth 8 years later: $12 million

He put his money into a blind trust and the investment manager put it all in cattle futures.

[AZGrizFan]

OBama’s net worth entering office: $800,000
Obama’s net worth 8 years later: $12 million

He put his money into a blind trust and the investment manager put it all in cattle futures.

Huh. I thought they cornered the orange juice market.

[Ibanez]

No I do not. I think they benefited from their position as President afterwards. But I do not think that, while in office, they were doing things comparable to what Trump is doing in funneling business to his hotels, resorts, etc.

OBama’s net worth entering office: $800,000
Obama’s net worth 8 years later: $12 million

I hate to agree with JSO, but he's right. Obama wasn't funneling projects and money to his family's company. As far as we know, Obama didn't do that. Like Dubya, Obama is profiting from his 8 yr experience. Dubya is making millions on the speech circuit.

[Skjellyfetti]

The vast majority of of those profits of Obama's during his presidency came from his book sales. And, he released his tax returns each year... So, we have good I fo about where his money came from.

His books sales surely increased due to his campaign and presidency, but it's an entirely different. I don't think people are complaining about Trump profiting from The Art of the Deal sales.

[CAA Flagship]

OBama’s net worth entering office: $800,000
Obama’s net worth 8 years later: $12 million

I hate to agree with JSO, but he's right. Obama wasn't funneling projects and money to his family's company. As far as we know, Obama didn't do that. Like Dubya, Obama is profiting from his 8 yr experience. Dubya is making millions on the speech circuit.

Correct. But that was probably because there was no family business. But he had friends. Remember who constructed the original Obamacare website?