And We Shall Call Him President Trump.

Post Reply New Topic

You've thrown a brick through D.C's window, but they've already put in a new pane of glass. We are long past the point where hope is warranted or helpful. Things can get much worse and there can be no doubt they will; the question is “when”, not “if.”

Trump has shown he's anything but decent, and what little policy he's put forth is more likely to destroy America than help it; not that he's likely to achieve any of his promises, most are effectively impossible and the people he's choosing for his cabinet suggest that no swamps are being drained any time soon. Obama of course has his ear; Trump is really a mediocre businessman but he's at least smart enough to know when he is not qualified for a job; he needs all the help he can get.

“Hope” gets us nowhere. Americans are a hopeful, optimistic people and it's going to destroy us. At some point it's important to realize that the s**t is destined to hit the fan and that if we stand around telling each other it will all be ok we're going to get a mouthful of it.



That's why all this filth needs to be shown the door.



President Baby-hands. Orangutan-in-chief. Emperor Tiny-face. His Orangeness.

Some of the nicer names I can think of.

I still don't get you. You knock everything down, yet you have no answers of what should be done. We've already been doing 8 years of nothing and we got ran into the ground. I don't think you know what you want, what side your on, or any bright ideas of what can turn the situation around.

I want to be around people who at least want to try to work some stuff out and who know how to compromise, because none of us are going to get everything we want - unless there is secession.

Allow me to be clear; nothing short of revolution will solve America's problems. The framework we have to work in is flawed; it can't produce effective solutions and expecting it to do so is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Dude, you have to know what side you are on to have a revolution. So you have a Revolution and take over the present Government, how are you going to decide who makes the new laws? Are you with the protesters way of thinking?

I was thinking there would be more of a civil war. - Right vs Left.

Pick one thread to ask me these questions in and stick with it.

People who strongly identify as Democrat and Republican are effectively in the minority (at least as individual groups). Of those groups, how many do you think are going to stand in the way of a popular revolution? They have little reason to, in any case. This country really isn't all that divided; the media profits by making it seem so. Our rulers profit by making it seem so.

Anyway... organization is required. It would be absurd to expect people will just grab torches and pitchforks and chase politicians and bankers into the seas. That would achieve little, in any case. Democratic organization of a party is needed, representing the interests of the people. Leaders would need to be elected, and answerable to members of the party. That is the only way I see that you could achieve a favorable, democratic result rather than chaos and anarchy.

Democracy led to President Trump. What's your problem exactly?

Last edited by Sabreclaw on 16 Nov 2016, 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I wasn't aware that everybody is thinking about grabbing some p***y. I also wasn't aware that a terror of libel laws was a central issue.


Honestly, the nation currently largely functions despite a bit of insanity. There isn't really anything to justify this claim.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) (Largest GDP)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita (One of the top nations in the world. Mostly beaten by weird anomalies blessed with resources, and/or city-states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures (US is #1. It isn't even close.)


See above point on GDP and GDP per capita


I think our overwhelming military edge, central role in world geopolitics, and gigantic economy basically put us in that position. At minimum, I don't think a reality tv star without a basic knowledge of foreign policy is the best direction to go for this desire. I certainly don't think we should pick our policies based upon being "respected as a world power" so much as US geopolitical interests.



Have you ever looked into Andrew Jackson? Very much a man of the people. After you're done looking into him, look into the Trail of Tears, and the Panic of 1837 and see the connections.


.... because ruining the US economy helps them? I don't know what sort of world you live in, but third world countries are usually such because they're TERRIBLE places to do business. Why on earth would an elite class want to make a majorly profitable land into a terrible place for them to do their business?

Even further, if you've studied third world economies, one of the major things they struggle with are actually populist movements fighting for "the people" against "the elite". These often end very badly for them. Usually because the "shadowy elites" have some very fictitious qualities, leading to some weird campaign of destruction against all that exists.


*sigh* Donald Trump is a con artist who ran a fake university, bragged about grabbing women certain places, has stoked fears against minority groups, and that likely has some sort of narcissistic personality disorder where he can't tolerate insult. I think a basic grasp of the last year or so of the election season is the best refutation of the "decent person" bit.

As for "get America back to the way it used to be", I think you'd have a better chance getting your body back to the way it used to be when you were in your teens. The world changes, and most of the changes are literally outside of the control of politicians. So, US manufacturing production has been increasing this entire time even as manufacturing jobs have stagnated: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/. Why? Robots. Past that, I'm not sure what else to want, unless we're wanting Europe to break out into a world war, so we can gratify our egos by helping them rebuild, or unless we want to be under constant fear from some Cold War.


HA HA HA HA HA. Try looking outside of the US into the actual third world countries. I hope that doesn't come off as too harsh, but seriously... if you imagine that you're at rock bottom, then then worst thing is imagining wrong and having made a terrible mistake.

Obviously tyrants will be tyrants, but if you're operating on the principle of religious freedom, it's the end of the discussion.

Yes, you have, I've seen you do. Maybe you think what you are doing is okay because you refer to some strawman group rather than an individual, but groups are made of individuals.

GDP measures consumption.

So, the nations with lots of debt-spending will have high GDP.

It's like bragging to people that you're rich, because you've spent $20,000 on your credit card.

GDP measures production and consumption, and that's because of a matter of definitions. GDP is also the intersection in economics where aggregate supply(production) = aggregate demand(consumption). If there isn't production in the country, how can there be consumption? Other nations aren't donating goods and services due to their love of America.

Debt-spending != GDP. So, high GDP nations are more likely to have high debt, but that's also because having a high GDP usually means that you have a stable government, and stable governments are more able to run up debts as they are more trustworthy and have existed for longer periods of time, and many governments acquire high quantities of debt using Keynesian stimulus for recessions or by entering a major conflict at one point or another. Also, because earning more means you can afford more debt as it takes more to significantly alter the Debt/GDP ratio.

As for the last comment.... no, you simply have the wrong of it because as stated debt-spending != GDP.

In any case, is there more explanation needed? I mean, I know I left a few rather large gaps as I'm not trying to run a macroeconomics class for the forum, as that would get tedious. But given I have degrees in this area, and a mildly obsessive interest in the subject matter, I'm fairly sure I can grind this all into the ground until there is only silence left.

No, it isn't. You do realize that there has been Islam in the US since before the time of the founding fathers, and they spoke favorably about Islam. You might as well say Catholics are culturally incompatible with American ideals, those are the people the influences of the founding fathers like John Locke actually had problems with. But we decided to tolerate the Catholics, leading to the first amendment.

Omar Mateen was an American citizen born in the USA (so the argument about immigrants is nonsense) and his culture was very much American. He didn't kill gay people because he was a muslim, but because he was an aggressive homophobe. Christians attack gay people in America all the time, far more often then muslims do. His attack wasn't done in the name of religion, it was done in the name of a right-wing militant group because man with anger problems.

Finally, islam doesn't actually have that much problems with homosexuality, not anymore than Christianity anyway (if anything there is more references condemning homosexuality in the bible than in the Quran). Homosexuality is not specifically labeled as haram by the Quran, just sodomy outside of marriage, which applies to heterosexual anal intercourse as well. The issue is that extremely conservative forms of Islam are being used as the standards for the islam in the media. And even if they were, we believe that people are allowed to believe whatever they want. Your attitude is in contradiction with the first amendment.



Dzhokhar Tsarnaev also wasn't a Islamist, he was a political terrorist. You can't understand that isolated incident without understanding Chechnya's history, which they've been oppressed by the Russians for years, and he was a survivor of such violence.

Also, there is only a handful of Islamic countries that actually have the death penalty for homosexuality, and there are several Christian countries like Uganda which have the same law.

Last edited by Ganondox on 17 Nov 2016, 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

These three citations should make it obvious to you ...

"Consumption is normally the largest GDP component. "
http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/cons.htm

"Consumption is the value of goods and services bought by people"
http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/cons.htm

Consumption is largely by debt (think of big-ticket financing of homes, cars, businesses ....)


GDP is a measure of debt. The more debt the nation takes on, the higher the GDP.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 17 Nov 2016, 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

You clearly know NOTHING about how immigration works. Shutting down out borders would devastate our country because on a day to day basis immigration is extremely important for our economy. It would be a human rights disaster because this would ruin the lives of countless people who need to travel across the border regularly. Finally it would just be the worst foreign policy disaster the US has ever had and it would make literally every other country hate the US. Shutting down the borders is about the absolute stupidest thing we could do.

(Also, how are we supposed to close down the borders if they aren't secure? If you shut down the borders ONLY illegal immigrants would enter the US)

This entire post is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of macroeconomics. You can't just produce homes and cars with debut, someone had to build it all. The debt is just a reflection of long-term production in the short-term. The fact America consumes a lot means America MUST be very productive. You simply can't consume without producing because on the macrolevel they are one and the same.