Trump 2.0

[billvon]

You are assuming that it's better to vote against a "bad" character even when their polices as a whole would be better for the country in "your" opinion. In my opinion, Trump is better for the country than Harris.

I am saying you are responsible for your decisions and the results of your decisions.

If the choice had been Senator Warren vs Trump, even I would have picked Trump.

My personal morality means I do not support rapists and felons, even if I think I would benefit personally if I support them.

Since the reality is that he is now the President, I actually think that the outcome will be better with him than with Harris.

I believe in what people do rather than what they say.

Trump raped a woman, and explained how he "grabs them by the pussy" because he can get away with it. A person who does that cannot be a good leader of others. He is morally and ethically unqualified.

Trump bankrupted businesses six times, including two casinos. Casinos are buildings where people enter and give you large amounts of their money, expecting nothing in return other than the sort of entertainment you get by watching a dealer deal cards. They are almost impossible to bankrupt, and to do so you need to be terrible at business management.

Trump dismissed the US pandemic response team months before COVID-19 hit, and then bungled the US response. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans died needlessly.

So rape, bankruptcy and hundreds of thousands of dead Americans? He has proven his outcomes are worse.

In general, your life result isn't someone else's fault.

Yes. Your life is the result of your decisions - including who you vote for. And if you support rapists and felons, then you may just reap the return of a society that espouses those values.

Debt is a major problem. We aren't at war, we don't have a plan and spending is all we know how to do.

Then you would be foolish to vote republican. Republican presidents have added far more to the debt than democratic presidents, going back all the way to 1913.

 

[(Q)]

You are assuming that it's better to vote against a "bad" character even when their polices as a whole would be better for the country in "your" opinion. In my opinion, Trump is better for the country than Harris.

What policies exactly does Trump have that are good for the country?

What policies exactly did Harris have that are bad for the country?

 

[Seattle]

Then you would be foolish to vote republican. Republican presidents have added far more to the debt than democratic presidents, going back all the way to 1913.

That's not correct. Democrats have added more to the debt because they have been in power 9 more years than Republicans. Republicans have added more per administration but not significantly more. It's not that simple of course. There are unexpected events, debt from each previous admin is added onto the current debt, spending is influenced by the President but controlled by the Congress, etc.

The conclusion being both have added significantly to the debt and for different reasons. The point being that debt is a problem for politicians.

It also doesn't really matter when the debt to GDP ratio is low. Or rather it doesn't matter just for that reason. It's up to the people to decide how to spend our tax dollars. In recent years though, it is a problem because of the degree of debt.

Soon all we will be doing is paying for the interest on the debt. That's not sustainable.

 

[Seattle]

What policies exactly does Trump have that are good for the country?

What policies exactly did Harris have that are bad for the country?

I just went over that in post 158.

 

[TheVat]

Trump isn't likely to start a war. He isn't likely to raise taxes, create a wealth tax, enlarge the size of the government or waste time and energy going in the wrong direction regarding market driven events.

Well someone will have to raise taxes somewhere if the deportation proposal goes forward. It involves quite an enlargement of the government, unless there is massive shrinkage somewhere else.

Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy

The mass deportation of millions of undocumented individuals would be tremendously expensive and would have a catastrophic impact on our economy—one that would be expansive and impact every American. The American Immigration Council analyzes the fiscal costs and economic impacts of such a mass...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

"In total, we find that the cost of a one-time mass deportation operation aimed at both those populations—an estimated total of is at least $315 billion. We wish to emphasize that this figure is a highly conservative estimate. It does not take into account the long-term costs of a sustained mass deportation operation or the incalculable additional costs necessary to acquire the institutional capacity to remove over 13 million people in a short period of time—incalculable because there is simply no reality in which such a singular operation is possible. For one thing, there would be no way to accomplish this mission without mass detention as an interim step. To put the scale of detaining over 13 million undocumented immigrants into context, the entire U.S. prison and jail population in 2022, comprising every person held in local, county, state, and federal prisons and jails, was 1.9 million people...."

 

[(Q)]

I just went over that in post 158.

Yes, I did see that and although I read a lot of right wing propaganda talking points, errors and falsehoods, I didn't see any specific policies. Most likely, this is because Trump has no policies other than revenge and retribution.

 

[Seattle]

Yes, I did see that and although I read a lot of right wing propaganda talking points, errors and falsehoods, I didn't see any specific policies. Most likely, this is because Trump has no policies other than revenge and retribution.

Well, there you go!

Feel free to show where what I posted was "right wing propaganda talking points, errors and falsehoods.

 

[Seattle]

Well someone will have to raise taxes somewhere if the deportation proposal goes forward. It involves quite an enlargement of the government, unless there is massive shrinkage somewhere else.

Mass Deportation: Devastating Costs to America, Its Budget and Economy

The mass deportation of millions of undocumented individuals would be tremendously expensive and would have a catastrophic impact on our economy—one that would be expansive and impact every American. The American Immigration Council analyzes the fiscal costs and economic impacts of such a mass...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

"In total, we find that the cost of a one-time mass deportation operation aimed at both those populations—an estimated total of is at least $315 billion. We wish to emphasize that this figure is a highly conservative estimate. It does not take into account the long-term costs of a sustained mass deportation operation or the incalculable additional costs necessary to acquire the institutional capacity to remove over 13 million people in a short period of time—incalculable because there is simply no reality in which such a singular operation is possible. For one thing, there would be no way to accomplish this mission without mass detention as an interim step. To put the scale of detaining over 13 million undocumented immigrants into context, the entire U.S. prison and jail population in 2022, comprising every person held in local, county, state, and federal prisons and jails, was 1.9 million people...."

Yes, if he actually does all that I would prefer that taxes go up. If he just does go though with the Biden student load forgiveness, that would offset the cost though.

I don't think he will deport as many people as the article calls for. We'll see I guess.

The people he starts out with will probably be a good use of money though.

 

[(Q)]

Well, there you go!

Feel free to show where what I posted was "right wing propaganda talking points, errors and falsehoods.

Currently, I'm enjoying others here doing just that. Perhaps, if they tire or miss something, I may chime in. If I provide metrics, will you accept them or dismiss them out of hand?

 

[Seattle]

Currently, I'm enjoying others here doing just that. Perhaps, if they tire or miss something, I may chime in. If I provide metrics, will you accept them or dismiss them out of hand?

I'll probably dismiss them out of hand considering who is submitting them. What is there to disagree about? Debt isn't bad, early childhood isn't important, individual responsibility isn't important?

 

[billvon]

That's not correct. Democrats have added more to the debt because they have been in power 9 more years than Republicans. Republicans have added more per administration but not significantly more. It's not that simple of course. There are unexpected events, debt from each previous admin is added onto the current debt, spending is influenced by the President but controlled by the Congress, etc.

Yep. And one way to average all that out is to look at a very long term, so that transient events are averaged out.

Since 1913, republican presidents have added 16% more to the debt every year, averaged over all their time in office, than democrats.

Soon all we will be doing is paying for the interest on the debt. That's not sustainable.

Then you would be wise to vote democratic to forestall that as long as possible.

Unless you do not care about debt, of course. Then vote republican.

 

[Seattle]

Yep. And one way to average all that out is to look at a very long term, so that transient events are averaged out.

Since 1913, republican presidents have added 16% more to the debt every year, averaged over all their time in office, than democrats.


Then you would be wise to vote democratic to forestall that as long as possible.

Unless you do not care about debt, of course. Then vote republican.

I care about debt and neither currently are doing a good job there. In the 50% range I'm less worried about the debt and more worried about the policies.

 

[billvon]

I care about debt and neither currently are doing a good job there.

Democrats are doing a better job than republicans, even if neither is doing a good job.

If you care about debt, the answer is clear. Democrats are a better option. And we have 100+ years of evidence to prove that.

If, on the other hand, you believe what politicians say, well - you're always going to be disappointed.

 

[Seattle]

Democrats are doing a better job than republicans, even if neither is doing a good job.

If you care about debt, the answer is clear. Democrats are a better option. And we have 100+ years of evidence to prove that.

If, on the other hand, you believe what politicians say, well - you're always going to be disappointed.

How about I just focus on the debt and not on what anyone says? Also, I don't like the rest of the progressive policies either.

 

[billvon]

How about I just focus on the debt and not on what anyone says?

No worries! If you just focus on the debt and want it to rise more slowly, and don't care about what anyone says, then supporting democrats is the way to go.

Also, I don't like the rest of the progressive policies either.

If you don't like progressive policies but are OK with the debt going up faster, that's fine; support republicans. You can oppose progressive policies even if that means the debt rises faster. 100% your choice.

But it sounds like you don't want to admit that that's what you are doing, which is strange. Reality does not change just because you hold strong political beliefs.

 

[Seattle]

No worries! If you just focus on the debt and want it to rise more slowly, and don't care about what anyone says, then supporting democrats is the way to go.

If you don't like progressive policies but are OK with the debt going up faster, that's fine; support republicans. You can oppose progressive policies even if that means the debt rises faster. 100% your choice.

But it sounds like you don't want to admit that that's what you are doing, which is strange. Reality does not change just because you hold strong political beliefs.

I don't hold any political beliefs. I'm just not simplistic in my thinking.

 

[parmalee]

I don't hold any political beliefs. I'm just not simplistic in my thinking.

???

Don't even know what to make of these remarks, coming from a guy who by all indications doesn't seem to know much of anything about much of anything.

I mean, you posted the little ADL tidbit pathetically defending Musk's Nazi salute--were you even aware that the ADL has pretty much lost all credibility? The very next day--literally--they were whining about Musk's posts on X, because, apparently, the Holocaust is never funny. Except, that it is--along with everything else under the sun--in the right hands. Granted, Musk is never funny though.

Or how about your claim that the US contributes twice as much per capita than does the UK to the WHO?

Tim Pool has been known to read the first paragraph of a Wikipedia entry--sometimes even into the second--before declaring himself an expert on any subject. Have you ever even bothered to do that much "research" before spouting your incomprehensible nonsense? And, no, Googling something and clicking on a single link from the first page of hits does not count as "research".

 

[Sarkus]

TOF's attempt to overturn the Constitutionally protected Birthright Citizenship has now been challenged in 22 states, and in Seattle it was a Republican (Reagan)-appointed Federal judge, Judge John Couthenour, that has blocked the order, albeit temporarily.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-hear-states-bid-block-trump-birthright-citizenship-order-2025-01-23/

The judge declared the Executive Order "blatantly unconstitutional", although it remains to be seen what Trump's DoJ will set out in its case to defend the order.

It really does seem, to use the judge's words, blatantly obvious that any attempt to limit the birthright citizenship to only children of naturalised citizens or permanent residents, as the 14th Amendment clearly states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Trump's argument would seem to be that illegal immigrants, and their issue, are somehow not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, but if that is the case then there would be no grounds to remove the parents, as he is seeking to do, as they would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, which would include the immigration laws.

No doubt there is more nuance, and c.170 years of legal precedent and argument in the US, going all the way back to Dred Scott in 1857, will surely provide for reemergence of argument for what many had considered settled law.

But, hey, who knows what the 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS will do.

 

[parmalee]

No doubt there is more nuance, and c.170 years of legal precedent and argument in the US, going all the way back to Dred Scott in 1857, will surely provide for reemergence of argument for what many had considered settled law.

What the hell is this "nuance" of which you speak?

 

[Sarkus]

What the hell is this "nuance" of which you speak?

Possibly it will be the same sort/level of "nuance" that Clinton argued for in what the word "is" means.
Otherwise it is simply "nuance" as in "I don't know what the defence might be, but there is going to be one, so let's just put it down at the moment to 'nuance'."

Heck, maybe it really is as black and white as I understand it to be, especially when the AG back in 1873 clarified: "The child born of alien parents in the US is held to be a citizen thereof..." but maybe he was just unduly woke, or even a DEI hire?