• Trump: I don't trust U.S. intelligence information
    85 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50907950]And you say good thing to that? Why do you neo liberals always say that? HOW IS CLINTON A GOOD THING? She will fuck you over as much or more than Trump. "good thing that psycho made me chug sulphuric acid instead of bleach" That "good thing" attitude is fucked up and you should not act like this is a victory for you while hillary is still in the campaign.[/QUOTE] Neo liberals would support Gary Johnson. Do you know what a neoliberal is? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism[/url]
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50908250]Neo liberals would support Gary Johnson. Do you know what a neoliberal is? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism[/url][/QUOTE] No, because it's a political pejorative with no understanding required. Same with "liberal." If I tried to explain to some people that the United States is fundamentally a liberal country, rooted in liberalism as a political ideology, they'd get offended, because "liberal" and now "neoliberal" have become meaningless pejoratives for "someone left of me that I disagree with." It's also sorta true for words like "neocon" and such - but the vast majority of political pejoratives that I recognize are right-to-left. SJW, liberal, neoliberal, globalist, libtard - there's a lot of them. And that's why people need "political knowhow."
[QUOTE=1legmidget;50908030]His post doesn't say it's a good thing Clinton is winning, it says it's a good thing Trump is losing. I've yet to see how Clinton's plan is just as bad as Trump's when Trump's plan has included: 1. Defaulting on our debt. This will ruin foreign investment and 401Ks. 2. A tax plan that adds ~10 Trillion to our deficit and stunts our economic growth. 3. Stripping US citizens of their rights to a fair trial and presumed innocence AND extending punishment to their families potentially. 4. Shutting down the department of education. 5. Abandoning our NATO allies. 6. Ignoring the threats posed by global climate change and enacting policies/practices that will accelerate the damage that's already been done. What has Clinton said that comes anywhere near any single one of these issues?[/QUOTE] what original thought has come out of clintons mouth? what corruption scandal in the last 25 years was not linked to the clintons in some way or another? I actually agree with most of those points... or at least dont directly disagree with them... the reason they are treated like politcial faux pas is because they are... faux pas... dogmatic unthinkable strategies that are overblown in pure fear mongering while they might (might...) actually be what the US needs... [B] 1. Defaulting on our debt. This will ruin foreign investment and 401Ks.[/B] Not defaulting now and defaulting in 10 years when there is no possibility of defaulting on US terms would probably mean the collapse of the government and the state as it is. Its not the best solution, but it is by far the best solution suggested by a viable presidential candidate since bernie. [B] 2. A tax plan that adds ~10 Trillion to our deficit and stunts our economic growth.[/B] Actually trumps tax plan could go either way, its so far out (in a bad way) that its completely untested and unpredictable... yes, 10 trl is the worst case scenario (and its a really really bad scenario...) but who knows... it could just be averagely sucky... heck, it also simplifies a massive amount of paying taxes. Lower to lowest income households wouldn't even need to pay taxes if you read through the lines... think about that for poverty control. [B] 3. Stripping US citizens of their rights to a fair trial and presumed innocence AND extending punishment to their families potentially.[/B] No argument there, then again Obama has this implemented right now... killing between 100 and 500 civilians a year... [B] 4. Shutting down the department of education.[/B] Yea, pretty fucking dumb, if anything this department needs massive expansion... [B] 5. Abandoning our NATO allies.[/B] Turkey and other states that fail to produce their contributions to nato and/or are openly suspected of helping nato enemies SHOULD be abandoned... Turkey does nothing good for nato atm but tear it apart from the inside out... taking a firm stance and a clear 'no, we wont back you if you shoot down russian jets for no reason other then to play political games with russia because they called you out on subversively supporting isis' is a good stance. [B] 6. Ignoring the threats posed by global climate change and enacting policies/practices that will accelerate the damage that's already been done.[/B] Hillary also does not have a realistic stance on climate change... Bernie was getting close but still not perfect. Imo all US candidates have this.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50908250]Neo liberals would support Gary Johnson. Do you know what a neoliberal is? [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism[/url][/QUOTE] The Trump supporters on the forum have become so desperate as of late they barely even attempt to post rebuttals or counterarguments. In their head, screaming "liberal" or "shill" the same way /pol/ screams "cuck" constitutes an argument.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50908298]they'd get offended, because "liberal" and now "neoliberal" have become meaningless pejoratives for "someone left of me that I disagree with."[/QUOTE] Liberal does [i]commonly[/i] mean someone on the left though, especially when the context is US politics. Anyone who uses neoliberal to refer to a leftist position just didn't bother looking the word up at all.
[QUOTE=phaedon;50908335]Liberal does [I]commonly[/I] mean someone on the left though, especially when the context is US politics. Anyone who uses neoliberal to refer to a leftist position just didn't bother looking the word up at all.[/QUOTE] No it does not, you can have right wing liberalism and left wing liberalism. you just probably surround yourself with left wing liberals and create a bit of an echo chamber. (everyone does this to some extent with their more favorited political ideologies, there is no shame) Stay off my guns ->right wing liberal Give gays right to marry -> left wing liberal
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908309]what original thought has come out of clintons mouth? what corruption scandal in the last 25 years was not linked to the clintons in some way or another? I actually agree with most of those points... or at least dont directly disagree with them... the reason they are treated like politcial faux pas is because they are... faux pas... dogmatic unthinkable strategies that are overblown in pure fear mongering while they might (might...) actually be what the US needs... [B] 1. Defaulting on our debt. This will ruin foreign investment and 401Ks.[/B] Not defaulting now and defaulting in 10 years when there is no possibility of defaulting on US terms would probably mean the collapse of the government and the state as it is. Its not the best solution, but it is by far the best solution suggested by a viable presidential candidate since bernie. [B] 2. A tax plan that adds ~10 Trillion to our deficit and stunts our economic growth.[/B] Actually trumps tax plan could go either way, its so far out (in a bad way) that its completely untested and unpredictable... yes, 10 trl is the worst case scenario (and its a really really bad scenario...) but who knows... it could just be averagely sucky... heck, it also simplifies a massive amount of paying taxes. Lower to lowest income households wouldn't even need to pay taxes if you read through the lines... think about that for poverty control. [B] 3. Stripping US citizens of their rights to a fair trial and presumed innocence AND extending punishment to their families potentially.[/B] No argument there, then again Obama has this implemented right now... killing between 100 and 500 civilians a year... [B] 4. Shutting down the department of education.[/B] Yea, pretty fucking dumb, if anything this department needs massive expansion... [B] 5. Abandoning our NATO allies.[/B] Turkey and other states that fail to produce their contributions to nato and/or are openly suspected of helping nato enemies SHOULD be abandoned... Turkey does nothing good for nato atm but tear it apart from the inside out... taking a firm stance and a clear 'no, we wont back you if you shoot down russian jets for no reason other then to play political games with russia because they called you out on subversively supporting isis' is a good stance. [B] 6. Ignoring the threats posed by global climate change and enacting policies/practices that will accelerate the damage that's already been done.[/B] Hillary also does not have a realistic stance on climate change... Bernie was getting close but still not perfect. Imo all US candidates have this.[/QUOTE] Hillary's stance on climate change is infinitely better than a man who thinks it's literally a Chinese hoax. Trump's talk of leaving NATO has nothing to do with Turkey. It has to do with them "not paying enough." I don't think he's mentioned Erdogan at all in relation to NATO. Trump's tax plan is based on tariff based government from over a hundred years ago. There are no economic experts that think Trump's plan "could go either way," essentially all of the reputable ones, even conservative ones, admit it would be catastrophic for income inequality and would likely trigger international trade wars. His budget plan, including taxes, is [I]trillions of dollars short.[/I] This is before you factor in the wall - his tax plan requires trillions to appear out of thin air. Seriously, look up "economic analysis of trump's tax plan" and read through it. Defaulting is unbelievably risky. Either we somehow pull through by [I]refusing to pay back trillions of dollars that we've borrowed from other countries[/I], which is what a default implies, or we go into an economic depression significantly worse than seen in the 20's. If someone asked you for $300 and then said "oh I'm not paying you back," would you ever give them money again? Ever? That's what Trump is saying we should do. Individual countries have laws for bankruptcy and default. But there are no rules set in stone for a whole country defaulting. Good luck making up for his trillion-dollar budget deficit when nobody will even lend you money and US bonds lose their value.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908361]No it does not, you can have right wing liberalism and left wing liberalism. you just probably surround yourself with left wing liberals and create a bit of an echo chamber. (everyone does this to some extent with their more favorited political ideologies, there is no shame) Stay off my guns ->right wing liberal Give gays right to marry -> left wing liberal[/QUOTE] You should re-read my post more carefully. Liberals are not necessarily leftists, but colloquially, in a US context, the term [i]commonly[/i] refers to a leftist position. In comparison, neoliberalism is not a left-wing ideology, and "neoliberal" is used to describe a brand of right-winger. In Europe in particular, "neoliberal" can have a negative connotation sometimes.
[QUOTE=phaedon;50908405]You should re-read my post more carefully. Liberals are not necessarily leftists, but colloquially, in a US context, the term [i]commonly[/i] refers to a leftist position. In comparison, neoliberalism is not a left-wing ideology, and "neoliberal" is used to describe a brand of right-winger. In Europe in particular, "neoliberal" can have a negative connotation sometimes.[/QUOTE] neoliberals are basically globalists that want deregulation for all aspect of government
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908361]No it does not, you can have right wing liberalism and left wing liberalism. you just probably surround yourself with left wing liberals and create a bit of an echo chamber. (everyone does this to some extent with their more favorited political ideologies, there is no shame) Stay off my guns ->right wing liberal Give gays right to marry -> left wing liberal[/QUOTE] Liberal in common political parlance is distinguished from its traditional meaning (I.e. high levels of economic freedom, individual liberty, small state etc); that's classical liberalism, whereas modern liberalism is more focused on the collective. At the end of the 19th century liberalism went through a bit of a renaissance and began leaning left because of its emphasis on society and social issues rather than economics; traditional liberals saw the economy as all -important, while modern liberals see the economy as a tool for social change. If you introduced someone like William Gladstone to someone like Herbert Asquith and told them they were both liberals, they'd be quite shocked.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908035]Stuff like this just makes me cringe. Yes trump is probably not a heavyweight on political knowhow, yes he probably isnt the smartest pea in the pond but to dismiss him like this like he is some fool is dangerous... and is the reason he got this far. The only reason he started to droop imo is because MSM started to treat his campaign with a respectable odd at winning...[/QUOTE] there is a reason the US is a republic which government is filled with "educated elites" because (this might comes as quite a shocker to you) having political knowhow is kind of important to holding the highest political office in the most influential country in the world thankfully people whose political erudition consists of browsing internet forums for funny memes about their favorite anti-pc presidential candidate will never have any real clout in our government
[B]Hillary's stance on climate change is infinitely better than a man who thinks it's literally a Chinese hoax.[/B] But its still marginally better compared to the rest of the world... or to where we need the US to catch up to. [B]Trump's talk of leaving NATO has nothing to do with Turkey. It has to do with them "not paying enough." I don't think he's mentioned Erdogan at all in relation to NATO.[/B] It has to do with a lot of things, this is politics. If paying more then the people around you still gave the US a worthwhile benefit the US probably wouldn't complain... Politics is not 2 dimensional. [B]Trump's tax plan is based on tariff based government from over a hundred years ago.[/B] There are several western countries working with tarif taxation... its old and still used because in some situations it works... im not gonna claim it would work for the US but it could... Saying nobody thinks it could work but trump just makes me dismiss your opinion as heavily politicized and not based on the numbers. Your argument reeks of dogma... the fact i need to defend trump from people like you horrifies me as much as the next, but then again him over hillary for that same reason. [B]There are no economic experts that think Trump's plan "could go either way," essentially all of the reputable ones, even conservative ones, admit it would be catastrophic for income inequality[/B] Bull shit, i admit the very very rich get a tax cut, but remember that almost ALL their loopholes got cut simply through starting with a clean slate... thats going to be companies like Wallmart suddenly having to pay taxes for once... [B]and would likely trigger international trade wars. His budget plan, including taxes, is [I]trillions of dollars short.[/I] This is before you factor in the wall[/B] Yes, trade wars... its the goal of trumps plan to use trade wars to his advantage to bring jobs back to the US. I dont think that will work, but at least you understand what he (or the far smarter people then him that came up with this shit in his name) wants. [B]- his tax plan requires trillions to appear out of thin air. Seriously, look up "economic analysis of trump's tax plan"[/B] and read through it.[/QUOTE] I have, the BBC did a big thing about it, they basically concluded its both revolutionary as scary and could go either way. They make the mention that some elements appear like tricle down economics, while other look like plain old wealth redistribution... its a bag of a little for everyone. Investments in the US poor and disenfranchised are needed... not investing is suicide... yes there is a massive deficit but that dead end one way street is what business as usual has ended us up in... somethings gotta change. [B]Defaulting is unbelievably risky. Either we somehow pull through by [I]refusing to pay back trillions of dollars that we've borrowed from other countries[/I],[/B] And that we dont have, can never pay back, will never pay back and get closer and closer to defaulting through loss of trust anyway as a sword of Damocles that becomes bigger every year... [B]which is what a default implies, or we go into an economic depression significantly worse than seen in the 20's.[/B] I doubt that, the 20s were pretty fucking bad... then again if we dont do it now and it was going to be like the 20's expect the country to FAIL COMPLETELY at a time NOT WITHIN OUR CONTROL. NOT solving this issue one way or another in the near future is [U]endangering the future of this country...[/U] [B] If someone asked you for $300 and then said "oh I'm not paying you back," would you ever give them money again? Ever? [/B] Loads of countries have defaulted and recovered, heck a past prime minister of belgium, now seating in the council of europe [U]made the comment 6 years ago saying it would be better for everyone if the US would default sooner then later... [/U]Sooner means the world can recover in a decade, later means the world economy loses a full generation or regresses to countries like fucking [U]somalia[/U]. [B]That's what Trump is saying we should do. [/B] Again, im not saying trump has the BEST solution here... but at least he has A solution that he plans on trying... Hillaries solution is to 'cut spending a bit'. Just the interest increase on it cannot be covered by the yearly BNP increase in the us... NO SAVING PLAN WILL FIX THIS, WE ARE IN TOO DEEP ALREADY. [B]Individual countries have laws for bankruptcy and default. But there are no rules set in stone for a whole country defaulting. Good luck making up for his trillion-dollar budget deficit when nobody will even lend you money and US bonds lose their value.[/B] There are procedures... countries have defaulted before... this is not something unheard of. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_defaults[/URL] Protip, Brasil, 7th biggest economy in the world has defaulted 10 times in its history... roughly once every 15 years... last time was in 1998 iirc [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Jund;50908460]there is a reason the US is a republic which government is filled with "educated elites" because (this might comes as quite a shocker to you) having political knowhow is kind of important to holding the highest political office in the most influential country in the world thankfully people whose political erudition consists of browsing internet forums for funny memes about their favorite anti-pc presidential candidate will never have any real clout in our government[/QUOTE] If this was true then we wouldn't have this problem. Fact is the people that were supposed to oppose trump were people like Jeb bush and carson... yea... educated... but retards.
so Blizzerd, your argument is basically, when pared down to essentials, "something revolutionary has to happen, and I believe Donald Trump is capable of doing the needful" in spite of all the evidence put in front of you, that came from even the neutral parties in the anti-Trump side. You also failed to understand that when the economy goes tits up, and austerity measures get introduced on top of that, you're basically going to hit the poorest of the population harder than anything else. We're talking trillions lost, millions of jobs gone, health insurance and healthcare gutted, and worse. Why should the already poor and desperate suffer more because some maniac took an axe to a system which already works for the time being? [quote]Again, im not saying trump has the BEST solution here... but at least he has A solution that he plans on trying... Hillaries solution is to 'cut spending a bit'. Just the interest increase on it cannot be covered by the yearly BNP increase in the us... NO SAVING PLAN WILL FIX THIS, WE ARE IN TOO DEEP ALREADY.[/quote] Trump's solution for economical problems is instead of cleaning and suturing an injury, he plans on cutting the whole arm off. I'm not going to support somebody who thinks that's a good idea unless he can prove that it will work based off of solid evidence.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908495]Protip, Brasil, 7th biggest economy in the world has defaulted 10 times in its history... roughly once every 15 years... last time was in 1998 iirc[/QUOTE] i live in brazil and i can tell you it's not a model you should follow
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908495] If this was true then we wouldn't have this problem. Fact is the people that were supposed to oppose trump were people like Jeb bush and carson... yea... educated... but retards.[/QUOTE] don't ask me, i'm not a republican
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50908229]The fact that Trump has zero political experience is immediately disqualifying. Same goes for Stein. To be the president, you [I]require[/I] a great degree of "political knowhow" that you only get from holding elected office. The only other replacement for political experience is military experience, because success in the military (like Eisenhower) shows phenomenal leadership capability, strong communication skills, and excellent critical thinking skills. Inheriting money from your daddy and sinking it into real estate while failing to grow your father's fortune significantly isn't indicative of leadership ability, communication skills, political knowhow, tact, and most importantly, [I]knowing how to take advice.[/I] Trump is fundamentally unqualified for the job. Hillary is an awful presidential candidate, but she's a capable and experienced politician. The choice is so fucking obvious it's hard to understand how anyone is still latched on to Trump.[/QUOTE] if anything hillary's the person who understands the job more than any previous candidate who isn't an incumbent she's literally been in the white house before and gets how it works
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50908540] Trump's solution for economical problems is instead of cleaning and suturing an injury, he plans on cutting the whole arm off. I'm not going to support somebody who thinks that's a good idea unless he can prove that it will work based off of solid evidence.[/QUOTE] this back and forth is "trump's plan is stupid because x y and z" and then he responds "so stupid IT JUST MIGHT WORK" for everything
[QUOTE=Jund;50908576]this back and forth is "trump's plan is stupid because x y and z" and then he responds "so stupid IT JUST MIGHT WORK" for everything[/QUOTE] "Trump is playing 4D chess while Shillary is playing tic-tac-toe! NIMBLE NAVIGATOR!"
That's a long, long post so I'll address the main thing: Trump using trade wars to bring back jobs will not bring back [I]good[/I] jobs. In order to compete with places in Southeast Asia, we would need to lower manufacturing costs enormously. SEA is able to produce things so cheaply because they pay slave wages - and sometimes use literal slaves and children. Even if we put a 30% tariff on every country in SEA, it would still be cheaper to import electronics from SEA than it would be to build a factory, import materials like rare earth metals (with high tariffs due to retaliation), hire workers with wages over a hundred times higher than in SEA, hire human resources, work around strict safety regulations from OSHA, spend money making sure our emissions are up to regulation, spend millions accounting for materials and wages, and after all that, you get an iPhone. Except the production costs are so much higher in the US that instead of being $300 of production cost at a ramped-up $800 price tag, it's $900 of production cost at a $1300 price tag. And that doesn't even include the initial expense of building an entire factory for this shit. Instead of that, most companies will just continue to import regardless of high tariffs and simply pass the expense of the new tariffs on to the consumer. No jobs back. More expensive consumer market. How does that help? The other option is to reduce wages, reduce safety regulations, reduce environmental regulations, and race to the bottom in a competition with literal slave children earning a dollar a week. I don't want that.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50908540]so Blizzerd, your argument is basically, when pared down to essentials, "something revolutionary has to happen, and I believe Donald Trump is capable of doing the needful" in spite of all the evidence put in front of you, that came from even the neutral parties in the anti-Trump side. .[/QUOTE] No, i just feel this country does not need 4 more years of the same, and thats what you are buying with hillary... 4 more years of the same + corruption. a deadly combo. All she will do is dig the hole deeper and making it even harder to dig our way out. Trump is a wildcard, i feel filthy every time i have to defend him... but i feel he is defense worthy and i feel he is arguably still better then Hillary by a decent margin. [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50908540]You also failed to understand that when the economy goes tits up, and austerity measures get introduced on top of that, you're basically going to hit the poorest of the population harder than anything else. We're talking trillions lost, millions of jobs gone, health insurance and healthcare gutted, and worse. Why should the already poor and desperate suffer more because some maniac took an axe to a system which already works for the time being? [/QUOTE] You also fail to understand that not you, not trump, not Hillary, not any fancy economist has ever been able to successfully predict anything even remotely complex concerning the economy. Trumps tax plans are better for the lower classes then Hillaries... just the fact that they don't have to pay taxes or have to pay marginal taxes is a clear example that stands out far and high... Closing loopholes some companies can abuse to the point where they pay 5 bucks of taxes per quarter while having thousands of employees balances out the fact that his plan seduces them with lower taxes... you give you take. Im not claiming this plan will do anything, just that people discard it for reasons they cannot prove... and usually followed with the line 'and thats why you all should vote for Hillary for prez. Im hillary and i approve this message"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50908540]Trump's solution for economical problems is instead of cleaning and suturing an injury, he plans on cutting the whole arm off. I'm not going to support somebody who thinks that's a good idea unless he can prove that it will work based off of solid evidence.[/QUOTE] I agree, but i feel we are at that stage in time where this (at least to my basic and limited economic knowledge) is the way to go... if not simply because the alternative is basically doing nothing. -> hillary If jill stein or heck Gary Johnson would be legit candidates with a chance id vote for them any day over trump... both of them have convinced me that they have some form of plan to at least try. and they dont have the inflammatory nature of trump. But trump is the only one with a chance.
Trump is a corrupt as shit person who's under far more criminal investigations than Hilary and yet you want him to run your country into the ground with you as a poorer american in the front about to get destroyed [editline]18th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908633]You also fail to understand that not you, not trump, not Hillary, not any fancy economist has ever been able to successfully predict anything even remotely complex concerning the economy. Trumps tax plans are better for the lower classes then Hillaries... just the fact that they don't have to pay taxes or have to pay marginal taxes is a clear example that stands out far and high... Closing loopholes some companies can abuse to the point where they pay 5 bucks of taxes per quarter while having thousands of employees balances out the fact that his plan seduces them with lower taxes... you give you take.[/QUOTE] Also, when you say shit like this, you prove how you little you know. i don't have to argue against you, you argued against yourself and that's all there is to it. You don't know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50908541]i live in brazil and i can tell you it's not a model you should follow[/QUOTE] Haha, true, but i just wanted to make the point that if brasil can pull it off 10 times, the us can pull it off once and get the benefits of a free and breathing economy again.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908651]Haha, true, but i just wanted to make the point that if brasil can pull it off 10 times, the us can pull it off once and get the benefits of a free and breathing economy again.[/QUOTE] That is not at all the situation.
the worst thing about hillary becoming president is that trump supporters will never shut up about how he would have enlightened america into an economic utopia
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908633]You also fail to understand that not you, not trump, not Hillary, not any fancy economist has ever been able to successfully predict anything even remotely complex concerning the economy. Trumps tax plans are better for the lower classes then Hillaries.[/QUOTE] "Not even the smartest economists know how the economy will work - but I'm certain that Trump's plan is the way to go"
Also, how the fuck do you put tariffs on exported services? How will you bring back customer service jobs from India? How do you levy a tariff on a non-physical service that is done over the Internet? Tariffs worked in the past when the idea of "exporting services" made literally no sense. Now you can export computer programming, you can export customer service, you can export web design, you can export literally any service except locational ones like food service. How do you levy a 30% tariff on customsr service? Tariffs have never applied to exported services like these before - and thoze kinds of service jobs are one of the most frequently exported jobs around today. Manufacturing's been dying for 30 years. Tariffs can't help service jobs come back. How do we fix that? Do you really trust Trump to know how, or to pick someone to figure out how, when he can't even run his campaign for more than a month without rotating managers?
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908651]Haha, true, but i just wanted to make the point that if brasil can pull it off 10 times, the us can pull it off once and get the benefits of a free and breathing economy again.[/QUOTE] you can cut off your finger and live. you can cut off all ten of your fingers and live. doesn't mean you should do it but hey, change for the sake of change will make america great again
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50908640]Trump is a corrupt as shit person who's under far more criminal investigations than Hilary [/QUOTE] Hillary is not under investigation even though the FBI tried like 6 times already... corrupt people hold hands above her head. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50908640] Also, when you say shit like this, you prove how you little you know. i don't have to argue against you, you argued against yourself and that's all there is to it. You don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Back at ya my friend, anyone claiming to have any idea about how our economy can be influenced to do X and Y is a liar or a fool. See history for that...
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908651]Haha, true, but i just wanted to make the point that if brasil can pull it off 10 times, the us can pull it off once and get the benefits of a free and breathing economy again.[/QUOTE] And Brazil has lax environmental regulations and problems with deforestation and loads of problems. Look at the goddamn Rio Olympics. You want us to relax our regulations to be competitive on a global tariff-run market? Let's get more lead water from Flint because that's gonna be the healthiest shit in the country.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50908677]Hillary is not under investigation even though the FBI tried like 6 times already... corrupt people hold hands above her head. Back at ya my friend, anyone claiming to have any idea about how our economy can be influenced to do X and Y is a liar or a fool. See history for that...[/QUOTE] Actually, history shows you're just fucking ignorant of what history actually contains.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.