Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Vacamion

President Trump & the USA

By Vacamion, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, SMX11 said:

Yeah and the only thing it encouraged was tax evasion. The effectiveness of tax authorities then is no where near it is now. If you introduced that sort of a rate you would cause huge capital flight. 'AOC' is full of failed ideas that her teachers probably filled her with, she doesn't appear to have the capacity to articulate her ideas under any scrutiny.

I think she'll be another Palin.

 

Burst onto the scene with fanfare but then go back into the shadows once everyone realises they simply aren't very good at what they are supposed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LiberalFox said:

Can the Republicans challenge Trump or is he guaranteed to be their candidate in the next election?

They can challenge him but it's unlikely now after he had decent results in the mid-terms. 

 

Would only go now at his own accord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, bovril said:

It was 70% until the Reagan era. 

 

3 hours ago, SMX11 said:

Yeah and the only thing it encouraged was tax evasion. The effectiveness of tax authorities then is no where near it is now. If you introduced that sort of a rate you would cause huge capital flight. 'AOC' is full of failed ideas that her teachers probably filled her with, she doesn't appear to have the capacity to articulate her ideas under any scrutiny.

If a marginal rate of 70% on only above a specific amount (around $600k p/a IIRC) causes tax evasion then quite frankly everyone should see who the real snowflakes are here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

Listening to Trump speak makes President Bush (dubya) seem like an absolute genius.

 

Why america, why? Shame!!!

A good starting point as to why is to look at the opposition now, people obsessed with identity politics also brimming with hate.

 

I hope the Democrats can get back to the days of Clinton - I fear there is no chance of this anymore with what they are currently electing. They've lost any moral high ground on political discourse over the last couple of weeks.

 

Just like the Republicans, they are turning into an angry mob. I never thought I'd see the day members of congress wouldn't apologise for calling a sitting President a motherfcuker - this is only going to get worse.

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, MattP said:

A good starting point as to why is to look at the opposition now, people obsessed with identity politics also brimming with hate.

 

I hope the Democrats can get back to the days of Clinton - I fear there is no chance of this anymore with what they are currently electing. They've lost any moral high ground on political discourse over the last couple of weeks.

 

Just like the Republicans, they are turning into an angry mob. I never thought I'd see the day members of congress wouldn't apologise for calling a sitting President a motherfcuker - this is only going to get worse.

As much as I agree civil discourse is a much better idea than this rather scary increasing polarisation, look at it this way;

 

Obama was civil, well spoken and gracious to his opponents. The response of his opponents to that? Sitting in the White House right now.

 

Looking at it like that I can see why some folks think going high when others are going low doesn't work, even if it really is the right thing to do.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jattdogg

Jattdogg

Posted
Posted

 donald has brought crazies out on both sides and its all his doing.

 

I dont think it was right for her to say that about trump (even if i agree that he is one lol its just not how you should conduct business as a politician) but after all the things trump has said about others i dont blame people for losing their shit on him.  Calling black nfl anthem protestors sons of bitches? And he is president? Dude you want  to talk about uncalled for that takes the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MattP said:

 

I hope the Democrats can get back to the days of Clinton - I fear there is no chance of this anymore with what they are currently electing. They've lost any moral high ground on political discourse over the last couple of weeks.

 

Just like the Republicans, they are turning into an angry mob. I never thought I'd see the day members of congress wouldn't apologise for calling a sitting President a motherfcuker - this is only going to get worse.

 

Doesn't seem to be the new development you suggest: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/dick-cheney-patrick-leahy-****-yourself_n_549100.html

 

"On the Senate floor for a photo session in 2004, Dick Cheney had a run-in with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). After the two argued over Cheney’s ties to Halliburton and President Bush’s judicial nominees, the then-vice president told the senator “f—k yourself. Cheney, who has never regretted the incident, appeared on Thursday’s “Dennis Miller Show” and took a compliment about it from the host".

Edited by Alf Bentley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As much as I agree civil discourse is a much better idea than this rather scary increasing polarisation, look at it this way;

 

Obama was civil, well spoken and gracious to his opponents. The response of his opponents to that? Sitting in the White House right now.

 

Looking at it like that I can see why some folks think going high when others are going low doesn't work, even if it really is the right thing to do.

Obama wasn't booted out because he was civil, he was booted out because of Libya, his deal with Castro and a dreadful replacement. Obama would most likely have defeated Trump. Almost certainly. 

 

You aren't seriously suggesting that the route the country is going is the correct one to take surely?

 

If they do the Dems had better be prepared as well, because the gun nuts, bombers and psychos on the hard right will be ready for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Doesn't seem to be the new development you suggest: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/dick-cheney-patrick-leahy-****-yourself_n_549100.html

 

"On the Senate floor for a photo session in 2004, Dick Cheney had a run-in with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). After the two argued over Cheney’s ties to Halliburton and President Bush’s judicial nominees, the then-vice president told the senator “f—k yourself. Cheney, who has never regretted the incident, appeared on Thursday’s “Dennis Miller Show” and took a compliment about it from the host".

At least that was face to face. However stupid at least a bit of honour in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

 donald has brought crazies out on both sides and its all his doing.

 

I dont think it was right for her to say that about trump (even if i agree that he is one lol its just not how you should conduct business as a politician) but after all the things trump has said about others i dont blame people for losing their shit on him.  Calling black nfl anthem protestors sons of bitches? And he is president? Dude you want  to talk about uncalled for that takes the cake.

I've already said Trump demeans the office of President and a lot of things he says are appalling. 

 

What I can't work out is why now the Democrats think doing the same is a good idea, it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MattP said:

Obama wasn't booted out because he was civil, he was booted out because of Libya, his deal with Castro and a dreadful replacement. Obama would most likely have defeated Trump. Almost certainly. 

 

You aren't seriously suggesting that the route the country is going is the correct one to take surely?

 

If they do the Dems had better be prepared as well, because the gun nuts, bombers and psychos on the hard right will be ready for it.

TBH I think that nothing Obama did in terms of policy (at least for the most part) or how civil he was going to wash with some people; they only saw what he was, not what he was doing - which is rather my point, those reactionaries then turned round and chose Trump at the Repub convention to be their nominee. Losing the general election itself is definitely on Hillary and like you said Obama would likely have beaten Trump, but that Trump actually got that far at all and so was able to do that is entirely down to Repub voters and I think a lot of that is down to matters of identity - if it wasn't, they would have gone for a more moderate candidate (in terms of cabinet as well as leader).

 

I guess I just feel that the "they're just reacting to what the other side did" argument is rather reductive in this case, especially when what would be considered US-centric "right-wing" ethos - belief in cultural superiority and a willingness to often back that superiority up with domination and subjugation of those considered inherently (that's an important word and an important distinction here) "lesser" has been the predominant ethos for almost all of recorded history anyway; is the nationalist movement that Trump embodies really that flat out on the canvas that they have to be reacting to those pesky One World agenda folks, or have they really been the ones in charge almost all the time?

 

I absolutely agree however that the current route is dangerous and polarising at a time when unity is very much required to counter the kind of threats that are a danger to everyone but the right quite frankly are content to ignore in the interest of short-term economic gain; as such the only crumb of comfort I can offer is that if things do degenerate that badly that conflict results, those gun nuts, bombers and psychos will never actually win such a conflict in the long term - if they defeat their human opponents (and they might well do), they will have only a very small time to enjoy their victory before the Earth destroys them and what is left of civilisation anyway.

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, leicsmac said:

TBH I think that nothing Obama did in terms of policy (at least for the most part) or how civil he was going to wash with some people; they only saw what he was, not what he was doing - which is rather my point, those reactionaries then turned round and chose Trump at the Repub convention to be their nominee. Losing the general election itself is definitely on Hillary and like you said Obama would likely have beaten Trump, but that Trump actually got that far at all and so was able to do that is entirely down to Repub voters and I think a lot of that is down to matters of identity - if it wasn't, they would have gone for a more moderate candidate (in terms of cabinet as well as leader).

 

I guess I just feel that the "they're just reacting to what the other side did" argument is rather reductive in this case, especially when what would be considered US-centric "right-wing" ethos - belief in cultural superiority and a willingness to often back that superiority up with domination and subjugation of those considered inherently (that's an important word and an important distinction here) "lesser" has been the predominant ethos for almost all of recorded history anyway; is the nationalist movement that Trump embodies really that flat out on the canvas that they have to be reacting to those pesky One World agenda folks, or have they really been the ones in charge almost all the time?

 

I absolutely agree however that the current route is dangerous and polarising at a time when unity is very much required to counter the kind of threats that are a danger to everyone but the right quite frankly are content to ignore in the interest of short-term economic gain; as such the only crumb of comfort I can offer is that if things do degenerate that badly that conflict results, those gun nuts, bombers and psychos will never actually win such a conflict in the long term - if they defeat their human opponents (and they might well do), they will have only a very small time to enjoy their victory before the Earth destroys them and what is left of civilisation anyway.

Sorry I forgot to reply to this.

Obama did some good and bad things in terms of policy, for some nothing would be good enough but that's probably the same as any World leader in any country, my point was though the Republicans didn't get to the Whitehouse because Obama was civil, they got there because of bad policy decision that probably lost Florida combined with a terrible candidate who didn't care about her own voters in certain parts of the country.

We are obviously getting into quite ridiculous hyptheticals here but many gun nuts, bombers and psychos have won conflict in the long term - President Assad is the latest one to be such a victor and he's now pretty much safe for life (ironically partly because of Obama's false red lines), we should always remember that history is written by the winners, again though my point was if the Democrats want to try and fight the Republicans at the lowest level possible, they'll probably lose.

If they want to fight it like Jackson, Kennedy and Obama then they'll probably win, which is why now it's a very silly idea to elect a load of people who are going to run around hoping to get elected by calling Trump names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Sorry I forgot to reply to this.

Obama did some good and bad things in terms of policy, for some nothing would be good enough but that's probably the same as any World leader in any country, my point was though the Republicans didn't get to the Whitehouse because Obama was civil, they got there because of bad policy decision that probably lost Florida combined with a terrible candidate who didn't care about her own voters in certain parts of the country.

We are obviously getting into quite ridiculous hyptheticals here but many gun nuts, bombers and psychos have won conflict in the long term - President Assad is the latest one to be such a victor and he's now pretty much safe for life (ironically partly because of Obama's false red lines), we should always remember that history is written by the winners, again though my point was if the Democrats want to try and fight the Republicans at the lowest level possible, they'll probably lose.

If they want to fight it like Jackson, Kennedy and Obama then they'll probably win, which is why now it's a very silly idea to elect a load of people who are going to run around hoping to get elected by calling Trump names.

Right, the Repubs won because of bad policy decisions, but Trump won because the Repubs voters put him there to do so. That's been my point all along.

 

WRT the second paragraph here, I'm not talking about long-term in terms of a decade or two, I'm talking about several decades, a human lifetime or two - sorry if that wasn't clear - and on that I remain extremely steadfast: I agree that if they do try to fight the Repubs at the lowest level possible then they'll likely lose, but over the timeframe I mean then those short-term thinkers, even if they become the predominant world power (again) will lose everything for themselves and everyone else. Do have a look at the article I posted in the news thread just now, it explains such ideas much better than I.

 

I'm not sure about this being ridiculous hypotheticals, either, tbh - for instance, are you willing to gamble the future of civilisation on the latest IPCC report being wrong enough that we don't need to do anything to address it, for instance?

Edited by leicsmac
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right, the Repubs won because of bad policy decisions, but Trump won because the Repubs voters put him there to do so. That's been my point all along.

 

WRT the second paragraph here, I'm not talking about long-term in terms of a decade or two, I'm talking about several decades, a human lifetime or two - sorry if that wasn't clear - and on that I remain extremely steadfast: I agree that if they do try to fight the Repubs at the lowest level possible then they'll likely lose, but over the timeframe I mean then those short-term thinkers, even if they become the predominant world power (again) will lose everything for themselves and everyone else. Do have a look at the article I posted in the news thread just now, it explains such ideas much better than I.

 

I'm not sure about this being ridiculous hypotheticals, either, tbh - for instance, are you willing to gamble the future of civilisation on the latest IPCC report being wrong enough that we don't need to do anything to address it, for instance?

Depends what time limit you are talking about I think, if you told me we are going to wipe ourselves out in 100 years I wouldn't, if you told me 1000 I probably wouldn't care too much. The World changes so much we have no idea what the biggest challenges will be over time.

To be honest I don't see much future for civilisation anyway. The West is completely in decline and the Chinese are going to shape global policy by the end of my lifetime. I'm certainly not going to eat less meat, take fewer flights or lower the standard of living for people (certainly the poorest) here if others are just going to carry on as usual - and certainly not whilst the most priviledged preach about it whilst doing those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Depends what time limit you are talking about I think, if you told me we are going to wipe ourselves out in 100 years I wouldn't, if you told me 1000 I probably wouldn't care too much. The World changes so much we have no idea what the biggest challenges will be over time.

To be honest I don't see much future for civilisation anyway. The West is completely in decline and the Chinese are going to shape global policy by the end of my lifetime. I'm certainly not going to eat less meat, take fewer flights or lower the standard of living for people (certainly the poorest) here if others are just going to carry on as usual - and certainly not whilst the most priviledged preach about it whilst doing those things.

To be honest I would say 100 years is actually a pretty decent marker for such things now given the threats we've identified and the timeframes over which they might happen. Yes, there's an awful lot of guesswork, but I don't see that as a reason to leave such issues to those following us.

 

Perhaps we should move this convo to the article that was posted to save cluttering this thread, but I see why you think as you do and know that lots of other people think the same - I understand it, but I despair of it because I can't see it ending any other way than badly and that's quite sad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jattdogg

Jattdogg

Posted
Posted

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/01/11/border-official-trump-tunnels-under-wall-acosta-pkg-vpx.cnn

 

 Lol that was hilarious to watch. Oh look they tunneled under a wall trump.

 

I heard some audio on the radio...about trump telling some graduates about  going through,  around/over a wall (metaphorical wall obviously) but its kind of fitting and funny at the same time

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article224223500.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Quite a lot going on:

 

Shutdown rolls on....

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46848435

 

A Iowa Repub rep gets in hot water about remarks concerning white supremacy (very quickly backtracked, though):

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46845790

 

Texas Repubs apparently don't like the electoral process when it gets a Muslim elected:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46841814

 

And a couple of new faces in the Dem nomination race for 2020 - not sure I can see either of them lasting the course, though:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46852034

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted

Am I wading in to tinfoil hat territory by looking at the fact Trump is quite probably a Russian asset or at least strong ally and that his government shut down, hysteria over the wall and all of these other pointless distractions are happening while Russia are quietly escalating in Ukraine? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...