Trump 2024. Why or why not.

[Laniakea]

Reduced to i'm rubber, you're glue bounce of me and stick to you. Definitely Trump level mentality.

I'm just using liberal "logic". It explains why you are able to understand it. I wouldn't want to talk over your head.

 

[Laniakea]

People armed with guns kill far, far more people than people armed with sticks, knives or bows and arrows. And bump stocks give them even more fire-power. Heck, you can take out dozens and dozens more of those nasty shoppers and their kids with a bump stock modified semi than you can with a derringer before you get taken out yourself.

Don't forget that.

Why are you so interested in doing that, and instructing others in how to do it?
Number of times anyone has ever done it: One.

Liberal knee jerk response: "But dat be one too many!"

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm just using liberal "logic". It explains why you are able to understand it. I wouldn't want to talk over your head.

No, you're just playing childish games again, to avoid having to actually provide thoughtful answers to peoples' posts.
You seem to think this is Twitter.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why are you so interested in doing that, and instructing others in how to do it?
Number of times anyone has ever done it: One.

Liberal knee jerk response: "But dat be one too many!"

Try addressing the point.

Just this once.
See if you've got it in you.

 

[fantome profane]

No, you're just playing childish games again, to avoid having to actually provide thoughtful answers to peoples' posts.
You seem to think this is Twitter.

X

 

[Laniakea]

Try addressing the point.

Just this once.
See if you've got it in you.

Since you never make any, the postage is wasted and my letters come back as undeliverable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

X

Oh right. What's a tweet called now?

 

[bobhikes]

Do you support Donald Trump for president in 2024? Why, or why not?

No, He's never appealed to me and has never tried to appeal to me.
2016 Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral.
2020 Trump lost the popular vote and electoral because he lost a percentage of the independents.
2024 Trump is basically saying the same thing. He has lost more of the independent vote and now a portion of the republican vote. He never tries to win back voters. He will lose with a much larger margin than 2020.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh right. What's a tweet called now?

I do not know. The new name is appropriate. They officially allow porn. It is right now about 13% adult content. But that used to be mostly nudity. Now they allow sexual intercourse.

Variety

Entertainment news, film reviews, awards, film festivals, box office, entertainment industry conferences

variety.com

It is easy to filter out if one does not want to see it, but I do worry a bit about children having one more source for porn.

 

[fantome profane]

Oh right. What's a tweet called now?

An Xcretion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since you never make any, the postage is wasted and my letters come back as undeliverable.

I make many, in fact. You continually and constantly ignore them. I am constantly and continually having to point it out. Those posts can be viewed all across the board.

Nice try. Well, not really.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not know. The new name is appropriate. They officially allow porn. It is right now about 13% adult content. But that used to be mostly nudity. Now they allow sexual intercourse.

Variety

Entertainment news, film reviews, awards, film festivals, box office, entertainment industry conferences

variety.com

It is easy to filter out if one does not want to see it, but I do worry a bit about children having one more source for porn.

Oh wow, that's not what I was expecting.

 

[Pogo]

Oh right. What's a tweet called now?

a dropping?

 

[Laniakea]

I do not know. The new name is appropriate. They officially allow porn. It is right now about 13% adult content. But that used to be mostly nudity. Now they allow sexual intercourse.

Variety

Entertainment news, film reviews, awards, film festivals, box office, entertainment industry conferences

variety.com

It is easy to filter out if one does not want to see it, but I do worry a bit about children having one more source for porn.

As if the elementary school library wasn't enough.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do not know. The new name is appropriate. They officially allow porn. It is right now about 13% adult content. But that used to be mostly nudity. Now they allow sexual intercourse.

Variety

Entertainment news, film reviews, awards, film festivals, box office, entertainment industry conferences

variety.com

It is easy to filter out if one does not want to see it, but I do worry a bit about children having one more source for porn.

Hardcore porn has been allowed on Twitter for many years. I think it was always allowed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Okay, let's talk about something that Trump has actually proposed as part of his economic plan: tariffs. He is pledging to supercharge one of his signature trade policies — tariffs — if he's re-elected this November, by imposing 10% across-the-board levies on all products imported into the U.S. from overseas. The idea, he has said, is to protect American jobs as well as raise more revenue to offset an extension of his 2017 tax cuts.

But that proposal would likely backfire, effectively acting as a tax on U.S. consumers, economists spanning the political spectrum say. If the tariffs are enacted — with Trump also proposing a levy of 60% or more on Chinese imports — a typical middle-class household in the U.S. would face an estimated $1,700 a year in additional costs, according to the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Remember, Trump hugely raised tariffs during his one term Presidency, by imposing nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades.

Trump says that by increasing tariffs, he can reduce income taxes. However, it is key to remember that the poorest of Americans pay nothing (or next-to-nothing) in income taxes, but they would still be hit with the higher costs of the goods they buy that are impacted tariffs.

I think it important, while talking about this policy, to take a look at possibly one of the worst economic policies in U.S. history -- the Smoots-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This act raised U.S. import duties with the goal of protecting American farmers and other industries from foreign competition. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is now widely blamed for worsening the severity of the Great Depression in the U.S. and around the world.

• The Smoot-Hawley Act was created to protect U.S. farmers and other industries from foreign competitors.
• The Smoot-Hawley Act increased tariffs on foreign imports to the U.S. by about 20%; at least 25 countries responded by increasing their own tariffs on American goods.
• Global trade plummeted, contributing to the ill effects of the Great Depression.
• Prior to signing the Act, more than 1,000 economists urged President Hoover to veto it.
• Hoover's successor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt worked to reduce tariffs and was given more authority to negotiate with heads of state under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

So Trump wants to forge ahead anyway, with his own version of Smoots-Hawley. Economists warn against. Thoughts?

 

[Pogo]

Okay, let's talk about something that Trump has actually proposed as part of his economic plan: tariffs. He is pledging to supercharge one of his signature trade policies — tariffs — if he's re-elected this November, by imposing 10% across-the-board levies on all products imported into the U.S. from overseas. The idea, he has said, is to protect American jobs as well as raise more revenue to offset an extension of his 2017 tax cuts.

But that proposal would likely backfire, effectively acting as a tax on U.S. consumers, economists spanning the political spectrum say. If the tariffs are enacted — with Trump also proposing a levy of 60% or more on Chinese imports — a typical middle-class household in the U.S. would face an estimated $1,700 a year in additional costs, according to the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Remember, Trump hugely raised tariffs during his one term Presidency, by imposing nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades.

Trump says that by increasing tariffs, he can reduce income taxes. However, it is key to remember that the poorest of Americans pay nothing (or next-to-nothing) in income taxes, but they would still be hit with the higher costs of the goods they buy that are impacted tariffs.

I think it important, while talking about this policy, to take a look at possibly one of the worst economic policies in U.S. history -- the Smoots-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This act raised U.S. import duties with the goal of protecting American farmers and other industries from foreign competition. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is now widely blamed for worsening the severity of the Great Depression in the U.S. and around the world.

• The Smoot-Hawley Act was created to protect U.S. farmers and other industries from foreign competitors.
• The Smoot-Hawley Act increased tariffs on foreign imports to the U.S. by about 20%; at least 25 countries responded by increasing their own tariffs on American goods.
• Global trade plummeted, contributing to the ill effects of the Great Depression.
• Prior to signing the Act, more than 1,000 economists urged President Hoover to veto it.
• Hoover's successor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt worked to reduce tariffs and was given more authority to negotiate with heads of state under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

So Trump wants to forge ahead anyway, with his own version of Smoots-Hawley. Economists warn against. Thoughts?

Just finished reading this piece in the NYT.

Opinion | I Know What America’s Leading C.E.O.s Really Think of Donald Trump

He has the lowest level of corporate support in the history of the Republican Party.

www.nytimes.com

"
Recent headlines suggest that our nation’s business leaders are embracing the presidential candidate Donald Trump. His campaign would have you believe that our nation’s top chief executives are returning to support Mr. Trump for president, touting declarations of support from some prominent financiers like Steve Schwarzman and David Sacks.

That is far from the truth. They didn’t flock to him before, and they certainly aren’t flocking to him now. Mr. Trump continues to suffer from the lowest level of corporate support in the history of the Republican Party.

I know this because I work with roughly 1,000 chief executives a year, running a school for them, which I started 35 years ago, and I speak with business leaders almost every day. Our surveys show that 60 to 70 percent of them are registered Republicans.

The reality is that the top corporate leaders working today, like many Americans, aren’t entirely comfortable with either Mr. Trump or President Biden. But they largely like — or at least can tolerate — one of them. They truly fear the other."
"Not a single Fortune 100 chief executive has donated to the candidate so far this year,"

Worth the read.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just finished reading this piece in the NYT.

Opinion | I Know What America’s Leading C.E.O.s Really Think of Donald Trump

He has the lowest level of corporate support in the history of the Republican Party.

www.nytimes.com

"
Recent headlines suggest that our nation’s business leaders are embracing the presidential candidate Donald Trump. His campaign would have you believe that our nation’s top chief executives are returning to support Mr. Trump for president, touting declarations of support from some prominent financiers like Steve Schwarzman and David Sacks.

That is far from the truth. They didn’t flock to him before, and they certainly aren’t flocking to him now. Mr. Trump continues to suffer from the lowest level of corporate support in the history of the Republican Party.

I know this because I work with roughly 1,000 chief executives a year, running a school for them, which I started 35 years ago, and I speak with business leaders almost every day. Our surveys show that 60 to 70 percent of them are registered Republicans.

The reality is that the top corporate leaders working today, like many Americans, aren’t entirely comfortable with either Mr. Trump or President Biden. But they largely like — or at least can tolerate — one of them. They truly fear the other."
"Not a single Fortune 100 chief executive has donated to the candidate so far this year,"

Worth the read.

Thank you for the article, and you are right, it was well worth the read!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Let's look at another aspect of our man, Donald J. Trump -- what do we really know about him? For our purposes here, I'm going to ignore all charges against him that have not yet been decided by a judge or jury, and focus only on known history and cases were the judge or jury have spoken (guilt or innocence, the sentence not being really relevant).

Donald Trump has been found to have sexually molested a woman, and has been found guilty of defaming her -- twice. Trump has been convicted by a jury of 34 felony counts. He has been bankrupted six times. He is known to have been unfaithful to his wife, just after she bore him a child.

His "university" was found to be a sham, for which he was required to pay $25 million in damages to students who were duped by him.

Anyone care to add anything else?

 

[Stevicus]

Okay, let's talk about something that Trump has actually proposed as part of his economic plan: tariffs. He is pledging to supercharge one of his signature trade policies — tariffs — if he's re-elected this November, by imposing 10% across-the-board levies on all products imported into the U.S. from overseas. The idea, he has said, is to protect American jobs as well as raise more revenue to offset an extension of his 2017 tax cuts.

But that proposal would likely backfire, effectively acting as a tax on U.S. consumers, economists spanning the political spectrum say. If the tariffs are enacted — with Trump also proposing a levy of 60% or more on Chinese imports — a typical middle-class household in the U.S. would face an estimated $1,700 a year in additional costs, according to the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Remember, Trump hugely raised tariffs during his one term Presidency, by imposing nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades.

Trump says that by increasing tariffs, he can reduce income taxes. However, it is key to remember that the poorest of Americans pay nothing (or next-to-nothing) in income taxes, but they would still be hit with the higher costs of the goods they buy that are impacted tariffs.

I think it important, while talking about this policy, to take a look at possibly one of the worst economic policies in U.S. history -- the Smoots-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This act raised U.S. import duties with the goal of protecting American farmers and other industries from foreign competition. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is now widely blamed for worsening the severity of the Great Depression in the U.S. and around the world.

• The Smoot-Hawley Act was created to protect U.S. farmers and other industries from foreign competitors.
• The Smoot-Hawley Act increased tariffs on foreign imports to the U.S. by about 20%; at least 25 countries responded by increasing their own tariffs on American goods.
• Global trade plummeted, contributing to the ill effects of the Great Depression.
• Prior to signing the Act, more than 1,000 economists urged President Hoover to veto it.
• Hoover's successor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt worked to reduce tariffs and was given more authority to negotiate with heads of state under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934.

So Trump wants to forge ahead anyway, with his own version of Smoots-Hawley. Economists warn against. Thoughts?

A couple of key indicators to look at:

At least from what we can see here, the US economy has been largely stagnant since the 1970s and that our trade deficit has increased. This would indicate that whatever we've been doing regarding economic policy for the past 40+ years has been absolutely wrong and harmful to the US economy and the standard of living of working people. And all along, these so-called "expert" economists have been claiming that all this is a good thing. They claimed lowering tariffs would make the economy, but instead, it's made the economy worse.

Now, as we can see here, the tariff rate during the time of greatest economic boom (1940s through 60s), the tariff rate was above 10%, yet the American economy still chugged along. We can see that the reduction of tariffs in the 1970s coincides with the long-term economic decline we have seen since that decade.