Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

ECO_Mental

Penn wrote: »

Trickle down economics does not work. It's a fantasy put forward by those who will benefit from it the most,

I have also seen it called the "Horse and Sparrow model" its where if you feed a horse enough nuts eventually he will s**t out one for the sparrow....

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think what you have is a man in his mid 70s, who unlike most candidates wasnt a career politician and for 70 odd years was a self serving businessman who didnt have to watch his mouth for a very long time the way many of his opponents under political scrutiny since their 20s would have had to. You definitely have a narcassist who is used to getting what he wants and the role of salesman that he played for 70 years he dod that well.

I understand that the man, in his current capacity is liable for a lot more scrutiny than the average joe and that as he is flavour of the term his conduct merits more discussion than the past indiscretions of past presidents.

However I believe people can learn, grow and change with the times, keeping out black people in the 70s real estate market was very common in the time when redlining and other racist practices were a big thing , attitudes to women have evolved leaps and bounds even majorly over the last decade , attitudes to abortion are still a bit in the past.

I believe that you can see an evolution of his views, not as quickly as some would like, and a republican candidate is always going to harbour some things that may seem abhorrent in europe.

I personally agree with the 'muslim ban' , lower taxation, tighter immigration controls and a desire to tariff chinese manufacturing (not in a 'bring back the steel mill' kind of way, but assisting american jobs)

I think on his headline promises the man is delivering (whether you agree with those promises or not) , the way in which he speaks seems childish to us but I think he's going for a vernacular explaination and really speaking to uneducated working class americans who can often be confused by other politicians speaking.

I don't think the man is a hero, certainly not a perfect president , but I believe better than the alternative he shared a polling card with.

I think he's targeting working and middle class white americans and delivering them what they want, he's putting them first even at the frustration of minorities, LGBTQ people and immigrants , but he's a bit like ronseal 'does what it says on the tin' as much as ronseal is fence paint and the world wants the US president to paint picassos .

I think people are too quick to firstly invent and secondly believe every negative thing about him , in a european setting he wouldnt stand a chance but the US is a different ball game.

I think people like donald trump stand as a warning to world politicians that ignoring the whote working vote can lead to upsets.

I personally think politics should be done like business and he represents a lot of that.

Firstly, thank you for your considered post. We need more of this in here so that discussion can take place. Please stick around, even if we disagree.

You admit he is a narcissist. I would contend that is not a suitable attribute for any politician, nevermind President. It means he is susceptible to flattery and also that he will always focus attention on himself, rather than the issue or indeed victims. It will mean he lacks empathy.

You say that he played the role of salesman for 70 years and he did that well. He was bankrupt a number of times and anyone handed a million dollars should make some money off the back of it.

You say that "he is liable for a lot more scrutiny than the average joe and that as he is flavour of the term his conduct merits more discussion than the past indiscretions of past presidents". But the point here is that he courted that attention. Even when he was not president, he was constantly making remarks that got him into the headlines (see narcissist point above). Then, when he became president, he used twitter to do the same thing. You cannot seek out that attention and then complain about it.

You claim that his behaviour towards black people was common back in the 70's, and that he can change, but the examples given to you have shown that he has not changed - and to have a racist president cannot in any universe be a good thing?

You say you agree with the 'muslim ban'. Fair enough. Show me statistics that prove that the countries targeted were high risk in terms of terrorism? If you want greater national security, why not take on the NRA? There are literally thousands more deaths caused by lack gun control than terrorism.

You agree with lower taxation and tarriffs. I will leave that argument to those on here who know more than I on that topic.

You are for tighter immigration controls. No issue with that. Unfortunately, building that bloody wall has nothing to do with border security. Statistics show that a wall will not help the situation. It is a symbol, that's all. Why not invest in police that monitor the border. Building a 20 ft wall will only increase the sales of 21 ft ladders.

You say he is delivering on his promises. I fail to see where! Mexico hasn't paid for that wall, has it? Hillary is still roaming the streets. He hasn't hired "the best people". He isn't winning trade wars. So can you elaborate?

You say that he purposefully speaking like a child so that the average american can understand. Firstly, glossing over the insult to the average american, you say that this enables him to speak without confusing people. How many times have his staff had to come out and clean up after he "misspoke". I 100% disagree with that contention. I think he is operating at the limit of his vocab.

You say he's targeting working and middle class white americans and delivering them what they want, he's putting them first even at the frustration of minorities, LGBTQ people and immigrants. I say that he isn't. That is though what he is saying that he will do. I would argue that he is a dogwhistle for those that have prejudices and that he is playing off those prejudices.

And on your last point, about politics being run like businesses, that is with respect extremely short sighted. Let me give you one example. Say I don't like a competitor in my area. I stiff them on a deal. I move on. But that doesn't work on the global arena. You will have to deal with that Country again at some time in the future. At that stage, you have burned your bridges.

So, whilst I appreciate the time you took to set out your stall, I can disagree on your points.

looksee

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but those two incidents were over 20 years apart , its not like he opened the conversation with 'blacks are lazy' and called Obama lazy at the second turn. Putting them together in an article makes it seem that way but thats of course what the author wanted.

At the age of 70, 20 years is no time at all. Twenty years ago he was 50, already a mature man with his own ideas and beliefs. If he believed that 'blacks are lazy' when he was 50 he is not likely to have changed that whole outlook 20 years later.

But anyway you are missing the point. The point is not that he criticised Obama, the point is that he made a sweeping statement about black people, saying that they are all of a particular mindset just because of the colour of their skin. That is racism.

He is a racist, and that is not based solely on this one observation, there are numerous instances where he has demonstrated it. His thinking is so shallow that I don't think he even realises that he has these attitudes, or why it matters. Then add in his contempt for women, for sick people, for unemployed people, for poor people, and all the other minorities that he shows such contempt for - and I am pretty sure you could add in the people who turn up to his rallies, he basks in their applause but has no respect for them as people. Is it appropriate for a President of a country to have such contempt for his people - the people he works for?

Water John

If the third woman is to be believed, Kavanaugh is toast, retiring from public life. Avenatti has form and originally gobsmacked at his claims re: Stormy Daniels, he has been accurate. His questions to the Senate Committee are very pointed and particular. Would not bet against Avenatti unless he has overreached himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/24/brett-kavanaugh-third-woman-expected-to-make-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct

jooksavage

Water John wrote: »

If the third woman is to be believed, Kavanaugh is toast, retiring from public life. Avenatti has form and originally gobsmacked at his claims re: Stormy Daniels, he has been accurate. His questions to the Senate Committee are very pointed and particular. Would not bet against Avenatti unless he has overreached himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/24/brett-kavanaugh-third-woman-expected-to-make-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct

Yeah, that stuff about the "train of men" sounds pretty bad. His old Yale roommate has already come out in support of the second accuser, Ramirez, saying Kavanaugh's reported conduct was consistent with what he saw.

Penn

Water John wrote: »

If the third woman is to be believed, Kavanaugh is toast, retiring from public life. Avenatti has form and originally gobsmacked at his claims re: Stormy Daniels, he has been accurate. His questions to the Senate Committee are very pointed and particular. Would not bet against Avenatti unless he has overreached himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/24/brett-kavanaugh-third-woman-expected-to-make-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct

Kavanaugh's Yale roommate, who also knew the second woman to accuse Kavanaugh of acting inappropriately, says he believes her, and that Kavanaugh "...was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-believes-allegations-add8ad85-cc53-4e42-88e3-6a36398d6bb0.html

Professor Moriarty

jooksavage wrote: »

Yeah, that stuff about the "train of men" sounds pretty bad. His old Yale roommate has already come out in support of the second accuser, Ramirez, saying Kavanaugh's reported conduct was consistent with what he saw.

He's definitely toast if his roommate is corroborating accusations of sexual misconduct.

pixelburp

Well Kavanaugh has been on Fox defending himself, making what I can only call the 'Seymour Skinner' defence - that he was a virgin throughout (high) school. What a glorious place political discourse finds itself in 2018.

It's a pretty bold move on the face of it but, looking through the lens that this whole debacle is damage control by the Republicans, claims of virginity overlap with other comments, playing himself up as a pious, chaste & god-fearing youth who spent time in school "being captain of the varsity basketball team and doing service projects, going to church".

True or not, there's something uniquely nauseating and disingenuous about any politician that claims piety in their youth. Wish more would step forward and admit "yup, I was an assh*le. Of course I was, who wasn't when they were 18?"

edit: I should add of course, while most of us were assh*les, we just weren't rapey assh*les. Just in case folks think I'm sliding too close to the "boys will be boys" defence of teenage assault.

Pelvis

The Avenatti stuff seems like it might be the straw that broke the camel's back. He said on Rachel Maddow last night his client will come out publicly in the next day or two. I wonder what the thinking behind the delay is?

Water John

Well his roommate has said he was off his face with drink whiles't at Yale so he's definitely now telling porkies.

Captain Obvious

Mark Judge's ex has said he told her about taking part in a train on a drunk woman.

Rasor says that Judge “told her ashamedly” about an incident in which he and other boys took turns having sex with a drunk woman, per The New Yorker. He seemed to think it was consensual, she added, and he didn’t name anyone else who had been involved. There is no indication that Kavanaugh was one of the boys, The New Yorker notes.

Judge's account of his school life appears to be total nonsense.

Captain Obvious

Pelvis wrote: »

The Avenatti stuff seems like it might be the straw that broke the camel's back. He said on Rachel Maddow last night his client will come out publicly in the next day or two. I wonder what the thinking behind the delay is?

Same strat as with Trump. Release something small. Let them lie to dispute it. Release more evidence that shows they just lied about it. Let them lie about that. Release more evidence to show they lied again.

jooksavage

Also, the NY Times are reporting on Kavanaughs high-school yearbook entry where he's described as a "Renate Alumni". This is a reference to a friend of his group called Renate Schroeder who, as it happens, was one of the women who signed a letter attesting to his honorable conduct as a student. Times now reporting that she's furious and regrets vouching for him.

Leroy42

Pelvis wrote: »

The Avenatti stuff seems like it might be the straw that broke the camel's back. He said on Rachel Maddow last night his client will come out publicly in the next day or two. I wonder what the thinking behind the delay is?

Because Avenatti is a pro out keeping the media on his angle. That is why Stormy has proven to be such a problem to Trump. If he releases the story now it will simply be caught up in the Ford story and largely ignored.

He knows that letting the Ford story play out, and then depending on the outcome of the testimony and the reaction of the GOP to it, he may drop another bomb on them.

Trump has met a person that seems as adept at driving the media cycle as he is, probably better.

jooksavage

Pelvis wrote: »

The Avenatti stuff seems like it might be the straw that broke the camel's back. He said on Rachel Maddow last night his client will come out publicly in the next day or two. I wonder what the thinking behind the delay is?

He'll likely drop this bombshell tomorrow night. There won't be enough time for the R senators to coordinate a response in advance of the still-scheduled Thursday hearing.

ECO_Mental

Penn wrote: »

Kavanaugh's Yale roommate, who also knew the second woman to accuse Kavanaugh of acting inappropriately, says he believes her, and that Kavanaugh "...was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-believes-allegations-add8ad85-cc53-4e42-88e3-6a36398d6bb0.html

These frat parties etc in the states were crazy back in the day (and some still are).... especially when you have these entitled upper class idiots thinking they are untouchable because of their daddy etc. its all coming home to roost now though

amandstu

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trickle down economics has never worked in any real life situation.

It's been a disaster in the US where the top 1% now own the majority of the wealth thanks to Reagan's and Bush Jr's massive tax cuts.

Productivity has seen a huge spike but wages have flatlined..if trickle down worked then wages should have seen a big increase



The top 0.1% went from owning 7% of total wealth in the us in 1980 to 22% of all wealth by 2012



You can the effect the Reagan and Bush tax cuts have had here especially in comparison to the EU nations where wealth distribution hasn't changed that much since 1980

I wonder if there is a corresponding chart that lists comparative spending by the different social groups.

FrostyJack

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Same strat as with Trump. Release something small. Let them lie to dispute it. Release more evidence that shows they just lied about it. Let them lie about that. Release more evidence to show they lied again.

This is the same strategy the Russians, ahem I mean wikileaks released the emails from Podesta, just keep them in the news in drips. So it is fire with fire. I am just glad Avenatti is on the right side of this, imagine if he worked for Trump

seamus

listermint wrote: »

Wonder if fox news ran with these kinds of daily stats what we'd see

We'd see it spun in the same way - "look at these ingrates who don't work hard enough".

Part of what makes the US conservatives powerful among the poor is that they've successfully convinced them that others are to blame.

Wages are going down because immigrants are taking your jobs and companies are outsourcing their labour to other countries.

The companies aren't to blame, this is just what they do, it's them immigrants and foreigners. The wealthy guy is your friend, he wants to help you, but he can't with all this cheap labour floating around.

It's the old joke of a rich man, a poor man and a foreigner walk into a bar. The barman puts ten pints on the counter. The rich man immediately takes 8 of them, then whispers to the poor man, "Watch out for the foreigner, he wants to take your pint".

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

This should go without saying, but it seems some people need a reminder:

Boards.ie General Rules

The following are prohibited under Boards.ie general standing rules.

1. Advertising
2. Racism
3. Porn
4. Copyrighted Material

Further information can be found here.

One post carded and deleted. Two more quoting it were also deleted.

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

It's the old joke of a rich man, a poor man and a foreigner walk into a bar. The barman puts ten pints on the counter. The rich man immediately takes 8 of them, then whispers to the poor man, "Watch out for the foreigner, he wants to take your pint".

It like the latest musing from Bezos. That he will donate money to a fund to help poor people.

As many have said, he could just give all his workers a pay rise. But of course that wouldn't bring any headlines, wouldn't win him any "Man of the year" awards.

So Bezos will now be lauded as someone that is out there helping people, when in reality he made his money out the backs of underpaying others (not taking away from his business ideas or acumen).

listermint

amandstu wrote: »

I wonder if there is a corresponding chart that lists comparative spending by the different social groups.

Would it matter 1% cant spend as much as 99% in the real economy. They spend alot of money trying ti circumvent tax laws and most efficient ways to keep their money out of the real economy.

Any investments are indirect. With more wealth spread everyone benefits including the actual economy and tax base.

amandstu

listermint wrote: »

Would it matter 1% cant spend as much as 99% in the real economy. They spend alot of money trying ti circumvent tax laws and most efficient ways to keep their money out of the real economy.

Any investments are indirect. With more wealth spread everyone benefits including the actual economy and tax base.

Might it be possible to force holders of large amounts of wealth to keep it in such a way that it is available to be borrowed by other groups?

Would that also provide stability to the economy?(are there large stores that are effectively "just lying there" in an unproductive way?)

Maybe this is academic as there seems to be countless forms of "money" these days (far beyond my comprehension ,but didn't these questions come to the fore in our last crash/national bankruptcy?)

VonZan

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trickle down economics has never worked in any real life situation.

It's been a disaster in the US where the top 1% now own the majority of the wealth thanks to Reagan's and Bush Jr's massive tax cuts.

Productivity has seen a huge spike but wages have flatlined..if trickle down worked then wages should have seen a big increase



The top 0.1% went from owning 7% of total wealth in the us in 1980 to 22% of all wealth by 2012



You can the effect the Reagan and Bush tax cuts have had here especially in comparison to the EU nations where wealth distribution hasn't changed that much since 1980

Trickle down economics clearly works. Let's not confuse the issue. The standard of living in most countries has risen massiveky over the last century thanks to trickle down economics. Sure trickle down economics causes massive wealth disparity but that is down to tax law which is too low for any meaningful transfer of wealth to happen.

Also, the problem in tackling this issue has been seen in this country where many companies wash their profits through these shores and poorly regulated economies and tax havens allow people to easily transfer wealth to themselves, tax free through the Isle of Man, Panama, Puerto Rico etc.

What is your alternative to trickle down economics? And how do you generate money in a system where there is no incentive to do so?

Dohnjoe

amandstu wrote: »

Might it be possible to force holders of large amounts of wealth to keep it in such a way that it is available to be borrowed by other groups?

I know this is off-topic but it's an interesting subject (maybe create another thread?)

But in reply to this part, most high-net-worth individuals hold their wealth tied up in investments, assets, land (not cash)

Christy42

VonZan wrote: »

rossie1977 wrote: »

Trickle down economics has never worked in any real life situation.

It's been a disaster in the US where the top 1% now own the majority of the wealth thanks to Reagan's and Bush Jr's massive tax cuts.

Productivity has seen a huge spike but wages have flatlined..if trickle down worked then wages should have seen a big increase



The top 0.1% went from owning 7% of total wealth in the us in 1980 to 22% of all wealth by 2012



You can the effect the Reagan and Bush tax cuts have had here especially in comparison to the EU nations where wealth distribution hasn't changed that much since 1980

Trickle down economics clearly works. Let's not confuse the issue. The standard of living in most countries has risen massiveky over the last century thanks to trickle down economics. Sure trickle down economics causes massive wealth disparity but that is down to tax law which is too low for any meaningful transfer of wealth to happen.

Also, the problem in tackling this issue has been seen in this country where many companies wash their profits through these shores and poorly regulated economies and tax havens allow people to easily transfer wealth to themselves, tax free through the Isle of Man, Panama, Puerto Rico etc.

What is your alternative to trickle down economics? And how do you generate money in a system where there is no incentive to do so?

You provide zero evidence that trickle down economics is responsible for any of this.

Largely I would say the explosion of the tech industry has been the main driver. Shockingly there is still incentive to generate wealth without bottomed out tax rates as you still get more money in this case. Wealth generation has happened in countries with high tax rates and therefore trickle down can't be the main reason for an increased standard of living.

Similarly worker laws and social benefit schemes such as free education across a lot of Europe has had a massive effect here.

Trickle down economics is not the only thing to have been done over the past century and so giving it credit for everything is a bit silly. Indeed many first world countries have stayed largely away from it such as Scandinavia which have massive tax rates in comparison.

mcmoustache

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I know this is off-topic but it's an interesting subject (maybe create another thread?)

Certainly worth a thread in my opinion.

Eric Cartman

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I know this is off-topic but it's an interesting subject (maybe create another thread?)

But in reply to this part, most high-net-worth individuals hold their wealth tied up in investments, assets, land (not cash)

Investments in terms of rental properties, commercial real estate , funding for startups and other businesses and backing bank finances, so it does help others...

Dohnjoe

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Investments in terms of rental properties, commercial real estate , funding for startups and other businesses and backing bank finances, so it does help others...

Yup, it was in reference to a comment about wealth being "commandeered" for national purposes (like it was liquid cash laying around doing nothing much, which is obviously not the case)

everlast75

FWIW, I am getting pretty tired of other Dems snipping at Avenatti. That kind of infighting only helps Trump et al.

It is hard to argue that he has taken the fight to Trump and Cohen and kicked both their asses.

I am delighted he is in the mix now, representing one of the alleged victims. His assertion that to remain mute is to allow Kavanaugh and the Reps control the narrative, is in my view, completely spot on (See Kavanaugh getting pitched soft ball questions on Fox for example).
He was on Maddow last night and will have the name of the new accuser before Thursday. Anything to ramp up the pressure on the Reps to get the FBI involved.

I know he has been critical of Dems in the past, and he should pipe down on that too, but he was right re Harris in teeing up a question at the hearing and not bringing it home. He has backed up what he alleged every time.