Is Trump trying to destroy the US economy ?

[Tatetopa]

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

 the Mongols trashed China before kicking Rome’s ass.

Well actually, Genghis Khan was born in 1162 long after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Golden Age of China.  Then the Mongols became China. and they still didn't care about Rome.

The Eastern Roman Empire outlasted the Mongols by a couple hundred years, but was sacked by the 4th Crusade (not Mongols) in the 1200's .  It was the Turks that ended it I believe.

[Tatetopa]

On 9/4/2019 at 7:19 AM, hacktorp said:

The "blundering buffoon" narrative is propaganda pablum for the gullible masses. Don't be one of those.

The stable genius narrative keeps the loyal quiet while the Kool Aid is being served.

[Tatetopa]

On 9/13/2019 at 9:31 AM, Doug1o29 said:

Commercial air travel:  any kind of air travel burns an awful lot of fuel to get people where they're going.  Bullet trains could get most of them there as fast without burning all that fuel.

There are other alternatives as well.  I began to hate business travel, crowded flights, crowded airports, declining service all for a  two hour meeting.  My former employer put in video conferencing equipment in most of our plants.  Its a lot more fun to sit in a comfortable chair drink coffee, and get business done in two hours without the two day travel hassle.  It saved the company a ton of money too.  I used to make trips to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Rosemead Ca. and East Hartford Conn. every month or so.   The only ones I missed  were the yearly trips to France.

Computer conferencing and seminars work great too.   We don't need to move our bodies to to communicate over distance anymore.  Save your flights for vacations and family travel  and the absolutely necessary.

[Guest]

On 9/4/2019 at 6:12 PM, OverSword said:

LOL!!!  What?  I don't know about the rest of you but I thought hell would be a lot worse than this.  

Good thing he inherited a lot of things from Obama.

Doug

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

There's a lot more I could ask in this interesting discussion, but where do you envisage the electric coming from for these, assuming that the demand for domestic power is likely to continue to increase? Besides, there's a point where trains, no matter how fast, just reach a limit where they'd be effective. I mean, New York to Los Angeles; even at 300 km/h (the typical speed of high speed trains in Europe), will still take over 24 hours.

Wind turbines, solar, hydro-electric, some geothermal.  Maybe a few fast-breeders and a few gas-fired plants.  We are supplying close to 8% of our power from about 60,000 wind turbines.  We need to add another 180,000 before we can start converting to universal electric heat.  We can probably start electrifying railraods again (The Milwaukee Road and Seaboard are partly-electric now) when wind turbines are able to supply about half our power needs (360,000 wind mills).  For wind to do it alone would take about 720,000 wind turbines.  BUT:  current wind turbines are 225 Mw.  I suspect we'll be seeing 500 Mw ones pretty soon.

So how about teleconferencing?  That's instantaneous - and takes less power.  And I can drive to any location within a day's driving almost as fast as I can fly it, use far less fuel and have the convenience of my own vehicle when I get there.

Doug

[Guest]

On 9/13/2019 at 11:50 AM, aztek said:

give it up if you want to, but it is not your place to tell someone they have to give it up,   you are infringing on someones freedom

and one second before rape, a person is not a rapist,  who is to say you will not be raping anyone in future? you have the tool . 

we do not keep you safe.  it is not our job,  we protect ourselves, it is UP TO YOU to keep yourself safe, but if by doing that you want to take my guns my means of protecting myself,, then we have a huge problem here, the way i see it you ARE a threat to me,

I'm not telling anybody they have to give up red meat.  America is pretty good at getting people to do something without telling them they have to.  Nobody told you you couldn't use sulfur matches.  But the tax on sulfur encourages manufacturers to use other things.  You can still use sulfur matches if you make your own.  You can still sell them if somebody will buy them.

On the subject of red meat:  raising the grain allotment will divert grain away from feedlots, raising the price of beef.  Requiring feedlots to install sanitary systems will also raise the price.  So maintain your freedom and pay the price.  It's not about what one person does.  It's about what millions of them do.

 

Australia had very good luck with a voluntary buy-back program.  It reduced the number of gun deaths.  Why are we not talking of this as a starting point?  Where's the money coming from?  Why not taxes on firearms and ammunition?

Why are gun owners so bent on killing their husbands/wives/friends/neighbors?  One hunter killed another one in an argument over who got to sit next to the door.  A guy I know had the same accident three times:  he leaned his gun against a fence while he climbed over it.  The gun fell down and shot a buddy.  Three times!  Another guy I used to know shot himself three times, all accidents.  He finally died of natural causes.  I have been shot at, but not hit, three times.  My grandfather was hit while mowing his lawn.  My other grandfather's cow was shot.  When I encounter a hunter out in the woods, the odds are that he does not have permission from the landowner to be there.  He is already breaking the law and I could shoot him in self defense and it would be his fault.  We need to overhaul our gun laws.

If you think you need a gun to go up against the US govt, you are mentally unfit to own a gun.  I would not want to face one squad of Marines, let alone a whole army.

Nobody is going to knock on your door and take your gun.  If the govt really wants your AK-47, they'll wait until you're driving down the highway and fail to stop at a traffic light.  At that point, they can take your gun.  tRUMP has the authority to seize privately-owned weapons right now.  The Patriot Act gives him that authority, as it did Bush and Obama.  All he has to do is declare that carrying a gun indicates that you are a terrorist.  At that point, you can be arrested, held incommunicado and without trial.  That's why we need to repeal the Patriot Act before somebody decides to use it.

I don't propose taking anybody's gun.  Self-defense is a legitimate reason to won a gun.  Even the USSR allowed citizens to own guns - they did a better job of regulating it, though.

The bottom line:  guns DO kill people.  Because people can't control their guns.

Doug

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Not the second time. The impact on their economy stunned them. They need to export to us more than we need to export to them. As the chief consumer nation, we can import from some where else. As the major exporter, their options are limited. Trump isn't playing chess with them; more like a game of high stakes poker.

More like whack-a-mole.

Doug

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Good thing he inherited a lot of things from Obama.

Doug

It is a GREAT thing he inherited a lot of things from Obama...gave him a real chance to turn the country around by dissolving about 90% of Obama's agenda.

24 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Why are gun owners so bent on killing their husbands/wives/friends/neighbors? 

Good God Man!  That's just  too incredibly   S  T  U  P  I  D  !!

If stupidity was outlawed you would be in a gulag for that sentence.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, joc said:

Good God Man!  That's just  too incredibly   S  T  U  P  I  D  !!

Most gun deaths involve a husband or wife grabbing a conveniet fire arm and pulling the trigger.  It frequently includes alcohol.  But those aren't the ones we hear about.  They don't sell newspapers.

Most gun deaths are also about one gun owner shooting another one.  Non-gun owners don't have the means of killing somebdy with a gun.  It's gun owners who do that.  Duh!

That one about the hunter killing his buddy about who sat next to the window:  I'm sure he was immediately horrified by what he had done.  But that didn't keep him from doing it.  It was called a "hunting accident" and happened near Pagosa Springs, CO in 1983.  THAT was what I'd call stupid.

So what is so stupid about wanting to limit the carnage?  Just why do gun owners want to maintain the laws that let people kill each other for no reason?  What do they have against school children?

Doug

P.S.:  Just exactly why do you think guns should NOT be outlawed?  What is your justification for all the murders?

Doug

Edited September 14, 2019 by Doug1o29

[+joc]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

Most gun deaths involve a husband or wife grabbing a conveniet fire arm and pulling the trigger.  It frequently includes alcohol.  But those aren't the ones we hear about.  They don't sell newspapers.

Most gun deaths are also about one gun owner shooting another one.  Non-gun owners don't have the means of killing somebdy with a gun.  It's gun owners who do that.  Duh!

That one about the hunter killing his buddy about who sat next to the window:  I'm sure he was immediately horrified by what he had done.  But that didn't keep him from doing it.  It was called a "hunting accident" and happened near Pagosa Springs, CO in 1983.  THAT was what I'd call stupid.

So what is so stupid about wanting to limit the carnage?  Just why do gun owners want to maintain the laws that let people kill each other for no reason?  What do they have against school children?

Doug

Statistics prove that the vast majority of people killed in airplane crashes were actually 'on board' the plane!  Woah!  Now that's heavy...almost as heavy as only those who have guns kill with guns.  Stupid! 

The truth Dougy is that the vast majority of gun owners never even point their weapon at another person...much less kill someone!  

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, joc said:

Statistics prove that the vast majority of people killed in airplane crashes were actually 'on board' the plane!  Woah!  Now that's heavy...almost as heavy as only those who have guns kill with guns.  Stupid!

It's stupid, but I have heard gun-rights people try to deny that it isn't so - including my own son-in-law.

40 minutes ago, joc said:

The truth Dougy is that the vast majority of gun owners never even point their weapon at another person...much less kill someone!  

I have no way of knowing whether that's true or not, but there are way too many people out there pointing their guns at people and killing them.

So how do you justify your position on gun control?  What is it that makes killing people in mass murders justifiable to you?

(This is a serious question.  Why do you not want to stop the murders?  If you want to stop them, how do you propose doing it?)

Doug

[+joc]

18 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

So how do you justify your position on gun control?

I don't have a position...I don't think we need gun control.

 

19 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

What is it that makes killing people in mass murders justifiable to you?

That is an insulting and stupid question.

 

20 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Why do you not want to stop the murders? 

Does Insulting and Stupid mean anything to you?

 

21 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

If you want to stop them, how do you propose doing it?

Make Murder a Capital Offense...Stop plea deals and Hang ALL murderers in public in front of the court house they were convicted in within 3 months of their conviction.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, joc said:

I don't have a position...I don't think we need gun control.

Then that's your position.

2 minutes ago, joc said:

That is an insulting and stupid question.

If that's insulting and stupid, but you have no reason for believing that way....  Doesn't sound like you've thought this through.

4 minutes ago, joc said:

Does Insulting and Stupid mean anything to you?

If you don't approve of mass murder, why don't you object to it?  Stand up and say you don't like it.

6 minutes ago, joc said:

Make Murder a Capital Offense...Stop plea deals and Hang ALL murderers in public in front of the court house they were convicted in within 3 months of their conviction.

Mass murder already is a capital offense, at least in most states.  Doesn't seem to deter it, though.

Plea deals are for cases in which the DA doesn't have good enough evidence to ensure conviction.  The accused gets some jail time rather than getting off free.  But look at it from the standpoint of the accused:  if the DA has to go to trial with a very weak case, the accused will probably get off altogether.  That way, we can turn murderers out to try again.  But I agree.  The plea deal system is badly abused.  Innocent people have to plead guilty to things they didn't do to avoid the death sentence or very long prison terms.  There are two sides to this coin.

Public executions didn't work very well in the Middle Ages, on the American frontier or anywhere else that I know of.  It doesn't stop the killings.  There is credible evidence to believe that the murder rate actually goes up after an execution.

Doug

 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, joc said:

That is an insulting and stupid question.

Then why do gun-rights advocates not try to dispel it?  From the standpoint of a gun-control advocate, it certainly looks like you guys support the shootings.

Doug

[+joc]

46 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Then why do gun-rights advocates not try to dispel it?  From the standpoint of a gun-control advocate, it certainly looks like you guys support the shootings.

Doug

Explaining the idiocy of the left is a particularly boring and unfulfilling thing to do...so I don't...look in the mirror and stop asking me stupid questions.

[+joc]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Public executions didn't work very well in the Middle Ages, on the American frontier or anywhere else that I know of.  It doesn't stop the killings.  There is credible evidence to believe that the murder rate actually goes up after an execution.

Complete and total fabrication of truth.

In fact...this entire thread is about as stupid as your questions.  The guy that has brought us an economic recovery never before seen...and he is destroying the economy???

The Left is Stupid...I'll leave it at that...and just leave the thread altogether...I don't tolerate idiocy very well.  

Edited September 14, 2019 by joc

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, joc said:

In fact...this entire thread is about as stupid as your questions.  The guy that has brought us an economic recovery never before seen...and he is destroying the economy???

What have you been smoking?  Or is it the Kool Aid you have been drinking.

You can love President Trump.  He has put a number of conservative judges on the bench.  He is putting a stop to as much immigration as possible.  He may even get some new sections of wall built.   He has gotten rid of a lot of silly regulations about air and water pollution that stood in the way of business growth.  

The economy is not in a recovery as never before.  It was going up for three years before he took office.  It continues to go up.  That is good, but it is not a recovery.  Sadly, Obama is the guy that turned it around after Bush, and did some things that not everybody approved of, like monetary policy and national debt.  President Trump wants to beat Obama at everything and he is sure doing it with the national debt.

You might ask coal miners if he saved coal.  You could ask steel workers if he turned around American steel.  You may even quiz a farmer on current bankruptcy and suicide rates among their friends.  Trump beats Obama there too. If he convinces the FED to lower its interest rate to zero (or less?) we could save billions on the national debt interest, but they would have nothing left as a spur if there really was a recession.  If the president does preside over a real recovery,  it will be in his second term recovering from his own mistakes.

[Space Commander Travis]

10 hours ago, joc said:

In fact...this entire thread is about as stupid as your questions.  The guy that has brought us an economic recovery never before seen...and he is destroying the economy???

So if, as we're asked to believe, an economic miracle has taken place under the command of a giant baby who doesn't have enough patience to read one page of information that's put in front of him and whose sole method of communication is to rage barely comprehensibly on twitter, isn't that an argument for the suggestion that whatever the economy might do, the President has absolutely nothing to do with it whether it goes up, down, or round and round?

[Space Commander Travis]

5 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

He has gotten rid of a lot of silly regulations about air and water pollution that stood in the way of business growth.  

yes, who needs breathable air and Drinkable Water ! They stand in the way of AMERICAN BUSINESS!!  

[+joc]

16 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

So if, as we're asked to believe, an economic miracle has taken place under the command of a giant baby who doesn't have enough patience to read one page of information that's put in front of him and whose sole method of communication is to rage barely comprehensibly on twitter, isn't that an argument for the suggestion that whatever the economy might do, the President has absolutely nothing to do with it whether it goes up, down, or round and round?

If you believe that...there is no point in my even commenting on your incredibly naive and rambling idiotic phrasing of Global Leftist BS talking points.

[+joc]

6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Sadly, Obama is the guy that turned it around after Bush

What have you been smoking? 

[+joc]

the mindset of the Left is so surreal....

  walks away from thread

[DingoLingo]

On 9/14/2019 at 1:49 AM, aztek said:

yea, they call it dark ages for a reason.   

heh that was caused by the rise of christianity

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, joc said:

If you believe that...there is no point in my even commenting on your incredibly naive and rambling idiotic phrasing of Global Leftist BS talking points.

thank you for your very kind words. I'm not sure I can make much sense of it, but I'm sure it was intended as a compliment.

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, joc said:

the mindset of the Left is so surreal....

  walks away from thread

Running off and hiding rather than trying to comprehend how anyone could think of your giant baby of an adored leader as an idiot is not very mature or dignified, you know. In fact, it makes it look as if you're behaving very much like the way your giant baby leader behaves. 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome