The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
GiddyUp said:
Hasn't the last 50 years shown us that Republicans are shit at being President. Outside of Bush 1 who had his own problems they have left a trail of crimes, death, hate and lunacy with at least 80% of the national debt attributed to Reagan and Bush 2. Clinton also had fecked policies (DOMA, DADT and Glass/Steigal) as did Obama and Carter but I really feel that if this country persevered with Dems in the Oval Office for at least 4 terms and a sane mixture of slim majorities between the two parties in congress the republican mantra of greed and death could be eradicated.
They have sown a seed of pure hatred in their districts towards any progressive minded people. Child molesters are now more preferable to, by all accounts a gentleman, than a democrat. The tax policy that just passed has been tried and tested in Kansas and has decimated the state financially. The environmental policy they want is alive and well in Oklahoma and produces hundreds of earthquakes a year. Their carelessness towards the health of citizens by rejecting science, eliminating their right to elected representation and greed poisoned thousands of people in Flint. The governor of Maine has said on national tv that he would like to shoot and kill a reporter that criticized him. Assault and threats of assault towards journalists is becoming common to conservatives while they wallow in a so fecking obvious propaganda network and a National Enquirer level of paranoia with wild accusations. Facts, science and civil decorum has become the enemy to these people and they will totally ignore what their eyes and ears tell them in favor of the word of a liar that has proven to be such for the last 40 years.
They really and truly are the most clear and present danger to the future of the United States. If enacted, there policies would ruin more lives in a day then Islamic terrorism on these shores would in a life time. No matter what anybody says about the United States my observation has been that the values a lot like to preach are hollow with a huge amount of people and underneath lies a bubbling ocean of hatred and "I got mine so feck you". Some of the nicest people I have spoken to over here are cool as can be but talk to them long enough and you will get to an uninformed view defending Trump, neo nazis marching through towns and health and financial policies aimed to feck you over for money. I'm pretty sure we are living through the fall of an empire and like the Greeks and Romans before, idiotic greed and a lot of other shit will bring everything crashing down. Trump maybe the catalyst but this has been rising since Nixon. The US needs to deal with this properly and not let their leaders escape justice again. Nixon should have been prosecuted, the truth about Reagan should be told and Bush/ Cheney should be in fecking jail. Instead we get a hullabaloo over lying about a blow job and a colossal freak out because a black man won the White House.
Click to expand...

It all depends what your definition of shit is. Conservatvies would obviously jab back with a litany of things Dem Presidents have been involved with.
 
GiddyUp said:
Hasn't the last 50 years shown us that Republicans are shit at being President. Outside of Bush 1 who had his own problems they have left a trail of crimes, death, hate and lunacy with at least 80% of the national debt attributed to Reagan and Bush 2. Clinton also had fecked policies (DOMA, DADT and Glass/Steigal) as did Obama and Carter but I really feel that if this country persevered with Dems in the Oval Office for at least 4 terms and a sane mixture of slim majorities between the two parties in congress the republican mantra of greed and death could be eradicated.
Click to expand...
Here is an interesting stat (from Oliver Blanchard, the former Chief Economist of the IMF): between 1948-2012, the average growth rate of GDP under a Republican administration was 2.8% per year. Under a democrat: 3.9%, a difference of 1.1% a year or roughly 4.5% for a full administration. In today's U.S. GDP, that's roughly 0.9 Trillion dollars for a a 4-year term! And I'm not even talking about the compounding effect.

Besides, since 1950, there has been 10 economic recessions in the U.S. Only 1 of them (1980) has started under the watch of a Democrat. The other 9 started with a Republican in the WH. Of course, the 2001 recession started right after Bush took office and should be under the Clinton column (to make it 8-2), and some might want to blame Carter for the 1981 recession (not sure, but even then it will be 7-3).

There absolutely no proof that Republican presidents are better for economic growth. Of course, the party controlling congress can play a role, but we had GOP presidents with Dem-controlled congress, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
ManUtd1999 said:
Here is an interesting stat (from Oliver Blanchard, the former Chief Economist of the IMF): between 1948-2012, the average growth rate of GDP under a Republican administration was 2.8% per year. Under a democrat: 3.9%, a difference of 1.1% a year or roughly 4.5% for a full administration. In today's U.S. GDP, that's roughly 0.9 Trillion dollars for a a 4-year term! And I'm not even talking about the compounding effect.

Besides, since 1950, there has been 10 economic recessions in the U.S. Only 1 of them (1980) has started under the watch of a Democrat. The other 9 started with a Republican in the WH. Of course, the 2001 recession started right after Bush took office and should be under the Clinton column (to make it 8-2), and some might want to blame Carter for the 1981 recession (not sure, but even then it will be 7-3).

There absolutely no proof that Republican presidents are better for economic growth.
Click to expand...

Its tricky though since the 81 recession had a more global cause than some other recessions from the ripples from the energy crisis and Iranian revolution of 1979.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Its tricky though since the 81 recession had a more global cause than some other recessions from the ripples from the energy crisis and Iranian revolution of 1979.
Click to expand...
I know, and that's why I had a caveat there. In the end, even after accounting for that and for the 2001 recession, still more recessions occur under Republicans.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Here is an interesting stat (from Oliver Blanchard, the former Chief Economist of the IMF): between 1948-2012, the average growth rate of GDP under a Republican administration was 2.8% per year. Under a democrat: 3.9%, a difference of 1.1% a year or roughly 4.5% for a full administration. In today's U.S. GDP, that's roughly 0.9 Trillion dollars for a a 4-year term! And I'm not even talking about the compounding effect.

Besides, since 1950, there has been 10 economic recessions in the U.S. Only 1 of them (1980) has started under the watch of a Democrat. The other 9 started with a Republican in the WH. Of course, the 2001 recession started right after Bush took office and should be under the Clinton column (to make it 8-2), and some might want to blame Carter for the 1981 recession (not sure, but even then it will be 7-3).

There absolutely no proof that Republican presidents are better for economic growth. Of course, the party controlling congress can play a role, but we had GOP presidents with Dem-controlled congress, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

There was an interactive tool showing that this can be made to show anything based on which metric of the economy is used and which metric of power is used (unemployment, inflation, or GDP growth, president, house, or senate)
 
Trump has now officially endorsed Moore's campaign via a phone call :mad:

Not exactly a shock as he's previously been indirectly supporting Moore by bashing Doug Jones. Despicable stuff.
 
Shagging kids is now absolutely fine apparently. If it's good enough for the President it's good enough for you.
 
berbatrick said:
There was an interactive tool showing that this can be made to show anything based on which metric of the economy is used and which metric of power is used (unemployment, inflation, or GDP growth, president, house, or senate)
Click to expand...
First, please share a link.

Second, please visit this site: http://presidentialdata.org/

Average real GDP growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 3.75%
Average real GDP growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.6%

Average unemployment per year during Democratic Presidents: 5.27%
Average unemployment per year during Republican Presidents: 6.24%

Democratic Presidents’ annual spending increased by an average of $25.3 billion per year
Republican Presidents’ annual spending increased by an average of $70 billion per year

Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Democratic Presidents: +1.92%
Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Republican Presidents: +0.64%

Democratic Presidents’ annual deficits averaged 2.37% of GDP
Republican Presidents’ annual deficits averaged 3.88% of GDP

Total trade deficit under Democratic Administrations (in millions): $4,198,231
Total trade deficit under Republican Administrations (in millions): $5,844,269

If these are more or less the numbers, then the picture is clear!
 
At least we know Moore won't win then.

Trump's endorsement is a death knell for any campaign.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
First, please share a link.

Second, please visit this site: http://presidentialdata.org/

Average real GDP growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 3.75%
Average real GDP growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.6%

Average unemployment per year during Democratic Presidents: 5.27%
Average unemployment per year during Republican Presidents: 6.24%

Democratic Presidents’ annual spending increased by an average of $25.3 billion per year
Republican Presidents’ annual spending increased by an average of $70 billion per year

Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Democratic Presidents: +1.92%
Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Republican Presidents: +0.64%

Democratic Presidents’ annual deficits averaged 2.37% of GDP
Republican Presidents’ annual deficits averaged 3.88% of GDP

Total trade deficit under Democratic Administrations (in millions): $4,198,231
Total trade deficit under Republican Administrations (in millions): $5,844,269

If these are more or less the numbers, then the picture is clear!
Click to expand...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/

Edit: to be fair, most of the options that I've tired seem to suggest that whatever the combinations you sue, Dems do a better job.
 
Last edited:
Rado_N said:
In Alabama they could literally watch their lord descend from the heavens and endorse the Dem candidate and they'd vote Republican.
Click to expand...

"That was a fake Jesus. He looked like he was from the Middle East!"
 
ManUtd1999 said:
The culture of debt started indeed during his tenure:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

But it wasn't just tax cuts-- spending during his time in office reached 25% of GDP!
Click to expand...

It's how Reagan won the cold war. By out borrowing the USSR into financial ruin. The USSR never had access to the level of credit that the USA did, to the extent that the USSR was basically a cash economy (how ironic), they could only spend/invest what they actually had. The US ramped up spending to a level the USSR had no hope of matching, but they tried, and their economy imploded.
 
Dan said:
“Acid washed” :lol: that’s not even a thing.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is, it's a thing from the 80's where you basically intentionally spilled bleach on jeans to ruin them, cause it was the fashion at the time. The process was called "acid washing".

Still, he doesn't know wtf he is talking about!
 
Nucks said:
Actually, it is, it's a thing from the 80's where you basically intentionally spilled bleach on jeans to ruin them, cause it was the fashion at the time. The process was called "acid washing".

Still, he doesn't know wtf he is talking about!
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, I had a pair.
 
Nucks said:
Wha, what's tatters, precious?!

He probably meant taters, you know, boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew, POE TAY TOES.
Click to expand...
Served with butter emails.
 
Nucks said:
It's how Reagan won the cold war. By out borrowing the USSR into financial ruin. The USSR never had access to the level of credit that the USA did, to the extent that the USSR was basically a cash economy (how ironic), they could only spend/invest what they actually had. The US ramped up spending to a level the USSR had no hope of matching, but they tried, and their economy imploded.
Click to expand...
They way you put it, it appears that USSR were otherwise equal in GDP and the only difference was the ability to borrow? Couldn't be further from the truth.
 
Adisa said:
I think America isn't returning from this.
Click to expand...

Suppose it depends what twists and turns that are yet to come, but yeah, seems pretty significant. The President openly endorsing an alleged abuser with several allegations him - whilst of course being one himself.
 
Cheesy said:
Suppose it depends what twists and turns that are yet to come, but yeah, seems pretty significant. The President openly endorsing an alleged abuser with several allegations him - whilst of course being one himself.
Click to expand...
Imagine a British PM coming out in defence of Saville? :lol:
 
Adisa said:
Imagine a British PM coming out in defence of Saville? :lol:
Click to expand...

Imagine the British PM being Saville! An old, creepy, senile TV personality assuming the top job...seems about similar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.