Man , W Bush was the worst US president we ever had.. Just hate that guy and unfortunately he was from my home state Texas. But in 2004 he was a wartime president and the US supported their leader in war and he abused that authority . They realized it after that it was totally misplaced and it showed in the 2008 Obama win when Obama even won the traditional red states and handed McCain a hammering. And Trump hammered Jeb Bush on that in the 2016 primaries and finished the Bush chapter for which I am grateful
-
Contact the PP Team
Donald Trump to debate with Kamala Harris before the US Presidential Elections 2024
- Thread starter The Bald Eagle
- Start date
DeadlyVenom
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Runs
- 22,923
- Post of the Week
- 1
Trump and Kushner started the disaster of normalisation and moving the embassy to Jerusalem. In the past few months he has made more outlandish comments about Israel and Palestine.
Its a matter of who's gonna outdo each other Harris or Trump. Semantics . But honestly , the ME doesnt even register with US public for the elections. It's just a TV debate question which has no impact on the polls
rpant_gabba
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 1,558
He won 2016 thanks to Bernie and his dumbass ego.
Benie was on a burn it down mode. Personnally know quite a few bernie clowns who changed their tune by 2018
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2023
- Runs
- 15,255
Trump: No more debates with Kamala Harris
Republican nominee Donald Trump said on Thursday he would not participate in another presidential debate against Kamala Harris ahead of the Nov. 5 election, after several polls showed his Democratic rival won their debate earlier this week.
"THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!" the former president wrote on social media site Truth Social. Trump had participated in a debate against President Joe Biden in June before his debate against Harris on Tuesday.
Although Trump touted his performance on Tuesday against Harris, six Republican donors and three Trump advisers who spoke to Reuters earlier this week said they thought Harris had won the debate largely because Trump was unable to stay on message.
The debate attracted 67.1 million television viewers, according to Nielsen data.
Republican nominee Donald Trump said on Thursday he would not participate in another presidential debate against Kamala Harris ahead of the Nov. 5 election, after several polls showed his Democratic rival won their debate earlier this week.
"THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!" the former president wrote on social media site Truth Social. Trump had participated in a debate against President Joe Biden in June before his debate against Harris on Tuesday.
Although Trump touted his performance on Tuesday against Harris, six Republican donors and three Trump advisers who spoke to Reuters earlier this week said they thought Harris had won the debate largely because Trump was unable to stay on message.
The debate attracted 67.1 million television viewers, according to Nielsen data.
HalBass9
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2024
- Runs
- 775
If the individual who takes pride in pretending to have authored The Art of the Deal is so easily baited by someone unqualified to be President, then he has no business running for the presidency of the United States.
I believe it was good Trump won in 2016 bcos the Dems were going too far left. He moved both the parties policies towards the center. China tarriffs - Dems were dead against it in 2016 with the free trade approach but now both parties agree its good and Biden didnt repeal them. Getting back manufacturing to US from Mexico , China etc.. Tough to get back enmasse but atleast had the convo going and Dems too are supportive of this in principle. Renegotiating nafta. Bonus tax depreciation. And removed fracking as a dirty word to the point where Harris says she supports fracking now - a huge boost to the US oil industry especially Texas, PA and North Dakota. Engaged in US adversaries like Russia, N Korea etc which a normal US president could never have done. Got the Abrahamic records signed. Then got too sidelined into the extreme right wing barrel hole nonsense and completely lost track and the power got to his head. Then Covid happened and he totally went bat s crazy. And been on a downward spiral ever since. And then the Jan6th riot, the fraud stolen election claims was totally inexcusable and the Reps instead of castigating him stayed quiet and let him do what he wanted. It should be a catastrohic loss for the Reps in 2024 for a complete reset and for trump to be totally thrown out of US politics forever.
Agree that they only checked Trump. But it was not even fact checking , it was so blatant it was reality checking bcos they were such crazy claims. 1. No baby is killed after being born - thats actually murder. 2. No one's eating cats and dogs. 3. Nobody stole the 2020 election - Trump lost fair and square period
And full disclosure. I voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020. But facts are facts . And he's an unfit, thuggish and dangerous person to be running for presidency, a convicted felon infact.
Red-Indian
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2024
- Runs
- 1,570
I agree with a lot of your points. I've always been economically/fiscally conservative and socially liberal and while I've never had the chance to vote in American elections, it's been tricky where to vote in India because of this dichotomy.
The issue is that economically conservative ideas work but are typically tough to sell. The Republicans were in such a state of disarray after Bush and Obama that they had to sell their soul to the devil that is Trump to win again.
I agree that more than enough has been done to pull the States economically rightwards again. Biden's administration has been about conservative as I could wish for - no big social schemes, pulling out of Afghanistan, resisting entering into any new ones. The issue is that too much has been done to pull the country socially rightwards.
The States can definitely afford Kamala to continue the current path economically and pull back a little socially. She's pretty much a talking doll anyway and will follow any policy that sells.
A catastrophic loss though is extremely unlikely unless Trump implodes or has a heart attack. In general, a close win is better to keep the winner realistic. Hopefully, the Dems get that.
Agree to the T. The country overall is socially liberal and that includes Republicans. I live in the reddest of counties and congressional districts in Texas and I would say socially its still pretty liberal and its true nationwide as well . Its just the extreme fringe right that tries to dictate and the Reps are scared of losing them as elections are so so tight nowadays. And abortion ban is unpopular among Republicans as well. Hugely unpopular actually. Dont know if Reps understand the anger against it. A catastrophic loss unlikely as is, I believe is the only way to totally get Trump out forever bcos then the backlash from the Reps will be very severe. But if its a close one then expect Trump to do the same nonsense like 2020 - fraud stolen election, not conceding etc. And heaven forbid , he decides to then run again in 2028 bcos he was "cheated" in the 2024 election.
Just need a total reset that way and the country can go back to the norm by 2028 by which time hopefully better Rep candidates emerge hopefully not JD Vance or Ron Desantis..
Loomer is a crazy loony tune who craves publicity. She is despised even amongst Republicans who kinda banned her. Her controversial statements :
She actually called for Kellyanne Conway’s daughter to hang herself.
She was banned from the ridesharing apps Uber and Lyft for publicly complaining that she “couldn't find a non Muslim cab” or driver. -- If this an Islamic nation , there would be screams of blasphemy and a fatwa already out
She was banned from Twitter
She has tried to build a brand as the “most banned woman in the world,
If you want more info on her - here's the link - read and enjoy !!
:Lindsey Graham Joins MAGA Civil War With Hit on Laura Loomer
He joins Marjorie Taylor Greene in criticizing the far-right influencer and 9/11 truther, who was seen traveling with the former president to recent events.
www.thedailybeast.com
DeadlyVenom
Senior ODI Player
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Runs
- 22,923
- Post of the Week
- 1
It's a shame that these toxic people are what trump is surrounding himself with. To speak about a presidential candidate in such a way is just low behavior.Loomer is a crazy loony tune who craves publicity. She is despised even amongst Republicans who kinda banned her. Her controversial statements :
She actually called for Kellyanne Conway’s daughter to hang herself.
She was banned from the ridesharing apps Uber and Lyft for publicly complaining that she “couldn't find a non Muslim cab” or driver. -- If this an Islamic nation , there would be screams of blasphemy and a fatwa already out
She was banned from Twitter
She has tried to build a brand as the “most banned woman in the world,
If you want more info on her - here's the link - read and enjoy !!
Lindsey Graham Joins MAGA Civil War With Hit on Laura Loomer
He joins Marjorie Taylor Greene in criticizing the far-right influencer and 9/11 truther, who was seen traveling with the former president to recent events.www.thedailybeast.com
HalBass9
Tape Ball Star
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2024
- Runs
- 775
Trump continues to rely on the same talking points and rhetoric, but as Deltexas has clearly highlighted, this approach is unlikely to succeed. His actions regarding Roe v. Wade and other reproductive laws, particularly targeting women’s rights, have alienated many. Regardless of political affiliation, whether Republican or Democrat, such policies often generate significant opposition to a candidate. There was no need for him to intervene in Roe v. Wade, and there's a reason most presidents have refrained from addressing after getting elected.
JaDed
Test Star
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Runs
- 36,025
Insane Kamala might actually be the first Woman US prez my God, lol.
In all honesty since DNC , Democrats have been on a roll, Trump got smacked in the Debate as well and Republicans blaming the moderators sound salty as hell.
In all honesty since DNC , Democrats have been on a roll, Trump got smacked in the Debate as well and Republicans blaming the moderators sound salty as hell.
JaDed
Test Star
- Joined
- May 5, 2014
- Runs
- 36,025
Democratic candidates have equally been duds too, Elizabeth seems like the dim wit of Europe that have stagnated the economy there.
LOL ! Elizabeth Warren and Bernie are like free everything ! I mean somebody has to pay for that free tuition or free college - teachers and staff salaries, building rent and maintenance , insurance , utility bills etc etc. Whos gonna pay ? Tax the rich , tax the rich is their solution. How much can you tax them? Even if you tax all the billionaires 100% it will only be about 1-2% of the deficit.. And Obama is on tape agreeing to this sometime in 2008 or 2012. And then we had that Bloomberg guy. Warren ripped him so bad on misogyny that he quit right after. And Butegeg's qualification was he would be the first gay president of the US - policies be damned. No wonder a geriatric Biden beat all of them in 2020 Dem primaries.
rpant_gabba
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 1,558
who paid for the bailouts in 2008?LOL ! Elizabeth Warren and Bernie are like free everything ! I mean somebody has to pay for that free tuition or free college - teachers and staff salaries, building rent and maintenance , insurance , utility bills etc etc. Whos gonna pay ? Tax the rich , tax the rich is their solution. How much can you tax them? Even if you tax all the billionaires 100% it will only be about 1-2% of the deficit.. And Obama is on tape agreeing to this sometime in 2008 or 2012. And then we had that Bloomberg guy. Warren ripped him so bad on misogyny that he quit right after. And Butegeg's qualification was he would be the first gay president of the US - policies be damned. No wonder a geriatric Biden beat all of them in 2020 Dem primaries.
While you might have followed elections from 1992, i seriously question you economics IQ.
The current american set up that you enjoy is result of the New Deal.
Reagan tried his very best to f'it during teh 80's and George senior paid for it.
Do you want to know who fixed it? hint: not conservatives.
Want to know what the conservatives pulled off? the 2008 crash combined with ruining America's credibility with WMD story.
Obama had a rebublican congress for 6 years of his 8 year term doing the very best to f things up.
If anyone honestly thinks Trump in 2016 was a good thing, I seriously think they need to read more or get a CPU upgrade.
rpant_gabba
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 1,558
can you explain the 2008 disaster? you know after 8 years of conservative policie
or maybe the New Deal and why it was sucessful after conservative messed up during teh great depression?
Once we are done with that, we will get to Reagan
Last edited by a moderator:
rpant_gabba
Local Club Regular
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2023
- Runs
- 1,558
to the cheerleaders of conservative economic policy, here is from horse's mouth.
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," Alan Greenspan told Congress last week. Greenspan devoted much of his career as Fed chair to fighting the very regulations that might have prevented the 2008 financial meltdown and saved taxpayers $1 trillion; few high-and-mighty persons have ever been discredited more thoroughly. TMQ proposes that in slang, "greenspanning" should mean "putting a pompous dupe in charge of something" while "a greenspan" will mean "a colossal screw-up" and "to greenspan" will mean "to say in full seriousness such utter nonsense you should giggle." Comparisons to Captain Renault being "shocked, shocked" to discover gambling in the casino in Casablanca are not apt, because Renault knew exactly what he was doing. Greenspan, we now learn, had no idea what he was doing. In 2003 Greenspan fought to prevent regulation of credit derivatives, which in 2008 caused the collapse of AIG; in 2004 he fought attempts to impose stricter credit monitoring rules on commercial banks, investment banks and mortgage brokers, saying "the financial system as a whole has become [so] resilient" that a meltdown was impossible. Despite these vastly wrong views, Greenspan was treated reverentially by Congress, the White House and the media as a super-ultra-genius.
"Members of Congress, you made an inexcusable mistake -- you listened to me!"
Greenspan's excuse to Congress last week was that he believed executives of banking and Wall Street firms would not take crazy risks with debt because market forces would pressure them to protect their shareholders. There's a small problem and a big problem with this flimsy excuse. The small problem was that in 1998, Greenspan arranged a bailout of Long Term Capital Management, a hedge fund that took crazy risks in order to run up bonuses for its executives. Market systems respond to incentives, and Greenspan's message to top executives of the financial markets via the LTCM bailout was -- no matter how poorly you perform, there will never be any consequences. Now Greenspan is "shocked" to discover the result was that financial executives took more crazy risks to enrich themselves, confident they personally would never face any consequences. Which, so far, they have not.
The big problem is that Greenspan, the uber-guru of market economics, seems to have little grasp of what actually happens in many modern businesses. According to econ textbooks, top corporate managers are employees of shareholders, serving the shareholders' interest, while boards of directors are the watchdogs that make sure top managers aren't cheating. In well-run companies with corporate-governance standards, this does occur. But Greenspan seemed to think the entire economy operated according to the textbook model, despite extensive evidence (LTCM, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom) that top managers routinely lie to shareholders in order to justify management bonuses. Human beings respond to incentives. Dishonest CEOs realized that if they lied about earnings or took crazy risks, they could use phony numbers to award themselves hundreds of millions of dollars. What they were doing was stealing from shareholders, who would eventually lose equity when the truth was revealed. But by then top managers would have their bags of gold and, experience shows, never be required to give the money back.
The chair of the Federal Reserve had no idea that top executives and fund managers would game the system to their own personal financial benefit? He feels "shocked disbelief" they would care more about stuffing their own pockets than protecting shareholders? And Greenspan's contention that boards of directors should have stopped fraud or crazy risks strains credulity. Well-run companies have active boards of directors, but in many firms, the board is strictly a rubber stamp. Many corporate board members are paid huge sums for virtually no work -- when Lawrence Small was head of the Smithsonian Institution, he earned $89,000 a day for sitting on various corporate boards. Board members know they will be lavished with money only if they are lapdogs who wag their tails for management on cue. If Greenspan had said to Congress, "I was a fool and I apologize," the public might respect that. Instead he greenspanned.
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," Alan Greenspan told Congress last week. Greenspan devoted much of his career as Fed chair to fighting the very regulations that might have prevented the 2008 financial meltdown and saved taxpayers $1 trillion; few high-and-mighty persons have ever been discredited more thoroughly. TMQ proposes that in slang, "greenspanning" should mean "putting a pompous dupe in charge of something" while "a greenspan" will mean "a colossal screw-up" and "to greenspan" will mean "to say in full seriousness such utter nonsense you should giggle." Comparisons to Captain Renault being "shocked, shocked" to discover gambling in the casino in Casablanca are not apt, because Renault knew exactly what he was doing. Greenspan, we now learn, had no idea what he was doing. In 2003 Greenspan fought to prevent regulation of credit derivatives, which in 2008 caused the collapse of AIG; in 2004 he fought attempts to impose stricter credit monitoring rules on commercial banks, investment banks and mortgage brokers, saying "the financial system as a whole has become [so] resilient" that a meltdown was impossible. Despite these vastly wrong views, Greenspan was treated reverentially by Congress, the White House and the media as a super-ultra-genius.
"Members of Congress, you made an inexcusable mistake -- you listened to me!"
Greenspan's excuse to Congress last week was that he believed executives of banking and Wall Street firms would not take crazy risks with debt because market forces would pressure them to protect their shareholders. There's a small problem and a big problem with this flimsy excuse. The small problem was that in 1998, Greenspan arranged a bailout of Long Term Capital Management, a hedge fund that took crazy risks in order to run up bonuses for its executives. Market systems respond to incentives, and Greenspan's message to top executives of the financial markets via the LTCM bailout was -- no matter how poorly you perform, there will never be any consequences. Now Greenspan is "shocked" to discover the result was that financial executives took more crazy risks to enrich themselves, confident they personally would never face any consequences. Which, so far, they have not.
The big problem is that Greenspan, the uber-guru of market economics, seems to have little grasp of what actually happens in many modern businesses. According to econ textbooks, top corporate managers are employees of shareholders, serving the shareholders' interest, while boards of directors are the watchdogs that make sure top managers aren't cheating. In well-run companies with corporate-governance standards, this does occur. But Greenspan seemed to think the entire economy operated according to the textbook model, despite extensive evidence (LTCM, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom) that top managers routinely lie to shareholders in order to justify management bonuses. Human beings respond to incentives. Dishonest CEOs realized that if they lied about earnings or took crazy risks, they could use phony numbers to award themselves hundreds of millions of dollars. What they were doing was stealing from shareholders, who would eventually lose equity when the truth was revealed. But by then top managers would have their bags of gold and, experience shows, never be required to give the money back.
The chair of the Federal Reserve had no idea that top executives and fund managers would game the system to their own personal financial benefit? He feels "shocked disbelief" they would care more about stuffing their own pockets than protecting shareholders? And Greenspan's contention that boards of directors should have stopped fraud or crazy risks strains credulity. Well-run companies have active boards of directors, but in many firms, the board is strictly a rubber stamp. Many corporate board members are paid huge sums for virtually no work -- when Lawrence Small was head of the Smithsonian Institution, he earned $89,000 a day for sitting on various corporate boards. Board members know they will be lavished with money only if they are lapdogs who wag their tails for management on cue. If Greenspan had said to Congress, "I was a fool and I apologize," the public might respect that. Instead he greenspanned.
Similar threads
- Poll
