ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

I get that you dont like tarrifs, I dont like them much either, but Trump clearly made a trade war with China a major campaign issue.

It was extremely obvious, during the 2016 election, Trump planned to do exactly what he is doing. So why would it hurt him? All of the people who voted for him knew he was going to do this trade war with China, he talked about China trade non stop during the campaign.

"

Khoranth wrote:

I get that you dont like tarrifs, I dont like them much either, but Trump clearly made a trade war with China a major campaign issue.

It was extremely obvious, during the 2016 election, Trump planned to do exactly what he is doing. So why would it hurt him? All of the people who voted for him knew he was going to do this trade war with China, he talked about China trade non stop during the campaign.

So Trump's campaign ad ran something like this

"Hai gais, I'm gonna put tariffs on everything and get hit by retaliatory tariffs as well. Our economy will take a hit, unless I use even more taxpayer money to subsidise farmers and steel/aluminium workers who will be hit by my brilliant twitter trade wars.

Lose-lose-lose.

Who's with me?"


and then you guys actually voted for him?

"

Khoranth wrote:

I get that you dont like tarrifs, I dont like them much either, but Trump clearly made a trade war with China a major campaign issue.

It was extremely obvious, during the 2016 election, Trump planned to do exactly what he is doing. So why would it hurt him? All of the people who voted for him knew he was going to do this trade war with China, he talked about China trade non stop during the campaign.

I'm gonna go and guess these people believed it would mean more money in their pockets, not less.

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

I get that you dont like tarrifs, I dont like them much either, but Trump clearly made a trade war with China a major campaign issue.

It was extremely obvious, during the 2016 election, Trump planned to do exactly what he is doing. So why would it hurt him? All of the people who voted for him knew he was going to do this trade war with China, he talked about China trade non stop during the campaign.

So Trump's campaign ad ran something like this

"Hai gais, I'm gonna put tariffs on everything and get hit by retaliatory tariffs as well. Our economy will take a hit, unless I use even more taxpayer money to subsidise farmers and steel/aluminium workers who will be hit by my brilliant twitter trade wars.

Lose-lose-lose.

Who's with me?"


and then you guys actually voted for him?

Why not?

2 years of Trump is too short to study his economic policies and effects, Trump supporters need to vote for him again in 2020 so economists can study it better.

DO it for s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ economics.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

I get that you dont like tarrifs, I dont like them much either, but Trump clearly made a trade war with China a major campaign issue.

It was extremely obvious, during the 2016 election, Trump planned to do exactly what he is doing. So why would it hurt him? All of the people who voted for him knew he was going to do this trade war with China, he talked about China trade non stop during the campaign.

I'm gonna go and guess these people believed it would mean more money in their pockets, not less.

I'm sure they believe it will be more money in their pockets, in the long run, if Trump wins the war.

The trade war is still going on, and as long as Trump gets any kind of concessions, he will declare himself the winner, and all his supporters will be happy.

So again: how is the trade war going to hurt him? Do any of you people who oppose Trump actually think his supporters will abandon him because he did a trade war with China? Even though he effectively promised to while campaigning?

"

Khoranth wrote:

I'm sure they believe it will be more money in their pockets, in the long run, if Trump wins the war.

The trade war is still going on, and as long as Trump gets any kind of concessions, he will declare himself the winner, and all his supporters will be happy.

So again: how is the trade war going to hurt him? Do any of you people who oppose Trump actually think his supporters will abandon him because he did a trade war with China? Even though he effectively promised to while campaigning?

Ah, I thought your name rang a bell. You're the guy who pretended I said something, even though I didn't, then didn't accept any clarification, instead opting to ridicule me not once or twice, but 4 times in a row repeating the same post. Like a parrot in an echo-y cave. Yeah. Not sure why I bother, but here goes.

1. Will Trump's damaging economic policies harm his popularity?
Those that care about their wallet, sure.

2. Do I think that Trump, short of committing genocide, will lose his brainwashed core base?

Um, that's an interesting question. Probably Dems don't need them.

In any case, people who are not convinced of facts, logic and/or reasoning, aren't really worth fighting for, in any sense, in my opinion. Too much de-programming involved and education.

Just pity them, and move on.

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

I'm sure they believe it will be more money in their pockets, in the long run, if Trump wins the war.

The trade war is still going on, and as long as Trump gets any kind of concessions, he will declare himself the winner, and all his supporters will be happy.

So again: how is the trade war going to hurt him? Do any of you people who oppose Trump actually think his supporters will abandon him because he did a trade war with China? Even though he effectively promised to while campaigning?

Ah, I thought your name rang a bell. You're the guy who pretended I said something, even though I didn't, then didn't accept any clarification, instead opting to ridicule me not once or twice, but 4 times in a row repeating the same post. Like a parrot in an echo-y cave. Yeah. Not sure why I bother, but here goes.

1. Will Trump's damaging economic policies harm his popularity?
Those that care about their wallet, sure.

2. Do I think that Trump, short of committing genocide, will lose his brainwashed core base?

Um, that's an interesting question. Probably Dems don't need them.

In any case, people who are not convinced of facts, logic and/or reasoning, aren't really worth fighting for, in any sense, in my opinion. Too much de-programming involved and education.

Just pity them, and move on.

I know alot of foreigners may not understand USA politics. You have a critical failure here, so I'll help explain:

If the economy goes bad before the 2020 election, Democrats blame Trump, and the liberal media supports this assertion; meanwhile, Trump blames Democrats who control the house, and conservative media supports that assertion.

Maybe in foreign countries you have some type of unbiased, factual reporting, but we do not have that in the USA.

"

Khoranth wrote:

Maybe in foreign countries you have some type of unbiased, factual reporting, but we do not have that in the USA.

Actually, you do, you've just been brainwashed to treat it as FAKE NEWS.

(edit: for clarification, unbiased is impossible, but factual reporting? easy peasy)

There may be two sides to politics, but there are no two sides to science, or facts for that matter.

Your insistence that equivalent news outlets with the same journalistic integrity exist equally on both sides, is utterly misguided.

For instance, when the Cohen indictment came out, Trump tweeted he was totally cleared, apparently no collusion with Russia in the documents. The white house went on record to say, there was nothing new in the documents, nothing that was already not known (lol, gj Sarah).

They got ripped to shreds by the free press, with actual facts, and expert opinion pieces and analysis, and basically proof that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator.

This included Fox news (showing how the tide is turning against Trump)!

You literally would have to trawl the bottom of the cesspools that are Reddit, social media, Breitbart, altnews etc. to find opposing opinions about something factual that actually happened. EVEN on r/The_Donald, they ignored it for most of the day, only to distract themselves with really vulgar memes about Ocasio-Cortez (who owned them and Junior, though) being a dog-eating socialist. When they finally acknowledged it, most couldn't connect the dots, because the information available to them, blinded them completely from the facts. They just kept repeating, Trump is clear, no collusion, MAGA.

It was hilarious, if not, disturbing.

You can still return to the living. No need to be a brainwashed acolyte zombie drone thingie.

Start reading. Plenty of information out there.

'It's a Con-COn-CON-SPIRACY!!!'

;)

Google's CEO explains why a picture of Donald Trump comes up when you search for 'idiot'

"

But then Lieu pivoted — pulling out his smartphone for a search in real-time — and entered King's name into Google.

King, who was sitting across the room on the powerful House panel, became visibly perturbed.

"I'm going to change one word. So I'm going to search for 'Congressman Steve King,' I'm going to hit the 'news' tab. First article that pops up is from ABC News," Lieu said. "It says Steve King's racist immigration talk prompts calls for congressional censure. That's a negative article. But you don't have a group of people at Google thinking and trying to modify search results — every time Steve King comes up, a negative article appears, that's not what's happening, right?"

Pichai again said no, reiterating that Google does not manipulate results for individuals like that.

"So let me just conclude here by stating the obvious," Lieu responded. "If you want positive search results, do positive things. If you don't want negative search results, don't do negative things."

"And to some of my colleagues across the aisle, if you're getting bad press articles and bad search results, don't blame Google or Facebook or Twitter, consider blaming yourself," he added.

The buuurnnnn....chemical... ;)



Meanwhile, discovered something. Sort of like this


Constitution rules out immunity for sitting presidents

*giggles*
*when?*

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

QUESTION: Can you define what it means to have border security?

TRUMP: Yes, we need border security. The wall is a part of border security. You can't have very border security without the wall.

In other words, no. No, you can't.

What a fucking idiot.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/11/trumps-extraordinary-oval-office-squabble-with-chuck-schumer-nancy-pelosi-annotated/?utm_term=.be9217bef8b6

I actually watched most of the 'negotiation' turned press conference. That's more than enough Trump for a lifetime.

He literally threw a temper tantrum after Pelosi and Schumer pointed out good border security does not need a wall, and that it would never ever go through House...

Pelosi and Schumer were way ahead, as if they were playing 4D Chess (lol) whilst Trump was busy figuring out the explanatory card from the Uno pack.

They basically lured Trump to say he will be the one shutting down the government if the wall funding doesn't go through. gj donnie.

Very cool. and Very Legal.