OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
It makes no sense. I think he's got a 401 Special K
It's just more I have to scroll past. When they're especially long, I will take the time to count the paragraphs.
That tariff idea should be enough for anyone to not vote for the guy.Kamala vs Trump - Economic Plans
Democratic presidential nominee and sitting vice president Kamala Harris has promised to continue the economic policies of the Biden-Harris administration and focus on cutting costs for families. She has called for a federal law against price gouging on groceries during times of crisis, cutting taxes for families, and enabling Medicare to pay for home health aides. She has proposed $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers and promised to work with the private sector to build 3 million new housing units by the end of her first term.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which focuses on the direct effect of policies on the federal debt, estimated that Harris’s plans would add $3.5 trillion to the debt.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised to extend his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and to impose a 10% to 20% tariff across the board on imported goods and a 60% tariff on goods from China. Tariffs are taxes paid by American consumers, and economists predict such tariffs would cost an average family more than $2,600 a year. Overall, the effect of these policies would be to shift the weight of taxation even further toward middle-class and lower-class Americans and away from the wealthy.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that these plans would add $7.5 trillion to the debt.
October 11, 2024
A report from the Labor Department yesterday showed that inflation has dropped again, falling back to 2.4%, the same rate as it was just before the coronavirus pandemic.heathercoxrichardson.substack.com
Especially after the dumbass continues to not understand how tariffs actually work.
well, certainly it would qualify as a time of crisis if she gets elected and continues bidenomics. I wonder if there would be a czar of price-gouging or if she would deny any czardom. I can imagine the interview....
"Have you been to the grocery store?"
" I don't understand the question."
"There is a crisis of price-gouging at the grocery store."
"I don't know what your question is getting at."
"There is price-gouging going on at the grocery store, and you haven't been there."
"Well, I haven't been to Macy's either. CACKLE, cackle cackle cackle..."
to the tune of 'Double Shot' by the Swinging Medallions...
It wasn't wine that he had too much of,
it was a... double shot of that orange man's love.
Sorry heelman, had to do it.
thanks, but I have no idea what you're trying to convey. You said 'that's all you had to say' but you included my entire post.
I have now witnessed two demonstrably bad defeats today, the Heels at Kenan Stadium and you with this retarded post.
it doubt it surprises anyone that you take your cues from Michael Moore. I wouldn't admit it though. Have you no pride?Here's Michael Moore's take. Could generate some fun discussion. Personally I'm not as optimistic as he is.
Right now, if you know how to really read the polls, or if you have access to the various private and internal polling being conducted by and shared only amongst the elites, Wall Street, and Members of Congress, then you already know that this election was over weeks ago. Trump simply refused to believe that “Sleepy Joe” was no longer his opponent and that there was instead “some woman” claiming she was “Black” who was now going to pummel him on Election Day. He soon became unhinged, ranted for hours about Hannibal Lecter, Haitians cannibalizing your pets, and a nonstop drone of oral diarrhea spewing misogyny, racism and essentially claiming that if he loses “it will be the Jews’ fault.”
Do the Math: Trump Is Toast
If everyone does their part in the next few weeks, Trump is going down in flames. So say I.www.michaelmoore.com
I know. I expect that.
The gif was ironical, sarcastic...as much as those can possibly be... conveyed.
c'mon man. I know the GIF was sarcastic. I don't know why it was sarcastic Did you see the GIF in the words of yours that I quoted? Ya think maybe it was those words I was wondering about?
What???
Never mind. Consider that rhetorical. Save your strength for a future novella.
I don't need strength for a novella. I need strength to try to figure out your crazy ass.🐰
Last edited:
Hillary was correct. No decent person would support such a awful POS.
Similarly, it surprises no one that you disparage a public figure who is thoughtful, caring, and usually right.
I get why you asked the pride question, though. It's been a long time since your side boasted anyone you can have pride in. Sad.
Nothing to see here. Just a fascist talking about fascism.
Obviously, Norway doesn't have the rate of mental illness as we have here.
Obviously, Norway doesn't have the rate of mental illness as we have here.
you may have gotten confused. I was talking about Michael Moore.
You might be on to something here. I used to be able to boast about the pride I have in America. Insane wokeness, the outright promotion and not just acceptance of transgenderism and queerness including taxpayer-paid sex change operations for convicted felons, the throwing open of our borders to barely screened and UNscreened illegals, the elevation of lawbreaking social scum into hero/martyr status while conducting a kangaroo court and imprisoning a police officer for doing his job in protecting the public, the continued slide into socialism, the continuing loss of respect for our leadership and our world status, the blatant third-world level weaponization of our system of justice against political opponents, etc., etc., etc., etc., and etc......
Oh, and the demonization of those who choose to enjoy their freedom of speech but happen to choose unapproved language and to not to speak so well of those things just mentioned.
AND, last but not least....the fact that there exist those who take their cues from the likes of Michael Moore.
....means I am still proud to be an American, but it's getting to be less and less something to brag about.
I dunno how "right" Michael Moore is, that's pretty vague. I do believe he is a more thoughtful/caring person. That's certainly what he tries to convey, through his celebrity/public persona. I have enjoyed some of the content of his films. I especially liked it when he tried to confront members of Congress about sending their kids to Iraq to fight and die. But, I digest.
The need to have this be a "your side/my side" is just a means to an end. But, apparently, it's more fun that way. You're really not paying attention if you think that the "other side" doesn't take pride in their leaders and mouthpieces. They have endless pride for Donald Trump. Even when he embarrasses himself, it's worth it, for them.
except he wasn't denying anyone any 'fire aid', he was just saying they would have to pay for their own. And it fails to mention that the basis for Trump's threat was in fact over the perceived denial of aid by Newsome and California.
No pun intended, but he knows how to fight fire with fire to make things right. Just like the demlibs know how to take every opportunity to distort and misrepresent.
that's high comedy for your Hillary to have said that. That's enough irony to last me until next year. I suspect you'll provide more anyway, though.
Moore's an outright pinko, reacting emotionally instead of logically and circumspectly in too many instances and basing his stances on those emotions instead of the reality of human nature and existing circumstances. It's easy to care, but it's usually counterproductive to just wallow in it. It's imperative to not just care if we seek to best deal with the inherent challenges of living.
And regarding embarrassment, that's is one of those terms that is only meaningful when exuded by the embarrassed. You can't assign embarrassment to someone who isn't embarrassed. He doesn't exude much of that, mostly due to the strength of his convictions. I don't always agree with those convictions but I'm left shaking my head less at his than I am with much of anything the dems seem able to present.
And there you go, an opportunity for you to again express that circumstantially or intrinsically, it is not about 'sides'. It really is though.
Do you think you've successfully bullshitted yourself into believing that you don't react emotionally? That's kind of rhetorical. It's impossible to do it, but if you think you believe otherwise... yay. What's hilarious is the implication that exhibiting, or even having, emotion is somehow a form of weakness.
I agree, you can't assign embarrassment to someone who isn't embarrassed. It's like believing you can change someone else's mind. It's impossible. Only the person themselves can do that.
The next time the "sides" are made clear to me will be the first time.
lol, don't flatter yourself into believing that you have some level of understanding about much of anything, other than maybe guitars and music, that justifies your condescension. Certainly not in reading comprehension. From my post;
"reacting emotionally instead of logically and circumspectly in too many instances...".
This indicates and connotes not that there is a one-or-the-other, black or white dichotomy between feelings and logic, but rather that one might lean more heavily toward one or the other in reacting and addressing situations. OF COURSE we are emotional. I have even offered that we are ONLY emotional, with logic and reason being imbedded in and derived from our emotional body chemistry.
So maybe it will be helpful if I say 'feelings' instead of 'emotions' although it seems silly to have to do so.
So having gotten that out of the way, I'll state again that Moore is TOO emotional, that is, too subject to his feelings, and inadequately circumspect in his consideration of the world around him. And it isn't only Moore, he is just a more extreme example. It's my belief that a major difference between liberal and conservative is a tendency to succumb to and operate on feelings on the liberal side of things and more the ability to control feelings on the con side. It isn't a matter of not caring enough about problems and solutions but rather recognizing the need to control emotions in order to achieve them.
So yes, one can certainly be too emotional and allow those emotional responses to interfere with practical problem-solving and in fact even become the problem. I guess it's possible you somehow missed the antifa/blm riots, as an example.
So here's the case in point that you provide, and have consistently provided over time....
"The next time the "sides" are made clear to me will be the first time." One has to actually deny a sense of logic in order to maintain this failure to see the readily apparent. Once more I explain what needs no explaining to those who aren't emotionally invested in purposely defying logic to contend that there isn't a political spectrum that becomes divided mainly (in major elections) into two sides to be voted for according to which side more represents the voter's wishes. You vote this way(that's one side) or you vote the other way (that's the other side). Sides.
And even before a vote takes place, a side may be argued for or against as to which is, although not entirely different from the other, different enough to affect a difference in the repercussions.
I'm glad you agree about embarrassment but I take issue with the inability to change people's minds. That is not impossible. All that takes is an OPEN mind and the application of a suitable amount of either reason or emotion.
Similar threads
