Trump engaged in outright fraud, New York Times

aviationaware · Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:03 pm

2122M wrote:
Would you have preferred a rapid recovery creating a huge follow-on bubble and further economic collapse? Is a measured, careful response to the 2nd worse economic disaster in history not to your liking?

Uhm, I hate to tell you, but there is a MASSIVE "follow-on bubble" in the air right now. Despite the slow recovery.

2122M · Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:16 pm

aviationaware wrote:
2122M wrote:
Would you have preferred a rapid recovery creating a huge follow-on bubble and further economic collapse? Is a measured, careful response to the 2nd worse economic disaster in history not to your liking?

Uhm, I hate to tell you, but there is a MASSIVE "follow-on bubble" in the air right now. Despite the slow recovery.

I agree 100%. Thanks to the dismantling of Dodd-Frank, tax-cuts combined with a spending increase and trade tensions. All done to accelerate the 'slow' recovery, I might add.

seb146 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:35 pm

afcjets wrote:
jetero wrote:
Yeah, totally nothing to see here.

Sadly it’s true, more than half the country will say either:

-So what?

With record unemployment for minorities, over 100 all time highs for the stock market, tax breaks especially for the middle class who saw the greatest percent drop, renegotiated trade deals, isis basically gone, an economy growth rate Obama said was impossible, yeah so what?

The REAL unemployment rate is not being reported. Also, many jobs being taken by minorities are low wage. While we are going deep into debt and increasing the deficit for tax breaks across the board, the largest breaks are by far going to the very wealthy. Tax breaks for lower and middle income households are being taken away by higher interest rates and higher rents. The renegotiated trade deals are either what we had before or giving concessions to the others in the deal while the United States gets less. ISIS has not been a problem in the United States for many many years.

Of course all of this booming economy and defeat of ISIS had eight years to happen. It did not happen starting January 2017. Funny how righties never talk about that.

seb146 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:37 pm

2122M wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
2122M wrote:
Would you have preferred a rapid recovery creating a huge follow-on bubble and further economic collapse? Is a measured, careful response to the 2nd worse economic disaster in history not to your liking?

Uhm, I hate to tell you, but there is a MASSIVE "follow-on bubble" in the air right now. Despite the slow recovery.

I agree 100%. Thanks to the dismantling of Dodd-Frank, tax-cuts combined with a spending increase and trade tensions. All done to accelerate the 'slow' recovery, I might add.

I always find it interesting that the same numbers that are being reported now are a boom and great and wonderful but when these exact same numbers were put up at any point January 2009-January 2017, the economy was weak and recovery was slow......

AA747123 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:55 pm

I wouldn't put much credit in this story. The NYT is historically very liberal. Its a distraction by the looney left to try and stop Kavanaugh who will be confirmed this week.

2122M · Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:00 pm

AA747123 wrote:
I wouldn't put much credit in this story. The NYT is historically very liberal. Its a distraction by the looney left to try and stop Kavanaugh who will be confirmed this week.

And I wouldn't put too much credit in AA747123, the radically conservative internet warrior with an axe to grind trying to downplay a real news story.

aviationaware · Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:34 pm

2122M wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
2122M wrote:
Would you have preferred a rapid recovery creating a huge follow-on bubble and further economic collapse? Is a measured, careful response to the 2nd worse economic disaster in history not to your liking?

Uhm, I hate to tell you, but there is a MASSIVE "follow-on bubble" in the air right now. Despite the slow recovery.

I agree 100%. Thanks to the dismantling of Dodd-Frank, tax-cuts combined with a spending increase and trade tensions. All done to accelerate the 'slow' recovery, I might add.

Oh right, up until Trump it was all organic and now suddenly it’s a bubble. Dude, leave the conclusions to the guys with some clue about economics. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about.

The current bubble is driven by free Fed money. What Trump did by plowing through regulation with a lawnmower and cutting taxes as fire up the economy in such a way that allows the Fed to raise interest rates again (which did not happen under Obama’s failed policies). I know Trump is no fan of that, but what it is actually doing is letting air out of the bubble instead of filling it more and more.
Trump’s policies might well save you the next big crash and give you a much more gentle backlash.

wingman · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:08 pm

aviationaware wrote:
The current bubble is driven by free Fed money. What Trump did by plowing through regulation with a lawnmower and cutting taxes as fire up the economy in such a way that allows the Fed to raise interest rates again (which did not happen under Obama’s failed policies). I know Trump is no fan of that, but what it is actually doing is letting air out of the bubble instead of filling it more and more. Trump’s policies might well save you the next big crash and give you a much more gentle backlash.

Do you actually think through what you write or read through it afterward? Trump has said on record many times that's he's opposed to Fed actions raising the interest rate. That's the prudent "letting the air out" part of the equation. Trump's policies to date have been to turbo charge the air going into the bubble. The "free fed money" under Obama was necessary to save the global economic system but it's continued unabated under Trump while he's slashed government revenue. We're on the same crack binge right now that Trump is so accustomed to solving by putting his businesses in Chapter 11. But he doesn't have that option now. What he has instead, thank Christ, is an empowered nanny called the Federal Reserve that can ignore his pie hole for the sake of our medium and long-term well being.

I'll add that yes, many of us are enjoying the longest economic expansion in our history that started with Obama saving us from total economic ruin and that Trump has now accelerated through massive tax cuts and gifts of unprecedented largesse to corporations that were already insanely profitable under Obama. All well and good. But there's not a single time in human history that the good times did not come to an end. And where Trump would blindly drive us like Thelma and Louise off the cliff edge, we can be thankful that the Fed is applying the brakes to remind Donald that the country isn't like one of his casinos and there's no Papa Fred to milk for salvation.

2122M · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:10 pm

aviationaware wrote:
2122M wrote:
aviationaware wrote:

Uhm, I hate to tell you, but there is a MASSIVE "follow-on bubble" in the air right now. Despite the slow recovery.

I agree 100%. Thanks to the dismantling of Dodd-Frank, tax-cuts combined with a spending increase and trade tensions. All done to accelerate the 'slow' recovery, I might add.

Oh right, up until Trump it was all organic and now suddenly it’s a bubble. Dude, leave the conclusions to the guys with some clue about economics. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about.

The current bubble is driven by free Fed money. What Trump did by plowing through regulation with a lawnmower and cutting taxes as fire up the economy in such a way that allows the Fed to raise interest rates again (which did not happen under Obama’s failed policies). I know Trump is no fan of that, but what it is actually doing is letting air out of the bubble instead of filling it more and more.
Trump’s policies might well save you the next big crash and give you a much more gentle backlash.

Using more derogatory language and being a wannabe alpha-male, anonymous keyboard warrior does not make you more of an expert on the matter than anyone else. There is no such thing as a linear recovery from an event like the '08 crash. The recovery will almost always follow more of a logarithmic path as it builds on its self. That's why interest rates are going up more than they were 5 years ago. In the meantime, the GOP pulled financial protections out from under us and reversed any progress being made on the deficit. Its as if they are doing anything they can to recreate the conditions that existed when the crash occurred in the first place.

But by all means, feel superior and smart and all that jazz. God forbid you give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that the recovery from 2008 was actually skillfully executed (especially given the highly partisan climate Mitch McConnell created with his "No.1 priority - Make Obama a 1 term president") and happened very quickly considering the damage that had been done.

aviationaware · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:19 pm

wingman wrote:
Do you actually think through what you write or read through it afterward? Trump has said on record many times that's he's opposed to Fed actions raising the interest rate.

Much better than you apparently, because if you had read my text properly you'd have noticed that I acknowledged that Trump was no fan of rising interest rates. Trump does not dictate Fed policy, though. Maybe that's where you lack understanding.

wingman wrote:
massive tax cuts and gifts of unprecedented largesse to corporations that were already insanely profitable under Obama.

Are you honestly too limited to connect the dots from tax cuts to job growth to wage growth?

2122M wrote:

Using more derogatory language and being a wannabe alpha-male, anonymous keyboard warrior does not make you more of an expert on the matter than anyone else.

No, You are right. My professional experience does. Also, please elaborate on how telling someone that he doesn't have a clue of what he is talking about is 'derogatory'?

2122M wrote:
God forbid you give credit where credit is due and acknowledge that the recovery from 2008 was actually skillfully executed

The hell I will. The recovery was clumsily speedbumped by dumb added regulation that cost the government billions to enforce and the economy trillions in lost benefit.

2122M · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:29 pm

aviationaware wrote:
The hell I will. The recovery was clumsily speedbumped by dumb added regulation that cost the government billions to enforce and the economy trillions in lost benefit.

Specifically speaking, which of the regulations did you think was dumb?

mham001 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:39 pm

2122M wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
The hell I will. The recovery was clumsily speedbumped by dumb added regulation that cost the government billions to enforce and the economy trillions in lost benefit.

Specifically speaking, which of the regulations did you think was dumb?

Large parts of Dodd-Frank.

aviationaware · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:40 pm

2122M wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
The hell I will. The recovery was clumsily speedbumped by dumb added regulation that cost the government billions to enforce and the economy trillions in lost benefit.

Specifically speaking, which of the regulations did you think was dumb?

Any regulation is dumb, by definition.

Obama signed more regulations into law than any President before him.

At the end of Obama's second term, the cost of those regulations per household were 15,000 USD in lost economic benefit, or 2 trillion USD in total. Specifically, most EPA regulations are dumb and unnecessary because their sole premise is the fallacy that human CO2 emissions have impact on the global climate, a theory full of holes and with no conclusive proof. Then of course, there are regulations that aren't very costly but grossly stupid and dangerous, such as the entire Title IX bullshit Obama pushed.

mham001 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:44 pm

aviationaware wrote:
At the end of Obama's second term, the cost of those regulations per household were 15,000 USD in lost economic benefit, or 2 trillion USD in total.

Cost me ~$150,000.

jetero · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:46 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Any regulation is dumb, by definition.

2122M · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:46 pm

aviationaware wrote:
2122M wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
The hell I will. The recovery was clumsily speedbumped by dumb added regulation that cost the government billions to enforce and the economy trillions in lost benefit.

Specifically speaking, which of the regulations did you think was dumb?

Any regulation is dumb, by definition.

Obama signed more regulations into law than any President before him.

At the end of Obama's second term, the cost of those regulations per household were 15,000 USD in lost economic benefit, or 2 trillion USD in total. Specifically, most EPA regulations are dumb and unnecessary because their sole premise is the fallacy that human CO2 emissions have impact on the global climate, a theory full of holes and with no conclusive proof. Then of course, there are regulations that aren't very costly but grossly stupid and dangerous, such as the entire Title IX bullshit Obama pushed.

1) Facts Matter
2) Science is Real
3) Arguments with those that disagree with 1 and 2 are pointless.

Enjoy being angry.

2122M · Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:47 pm

mham001 wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
At the end of Obama's second term, the cost of those regulations per household were 15,000 USD in lost economic benefit, or 2 trillion USD in total.

Cost me ~$150,000.

Unless there is a source with real facts and figures for these imaginary numbers, please don't attempt to use them as proof of anything.

mham001 · Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:11 pm

2122M wrote:
mham001 wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
At the end of Obama's second term, the cost of those regulations per household were 15,000 USD in lost economic benefit, or 2 trillion USD in total.

Cost me ~$150,000.

Unless there is a source with real facts and figures for these imaginary numbers, please don't attempt to use them as proof of anything.

You must have me confused with somebody who believes they need to prove anything to you.

As if I'd put up my loan documents from the last 10 years for you to see. What fantasy land do you live in?

2122M · Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:17 pm

mham001 wrote:
2122M wrote:
mham001 wrote:

Cost me ~$150,000.

Unless there is a source with real facts and figures for these imaginary numbers, please don't attempt to use them as proof of anything.

You must have me confused with somebody who believes they need to prove anything to you.

As if I'd put up my loan documents from the last 10 years for you to see. What fantasy land do you live in?

how about aa's numbers? purely speculative?

Flighty · Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:20 pm

I'm just shocked that he actually has a lot of money! Always figured he was lying about that.

Trump has been more truthful than I realized! And he didn't claim to have overpaid his taxes. The taxes in these years probably were audited and found legal (?). So what is the scandal really? Life is like that sometimes... seeing someone take a shortcut, feeling proud that you don't, yet realizing you don't end up the winner at the end of the day.... that's life right?

wingman · Wed Oct 03, 2018 10:21 pm

mham001 wrote:
You must have me confused with somebody who believes they need to prove anything to you.

As if I'd put up my loan documents from the last 10 years for you to see. What fantasy land do you live in?

This one I can't let go. Obama literally helped save the global economy so whatever it is you think his presidency cost you ($150,000 you claim), it saved most of us, and clearly you too if you were able to secure loans of some kind. I don't need to see your loan documents but you've got to tell me what you're saying here. Are you saying that because of Obama's policies you incurred $150,000 in more costs than you would have if Obama hadn't saved us from a catastrophic depression? You would've saved money by having no loan at all, or maybe not a bank to even make you the loan? Help me understand that by providing some some more facts around your case. Thanks.

DIRECTFLT · Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:25 pm

I'd rather read about NYT investigation into The Clinton Foundation...

einsteinboricua · Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:16 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
I'd rather read about NYT investigation into The Clinton Foundation...

But NYT is fake news so if they do an investigation, it clearly is fake.

WarRI1 · Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:48 am

jetero wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Side story. NYT illegally obtained tax records.

Do tell . . . HOW SO?

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/1 ... /23550250/

According to this, his sister made it possible, nothing illegal about it from what I can see. I would like to thank the New York Times for fine investigative reporting.

tommy1808 · Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:54 am

AA747123 wrote:
I wouldn't put much credit in this story. The NYT is historically very liberal. Its a distraction by the looney left to try and stop Kavanaugh who will be confirmed this week.

They NYT is historically also usually right. Facts seem to have a liberal bias.

Kavanaugh who will be confirmed this week

yeah, you are probably right, the (R) probably means "rapist" next to enough of those "Republicans".

best regards
Thomas

Eyad89 · Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:07 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Are you honestly too limited to connect the dots from tax cuts to job growth to wage growth?

Let's speak in numbers, shall we?

take a look at the average job growth figures per month for the past few years:

The tax cut didn't create the job growth you have been trying to imagine. the economy added more monthly jobs in 5 years during Obama's presidency than the monthly jobs added in 2018, the tax cut year.

If you take the monthly job growth in the last 10 years ( 8 Obama + 2 Trump), you will see that the top five years are all Obama's.

jetero · Thu Oct 04, 2018 2:04 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
Are you honestly too limited to connect the dots from tax cuts to job growth to wage growth?

Let's speak in numbers, shall we?

take a look at the average job growth figures per month for the past few years:

The tax cut didn't create the job growth you have been trying to imagine. the economy added more monthly jobs in 5 years during Obama's presidency than the monthly jobs added in 2018, the tax cut year.

If you take the monthly job growth in the last 10 years ( 8 Obama + 2 Trump), you will see that the top five years are all Obama's.

How much did that YUUUUUUUGGGGGGEEEE 10k/month boost in jobs cost again?!

aviationaware · Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:43 pm

Eyad89 wrote:

You are more than sloppy with the facts. You can't seriously begin to compare the job growth under Obama, which was mainly compensatory and had nothing to do with his policies, to that which Trump created. Job growth was on the way down. If not for the new policies it would have fallen precipitously. A continuation of a trend does not mean that it was caused years ago.

2122M · Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:20 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:

You are more than sloppy with the facts. You can't seriously begin to compare the job growth under Obama, which was mainly compensatory and had nothing to do with his policies, to that which Trump created. Job growth was on the way down. If not for the new policies it would have fallen precipitously. A continuation of a trend does not mean that it was caused years ago.

Yea, We'll just all assume that you have no bias affecting the way you look at the facts and that your opinion on the matter is the absolute truth. Cleary you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the growth from 2008-2017 happened in spite of Obama but the growth from 2017-now happened because of Trump.

As you have proven time and time again to be the level-headed voice of reason on Anet, we all concede to this point to you and you are now free to move along.

Thank you, economic genius.

jetero · Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:59 pm

2122M wrote:
As you have proven time and time again to be the level-headed voice of reason on Anet

Ain't that the truth?!

MassAppeal · Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:51 am

I love feeling superior to everyone.

DL717 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:52 am

AA747123 wrote:
I wouldn't put much credit in this story. The NYT is historically very liberal. Its a distraction by the looney left to try and stop Kavanaugh who will be confirmed this week.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a story take up so many pages and fall so flat. Seriously, no one gives a rip.

WarRI1 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:33 am

DL717 wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
I wouldn't put much credit in this story. The NYT is historically very liberal. Its a distraction by the looney left to try and stop Kavanaugh who will be confirmed this week.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a story take up so many pages and fall so flat. Seriously, no one gives a rip.

I guess we will have to wait and see. Is that not due process?

DL717 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:12 am

Eyad89 wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
Are you honestly too limited to connect the dots from tax cuts to job growth to wage growth?

Let's speak in numbers, shall we?

take a look at the average job growth figures per month for the past few years:

The tax cut didn't create the job growth you have been trying to imagine. the economy added more monthly jobs in 5 years during Obama's presidency than the monthly jobs added in 2018, the tax cut year.

If you take the monthly job growth in the last 10 years ( 8 Obama + 2 Trump), you will see that the top five years are all Obama's.

Your assessment is hereby thoroughly destroyed:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... K_LlGgagZY

WarRI1 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:23 am

DL717.

Who does this man work for? Who is this man defending? What a crock. Charts and stats can be changed like a babies diaper and these stats and charts probably contain what a diaper does in most cases.

DL717 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:41 am

WarRI1 wrote:
DL717.

Who does this man work for? Who is this man defending? What a crock. Charts and stats can be changed like a babies diaper and these stats and charts probably contain what a diaper does in most cases.

And here I thought you were for blue collar workers and their optimism about the future. Watch it again.

tommy1808 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:51 am

DL717 wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
I wouldn't put much credit in this story. The NYT is historically very liberal. Its a distraction by the looney left to try and stop Kavanaugh who will be confirmed this week.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a story take up so many pages and fall so flat. Seriously, no one gives a rip.

Aside of the New York state tax authorities that is i guess...

best regards
Thomas

Eyad89 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:17 am

DL717 wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
Are you honestly too limited to connect the dots from tax cuts to job growth to wage growth?

Let's speak in numbers, shall we?

take a look at the average job growth figures per month for the past few years:

The tax cut didn't create the job growth you have been trying to imagine. the economy added more monthly jobs in 5 years during Obama's presidency than the monthly jobs added in 2018, the tax cut year.

If you take the monthly job growth in the last 10 years ( 8 Obama + 2 Trump), you will see that the top five years are all Obama's.

Your assessment is hereby thoroughly destroyed:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... K_LlGgagZY

So, I gave you some job growth numbers taken directly from the Bureau of labor statistics, and you assume your youtube link that discussed a completely different thing somehow “debunks” it?

It was discussed in this thread that Trump policies increased job growth, and the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that is not true. Quite the opposite, the job growth has dropped ever since Trump took office.

Now, you gave me a link of some white house representative talk about how small business optimism increased or some shipments figures increased, those by themselves are not indications of how well an economy is doing. No economist ever uses that when evaluating a performance of a nation. They use macroeconomics indicators such as unemployment, inflation, interest rate, deficit, GDP and so on. Instead of talking about that, this white house representative cherry picked other specific and useless parameters just to convince the Trump base that he somehow is the savior of economy.

It seems that at least worked out.

DLFREEBIRD · Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:05 pm

afcjets wrote:
jetero wrote:
Yeah, totally nothing to see here.

Sadly it’s true, more than half the country will say either:

-So what?

With record unemployment for minorities, over 100 all time highs for the stock market, tax breaks especially for the middle class who saw the greatest percent drop, renegotiated trade deals, isis basically gone, an economy growth rate Obama said was impossible, yeah so what?

i'm sure you believe everything you wrote, because it been repeated over and over again until it's true. right. tax breaks for the middle class what a joke, like the teacher who got 5.33 cents more a paycheck. renegotiated trade deals, means tariff which means raising taxes on the american people, why can't the average person figure this out? economy growth rate is slowing under Trump, and suppose to dropped off completely next year, if he keeps it up we will have inflation, but i'm sure you can blame inflation on Obama, just like the republicans blamed the financial crisis on Obama, cause republicans can do no wrong, cause all they have to say, over and over again is that they are confiscate conservative while blowing up our national debt.

tommy1808 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:16 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:

Let's speak in numbers, shall we?

take a look at the average job growth figures per month for the past few years:

The tax cut didn't create the job growth you have been trying to imagine. the economy added more monthly jobs in 5 years during Obama's presidency than the monthly jobs added in 2018, the tax cut year.

If you take the monthly job growth in the last 10 years ( 8 Obama + 2 Trump), you will see that the top five years are all Obama's.

Your assessment is hereby thoroughly destroyed:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... K_LlGgagZY

So, I gave you some job growth numbers taken directly from the Bureau of labor statistics, and you assume your youtube link that discussed a completely different thing somehow “debunks” it?.

Isn´t that also a White House statement? Where no truth has come out in almost 2 years....

When they say it ain´t, its confirmed basically.

best regards
Thomas

aviationaware · Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:13 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Aside of the New York state tax authorities that is i guess...

Even if there was something fishy going on, the statute of limitations expired years ago. Trump hsa nothing to fear, except public backlash. And I doubt that scares him much by now.

jetero · Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:21 pm

aviationaware wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Aside of the New York state tax authorities that is i guess...

Even if there was something fishy going on, the statute of limitations expired years ago. Trump hsa nothing to fear, except public backlash. And I doubt that scares him much by now.

Yeah, why should anyone be concerned about a career fraud in the White House, really?

Eyad89 · Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:35 pm

jetero wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Aside of the New York state tax authorities that is i guess...

Even if there was something fishy going on, the statute of limitations expired years ago. Trump hsa nothing to fear, except public backlash. And I doubt that scares him much by now.

Yeah, why should anyone be concerned about a career fraud in the White House, really?

Trump said it himself, he can shoot someone and his base wouldn’t care. He got that right. Talk about blind faith. I think I am starting to believe that Trumpism is sort of a dogma now.

jetero · Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:36 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
jetero wrote:
aviationaware wrote:

Even if there was something fishy going on, the statute of limitations expired years ago. Trump hsa nothing to fear, except public backlash. And I doubt that scares him much by now.

Yeah, why should anyone be concerned about a career fraud in the White House, really?

Trump said it himself, he can shoot someone and his base wouldn’t care. He got that right. Talk about blind faith. I think I am starting to believe that Trumpism is sort of a dogma now.

Cult is a more appropriate word. (I'd say "mindless cult," but aren't they all?)

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:06 pm

Pretty rich coming from the NYT whose owners, the Sulzberger family, have done the exact same tax dodge.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... cle_inline

jetero · Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:02 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Pretty rich coming from the NYT whose owners, the Sulzberger family, have done the exact same tax dodge.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... cle_inline

Yes. Totes rich. That link definitely explained it all.

wingman · Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:32 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Pretty rich coming from the NYT whose owners, the Sulzberger family, have done the exact same tax dodge.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... cle_inline

Did the Sulzbergers ever become President on the heels of countless claims of self-enrichment, promotional documentaries, ludicrous bullshit reality-TV shows, public speeches blah blah blah saying 100% to the contrary?

Come on dude, you post some intelligent stuff and then go and ruin your reputation with such obvious "partisan-GOP-talking point-straight from the Fox Hannity show archive bullshit as this? Very, very, very fucking disappointing. I'll give you one "pull your head out of your ass" hall pass just because you've displayed some truly cogent thought prior to this.

You guys won. You now own the Supreme Court for another 25 years, the White House, the Senate and House. You own the whole fucking shebang. So just own it for chrissakes and stop your pathetic bullshit "me too you" whingeing. At least admit your leader is a scumbag of the highest order. He grabs pussy right? His wife hates his guts right? Can't you at least admit that you accomplished your great vicotry riding the shittails of the very worst asshole we've ever put into office? At least be man enough to admit that.

seb146 · Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:45 pm

C'mon, guys.... We can not rely on facts and charts and graphs. The only thing we can believe is what dear leader says. Everything else is fake, remember?

Besides, he can not commit tax fraud if he does not make his tax returns public, right? Righties would never believe it anyway, so what is the point of releasing his tax returns?

MaverickM11 · Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:19 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
I'd rather read about NYT investigation into The Clinton Foundation...

But NYT is fake news so if they do an investigation, it clearly is fake.

30 years and they still haven't found anything on the Clinton Foundation? Sad! Maybe it's in Clinton's pizza basement pedophile funhouse. Or maybe that was Kavanaugh's pedophile ring? I can't keep track.

Eyad89 wrote:
jetero wrote:
aviationaware wrote:

Even if there was something fishy going on, the statute of limitations expired years ago. Trump hsa nothing to fear, except public backlash. And I doubt that scares him much by now.

Yeah, why should anyone be concerned about a career fraud in the White House, really?

Trump said it himself, he can shoot someone and his base wouldn’t care. He got that right. Talk about blind faith. I think I am starting to believe that Trumpism is sort of a dogma now.

Everyone knew Trump was a total fraud in the 80s and 90s. Heck, even two years before the election probably most GOP members would agree he's a fraud and certainly not conservative (Hi Miss Lindsey G!). But the fraud, the sexual assault, the pussy grabbing, the naked racism, the open misogyny, the aggressive ignorance--those are winning traits for the GOP. He won them over because of that, not in spite of that.

DIRECTFLT · Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:24 am

God Bless President Trump

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net