This fucking guy.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h255/chadouken/lead_960.jpg
Trump Wonders If Gun Owners Could Stop Hillary Clinton
https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/495191/
^
That could only be construed as a threat if you believe people who support the second amendment would assassinate a presidential candidate given the chance, at minimum is 41% given the number of homes that own a gun, not including 2nd amendment supporters who don’t care about their security.
Such a ridiculous bigoted remark about nearly half the country is why they reject any gun control measures or believe that you could trust liberals with it.
Hillary already beat Trump to death threats back in 2008.
She started the Birther shit in 2k8 too but that’s another thing everyone wants to conveniently forget about.
Stranger than Fiction doesn’t even begin applying to this election cycle.
I would personally like to say I appreciate how knowledgeable and thorough this post is.
I have to disagree. G.W. Bush run a surplus for his first year in office. And while we did get back into a deficit during Bush’s term. It wasn’t that much, especially compared to what Obama did. Obama ran up the debt more in his first 2 years in office than G.W. Bush did in his 8. Infact as G.W Bush’s 2nd term was going, he was decreasing the deficit every year. From the peak of 412 billion, down 318 billion the next, down to 248 billion the next, and 160 billion following that. His last year did balloon up to 458 billion, but he was already enacting policies to correct the recession.
And the recession was caused by the banking deregulation under Clinton to get the poor to purchase homes that they couldn’t afford. Where Clinton had removed the regulations that Hoover and Eisenhower that placed after the great depression so another one couldn’t occur.
no leaks after all.
short of god intervening, hillary can’t be painted any more brown
You’re referring to Glass-Steagall which was effectively repealed in 1999; I’m referring to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act which was enacted 10 years earlier and was just as responsible. More so really. They were both shitty moves though.
There was a budget surplus in 2001, but that budget was set the year previous in 2000 under Clinton, so Bush doesn’t get to claim credit for that (debatable though how much credit should go to any president on federal budgets regardless).
Did you happen to be over 18 years old and in the US during 2001? One of the very fist things Bush did was push through an additional mid-year “tax rebate” where he had the IRS send every single person who had filed US taxes an additional $300 to $600 rebate, along with a $1.3 trillion dollar tax cut for the next year. Boom- 2002 deficit. And yeah, the deficit did shrink some years under his administration, but it never became a surplus again and every deficit grows the debt. Again, how much shit he should get for that is debatable because federal deficits can be healthy things and presidents only play a partial role in causing them, but so it goes.
And guess who wants to re-institute Glass-Steagal, hint it’s not Hillary.
https://www.aei.org/publication/how-can-trump-support-deregulation-and-glass-steagall/
A lot of people want to re-institute Glass-Steagall. A lot. Warren, McCain, Sanders, etc. Not exactly a Trump fan club, and clearly not a one party issue. And it should be re-instituted. Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented 2008 though. Might have reduced the magnitude somewhat. Most of the big players in the meltdown wouldn’t even have been subject to Glass-Steagall; it addressed a very specific class of banks. And if Glass-Steagall had still been around, good chance the businesses subject to it would have spun-off subsidiaries to conduct the same subprime malarkey on their behalf anyway.
And given the vast amount of non-specified deregulation Trump is promising, invoking Glass-Steagall as some sort of mantra against economic disaster is pretty funny. It keeps a specific type of bank from taking certain types of risks, and little else. It isn’t a set of magic words that by themselves keep bad times away.
Man it pissed me off when bush gave back all that money. I didn’t get a cent since I didn’t file taxes the year before (but have every year since then)
He took the surp,us and spent it… Boom. Like my wife when we have extra cashflow… All of a sudden my son who is 5 and happy needs a new 1500 dollar bunk bed, just because.
It really pissed me off when GW gave that money away. Like… I was hopping mad.
God-Queen Milo completely logic smashing a Hillary voter. 10/10 summation of Trump/Hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wvx90uxEnU
It’s not fair Milo gets to be an effeminate flaming bottom while simultaneously S-Tier Alpha male, it’s like the Re-incarnation of Freddy Mercury as a political pundit.
He gets invalidated just for the fact that he’s a gay non-citizen pro-trump supporter that pulled the “blacks kill more blacks than police kill blacks” argument.
Anyone who organizes and attempts to discuss politics in a “gays for trump” rally with pictures of naked twinks in the backdrop needs to disappear and stay out of adult issues.
Also, hes not an American citizen if I didnt emphasize that before. This guy is a fame troll.
It’s not an argument unless you are in denial, it’s a simply stated fact and shame on you for complaining about someone shedding light on the murder rate in inner cities. Like hiding it is going to save lives.
So foreign born goes for John Oliver, Hitchens, Piers Morgan, Trevor Noah, Craig Ferguson or any of the hundreds of foreign pundits that have been around over the years and more than half of Hollywood. Sounds legit. Milo was a Editor/writer in journalism for years before doing punditry, he’s famous because he went viral logic bombing idiots.
And even if you dislike Milo & Trump it’s educational, Milo explains the “Why” of Trumps support in a detailed honest way.
and how is that not a valid argument? because you don’t believe it?
LOL I love how Trump trolled his party into admitting that Obama is actively and effectively fighting ISIS. 
Could you imagine if it any other candidate? “And let’s not forget that Obama created the situation that lead to ISIS… hur hur hur…”
He’s basically trolling everyone with their own shit. “2nd amendment people… I dunno…” And people go fucking nutz inputting foots into mouths.
:tup:
not really
blacks do kill more blacks, and that’s part of why you have over policing
a major problem is that peole like jesse jackson and that other faggot don’t put a political spin or push anti black violence on mainstream media as hard as they do police killings. So all whites ever see eis black people crying about “police shootings and brutality” on mainstream outlets all the time, but never do for black on black crime. It doesn’t help that a good portion of these black people that where shot had a criminal record and or where involved in some other bullshit, which diminishes the impact of deaths like that dude who had a legal conceal carry permit, or that S.C black dude that was shot when he told the officer he was reaching for his ID.
Perspective, you lack it
Nope refering to the “Community Reinvestment Act” of 1977 which sought encourage commercial banks and savings associations to make accommodations for low and moderate income neighborhoods. aka poor people.
Under Clinton the act was revised 4 times making it easier for the poor to make loans on homes that they had no business in getting.
Though looking at FIRREA, it was more concerned about increasing regulation. Requiring applicable federal agencies to fill out more forms and examine the needs of the local communities. This enabled local non-profit organizations to establish more productive relations with banks. Not sure how that would have had an effect on the housing bubble. If anything, gathering more data would normally be seen as a good thing.
So which is it? Congress at fault? Or the President? You seem to be flip flopping whichever is more convenient for you. Also if you truly believed that the President had no say, then was congress responsible for Obama’s first 4 years of deficit? Seems like a big jump from about 400 billion to 1.4 trillion.
I’d argue that while congress sets a budget, the president still has the authority to go over or under that budget. Which ultimately leads to the fact that the President should be held responsible for any increases should it be due to his policies.
Well assuming that everyone got a $600 (which people likely spent and the government got some or most of that back in sales taxes, property taxes etc…) and 250 million people, that would mean the government lost out on 150 billion dollars directly. But indirectly got it back by stimulating the economy.
Though how you got a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut is beyond me. In regards to “On-budget” spending the receipts for the year went from 1.483 trillion to 1.337 trillion. Meaning a loss of 146 billion in regards to “On budget” taxes. Meanwhile in regards to off budget taxes, it went from 507 billion to 515 billion. Meaning we made more money. So where exactly is this figure of cutting 1.3 trillion in taxes come from? It definitely doesn’t show on the official white house documents going over the budget, taxes, receipts during that span of time.
Okay, so where in the white house documents is this reflected? In 2001 the federal government received 1.991 trillion in taxes, so if your article is right then the following year the federal government should have received only 691 billion in taxes. But document host01z1.xls from the whitehouse.gov shows that in 2002 the federal government took in 1.853 trillion. A mere decrease of about 140 billion.
I guess you could say that maybe it was the war in Iraq after 9-11. A war which at the time most of us supported. But the cost of national defense only went up from 331 billion to 360 billion, or a difference of only 26 billion… as seen in whitehouse.gov document hist05z6.xls.
If you went by the document hist08z1.xls it shows the national defense going up from 306 billion to 349 billion. A relatively meager change of 43 billion. That also accounts for “Overseas Contingency Operations” which was not reflected in document hist05z6.
Now most likely this 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut was most likely spread over several years and not focused just in 2002 like you would have us believe. But in 2005 Bush raised taxes to 2.1 trillion, the highest has ever been. The following year it rose to 2.4 trillion, then 2.5 trillion. Which happens to be the years that the deficit was shrinking.