Something bigger than indictments that Trump should be worried about

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

I wish I could agree, but the average American doesn't follow politics that closely. Trump's attempt at blackmailing Zelenskyy so he could cheat in an election was one of the worst things he did, but most people are either unaware or don't fully understand what happened there. The average person just cares about what's happening in their day to day life.

True, but Trump simps are more likely to get out and vote if they care about the actual person. It's not enough to just know that Trump endorsed them.

We agree that anything can happen, so what really matters is that we vote. I just don't think the threat of Trump is gone yet. We need to treat this like the enormous threat to democracy that it is.

I agree that the average person cares most about what's happening in their day to day life but I don't think that means they have to be politically disengaged.  Trump was impeached for his call.  He was never going to be found guilty by a Republican senate but that is no reason not to impeach.  Polling at the time found the electorate was fairly evenly split on the issue.  I have no idea how many people cared, and the extent of that caring.

I think Trump's endorsement matters.  I don't think Walker or Oz would have done nearly so well had it not been for the endorsement.  Lake, I don't know.

I can't vote of course, but if you can, more power to you.

 

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, I'm sure if he broke the law there would be more people with authority than the Ethics Commissioner.  I can't see why the opposition would not call him out when he gives himself permission to be a crook. 

this was in all the papers. Sorry but you're just wrong. The cops were clear - he broke the law but we think he can give himself permisson to break the law as pm.

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Trump missed a trick there though, eh?  Give yourself permission to be a crook.  "Why didn't I think of that?"

I'm not sure he realized he wasn't supposed to break the law in teh first  place. I think he thought mortal laws didn't apply to him

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm sure if he wins in 2024 he'll pardon himself.

Who knows. If they haven't charged him with anything else or convicted him by then he's basically in the clear anyway.

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

Yes they can.

It is important to remember that a Supreme Court decision overturning Obergefell would not make same-sex marriage illegal. It would simply leave it to states legislatures to determine whether to allow gay marriages in their state.

https://www.nilesbarton.com/news-insights/is-same-sex-marriage-in-jeopardy

yeah but they're wrong.  Sorry. It's just fear mongering.

I mean they're right that if it wasn't found to be constitutionally protected it would be a state issue, but it has been found on pretty solid ground to be constitutional.

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

So you think 50% +1 works in this situation?  I thought not.

well what is the percent who want it then? You seem to be suggesting that at least 50 percent want constitutional protection of abortion, which means no restrictions on it. Is that true?

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

One is a work of fiction that should have no bearing on how a country is run and the other is a political leaning, not a church.  Unless you think it is, of course.

They are both works of fiction and they are both dogmatically and blindly followed by their adherents.

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

Yeah, because lets face it, the last thing any other president would have done would be to try and fast track a vaccine.  Trumps record on COVID is a bad one. It's pretty well established that America did worse than most comparable countires, and that was down to Trump.

Another president didn't. Trump did.  Period.  Trudeau didn't even tho he was given teh opportunity. So no - not all leaders.

And the dems are fond of claiming his record was bad but in reality it was pretty good, and biden's was no better, Biden just followed and continued trumps plan to the letter while claiming there was no plan.

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

Closely doesn't change anything.  Average at very best.  Poorer in most cases, with the exception of retail and warehousing being areas where he did well.  Looking at it through very rose tinted glasses would allow a supporter to say low side of average.

Nope - better than most if you look at the numbers. Especially coming out of an economic slow period. CERTAINLY much better than obama and i mean after the recession.

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

I'm not looking at it one month at a time.  I'm looking at it now. 

That's literally one month.

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

You said the US was doing worse than the rest of the comparable countries in the world.  They are not.

Yeah -they are. their inflation is now just turning into recession.

That's why their interest rates are higher than britian for example. they've had to hurt their people and economy with higher interest rates to get the inflation under control, and it will work - at the cost of a recession.

But their inflation over time is worse.

Biden SERIOUSLY crapped the bed on the economy. You cannot dump unearned dollars into the economy and not have runaway inflation.

Also - america produces it's own oil, food etc,  Many of those countries with 'higher' inflation are directly impacted by the war.  The us is not. There was NO reason for the us or Canada to experience it that high. We should have been more like japan.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

this was in all the papers. Sorry but you're just wrong. The cops were clear - he broke the law but we think he can give himself permisson to break the law as pm.

If you say so.  Do you have a cite for the cops saying that?

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'm not sure he realized he wasn't supposed to break the law in teh first  place. I think he thought mortal laws didn't apply to him

Fair enough.

 

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Who knows. If they haven't charged him with anything else or convicted him by then he's basically in the clear anyway.

Fair enough.

 

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

yeah but they're wrong.  Sorry. It's just fear mongering.

I mean they're right that if it wasn't found to be constitutionally protected it would be a state issue, but it has been found on pretty solid ground to be constitutional.

You'll excuse me if I go with the lawyers though?

 

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well what is the percent who want it then? You seem to be suggesting that at least 50 percent want constitutional protection of abortion, which means no restrictions on it. Is that true?

I would suggest it is far greater than that, but nowhere near what would be needed for a constitutional amendment.  I don't know that a constitutional amendment would necessarily include no restrictions whatsoever.  They might guarantee abortion up to 24 weeks for instance, and then look at them on a case by case basis, which might satisfy a lot of people.

 

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Another president didn't. Trump did.  Period.  Trudeau didn't even tho he was given teh opportunity. So no - not all leaders.

And the dems are fond of claiming his record was bad but in reality it was pretty good, and biden's was no better, Biden just followed and continued trumps plan to the letter while claiming there was no plan.

Sure, and so would any other.  To claim Trump had some genius moment is wrong.  As is comparing him to Trudeau here.  The resources available are not comparable.  The record shows his record was bad.  Not just the Dems.

 

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope - better than most if you look at the numbers. Especially coming out of an economic slow period. CERTAINLY much better than obama and i mean after the recession.

Well, the chart does compare him to recent presidents, and shows him to be average to below average at best.  I don't have the comparison numbers to Obama. Post them.  I'm not afraid of being shown something.

 

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That's literally one month.

It's literally now. 

 

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah -they are. their inflation is now just turning into recession.

That's why their interest rates are higher than britian for example. they've had to hurt their people and economy with higher interest rates to get the inflation under control, and it will work - at the cost of a recession.

But their inflation over time is worse.

Biden SERIOUSLY crapped the bed on the economy. You cannot dump unearned dollars into the economy and not have runaway inflation.

Also - america produces it's own oil, food etc,  Many of those countries with 'higher' inflation are directly impacted by the war.  The us is not. There was NO reason for the us or Canada to experience it that high. We should have been more like japan.

Britain is slated to miss a recession but still have stagnant to no growth for a while.  The US might go into a recession later this year, but it won't be a bad one, and will provide somewhat of a "soft landing" for the current inflation crisis. 

(both points according to various sources, not me)

Right now the US has a lower inflation rate than Europe and Canada.  It's a shame about the banking regs, but other than that issue, it looks like the US is going to weather the storm rather much the same as anyone else does.

 

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If you say so.  Do you have a cite for the cops saying that?

I normally don't do the 'cite' thing but you're a pretty honest debater so, sure. Here's an example. There's some others out there that go into more detail. There was something similar over SNC.

https://archive.ph/u3RqJ

The documents show the RCMP believed there were “reasonable grounds” to think fraud may have been committed, but the force decided it would not be in the public interest to lay charges because of a lack of clarity in federal rules that apply to accepting gifts.

Because Mr. Trudeau is the head of government, the RCMP said, “it cannot be definitely determined whether or not Mr. Trudeau can simply provide consent to himself.”

 

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You'll excuse me if I go with the lawyers though?

Lawyers? Or just ones you approve of that you enjoy the scare mongering from. Because the legal community is not saying that's likely. The papers love the headlines but no. Real lawyers are't buying it - and if you read the decisions you will see why.

And on top of that there's practical reasons. The constituton recogizes that if something is entrenched it should be considered under the special section as constitutionally protected as well. How are you going to unwind all the lives and families built around it? Here's a blurb on the practical elements:

 

https://getoutspoken.com/news/why-same-sex-marriage-will-never-be-overturned-despite-media-fear-mongering

 

It's a complete lie scare tactic - just like how conservatives in canada will ban abortions the moment the CPC takes power. Despite the fact they didn't the 10 years they were in power.

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

I would suggest it is far greater than that, but nowhere near what would be needed for a constitutional amendment.

Well you can't have it both ways. If it's far greater than 50 percent then it's enough for a constitutioal amendment.

The constitution can be amended by a vote of 3/4 in the houses - and then ratified by 3/4 of the states i believe.

Are you saying less than that would like to see no-limit abortions?

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

  I don't know that a constitutional amendment would necessarily include no restrictions whatsoever.  They might guarantee abortion up to 24 weeks for instance, and then look at them on a case by case basis, which might satisfy a lot of people.

I don't think it works that way for the constitution. Either it's a protected right or it isn't basically under the constitution. I suppose it MIGHT be possible to amend the constitution to make it a federal matter and then the feds could impose that on everyone - but i'm  sure you can see the danger there. The next gov't could wipe it out entirely.

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

Sure, and so would any other.  To claim Trump had some genius moment is wrong.  As is comparing him to Trudeau here.  The resources available are not comparable.  The record shows his record was bad.  Not just the Dems.

Sorry - but here's the facts. Trump did it. You can play what if to your hearts content - but trump did it and it worked.

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

Well, the chart does compare him to recent presidents, and shows him to be average to below average at best.  I don't have the comparison numbers to Obama. Post them.  I'm not afraid of being shown something.

Obama is a recent president and the numbers are there.

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

It's literally now. 

Which is literally not relevant.  It's like saying Oh - he was stabbing that girl for 10 minutes but technially he's not RIGHT NOW so he's the same as the rest of us.

And again - you're ignoring the interest rates. He's exchanged high inflation for high interest.

So when you look at what happened you see he did much worse.

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

Britain is slated to miss a recession but still have stagnant to no growth for a while.  The US might go into a recession later this year, but it won't be a bad one, and will provide somewhat of a "soft landing" for the current inflation crisis. 

(both points according to various sources, not me)

We'll see - but a lot of people are predicting the recession will be longer and deeper than previously suggested. THey're saying the same of canada. It went from 'slow down but no recession" to "MAAAAYBE a short and very mild technical recession" To "there's going to be a recession"  to 'it's probably deeper than we thought".

 

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Right now the US has a lower inflation rate than Europe and Canada. 

Well not canada.  Europe. But - it also has a higher interest rate which is what fights inflation - but that brings on recessions.

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

It's a shame about the banking regs, but other than that issue, it looks like the US is going to weather the storm rather much the same as anyone else does.

No - it's much worse.  I get you don't understand this - i get that you're looking at ONE MONTH and thinking you have a clear picture.  But it's bad. And businesses in the states know it's bad. Of course time will tell but i bet we're having a conversation in a year and i'm doing a whole lot of 'i told you so' and you're doing a whole lot of trying to play it off that it isn't that bad

[Americana Antifa]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I think Trump's endorsement matters.  I don't think Walker or Oz would have done nearly so well had it not been for the endorsement.  Lake, I don't know.

Yeah, they wouldn't have done as well, but keep in mind that all three of them are celebrities who were pretty well-known before running. Especially Oz, who (unfortunately) was a household name. I think Trump's endorsement helped them, but not that much. They're right-wing celebrities, they would have had support regardless.

[Deluge]

On 4/1/2023 at 6:00 PM, NYLefty said:

Ummm, if anyone else hasn't noticed Trump's rallying cries are going unanswered, not a single protest or act of violence anywhere. Right wing forums and social media all pretty silent about Trump's calls to stand up?  Could it be the giant orange fart cushion has finally blown it's load with the people???

Are you trying to goad us into another January 6? 

We're in a wait and see scenario right now. 

[NYLefty]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Are you trying to goad us into another January 6? 

We're in a wait and see scenario right now. 

Go for it. Would love the laughs ?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I normally don't do the 'cite' thing but you're a pretty honest debater so, sure. Here's an example. There's some others out there that go into more detail. There was something similar over SNC.

https://archive.ph/u3RqJ

The documents show the RCMP believed there were “reasonable grounds” to think fraud may have been committed, but the force decided it would not be in the public interest to lay charges because of a lack of clarity in federal rules that apply to accepting gifts.

Because Mr. Trudeau is the head of government, the RCMP said, “it cannot be definitely determined whether or not Mr. Trudeau can simply provide consent to himself.”

Ah yes, I do remember the Aga Khan holiday.  I was not aware of that response by the RCMP.

Thanks for the cite.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Lawyers? Or just ones you approve of that you enjoy the scare mongering from. Because the legal community is not saying that's likely. The papers love the headlines but no. Real lawyers are't buying it - and if you read the decisions you will see why.

And on top of that there's practical reasons. The constituton recogizes that if something is entrenched it should be considered under the special section as constitutionally protected as well. How are you going to unwind all the lives and families built around it? Here's a blurb on the practical elements:

 

https://getoutspoken.com/news/why-same-sex-marriage-will-never-be-overturned-despite-media-fear-mongering

 

I'll stick with the lawyers.  

Your cite is from almost two years before Roe v Wade was overturned, and according to a couple of Supreme Court justices at the time:

"Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court's cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision," Thomas and Alito wrote. But they agreed that the court properly decided not to take up Davis' case because, they said, it does not "cleanly" present the issues in the court's 5-4 decision five years ago.

Nevertheless, they said, the case "provides a stark reminder" of the consequences of the same-sex marriage decision. By choosing to endorse "a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix," they said. "Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty."

And Clarence Thomas after the Roe v Wade decision, saying the court:

“should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell”

Condoms, Clarence?  Really?

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well you can't have it both ways. If it's far greater than 50 percent then it's enough for a constitutioal amendment.

The constitution can be amended by a vote of 3/4 in the houses - and then ratified by 3/4 of the states i believe.

Are you saying less than that would like to see no-limit abortions?

No it's not.  A two thirds majority in both houses is an impossible goal for the foreseeable future, and does not reflect even a substantial majority of public thought.

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I don't think it works that way for the constitution. Either it's a protected right or it isn't basically under the constitution. I suppose it MIGHT be possible to amend the constitution to make it a federal matter and then the feds could impose that on everyone - but i'm  sure you can see the danger there. The next gov't could wipe it out entirely.

Why not?  The First Amendment says you can have free speech but with conditions.  The Second Amendment says you can have a gun but with conditions. (Vanishingly small though they may be).  Why should an amendment guaranteeing a right to abortion not come with conditions?

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry - but here's the facts. Trump did it. You can play what if to your hearts content - but trump did it and it worked.

Yes he did.  I'm not saying he didn't.  I'm saying two things.  One is conjecture, but reasonable conjecture:  Another President would have done the same.

The other is fact:  Trump's COVID record was poor, and Americans suffered due to it.

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Obama is a recent president and the numbers are there.

I don't see it in that article.  The numbers indicate a slightly better performance from Obama once they had recovered from the 2008 crash.

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Which is literally not relevant.  It's like saying Oh - he was stabbing that girl for 10 minutes but technially he's not RIGHT NOW so he's the same as the rest of us.

And again - you're ignoring the interest rates. He's exchanged high inflation for high interest.

So when you look at what happened you see he did much worse.

Of course it's relevant.  I argued that the current state of the economy is something that is being experienced worldwide, and you responded by saying it wasn't worldwide and many countries were nowhere near as bad as the US. 

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well not canada.  Europe. But - it also has a higher interest rate which is what fights inflation - but that brings on recessions.

Conceded on Canada.  The data I was looking at was from January.  I see that it is now different.

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No - it's much worse.  I get you don't understand this - i get that you're looking at ONE MONTH and thinking you have a clear picture.  But it's bad. And businesses in the states know it's bad. Of course time will tell but i bet we're having a conversation in a year and i'm doing a whole lot of 'i told you so' and you're doing a whole lot of trying to play it off that it isn't that bad

I'm not looking at one month with regard to the future.  That was the second to last point.

I'm just looking at the general mood that seems to be prevalent across economic news outlets right now.  Recession, probably, but not that bad.  I suppose the debt ceiling issue might play into it somehow.  I had not considered that before.  I assume both parties will do what is best for the country, but I can't be sure.

And if you tell me you told me so, and you did, I'll acknowledge it.  I'm not proud.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I'll stick with the lawyers.  

So just the ones you approve of then, not the others who note that they really can't, eh?

Why is the left so prone to conspiracy theory. Everyone knew roe vs wade might be overturned and everyone knows gay marriage can't, but a very small group of snake oil peddlers who are in the minority tell you something scary and it's all you'll listen to.

Quote

 

One is conjecture, but reasonable conjecture:  Another President would have done the same.

The other is fact:  Trump's COVID record was poor, and Americans suffered due to it.

 

The first - maybe, but we'll never know. What we do know is trump did.

The second part - utter bullshit. What should he have done that he didn't?
 

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I don't see it in that article

it's in the graph

Quote

Of course it's relevant. 

Don't be silly. I've explained why looking at one month isn't relevant.  If it went up tomorrow, would that change your thinking and you'd be saying "oh god he's terrible'?   Of course not.

Performance is not measured in a snapshot.  AND you STILL fail to account for the interest.

Look - i'll try again.

Lets say everyone starts off with an egg costing 1 dollar.  Now - for the next year country A has 2 percent inflation and the US has 6 percent.  what does that egg cost at the end of the year.  Well - it's 1.02 in country a, and 1.06 in the us. Now - inflation in country a goes to 4 percent and the us drops to three. What does the egg cost now?

Remember - the inflation rate applies to LAST year's cost - not the original.  So - for country a it's going to be  1.061 for that egg and in the us it's going to be 1.092.

BUT BUT BUT - inflation is LOWER!!!! Sooo how can it be worse!!!!?!?!?  

The fact is the people in the us are still paying more than 'country a'.  By a fair bit.  And that's largely what happened, the us shot up to a very high rate early on and held it. Canada did too. Inflation is actually HIGHER for them despite the actual inflation rate at this moment being lower.

So now any inflation is on TOP of that early inflation. You can't just look at today's rate and compare.

THEN you have to account for the interest rate which isn't always taken into inflation. For example, people renewing their mortgage in the US will pay a higher rate than britian by a fair bit. BUT - that doesn't show up on inflation. But the interest rate is what they used to fight inflation. So - it represents an increase in the day to day living costs but doesn't appear when considering the inflatino rate, only the costs of homes do. 

Does that make more sense at all? Am i explaining it any better?

 

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I'm just looking at the general mood that seems to be prevalent across economic news outlets right now.  Recession, probably, but not that bad.

in fairness it's practically a legal requirement for them to talk like that. And with good reason.

Recessions can very easily become self fulfilling prophecies. Think about it - what would you do if you KNEW there was a bad recession coming?  You'd probably start saving money. Spending less and getting ready for hard times. Especially if you had a small business

And what does that do? Slows the economy. Your money isn't out there stimulating the economy, it's sitting there doing nothing.

And so what happens when nobody's spending money and there's no economic activity? Recession

So gov'ts and most economists are trained to under play the threat of a recession without out and out lying. If you don't - people panic and then you WILL have a bad one even if you woudln't have.

But the writing is on the wall. Especially in canada we're probably going to see a moderate recession followed by a very long stretch of very repressed growth and stagnation.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So just the ones you approve of then, not the others who note that they really can't, eh?

Why is the left so prone to conspiracy theory. Everyone knew roe vs wade might be overturned and everyone knows gay marriage can't, but a very small group of snake oil peddlers who are in the minority tell you something scary and it's all you'll listen to.

The left isn't, as far as I know.  The right lives on them, of course, but I don't know of any left ones.  I'm sure they exist, the further left one goes.  I included quotes from Supreme Court Justices and if you see conspiracy there's not a lot I can do about that.

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The first - maybe, but we'll never know. What we do know is trump did.

The second part - utter bullshit. What should he have done that he didn't?

Not been a clown?  That might have worked.

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

it's in the graph

I didn't see it in the graph.  Once the recovery from the 2008 was complete, (seemed fair.  I didn't include COVID in Trump's graph) it looked like Obama was marginally better.

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Don't be silly. I've explained why looking at one month isn't relevant.  If it went up tomorrow, would that change your thinking and you'd be saying "oh god he's terrible'?   Of course not.

Performance is not measured in a snapshot.  AND you STILL fail to account for the interest.

Look - i'll try again.

Lets say everyone starts off with an egg costing 1 dollar.  Now - for the next year country A has 2 percent inflation and the US has 6 percent.  what does that egg cost at the end of the year.  Well - it's 1.02 in country a, and 1.06 in the us. Now - inflation in country a goes to 4 percent and the us drops to three. What does the egg cost now?

Remember - the inflation rate applies to LAST year's cost - not the original.  So - for country a it's going to be  1.061 for that egg and in the us it's going to be 1.092.

BUT BUT BUT - inflation is LOWER!!!! Sooo how can it be worse!!!!?!?!?  

The fact is the people in the us are still paying more than 'country a'.  By a fair bit.  And that's largely what happened, the us shot up to a very high rate early on and held it. Canada did too. Inflation is actually HIGHER for them despite the actual inflation rate at this moment being lower.

So now any inflation is on TOP of that early inflation. You can't just look at today's rate and compare.

THEN you have to account for the interest rate which isn't always taken into inflation. For example, people renewing their mortgage in the US will pay a higher rate than britian by a fair bit. BUT - that doesn't show up on inflation. But the interest rate is what they used to fight inflation. So - it represents an increase in the day to day living costs but doesn't appear when considering the inflatino rate, only the costs of homes do. 

Does that make more sense at all? Am i explaining it any better?

Let's say everyone starts off with an egg costing 1 dollar.  And someone insists that only their egg costs a dollar, and nobody else's does.  And someone posts a graph to show that, within reasonable limits one way or the other, everyone's egg costs a dollar.

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

in fairness it's practically a legal requirement for them to talk like that. And with good reason.

Recessions can very easily become self fulfilling prophecies. Think about it - what would you do if you KNEW there was a bad recession coming?  You'd probably start saving money. Spending less and getting ready for hard times. Especially if you had a small business

And what does that do? Slows the economy. Your money isn't out there stimulating the economy, it's sitting there doing nothing.

And so what happens when nobody's spending money and there's no economic activity? Recession

So gov'ts and most economists are trained to under play the threat of a recession without out and out lying. If you don't - people panic and then you WILL have a bad one even if you woudln't have.

But the writing is on the wall. Especially in canada we're probably going to see a moderate recession followed by a very long stretch of very repressed growth and stagnation.

Well, if it gets real bad you can say you told me so, and I'll congratulate you on it.  If I can still afford the internet.

Edited April 4, 2023 by bcsapper

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

The left isn't, as far as I know.  The right lives on them, of course, but I don't know of any left ones.  I'm sure they exist, the further left one goes.  I included quotes from Supreme Court Justices and if you see conspiracy there's not a lot I can do about that.

The left lives on it. Harper has a secret agenda. THe conservatives will ban abortion. Etc etc etc.

And ONE justice said it should be reconsidered, and all the others disagreed.  But - of course the one that suits your position, THAT guy is the only trustworthy one.  Imagine.

 

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

 

Not been a clown?  That might have worked.

So in other words there's nothing different he should have done that you can think of.
In fact he did very well. Better than biden given the circumstances. Sorry - but only left wing propaganda says different. He got things organized, he shut down borders relatively quickly, he started project lightspeed, about the only thing he did wrong was what he always does, shoot his mouth off without thinking. But in fact other than that he did fine.

The dems tried to say otherwise, talking about 'super spreader' events which didn't spread anything and such but he did about as well as anyone else and better than many.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Let's say everyone starts off with an egg costing 1 dollar.  And someone insists that only their egg costs a dollar, and nobody else's does.  And someone posts a graph to show that, within reasonable limits one way or the other, everyone's egg costs a dollar.

 

Well, if it gets real bad you can say you told me so, and I'll congratulate you on it.  If I can still afford the internet.

It's already real bad. In Canada and the us the egg is actually up to close to 2 dollars and change. Food prices are soaring - and that's not "global" inflation, we MAKE eggs and beef. that's not from china, that's from down the road.

Families are literally having tough times affording food. THe interest rates that are fighting inflation are driving up mortgages and as people's terms come up that will get worse and worse for people. A lot of those people simply can't afford an extra 500 a month on their mortgage.

Personal bankruptcies are up 15 percent and rising. Consumer debt went up 7.3 percent in the third quarter of last yaer according to equifax and is well over a trillion. Business investment is slowing.

For many, it's already happening and as the credit runs out and the economy starts to tank, it'll get worse.

And the states is about the same. The last of teh savings that people had under covid are being spent.

It's not good. and it's setting up for a real long drawn out mess.

[Deluge]

15 hours ago, NYLefty said:

Go for it. Would love the laughs ?

Go for what? To stay in wait and see mode? 

The real laughs will come when Trump helps your moronic party look even dumber than it already is.

[NYLefty]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

Go for what? To stay in wait and see mode? 

The real laughs will come when Trump helps your moronic party look even dumber than it already is.

Wait and see mode equates to people have had the sh*ts of your Orange baboon and don't give a sh*t about him and his reality TV presidency bs anymore. 

[Deluge]

16 hours ago, NYLefty said:

Wait and see mode equates to people have had the sh*ts of your Orange baboon and don't give a sh*t about him and his reality TV presidency bs anymore. 

Of course your side gives a shit. You're not fooling anybody. You perverts are obsessed with Donald Trump, and you won't stop until you've thrown him in jail - you're Nazis.