Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Count Chocula wrote:

Are you talking about the housing bubble that started in 2007?

He crashed the market right after he filed to respond to hurricane Katrina effectively!

Econ 101-102 wrote:

Do you know....

We know this:

“Republicans are in deep trouble in the House and the Senate as well,” Frank Luntz [Republican pollster] said on Sunday on Fox News. “If the election were held today, frankly, I think Republicans would lose both.”

YAWN 2 the awakening wrote:

YAWN wrote:

cool story bro. nobody listens to u guys anymore, youve been prayin for trump to fail ever since your great liberal prognosticators proved totally wrong. a lot of the terrible things u predicted just never happened, never would. lol keep watching msnbc and telling me how the world will explode cuz we have a bigoted racist sexist nazi putin puppet in the White privilege House

You could at least read the post you are replying to which predicts that the senate WILL be more gop by the end of the year and Trump WILL be re-elected.

But no you just see some writing that look kind of liberal, get triggered and off you go.

And FWIW I've never--not once--watched MSNBC or CNN. Or Fox, which is a good thing:

Oops. What happened????

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/381748-trump-approval-drops-to-record-low-in-march

Reasonable Republican wrote:

What I would see as victorious is that Trump is found guilty of no crimes by the special counsel and he wins re election in 2020 and leaves office in 2024 still found guilty of no crimes.

If he was guilty of no crimes (a pretty likely finding IMO), why would he leave office before his term would end in 2025?

Repubs have given up on keeping the house. They are grasping at straws in a weak attempt to not lose the Senate; which they will.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-increasingly-fears-loss-of-house-focuses-on-saving-senate-majority/2018/04/08/6483ffc0-39bb-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?noredirect=on

kibitzer wrote:

Reasonable Republican wrote:

What I would see as victorious is that Trump is found guilty of no crimes by the special counsel and he wins re election in 2020 and leaves office in 2024 still found guilty of no crimes.

If he was guilty of no crimes (a pretty likely finding IMO), why would he leave office before his term would end in 2025?

Trump will quit because he thinks he will somehow be shielded from Dems releasing his tax returns once they take over the House and Senate in 2016. Trump thinks by quitting the investigations will stop, and Congress will not be able to investigate the yuge amount of money he has bilked the government for--about $1 BILLION is 2017 alone.

Fat hurts wrote:

Econ 101-102 wrote:

Plenty of downside? Are you kidding me? It was down nearly 50% by the time Obama took office! There was no more downside to be had. The bank and auto bailouts were signed by Bush already.

There was still plenty of downside and that is an undeniable fact. Things could have gotten much worse as they did during the Great Depression. When Obama took office a lot of people thought that's where we were headed.

It's like saying, "I'm going to buy this stock because it's down 50% and it can't go any lower." If you think like that, you will lose your shirt. A stock can still go lower until it reaches zero.

An economy can always get worse.

OK, your argument is now completely null of any logic.

Something that didn't happen, but that a segment of the people believe "could have," is absolutely not "an undeniable fact". That's a ludicrous statement. You want it to be true, so you call it a fact. But it isn't. It is clearly an opinion. And in my opinion, the drop was overdone because people were scared. But a lot of people made a lot of money coming out of that dip.

You're also conflating the stock market with the economy. We're talking specifically about the stock market here, as that was the original measure for this discussion (stock market performance "after 444 days" was the original statement I responded to). The entire stock market is never going to zero. Never. So your example of a single stock falling 50% and continuing on to zero is not a logical comparison. Yes, single companies can fail. No, the entire market can not. There's WAAAAYYYYYYYYYY too much vested interest from WAAAAYYYYYY too many parties for that to happen.

Fat hurts wrote:

Econ 101-102 wrote:

Plenty of downside? Are you kidding me? It was down nearly 50% by the time Obama took office! There was no more downside to be had. The bank and auto bailouts were signed by Bush already.

There was still plenty of downside and that is an undeniable fact. Things could have gotten much worse as they did during the Great Depression. When Obama took office a lot of people thought that's where we were headed.

It's like saying, "I'm going to buy this stock because it's down 50% and it can't go any lower." If you think like that, you will lose your shirt. A stock can still go lower until it reaches zero.

An economy can always get worse.

CORRECT! Only now when we look back do we know that Obama came in toward the very end of that horrible time. We didn't know it then. As I said before, he could have made a lot of mistakes in dealing with that crisis. He didn't. Allowed everything to come back.

Republican controlled House of Reps = RIP wrote:

Repubs have given up on keeping the house. They are grasping at straws in a weak attempt to not lose the Senate; which they will.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-increasingly-fears-loss-of-house-focuses-on-saving-senate-majority/2018/04/08/6483ffc0-39bb-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?noredirect=on

I agree that the House goes back to the Democrats. I'm not so sure just yet on the Senate. All of this passion that Democrats have needs to be taken all the way to the ballot box in November. We are in an instant gratification society, and even the smarter Democrats are subject to that (not me, but Democrats in general).

"...media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist. But now they don’t."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/opinion/unicorns-of-the-intellectual-right.html

Honest Republicans = Unicorns wrote:

"...media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist. But now they don’t."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/opinion/unicorns-of-the-intellectual-right.html

The truth is that for 40 or 50 years the liberal media rat maze had some windows to the outside world where the maze dwellers could see the other side and possibly understand that they are humans too. Now those windows are shut. Any maze dweller who still thinks that conservatives are humans is chased off campus and banished to the Basket of Irredeemable Deplorables.

Conservatives haven't changed. You're view of them has. It's getting worse by the day.

This is most accurate and damning thing you have ever posted - Congrats!!

DiscoGary wrote:

........ Conservatives haven't changed. ............

Econ 101-102 wrote:

Got it Econ, based on your argument, Bush gets credit for keeping the market from crashing further but he then also gets credit for the 50% selloff since that was all under his term. You do realize that most economists agree that QE pushed the market back up. QE provided a constant bid in the market, so artificial or not, it pushed valuations up. Credit Obama for that.

Hani Saleem wrote:

This is most accurate and damning thing you have ever posted - Congrats!!

DiscoGary wrote:

........ Conservatives haven't changed. ............

"He won't begrudge Tracy. I know that. He'll not begrudge him...marvelous run. A lovely race."

Econ 101-102 wrote:

Fat Hurts, don't even pretend to pawn yourself off as smart, Obama was a huge catalyst in the housing crash. Gosh you guys are so objective, means liars, it's pathetic.

Everyone who ever did a serious study of the Great Recession of 2008 has concluded that there is plenty of blame to go around.

If you really think that Obama was personally a huge catalyst then indeed, I look very smart in comparison to you.

Count Chocula wrote:

Econ 101-102 wrote:

Do you know who was involved in forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them? Ever hear of the sub-prime mortgage crisis?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/fingerprints-of-obama-on-subprime-foreclosure-crisis/https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

Fat Hurts, don't even pretend to pawn yourself off as smart, Obama was a huge catalyst in the housing crash. Gosh you guys are so objective, means liars, it's pathetic.

Are you talking about the housing bubble that started in 2007? I mean sure, one could make the argument that Obama's policies made things worse for a while, but that's hardly the definition of 'catalyst'.

Read what he did. Yes, he was a HUGE part of it. Or, look away and claim it didn't happen. He screwed a lot of peoples live, but you're far too blind to see the truth. Started in 2007? The poster never said or claimed that he was the President then, but yes, he caused a lot of the problems. Do some homework and take off the rose colored glasses, they don't look good on you anyways. How uneducated are you guys?

Shredded Wheats wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:

Are you talking about the housing bubble that started in 2007? I mean sure, one could make the argument that Obama's policies made things worse for a while, but that's hardly the definition of 'catalyst'.

Read what he did. Yes, he was a HUGE part of it. Or, look away and claim it didn't happen. He screwed a lot of peoples live, but you're far too blind to see the truth. Started in 2007? The poster never said or claimed that he was the President then, but yes, he caused a lot of the problems. Do some homework and take off the rose colored glasses, they don't look good on you anyways. How uneducated are you guys?

Obama was part of the housing crisis WAY too late for him to be a big player. A better and more appropriate target for the housing crisis is Bill Clinton. The rules for the Community Reinvestment Act were loosened by Clinton in 1995. The blame isn't ONLY Clinton's, but he had a big part. Obama, not really. He was just enforcing bad policy. Overall, Obama did WAY more to help things along after what Bush handed him. His housing crisis involvement was really nothing. Want to blame a Democrat, Bill Clinton is your guy there.