Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Flagpole wrote:

Not Currently in Fantasy Land wrote:

Like those who thought Bill Clinton would be forced to resign for lying under oath, that Chaney would go down, HRC would be hurt by Bengazi and her email scandal, or Iran-Contra would affect Reagan, you will find out that it is not going to happen.

You'll find out that your "Mueller Time" will have the effect of a wet noodle.

http://muellerspasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Protein-Spaghetti.jpg

None of the things you mentioned were anywhere close to as bad as stuff Trump has done.

This is all worse than Nixon. Hillary's e-mail scandal? Really? Kushner and others in the White House have been using private e-mail servers, and no one cares, because the other stuff they've done is SOOOOOO much worse.

If you think that Hillary's problem was that she used a private email server, that's all we need to know about your bias and perception of reality.

Time to take off the Clinton-colored glasses and see what she and Bill really are.

DiscoGary wrote:

PIO! wrote:

You can't be that stupid, can you?

Do you really think that it is in some way obvious that the majority of Americans are better off if stocks are more highly valued rather than less highly valued? Seriously?

Perhaps you'd care to state your case. This ought to be funny.

I find it hilarious that liberals are trying to make the case that a booming economy is not a great thing. We saw this with Reagan. Same old playbook.

I find it hilarious that the Disco Kid does not understand the difference between a booming economy and a booming stock market. We have seen this sort of thing since . . . well, since Adam & Eve. Some people are just born stupid. #Sad

Flagpole wrote:

...

We will see if the economy is humming along by 2020. It might be, but it has been on the right path since 2009.

....

No. The economy stagnated under Obama with slow growth. If GDP booms under Trump, and it looks like it will, then it's all over but the spinning. And the spinning has already begun, which is a really good sign.

Repo Man wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I know there are a lot out there who really can't do it, at least in the near term, but MORE could than do.

So, Flaggy, you're the economic guru on this site. Perhaps, you can settle their argument. Is a high stock market good or bad for most people in the US?

A high stock market isn't BAD for most people, but it isn't GOOD for them either. Many people who are not in the market will still be pleased that it is going up, because they think that is somehow indicative of a strong economy and that they will get theirs somehow...NOPE! You need to be in the market to reap the rewards of the market.

As I have already stated, 53% of Americans (adults with jobs) are NOT in the stock market. And, of those who are, the vast majority don't invest enough so that the HUGE bulk of wealth from the stock market goes to the very top.

If you are not invested in the stock market, then you do not benefit from it when it goes up. ALSO, the stock market has been heading steadily north since March 2009. I made a KILLING while Obama was in office, BUT the economic growth wasn't super great, so SOME people for much of Obama's time in office didn't see great job opportunities. Of course, by the time Obama left office, the market was a record highs (now even higher) and we had full employment...it's just that it took time to get there from the horrible recession handed to Obama by Bush.

Has a rising stock market helped some companies so much that they gave a thousand or two to an employee who wasn't in the stock market? Yes. Well, I got ONE dividend at the end of 2017 that was twice what many people make in a year. Do I need to get even MORE money from increased stock prices? Some upper executives might spend $2000 on lunch once in a while. We should not cheer just because a person with a $32,000 a year salary got a $2,000 bonus. Of course it is nice for them, but it is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. AT&T beneifts by over $20 BILLION dollars with this tax cut...fine, but giving out little token bonuses doesn't really help the little man/woman.

I definitely don't like that situation, but I wouldn't post about it as much as I do if it weren't for such hypocritical Trump supporters..."we voted for him because he is the champion of the forgotten man!" -- BS. He just greatly helped wealthy people and gave them some VERY temporary crumbs.

DiscoGary wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

...

We will see if the economy is humming along by 2020. It might be, but it has been on the right path since 2009.

....

No. The economy stagnated under Obama with slow growth. If GDP booms under Trump, and it looks like it will, then it's all over but the spinning. And the spinning has already begun, which is a really good sign.

How have minorities done financially under Trump? Not so well.

It’s great that old white men have done well, but...

Well, that's true -- it was 1980.

489 to 49 electoral votes.

PIO! wrote:

...

I find it hilarious that the Disco Kid does not understand the difference between a booming economy and a booming stock market. We have seen this sort of thing since . . . well, since Adam & Eve. Some people are just born stupid. #Sad

Oh this is getting fun. We definitely know the difference between a booming stock market and a booming economy because that's what we saw with Obama. GDP was flat but the market went up because they kept pumping money into it. Obama did not create a booming economy, but it looks like Trumps tax cut and regulation roll backs will.

Let's see what happens. A little too early to make the call, but everything looks good. Watch the GDP numbers.

Gypsy Tee wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

No. The economy stagnated under Obama with slow growth. If GDP booms under Trump, and it looks like it will, then it's all over but the spinning. And the spinning has already begun, which is a really good sign.

How have minorities done financially under Trump? Not so well.

It’s great that old white men have done well, but...

Both black and Hispanic unemployment rate just hit an historic low under Trump. Oh, and your racism is showing.

DiscoGary wrote:

Gypsy Tee wrote:

How have minorities done financially under Trump? Not so well.

It’s great that old white men have done well, but...

Both black and Hispanic unemployment rate just hit an historic low under Trump. Oh, and your racism is showing.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news/economy/black-unemployment/index.htmlhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/28/latino-unemployment-rate-is-back-at-historic-low/

Just because their unemployment rate has gone down a little doesn’t mean they are better off financially.

DiscoGary wrote:

PIO! wrote:

You can't be that stupid, can you?

Do you really think that it is in some way obvious that the majority of Americans are better off if stocks are more highly valued rather than less highly valued? Seriously?

Perhaps you'd care to state your case. This ought to be funny.

I find it hilarious that liberals are trying to make the case that a booming economy is not a great thing. We saw this with Reagan. Same old playbook.

I find it hilarious that the Disco Kid does not understand the difference between a booming economy and a booming stock market. We have seen this sort of thing since . . . well, since Adam & Eve. Some people are just born stupid. #Sad[/quote]

Oh this is getting fun. We definitely know the difference between a booming stock market and a booming economy because that's what we saw with Obama. GDP was flat but the market went up because they kept pumping money into it. Obama did not create a booming economy, but it looks like Trumps tax cut and regulation roll backs will.

Let's see what happens. A little too early to make the call, but everything looks good. Watch the GDP numbers.[/quote]

So, in other words, you point to a booming economy when asked about the stock market. Then you point out how a booming economy and a booming stock market are entirely different things.

I see what you did there. It's called pointing out your own stupidity.

Good job!

Gypsy Tee wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Both black and Hispanic unemployment rate just hit an historic low under Trump. Oh, and your racism is showing.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/05/news/economy/black-unemployment/index.htmlhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/28/latino-unemployment-rate-is-back-at-historic-low/

Just because their unemployment rate has gone down a little doesn’t mean they are better off financially.

Besides, the unemployment numbers are totally fake according to Trump (and Disco). So there is that.

Not Currently in Fantasy Land wrote:

Like those who thought Bill Clinton would be forced to resign for lying under oath, that Chaney would go down, HRC would be hurt by Bengazi and her email scandal, or Iran-Contra would affect Reagan, you will find out that it is not going to happen.

Depends on the scandal. For Nixon, the affect was pretty dramatic!

DiscoGary wrote:

I find it hilarious that liberals are trying to make the case that a booming economy is not a great thing. We saw this with Reagan. Same old playbook.

I find it hilarious that conservatives think the stock market is the same thing as the economy.

Fat hurts wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

I find it hilarious that liberals are trying to make the case that a booming economy is not a great thing. We saw this with Reagan. Same old playbook.

I find it hilarious that conservatives think the stock market is the same thing as the economy.

Straw man, no one thinks that. But we don't get GDP numbers and other labor stats (which are also good) very often, and the stock market is a leading indicator. Hence we talk about the stock market.

Flagpole wrote:

AT&T beneifts by over $20 BILLION dollars with this tax cut...fine, but giving out little token bonuses doesn't really help the little man/woman.

And it especially doesn't help the thousands that have been laid off by AT&T in the last few months.

Also, nobody has mentioned that the tax cuts mean that American taxpayers are borrowing billions to benefit wealthy foreigners who own US stocks.

If we're going to do tax cuts to benefit the wealthy, it should at least be for the AMERICAN wealthy.

Fat hurts wrote:

Not Currently in Fantasy Land wrote:

Like those who thought Bill Clinton would be forced to resign for lying under oath, that Chaney would go down, HRC would be hurt by Bengazi and her email scandal, or Iran-Contra would affect Reagan, you will find out that it is not going to happen.

Depends on the scandal. For Nixon, the affect was pretty dramatic!

"effect"

Hardloper wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I find it hilarious that conservatives think the stock market is the same thing as the economy.

Straw man, no one thinks that. But we don't get GDP numbers and other labor stats (which are also good) very often, and the stock market is a leading indicator. Hence we talk about the stock market.

Disco Gary is made of straw?

Hardloper wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I find it hilarious that conservatives think the stock market is the same thing as the economy.

Straw man, no one thinks that. But we don't get GDP numbers and other labor stats (which are also good) very often, and the stock market is a leading indicator. Hence we talk about the stock market.

Well, actually, the Disco Kid apparently does. His post above was in response to this:

/

You can't be that stupid, can you?

Do you really think that it is in some way obvious that the majority of Americans are better off if stocks are more highly valued rather than less highly valued? Seriously?

Perhaps you'd care to state your case. This ought to be funny.

/

Disco: I find it hilarious that liberals are trying to make the case that a booming economy is not a great thing. We saw this with Reagan. Same old playbook.

/

Now DO try to keep up.

Gypsy Tee wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Both black and Hispanic unemployment rate just hit an historic low under Trump. Oh, and your racism is showing.

Just because their unemployment rate has gone down a little doesn’t mean they are better off financially.

Just because Trump gave a tax gift to the rich doesn’t mean they YOU will be better off financially.