Likelihood: Trump loses in 2020, accepts the vote as legit, and cleanly transfers power?

Trump isn't allowed to to question Obama's foreign policy? Okaaaayyyyy....

I don't think any of this is much of a big deal anyways. If Obama disagrees with Trump, he can say so. If Trump disagrees with Obama, he can say so. If Hillary and the Dems think Russia literally hacked the election, and brainwashed the American public into to voting for Trump, they can say so. If Trump thinks Obama was born in Kenya, he can say so.

LOL @ you thinking it's off limits to criticize an administration's(past or present) agendas, though. It's literally the basis of every election.
Noticeable that you left out Trump's questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency. Concession accepted.
 
You're ok with it. Says everything we need to know about you. Good day.

Much like you're okay with the entire Democratic establishment calling the 2016 election into question.

"Hacked the election"

What an honest description of events, that doesn't at all undermine the legitimacy of the Presidency.

Good talk.
 
It's almost as stupid as when guys like you used to say Obama was preparing to declare martial law and send us all to the secret Walmart detention centers.
Or when guys like you said that Trump would round up gays and minorities and literally put them in concentration camps.
 
Much like you're okay with the entire Democratic establishment calling the 2016 election into question.

"Hacked the election"

What an honest description of events, that doesn't at all undermine the legitimacy of the Presidency.

Good talk.
Pointing to Russian interference, which has lots of evidence is not the same as questioning a CT about the president's birth place. Sad this needs to be explained to you.
 
Pointing to Russian interference, which has lots of evidence is not the same as questioning a CT about the president's birth place. Sad this needs to be explained to you.

Yeah, I know. Calling into question the entire electoral process, and attempting to deceive the public, by acting like facebook adds are essentially the same thing as hacking voting machines, is far, far worse. Not to mention, suggesting that everyone who voted for Trump were brainwashed, and couldn't possibly have decided to vote for Trump based on policy and platform, over the evil lizard lady.

Again, good talk. Mountains were moved today.
 
Or when guys like you said that Trump would round up gays and minorities and literally put them in concentration camps.

lol Who ever said that?? It sure as hell wasn't me.

Just own the fact that you're a partisan hypocrite. Wear it as a badge of honor when people call you out on it.

Weinstein: "Filthy Hollywood liberal rapist!"
Trump: "All those women are liars!"
 
Yeah, I know. Calling into question the entire electoral process, and attempting to deceive the public, by acting like facebook adds are essentially the same thing as hacking voting machines, is far, far worse. Not to mention, suggesting that everyone who voted for Trump were brainwashed, and couldn't possibly have decided to vote for Trump based on policy and platform, over the evil lizard lady.

Again, good talk. Mountains were moved today.
Yeah, so when democracy is under attack we should pretend it isn't when it's your guy. That's what you've brought to the table. Thanks for sharing, really enlightening stuff.
 
lol Who ever said that?? It sure as hell wasn't me.
Well, you threw out some shit that I never said. Unless you can link us, of course.

Just own the fact that you're a partisan hypocrite. Wear it as a badge of honor when people call you out on it.

Weinstein: "Filthy Hollywood liberal rapist!"
Trump: "All those women are liars!"
Source?
 
If he loses, he'll leave leave office and continue to talk shit on twitter for 12-24 months before dying.

I think he'll be reelected and will live out his second term, though.
 
Again, I'm not doing this. As I've said, I've done it three times, and even gone back and borrowed graphs posted by @Jack V Savage, and time and time again, I feel like an asshole for having spent the time.



You don't understand macroeconomics if you don't think redistributional codes are necessary to keep an economy from toppling from upward concentration of wealth and suffocated demand, let alone understand the insidious roots of those concentrations in predatory and illegal/extralegal behavior.

I don't blame you for being scared by the word though. Many idiots are.

Of course you're "not doing this".) notice I flat out challenges you once again to post the links, and you didn't?) you're hilarious. You're a complete ideologue. You don't even realize Obamacare was designed by Republicans. Mitt Romney designed the bulk of Obamacare. All you know is that Obama's name is attached to it, so it must be the greatest shit ever. @Jack V Savage likrs to claim I'm on his ignore list, though he fucks up from time to time and quotes me. He "ignores" me for the same reasons. He can't handle having to deal intellectually with anything he doesn't want to hear from an ideological perspective. Because he's as much of an ideologue as you are. As I've told both of you dozens of times, actual intelligent people, when confronted with a postion they can't refute, examine it and their own perspectives objectively. Not you two though. You just pretend everyone else is "dumb" and slime your way back into your hole. You guys are gems.

OOHHH, right. It's your understanding of macroeconomics. That's the deal. Once again, you're just "smarter" than everyone else. That's how you justify outright theft. Got it.
 
don't think he'll lose

by that I mean he'll either run and win, or resign early/not run at all

the look on his face come results showed he didn't actually expect to win in the first place IMO
 
don't think he'll lose

by that I mean he'll either run and win, or resign early/not run at all

the look on his face come results showed he didn't actually expect to win in the first place IMO
Didn't expect, and didn't want. Probably the most ideal would have been to win the popular vote and lose the electoral. That way he could claim a win, and still say it was rigged. He'd rabble rouse the rubes, attempt to destabilize everything, and try to make as much money off It as possible.
 
That's the deal. Once again, you're just "smarter" than everyone else. That's how you justify outright theft. Got it.

No, I'm just smarter than you. And that's not even relevant, as I don't need to be smarter than you to cite to basic facts.

But, if it helps quell your delusions, I did a quick search and found these two threads, which cites back to our original conversation on the matter, including the one where JVS intervened. I cannot find the original one.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/if-it-wasnt-trump.3631933/page-5#post-134555047

Regardless, I gave you several chances to redeem yourself in that thread, and you tucked your pussy and regurgitated the same illiterate talking points in other threads, such as this one. I'm not going to keep addressing your vague comments about the ACA, and access to healthcare in general, being a boon on non-upper class productivity. There are enough mounds of objective data to the contrary, that any reader worth their snuff can verify.

As far as your purported point on "millions" of those being thrown off healthcare not wanting it in the first place: that's stupid. Those persons make up a negligible cross section of enrollees, since the tax penalty for non-coverage was made a fraction of the costs of coverage, and even if they did exist to any meaningful extent, their being uninsured would shift costs onto the rest of consumers anyways.

As far as NAFTA, I don't have any "particular provision" that I do not like: I don't like the agreement in its entirety.

As far as Trump's renegotiation of NAFTA using the TPP agreement he previously (and correctly, I believed, ignorant to how ignorant Trump was) railed against, I oppose provisions that would allocate political power to transnational corporations by way of making their dispute resolution processes extralegal. The grossest features of TPP were such provisions that insulated international business from state processes and non-corporate considerations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...-day-and-be-based-on-obamas-tpp/#6ad4c7076016
https://www.thenation.com/article/t...nafta-is-starting-to-look-a-lot-like-the-tpp/
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...mps-nafta-goals-arent-new-theyre-from-the-tpp


I don't need anything else.

You said it increased taxes on the middle class and gave a tax break to the rich. You said that because you're a moron. And you were proved wrong. You were shown that a great service was provided to the lower and lower-middle classes on the dime of the 1%.

Don't blame me that this anecdote is a perfect microcosm of how little you know about the ACA and about the policies of the two major American parties re the middle class.




Ahh, yes, that's why the insurance industry railed hard against it and have scapegoated the ACA for their profit floors, and why conservative morons like you use their flight from the law's coverage as some symbol that the law is imminently doomed and that's why millions have to have their coverage revoked so that billionaires can get more money.



No you don't. The ACA slowed price growth and instituted substantive floors on the services covered. There is literally zero way that your coverage could have gotten worse.



I don't care about your anecdote: everyone seems to have them, but can't refute the data showing the ACA slowed price growth and expanded coverage. If you want me to spam you with a fuck ton of article and studies proving this, none of which you will read, just say the word and I'll dump them on your illiterate lap.

Hell, that would be a hell of a lot easier than digging up your idiotic posts on the ACA.

Also, I could give two shits about your cunt of a wife. If she married you, I imagine that her healthcare premiums are the least of her problems.




You do realize that NAFTA hasn't been renegotiated right? So, I can't give you the specific changes that I do not like.

Derp.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/w...his-legislation.3601171/page-9#post-133171815

It may only marginally benefit the middle class, but it is disproportionately funded by the rich, not by the middle class. That's why repealing it would have those effects: it represented a larger proportional burden to the upper class.

You said Obama shifted the tax burden from the rich and onto the middle class, or rather that repeal of his policies would not do the opposite. That is demonstrably untrue.

It is also demonstrably true that Trump's policies would result in giant tax cuts for the rich and a mixed bag of tax hikes, tax cuts, and lost services to the middle class.

Yeah, I already ceded and addressed that in my last paragraph. Believe it or not, not every criticism of a Republican is defense of a Democrat. You can be critical of both. Obama didn't do enough to shift the tax burden onto the rich and off the middle class. That doesn't make Trump reversing what little he did okay.



Practically, no. Proportionally, yes. That gets to the heart of the discussion: that nominal tax rates are secondary to their practical application in wealth distribution and revenue creation.

It's unarguable that repeal of the ACA benefits the rich and hurts the middle and lower class.

Forbes: Obamacare Repeal Results In Tax Cuts For The Rich; Tax Increases And Lost Insurance For The Rest

You're basically arguing that, because Obama policies didn't tax the rich more and grant more relief to the middle class, we should go in the opposite direction. That's nonsensical. You're arguing partisan nonsense.

Combined with the increase on the top rate, this is what we get:

Average_Federal_Tax_Rates_Top_1_Percent-thumb-615x480-109671.png


Average federal tax rates actually paid by the top 1% are back to pre-Reagan levels. The ACA repeal plus proposed "reform" would bring them way down.


In the second one, as always, you just stopped debating the issue instead of admitting you were/are blatantly wrong and uninformed. You did, however, admit that the ACA was funded on the back of the rich to the benefit of the poor and middle class and then dodged when asked how, then, its repeal would benefit the middle class to the detriment of the rich.

Also, you did the same thing on trade deals: demonstrated a superficial and insufficient knowledge of them, made obtuse statements based on that knowledge, and then cried like a bitch when pressed to expound.
 
I can't stand him, but I think he takes 2020. His base is diehard and are very motivated simply by someone who is not on the left. and the Dems don't really seem to have a very worthwhile candidate at the point to grab moderates. The latter may change, but Trump winning again would not surprise me at all.

What surprised me the most was the fake outrage crowd aka the left wasn't as motivated to vote this time

Almost anyone I talked to said they weren't going to vote this time because they assumed Hilary was going to win
 
Back
Top