The 11th Republican Presidential Debate 2016 by FOX News [March 3][6PM PST][9PM EST]

No, it is far more complicated than that. There have been 1,000 page books written on the great depression. I promise your 3 sentence explanations, barely scratch the surface.

and yet you respond with a retort that has even less substance....

how about you expand upon these 1000's of pages of documentation
 
and yet you respond with a retort that has even less substance....

how about you expand upon these 1000's of pages of documentation

That is because I don't really want to get into it with you. I think I would make a point about the great depression, and I think you would just move to muddy the waters on the discussion, and move goal posts.

Example: If I say that the reduction of trade was driven by protectionist policies that were enacted because the economy was already in trouble, and this has always been the reaction to economic contraction, I think you would just muddy the waters in response.

Go ahead though, prove me wrong.
 
12804733_440070136198785_1964967856242632701_n.jpg
 
That is because I don't really want to get into it with you. I think I would make a point about the great depression, and I think you would just move to muddy the waters on the discussion, and move goal posts.

You used the GP as a reason for not being in favour of flax tax and yet provided absolutely no justification besides "learn our lesson" - just elaborate on that

Example: If I say that the reduction of trade was driven by protectionist policies that were enacted because the economy was already in trouble, and this has always been the reaction to economic contraction, I think you would just muddy the waters in response.

Go ahead though, prove me wrong.

Are you talking about the trade policy during the GP? Protection against the importing via the Smoot tariff actually backfired tremendously causing more sufferage. It resulted the US abandoning protectionism policies in the mid 30's and ushered in the era of liberalization to trade. In fact, it can be argued that GATT, NAFTA and the WTO were results of lessons learned from protectionist trade.
 
Should a guy who steals a chocolate bar get the same sentence as a guy who steals a car?
Someone on welfare takes 100,000 out of the system in 10 years (plus spends that 100,000), that same uber wealthy person takes 100 million per year (because of the policy he bought and paid for) and spends fuck all back in the system.

Not sure what your argument is here - often the penalty for welfare fraud is repayment - harsher penalties have included fines. Few people have been sentence to 2-6 years

depending the severity of white collar crime - fines up to millions can be in effect and jail time up to 20 year.

also who embezzles 100 million and does not buy anything?
 
Not sure what your argument is here - often the penalty for welfare fraud is repayment - harsher penalties have included fines. Few people have been sentence to 2-6 years

depending the severity of white collar crime - fines up to millions can be in effect and jail time up to 20 year.

also who embezzles 100 million and does not buy anything?
Had nothing to do with a real crime or fraud.

I thought it was pretty self explanatory, oh well, next time.
 
Are you talking about the trade policy during the GP? Protection against the importing via the Smoot tariff actually backfired tremendously causing more sufferage. It resulted the US abandoning protectionism policies in the mid 30's and ushered in the era of liberalization to trade. In fact, it can be argued that GATT, NAFTA and the WTO were results of lessons learned from protectionist trade.

And I argue that the protectionist trade policies were a response to a already contracting economy, and natural nativist reaction.

That while this may have extended the depression, it was in no way a root cause.

To even attempt to discuss the GD, I think it is crucial to separate from contributing factors, and root causes.

Trade at best should be described as a contributing factor, not the cause. Do you disagree?
 
And I argue that the protectionist trade policies were a response to a already contracting economy, and natural nativist reaction.

That while this may have extended the depression, it was in no way a root cause.

To even attempt to discuss the GD, I think it is crucial to separate from contributing factors, and root causes.

Trade at best should be described as a contributing factor, not the cause. Do you disagree?

I never once claimed it was thee cause but rather one of several causes. Credit Boom - Bust, Devastated agriculture, Trade failure, consumers not willing to put money into the economy, banks not being insured and not giving out loans...

Yet, you still used the GP as "a lesson" against flat tax ...yet still havent explained why
 
I never once claimed it was thee cause but rather one of several causes. Credit Boom - Bust, Devastated agriculture, Trade failure, consumers not willing to put money into the economy, banks not being insured and not giving out loans...

Yet, you still used the GP as "a lesson" against flat tax ...yet still havent explained why

No I didnt, I used it as a argument, along with other examples, of how your everyman for himself philosophy was shortsighted. How your good fortune, and misfortune is tied to everyone else's. The great depression, the robber barron era, and the labor movement. These are the examples I used to attempt to point out to you, that your claim of dog eat dog, being in your economic interest, is short sighted.

I don't do this deal where you engage in a bunch of different arguments. Which one do you want to start with?

How about this one here, with what I said, and what I meant.
 
Damn, I just can't stand looking at the Cruz "Booger" incident. I just find that so repulsive.

Anyhow, yesterday was Trump vs:

1) Cruz / Rubio double team
2) Moderators out to get him
3) Romney cheap attack
4) Anti-Trump partisan crowd

And The Don came out the winner.

This primary is the one for the ages. So entertaining.
 


Yet another ground-breaking "First" for the 2016 election!

We're breaking down all sorts of barriers, including the one separating nostrils and mouths.
 
Last edited:
6:14pm

The spotlight goes to Kasich. It’s a question about whether he would work a cooperative strategy with other candidates to block Trump.

“This is so much about process, it frankly is boring to me,” Kasich says. Then he says he beats Clinton by more than anybody, by 11 points.

“In one poll,” Trump interjects.

Kasich ignores him. He says “I can get crossover votes.”

Kasich says people tell him “you seem to be the adult on the stage,” and that line is cheered.

Kasich is pressed about what path he has to a nomination. He finished in single digits in most Super Tuesday states (except Vermont, and Massachusetts).

Kasich said “you all wrote me off” before.

“It’s now March madness and we’re heading up north, to my turf. And let me tell you this, I will win Ohio,” Kasich says.

He says when people get to know him, they’ll back him.
Am I crazy if I think Kaisch would have a very good chance against Clinton? People who want to vote just to vote AGAINST Clinton would vote for a guy like Kaisch, not for a Trump although possibly a Cruz but only if they really hated Clinton
 
Id like to state for the record that Americans don't give a single fuck what Canadians think about our politics.
Just know that...PLEASE know that a
 
Am I crazy if I think Kaisch would have a very good chance against Clinton? People who want to vote just to vote AGAINST Clinton would vote for a guy like Kaisch, not for a Trump although possibly a Cruz but only if they really hated Clinton

The polls show that Kasich would beat Hillary. His only hope is a brokered convention where there would be a reset but even then I don't think he gets the nod.
 
Why does it always look so awkward when white guys tries to fist pump?
 
Back
Top