trump announces his bid for reelection!

[Pat Mustard]

Holy shit. There's Holocaust Denialism, but I've never seen someone actually blame the Holocaust on the Jews. "They stabbed Germans in the back." Fucking wow.

Well the nazis did. Plus the "stab in the back" theory was widely accepted during the Weimar period as the reason why Germany lost WW1, originating from Eirich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg the two generals who were de facto dictators during the last two years of the war and who forced the civilian government of Germany to sue for surrender in November 1918.

[Drich]

there is a major difference between obama care and the debt owed by germany via the treaty of versailles... The cost of the reperations for WWI germany owed was a fixed price.

Obama care in one term doubbled the national debt and the cost where only going up... do you understand the term doubled the national debt? it means to spend all of the money every administration before him from washington to bush 2 in a 4 year period... What sane person would allow this? what sane person would allow the next administration to continue down this same path!

You Republicans didn’t mind when Reagan did it.

obama spent 4xs what reagan did, and again there was an end to reagan's spending, as nuclear proliferation subsided so too did the spending. "We did not mind because we did not want to be obliterated by or learn to speak russian. again obama's plan is open ended with cost doubling almost ever 2 years. by now the debt would have rolled over almost 3 times if not for trump.

---

The national debt went up 74% under Obama, the 5th largest increase percentage-wise. It went up about 101% under his predecessor and the economy crashed near the end of his last term. Obama got beat out for percentage increase by FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and GW Bush. Seems like one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement left.

Looking at the official numbers from the treasury, the last president to reduce the national debt was Eisenhower (for the 1955-7 fiscal year) and the last one to leave America with less debt than he inherited was Coolidge.

It’s almost like “small government” is just a meaningless buzzword that Republicans use to get voters, just like Drich seems to think socialism is and how Hitler actually used the word.

Source: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo...stdebt.htm

you still don't get it...

Socialism is the hook, it is the selling point that pushes a government to fail so dictators can come in and 'save' the country. Look at every known example and you will see the pattern repeat. a people become lazy don't want to work don't want to pay their debts begin to believe they are entitled to a life they did not earn and they vote in socialism... which causes the country to fail hard after a few years maybe a decade or two if the country is wealthy. but they always fail and when they do the real reason for the push for socialism rears it's ugly head. which usually results in a dictatorship

[Rev. Rye]

I would point out that Western Europe has been living under social democracy since the mid Forties and it’s actually worked out pretty well for them so far. And, Greece aside, the Eurozone is actually doing pretty bloody well.


And that the actual stats don’t seem to line up with the “When nuclear proliferation stopped, so did Reagan’s spending” narrative. Where exactly is the decline here?

Source: https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-pr...nt-3306296

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.

Note that no other president prior to Reagan ever cracked the $100 billion per year debt mark. And that Clinton (in the 2000 Fiscal Year) was the only president since then to have added less than $100 billion in a single year. There is a relatively small decrease for 1987, but with that decrease, it's still more than he spent in any of his first three years.

[Drich]

I would point out that Western Europe has been living under social democracy since the mid Forties and it’s actually worked out pretty well for them so far. And, Greece aside, the Eurozone is actually doing pretty bloody well.


And that the actual stats don’t seem to line up with the “When nuclear proliferation stopped, so did Reagan’s spending” narrative. Where exactly is the decline here?

Source:https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981.

FY 1989 - $255 billion.
FY 1988 - $252 billion.
FY 1987 - $225 billion.
FY 1986 - $297 billion.
FY 1985 - $256 billion.
FY 1984 - $195 billion.
FY 1983 - $235 billion.
FY 1982 - $144 billion.

what world do you live in?
regans totals=ROUND UP to 2 trillion
obama= spent over 11 trillion and don't say inflation inflation would put it around 5 to 6 trillion
https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-debt-presidents/

and the EU is failing. not even a little nor is this  maybe thing.. a decade maybe two is all you get with socialism IF the countries are wealthy. it is an unsustainable model.
https://www.ccn.com/is-the-demise-of-eur...-collapse/
https://internationalman.com/articles/do...of-the-eu/
https://news.goldcore.com/uk/gold-blog/e...nder-euro/

[Rev. Rye]

Actually, Obama’s totals are closer to $8.5 trillion, which is still close to five times the amount of money Reagan spent. However, as of Dubya’s last budget, the national debt was $11.567 trillion, which leads to a 74% increase.

Meanwhile, Reagan started with a $998 billion debt and ended with $2.86 trillion. It was Reagan who spent more than twice the rest of all the previous administrations combined, not Obama.

[Drich]

Actually, Obama’s totals are closer to $8.5 trillion, which is still close to five times the amount of money Reagan spent. However, as of Dubya’s last budget, the national debt was $11.567 trillion, which leads to a 74% increase.

Meanwhile, Reagan started with a $998 billion debt and ended with $2.86 trillion. It was Reagan who spent more than twice the rest of all the previous administrations combined, not Obama.

citation please...

I provided citations that show these numbers are wrong.

Seems like you making shite up rev...

and again 3 trillion =/= 11 trillion inflation included. and again moron the cold war ended so did the spending... obama was just getting started! his program by now would have tripled the debt..

[Rev. Rye]

Even your debt consolidation site actually uses the same numbers I used.

https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-deb...ald-reagan

Drich, kindly learn to read your own damn sources.


I’m not saying Obama didn’t create a lot of debt for the USA, and in terms of sheer numbers, it’s the most any president has added, (note, however, that literally every president from Carter on except for Clinton and Bush Sr. managed to set that record prior to Obama) I’m just saying that the days when America’s presidents didn’t is long gone. And that the president who came the closest to that ideal, likely within our lifetimes, was, ironically, Clinton. And my point of comparison was percentage of increase in national debt, not raw numbers or inflation. And I chose that specifically because you said Obama spent more than all the previous administrations combined, and I looked up the numbers and saw, no, he actually didn’t.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-pr...nt-3306296

Sounds like you’re the one living in an alternate reality.

[Pat Mustard]

Actually, Obama’s totals are closer to $8.5 trillion, which is still close to five times the amount of money Reagan spent. However, as of Dubya’s last budget, the national debt was $11.567 trillion, which leads to a 74% increase.

Meanwhile, Reagan started with a $998 billion debt and ended with $2.86 trillion. It was Reagan who spent more than twice the rest of all the previous administrations combined, not Obama.

Are those figures adjusted for inflation or, as I suspect they are, in nominal dollars?

[Rev. Rye]

Nominal. And if you want to cross-reference those numbers, The Treasury's official stats on the national debt has that covered.

[Bucky Ball]

Trump is set this evening to hold a rally in my home town of orlando Fl. they had tickets (free but you have to go to a web site and print them off) They have issued over 100,000 tickets as of yesterday mornings news. the arena only holds 25,000 people. they are first come first serve. there are several thousand people in line since yesterday. they had to shut down the adjacent streets yesterday. all to hear this 'hated' president speak for an hour or so. just heard everything shut down around the arena which is centurally located downtown. so a 1/3 of the city is closed

Meanwhile the big trump killing candidate who holds the lead in the polls over trump rented out a convention hall, (1000 people) but had to downsize to just one of the back conference room (100+people) HALL WAYS ( a few dozen people) because he didn't have 100 people come out.

My question to you all is, do you truly hate living in one of the most prosperous times this century has seen, that despite any benefit you are now living in, would still want to see a socialist regime be put in place that limits our constitutional freedoms (the dims have already tried to remove the first amendment and replace it with reasonable speech bill) send our money over seas along with our jobs and any hope of living a life not complete dependent on the government?

For those of you would would line up in a convention center hall way to see a man who could defeat trump, what is the appeal? what do you get? why not allow the grown ups run things for a while make everyone some money so the millennial can at least know what it is like to have money you do not need sitting in the bank or in an investment. to have a very good paying job and to have peace at mind, before you take all of that away and give away all your constitutional rights.

Next question when trump wins again and when the cue this time is not some covert FBI game the dims want to play blaming trump with Russian collusion, but a real guns out cue, how many of you will be willing to invade DC?

or are you just going to get madonna up on stage talking about her 80 year old worn out bits again?

If not that, what will you do when trump wins again?


Can any of you see the news you get about trump is absolutely biased and out right lies to you? meaning all the BS you hate is either over inflated or an outright lie. Take your biggest hate on trump and google it. don't read the crap you normally do, and you will see nothing holds water. 
Literally not one story broke about all of the supposed scandels panned out to be true.

What is true is trump does not play the game that people are now being indoctrinated to play in our 'schools.' That is the only reason he is hated. he is a reminder than one does not need to be apart of group think to be the leader of the free word.

simply b

Too bad simpleton. He is hated for FAR FAR more than your childish self-talk.
The rallies don't change the fact that all Trump has, is his idiot base, which is a decided minority. He can't win without expanding it. He can't.
The reason the economy is so great, is that OBAMA set it on a winning path after the REPUBLICANS caused the greatest recession since the Depression. 
CNBC did a poll last week of Warren's wealth tax. 60 % of the multimillionaires polled supported it. All your bullshit claims about socialism are false. That's what they said about Social Security and Medicaid and Obama Care. Now US citizens wouldn't do without them.

It's very interesting you will tolerate the most immoral and lying fool ever to occupy the White House because he gets you a few things you want. The ends justify the means. Utilitarianism. The very philosophy until now, Christian philosophers decried and preached against. Time was when "conservatives" were real conservatives. Now all they are is "What do we get out of it". Bunch of brainless fools. Sure. Let's elect a rapist for president, ... why ? Because he's good for the economy. Great moral stance that from a bunch of fake religionists who *claim* they hold a moral high ground. Bunch of fucking fakery. What the hell ever happened to the "family values" bullshit ? Time to sic your "angry" Jesus on these republicunts. You never fail to use religion to attack those you dislike. Pull your angry non-hippipe Jebus out of your pocket and get to work.