Bus Driver Trump

Who's first?

  • In like Flynn

    Votes: 5 45.5%
  • Priebus PRE-BUS

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Kellyanee (Ginger and here on Gillegans ISL)

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • Empty Pence

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Total voters
    11

SpamYouToDeath

I asked for a, Custom Rank and, Learned My Lesson.
15 Year Member
Low blow fella, low blow.

I don't think Clinton would have started a thing (war or policy wise)...she'd be too busy trying to scam more $$$ for her fake foundation or whatever funnel account she has set up. She's just a glorified scam artist, both her and her husband.

I see a lot of shitflinging about the Clinton Foundation. Is there actually evidence of abuses there? They seem to be well-regarded in their field.
 

smokehouse

I was Born This Ugly.,
15 Year Member
Please include a pic from Infowars with all your posts, it'll add a bit more flavor.

Nope.

I popped into this echo chamber because my name was brought up, and little else. This thread is a fucking lynch mob towards anyone that even slightly disagrees with the majority here, I'm not getting back into it.
 

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
Nope.

I popped into this echo chamber because my name was brought up, and little else. This thread is a fucking lynch mob towards anyone that even slightly disagrees with the majority here, I'm not getting back into it.

I am sorry you feel so victimized. Can you tell us more about why you feel like you're being lynched for your opinions?
 

smokehouse

I was Born This Ugly.,
15 Year Member
I am sorry you feel so victimized. Can you tell us more about why you feel like you're being lynched for your opinions?

I don't feel victimized in the slightest, I know the score with this site, it is what it is. I just realized there's no use debating with many here, yourself included.

If I agree with the conversation, I'll pipe in...if I don't...I'll try my best not to.



*EDIT*
You know...I'll amend that statement. You dragging my personal info into things was pretty offensive, I'll give you that. For someone like you that does his best not to show your personal information, you doing that to me was really uncalled for. You're even so fucking snarky as to still use my first name, as you did a few days ago. I didn't rip anyone off, I didn't go on some off site smear campaign...I simply disagreed with your personal politics and you decided to go in that direction.

So yeah...you hit me below the belt, I don't appreciate that.
 
Last edited:

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
I see a lot of shitflinging about the Clinton Foundation. Is there actually evidence of abuses there? They seem to be well-regarded in their field.

There is no evidence. There is only wild speculation.

Clinton was not the candidate that used a charity bearing his name for self enrichment.

The closest that anyone can even speculate about is that people gave money to the Clinton foundation in hopes curry favor with the sec. of State. But even if the donations did get the persons access, that is not a matter of self enrichment.
 
Last edited:

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
I don't feel victimized in the slightest, I know the score with this site, it is what it is. I just realized there's no use debating with many here, yourself included.

If I agree with the conversation, I'll pipe in...if I don't...I'll try my best not to.



*EDIT*
You know...I'll amend that statement. You dragging my personal info into things was pretty offensive, I'll give you that. For someone like you that does his best not to show your personal information, you doing that to me was really uncalled for. You're even so fucking snarky as to still use my first name, as you did a few days ago. I didn't rip anyone off, I didn't go on some off site smear campaign...I simply disagreed with your personal politics and you decided to go in that direction.

So yeah...you hit me below the belt, I don't appreciate that.

You can call me by my first name.

Your position wasn't about politics, but rather to support the racist disenfranchisement agenda of a group that really isn't even republican. I don't care what your politics are. Supporting Trump isn't politics. It's about genocide. http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf
 

wju2004

Armored Scrum Object
I seriously cringe every time I walk into work. We have two idiots that nearly jack-off while watching Faux News. The one is just an idiot in general. The other...I'm not sure what to think. Whatever he reads, he believes...as long as it lines up with what he thinks at that moment.

They both still think Trump is doing a great job. I simply hang my head and walk out anytime they try and talk about politics. It's an argument that you win, but not in their mind.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
lololol

"Lesser of 2 evils."

You're about as bad a smokehouse

Not less evil, but a less capable politician which could mean less overall damage done.

I didn't vote for either and I don't ever plan on voting again. I'm just saying that people who wanted Hillary tend to ignore her terrible history on foreign policy.
 

Mr Bakaboy

Beast Buster
I'm not disagreeing that Trump has been a disaster but there's no telling how many wars Hillary would have started by now. She never met a war she didn't like. It was a no win scenario.

Isn't that a republican thing to go to war to help the economy/make people forget about something stupid they did?
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
Isn't that a republican thing to go to war to help the economy/make people forget about something stupid they did?
1. All political parties start wars
2. Wars don't help the economy
3. Clinton herself supported wars as a public figure, voted for wars as a senator, and orchestrated wars as secretary of state

This isn't about defending Republicans. Fuck every last one of those backwards asshats. This is about pointing out that if Clinton had won, we'd probably be just as bad off except a lot fewer people would be aware of it or pissed off about it.
 
Last edited:

evil wasabi

The Jongmaster
20 Year Member
1. All political parties start wars
2. Wars don't help the economy
3. Clinton herself supported wars as a public figure, voted for wars as a senator, and orchestrated wars as secretary of state

This isn't about defending Republicans. Fuck every last one of those backwards asshats. This is about pointing out that if Clinton had won, we'd probably be just as bad off except a lot fewer people would be aware of it or pissed off about it.

It's true that both parties want the same things - wars, votes, progress - but how they go about it is going to be where the fights come in. Republicans want to create bills that will enrich their contractors, because that money will be funneled back into their pockets.

Democrats often seem to want the same. This is why we see Paul Ryan smiling now over the same bills he frowned at when Obama was president.

But republicans have been completely incompetent in providing americans with anything beyond ignorance, contempt, and risk. At least for a few years I had comprehensive health insurance.
 

Marek

Banned
It's true that both parties want the same things - wars, votes, progress - but how they go about it is going to be where the fights come in. Republicans want to create bills that will enrich their contractors, because that money will be funneled back into their pockets.

Democrats often seem to want the same. This is why we see Paul Ryan smiling now over the same bills he frowned at when Obama was president.

But republicans have been completely incompetent in providing americans with anything beyond ignorance, contempt, and risk. At least for a few years I had comprehensive health insurance.

Smokehouse should take this post at face value despite Charlie's direct jabs, not in this post but in general.

Consider your stance smoke man.
 

Mr Bakaboy

Beast Buster
1. All political parties start wars
2. Wars don't help the economy
3. Clinton herself supported wars as a public figure, voted for wars as a senator, and orchestrated wars as secretary of state

This isn't about defending Republicans. Fuck every last one of those backwards asshats. This is about pointing out that if Clinton had won, we'd probably be just as bad off except a lot fewer people would be aware of it or pissed off about it.

1. True, but Democrats. it seems, keep the skirmishes as small as possible to reap the benefits without getting too messy. Republicans see it more as good publicity to engage even more. Making it harder to disentangle afterwards (Bosnian War compared to Iraq II). Technically Congress has to declare war to which they haven't since WWII, but we usually call the deployment of troops by the President War.

2. Look up what got the U.S. economy out of the Great Depression. War is lots of government contracts that spurns business and the economy. That's why the U.S. became the world police in the 1st place. It saw how much money they could make deploying troops here and there.

3. and Bill has went to war. There's money to be had you know the Clinton's are up for it, but again for money not some ridiculous ideology that jumping headlong into a conflict will be good for the image.

I'm not defending Dem's either, and The opposite can happen. Trump wanting to pull out of military pacts is something I wouldn't expect from a Republican for example. But putting us in a bad position like Trump has with multiple governments Clinton probably would not do. At worst I would expect her to kiss up to our allies while starting shit with Russia and North Korea. Trump has pissed off our allies and starting shit with everybody. Politically speaking fucking dumb as hell.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
Yeah, the Democrats are all about getting out of wars quickly. You know, like in WWI, WWII, Vietnam... oh wait...

First of all, the Depression would have been over before the war even started if it weren't for all the central bank inflation and public works programs. But this is a very common misconception addressed and debunked thoroughly here:
https://mises.org/library/world-war-ii-did-not-end-great-depression

WWII did not end the Depression. Not even close.
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
20 Year Member
Does it count as being thrown under the bus if he doesn't pardon Arpaio?
 

Mr Bakaboy

Beast Buster
Yeah, the Democrats are all about getting out of wars quickly. You know, like in WWI, WWII, Vietnam... oh wait...

First of all, the Depression would have been over before the war even started if it weren't for all the central bank inflation and public works programs. But this is a very common misconception addressed and debunked thoroughly here:
https://mises.org/library/world-war-ii-did-not-end-great-depression

WWII did not end the Depression. Not even close.

1st WWI America didn't want to get into at all. WWII we had to allow Japan to bomb Hawaii to get us in. Both times we got in on the latter half of it. Veitnam didn't get escalated until Nixon. Best part was North Vietnam surrendered, but the politicians f'ed up, didn't live up to their part of the bargain so everything got thrown out.

1st thing you get when you type WWII ended Great Depression

Google said:
During the war more than 12 million Americans were sent into the military, and a similar number toiled in defense-related jobs. Those war jobs seemingly took care of the 17 million unemployed in 1939. Most historians have therefore cited the massive spending during wartime as the event that ended the Great Depression.

Sure you can find someone who disagrees, and yes it could have been fixed if "a","b", or "c" happened. However that isn't what happened and WWII did.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
Friedman is mostly worthless too. Mises and Hayek, along with their successors (Rothbard, Kirzner, Block, Hoppe, Hazlitt, et all) are the only ones who can coherently explain the business cycle in the first place. The Keynesian school, Chicago school, monetarists, socialists, and all the other schools of economic thought besides the Austrians have no way to explain why we have a constant boom and bust cycle which is why they never see the busts coming.

But anybody who thinks war ended the Depression is wrong. Sorry. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economic principles and logic.

Of course GDP is going to go up if you calculate it using a formula that assumes government spending has the same effect on prosperity as private spending does, then massively increase government spending.

That's why it's a popular misconception. Because a lot of people believe it. But it makes zero logical sense.

If you spend shitload of money making tanks those resources cannot be repurposed easily into anything that benefits the average person. It doesn't make him more wealthy, it makes him less so. Not only is there less money to spend because so much has been spent on weapons, but there are also less material reources with which to make new goods or provide new services.
 
Last edited:

Mr Bakaboy

Beast Buster
That's why it's a popular misconception. Because a lot of people believe it. But it makes zero logical sense.

If you spend shitload of money making tanks those resources cannot be repurposed easily into anything that benefits the average person. It doesn't make him more wealthy, it makes him less so. Not only is there less money to spend because so much has been spent on weapons, but there are also less material reources with which to make new goods or provide new services.

Making tanks = Jobs. Jobs = Wages, Wages = Dispensable Income, Dispensable Income = Money flowing into neighborhood, Money flowing into neighborhood = Jobs, Jobs = Wages... etc.

Plus taking 12 million Americans and giving them a job overseas frees up jobs in the homeland + gives an income that is probably going back to struggling families.

A person who acts like they know exactly what would have solved the economy IMO seems ignorant. #1 armchair quarterbacking something that happened over 70 years ago is harder then you would think. There are a lot of variables that you can't 100% account for simply because we did not live then.

#2 Saying if it happened like I said doesn't change the fact that it didn't happen. People tend to go by whatever is so called "proven". Wars might not help the economy like politicians think it does, however it doesn't change the fact that they think it does. It's probably also a reason why our armies are falling apart and stretched too thin.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
15 Year Member
Broken window fallacy. When you redirect resources by force you forego the more productive (ie, voluntary) use of them. You see the new tanks but what you don't see is the tractor or car or dishwaher that would have been. Just because money is being spent doesn't mean it is being spent productively.
 
Top