Looks like America, like many countries before us, has to learn the hard way. What to expect from a Trump presidency, second term.

[Publius]

Trump couldn't get infrastructure passed during his first term because Democrats would not work with him, preferring instead to put up road blocks and focus on impeachment efforts against Trump for political reasons. The Republicans in congress were not so petty under Biden.

Ahh, there it is. It's part of the president's role to help foster cooperation between both chambers of Congress. If Congress is persistently deadlocked, it can reflect on the president's skill in encouraging collaboration -- but it’s also shaped by broader political and ideological divides. For example, Democrats and Republicans disagreed on the approach to infrastructure, with some Republicans favoring toll roads and privatization while Democrats opposed these solutions. When compromise can't be reached, though it’s not solely the president’s failure, though it's just that the president's influence and experience can help navigate such impasses. Biden, with his years of Senate experience, has been more successful in building consensus on key issues, whereas Trump, who came in without legislative experience, faced greater challenges in this regard.

Same as above. Republicans were willing to work with him instead of trying to block him for political reasons at every turn.

Are you kidding me? Republicans in Congress have wielded the filibuster like a bludgeon, deploying every procedural trick to derail the legislative priorities of Democratic presidents -- especially under Obama and Biden. Healthcare reform? Blocked. Voting rights protections? Stonewalled. Climate action? Thrown into gridlock. This isn’t governance; it’s the strategy of a party that views obstruction as a virtue, treating legislative debate like a sport where the only goal is to deny the other side a victory, no matter the stakes for the American people.

But let’s also be precise: sure, there are exceptions. When absolutely forced, they've crossed the aisle on issues like infrastructure (under Biden) and pandemic relief, though it’s hard to ignore the long shadow of their obstructionist record. The filibuster -- a once rare, last-resort maneuver -- has become their weapon of choice to grind the wheels of democracy to a halt. And while this tactic’s become infamous in recent Republican hands, of course, both parties have used it over time. Yet never with such cynical frequency, never with such flagrant disregard for progress, as what we've seen in recent decades by Republicans. This is not policy -- it’s performative stonewalling, plain and simple.

The Federal Reserve does not control inflation, but reacts to it by raising or lowering interest rates in an effort to mitigate its effects.

The Federal Reserve influences inflation by managing the money supply and adjusting interest rates, acting independently based on economic conditions rather than directly in response to Congressional spending. When Congress passes large spending bills, like Trump’s CARES Act and Biden’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) -- totaling about $4 trillion -- additional funds are often needed beyond tax revenue. To finance such appropriations, the government primarily issues Treasury bonds, increasing the national debt. The Federal Reserve may also use Quantitative Easing (QE) to buy bonds and inject liquidity into financial markets, indirectly supporting economic stability.

This combination of increased spending and money supply expansion can contribute to inflation, especially if the economy’s production doesn’t keep pace. As a result, if too much money circulates relative to the supply of goods and services, inflation can rise -- a scenario often described as 'too many dollars chasing too few goods.' In a typical inflationary environment, it’s the persistent growth of the money supply outpacing economic output that creates lasting inflation. Transitory price spikes in individual sectors -- caused by supply disruptions or demand surges --aren’t true inflation unless they contribute to a sustained, general rise in prices across the economy.

The idea of controlling the economy by controlling consumer spending is a demand side, top-down approach that is much less effective than a supply side, bottom up approach that allows businesses to thrive, produce more, and thus allow prices to come down naturally.

I'm not an either one side or the other, guy.

Controlling the economy solely by managing consumer spending isn't simply a "top-down, demand-side" approach -- it's a strategy focused on balancing supply with demand. When demand rises faster than the economy can produce, prices increase, creating inflation. In these cases, moderating demand through interest rates or other monetary policy tools can help keep prices stable and prevent the economy from overheating.

On the other hand, supply-side policies -- like tax cuts and deregulation -- aim to boost production by incentivizing businesses to invest, expand, and create jobs. While supply-side measures can help in certain contexts, they’re not a silver bullet for every economic challenge. For instance, when demand collapses (such as during a recession or a pandemic), simply boosting supply won’t stimulate economic activity if consumers lack the purchasing power or confidence to spend.

Also, it’s worth noting that effective economic management often combines both demand and supply measures rather than relying exclusively on one side. Demand-side policies ensure stability by moderating economic swings, while supply-side measures support long-term growth. Ignoring demand-side tools in favor of an exclusively supply-side approach can result in economic imbalances, as seen in cases where tax cuts disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals and corporations but don’t necessarily lead to increased production or lower prices.

While its true that tariffs might raise prices on foreign goods, it may only be temporary, and it's also likely that the tariffs will serve as a way to allow greater domestic production. Most Americans, given the choice, will pay a few cents more for goods if it is helping the economy overall, creating more jobs in the US, making us more self-sufficient, making for more quality products, and reducing slave labor sweatshops in foreign countries.

You don't seem to understand how Trump negotiates. Here's a secret: It is very unlikely that he'll actually raise tariffs across the board. It is a negotiating strategy to better the US economic position relative to China and other foreign importers. Watch and see.

Look, I'm only going by what Trump said, and he said he intends on an across the board approach. I've heard this 'he didn't really mean it' argument coming from Repubs, before, and no, it often turns out he did, in point of fact, mean it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/07/trumps-tariff-plan-how-tariffs-work-why-they-might-increase-prices.html

 

[Knuckles Neanderthal]

That's all you cockroaches have so let it out. You forgot incel or can't you be gay and incel at the same time? I'm confused at the hierarchy of your pathetic insults.

Again your side show is over. No one is paying admission. So shut the fuck up you miserable loser.

He sounds like a sock of @Dutch Uncle .

 

[Dutch Uncle]

He sounds like a sock of @Dutch Uncle .

Thanks for proving I'm inside your head.

Sorry to disappoint you, son, but I don't have socks. Too much work. Besides, I'm having too much fun with one account to thin it out.

That said, please keep being paranoid about me.

 

[Publius]

Since I'm gay why don't you lick my untrimmed poorly washed ass rim bitch?

Repeat this chant until you have an epiphany:

"It's okay to be gay and have a tiny penis"

Repeat the mantra until you feel good about yourself.

Time heals, and meditating using self acceptance mantras will put you closer to God.

All of those hateful feelings will fall away like dead leaves falling from a tree.

Also, you'll find that your exorbitant degree of ignorance will diminish, and your mind will open up.

You will thank me, all you need more self esteem, more self confidence, all this self loathing which makes you so disagreeable will fade, just do the chant, might take 30 days, but it will be worth it.

Love and kisses, my friend.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Only BIG PAIN, the teacher of last resort, will work.

 

[Patriot]

Ahh, there it is. It's part of the president's role to help foster cooperation between both chambers of Congress. If Congress is persistently deadlocked, it can reflect on the president's skill in encouraging collaboration -- but it’s also shaped by broader political and ideological divides. For example, Democrats and Republicans disagreed on the approach to infrastructure, with some Republicans favoring toll roads and privatization while Democrats opposed these solutions. When compromise can't be reached, though it’s not solely the president’s failure, though it's just that the president's influence and experience can help navigate such impasses. Biden, with his years of Senate experience, has been more successful in building consensus on key issues, whereas Trump, who came in without legislative experience, faced greater challenges in this regard.

Biden is an establishmentarian, just like many in the GOP and almost all of the Dems, and as such, belongs to what might be labeled "the good ol' boys club." Many of them have dirt on each other, or owe each other favors, and make a lot of backroom deals. In short, they're corrupt. Trump, on the other hand, never having been in politics before his first term as president, was scorned and shunned by the establishment, which was most of congress. They didn't want to work with him for the simple reason that they wanted him to fail, regardless of how skillful he might be in making deals, which he is in the business world, but they don't regard him as part of the club.

Are you kidding me? Republicans in Congress have wielded the filibuster like a bludgeon, deploying every procedural trick to derail the legislative priorities of Democratic presidents -- especially under Obama and Biden. Healthcare reform? Blocked. Voting rights protections? Stonewalled. Climate action? Thrown into gridlock. This isn’t governance; it’s the strategy of a party that views obstruction as a virtue, treating legislative debate like a sport where the only goal is to deny the other side a victory, no matter the stakes for the American people.

You just made my case for why congress wouldn't work with Trump during his first term.

But let’s also be precise: sure, there are exceptions. When absolutely forced, they've crossed the aisle on issues like infrastructure (under Biden) and pandemic relief, though it’s hard to ignore the long shadow of their obstructionist record. The filibuster -- a once rare, last-resort maneuver -- has become their weapon of choice to grind the wheels of democracy to a halt. And while this tactic’s become infamous in recent Republican hands, of course, both parties have used it over time. Yet never with such cynical frequency, never with such flagrant disregard for progress, as what we've seen in recent decades by Republicans. This is not policy -- it’s performative stonewalling, plain and simple.

Has it occurred to you that Republicans have been forced to use the filibuster more often because of the Democrats' unprecedented move to the left? Also, Democrats still hold the record for filibuster use with 328 during the 2019-2020 term.

The Federal Reserve influences inflation by managing the money supply and adjusting interest rates, acting independently based on economic conditions rather than directly in response to Congressional spending. When Congress passes large spending bills, like Trump’s CARES Act and Biden’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) -- totaling about $4 trillion -- additional funds are often needed beyond tax revenue. To finance such appropriations, the government primarily issues Treasury bonds, increasing the national debt. The Federal Reserve may also use Quantitative Easing (QE) to buy bonds and inject liquidity into financial markets, indirectly supporting economic stability.

This combination of increased spending and money supply expansion can contribute to inflation, especially if the economy’s production doesn’t keep pace. As a result, if too much money circulates relative to the supply of goods and services, inflation can rise -- a scenario often described as 'too many dollars chasing too few goods.' In a typical inflationary environment, it’s the persistent growth of the money supply outpacing economic output that creates lasting inflation. Transitory price spikes in individual sectors -- caused by supply disruptions or demand surges --aren’t true inflation unless they contribute to a sustained, general rise in prices across the economy.

Nice copied and pasted information, but I know all that. It's comes down to what I said: the Federal Reserve is a top-down tool to influence the economy, but is largely reactive in nature and, because it is a government tool instead of organically economic, causes about as many problems as it solves.

I'm not an either one side or the other, guy.

Controlling the economy solely by managing consumer spending isn't simply a "top-down, demand-side" approach -- it's a strategy focused on balancing supply with demand. When demand rises faster than the economy can produce, prices increase, creating inflation. In these cases, moderating demand through interest rates or other monetary policy tools can help keep prices stable and prevent the economy from overheating.

More effective is allowing the economy to grow and keep pace with consumer demand, instead of attempting to artificially influence how much consumers freely decide to spend. Too much government control and interference in a free market economy stifles growth and creates other problems as well.

On the other hand, supply-side policies -- like tax cuts and deregulation -- aim to boost production by incentivizing businesses to invest, expand, and create jobs. While supply-side measures can help in certain contexts, they’re not a silver bullet for every economic challenge. For instance, when demand collapses (such as during a recession or a pandemic), simply boosting supply won’t stimulate economic activity if consumers lack the purchasing power or confidence to spend.

Allowing supply and demand to meet each other organically is the better approach. If supply is disrupted, such as during a pandemic, it is usually accompanied by lower consumer demand anyway.

Also, it’s worth noting that effective economic management often combines both demand and supply measures rather than relying exclusively on one side. Demand-side policies ensure stability by moderating economic swings, while supply-side measures support long-term growth. Ignoring demand-side tools in favor of an exclusively supply-side approach can result in economic imbalances, as seen in cases where tax cuts disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals and corporations but don’t necessarily lead to increased production or lower prices.

I'm not promoting supply-side economics exclusively. Demand-side tools can be useful for fine-tuning or for avoiding economic down turns, but, as with most other government tools, the Federal Reserve has increasingly considered itself to be the steering mechanism of the economy, instead of just the fail-safe that they are, and they tend to get involved too readily, instead of allowing the economy to work out most of its own little ups and downs without government interference.

Look, I'm only going by what Trump said, and he said he intends on an across the board approach. I've heard this 'he didn't really mean it' argument coming from Repubs, before, and no, it often turns out he did, in point of fact, mean it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/07/trumps-tariff-plan-how-tariffs-work-why-they-might-increase-prices.html

If you really believe that Trump will slap across the board tariffs on all imported goods then you are more naïve then I thought. For someone with an apparent grasp of the nuances of the economy (or just a penchant for cutting and pasting from the internet), you seem to lack the ability to see how Trump is merely setting the chess board with his initial comments about tariffs.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm gay

Called it. Did you tell your parents? Did you find yourself in the 50s or 60s?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Then, by that logic, Obama took credit for Bush's economy.

Also, it was under Obama that Gain of Function research under Fauci took off and led to COVID. So, COVID is Obama's fault.

What's most interesting to me is that despite all the cries of "Hitler" and "Fascist" from the left about Trump, I don't see a mass exodus out of the country now that he's been elected. One would think that if Hitler were really taking power staring January, people like you would be running for the exit, or gathering an army to fight as rebels, or some other drastic steps. That this is not happening points to the load of BS that the left is always spouting, so forgive me if I don't exactly take your warnings seriously.

BTW, do you live in the United States? If so, when are you leaving?

Your first sentence demonstrates your lack of critical thinking and cognitive reasoning skills.

In case you were born yesterday, let me educate you. When the Shrub finished his 2nd term, the country was well on it's way to a second recession, if not a full blown depression. Obama took 2 terms to turn things around and keep us from circling the drain, DESPITE historically unprecedented obstructionism from the GOP. If you have an ounce of honest courage and intellectual objectivity, I suggest you research the subject, as I tire of doing the homework for the willfully ignorant.

And your 2n sentence is incorrect. Obama put a stop to funding gain of function research in 2014. It was lifted in 2016. Now who was President in 2016, I wonder?

You don't see a mass exodus because Americans in general are an ornery bunch and can be pushed only so far. We stand and fight for what's right, as did resistance groups in France, Greece, Poland, Italy etc. during WWII, or in Boliva or Argentina or Brazil in later years. And brother, if you think that there will be "brownshirts" who will literally get away with murder here, you've got another think coming! Check out Gov. Pritzker of Illinois. He's not alone.

NONE of you MAGA yahoos left the country during the Obama years despite braying that was your only alternative. Only a scant few people have publicly echoed similar sentiments this year. I doubt they're not going anywhere either.

BTW, not only was I born and raised here, so were my parents, and their parents, and their grandparents, etc. Additionally, half of my late grandmother's people hail from this group www.cmlibrary.org/blog/history-native-americans-north-carolina Unlike the European mass immigrations from 1820 to1930. So yeah, you can blow it out your "patriotic" posterior!

 

[Patriot]

Your first sentence demonstrates your lack of critical thinking and cognitive reasoning skills.

In case you were born yesterday, let me educate you. When the Shrub finished his 2nd term, the country was well on it's way to a second recession, if not a full blown depression. Obama took 2 terms to turn things around and keep us from circling the drain, DESPITE historically unprecedented obstructionism from the GOP. If you have an ounce of honest courage and intellectual objectivity, I suggest you research the subject, as I tire of doing the homework for the willfully ignorant.

Obama had the largest deficit increase of any president, increasing 58% from that under Bush. I suggest you do your research.

And your 2n sentence is incorrect. Obama put a stop to funding gain of function research in 2014. It was lifted in 2016. Now who was President in 2016, I wonder?

Obama did not "stop" gain of function research. The NIH under Obama paused it, and the pause was lifted in 2017, but Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said the "restart" didn’t represent a significant shift, since the NIH has continued to assess and fund some gain-of-function experiments even during the moratorium. Thus, gain of function research never really stopped, but it did start in 2011 under Obama.

You don't see a mass exodus because Americans in general are an ornery bunch and can be pushed only so far. We stand and fight for what's right, as did resistance groups in France, Greece, Poland, Italy etc. during WWII, or in Boliva or Argentina or Brazil in later years. And brother, if you think that there will be "brownshirts" who will literally get away with murder here, you've got another think coming! Check out Gov. Pritzker of Illinois. He's not alone.

Pffff, what a lame excuse. So, let me get this straight: Trump is equivalent to Hitler, and by extension the majority of Americans who voted for him are equivalent to fascists/brownshirts, but because you're "ornery," you're going to "stand and fight"? What the hell does that mean? Are you threatening violence against the majority of Americans who support Trump? Or, are you just going to fight Hitler and his Nazi followers who greatly outnumber you by going to court and passing state and local protectionist laws? Do you really think that would work against actual Nazis? Do you know how dumb that sounds? Admit it, you and your ilk have engaged in extreme, ignorant hyperbole that has been exposed as nothing but childish nonsense. Get real.

NONE of you MAGA yahoos left the country during the Obama years despite braying that was your only alternative. Only a scant few people have publicly echoed similar sentiments this year. I doubt they're not going anywhere either.

First, there was no "MAGA" during the Obama years. But if you mean conservatives, then I can say with confidence that I never heard one conservative state that he/she would leave the country if Obama, or Biden, or Harris, won the election. That's because we're sane and reasonable. You should try it sometime.

BTW, not only was I born and raised here, so were my parents, and their parents, and their grandparents, etc. Additionally, half of my late grandmother's people hail from this group www.cmlibrary.org/blog/history-native-americans-north-carolina Unlike the European mass immigrations from 1820 to1930. So yeah, you can blow it out your "patriotic" posterior!

I also have Native American blood, and my family goes back hundreds of years in this country, and I spent twenty years in the military fighting for this country, as many in my family have also done, with some making the ultimate sacrifice, including while fighting the actual Nazis in WW2. So, stop equating us to Nazis, as you clearly have no historical perspective about what that really means, and if you refuse to do that, then you can kiss my proud, patriotic, American posterior!

 

[Publius]

Biden is an establishmentarian, just like many in the GOP and almost all of the Dems, and as such, belongs to what might be labeled "the good ol' boys club." Many of them have dirt on each other, or owe each other favors, and make a lot of backroom deals. In short, they're corrupt. Trump, on the other hand, never having been in politics before his first term as president, was scorned and shunned by the establishment, which was most of congress. They didn't want to work with him for the simple reason that they wanted him to fail, regardless of how skillful he might be in making deals, which he is in the business world, but they don't regard him as part of the club.

The “good ol' boys club”? Really? That tired trope about backroom deals, veiled alliances, and shadowy handshakes. It's the last refuge of those who can’t substantiate their allegations with an ounce of real evidence. You’re painting a picture that’s about as accurate as a carnival funhouse mirror, distorting reality to fit a fantasy. If Biden were this nefarious, backdoor dealer you claim, where’s the smoking gun? Where are the proven cases of corruption, the financial crimes, the bribes? Spoiler alert: they don’t exist.

And as for Trump being “shunned by the establishment” because he wasn’t part of this imaginary club? Let’s be real. Trump wasn’t sidelined because he was an outsider; he was resisted because his approach was chaos incarnate. He had no understanding of legislative processes, no interest in collaboration, and no respect for governance norms. Trump’s so-called deal-making magic might work in the boardroom where he can throw his weight around unchecked, but that bluster is useless in a constitutional system built on negotiation, compromise, and yes -- respect.

Your argument hinges on a caricature, not facts. If the “establishment” really were the problem, Trump had four years to dismantle it. Instead, he amplified it, packing his administration with lobbyists, former industry insiders, and -- you guessed it -- career politicians. You’re grasping at shadows, Patriot, while ignoring the blinding light of reality.

You just made my case for why congress wouldn't work with Trump during his first term.

You missed the point by a mile. The obstructionist tactics Republicans wielded against Obama and Biden were an organized, deliberate strategy to prevent policy progress, regardless of the consequences for Americans. They weren’t denying Democrats because they thought Obama and Biden were out of their depth or because they were unqualified; they were blocking for sport, for power, for partisan triumph at all costs.

Trump, on the other hand, wasn’t stonewalled by Congress because they were playing political games; he was thwarted because he had no coherent plan, no sense of the rules, and no ability to build the alliances required in a democracy. The Republicans weren’t unwilling to “work” with Trump out of principle -- they were unwilling because his approach was a scattershot mess of whims and grudges, not governance.

So let’s be clear: when Republicans obstructed Obama and Biden, they were wielding power as a blunt instrument. When Congress resisted Trump, it was often because he was trying to use the presidency as his own personal fiefdom, free of oversight or accountability. It’s not the same thing, Patriot. Not even close.

Has it occurred to you that Republicans have been forced to use the filibuster more often because of the Democrats' unprecedented move to the left? Also, Democrats still hold the record for filibuster use with 328 during the 2019-2020 term.

Forced? Republicans weren’t “forced” to obstruct; they chose it, gleefully and willingly, as a political weapon. Let’s get real: the filibuster isn’t some noble shield Republicans were reluctantly driven to wield against a supposedly “radical” Democratic agenda. It’s a tool they’ve exploited time and time again, regardless of the policy or its benefit to Americans.

And this narrative that Democrats have moved “unprecedentedly to the left”? It’s a tired talking point, Patriot. Healthcare access, climate action, voting rights -- these are mainstream issues supported by a majority of Americans. When did protecting the planet, expanding healthcare, and defending democracy become some sort of wild-eyed extremism? Are Republicans so out of step with the country that they now see the needs of everyday Americans as a “left-wing agenda”?

And as for that “record” you so eagerly cite from 2019-2020 -- look at the context. Democrats used it because they were a minority resisting a barrage of reckless proposals under an administration known for bending the rules and eroding norms. This was resistance to policies that lacked popular support, driven by an administration that treated governing like a reality show.

So, please, spare us the “forced to obstruct” excuse. Republicans filibuster because it’s easier to block than to build, to tear down than to reach across the aisle, and because obstructionism is their playbook -- not some reluctant, tragic duty.

Nice copied and pasted information, but I know all that. It's comes down to what I said: the Federal Reserve is a top-down tool to influence the economy, but is largely reactive in nature and, because it is a government tool instead of organically economic, causes about as many problems as it solves.

The FR is not a 'problem solving' agency, that's the province of Congress. The FR is a money supply management/fiscal policy agency.

More effective is allowing the economy to grow and keep pace with consumer demand, instead of attempting to artificially influence how much consumers freely decide to spend. Too much government control and interference in a free market economy stifles growth and creates other problems as well.

Actually, Patriot, methinks you do not know what you are talking about regarding THIS FR. Jerome Powell, the Fed chairman, is a conservative Republican and is conservative in his approach, heavily influenced by market-oriented, neoliberal principles. Under Powell, the Fed’s policies have leaned toward promoting stability and market confidence, rather than heavy-handed control. So your suggestion that the current Federal Reserve somehow embodies ‘government control’ over consumer choices just doesn’t hold water. Powell’s policies are rooted in conservatism -- focused on cautious adjustments to interest rates and money supply rather than attempting to micromanage the economy

Allowing supply and demand to meet each other organically is the better approach. If supply is disrupted, such as during a pandemic, it is usually accompanied by lower consumer demand anyway.

See above

I'm not promoting supply-side economics exclusively. Demand-side tools can be useful for fine-tuning or for avoiding economic down turns, but, as with most other government tools, the Federal Reserve has increasingly considered itself to be the steering mechanism of the economy, instead of just the fail-safe that they are, and they tend to get involved too readily, instead of allowing the economy to work out most of its own little ups and downs without government interference.

If you really believe that Trump will slap across the board tariffs on all imported goods then you are more naïve then I thought. For someone with an apparent grasp of the nuances of the economy (or just a penchant for cutting and pasting from the internet), you seem to lack the ability to see how Trump is merely setting the chess board with his initial comments about tariffs.

OMG, no, you are the one who is 'naive' if you believe that Trump’s tariff threats are some grand chess move rather than blunt-force economic recklessness, then you’re the one who’s missing the plot here. These aren’t strategic maneuvers; they’re headline-grabbing gambits devoid of substance, announced without a hint of follow-through or understanding of economic consequences.

And let’s get real -- Trump has a track record. His tariffs, particularly those slapped on China, didn’t spur some magnificent trade renaissance; they cost American consumers, burdened businesses, and sent shockwaves through supply chains, all for minimal gain. The so-called "chess board" isn’t some brilliant strategy; it’s a haphazard patchwork of impulse decisions. He didn’t lay out a coherent tariff strategy -- he tossed tariffs around like confetti, regardless of the economic fallout.

So please, spare us the notion that Trump’s tariffs are part of a master plan. The record is clear: they’ve been more disruptive than effective, a “strategy” that’s as hollow as it is costly

How Will Trump’s Universal and China Tariffs Impact the Economy?

President-elect Trump may want to impose tariffs to encourage investment and work, but his strategy will backfire. Tariffs will certainly create benefits for protected industries, but those benefits come at the expense of consumers and other industries throughout the economy.

taxfoundation.org

 

[T. A. Gardner]

While there were controversies involving campaign contributions and the transfer of satellite technology to China during Clinton's presidency, there is no evidence that Clinton directly sold ICBM technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions

Red Face Over China - June 1, 1998

China: Possible Missile Technology Transfers Under U.S. Satellite Export Policy -- Actions and Chronology

Congress has been concerned about whether U.S. firms, in activities connected with exporting satellites, provided expertise to China for...

www.everycrsreport.com

Horse manure. The only people who are convicted are those who commit crimes. You do realize it's a jury, not 'democrats' who convict criminals, right? Or did you forget we live in a democracy? I can think of several democrats who were convicted, as well, so the idea that 'republicans are being targeted is horse poop.

Yea, right. Tell that to the many Blacks convicted of crimes in Southern states for decades. NY is just as corrupt. What does the US being a "democracy" (it's really a Republic) have to do with our justice system. We don't try and convict people on the basis of a popular vote.

 

[Publius]

Red Face Over China - June 1, 1998

China: Possible Missile Technology Transfers Under U.S. Satellite Export Policy -- Actions and Chronology

Congress has been concerned about whether U.S. firms, in activities connected with exporting satellites, provided expertise to China for...

www.everycrsreport.com

That report provides no evidence -- none whatsoever -- that President Bill Clinton directly sold intercontinental ballistic missile technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions. The very idea is a baseless fantasy. Instead, what this report actually examines is the concern over U.S. satellite exports to China -- exports that, theoretically, could have inadvertently aided China’s missile development. That’s right, indirectly, and at most, unintentionally.

The report digs into instances involving American companies, Loral Space & Communications and Hughes Electronics, investigated for allegedly sharing technical information with China after failed satellite launches. These companies, not Clinton, raised concerns due to potential unintended benefits to China’s missile capabilities. But here’s the critical takeaway: there’s no link -- none -- to President Clinton’s actions. Not a whisper of evidence that any information exchange was done in return for campaign cash.

So, let’s put this to rest: this report neither implicates Clinton in direct sales of missile technology nor establishes any connection between such sales and campaign contributions. The facts just don’t support this tired conspiracy theory.

Yea, right. Tell that to the many Blacks convicted of crimes in Southern states for decades. NY is just as corrupt. What does the US being a "democracy" (it's really a Republic) have to do with our justice system. We don't try and convict people on the basis of a popular vote.

Partisan drivel, all of that is deflection and irrelevant to the recent convictions, and nothing you just wrote negates my argument. What does 'democracy' have to do with it? TONS. The term 'democracy' is a broad term, inclusive of a fundamental concept called 'due process', hell, it's in the constitution, for christ sakes.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Obama had the largest deficit increase of any president, increasing 58% from that under Bush. I suggest you do your research.

A half-truth is a whole lie. Yes, it was a deficit increase due to the aftermath of the bank and housing crashes GW left office with. Not that I only blame GW since that crash has been seen coming for a decade or more. Another factor is that Obama wanted to raise taxes on corporations and the rich to offset the cost but you can guess who put a stop to that. LOL
Now, how much did Trump increase the deficit? Do you know? Do you care? It also increased under Biden, but that was mainly due to the failure of the US COVID response under Trump, as if the pandemic itself wouldn't have raised costs. Again, Biden wanted to raise taxes to pay for it and, again, you know who stopped that.

U.S. Debt by President: Dollar and Percentage

The national debt has increased under most U.S. presidents. Here is how much each president's time in office added to the U.S. debt by percentage and dollar amounts.

www.investopedia.com

The Bottom Line
Presidents have a significant impact on the U.S. national debt. Each president has worked to allocate government funds for specific policies and initiatives that reflect the priorities of their administration. The president plays a large role in what gets spent and how much. However, spending is not all on the president.

Congress also has a hand in the national debt. This body of government must vote on appropriations and initiatives proposed by the president. Members of Congress can introduce proposals, which must be voted on before they can signed by the president.

Unforeseen events, such as economic turmoil, natural disasters, or war, may require the government to respond immediately, sparking significant unplanned spending. However, the decision to respond, how to respond, and how much to spend on the response is still a decision made by the president, his administration, and Congress.

What’s the national debt by president?

Key points The national debt, the amount the federal government owes, has surpassed $35 trillion. All but two presidents since 1900 have contributed to the national debt. Too much debt compared to a country’s GDP can negatively impact economic growth. The federal government has countle

www.usatoday.com

 

[Patriot]

The “good ol' boys club”? Really? That tired trope about backroom deals, veiled alliances, and shadowy handshakes. It's the last refuge of those who can’t substantiate their allegations with an ounce of real evidence. You’re painting a picture that’s about as accurate as a carnival funhouse mirror, distorting reality to fit a fantasy. If Biden were this nefarious, backdoor dealer you claim, where’s the smoking gun? Where are the proven cases of corruption, the financial crimes, the bribes? Spoiler alert: they don’t exist.

Yes, the good ol’ boys club, really. The only distortion here is your refusal to acknowledge the existence of an establishment that controls Washington politics. Evidence? It’s everywhere. Open your eyes. Biden has been caught taking bribes from foreign governments, as evidenced by texts and eye witness testimony. I’m not going through every example of evidence of establishment corruption, as we’d be here all day. The latest polls of how much Americans trust the government is currently around 22%. The election speaks for itself. Americans by and large want corruption and bloat out of the federal government. For you to not see this or acknowledge it puts you in the small minority. Good luck with that. And “norms?” Really? There it is. That’s a code word for the establishment keeping things the same. The same old corrupt backroom deals. The same old unresponsiveness to the citizens. Just concerned with maintaining their own grip on power. Anything that threatens that power hold is “chaos.” Politics was never meant to be a career, but that’s what it has become for too many. I’m looking forward to watching Trump come in this time, with the experience of having been stymied by Washington insiders and their recommendations for staff and cabinet that were crap, and really clean house. I’m getting my popcorn ready. And don’t talk to me about respect after your side has been spouting words like “Hitler” to describe Trump, and “fascists” to describe his supporters for years. Spare me the clutching of the pearls on that one, please.

And as for Trump being “shunned by the establishment” because he wasn’t part of this imaginary club? Let’s be real. Trump wasn’t sidelined because he was an outsider; he was resisted because his approach was chaos incarnate. He had no understanding of legislative processes, no interest in collaboration, and no respect for governance norms. Trump’s so-called deal-making magic might work in the boardroom where he can throw his weight around unchecked, but that bluster is useless in a constitutional system built on negotiation, compromise, and yes -- respect.

Your argument hinges on a caricature, not facts. If the “establishment” really were the problem, Trump had four years to dismantle it. Instead, he amplified it, packing his administration with lobbyists, former industry insiders, and -- you guessed it -- career politicians. You’re grasping at shadows, Patriot, while ignoring the blinding light of reality.

You missed the point by a mile. The obstructionist tactics Republicans wielded against Obama and Biden were an organized, deliberate strategy to prevent policy progress, regardless of the consequences for Americans. They weren’t denying Democrats because they thought Obama and Biden were out of their depth or because they were unqualified; they were blocking for sport, for power, for partisan triumph at all costs.

Trump, on the other hand, wasn’t stonewalled by Congress because they were playing political games; he was thwarted because he had no coherent plan, no sense of the rules, and no ability to build the alliances required in a democracy. The Republicans weren’t unwilling to “work” with Trump out of principle -- they were unwilling because his approach was a scattershot mess of whims and grudges, not governance.

So let’s be clear: when Republicans obstructed Obama and Biden, they were wielding power as a blunt instrument. When Congress resisted Trump, it was often because he was trying to use the presidency as his own personal fiefdom, free of oversight or accountability. It’s not the same thing, Patriot. Not even close.

Let’s be clear: when Republicans obstructed Obama and Biden, it was to prevent the most insane leftist ideas from becoming encoded into policy and law that would drive our country over a cliff into a socialist pit of despair. For example, the much touted (by the left) so-called Border Bill that they claimed was obstructed for political purposes would have, if enacted, normalized the illegal immigration of 2,500 people per day before any significant action could be taken to stop them. That’s dangerous to our country, and just plain stupid. Thank all that is Good that the Republicans stopped it. Meanwhile, the Democrats obstructed Trump at every turn simply out of spite for an outsider who dared question their established order and entrenched ways of doing business. Trump refused to play their corrupt game, and they sought to punish him for it at every term. To go back the border example, Trump enforced the border laws as written, while Biden refused to do so in order to appease left wing radicals who don’t believe in borders. It’s was almost like Biden was running the country like his own “personlal fiefdom, free of oversight or accountability.” We are still reeling from that abuse of power. So screw your so-called “rules.” The government is there to serve the best interest of the people, not themselves and their own bureaucratic, byzantine system of personal power assurance.

Forced? Republicans weren’t “forced” to obstruct; they chose it, gleefully and willingly, as a political weapon. Let’s get real: the filibuster isn’t some noble shield Republicans were reluctantly driven to wield against a supposedly “radical” Democratic agenda. It’s a tool they’ve exploited time and time again, regardless of the policy or its benefit to Americans.

And this narrative that Democrats have moved “unprecedentedly to the left”? It’s a tired talking point, Patriot. Healthcare access, climate action, voting rights -- these are mainstream issues supported by a majority of Americans. When did protecting the planet, expanding healthcare, and defending democracy become some sort of wild-eyed extremism? Are Republicans so out of step with the country that they now see the needs of everyday Americans as a “left-wing agenda”?

And as for that “record” you so eagerly cite from 2019-2020 -- look at the context. Democrats used it because they were a minority resisting a barrage of reckless proposals under an administration known for bending the rules and eroding norms. This was resistance to policies that lacked popular support, driven by an administration that treated governing like a reality show.

So, please, spare us the “forced to obstruct” excuse. Republicans filibuster because it’s easier to block than to build, to tear down than to reach across the aisle, and because obstructionism is their playbook -- not some reluctant, tragic duty.

So, when Democrats use the filibuster a record number of times it was to “resist a barrage of reckless proposals,” but when Republicans do it it’s “a tool they’ve exploited?” Classic faulty hypocritical argument. And yes, Dems have moved far to the left over the years. If JFK were alive today, pushing his same policies, he’d be a Republican. From the woke agenda to out of control spending programs to political lawfare, the left have collectively lost their minds, and the landslide election we just witnessed proves that most Americans feel the same way. Protecting democracy? Give me a break. I missed the part where the Dems were protecting democracy. Was it where they nominated by fiat their presidential nominee? Or maybe it was where they went after their primary political opponent by weaponizing the government, tying him up in courtrooms, and attempting to throw him in jail. Got news for ya: The Majority of Americans just put him back in the White House. You failed.

The FR is not a 'problem solving' agency, that's the province of Congress. The FR is a money supply management/fiscal policy agency.

Actually, Patriot, methinks you do not know what you are talking about regarding THIS FR. Jerome Powell, the Fed chairman, is a conservative Republican and is conservative in his approach, heavily influenced by market-oriented, neoliberal principles. Under Powell, the Fed’s policies have leaned toward promoting stability and market confidence, rather than heavy-handed control. So your suggestion that the current Federal Reserve somehow embodies ‘government control’ over consumer choices just doesn’t hold water. Powell’s policies are rooted in conservatism -- focused on cautious adjustments to interest rates and money supply rather than attempting to micromanage the economy

See above

Sounds like you approve of Powell. Good. He was nominated by Trump after all. As long as he continues to provide only a light touch to the economy, he might just be re-nominated in 2026. Glad you agree that government interference in the economy should be kept at a minimum, as conservatives do.

OMG, no, you are the one who is 'naive' if you believe that Trump’s tariff threats are some grand chess move rather than blunt-force economic recklessness, then you’re the one who’s missing the plot here. These aren’t strategic maneuvers; they’re headline-grabbing gambits devoid of substance, announced without a hint of follow-through or understanding of economic consequences.

And let’s get real -- Trump has a track record. His tariffs, particularly those slapped on China, didn’t spur some magnificent trade renaissance; they cost American consumers, burdened businesses, and sent shockwaves through supply chains, all for minimal gain. The so-called "chess board" isn’t some brilliant strategy; it’s a haphazard patchwork of impulse decisions. He didn’t lay out a coherent tariff strategy -- he tossed tariffs around like confetti, regardless of the economic fallout.

So please, spare us the notion that Trump’s tariffs are part of a master plan. The record is clear: they’ve been more disruptive than effective, a “strategy” that’s as hollow as it is costly

How Will Trump’s Universal and China Tariffs Impact the Economy?

President-elect Trump may want to impose tariffs to encourage investment and work, but his strategy will backfire. Tariffs will certainly create benefits for protected industries, but those benefits come at the expense of consumers and other industries throughout the economy.

taxfoundation.org

You do know that Biden not only maintained Trump’s tariffs on China, but increased them, right? And the inflation rate decreased after Trump placed the tariffs. So much for your “shockwaves.” I’d advise you to relax a little the breathless anxiety over the tariffs. They are a tool that will enrich the United States and put us in a better relative global position both economically and strategically. You will see.

 

[Publius]

Yes, the good ol’ boys club, really. [...]

I assure you, I've been scrutinizing this issue for a number of years now, particularly reviewing the documents published by Comey's committe, noting the following facts:


No financial documents or LLCs list Joe Biden as a beneficiary or officer.

No recordings, emails, or texts implicate Joe directly. Third-party mentions are hearsay, with some proven fake, and the laptop’s chain of custody is questionable.

Testimony against Joe lacks hard evidence. Devon Archer confirmed Joe’s presence at events involved only small talk, and Hunter merely leveraged his father’s presence to impress contacts—legally.

Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and FBI FD-1023 forms are not proof of wrongdoing and lack corroboration.

Hunter’s international business was legal, and he shared his earnings with family members but not with Joe. There’s a potential FARA violation, but Weiss has not charged him for it.

If credible evidence existed, U.S. Attorney Weiss would have issued a criminal referral on Joe Biden. After six years of investigation, he found no grounds for corruption or influence peddling, focusing instead on tax and gun charges.

So far, the evidence remains circumstantial, with no “smoking gun.”

Claims about the Biden family’s foreign business, explained

After House Republicans released bank records from their investigation into Biden family business dealings, the phrases

www.politifact.com

The latest polls of how much Americans trust the government is currently around 22%. The election speaks for itself.

Especially since Trump came on the scene, using the largest bullhorn on earth (the bully pulpit) to bamboozle the masses into believing the election was stolen. So, your argument is circular.

"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. There is no question about it. The people started this , entered the building and believed they were acting on the relations and instructions of their president. And having that belief was the foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements and conspiracy theories. And the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphones on the planet earth"

"A mob was assaulting the capitol in HIS name, these criminals were carrying HIS banners, hanging on HIS lies, and screaming their loyalty to HIM.....

...Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader

Americans by and large want corruption and bloat out of the federal government. For you to not see this or acknowledge it puts you in the small minority. Good luck with that. And “norms?” Really? There it is.

Highlighted constittutees 'posturing', which is a non argument, i.e., a pseudo debate trick, the province of novices or those unskilled in the art of debate.

But, corruption, Trump is all over that, (evidence provided on request);

That’s a code word for the establishment keeping things the same. [...]

Weasel words, you have nothing substantive to prove your claims. The "hitler' references were limited to commonality of RHETORIC, which is valid.

Let’s be clear: when Republicans obstructed Obama and Biden, it was to prevent the most insane leftist ideas from becoming encoded into policy and law that would drive our country over a cliff into a socialist pit of despair.

Partisan drivel. It doesn't occur to you that the very same could be said of conservative policies. Trump's election is the second time in over 30 years that the right won the popular vote, which proves that, on the average, more people vote for Democrats than Republicans. We are the majority, and you are in the minority.

For example, the much touted (by the left) so-called Border Bill that they claimed was obstructed for political purposes would have, if enacted, normalized the illegal immigration of 2,500 people per day before any significant action could be taken to stop them. That’s dangerous to our country, and just plain stupid. Thank all that is Good that the Republicans stopped it.

The bill was Democrats acquiescing to every major conservative want. Led by Sen. The Lankford-led, who is a Republican, his border bill wasn’t a gateway to "normalize" illegal immigration, and this scare tactic about the “2,500 people per day” threshold is nothing but an empty talking point designed to mislead, not inform. The bill aimed to put in place a structured process for managing the border, prioritizing resources to where they are most effective, rather than throwing out haphazard policies that only serve to clog the courts and waste resources.

First off, 2,500 people per day isn't a license for unrestricted immigration; it’s a processing capacity. That's an important distinction. By managing that number efficiently, the bill sought to handle asylum cases humanely and lawfully, allowing border officials to make well-informed determinations rather than conducting rapid deportations that clog the system with appeals and lawsuits. It would have set clear standards to vet cases more rigorously, not let people in without scrutiny. Border security isn't served by blocking entry; it's served by clear, enforceable, and efficient protocols. The 2,500-cap was about ensuring resources were directed to genuinely protecting the border while managing asylum claims fairly.

Secondly, that bill included provisions for bolstering physical and technological resources at the border and focused on addressing the root causes of migration, something no wall, no matter how high, has ever achieved. Contrary to this simplistic critique, the bill would have enhanced cooperation with countries in Central America to slow the flow of migration, aiming to make the border process manageable and humane while maintaining strict enforcement.

Finally, let's talk about "obstruction." The claim that Speaker Johnson "shelved" this bill for legitimate reasons is laughable. The GOP’s playbook has been to shelve any bipartisan solution that doesn’t serve its talking points about "open borders"—a myth they perpetuate to block any reasonable compromise. Trump told Johnson to shelve the bill because Repubs wanted it is a campaign issue, putting party above countyry. Johnson’s decision to obstruct this was political theater, nothing more. By sidelining this bill, they made it clear they’d rather have a chaotic, politicized border for campaign fodder than a functional one.

Meanwhile, the Democrats obstructed Trump [...]

Let’s get real about this "outsider obstructed by spite" story. Trump didn’t face pushback for being an outsider; he faced it because he disregarded norms and safeguards, turning his presidency into a personal business venture. From day one, his administration was a carousel of scandal, foreign entanglements, and ethics violations. Democrats didn’t resist out of malice; they opposed an administration mired in self-dealing.

Now, let’s talk about the claim that Trump was simply "enforcing border laws." Trump’s border policies, from zero tolerance to family separations, were political theater, creating chaos and legal challenges that Biden inherited. Biden’s handling wasn’t some “fiefdom”; it was damage control after Trump’s reckless policies pushed the system to the breaking point.

And about the filibuster? Republicans weaponized it to an unprecedented degree while condemning Democrats for even thinking about using it. Democrats used it to protect fundamental rights—against policies that would strip healthcare from millions and gut social programs for working families.

The claim that JFK would be a Republican today? Pure revisionism. JFK pushed for civil rights and social welfare, ideals today’s GOP rejects. The GOP of culture wars and hostility to social programs bears no resemblance to anything JFK stood for.

As for the election, Trump’s narrow win wasn’t a sweeping endorsement. Undecided voters swayed by inflation—a global issue from the pandemic—made the difference, not a wholesale rejection of Biden’s achievements. Biden’s record stands on real progress: infrastructure, clean energy, and lower drug costs, all achieved despite relentless obstruction. Let’s not pretend Trump’s chaotic, self-serving approach is the solution America needs. Democracy doesn’t serve one man’s will, especially when it’s steeped in self-interest.

Sounds like you approve of Powell. Good. He was nominated by Trump after all. As long as he continues to provide only a light touch to the economy, he might just be re-nominated in 2026. Glad you agree that government interference in the economy should be kept at a minimum, as conservatives do.

I agree with monetarism as fiscal policy (the policy to which Powell is subscribing) only insofar as it's measures designed to tame inflation. But that is the extent of it.

You do know that Biden [...]

Biden's tariffs, he kept those which were of a strategic interest to the US, excluding those that weren't. Trump's 'across the board' tariffs will damage America.

https://www.marketplace.org/2024/05/14/how-tariffs-compare-in-the-biden-and-trump-eras

 

[Patriot]

A half-truth is a whole lie. Yes, it was a deficit increase due to the aftermath of the bank and housing crashes GW left office with. Not that I only blame GW since that crash has been seen coming for a decade or more. Another factor is that Obama wanted to raise taxes on corporations and the rich to offset the cost but you can guess who put a stop to that. LOL
Now, how much did Trump increase the deficit? Do you know? Do you care? It also increased under Biden, but that was mainly due to the failure of the US COVID response under Trump, as if the pandemic itself wouldn't have raised costs. Again, Biden wanted to raise taxes to pay for it and, again, you know who stopped that.

U.S. Debt by President: Dollar and Percentage

The national debt has increased under most U.S. presidents. Here is how much each president's time in office added to the U.S. debt by percentage and dollar amounts.

www.investopedia.com

The Bottom Line
Presidents have a significant impact on the U.S. national debt. Each president has worked to allocate government funds for specific policies and initiatives that reflect the priorities of their administration. The president plays a large role in what gets spent and how much. However, spending is not all on the president.

Congress also has a hand in the national debt. This body of government must vote on appropriations and initiatives proposed by the president. Members of Congress can introduce proposals, which must be voted on before they can signed by the president.

Unforeseen events, such as economic turmoil, natural disasters, or war, may require the government to respond immediately, sparking significant unplanned spending. However, the decision to respond, how to respond, and how much to spend on the response is still a decision made by the president, his administration, and Congress.

What’s the national debt by president?

Key points The national debt, the amount the federal government owes, has surpassed $35 trillion. All but two presidents since 1900 have contributed to the national debt. Too much debt compared to a country’s GDP can negatively impact economic growth. The federal government has countle

www.usatoday.com

The housing crisis began under Clinton. Raising taxes doesn't work. It doesn't raise enough revenue to offset increased spending. Even if you confiscated every dollar from those making over $500k a year, it still wouldn't be enough to cover spending and projected deficits. Spending is the problem. Not to mention that higher taxes on the wealthy just cause them to hide their wealth or move away, often taking their businesses and their attendant jobs with them.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This is a better indicator of who is responsible for running up debt in the US than the table above:

Inflation and the Real Value of Debt: A Double-edged Sword

The recent bout of inflation will immediately reduce the real value of existing debts, but it will also tend to raise expected inflation. This could raise future borrowing costs.

www.stlouisfed.org

If you look at the blue dotted line debt to gdp grew massively first under Obama, then again, under Biden. Inflation remained relatively constant up to Biden since about 1990. One way inflation was kept in check was to lower interest rates (shown in grey). Biden didn't have that option as the rates were all but at zero already.

The area circled is the US post WW 2 industrial boom due to most of the rest of the world having been wrecked by the war. The second period of serious inflation is the late Cold War, and in part Reagan's decision to spend until the Soviet Union went broke trying to keep up--which happened. There is then a big post Cold War draw down that benefited Bush I and Clinton greatly in getting the economy back on a stable footing.

What kept debt low during that period was the massive increase in GDP output in goods, particularly military spending. You see that same thing in the 50's with the Cold War starting and a return to large military budgets but on the US having less base to work with.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Obama had the largest deficit increase of any president, increasing 58% from that under Bush. I suggest you do your research.

Obama did not "stop" gain of function research. The NIH under Obama paused it, and the pause was lifted in 2017, but Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, said the "restart" didn’t represent a significant shift, since the NIH has continued to assess and fund some gain-of-function experiments even during the moratorium. Thus, gain of function research never really stopped, but it did start in 2011 under Obama.

Pffff, what a lame excuse. So, let me get this straight: Trump is equivalent to Hitler, and by extension the majority of Americans who voted for him are equivalent to fascists/brownshirts, but because you're "ornery," you're going to "stand and fight"? What the hell does that mean? Are you threatening violence against the majority of Americans who support Trump? Or, are you just going to fight Hitler and his Nazi followers who greatly outnumber you by going to court and passing state and local protectionist laws? Do you really think that would work against actual Nazis? Do you know how dumb that sounds? Admit it, you and your ilk have engaged in extreme, ignorant hyperbole that has been exposed as nothing but childish nonsense. Get real.

First, there was no "MAGA" during the Obama years. But if you mean conservatives, then I can say with confidence that I never heard one conservative state that he/she would leave the country if Obama, or Biden, or Harris, won the election. That's because we're sane and reasonable. You should try it sometime.

I also have Native American blood, and my family goes back hundreds of years in this country, and I spent twenty years in the military fighting for this country, as many in my family have also done, with some making the ultimate sacrifice, including while fighting the actual Nazis in WW2. So, stop equating us to Nazis, as you clearly have no historical perspective about what that really means, and if you refuse to do that, then you can kiss my proud, patriotic, American posterior!

You're quite the vacuous windbag, aren't you? Let me just deconstruct your blather:

1. You should practice what you preach, because the devil is in the details. Observe and learn:

www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/08/facebook-posts/no-donald-trump-didnt-lead-greatest-economy-histor/

www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/06/donald-trump/no-economy-didnt-suddenly-get-strong-under-donald-/

The total federal debt increased more under the Obama administration in terms of raw dollars than any other president, according to government data. Experts say it is difficult to determine how much debt one president is responsible for since spending and policies can carry over from one administration to the next.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/05/30/no-trump-didnt-increase-the-debt-more-than-any-president-fact-check/70252480007/


2. Per Merriam-Webster dictionary: PAUSE - a temporary stop; temporary inaction especially as caused by uncertainty.
www.nature.com/articles/514411a
As I previously pointed out, the pause was lifted after 2016. AND FYI: the NIH falls under the federal government's jurisdiction. That means that the POTUS has final say and signs off for policies to be enacted (after financial vetting and such through Congress). So your little myopic revision of history and facts falls flat, regardless of how many times and ways you repeat it.

3. You're blowing smoke again. Gov. Pritzker is just one example of "stand & fight", but you don't see him advocating violence, do you? Now you can have individual state /local city gov't pull suppressive tactics that violates the citizenry's right to PEACEFULLY protest (i.e. Occupy Wall St.), but I never heard Obama or Clinton or Carter publicly contemplate using the National Guard or police to quell/arrest peaceful protesters or advocates/organizers against gov't policies. That honor belongs strictly to your Cheeto Jeezus and his acolytes, along with ATTACKING THE CAPITOL TO STOP LEGITIMATE confirmation of a presidential election. And it's your "fearless leaders" who stacked the SCOTUS (and Circuit Courts) with extremist viewed folk to officially approval stamp their actions (i.e., Presidential immunity in committing crimes, Citizens United, gutting Civil Rights laws). So stop whining when the courts don't favor your neo-fascist bent. And PUH-LEEZE get educated on how the Nazi Party rose to power, as they didn't just come out of the gate murdering people. But just in case you and your ilk are feeling their oats and jones-ing for a reality version of the Turner Diaries, know this: www.snopes.com/fact-check/armed-black-militia-georgia-park/

4. Correct. You first had the "new conservatives (neocons)" who morphed into the "tea party (teabaggers)" who morphed into the "Make America Great Again (MAGA) folk. Six and one, half dozen of the other. Or, crap by any other name smells just as bad. And FYI, a whole world functions without your knowledge. For your education: Stephen Baldwin, the late Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent as examples. Chuck Norris warned of 1,000 years of darkness if Obama was re-elected, then there's this: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/can...aten-move-canada-obama-victory-062354107.html

5. Now you're claiming to be a descendant of the original 13 colonies (America is only 248 years old).
If you are old enough to have fought in the Korean or Vietnam wars, YOU WERE DRAFTED under penalty of law. If you served in Iraq or Afghanistan, you were deployed on the basis of LIES AND BAD DECISIONS. And again, the Nazi Party in Germany didn't come out of the gate jailing & murdering people. DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND GET EDUCATED, MAN! Here are some primers for you. See if you can logically or factually fault any item www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/09/leading-civil-rights-lawyer-shows-20-ways-trump-copying-hitlers-early-rhetoric-and

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/5/17940610/trump-hitler-history-historian

NOW DON'T WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME WITH SOME LONG WINDED BS AND DODGES. PUT UP OR STFU!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The housing crisis began under Clinton. Raising taxes doesn't work. It doesn't raise enough revenue to offset increased spending. Even if you confiscated every dollar from those making over $500k a year, it still wouldn't be enough to cover spending and projected deficits. Spending is the problem. Not to mention that higher taxes on the wealthy just cause them to hide their wealth or move away, often taking their businesses and their attendant jobs with them.

Wow. So who is the bitch of the news media, "Patriot"??? LOL

Thanks for your factless media and TikTok driven opinion, comrade.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Wow. So who is the bitch of the news media, "Patriot"??? LOL

Thanks for your factless media and TikTok driven opinion, comrade.

The man (or woman) is steeped in LONG disproved right wing wonk-isms. Perfect Trump voter.