The Many Faces of US Politics...

[stew]

This clown just gets better & better. Trump tried to explain economics to The Economist and it went just like you think it did

Donald Trump Tries to Explain Economics to The Economist. Hilarity Ensues.
By  Jonathan Chait   

Donald Trump has now spent enough time listening to Republican economic advisers that he can give an interview to The Economist in which he attempts to regurgitate the ideas that have been fed him. At various points in the interview, Trump tries and fails to think of the word "reciprocity." ("We need reciprocality in terms of our trade deals," he asserts.) Asked to flesh out his vision for a fair NAFTA in more detail, he can only come up with synonyms for "big":

It sounds like you're imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like?

Big isn't a good enough word. Massive.

Huge?

It's got to be. It's got to be.

The interview really starts to go downhill when Trump explains his tax plan:

Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit? Ronald Reagan's tax reform didn't.

Well, it actually did. But, but it's called priming the pump.

It is in fact well known among economists and policy experts that the 1986 Tax Reform Act was designed to be revenue neutral. The interviewer lets this go and continues:

But beyond that it's OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?

It is OK, because it won't increase it for long. You may have two years where you'll ... you understand the expression "prime the pump"?

Yes.

We have to prime the pump.

It's very Keynesian.

We're the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?

Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.

Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven't heard it. I mean, I just ... I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It's what you have to do.

It's ...

Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.

A few facts. First, the United States is not "the highest-taxed nation in the world." It is one of the lowest-taxed nations in the OECD:

Second, Trump did not invent the phrase "prime the pump." It has been around since at least the 1930s and is extremely familiar to economists. Nor does it describe his plan. Priming the pump refers to a program of temporary fiscal stimulus to inject demand into an economy stuck with high unemployment. Trump is instead proposing to permanently increase the deficit in an economy with low unemployment. Telling The Economist you invented the phrase "priming the pump," to describe a plan that does not prime the pump, is a bit like sitting down with Car and Driver, pointing to the steering wheel on your car and asking if they have ever heard of a little word you just came up with called "hubcap."

Trump  may have dementia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TCR5oC5ZQs

You have no shame, you know full well he would never have been potus if he had.

Fake news from the looney left, whodah thunk?

[foxcommander]

He didn't interfere in an election.

Yes he did. Watch the video. He says it himself that he's got involved. Couldn't be clearer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/french-election-obama-endorse-macron/

I feel sick having been on the Fake news/CNN website. Liar central.

[seafoid]

He didn't interfere in an election.

Yes he did. Watch the video. He says it himself that he's got involved. Couldn't be clearer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/french-election-obama-endorse-macron/

I feel sick having been on the Fake news/CNN website. Liar central.

Did he hack en Marche? Did he send terrorists to blow people up a few days before voting? Did he use an army of chat bots to confuse people? Did he run thousands of fake twitter accounts?

You are talking out of your  arse. Again.

[dec]

Foxy pretending he can't tell the difference between expressing support for a candidate and hacking an email server.

[foxcommander]

Foxy pretending he can't tell the difference between expressing support for a candidate and hacking an email server.

Re-read the chain. My argument is that Obama interfered in a foreign election.

Take that point on it's own without trying to throw in hacking etc. and say that he didn't.

[seafoid]

Foxy pretending he can't tell the difference between expressing support for a candidate and hacking an email server.

Re-read the chain. My argument is that Obama interfered in a foreign election.

Take that point on it's own without trying to throw in hacking etc. and say that he didn't.

Give it a rest Foxy. You are not on Hannity. You are out of your depth.

[foxcommander]

He didn't interfere in an election.

Yes he did. Watch the video. He says it himself that he's got involved. Couldn't be clearer.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/french-election-obama-endorse-macron/

I feel sick having been on the Fake news/CNN website. Liar central.

Did he hack en Marche? Did he send terrorists to blow people up a few days before voting? Did he use an army of chat bots to confuse people? Did he run thousands of fake twitter accounts?

You are talking out of your  arse. Again.

Normally I wouldn't bother responding to you because your posts are annoying drivel but you've outdone yourself this time with a totally irrelevant rant. I think you should see an arse doctor pronto. It's oozing.

[whitey]

He didn't interfere in an election. He didn't attempt to destabilise the UK

Would you care to explain this then:

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/479469/

President Obama's warning to those championing Britain's exit from the EU was stark: Leave, he said, and the "U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue" on trade deals with the U.S.

[foxcommander]

Foxy pretending he can't tell the difference between expressing support for a candidate and hacking an email server.

Re-read the chain. My argument is that Obama interfered in a foreign election.

Take that point on it's own without trying to throw in hacking etc. and say that he didn't.

Give it a rest Foxy. You are not on Hannity. You are out of your depth.

Ha! the usual tactic of trying to silence when it gets a bit awkward. No democrat here is prepared to answer a straight question. The bold eamon refused to answer if he thought cnn/msnbc tell lies.

If the self-righteous aren't prepared to tell the truth then why do they expect it from others?

[J70]

Even the Telegraph ruled his comments as an endorsement of LePen! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/donald-trump-wades-french-election-apparent-endorsement-marine/

As for the difference between an open, public, endorsement and covert, unclaimed, leaking of embarrassing emails, I've gone through it twice already. If you don't want to concede the bleeding obvious, suit yourself.

On investigating the Russian interference, which EVERYONE bar Trump concedes occurred, if Trump and his acolytes did nothing wrong, surely they should welcome a transparent investigation?

On partisanship, we had about ten different congressional investigations into Benghazi, with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, one of the top men in the House, letting slip that it was being done purely to harm Hillary Clinton's election prospects. Whereas here, even some GOP Senators are calling for special prosecutor at this point.

So a newspaper "ruled" his comments as an "apparent" endorsement. Er...did he go on record like obama and endorse the candidate publicly to the french voters? No he didn't. You're wrong J70.

Interference, covert or not, is still interference. 

If you're having problems with the actual word here's the entry from dictionary.com
Interfere - to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):

Exactly what Obama did in the French election. I think that's enough clarification. Democrats are hypocrites.

Not just one newspaper. Numerous.

Besides, just how do you interpret "strongest on borders", "strongest on what's been going on in France", "toughest on radical Islamic terrorism" etc., issues key to Trump's own election and platform, if not an endorsement?

He could just have said "no comment". He didn't. He outlined her perceived strengths in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. That's an endorsement any day of the week.

As for the rest, deny it all you want, but "covert" and "open/public" is a very key difference. Everyone knows where Obama is coming from when he makes an endorsement. There is no secret motivation and the opponent of the endorsed could even wear it as a badge of honour and an angle of attack on the endorsed. Do you think Hillary was upset when David Duke endorsed Trump? Or Newt Gingrich or the entire Fox News team? Or Trump when some celeb endorsed Hillary?

Whereas the hacking and selective publication of emails, targeting only one side, leaves one side with a clear advantage and the other at a major disadvantage.

All of the above you wrote is irrelevant. The point is that Obama interfered in a foreign election.
Democrats can't quite grasp the hypocrisy of their position.

You're just trying to divert attention away from that fact rather than just agree.
Anyway, you keep believing your own version. Seems par for the course for democrats these days.
Block free speech, riot at public gatherings, hysterical protests etc.

People have been endorsing people in other countries forever. Seriously, who would have given a bollocks if Putin had just come out and publicly endorsed Trump, whatever his motivation? Hell, Hillary could have made an ad of it.

So no, what I wrote above is absolutely relevant.

As for the rest, if and when I express approval of rioting or shutting down campuses over Ann f**king Coulter, you can smear me. Otherwise, stick to the substance.

[stew]

Even the Telegraph ruled his comments as an endorsement of LePen! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/donald-trump-wades-french-election-apparent-endorsement-marine/

As for the difference between an open, public, endorsement and covert, unclaimed, leaking of embarrassing emails, I've gone through it twice already. If you don't want to concede the bleeding obvious, suit yourself.

On investigating the Russian interference, which EVERYONE bar Trump concedes occurred, if Trump and his acolytes did nothing wrong, surely they should welcome a transparent investigation?

On partisanship, we had about ten different congressional investigations into Benghazi, with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, one of the top men in the House, letting slip that it was being done purely to harm Hillary Clinton's election prospects. Whereas here, even some GOP Senators are calling for special prosecutor at this point.

So a newspaper "ruled" his comments as an "apparent" endorsement. Er...did he go on record like obama and endorse the candidate publicly to the french voters? No he didn't. You're wrong J70.

Interference, covert or not, is still interference. 

If you're having problems with the actual word here's the entry from dictionary.com
Interfere - to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):

Exactly what Obama did in the French election. I think that's enough clarification. Democrats are hypocrites.

Not just one newspaper. Numerous.

Besides, just how do you interpret "strongest on borders", "strongest on what's been going on in France", "toughest on radical Islamic terrorism" etc., issues key to Trump's own election and platform, if not an endorsement?

He could just have said "no comment". He didn't. He outlined her perceived strengths in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. That's an endorsement any day of the week.

As for the rest, deny it all you want, but "covert" and "open/public" is a very key difference. Everyone knows where Obama is coming from when he makes an endorsement. There is no secret motivation and the opponent of the endorsed could even wear it as a badge of honour and an angle of attack on the endorsed. Do you think Hillary was upset when David Duke endorsed Trump? Or Newt Gingrich or the entire Fox News team? Or Trump when some celeb endorsed Hillary?

Whereas the hacking and selective publication of emails, targeting only one side, leaves one side with a clear advantage and the other at a major disadvantage.

All of the above you wrote is irrelevant. The point is that Obama interfered in a foreign election.
Democrats can't quite grasp the hypocrisy of their position.

You're just trying to divert attention away from that fact rather than just agree.
Anyway, you keep believing your own version. Seems par for the course for democrats these days.
Block free speech, riot at public gatherings, hysterical protests etc.

People have been endorsing people in other countries forever. Seriously, who would have given a bollocks if Putin had just come out and publicly endorsed Trump, whatever his motivation? Hell, Hillary could have made an ad of it.

So no, what I wrote above is absolutely relevant.

As for the rest, if and when I express approval of rioting or shutting down campuses over Ann f**king Coulter, you can smear me. Otherwise, stick to the substance.

Anne Coulter has an opinion contrary to be bleeding hearts of the looney left, why can they not respect freedom of speech, why can they not simply ignore her and why do the f**kers need to throw the rattle out of the pram and act the collective ****?

[Eamonnca1]

Normally I wouldn't bother responding to you because your posts are annoying drivel but you've outdone yourself this time with a totally irrelevant rant. I think you should see an arse doctor pronto. It's oozing.

This is what conservative discourse has been reduced to.

[Eamonnca1]

Anne Coulter has an opinion contrary to be bleeding hearts of the looney left, why can they not respect freedom of speech, why can they not simply ignore her and why do the f**kers need to throw the rattle out of the pram and act the collective ****?

Anne Coulter chickened out and decided not to go to Berkeley. Scuttling off like the tail-tucked rodent she is.

[J70]

Even the Telegraph ruled his comments as an endorsement of LePen! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/donald-trump-wades-french-election-apparent-endorsement-marine/

As for the difference between an open, public, endorsement and covert, unclaimed, leaking of embarrassing emails, I've gone through it twice already. If you don't want to concede the bleeding obvious, suit yourself.

On investigating the Russian interference, which EVERYONE bar Trump concedes occurred, if Trump and his acolytes did nothing wrong, surely they should welcome a transparent investigation?

On partisanship, we had about ten different congressional investigations into Benghazi, with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, one of the top men in the House, letting slip that it was being done purely to harm Hillary Clinton's election prospects. Whereas here, even some GOP Senators are calling for special prosecutor at this point.

So a newspaper "ruled" his comments as an "apparent" endorsement. Er...did he go on record like obama and endorse the candidate publicly to the french voters? No he didn't. You're wrong J70.

Interference, covert or not, is still interference. 

If you're having problems with the actual word here's the entry from dictionary.com
Interfere - to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):

Exactly what Obama did in the French election. I think that's enough clarification. Democrats are hypocrites.

Not just one newspaper. Numerous.

Besides, just how do you interpret "strongest on borders", "strongest on what's been going on in France", "toughest on radical Islamic terrorism" etc., issues key to Trump's own election and platform, if not an endorsement?

He could just have said "no comment". He didn't. He outlined her perceived strengths in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. That's an endorsement any day of the week.

As for the rest, deny it all you want, but "covert" and "open/public" is a very key difference. Everyone knows where Obama is coming from when he makes an endorsement. There is no secret motivation and the opponent of the endorsed could even wear it as a badge of honour and an angle of attack on the endorsed. Do you think Hillary was upset when David Duke endorsed Trump? Or Newt Gingrich or the entire Fox News team? Or Trump when some celeb endorsed Hillary?

Whereas the hacking and selective publication of emails, targeting only one side, leaves one side with a clear advantage and the other at a major disadvantage.

All of the above you wrote is irrelevant. The point is that Obama interfered in a foreign election.
Democrats can't quite grasp the hypocrisy of their position.

You're just trying to divert attention away from that fact rather than just agree.
Anyway, you keep believing your own version. Seems par for the course for democrats these days.
Block free speech, riot at public gatherings, hysterical protests etc.

People have been endorsing people in other countries forever. Seriously, who would have given a bollocks if Putin had just come out and publicly endorsed Trump, whatever his motivation? Hell, Hillary could have made an ad of it.

So no, what I wrote above is absolutely relevant.

As for the rest, if and when I express approval of rioting or shutting down campuses over Ann f**king Coulter, you can smear me. Otherwise, stick to the substance.

Anne Coulter has an opinion contrary to be bleeding hearts of the looney left, why can they not respect freedom of speech, why can they not simply ignore her and why do the f**kers need to throw the rattle out of the pram and act the collective ****?

Ann Coulter is the personification of "looney", or at least her act is. But she should be allowed to speak and she should be subject to the full free speech rights of the audience. Hold a peaceful protest, report on her nonsense and get in there and challenge her face to face.

[foxcommander]

Even the Telegraph ruled his comments as an endorsement of LePen! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/donald-trump-wades-french-election-apparent-endorsement-marine/

As for the difference between an open, public, endorsement and covert, unclaimed, leaking of embarrassing emails, I've gone through it twice already. If you don't want to concede the bleeding obvious, suit yourself.

On investigating the Russian interference, which EVERYONE bar Trump concedes occurred, if Trump and his acolytes did nothing wrong, surely they should welcome a transparent investigation?

On partisanship, we had about ten different congressional investigations into Benghazi, with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, one of the top men in the House, letting slip that it was being done purely to harm Hillary Clinton's election prospects. Whereas here, even some GOP Senators are calling for special prosecutor at this point.

So a newspaper "ruled" his comments as an "apparent" endorsement. Er...did he go on record like obama and endorse the candidate publicly to the french voters? No he didn't. You're wrong J70.

Interference, covert or not, is still interference. 

If you're having problems with the actual word here's the entry from dictionary.com
Interfere - to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):

Exactly what Obama did in the French election. I think that's enough clarification. Democrats are hypocrites.

Not just one newspaper. Numerous.

Besides, just how do you interpret "strongest on borders", "strongest on what's been going on in France", "toughest on radical Islamic terrorism" etc., issues key to Trump's own election and platform, if not an endorsement?

He could just have said "no comment". He didn't. He outlined her perceived strengths in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. That's an endorsement any day of the week.

As for the rest, deny it all you want, but "covert" and "open/public" is a very key difference. Everyone knows where Obama is coming from when he makes an endorsement. There is no secret motivation and the opponent of the endorsed could even wear it as a badge of honour and an angle of attack on the endorsed. Do you think Hillary was upset when David Duke endorsed Trump? Or Newt Gingrich or the entire Fox News team? Or Trump when some celeb endorsed Hillary?

Whereas the hacking and selective publication of emails, targeting only one side, leaves one side with a clear advantage and the other at a major disadvantage.

All of the above you wrote is irrelevant. The point is that Obama interfered in a foreign election.
Democrats can't quite grasp the hypocrisy of their position.

You're just trying to divert attention away from that fact rather than just agree.
Anyway, you keep believing your own version. Seems par for the course for democrats these days.
Block free speech, riot at public gatherings, hysterical protests etc.

People have been endorsing people in other countries forever. Seriously, who would have given a bollocks if Putin had just come out and publicly endorsed Trump, whatever his motivation? Hell, Hillary could have made an ad of it.

So no, what I wrote above is absolutely relevant.

As for the rest, if and when I express approval of rioting or shutting down campuses over Ann f**king Coulter, you can smear me. Otherwise, stick to the substance.

Please furnish me with a similar video to the one obama endorsed Macron.

We're not talking about some 3rd world backwater.

WHY did obama feel the need to get involved? It's not like himself and Macron have been buddies for years, he hardly knows the guy.

Free speech on our terms. Gotta love it!