Actually, it's the talk-radio blowhards and the tea party who are responsible for this. They're getting what they asked for. They created this monster. They created the narrative where someone like Trump could thrive. They've spent years pumping up the anger and directing it towards the GOP instead of the Democrats. Well now those angry torches have burned down their own house. They stirred up so much anger that they themselves have become victims of it. They had 7 months to forcefully speak out against Trump and instead all they did was cheer him on, suck up to him, and make excuses for him - all in the name of PROTESTING THE ESTABLISHMENT, like this is a Rage Against the Machine concert or something. Now they must own the mess they made. But rest assured they will dodge responsibility and blame someone else (like they always do). And when everything is lost, they'll say it was because they weren't "conservative" enough.
I agree, I was just joking. Then again, I also think the left is becoming so far polarized in response that they are just making it worse. It's a two part issue. One side pushes more to its corner, the other responds by pushing further to that corner. Eventually the choices will boil down to a communist and a corporation. President Comcast seeks re-election, but the democrats hope Bernie Sanders Jr. Jr. can stop him/her/them with the underprivileged sea otter vote. Ok, that's also a joke, but you get what I'm getting at. Work gets done in the middle. Bill Clinton was a conservative liberal who got a lot done. We need more liberal conservatives and conservative liberals.
In addition to all the super intellectual angles all you geniuses are running, let's also link up some related funny stuff, memes, videos etc.
This is why you can't run government like a business. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/donald-trump-on-us-debt.html Donald Trump just threatened to cause an unprecedented global financial crisis There's a big difference between government debt and private debt. In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Donald Trump broke with tired clichés about the evils of federal debt accumulation. "I am the king of debt," he said. "I love debt. I love playing with it." But he replaced fearmongering about debt with an even more alarming notion — a bankruptcy of the United States federal government that would incinerate the world economy. "I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal," Trump said. "And if the economy was good, it was good. So therefore, you can't lose." Trump is a businessman, and in terms of thinking like a businessman his idea makes sense. The interest rate that investors currently charge the United States in order to borrow money is very low. A smart business strategy under those circumstances would be to borrow a bunch of money and undertake a bunch of big investment projects that are somewhat risky but judged to possibly have a huge payoff. You now have two possible scenarios. In one scenario, the investments work out and you make a ton of money. In that case, you can easily pay back the loan and everyone wins. In another scenario, the investments don't work out and you don't make much money. In that case, you objectively can't pay back the loan. You either work out a deal with the people you owe money to in which they accept less than 100 percent of what you owe them (this is called a "haircut") or else you go to bankruptcy court and a judge will force them to accept less than 100 percent. This is how businesspeople think — especially those who work in capital-intensive industries like real estate. And for good reason. This is the right way to run a real estate company. Applying this idea to the United States would destroy the economy The United States of America, however, is not a real estate development company. If a real estate company defaults on its debts and its creditors lose money, that's their problem. If a bank fails as a result, then it's the FDIC's responsibility to clean it up. The government doesn't work like that. Right now, people and companies all around the world treat US government bonds as the least risky financial asset in the universe. If the government defaults and banks fail as a result, the government needs to clean up the mess. And if risk-free federal bonds turn out to be risky, then every other financial assetbecomes riskier. The interest rate charged on state and local government debt, on corporate debt, and on home loans will spike. Savings will evaporate, and liquidity will vanish as everyone tries to hold on to their cash until they can figure out what's going on. Every assessment of risk in the financial system is based on the idea that the least risky thing is lending money to the federal government. If that turns out to be much riskier than previously thought, then everything else becomes much riskier too. Business investment will collapse, state and local finances will be crushed, and shockwaves will emanate to a whole range of foreign countries that borrow dollars. Remember 2008, when the markets went from thinking housing debt was low-risk to thinking it was high-risk, and a global financial crisis was the result? This would be like that, but much worse — US government debt is the very foundation of low-risk investments. What's especially troubling about Trump's proposal is that there is genuinely no conceivable circumstance under which this kind of default would be necessary. The debt of the federal government consists entirely of obligations to pay US dollars to various individuals and institutions. US dollars are, conveniently, something the US government can create instantly and in infinite quantities at any time. Of course, it might be undesirable to finance debts by printing money rather than raising taxes or cutting spending. In particular, that kind of money printing could lead to inflation, and even though inflation is very low right now there's no guarantee that it will always be low. But a little bit of inflation is always going to be strictly preferable to destroying the whole American economy, especially because a debt default would cause a crash in the value of the dollar and spark inflation anyway. Trump doesn't know what he's talking about This is the second time this week that Trump has revealed a profound ignorance of an issue related to government debts. The early instance in which he kept proposing that Puerto Rico declare bankruptcy even though doing so is illegal was on a question that's very important to Puerto Ricans but not so important to everyone else. It is, however, important to pay attention to how presidential candidates approach issues across the board — and what we saw with Puerto Rico is that Trump approached the issue by simplistically applying business logic without bothering to check whether it applies to the actual situation. Now in the CNBC interview he's done the exact same thing on a matter of more consequence —not the debts of Puerto Rico but the debts of the United States of America. It's understandable that a real estate developer might assume that what works in real estate would work in economic policy, but it's not true. And Trump hasn't bothered to check or ask anyone about it.
Hitler lost the election... Any ways, I'm not surprised about what Trump said about how he'd let the economy crash to make a good deal. This guy has no limit to his stupid.
What? That's not how I remember it. The real estate lenders went bankrupt and the banks went whining to the government for a bailout for all the non-payments they would receive as a result.
I know this is Donald Trump, but can we at least try to keep out some of the stupid? He is NOT Hitler. Just stop it please. For the record, I went volcanic early in the process blasting the GOP for Trump's initial rise in the polls.
You compare Trump to Hitler, I'll compare him Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh Nationalist Trump Nationalist Mosaddegh Anti-establishment Trump Anti-establishment Mosaddegh Hated by the globalists Trump Hated by the globalists Mosaddegh Falsely portrayed as a communist Trump Falsely portrayed as white supremacists Mosaddegh Was overthrown by paid protesters Trump Paid protesters show up at his rallies
The only difference is that the religious fanatics (Evangelists) support Trump. The Ayatollahs did not support Mossadegh (which is why we was overthrown).
I actually take issue with this statement. First and foremost the man was not portrayed as a white supremacist, he made comments that lead people to only conclude he was one. The comments came well before the conclusion. I get that you love him, and think he is the revolution we need and that's because he has artfully coaxed you into believing in his mystique. It's like how Putin wrestles bears and rides horses shirtless. Believe me, I envy you and your ignorance, because if I had it I would be a hell of a lot happier. I'll make a comparison that fits Trump perfectly. Trump is like how some atheists view Jesus. They have nothing against Jesus, and they don't buy into him being the son of God, but they fear Jesus's followers. The followers of Trump are far more deadly to this nation than Trump could ever be.
This man is a danger to the United States of America. He's crazy. Certifiable. Trump’s proposal to bring down U.S. debt would send rates soaring The Japan Times: WASHINGTON – In the event that the U.S. economy crashes, Donald Trump has floated a recovery plan based on his own experience with corporate bankruptcy: Pay America’s creditors less than full value on the U.S. Treasurys they hold. Experts see it as a reckless idea that would send interest rates soaring, derail economic growth and undermine confidence in the world’s most trusted financial asset. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee suggested in a phone interview Thursday with CNBC that he will stimulate growth through borrowing. If trouble arises, he added, he could get investors to accept reduced payments for their Treasury holdings. Trump later clarified that comment to say he will offer to buy the bonds back at a discount from investors in hopes of refinancing them at lower rates. “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal,” Trump told CNBC. Such a move, never before attempted by the U.S. government, would likely spook investors whose trust in Treasury notes keeps global financial markets operating. The need to refinance would likely cause interest rates to spike as investors demanded a greater return for the perceived risks of nonpayment. More tax dollars would have to go toward repaying the debt. Many investors would shift their money elsewhere. And the economy could endure a traumatic blow. “It seems Trump is planning to try to run the country like one of his failed business ventures, and that does not bode well,” said Megan Greene, chief economist at Manulife. The move would also end a policy introduced during the presidency of George Washington — and celebrated in the Pulitzer Prize-winning Broadway musical “Hamilton”— to pay full face value on the debts incurred by the country. The government’s unfailing payments of its debt have long pleased investors and supported the economy because the country can borrow at lower rates than it otherwise could. “Defaulting on our debt would cause creditors to rightly question the ‘full faith’ commitment we make,” said Tony Fratto, a former Treasury Department official in the administration of President George W. Bush. “This isn’t a serious idea — it’s an insane idea.” Trump has touted his acumen for restructuring four of his companies under bankruptcy laws. When Trump Hotels & Casinos finished a 2004 bankruptcy reorganization, it cut $500 million off $1.8 billion in debt and reduced the interest rate to 8 percent from 15 percent. “I don’t think it’s a failure — it’s a success,” Trump said at the time. Spoiler But countries function differently from businesses. Nations usually print their own money and service their debt through taxes, unlike corporations that can sell off assets and equity stakes to manage debt or close up shop. Interest rates would spike if a government refused to pay what it owed as investors priced in the risk of default and became resistant toward lending. Spoiler “It would make a bad situation worse and increase U.S. borrowing costs on its debt going forward because we would have lost our credit rating,” said Chad Stone, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Publicly held U.S. debt is $13.8 trillion, and taxpayers will devote something like $255 billion to interest payments this year. The market largely sets interest rates on the debt, based in part on Federal Reserve policy. The yield on a 10-year Treasury note is about 1.8 percent, a figure that would shoot up if Trump pursues this strategy. This would cause debt payments to climb at a precarious moment for the federal budget when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs will likely increase the need to borrow. “There is no upside,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist and president of the conservative American Action Forum. “It’s a false hope.” The federal government flirted with default risks in 2011 and 2013 when President Barack Obama and the Republican-led House of Representatives reached an impasse over raising the government’s borrowing limit. The government narrowly avoided defaulting on its debt payments in both instances. Still, these breakdowns did cause damage. The 2011 crisis led to a credit rating downgrade by Standard & Poor’s, while the 2013 crisis produced a government shutdown. The statements by Trump reflect his often conflicting statements on economic policy. Just as he floated a plan that experts say will raise interest rates, Trump separately discussed the need to be cautious about higher rates during the same CNBC interview in which he bragged about being “the king of debt.” “It’s a real dilemma, and we have to be very, very careful,” he said. “I love debt. I love playing with it, but of course now you’re talking about something very, very fragile.” http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ing-u-s-debt-send-rates-soaring/#.Vy5hbPkrJaQ
Nope. The Ayatollahs did not like Mossadegh - too much change. Democracy was too new, too radical for them. The CIA did not coordinate the overthrow of a democratically elected leader with just the help of an unpopular monarch such as the Shah. wikipedia is never a great source but it should do here on this forum:
http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/047018549X The problem with Mossadegh was he upset the Brits and that's ultimately why he was overthrown by Western interests led by the CIA.
The only difference really is that Mossadegh did not use incendiary rhetoric which antagonized minority populations, was actually a representative of democracy within a dictatorial monarchy, and wielded his temporary power to nationalize Iran's oil industry at a time when it was completely co-opted by the British and other Western interests, which made Iran beholden to foreign powers in a way that the U.S.A. has not experienced since before the revolution. But yeah, I mean, other than those very, very crucial differences, they're basically the same person in very broad and generalized ways!
