Some more on Trump's Russian money laundering activities.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/donald-trump-russia-money-laundering-mueller-investigation-us-politics-news-91721/

The Russian mob angle really has you triggered. I wonder why... :chin: Anyway too late. It's not just the documentary. I posted about thirty articles on it previously. The cat is out of the bag. You putting your hands over your ears and shouting no, no, no doesn't change anything.

It's a documentary not fiction. And unless you want to make the absurd claim that every documentary is invalid and can't be in any way true because it's a "movie", your comment makes zero sense.

Sad how misleadingly this has been presented but politics as usual. I presume the smear campaign will backfire.

Of course my app may have been infiltrated by the Russian mob. :chin:

Hope springs infernal!

Ah, you figured out my prediction method. And the answer is:


:scream:

The Russian mob angle is coming together well.

You can't be a successful business man in a competitive capitalist economy and a Christian. Period. A ruthless business career and the word of Jesus Christ don't mix, Agu. Maybe this unresolved contradiction is why you're lashing out, but you don't have a leg to stand on. Deal with the beam in your own eye.

Yes, and I can see how such a deception might lead to imagining God would agree that fear is better than love and that one should be 'ruthless' in business as if that has anything to do with justice. Someone's whole moral and religious sense could break down when what drives them and what they need to excuse through disractions is their own avarice. They might even end up claiming that God hates [insert someone else's sin here] when of course God doesn't hate, God is love.

That's pretty cool :up: . Did you make the video too?

You've called yourself a troll several times (posts which I've had to waste time deleting and furthermore trolling is against the rules). Stop this now.

North Koreans back to building up their nuclear arsenal as predicted. Another abject failure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-spy-agencies-north-korea-is-working-on-new-missiles/2018/07/30/b3542696-940d-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.defbcc4171dc
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45015343
https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korea-expands-key-missile-manufacturing-plant-1530486907

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T019-C000-S010-gdp-growth-rate-and-forecast.html

"GDP should increase 2.9% for the year, after 2017's 2.2% pace" (giving Trump about a 2.5% average. An average that's been beaten by every president in the last 80 years except the Bush's and Obama. Again, it's all hype. Even after the massive tax breaks to the rich and massive additions to the debt and all the interventions, there is nothing here.)

Also explains the blip:

"Exports advanced strongly as purveyors of soybeans and other goods shipped to China drew down stockpiles to get in ahead of Beijing’s tariffs. The accelerated schedule should diminish third-quarter export growth a good deal."

Fake news. — Bitter Crank

Ah, yes, it was. Sorry. It was one of those generic example things... :fire:

But he is right that America is on track for 3%+ GDP growth. — Agustino

Evidence? The predictors I've seen say 2.7%-2.9% for this year.

Anyway. after all this hoopla, all this MAGA hype, Trump's big thing is a revised promise of growth of about a percentage point less than Clinton, which is the best he'll do. And you think that's an achievement. Why?

"We're now on track to hit an annual GDP growth of over 3%, — Agustino

So, the big promise now is 3% down from 4% growth. Well whoop-de-doo. Clinton's average was 3.9%. :yawn:

Trump has been promising 4% growth since the beginning:

His words on the campaign:

"I guarantee... get a Donald J. Trump presidency and we'll have FOUR percent growth for FIVE years."

Can't be much clearer than that.

OK, done. If you want anything changed, send me a PM. :up:

Do you want me to start the discussion or would you like to?

You've conceded the point then. Trump's policies won't lead to a sustainable level of four per cent growth as he claimed, so I was right to say that his claim was false. It's either an exaggeration or another deliberate lie.

And his brand of protectionism will not lead to more growth in the long term compared to free trade because, for a start, it makes the US less competitive. Trump has already had to pencil in twelve billion dollars to pay farmers who have lost their markets because of retaliatory moves by other countries, notably China. Protectionism may be necessary in limited circumstances but Trump's trade war tarriffs won't work now because other countries won't let them work (I'll try to find the source but the figure I saw was they would in a best case scenario lead to a moderate reduction in GDP of a quarter of a per cent per year or so). The other obvious point is Trump is not even using them for economic reasons. If there were solid economic reasons behind them, at least his own party would support them. But, it's more like, as Benkei pointed out, an ill-thought-out exercise in foreigner bashing to appeal to his base.

Yeah, sure. Better to have them all in one place anyhow.

The current affairs in "politics and current affairs" is news. Why not start a news headlines discussion there? Then everyone can just post their headlines and discuss them in one place (which seems a good idea). If we start a category on the other hand then we're expecting a separate conversation based on each headline, which would I think would encourage a lazy attitude to OPs and a proliferation of very short discussions clogging up the homepage.

:cool: Shave all your hair off and glue on a blonde wig in deference to the Trump-in-chief? Could be anything really because those numbers ain't gonna happen.

Agree the rest of what you said though.

If you think GDP is going to hit 4% in the US for this year by year's end, I'll happily make the bet with you too before you get committed to the economic insane asylum. What shall we put in your speech bubble?

Giuliani is now admitting to collusion because they know they've been caught. There are presumably witnesses who can corroborate Cohen's story. So, the new line is not "There was no collusion" which we always suspected was a lie but that "Collusion isn't a crime". The next line will presumably be, OK, collusion is a crime, but the President can pardon himself or can't be subpoenaed, and so on etc. As an aside has anyone anywhere being pursued on such a serious issue been represented by such a bumbling defense? It's very...odd.

Mod note: Personal comments will continue to be removed from this discussion. Please don't give us more work to do by responding to them but report anyone who gets personal with you and we will delete the comment or part thereof.

:lol: Aren't they the basically the same person/god? :halo:

I won't speak for Sapientia, but I think the essence of socialism is summed up most succinctly in the words of JC.

"He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise."

Luke 3:11

I personally think Jesus goes a bit far on this one if you're to take it literally, but I think the spirit of it at least should be integrated into government policy. And that is "Do not distribute an excess that would cause a deficiency on the other end. That's neither good for those who are forced into deficiency (suffering) or those who are given the excess (greed)". And that's diametrically opposed to the Randian approach of the likes of Agu and Trump whose policies if brought to their logical conclusion would eventually result in an irreversible polarization of society into a majority with less than they need (the deficient) and a tiny minority with much more than they need (the greedy). Result=a state of social disintegration and unrest that would likely result in the breakdown of democracy.

Even right wing capitalists at least pay lip service to the idea that economic growth should benefit the majority as the majority play a part in producing that growth at every level. @Agustino unfortunately seems to be stuck in the fantasy that it is only businessmen like him that matter and should get all the benefits from society while everyone else simply bows down and thanks them for their brilliance. Of course the rub is that when inflation outpaces wages growth for long enough due to this randonomics type approach, Agu's wage slaves won't be able to buy his stuff any more.

The deeper problem Agu is that your philosophy is morally warped. Entrepreneurs are not better in some objective way than other people such that they deserve to hog the spoils of economic growth. They are simply players in a system that can either distribute its benefits rationally for the greater good, as democratic socialists would like, or that can feed the avarice that you and those of your political ilk would espouse. The fact is that those who like doing business should be thankful society is set up in such a way that they can follow their passion and that and enough material wealth to satisfy a rational serving of needs should be enough. So, basta! Insisting that you not only get enough to meet your needs but so much that you deprive others of enough to meet their needs in order to serve you is not only morally reprehensible but economically illiterate.

We need banks. They just need to be properly regulated. Where are the funds for entrepreneurship going to come from if not banks?

You are wrong. The moves Trump made, including slashing taxes, setting up trade barriers and promoting local industry/investments are pure gold. Investments are the key to GDP growth, investments drive confidence & production which drives consumption. Improving the trade balance also positively affects the GDP. — Agustino

Trump's trade war will boost GDP in the long term? According to what economic model? According to what evidence? Fantastical statements like this just make you sound uninformed. But OK, if you really believe this I'll bite: if by the end of the year overall growth is four per cent or more I'll post a picture of myself here in this discussion wearing a MAGA hat. If it falls more than half a per cent short of that, you post a picture of yourself with an "I Love Hillary" speech bubble coming out of your mouth. OK? Or is this just hot air?

Yes, agree with all that. That's the strategy here. Slash taxes for the wealthy to improve GDP figures in the short to medium term (though still won't be anywhere near four per cent) while creating a huge unsustainable debt problem for whoever comes later, who will have to take hard decisions about how to deal with it. Absolutely cynical, self-serving and destructive economics.

But trickle down!!! — Posty McPostface

Reality is never as exciting as Trump's fantasy world :
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-growth-touted-as-historic-by-trump-is-totally-standard/

There's not much to trickle down, it's a misleading figure. Listen, we had a GDP blip in Ireland that showed a 26% growth rate in 2015! Beat that Trump! Our politicians were a bit more restrained in their celebrations though as no-one was buying it.

That's been debunked by just about every economist as a temporary blip initiated by Trump’s failing trade war, which is already requiring billion dollar bailouts. Anyone who thinks the US will have grown by 4.1% by the end of the year, in other words that this is "very sustainable" in Trump's words, needs to be provided with a very tight jacket and locked in a room with bouncy walls.

Until we require an upgrade due to increasing membership, it costs $49 per month to keep the forum up and running, plus at present $6 to accept paid subscriptions. I don't know the exact amount of money in the kitty, but the last I heard just before I put the fundraiser up was that we were low on funds. Only @jamalrob has access to the exact numbers. I expect he'll be happy to stick those up here anon.

You can't distill the positives from National Socialism any more than you can distill a soft drink from arsenic. Anything that's left that isn't abominable isn't National Socialism and needs a new name.

If Elizabeth Warren runs, every exchange is likely to be "Trump: Pocahontas! Warren: Idiot!" and nobody will hear anything else.