Welcome to Thunderdome

It's not made up.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 9:55 am It's not made up.

We've covered this elsewhere, but I'll rehash for you:

P2025 is an actual thing created by the Heritage Foundation who have been creating these "plans" for every R nominee since the 70s. They're so "influential" that nobody has ever followed one, and Trump has publicly disavowed this one.

So yes, when someone comes out and says "Trump's P2025", I know they're in an echo chamber.

Leisher wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2024 10:42 am So yes, when someone comes out and says "Trump's P2025", I know they're in an echo chamber.

Forbes sez they're both in on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... oser-ties/

Well, so much for hoping the MSM learned something in the aftermath of Saturday.

Just keep pushing division. It's bound to end in puppy dogs and rainbows.

The intent of the headline and how much substance is in the article can be found several paragraphs in:

Trump’s running mate has not explicitly endorsed Project 2025, but recently said “there are some good ideas” in its policy proposals—though he also noted there are some things in it he “disagrees” with, and disavowed it having any connection to the Trump campaign.

In other words, this entire article is clickbait.

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 10:13 am In other words, this entire article is clickbait.

Oh right, because we take politicians at their word now, gotcha.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 10:30 am

Leisher wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 10:13 am In other words, this entire article is clickbait.

Oh right, because we take politicians at their word now, gotcha.

Three things:
1. You just said in another thread you trust the government over a private citizen.
2. Nobody has ever listened to the Heritage Foundation before nor has it ever been an election issue before, but now we're pretending this is "the plan". Why? The MSM falsely assigned it to Trump initially. That didn't stick, so now we're assigning it to Vance. That's honest and not clickbait?
3. We take the MSM at their word now?

Trump "I don't know anything a out it, but I don't like a lot of it."

You can see the contradiction right?

P2025 is the rallying boogeyman. They're still trying to win elections with "here's why you should be afraid of the other guy." Very enlightened. And they think we're all very stupid and will fall for it.... or at least enough of us that they'll trick their way into office.

It should be sickening.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2024 11:56 am Trump "I don't know anything a out it, but I don't like a lot of it."

You can see the contradiction right?

Of course, but you're not addressing my questions. Again, they've been making these since the 70s. Nobody has ever listened to them before. Why all of a sudden does it matter? Why paint it as Trump's plan when his website states his plan and it's not P2025?

Why wasn't this an issue the first time he ran and won when they had P2017? Did he follow that plan?

Why should we pretend a hypothetical is more important than the reality of the last 4 years?

Trump's tax cuts were shit for the US

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 introduced sweeping changes to individual and corporate taxation. We summarize the major provisions, trace the origins of the Act, and compare it to previous tax changes. We also examine the effects on the government budget, economic activity, and distribution of resources. Based on evidence through 2019, we find that the TCJA clearly raised federal debt and increased after-tax incomes, disproportionately increasing incomes for the most affluent. Its effects on GDP and median wages seem modest at best, although clear counterfactuals are difficult to identify. The impact on investment is less certain, and research is only recently emerging that addresses this question

Made rich richer, country poorer.

I think the government makes the country poorer. Not me paying a little less in taxes. And everything makes the rich richer.

Is there an economic study that exists that doesn't result in "the rich got richer"? And is there a world where the government is getting enough money and doesn't need to spend more?

We can pay more taxes, and the government will adjust things so it needs more.

That study is dumb.

The Republican argument was that government income would go up to more than compensate for the decrease in tax rates, and that was proven to be a lie (duh).

The debt analysis was based on income changes, not spending changes. You can read the study.

Don't both sides play "Let's do this for the good of the country" and then it never really works out like they said it would?

Are there any studies that show the government predicting a positive change if 'this policy' is enacted, then the good actually happened?

I retain my "duh" response to the study. Of course the proposed government action didn't turn out the way they said it would.

As far as the spending vs income stuff. The government spends too much money. So I don't really care about a study showing me paying less taxes made the country poorer. The country would have been poorer, no matter what the tax rates were. It might be more poor because of these tax cuts. But it's the spending that's the real problem. I'm not impressed with studies that try to show one party, or one parties actions have negative affects on the country, when the reality is, both parties fuck us. I'm so tired of the "This party fucks us less" argument. I just so don't care which is fucking me less (or more). I just want them to stop fucking me. I don''t understand why we tolerate the fucking at all. And just so I'm clear. All of the fucking I'm referring to is the bad kind. Not the good kind.

Cakedaddy wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 2:08 am Don't both sides play "Let's do this for the good of the country" and then it never really works out like they said it would?

Yes and they tend to skew statistics to fit their narrative.

The corners of the internet have noticed Laura Loomer and Trump being both super physical together, unusual for a germaphobe like trump is supposed to be, and constantly traveling together, day and night.

She is a super alt right racist woman (“Kamala will make the White House smell like curry”), profoundly foul person, who helped trump prep for his recent debate. Who has gone on unhinged rants in the past few days at R stalwarts like MTG and Lindsey Graham, with practically zero repercussions, or shame, really. How is she doing all this so confidently?

Where on earth has Melania been?

All put together, I propose an incredibly disgusting conspiracy theory. She’s doing him.

https://x.com/mjfree/status/18344034122 ... zRv0yn8-VQ

EW

He blew her a kiss and then stroked her cock?

Cakedaddy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 9:36 pm He blew her a kiss and then stroked her cock?

What a horrible day to have eyes.

I wonder if it's so he doesn't just pardon himself, and then they can reopen in four years.