The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[Ibanez]

It's a reference to Baldy's $16 footlong Subway sub he had in Seattle.


#kalmshouldshuthisfuckingmouth

So Chicago Subways are $1?

#whyismarksosalty?

SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH, YOU NORDIC TWIT!

[Ibanez]

B-but Antifa!!!

https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/29/empire-s ... ate-crime/

https://pjmedia.com/trending/shifting-s ... -smollett/

To recap:

TMZ initially claimed Smollett was physically assaulted by two white males shouting "this is MAGA country" and anti-gay and racial slurs, and that they doused him with bleach and put a noose around his neck.

Chicago Police initially denied the "MAGA" claim based on their initial interview. Smollett only added that detail in a second interview, after it had already been widely reported.

Police spokesmen also said that since the assailants were wearing ski masks and gloves, their race and gender are unknown to Smollett.

When police officers arrived at the residence, Smollett was still wearing the rope around his neck 45 minutes after the incident, was reluctant to provide a statement, and asked for their body cameras to be turned off.

Police have been unable to obtain any video evidence of the assailants or their vehicle.

Smollett clearly has a long-standing axe to grind with President Trump.

Given recent incidents, it would seem prudent to allow law enforcement authorities to investigate the matter before leaping to conclusions or pushing highly charged political claims.

But this incident has already been politicized, and it's unlikely that prudence and caution are going to prevail until more facts are known.

[Grizalltheway]

B-but Antifa!!!

https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/29/empire-s ... ate-crime/

https://pjmedia.com/trending/shifting-s ... -smollett/

To recap:

TMZ initially claimed Smollett was physically assaulted by two white males shouting "this is MAGA country" and anti-gay and racial slurs, and that they doused him with bleach and put a noose around his neck.

Chicago Police initially denied the "MAGA" claim based on their initial interview. Smollett only added that detail in a second interview, after it had already been widely reported.

Police spokesmen also said that since the assailants were wearing ski masks and gloves, their race and gender are unknown to Smollett.

When police officers arrived at the residence, Smollett was still wearing the rope around his neck 45 minutes after the incident, was reluctant to provide a statement, and asked for their body cameras to be turned off.

Police have been unable to obtain any video evidence of the assailants or their vehicle.

Smollett clearly has a long-standing axe to grind with President Trump.

Given recent incidents, it would seem prudent to allow law enforcement authorities to investigate the matter before leaping to conclusions or pushing highly charged political claims.

But this incident has already been politicized, and it's unlikely that prudence and caution are going to prevail until more facts are known.

Fake news!

[Ibanez]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/shifting-s ... -smollett/

Fake news!

What would you like to wager that he wasn't attacked at all, and when he finally confesses, the media and everyone else would give his racism a pass?

Because you know if a white guy had done that, he'd have to change his name and flee the country.

[Grizalltheway]

Fake news!

What would you like to wager that he wasn't attacked at all, and when he finally confesses, the media and everyone else would give his racism a pass?

Because you know if a white guy had done that, he'd have to change his name and flee the country.

I don't know about all that, I'm just following Dear Leader's guide to being wrong.

[Ibanez]

What would you like to wager that he wasn't attacked at all, and when he finally confesses, the media and everyone else would give his racism a pass?

Because you know if a white guy had done that, he'd have to change his name and flee the country.

I don't know about all that, I'm just following Dear Leader's guide to being wrong.

Wunderbar!

[Gil Dobie]

Looks like Trump took care of Global Warming in 2 years.

[CID1990]

Looks like Trump took care of Global Warming in 2 years.

I thought the seas stopped rising in 2008


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

I did too, better than most of the humor here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You have a sense of humor? Who knew?

Most people I know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

Looks like Trump took care of Global Warming in 2 years.

I thought the seas stopped rising in 2008


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My little joke about the cold weather back in Minnesota

[Grizalltheway]

Right before Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017, President Trump proclaimed:

“It’ll be fantastic for the middle-income people and for jobs, most of all ... I think we could go to 4%, 5% or even 6% [GDP growth], ultimately. We are back. We are really going to start to rock.”

A year later, it’s very clear that the tax cuts boosted gross domestic product and jobs a bit — and just for one year. Its effects are fading as U.S. GDP growth appears likely to weaken in 2019. The only thing that “rocked” were corporate profits and the stock market. And we’re facing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-o ... 2019-01-30

*patiently waits for Baldy to research what music Gold listened to in high school*

[∞∞∞]

Right before Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in December 2017, President Trump proclaimed:

“It’ll be fantastic for the middle-income people and for jobs, most of all ... I think we could go to 4%, 5% or even 6% [GDP growth], ultimately. We are back. We are really going to start to rock.”

A year later, it’s very clear that the tax cuts boosted gross domestic product and jobs a bit — and just for one year. Its effects are fading as U.S. GDP growth appears likely to weaken in 2019. The only thing that “rocked” were corporate profits and the stock market. And we’re facing trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-o ... 2019-01-30

*patiently waits for Baldy to research what music Gold listened to in high school*

It's not even that most economists predicted it...

...it's that history itself shows this is true. Every. Single. Time.

And yet tomorrow we'll have Cons tell us that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will super-boost the economy for the average Joe. And your average Joe will - once again - fall for it.

[Grizalltheway]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-o ... 2019-01-30

*patiently waits for Baldy to research what music Gold listened to in high school*

It's not even that most economists predicted it...

...it's that history itself shows this is true. Every. Single. Time.

And yet tomorrow we'll have Cons tell us that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will super-boost the economy for the average Joe. And your average Joe will - once again - fall for it.

Low-information voters

[Chizzang]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-o ... 2019-01-30

*patiently waits for Baldy to research what music Gold listened to in high school*

It's not even that most economists predicted it...

...it's that history itself shows this is true. Every. Single. Time.

And yet tomorrow we'll have Cons tell us that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will super-boost the economy for the average Joe. And your average Joe will - once again - fall for it.

My favorite one is the one about "all the mega corps" will leave if we actually make them pay any taxes at all...
while leaving every tax loophole wide open simultaneously



and if we tax rich folks they'll all move away too...
Which of course has never happened



Meanwhile in other news not reported by Fox News:
This is the 10th consecutive republican in office to outspend his Democratic predecessor
and yet we're told they are the Party of smaller government...

[Ivytalk]

It's not even that most economists predicted it...

...it's that history itself shows this is true. Every. Single. Time.

And yet tomorrow we'll have Cons tell us that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will super-boost the economy for the average Joe. And your average Joe will - once again - fall for it.

My favorite one is the one about "all the mega corps" will leave if we actually make them pay any taxes at all...
while leaving every tax loophole wide open simultaneously



and if we tax rich folks they'll all move away too...
Which of course has never happened



Meanwhile in other news not reported by Fox News:
This is the 10th consecutive republican in office to outspend his Democratic predecessor
and yet we're told they are the Party of smaller government...

Harding outspent Wilson?

[CID1990]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-o ... 2019-01-30

*patiently waits for Baldy to research what music Gold listened to in high school*

It's not even that most economists predicted it...

...it's that history itself shows this is true. Every. Single. Time.

And yet tomorrow we'll have Cons tell us that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will super-boost the economy for the average Joe. And your average Joe will - once again - fall for it.

Its true - tax cuts will always increase the deficit without concurrent spending cuts. You are correct that history shows this to be true every time.

Its too bad this is the only ideological item where you aren’t ignoring history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

My favorite one is the one about "all the mega corps" will leave if we actually make them pay any taxes at all...
while leaving every tax loophole wide open simultaneously



and if we tax rich folks they'll all move away too...
Which of course has never happened



Meanwhile in other news not reported by Fox News:
This is the 10th consecutive republican in office to outspend his Democratic predecessor
and yet we're told they are the Party of smaller government...

Harding outspent Wilson?

Bush outspent Obama?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Harding outspent Wilson?

Bush outspent Obama?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

predecessor is a key word in that earlier post, no?

[JohnStOnge]

It's not even that most economists predicted it...

...it's that history itself shows this is true. Every. Single. Time.

And yet tomorrow we'll have Cons tell us that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will super-boost the economy for the average Joe. And your average Joe will - once again - fall for it.

Its true - tax cuts will always increase the deficit without concurrent spending cuts. You are correct that history shows this to be true every time.

Its too bad this is the only ideological item where you aren’t ignoring history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One sad thing is that people say Reagan did his tax cuts based on saying we could have our cake and eat it to. I don't think he ever did that. Reagan said we needed to cut government. He wanted to cut governments "allowance." Unfortunately he was never successful in doing that.

But I was an alive adult at the time who voted for Reagan both times and I don't think he ever claimed that we could cut taxes and get MORE revenue than we would have so we could keep right on spending at the same level or even at a greater one.

To me there are valid reasons, mostly philosophical ones, for cutting taxes dramatically. But the idea that it's going to mean more revenue than we would have had otherwise is not one of them.

I mean, I think there is a point at which taxes could be so high that cutting them would increase revenue over what it would've been. But I don't think we've been anywhere near that point in my lifetime.

[SDHornet]

Sounds like the chinks are going to buy 5M tons of soybeans. Something something we can't win a trade war against China something something.

[JohnStOnge]

Sounds like the chinks are going to buy 5M tons of soybeans. Something something we can't win a trade war against China something something.

Because Trump said so? We'll see what happens. And, no, the US cannot win a trade war with China.

BTW, Trump said China is going to purchase 5 million pounds per day. China purchased 23 million pounds during 2018. If they purchase 5 million pounds per day for a year that'd be 1.8 BILLION pounds. It'd be about 79 times what they purchased during 2018.

Do you think that's going to happen?

For Pete's sake, man, when are you going to realize that you can't believe what Trump says?

[AZGrizFan]

It's not even that most economists predicted it...

...it's that history itself shows this is true. Every. Single. Time.

And yet tomorrow we'll have Cons tell us that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will super-boost the economy for the average Joe. And your average Joe will - once again - fall for it.

Its true - tax cuts will always increase the deficit without concurrent spending cuts. You are correct that history shows this to be true every time.

Its too bad this is the only ideological item where you aren’t ignoring history.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good God no shit. Kind of like science....it’s settled on climate change, but NOT on childbirth.

[AZGrizFan]

It's not even that most economists predicted it...

...it's that history itself shows this is true. Every. Single. Time.

And yet tomorrow we'll have Cons tell us that slashing taxes for corporations and the wealthy will super-boost the economy for the average Joe. And your average Joe will - once again - fall for it.

My favorite one is the one about "all the mega corps" will leave if we actually make them pay any taxes at all...
while leaving every tax loophole wide open simultaneously



and if we tax rich folks they'll all move away too...
Which of course has never happened



Meanwhile in other news not reported by Fox News:
This is the 10th consecutive republican in office to outspend his Democratic predecessor
and yet we're told they are the Party of smaller government...

I would love to see the same comparison absent defense spending.

[mainejeff]

My favorite one is the one about "all the mega corps" will leave if we actually make them pay any taxes at all...
while leaving every tax loophole wide open simultaneously



and if we tax rich folks they'll all move away too...
Which of course has never happened



Meanwhile in other news not reported by Fox News:
This is the 10th consecutive republican in office to outspend his Democratic predecessor
and yet we're told they are the Party of smaller government...

I would love to see the same comparison absent defense spending.

Yes....everything should have an asterisk (*) including this Presidency.

[Ivytalk]

[quote="JohnStOnge”]To me there are valid reasons, mostly philosophical ones, for cutting taxes dramatically. [/quote]

You lie!

See my siggy.