Does anyone actually think that Donald Trump would make a good President?

[Flopper]

There's been a lot of Trump support recently on the boards, but it's almost always been couched in anti-liberal rhetoric - along the lines of "I like Trump because he makes liberals upset". I have yet to see anyone put there cards on the table and publicly state that they think he would be a good President.

So here we go. Let's here some positive things about Donald Trump from the resident supporters.

What qualities does Donald Trump have that would make him a good President?

You're overthinking it. This isn't about quality or even policy. Its about feeling. He's the emotional choice. You'll only fuck it up if you start injecting useless criteria like qualification or whether or not he'd actually be good at the job.

Don't ruin this for me!

Like Hillary isn't the emotional choice for liberals who decided they just had to elect their first black president, and now want their first woman one. Yeah, she's really qualified.

And yet with zero executive experience, zero military experience, and no relevant qualifications or experience....Trump is the front runner in the GOP.

Either qualifications matter to you, Trump fails the qualification standard and your critique of Obama and to a lesser extent Hillary are consistent. Or qualifications don't matter to you, Trump's qualifications are irrelevant, and your criticism of Obama and Hillary are gloriously hypocritical.

As you genuinely don't give a shit.

Pick one, recognizing it will apply to everyone.

I don't understand your logic. All three people are "qualified" to be president, (if you don't consider Obama's lack of a birth certificate). The Constitution lays out the qualifications very clearly. All three people have "experience" at something. Most of Obama's is in community organizing and being a politician.... and golf! Hillary has built a resume of experience dodging subpoenas and obstructing justice. Trump's experience is making winners out of losers.

I find it quite ironic that you are chastising Trump for not having military experience... would you like to disclose your glorious Messiah-in-Chief's military record for us? That's right... Zippola! Oh okay, well let's look at Billary's military records? What? Nothing there either? Wow... and you have the audacity to raise this issue with Trump or ANYONE?

Trump said, “He (McCain) was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” Trump of course, was never captured because he hid out in grad school, choosing to leave the fighting to someone else by applying for a deferment.

While Trump was cooling his heals in graduate school. John McCain volunteered for combat duty in Vietnam. He was shot down, captured and a POW suffering from a crushed shoulder and a bayonet wounds. Meanwhile, Trump graduated with his degree in business and joined his father in the real state business. John McCain returned home a decorated wounded soldier.

Trump made a big mistake attacking McCain, one that will come back to haunt him in months to come.

 

[Boss]

What? Trump said something controversial? Oh my goodness! He's doomed now!

 

[Slyhunter]

Reagans deregulations and idiocy destroyed our middle class.

100% stupid and liberal of course. Japan had just started importing cars then. And China was no where to be seen.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

Not to mention this:
View attachment 44989

As we can see... Middle income families HAVE been on the decline since 1967... Oh my! Maybe the Liberals are RIGHT? *GASP*

Except... the Lower-income families are ALSO declining! So the middle-incomers are not going there! Hmmmm... where are they all going? The graph is clear, they are becoming part of the upper-income group. So when a Socialist laments on how the middle class in America has been destroyed, just whip out this graph and show them what has happened to the middle class.

It's time to redefine the classes. 25,000 doesn't buy what it used to.

 

[Skylar]

There's been a lot of Trump support recently on the boards, but it's almost always been couched in anti-liberal rhetoric - along the lines of "I like Trump because he makes liberals upset". I have yet to see anyone put there cards on the table and publicly state that they think he would be a good President.

So here we go. Let's here some positive things about Donald Trump from the resident supporters.

What qualities does Donald Trump have that would make him a good President?

You're overthinking it. This isn't about quality or even policy. Its about feeling. He's the emotional choice. You'll only fuck it up if you start injecting useless criteria like qualification or whether or not he'd actually be good at the job.

Don't ruin this for me!

Like Hillary isn't the emotional choice for liberals who decided they just had to elect their first black president, and now want their first woman one. Yeah, she's really qualified.

And yet with zero executive experience, zero military experience, and no relevant qualifications or experience....Trump is the front runner in the GOP.

Either qualifications matter to you, Trump fails the qualification standard and your critique of Obama and to a lesser extent Hillary are consistent. Or qualifications don't matter to you, Trump's qualifications are irrelevant, and your criticism of Obama and Hillary are gloriously hypocritical.

As you genuinely don't give a shit.

Pick one, recognizing it will apply to everyone.

I don't understand your logic. All three people are "qualified" to be president, (if you don't consider Obama's lack of a birth certificate).

Then all the lamenting from the right about how Obama wasn't qualified to be president....was meaningless horseshit?

Well that was easy.

 

[Skylar]

Reagans deregulations and idiocy destroyed our middle class.

100% stupid and liberal of course. Japan had just started importing cars then. And China was no where to be seen.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

Not to mention this:
View attachment 44989

As we can see... Middle income families HAVE been on the decline since 1967... Oh my! Maybe the Liberals are RIGHT? *GASP*

Except... the Lower-income families are ALSO declining! So the middle-incomers are not going there! Hmmmm... where are they all going? The graph is clear, they are becoming part of the upper-income group. So when a Socialist laments on how the middle class in America has been destroyed, just whip out this graph and show them what has happened to the middle class.

Why $75,000 dollars? That's remarkably specific.....but rather arbitrary. Most assessments of of middle class are based on a percentage of median income. With most measurements of the middle class topping out at about 200% median. Or roughly $100,000 a year nationally. Or between $75,000 and and $144,000 depending on the state you live in.

Why do you define middle class as topping out at $75,000?

 

[Papageorgio]

We have gone 27 years with a poor President what the hell is another four.

 

[Boss]

Reagans deregulations and idiocy destroyed our middle class.

100% stupid and liberal of course. Japan had just started importing cars then. And China was no where to be seen.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

Not to mention this:
View attachment 44989

As we can see... Middle income families HAVE been on the decline since 1967... Oh my! Maybe the Liberals are RIGHT? *GASP*

Except... the Lower-income families are ALSO declining! So the middle-incomers are not going there! Hmmmm... where are they all going? The graph is clear, they are becoming part of the upper-income group. So when a Socialist laments on how the middle class in America has been destroyed, just whip out this graph and show them what has happened to the middle class.

Why $75,000 dollars? That's remarkably specific.....but rather arbitrary. Most assessments of of middle class are based on a percentage of median income. With most measurements of the middle class topping out at about 200% median. Or roughly $100,000 a year nationally. Or between $75,000 and and $144,000 depending on the state you live in.

Why do you define middle class as topping out at $75,000?

The incomes are adjusted to 2009 dollars, the ranges are selected because you have to have ranges if you're going to distinguish between ranges. What it sounds like you want is to compare a sliding scale dynamic income you can manipulate and call what you please to conform to your meme. Is that how "middle class" works in your mind? We change it depending on what result we want to show? Sometimes $75k is upper income and sometimes it's middle income?

Do you make more than $75k a year? Would you be "middle class" at $24k a year? Besides... we can put the parameters wherever you think is better if you like, the people in the middle category have been moving into the upper category and not the lower one. It really doesn't matter where you want to draw the lines. You can broaden the groups and the results will be the same, perhaps less pronounced but you've expanded what is defined as poor and middle class.

I've got an idea based on your logic... why don't we just start calling "low income" anything below $2k and middle class can be $2k-$150k and wealthy can be anything over $150k. WOW... we now have a vibrant "middle class" all because I cleverly changed the parameters to define them that way! Bravo me! If there are still too many "rich people" we can simply raise the middle class up to $250k... that should take care of it, right? All that matters is that we manipulate the numbers to fit our agenda, right?

 

[Skylar]

Reagans deregulations and idiocy destroyed our middle class.

100% stupid and liberal of course. Japan had just started importing cars then. And China was no where to be seen.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

Not to mention this:
View attachment 44989

As we can see... Middle income families HAVE been on the decline since 1967... Oh my! Maybe the Liberals are RIGHT? *GASP*

Except... the Lower-income families are ALSO declining! So the middle-incomers are not going there! Hmmmm... where are they all going? The graph is clear, they are becoming part of the upper-income group. So when a Socialist laments on how the middle class in America has been destroyed, just whip out this graph and show them what has happened to the middle class.

Why $75,000 dollars? That's remarkably specific.....but rather arbitrary. Most assessments of of middle class are based on a percentage of median income. With most measurements of the middle class topping out at about 200% median. Or roughly $100,000 a year nationally. Or between $75,000 and and $144,000 depending on the state you live in.

Why do you define middle class as topping out at $75,000?

The incomes are adjusted to 2009 dollars, the ranges are selected because you have to have ranges if you're going to distinguish between ranges. What it sounds like you want is to compare a sliding scale dynamic income you can manipulate and call what you please to conform to your meme. Is that how "middle class" works in your mind? We change it depending on what result we want to show? Sometimes $75k is upper income and sometimes it's middle income?

I got that. My question is....why 75k? Why is that your measure of 'middle class'? Almost all measures of middle class use some percentage of median income. You use an apparently arbitrary number.

Why that number? What is its significance. And why do you use it to define 'middle class'?

 

[Skylar]

ANd where you draw your lines would have serious significance. Here's an updated chart using 2013 dollars and splitting the country into 1/5ths.

With the income for the middle quintile essentially flat and on a downward trend since about 2007. Same with the lower 2 quintiles. The 2nd quintile sees some growth, I'd argue its even significant. While the top quintile and especially the top 5% see dramatic income growth.

 

[Boss]

Reagans deregulations and idiocy destroyed our middle class.

100% stupid and liberal of course. Japan had just started importing cars then. And China was no where to be seen.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

Not to mention this:
View attachment 44989

As we can see... Middle income families HAVE been on the decline since 1967... Oh my! Maybe the Liberals are RIGHT? *GASP*

Except... the Lower-income families are ALSO declining! So the middle-incomers are not going there! Hmmmm... where are they all going? The graph is clear, they are becoming part of the upper-income group. So when a Socialist laments on how the middle class in America has been destroyed, just whip out this graph and show them what has happened to the middle class.

Why $75,000 dollars? That's remarkably specific.....but rather arbitrary. Most assessments of of middle class are based on a percentage of median income. With most measurements of the middle class topping out at about 200% median. Or roughly $100,000 a year nationally. Or between $75,000 and and $144,000 depending on the state you live in.

Why do you define middle class as topping out at $75,000?

The incomes are adjusted to 2009 dollars, the ranges are selected because you have to have ranges if you're going to distinguish between ranges. What it sounds like you want is to compare a sliding scale dynamic income you can manipulate and call what you please to conform to your meme. Is that how "middle class" works in your mind? We change it depending on what result we want to show? Sometimes $75k is upper income and sometimes it's middle income?

I got that. My question is....why 75k? Why is that your measure of 'middle class'? Almost all measures of middle class use some percentage of median income. You use an apparently arbitrary number.

Why that number? What is its significance. And why do you use it to define 'middle class'?

Well darling, it's not MY measure or MY graph. You'll note that the information comes from the US Census Bureau. I'm just passing along information, you can take it however you please. Is there some magical dollar amount one reaches and suddenly becomes a different class? What IS "middle class" to you? Is it just whatever amount it needs to be in order to make the point you are making at the moment?

I'll turn your question back around... why NOT $75k?

 

[Boss]

ANd where you draw your lines would have serious significance. Here's an updated chart using 2013 dollars and splitting the country into 1/5ths.

With the income for the middle quintile essentially flat and on a downward trend since about 2007. Same with the lower 2 quintiles. The 2nd quintile sees some growth, I'd argue its even significant. While the top quintile and especially the top 5% see dramatic income growth.

You are looking at two different statistics here. Mine is looking at distribution of families by income level and yours is looking at mean income by quintile and Top 5%.

My chart actually shows how your chart is misleading. You and other libtards want to assume the Top 5% in 1967 are the same people in 2013... that's not the case. Some of those in the Top 5% of 2013 were in the lower groups previously. Some in the lower groups in 2013 were in the Top 5% in 1967. People change through time, they don't remain at the same income level their entire life.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Delusional Cheese Creature Donald Trump: "I'll Win the Latino Vote"

Speaking with NBC News this week, presidential candidate and open-faced quesadilla Donald Trump

 

[Skylar]

100% stupid and liberal of course. Japan had just started importing cars then. And China was no where to be seen.

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? What other conclusion is possible?

Not to mention this:
View attachment 44989

As we can see... Middle income families HAVE been on the decline since 1967... Oh my! Maybe the Liberals are RIGHT? *GASP*

Except... the Lower-income families are ALSO declining! So the middle-incomers are not going there! Hmmmm... where are they all going? The graph is clear, they are becoming part of the upper-income group. So when a Socialist laments on how the middle class in America has been destroyed, just whip out this graph and show them what has happened to the middle class.

Why $75,000 dollars? That's remarkably specific.....but rather arbitrary. Most assessments of of middle class are based on a percentage of median income. With most measurements of the middle class topping out at about 200% median. Or roughly $100,000 a year nationally. Or between $75,000 and and $144,000 depending on the state you live in.

Why do you define middle class as topping out at $75,000?

The incomes are adjusted to 2009 dollars, the ranges are selected because you have to have ranges if you're going to distinguish between ranges. What it sounds like you want is to compare a sliding scale dynamic income you can manipulate and call what you please to conform to your meme. Is that how "middle class" works in your mind? We change it depending on what result we want to show? Sometimes $75k is upper income and sometimes it's middle income?

I got that. My question is....why 75k? Why is that your measure of 'middle class'? Almost all measures of middle class use some percentage of median income. You use an apparently arbitrary number.

Why that number? What is its significance. And why do you use it to define 'middle class'?

Well darling, it's not MY measure or MY graph.

Um, kiddo.....you're citing it. Its your graph now. If you know nothing behind it, have no clue why it drew its arbitrary lines where they did, then perhaps you should dig a little deeper into your own sources before quoting them.

I've given you ample opportunity to explain yourself. You clearly have no such explanation for why such an arbitrary number was used. Nor can you rationally justify 75k as the threshold of 'upper income'. And without a rational reason, there's no reason to use it.

With the lowest, 2nd lowest and middle quintile essentially stagnant despite in 2013 dollars (and actually in decline since 2007), how can you rationally argue that the middle income group is becoming an upper income group. The middle quintile is at roughly the same place it was 50 years ago.

You'll note that the information comes from the US Census Bureau. I'm just passing along information, you can take it however you please. Is there some magical dollar amount one reaches and suddenly becomes a different class? What IS "middle class" to you? Is it just whatever amount it needs to be in order to make the point you are making at the moment?

You'll note that the Census Bureau doesn't draw the line for 'upper income' at 75,000. Your source does.......for some reason even you don't know. Nor bothered to find out before citing it. If you ever do, feel free to share it.

Meanwhile, the Quintile system is used by the Census Bureau, giving us ample reason as to why its being used now. And it shows stagnation and decline in 3/5ths of American households. With moderate growth in the 2nd highest quintile, dramatic growth among the upper quintile and wild growth in the upper 5%.

If the American worker is producing double what he did 50 years ago.....why is the increases in income missing 3/5ths of the US population?

 

[Skylar]

ANd where you draw your lines would have serious significance. Here's an updated chart using 2013 dollars and splitting the country into 1/5ths.

With the income for the middle quintile essentially flat and on a downward trend since about 2007. Same with the lower 2 quintiles. The 2nd quintile sees some growth, I'd argue its even significant. While the top quintile and especially the top 5% see dramatic income growth.

You are looking at two different statistics here.

Nonsense. We're looking at the exact same stats: household income adjusted for inflation. I"m simply using the method of looking at it that the Census Bureau uses, the quintile system. And it shows stagnation and decline in 3/5ths of households.

You're using an arbitrary number, pulled sideways out of your ass for no rational reason. And then oddly, insisting that it defines 'middle class'. And even you can't explain why. Nor offer us anything to support the claim.

Mine is looking at distribution of families by income level and yours is looking at mean income by quintile and Top 5%.

Your is a distribution of family incomes by arbitrary income levels. Made up for no reason. Mine uses the same system as the Census Bureau, using the mean income for each quintile and the top 5%. We've drawn our lines at different locations. Mine, with the Census Bureau. Yours, arbitrarily for no particular reason.

And yes, it makes a huge difference. As per the Census Bureau's own numbers and own system.....the lower 3 quintiles have been generally stagnant or in decline.

My chart actually shows how your chart is misleading. You and other libtards want to assume the Top 5% in 1967 are the same people in 2013... that's not the case.

Strawman. I made no such argument. This is what I've claimed:

With the lowest, 2nd lowest and middle quintile essentially stagnant despite in 2013 dollars (and actually in decline since 2007), how can you rationally argue that the middle income group is becoming an upper income group. The middle quintile is at roughly the same place it was 50 years ago.

You're making up an argument I haven't made while refuting one I haven't made. The classic strawman fallacy. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need fallacies of logic. Yet your argument consists of little else.

Please address the argument I've actually made. Or at the very least, admit you can't.[/quote]

 

[Boss]

Not to mention this:
View attachment 44989

As we can see... Middle income families HAVE been on the decline since 1967... Oh my! Maybe the Liberals are RIGHT? *GASP*

Except... the Lower-income families are ALSO declining! So the middle-incomers are not going there! Hmmmm... where are they all going? The graph is clear, they are becoming part of the upper-income group. So when a Socialist laments on how the middle class in America has been destroyed, just whip out this graph and show them what has happened to the middle class.

Why $75,000 dollars? That's remarkably specific.....but rather arbitrary. Most assessments of of middle class are based on a percentage of median income. With most measurements of the middle class topping out at about 200% median. Or roughly $100,000 a year nationally. Or between $75,000 and and $144,000 depending on the state you live in.

Why do you define middle class as topping out at $75,000?

The incomes are adjusted to 2009 dollars, the ranges are selected because you have to have ranges if you're going to distinguish between ranges. What it sounds like you want is to compare a sliding scale dynamic income you can manipulate and call what you please to conform to your meme. Is that how "middle class" works in your mind? We change it depending on what result we want to show? Sometimes $75k is upper income and sometimes it's middle income?

I got that. My question is....why 75k? Why is that your measure of 'middle class'? Almost all measures of middle class use some percentage of median income. You use an apparently arbitrary number.

Why that number? What is its significance. And why do you use it to define 'middle class'?

Well darling, it's not MY measure or MY graph.

Um, kiddo.....you're citing it. Its your graph now. If you know nothing behind it, have no clue why it drew its arbitrary lines where they did, then perhaps you should dig a little deeper into your own sources before quoting them.

I've given you ample opportunity to explain yourself. You clearly have no such explanation for why such an arbitrary number was used. Nor can you rationally justify 75k as the threshold of 'upper income'. And without a rational reason, there's no reason to use it.

With the lowest, 2nd lowest and middle quintile essentially stagnant despite in 2013 dollars (and actually in decline since 2007), how can you rationally argue that the middle income group is becoming an upper income group. The middle quintile is at roughly the same place it was 50 years ago.

You'll note that the information comes from the US Census Bureau. I'm just passing along information, you can take it however you please. Is there some magical dollar amount one reaches and suddenly becomes a different class? What IS "middle class" to you? Is it just whatever amount it needs to be in order to make the point you are making at the moment?

You'll note that the Census Bureau doesn't draw the line for 'upper income' at 75,000. Your source does.......for some reason even you don't know. Nor bothered to find out before citing it. If you ever do, feel free to share it.

Meanwhile, the Quintile system is used by the Census Bureau, giving us ample reason as to why its being used now. And it shows stagnation and decline in 3/5ths of American households. With moderate growth in the 2nd highest quintile, dramatic growth among the upper quintile and wild growth in the upper 5%.

If the American worker is producing double what he did 50 years ago.....why is the increases in income missing 3/5ths of the US population?

I don't need to get into a pissing contest with you over a graphic from the US Census. No lines were "arbitrary" or drawn to make some tricky political point. Most people with some degree of common sense can comprehend the parameters... 0-25k = low, 25-75k = middle, 75k+ = upper.... seems pretty basic to me, not arbitrary. What exactly are you quibbling about? All the dollars are adjusted to 2009 dollars, so you want to do what? Change "middle" to include more upper? Okay... do that... they still aren't moving to the lower group. You can change the parameters but it doesn't change the facts.

And seriously? Are you going to actually try to make an argument that increased production over the past 50 years has nothing to do with technology and is all produced by the work force? Sounds like what you seem to think.

 

[Boss]

Nonsense. We're looking at the exact same stats

Nonsense, that's not what the stats say at the top where it tells you what stats you're looking at.

MORON!

 

[Skylar]

Nonsense. We're looking at the exact same stats

Nonsense, that's not what the stats say at the top where it tells you what stats you're looking at.

MORON!

We're both measuring household income adjusted for inflation. The only difference is where we draw our lines. I draw them where the Census Bureau draws them. You pulled numbers out of your ass based on nothing. Even you have no idea why you're using $75,000.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how the upper income is growing in participants....when the lower 3 quintiles has been essentially stagnant for 50 years. And declining since since 2000.

 

[Boss]

Your is a distribution of family incomes by arbitrary income levels. Made up for no reason. Mine uses the same system as the Census Bureau, using the mean income for each quintile and the top 5%. We've drawn our lines at different locations. Mine, with the Census Bureau. Yours, arbitrarily for no particular reason.

Such a dishonest person... Both graphics are showing information from the Census Bureau and both are from sources other than the government. You are looking at mean income for each group, which incidentally, does not distinguish a "middle class" at all. My chart shows percentage of families in each of the three economic classifications we are debating. Apples and Oranges... all courtesy of the US Census.

 

[Boss]

We're both measuring household income adjusted for inflation.

No... read my reply above. We are not.

 

[Boss]

You pulled numbers out of your ass based on nothing.

Well no... I found a graphic on the Internet showing information from the US Census Bureau.

What your graphic shows is mean income adjusted for inflation. My graphic shows distribution of families by income level. Two completely different statistics.