Ahhhhhahahahaha.....you delusional fool.
That's not an answer, it's the same fact free nonsense stupidity you started with.

Every claim, every word is true.
Do you deny Ivanka got a gift of patents worth millions? She did. They bragged about it.
Do you deny Trump owes China money? He does, prove he doesn't.
Do you deny his trade wars cost America tens to hundreds of Billions in losses and tariffs? They did.
Do you deny his trade talks failed? They did.
Do you deny Kevin Bacon was in Footloose? He was.
https://videosift.com/video/That-s-one-stubborn-mule

I can't find a word in it that's untrue, but I expect nothing less from you. You can't factually declare any statements untrue statements with evidence or facts so, like a two year old, you just claim it's all untrue and think you won an argument, but you have lost both the argument and your adulthood.

You still haven't said what's untrue, and claiming it's all untrue is just so stupidly infantile I feel bad for you, but it's the best you've got without direction on how to answer, isn't it?

So sad, Bob. You've got nothing but insist you're the one with everything. You don't bluff well, Bob. Grow up.

I expect you deny Trump's stated lust for Ivanka as a YOUNG girl, I expect you deny his multiple fraud convictions, I suppose you deny his lifetime ban from charities due to charity frauds, or his children. I suppose you deny his having more felons in his cabinet than any two previous administrations, and more convictions while in office than any three combined. I know you deny that tariffs are paid by the country that enacts them, but they are. I expect you deny his trade deal fell through, it did.

That covers weak and corrupt thoroughly.

You have an established pattern of denying facts and spouting lies, so if you agreed with the truth it would instantly come into question. You saying it's 100% un true is a great indicator it's 100% correct.

Isn't it hilarious how Trump's best argument is "If you elect Biden, things could be almost as bad as they are now under me." I particularly like the one with the riots and Jack booted thugs of Trump's American nightmare claiming this could be Biden's America....BUT THAT IS TRUMP'S AMERICA YOU IJITS.

Trump didn't stand up for us against China, he stood up for Ivanka, then asked China to interfere in our election. He tossed out a trade pact for trade wars costing Americans untold billions or trillions and totally failed at trade talks.

Every other nation except Russia and Saudi Arabia want Biden over Trump, especially our allies but even most of our enemies would rather we be rational and sane than unpredictably weak and irrationally scared.

If you want to talk about family members profiting from their parent's public office, let's talk about Trump's kids @bobknight33, who actually did take gifts directly from China (not profits on investments they made, gifts) of tens of millions, one worth a reported $35 million by itself, or the hundreds of millions collected from the middle east by Jarred, or the tens of millions collected by Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb from Canada and elsewhere...all based on promises made by the president to those foreign powers to scratch their back if they scratch his.

🤦‍♂️

Face it, you cannot make a single accusation on any topic deriding Biden where there isn't direct evidence of Trump being exponentially worse than his usually false accusations about Biden. Not one. *fail is right, buddy, another failed Trump attempt to smear a good man.
BTW, another court has said Trump can no longer hide his tax frauds today. Never before has so much taxpayer money been spent to hide someone's taxes, constant court cases for years using government lawyers has likely cost taxpayers near $100000000 to hide his taxes if you count the cost of the lawyers and courts, of course never before has a president refused to release them before the election, but never before has a repeatedly convicted fraud, thief, and charity con man been president.

Edit : Aaaaaaaahahahahaaa!!!! Another Trump stooge, Steve Bannon (I don't know him, never met him, I've heard good things about him but no, I don't know Steve) and multiple other administration officials including the acting head of the DEA arrested on more fraud charges, this time for defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors out of >$25000000 they donated to Trump's "build the wall" campaign. The hits never stop coming with Trump. Tired of winning yet?

In part, he has more than one iron in the debt exploding fire.

He exploded the debt long before Covid.
The checks alone would have exploded the debt, but that was less than1/4 of the money spent on just the Trumpidemic his lack of leadership and understanding made 10 times worse than it could have been, and that's being generous, and that two trillion + doesn't count one dime of the trillions more in lost production....and he wants to spend/grift trillions more, but not a dollar for checks to taxpayers...maybe in late October but not now.
Then there's his tax cut for the rich, stimulated the economy and created jobs great, didn't it? (Hint, of course it didn't, it just bankrupt the treasury while jobs and the economy dissolved, his normal business practice, but America is the Trump Casino this time).
How much have his trade wars cost?
Then there's that short bit of wall nay fence Mexico didn't pay for, getting more expensive every day.

You're the one who is hyper anti socialism, and you were incredibly outraged at the size of the debt before Trump and insistent he would erase it term one, but you're keeping your socialist handout even as your boy raids and bankrupts the treasury with your blessing, aren't you.

Since this topic appears to have gone off the reservation, let me reign you back in for a moment.

I encourage you to re-watch the video we're commenting on.

This whole discussion, including the commentary by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, is all a response to Judge Napolitano's comments, on what is supposed to be an actual news network and, I imagine, supposed to be taken seriously?

Napolitano says: "Instead of allowing it to die, helping it to die, or even purchasing the slaves and then freeing them, which would have cost a lot less money than the Civil War cost, Lincoln set out on the most murderous war in American history."

That's what he said. In this very video, which is what we're all commenting on.

I just quoted you claiming that Napolitano believes that the Lincoln pursued the war to restore the union, when that's exactly what he's not saying here.

You're attacking the comedians for making jokes about this and accusing them for doing what Napolitano just did!

He's the one claiming that Lincoln attacked the south to free the slaves!

So, again I ask, what are you even talking about?

This video, the daily show response, all of this argument, was supposed to be about Napolitano being totally wrong. I originally commented here because you were parroting his claims that Lincoln had a lot of options, but chose "murderous war" instead of buying every slave or whatever other imagined option you think he had.

So either you understand why the Civil War started, and we agree, as you sometimes seem to indicate, or you're in agreement with Napolitano and his view that Lincoln started the Civil War as one of his apparently many options for ending slavery.

So which is it?

Do you understand why you make no sense?

@Yogi, @enoch, Consider the fact that, had the American colonies not seceded from England (not unlike what the Confederates attempted to do from the Union, eh?), the British Crown would have ended slavery in the American Colonies without war and far sooner than it did. So, for those who say that it was right to "end slavery now no matter the cost," was the American Revolutionary war a good thing, given that it prolonged slavery for as long as it did?

The Civil War cost ten times what it would have cost the Federal government to simply buy all the existing slaves and free them. Already at that time, importing new slaves was illegal in all of the states, including the South. So that would have been the end of it. What if, say, 6 southern slave owners refused to sell no matter how much money they got (doubtful, but let's say they were crazy)? Would the Civil War have been worth it because of these six guys?

It would not have been worth it to either the North or the South. Their own neighbors would have set them free.
And southern legislators would have changed the laws to free them. If history shows us anything, it shows us that all politicians have a price.
The US bribes governments all over the world (it's called 'foreign aid'). Do you really think the southern governors would have been any different than all politicians throughout history?
Even now, do you prefer to bribe and threaten "rogue" countries or engage in so-called 'necessary' Iraq-style invasions?
The likelihood falls clearly on the 6% of southerners who owned slaves to take the money and retire rich rather than having to go to war.
Even explaining some math to them may have moved things along, like how hiring low wage worker was cheaper than the cost of keeping slaves.

The point is, for what the Civil War cost, they could have, for example, bought all the slaves and freed them, like the British crown did. The South may have seceded to preserve slavery, but the North did not go to war to end slavery, but to prevent secession (from Lincoln's own words). The North didn't go to war with slave-owning northern states, did it?

Slavery was economically inefficient, and with the northern states abolishing slavery, the South would have let go of it in possibly a short time. Low wage workers are much more economically efficient. And only 6% of southerners owned slaves. They would have had a hard time competing.

If you don't like the argument, take it up with Thomas DiLorenzo, the controversial professor at Loyola University. Or reference the two books cited in the post above. Or Tom Woods Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

Hmm, it doesn't look to be a percentage based graph, thus the deficit directly related to the tax cuts grows. I suppose that makes sense, since the state loses "income" in the form of those taxes.

I'm also a little perplexed as to how the debt from the two lighter blue ones are reduced so drastically. I just don't understand why those things are the way they are.

There looks to be some more detailed explanations in the link you provided though, I'll have to chew my way through them.


In any case, it's scary how much the war costs are dwarfed by the tax cuts. How much were those tax cuts?

*Edit ^Gwiz said it much better than me... But I will keep my post up anyway... muahahaha...

* Disclaimer: This became a wall of text as I explained my reasoning. Also it is really really late so spelling might be off.
I hate to do this but winstonfield actually has one valid point even though his way of saying it was clumsy/not PC.
Reader's Digest: Wars are not winnable in modern times.

Full text:
Wars are not winnable in modern times as the populations are too big and know too much to simply accept a new ruler, even in backwater places like Afghanistan. Back in the day before proper nation states and democracy and all that a farmer could probably not care less who he paid his taxes to as long as he was left alone and had enough to feed himself and his family, and if he wasn't what could he do? The king was a king because God wanted it to be that way and he had knights and armies and the farmer did not. Today a 10 year old can mass produce home-made bombs that cost under 100 dollars a pop whilst a Military drops bombs that costs over 100 000 dollars a pop from 20 000 000 dollar aircrafts that land on 200 000 000 dollar Carriers. Today we know that wars cost money. We know that if you drag out a war long enough the populace of the invading force will most likely falter in their support, war weariness and all that (Vietnam anyone?). When the 100 000 US soldier dies by IED after 50 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq somehow I doubt that the support for the war will be there any more.

IMO if you want to win a war militarily you have to commit to total war and genocide and simply kill of all of the natives and move your own people in to settle the area. As long as one person remembers what it was like to be free from invaders they will fight. It is human nature. Just imagine if the USSR had invaded the US during the Cold War and conquered it militarily. Would the US citizens who survived the initial bombings just say, after a year or two or 8: "Oh, well. Guess I will stop fighting now and join the invading side. Seems like they have some things going for them..."? I doubt it.

Clarification:
Is this (Genocide and total war) something I advocate? No, but as Aldous Huxley said: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." IMO War serves no other purpose than to cull some of the human population. Nothing more and nothing less. It has served its purpose in the past, when countries could be conquered, but it has become obsolete in the modern world where populations are too large to control properly.

A couple of random thoughts:
To win a war today you have to break every single convention on warfare there is and use NBC weapons, or massive bombardments and just carpet bomb every inch of the country you are at war with, to annihilate the populace. If you are not prepared to do that you should not go to war as you cannot win, ever! (If you are prepared to do that I hope you never get into a position of power!)

Militaries are not for winning wars, they are for fighting them. When the politicians are bored of the fighting or it starts to affect their ratings negatively they sue for a peace treaty...

What is the definition of winning a war? Aren't wars supposed to be about conquest and getting new land and natural resources or perhaps vindication for a perceived insult to the crown or something? What would constitute a win in the Afghan and Iraqi wars? And is that a military goal or a political one?

"Fiscal Conservatives"

Ronald Reagan (R).......$200+ billion Deficit
George W. W. Bush (R)...$300+ Billion Deficit
George W. Bush, Jr (R)..$480+ Billion Deficit

"Tax & Spend Liberals"

Bill Clinton (D)........$200+ Billion SUPRPLUS

You know, if I wanted to see my goverment's budget balanced, and in line with the viewpoint that its OUR money that we are spending. Why, O'Lord, do idiots keep voting for republicans?!?!?!?!

Yeah, that health care bill will cost us $1 Trillion over a decade under Mr. Obama. But the Iraq war, costed Americans $500 billion over sixs years (that's $3 trillion dollars for the mathametically inept). And we didn't find any WMDs or Osama bin Laden (or his henchment that were supposively *IN* Iraq).

The state of the economy is not so much Mr. Obama's fault, as it is, the GOP. During the years between 2000-2008, the GOP removed a number of watch dog groups, regulators, rules, and concepts, to help make companies 'more profitable'. This as you may know, resulted in preditatory lending and grossy irresponsible business practice of companies. The downward spiral of industries, would have been hampered if not stopped, if we had regulations, rules, regulators, and watch dog groups in place. That was the lesson learned from Black Tuesday (not to be confused with Black Friday).

But, the level of irresponsiblity gets better...

Mr. Bush gave the American people (read: the upper 8%, although 'everyone' techincally got) tax cuts. I recall three, but there could have been additional ones. Paying for two wars, and everything else, did not help matters. In fact, the Iraq War costed Americans $550+ billion a year on average (alittle over $3 trillion after 6 years). Now, if Revenue = 2 and expenses = 9, 2-9= -7. So where did we make this negative funding up? That's right: DEFICIT SPENDING!

A concept used by the Reagan Administration (which ended his administration in the largest deficit at the time). Then Bush, Sr used it again (which ended his administration in the largest deficit at the time....BIGGER...then Reagan's). And then Bush, Jr, did the same again (resulting in the largest deficit to date). Now, that Tax & Spend liberal scum, Mr. Clinton, ended his administration with a surplus (meaning, we weren't going further in to debt, AND, paying off the current debt.

So really, if your going to blame some politican for the problems of the economy, why not put it squarely on the GOP's shoulders. Mr. Reagan, Mr. Bush, Sr, and Mr. Bush, Jr, where all 'Fiscal Conservatives'. So, let it be known, not to hire anyone who claims they are a fiscal conservative.

The unemployment rate is, as the video states, lower then what it actually is. The reason for this, is, there's no way to acturally measure the correct unemployment number beyond those who recieve state/federal unemployment checks. Those who are not working due to health problems, are unemployed. Those who have a job at 1/8th their previous salary, are NOT, considered unemployed.

And you've been on 12 interviews since graduating, and your complaining?!?!?!?!?!

(Plays world's smallest violin for ForgedReality)

Actually, Mr. Obama is thinking on the big picture. I could explain it, but, as you said, your too young to understand the wisdom. Maybe in a decade, you'll learn.

Republicans are/were all angry at the amount of money being spent for Health Care costing just under $1 trillion over 10 years

The health care bill passed by the House costs 1.3 trillion a year - not less than 1 trillion over 10 years. To compare the first 6 years of the Iraq War you would have to say that Health Care costs 7.8 trillion versus the Iraq War costing $3 trillion. IE Health Care (as envisioned by Democrats) costs 2.6 times the Iraq War.

The rich few are laughing all the way to our graves while we stand idly by letting them do as they please

Economic disparity exists in all systems - U.S. or anywhere else. I'm not sure I take your meaning though. What do you mean by 'idly letting them do as they please'? Are you suggesting the forcible alteration of their behavior merely because they have wealth? I have never seen a single government who followed such a path that resulted in the PEOPLE being better off. In all cases, government force as a means of income redistribution results only in an enhanced GOVERNMENT. The people do not benefit. Quite to the contrary.

Eisenhower, when he was leaving the Presidental office, back in '69 mention this, in his farewell address: (and I think its just as important now, as it was then)

"We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method..." He was refering to the growth of communistic threads, as the Cold War was raging at the time.

In addition, he warned against unjustified goverment spending on proposals with the military in mind:

"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

Mr. Obama and his team, are going up against one of the most entrenched lobbying groups in America. It holds a virtual strangle hold on America, because, as they argue, without them, the USA, wouldn't exist. As such, we must put hundreds of billions towards the defense and military. The USA, spends $560 billion on its defense & military, far larger then the next largest military spending country in the world, which is Russia & Europe with $320 billion. (source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending).

Which is kind of amusing, if you think about it. Republicans are/were all angry at the amount of money being spent for Health Care (costing just under $1 trillion over 10 years), but neglect to mention, the first six years of the Iraq war costing the USA Taxpayer $3 trillion dollars.

If Americans want out of the Iraq war, they merely have to contact their elected represenatives, and senators, and say so. Its much easier to complain and do nothing, then to do something about the very reason for the complaining. Until that happens, the USA, will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would imagine, it makes the Iranian military uneased when its leaders talk about blowing up countries and making nuclear technology that is suspected to be for a WMD. Why? The USA has 200,000+ troops on Iran's west and east sides, with deep logistical trains of support, that could unleash HEll, in the event of a military conflict.

>> ^blankfist:
Am I out of touch? How much has this war cost us? Military spending is 56% of the federal budget.

Military spending is more like 20% of the budget, and I do want that to shrink. But our government's national deficit isn't why the economy is tanking. On the contrary, our economy tanking is responsible for a healthy chunk of our national debt.

Obviously you don't believe they attacked us for our freedom, do you? I hope not.

No, I think they attacked us because they feel aggrieved for actions we've taken in the past. I also think they use hatred of us as their entire way of attracting and retaining followers -- we're a convenient scapegoat.

Sort of like libertarians and government.

I hope you realize there would be no threat if we weren't spreading hegemony abroad. If we weren't meddling in foreign affairs, we would've never experienced 9/11.
To ensure our safety, yes, I do believe we need to march out of the Middle East. It's just that simple. We should also march out of the 130+ countries overseas and close down our 700+ bases there. Remove Al Qaeda's incentive to attack us and you will have your peace.

I agree that if we had never meddled in the affairs of others, Al Qaeda would probably be attacking the Third Reich instead, or the Soviet Union, or whoever the world superpower is in that alternate reality.

In our timeline of events, I don't think withdrawing from everywhere would make Al Qaeda turn peaceful. On the contrary, I think they'd think they were winning, and keep right on stoking hate towards us, and looking to seek vengeance.

I do think our fixation on them as some sort of existential threat only made them stronger, and that using the US military on them is like trying to kill a gnat with a bazooka. This needed to be a public relations war and law enforcement effort more than a shooting war.

I want us out of Afghanistan. As near as I can tell the argument for staying is to help get their government established to the point where they can keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda at bay, but I'm not so sure that's doable with troops, unless the idea is to wipe out Al Qaeda (but they aren't in Afghanistan). But I don't have access to the same information the President has, and unlike Bush, I trust Obama's motives. I don't think he's in favor of fighting wars just to fight wars (or to secure oil rights, or to try to one-up his daddy).

So, I'm not going to scream out against it yet, but I do think he needs to talk more about it, and try to build up a consensus for it if it's really a necessary war. If it's not, he needs to start bringing it to a close.

>> ^NetRunner:
War is the biggest issue.
Out of touch. The economy is the biggest issue.

Am I out of touch? How much has this war cost us? Military spending is 56% of the federal budget. Our nation is going broke from that war and all of the borrowing necessary to maintain our hegemony. Maybe you don't see the connection between the war and the economy because that Bush fella isn't in office any longer, but the rest of us do. Maybe you should get in touch.

Aside from that, your rhetoric above is starting to sound very pro-war much like the Republicans when their guy was in office. Interesting how that works in your two party system.


If you can convince me that there's no threat of Al Qaeda gaining control of Pakistan or its nuclear weapons (or that those things aren't a danger to our safety), then I'm all for full withdrawal from the whole area. If you can't, tell me how we prevent it, and still withdraw all our troops.

Obviously you don't believe they attacked us for our freedom, do you? I hope not. I hope you realize there would be no threat if we weren't spreading hegemony abroad. If we weren't meddling in foreign affairs, we would've never experienced 9/11.

To ensure our safety, yes, I do believe we need to march out of the Middle East. It's just that simple. We should also march out of the 130+ countries overseas and close down our 700+ bases there. Remove Al Qaeda's incentive to attack us and you will have your peace.

Are you kidding me ?

You seriously think that the war in iraq is going to prevent another one of those ?

If "terrorists" wanna blow up a building, there isnt enough money in the world to stop them from giving it their best shot.

So lets spend a few trillion dollars as a comfort blanket...and when the next strike comes, what then ? Spend yet MORE money ??

You cant fight an ideal with bullets. The cold war wasnt won by massive invasion / occupation of all the idealogy fighting grounds (vietnam/korea anyone ?).

If you think about what is provoking these maniacs in the first place, there is another way, and it doesnt cost anywhere near that kinda cash, resources, and lives that a war costs.