Donald Trump

[Padawanbater2]

Based on that assumption, would agree that law abiding citizens would then have no chance of defending themselves against criminals who have access to firearms through black market trade? Keeping in mind that a ban on all firearms means that police no longer carry. Only military.

Why do we outlaw murder if only criminals will commit it?

 

[Padawanbater2]

But it's a glorious 18 minutes. He's a Trump supporter.

Pure Ownage

"He's a businessman, he can create jobs, that's where they come from!"
"I don't believe it's the responsibility of the government to create jobs"

"If it's not the governments responsibility to create jobs, then why do you support Trump, who says when he's president (government), he'll create jobs?"

"Government should help the people create their own jobs!"

DUUUUUUUH dipshit, how do you think government creates jobs?!

What an idiot

 

[NLXSK1]

Pure Ownage

"He's a businessman, he can create jobs, that's where they come from!"
"I don't believe it's the responsibility of the government to create jobs"

"If it's not the governments responsibility to create jobs, then why do you support Trump, who says when he's president (government), he'll create jobs?"

"Government should help the people create their own jobs!"

DUUUUUUUH dipshit, how do you think government creates jobs?!

What an idiot

You want to confiscate the money from the businessmen who create jobs and give it to people who do not create jobs and think that it will improve the economy. Be careful who you are calling an idiot.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Is that what happens in the UK? Or other countries that don't arm their police force?

Personally, I would tend to agree, if guns get banned, you'd be damn sure that I had something illegal stashed away, and I would probably still carry anyway. What's a cop gunna do? Pepper spray me?

I think they may have more cops on the streets but they are not armed lethally. They have a swat style force that is called in for serious threats.

Would definitely be worth looking into the police style of different European countries.

I would read any info you guys want to link or share on that.

 

[Flaming Pie]

I have read that the UK does a better job at dividing police duties and health worker duties, makes sense for those types of calls. UK still issues firearms to special forces within their police departments, so armed force is always there when needed. But it has to be the training. The gear a new police officer receives in the UK compared to a senior officer is much different. They get smaller cars if allowed to drive, and are not allowed to be involved in certain calls, monitored closer, radio and a baton are standard issue, etc. Merica gives them a few weeks training, a gun and a dodge charger. Dumb. I also bet the psychological evaluations are different.

If over night, pepper spray and batons were all that was standing between Americans and every cash register, bank, home, etc, then we'd have a big fucking problem come morning.

Citation? I know cali cops go through 6 months of 9-5 training.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Pure Ownage

"He's a businessman, he can create jobs, that's where they come from!"
"I don't believe it's the responsibility of the government to create jobs"

"If it's not the governments responsibility to create jobs, then why do you support Trump, who says when he's president (government), he'll create jobs?"

"Government should help the people create their own jobs!"

DUUUUUUUH dipshit, how do you think government creates jobs?!

What an idiot

Economic climate has the greatest influence on job growth. When the economy improves or grows there are more jobs created.

 

[spandy]

Citation? I know cali cops go through 6 months of 9-5 training.

I was being hyperbolic in saying that 'Merican cops get only get a few weeks. Its usually 3-4 months academy minimum, and then on job training after that.

Nonetheless, a cop having lethal power first day on the job is just dumb regardless of training hours.

 

[see4]

Why do we outlaw murder if only criminals will commit it?

That doesn't make sense. Murder is already outlawed.

 

[bearkat42]

You want to confiscate the money from the businessmen who create jobs and give it to people who do not create jobs and think that it will improve the economy. Be careful who you are calling an idiot.

Still falling for the "job creators" narrative?

 

[bearkat42]

Economic climate has the greatest influence on job growth. When the economy improves or grows there are more jobs created.

Which is exactly why tax cuts for the rich do not work.

 

[Not GOP]

Which is exactly why tax cuts for the rich do not work.

In other words, you won't be happy until every major corporation leaves the country to employ foreigners. With Democrats and Republicans new idea of confiscating passports from people who owe more than 50,000$ in taxes, this without a doubt will have more rich people looking for the door. - Increasing the already record high rate of Americans renouncing their citizenship.

 

[bearkat42]

In other words, you won't be happy until every major corporation leaves the country to employ foreigners. With Democrats and Republicans new idea of confiscating passports from people who owe more than 50,000$ in taxes, this without a doubt will have more rich people looking for the door. - Increasing the already record high rate of Americans renouncing their citizenship.

If you want to stimulate the economy, give the tax cuts to the people who will actually spend the money. This is not a difficult concept. "Trickle down" economics was (and always will be) an abject failure. Actually, it was a complete success. It made the wealthy even wealthier, which is exactly what it was supposed to do. Reaganomics, lol. The average republican is so fucking stupid.

 

[Not GOP]

GOP (Bush) big donors say they will back Hillary if Trump gets the nominee. A bunch of special interest cronies is what they are. Of course they would prefer Hillary instead.

This is another reason why Republican voters are fed up with the party, and Trump is so popular:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/elections-2016/article48067815.html

 

[Not GOP]

If you want to stimulate the economy, give the tax cuts to the people who will actually spend the money. This is not a difficult concept. "Trickle down" economics was (and always will be) an abject failure. Actually, it was a complete success. It made the wealthy even wealthier, which is exactly what it was supposed to do. Reaganomics, lol. The average republican is so fucking stupid.

One of the reasons why I support Trump, is I will get a tax cut. Just like tens of millions of other people in the middle class. Have you seen his tax plan? Democrats seem to love it. They just don't agree on how it will translate into government revenue, and suspect him of slashing - deflating our bloated beaurocracy

 

[bearkat42]

One of the reasons why I support Trump, is I will get a tax cut. Just like tens of millions of other people in the middle class. Have you seen his tax plan? Democrats seem to love it. They just don't agree on how it will translate into government revenue, and suspect him of slashing - deflating our bloated beaurocracy

Honestly no, I haven't looked at his tax plan or any of his other plans. I can't get past his hate speak. I'm offended by his mere existence, and so is mostly everyone else who doesn't look like him.

 

[Not GOP]

Honestly no, I haven't looked at his tax plan or any of his other plans. I can't get past his hate speak. I'm offended by his mere existence, and so is mostly everyone else who doesn't look like him.

You're going to hate the Republican nominee, regardless of who it is. That's lousy attempt at race baiting. I knew you were one dimensional, but you sure like to pivot on a dime don't you? I thought we were chatting about economics, so nevermind. I've lost interest.

 

[Padawanbater2]

One of the reasons why I support Trump, is I will get a tax cut. Just like tens of millions of other people in the middle class. Have you seen his tax plan? Democrats seem to love it. They just don't agree on how it will translate into government revenue, and suspect him of slashing - deflating our bloated beaurocracy

If you believe that, you must agree with supply-side economics. Is that the case?

 

[bearkat42]

You're going to hate the Republican nominee, regardless of who it is. That's lousy attempt at race baiting. I knew you were one dimensional, but you sure like to pivot on a dime don't you? I thought we were chatting about economics, so nevermind. I've lost interest.

Hate is a child's emotion. I don't spend time "hating". It requires too much energy.

 

[Not GOP]

If you believe that, you must agree with supply-side economics. Is that the case?

Do I agree with reality? Yes

You're 90% tax rate won't work in 2016. You can't dictate policy like we are living in the 50's without corporations moving overseas, or south to Mexico.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Do I agree with reality? Yes

You're 90% tax rate won't work in 2016. You can't dictate policy like we are living in the 50's without corporations moving overseas, or south to Mexico.

Yes you can, when the benefits of globalization aren't equally distributed, protectionist policies become necessary. At the moment, globalization has resulted in unintended consequences - like stagnating wages and outsourcing labor (creating higher unemployment). I'm not suggesting they be permanent, but they need to be put in place to protect American workers and American wages.

We've had 35 years of supply-side economic policy, it works when people have money to spend, but considering that's the single greatest factor in the growth of the economy, it's clear that policy needs to change to demand-side economics - expansionary policy, financed by implementing similar effective tax rates of the 1950s. The problem is structural, not cyclical, and Trump's plan of lowering taxes on the rich would effectively eliminate social safety net programs, education, health care, and all of the other most important - and highly popular - programs poor and middle-class people depend on.