US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
It's has terrified me in the last two years just how easily people will believe what they are told by "their side."

I know it's an overused analogy, but this really is the chapter in 1984 where The Party switches the opponents of their never-ending war midspeech and everyone just goes along with it.
One side is more likely to be true than the other as I do my best to fact check if they didn't provide enough evidence. Also, republicans are well aware they are plagued by RINO corporate cucks and the like. They know to question and doubt over blind faith that they're on the right side of history.
and i used to be a moderate
No. A lie is a false statement given by someone who knows it is as such. Lie as a word and thing is defined by falsehood, which is why we often call things and people lies.
jesus fucking christ, why do you give out your supposed de facto definitions as the most confusing midwit slop this side of a university?
 
Considering they don’t know how to determine if something is a woman, I have no hope of them figuring out what a recession is.
They know exactly what a woman is and what a recession is but admitting that there is a specific thing that is a woman and that we are in a recession would be catastrophic to their hold on power.
The adults are in charge again!
Things are said they do not like:
<child_screaming_with_hands_over_ears.gif>

You know I used to actually be afraid that these clowns would actually win but they are totally ill equipped to manage a victory. They just keep telling you they won while they lose harder. The only really shitty part is we have to suffer through the results of their failures.
 
They aren't lying when they say there's no official definition of recession. But most things don't have official definitions. That's not how English works. We all use the language and kind of agree on what words mean, a lexicographer or something writes it down, then specialists might try to narrow down the definition to something really firm. There are technical terms that are born with a specific definition, but most words don't work that way.

"Recession," meaning a decline in economic activity, dates back to 1929. The popular definition of "two consecutive quarters of GDP decline" dates back to 1974. The NBER's position is that "most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them." So the two-quarter rule is a conservative definition. If you look at recessions called by NBER, some of them are shorter than two quarters.

Given the fact that we've met the two quarter threshold, and there's significant inflation, and the stock indexes are down, and the Agg is down, and the velocity of money never recovered from COVID ... I mean, there's not much ambiguity here. We can't say, "Weeelll, the GDP is down, but all the other indicators are good so the GDP is just an aberration." It's not. It's all moving together, even things that normally don't move together like stocks and bonds.

 
If they bother to use it. GOP still has trouble fighting bare-knuckle style like they need to be.

That being said, heard some interesting speculation. The suggestion is that Biden resigns/is 25th'd, the Whore is sworn in as President. Then they nominate Newsom to be VP so he can run as a semi-incumbent later on in '24 or later (depending on how manageable Kamala is).

Not entirely buying it, but it's dumb enough to appeal to Democrat faggots.
Can't be Newsome and Harris for the same reason Trump/DeSantis can't happen.

President and VP have to be from different states.
 
No. A lie is a false statement given by someone who knows it is as such. Lie as a word and thing is defined by falsehood, which is why we often call things and people lies.
jesus fucking christ, why do you give out your supposed de facto definitions as the most confusing midwit slop this side of a university?
FYr9wgYUsAAL1Kx.jpg
 
She doesn't explain what foundation she's taxing these "millionaires" from. Is it net worth or is it yearly salary? Because she'll be very disappointed to know that Chief Executive Officers only make about $200,000+ a year in salaries in total most of the times and the money usually comes from stock investments and savings. She'll basically be taxing non-existent income with no foundation meaning competent people in congress will tell her this law is unconstitutional and strike it down.
It's a wealth tax, like the proposed tax on unrealised income from shares and assets a while back. You pay a percentage of the value of what you own, even if your actual income is proportionally tiny.
 
It's not a real rule so no problem

There is also nothing stopping Trump from changing residency before the election like Cheney did in 2000. Barnes pretty much believes Trump/DeSantis is a done deal and Barris believes he knows who told Barnes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back