Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1.) that doesnt speak well to us spending more.
2.) the eu almost collapsed. There was a massive bailout and restructuring with credit default swaps and the like.
3.) Blake Bortles is allowed to have a higher credit limit than mine because he didn't come in so much higher than mine. The credit line of a country is predicated on its ability to tax its citizens based on the size of the United States economy for all accounting purposes that value is approaching infinity.
4.) Lastly and most importantly there's no way that you guys economies would be able to survive in their current structure if it weren't for the fact that the United States is basically provided on Brella security since the end of the Second World War
1. Spending more doesn't mean increasing debt. The knock on effects in taxation or revenue from state assets can offset or lower debt from increased sounding.
2.Everyone was effected. The major EU economies probably less so than the US
3.No idea what you are trying to say here, seems to be incomprehensible rambling.
4. You mean like the Falklands? Let's not pretend the US offers any kind of security unless directly affected.
We have a bigger debt because our economy is a lot bigger. The bigger and more stable the economy the more debt it can sustain.
As to spending money, from 1980 to 1988 the revenue to the federal government doubled. Over that time the debt actually increased. Why? Because its hard to grow an entire economy by 6% but you can spend 15% more with one simple bill in congress.
Its like tryong to loose weight. There is a point at which the amount of calories you consume greatly exceeds the anount u will be able to burn off.
As for security, if you want to compare tge falklands to us taking the lead role against communidm and then islomo fascism then you can go ahead. Ill try my best to keep the giggling to a minimum.
I gotta say, this is a risky move for trump.
Quote:I gotta say, this is a risky move for trump.
Very risky, extremely bold. Reagan did the same thing in 1980 right before the Iowa caucus because he expected biased moderation. Only difference is Trump has a much larger audience at this point than Reagan. We shall see if it pays off.
Quote:Very risky, extremely bold. Reagan did the same thing in 1980 right before the Iowa caucus because he expected biased moderation. Only difference is Trump has a much larger audience at this point than Reagan. We shall see if it pays off.
I would love to see Trump accept Cruz's proposal of a one on one debate...he would get skewered.
Quote:I would love to see Trump accept Cruz's proposal of a one on one debate...he would get skewered.
What is in it for Trump to accept such a proposal?
No.... He wouldnt. Im a Cruz supporter. I love what hes done for the movement. I love what hes done in congress. Hes my strong second choice.
That being said in the last debate i think Trump got the better of the exchange. And thats saying something because cruz is so gifted.
I think its interesting because on the one hand cruz is effectively trying to chase him down to debate him. I think thats because in a lot of ways he needs another MOMENT to recapture momentum.
At the same time when reagan skipped his debate he lost the caucus.
Even more interesting is that the most money has gone to attacking rubio. Hes the only candidate in striking distance of cruz and trump. Iowa is notoriously fickel. If he has a strong night could he surprise the notoriously bad polls and pull out a win?
Ill say this. This aint boring!
Quote:I would love to see Trump accept Cruz's proposal of a one on one debate...he would get skewered.
Yeah, as much as I dislike Trump, I'd love to see Cruz get Skewered.
It's not a bad idea for Trump to skip the debate... this is 2016. He is hosting his own event LIVE during the debate itself, so he doesn't have to follow any rules. Anybody interested in watching this is going to also pay attention to Trump's live stream where his big mouth will be unbridled.
Apparently Cruz super pacs are now saying they will donate 1.5 million to veterans, only if Donald Trump debates him one-on-one. Does that sound distasteful to anyone else? Sort of like he is exploiting the vets? Why not just donate the money to the vets without condition? Why wait until now to say this?
Quote:Apparently Cruz super pacs are now saying they will donate 1.5 million to veterans, only if Donald Trump debates him one-on-one. Does that sound distasteful to anyone else?
Extremely, and I hope the media jumps all over Rafael Cruz, eh?, for it. He's trying to put Trump on the spot, I get it, but instead he looks like a giant [BLEEP] by making a contribution like that contingent upon someone else taking his bait.
I think Trump would own Cruz in a debate, btw. Trump's already the winner of tomorrow night's debate, because there's not a candidate on that stage who'll be able to resist taking shots at "the guy who chose not to be here".
Quote:I think Trump would own Cruz in a debate,
Though I totally disagree, I hope we have the opportunity to see a one on one debate between them. One way or the other, it would lead to the decline/ collapse of one of them in this race.
It's an interesting tactic, Trump skipping the debate. Opinions are all over the map.
Some people say Trump is already ahead, skipping the debate is a good way to avoid a gaffe, sort of like kneeling to run out the clock at the end of the game.
There was talk of Fox putting an empty podium on the stage. Apparently the RNC has nixed this.
Jeb Bush bet someone $20 Trump would show up.
In my opinion, if Trump doesn't show up, the rest of the players will talk about how he's afraid of Megan Kelly.
The thing is, though, with Trump supporters, nothing he does damages him. No matter what he does, his supporters take it as a sign of strength, and any attack on him is just further reason to vote for him. For the other candidates, not attacking him makes them look weak. But attacking him only makes him stronger. There appears to be no way to bring him down.
Quote:Very risky, extremely bold. Reagan did the same thing in 1980 right before the Iowa caucus because he expected biased moderation. Only difference is Trump has a much larger audience at this point than Reagan. We shall see if it pays off.
History repeats, the second time as farce.
Quote: Though I totally disagree, I hope we have the opportunity to see a one on one debate between them. One way or the other, it would lead to the decline/ collapse of one of them in this race.
There is nothing to gain for Trump by accepting such a challenge. This is equivalent of Stephen Curry accepting a challenge from a fan to play one on one.
Quote:It's an interesting tactic, Trump skipping the debate. Opinions are all over the map.
Some people say Trump is already ahead, skipping the debate is a good way to avoid a gaffe, sort of like kneeling to run out the clock at the end of the game.
There was talk of Fox putting an empty podium on the stage. Apparently the RNC has nixed this.
Jeb Bush bet someone $20 Trump would show up.
In my opinion, if Trump doesn't show up, the rest of the players will talk about how he's afraid of Megan Kelly.
The thing is, though, with Trump supporters, nothing he does damages him. No matter what he does, his supporters take it as a sign of strength, and any attack on him is just further reason to vote for him. For the other candidates, not attacking him makes them look weak. But attacking him only makes him stronger. There appears to be no way to bring him down.
Like hell, he could probably shoot someone in the street and still get votes....I've heard.
Afraid of Megan Kelly and skipping the debate. How's he going to handle Putin when he's challenged?
Thread title is now relevant again. CNN is hosting Trump's broadcast and it's for Wounded Warriors.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15