Is Trump Nuts?

POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 23:49
VIEWED: 120217
PAGE 17 of 100

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
At this point I say just raise the minimum wage to 20 bucks and lets see who was right.

We're all a decade or two away from being poor and completely dependent on government anyways.

All of us, except for Second.

---

So long as Texas turns natural gas into plastic and exports liquefied natural gas, I'll have my royalty checks. But this is "Is Trump Nuts?" Trump made another seriously nutty decision today:

Trump is hiring the Bear Stearns economist who promised the economy was fine right before it went bankrupt! You are crazy, Trumpy!

David Malpass has been nominated to serve as undersecretary of Treasury for international affairs. In 2007, Malpass was chief economist at a soon-to-be-bankrupt investment bank, telling a country teetering on the brink of disaster that everything was okay. No amount of natural gas, no matter how large, will compensate for bad thinking at the Treasury if there should be another emergency like 2008. The whole USA could suffer for Malpass's (and Trump's) stupidity or insanity, take your pick in what you want to call what is wrong with these guys.

The fact that Malpass was utterly wrong didn’t stop him from trying again. In 2011, he popped back up with another Wall Street Journal op-ed urging the government to implement a policy of higher interest rates. Malpass said higher rates would lead to a stronger dollar and bigger economic growth. This is, to say the least, not how the majority of economists think this works. In 2012, Malpass warned that rejecting his advice was going to lead to a recession in 2013.

Obviously, that didn’t happen. Instead, the Fed kept interest rates low, leading to years of continuous job growth, which, in turn, led to a gradual strengthening of the dollar.

Bruce Bartlett, writing four years ago about Malpass’s poor track record, used it as a prime example of partisan bias in economic forecasting.

A perhaps optimistic view would be that Malpass was being deliberately biased in his past forecasts — trying to boost the fortunes of GOP politics as an outside propagandist while as a senior member of the Treasury team he’ll be boosting their fortunes by offering sound advice.

A bleaker view, however, would be that Malpass is a die-hard true believer who couldn’t contemplate the possibility that the low taxes and light regulation of the Bush years could be compatible with a catastrophic financial crisis. In an administration that’s already packed to the brim with Wall Street voices, that could be a very dangerous setup indeed.

www.vox.com/2017/3/15/14596938/david-malpass-treasury

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

^at Second: Look, I don't understand any of the financial principles &
maneuvers that you are explaining.
But I think you just said that with Trump & many of his like-thinking
cronies in charge, we are teetering on the brink of disaster as bad as
the stock market crash of 1929.

(So much for "Trump is a billionaire; he'll balance the budget.")

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

I've given up looking for the meaning of life. Now all I want is a cookie.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
I have serious doubts that Trump is going anywhere.

You libtards keep up the drama you're just ensuring that the GOP stays in control. Keep it up. ;)

---

Did you forget to capitalize "Libtard" here?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Besides, they've been ignoring the democrats and the chattering class for a while, and both lost any remaining semblance of credibility during the last election, with Hillary as a candidate, and her media-predicted cruise to victory.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
You still harping on that same old story? What's his name, Bernie, lost by millions of votes in the Democratic primary. In the general election he would have looked like a Commie and been annihilated, same as George McGovern was by Nixon, even after Nixon's "secret" plan to win the Vietnam War had achieved nothing for four years. And Watergate.

---

SECOND

Trump didn't win, Clinton lost. I'm reposting these - yanno - facts, because you ignored them the first time around. And I put an especially relevant quote in larger font to help you focus on the salient point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

---

CBS News exit polls suggest Trump’s win was in large part a repudiation of Hillary Clinton by a substantial number of white voters.
There are also indications that Clinton’s gender was a factor in the outcome.
Among white voters, 57 percent said Trump was not honest and trustworthy while fully 70 percent said the same of Clinton.
In the exit polls, voters were asked whether they strongly favored their candidate, liked their candidate but with reservations, or if they voted because they disliked the other candidate. While 21 percent of Clinton voters said they disliked the other candidates, more – 28 percent – of Trump voters reported that. There appears to have been more people voting against Clinton than against Trump.
It is difficult to say with any certainty, but with razor thin margins in some states, a small number of voters who might have supported Clinton (who voted for either Johnson or Stein) could have altered outcomes in some states.

Quote:

---

CBS News Exit Polls: How Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency

by Stanley Feldman and Melissa Herrmann

Many observers thought this presidential election would be decided by Donald Trump’s polarizing rhetoric, his history of behavior toward women and his questionable qualifications for the office.

Instead, CBS News exit polls suggest Trump’s win was in large part a repudiation of Hillary Clinton by a substantial number of white voters. While Clinton did win big majorities of minority voters, she did not get the level of support from those groups that she needed to overcome her deficit among white voters.

There are also indications that Clinton’s gender was a factor in the outcome. The gender gap was substantial. Trump beat Clinton by 53 percent to 41 percent among men while Clinton won among women by 54 percent to 42 percent. Four years ago, President Obama won 45 percent of men’s votes and Mitt Romney won 44 percent of women’s votes.

More telling is the gender breakdown among white voters: Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent. This was close to Romney’s margin in 2012. While Mr. Obama won 35 percent of white, male voters in 2012, Clinton lost to Trump among this group by 63 percent to 31 percent.

As expected, Trump did best among white voters without a college degree, beating Clinton by the enormous margin of 72 percent to 23 percent. Trump also won among white, non-college women 62 to 34 percent and white college-educated men, 54 to 39 percent. Among white voters, Clinton only won among women with a college degree by a 51 to 45 percent margin. Interestingly, among white voters, there is no evidence in the exit poll that income affected the likelihood that they supported Trump.

Clinton needed extremely strong support from African-American voters to try to offset Trump’s margin among whites. She did win 88 percent of the black vote to just 8 percent for Trump. Howe

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME