Political Cartoons, Memes & Amusing Videos

[NotHardUp1]

Except for most people who own stock those market losses are devastating.
Thanks to Trump I now have two years worth less for retirement.

Not sure that is true.

In order to know, we'd have to have data on the relation between the average losses of the decline in relation to the average wealth of the stock owner. It certainly cannot be derived by simple division like the administration is using to take net trading deficits and dividing by imports.

If my market investiment represents one times my annual income, or ten times, or 1/100th, then all those ratios are important in underestanding whether they are "devastating" or not in any lifestyle sense.

If it's a millionaire who had $2M or $10M invested, then their lifestyle is likely unchanged, or if it is, only to the degree they own excess wealth.

If it's someone with only $200k invested and owns no real property and is retiring soon, then yes, real devastation at a large drop IF the market stays down.

But, we're not allowed to spin straw from gold. If we don't have data, imputing it as reality isn't good enough. We talk all the time about the 1% owning disproportionate wealth. That inherently means they have disproportionate investments.

 

[NotHardUp1]

When Conspiracies hatch....

A glimmer of hope?

I use Paypal.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Mommie, DON'T!!!

 

[NotHardUp1]

Odd grammar error. China doesn't "import" raw materials into the US any more than it manufactures here.

 

[NotHardUp1]

And those bastards overwhelmingly voted for him, and some are STILL supporting him because they got subsidies during his first term when he did this. Farmers lead such complicated lives with the feds. We'll see if there is a tractor convoy to DC or not.

 

[NotHardUp1]

But every person with a 401K or a company pension plan should be concerned.

This potentially wipes out tens of thousands of dollars that could take years to recover...if then. This could be 2008 all over again...if we're lucky. And if not. It could be like the 1930's.

I have said and will say again we need the reset. We no longer function as a nation, as a culture, as a society, in any way that should be perpetuated.

We need to break into pieces and be recycled, repurposed.

That America elected this petty man, this felon, this coward, this corrupt thug, to LEAD our nation again, means we need to go down in flames to get the cure. Just having some minor political fracas to remove him won't heal or cure us.

We need a national conflagration for the stupid to be exorcised.

 

[rareboy]

Where are the lies?

It is every fucking time. It is like they do it on purpose.

 

[rareboy]

I have said and will say again we need the reset. We no longer function as a nation, as a culture, as a society, in any way that should be perpetuated.

We need to break into pieces and be recycled, repurposed.

That America elected this petty man, this felon, this coward, this corrupt thug, to LEAD our nation again, means we need to go down in flames to get the cure. Just having some minor political fracas to remove him won't heal or cure us.

We need a national conflagration for the stupid to be exorcised.

Do you think that a national conflagration that results in the fragmentation of the United States would be either a possibility or a desirable outcome?

I ask because more people now seem to think of it as a possibility, where, instead of ruling the continent, the federation fractures into nothing that can be reassembled as major states break away from a crippled federal system of government and refuse to finally kowtow to an autocrat?

And not being facetious at all, is there a point where the one blanket unifier, the military, would step in and seize control to maintain a united states?

 

[rareboy]

Meanwhile, the 'Doctor' might have been a bit premature in his prognosis?

And, of course, we know he didn't actually write this nonsense.

 

[Riverrick]

You can tell how bad things are when there is nothing funny in the political cartoons thread.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Do you think that a national conflagration that results in the fragmentation of the United States would be either a possibility or a desirable outcome?

I ask because more people now seem to think of it as a possibility, where, instead of ruling the continent, the federation fractures into nothing that can be reassembled as major states break away from a crippled federal system of government and refuse to finally kowtow to an autocrat?

And not being facetious at all, is there a point where the one blanket unifier, the military, would step in and seize control to maintain a united states?

I don't expect a permanent disassembly. We were never a confederation in the sense that the Soviet Union was, even if the United States was originally plural

We have only existed as a great power as a nation. For the last two centuries, we have been American, not states. I expect we will remain so, particularly due to military might. But I believe we are in for a reset, meaning assassinations, martial law, uprisings, domestic terrorism, absence on the world state for any meaningful protection of allies, and a collapse of the dollar as the dominant force in international trade.

This IS the transition from the American Century to the next one. China will continue to ascend. Europe MAY now that she is given an opening in the power vacuum. Russia will also decline due to the awakened Europe. South America will continue to be a non-player.

And yes, I have hopes the military is stable enough to retake control in the long run, but it doesn't mean we are not about to go through gut-wrenching years of turmoil.

 

[Riverrick]

Good timing Donald.

 

[NotHardUp1]

You can tell how bad things are when there is nothing funny in the political cartoons thread.

Reread the one where Denmark and Britain's PMs are discussing selling Greenland to Canada.

That will never not be funny.

 

[Riverrick]

Meanwhile, the 'Doctor' might have been a bit premature in his prognosis?

And, of course, we know he didn't actually write this nonsense.

Are you sure he didn't write that on the toilet? It smells like he did.

 

[Kulindahr]

That would leave us with Vance, who is nearly as deranged as Trump -- his derangement is called "Christian Nationalism".

 

[Riverrick]

Reread the one where Denmark and Britain's PMs are discussing selling Greenland to Canada.

That will never not be funny.

Well, it kind of is actually.

 

[NotHardUp1]

And I expect a significant number of those of us on the left may actually emigrate to Canada. I know that I am seriously considering it.

 

[Kulindahr]

We need a national conflagration for the stupid to be exorcised.

Sadly, probably true.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Sadly, probably true.

Think how long after the Civil War it took to become a nation again. At least sixty years passed untit WWI, and the unifying of the West via the railroads consoldated a national identity.

We were drifting apart again by 9/11, which only temporarily bonded us again.

We have failed to rally together for the climate crisis.

We have failed to save ourselves from the medical Medici.

We have failed to protect the middle class as oligarchs bought our government, Dems and GOP alike, leaving us scraps.

We won't fracture into states, as there is no demarcation. Just because the primary system rigs states to go blue or red doesn't change the 40% or 50% who disagree. And there IS no Bangladesh or Pakistan waiting for us to self divide.

We'll poison ourselves, profoundly convulse, and likely survive, but after terrible pain, and be much diminished.

 

[Kulindahr]

Where are the lies?

It is every fucking time. It is like they do it on purpose.

Interestingly, the one president who could have gotten a national health care plan through but chose not to was Eisenhower.
Economically, though, he did fairly well, and set an example that today's Republicans should be following: so long as there is a debt, don't cut taxes.

Nixon was a disaster.

Ford was much better.

Reagan's policies reduced the deficit, cutting it by about half, which should have led to a balanced budget and paying down the debt.

GHW Bush made decisions that removed obstacles from the forming of the European Union (banking policy differed from country to country; he leveled it); this also benefitted SE Asia and some of Africa. In the U.S. though, his economic performance was pathetic.

GW Bush was a throwback to the time when big economic interests chose who would run for President: it wasn't his idea, it was a coterie of businessmen who figured he was the best chance for a Republican win and would be easily manipulated. His economic policies were disastrous: the cabal who picked him talked him into believing the most radical of Reagan's economic notions (despite the fact that the requisite conditions no longer applied).

Trump I didn't tank the economy, though he set things up to make it easier to do so.

What Republicans since Reagan have done is to trash the federal budget; Eisenhower was the last to improve it -- to him, paying off one's debts, including national debt, was a conservative virtue and obligation.