Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Manoli on July 19, 2018, 01:19:44 pm
-
This one's for Alan Klein ...
Trump says EU officials want to negotiate trade deal in Washington visit
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-kudlow/trump-says-eu-officials-want-to-negotiate-trade-deal-in-washington-visit-idUSKBN1K81T6
-
The President may want to put his sons on a tighter leash regarding their running of the Trump Companies. Maybe it's just chump change for the companies but missed paying property taxes on time (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/397802-trump-organization-missed-property-tax-deadlines-in-five-states) in several states.
-
Okay, who's taking bets on how long it takes for this thread to get locked down?
I'm thinking an over/under on the number of posts would be best.
-
Okay, who's taking bets on how long it takes for this thread to get locked down?
I'm thinking an over/under on the number of posts would be best.
As long as we stick to posting daily facts it should be OK, if not it will probably last 100 posts.
-
Okay, who's taking bets on how long it takes for this thread to get locked down?
Joe, for context, see this post in the Brexit thread. http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125868.msg1056617#msg1056617
But I'll wager that the Mods will moderate themselves, allow free speech, always within the confines of the First Amendment, and this thread will outlast the current UK government.
-
Joe, for context, see this post in the Brexit thread. http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125868.msg1056617#msg1056617
But I'll wager that the Mods will moderate themselves, allow free speech, always within the confines of the First Amendment, and this thread will outlast the current UK government.
Really? With a name like "Trump III?" You think people are going to stay civil?
In the words of Senator Kevin Keeley, "people in this country aren't interested in details. They don't even trust details. The only thing they trust is headlines ... 'Jackson and his women, Keeley and his men.'"
-
...But I'll wager that the Mods will moderate themselves, allow free speech, always within the confines of the First Amendment, and this thread will outlast the current UK government.
I, for one, am grateful to Manoli for providing yet another opportunity to show our unwavering, unconditional love for our Dear Leader ;)
-
The Trump Administration withdrew their candidate for the 9th circuit Court of Appeals today. Several Republican Senators told Majority Leader McConnell that they would not vote for Ryan Bounds because of an article he wrote in the Stanford Review ridiculing multiculturalism and groups concerned with racial issues. This is the third district court nominee to be withdrawn by the administration.
-
The new Trump cover is pretty disturbing (I know how much some of you love Time but this is neatly creepy).
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/trumpputinfinalcover1.png)
The Story Behind TIME's Trump and Putin 'Summit Crisis' Cover (http://time.com/5342562/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit-crisis-cover/)
At first glance, the man on TIME’s July 30, 2018, cover might seem familiar: it was created by morphing images of two of the world’s most recognizable men, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The composite image, by visual artist Nancy Burson, is meant to represent this particular moment in U.S. foreign policy, following the pair’s recent meeting in Helsinki, Finland. As Brian Bennett writes in this week’s cover story, “A year and a half into his presidency, Trump’s puzzling affinity for Putin has yet to be explained. Trump is bruised by the idea that Russian election meddling taints his victory, those close to him say, and can’t concede the fact that Russia did try to interfere in the election, regardless of whether it impacted the outcome. He views this problem entirely through a political lens, these people say, unable or unwilling to differentiate between the question of whether his campaign colluded with Russia—which he denies—and the question of whether Russia attempted to influence the election.”
But if you want to see REALLY CREEPY, check out the morph video on this Tweet... HERE (https://twitter.com/i/status/1019905190370119680)
-
Meanwhile, RT.com reports:
Fresh footage of futuristic weapon tests & development released by Russian military (VIDEOS) (https://www.rt.com/news/433656-russia-new-weapons-videos/)
(https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.07/article/5b4ff059dda4c816068b4603.png)
Russia's Defense Ministry has released a new batch of videos of cutting-edge weapons, first unveiled by President Vladimir Putin back in March. The footage shows new tests, as well as gives a grasp of the development process.
The impressive set of new weapons was unveiled by Putin during his annual speech before the Federation Council back in March. The futuristic armaments, some of which are already in service, are designed to give Russia a strong deterrence against any aggression against the country.
But hey, it's good that Trump doesn't think Putin is an enemy...
As Trump says Putin 'not my enemy', skeptics in U.S. see danger (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-summit-critics/as-trump-says-putin-not-my-enemy-skeptics-in-u-s-see-danger-idUSKBN1K2348)
In preparing for his first summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, U.S. President Donald Trump has provoked a rare agreement among Democrats and Republicans alarmed by the possibility of a cozy meeting.
While Republican Trump has gone softer on Putin, calling him a “competitor” and “not my enemy” on Thursday, lawmakers from both parties hardened their warnings to Trump before he sits down with the Russian leader in Helsinki on Monday.
“Putin is not America’s friend, nor merely a competitor. Putin is America’s enemy — not because we wish it so, but because he has chosen to be,” Republican Senator John McCain said.
Well, at least John McCain knows who America's enemies are...sadly he won't be with us much longer (I actually rather like McCain and would have voted for him if he had stuck to his guns and had picked Joe Lieberman as his VP instead of Bambi of the North).
-
Oh, wait...what's this I hear about 'Trump Derangement Syndrome'?
What is 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' -- and do you have it? (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/politics/trump-derangement-syndrome/index.html)
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180719134207-26-week-in-photos-0720-exlarge-169.jpg)
Earlier this week, President Donald Trump diagnosed his opponents with an illness.
"Some people HATE the fact that I got along well with President Putin of Russia," he tweeted. "They would rather go to war than see this. It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome!"
Worried you might have Trump Derangement Syndrome? Wondering where it came from? I'm here to help!
Let's start with what Trump Derangement Syndrome means.
Urban Dictionary offers up this handy definition (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trump%20Derangement%20Syndrome): "Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a mental condition in which a person has been driven effectively insane due to their dislike of Donald Trump, to the point at which they will abandon all logic and reason."
Apparently the whole "(fill in the blank) Derangement Syndrome" comes from the late Charles Krauthammer when talking about what he called the Bush Derangement Syndrome (https://townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2003/12/05/bush-derangement-syndrome-n940041)
The condition, as Krauthammer defined it, was "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."
Added Krauthammer:
"Some clinicians consider this delusion -- that Americans can only get their news from one part of the political spectrum -- the gravest of all. They report that no matter how many times sufferers in padded cells are presented with flash cards with the symbols ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times -- they remain unresponsive, some in a terrifying near-catatonic torpor."
Trump just decided to take what people were saying about Bush and steal it...
Post Bush and pre-Trump, we were visited with Obama Derangement Syndrome -- although the infection was less widespread. In a piece headlined "Obama Derangement Syndrome," Vox's Ezra Klein wrote (https://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8089639/obama-derangement-syndrome): "Obama Derangement Syndrome is different [than Bush Derangement Syndrome]. It isn't so much paranoia about President Obama's policies as it is paranoia about the man himself — that he is, in some fundamental way, different, foreign, untrustworthy, even traitorous."
At the heart of ODS was the belief that Obama was not, in fact, an American citizen and therefore was ineligible to even be president.
The loudest voice pushing that debunked conspiracy theory?
None other than Donald Trump.
-
Meanwhile, RT.com reports:
Come on, Jeff. When you start quoting RT, you really are scraping the barrel.
Jeremy
-
This one's for Alan Klein ...
Trump says EU officials want to negotiate trade deal in Washington visit
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-kudlow/trump-says-eu-officials-want-to-negotiate-trade-deal-in-washington-visit-idUSKBN1K81T6
As long as we don't have to eat American food :-(
-
As long as we don't have to eat American food :-(
By American food do you mean American fast food? I ask because if I had a choice between American food and English food, some of which I really like, I know which I would choose. I’m sort of thinking of a New York pumpernickel bagel with Philidalphea cream cheese vs an English scone.
-
By American food do you mean American fast food? I ask because if I had a choice between American food and English food, some of which I really like, I know which I would choose. I’m sort of thinking of a New York pumpernickel bagel with Philidalphea cream cheese vs an English scone.
I'm thinking of hormone-fed beef or chlorine-washed chicken smothered in yellow chemical masquerading as melted cheese.
-
I'm thinking of hormone-fed beef or chlorine-washed chicken smothered in yellow chemical masquerading as melted cheese.
As a New Yorker, I can assure you there are plenty of restaurants here that serve the best of steak, chops, French food, Chinese, Indian, Korean, Turkish, Greek, Spanish, German, Italian (southern and northern), etc. I've never been to an English restaurant here. Are there any? :)
-
Good God, you made a post without a mention of tariffs. ;D
-
As a New Yorker, I can assure you there are plenty of restaurants here that serve the best of steak, chops, French food, Chinese, Indian, Korean, Turkish, Greek, Spanish, German, Italian (southern and northern), etc. I've never been to an English restaurant here. Are there any? :)
Of course there aren’t. Who in New York would pay for a bread butty or fried fish with mushy peas.
-
This one's for Alan Klein ...
Trump says EU officials want to negotiate trade deal in Washington visit
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-kudlow/trump-says-eu-officials-want-to-negotiate-trade-deal-in-washington-visit-idUSKBN1K81T6 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-kudlow/trump-says-eu-officials-want-to-negotiate-trade-deal-in-washington-visit-idUSKBN1K81T6)
I posted in another thread that Trump said he's going to impose tariffs on $500 billion of Chinese goods. That's to send a signal to EU trade honcho Junker before he arrives to negotiate trade with us. If negotiations fail, Trump will impose tariffs on EU cars before Junker's jet lands back in Europe. CEO's from German car makers are probably talking right now to Merkel telling her to tel Junker to drop the 10% EU tariff on our cars.
Trump's in full attack mode. He doesn't like the way he's being treated after his meeting with Russia. I think he made a decision after Republican Congress failed to repeal Obamacare, that he was on his own and would do what he has to do with or without support from the political classes including Republicans. If Republicans refuse to go along with him then they will lose their seats. He won;t help them in fact oppose them if they don;t support him. Red state Republicans will acquiesce.
-
Good God, you made a post without a mention of tariffs. ;D
I think Trump's going to put tariffs on British scones.
I don't think anyone would notice . :)
-
I posted in another thread that Trump said he's going to impose tariffs on $500 billion of Chinese goods. That's to send a signal to EU trade honcho Junker before he arrives to negotiate trade with us. If negotiations fail, Trump will impose tariffs on EU cars before Junker's jet lands back in Europe. CEO's from German car makers are probably talking right now to Merkel telling her to tel Junker to drop the 10% EU tariff on our cars.
Trump's in full attack mode. He doesn't like the way he's being treated after his meeting with Russia. I think he made a decision after Republican Congress failed to repeal Obamacare, that he was on his own and would do what he has to do with or without support from the political classes including Republicans. If Republicans refuse to go along with him then they will lose their seats. He won;t help them in fact oppose them if they don;t support him. Red state Republicans will acquiesce.
You are stating that he is a leader without backing? That makes him a dictator.....then again the world knows that.
-
Regarding Russia, no former American president has been tougher on them. Of course he makes nice with Putin. That's his style. Good cop, bad cop. He did that at the NATO and G7 conferences, with Japan's Abe, NK Kim, and China's Xi. He was like that thirty years ago. I use to watch him and was impressed with how he did it. He'd fire someone for incompetence and then praise what great people they were. He could hold both feelings at the same time. I was impressed. I find that very difficult to do.
Getting back to Russia, here's an article from NPR (National Public Radio), not exactly a conservative pro-Trump outlet.
"When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era," said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council"
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia (https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia)
-Trump sought to add $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2018 to the European Reassurance Initiative — a military effort to deter Russian aggression. That's a 41 percent increase from the last year of the Obama administration.
-The president also agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine — a step that Obama resisted.
- Trump gave U.S. forces in Syria more leeway to engage with Russian troops. In one engagement American forces killed 200 Russians troops.
-Trump also imposed sanctions on dozens of Russian oligarchs and government officials.
- Trump has aggressively promoted U.S. energy exports against Russia causing them to lower prices on their gas and oil and make less profits.
- Trump agreed to expel 60 Russians — diplomats and suspected intelligence agents — last year in retaliation for the suspected poisoning of an ex-spy in Britain. Germany expelled three.
-He sent deadly weapons to Ukraine although reluctantly because he felt Europe should do it. It's in their back yard.
In any case. You don't read about these things because the Democrats and liberal media hate him. The feckless Republicans don;t know how to fight back so go along with them. What a bunch of cowards.
-
You are stating that he is a leader without backing? That makes him a dictator.....then again the world knows that.
He was elected by the people of the US. That's his backing. Senators and COngressmen don't vote for the president. It's Congress's job as the first branch of government (the president and the supreme court are the other two branches) to act as a balance against the president. So it's perfectly acceptable for them to oppose him. In fact that was the founders of our constitution intent when they created the 3 branches of government. We're different then in a parliamentary system like you have in GB.
-
You are stating that he is a leader without backing? That makes him a dictator.....then again the world knows that.
That must be some extremely stupid world.
-
I find this hard to believe..... but it is possible?
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375?mode=amp#sst
-
I find this hard to believe..... but it is possible?
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375?mode=amp#sst
An excellent example of fake news in the form of a straw man.
-
As a New Yorker, I can assure you there are plenty of restaurants here that serve the best of steak, chops, French food, Chinese, Indian, Korean, Turkish, Greek, Spanish, German, Italian (southern and northern), etc. I've never been to an English restaurant here. Are there any? :)
No American food restaurants then?
However, I was referring to the stuff you buy in shops. We don't tend to import much restaurant food. It gets cold on the way.
-
I find this hard to believe..... but it is possible?
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375?mode=amp#sst
Fascism? Say that to Los Angeles, New York, Chicago. Hell, say it to the Cajuns of Louisiana, rednecks of Mississippi, midwestern ranchers, women of Hollywood, and be prepared to die, MF!
;)
-
I find this hard to believe..... but it is possible?
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375?mode=amp#sst
Just skimmed through this and I could replace every mention of Trump, and his policies, with Obama, and his policies, and it would still make sense based on how he wrote the piece. Don't believe me.
"Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility."
Last I checked, the ACA forced us to give up the freedom of choice. Not only were we forced to buy healthcare coverage, but the available options dropped significantly.
-
An excellent example of fake news in the form of a straw man.
Hum... it seems some people don’t know the difference between reporters covering news and editorial writers writting opinion pieces...not surprising that Trump wouldn’t understand the difference (and by extention Trump supporters) but I suspect most people’s DO understand the differences...
I guess not huh?
-
Okay, who's taking bets on how long it takes for this thread to get locked down?
I'm thinking an over/under on the number of posts would be best.
Perhaps ... Trump III? Is this an ad hominem attack on the pres? “Poisonous hunchback toad.” Thread should be locked immediately!
😬
Rand
-
Just skimmed through this and I could replace every mention of Trump, and his policies, with Obama, and his policies, and it would still make sense based on how he wrote the piece. Don't believe me.
"Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility."
Last I checked, the ACA forced us to give up the freedom of choice. Not only were we forced to buy healthcare coverage, but the available options dropped significantly.
Are you seriously trying to label the making available of healthcare, to those who could not afford it before, as fascism?
Maybe the author of the opinion piece is right after all. And no, an opinion piece is not fake news. It's an opinion piece.
News is when the media reveal that e.g. Trump/Obama/whoever is in power at the time is lying to the people he/she represents. Investigative journalism is what makes better checks and balances compared to partisan politicians.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Are you seriously trying to label the making available of healthcare, to those who could not afford it before, as fascism?
Maybe the author of the opinion piece is right after all. And no, an opinion piece is not fake news. It's an opinion piece.
News is when the media reveal that e.g. Trump/Obama/whoever is in power at the time is lying to the people he/she represents. Investigative journalism is what makes better checks and balances compared to partisan politicians.
Cheers,
Bart
First all, there are several people who now can't afford Healthcare because of the increase in regs, which increased the cost and decreased options. Many in the USA, especially the young, are choosing to pay the fine instead of buying coverage. This is only increasing the cost even more. Have you been paying attention to how fast the rates are rising?
On top of this, the fine is a joke. If someone does not want to pay it, there is really no way to force them to do so. Unless the Dems wanted to start jailing people over it, which would be a PR nightmare.
On top of this, the vast majority of those who are now covered by the ACA had coverage previously, so in effect, the bill did very little to actually help those it was targeted towards, and discourages those whom it needs to succeed, the young, from joining by artficially inflating the price of insurance for young people.
Although it was well intentioned, and it was, it is a victim almost all of these policies are of, that being the effects of over regulation. The effects of which are always to decrease options and raise prices.
Edit: I kind of went a little off topic here. My main point was that this opinion piece is filled with the same flawed logic many of these pieces most are filled with and acts as nothing more then to preaching to the converted. Unfortunately many of those converted give up all sense of logic and just blinding agree.
-
Regarding Russia, no former American president has been tougher on them.
Typical Trump Reality Distortion Field crap...trump gets forced into doing something he doesn’t want to do and then tries to take credit for it...
I guess he hopes people won’t be able to remember what actually happened;
With New Sanctions, Senate Forces Trump’s Hand on Russia (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/us/politics/senate-russia-sanctions-trump.html)
The Senate on Thursday approved sweeping sanctions against Russia, forcing President Trump to decide whether to accept a tougher line against Moscow or issue a politically explosive veto amid investigations into ties between his presidential campaign and Russian officials.
Hum...so while it’s technically true Trump signed it into law I don’t think being dragged kicking and screaming counts as being tough on Russia. And to think that was just last year that this happened...no wonder Trump can’t remember what happened so long ago...each year in Trump Years is like a year in dog years...so last years seems a really long time ago in a galaxy far far away...
-
Typical Trump Reality Distortion Field crap...trump gets forced into doing something he doesn’t want to do and then tries to take credit for it...
I guess he hopes people won’t be able to remember what actually happened;
With New Sanctions, Senate Forces Trump’s Hand on Russia (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/us/politics/senate-russia-sanctions-trump.html)
Hum...so while it’s technically true Trump signed it into law I don’t think being dragged kicking and screaming counts as being tough on Russia. And to think that was just last year that this happened...no wonder Trump can’t remember what happened so long ago...each year in Trump Years is like a year in dog years...so last years seems a really long time ago in a galaxy far far away...
In all seriousness, has anyone released a non-biased analysis on exactly how influential this meddling was? And not an opinion piece, an actually statistical analysis on what effect it really had on the average American.
This whole show, on both sides, just seems like a bunch of political banter about something which had no real effect, but is easy to talk about. And it gives an oh so easy out to the Dems for picking the worst candidate.
-
... News is when the media reveal that e.g. Trump/Obama/whoever is in power at the time is lying to the people he/she represents...
Nope.
What is a lie is a matter of opinion. News is presenting facts what a politician said and what facts are and letting the audience draw a conclusion. Labeling it is an opinion. A journalist drawing a conclusion is an opinion. Presenting facts, relevant and complete, is news.
-
He was elected by the people of the US. That's his backing.
Um I think you have this slightly wrong. He was elected by the Electoral College. Clinton was elected by the people. Need to be precise otherwise it is 'fake news.'
-
Nope.
What is a lie is a matter of opinion.
Wrong. A lie is knowingly not telling the truth.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Fascism? Say that to Los Angeles, New York, Chicago. Hell, say it to the Cajuns of Louisiana, rednecks of Mississippi, midwestern ranchers, women of Hollywood, and be prepared to die, MF!
;)
We were in Santa Fe last weekend and there was some kind of festival going on with lots of music in the Plaza. We were standing right next to the monument to those who fought for New Mexico (then a territory) on the Union side in the Civil War. There was a fellow in a purple Louisiana State tee shirt cursing somewhat noticeably about the language on the statue which was critical of the South. He said that this would not be permitted in Louisiana and was angry that all the statues to Confederate generals are being taken down. I offered no reply.
-
... Clinton was elected by the people...
Nope. There was no election by popular vote.
-
Wrong. A lie is knowingly not telling the truth...
Correct. And determining if it was "knowingly" is most of the time an opinion.
-
First all, there are several people who now can't afford Healthcare because of the increase in regs, which increased the cost and decreased options. Many in the USA, especially the young, are choosing to pay the fine instead of buying coverage. This is only increasing the cost even more. Have you been paying attention to how fast the rates are rising?
If I remember correctly President Trump was promising great health insurance in place of the ACA during the campaign. The Republican Congress in all their attempts to repeal the ACA said the same knowing full well that Obama would veto any of those attempts (they could never get enough votes from the Senate in any case). Yet what proposals have we seen from either the White House or the Republican Congress? I can't see that we have seen anything of substance to this point. Instead, the Administration is halting the payments to insurance companies that are supposed to make up for the high risk coverage individuals.
Also remember that the ACA covers a very small number of people percentage wise and many of those at low income levels are eligible for assistance in paying their premiums. I would love to see your proposal for covering these people.
On top of this, the fine is a joke. If someone does not want to pay it, there is really no way to force them to do so. Unless the Dems wanted to start jailing people over it, which would be a PR nightmare.
Yet this was originally a conservative Republican proposal from the Heritage Foundation back in the early 1990s (I have the original paper in my files!!!!!)
On top of this, the vast majority of those who are now covered by the ACA had coverage previously, so in effect, the bill did very little to actually help those it was targeted towards, and discourages those whom it needs to succeed, the young, from joining by artficially inflating the price of insurance for young people.
This may vary from state to state but I can absolutely tell you that it was not the case in either MD or PA (Philadelphia) when my two daughters had ACA policies while they were independent contractors and did not have employer-sponsored health insurance. Both had reasonable monthly premiums.
Although it was well intentioned, and it was, it is a victim almost all of these policies are of, that being the effects of over regulation. The effects of which are always to decrease options and raise prices.
Part of the problem in the US is that the tax code makes it advantageous for companies to provide health insurance for their employees. Even so, both premiums and co-pays have gone up considerably for such insurance so this not just a problem with ACA policies.
Maybe if the Republicans would stop bitching and try to solve problems we could cover everyone in the country the same way that virtually every other developed country in the world does.
-
Nope.
What is a lie is a matter of opinion. News is presenting facts what a politician said and what facts are and letting the audience draw a conclusion. Labeling it is an opinion. A journalist drawing a conclusion is an opinion. Presenting facts, relevant and complete, is news.
I don't see how this can be correct. If something is true, it can be labeled as being true and vice versa. Maybe you don't like the word 'lie' and might prefer 'untruth.' There is sufficient documentation in news reports both print and media that permit the labeling of something being 'untrue' without it being an opinion in most of the cases that I have seen. If somebody says to me "2 + 2 = 5" then I can say this is not true. If the President says something that is contradicted by facts, then that can be labeled as 'untrue.' Why should this be considered an 'opinion.'
-
Nope. There was no election by popular vote.
There are true believers (I am not one of them) that have the contrary opinion.
-
Um I think you have this slightly wrong. He was elected by the Electoral College. Clinton was elected by the people. Need to be precise otherwise it is 'fake news.'
Clinton was elected to nothing. She lost the election. Precisely. Stop spreading "fake news".
-
More exciting news for the Daily Log. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, secretly taped the discussion between him and the candidate about paying off Karen McDougal, the Playboy Playmate he allegedly had an affair with. One wonders what other evidence Mr. Mueller might have in the trove of materials that were seized.
-
We were in Santa Fe last weekend and there was some kind of festival going on with lots of music in the Plaza. We were standing right next to the monument to those who fought for New Mexico (then a territory) on the Union side in the Civil War. There was a fellow in a purple Louisiana State tee shirt cursing somewhat noticeably about the language on the statue which was critical of the South. He said that this would not be permitted in Louisiana and was angry that all the statues to Confederate generals are being taken down. I offered no reply.
Did you visit the Georgia O'Keeffe museum to see the photos and art? We visited there in April. I wonder what the guy would say about the Indian modern art paintings there?
Mike Medicine Horse Zillioux (Pawnee/Cherokee/...)
-
More exciting news for the Daily Log. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, secretly taped the discussion between him and the candidate about paying off Karen McDougal, the Playboy Playmate he allegedly had an affair with. One wonders what other evidence Mr. Mueller might have in the trove of materials that were seized.
She's hot. Men will forgive him. (I dare you not to check).
https://www.google.com/search?q=karen+mcdougal+today&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS746US746&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcm_aMtK7cAhVKuVkKHTEcATUQ_AUICigB&biw=1536&bih=854
-
Correct. And determining if it was "knowingly" is most of the time an opinion.
Most of the time? Your opinion, or do you have evidence that it is a fact?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Most of the time? Your opinion, or do you have evidence that it is a fact?
Cheers,
Bart
Well, it's a fact that it's his opinion.
-
Well, it's a fact that it's his opinion.
Which doesn't make it true.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Which doesn't make it true.
Cheers,
Bart
But it's true that it's a fact it's his opinion. It would only be false if his opinion was a fact.
-
In all seriousness, has anyone released a non-biased analysis on exactly how influential this meddling was?
No, and I don't think it would be possible to produce one.
While it's true that Trump won by small margins in the four states that essentially determined the outcome of the election—Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—how would anyone go about figuring out whether the opinions of the swing voters were influenced by the Russian interference?
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Russian influence campaign did have an effect on those voters, it seems unlikely they knew at the time or would realize now that they had been manipulated. And what survey methodology could persuasively weigh the magnitude of that influence against other factors at play when they were making up their minds: e.g., "change" voters who chose Obama in 2008 and 2012 because of the economic recession and Trump in 2016 because they had been left behind by the economic recovery, individuals without employer-provided medical insurance who were unhappy with the options they were offered in their respective states by the Affordable Care Act, "social conservatives" who were angry about the success of the gay rights movement, etc.
And even if you could somehow determine, again for the sake of argument, that Russian meddling was the decisive reason those voters chose Trump, what difference would it make? Absent some evidence of electoral fraud in those states, their votes—however arrived at—would be just as valid as those of voters whose opinions were not influenced by the Russians.
Florida was always a toss-up. Based on my reading of the pre-election surveys, Trump won in those three northern industrial states because some voters who were predicted either not to vote or to vote for Clinton decided in the last week or two before the election (too late for their changed intentions to be recorded by the polls) that they were going to vote and that they preferred Trump.
The Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference and related investigations by several U.S. Attorneys are intended to prosecute those who violated federal criminal statutes, regardless of what effect they may have had on the outcome of the election. The counterintelligence efforts of the FBI and the intelligence agencies are designed to thwart future election interference.
The election is over. The result is not in doubt. Sadly, in my opinion, but, as Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said the other day in another context, "it is what it is."
-
I feel like we are witnessing a slightly altered version of Waiting for Godot, but with the same level ambiguousness, play out with half the contributors of this thread right now.
-
Did you visit the Georgia O'Keeffe museum to see the photos and art? We visited there in April. I wonder what the guy would say about the Indian modern art paintings there?
Mike Medicine Horse Zillioux (Pawnee/Cherokee/...)
Thats such a great museum, both in terms of the architecture and he exhibits. Restaurant is pretty good too!
-
No, and I don't think it would be possible to produce one.
While it's true that Trump won by small margins in the four states that essentially determined the outcome of the election—Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—how would anyone go about figuring out whether the opinions of the swing voters were influenced by the Russian interference?
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Russian influence campaign did have an effect on those voters, it seems unlikely they knew at the time or would realize now that they had been manipulated. And what survey methodology could persuasively weigh the magnitude of that influence against other factors at play when they were making up their minds: e.g., "change" voters who chose Obama in 2008 and 2012 because of the economic recession and Trump in 2016 because they had been left behind by the economic recovery, individuals without employer-provided medical insurance who were unhappy with the options they were offered in their respective states by the Affordable Care Act, "social conservatives" who were angry about the success of the gay rights movement, etc.
And even if you could somehow determine, again for the sake of argument, that Russian meddling was the decisive reason those voters chose Trump, what difference would it make? Absent some evidence of electoral fraud in those states, their votes—however arrived at—would be just as valid as those of voters whose opinions were not influenced by the Russians.
Florida was always a toss-up. Based on my reading of the pre-election surveys, Trump won in those three northern industrial states because some voters who were predicted either not to vote or to vote for Clinton decided in the last week or two before the election (too late for their changed intentions to be recorded by the polls) that the were going to vote and that they preferred Trump.
The Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference and related investigations by several U.S. Attorneys are intended to prosecute those who violated federal criminal statutes, regardless of what effect they may have had on the outcome of the election. The counterintelligence efforts of the FBI and the intelligence agencies are designed to thwart future election interference.
The election is over. The result is not in doubt. Sadly, in my opinion, but, as Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said the other day in another context, "it is what it is."
I think you're absolutely right. Based on my own "expertise" both as someone who uses the facebook ad system professionally, including its targeting and demographic capabilities, and as someone with 25 years in the marketing and advertising field, I would be comfortable staking my life on the fact that some voters' minds were changed based on what is publicly know about the Russian disinformation campaign. I can't quantify it, and I can't say that it changed the outcome but I'm 100% confident that it had an effect. And yet, I would also agree that there's absolutely no basis for calling the election "illegitimate" in practice, even if it was manipulated in various murky ways.
-
No, and I don't think it would be possible to produce one.
While it's true that Trump won by small margins in the four states that essentially determined the outcome of the election—Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—how would anyone go about figuring out whether the opinions of the swing voters were influenced by the Russian interference?
Assuming for the sake of argument that the Russian influence campaign did have an effect on those voters, it seems unlikely they knew at the time or would realize now that they had been manipulated. And what survey methodology could persuasively weigh the magnitude of that influence against other factors at play when they were making up their minds: e.g., "change" voters who chose Obama in 2008 and 2012 because of the economic recession and Trump in 2016 because they had been left behind by the economic recovery, individuals without employer-provided medical insurance who were unhappy with the options they were offered in their respective states by the Affordable Care Act, "social conservatives" who were angry about the success of the gay rights movement, etc.
And even if you could somehow determine, again for the sake of argument, that Russian meddling was the decisive reason those voters chose Trump, what difference would it make? Absent some evidence of electoral fraud in those states, their votes—however arrived at—would be just as valid as those of voters whose opinions were not influenced by the Russians.
Florida was always a toss-up. Based on my reading of the pre-election surveys, Trump won in those three northern industrial states because some voters who were predicted either not to vote or to vote for Clinton decided in the last week or two before the election (too late for their changed intentions to be recorded by the polls) that the were going to vote and that they preferred Trump.
The Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference and related investigations by several U.S. Attorneys are intended to prosecute those who violated federal criminal statutes, regardless of what effect they may have had on the outcome of the election. The counterintelligence efforts of the FBI and the intelligence agencies are designed to thwart future election interference.
The election is over. The result is not in doubt. Sadly, in my opinion, but, as Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said the other day in another context, "it is what it is."
Just a couple of comments.
Even if you could prove there was voter fraud, Congress and all of the 50 states have approved the elector count in favor of Trump. There's no constitutional way of reversing it as far as I can tell.
While Trump won the three "rust belt" states by a total of under 100,000 votes, Hillary should have won those states by over a million votes. Too bad she couldn't move a million of her spare California votes over to those states. Similar swings occured in many other states. So it shows there was massive switching of party affiliation. Democrats who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump so hostile were they to Hillary and the media and political establishments. "Throw the bums out" was the montra as much as MAGA.
The polls were not only wrong in Hillary's favor before the election. The exit polls taken of people who just voted were wrong 5-6% in her favor as well. People who favored Trump lied to the pollsters so hostile were they to these poll takers and media who also called them "deplorables". They gave them all the finger.
-
I think you're absolutely right. Based on my own "expertise" both as someone who uses the facebook ad system professionally, including its targeting and demographic capabilities, and as someone with 25 years in the marketing and advertising field, I would be comfortable staking my life on the fact that some voters' minds were changed based on what is publicly know about the Russian disinformation campaign. I can't quantify it, and I can't say that it changed the outcome but I'm 100% confident that it had an effect. And yet, I would also agree that there's absolutely no basis for calling the election "illegitimate" in practice, even if it was manipulated in various murky ways.
"James, I think you're right." concurs Hillary Clinton. "If it wasn't for the Russians revealing that I had conspired with the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee to control all its political funding and records so I can marginalize that AARP upstart Bernie Sanders, no one would have known what I did and I would have won the election. I also want to thank my moron campaign chairman John Podesta who came up with that clever password for his email account to protect it from hackers: P-A-S-S-W-O-R-D. Thanks John."
-
"James, I think you're right." concurs Hillary Clinton. "If it wasn't for the Russians revealing that I had conspired with the Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee to control all its political funding and records so I can marginalize that AARP upstart Bernie Sanders, no one would have known what I did and I would have won the election. I also want to thank my moron campaign chairman John Podesta who came up with that clever password for his email account to protect it from hackers: P-A-S-S-W-O-R-D. Thanks John."
Cute, but you understand that the DNC thing isn't actually a) correct factually; or b) relevant. My point, (and Chris Kern's, at least in part I think) isn't that there was voter fraud in terms of switched vote counts, but rather that there was a tangible but nebulous "PR campaign" (for lack of a better word) driven by outside forces not that *changed votes* but *changed how people voted.* That's a subtle, but important difference. And note that neither he nor I am saying that the vote count was illegitimate.
Carry on.
-
Cute, but you understand that the DNC thing isn't actually a) correct factually; or b) relevant. My point, (and Chris Kern's, at least in part I think) isn't that there was voter fraud in terms of switched vote counts, but rather that there was a tangible but nebulous "PR campaign" (for lack of a better word) driven by outside forces not that *changed votes* but *changed how people voted.* That's a subtle, but important difference. And note that neither he nor I am saying that the vote count was illegitimate.
Carry on.
Well. First Hillary said it was Comey who lost her the election. Then she said the Russkies. Frankly, I don't think the average voter even today know the info the Russians released regarding the DNC game Hillary played. So it could hardly effect the vote. On the other hand, it is true that Comey and the email server was publicized a lot. But not the DNC corruption.
-
I'm beggin' ya, will you please stop it already with Hilary and Obama. The election was almost 2 years ago. Those distractions and "whatabout"s started sounding hollow a year ago now.
-
I'm beggin' ya, will you please stop it already with Hilary and Obama. The election was almost 2 years ago. Those distractions and "whatabout"s started sounding hollow a year ago now.
THIS!! I think (I hope) we can all agree that Donald J. Trump is the President of the US. I came to this conclusion the morning after election day.
-
THIS!! I think (I hope) we can all agree that Donald J. Trump is the President of the US. I came to this conclusion the morning after election day.
You're right. The only way for Democrats to reverse the election is to figure out how to impeach him.
-
All I can tell you is that I knew Trump was going to win a whole year before the actual election, the moment he entered the fray and presented his ideas. No one else had anything remotely close to hitting the nerve of the American public as his ideas, simple, memorable, and effective. Wall, Great, First. Could anything be simpler and more effective? Can you tell what was anybody's else platform, including Hillary's, that is so simple and effective and in a few words?
-
I'm beggin' ya, will you please stop it already with Hilary and Obama...
Sorry, but that is just not possible. Comparing it exposes a double standard.
For instance, who said this?
“We want very much to have a strong Russia because a strong, confident, prosperous, stable Russia is, we think, in the interests of the world,”
-
All I can tell you is that I knew Trump was going to win a whole year before the actual election, the moment he entered the fray and presented his ideas.
Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. Can you point out a claim of yours prior to the event that substantiates your claim? If not, fake news. A prediction in hindsight is just that ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hum... it seems some people don’t know the difference between reporters covering news and editorial writers writting opinion pieces...not surprising that Trump wouldn’t understand the difference (and by extention Trump supporters) but I suspect most people’s DO understand the differences...
I guess not huh?
Yes, Jeff, I do understand the difference. The thing is, most people who are capable of understanding the difference simply do not bother anymore. Most rely on headlines, and headlines most often do not come with a warning "this is just an opinion." The media are also to blame, as they are, intentionally or not, blurring the line between the news and opinion, mostly by interspersing facts with value judgments, selective reporting, placement of news, etc. The very fact that "respectable" newspapers carry such an opinion piece gives people the impression that they support it.
-
Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. Can you point out a claim of yours prior to the event that substantiates your claim? If not, fake news. A prediction in hindsight is just that ...
In December 2015, I posted this on my Facebook:
-
Trump is not the President. He is something else. Our country is based on Democracy which Trump does not support. He is our Russian Ambassador.
-
All I can tell you is that I knew Trump was going to win a whole year before the actual election, the moment he entered the fray and presented his ideas. No one else had anything remotely close to hitting the nerve of the American public as his ideas, simple, memorable, and effective. Wall, Great, First. Could anything be simpler and more effective? Can you tell what was anybody's else platform, including Hillary's, that is so simple and effective and in a few words?
The problem being, of course, that actually setting a nation's policy takes mastery of an astoundingly complex set of issues. While I admit the effectiveness of that strategy, I find it tragic that it actually IS effective.
-
under Trump Racism is encouraged! But we don't talk about that.
-
More exciting news for the Daily Log. Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, secretly taped the discussion between him and the candidate about paying off Karen McDougal, the Playboy Playmate he allegedly had an affair with. One wonders what other evidence Mr. Mueller might have in the trove of materials that were seized.
I feel like this info was in the seller's disclosure in 2016.
If there is anything else, maybe that will hurt, but this?
-
Trump just wants rich white people - argue that!
-
Pretty soon we'll be starting Trump IV.
-
... - argue that!
It would be pretty silly to argue such silly arguments, as you presented in your last three posts.
-
And then this happens...
Google the word 'idiot,' get pics of Donald Trump (https://www.cnet.com/news/google-the-word-idiot-get-pics-of-donald-trump/)
The result is linked to Redditors gaming Google's search algorithm.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/idiot.png)
A new web search trick is making the rounds on the internet: Type in the word "idiot" as your Google search term and your screen will be flooded with images of President Donald Trump.
The image onslaught is apparently the result of a campaign by online activists unhappy with the president's policies who are manipulating Google's algorithm by linking the word to an image of Trump. The trend began with Reddit users upvoting a post containing a photo of Trump and the word, The Guardian (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/protests-in-london-for-donald-trumps-stay-including-baby-trump-balloon/) reported Tuesday.
Subsequently, the image results were apparently fueled by thousands of upvotes for Reddit posts containing news stories about the word, the president's image and the overall campaign.
Cool huh? Try it yourself before Google tweaks it's algorithm...this one is one of my favs!
(http://www.noonpost.org/sites/default/files/field/image/usa-election.jpg)
But even if Google "fixes" it's search engine, fear not...you can always go to the Donald Trump is an Idiot (https://www.facebook.com/grabthepuzzy/) Facebook page :~)
-
Pretty soon we'll be starting Trump IV.
Actually, there's already a Trump IV from before: Topic: Trump IV (what did you expect?) (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120906.msg1003917#msg1003917)
That thread followed Trump III which as I recall got shut down almost immediately.
We'll see how long people can resist flying off the handle and going off topic on personal attacks. As long as Jeremy doesn't have to ban anybody, I suspect the thread can go as long as it wants. Unlikely to match the original Trump II (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116264.msg958153#msg958153) that started February 05, 2017, 07:24:37 PM and was read 313,748 times and lasted until Chris closed it down in Reply#6615 on: October 04, 2017, 04:01:50 PM.
Pretty sure that was a LuLa record :~)
(unlikely that we can surpass that though)
-
The long term negative impact from Trump's election will be felt for a long time, #SAD
The cost of Trump's Endangered Species Act proposal (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44892275)
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/486D/production/_102614581_tv048248478.jpg)
The rebound of bald eagle populations is one of the greatest conservation stories in American history
The Trump administration has proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a law credited with keeping hundreds of species from going extinct.
The change would eliminate automatic protections for threatened plant and animal species, and make it easier for species to be removed from the list.
Wildlife conservation groups say the proposed change could have disastrous lasting effects on at-risk species.
Trump officials say the change will streamline the regulatory process.
The proposed change is the latest in a series of White House efforts to remove environmental regulations designed to protect vulnerable species and their habitats, as well as leave untouched some of America's most wild places.
Environmentalist groups have reacted with outrage, and the Center for Biological Diversity said "these proposals would slam a wrecking ball into the most crucial protections for our most endangered wildlife".
"If these regulations had been in place in the 1970s, the bald eagle and the grey whale would be extinct today."
The Endangered Species Act was signed into law in 1973 by Republican President Richard Nixon and now protects more than 1,200 plant and animal species.
Hum...now Trump is trying to erase things Nixon did...
#MAGA #SCREW ENDANGERED SPECIES
Elections have consequences.
-
Trump flags and hats made in China are reportedly being held up at customs as trade war heats up (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-flags-hats-made-in-china-held-at-customs-trade-war-2018-7)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1292/4851/products/KAG_Hat_Front_110x110@2x.png?v=1526078615)
Trump flags and hats made in China are reportedly being held up at US customs amid an intensifying trade war.
Chinese textile suppliers have said delays at US customs is affecting their sales.
Several suppliers across China have reported making merchandise for Trump's 2020 bid, although campaign officials insist all their official merchandise is manufactured in the US.
Trump-themed flags and hats made in China are reportedly being held up at US customs amid an intensifying trade war.
Textile suppliers who export their goods to the US told China's state-run tabloid Global Times their products have been delayed at US customs, which is affecting their sales.
"Usually the goods only take 10 days to reach US customers. Now it is taking 15 days or longer," Wu Yuepei, a manager at Qiwang Textile Product, told Global Times.
Yao Dandan, a manager at flag maker Shaoxing Keqiao Jiahao Arts & Crafts Co., also reported delays at US customs, suspected to be related to current trade disputes between the US and China.
snip
Trump has proposed a 10% tariff on a list of $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, which includes "hats and headgear" and certain textiles, including flags.
Karma?
-
Wow...it's getting hard to keep Fox reporters inline now. Way to go Donald the Dufus™
Fox News’ John Roberts Calls Himself ‘An Enemy Of The State’ After Trump Tweet (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fox-news-reporter-calls-himself-an-enemy-of-the-state-after-trump-tweet_us_5b50d510e4b0fd5c73c356f8)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/roberts.png)
Even at President Donald Trump’s go-to news network, his constant scorn for and attacks on journalists are wearing thin with at least one high-profile reporter.
-
We'll see how long people can resist flying off the handle and going off topic on personal attacks. As long as Jeremy doesn't have to ban anybody, I suspect the thread can go as long as it wants. Unlikely to match the original Trump II (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116264.msg958153#msg958153) that started February 05, 2017, 07:24:37 PM and was read 313,748 times and lasted until Chris closed it down in Reply#6615 on: October 04, 2017, 04:01:50 PM.
Pretty sure that was a LuLa record :~)
(unlikely that we can surpass that though)
Jeff, that thread had more replies than any other in the forum's history but it doesn't even figure in the top ten "most viewed": http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=stats
Jeremy
-
Truly shocking statistics !
Apart from the wholly irrelevant General & Top 10 sections ( irrelevant since they are presumably calculated since the beginning of LuLa and give no indication or weight to current trends) the shocking part is the last item - 'Forum History'
From 2010-2015, LuLa added an average of just over 2,900 new members each year
2017 added just 26 new members
2018, so far, 22 new members
The only stats that might be relevant, but not listed, are
(a) how many paying members, and
(b) how many members have posted/contributed within the last 12 months.
Against the above dismal stats, 2017, achieved a record of over 79,000,000 page views (close to double the previous average) and this year, 2018, on course to match that - even possibly beat it.
So, dear Mods, you don't need a PhD to work out that (a) The Coffee Corner has generated record interest and (b) heavy handed locking of threads and summarily banning posters isn't a particularly successful technique when it comes to attracting new blood.
--
Jeff, that thread had more replies than any other in the forum's history but it doesn't even figure in the top ten "most viewed": http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=stats
-
All I can tell you is that I knew Trump was going to win a whole year before the actual election, the moment he entered the fray and presented his ideas. No one else had anything remotely close to hitting the nerve of the American public as his ideas, simple, memorable, and effective. Wall, Great, First. Could anything be simpler and more effective? Can you tell what was anybody's else platform, including Hillary's, that is so simple and effective and in a few words?
Scott Adams, the cartoonist who draws Dilbert, predicted a Trump victory early on much to the dismay of his fans. He had to close the comments section to his Blog because he was receiving so many 'rude' comments. This book review (http://www.westernmastery.com/2017/12/03/book-review-win-bigly-scott-adams-worth-the-read/) of his summary of what happened during the election is a pretty fair evaluation of the points Adams outlined. I followed his blog during the election and was pretty much in agreement (much to my dismay) with his prediction.
-
Truly shocking statistics !
Apart from the wholly irrelevant General & Top 10 sections ( irrelevant since they are presumably calculated since the beginning of LuLa and give no indication or weight to current trends) the shocking part is the last item - 'Forum History'
From 2010-2015, LuLa added an average of just over 2,900 new members each year
2017 added just 26 new members
2018, so far, 22 new members
The only stats that might be relevant, but not listed, are
(a) how many paying members, and
(b) how many members have posted/contributed within the last 12 months.
Against the above dismal stats, 2017, achieved a record of over 79,000,000 page views (close to double the previous average) and this year, 2018, on course to match that - even possibly beat it.
So, dear Mods, you don't need a PhD to work out that (a) The Coffee Corner has generated record interest and (b) heavy handed locking of threads and summarily banning posters isn't a particularly successful technique when it comes to attracting new blood.
--
Perhaps those very low figures for 2017-18 just reflect the introduction of subscriptions to LuLa?
-
Perhaps those very low figures for 2017-18 just reflect the introduction of subscriptions to LuLa?
Of course it does, that’s the point: after the subscription, practically no new members.
-
All I can tell you is that I knew Trump was going to win a whole year before the actual election, the moment he entered the fray and presented his ideas. No one else had anything remotely close to hitting the nerve of the American public as his ideas, simple, memorable, and effective. Wall, Great, First. Could anything be simpler and more effective? Can you tell what was anybody's else platform, including Hillary's, that is so simple and effective and in a few words?
I was in the same boat, Slobodan. I predicted he'd win but people were laughing at the very idea, and at me for having such an idea. The RINOs and left-wingers still don't get it. I suspect they never will. People like Whoopi Goldberg and Ocasio Cortez are going out of their way to make sure the November elections are a red wave. Cheer them on!
-
Scott Adams, the cartoonist who draws Dilbert, predicted a Trump victory early on much to the dismay of his fans. He had to close the comments section to his Blog because he was receiving so many 'rude' comments. This book review (http://www.westernmastery.com/2017/12/03/book-review-win-bigly-scott-adams-worth-the-read/) of his summary of what happened during the election is a pretty fair evaluation of the points Adams outlined. I followed his blog during the election and was pretty much in agreement (much to my dismay) with his prediction.
Interesting book from him on how Trump uses persuasion to his Advantage. One in particular that he helped someone in the beginning to get favors later on. Such as helping Xi when he wanted Trump to reverse himself on XTE or Putin not publicly being embarrassed by accusing him of interfering with our elections, or stopping military exercises with South Korea at the behest of North Korea's Kim.
-
Of course it does, that’s the point: after the subscription, practically no new members.
Of course, NOT.
These are stats for the Forum - not LuLa (though I may be mistaken - grateful if someone could clarify)..
Anyone can join, register for free and post in the forum.
The subscription covers access to the articles on the home page and the For Sale section
THe 'no new members' is in contrast to the interest shown by record page views - further reinforcing my point above.
-
The RINOs and left-wingers still don't get it. I suspect they never will.
Does The Economist ? American democracy’s built-in bias towards rural Republicans (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/12/american-democracys-built-in-bias-towards-rural-republicans)
This has come about because of a growing division between rural and urban voters.
[...]
The consequences are dramatic. Republicans hold both the houses of Congress and the White House. But in the three elections in 2012-16 their candidates got just 46% of the two-party vote for the Senate, and they won the presidential vote in 2016 with 49%. Our voting model predicts that, for Democrats to have a better than 50% chance of winning control of the House in November’s mid-term elections, they will need to win the popular vote by around seven percentage points. To put that another way, we think the Republicans have a 0.01% chance of winning the popular vote for the House. But we estimate their chance of securing a majority of congressmen is about a third. In no other two-party system does the party that receives the most votes routinely find itself out of power
... and more in The Briefing : America’s electoral system gives the Republicans advantages over Democrats (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats)
-
Does The Economist ? American democracy’s built-in bias towards rural Republicans (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/12/american-democracys-built-in-bias-towards-rural-republicans)
... and more in The Briefing : America’s electoral system gives the Republicans advantages over Democrats (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats)
So I remember when all the southern states would vote Democrat and today they're all Republican. So what's your point?
-
Of course, NOT.
These are stats for the Forum - not LuLa (though I may be mistaken - grateful if someone could clarify)..
Anyone can join, register for free and post in the forum (but not the For Sale section).
The subscription covers access to the articles on the home page.
And 'no new members' is in contrast to the interest shown by record page views - further reinforcing my point above.
Is that right? I thought only subscribed members could post.
-
... and more in The Briefing : America’s electoral system gives the Republicans advantages over Democrats (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats)
What is more interesting is that, based on current population projections, in 20 years, half the population in America will live in eight states. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/?utm_term=.94e6333b0b78) Apologies if you have used up your quota of free Washington Post articles. We don't know what the party identification will be in 2040 but it is worth noting that both GenX and Millenials trend to the Democrats (Millenials by 24% based on a Pew Foundation study). This means that the House and Senate will represent to wildly different groups within the US. It will be interesting to see what the voting trends are in TX, FL, GA, and NC are during this time period.
-
Is that right? I thought only subscribed members could post.
No Keith, that part is definitely right.
Initially they wanted to put the whole site behind a paywall but after a long and animated thread changed their mind.
Forum is free access.
-
So I remember when all the southern states would vote Democrat and today they're all Republican. So what's your point?
The trend towards Republican voting in the south began with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and accelerated thereafter. In 1968, George Wallace ran as a 3rd party candidate and won many of the deep south states in a reaction to the 1964 law. Only Jimmy Carter managed to carry the majority of southern states in 1976. Clinton picked up some in his two wins but since then the South has been reliably Republican at the national and local levels.
-
Truly shocking statistics !
Apart from the wholly irrelevant General & Top 10 sections ( irrelevant since they are presumably calculated since the beginning of LuLa and give no indication or weight to current trends) the shocking part is the last item - 'Forum History'
From 2010-2015, LuLa added an average of just over 2,900 new members each year
2017 added just 26 new members
2018, so far, 22 new members
The only stats that might be relevant, but not listed, are
(a) how many paying members, and
(b) how many members have posted/contributed within the last 12 months.
Against the above dismal stats, 2017, achieved a record of over 79,000,000 page views (close to double the previous average) and this year, 2018, on course to match that - even possibly beat it.
So, dear Mods, you don't need a PhD to work out that (a) The Coffee Corner has generated record interest and (b) heavy handed locking of threads and summarily banning posters isn't a particularly successful technique when it comes to attracting new blood.
--
I wouldn't put too much trust in the forum software to return correct statistics.
When I do an Admin search for member registrations (most of whom never post btw), I get the following results:
New registrations since Jan. 1, 2017: 2,670
New registrations since July. 20, 2017: 1,500 +/-
New registrations since Jun. 20, 2018: 115 +/-
Oh and btw - the growth & level of paid site Memberships is quite healthy thank-you. If they were not, we wouldn't be here.
Also anyone, member of the site or not, can register and post on this forum. The only section that requires paid membership is the For Sale area.
Chris
-
I wouldn't put too much trust in the forum software to return correct statistics.
Ouch!
-
All I can tell you is that I knew Trump was going to win a whole year before the actual election, the moment he entered the fray and presented his ideas. No one else had anything remotely close to hitting the nerve of the American public as his ideas, simple, memorable, and effective. Wall, Great, First. Could anything be simpler and more effective? Can you tell what was anybody's else platform, including Hillary's, that is so simple and effective and in a few words?
Blowing your own TRUMPet? If you posted your failed predictions then the site would probably crash because of information overload. :(
-
... The 'no new members' is in contrast to the interest shown by record page views...
Which could, in theory, come solely from the old members.
-
... If you posted your failed predictions...
For example?
-
Does The Economist ?...
The Economist, unfortunately, has become the latest commie mouthpiece.
-
The Economist, unfortunately, has become the latest commie mouthpiece.
Keeping that one for posterity ...
-
What is more interesting is that, based on current population projections, in 20 years, half the population in America will live in eight states. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/?utm_term=.94e6333b0b78) Apologies if you have used up your quota of free Washington Post articles. We don't know what the party identification will be in 2040 but it is worth noting that both GenX and Millenials trend to the Democrats (Millenials by 24% based on a Pew Foundation study). This means that the House and Senate will represent to wildly different groups within the US. It will be interesting to see what the voting trends are in TX, FL, GA, and NC are during this time period.
Since the Depression in 1933, democrats have controlled the senate and house more than republicans. It's only recently that it's been more divided.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png)
As recently as 2013, democrats ruled both the senate and house and presidency. Now it's the opposite but could change again in a few years.
The article you presented that states the Tyranny of the Minority, got it just backwards. The writer should know better. It's the majority that creates tyranny. They have the majority vote - more than 50%. The whole purpose of the Bill of RIghts is to protect minority viewpoints. The majority doesn;t need protection.
Additionally, there would be no United States if the founders didn't create an Electoral College giving a slight vote edge to smaller states during a presidential election. The smaller states would not have agreed to the USA. They didn't want to be elbowed around by the larger states.
The same is true about the Senate where each state has two senators regardless of the number of residents in each state. After all, each state is sovereign. Who calls the United Nation's General Assembly a "tyranny of the minority" because each country has one vote. China is equal to Jamaica, etc. Well in America, each state is valued equally in the Senate regardless of the number of people in their state. So little Alaska (well big geographically) with less than a million people has two senators as does California with their 50 million people. Senators represent the states not the people. Of course the House of Representatives which represent the people is divided based on the number of people. So Alaska has one representative to California's 51.
-
The Economist, unfortunately, has become the latest commie mouthpiece.
These types of pejoratives are unworthy of you.
-
...We don't know what the party identification will be in 2040 but it is worth noting that both GenX and Millenials trend to the Democrats...
Now.
But in 2040 they will grow up and, as most reasonable mature people do, will vote Republican ;)
-
Now.
But in 2040 they will grow up and, as most reasonable mature people do, will vote Republican ;)
I don't know if I'll be alive to see that or the oceans rise. :)
-
Since the Depression in 1933, democrats have controlled the senate and house more than republicans. It's only recently that it's been more divided.
The Southern states did not allow blacks to vote in significant numbers until the Civil Rights Act was passed. In addition, Southern Democratic legislators in the Senate controlled almost all the committees and a 2/3 vote was required to break filibusters as opposed to the current 60 votes. Democrats had to rely on Southern votes to get legislation passed. Of course during the recession in the 1930s a lot of stuff was passed because the economic times were so dire. Since 1964 the Republican Party has become more conservative and Southern oriented.
The article you presented that states the Tyranny of the Minority, got it just backwards. The writer should know better. It's the majority that creates tyranny. They have the majority vote - more than 50%. The whole purpose of the Bill of RIghts is to protect minority viewpoints. The majority doesn;t need protection.
Unfortunately, almost every vote in the Senate now requires 60 votes because of the filibuster threat. HERE (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm) are the number of Cloture motions for the Senate going all the way back to 1917. You can see the dramatic uptic that began in 2007, the same year McConnell became minority (and later majority leader) for the Republicans in the Senate.
Additionally, there would be no United States if the founders didn't create an Electoral College giving a slight vote edge to smaller states during a presidential election. The smaller states would not have agreed to the USA. They didn't want to be elbowed around by the larger states.
I think this is conjecture; it more likely had to do with the preservation of slavery.
The same is true about the Senate where each state has two senators regardless of the number of residents in each state. After all, each state is sovereign. Who calls the United Nation's General Assembly a "tyranny of the minority" because each country has one vote. China is equal to Jamaica, etc. Well in America, each state is valued equally in the Senate regardless of the number of people in their state. So little Alaska (well big geographically) with less than a million people has two senators as does California with their 50 million people. Senators represent the states not the people. Of course the House of Representatives which represent the people is divided based on the number of people. So Alaska has one representative to California's 51.
[/quote]
-
Now.
But in 2040 they will grow up and, as most reasonable mature people do, will vote Republican ;)
That is not necessarily the case. The Pew Research study cited in the article shows party identification trending Republican in only the "Silent Generation" (birthdates 1928-45). The Baby Boom generation (1946-64) still trends Democratic. Republican party identification has shown a steeper drop than Democratic with a shift to more Independents. In addition, Republican identification tends to be older and more white than Democratic which does not portend well for the Republicans.
-
That is not necessarily the case. The Pew Research study cited in the article shows party identification trending Republican in only the "Silent Generation" (birthdates 1928-45). The Baby Boom generation (1946-64) still trends Democratic. Republican party identification has shown a steeper drop than Democratic with a shift to more Independents. In addition, Republican identification tends to be older and more white than Democratic which does not portend well for the Republicans.
I think you are, unfortunately, correct. Looks like the Soviets* will have the last laugh after all.
* Is it more palatable than commies? ;)
-
... I think this is conjecture; it more likely had to do with the preservation of slavery...
I am not sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that the parity vs. proportional principle for federations is invented to preserve slavery?
-
No Keith, that part is definitely right.
Initially they wanted to put the whole site behind a paywall but after a long and animated thread changed their mind.
Forum is free access.
Thanks.
-
I am not sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that the parity vs. proportional principle for federations is invented to preserve slavery?
i think it was really about preserving "property" at the time of writing. The Senate was viewed as a check on the populist waves that would be presented by the "rabble" that elected the members of the House. Much as the House of Lords has functioned in the UK i would imagine.
-
...
Unfortunately, almost every vote in the Senate now requires 60 votes because of the filibuster threat. ...
For a long time, I thought the filibuster rule was undemocratic. Let's have an up or down vote on all issues. Now, I'm re-thinking it. We seem to be in very hostile area where each side takes uncompromising positions. It was 1993 that Ginsburg got approved to be a supreme court justice with both parties voting 96-3. Those days are over. Today, "split-the-baby" Moses could come back down from heaven and we'd have a major fight to get him confirmed for the court.
What concerns me, probably as a conservative, is that the Democrats will pack the court the next time they control the Congress and Presidency. Or they will pass legislation that really swings the country too far in one direction. Frankly, while it's nice to have a republican Congress and Presidency, I also think its bad for our freedoms. Concentrated power takes away individual freedoms. I'd rather see a frozen Congress that does less. Obstructionism is good. Frankly that was one of the reasons the founders set up our government the way they did with Electors, two senators, etc. They wanted a weak national government. Frankly, it hasn't worked that well. They would be astonished and disappointed how much power has been centralized. On the other hand, the Constitution still stands. So that would amaze them as well since they didn't think it would protect us from ourselves.
-
i think it was really about preserving "property" at the time of writing. The Senate was viewed as a check on the populist waves that would be presented by the "rabble" that elected the members of the House. Much as the House of Lords has functioned in the UK i would imagine.
Same fear that the American founders had. It's one of the reasons they added the Bill of Rights to protect freedoms of speech, religion, etc from popular opinion that has the majority vote.
Our Senate I suppose is like your House of Lords in that it limits the damage populism creates. Interestingly, the original US Constitution elected Senators from the legislature of each state. The Constitution was amended in 1913 to elect Senators by direct popular vote in each state. In 2018, Republicans control 32 of the 50 states legislatures. If the original Constitution rule was used, the Senate today would have at least 64 Republican senators out of 100 making it filibuster proof rather than the 51-49 split there is now in Republican favor.
In any case, populism can center power more and give the people who want everything from their government to create major redistribution of wealth and property that your House of Lords and our Senate were left to protect against.
-
Alan,
i was reciting the path from our English institutional heritage.
i am Texan through and through.
Frank
-
For a long time, I thought the filibuster rule was undemocratic. Let's have an up or down vote on all issues. Now, I'm re-thinking it. We seem to be in very hostile area where each side takes uncompromising positions. It was 1993 that Ginsburg got approved to be a supreme court justice with both parties voting 96-3. Those days are over. Today, "split-the-baby" Moses could come back down from heaven and we'd have a major fight to get him confirmed for the court.
With only a few exceptions all the Republicans voted against Sotomayor and Kagan who were Obama's nominees
What concerns me, probably as a conservative, is that the Democrats will pack the court the next time they control the Congress and Presidency. Or they will pass legislation that really swings the country too far in one direction.
They would have to have big majorities in both legislative chambers. It's highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will expanded but it is possible that the "lifetime tenure" will be removed which IMO will be a good thing. There is absolutely no reason by Federal judges should have lifetime tenure.
Frankly, while it's nice to have a republican Congress and Presidency, I also think its bad for our freedoms. Concentrated power takes away individual freedoms. I'd rather see a frozen Congress that does less. Obstructionism is good. Frankly that was one of the reasons the founders set up our government the way they did with Electors, two senators, etc. They wanted a weak national government. Frankly, it hasn't worked that well. They would be astonished and disappointed how much power has been centralized. On the other hand, the Constitution still stands. So that would amaze them as well since they didn't think it would protect us from ourselves.
More freedoms are taken away at the state and local levels than at the national level. Regarding the views of the original writers of the Constitution, I don't think they envisioned the problems that slavery was going to cause for the country. They also could not have imagined what the role of technology was going to play in the development of America and that this would lead to interesting interpretations of the Constitution over the years.
-
Alan,
i was reciting the path from our English institutional heritage.
i am Texan through and through.
Frank
Sorry Frank, Certainly no Lordships in Texas. :)
-
With only a few exceptions all the Republicans voted against Sotomayor and Kagan who were Obama's nominees...
...and with few exceptions all the Democrats voted against Gorsuch who was Trump's nominee. All too prove my point that we're getting very divided politically.
-
...
More freedoms are taken away at the state and local levels than at the national level. ...
In certain areas that's true. But there are major ways the Federal government effects our lives.
War- especially when the Congress has often abandoned its constitutional responsibility to be the ones that declare it, not the President who they've given the power too much to often.
Taxes and debt - When half your income goes to income, social security and medicare taxes, they are a major factor on how your money that you earned is spent and saved.
Social security and medicare - another two major factors in how you live and allocate resources to your retirement and medical care. The government has decided what's good for you. Include Obamacare for those who are under 65.
The Fed - An unelected group that prints money devaluing through inflation whatever money the government hasn't seized from you to pay for government expenses that can't be paid with the nearly confiscatory taxes they collect.
The NSA - and other security departments that monitor and snoop into your everyday private communications with other American citizens
Did I miss anything? What freedoms are left???
-
Social security and medicare - another two major factors in how you live and allocate resources to your retirement and medical care. The government has decided what's good for you. Include Obamacare for those who are under 65.
Are you opposed to Social Security and Medicare? I am not.
-
Are you opposed to Social Security and Medicare? I am not.
It doesn't matter if you prefer it. What matters is the huge power of the government to take away people's freedom of choice in how they wish to spend the money they work for and earned.
By the way, Congress can cut benefits even though you contributed all your life. Especially if a means test shows you have too much wealth and money. So they have that power as well. We're going to have another trillion dollar deficit. Thanks to Trump. :) We 're running out of other people's money.
-
Fascism? Say that to Los Angeles, New York, Chicago. Hell, say it to the Cajuns of Louisiana, rednecks of Mississippi, midwestern ranchers, women of Hollywood, and be prepared to die, MF!
;)
MF? And this is acceptable behavior? Where are the moderators anyway? Participating in this garbage? Do we really want this forum go the way of the Popular Photography and Shutterbug forums?
-
On the other hand, the Constitution still stands. So that would amaze them as well since they didn't think it would protect us from ourselves.
Jefferson would be very disappointed.
-
In certain areas that's true. But there are major ways the Federal government effects our lives.
War- especially when the Congress has often abandoned its constitutional responsibility to be the ones that declare it, not the President who they've given the power too much to often.
Taxes and debt - When half your income goes to income, social security and medicare taxes, they are a major factor on how your money that you earned is spent and saved.
Social security and medicare - another two major factors in how you live and allocate resources to your retirement and medical care. The government has decided what's good for you. Include Obamacare for those who are under 65.
The Fed - An unelected group that prints money devaluing through inflation whatever money the government hasn't seized from you to pay for government expenses that can't be paid with the nearly confiscatory taxes they collect.
The NSA - and other security departments that monitor and snoop into your everyday private communications with other American citizens
Did I miss anything? What freedoms are left???
You have a bizarre view of things. Most of these are services that you have decided to buy for yourselves. If social security exists, it's because the free market was not providing it and millions of people suffered. When market failures occur, governments sometimes step in for everyone's good. Calling that kind of social service an encroachment on freedom is beside the point. Is funding your police departments an encroachment on freedom? Is building the interstate highway system an encroachment on freedom?
-
That is not necessarily the case. The Pew Research study cited in the article shows party identification trending Republican in only the "Silent Generation" (birthdates 1928-45). The Baby Boom generation (1946-64) still trends Democratic. Republican party identification has shown a steeper drop than Democratic with a shift to more Independents. In addition, Republican identification tends to be older and more white than Democratic which does not portend well for the Republicans.
And other polls have shown that if you take out the words Republican, Democrat, Conservative, and Liberal from the polling and questions and rely on policies, the current Millennials are more fiscally conservative that any other current generation were at their same age.
-
You have a bizarre view of things. Most of these are services that you have decided to buy for yourselves. If social security exists, it's because the free market was not providing it and millions of people suffered. When market failures occur, governments sometimes step in for everyone's good. Calling that kind of social service an encroachment on freedom is beside the point. Is funding your police departments an encroachment on freedom? Is building the interstate highway system an encroachment on freedom?
I would not call it free market failure, but the failure of the person. It's amazing how many people during the recession just could not except that they bought a house too expensive, or did not take the time to learn what a ARM is. People don't save or think about the future; most people are stupid when it comes to stuff like this.
Whether or not we let people learn the hard way or help them out is up for debate, but to say it is the free markets fault people get into messes is a joke.
-
Good God, you made a post without a mention of tariffs. ;D
Laugh of the day!
Thanks, stamper, I needed one.
;-)
-
(http://www.noonpost.org/sites/default/files/field/image/usa-election.jpg)
(https://www.facebook.com/grabthepuzzy/)
At least it explains why all those pretty women go to bed with him. Irresistible.
;-)
-
You have a bizarre view of things. Most of these are services that you have decided to buy for yourselves. If social security exists, it's because the free market was not providing it and millions of people suffered. When market failures occur, governments sometimes step in for everyone's good. Calling that kind of social service an encroachment on freedom is beside the point. Is funding your police departments an encroachment on freedom? Is building the interstate highway system an encroachment on freedom?
You conveniently ignored war, taxes and debt, the NSA, and the Fed on ways the Federal government has a major effect on our lives and freedom. Regarding social security, the deduction from our salaries also has a major effect on how we live and save for retirement. Some people may think its a great idea. But that's beside the point. It still has a major effect on us. My post was in response to another post to show that the federal government has a very heavy handed effect on us, more then state governments do. Your response was a non sequitur. Go read back the thread.
-
Alan, do you actually enjoy arguing with these guys? It's hopeless. Their minds are made up and nothing... nothing is gonna change them.
-
And other polls have shown that if you take out the words Republican, Democrat, Conservative, and Liberal from the polling and questions and rely on policies, the current Millennials are more fiscally conservative that any other current generation were at their same age.
Yes, and they are also almost 100% libertarian on all social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and some other stuff that goes against the current make up of the Republican party. They are also more sympathetic to open immigration.
-
The President's Tweets today about the release of the Carter Page surveillance FISA documents best points out why some of us have very little faith in him as a leader because of his propensity to overlook the truth (though perhaps some on this thread might think this to be opinion ;) ). Thought some of the documents are blacked out because of intelligence issues, they convincingly show that based on such findings the surveillance was warranted. The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/us/politics/trump-fisa-carter-page.html) has more on this story. For those of you whose free article have run out here is the relevant quote from the story,
"In a series of early-morning tweets, Mr. Trump left unmentioned how the documents laid out in stark detail why the F.B.I. was interested in the former campaign adviser, Carter Page: “The F.B.I. believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government.” They also said Mr. Page had “established relationships with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligence officers,” and had been “collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government.”
Those assessments were included in an October 2016 application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page. The New York Times and other news outlets obtained the application and several renewal documents through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. The president had declassified their existence last year."
The story pretty much also discredits Congressman Deven Nunes's memo (released with help from somebody in the White House) about the surveillance issue. Alternate realities seldom work in the long run.
-
Alan, do you actually enjoy arguing with these guys? It's hopeless. Their minds are made up and nothing... nothing is gonna change them.
He enjoys arguing with himself? :-\
-
Funny thing: in the last two countries I've lived in, you have both a full National Health Service as well as private medicine if you can afford it.
They appear to work well, and for many years here in Spain I paid into a private scheme for my wife and myself, though we were eligible for the state-funded one too.
She broke her hip one day, and was rushed to the local state hospital because it was half the distance away than was the private one we used for her cancer.
The service and quality of care was so good, that she suggested we should get over it and stop the private insurance. That was ten years ago. My last premium was €3600 per annum, so I guess that the state has saved me €36,000 on the clear understanding that inflation in medicine does not happen! ;-) On top of that, the doctors interchange quite a lot, and you can find the same guy working in both, as we did.
Fortunately, so far, I can't say anything based on experience about the UK version, other than that my granddaughter now wears her stethoscope within it.
The costs of public health are borne by taxation; you pay nothing at Reception before or after they save your life.
Strikes me that choice is a damned fine thing to have: if you have money to burn, go ahead and light the Zippo and free up beds for the not-so-well-off.
The funding, as I say, comes from taxation: why is the UK so keen to phase out the petrolheads' delight, and usher in electric cars? Since taxation is the massive part of gas pricing in Britain, does the coming reduction in petrol sales tax revenue indicate that electricity will have to go up in price to match the lost revenue from oil? Interesting ... you read it first in LuLa.
-
Thought some of the documents are blacked out because of intelligence issues, they convincingly show that based on such findings the surveillance was warranted.
The released portions of the FISA warrant applications to surveil Carter Page are available here (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4614708/Carter-Page-FISA-Application.pdf). I believe this is the first time any of these applications have been made public—prior to declassification they were classified "TOP SECRET/NOFORN"*—and, though they are heavily redacted, it's interesting to see what level of evidence is required to persuade the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve national security surveillance of U.S. residents who are believed to be engaged in espionage on behalf of other countries—as opposed to criminal warrants to collect evidence for law enforcement, which can be granted by any judge upon a showing of probable cause.
_____
*For those unfamiliar with U.S. security classification standards, Top Secret is the highest of the three classification levels for national secrets. (The others are Secret and Confidential.) There are other types of restrictive tags that may be applied to particular types of information—for example, to limit the dissemination of raw intelligence information. The "NOFORN" tag means the information may not be distributed to representatives of other countries.
-
The President's Tweets today about the release of the Carter Page surveillance FISA documents best points out why some of us have very little faith in him as a leader because of his propensity to overlook the truth (though perhaps some on this thread might think this to be opinion ;) ). Thought some of the documents are blacked out because of intelligence issues, they convincingly show that based on such findings the surveillance was warranted. The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/22/us/politics/trump-fisa-carter-page.html) has more on this story. For those of you whose free article have run out here is the relevant quote from the story,
"In a series of early-morning tweets, Mr. Trump left unmentioned how the documents laid out in stark detail why the F.B.I. was interested in the former campaign adviser, Carter Page: “The F.B.I. believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government.” They also said Mr. Page had “established relationships with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligence officers,” and had been “collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government.”
Those assessments were included in an October 2016 application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page. The New York Times and other news outlets obtained the application and several renewal documents through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. The president had declassified their existence last year."
The story pretty much also discredits Congressman Deven Nunes's memo (released with help from somebody in the White House) about the surveillance issue. Alternate realities seldom work in the long run.
How quickly you forget that you and all those other people laughed at Trump when he said his campaign was being spied on. So now it turns out to be true and it was you guys that were wrong. So Carter Page was surveilled and they found nothing against him that he did anything wrong. There's been no indictment no nothing. When surveilling him could not be approved by the fisa court anymore, they used the phony Trump.dossier produced by Hillary Clinton as an excuse to continue surveillance of the Trump campaign. Additionally you want us to believe that CIA director Brenner who lied to Congress and now calls Trump a traitor had no Prejudice when he was CIA director in prosecuting the surveillance of trump campaign along with that above board FBI director Comey. Who can believe that?
-
The funding, as I say, comes from taxation: why is the UK so keen to phase out the petrolheads' delight, and usher in electric cars? Since taxation is the massive part of gas pricing in Britain, does the coming reduction in petrol sales tax revenue indicate that electricity will have to go up in price to match the lost revenue from oil? Interesting ... you read it first in LuLa.
Yet the electricity is not free!! I don't know if the UK has a tax on electricity and certainly if there is a shift to 100% electric cars, there will be an increased demand for electricity which means burning of more fossil fuel or nuclear or solar or wind. I don't know what the mix is in the UK. We now have "electronic refueling" docks in some parking garages here in area. I don't have an electric car so I cannot tell you what the rates are when you plug your Tesla, Prius, or other battery hungry car into the port. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
-
How quickly you forget that you and all those other people laughed at Trump when he said his campaign was being spied on. So now it turns out to be true and it was you guys that were wrong. So Carter Page was surveilled and they found nothing against him that he did anything wrong. There's been no indictment no nothing. When surveilling him could not be approved by the fisa court anymore, they used the phony Trump.dossier produced by Hillary Clinton as an excuse to continue surveillance of the Trump campaign. Additionally you want us to believe that CIA director Brenner who lied to Congress and now calls Trump a traitor had no Prejudice when he was CIA director in prosecuting the surveillance of trump campaign along with that above board FBI director Comey. Who can believe that?
You did not read very carefully. The dossier was minimally used to obtain the FISA warrant. We do not know the full extent of Carter Page's involvement because the Mueller investigation is not yet complete. If you think that only intelligence gathered from CIA and FBI directors was used you need to rethink how both Agencies operate.
-
How quickly you forget that you and all those other people laughed at Trump when he said his campaign was being spied on.
Fake news. At the time Trump said that Obama wiretapped him.
Instead, intelligence agencies were monitoring Russian officials, and some of the conversations they intercepted in the course of their investigations may have also involved Trump aides.
And this has already been discussed back then (many Trump lies ago).
Cheers,
Bart
-
You did not read very carefully. The dossier was minimally used to obtain the FISA warrant. We do not know the full extent of Carter Page's involvement because the Mueller investigation is not yet complete. If you think that only intelligence gathered from CIA and FBI directors was used you need to rethink how both Agencies operate.
Carter Page is a nobody. He will never be indicted for anything. If they believed he did something wrong, the justice department would not have released the FISA warrant they used to surveil him. The release would prejudice their case against him in court.
-
Fake news. At the time Trump said that Obama wiretapped him.
Instead, intelligence agencies were monitoring Russian officials, and some of the conversations they intercepted in the course of their investigations may have also involved Trump aides.
And this has already been discussed back then (many Trump lies ago).
Cheers,
Bart
Accusing Obama for spying was Trump hyperbole for the Obama administration surveilling his campaign. Only the prejudiced media and people who hate TRump thought he meant that President Obama snuck into the basement of Trump Tower, put on earphones and connected its wires to Trump's telephone line to "spy" on him. The fact is that surveillance material was being collected and was given to Obama through his National Security Adviser Susan Rice.
Actually the only reason Obama did not release or leak the information of the surveillance is because they thought that Hillary would win anyway. They were afraid a leak might backfire. So they didn't release it and the whole election backfired. Oops.
-
If they believed he did something wrong, the justice department would not have released the FISA warrant they used to surveil him. The release would prejudice their case against him in court.
President Trump declassified the information in those redacted FISA warrants at the request of the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, who had prepared a memo claiming the surveillance of Carter Page was improper and wanted to make it public. The Justice Department and the intelligence agencies reportedly argued against the declassification, but Trump proceeded anyway. The actual warrants that were the source of the Nunes memo were released by the government pursuant to a statutory Freedom of Information Act request because the information contained in them (in their redacted form) had already been declassified by the president.
-
Alan, do you actually enjoy arguing with these guys? It's hopeless. Their minds are made up and nothing... nothing is gonna change them.
PKB.
-
President Trump declassified the information in those redacted FISA warrants at the request of the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, who had prepared a memo claiming the surveillance of Carter Page was improper and wanted to make it public. The Justice Department and the intelligence agencies reportedly argued against the declassification, but Trump proceeded anyway. The actual warrants that were the source of the Nunes memo were released by the government pursuant to a statutory Freedom of Information Act request because the information contained in them (in their redacted form) had already been declassified by the president.
Chris. All of that is smoke. Page was not indicted because he didn't do anything wrong. In addition, there's no way an outsider could investigate the circumstances to see if the the evidence for the fisa warrant was real because most of the warrant that was released is redacted. The fact is the Trump campaign was surveilled because of the warrant against Page with no subsequent indictment along with using a phoney dossier created and paid for by Trump's adversary Hillary Clinton. The whole thing smells.
-
So investigations shouldn't proceed unless there's a 100% chance of indictment? Do you grasp the concept of investigation?
-
So investigations shouldn't proceed unless there's a 100% chance of indictment? Do you grasp the concept of investigation?
I certainly do. But not during a presidential campaign. Look at what happened with Clinton's email server and Comey of the FBI. The optics are awful. She also had a legitimate complaint against the government although she did violate government secrecy rules. Trump hasn't done anything wrong.
The whole surveillance has the appearance of a political party, the Democrats, and the former administration conspiring to defeat a challenger in support of an ally (Clinton). It's similar to Hillary conspiring with the DNC to marginalize her competitor Sanders. It fits Trumps narrative how Washington DC is an incestuous swamp.
-
Yes, and they are also almost 100% libertarian on all social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and some other stuff that goes against the current make up of the Republican party. They are also more sympathetic to open immigration.
Well maybe (fingers crossed) this will force the Republican Party to part ways with the Religious Conservatives. I'm being serious here; I think the union of the Rep with the Christians was the worse political mistake ever.
-
Investigations shouldn't stop due to political campaigning, particularly in the US where campaigning is happening so often and for so long. If a court authorises it, then that's the process working. If the court got it wrong, deal with the court in the prescribed manner.
-
Page was not indicted because he didn't do anything wrong.
Counterintelligence investigations in the United States are different than criminal investigations. The warrants issued by the FISA court allow the government to monitor the activities of U.S. residents (technically, "U.S. persons" (https://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/sigint-faqs.shtml#sigint4)) who are alleged to be engaged in espionage on behalf of a foreign power. Unlike traditional search warrants, which can be granted by any judge, they do not require the government to show probable cause that the search will produce evidence of a crime or to specifically identify the information the government is seeking. As such, they are not part of the law enforcement process that typically is intended to result in criminal charges.
That's the reason for the special protections. Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 to impose procedural restrictions on the government's ability to conduct surveillance of "U.S. persons" suspected of foreign espionage in response to perceived incursions on civil liberties by American intelligence agencies. The FISA statute and court are controversial—most of the criticism has originated from left-wing activists and libertarians, by the way—but they shouldn't be confused with the criminal justice process.
-
Counterintelligence investigations in the United States are different than criminal investigations. The warrants issued by the FISA court allow the government to monitor the activities of U.S. residents (technically, "U.S. persons" (https://www.nsa.gov/about/faqs/sigint-faqs.shtml#sigint4)) who are alleged to be engaged in espionage on behalf of a foreign power. Unlike traditional search warrants, which can be granted by any judge, they do not require the government to show probable cause that the search will produce evidence of a crime or to specifically identify the information the government is seeking. As such, they are not part of the law enforcement process that typically is intended to result in criminal charges.
That's the reason for the special protections. Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 to impose procedural restrictions on the government's ability to conduct surveillance of "U.S. persons" suspected of foreign espionage in response to perceived incursions on civil liberties by American intelligence agencies. The FISA statute and court are controversial—most of the criticism has originated from left-wing activists and libertarians, by the way—but they shouldn't be confused with the criminal justice process.
Chris, you're sending up more smoke. This was in the middle of a presidential election. A Democrat administration was investigating the campaign of the Republican challenger. A phoney dossier prepared by the Democrat party was used in some of the FISA warrants. The power of the state was interfering in the middle of an election to create trouble for one of the candidates. Its reeks of politics you see in third world countries. The whole thing smells.
If the press was doing honest investigations instead of being in the bag for Hillary, all of this would have been exposed instead of hidden. When the democrats lost the election, they used the power of the state and the phoney investigations as an excuse to create the Special Counsel to keep it going. When collusion didn't seem to be working anymore, the Democrats supported by the liberal media pressed obstruction of justice. When that stopped having any power, they switched to "treason", If they get Congressional power in November they can all vote for impeachment using the phony charge "he's a traitor". It's sickening to see such an obscene struggle for power in America in the 7 decades I've been here. The ballot box was the way we settled disagreements over policy. Now we're stooping to use the power of the state to decide elections.
-
Well maybe (fingers crossed) this will force the Republican Party to part ways with the Religious Conservatives. I'm being serious here; I think the union of the Rep with the Christians was the worse political mistake ever.
Amen to that.
(I'm not being facetious, I agree with you, but thought that was a cute way to put it.)
-
It's very obvious that the statement/wish/legend that "any boy can become president" (Adlai Stevenson - 1952) isn't a wise expression of presidential selection.
In Australia the governmental head is the Prime Minister. He's chosen from the members of parliament (Lower House) who as a group are the largest to not lose a vote of no confidence.
We had a Prime Minister who was dismissed from the job by the select group (The Cabinet) within the winning party . This guy was on-the-nose in many small ways which became intolerable. No one saw him as bad as Trump.
Because Trump is doing so much damage to the U.S. it's mystifying to an outsider why he's still there, in a democracy.
If the objective is to get someone useful into the job, the way it's done now isn't working.
-
oops-hit the wrong key. Will be reposted when completed.
-
It's very obvious that the statement/wish/legend that "any boy can become president" (Adlai Stevenson - 1952) isn't a wise expression of presidential selection.
In Australia the governmental head is the Prime Minister. He's chosen from the members of parliament (Lower House) who as a group are the largest to not lose a vote of no confidence.
We had a Prime Minister who was dismissed from the job by the select group (The Cabinet) within the winning party . This guy was on-the-nose in many small ways which became intolerable. No one saw him as bad as Trump.
Because Trump is doing so much damage to the U.S. it's mystifying to an outsider why he's still there, in a democracy.
If the objective is to get someone useful into the job, the way it's done now isn't working.
The founders of America were terrified of power at the top of government. At the time, the American colonies were ruled by Britain's King George III. Parliamentary systems concentrate that power as the prime minister and his ministers are from the same party. The American government was set up to divide power first by giving very little to the national government now in Washington DC. Most of the power was distributed to the individual sovereign states.
What was left in the national government was divided by co-equal branches. The executive branch (the president) and the legislative branch (Congress). Congress, not the president, has the power to fund the government, go to war, and legislate national laws. The founders wanted a weak president not another King George III. The kept the election of the president separate from the election of Senators and Congressman for that reason. The founders would love to see the obstruction in Congress. The less they would do, the better the founders would approve. They wanted the people to be as free from government as possible.
Second, Trump isn't doing "damage" to the US. Your concern he's not "useful" is pretty insulting to me. That's your opinion as an Australian and from reading the anti Trump liberal press. He's still there in any case because our constitution stipulates his term in office is 4 years. He can be re-elected for one additional term only. He stays the president unless he dies, resigns, or is impeached and convicted of a high crime and misdemeanor by Congress. The latter has never happened.
Third, the constitutional requirement for president is he or she must be 35 years of age and a natural born American. Frankly, Trump is refreshing. It's been tiring having people from the political class only. They all do the same things and protect the same political classes. We needed fresh blood, a tough businessman who plays tough and protects our country. Foreigners aren't use to that in an American president. They like feckless presidents like Obama who kissed everyone's a$$. It's hard to get away with stuff with Trump. He punches back hard.
-
Poor planning at the top, but great news for carnivors.
However, profits, prices are threatened for suppliers as record amounts of red meat and poultry fill U.S. warehouses. Trump’s trade war has driven up tariffs on U.S. meat in major foreign markets including Mexico, China, and Canada. China imposed a 25% tariff on American pork in April, and raised it to a staggering 62% this month.
One hog farming operation in Carlyle, Ill. said that it was cancelling $30 million worth of domestic investment, and considering setting up new operations in Eastern Europe or South America to avoid trade uncertainty.
Meat is piling up in U.S. cold-storage warehouses, fueled by a surge in supplies and trade disputes that are eroding demand.
Federal data, coming as early as Monday, are expected to show a record level of beef, pork, poultry and turkey being stockpiled in U.S. facilities, rising above 2.5 billion pounds.
http://fortune.com/2018/07/22/meat-stockpiles-tariffs-trade-war/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/meat-piles-up-as-production-grows-and-exports-slow-1532268000 paid link
-
How quickly you forget that you and all those other people laughed at Trump when he said his campaign was being spied on. So now it turns out to be true and it was you guys that were wrong. So Carter Page was surveilled and they found nothing against him that he did anything wrong.
Well, you have the Trump talking points down pat...too bad what you are saying is factually incorrect.
Carter Page first came to the attention in 2013 (way beyond Trump's candidacy) because know Russian agents, catch on tape were talking about him:
"An idiot," said a Russian agent caught on tape (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-obtained-fisa-warrant-to-monitor-former-trump-adviser-carter-page/2017/04/11/620192ea-1e0e-11e7-ad74-3a742a6e93a7_story.html) in a 2013 FBI investigation of a spy ring.
So, ya see, the FBI didn't NEED to rely on the "Dossier" to get the FISA warrant in Sept 2016. They got the FISA warrant because of the connections and activities between Cart and Russians outlined here:
U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin (https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html)
U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials — including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue.
The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and “high ranking sanctioned individuals” in Moscow over the summer as evidence of “significant and disturbing ties” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau.
Some of those briefed were “taken aback” when they learned about Page’s contacts in Moscow, viewing them as a possible back channel to the Russians that could undercut U.S. foreign policy, said a congressional source familiar with the briefings but who asked for anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject. The source added that U.S. officials in the briefings indicated that intelligence reports about the adviser’s talks with senior Russian officials close to President Vladimir Putin were being “actively monitored and investigated.”
So, if you are equating surveillance and eavesdropping of Page as without reason, wrong, there were plenty of reasons to do so...
Quite honestly, Trump screwed the pooch because during his campaign, because Trump refused to add any advisor who may have ever said anything bad about Trump–pretty much everybody in the GOP with foreign policy experience. Which left Trump scrapping the bottom of the barrel advisers.
Trump, based on the Fox talking points outlined by Hannity and the other extended members of the White House press officer, has been whipped into a frizzy by Devin Nunes who was very creative creating lies out of thin air for various memos.
And you've swallowed their lies hook, line and sinker.
-
Page was not indicted because he didn't do anything wrong.
We don't know that...all we know is as of this time, he's not been indicted...as far as I know, no Americans have been indicted for conspiracy (collusion ain't a crime) except that one low level guy doing the phony identities in California...Richard Pinedo and he's reached a plea deal and is working with the investigation...
Read: Robert Mueller also reached a plea deal with a California man in Russia probe (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021178/mueller-russian-indictments-richard-pinedo-plea-deal)
Special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s office announced Friday it had reached a plea deal with a California man who committed identity fraud as part of the ongoing Russia probe. The deal was announced the same day as the blockbuster indictments of a dozen Russian nationals and three Russia-affiliated groups alleging interference with the 2016 presidential election.
The charges against Richard Pinedo of Santa Paula, California, state that he sold bank account numbers created using the stolen identities of US citizens to people or entities outside of the United States. The Russian groups indicted by Mueller used social media posts, online ads, and rallies in the US to create propaganda efforts “primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” according to Mueller’s other indictment released Friday. Pinedo’s charges appear related to that activity.
As part of his plea deal, Pinedo has agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s investigation.
In fact if you listened to Rod Rosenstein's two press conferences announcing the two series of indictments for Russian sabotage against the 2016 elections he very VERY carefully did NOT say there were no Americans that may be indicted in the future, he said at that time, the indictments did not allege illegal involvement by Americans.
And may I point out that after the last series of indictments against Russian intelligence agents for hacking the DNC, it's very clear that the Russian attacks on our elections amounted to espionage pure and simple and those agents were actively working to sabotage the election...
Pretty sure the rest of the world knows this...only Trump clings to the fact it might have been others...no Donny, it was the Russians...and Putin even admitted he wanted Trump to win–he came out and said that. And ya know what? he sure looked pretty smug, didn't he?
So, let's quite this "meddling" horsecrap and "interference" horseshyte and call it what it was...an act of espionage for the purposes of sabotage!
-
[deleted by moderator]
When Russia closes in, there's always the NFL players to go after!
President Donald Trump tweets about NFL national anthem debate that is 'alive and well again' (http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24152687/president-donald-trump-takes-twitter-criticize-nfl-handling-anthem-policy)
President Donald Trump is once again inserting himself into the culture war over protests by NFL athletes during the national anthem.
Trump tweeted Friday that he "can't believe" the debate has reignited after the Associated Press reported on the Miami Dolphins formally telling players they could be punished for protesting on the field. The NFL and NFL Players Association said in a joint statement Thursday night that they were halting enforcement of all anthem rules while they work out a solution.
Trump took to Twitter to critique the policy, call for action from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and suggest his own penalties.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/nfl.png)
And then this happened on Fri...
Trump legal team waived attorney-client privilege on Cohen recording (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-cohen-secret-recording-trump-legal-team-waived-attorney-client-privilege/)
President Trump's legal team waived attorney-client privilege on the recording longtime Trump attorney Michael Cohen made, a source with knowledge confirms to CBS News. Cohen secretly recorded a conversation he had with Mr. Trump shortly before the 2016 presidential election in which they discussed a possible payment to Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who alleges she had an affair with Mr. Trump in 2006.
The recording was seized in the FBI raids on Cohen's home and office in April, as a part of the federal investigation into Cohen's business dealings.
Wait, what? Trump's attorneys thought this was a good idea? Did they bother to mention it to The Donald?
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/cohen.png)
Wow, last week to 10 days were Trump's worst don't ya think? Pissing of NATO calling the EU a "FOE" and Great Britain, Meeting Putin and throwing the US Intel under the bus, Would Wouldn't, Cohen recording The Donald...
We just witnessed the 10 most disastrous days of Trump's presidency (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-nato-russia-putin-worst-week-of-presidency-2018-7)
(https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5b522d4b01180c38008b47bf-960-480.jpg)
The White House has been engulfed in crisis after crisis over the last week and a half, all of which were self-inflicted.
President Trump sparked controversy at every turn, including during his trip to the NATO summit, his UK visit, his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin and the bizarre press conference that followed, and his comments and statements here in the US.
The last week and a half "sits at or near the top of a string of foreign policy blunders for this administration," said one Russia expert.
"Trump proved he is not a global leader," said another.
But hey, maybe next week might be better...yeah, right are you on drugs? Hey, maybe the Manafort trial won't be so bad...
Risks pile up for Trump as Manafort heads to trial (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/22/trump-manafort-trial-mueller-russia-probe-735084)
The first trial prosecuted by special counsel Robert Mueller will offer the clearest public view yet of what his investigators have on President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, with a catalogue of evidence and testimony undercutting the president’s repeated claims that the Russia investigation is a “witch hunt.”
Yeah, maybe next week won't be great huh?
-
RuhRoh...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/iran.png)
So, is Donny pissed off at Iran, North Korea (for dragging their heels) the mainstream media or Mueller and the 13 angry Democrats? Maybe it's Cohen for recording him or Giuliani for releasing the tape to the FBI even though it was deemed protected...
The Tweet sounds somewhat derivative...
'Fire and fury'
While at his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump said: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States."
"They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen," he said, with his arms crossed as he addressed reporters.
-
Well, you have the Trump talking points down pat...too bad what you are saying is factually incorrect.
Andrei Kleinovich ?
-
Well maybe (fingers crossed) this will force the Republican Party to part ways with the Religious Conservatives. I'm being serious here; I think the union of the Rep with the Christians was the worse political mistake ever.
On this we can certainly agree. As an atheist I enjoy the protection of the first amendment and am always worried when the US is referred to as a 'Christian' nation.
-
RuhRoh...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/iran.png)
So, is Donny pissed off at Iran, North Korea (for dragging their heels) the mainstream media or Mueller and the 13 angry Democrats? Maybe it's Cohen for recording him or Giuliani for releasing the tape to the FBI even though it was deemed protected...
The Tweet sounds somewhat derivative...
'Fire and fury'
While at his golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump said: "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States."
"They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen," he said, with his arms crossed as he addressed reporters.
And just to remind everyone, there was a working de-nuclearization agreement in force with Iran that was working just fine. It was Trump who tore it apart, and I've yet to hear a cogent reason why.
-
What makes you think it was working, Robert?
-
And just to remind everyone, there was a working de-nuclearization agreement in force with Iran that was working just fine. It was Trump who tore it apart, and I've yet to hear a cogent reason why.
Here' why.
Cancelling the Iran deal now means we can continue to make sure Iran doesn't produce nuclear weapons even after the originally agreed upon time of 5 or 10 years from when the current agreement ends and they can restart their nuclear program and develop a nuclear bomb. Do we need a nuclear armed North Korea in the Middle East?
Trump restarted sanctions against Iran. This will put pressure on them not to spend their money interfering in the Middle East, challenging Israel, Saudi Arabia and other friends of ours there and supporting the Syrian dictator Assad who's killing his people and causing the refugee crisis that has extended into Europe. If peace returns, maybe many of the refugees could be sent home from Europe and elsewhere ending cultural conflicts there. Additionally, the pressure on the regime due to the sanctions may help liberal forces in Iran overthrow the mullahs. We would prefer having a regime friendly to the US and the west.
What I find interesting is the world's bi-polar reaction to Trump and American power. When Trump threatens that we might pull out of NATO, everyone gets nervous and complains he's reacting crazy. NATO helps keep peace in the world. They need America to keep the peace. However, when Trump cancels the Iran deal to stop a dangerous country that's helping to stir up problems throughout the world, everyone says Trump and America is throwing its weight around like a bully. You get nervous that America is acting like a tough cop. I wish you guys would make up your mind what your want from America.
-
Oh, I forgot that if Iran stops helping Assad and the Russians there, maybe we can get Russia to withdraw too. Do we really want the Russians in the Middle East?
-
I'm wasting my time, I know, but I'll answer. Every interview I've ever heard with several Americans have said that the Iranian deal was accomplishing what it set out to accomplish. I googled and there were dozens of hits, here's one: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/iran-nuclear-deal-two-years/533556/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/iran-nuclear-deal-two-years/533556/).
I know, I know, FAKE news, right?
The agreement was about one narrow topic, building of nuclear weapons, but for some reason you're trying to drag all kinds of other things into the mix. Fine, have it your way, let's see what Trump's tactics (assuming he has any) accomplish.
-
Oh, I forgot that if Iran stops helping Assad and the Russians there, maybe we can get Russia to withdraw too. Do we really want the Russians in the Middle East?
With Putin being Trump's bro-friend do you really think this will happen? They have been in Syria longer than Iran.
-
More on the FISA warrant's from James Hohmann in today's Washington Post with a great quote from Senator Rubio,
In fact, the release of the FISA warrants further undermines the credibility of the partisan memo that Trump declassified in February from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). Contrary to its central claims, the warrants show that the judges were told that the source of the so-called dossier had political motivations. While most of the warrants are still redacted, it’s also clear that the FBI was basing its request on more than just what former British spy Christopher Steele told them.
“The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed,” writes David Kris, a former assistant attorney general for national security, on Lawfare. “Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it.”
The warrant also shows that the government told the judges after Steele went to the press with the dossier when FBI Director James Comey sent his October 2016 letter to Congress disclosing the discovery of the Anthony Weiner laptop in the Hillary Clinton investigation. “According to the FISA applications, Steele complained that Comey’s action could influence the election,” Kris notes. “But when Steele went to the press, it caused FBI to close him out as an informant—facts which are disclosed and cross-referenced in the footnote in bold text.”
Moreover, Page was no longer associated with the Trump campaign by the time the FISA warrant was approved – so this cannot really be considered surveillance on the Trump campaign. And Obama was not involved in authorizing the surveillance.
The Nunes memo also falsely claimed that a Yahoo News article was used to corroborate the dossier, even though Steele had been the source. In fact, the article was cited in a section on “Page’s Denial of Cooperation with the Russian Government.” It was used to lay out an argument against the warrant.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said the newly disclosed materials show that the FBI followed the law and had “a lot of reasons unrelated to the dossier” for why it wanted to monitor Page.
“I have a different view on this issue than the president and the White House,” Rubio said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “They did not spy on the campaign from anything that I have seen. You have an individual here who has openly bragged about his ties to Russia and Russians. … And the FBI’s job is to protect this country from threats … So they look at all this information. They say: We have a guy here who's always in Russia, brags about Russia, and we have reason to believe -- and they list those reasons – why this is someone we should be watching. And they followed the legal process by which to do so.”
-
What makes you think it was working, Robert?
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran
-
And you found that convincing, Andrew?
-
Yes!
-
Wow! Would you be interested in a bridge I have for sale?
-
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran
Is not that the same agency that were right that Irak did not have:
“Weapons of mass destruction”
?
Still another useless war was started, killing 100.000 +++ people
We can blame Obama for not being president then
-
I'm wasting my time, I know, but I'll answer. Every interview I've ever heard with several Americans have said that the Iranian deal was accomplishing what it set out to accomplish. I googled and there were dozens of hits, here's one: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/iran-nuclear-deal-two-years/533556/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/iran-nuclear-deal-two-years/533556/).
I know, I know, FAKE news, right?
The agreement was about one narrow topic, building of nuclear weapons, but for some reason you're trying to drag all kinds of other things into the mix. Fine, have it your way, let's see what Trump's tactics (assuming he has any) accomplish.
The agreement stimulated a more serious cancer to grow. It put a short term halt to Iran nuclear development but allowed them to become an increased threat to the Middle East. It also allows them to make a nuclear bomb when the agreement ends in a few years. So we'll be faced with a more serious problem. Trump will not put his head in the sand like the rest of the world who wants to go along to get along. Making money for them is more important than stopping Iran. If you want to only consider a portion of the whole Iran issue, go ahead. We won't.
Hopefully pressure due to sanctions will force Iran to back off support for Assad, help push the Russians out of Syria, reduce Iran's threat to our ME friends and help Iranian democrats to overthrow the mullahs. They won't need nukes then.
-
With Putin being Trump's bro-friend do you really think this will happen? They have been in Syria longer than Iran.
Iran is providing the foot soldiers, Russia the air force. Without troops, Assad and his Russian air force are vulnerable. Putin isn't going to allow his jets from getting blown up. He'll pull out leaving Assad to fend for himself.
-
More on the FISA warrant's from James Hohmann in today's Washington Post with a great quote from Senator Rubio,
In fact, the release of the FISA warrants further undermines the credibility of the partisan memo that Trump declassified in February from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.). Contrary to its central claims, the warrants show that the judges were told that the source of the so-called dossier had political motivations. While most of the warrants are still redacted, it’s also clear that the FBI was basing its request on more than just what former British spy Christopher Steele told them.
“The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed,” writes David Kris, a former assistant attorney general for national security, on Lawfare. “Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it.”
The warrant also shows that the government told the judges after Steele went to the press with the dossier when FBI Director James Comey sent his October 2016 letter to Congress disclosing the discovery of the Anthony Weiner laptop in the Hillary Clinton investigation. “According to the FISA applications, Steele complained that Comey’s action could influence the election,” Kris notes. “But when Steele went to the press, it caused FBI to close him out as an informant—facts which are disclosed and cross-referenced in the footnote in bold text.”
Moreover, Page was no longer associated with the Trump campaign by the time the FISA warrant was approved – so this cannot really be considered surveillance on the Trump campaign. And Obama was not involved in authorizing the surveillance.
The Nunes memo also falsely claimed that a Yahoo News article was used to corroborate the dossier, even though Steele had been the source. In fact, the article was cited in a section on “Page’s Denial of Cooperation with the Russian Government.” It was used to lay out an argument against the warrant.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said the newly disclosed materials show that the FBI followed the law and had “a lot of reasons unrelated to the dossier” for why it wanted to monitor Page.
“I have a different view on this issue than the president and the White House,” Rubio said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “They did not spy on the campaign from anything that I have seen. You have an individual here who has openly bragged about his ties to Russia and Russians. … And the FBI’s job is to protect this country from threats … So they look at all this information. They say: We have a guy here who's always in Russia, brags about Russia, and we have reason to believe -- and they list those reasons – why this is someone we should be watching. And they followed the legal process by which to do so.”
The Russians were spying on the Democrats. And the Democrats were spying on the Republicans. The rest is conversation.
-
For my liberal friends. See. I don't take this so seriously after all. :)
(https://www.madmagazine.com/sites/default/files/imce/2017/12-DEC/MAD-Magazine-Mueller-Trump_5a37fe82e81e72.78491136.jpg)
-
Iran is providing the foot soldiers, Russia the air force. Without troops, Assad and his Russian air force are vulnerable. Putin isn't going to allow his jets from getting blown up. He'll pull out leaving Assad to fend for himself.
Russia has a large naval facility at Tartus in Syria which is the only port they have on the Mediterranean Sea. This is of great strategic importance to the and is used to supply the Syrian Army. Iran does not have its own soldiers in Syria but uses their proxies the Hezbollah.
-
Russia has a large naval facility at Tartus in Syria which is the only port they have on the Mediterranean Sea. This is of great strategic importance to the and is used to supply the Syrian Army. Iran does not have its own soldiers in Syria but uses their proxies the Hezbollah.
So if Iran stopped supporting Hezbollah due to our pressure on Iran, Hezbollah foot soldiers would stop supporting Assad. It would still create problems for the Russians and Assad. It would help weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon also to our advantage and Hezbollah's danger to Israel. All the good guys win.
-
Wow! Would you be interested in a bridge I have for sale?
No!
-
For my liberal friends. See. I don't take this so seriously after all. :)
(https://www.madmagazine.com/sites/default/files/imce/2017/12-DEC/MAD-Magazine-Mueller-Trump_5a37fe82e81e72.78491136.jpg)
:)
-
Too bad the thread on the man leading the National Parks is locked. We have some interesting news today from the Wasington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-officials-dismissed-benefits-of-national-monuments/2018/07/23/5b8b1666-8b9a-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?utm_term=.6b39b1bb7697).
"In a quest to shrink national monuments last year, senior Interior Department officials dismissed evidence these public lands boosted tourism and spurred archaeological discoveries, according to documents the department released this month and retracted a day later.
The thousands of pages of email correspondence chart how Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and his aides instead tailored their survey of protected sites to emphasize the value of logging, ranching and energy development that would be unlocked if they were not designated as national monuments.
Comments the department’s Freedom of Information Act officers made in the documents show they sought to keep some of the references out of public view because they were “revealing [the] strategy” behind the review."
and
"On July 3, 2017, Bureau of Land Management official Nikki Moore wrote colleagues about five draft economic reports on sites under scrutiny, noting there is a paragraph within each on “our ability to estimate the value of energy and/or minerals forgone as a result of the designations.” That reference was redacted on the grounds it could “reveal strategy about the [national monument] review process.”
Officials also singled out BLM acting deputy director John Ruhs’s July 28 response to questions from Katherine MacGregor, acting assistant secretary of lands and minerals management, as eligible to be redacted. MacGregor had asked about the logging potential of Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument if Trump reversed the expansion former president Barack Obama carried out at the end of his second term."
-
Too bad the thread on the man leading the National Parks is locked. We have some interesting news today from the Wasington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-officials-dismissed-benefits-of-national-monuments/2018/07/23/5b8b1666-8b9a-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?utm_term=.6b39b1bb7697).
"In a quest to shrink national monuments last year, senior Interior Department officials dismissed evidence these public lands boosted tourism and spurred archaeological discoveries, according to documents the department released this month and retracted a day later.
The thousands of pages of email correspondence chart how Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and his aides instead tailored their survey of protected sites to emphasize the value of logging, ranching and energy development that would be unlocked if they were not designated as national monuments.
Comments the department’s Freedom of Information Act officers made in the documents show they sought to keep some of the references out of public view because they were “revealing [the] strategy” behind the review."
and
"On July 3, 2017, Bureau of Land Management official Nikki Moore wrote colleagues about five draft economic reports on sites under scrutiny, noting there is a paragraph within each on “our ability to estimate the value of energy and/or minerals forgone as a result of the designations.” That reference was redacted on the grounds it could “reveal strategy about the [national monument] review process.”
Officials also singled out BLM acting deputy director John Ruhs’s July 28 response to questions from Katherine MacGregor, acting assistant secretary of lands and minerals management, as eligible to be redacted. MacGregor had asked about the logging potential of Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument if Trump reversed the expansion former president Barack Obama carried out at the end of his second term."
I wouldn't believe anything the Washington Post (WP) says they so hate Trump. Their entire news is biased against him. The Washington Post article link you posted above shows a picture of Newspaper Rock of petroglyphs with a caption. The fact they put in in a negative article against Trump was done implying that Trump stopped protecting it. He's "bad", not "good". Well the opposite is true. "Newspaper Rock is located 15 miles west of U.S. 191 along the Indian Creek Corridor Scenic Byway (S.R. 211) in Bears Ears National Monument, now part of the 71,896-acre Indian Creek unit designated December 4, 2017 by U.S. President Donald Trump."
When they post a picture with a description of petroglyphs in an article saying how bad Trump is, they should have checked first to see if it was not protected because it is. It makes their whole article suspect and is all part of the WP fake news we get from them daily.
https://www.visitutah.com/places-to-go/state-and-federal-recreation-areas/southern/bears-ears-national-monument/newspaper-rock-and-the-indian-creek-scenic-byway/
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9883048,-109.5181173,3a,75y,108.43h,80.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAF1QipMZfACbvD_z7s_a1ROAmYEXS-cLqrC_KuRp3L6a!2e10!7i8704!8i4352?hl=en
-
Wow...maybe the arrest of Maria Butina touched a nerve...
Lavrov to Pompeo: Free Maria Butina arrested on fabricated spy charges (https://www.rt.com/news/433900-lavrov-pompeo-butina-release/)
(https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.07/article/5b53a1d9fc7e93a2758b4643.jpg)
The US should immediately release Russian gun activist Maria Butina, who is being held in the US on espionage charges, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told his US counterpart over the phone, calling the case “fabricated.”
“Lavrov stressed that the actions of the US authorities that arrested Russian citizen [Maria] Butina on fabricated charges are unacceptable,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement, adding that the minister also called for her “immediate release” in his conversation with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday.
Apparently Russian Bots are pushing the hashtag #FreeMariaButina (https://twitter.com/hashtag/FreeMariaButina?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1020043812025110528&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sott.net%2Fembed%2FsOMGnkhP5ITeenQtesptccdiTuJ)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dif1w60X4AE7CP6.jpg:large)
Just a simple country girl who got caught up in the high-stakes business of world diplomacy and screwed the wrong 56-year old American policy influencer. Could happen to anyone!
-
It just keeps coming. Now it's pretty Russian spies too.
There is an interesting podcast from NPR's Fresh Air about the very close ties between Trump and FOX News (http://freshairnpr.npr.libsynfusion.com/the-links-between-russia-trump-and-brexit (http://freshairnpr.npr.libsynfusion.com/the-links-between-russia-trump-and-brexit)). According to the reporter being interviewed, Trump can spend an hour per day watching PVR'd broadcasts and talking to Sean Hannity on the phone, who has become a de facto adviser to the President.
The reporter makes the larger point that Trump takes his policy cues from watching TV and that he pays little attention to the written reports that are submitted to him. The way the reporter describes the situation makes it sound as if FOX is the marketing department of Trump Inc. Shouldn't people be worried about ties that close between what is really just a commercial organization and an arm of government? Does anyone care about these things anymore? Is it just us vs them now, all the way down the line?
-
It just keeps coming. Now it's pretty Russian spies too.
There is an interesting podcast from NPR's Fresh Air about the very close ties between Trump and FOX News (http://freshairnpr.npr.libsynfusion.com/the-links-between-russia-trump-and-brexit (http://freshairnpr.npr.libsynfusion.com/the-links-between-russia-trump-and-brexit)). According to the reporter being interviewed, Trump can spend an hour per day watching PVR'd broadcasts and talking to Sean Hannity on the phone, who has become a de facto adviser to the President.
The reporter makes the larger point that Trump takes his policy cues from watching TV and that he pays little attention to the written reports that are submitted to him. The way the reporter describes the situation makes it sound as if FOX is the marketing department of Trump Inc. Shouldn't people be worried about ties that close between what is really just a commercial organization and an arm of government? Does anyone care about these things anymore? Is it just us vs them now, all the way down the line?
Your bolded sentence got it right. The way the left wing reporter described it to a left wing news station. You really have to start thinking for yourself and looking at the facts instead of listening to another Trump hater if you want to understand Trump.
Trump is keeping all his campaign promises to the best of his ability despite the outside pressure on him. Supreme court justices, military buildup, trade, NATO, opening up fuel exploration, XL pipeline, Paris accord, tax reform legislation, repeal Obamacare (he tried), less regulations, expand the economy, etc. Sure he may use entertainment and media figures to get advice, but it seems it's for how to play the day-to-day optics of what he's doing. It has little effect on his policies.
-
Today's news is an absolute shocker (not). The Trump Administration is preparing a $12B bailout of farmers who are adversely impacted by the evolving trade war. Why should any industry be singled out above others has always befuddled me but we are not living in normal times. One of my stock holdings dropped almost 10% yesterday because of the strong dollar and increased raw material costs (steel & aluminum) yet I see no signs that it will receive any federal funds because of this.
-
Today's news is an absolute shocker (not). The Trump Administration is preparing a $12B bailout of farmers who are adversely impacted by the evolving trade war. Why should any industry be singled out above others has always befuddled me but we are not living in normal times. One of my stock holdings dropped almost 10% yesterday because of the strong dollar and increased raw material costs (steel & aluminum) yet I see no signs that it will receive any federal funds because of this.
You didn't complain when Obama singled out the solar industry for relief.
In any case, if Congress actually writes legislation for this, you can be sure that Republican Congressmen and Senators from steel producing states will include steel relief in the bill. I think you should email those republicans and express your concerns and support. :)
-
Your bolded sentence got it right. The way the left wing reporter described it to a left wing news station. You really have to start thinking for yourself and looking at the facts instead of listening to another Trump hater if you want to understand Trump.
Trump is keeping all his campaign promises to the best of his ability despite the outside pressure on him. Supreme court justices, military buildup, trade, NATO, opening up fuel exploration, XL pipeline, Paris accord, tax reform legislation, repeal Obamacare (he tried), less regulations, expand the economy, etc. Sure he may use entertainment and media figures to get advice, but it seems it's for how to play the day-to-day optics of what he's doing. It has little effect on his policies.
You insult my thinking ability and label a journalist as left-wing, well done! How do you know he's left-wing? What's the logic here, if someone criticizes Trump, then they're left-wing?
-
You insult my thinking ability and label a journalist as left-wing, well done! How do you know he's left-wing? What's the logic here, if someone criticizes Trump, then they're left-wing?
Any reporter that says "...Fox is the marketing department for Trump..." has an agenda. Furthermore, a reporter should not criticize the person he's writing about. That immediately shows bias and opinion. It's not journalism. It's an editorial and he's giving his opinion. Fake news.
-
You didn't complain when Obama singled out the solar industry for relief.
I doubt that I ever said that as I am against all tax preferences, including breaks for renewable energy if that is what you are referring to. Only if there are exceptional natural disasters should the government get involved and this ain't one of them. Congress has abdicated too much to the executive branch but that's not likely to change much unless the public gets fed up and votes everyone out of office.
-
You insult my thinking ability and label a journalist as left-wing, well done! How do you know he's left-wing? What's the logic here, if someone criticizes Trump, then they're left-wing?
Regarding saying what I said in an insulting way, I apologize. I should not have made it personal.
-
I doubt that I ever said that as I am against all tax preferences, including breaks for renewable energy if that is what you are referring to. Only if there are exceptional natural disasters should the government get involved and this ain't one of them. Congress has abdicated too much to the executive branch but that's not likely to change much unless the public gets fed up and votes everyone out of office.
I thought you supported Obama's environmental and carbon and CO2 policies including signing the Paris accord. Those would have included carbon credits and subsidies for solar, wind and other non-carbon products. Those are tax preferences.
-
...Now it's pretty Russian spies too...
Here is to pretty ladies ;)
-
Any reporter that says "...Fox is the marketing department for Trump..." has an agenda. Furthermore, a reporter should not criticize the person he's writing about. That immediately shows bias and opinion. It's not journalism. It's an editorial and he's giving his opinion. Fake news.
Did you listen to the podcast or are you jumping to conclusions?
And the words about FOX being the marketing (not to say propaganda) arm of Trump Inc. were MY words, not the reporter's.
-
Did you listen to the podcast or are you jumping to conclusions?
And the words about FOX being the marketing (not to say propaganda) arm of Trump Inc. were MY words, not the reporter's.
You said in your original post that's the way the reporter described it. So now you're saying you misrepresented what the reporter said.
-
I thought you supported Obama's environmental and carbon and CO2 policies including signing the Paris accord. Those would have included carbon credits and subsidies for solar, wind and other non-carbon products. Those are tax preferences.
I don't support subsidies but do support a carbon tax (which is not a tax preference).
-
I don't support subsidies but do support a carbon tax (which is not a tax preference).
But it is the equivalent of a subsidy for wind and solar.
-
But it is the equivalent of a subsidy for wind and solar.
Sorry, but that's total nonsense. It just puts the real cost where it is created.
It might be useful if you first learn a bit more about what a Carbon tax is and how it can be applied together with a dividend?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta2Wvy9F_gA
Cheers,
Bart
-
Any quick Google search on Oil & Gas subsidies provides more then just a few articles critical to how much we gives those companies (even one written by Mother Jones, which is kind of odd, is he not the super conservative conspiracy theorist?).
I would prefer removing all the subsidies, but then politics gets in the way. I guess if in order to make the playing field even, we have the give politicians the ability to show they actually benefited someone (or some business) in their districts, I guess this is what we have to settle for.
-
...even one written by Mother Jones, which is kind of odd, is he not the super conservative conspiracy theorist?)...
Mother Jones is an ultra-left magazine.
-
Mother Jones is an ultra-left magazine.
Ahhhh, I was thinking of Alex Jones. Google search "crazy ultra right conspriecy theorist" and he is the first to come up.
In all honesty, I kind of put both Jones on the same level of craziness though.
-
I don't support subsidies but do support a carbon tax (which is not a tax preference).
You supported Obama's environmental policies which included subsidies for solar and wind. You never complained about Obama's subsidies when he instituted them. Now suddenly you're opposed to subsidies. Would you approve subsidies on wind and solar oif congress wanted to do these?
-
You supported Obama's environmental policies which included subsidies for solar and wind. You never complained about Obama's subsidies when he instituted them. Now suddenly you're opposed to subsidies. Would you approve subsidies on wind and solar oif congress wanted to do these?
Let me try to make things as clear as possible; I never supported policies that included subsidies for solar and wind power. What elected officials do is what they do and I have little power at all over them other than my solitary vote and/or a withholding of any minor campaign contribution that I might make. Because of my anger at the DNC, I have not sent them a single contribution in the last four years. I do send a modest amount of money to my congressman and two senators for their election campaigns (all of whom are Democrats and ones that I support electorally) .
I am against all agricultural subsidies and marketing orders. I am against tax preferences and loopholes of all kinds. I am against all of the common deductions that I, as a taxpayer, take advantage of. I am for some form of universal health coverage and don't care if it is single payer, a voucher system, or some combination of the two. I support a VAT in return for lower marginal tax rates. I think this covers it all and if I have forgotten anything let me know and I can amend this. You no longer have to read my mind about what I am for or against in terms of health care and tax policy. Oh yes, I am a total libertarian on social issues.
-
Let me try to make things as clear as possible; I never supported policies that included subsidies for solar and wind power. What elected officials do is what they do and I have little power at all over them other than my solitary vote and/or a withholding of any minor campaign contribution that I might make. Because of my anger at the DNC, I have not sent them a single contribution in the last four years. I do send a modest amount of money to my congressman and two senators for their election campaigns (all of whom are Democrats and ones that I support electorally) .
I am against all agricultural subsidies and marketing orders. I am against tax preferences and loopholes of all kinds. I am against all of the common deductions that I, as a taxpayer, take advantage of. I am for some form of universal health coverage and don't care if it is single payer, a voucher system, or some combination of the two. I support a VAT in return for lower marginal tax rates. I think this covers it all and if I have forgotten anything let me know and I can amend this. You no longer have to read my mind about what I am for or against in terms of health care and tax policy. Oh yes, I am a total libertarian on social issues.
Am glad you clarified your beliefs. Thanks.
Curious about the VAT. That would penalize lower income people and benefit higher income people like yourself who will pay lower marginal income taxes. That kind of contradicts your other position that you're against common deductions.
By the way. I'm against the VAT. It's just another way of taxing us. The argument that they will lower income tax rates if they institute a VAT is
not believably. It will wind up that we'll have both as the Congress does not have the courage to balance the budget.
-
Curious about the VAT. That would penalize lower income people and benefit higher income people like yourself who will pay lower marginal income taxes. That kind of contradicts your other position that you're against common deductions.
By the way. I'm against the VAT. It's just another way of taxing us. The argument that they will lower income tax rates if they institute a VAT is
not believably. It will wind up that we'll have both as the Congress does not have the courage to balance the budget.
I expect groceries and personal care items would be exempt from a VAT; they are in UK I believe (don't know about some of the other EU countries). VATs are the easiest tax to collect as it's charged all through the manufacturing chain. Also, big spenders will pay far more VAT than those who are thrifty. The issue of low income people can be addressed either through an EITC as is done now or zero marginal rates on personal income up to some threshold because the VAT now substitutes for some part of the personal income tax. In addition, the elimination of all deductions makes filing taxes a five minute task each April.
-
OK, here is one for the ages, a Tweet from the President,
"I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!"
Better increase FBI and CIA surveillance of the Democrats running for Congress!!!!!! They may be foreign agents.
-
I expect groceries and personal care items would be exempt from a VAT; they are in UK I believe (don't know about some of the other EU countries). VATs are the easiest tax to collect as it's charged all through the manufacturing chain. Also, big spenders will pay far more VAT than those who are thrifty. The issue of low income people can be addressed either through an EITC as is done now or zero marginal rates on personal income up to some threshold because the VAT now substitutes for some part of the personal income tax. In addition, the elimination of all deductions makes filing taxes a five minute task each April.
VATs are huge and a sneaky sales tax to boot. They're hidden from the buyer except possibly for the final sales. The taxes applied earlier are not seen in the cost. Sales tax is exposed at the time of purchase. Congress will continually raising VAT tax percents to cover their failure to balance the budget. They won't have to explain it to the public because it can't be seen. It will destroy the dollar as the Fed will print more to cover Congress's profligacy and put America in a debt that will make the current debt a joke.
-
... Better increase FBI and CIA surveillance of the Democrats running for Congress!!!!!! They may be foreign agents.
Of course. Hillary was already photographed shaking hands with a known Russian agent:
-
VATs are huge and a sneaky sales tax to boot. They're hidden from the buyer except possibly for the final sales. The taxes applied earlier are not seen in the cost. Sales tax is exposed at the time of purchase. Congress will continually raising VAT tax percents to cover their failure to balance the budget. They won't have to explain it to the public because it can't be seen. It will destroy the dollar as the Fed will print more to cover Congress's profligacy and put America in a debt that will make the current debt a joke.
You are missing a key point. It is actually a more efficient and transparent way to collect taxes. Under the proposal I like, the corporate tax would be eliminated, yes moved to Zero. It doesn't collect as much in revenue as it once did and is riddled with loopholes and of course all big corporations have legions of tax attorneys who work long and hard to minimize the amount companies pay. All of this is covered in an easy to read book by former national correspondent from the Washington Post, T.R. Reid, "A Fine Mess: A Global Quest for a Simpler, Fairer, and More Efficient Tax System." He wrote a nice Op-Ed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-want-to-cut-the-corporate-tax-rate-how-about-we-eliminate-it/2017/11/15/758331fe-c956-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.5de9d328c922) in the Post last fall while the tax reform bill was being debated. Here is a quote from Alan Murray's review of the book regarding the VAT,
"Reid also devotes a chapter to the value-added tax, which he calls “the most successful taxation innovation of the last sixty years.” The value-added tax is a levy on consumption, not income, which means it maintains incentives to work and invest. And because it is charged at each stage of distribution, it turns out to be relatively easy to enforce. Buyers get to deduct taxes already paid, giving them an incentive to ensure that sellers actually pay the tax. Reid quotes former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan saying a VAT is the “least worst” way to raise taxes. “It has been adopted in every major nation on earth and in most small nations as well,” he says. "
This is a very good book to read on tax policy and you can get through it in about a half a day.
-
Sorry, but that's total nonsense. It just puts the real cost where it is created.
It might be useful if you first learn a bit more about what a Carbon tax is and how it can be applied together with a dividend?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta2Wvy9F_gA
Cheers,
Bart
Well, YouTube or not, there's any number of possible carbon taxes, Bart. What a carbon tax is, is what the imposers of a carbon tax say it is. It's still a subsidy for wind and solar.
-
Of course. Hillary was already photographed shaking hands with a known Russian agent:
Funny because it's true. ;D
-
You are missing a key point. It is actually a more efficient and transparent way to collect taxes. Under the proposal I like, the corporate tax would be eliminated, yes moved to Zero. It doesn't collect as much in revenue as it once did and is riddled with loopholes and of course all big corporations have legions of tax attorneys who work long and hard to minimize the amount companies pay. All of this is covered in an easy to read book by former national correspondent from the Washington Post, T.R. Reid, "A Fine Mess: A Global Quest for a Simpler, Fairer, and More Efficient Tax System." He wrote a nice Op-Ed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-want-to-cut-the-corporate-tax-rate-how-about-we-eliminate-it/2017/11/15/758331fe-c956-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.5de9d328c922) in the Post last fall while the tax reform bill was being debated. Here is a quote from Alan Murray's review of the book regarding the VAT,
"Reid also devotes a chapter to the value-added tax, which he calls “the most successful taxation innovation of the last sixty years.” The value-added tax is a levy on consumption, not income, which means it maintains incentives to work and invest. And because it is charged at each stage of distribution, it turns out to be relatively easy to enforce. Buyers get to deduct taxes already paid, giving them an incentive to ensure that sellers actually pay the tax. Reid quotes former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan saying a VAT is the “least worst” way to raise taxes. “It has been adopted in every major nation on earth and in most small nations as well,” he says. "
This is a very good book to read on tax policy and you can get through it in about a half a day.
I disagree. Any new tax will become another burden. It may start out to be only the VAT. But before you know it Congress will bring back the original income tax saying that them rich guys are still getting away with murder. So then we'll have both. Fortunately, the tax bill has passed and hopefully it won't be revisited for another 28 years.
Here's a chart of EU nations showing how they pay VAT, Income tax and corporate taxes. I think there's also a value added tax like a sales tax. Do you really want all these taxes for America? Check Greece's? No wonder they all cheat on their taxes and don;t report income.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe)
-
Of course. Hillary was already photographed shaking hands with a known Russian agent:
So did Trump shake hands with a known Russian agent. Hillary conspired with Russian KGB to produce the Trump dossier.
-
Here's a chart of EU nations showing how they pay VAT, Income tax and corporate taxes. I think there's also a value added tax like a sales tax. Do you really want all these taxes for America? Check Greece's? No wonder they all cheat on their taxes and don;t report income.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe)
From a quick glance the lowest tax rates seem to be in Belarus and Montenegro. Is that your role model? I've never been to either of those places but I suspect I'd prefer to live in France or Norway.
-
I disagree. Any new tax will become another burden. It may start out to be only the VAT. But before you know it Congress will bring back the original income tax saying that them rich guys are still getting away with murder. So then we'll have both. Fortunately, the tax bill has passed and hopefully it won't be revisited for another 28 years.
Here's a chart of EU nations showing how they pay VAT, Income tax and corporate taxes. I think there's also a value added tax like a sales tax. Do you really want all these taxes for America? Check Greece's? No wonder they all cheat on their taxes and don;t report income.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_in_Europe)
Alan, please read TR Reid's book and then get back to me. You are not understanding my argument on tax simplification. Here are the three salient points:
1. Eliminate the corporate income tax completely (this addresses all the loophole issues and eliminates the need for corporate tax lawyers and departments)
2. Simplify the personal income tax by eliminating all deductions accompanied by some level that triggers payment of the tax (maybe $40K per family which is just a guess)
3. Institute a national VAT
In some European countries, the government has all the income information and all one needs to do at tax filing time is check to make sure the numbers are correct. In the US, the IRS has information for most people other than those who are self-employed. Certainly in my case they have all the social security, pension, and investment income on file and there is no reason for me to spend all that time with Turbo Tax each year when I could just go on line make sure the numbers were correct and file my taxes with a single mouse click.
Regarding tax cheating in Greece, don't you think the same thing goes on here in the US? Congress cuts the budget of the IRS so much that they don't have the personnel to go after the cheats. This is harmful to the country as there is revenue that goes uncollected. Honest taxpayers should be upset about this.
-
Alan, please read TR Reid's book and then get back to me. You are not understanding my argument on tax simplification. Here are the three salient points:
1. Eliminate the corporate income tax completely (this addresses all the loophole issues and eliminates the need for corporate tax lawyers and departments)
2. Simplify the personal income tax by eliminating all deductions accompanied by some level that triggers payment of the tax (maybe $40K per family which is just a guess)
3. Institute a national VAT
In some European countries, the government has all the income information and all one needs to do at tax filing time is check to make sure the numbers are correct. In the US, the IRS has information for most people other than those who are self-employed. Certainly in my case they have all the social security, pension, and investment income on file and there is no reason for me to spend all that time with Turbo Tax each year when I could just go on line make sure the numbers were correct and file my taxes with a single mouse click.
Regarding tax cheating in Greece, don't you think the same thing goes on here in the US? Congress cuts the budget of the IRS so much that they don't have the personnel to go after the cheats. This is harmful to the country as there is revenue that goes uncollected. Honest taxpayers should be upset about this.
I'd rather drink cyanide then read a book on VAT taxes. However, your summary is just fine. I happen to agree with his three point formula to a degree. But the problem is, Congress will never get rid of all corporate taxes. The left will say it's a gift to the rich. I think lowering the corporate taxes as they were in the current tax law is about all you could get. I still think the VAT will just be another tax. Please look at the EU chart on VAT taxes I posted. You'll see that all European countries also have heavy income taxes on top of the VAT taxes. That's what would happen here as well. That's why I'm opposed to a VAT tax.
I agree the IRS should get the funding to collect from tax cheats. I pay my taxes so I expect everyone else to pay theirs. My friend is a retired IRS agent. He got a terrific pension. He and his wife, a retired teacher with a great pension too, are now traveling in Europe, England, France, etc on a cruise for 16 days. Must be nice to be an IRS agent. :)
-
... Eliminate the corporate income tax completely (this addresses all the loophole issues and eliminates the need for corporate tax lawyers and departments)...
Why?
A big corporation I used to work for until recently does pay millions in taxes every year. Corporate lawyers and tax dept. are corporate expenses, not taxpayers'.
-
Why?
A big corporation I used to work for until recently does pay millions in taxes every year. Corporate lawyers and tax dept. are corporate expenses, not taxpayers'.
Tax receipts from corporations as a % of the total amount coming from all other sources has been shrinking over the years. T.R. Reid, the author of the book I referenced, had this Op-Ed in the WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-want-to-cut-the-corporate-tax-rate-how-about-we-eliminate-it/2017/11/15/758331fe-c956-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.09e505db07f8) late last year. Apologies if you cannot access it but here is the relevant quote,
"The time has come to kill the corporate income tax once and for all because that tax simply doesn't work any more. It used to bring in about 30 percent of federal revenue. Today, even with record corporate profits, it amounts to barely 9 percent of total tax payments.
That's because corporations spend hundreds of millions devising ways to avoid the income tax. If we eliminate the tax, the firms could spend that money for capital investment and job creation. And the thousands of Internal Revenue Service employees now assigned to collect corporate taxes could focus instead on catching upper-bracket evaders of the personal income tax.
In any case, the Republican plan for a corporate tax rate of 20 percent won't stop corporations from shifting profits overseas. Many countries have tax rates lower than 20 percent, including such desirable venues as Ireland (12.5 percent), Canada (15 percent) and Germany (15 percent). Bermuda has a corporate rate of zero, which perhaps explains the existence of a subsidiary called Google Bermuda Unlimited.
Beyond that, nations will cut special deals to lure corporate money from the United States. When Caterpillar, the maker of those iconic yellow earthmovers, shifted the profits from its spare-parts business to Switzerland, the Swiss agreed to a tax rate of around 6 percent, according to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Would a U.S. rate of 20 percent induce Caterpillar to bring that business home?"
When I read his book I found this to be a compelling argument.
-
Morals
Are you as moral as you think you are?
This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.
By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.
The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision.
Only you will know the results, so remember that your answer needs to be honest.
THE SITUATION:
You are in Florida, Miami to be specific.
There is chaos all around you, caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions.
You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster.
The situation is nearly hopeless.
You're trying to shoot career-making photos.
There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water.
THE TEST:
Suddenly you see a man in the water.
He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris.
You move closer.
Somehow the man looks familiar.
You suddenly realize who it is.
It's Donald Trump!
At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him under forever.
YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS:
You can save the life of Donald Trump or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo.
THE QUESTION:
Here's the question, and please give an honest answer.
Would you select high ISO to freeze the swirling water and ensure a sharp image with a high shutter speed? Or would you use a low ISO and a slow shutter speed to blur the water and add to the drama?"
-
Taking a selfie, while holding Trump's (small) hand, saving him, would kill two birds with one stone (pardon the metaphor) ;)
-
Taking a selfie, while holding Trump's (small) hand, saving him, would kill two birds with one stone (pardon the metaphor) ;)
But are you strong enough to pull a 260 lb (or whatever he does weigh) man out of the water? I am certainly not.
-
Would you select high ISO to freeze the swirling water and ensure a sharp image with a high shutter speed? Or would you use a low ISO and a slow shutter speed to blur the water and add to the drama?"
I never liked those blurry silky water images. Especially in this case, fast shutter speed would be much more dramatic.
-
I never liked those blurry silky water images. Especially in this case, fast shutter speed would be much more dramatic.
I would take a series of exposures and do a nice HDR with dramatic hair colors.
-
I would take a series of exposures and do a nice HDR with dramatic hair colors.
Get with the program, HDR is so 10 years ago.
-
You guys are going straight to Hell. Not saving the President of the United States!?
Imagine the rewards: one night in Trump's gilded suite. You'd even get a 10% family and friends discount ;)
-
Tax receipts from corporations as a % of the total amount coming from all other sources has been shrinking over the years. T.R. Reid, the author of the book I referenced, had this Op-Ed in the WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-want-to-cut-the-corporate-tax-rate-how-about-we-eliminate-it/2017/11/15/758331fe-c956-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.09e505db07f8) late last year. Apologies if you cannot access it but here is the relevant quote,
"The time has come to kill the corporate income tax once and for all because that tax simply doesn't work any more. It used to bring in about 30 percent of federal revenue. Today, even with record corporate profits, it amounts to barely 9 percent of total tax payments.
That's because corporations spend hundreds of millions devising ways to avoid the income tax. If we eliminate the tax, the firms could spend that money for capital investment and job creation. And the thousands of Internal Revenue Service employees now assigned to collect corporate taxes could focus instead on catching upper-bracket evaders of the personal income tax.
In any case, the Republican plan for a corporate tax rate of 20 percent won't stop corporations from shifting profits overseas. Many countries have tax rates lower than 20 percent, including such desirable venues as Ireland (12.5 percent), Canada (15 percent) and Germany (15 percent). Bermuda has a corporate rate of zero, which perhaps explains the existence of a subsidiary called Google Bermuda Unlimited.
Beyond that, nations will cut special deals to lure corporate money from the United States. When Caterpillar, the maker of those iconic yellow earthmovers, shifted the profits from its spare-parts business to Switzerland, the Swiss agreed to a tax rate of around 6 percent, according to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Would a U.S. rate of 20 percent induce Caterpillar to bring that business home?"
When I read his book I found this to be a compelling argument.
I agree with you. That's stunning. :) Corporate taxes should be eliminated. Profits disseminated to stockholders should be taxed on their personal income taxes. Corporate money used for expansion, growth, research, etc should not be taxed as they expand the economy, and create more jobs and wealth for the country. Even with a small company like I owned, there was a corporate tax. But since I was able to take the profits as personal income, I only paid once on my personal income taxes. Had I left the profit in the company and then distributed it to me, I would have had to pay twice. One for the corp and once for myself, pretty silly considering I owned 100% of my company.
-
I agree with you. That's stunning. :) Corporate taxes should be eliminated.
Be still my heart!!!! 8)
-
...
YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS:
You can save the life of Donald Trump or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo.
THE QUESTION:
Here's the question, and please give an honest answer.
Would you select high ISO to freeze the swirling water and ensure a sharp image with a high shutter speed? Or would you use a low ISO and a slow shutter speed to blur the water and add to the drama?"
As long as you save Trump the entire liberal Anti-Trump press would be indebted to you forever. Without Trump to kick around, no one would watch their cable news stations, they would go broke, this thread would shut down and we'd all have to go back to work.
-
If Hillary ever needs yet another excuse for losing the election, here is the latest one: the Serbs! ;D
"PAYBACK: US Serbs, Angry About Being Bombed By Bill, May Have Cost Hillary The Election
The Reason Hillary Clinton Lost! What Happened In Wisconsin, Michigan, & Pennsylvania"
https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/reason-hillary-clinton-lost-what-happened-wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania/ri17640
-
Morals
...
YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS:
You can save the life of Donald Trump or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo.
THE QUESTION:
Here's the question, and please give an honest answer.
Would you select high ISO to freeze the swirling water and ensure a sharp image with a high shutter speed? Or would you use a low ISO and a slow shutter speed to blur the water and add to the drama?"
That spectacularly fatuous "joke" has been around, in various incarnations, for at least two decades. Do at least try to be original.
Jeremy
-
Breaking: President Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Wednesday announced a limited deal to avoid a further escalation of trade tensions. In an unexpected press conference, the two leaders said the European Union would buy more soybeans and liquefied natural gas from the United States as the U.S. and E.U. work to eliminate tariffs on industrial goods. Existing tariff plans would be put on hold, they said, while the steel and aluminum tariffs that Trump imposed earlier this year would be reexamined. This story will be updated.
Source: The Washington Post
-
That spectacularly fatuous "joke" has been around, in various incarnations, for at least two decades. Do at least try to be original.
So only original content is to be posted? Come on, Jeremy.
-
You missed the point, Phil. It's not just the lack of originality; it's the utter fatuity of this threat and the others like it.
-
That spectacularly fatuous "joke" has been around, in various incarnations, for at least two decades. Do at least try to be original.
Jeremy
And here I was thinking, there was an attempt by some unscrupulous company to sell more ND filters.
-
You missed the point, Phil. It's not just the lack of originality; it's the utter fatuity of this threat and the others like it.
To take a leaf out of Jeremy's playbook on Brexit, I wasn't commenting on the value of the original post, merely on the subsequent comment about it.
Your comment, whether or not I agree with it, is an opinion and perfectly valid and appropriate. Not so much Jeremy's in this case.
-
I previous posted that Trump is cozying up to Russia as a counter measure to an ever increasing threat to us by China. So it appears that Henry Kissinger had been making that appeal to Trump.
"Henry Kissinger Pushed Trump to Work With Russia to Box In China"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/henry-kissinger-pushed-trump-to-work-with-russia-to-box-in-china (https://www.thedailybeast.com/henry-kissinger-pushed-trump-to-work-with-russia-to-box-in-china)
-
So, it seems Melania likes CNN and doesn't like Fox...hum!
Donald Trump 'erupted with rage' when Melania's Air Force One TV was tuned to CNN, says leaked email (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-air-force-one-cnn-melania-leaked-emails-white-house-a8462526.html)
Outburst revealed after president launched attack against media at Veterans of Foreign Wars convention
On the first couple’s recent trip overseas, Melania Trump’s television aboard Air Force One was tuned to CNN. President Donald Trump was not pleased.
He raged at his staff for violating a rule that the White House entourage should begin each trip tuned to Fox – his preferred network over what he considers the “fake news” CNN – and caused “a bit of a stir” aboard Air Force One, according to an email obtained by The New York Times.
The email, an internal exchange between officials in the White House Military Office and the White House Communications Agency last Thursday, also called for the ordering of two additional televisions to support Beam, a TiVo-like streaming device, to make sure the president and first lady could both watch TV in their separate hotel rooms when they travel.
The man is living in his own reality distortion field surrounding himself with sycophants and it seems he really doesn't live in the same word you and I do.
“Stick with us. Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news,” Mr Trump said on Thursday at the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City, Missouri.
And then: “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”
Wait, what? Is George Orwell writing Trump's speeches?
Trump's latest speech compared to '1984': 'What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening' (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-speech-fake-news-1984-orwell-kansas-a8463471.html)
'Just stick with us, don’t believe the c**p you see from these people, the fake news...'
Donald Trump’s recent speech to supporters in Kansas has been compared to the totalitarian rhetoric similar to George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel, 1984.
The US president addressed supporters at a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City on 24 July, requesting them to not listen to what they read or saw in the news.
“Just stick with us, don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news,” Mr Trump said as the crowd erupted in boos. He later added: “Just remember, what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening…”
Progressive news site ThinkProgress made comparisons between Mr Trump’s speech in Kansas and a line from the late Mr Orwell’s novel that read: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Last years this happened...
George Orwell’s ‘1984’ Is Suddenly a Best-Seller (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/books/1984-george-orwell-donald-trump.html)
George Orwell’s classic book “1984,” about a dystopian future where critical thought is suppressed under a totalitarian regime, has seen a surge in sales this month, rising to the top of the Amazon best-seller list in the United States and leading its publisher to have tens of thousands of new copies printed.
Craig Burke, the publicity director at Penguin USA, said that the publisher had ordered 75,000 new copies of the book this week and that it was considering another reprint.
“We’ve seen a big bump in sales,” Mr. Burke said. He added that the rise “started over the weekend and hit hyperactive” on Tuesday and Wednesday morning. Since Friday, the book has reached a 9,500 percent increase in sales, he said.
He said demand began to lift on Sunday, shortly after the interview Kellyanne Conway, an adviser to Donald J. Trump, gave on “Meet the Press.”
In defending a false claim by the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, that Mr. Trump had attracted the “largest audience ever to witness an inauguration,” Ms. Conway used a turn of phrase that struck some observers as similar to the dystopian world of “1984.”
When asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” why Mr. Spicer had said something that was provably false, Ms. Conway replied airily, “Don’t be so dramatic.”
Mr. Spicer, she said, “gave alternative facts.”
In the novel, the term “newspeak” refers to language in which independent thought, or “unorthodox” political ideas, have been eliminated. “Doublethink” is defined as “reality control.”
Reality control....is it working on you?
-
We shouldn't forget the guy who got his hat on backwards...
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/zinke-hat-zoom.jpg)
Scandals Pile Up For Interior Chief Ryan Zinke (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b5496f2e4b0fd5c73c65990/amp?ncid=NEWSSTAND0001)
Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigned amid at least 18 federal investigations. Zinke has tallied up nearly a dozen.
For several months, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke managed to fly under the radar, as Democrats and environmental groups focused their attention on the steady drip of ethical lapses coming from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. With Pruitt now gone, Zinke appears to have taken the reins as the most scandal-plagued member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet.
Since being sworn in in March 2017, the former Montana congressman and Navy SEAL has proven himself a loyal soldier of Trump’s deregulatory agenda, working to scrap environmental safeguards and boost mining and fossil fuel production. But much like Pruitt, Zinke has been unable to steer clear of negative headlines. He has faced at least 11 formal investigations ― many of them ongoing ― and calls for several others. That’s more than the last four interior secretaries combined, according to an analysis by Colorado-based conservation group Center for Western Priorities.
Aaron Weiss, media director at CWP, told HuffPost that Pruitt was “the best thing Ryan Zinke had going for him.”
“Between his shady business deals and clear abuse of office, Secretary Zinke could soon find himself spending more time responding to investigators than doing his job,” Weiss said via email.
Check the URL for the full list of Zinke's Stinkies...
-
Tax receipts from corporations as a % of the total amount coming from all other sources has been shrinking over the years. T.R. Reid, the author of the book I referenced, had this Op-Ed in the WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-want-to-cut-the-corporate-tax-rate-how-about-we-eliminate-it/2017/11/15/758331fe-c956-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?utm_term=.09e505db07f8) late last year.
There is a nice report in today's New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news) regarding the dramatic drop in tax receipts from corporate taxes. They have reached a 75 year low as a percentage of the economy. Of course this also means that the national deficit is increasing and the "thought" that the tax cuts would pay for themselves (the Laffer Curve aka supply side economics) continues to just be another pipe dream. Salient quote from the article,
The Trump administration had said that the tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating increased revenue from faster economic growth, but the White House has acknowledged in recent weeks that the deficit is growing faster than it had expected. The Office of Management and Budget said this month that it had revised its forecasts from earlier this year to account for nearly $1 trillion of additional debt over the next decade — on average, almost $100 billion more a year in deficits.
I guess we really do need to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits to get the budget balanced!!!!! Seniors, beware.
-
Source: The Washington Post
Following on from Slobodan's post and the WP extract , commentary from an FT columnist (also on Twitter)
Some of the deal can easily be achieved as they are meaningless - the soybean and LNG parts, which the EU is already doing. If Trump continues to believe these are concessions he is v gullible indeed, and hats off to the Commission for fooling him. Let's no-one tell him, eh.
Some bits are clearly impossible & will have to be quietly forgotten to make deal work eg ending all non-tariff barriers & non-auto industrial subsidies. This wd mean wholesale dismantling of EU regulation. Zero subsidies also means no cash for Airbus or Boeing. Non-starter
The doable bit that is actually new would be cutting all non-auto industrial tariffs to nil. This had basically already been agreed in TTIP. It's not earth-shattering as they are already low, but it's substantive
However the deal also means the EU breaking own pledges and principles: 1. apparently starting talks despite steel/aluminium tariffs still in place. 2. ignoring its new rule of only agreeing FTAs with signatories to Paris Agreement on climate, (slightly more arguably) signing a deal excluding agriculture and cars contravenes the spirit if not the letter of the WTO rule requiring FTAs to cover "substantially all trade". All hypocritical, but maybe EU considers them necessary hypocrisies. It's good at those.
Overall it's a deal to avert a trade war, not significantly to advance liberalisation. Will it stick ?
Alan Beattie
@alanbeattie
-
Following on from Slobodan's post and the WP extract , commentary from an FT columnist (also on Twitter)
Alan Beattie
@alanbeattie
Trump won;t get everything he wants nor will the EU. That's what negotiations are all about. Good deals are win-win, not win-lose. In Europe I suppose politicians will say they got the better of it. In America, with all the Trump hating press we have, they'll agree and say Trump gave up. The fact will be that for America, less tariffs will help our country. It will be better than it was. We'll also have a stronger hand with the EU to tackle China's mercantile war with the world. That's something both the EU and America will benefit from as well.
-
Alan -
That commentary above was even-handed and very unbiased, why don't you try it sometime?
From another thread:
Robert: Real trade negotiations have started with the EU due to Trump's tariffs...
Reality check:
Not because of Trump's tariffs, rather a response to the very substantial risk of an unconscionable, uncontrolled all out trade war. That Trump started this ain't to his credit, but the net result is pretty much that two years on we're back to where the US (read: Obama) was with the TTIP.
-
Trump's Leaner White House Payroll Projected To Save Taxpayers $22 Million
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/07/02/trumps-leaner-white-house-payroll-projected-to-save-taxpayers-22-million/#248fa35757e6 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/07/02/trumps-leaner-white-house-payroll-projected-to-save-taxpayers-22-million/#248fa35757e6)
-
Alan -
That commentary above was even-handed and very unbiased, why don't you try it sometime?
From another thread:
Reality check:
Not because of Trump's tariffs, rather a response to the very substantial risk of an unconscionable, uncontrolled all out trade war. That Trump started this ain't to his credit, but the net result is pretty much that two years on we're back to where the US (read: Obama) was with the TTIP.
After the Iran deal, I would rather have Trump negotiate than Obama. I've seen Trump negotiate in business in NYC. He's very tough. Obama would give away the store.
-
Ahhh too bad. :-(
Trump's Hollywood Walk of Fame Star Destroyed Again (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/donald-trumps-hollywood-walk-fame-star-destroyed-again-1129705?__twitter_impression=true)
The suspect has been jailed on a $20,000 bail.
(https://isitfunnyoroffensive.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-25-at-9.21.27-AM-740x431.png)
On Wednesday morning, Donald Trump's star along the Hollywood Walk of Fame was once again destroyed.
The star was totally demolished, not just vandalized, which has also happened numerous times.
So, I have two questions; why the heck does Trump have a star on the Walk of Fame? The Apprentice? The movies cameos? Really?
And why are they going to repair it...the odds are it will happen again. Seems like a waste of money.
Why did I say “too bad”...too bad the guy got caught so quick....
-
Ahhh too bad. :-(
Trump's Hollywood Walk of Fame Star Destroyed Again (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/donald-trumps-hollywood-walk-fame-star-destroyed-again-1129705?__twitter_impression=true)
The suspect has been jailed on a $20,000 bail.
So, I have two questions; why the heck does Trump have a star on the Walk of Fame? The Apprentice? The movies cameos? Really?
And why are they going to repair it...the odds are it will happen again. Seems like a waste of money.
Why did I say “too bad”...too bad the guy got caught so quick....
The left is violent. Destruction of property is illegal. Approving and agreeing with it is wrong. All the accusations from them against the right's violence is just a projection of what they are doing. This is very dangerous for our country. It invites violent response. What goes around comes around.
-
Trump's Leaner White House Payroll Projected To Save Taxpayers $22 Million
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/07/02/trumps-leaner-white-house-payroll-projected-to-save-taxpayers-22-million/#248fa35757e6 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/07/02/trumps-leaner-white-house-payroll-projected-to-save-taxpayers-22-million/#248fa35757e6)
Great news! That means we're only bailing out Trump's farmer constituency to the tune of 11,978,000,000 instead of the full 12 billion!
And if you add the fact that he isn't taking salary in, well, that knocks it down near 11,977,000,000 over four years!
Are we Great Again yet?
-
Not because of Trump's tariffs, rather a response to the very substantial risk of an unconscionable, uncontrolled all out trade war. That Trump started this ain't to his credit, but the net result is pretty much that two years on we're back to where the US (read: Obama) was with the TTIP.
We're not quite back to where we started. The tariffs have created a political backlash that may have consequences for the Republican Party in the November congressional elections. That's what yesterday's White House announcement was really about.
China is shifting soybean purchases from the United States to Brazil in retaliation for Trump's first round of tariffs. The Trump Administration is under intense pressure from Republican members of Congress representing agricultural states to do something about that, and is preparing to hand out $12 billion in government agricultural subsidies to help the farm states cope with the short-term effects of what may be the long-term loss of a critical market. Meanwhile, in what appears to be an offer to help Trump save face, the Europeans have agreed in principle to buy more soybeans from the United States.
The Trump Administration is also under intense pressure from representatives of the U.S. automobile industry to lift the steel and aluminum tariffs, which have increased their supply-chain costs. These remain in place, but will be part of a general trade negotiation with the European Union which will include the continuation of the discussions that have been taking place for years about the possibility of eliminating the parties' respective tariffs on automobiles. Meanwhile, in what appears to be yet another offer to help Trump save face, the Europeans have agreed to consider buying liquid natural gas from the United States when terminals become available (years from now) if the price is competitive with imports delivered through Russian pipelines.
So my reading of yesterday's announcement is that (1) the Trump Administration is trying to placate important domestic political and commercial interests by agreeing to reconsider its new tariffs while it pumps money into states with nervous Republican congressional delegations and (2) the Europeans are providing Trump with a pretext to claim a symbolic "victory" in return for which they actually aren't offering anything substantial that they weren't prepared to offer before.
-
We're not quite back to where we started. The tariffs have created a political backlash that may have consequences for the Republican Party in the November congressional elections. That's what yesterday's White House announcement was really about.
China is shifting soybean purchases from the United States to Brazil in retaliation for Trump's first round of tariffs. The Trump Administration is under intense pressure from Republican members of Congress representing agricultural states to do something about that, and is preparing to hand out $12 billion in government agricultural subsidies to help the farm states cope with the short-term effects of what may be the long-term loss of a critical market. Meanwhile, in what appears to be an offer to help Trump save face, the Europeans have agreed in principle to buy more soybeans from the United States.
The Trump Administration is also under intense pressure from representatives of the U.S. automobile industry to lift the steel and aluminum tariffs, which have increased their supply-chain costs. These remain in place, but will be part of a general trade negotiation with the European Union which will include the continuation of the discussions that have been taking place for years about the possibility of eliminating the parties' respective tariffs on automobiles. Meanwhile, in what appears to be yet another offer to help Trump save face, the Europeans have agreed to consider buying liquid natural gas from the United States when terminals become available (years from now) if the price is competitive with imports delivered through Russian pipelines.
So my reading of yesterday's announcement is that (1) the Trump Administration is trying to placate important domestic political and commercial interests by agreeing to reconsider its new tariffs while it pumps money into states with nervous Republican congressional delegations and (2) the Europeans are providing Trump with a pretext to claim a symbolic "victory" in return for which they actually aren't offering anything substantial that they weren't prepared to offer before.
You may be right. But Trump is trying to do what every president and republican nominee for president argued for years, the unfair trade tariffs. If he corrects some of them, more power to him. Let's see what happens. At least we're talking. This reminds me of North Korea. No it's not settled, but things are being discussed. Better than war.
-
No it's not settled, but things are being discussed. Better than war.
Now you're beginning to sound like Obama ...
-
... in what appears to be an offer to help Trump save face, the Europeans have agreed...
Why would Europeans do that? Isn't he universally hated in Europe? If anything, if Europe indeed were in a superior position, that was their chance for a payback for all the mean things Trump said about them, their chance to knock him down, rather than save his face.
-
Isn't he universally hated in Europe? . . . that was their chance for a payback for all the mean things Trump said about them, their chance to knock him down, rather than save his face.
Because experienced international negotiators represent the interests of their constituencies, rather than their emotions. And, whatever else may be said about him, Jean-Claude Juncker is an experienced negotiator.
Also, I would argue with your premise that Trump is "universally hated" in Europe. He seems to have quite a few admirers among the nativist-populist factions in a number of European countries.
-
Trump's Leaner White House Payroll Projected To Save Taxpayers $22 Million
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/07/02/trumps-leaner-white-house-payroll-projected-to-save-taxpayers-22-million/#248fa35757e6 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2017/07/02/trumps-leaner-white-house-payroll-projected-to-save-taxpayers-22-million/#248fa35757e6)
$12B - $22M = still a bad deal for the budget if that is the true figure for the farm bailout. Of course increase travel to Mar A Lago during the winter months might eat into that $22M as well.
-
Because experienced international negotiators represent the interests of their constituencies, rather than their emotions...
Right, but "saving face" is about emotions.
My point being that "saving face" couldn't have been the reason. In other words, they caved in because of Trump's threats of trade war and because it is in their interest to do so, not to save Trump's face.
-
The left is violent.
Unlike racists at Charlottesville I suppose you mean, "Alan"?
-
Unlike racists at Charlottesville I suppose you mean, "Alan"?
Whatever happened there was started by the left's attack.
-
Right, but "saving face" is about emotions.
My point being that "saving face" couldn't have been the reason. In other words, they caved in because of Trump's threats of trade war and because it is in their interest to do so, not to save Trump's face.
Nothing has actually been agreed at this point so it remains to be seen who has "caved in". So far it's just the usual hot air from Trump.
-
Whatever happened there was started by the left's attack.
ROFL
-
The left is violent. Destruction of property is illegal....
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/betsy-devos-40-million-yacht-set-adrift-by-vandals-at-ohio-dock_us_5b59cf4fe4b0fd5c73cc92ea
Betsy DeVos’ $40 Million Yacht Set Adrift By Vandals At Ohio Dock
-
ROFL
+1
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/betsy-devos-40-million-yacht-set-adrift-by-vandals-at-ohio-dock_us_5b59cf4fe4b0fd5c73cc92ea (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/betsy-devos-40-million-yacht-set-adrift-by-vandals-at-ohio-dock_us_5b59cf4fe4b0fd5c73cc92ea)
Nothing new. The left has always been violent. I remember the Black Liberation Army and the Weathermen going back into the 1960's through the 1980's. It was actually worse then as they used bombs and killed cops regularly. William Ayers a member of the Weathermen helped Obama get his start after he was released from a criminal trial on a technicality..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Weatherman_actions)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army)
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/putting-on-ayers/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/putting-on-ayers/)
-
Nothing new. The left has always been violent.
As has Ku Klux Klan, big businesses that suppressed workers when they tried to strike for higher wages, large numbers of anarchists who had no political philosophy but shot and bombed innocent people. Let's not even discuss the number of Americans killed in mass gun shootings.
What's the point of singling any one group out?
-
As has Ku Klux Klan, big businesses that suppressed workers when they tried to strike for higher wages, large numbers of anarchists who had no political philosophy but shot and bombed innocent people. Let's not even discuss the number of Americans killed in mass gun shootings.
What's the point of singling any one group out?
They're no good either. However, the KKK were years ago as were the Weathermen et al. The problem is today political violence is mainly on the left.
-
More fake news from the press and lying Rachel Maddow.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rachel-maddow-blows-it-with-another-bogus-trump-scoop
-
More fake news from the press and lying Rachel Maddow.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rachel-maddow-blows-it-with-another-bogus-trump-scoop
Oh goodie...they are proud of the fact the White was just incompetent instead of being devious? And it took the how many days to correct the official WH transcript? (hint, almost a week). Hey, here's an idea, maybe the Whitehouse should have enough staff to get the god done right in the first place? Just a thought :~)
Oh, maybe the reason the White House staff is so, undermanned is because they can't find people willing to work there?
Trump White House recruits at a Hill job fair amid staff exodus (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/13/white-house-hill-job-fair-645592)
'Interested in a job at the White House?' reads the flyer for an event aimed at conservatives.
The White House – which has been having trouble filling positions as it bleeds staffers – is now trying to find recruits at a conservative job fair on the Hill.
“Interested in a job at the White House?” is the subject line of an email that was blasted out widely to Republicans on the Hill late Wednesday advertising the upcoming event.
So, trying to brag about having less staff because they can't hire enough people is a virtue?
That's typical TrumpSpeak™
-
Oh, maybe the reason the White House staff is so, undermanned is because they can't find people willing to work there?
Trump White House recruits at a Hill job fair amid staff exodus (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/13/white-house-hill-job-fair-645592)
'Interested in a job at the White House?' reads the flyer for an event aimed at conservatives.
Smart rats tend to avoid climbing aboard a sinking ship.
-
Oh goodie...they are proud of the fact the White was just incompetent instead of being devious? And it took the how many days to correct the official WH transcript? (hint, almost a week). Hey, here's an idea, maybe the Whitehouse should have enough staff to get the god done right in the first place? Just a thought :~)
Oh, maybe the reason the White House staff is so, undermanned is because they can't find people willing to work there?
Trump White House recruits at a Hill job fair amid staff exodus (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/13/white-house-hill-job-fair-645592)
'Interested in a job at the White House?' reads the flyer for an event aimed at conservatives.
So, trying to brag about having less staff because they can't hire enough people is a virtue?
That's typical TrumpSpeak™
Why can't you acknowledge Rachel Maddow again lied about Trump and got caught? MSNBC- more fake news.
-
Why can't you acknowledge Rachel Maddow again lied about Trump and got caught? MSNBC- more fake news.
Why can't you acknowledge that Trump has constantly lied?
-
Why can't you acknowledge that Trump has constantly lied?
He has lied a lot. So has the press. Most independents don't believe anything any longer from anyone. They've turned off. Only the faithful on both sides are the true believers. The rest are out shooting photos.
-
Why can't you acknowledge Rachel Maddow again lied about Trump and got caught? MSNBC- more fake news.
She didn’t lie...she accurately reported the facts as known and drew a faulty conclusion...that is not lying (look up the definition)
Trump says things he knows are not true....that’s lying.
-
... Trump says things he knows are not true....
You are now a mind reader?
-
You are now a mind reader?
Nope, I can clearly see his lips moving so I know the odds (about 5-6 times a day based on his daily lie tally) that he’s lying...heck he often lies when the facts are clear even to him...he also lies about lying when caught in a lie! It’s clear to everybody not hooked on his Koolaid-like the rest of his the world. Surely you don’t doubt that :-)
-
When do you know a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
-
However, the KKK were years ago
More trolling from "Alan"
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-kkk-today/4/
-
More trolling from "Alan"
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-kkk-today/4/
The KKK use to ride horses at night galloping through black communities burning their houses and hanging their residents. They were disgusting and murderous scum and a black mark on America. Today, the KKK is a fraternal club that plays checkers Saturday night. They run around in pressed sheets trying to make believe their tough. It's night and day. I'm not defending them. They're still horrendous but mainly just screwy. But you have to keep the situation in perspective.
-
When do you know a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Over 3,200 times since his inauguration? Clearly Trump is hellbent on setting a new record.
WaPo has a running list of all the false or misleading claims last updated May 31st, 2018 (they're gonna have a lot of catching up to do for June and July since the lies are coming faster and more blatant)
In 497 days, President Trump has made 3,251 false or misleading claims (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.2fc26ae1d65b)
The Fact Checker’s ongoing database of the false or misleading claims made by President Trump since assuming office.
(note, this is an interactive chart and list of the various, uh, falsehood (lies)) It's searchable by topic and date and there's a graph of when high frequency falsehood days (lies) occurred.
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/graph.png)
Cool huh?
Now, it's not just an American sport...it seems the Brits got into the swing...
All the times Donald Trump has lied since arriving in the UK (https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-lies-brexit-uk-visit/)
Remember that painful press conference with May after the Sun article, rich!
Donald Trump only arrived in the UK on Thursday, but has already been caught lying several times in his first 24 hours in the country. The US President arrived in London to protests, and large demonstrations are being carried out country-wide on Friday. He has already dealt a huge blow to Theresa May and the Tory government by claiming her soft Brexit plan will “kill” a US-UK trade deal – before backtracking in Friday’s press conference.
In a six-page interview with The Sun he also claimed Boris Johnson would make a good prime minister and said Britain is “losing its culture” to immigration. But alongside his characteristically outspoken opinion, President Trump has also blurted out a number of definite falsehoods.
Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-lies-brexit-uk-visit/
If you think the Lyin' Mainstream Media is unworthy, how about a neutral observer www.politifact.com (https://www.politifact.com)
Well, they have a running total of all the Politifact checked uh, "false statements" (aka lies) by Trump...
All False statements involving Donald Trump (https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/?page=1)
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.politifact.com/rulings/tom-false.png)
Warning, the link goes to page 1 of 10 pages of, uh, "False Statements" involving Donald Trump.
And the lies keep piling up.
So, yeah, all politicians "lie" in that they try to tell people what they want to hear but that's not Trump, he just makes things up off the top of his head like a comedian telling jokes.
Trump is a classic pathological liar...he lies even when the truth is actually more effective.
This is an interesting look at pathological liars...
11 Fascinating Scientific Facts About Pathological Liars (https://www.bustle.com/p/11-fascinating-scientific-facts-about-pathological-liars-8259837)
While we all tell little white lies occasionally, there's a big difference between someone who fibs every now and again, and someone who is a pathological liar. "A pathological liar is somebody who lies without effort, someone for whom telling a lie comes more naturally than telling the truth," psychologist Dr. Michele Barton, director of Psychology Life Well, tells Bustle. It can become a part of the liar's everyday life, to the point where their whole existence is a fabrication.
As you might have guessed, this level of lying is usually a symptom of a greater problem. While pathological lying can be its own disorder — known as pseudologia fantastica — it can also be a symptom of psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorder, anxiety, depression, and obsessive compulsive disorder, among other things.
Ding, ding, ding...
1 Pathological Lying Is Often Connected To A Personality Disorder
Ding....
2 It Might Have Roots In OCD, Too
Ding...
3 Pathological Liars Have Different Hormone Levels Than Most People
I don't want to think about Trump's hormones....EEEEEK
4 They Often Lie About Medical Issues
Hum...a life treating issue?
5 Many Pathological Liars Actually Believe Their Own Lies
Ding, ding...Trump clearly believes that the lies he spout are true (even though deep down he knows, but doesn't care)
6 Children Who Lie Sometimes Have Anxiety Or Depression
Poor little Donny (according to some in the White House he's like a terrible toddler)
7 It's Difficult To Treat Adult Liars
At age, what, 70? I think there's no hope...
8 Pathological Liars Lie To Relieve Anxiety
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdOr0JOgGmElmnInA5zWdsAcVxdptkHFIOYaLrpiFTq2kGPvbR)
9 But Lying Also Causes Anxiety
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmdpdJoMqLrE059em89PqFgAsOcO_bymkYpswWp-VzaqR4LX3wyA)
10 Lying Can Be Addictive
Ding...
11 If You Just Met A Pathological Liar, They've Already Lied To You
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFPjSUcS5ITUhpGh8Ase_C4yWJMgckQDqxvz396V4dy1cdUb8H)
-
Have you really nothing better to do with your time, Jeff? Give it a rest. Your obsession becomes irritating.
-
Today, the KKK is a fraternal club that plays checkers Saturday night. They run around in pressed sheets trying to make believe their tough. It's night and day. I'm not defending them. They're still horrendous but mainly just screwy. But you have to keep the situation in perspective.
Tell that to Heather Heyer, victim of Charlottesville car attack...they don't wear the hoods and sheets, they wear Khakis and carry tiki torches.
Edited to correct the spelling of tiki
-
Have you really nothing better to do with your time, Jeff? Give it a rest. Your obsession becomes irritating.
I find it cathartic...don't you have anything better to do than read it?
-
Have you really nothing better to do with your time, Jeff? Give it a rest. Your obsession becomes irritating.
And you're being forced to read this thread how, exactly? People complaining about things entirely within their control is irritating.
-
She didn’t lie...she accurately reported the facts as known and drew a faulty conclusion...that is not lying (look up the definition)
Trump says things he knows are not true....that’s lying.
+1
Cheers,
Bart
-
She didn’t lie...she accurately reported the facts as known and drew a faulty conclusion...that is not lying (look up the definition)
Trump says things he knows are not true....that’s lying.
Well Trump gets some of his stuff from Fox. So if they're wrong, he's not lying either. If it's good for Rachel Maddow, it should be good for him too.
In any case, his supporters, the people who voted for him, only care that he's not lying to them. He's keeping his word and fulfilling his promises. Meanwhile you guys are running around counting fibs and making charts to prove you hate him. He has to defend himself not only against the opposition party but also against his own party establishment who feel he threatens them and 95% of the media. Frankly, I don't know where he gets the energy and strength. And he still has time paying off hookers. Amazing. :)
-
Second-quarter US GDP jumps 4.1% for best pace in nearly four years
Good news for America's economy and Trump. It will strengthened his hand in trade negotiations. Doubles the GDP rate over the last quarter. Supports the view that his tax legislation was right and it's working. No lie here Schewe.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/us-gdp-q2-2018.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/us-gdp-q2-2018.html)
-
Remains of fallen US soldiers transferred out of North Korea
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/remains-fallen-us-soldiers-transferred-north-korea-024704315--abc-news-topstories.html (https://www.yahoo.com/gma/remains-fallen-us-soldiers-transferred-north-korea-024704315--abc-news-topstories.html)
North Korea confirms new military chief of staff Eliminated old war drum banging former chief as Kim pushes economic advancement.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-military-leadership/north-korea-confirms-new-military-chief-of-staff-idUSKBN1KH06N (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-military-leadership/north-korea-confirms-new-military-chief-of-staff-idUSKBN1KH06N)
More progress with North Korea. Trump thanks Kim. Negotiations continue. War on hold. Another Trump win and a win for America and the world.
-
Second-quarter US GDP jumps 4.1% for best pace in nearly four years
Good news for America's economy and Trump. It will strengthened his hand in trade negotiations. Doubles the GDP rate over the last quarter. Supports the view that his tax legislation was right and it's working. No lie here Schewe.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/us-gdp-q2-2018.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/27/us-gdp-q2-2018.html)
No lies there yes, but it's a very different story here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/01/president-trump-has-made-3001-false-or-misleading-claims-so-far/?utm_term=.a7fea6236140
In the 466 days since he took the oath of office, President Trump has made 3,001 false or misleading claims, according to The Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president.
That’s an average of nearly 6.5 claims a day.
Even if you incorrectly suggest 80% are fake news (and no, they are not), that's still a big liar attempting to run the US!
Yes, Trump deserves some credit for the economy while standing on the shoulders of (you'll shutter to believe the facts as usual) Obama who was handed one big mess of a US economy.
-
...
Yes, Trump deserves some credit for the economy while standing on the shoulders of (you'll shutter to believe the facts as usual) Obama who was handed one big mess of a US economy.
I'm not taking anything away from Obama. But when he started, the economy was in the toilet. It had only one way to go - up. Trump did start with a good economy. But he's taking it to the next level and at a quick pace. His tax legislation helped as corporate and individual taxes were lowered (not mine because I live in a high property tax state. So I'm not happy about that.) . His cheerleading also helped as did his attacks on cowards like Harley. The strong GDP will help strengthen his hand in trade negotiations regarding tariffs. This will also help photographers as well regarding intellectual property rights overseas especially in China. While there will be short term pain, long term trade for America will increase. A stronger GDP also encourages foreigners to invest in America creating even more jobs. We'll have to legalize all those illegals as we'll need more workers. Then they'll be able to vote. Even Democrats can support that. :)
-
I'm not taking anything away from Obama. But when he started, the economy was in the toilet. It had only one way to go - up.
That's a factual observation you can prove or simply another opinion san's facts?
-
That's a factual observation you can prove or simply another opinion san's facts?
In 2008 while Bush was still in Office, the Fed and Treasury took major efforts to begin stabilizing the economy. This was continued by Congress and Obama in the first weeks of his presidency in February, 2009. The recession officially ended in June 2009 although we're still feeling it's effects. Frankly, we should have let the recession play out. Recessions correct the bad practices of economies. It's like taking an enema. When we're done, we feel better and are better. Instead, by printing money and lowering interest rates to almost 0%, all we've done is kick the can down the road. We've doubled our debt and now we have a deficit that is approaching $1 trillion again. We're going broke and will pay the penalty in the next recession - only worse. Trump and the Republicans are no better than the Democrats. Of course, Trump is the king of debt. What he's doing now is forcing us to print more something he couldn't do as a businessman.
Here's a wiki report on the financial crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008#Emergency_and_short-term_responses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008#Emergency_and_short-term_responses)
-
In 2008 while Bush was still in Office, the Fed and Treasury took major efforts to begin stabilizing the economy. This was continued by Congress and Obama in the first weeks of his presidency in February, 2009. The recession officially ended in June 2009 although we're still feeling it's effects. Frankly, we should have let the recession play out. Recessions correct the bad practices of economies. It's like taking an enema. When we're done, we feel better and are better. Instead, by printing money and lowering interest rates to almost 0%, all we've done is kick the can down the road. We've doubled our debt and now we have a deficit that is approaching $1 trillion again. We're going broke and will pay the penalty in the next recession - only worse. Trump and the Republicans are no better than the Democrats. Of course, Trump is the king of debt. What he's doing now is forcing us to print more something he couldn't do as a businessman.
Here's a wiki report on the financial crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008#Emergency_and_short-term_responses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008#Emergency_and_short-term_responses)
Can you or can't you answer the question, assuming you wish some of your readers to begin to accept your statement(s) outside of face value?
It had only one way to go - up.
Maybe a good (silly) trade war or similar would have produced another direction you state can ONLY go up, but thankfully, Obama didn't go that route and what did happen to the economy under his leadership is history (and to some, fake news of course).
You'll have us believe that while Bush was in office, he and the fed took steps to stabilize the economy, indicating prior to 2008, that wasn't their goals?
Your degree in economics is from where?
Your link indicates when the recession started and under who's leadership: The US recession that began in December 2007
-
Can you or can't you answer the question, assuming you wish some of your readers to begin to accept your statement(s) outside of face value? Maybe a good (silly) trade war or similar would have produced another direction you state can ONLY go up, but thankfully, Obama didn't go that route and what did happen to the economy under his leadership is history (and to some, fake news of course).
You'll have us believe that while Bush was in office, he and the fed took steps to stabilize the economy, indicating prior to 2008, that wasn't their goals?
Your degree in economics is from where?
Your link indicates when the recession started and under who's leadership: The US recession that began in December 2007
The economy is booming under Trump. Believe what you want.
-
The economy is booming under Trump. Believe what you want.
I believe the economy is booming under Trump and Obama thanks largely and over far greater time to Obama. You stated that under Obama, the economy can ONLY go up which you can't prove. With such logic if I can be so kind, it doesn't matter who's running the show here (expect historically this century, Bush) and Trump doesn't deserve any more credit than Obama simply because again, you post assumptions without proof such as: It had only one way to go - up.
It's this so called logic if I can be so kind,which encourages other's here to call you out to back up your opinions with facts. Something you still haven't provided.....
Why not simply post your opinion without the need of any facts:
Trump=wonderful.
Obama=bad. Even if he can't make the economy do anything but go up.
It's simplistic, it is an opinion utterly void of fact, it can't be augured as such and you'd save yourself and other's so much time not posting about photography here. ;D
-
I believe the economy is booming under Trump and Obama thanks largely and over far greater time to Obama. You stated that under Obama, the economy can ONLY go up which you can't prove. With such logic if I can be so kind, it doesn't matter who's running the show here (expect historically this century, Bush) and Trump doesn't deserve any more credit than Obama simply because again, you post assumptions without proof such as: It had only one way to go - up.
It's this so called logic if I can be so kind,which encourages other's here to call you out to back up your opinions with facts. Something you still haven't provided.....
Why not simply post your opinion without the need of any facts:
Trump=wonderful.
Obama=bad. Even if he can't make the economy do anything but go up.
It's simplistic, it is an opinion utterly void of fact, it can't be augured as such and you'd save yourself and other's so much time not posting about photography here. ;D
Thanks for your viewpoints.
-
Thanks for your viewpoints.
Trying to help you out as much as possible.
Still working on those facts?
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please" --Mark Twain
-
...Trump=wonderful.
Obama=bad...
-
We atheists* find your sign to be as silly as your lack of evidence based facts! 8)
* https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/way-more-americans-may-be-atheists-than-we-thought/
-
Thanks for your viewpoints.
And for your further education historically on GDP:
http://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/what-is-the-gdp-and-what-does-its-4-1-percent-growth-mean-1286974531697
-
What is easier:
- first 100 pushups
- or subsequent 100 pushups?
-
What is easier:
- first 100 pushups
- or subsequent 100 pushups?
Ah. The old fall back: rhetorical questions.
-
Ah. The old fall back: rhetorical questions.
I'll translate the metaphor for you:
What is easier:
- to grow the economy from the bottom it reached and can only go up from there
- or to continue to grow the economy that is already high?
-
I'll translate the metaphor for you:
What is easier:
- to grow the economy from the bottom it reached and can only go up from there
- or to continue to grow the economy that is already high?
False dichotomy. There is no "bottom" for the economy to reach.
-
False dichotomy. There is no "bottom" for the economy to reach.
If you are Venezuela, perhaps.
-
Donald Trump. Jr says Obama never broke 2 percent GDP growth. He did. 15 times.
-
I'll translate the metaphor for you:
What is easier:
- to grow the economy from the bottom it reached and can only go up from there
- or to continue to grow the economy that is already high?
Ah. The old fall back: rhetorical answers.
-
And for your further education historically on GDP:
http://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/what-is-the-gdp-and-what-does-its-4-1-percent-growth-mean-1286974531697 (http://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/what-is-the-gdp-and-what-does-its-4-1-percent-growth-mean-1286974531697)
Let's hope Trump can get those GDP growth figures on an annualized basis. That would be great. Wouldn't it?
-
Let's hope Trump can get those GDP growth figures on an annualized basis. That would be great. Wouldn't it?
And pigs flying. Hope, pray; good luck.
Had you viewed the video with attention (now that would be great) you would see how that desire is iffy at best!
-
Donald Trump. Jr says Obama never broke 2 percent GDP growth. He did. 15 times.
I do not know what Jr. said, but let's look at the graph. In fairness to Obama, if you exclude the 2008-2009 period, on the basis that he inherited a recession, his GDP growth rates tend to average 2% per year. He had higher than that, but also lower. Then look at the 2015-2016 period, the growth was slowing and reached under 2%. The green circle is Trump.
Worth noting is the prediction before the election that, if Trump is elected, the universe is going to implode, stock market will tank, and a huge recession would ensue.
-
And pigs flying. Hope, pray; good luck.
Had you viewed the video with attention (now that would be great) you would see how that desire is iffy at best!
I wouldn't waste my time watching a discussion led by Velshi on MSNBC. All three people discussing the GDP hate Trump and the two guests worked for Obama:- VP Biden a man who's never held a job in the business world and Jared Bernstein a left-wing economist. I wouldn't trust them with my piggy bank.
-
I wouldn't waste my time watching a discussion led by Velshi on MSNBC. All three people discussing the GDP hate Trump and the two guests worked for Obama:-
Wrong. Again! I knew you didn’t view it before you proved you didn’t.
As for one of the three people: Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers! (https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/)
-
Wrong. Again! I knew you didn’t view it before you proved you didn’t.
You're right. I'm guilty. I didn't watch liberals lying. Caught again.
-
I do not know what Jr. said, but let's look at the graph.
I told you what he said, it's wrong. Look it up bud!
-
You're right. I'm guilty. I didn't watch liberals lying. Caught again.
Kevin Hassett isn't a liberal, he works for the guy in DC you voted for. You're guilty of practicing ignorance however. :P
Yes indeed, caught again, hence why some here don't take your writing seriously. You keep getting caught:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfdajZfYRc
-
All three people discussing the GDP hate Trump and the two guests worked for Obama:- VP Biden a man who's never held a job in the business world and Jared Bernstein a left-wing economist. I wouldn't trust them with my piggy bank.
How do you know they are not wealthier than you? They just might be very astute investors.
-
Wrong. Again! I knew you didn’t view it before you proved you didn’t.
As for one of the three people: Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers! (https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/)
Kevin Hassett was also the co-author of a fantasy book, "Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market" published in 1999. I'm still waiting Mr. Hassett.
-
Kevin Hassett was also the co-author of a fantasy book, "Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market" published in 1999. I'm still waiting Mr. Hassett.
Yet Alan states, incorrectly that Hassett “hates Trump” and worked for Obama. An excuse for not viewing the 15 minute interview in which Alan would likely learn something about GDP from the Trump administration “source”. Sad; how did he learn anything and if he is so dismissive of data provided, why does he spend so much time getting “busted” (caught again, his admission) in this forum and less constructive time learning the topic from “his guys finance director”, let alone making images?
-
How do you know they are not wealthier than you? They just might be very astute investors.
Knowing or not knowing isn’t a justification for some here to post. :'(
-
Kevin Hassett isn't a liberal, he works for the guy in DC you voted for. You're guilty of practicing ignorance however. :P
Yes indeed, caught again, hence why some here don't take your writing seriously. You keep getting caught:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OkfdajZfYRc
They listed Jared Bernstein not Hassett.
-
They listed Jared Bernstein not Hassett.
Wrong again (busted) and zero excuse for digging your head into the sand and ignoring a useful video while getting the part about the people who hate trump also wrong. You're on a roll. Tip: when deep in a hole of your own digging, STOP digging. It makes you look rather foolish IMHO and here's more proof of that foolishness as now it's clear not only didn't you view the video, you didn't even read the description of the video. Enough arrows below to point your attention to the FACTS? Again sad but not inconsistent in the bubble of unreality and Conformation bias you post by:
-
They listed Jared Bernstein not Hassett.
Wrong and you had zero concept who Hassett was up till an hour or two ago. Now that you know who he is, maybe you'll pull yourself away from your keyboard for a mere 15 minutes and either watch what Hassett said or attempt an image capture; either will benefit you, one more than the other.... ???
-
I don't have 15 minutes why don't you give me a summary of the salient points.
-
I don't have 15 minutes why don't you give me a summary of the salient points.
Of course you don't. It would take too much time examining the data from others that might, might affect that confirmation bias/bubble you post from.
Meanwhile, nice of you to ignore that you were so wrong about who Hassett is and of course, the ridiculous, fake news, made up post you last made that his name wasn't indicted on the site I referenced. As we've seen, busted again or do you need more red arrows to adjust your attention. It appears that reality continues to ruin your life. But must you share that misery on others here in the process?
Me give you a summary? Please; I watched the video and then posted about it. Do I have to cut up your food before you chew it too?
-
What is easier:
- first 100 pushups
- or subsequent 100 pushups?
I don't know if you've ever done a lot of physical rehabilitation, but I had to learn to walk properly again after snapping my left leg in half and spending 4 months on crutches. The first step was hard. Expanding it to an actual walk was the hardest part. Once I had basic movement and some degree of strength and stamina in the leg it became easier and easier. That's a far better analogy for the economic situations being compared.
When an economy is tanked your monetary and fiscal policy stools are stretched (c.f. Japan's "lost decade" - which is now more than 2 decades long - where growth has been extremely slow and difficult to achieve). It's harder to keep afloat the boat full of holes than it is to row it later once the holes are patched.
Trump's economic stewardship is still in its infancy. Expenditure on infrastructure (note: walls don't count) was a genuinely tremendous idea and something from which the US could really benefit, but we haven't seen it materialise in the way that Trump promised. His other approaches are naïve at best. Some short term gain will result but with an overburdened debt the US government needs to maintain revenue whilst reducing costs (which obviously makes infrastructure investment difficult but mostly in the short term with significant long term benefits).
Trump is reducing government revenue in the medium to long term (assuming he maintains his current policies and remains in power) without cutting costs. Indeed, he's pissing away money on this like his military parade. Sure, in the overall scheme of the economy it's not a lot of money and it comes out of already approved budgets, but it means other things that would have normally been covered will no longer be able to be funded, just so he can play with his soldier toys. His running costs are higher because he and his family don't spend most of their time at the WH and he constantly goes to his own resorts which cost more than using facilities like Camp David, for example. Again, in the overall scheme of things not huge amounts, but it adds up and it tells a story of someone who really has no concept of having to worry about money. He lacks a holistic view of the economy and instead just deals with little pockets of it. He thinks he's done a great thing with the tariffs and then he has to bail out farmers and consumers have to pay the price for both.
Now let's look more at that 4.1% (which is a snapshot figure - so don't go comparing that to the average YoY figures). What would cause that? Trump? Sure, definitely some impact there. The current trade war has already fired some shots and that has had the effect of some global importers grabbing US made goods before retaliatory tariffs are put in place - so that's a short term impact. In fact, net exports contributed 1% of that 4.1% quarterly growth - that's huge, an unsustainable (particualrly given that there hasn't been a massive resurgence in US manufacturing and because the USD hasn't dropped against other major currencies to make US exports more competitive - and that last fact is Trump policy to have a strong dollar and he's set the perfect storm for maitaining that, BTW). Soybeans, for example and mentioned in this thread already, are cheap in the US at the moment and so are being bought, but that's not a long term trend.
Talking about manufacturing, you have GM warning that profits will be thinner due to increases in commodity costs due to the tariffs on steel and aluminium (OK, they reported it was due to aluminum because they're US based...). Harley-Davidson expects to take a hit of $100m.
Government spending, also, contributed to that increase. Unfortunately, it's not infrastructure spending so there's less potential for a good ROI there and at a time when the US is struggling with runaway debt, adding more to it and reducing revenue isn't helpful in the medium to long term.
Furthermore, those tax cuts haven't actually resulted in investment. Equipment investment was slow, so there's no signs yet of any manufacturing revival which is what's required from tax cuts if you want a long term benefit in that area. Just posting it to the bottom line and paying shareholders (or executives) doesn't help in the long term.
Redidential investment fell by 1.1% so even putting that tax cut cash in the minds of home owners or investors that they'll have more cash hasn't improved their optimism. Housing is one of the powerhouse elements of the US economy. So that's not good news.
Then you've got interest rates. They're on the rise. Trump thinks that's bad becuase he doesn't understand that the rates are at emergency levels and that a rise actually indicates a return to a more sustainable economic position. Except, rises aren't likely to be sustained because the economy doesn't have long term recovery elements in place. The yield curve is flattening out (which can be a sign of a recession, but not necessarily). Basically, the market isn't banking on higher borrowings which would be supported by economic growth - because the market can't see a sustained economic growth (and, yes, that can and usually is a self-fulfilling prophecy - but the GOP loves the market, right?).
Other concerns are that economies move in cycles and the current recovering from the GFC has been quite long so there is a real possibility of underlying cyclical factors pushing against sustained growth. That's not a foregone conclusion. Australia hasn't had a recession since June 1991 - but you can't really look to the exceptions as a guide regarding typical perfomance.
And in real terms, how has this flowed through to the workers that Trump promised would benefit? Well, real wage growth has been slipping since Trump took over. It actualkly went negative (just slightly) last month which is certainly a "peak and trough" bump because it's only a monthly figure, but the overall trend has been down and the levels were not high to begin with. So, yeah, tax cuts have not flowed through to workers. And bear in mind that most companies sorted out their books and returned to very good profitability years ago, having recovered from the GFC, so it's not as though they're trying to recover their financial positions. They're just not passing on the cuts to workers.
So, yeah, there's a lot of work to be done but there are more tools available now than when the economy was weaker when Obama took over. It should be easier now, not harder.
-
... Me give you a summary? Please...
A friendly reminder about forum etiquette when posting external links:
-
I don't have 15 minutes why don't you give me a summary of the salient points.
You're retired and spent hours a day on this message board.
-
A friendly reminder about forum etiquette when posting external links:
Andrew is responding to Alan's claims about what was said by providing an actual link to what was said. Andrew has already effectively summarised it over numerous posts and indicated why it's relevant (it directly refutes Alan''s claims as to what was said). Alan now declines going into the data in depth to verify. Andrew has no further obligation. The rules (which, honestly, are a bit silly - if people aren't interested in reading the data that's up to them) don't require an essay - just a summary. The summary is, "the link proves that your claims are wrong because it shows what was actually said by the person in question", which also shows its relevance.
-
A friendly reminder about forum etiquette when posting external links:
And I provided text! You want to view the video and attempt to explain it to Alan who at least today now knows who Mr. Hassett is and that he doesn't hate Trump?
-
You're retired and spent hours a day on this message board.
Some are retired from examining facts, learning new concepts or getting outside their self inflected bubbles. At least one retiree now knows who Mr. Hassett is and who he works for. As for his ideas about GDP, well that retiree will have to attempt to focus 15 minutes of his very valuable time on the video that largely allows Mr. Hassett to explain what his boss is trying to do with Mr. Hassett's assistance (if I can be so kind). That 'liberal' economist doesn't come on until the last couple of minutes, allowing a retiree to stop the video and ignore the other side of a discussion, reinforcing the bubble.
Just because a video is on MSNBC, only retirees in bubbles will admit to ignoring it due to the station itself, rather than the people they interview. IOW, it's not FOX fake news. ;D
-
Phil,
You certainly know that it is easier to achieve a higher percentage growth from a low base than from a high base, no need to demonstrate that to you at least (it might be necessary for some who got their PhD in googling and youtubing quite recently).
I am glad that the most recent growth is 4.1%, not matter who takes the credit. That it is better than a lower figure is obvious. How sustainable it is, we will see. As you said, economies move in cycles.
You and I know that assigning credit or blame for economic numbers to sitting presidents is a tricky game. Was the mortgage crisis a Bush' fault or Clinton's (for his housing initiative)? Or was it a confluence of events, stemming from different presidential terms and forming a perfect storm under the then-sitting president? There are many arguments pro and con and the jury is still out. It is without doubt that Obama inherited a lousy economy. It is also clear that the economy took longer than usual to recover. Was it Obama's fault? Up to a point. Was the latest 4.1% growth to Trump's credit. Up to a point. But neither Trump nor anyone else should get obsessed with quarterly numbers. Because when the downturn comes, and it inevitably will, those who took the credit for the growth won't be able to escape the blame either.
-
Hypocrisy hit parade once again:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/betsy-devos-40-million-yacht-set-adrift-by-vandals-at-ohio-dock_us_5b59cf4fe4b0fd5c73cc92ea (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/betsy-devos-40-million-yacht-set-adrift-by-vandals-at-ohio-dock_us_5b59cf4fe4b0fd5c73cc92ea)
Found here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125934.msg1058117#msg1058117
A friendly reminder about forum etiquette when posting external links:
-
Hypocrisy hit parade once again...
What are you talking about? I did provide the summary, relevant for the quoted text:
-
What are you talking about? I did provide the summary, relevant for the quoted text:
What are you talking about? I did provide a summery, relevant for the quoted text:
-
Andrew is responding to Alan's claims about what was said by providing an actual link to what was said. Andrew has already effectively summarised it over numerous posts and indicated why it's relevant (it directly refutes Alan''s claims as to what was said). Alan now declines going into the data in depth to verify. Andrew has no further obligation. The rules (which, honestly, are a bit silly - if people aren't interested in reading the data that's up to them) don't require an essay - just a summary. The summary is, "the link proves that your claims are wrong because it shows what was actually said by the person in question", which also shows its relevance.
Phil, that does not make sense at all. It started with Andrew posting a link without a word of explanation. No subsequent post provides any summary or what the point is. If I missed that, please help me find it. Not too many people would sacrifice 15 minutes of their life, retired or not, to watch something recommended by people with Andrew's "expertise."
This is the post. Where is the summary or the main point?
-
But neither Trump nor anyone else should get obsessed with quarterly numbers. Because when the downturn comes, and it inevitably will, those who took the credit for the growth won't be able to escape the blame either.
Exactly right, and yet he and his followers (largely) are absolutely obsessed with it.
Also, your comment about higher percentages from lower bases is true, but it misses the point that the base wasn't particularly low in the sense that you're using.
Have a look at the graph at the end of this link (which, in summary, is a visualisation of the United States GDP per Capita in constant 2000 USD over time sourced from the World Bank and visualised by Google via their Public Data tool - constant 2000 dollars make comparing one year to another possible by effectively removing inflation):
https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_kd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
When Obama took over in 2009 it was about $47.5k just after the GFC. When Trump took over in 2017 it was $53.1k. That's a change of 11.8%. So it's simply not accurate to suggest that there was a massive difference in the base level of the economies between the two starting points.
Now, if you really want to talk about growth rates - over the same periods, check this link which is GDP growth rates for the US with the same source and visualisation tools:
https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
So Obama had to turn around from a GDP growth rate of -2.78% in 2009 where as Trump started at +2.27%. In your mind, it was easier for Obama because things were so bad, but with the economy in free fall, have growth reducing in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 before that point - before the GFC - I'd say the momentum was far more against Obama that for Trump who took over after growth in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Up and down but in a pretty common cycle and remaining positive. Is it harder to get off the ground after falling 5 stories or after you've walked up and down a few stairs?
-
... I did provide a summery, relevant for the quoted text:
So what exactly you were refuting from what Alan said with that screen shot?
This is what Alan (and the news) said:
Second-quarter US GDP jumps 4.1% for best pace in nearly four years
Which means since 2014. How do Obama's quarters from before 2014 refute that claim?
-
Phil, that does not make sense at all. It started with Andrew posting a link without a word of explanation. No subsequent post provides any summary or what the point is. If I missed that, please help me find it. Not too many people would sacrifice 15 minutes of their life, retired or not, to watch something recommended by people with Andrew's "expertise."
This is the post. Where is the summary or the main point?
It's right in the image. It's about historical GDP as Andrew mentioned. As I said, a summary is called for - not an essay.
-
Phil, that does not make sense at all. It started with Andrew posting a link without a word of explanation. No subsequent post provides any summary or what the point is. If I missed that, please help me find it. Not too many people would sacrifice 15 minutes of their life, retired or not, to watch something recommended by people with Andrew's "expertise."
This is the post. Where is the summary or the main point?
Yes, you clearly missed it but that's not a surprise to some of us here. Try once again to focus on the post and the 8 words (one actually being an acronym) if you can. If not, that's fine too. I'm not taking you seriously and it appears Phil doesn't either, at least in terms of your so called friendly reminder about forum etiquette that appears to a few here to be just another dose of hypocrisy.
-
So what exactly you were refuting from what Alan said with that screen shot?
This is what Alan (and the news) said:
Which means since 2014. How do Obama's quarters from before 2014 refute that claim?
That's 4.1% is nothing special for a quarterly figure.
-
But neither Trump nor anyone else should get obsessed with quarterly numbers.
Trump is rather obsessed and calls out the reports (or did the last) prior to the official numbers release. But the bigger point is, had you or better, Alan actually viewed the video I posted, you'd see that all THREE speakers agree that most (not all, silly to speak for everyone as we see so often here) shouldn't get obsessed with quarterly numbers AND WHY.
-
... In your mind, it was easier for Obama because things were so bad...
I'll use the same graph once again. The red arrow points to the bottom under Obama, from which there was only up, and the growth rates surely would look more impressive from a low start.
-
That's 4.1% is nothing special for a quarterly figure.
Exactly, AND, as we see in this egregious URL I posted with an actual screen dump, Obama was able to top that several times.
-
That's 4.1% is nothing special for a quarterly figure.
And nobody argued it is something special. The news was "the best rate since 2014."
-
... had you ... actually viewed the video I posted, you'd see that all THREE speakers agree that most ... shouldn't get obsessed with quarterly numbers AND WHY.
Andrew, I do not need to watch YouTube to learn economics and WHY. I learned it the right way.
-
The red arrow points to the bottom under Obama, from which there was only up, and the growth rates surely would look more impressive from a low start.
Wrong, it could have gone done and didn't thanks in part to Obama.
This graph shows how it's very possible for GDP to be much lower than what you provided:
-
Andrew, I do not need to watch YouTube to learn economics and WHY. I learned it the right way.
Sounds like very fake news to me, based on your graph posted alone! Or your 'idea' that GDP couldn’t go lower, only higher.
And it's NOT YouTube (you've got your facts wrong again).
-
Of course you don't. It would take too much time examining the data from others that might, might affect that confirmation bias/bubble you post from.
Meanwhile, nice of you to ignore that you were so wrong about who Hassett is and of course, the ridiculous, fake news, made up post you last made that his name wasn't indicted on the site I referenced. As we've seen, busted again or do you need more red arrows to adjust your attention. It appears that reality continues to ruin your life. But must you share that misery on others here in the process?
Me give you a summary? Please; I watched the video and then posted about it. Do I have to cut up your food before you chew it too?
I misread the caption. I thought it said Velshi, Biden and Bernstein rather than Velshi, Hassert and Bernstein. I hope my misread doesn't cause you heartburn. You seem very agitated by my error. Sorry again.
"Watch Ali Velshi explain what the GDP is and why President Trump is so excited about it. Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden join the conversation to discuss trade, wages, interest rates and the growth of the GDP."
-
I misread the caption.
Ain't that the truth!
I thought it said Velshi, Biden and Bernstein rather than Velshi, Hassert and Bernstein.
Yes, you were wrong, then decided to completely ignore the content because it's easier to burry one's head in the sand bubble. Sad.
I hope my misread doesn't cause you heartburn. You seem very agitated by my error. Sorry again.
All wrong; nothing makes me happier than pointing out your errors to your readers. I'm elated! ;D
"Watch Ali Velshi explain what the GDP is and why President Trump is so excited about it. Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden join the conversation to discuss trade, wages, interest rates and the growth of the GDP."
Perhaps this would make you happier and provide a reason not to spend a mere 15 minutes educating yourself from the guy who works for Trump?
"Watch Ali Velshi explain what the GDP is and why President Trump is so excited about it. Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden join the conversation to discuss trade, wages, interest rates and the growth of the GDP so if you reside in the unreality bubble, don't watch!"
-
I'll use the same graph once again. The red arrow points to the bottom under Obama, from which there was only up, and the growth rates surely would look more impressive from a low start.
That's nonsense. There is no support for your starting premise (that the only way was up). A bottom in economic growth doesn't occur because there's no where to fall unless the economy has actually collapsed and has zero value. It bottoms out because growth increased - that's all. That -2.78% wasn't a magical barrier that couldn't go lower.
A previous negative growth rate doesn't mean that a small positive change looks bigger than a small positive change from a previous positive growth rate.
Let's say the change in growth rate is 0.5%.
If you start at -2.5% you change to -2.0%. If you start at +2.5% you change to 3.0%. How has starting low helped? You've stil just changed by 0.5%
-
Ain't that the truth! Yes, you were wrong, then decided to completely ignore the content because it's easier to burry one's head in the sand bubble. Sad. All wrong; nothing makes me happier than pointing out your errors to your readers. I'm elated! ;D Perhaps this would make you happier and provide a reason not to spend a mere 15 minutes educating yourself from the guy who works for Trump?
"Watch Ali Velshi explain what the GDP is and why President Trump is so excited about it. Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden join the conversation to discuss trade, wages, interest rates and the growth of the GDP so if you reside in the unreality bubble, don't watch!"
Well, that's great. I see you've turned it around and are feeling better. Have a terrific night.
-
That's nonsense. There is no support for your starting premise (that the only way was up).
+1
However, keep in mind, this fellow knows more about economics than all the economists. Or the generals etc. ???
-
That's nonsense. There is no support for your starting premise (that the only way was up). A bottom in economic growth doesn't occur because there's no where to fall unless the economy has actually collapsed and has zero value. It bottoms out because growth increased - that's all. That -2.78% wasn't a magical barrier that couldn't go lower.
A previous negative growth rate doesn't mean that a small positive change looks bigger than a small positive change from a previous positive growth rate.
Let's say the change in growth rate is 0.5%.
If you start at -2.5% you change to -2.0%. If you start at +2.5% you change to 3.0%. How has starting low helped? You've stil just changed by 0.5%
At the time when the market was at its lowest. I thought exactly what you said. What if it goes lower? So I avoided investing and missed the biggest boom in history. I'm still beating myself up for that blunder.
-
Well, that's great. I see you've turned it around and are feeling better. Have a terrific night.
No, you haven’t seen that. Another figment of your imagination. I'm having a very terrific night like my terrific day pointing out to others, the silliness we hear on this forum. This is classic and thank dog it's here as a record of 'how your mind works":
-
I'm still beating myself up for that blunder.
Some are here to help you with those effort(s)! ;)
-
Well, I gave up my 15 minutes of fame to see the 15 minute video in question. Thanks Andrew for recommending it. Hassett predicted 3.1% growth for this year vs. Bernstein's 2.5% although Hassett felt there's a good possibility it will be higher. Both agreed that quarterly numbers bounce a lot. They argued over how much the president effects the economy. Hassett is very positive about the future. There was one interesting response by Bernstein to Ali's question of why incomes aren't growing. Typically for a liberal, he blamed "income inequality" which smacks of socialism. He blamed standard economic forces that make up a free market. I think the video actually lasted 13 minutes. So I still have 2 minutes left of my 15 minutes of fame.
-
... It bottoms out because growth increased - that's all...
Of course, but once it bottoms, the only way is up (it is a truism, as if it goes further down, it hasn't bottomed).
Unless economies go Venezuelan way, and the US economy is (and was) far from that, recessions happen, economy bottoms, and the next stage is recovery and reaching and surpassing previsos highs. That's why after a recession the only way is up.
P.S. I do not appreciate dismissing my point of view as "nonsense." We might disagree or see things from a different perspective, but I do not recall calling yours "nonsense."
-
At the time when the market was at its lowest. I thought exactly what you said. What if it goes lower? So I avoided investing and missed the biggest boom in history. I'm still beating myself up for that blunder.
You shouldn't. There was no way anyone could accurately predict the exact bottom because, as I said, there is no magical barrier or bottom short of the economy reaching zero value. You could have easily picked up part way through the rebound, though (and perhaps you did). Personally, I rode it out and then have invested more once the rebound was clear and then continued along (which is what most people did, of course, nothing special on my part).
-
Of course, but once it bottoms, the only way is up (it is a truism, as if it goes further down, it hasn't bottomed).
But it's only up until it goes down again. That it continued to rally and improve is key and underscores the point that it wasn't simply a matter of there being no other possible outcome. It could have easily crashed again or the growth could have been far more subdued.
There is no logical basis for your premise.
Unless economies go Venezuelan way, and the US economy is (and was) far from that, recessions happen, economy bottoms, and the next stage is recovery and reaching and surpassing previsos highs. That's why after a recession the only way is up.
They don't have to rebound and a bottom can be a temporary stop. It's not a case of laissez-faire - active fiscal policy from government and monetary policy from central banks is key. Again, your premise that it couldn't have gone further down when Obama took over, or during his terms, makes no sense.
From 1973 to 1974, the US economy experienced a 6.16% (compared to the global average of 4.58%) drop in growth - the following year it picked up by 0.5%. The next year it rebounded 5.41%. The following year it dropped 0.78% and then the next year it rebounded 0.95% before crashing 5.8%. It then rebounded 2.83% and everyone thought it had recovered from having bottomed out. Then it crashed 4.5% back into negative growth again. So, the "bottom" wasn't real. It then rebounded a massive 6.54% following by another 2.63% (1983 and 1984). The alternating years of boom and "bust" continued until '88 which lead to the 3 consecutive years of decline into 1991 (the last time Australia went into recession. Three consecutive years of falling growth - that really puts paid to the idea that from the bottom, the only way is up, regardless of tortured logic that once something goes up it can't be going down.
There are no bottoms at which nothing else can get worse. During Obama's time growth fluctuated within a stable range of 1.36% from highest to lowest) following the recovery from 2009's low. Stable performance with growth sustained over the long term is the target and what his administrations delivered.
P.S. I do not appreciate dismissing my point of view as "nonsense." We might disagree or see things from a different perspective, but I do not recall calling yours "nonsense."
But you're OK calling Hillary names because "it's true"? Your premise was wrong and shown to be. You've stuck to it and I've shown several times why it doesn't make sense. That is the very definition of nonsense. It's not a difference of perspective, Slobo. This is not "alt-logic" or "alt-facts" or "alt-write (the new name for grammar-#$%^'s (I'm not sure Jeremy will allow that term, so alt-write will remain!))". You're wrong, and maintaining your view in the face of clear demonstration to the contrary is nonsensical.
And, for what it's worth, you've frequently referred to views and opinions that I share (and which you would know that I share because you've read me saying so), in far more disparaging terms than calling them nonsense. You are not excused of name-calling or abuse by virtue of casting the net wide. There may be two sides to a coin, but in a game of heads or tails, only one is right.
-
There may be two sides to a coin, but in a game of heads or tails, only one is right.
In a game of heads or tails, there is no right or wrong, just randomness.
On a side note, duly noted that gloves are off.
-
In a game of heads or tails, there is no right or wrong, just randomness.
On a side note, duly noted that gloves are off.
There is right or wrong. If I call heads and it lands tails, I'm wrong.
What's with the newfound penchant for the dramatic? The gloves are off? “A sentence is but a cheveril glove to a good wit. How quickly the wrong side may be turned outward.”
It never ceases to amuse me how often it is those who decry a lack of free speech who are first to harangue those who employ it against them. If I'm wrong in my assessment, demonstrate it. Show that your premise is reasonable in the face of evidence to the contrary, or show that you accepted the correction and did not continue to push a logical syllogism based on an untrue proposition. I'll then gladly acknowledge my error and apologise for my incorrect description.
In the meantime, bare knuckle me as you wish - I'm sure I'll find it unbarable.
-
On a side note, duly noted that gloves are off.
Reasoned argument welcome, trolling less so. If you want to make it personal take it ‘outside’.
-
And now a little humor?
Those nasty crazy liberals strike again!
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/puty.jpg)
Prankster puts Putin portrait in Colorado Capitol where Trump's portrait would be (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/399310-putin-portrait-was-put-in-colorado-capitol-where-trumps-was)
For a brief time on Thursday, a portrait of Russian President Vladimir Putin was on display in Colorado's Capitol building in a space designated for President Trump’s portrait.
The portrait of Putin was reportedly put up on an easel on Capitol’s wall of presidential portraits by an unknown prankster. It was later taken down by a tour guide, according to Denver NBC affiliate, 9News.
Before the portrait was removed, however, Colorado State Sen. Steve Fenberg (D) shared a photo of the display on Twitter.
Steve Fenberg
@SteveFenberg
(https://twitter.com/SteveFenberg)
As seen in the Colorado State Capitol Hall of Presidential Portraits today...#putinpotus (https://twitter.com/hashtag/putinpotus?src=hash)
2:06 PM - Jul 26, 2018
1,183 704 people are talking about this
The spot, which is designated for Trump’s portrait, is reportedly blank due to a lack of donations made to the Colorado Citizens for Culture. The group is tasked with collecting donations for presidential portraits to be commissioned and placed in the Capitol.
Hum...18 months on and the Colorado Citizens for Culture are showing their true colors...
And then there was this in Hollyweird!
Two men in Russian Army uniform guard Trump’s Hollywood Star after it was destroyed with a pickax (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/27/1784040/-Two-men-in-Russian-military-garb-stand-over-Trump-s-Hollywood-Star-they-re-going-to-protect-this-one)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/solders.jpg)
Earlier this week, a man took to desecrating Donald Trump’s Hollywood Star with a pickax—he didn’t like the illegitimate president.
James Clay was arrested and charged with a felony. His bail of $20,000 was reportedly paid by a James Otis. A GoFundMe page was also created for Clay for legal fees.
Some hailed Clay, others were disgusted. Either way, Trump gets a new star, but what’s to keep another anti-Trump activist from destroying the new star? Perhaps these two ‘Russian soldiers’ will keep it safe.
On Friday two men dressed in Russian military garb stood stoically holding a Russian flag over Trump’s new star.
Wow, considering the highs today were expected in the upper 80's. these are two dedicated guards!
Those are really hot looking coats!
-
Why can't you acknowledge Rachel Maddow again lied about Trump and got caught? MSNBC- more fake news.
Well, how about some "good news"...
WH Adds Putin Admission That He Wanted Trump To Win To Official Transcript (https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/white-house-updates-transcript-putin-presser)
The White House has updated its official transcript of the press conference between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin to show that Putin admitted to a reporter that he did want Trump to win the 2016 election.
The key exchange was originally omitted from the original transcript, which the White House chalked up to muffled audio recording error, not a “malicious” attempt to hide Putin’s admission.
During the press conference last week, Jeff Mason from Reuters was chosen to ask Putin and Trump questions. He initially asked Trump about the decline in U.S.-Russia relations and Putin about his country’s interference in the 2016 election. He ended by asking Putin directly “did you want President Trump to win the election? And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?”
“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal,” Putin responded.
[...]
Reporters first noticed the omission earlier this week and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow even opened her show Tuesday night, suggesting the missing text was glaringly intentional.
The White House denied that the omission was “malicious,” although nobody had claimed malice. The claim was that it was done intentionally. This, the White House did NOT deny.
Well, anyway, the records have been corrected for history...too bad we don't have time travel so we could go back in time and fix stuff (or an undo button)
-
On a side note, duly noted that gloves are off.
In yet another attempt to get a thread closed down? Transparent.
Cheers,
Bart
-
In yet another attempt to get a thread closed down? Transparent.
Cheers,
Bart
He just needs a long vacation but locking threads in these parts has become a norm unfortunately. If only we stuck to Photogrpaphy but the focus of this forum is way out of focus. :'(
-
I am really glad that I turned my computer of at 18.00 EDT yesterday.
-
Trump's economic stewardship is still in its infancy. Expenditure on infrastructure (note: walls don't count) was a genuinely tremendous idea and something from which the US could really benefit, but we haven't seen it materialise in the way that Trump promised. His other approaches are naïve at best. Some short term gain will result but with an overburdened debt the US government needs to maintain revenue whilst reducing costs (which obviously makes infrastructure investment difficult but mostly in the short term with significant long term benefits).
It's also important to look at historical (as opposed to hysterical) data. Bill McBride over at the Calculated Risk Blog (https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2018/07/top-twenty-five-gdp-quarters-since-2000.html) presents data for the top 25 quarters of GDP growth since 2000. Q2 of 2018 comes in 11th place just a bit above the mid-point.
-
Me watching this tread
(https://st2.depositphotos.com/1518767/7328/i/950/depositphotos_73287699-stock-photo-young-man-watching-a-3d.jpg)
-
There is right or wrong. If I call heads and it lands tails, I'm wrong.
You are unlucky.
To be right or wrong in predicting future events presupposes a reasonable justification for your prediction. Otherwise, it is just a lucky/unlucky guess. If you really “know” how the coin would fall, I’d immediately hire you as my lottery picker. You would, of course, equally quickly turn me down, because you’d be already unbelievably rich.
-
You are unlucky.
To be right or wrong in predicting future events presupposes a reasonable justification for your prediction. Otherwise, it is just a lucky/unlucky guess. If you really “know” how the coin would fall, I’d immediately hire you as my lottery picker. You would, of course, equally quickly turn me down, because you’d be already unbelievably rich.
https://www.education.com/science-fair/article/influencing-a-coin-flip/ (https://www.education.com/science-fair/article/influencing-a-coin-flip/)
The purpose of this experiment is to determine first the probability of a coin landing heads or tails and second whether the person flipping a coin can influence the coin to land one way or another.
https://newrepublic.com/article/116320/psychologists-know-how-predict-coin-tosses
The Science of Explaining Heads or Tails
-
Your point, Dr. Google?
-
[https://newrepublic.com/article/116320/psychologists-know-how-predict-coin-tosses
The Science of Explaining Heads or Tails
But el presidente Loco outstmarts all those pointy-headed psychologists who can predict whether the typical person will call heads or tails by calling "heads" and then, when the coin lands tails, explaining with a straight face that he actually had called "tails."
-
But el presidente Loco outstmarts all those pointy-headed psychologists who can predict whether the typical person will call heads or tails by calling "heads" and then, when the coin lands tails, explaining with a straight face that he actually had called "tails."
:) :) :)
-
But el presidente Loco outstmarts all those pointy-headed psychologists who can predict whether the typical person will call heads or tails by calling "heads" and then, when the coin lands tails, explaining with a straight face that he actually had called "tails."
If only Dr. Slobodan could connect those dots...
-
If only Dr. Slobodan could connect those dots...
Unfortunately you are just feeding the Troll. :(
-
Unfortunately you are just feeding the Troll. :(
Can you explain why you are calling me a troll?
-
Can you explain why you are calling me a troll?
“axiom”
-
Can you explain why you are calling me a troll?
I read your posts and I am not alone in alleging this. Last year you admitted to .... baiting the trail. You have received abusive PM'S which you complained to the moderators about. I obviously don't know the content but I can guess why they were sent? You are obviously an intelligent person but you let your self down by your constant baiting. You could contribute more if you think about it?
-
“axiom”
No, Peter; I don't fly with that.
Rob
-
In all fairness, I think most of the regular political posters go overboard from time to time with their language (certainly I do). But, with a small few exceptions (Slobodan not being one of those exceptions) I think most also attempt to weave actual debate into their posts even if they (we) let emotion get in the way from time to time.
In other words, relax, y'all. I mean, when it comes to Trump, I think it should be clear that I'm a fellow traveler with the anti-Trump crowd, but certainly you can see how repeated, daily Trump-insult threads could also be interpreted as trolling, right? And to the Trumpy folks' credit, I've yet to see any concentrated effort to ban those daily assaults.
-
I read your posts and I am not alone in alleging this. Last year you admitted to .... baiting the trail. You have received abusive PM'S which you complained to the moderators about. I obviously don't know the content but I but I can guess why they were sent? You are obviously an intelligent person but you let your self down by your your baiting. You could contribute more if you think about it?
Well, have you considered how rapidly every thread - not to mention romance - would die without a little touch of the tease, of black humour even, and less than instant back-rolling?
LuLa would turn into +1 or -1 and that would never do.
There is a difference between being made of rubber, repeating the same catechism regardless of the question or challenge put to one, and what Slobodan is capable of doing when he feels in the mood. As for finding validity in numbers - perish the thought! If I'd listened to all the countless folks telling me shit "for my own good" which, interpreted, really meant that they were themselves terrified of doing something other than what they had drifted into, I'd now be a depessed, worn out ex-engineer with no memories worth squat, no horizons beyond Glasgow. I rather be a depressed, worn out old snapper with a wonderful set of memories of all the places I ever wanted to go, plus some I did not! Yep, there is even a nuance of masochistic pleasure in that, and knowing one survived it.
;-)
Rob
-
Well, have you considered how rapidly every thread - not to mention romance - would die without a little touch of the tease, of black humour even, and less than instant back-rolling?
LuLa would turn into +1 or -1 and that would never do.
There is a difference between being made of rubber, repeating the same catechism regardless of the question or challenge put to one, and what Slobodan is capable of doing when he feels in the mood. As for finding validity in numbers - perish the thought! If I'd listened to all the countless folks telling me shit "for my own good" which, interpreted, really meant that they were themselves terrified of doing something other than what they had drifted into, I'd now be a depessed, worn out ex-engineer with no memories worth squat, no horizons beyond Glasgow. I rather be a depressed, worn out old snapper with a wonderful set of memories of all the places I ever wanted to go, plus some I did not! Yep, there is even black pleasure in that, and knowing one survived it.
;-)
Rob
It's always kind of a downer when you express my own thoughts so much better than I do ;)
-
It's always kind of a downer when you express my own thoughts so much better than I do ;)
Well, you were too quick for me this time: I edited my last line too late!
But nonetheless, I take a delighted boost to my ego, for which, muchas gracias!
;-)
Rob
-
Conservative columnist George Will has a great column in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-teach-ocasio-cortez-a-thing-or-two-about-socialism/2018/07/27/f4672a2e-9102-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html?utm_term=.26151e7f1401). For those who have exhausted their free articles here are some of the quotes,
A more apt connection of current events to actual socialism was made by Sen. Ron Johnson, the Wisconsin Republican, when President Trump decided to validate the conservative axiom that government often is the disease for which it pretends to be the cure. When the president decided to give farmers a $12 billion bandage for the wound he inflicted on them with his splendid little (so far) trade war, and when other injured interests joined the clamor for comparable compensations, Johnson said, “This is becoming more and more like a Soviet type of economy here: Commissars deciding who’s going to be granted waivers, commissars in the administration figuring out how they’re going to sprinkle around benefits.”
Concerning Johnson’s observation, the Hoover Institution’s John H. Cochrane, who blogs as the Grumpy Economist, says actually, it’s worse than that: “It’s a darker system, which leads to crony capitalism.” Cochrane is just slightly wrong: Protectionism, and the promiscuous and capricious government interventions that inevitably accompany it, is , always and everywhere, crony capitalism. But he is spot on about the incompatibility of America’s new darker system and the rule of law:
“Everyone depends on the whim of the administration. Who gets tariff protection? On whim. But then you can apply for a waiver. Who gets those, on what basis? Now you can get subsidies. Who gets the subsidies? There is no law, no rule, no basis for any of this. If you think you deserve a waiver, on what basis do you sue to get one? Well, it sure can’t hurt not to be an outspoken critic of the administration when the tariffs, waivers and subsidies are being handed out on whim. This is a bipartisan danger. I was critical of the ACA (Obamacare) since so many businesses were asking for and getting waivers. I was critical of the Dodd-Frank Act since so much regulation and enforcement is discretionary. Keep your mouth shut and support the administration is good advice in both cases.”
Now do you see what Friedrich Hayek meant when he said that socialism puts a society on the road to serfdom? Protectionism — government coercion supplanting the voluntary transactions of markets in the allocation of wealth and opportunity — is socialism for the well connected. But, then, all socialism favors those adept at manipulating the state. As government expands its lawless power to reward and punish, the sphere of freedom contracts. People become wary and reticent lest they annoy those who wield the administrative state as a blunt instrument.
-
Now do you see what Friedrich Hayek meant when he said that socialism puts a society on the road to serfdom? [/i]
Any relation to the lovely young Salma?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rii7C2Fa9so
-
... Last year you admitted to .... baiting the trail troll[?]....
Can you be more specific?
... You have received abusive PM'S which you complained to the moderators about. I obviously don't know the content but I can guess why they were sent? ...
I rarely complain to the moderators. I did for the following one. The abusive PM message, related to a gun debate, was: "How many women and children you murdered, you jerk?"
Can you help me understand why such a message was sent and how it is justified by my posts?
I do not bait. I express my opinions. That might come in a form that might be thought provoking (which I hope you understand is different than "baiting"). I might challenge a stance with a counter position. I try to provide a different perspective. I try to support it whenever I can with facts or sources. You may not like my opinions or style, but that is not trolling.
-
Can you be more specific?
I rarely complain to the moderators. I did for the following one. The abusive PM message, related to a gun debate, was: "How many women and children you murdered, you jerk?"
Can you help me understand why such a message was sent and how it is justified by my posts?
I do not bait. I express my opinions. That might come in a form that might be thought provoking (which I hope you understand is different than "baiting"). I might challenge a stance with a counter position. I try to provide a different perspective. I try to support it whenever I can with facts or sources. You may not like my opinions or style, but that is not trolling.
Bait the trail was a quote from you and don't ask me to go back and find it. You berate other members for running to mommy. You should reflect about what myself and others are responding to.
-
I'm happy to say nobody takes me seriously enough to send me abusive personal messages*.
Come on guys, get over yourselves.
*waiting with bated breath.
-
I'm happy to say nobody takes me seriously enough to send me abusive personal messages*.
Come on guys, get over yourselves.
*waiting with bated breath.
I have yet to get one. I will need to try harder. ;)
-
But it's only up until it goes down again. That it continued to rally and improve is key and underscores the point that it wasn't simply a matter of there being no other possible outcome. It could have easily crashed again or the growth could have been far more subdued.
There is no logical basis for your premise.
They don't have to rebound and a bottom can be a temporary stop....
I would have thought that an average-IQ person, and I presume you are probably higher than that, would easily understand a simple truism, i.e., something that is self evident: "Once it reaches bottom, the only way is up."
It is a truism, because if it doesn't go up, it hasn't reached the bottom. It is a truism, thus making perfect sense, not "nonsense."
Your rebuttals are nothing but non sequiturs and straw men.
I did not claim that it will continue to grow next hundred years. I did not claim that it can not go into another recession (double-dip). Economies go in cycles, and recessions happen from time to time. So, obviously, "the only way is up" is true until the next recession. But until it happens (next recession) the only way is up.
I do not dispute that it might have gone, theoretically, all the way to zero. But it did not happen, and the history of the US GDP is an upward trajectory, with recessions being a temporary bump in the road. The trend has been historically upward, and, over time, new highs are reached. Therefore, after a recession, the next phase is up, until the next recession, and even then, the level reached might be higher than the penultimate recession.
I did not go into whom to credit or blame for growth or fall. In a different thread I argued that it is a risky business assigning credit or blame to sitting presidents.
We were not discussing hypotheticals, we were discussing history, and the history, after the 2008-2009 recession, was only up, no double-dip.
The only reason the phrase "the only way was up" was used was to indicate why growth rates post-recession bottom are always more impressive that those that start with a higher base. That is a simple percentage math.
-
It is rather ironic that the US has been described as the richest in the world but it has the highest debt/deficit in the world.
-
It is rather ironic that the US has been described as the richest in the world but it has the highest debt/deficit in the world.
Easy: fake news!
-
Too much ad hominem. End.
And there will be no version IV.
Jeremy