its pretty funny though... remember when trump was campaigning and never mentioned the positive jobs reports and the growth of the Dow under Obama? just wait until the market flattens or declines and he'll be disavowing it...
i am certainly no economist, however, considering Trump has passed zero legislation, the rise of the economy has simply continued a trajectory established by Obama.
Has the 'confidence fairy' simply began pumping up the Dow in the hopes of Trump's policies (mainly cutting regulation and tax cuts) will further stimulate the economy? Probably... however, this is still speculation, and therefore a bubble if the increases in the Dow aren't based on "real" growth as opposed to an "expectation" of growth.
i've personally thought the DJIA was a pretty poor metric, on its own, to determine economic growth, since its primarily a measure of individuals with financial liquidity looking to park their cash somewhere that provides a healthy financial return... Those individuals generally are not a reflection of the average citizen however...
the democrats didn't win a 3rd consecutive government because the average citizen felt like they were losing the american dream, measured on their financial realities... this was despite the DJIA hitting all time highs in the last year of Obama's administration... This is why Trump's campaign to "Bring back jobs" was so successful...
Yup, remember in 2008 when the economy was the only issue. Romney said that if he were to become president he'd get the unemployment down from 8% to 6%. What's unemployment when Obama left? 5.7%. Republicans have no argument but they kept trying and people just don't buy it. Trump took them in another direction.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Yup, remember in 2008 when the economy was the only issue. Romney said that if he were to become president he'd get the unemployment down from 8% to 6%. What's unemployment when Obama left? 5.7%. Republicans have no argument but they kept trying and people just don't buy it. Trump took them in another direction.
not to mention Obama was dealt a losing hand when he first arrived in office.
Trump function as the "Change Agent"... i am sure political historians can categorize all campaigns in that kind of reductivist manner... Obama also was an agent of change, as will be the 2020 Democratic nominee...
hard to fathom we are only 7 months into Trumps presidency...
Some positive news on Trumps administration. His commission on Drug Policy recommended sensible and immediate actions the government can take to fight the Opioid Crisis.
So its reported that Trump crafted Don Jr.'s statement on the Russia meeting, but then his lawyer said that was fallacious, but then the White House confirmed it was true. Are these guys working from the same playbook?
So its reported that Trump crafted Don Jr.'s statement on the Russia meeting, but then his lawyer said that was fallacious, but then the White House confirmed it was true. Are these guys working from the same playbook?
"How can they collude with Russia, when they can't even collude amongst themselves?" - Lindsey Graham (i think).
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Izzle For This Useful Post:
So its reported that Trump crafted Don Jr.'s statement on the Russia meeting, but then his lawyer said that was fallacious, but then the White House confirmed it was true. Are these guys working from the same playbook?
Not to mention the statement was crafted in a way to not fully admit what the meeting was about but also to try to avoid an outright lie...curious how a guy who knew nothing about said meeting could dictate such a statement.
Not sure this was linked earlier in the thread or not. Jeff Flake (GOP Senator) with a pretty forthright piece on what his party has become.
Not to mention the statement was crafted in a way to not fully admit what the meeting was about but also to try to avoid an outright lie...curious how a guy who knew nothing about said meeting could dictate such a statement.
Not sure this was linked earlier in the thread or not. Jeff Flake (GOP Senator) with a pretty forthright piece on what his party has become.
Flake is definitely trying to position himself for a future run for President. But as you pointed out, when push comes to shove, he has backed Trump at every turn. He voted for every single Trump cabinet appointee and also voted to repeal the ACA. Whenever the Trump era ends, and the media begins its inevitable quest to rehabilitate the GOP by promoting "reasonable moderates," hopefully people remember who actually cast votes against Trump and took stances that mattered. Right now, the pickings are pretty slim on that front.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
If we wanted to step away from the tire fire presidency for a moment we could discuss the DCCC's new stance that being anti abortion will no longer disqualified you from having their support. I'm seeing a lot of outrage from the left and initially I too was irked by this but upon further reflection it may not be that terrible. They need to win the seats, period. And if you're not going to change the oarty line that reproductive Rights for all is what you want then I don't see the harm in letting a few very blue dogs in. Gotta win those seats and maybe that's what helps swing some purple areas?
It depends I guess. It sounds mostly of the variety of personal belief and sure one can certainly be a democrat and hold a different belief than the norm. I believe Biden was personally pro-life but knows that governing and personal belief are two different things. Governing is NOT imposing your personal beliefs on others.
Provided candidates respect that same thing why would it be an issue?
That's the problem with the GOP...they are using personal and quite often religious beliefs to try to impose laws on everyone. When governing a nation full of diverse individuals that won't work in the long run.
This exchange during the VP debate sums it up:
Quote:
Q: What role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion?
RYAN: I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith.
BIDEN: My religion defines who I am. And I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and--I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court--I'm not going to interfere with that.
On one side you have an essentially childlike response of "everything in my life influences everything else" with appeal to the evangelical base who I swear would desperately love to be a Christian ISIS. On the other side, a mature answer that recognizes that ones personal and religious beliefs are separate from the state and what the job at hand entails. You have the freedom to do what I say versus you have freedom to make your own decisions within the law of the land.
Last edited by ernie; 08-01-2017 at 02:16 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
It depends I guess. It sounds mostly of the variety of personal belief and sure one can certainly be a democrat and hold a different belief than the norm. I believe Biden was personally pro-life but knows that governing and personal belief are two different things. Governing is NOT imposing your personal beliefs on others.
Provided candidates respect that same thing why would it be an issue?
That's the problem with the GOP...they are using personal and quite often religious beliefs to try to impose laws on everyone. When governing a nation full of diverse individuals that won't work in the long run.
This exchange during the VP debate sums it up:
On one side you have an essentially childlike response of "everything in my life influences everything else" with appeal to the evangelical base who I swear would desperately love to be a Christian ISIS. On the other side, a mature answer that recognizes that ones personal and religious beliefs are separate from the state and what the job at hand entails. You have the freedom to do what I say versus you have freedom to make your own decisions within the law of the land.
For the most part I agree but the same faction of the left that is currently going after Kamala Harris for not being progressive enough are the ones wailing and gnashing their teeth over this. Personally I dislike a litmus test for politicians as it is hyperpartisan and leaves no room for nuance.
I feel like some of this is what the democratic tea party (Bernie or Bust) is going to keep after for the next two years at least. We may see some serious cutting off your nose to spite your face by the far left who demands an all or nothing adherence to their ideals.
For the most part I agree but the same faction of the left that is currently going after Kamala Harris for not being progressive enough are the ones wailing and gnashing their teeth over this. Personally I dislike a litmus test for politics as it is hyoeroartisan and leaves no room for nuance.
I feel like some of this is what the democratic tea party (Bernie or Bust) is going to keep after for the next two years at least. We may see some serious cutting off your nose to spite your face by the far left who demands an all or nothing adherence to their ideals.
I was just pointing out that the litmus test would have been failed by the last democratic VP who dedicated nearly his entire adult life to public service.
I don't disagree and I think they will continue to shoot themselves in the foot as the GOp will continue to shoot themselves in the foot. As you say it is hyperpartisan.
Maybe they'll finally splinter and you'll get a 3 party system so they can actually get back to governing more or less from the center of the spectrum.
I feel like some of this is what the democratic tea party (Bernie or Bust) is going to keep after for the next two years at least. We may see some serious cutting off your nose to spite your face by the far left who demands an all or nothing adherence to their ideals.
I would agree with this, and I tend to approve of the measure, because there are certainly intelligent and well-meaning people who just can't get past the abortion issue morally. "When does a person have moral value" is an incredibly difficult question, and it's hard to blame people who can't answer it or answer it differently than you or I would. I'm generally against orthodoxy and dogmatism in politics, and this bit of flexibility seems to me to be a good thing.
The problem is that throwing out what you stand for can be a slippery slope. A significant part of the problem the GOP have is that they no longer stand for recognizable conservative principles, and their base doesn't care at all. Look at how completely ineffective the criticism of Trump was during the primaries that he's "not a conservative". Once that happens, there's no particular touchstone you can point to to discredit a demagogue who whips up a mob. Republicans lost control over what they stood for, and now they stand for nothing but a cult of personality, and it's hugely damaging not only for them but for everyone else.
So yeah, tough call.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
An anti-immigrant group mistook empty bus seats for women wearing burqas
...
Some group members took the picture — posted with the comment, “what do people think of this?" — as proof that a ban was needed. More than 100 soon commented on it. “It looks really scary, should be banned. You can never know who is under there. Could be terrorists with weapons,” one user wrote, according to a translation from the Local website. Others described it as “frightening” and “tragic.”
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
If we wanted to step away from the tire fire presidency for a moment we could discuss the DCCC's new stance that being anti abortion will no longer disqualified you from having their support. I'm seeing a lot of outrage from the left and initially I too was irked by this but upon further reflection it may not be that terrible. They need to win the seats, period. And if you're not going to change the oarty line that reproductive Rights for all is what you want then I don't see the harm in letting a few very blue dogs in. Gotta win those seats and maybe that's what helps swing some purple areas?
I hadn't known that was the stance of DCCC. As an ardent supporter of a woman's right to choose, I think that's a horrible position. Unlike things like LGBT rights, there is not a clear cut correct position on abortion. Unlike those who are anti-LGBT (for example), I can respect a person who is thoughtfully pro-life.
So while I think it's a good move to rescind the policy, it's shocking to me that it was a position in the first place. Institutionalized group-think on complex ethical issues is not good policy.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
Here's a transcript of a WSJ interview with Trump on July 25th. It hurts my brain to read what he says, but it is interesting if anyone wants to kill a few minutes and read it.
And before Trump says it, you should know he had nothing to do with Russia and he won many states in the election by huge numbers.
I like how he's literally using Ivanka as a T&A distraction technique on interviewers. She always seems to just pop into these interviews. She was painted as some kind of voice of reason, but she's just as soulless as anyone.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
