rumitoid wrote:
He was supposed to act with thoughtful dignity: he did not! He could have been judge-like and said, "I am here to answer allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford. For the record I want to state I did not do what I was accused of. Yet I have little doubt that Christian Blasey Ford did suffer at one time the attack she describes; but she is mistaken that it was me. This has been a very trying time for me and my family, so let's move on and I will answer your questions." Dignity does not need anger; just the opposite. I am not saying that anger is necessarily wrong but we are talking a Supreme Court nominee who is to remain impartial and independent in his thinking and actions: Kavanaugh did not.
He was supposed to act with thoughtful dignity: he... (
show quote)
A wise person once said, "Arguing with a liberal is like standing in a bucket and trying to pull yourself up by the handle."
emarine wrote:
Trumps GDP gains are offset by his spending... With the amount spent on corporate buybacks … tax cuts in a steady economy with a large debt are a crap shoot at best... we're at 105% of GDP now with a rising debt... the Congo is at 117%...
And as I've said before, the man's only had less than 2 years in office, and he's done more on many fronts, including the economy, of a positive nature than Obama did in 8 years.
Instead of picking apart every little thing he manages to do without liberal partisan judges or Dems in Congress attempting to block his every move, they need to give him a chance, but that's the last thing the Democrats want to do, because they don't want the v****g public to see what he's capable of doing for this country if given the cooperation and support any reasonable senator or representative who cared more about America and the American people than about partisan power politics would do.
kemmer wrote:
Now if Trump only had an ounce of political sense and did not always need to be consulting his lawyers over yet another scandal.
Trump's "scandals" have thus far been created, and the facts keep coming out.
Hillary, her campaign and the Obama "machine" used Obama's political corruption umbrella to weaponize DOJ, FBI and CIA to engineer the Russia collusion bee ess, and the farther the congressional investigation goes, the more it becomes obvious.
The Stormy Daniels thing is more bee ess, and considering the latitude the Democrats give their own over REAL sexual indiscretions, they display profound hypocrisy trying to discredit Trump over an old consensual relationship.
The latest, an attempt to nail him for what amount to totally legal tax maneuvers by somehow making them criminal will also prove bogus soon enough.
Meanwhile, to name just a few scandals, Obama had Fast & Furious, Lois Lerner's little problem, B******i, Uranium One, Hillary's email debacle which was "cleared" by Mr. O's justice system, her "pay to play" State Dept and a host of other things the MSM chose to ignore. Obama corrupted everything he touched, but that was fine with the left -- those were the "perks" one enjoyed as long as they were doing the left's bidding.
Maybe if the Democrats started doing their job and working WITH the president instead of fighting tooth and nail to make him fail, spending their time productively rather than dev****g their every waking moment to interfering with and attacking him, his agenda for making America a greater country would accelerate.
emarine wrote:
In 2000 Bush walked into a good economy … cut taxes & increased expense's just like Trump … seems it didn't work well … by the end of Bushes term we were rapidly heading for a depression … an apples to oranges scenario than The Black guy walked into … Now I'm not stating that the Black guy did everything right... but he sure as hell did it alone with no support from Republicans... just imagine if they learned how to play together instead of throwing stones where we might be today... Trumps setting us up for short term gains for the few at the expense of everyone else... http://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287
In 2000 Bush walked into a good economy … cut taxe... (
show quote)
I v**ed for Bush both times, but I wasn't impressed by his second term.
That said, I believe that if the Dems give Trump a chance to do his job without fighting him every step of the way (come to term with the fact that he won the e******n), his positive results will be long term.
The only reason they'd be short term would be if the Dems got the majority and set us back to the Obama era, where Obama famously said that 2% economic growth was the new normal. Trump has proven him wrong (approaching 4% and rising in less than two years) by dumping his predecessor's I'll advised economic policies, but the Democratic Party will want to revert back to what amounted to failure.
As I said, Trump's only had less than 1/8th of the time Obama had and he's already demonstrated his asset value to the economy. It's about time we elected a businessman president rather than a lawyer/ "professional" politician.
pafret wrote:
Obama pandered to the fat-cats of the Banking Industry and Wall Street, by bailing them out of impending bankruptcy, under the guise of a stimulus. What he really did was to pay off their gambling debts with our money to the tune of 9 trillion dollars. None of the malefactors were imprisoned for their illegal, imprudent, risky investments, which saddled the public with their debt. They gambled, we lost! He compounded this by signing the legislation that allows banks to confiscate their depositors money to pay off such debts in the future.
The theory was that depositors keep their money in banks and they share in the bank's gains from gambling so they should share the burden of failure. Wrong because rich guys don't keep money in banks, they invest in bank offerings, benefiting immensely from the high yield, risky, bank investments. Poor people save and keep their money in banks; they get zero interest currently and in some areas lose money from bank charges.
When Obama bailed out the Fed he allowed the rich to keep their investment money while saddling the general public with the bank's loses.
Obama pandered to the fat-cats of the Banking Indu... (
show quote)
Exactly. And the Dems, who follow the same tradition of pandering to wealthy elitists, are trying to say they're for the middle class, ie Nancy Pelosi and her "crumbs" speech. She and her husband are worth about 100 million, yet she talks about the disparity between the rich and the poor.
Meanwhile, Trump's tax cuts capped federal return deductions for city/state taxes at $10,000 while doubling the standard deduction. That is not a good deal for the rich, who are the only people whose local taxes exceed 10k, while doubling the standard deduction is very good for the middle class.
Virtually every Democrat fiscal/tax policy screws the middle class and poor the most while somehow benefiting the rich.
Again, the Dems have such little respect for our intelligence and so much faith in that we still believe the liberal mainstream media, that they continue lying about how they really care about the middle class.
During the Obama era, the middle class was just about squeezed out of existence.
emarine wrote:
true... unemployment has dropped a whopping 1% in almost two years under trump... now factor in the cost of the tax cuts & the public debt... pure genius ...
History has borne out that the more people working and paying into the tax system, the less need for higher taxes or massive taxes on "the rich."
The unemployment rate is still descending.
The biggest hike in the national debt came during the Obama Administration, not under Trump. In fact, while Obama was regulating and taxing jobs out of the country, we were moving farther and farther into the red. With the tax cuts, deregulation and the lowering of corporate tax rates, the jobs are coming back
Trump's only been in office for 20 months. Just because Americans chose him over Hillary, a lot of spoiled children who don't mind the kind of corruption Hillary brings to the table refuse to give Trump a chance, hence this immature, "make him fail, the hell with the country, 'resistance'."
If the first 20 months is any indication, this administration is bound to have a lot to show for an entire 4 years.
Some people need to grow up and let the man at least have a chance.
emarine wrote:
Sure thing buddy... Trumps great...http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
The unemployment statistics you link to bear me out. First time in many years unemployment was under 4%. MAGA!
Hmmm...
How is it that Hillary Clinton's many corrupt practices, such as her using pay-to-play to make money off her SecState gig and Uranium One get a "nothing to see here" rating from anti-Trumpers, as do such things as B******i, the Lois Lerner debacle, Hillary's & Obama's weaponizing of the FBI, CIA and DOJ to pursue our duly elected president on a false Russia collusion agenda, Eric Holder's "Fast & Furious" adventure and let's not forget about Hillary's little email server discrepancy...
That all smacks of some third world junta, not of anything that should be taking place in the United States of America, yet there it was, as blatant as you please, but with the mainstream media ignoring what they're actually supposed to be informing the public about, the only "news" that seems to make most newspapers, TV and cable "news" reporting is what amounts to character assassination of any high profile individual who doesn't tow the l*****t line.
For G-d's sake, don't you people give rank and file Americans ANY credit for having intelligence? Do you really believe that people can't see with their own eyes that under President Trump and the Republicans our economy has improved immensely, that unemployment is on line to be the lowest since 1969?
Do you really believe anyone except a single minded left wing fanatic is gullible enough not to smell a rat in all this one way "reporting," or that they even care about a lot of irrelevant "information" so obviously geared towards taking down a president for political reasons because some misguided left wingers don't like him?
iFrank wrote:
I agree, no kids here and mine are in easy access. guns don't kill people, people kill people. If they were no guns, they would use knives or a club.
Very true; in England, the poster country for gun control, knife violence is off the charts, they even have members of Parliament wondering if they should make a law limiting the length of cooking knives.
I wonder if they'll soon have to establish a BKA, the British Knife Association to protect their right to keep and bear knives.
Meanwhile, here in America, where every single statistic shows that legal gun owners are the last people to commit violent crimes, this same country in which our Constitution guarantees us, via the Second Amendment, the right of gun ownership, we have to wrangle over that right with a bunch of wannabe Marxists.
Here is the problem with second guessing events or making definitive forecasts based solely upon emotion, as Democrats do with everything from fiscal policy to public safety.
It must be very pleasant, living in that nice left hand fantasy world.
All those commenters above who claimed that Judge Kavanaugh would be "pulled" or would, otherwise, not stand a chance of being confirmed: it might behoove you to refrain from doing the "oracle" thing when we're going to know for sure only a couple of days down the road.
It is now Friday afternoon, and he's still in the running by 51-49, the Democrats' filibuster a non- starter, with the final confirmation v**e set for tomorrow morning.
It does look pretty good for Brett Kavanaugh, but we'll know for sure in less than 24 hours, won't we?
If he is confirmed tomorrow, the Democratic Party will have badly damaged itself for nothing.
I say this because since Judge Kavanaugh was first nominated, the opposition from the Democrats has been so sewer level that even many die hard Democrat v**ers have turned from their party, sickened by the way the Fine Steen, Chuck Schumer and the rest treated the judge and performed in general.
I have to agree with Alipegasus, from Kavanaugh's perspective, this is a lot more than a mere "inconvenience," it is a complete and total smear of the man's reputation, applied callously and without even an iota of human conscience and without any tangible evidence to corroborate it, purely for political purposes.
This is not only an indication that the Democrats have become an utterly soulless institution, but also, collectively, the REAL low life they try to describe Trump v**ers to be.
Perhaps we do "cling to religion and guns," but today's Democrats cling to what? D******eness and lies.
I'm sorry, but anyone even remotely capable of being a part of what they're trying to do to Judge Kavanaugh is lower than something any decent human being would scrape off the bottom of their shoe.
Floyd Brown wrote:
Isn't that just great in how your perception can over rule some one elses perception.
Innocence or guilt decided by perception.
When it is a right verses left it is all in whos perception is from which party it comes from.
Well Emily D you can look forward to more of this he said she said perception issue in the future.
It is interesting because the word of a male is perceived as being more reliable by than the perception of a female.
It is still a good old boys network at play here.
So a word to the wise Emily D. keep that bit of information in the back of you head I think it may serve you well to recall it some time in your future.
Isn't that just great in how your perception can o... (
show quote)
So what you're saying, then, is that any time a woman accuses a man of an impropriety, evidence or not, we have to assume the man is guilty?
Isn't that what's known as a "slippery slope?"
I mean, if that concept is applicable here, shouldn't it be applicable in every case?
kemmer wrote:
How then to explain wage levels remaining roughly at 70s levels, allowing for inflation?
It's pretty much the same concern parents have expressed that they're afraid their children won't earn more than they did.
That was during the Obama Administration, when that POTUS said 2% economic growth was the new normal, etc.
But unemployment was also high, there was a scarcity of jobs. When jobs are hard to find, there are a lot of application for each position, so it's what's known as an employer's market. Wages stagnate because employers know they can always find someone for every opening.
When unemployment is low, as it is now, wages begin to rise. I was reading a projection that said at the current rate of jobs opening up, we could be looking at 3% by sometime next year. As it is now, a lot of companies are beginning to have a harder time filling positions, and I'm pretty sure we'll see wages increasing as we go into an employees' market.
I've been around for over 60 years, and the above has remained a constant since I first started working.