American Politics

[EihTooms]

Democrats are embarrassed by this presidency, the squad and political wokeness. The true democrats in congress are protecting us from socialism. Democratic Party has the presidency, the House and the senate and can't get anything done. They are trying to push a socialist agenda and the republicans and democrats aren't buying it. The American people aren't buying it.

What the 50 Repubs and 2 Dems in the Senate "protected" America from by not voting for the Build Back Better Act was reduced inflation and dramatically reduced child and health care costs:

If the Senate wants to address inflation, it should pass Build Back Better

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ld-back-better

And all for less initial cost than the cost of the godawful Trump / Repub so-called Tax and Jobs Act that accomplished nothing except produce fewer jobs in the three years pre-Trump's Pandemic with it than the three prior years without it.

But there is still time to separate some parts of it and make sure every American has the opportunity to see exactly who votes against reduced inflation, child and healthcare costs before the midterms.

[EihTooms]

The 50's was a great era for unions, American industry, and growth of the American middle class, bottom line. I also told you about three Democratic presidents who had recessions or "crashes" if we want to use your partisan hyperbole. No amount of singing and dancing or repetition of the same tired phrases, "both siderism" (Yawns) will ever change that. Truth is truth.

P.S. Are you really living in the Land of Smiles? Assuming you have the disposable income to do so, why don't you take a break from the computer and your ad nauseamism and go get laid? Just a suggestion.

You couldn't be more wrong in one post if you tried. Maybe you tried.

The Eisenhower presidency was OK. But he took the perfectly benign economic conditions he inherited from Truman and produced and presided over three Recessions, none of which had much if anything at all to do with the Korean War and one of the worst jobs creation results of any president unless, like Obama, he had taken over just as another Great Repub Crash and Massive Jobs Destruction Event was occurring as he took the Oath of Office. Which he did not.

The bottom line is every major Union in America enthusiastically endorsed Kennedy in 1960 and not Eisenhower's "great era for unions, American industry, and growth of the American middle class" VP.

Eisenhower's jobs creation results would have been even worse than merely among the worst if he had not pulled out from the files FDR's already planned and designed New Deal proposal to build the Interstate Highway that was put on hold when we entered WWII.

Eisenhower was a typical Do Nothing Repub who never met an opportunity to stand by while a Recession formed and came to fruition pass him by. And when it did, the only things he could think to do about it was make it worse. Again, typically Repub.

Yes, he gets kudos for not appearing to produce a Great Recession on purpose the way other Repubs appeared to do over the decades. But he stood by and / or started three of them in just 8 years anyway. Likening this pro-Recession penchant for Repubs to the act of an arsonist, the next time I attend the Firefighter's Booster Club I will regale them about this kindly old arsonist I knew in the 1950's who didn't have the heart to burn the house, garage and family business down to the ground as his brothers did. He only destroyed a couple of bedrooms and a master bathroom. Not so bad. See? I will close by assuring them there are are very fine people on "both sides. "

But the thing you are most wrong about is in not recognizing I differentiate between a Recession and a "Great" Recession, which is one that at least does serious damage to the employment numbers and jobs creation. Such as the one under Hoover, Reagan, Bush2 and Trump over the past 100 years.

I know you want to remind us that Woodrow Wilson had a Recession back in 1920, as did Truman in 1948 and Carter in 1980. But I really don't think we are comparing apples to oranges when we talk about presidency prior to the Federal Reserve Board being up and running, doing that they were established to do and not in the midst of either WWI or WWII vs those who had the Fed going strong during their presidencies. 100 years of history and 17 Recessions with all but 4 of them starting under Repubs and all of the "Great" ones starting and thriving under Repubs is plenty of time and examples to notice an astonishing pattern of Repub's producing and presiding over essentially every Recession and definitely every "Great" Recession we've had during that time.

Neither the Truman nor the Carter Recession could possibly be considered "Great. " The unemployment rate spiked up to no more than 7. 9% for Truman and 7. 8% for Carter and in each case for no more than a single month. In addition to which their average annual jobs creation numbers still came in good to great.

Not so with Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon / Ford, Reagan, Bush1, Bush2 or Trump. We're talking about Recessions with double digit unemployment rates or very near it for several months, some of the worst average annual jobs creation records ever and in at least 4 of those presidencies, millions upon millions of jobs lost.

LOL. Thank you for your concern about my getting laid and let's not forget getting sucked. But it turns out I have plenty of time to get very well laid and sucked by a variety of young ladies here virtually any time I want while still being able to post truthful messages with full substantiation in just 30 minutes or so here and there. No problem. That's just another blatantly pro-Repub "Bothsider" tactic; try to silence the truth-tellers and allow the loony made up stuff about Repubs prevail. It is my pleasure to tell the truth about these things. And it doesn't interfere with my pleasure in getting laid and sucked one bit.

[PVMonger]

There isn't going to be anyone thrown under the bus. There is nothing criminal here and history will prove it. A year from now nothing will have happened on this issue and you guys will still be talking about it still trying to distract from Biden destroying America. This is another democrat witch hunt distraction trying to get the attention off of Biden failures.

Nobody is distracting from anything. Well, the fascists are. Because the last thing the fascists want is for a light to shine on January 6th. That's why the fascists are howling at the moon about Biden.

Sorry but We The People, the people with brains (not RethugliKKKans) won't let you off the hook. Fascists were the ones who tried to stage a coup. The fact that they were stupid (remember that the one-term, twice impeached former guy liked them that way) meant that they failed.

Ivanka might not throw Daddy under the bus but, frankly, it doesn't matter. History will prove that RethugliKKKans are idiots.

[EihTooms]

The Dow is down 2100 points and 5.7% YTD. Please stop posting false numbers. It appears your only posts try to make Biden look better than the failure he is. With Biden trying to implement his policies this could get much worse. Fortunately there still are some smart democrats in congress keeping Biden disasters to a minimum.

The percentage amount I posted was for Thursday's close and it took several hours for the moderator to post my message. You're talking about Friday's close. Well, I guess that means your "1500 points" YTD number was "false", too. LOL.

[ScatManDoo]

There isn't going to be anyone thrown under the bus. There is nothing criminal here and history will prove it. A year from now nothing will have happened on this issue and you guys will still be talking about it still trying to distract from Biden destroying America. This is another democrat witch hunt distraction trying to get the attention off of Biden failures.

Among the charges Trump himself could be hit with are "criminal solicitation to commit election fraud", or.

Intentional interference with performance of election duties, or.

Conspiracy to commit election fraud, or.

Criminal solicitation, or.

State RICO violations.

And that is only concerning his actions regarding his fighting the correct election results only in the State of Georgia.

A different list exists for Wisconson, Pennsylvania, Arizona and even other states.

Donald Trump is a criminal and he belongs in jail.

[Cali Guy]

Already this year? "This year" as you put it, has been the whole 22 days, which happened to coincide with unprecedented rise of Omicron. Oh humanity!

When Covid began spreading, The Stable Genius lost 10,000 points, but that was fine by you, right?

When DJIA crashed 2,500 points in Jan 2018 were you concerned?

How about a 3,000 points plunge later in December? No Covid back then, huh?

Calling him a hack is unfair. I checked his link and found it credible. I think you should remove all recessions caused largely by external factors (Lincoln, Truman and Wilson should not be the part of this argument due to the magnitude of the calamities they had to deal with). But if you're objective, you'll still have to come to the same conclusion. Republican presidents HAVE PRESIDED over many more recessions than the Democrats. Sorry, but that's what the numbers tell you.

Now, these numbers may not be as straightforward as the OP sees them. There might be other factors that need to be taken into account. But at least his opinions are based on facts, while "opinions" of the likes of Elvis, Canada and that fake ex-Democrat over here, are based on -- wait, there is a scientific term for it, I think it's called brain fart..

I believe you that you are not a democrat. You are definitely a socialist. Your posts gave you away.

[Canada]

Already this year? "This year" as you put it, has been the whole 22 days, which happened to coincide with unprecedented rise of Omicron. Oh humanity!

When Covid began spreading, The Stable Genius lost 10,000 points, but that was fine by you, right?

When DJIA crashed 2,500 points in Jan 2018 were you concerned?

How about a 3,000 points plunge later in December? No Covid back then, huh?

Calling him a hack is unfair. I checked his link and found it credible. I think you should remove all recessions caused largely by external factors (Lincoln, Truman and Wilson should not be the part of this argument due to the magnitude of the calamities they had to deal with). But if you're objective, you'll still have to come to the same conclusion. Republican presidents HAVE PRESIDED over many more recessions than the Democrats. Sorry, but that's what the numbers tell you.

Now, these numbers may not be as straightforward as the OP sees them. There might be other factors that need to be taken into account. But at least his opinions are based on facts, while "opinions" of the likes of Elvis, Canada and that fake ex-Democrat over here, are based on -- wait, there is a scientific term for it, I think it's called brain fart..

Democrats are embarrassed by this presidency, the squad and political wokeness. The true democrats in congress are protecting us from socialism. Democratic Party has the presidency, the House and the senate and can't get anything done. They are trying to push a socialist agenda and the republicans and democrats aren't buying it. The American people aren't buying it.

[Xpartan]

Market is down 1500 points already this year. This must be the great democrat crash that you guys keep talking about.

Unfit for president because he Has Dementia!

Already this year? "This year" as you put it, has been the whole 22 days, which happened to coincide with unprecedented rise of Omicron. Oh humanity!

When Covid began spreading, The Stable Genius lost 10,000 points, but that was fine by you, right?

When DJIA crashed 2,500 points in Jan 2018 were you concerned?

How about a 3,000 points plunge later in December? No Covid back then, huh?

"Presided over?" Don't let Tooms frame the argument by selling you loaded terms. A number of Democratic presidents "presided over" recessions including Wilson, Truman, and Carter. Heck he even tries to blame Lincoln for the Civil War because he was a Republican, when there was nothing he could do otherwise besides let the southern states go. Tooms is a partisan hack loudly working day and month out with a false dichotomy, Democrats all good, Republicans all bad even stretching back to the Civil War. It's absurd, and betrays someone familiar with hack internet sources as opposed to history. I hate to agree with Elvis (Elvira) but he has him pegged on this one, though he is just as idiotic from the other angle.

Calling him a hack is unfair. I checked his link and found it credible. I think you should remove all recessions caused largely by external factors (Lincoln, Truman and Wilson should not be the part of this argument due to the magnitude of the calamities they had to deal with). But if you're objective, you'll still have to come to the same conclusion. Republican presidents HAVE PRESIDED over many more recessions than the Democrats. Sorry, but that's what the numbers tell you.

Now, these numbers may not be as straightforward as the OP sees them. There might be other factors that need to be taken into account. But at least his opinions are based on facts, while "opinions" of the likes of Elvis, Canada and that fake ex-Democrat over here, are based on -- wait, there is a scientific term for it, I think it's called brain fart.

And no, I'm not a Democrat, I've never been a Democrat, I don't believe that Democrats are blameless in all our ills, but that doesn't matter. The modern Republican Party is toxic, anti-democratic, and anti-American. Sorry, but faced with two evils, I choose the lesser one.

[Paulie97]

The 50's was a great era for unions, American industry, and growth of the American middle class, bottom line. I also told you about three Democratic presidents who had recessions or "crashes" if we want to use your partisan hyperbole. No amount of singing and dancing or repetition of the same tired phrases, "both siderism" (Yawns) will ever change that. Truth is truth.

P.S. Are you really living in the Land of Smiles? Assuming you have the disposable income to do so, why don't you take a break from the computer and your ad nauseamism and go get laid? Just a suggestion.

[PVMonger]

I am looking forward to seeing if Ivanka throws her Dad under the bus to save herself.

They gave her a very long letter hinting at what the committee knows she witnessed and wrote they want to confirm what she said (according to reports of others).

Assuming that Ivanka actually testifies, here's how the testimony will go:

Committee: "Is your name Ivanka Trump?

Ivanka: "I refuse to answer that question and I assert my 5th Amendment rights. "

Committee: "Is Donald J. Trump your father?

Ivanka: "I refuse to answer that question and I assert my 5th Amendment rights. "

Committee: "Were you in the White House on January 6th, 2021?

Ivanka: "I refuse to answer that question and I assert my 5th Amendment rights. "

Committee: asking questions 4 - ?

Ivanka: "I refuse to answer that question and I assert my 5th Amendment rights. "

We all need to remember that the one-term, twice-impeached orange clown said that only the mob uses the 5th Amendment and it makes them look guilty. Right, Canada?

[Canada]

As measured by the usual Wall Street and stock market investment industry standard S&P 500 Index, the market is currently down about 8.7% from its all-time record high close.

I wonder if we will finally hit at least one legitimate "Correction" level sometime soon. Which would be perfectly normal and, frankly, welcome after we've had some 70 all-time record high closes in just Biden's first year in office.

Oh, according to the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, we're currently down 7. 2%, which is even further away from a useful, health-restoring "Correction" in the market.

BTW, was that where you got that "1500 points" number?

Well, if we're simply calculating from the first of this year, your way, the market is only down 3. 2% in the Dow and 7. 7% in the S&P, neither of which is nearly as terrifying as you presumably meant it to sound.

But I can't think of a very good reason to start calculating the rise or decline in the market starting from January 1 instead of from its recent all-time record closing high or low as would be done by anyone with as much instructive knowledge about the stock market as you purport to have..

The Dow is down 2100 points and 5.7% YTD. Please stop posting false numbers. It appears your only posts try to make Biden look better than the failure he is. With Biden trying to implement his policies this could get much worse. Fortunately there still are some smart democrats in congress keeping Biden disasters to a minimum.

[Canada]

I am looking forward to seeing if Ivanka throws her Dad under the bus to save herself.

They gave her a very long letter hinting at what the committee knows she witnessed and wrote they want to confirm what she said (according to reports of others).

There isn't going to be anyone thrown under the bus. There is nothing criminal here and history will prove it. A year from now nothing will have happened on this issue and you guys will still be talking about it still trying to distract from Biden destroying America. This is another democrat witch hunt distraction trying to get the attention off of Biden failures.

[Axel Heyst]

Politics should not be all black and white. Trump is evil. Biden is good. Therefore when a liberal or conservative speaks to truth it should be noted.

https://youtu.be/8bQ2rctogOs

[EihTooms]

"Presided over?" Don't let Tooms frame the argument by selling you loaded terms. A number of Democratic presidents "presided over" recessions including Wilson, Truman, and Carter. Heck he even tries to blame Lincoln for the Civil War because he was a Republican, when there was nothing he could do otherwise besides let the southern states go. Tooms is a partisan hack loudly working day and month out with a false dichotomy, Democrats all good, Republicans all bad even stretching back to the Civil War. It's absurd, and betrays someone familiar with hack internet sources as opposed to history. I hate to agree with Elvis (Elvira) but he has him pegged on this one, though he is just as idiotic from the other angle.

BTW, Eisenhower's 3 Recessions, the third one beginning in 1960, however mild and unnoticed by you, accompanied one of the most "atrocious" jobs growth records of all time for any president. Which was not the case for either of the presidents in office in 1945 and post-WWII 1948. And most definitely not the case for the historically brief one that began under Carter, who was saddled with huge inflation challenges.

See, the term "presided over" is extremely useful in assessing what a POTUS does in response to Recessionary conditions. So we not only need to mark when 13 of the 17 Recessions of the past 100 years began, sorry Woodrow, but what did or didn't the POTUS do about it.

Clearly, the WWII, post-WWII and high unemployment rate plus "Long National Nightmare" conditions Carter inherited from Nixon / Ford along with the rising inflation problem were far more challenging than anything in the economy facing Eisenhower in 1953.

History then shows in addition to the 3 Recessions that began on his watch, he "presided" over one of the lowest and most "atriocious" 8 year average annual jobs growth percetages ever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs...idential_terms

[EihTooms]

Market is down 1500 points already this year. This must be the great democrat crash that you guys keep talking about.

Unfit for president because he Has Dementia!

As measured by the usual Wall Street and stock market investment industry standard S&P 500 Index, the market is currently down about 8.7% from its all-time record high close.

I wonder if we will finally hit at least one legitimate "Correction" level sometime soon. Which would be perfectly normal and, frankly, welcome after we've had some 70 all-time record high closes in just Biden's first year in office.

Oh, according to the 30 stocks in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, we're currently down 7. 2%, which is even further away from a useful, health-restoring "Correction" in the market.

BTW, was that where you got that "1500 points" number?

Well, if we're simply calculating from the first of this year, your way, the market is only down 3. 2% in the Dow and 7. 7% in the S&P, neither of which is nearly as terrifying as you presumably meant it to sound.

But I can't think of a very good reason to start calculating the rise or decline in the market starting from January 1 instead of from its recent all-time record closing high or low as would be done by anyone with as much instructive knowledge about the stock market as you purport to have.

What was your reasoning for doing it that way?

Well, actually, talking about these things in terms of "points" instead of percentages isn't very useful anyway. Particularly when we're talking about a market that has been growing in points for many, many decades.

You know how that works, right? For example, a market decline of, say, "3 points" from an all-time record high close of 6 points in an Index is much, much scarier and worse than a decline of 3,000 points in an Index that reached an all-time record high close of 36,952.

See what I mean? Just sayin'.