American Politics

[Paulie97]

Ya know there's something to having everything going for you in this world in a given situation. That would be Brittney Grinder, she's female, black, lesbian, and refused to stand for the national anthem. All the boxes are checked. Is there anything missing? I'm all in with Fox on this one, and that's what makes me a moderate. What an embarrassment.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XxK6XJCRXL8

[JustTK]

Great presentation on the history of monopolies in USA (first 40 mins only). Causes and effects:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8DNC8uCmVM

Further proof of the sqeezing of the middle class.

[JustTK]

Really great discussion on the Lex Fridman show on distribution, ;pipelines, transport, trucking, rail etc. Issues and future.

Long show but great listening:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Wpy6gE4So

[EihTooms]

That shows a different thing, doesn't it?

1988 - Bush 1 received more votes than Dukakis.

1992 - Slick Willie received more votes than Bush 1.

1996 - Slick Willie received more votes than Dole.

2000 - W received FEWER votes than Gore.

2004 - W received more votes than Kerry.

2008 - Obama received more votes than McCain.

2012 - Obama received more votes than Romney.

2016 - Donnie the Dumbass received FEWER votes than Clinton.

2020 - Biden received more votes than Donnie the Dumbass.

The only two Presidents who didn't win the popular vote since 1988 were W and Donnie the Dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ar_vote_margin

It likely would have been a straight 8 for 8 losers on actual votes for the Repubs if W hadn't been awarded the presidency in 2000 by a winger-rigged SCOTUS stopping the count in Florida in a panic before his dwindling 535 vote lead evaporated. It was only because of his colossal National Security negligence and hundreds of lies to bamboozle us into 3 wrong-headed quagmire wars during his winger SCOTUS-appointed term that he was able to squeak out a narrow win for his 2nd run as a "Wartime President".

Those were two of the worst individual presidential term results of all time on the basis of National Security and the economy. Surpassed on horrific results only by Trump's one term.

[PVMonger]

Since 1988, two Republicans, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have won elections with a majority of the popular vote. And since 1988, two Democrats, Barrack Obama and Joe Biden, won with a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton didn't get over 50% either time he ran and won. And George W. Bush didn't get 50% the first time he ran.

I'm not sure whether Donald Trump should be counted as a Republican or a Democrat. He's a Democrat infiltrator of the Republican Party, a former card carrying member of the Democratic Party, and the Democrat's best friend. The Republicans would have won the Senate in 2020 and 2022, and blown out the House in 2022, if not for Trump.

That shows a different thing, doesn't it?

1988 - Bush 1 received more votes than Dukakis.

1992 - Slick Willie received more votes than Bush 1.

1996 - Slick Willie received more votes than Dole.

2000 - W received FEWER votes than Gore.

2004 - W received more votes than Kerry.

2008 - Obama received more votes than McCain.

2012 - Obama received more votes than Romney.

2016 - Donnie the Dumbass received FEWER votes than Clinton.

2020 - Biden received more votes than Donnie the Dumbass.

The only two Presidents who didn't win the popular vote since 1988 were W and Donnie the Dumbass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ar_vote_margin

[PVMonger]

Here's what really happens.

Part 1: A Repub president gets elected. Dems spend 2 years throwing up roadblocks to every bit of legislation the Repubs propose. The Dems point to the "fact" that Repubs haven't gotten anything done (they conveniently forget that Dems were the ones blocking everything). Dems gain a majority of House and-or Senate. Dems spend the next 2 years (or up to 6 more years) complaining about how Repubs want to build a wall and-or want fewer government handouts and-or want to put all the young black men in jail and-or a bunch of other stuff.

Part 2: After 4 (or 8) years, a Dem gets elected president because they have convinced the voters that they know what they're doing re: the economy. Dems have a majority in the House and-or Senate. Dems pass another bunch of voodoo spending bills, largely welfare for corporations and the upper middle class and spend money like drunken sailors. Just look at the 5 trillion in new spending authorized during the first two years of the Biden Administration. Dems are thrown out (after 4 or 8 years) and Repub is elected president and Repubs have control of the House and-or Senate. Repubs pass legislation to cut regulation and taxes that result in the working man actually making some gains instead of falling further and further behind (e.g. 2019). Dems are now pushing harder than ever to spend money like drunken sailors.

Go to Part 1.

If you believe this, you'd actually have proof. But you don't. As usual.

[Spidy]

I listen to Thom Hartmann on Sirius XM while driving from time to time, as he's the must articulate of the Progressive Democratic Party hack pundits. Actually I listen to him a lot more than all the right of center radio talk show hosts combined. Hartmann's an apologist for Venezuela. Venez fucking uela!

"Deficit Trends" about 2/3rds of the way down the following is a much more balanced breakdown.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...nomic-managers

The writer, an economist, lambasts the George W. Bush administration for the Iraq war and the effect on the national debt, as he well should.

Otherwise, both parties spend like drunken sailors, and the Democrats are somewhat worse.

Typical response to try and normalize and "bothsider" the corrupt and dysfunctional party that is now basically/predominately a QAnon/Repub/Bothersider looney-tunes conspiracy party, hell bent on subverting democracy, the rule of law and The US Constitution.

The "Two Santa Clause" theory clearly has the Repubs, spending like drunken sailors to enrich themselves and their billionaire cronies and the other party (the Dems) clearly spending money to benefit and stimulate a stagnant and recessive economy, typically decimated and left-for-dead by Repubs, with their ill-fated trickle-down economics.

Yep, your article is just more bothersidesism. But I did like the following quote:

... What's more, presidents do not control the business cycle, even if the business cycle plays a part in the outcomes of presidential elections. ...

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...nomic-managers

And yet numbskull Rebubs were all over Biden for the price of gasoline. (...kkkk!)

[EihTooms]

You've got it backwards. Presidents who inherit weak economies go onto see better performance during their term, and vice versa. See the table in Riedl's paper, "Inherited Economy and Presidential Performance On Jobs", linked below. The party the president belongs to has little or nothing to do with performance of the economy during his term, except via coincidence.

It's called the business cycle.

But I'll play along with your game. My graph of employment and recessions just goes back to about 1948. During that time Truman, Carter and Clinton all left Republicans with recessions that started during the final fiscal year of government that was budgeted and began during the Democrat Presidents' terms. Johnson missed doing the same by about three months. But of course you're going to poo poo that. Given Tooms' rules, the Republicans end up with the blame for the recessions, that purportedly resulted from the policies and budgets set by the Democrats. Meanwhile the Democrats receive the credit for the better times that preceded them.

I say purportedly because, again, I believe the party of the President has little to do with economic performance.

You already wrote or read every one of the links. There's no need to read them. Just be aware we've about beat this horse to death. And you're still wrong.

Truman, Carter and Clinton didn't leave anyone a recession. Stop making up stuff.

In the past century, Hoover, Eisenhower, Bush1, Bush2 and Trump did.

List of recessions in the United States

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._United_States

Interesting highly partisan "business cycle" you've got stuck in your mind. The crap cycles, especially the spectacularly bad crap cycles, only occur at the end of Repub presidential terms when they come at the end and never at the end of Dem presidential terms whether the end of those terms come after 4 years, 8 years or in party sequential terms, 12 years or 20 years.

Which begs the question, how do those highly partisan "business cycles" know?!

Look, if it rankles you and your "economists" that the historical economic record favors Dems and punishes Repubs because those lucky Dems get to take over right when the outgoing Repub's economy is crashing down around our ears, millions of jobs are being wiped out and, goodness gracious, all the beautifully well-timed incoming POTUS of any party but always seems to be Dems needs to do is flip a magic light switch, go ride ponies or play golf and, as sure as night follows day, that miraculous "business cycle" will do all the work to recover the economy, instill confidence in brave free market Capitalists and business owners, create millions of jobs to recover the millions lost and all within just 2-3 months, here is the fix for what ails you:

Tell your beloved Repubs to stop promoting and enacting classic Repub policies and stewardship that produces those crap results that greet the incoming Dems over and over and over again in the first place.

[Tiny 12]

Name a Repub president of the past 100 years who didn't hand off seriously crap economic conditions to the incoming Dem, usually the country actually IN a verified Recession or Depression, elevated unemployment rates, having either wiped out millions of jobs or produced one of the worst jobs creation records in history.

Neither you nor any of your linked "economists" can. Not one.

Now name an outgoing Dem president of the past 100 years who did the same thing to an incoming Repub.

You've got it backwards. Presidents who inherit weak economies go onto see better performance during their term, and vice versa. See the table in Riedl's paper, "Inherited Economy and Presidential Performance On Jobs", linked below. The party the president belongs to has little or nothing to do with performance of the economy during his term, except via coincidence.

It's called the business cycle.

But I'll play along with your game. My graph of employment and recessions just goes back to about 1948. During that time Truman, Carter and Clinton all left Republicans with recessions that started during the final fiscal year of government that was budgeted and began during the Democrat Presidents' terms. Johnson missed doing the same by about three months. But of course you're going to poo poo that. Given Tooms' rules, the Republicans end up with the blame for the recessions, that purportedly resulted from the policies and budgets set by the Democrats. Meanwhile the Democrats receive the credit for the better times that preceded them.

I say purportedly because, again, I believe the party of the President has little to do with economic performance.

You know, like what you didn't do with that collection of URLs for entire pages of posts and entire articles, without even the titles of the articles and pdf files included, on the mistaken assumption that I or anyone else is going to plow through all of it to do all the work for you and make your case for you out of it.

You already wrote or read every one of the links. There's no need to read them. Just be aware we've about beat this horse to death. And you're still wrong.

[EihTooms]

Since 1988, two Republicans, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have won elections with a majority of the popular vote. And since 1988, two Democrats, Barrack Obama and Joe Biden, won with a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton didn't get over 50% either time he ran and won. And George W. Bush didn't get 50% the first time he ran.

I'm not sure whether Donald Trump should be counted as a Republican or a Democrat. He's a Democrat infiltrator of the Republican Party, a former card carrying member of the Democratic Party, and the Democrat's best friend. The Republicans would have won the Senate in 2020 and 2022, and blown out the House in 2022, if not for Trump.

GHW Bush didn't win the vote "since" 1988. He won the vote "in" 1988.

By Majority or Plurality, either one is the winner of the actual vote.

LOL. When Reagan's classic Repub policies and stewardship produced a horrific Great Repub Recession, tripled the debt, skyrocketed the unemployment rate and the deficit, Repubs and pro Repub Bothsiders tried to float that same bit and disavow him as the classic Repub icon he was.

Yeah, Reagan had been a Dem once upon a time just like Trump. And, just like Trump, the minute he decided to see if a shot at politics would boost his profile and repair his bank account, his lifelong observations of the two parties convinced him the Repub Party was the party where his celebrity and name recognition could excel and payoff; sleep til Noon, ride ponies, know nothing, do very little, his crap results would be applauded and spun into election winning advantage by Mainstream Media, etc while being a Dem meant he'd actually have to know something, do something, work hard, produce positive results and never expect accolades or positive spin for it in Mainstream Media.

There is no way those two "actors" could cut it as a Dem if they entered the world of politics and they knew it.

Then, as Repubs their policies and stewardship were classic Repub Supply-Side / Trickle-Down idiocy combined with classic disdain and reduction of regulations leading directly to classic Repub results; making the already wealthy even wealthier at the great expense of everyone else, crashing the economy, skyrocketing unemployment rates and deficits, middling private sector jobs creation at best or catastrophic job losses by the millions at worst.

Reagan and Trump are the classic Repub icons of icons.

[Tiny 12]

Your assessment is spot on. What you've described (for the uninitiated in US right-wing Repubs/Bothsider politics to subvert democracy and progress), is called the "Two Santa Clauses Theory".

Thom Hartmann: How the GOP Used a Two Santa Clauses Tactic to Con America for Nearly 40 Years: https://www.alternet.org/2018/02/two...early-40-years



Bravo, Excellent take!!!

I listen to Thom Hartmann on Sirius XM while driving from time to time, as he's the must articulate of the Progressive Democratic Party hack pundits. Actually I listen to him a lot more than all the right of center radio talk show hosts combined. Hartmann's an apologist for Venezuela. Venez fucking uela!

"Deficit Trends" about 2/3rds of the way down the following is a much more balanced breakdown.

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publ...nomic-managers

The writer, an economist, lambasts the George W. Bush administration for the Iraq war and the effect on the national debt, as he well should.

Otherwise, both parties spend like drunken sailors, and the Democrats are somewhat worse.

[Spidy]

Here's what really happens.

Part 1: A Dem president gets elected. Repubs spend 2 years throwing up roadblocks to every bit of legislation the Dems propose. The Repubs point to the "fact" that Dems haven't gotten anything done (they conveniently forget that Repubs were the ones blocking everything). Repubs gain a majority of House and-or Senate. Repubs spend the next 2 years (or up to 6 more years) complaining about how Dems want "open borders" and-or are communist and-or are socialist and-or want to take away your guns and-or a bunch of
other stuff.

Part 2: After 4 (or 8) years, a Repub gets elected president because they have convinced the voters that they know what they're doing re: the economy. Repubs have a majority in the House and-or Senate. Repubs pass another voodoo economics tax cut for the rich and spend money like drunken sailors. The economy goes into a tailspin. Repubs are thrown out (after 4 or 8 years) and a Dem is elected president and Dems have control of the House and-or Senate. Dems pass legislation that spends money to assist the economy to pull out of the tailspin. Repubs are now suddenly against spending any money at all even though Repubs just spend 4-to-8 years spending money like drunken sailors.

Go to Part 1.

Your assessment is spot on. What you've described (for the uninitiated in US right-wing Repubs/Bothsider politics to subvert democracy and progress), is called the "Two Santa Clauses Theory".

Thom Hartmann: How the GOP Used a Two Santa Clauses Tactic to Con America for Nearly 40 Years: https://www.alternet.org/2018/02/two...early-40-years

... And, hopefully, some of our media will begin to call the GOP out on the Two Santa Clauses program. Its about time that Americans realized the details of the scam that's been killing wages and enriching billionaires for nearly four decades. --- Thom Hartmann

Bravo, Excellent take!!!

[Tiny 12]

The only reason the shit Repub Party's candidate has gotten into the White House since 1988 is because the winger-rigged SCOTUS or winger-rigged Electoral College system awarded it to them, not because the American voters wanted them anywhere near the place...

Since 1988, two Republicans, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have won elections with a majority of the popular vote. And since 1988, two Democrats, Barrack Obama and Joe Biden, won with a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton didn't get over 50% either time he ran and won. And George W. Bush didn't get 50% the first time he ran.

I'm not sure whether Donald Trump should be counted as a Republican or a Democrat. He's a Democrat infiltrator of the Republican Party, a former card carrying member of the Democratic Party, and the Democrat's best friend. The Republicans would have won the Senate in 2020 and 2022, and blown out the House in 2022, if not for Trump.

[EihTooms]

Here's what really happens.

Part 1: A Repub president gets elected. Dems spend 2 years throwing up roadblocks to every bit of legislation the Repubs propose. The Dems point to the "fact" that Repubs haven't gotten anything done (they conveniently forget that Dems were the ones blocking everything). Dems gain a majority of House and-or Senate. Dems spend the next 2 years (or up to 6 more years) complaining about how Repubs want to build a wall and-or want fewer government handouts and-or want to put all the young black men in jail and-or a bunch of other stuff.

Part 2: After 4 (or 8) years, a Dem gets elected president because they have convinced the voters that they know what they're doing re: the economy. Dems have a majority in the House and-or Senate. Dems pass another bunch of voodoo spending bills, largely welfare for corporations and the upper middle class and spend money like drunken sailors. Just look at the 5 trillion in new spending authorized during the first two years of the Biden Administration. Dems are thrown out (after 4 or 8 years) and Repub is elected president and Repubs have control of the House and-or Senate. Repubs pass legislation to cut regulation and taxes that result in the working man actually making some gains instead of falling further and further behind (e.g. 2019). Dems are now pushing harder than ever to spend money like drunken sailors..

Dems didn't block Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush1 or even Bush2 from getting much of their agenda passed. I wish they had. But Dems believe in democracy, know elections matter and are often willing to help the Repub who won the election give the American electorate what they asked for when they elected them; crap economic policies and results.

In the case of Trump, crafty Moscow Mitch refused to give Trump anything to sign and pass until the last working day of December in his first year in office because he knew the Repub Trump "economic" record could only be improved by letting him blather on and Do Nothing for as long as possible while he merely coasted on the superior economic conditions he inherited from Obama-Biden and would only suffer by any crap Repub economic legislation crappy enough for him to sign and pass and any other decisions he made.

LOL. Man, did he call that one right!

[EihTooms]

OK, this should work. These are just my repeated posts trying to show you the error of your thinking. I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink from the river of knowledge and truth.

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2743466

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2744566

http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2747584.

Sorry. 100 years of data and blatantly obvious results can not be argued away by nit picking irrelevant nonsense;.

Repub Presidents' favorite economic policies produce crap results while the Dem Presidents' favorite economic policies produce far superior results. Presidents are elected on their stated economic proposals. Once in office, they propose those policies to Congress and expect them to be included in budgets and other legislation. Or they find the veto pen.

If they fail at getting any of it done and the economy goes to shit then I guess they weren't up for the job. I don't know of any POTUS who didn't get any of the economic agenda he ran his campaign on done. And, sure enough, when the Repub gets his way the economy tanks and jobs creation suffers, often badly, but when the Dem gets his way the economy expands and historic numbers of jobs are created.

Name a Repub president of the past 100 years who didn't hand off seriously crap economic conditions to the incoming Dem, usually the country actually IN a verified Recession or Depression, elevated unemployment rates, having either wiped out millions of jobs or produced one of the worst jobs creation records in history.

Neither you nor any of your linked "economists" can. Not one.

Now name an outgoing Dem president of the past 100 years who did the same thing to an incoming Repub.

Nope. You can't.

No amount of tortured math or blind faith in voodoo economics can change the data and rewrite history for you.

BTW, what can I say about the NYT links that are sometimes blocked by Subscription Request pop ups and sometimes not? As I understand it, clearing your Google / Chrome cache allows you to get a certain amount of free views. Maybe that's what I had done recently when I posted those links. And I'll bet the vast majority of the time my NYT link was just one additional one reporting the same real news of other links I provided in order to prove my point, not just one. So those with cleared cache or subscriptions could read those too.

Now, generally when I provide a link to a source, even those NYT links, I will quote a meaningful amount of the text that applies to the point I am making. Hell, even the highlighted in bold titles and headlines I almost always take the trouble to include provide a wealth of information.

You know, like what you didn't do with that collection of URLs for entire pages of posts and entire articles, without even the titles of the articles and pdf files included, on the mistaken assumption that I or anyone else is going to plow through all of it to do all the work for you and make your case for you out of it.