American Politics [Archive] - Page 4

Australiasucks

08-19-10, 02:02

Apparently the media has influenced your thought process. Obama wasn't supposed to get past Hillary or Mccain according to the media. People in America aren't as blind as you think, we'll see what happens in 2012. The media needs controversies to attract attention. If they all said Obama was doing good that would be boring.

I agree with your statement about America wanting fast results and being unappreciative. The problem with Obama is he genuinely cares. We are used to politicians who kiss babys, tell us want we want to hear, and then do nothing.

People have forgotten that two years ago we were headed for the next great depression, thats not talked about anymore. Now it's we want jobs, jobs, jobs. After that some other problem will be manufactored for Obama.

China is a global power mainly because of America. We got into exporting good's and away from domestic products.

Never underestimate America's resolve when depreciated. America is at it's best when playing catch up. Our problem is when were out front we don't know how to lead.

I have been to Austrailia and it is a wonderful country, but politically they a minor player.

Thanks for your post.That is obviously true, China has turned into a global power largely because it has exported goods to the US for years, but now it can use this to their advantage and to America's disadvantage. In the wake of the financial crisis, the US does not have the kind of manufacturing base that it once had, which created good paying jobs to keep a good and healthy middle class. The reason why fringe movements such as the Tea Party are gaining traction is because middle America has been left out in the cold, meanwhile Wall Street continues on with business, and for the most part Obama is no different than Bush. One thing that made America different from most societies is a large middle class that provided a social stable cushion between the rich and poor, that seems to be slowly going away. Things are still in a state of flux but my surmise is ten years down the road America will not be the country it is right now and not something for the better, the new global system is more and more becoming a nightmare for the American way of life, there is just no way you can compete with the rising Asian giants. America is now on the wrong side of history, this is going to be very difficult for Americans to accept but its more and more the reality with each passing day.

Jon32

08-19-10, 15:16

Australiasucks

08-19-10, 23:34

Completely awful. If you know of any causes out there to reverse the process I would happily support it.Its a lot more complicated than just the UN pushing these countries to spur migration. Most European nations are aging, and one of the ideas they had was to bring in more immigrants, many of these migrants from the Middle East do not want to integrate into mainstream European society and hence you get problems. Europe is getting shitty these days anyway. Australia has quite a few Muslim migrants, the ones who start trouble down under tend to be Lebanese. Indonesians and others are fairly peaceful.

Hunts

08-20-10, 01:10

Gentleman Travel

08-20-10, 15:09

Its a lot more complicated than just the UN pushing these countries to spur migration. Most European nations are aging, and one of the ideas they had was to bring in more immigrants, many of these migrants from the Middle East do not want to integrate into mainstream European society and hence you get problems.
This is equally true of Canada, don't know about the US.
Government deliberately opened the floodgates of immigration hoping that the newcomers would fund the pensions and government services of our aging, stagnant population. This instead of fixing the fundamental problem by living within our means.

The other argument was we needed immigrants to grow the population (again - why? why not recalibrate our spending model to make a stable or declining population sustainable?) but the big joke is that most immigrant groups, once they get established here, catch the "causian disease" and experience a decline in birthrate. Maybe muslims are an exception, but many immigrant groups reduce reproduction for the same reasons westerners do.

So government policy (driven by lack of foresight) has dramatically changed the ethnic and cultural composition of many countries without really getting the economic or demographic benefits they banked on.

Westy

08-20-10, 16:28

{Open-door immigration} is equally true of Canada, don't know about the US.
Government deliberately opened the floodgates of immigration hoping that the newcomers would fund the pensions and government services of our aging, stagnant population. This instead of fixing the fundamental problem by living within our means.

The other argument was we needed immigrants to grow the population (again - why? why not recalibrate our spending model to make a stable or declining population sustainable?) but the big joke is that most immigrant groups, once they get established here, catch the "causian disease" and experience a decline in birthrate. Maybe muslims are an exception, but many immigrant groups reduce reproduction for the same reasons westerners do.

So government policy (driven by lack of foresight) has dramatically changed the ethnic and cultural composition of many countries without really getting the economic or demographic benefits they banked on.
By now, I'm of the belief that no politician's foresight reaches farther than the next election cycle. The Holy Grail is to get elected, then re-elected and re-elected, usually by providing the "bread and circuses" they believe their constituents demand. Or "need". They "solve" their district's "problems" by throwing lots of money at the targets they perceive ... in many cases, finding a way to benefit from the money they throw; in even more cases, being accused of reaping an unseen, unauthorized, and "unholy" benefit from their policies.

I perceive this as true of Republicans or Democrats; Tories, Labour or Lib Dems; Peronistas or Colorados - in other words, true of any well-established and major party in any country. It's not a "Left" problem or a "Right" problem, it's a power problem. They have the power, they want to use it; they want to leave "their stamp" on the country for years to come. And of course they want to keep their hands on the power!

Trouble is, now Government IS the problem.

Back to immigration - In the early days of the USA, we had a very thin edge of "population" surrounding a huge span of "wilderness". We were anxious to populate our country and had plenty of "room to grow". These were the days of Horace Greeley's "Go West, young man!" But what we got were teeming cities, full of immigrants who stayed on where they washed ashore, settled in enclaves of their own ethnic heritage. Lady Liberty's "Give me your tired, your poor..." was faced off by "No Irish Need Apply."

Since the 1920s, we've had various greater or lesser restrictions on who can come in legally to the USA. We've also had a great influx of what I'll call "informal immigrants" (I'm being Politically Correct) crossing the borders. Billions of people around the world still see the USA as "The Land Of Opportunity," and they will risk their meager fortunes and even their lives to get here.

Immigration policy, immigration reform, "informal immigration" as I called it - there's a continuing fire-fight in Congress and in the State legislatures about these issues. My opinions are rather jaundiced, but I have some delightful friends who "overstayed their visas," worked hard, saved hard, and took a really nice "grubstake" back to their homelands. I've also seen lazy good-for-nothings who came to the USA for the sake of getting government handouts, and who cleared out when the INS came a-sniffing....

AND, best of all, I tip my hat to some of my immigrant friends who cleared in properly, got their USA citizenship, and have done as much or more for their new homeland as the USA has done for them. My colleagues Jorge and Federico, my neighbors the Kanes, the Paks, the Nguyens, etc., etc....

Australiasucks

08-21-10, 22:59

It's not just Spain it's the entire continent. Millions of them are now living in every Euro country. Many Europeans honestly believe they will take over the continent in less than 50 years. The U.N. made the greatest error of its existence when they requested in the early 1980s Euro borders open to refugees from middle east muslim and northeast African countries bringing their barbaric, primitive, religious behavior to western civilization in the midst of prosperity. Now 25 years later almost every Euro country has economic problems because of governmental support to these people through numerous programs while full blood Europeans suffer because of taxes, job lose etc.

As for America, Americans are an impatient breed. They need to realize it took 8 years to economically destroy the country. It will take more than 2, even more than 4 years to correct the mismanagement. Furthermore, wealthy Americans have to accept to pay some more in taxes to correct the previous administrations mistakes of giving them tax breaks. There is no other solution.You fail to see that both American parties are largely the same, they pretty much do whatever it takes to keep them in power. Bush initiated the bank bailouts and the two wars, although Obama is pulling out of Iraq, he is escalating the one in Afghanistan. He is also creating unprecedented control over American business and industry, the likes which have not been seen since the Soviet Union, GM for example is now a government company, the US fed now has more control over the nations banks as well. America's prosperity was built on free enterprise. What Obama does differently is his rhetoric, he speaks with a reconciliation tone to the world, not that the world really cares what America says these days. Bush destroyed America's soft power in his 8 years with his unilateral actions and with us or against us rhetoric, Obama is going to ruin America from the inside, creating a system that punishes the most productive and ambitious, after that the US will be a has been power, and the way of life that Americans have gotten used to is not going to last for much longer. Its pretty much now a question of when and not if, the NIE report states this decline will occur over the next 20 years, that seems quite right to me.

Europe shot itself, its not that simple just to blame the Muslim migrants, Europe has long had low fertility rates, that led Europeans to increase immigration. Australia, Canada, and the rest of the developed world is doing the same to prevent demographic decline.

The Western world we know with its power and influence will not exist for much longer, this is clearly going to be an Asian world order, in my country we are getting used to this notion, but I think people in Europe and the US will take a while if ever to accept this new reality for the world.

Jon32

08-22-10, 15:09

The Western world we know with its power and influence will not exist for much longer, this is clearly going to be an Asian world order, in my country we are getting used to this notion, but I think people in Europe and the US will take a while if ever to accept this new reality for the world.

Everyone is going to be asian and muslim in 100 years.

Westy

08-22-10, 15:31

Australiasucks, I've got a question.

Last week, The Economist had an article about the Australian elections. They refered to Julia Gillard's unseating of Kevin Rudd as Labor leader (and Prime Minister) as "the first act in a soap opera that has since bedevilled Labor's campaign against the conservative Liberal-National opposition."

How is it the the "Liberal Party" in Australia could take part in a "conservative coalition"? And I thought the USA's "Republicans vs. Democrats" were f***ed up ....

Gentleman Travel

08-22-10, 16:03

How is it the the "Liberal Party" in Australia could take part in a "conservative coalition"? And I thought the USA's "Republicans vs. Democrats" were f***ed up ....
The Liberals ARE the "conservative" party in Australia, and always have been.
And, if you think about it, the Republicans are the "liberal" party in the US, excepting the religious right, which is illiberal in the extreme.

In Canada, the Conservative Party has traditionally been "tory" but now is increasingly like the American Republicans, and the Liberal Party is usually socialist and rarely liberal, in the most traditional sense.

All clear now?

Australiasucks

08-22-10, 21:50

Everyone is going to be asian and muslim in 100 years.Probably true, and we can blame the femnazis for the disappearance of Europeans.

Westy

08-22-10, 23:34

The Liberals ARE the "conservative" party in Australia, and always have been.
And, if you think about it, the Republicans are the "liberal" party in the US, excepting the religious right, which is illiberal in the extreme.

In Canada, the Conservative Party has traditionally been "tory" but now is increasingly like the American Republicans, and the Liberal Party is usually socialist and rarely liberal, in the most traditional sense.

All clear now?
Thanks, GT, clear as mud. I may be adding to my own confusion, though; I associate "conservatism" with the core ideas of Adam Smith, Montesquieu, John Lock, and Edmund Burke; with the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I associate "liberalism" with statism, the behavior of empowering the State at the expense of liberty.

Member #2041

08-23-10, 01:04

Thanks, GT, clear as mud. I may be adding to my own confusion, though; I associate "conservatism" with the core ideas of Adam Smith, Montesquieu, John Lock, and Edmund Burke; with the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I associate "liberalism" with statism, the behavior of empowering the State at the expense of liberty.
Except nowadays, here in the U.S., we have "Conservatives" who run financial institutions going begging for government bailouts rather than face the consequences when they make stupid business decisions, and other "Conservatives" such as Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke giving them those bailouts. We have "Conservatives" rejecting the rights of private property owners to build whatever house of worship that they choose on their own property, "Conservatives" seeking to have the government interject itself in the consensual sexual activities of adults, "Conservatives" seeking all manner of government eavesdropping on private citizens without any sort of probable cause, and "Conservatives" setting up a shadow military prison system so that accused prisoners of war can be tortured and held in perpetuity without any hope of due process.

No wonder you're confused, Westy - you're using an entirely obsolete definition of a "Conservative" - at least as far as the U.S. is concerned.

Oh, and BTW, at the time he lived, John Locke and the ideas he espoused were considered to be extremist Liberal, to the point of being the inspiration for not one, but the two greatest Revolutions of the 18th century.

Westy

08-23-10, 02:13

Clandestine782

08-23-10, 04:08

Except nowadays, here in the U.S., we have "Conservatives" who run financial institutions going begging for government bailouts rather than face the consequences when they make stupid business decisions, and other "Conservatives" such as Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke giving them those bailouts. We have "Conservatives" rejecting the rights of private property owners to build whatever house of worship that they choose on their own property, "Conservatives" seeking to have the government interject itself in the consensual sexual activities of adults, "Conservatives" seeking all manner of government eavesdropping on private citizens without any sort of probable cause, and "Conservatives" setting up a shadow military prison system so that accused prisoners of war can be tortured and held in perpetuity without any hope of due process.

No wonder you're confused, Westy - you're using an entirely obsolete definition of a "Conservative" - at least as far as the U.S. is concerned.

Oh, and BTW, at the time he lived, John Locke and the ideas he espoused were considered to be extremist Liberal, to the point of being the inspiration for not one, but the two greatest Revolutions of the 18th century.
1. There is some confusion about the definition of "liberal." When you are talking about classical liberals, then you are talking agbout people along the lines of F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others who were something very much like radical libertarians. Then you have people like that assclown Noam Chomsky who believes in something called "Libertarian Socialism" (whatever the fuck that could mean). So, yes, both have been called "liberal," but it is just a word whose meaning can (and has) changed over time. (Kind of like that word "gay.")

People like Margaret Thatcher have commented on the tendency of those on the left to use verbal contortion (since the ideas that they have tend to quickly be shown to be wrong/ false/ foolish). Hereof is yet another example.

2. You talk about two revolutions. I know that one is the US Revolution (1776 and after). But what other one could you mean? I hope you don't mean the French Revolution......

3. Conservatives asking for bailouts? Are you sure that this is an issue of "liberal" vs. "conservative" as much as it is of moral hazard? (If you are a bank president and know that you can use someone else's money to bail out your bank, then you will do things as frivolous as come to your mind.) Or is it an issue of just poor legislation over many administrations (both liberal and conservative)? If you do any reading, you can know that there are plenty of governments that don't bother getting into the issue of acting as a lender of last resort. (Any country that has a currency board system).

4. Prisoners of war........... If someone acts as an enemy combatant, why is everyone else worried about whining about what happens to them? Would these people extend you the same courtesy if you were doing the same thing in their country?

5. Probable cause eavesdropping........Not sure what you are getting at here. I know that all this legal bullshit does not happen in China. (For example, the people who attacked children at kindergartens were tried and executed within 30 days.) It might work out better if there are fewer steps involved in the government being able to gather information to take care of business. Have you ever thought about this as a cost-benefit issue (as opposed to moralizing/ turning this issue into a soapbox)? That the cost of a few people feeling aggrieved about not having absolute privacy might be less than the cost of being able to get the information that is needed to stop some plan in progress?

6. Consensual sexual activities of adults.......Ok, you do know that prostitution is a state/ local issue, right? And you can find that you have left wing places (like Massachusetts) or right wing places (like Texas) that outlaw prostitution. So, not only is not a federal issue, but you can find that local governments on both sides of the fence have something to say about it.

7. Houses of worship.........Well, there is another way to look at this. Not everything can be reduced to a legal issue. If there are some people who want to protect themselves from people who don't share their culture, then why not? Again: The PRC government is instructive in this way. If they don't want to approve a permit for some house of worship (or any other thing), then they will just not do it and not discuss the reasons why. It is very clear the the Islamic world is not a friend to the Non-Islamic world--- and has not been for a long time. (You can read Samuel Huntington, "Clash of Civilizations" for details.) The simple answer is that "once the camel gets his nose into the tent, then the rest will follow." And it really is that simple. Not allowing those people to build that house of worship in that place would be stopping the camel from getting his nose into the tent (i.e., through some series of steps trying to set up Shariah law--check out the writings of Frank
Gaffney on this topic). You could turn it into a legal issue (i.e., a process based issue) or you could see it in a results-oriented way (in which case you would conclude to stop the camel from getting his nose into the tent-- and to do it with a minimum amount of discussion).

Member #2041

08-23-10, 05:43

1. There is some confusion about the definition of "liberal." When you are talking about classical liberals, then you are talking agbout people along the lines of F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others who were something very much like radical libertarians. Then you have people like that assclown Noam Chomsky who believes in something called "Libertarian Socialism" (whatever the fuck that could mean). So, yes, both have been called "liberal," but it is just a word whose meaning can (and has) changed over time. (Kind of like that word "gay.")

People like Margaret Thatcher have commented on the tendency of those on the left to use verbal contortion (since the ideas that they have tend to quickly be shown to be wrong/ false/ foolish). Hereof is yet another example.

2. You talk about two revolutions. I know that one is the US Revolution (1776 and after). But what other one could you mean? I hope you don't mean the French Revolution......

3. Conservatives asking for bailouts? Are you sure that this is an issue of "liberal" vs. "conservative" as much as it is of moral hazard? (If you are a bank president and know that you can use someone else's money to bail out your bank, then you will do things as frivolous as come to your mind.) Or is it an issue of just poor legislation over many administrations (both liberal and conservative)? If you do any reading, you can know that there are plenty of governments that don't bother getting into the issue of acting as a lender of last resort. (Any country that has a currency board system).

4. Prisoners of war........... If someone acts as an enemy combatant, why is everyone else worried about whining about what happens to them? Would these people extend you the same courtesy if you were doing the same thing in their country?

5. Probable cause eavesdropping........Not sure what you are getting at here. I know that all this legal bullshit does not happen in China. (For example, the people who attacked children at kindergartens were tried and executed within 30 days.) It might work out better if there are fewer steps involved in the government being able to gather information to take care of business. Have you ever thought about this as a cost-benefit issue (as opposed to moralizing/ turning this issue into a soapbox)? That the cost of a few people feeling aggrieved about not having absolute privacy might be less than the cost of being able to get the information that is needed to stop some plan in progress?

6. Consensual sexual activities of adults.......Ok, you do know that prostitution is a state/ local issue, right? And you can find that you have left wing places (like Massachusetts) or right wing places (like Texas) that outlaw prostitution. So, not only is not a federal issue, but you can find that local governments on both sides of the fence have something to say about it.

7. Houses of worship.........Well, there is another way to look at this. Not everything can be reduced to a legal issue. If there are some people who want to protect themselves from people who don't share their culture, then why not? Again: The PRC government is instructive in this way. If they don't want to approve a permit for some house of worship (or any other thing), then they will just not do it and not discuss the reasons why. It is very clear the the Islamic world is not a friend to the Non-Islamic world--- and has not been for a long time. (You can read Samuel Huntington, "Clash of Civilizations" for details.) The simple answer is that "once the camel gets his nose into the tent, then the rest will follow." And it really is that simple. Not allowing those people to build that house of worship in that place would be stopping the camel from getting his nose into the tent (i.e., through some series of steps trying to set up Shariah law--check out the writings of Frank
Gaffney on this topic). You could turn it into a legal issue (i.e., a process based issue) or you could see it in a results-oriented way (in which case you would conclude to stop the camel from getting his nose into the tent-- and to do it with a minimum amount of discussion).
Nowadays, nobody in the U.S. much cares what Margaret Thatcher has to say about Liberals, given the fact that the most prosperous periods in post-war America happened under Bill Clinton, and in the U.K. under Tony Blair. Unfortunately for Blair, he was too quick to acquiesce to George Bush's brand of Foreign Policy, and the domestic prosperity he presided over was rather quickly forgotten.

2) Yes, Locke inspired first the American Revolution, and then the French

3) in actual fact, those bankers who begged for the bailouts did self-identify as Conservatives. But it certainly highlights their hypocrisy when, when push came to shove and they were faced with insolvency, their "Conservative principles" be damned - they just wanted their losses covered by the Government. And it was a couple of "Conservatives" appointed by the Bush Administration who covered those losses - admittedly with Liberals acquiescing as well to the bail out. Fear and self-interest can certainly make one abandon their highest minded principles.

4) Why do we care about Enemy Combatants? Simply because the fundamental basis for our nation is that we are a nation founded on the basis of principles, not on the basis of individuals. And when we betray our own founding principles in defense of our nation, we squander the very rationale of our existence. If our core principles are not worthy of preserving in our own defense, perhaps our nation is not worthy of defending. If we stoop to the level of those who would tear us down - perhaps they OUGHT to tear us down.

5) OUR system, unlike the Chinese - is based upon the fundamental principle that it is MORE important to protect ONE innocent person against the oppression of the government, than it is to bring ten guilty people to their punishment. If you disagree with that system - well, the trend is in your favor, as the Chinese flavor of due process seems well on it's way toward world dominance.

6) I was not actually referring to prostitution laws, I was referring to Sodomy laws, which Antonin Scalia and 3 other of the most Conservative members of the Supreme Court - believe to still be the prerogative of the state to enforce.

7) Again, OUR nation was founded as a paradigm of being better than the rest because ALL religions were given equal opportunity. If we now claim that Islam is not entitled to the same protections as Christianity, Because in OTHER countries, Islam is given unique sway over the entire populace, well, then, tear the Constitution to shreds - it's no longer worth the parchment it's written on. And if you think our Constitution is in such danger of being usurped by Sharia Law, which is only supported by a minority of one Religion, and in that case, the most poorly secularly educated observers of that one Religion, then I think you fail to give our system of laws anywhere near the credit that it deserves. Our Constitution's framers fundamentally believed that ALL ideas are worthy of admission to the table, and that only through a robust and all-encompassing debate, will the strongest ideas survive. The Arab states you implicitly mention where Sharia Law is prevalent, most assuredly do not encourage that sort of free exchange of ideas, because they well know that Sharia Law would never be implemented nor observed in such an open society.

In any case, thanks, Clandestine782, for such a timely primer on how Conservatives can conveniently throw their bedrock principles away whenever it suits the winds of public opinion. The hypocrisy couldn't be any more glaring.

Clandestine782

08-23-10, 10:24

Nowadays, nobody in the U.S. much cares what Margaret Thatcher has to say about Liberals, given the fact that the most prosperous periods in post-war America happened under Bill Clinton, and in the U.K. under Tony Blair. Unfortunately for Blair, he was too quick to acquiesce to George Bush's brand of Foreign Policy, and the domestic prosperity he presided over was rather quickly forgotten.

2) Yes, Locke inspired first the American Revolution, and then the French

3) in actual fact, those bankers who begged for the bailouts did self-identify as Conservatives. But it certainly highlights their hypocrisy when, when push came to shove and they were faced with insolvency, their "Conservative principles" be damned - they just wanted their losses covered by the Government. And it was a couple of "Conservatives" appointed by the Bush Administration who covered those losses - admittedly with Liberals acquiescing as well to the bail out. Fear and self-interest can certainly make one abandon their highest minded principles.

4) Why do we care about Enemy Combatants? Simply because the fundamental basis for our nation is that we are a nation founded on the basis of principles, not on the basis of individuals. And when we betray our own founding principles in defense of our nation, we squander the very rationale of our existence. If our core principles are not worthy of preserving in our own defense, perhaps our nation is not worthy of defending. If we stoop to the level of those who would tear us down - perhaps they OUGHT to tear us down.

5) OUR system, unlike the Chinese - is based upon the fundamental principle that it is MORE important to protect ONE innocent person against the oppression of the government, than it is to bring ten guilty people to their punishment. If you disagree with that system - well, the trend is in your favor, as the Chinese flavor of due process seems well on it's way toward world dominance.

6) I was not actually referring to prostitution laws, I was referring to Sodomy laws, which Antonin Scalia and 3 other of the most Conservative members of the Supreme Court - believe to still be the prerogative of the state to enforce.

7) Again, OUR nation was founded as a paradigm of being better than the rest because ALL religions were given equal opportunity. If we now claim that Islam is not entitled to the same protections as Christianity, Because in OTHER countries, Islam is given unique sway over the entire populace, well, then, tear the Constitution to shreds - it's no longer worth the parchment it's written on. And if you think our Constitution is in such danger of being usurped by Sharia Law, which is only supported by a minority of one Religion, and in that case, the most poorly secularly educated observers of that one Religion, then I think you fail to give our system of laws anywhere near the credit that it deserves. Our Constitution's framers fundamentally believed that ALL ideas are worthy of admission to the table, and that only through a robust and all-encompassing debate, will the strongest ideas survive. The Arab states you implicitly mention where Sharia Law is prevalent, most assuredly do not encourage that sort of free exchange of ideas, because they well know that Sharia Law would never be implemented nor observed in such an open society.

In any case, thanks, Clandestine782, for such a timely primer on how Conservatives can conveniently throw their bedrock principles away whenever it suits the winds of public opinion. The hypocrisy couldn't be any more glaring.
That was a nice response. At least you bothered to answer the questions one by one and not turn this into personal attacks (this happens all the time on this forum).

1. As for Magaret Thatcher: She was the person who presided over a prosperous period in the United Kingdom (because Britain was looking very rough for a time). I've also read her books (that quote is from "Statecraft") and find that she is very intelligent (she was a Ph.D. in Chemistry), so when she talked about social issues, she did it with great perspective and insight.

2. Ok, if you look into the French Revolution, you will find that even if Locke did have something to say that inspired some aspect of the French Revolution, you can know that the ideas behind that revolution were VERY DIFFERENT to the ones behind the American Revolution. (How many republics has France been through since then? And did you read anything about the Reign of Terror in France that happened shortly after the French Revolution?) In sum, the French Revolution was a very different thing to the American one-- even if they happen to both be related by the fact that they were revolutions.

3. Ok, so the bankers were conservatives (where have you read this, by the way? Can you point to a single metric that describes/ quantifies the degree of conservatism by the bankers)? And in any case, you could turn that argument on its head. One of the biggest scams in the United States is the university system (at all levels). Now, universities are well to the left of the general population, and they produce a very little bit of economic value-- relative to what they suck up. (Do a google of "Courtney Munna nytimes.com" and you will get the story of a girl who spent $100,000 on an undergraduate education that she will be paying off for the rest of her life.) But can you say that what universities did (and do) is right because of their political persuasion? Even though universities and banks are EQUALLY GUILTY of moral hazard (i.e., not worrying about what someone else has to pay for and in what quantity).

I don't think this is an issue of political preference (again). If government policy (over some number of years and some number of administrations) allowed banks to become "too big too fail," then *that* is what created the conditions for banks to make reckless decisions. It's likely that you didn't look up the currency board countries (or the concept), but one of the central features of an Orthodox currency board is that it does not get into setting the discount interest rates (1) and that it does not act as a lender of last resort (2). I think if someone had thought to not let banks large enough to be too big to fail, then this might not have happened. Zombie banks have happened before (Japan. China.) The US could have seen this coming. And this was a policy issue.

4. Then this is where we disagree. Principles in the abstract are fine. But we exist in the real world. So, what I see as a cost benefit issue (that letting 10 guilty people go free really is more costly than imprisoning one innocent person) is a moral issue to you. And because of that, we'll never be able to come to an agreement on this.

5. I live here in China now, and find that they are (in some respects) no nonsense. When those people killed children, there was no reason for some lawyer to drag that out for 15 years. Getting executed in a timely fashion was better for everyone (including those people who might not have had time for a day in court because judges were busy listening to lawywers stretch out said cases to said amount of time) because the cost of that one life was worth the safety of many others.

6. I think you want to look into that case a bit more carefully. I believe that that was ruling on the constitutionality of a law that was in Georgia. The Supreme Court is an appellate court, and they don't worry about writing the laws. They just deal with the issue of whether a state can constitutionally pass a law (even if they don't agree with it). This is the difference between Strict Constructionism and Living Constitution theorists.

7. That is not true (that Sharia would not be implemented in free societies), and this is because Sharia was chosen by the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) and Afghanistan (Taliban) with no outside pressure. (They are both Wahabbis.) I know that Nigeria has had some trouble with various localities wanting to ignore the secular law and institute Sharia in its place. Ditto for Yemen and Somalia.

I think the issue we have (about how far to let Muslims take over the United States) is not one that we can solve. I am looking at this in a real life way (i.e., something that HAS happened and CAN happen again and SHOULD be avoided if at all possible). You are looking at this as an abstract principle that exists in some reality somewhere. On this earth: (1) Muslims are not fond of the West; (2) The problem of some people coming someplace and starting out as guests and then taking over has happened before. (Think of China in either Tibet or Xinjiang. Those people were independent nations at one time and then they got in bed with China and lost ALL of their territory. Mongolia did a little better and lost half of theirs. Russia in in the process of losing its border states. If you google "Russia china revanchism," you will find articles that talk about just that.)

So, dealing with things that exist on THIS Earth, you can see that gate-crashers happen all the time. And once you know that, it is the problem of the practical issue of preventing that. (That was the point of Switzerland's not allowing minarets.)

We could talk about the benefits of NOT having a constitution written down (like Britain and Israel), but that's getting too deep.

Gentleman Travel

08-23-10, 14:53

Thanks, GT, clear as mud. I may be adding to my own confusion, though; I associate "conservatism" with the core ideas of Adam Smith, Montesquieu, John Lock, and Edmund Burke; with the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I associate "liberalism" with statism, the behavior of empowering the State at the expense of liberty.
Only in contemporary American vernacular does it take on this meaning, but since this thread is entitled "American politics" perhaps you are correct.

But the correct definition (from Wikipedia) is:
"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom") is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state."

Whereas "conservative" is defined thusly,
"Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were."

This is similar to being a "Tory" - although it does not speak to the social obligations of toryism. A Tory does not believe in dog-eat-dog capitalism or hold individual rights supreme - but rather he believes in an orderly, traditional society in which those on top (ideally the Tory in question) have some obligations to those beneath ("noblese oblige").

But perhaps this discussion is becoming a touch arcane for ISG and we should turn our minds to more earthly pursuits?

Westy

08-23-10, 16:29

Or maybe, GT, we could say more "earthy" pursuits. :D

Member #2041

08-23-10, 17:47

That was a nice response. At least you bothered to answer the questions one by one and not turn this into personal attacks (this happens all the time on this forum).

1. As for Magaret Thatcher: She was the person who presided over a prosperous period in the United Kingdom (because Britain was looking very rough for a time). I've also read her books (that quote is from "Statecraft") and find that she is very intelligent (she was a Ph.D. in Chemistry), so when she talked about social issues, she did it with great perspective and insight.

2. Ok, if you look into the French Revolution, you will find that even if Locke did have something to say that inspired some aspect of the French Revolution, you can know that the ideas behind that revolution were VERY DIFFERENT to the ones behind the American Revolution. (How many republics has France been through since then? And did you read anything about the Reign of Terror in France that happened shortly after the French Revolution?) In sum, the French Revolution was a very different thing to the American one-- even if they happen to both be related by the fact that they were revolutions.

3. Ok, so the bankers were conservatives (where have you read this, by the way? Can you point to a single metric that describes/ quantifies the degree of conservatism by the bankers)? And in any case, you could turn that argument on its head. One of the biggest scams in the United States is the university system (at all levels). Now, universities are well to the left of the general population, and they produce a very little bit of economic value-- relative to what they suck up. (Do a google of "Courtney Munna nytimes.com" and you will get the story of a girl who spent $100,000 on an undergraduate education that she will be paying off for the rest of her life.) But can you say that what universities did (and do) is right because of their political persuasion? Even though universities and banks are EQUALLY GUILTY of moral hazard (i.e., not worrying about what someone else has to pay for and in what quantity).

I don't think this is an issue of political preference (again). If government policy (over some number of years and some number of administrations) allowed banks to become "too big too fail," then *that* is what created the conditions for banks to make reckless decisions. It's likely that you didn't look up the currency board countries (or the concept), but one of the central features of an Orthodox currency board is that it does not get into setting the discount interest rates (1) and that it does not act as a lender of last resort (2). I think if someone had thought to not let banks large enough to be too big to fail, then this might not have happened. Zombie banks have happened before (Japan. China.) The US could have seen this coming. And this was a policy issue.

4. Then this is where we disagree. Principles in the abstract are fine. But we exist in the real world. So, what I see as a cost benefit issue (that letting 10 guilty people go free really is more costly than imprisoning one innocent person) is a moral issue to you. And because of that, we'll never be able to come to an agreement on this.

5. I live here in China now, and find that they are (in some respects) no nonsense. When those people killed children, there was no reason for some lawyer to drag that out for 15 years. Getting executed in a timely fashion was better for everyone (including those people who might not have had time for a day in court because judges were busy listening to lawywers stretch out said cases to said amount of time) because the cost of that one life was worth the safety of many others.

6. I think you want to look into that case a bit more carefully. I believe that that was ruling on the constitutionality of a law that was in Georgia. The Supreme Court is an appellate court, and they don't worry about writing the laws. They just deal with the issue of whether a state can constitutionally pass a law (even if they don't agree with it). This is the difference between Strict Constructionism and Living Constitution theorists.

7. That is not true (that Sharia would not be implemented in free societies), and this is because Sharia was chosen by the House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) and Afghanistan (Taliban) with no outside pressure. (They are both Wahabbis.) I know that Nigeria has had some trouble with various localities wanting to ignore the secular law and institute Sharia in its place. Ditto for Yemen and Somalia.

I think the issue we have (about how far to let Muslims take over the United States) is not one that we can solve. I am looking at this in a real life way (i.e., something that HAS happened and CAN happen again and SHOULD be avoided if at all possible). You are looking at this as an abstract principle that exists in some reality somewhere. On this earth: (1) Muslims are not fond of the West; (2) The problem of some people coming someplace and starting out as guests and then taking over has happened before. (Think of China in either Tibet or Xinjiang. Those people were independent nations at one time and then they got in bed with China and lost ALL of their territory. Mongolia did a little better and lost half of theirs. Russia in in the process of losing its border states. If you google "Russia china revanchism," you will find articles that talk about just that.)

So, dealing with things that exist on THIS Earth, you can see that gate-crashers happen all the time. And once you know that, it is the problem of the practical issue of preventing that. (That was the point of Switzerland's not allowing minarets.)

We could talk about the benefits of NOT having a constitution written down (like Britain and Israel), but that's getting too deep.

1) We'll simply have to agree to disagree about the relevance of Margaret Thatcher's opinion of Liberals. My opinion of the Religious Right brand of "Conservatives" is even less flattering (as opposed to the Libertarian small government strain of Conservatism). But in each case, these are simply individual's opinions - and after all, opinions are like assholes - we all have one.

2) I wasn't referring to what the French Revolution became - I was referring only to the underlying ideas that inspired it at it's genesis - those of Locke and Rousseau. I will grant you that the French Revolution rapidly became something far less pure than the initial ideology that spawned it.

3) I didn't say that the bankers WERE actual Conservatives - I said that they self-identified as such. Obviously, when push came to shove, they all simply wanted the losses caused by their own bad business decisions to be covered by the Government - and thus in their actions, they were hypocrites who threw their Conservative principles over the side in a New York minute. The only GENUINE ideology that these folks ever had, irrespective of what they may have claimed - was the Gordon Gecko credo that "Greed is Good".

4) I agree that we won't agree. But I also feel that it's very clear that ABSOLUTE respect for the rights of citizenry is the very underpinning of our system. If you can compromise on that whenever the "real world" impedes - then the American system has no legitimate justification to exist.

5) Good that you live in China - their methodology is probably more to your liking. I do feel that it's unfortunate that the American ideals and principles seem to be being abandoned from within, so we will never actually see which one would triumph on the World Stage in the long term - as it appears clear that we will adopt their entirely pragmatic approach fairly soon. Fortunately for me, as someone in his 50s, I won't live to see this played out to completion.

6) Actually, the opinions of the most staunch Conservatives on the SCOTUS are clear. They believe that States have the right to regulate private sexual behavior between consenting adults. They do not find any right to Privacy from intrusive government exists - which is exactly the opposite of how they view governmental intervention in economic interaction between consenting business entities. This is one of the main compromises that Conservatism has made to it's ideology in order to build a political coalition which incorporates Evangelical religious zealots into their numbers. The Libertarian flavor of Conservatism, while highly principled, has never by itself been able to get majority support without the Religious folks who want to legislate morality.

7) The fact is, Sharia would not and could not ever be implemented in a society where women have rights as individuals and educational opportunities. It only exists where women are treated as chattel. If you really fear Sharia could actually take hold in America, then it is patently obvious that you don't believe in the bedrock principles of the American System. None of the nations where Sharia law has ever taken hold were Democracies, and only one - Iran, had an educated population at the time, and it was clear that Iran is a special case because of the Anti-American hatred that the Shah inspired put a taint on any of the principles that America was linked with. And even so, they appear to be on their way to overthrowing Sharia law as a bad experiment that has harmed them as a nation. In any case, it couldn't be more clear that Islam is every bit as legally protected a religion as any other under the American system. There simply is no "exception" to be made for Islam, if we believe that there is anything in the American system that's worth preserving. If you really believe that Islam is so dangerous to the American way of life - then I will simply say that you need to own up to your own belief that there is nothing special about the American system of government, and we might as well abandon it and surrender in advance to the Chinese. To me, the far greater threat comes from people willing to abandon our principles due to irrational fear over stuff like Sharia Law. That's like saying that the last few centuries of human development have been counterproductive, and the middle ages is going to triumph over progress.

As for your last point about the "benefits" of not having a written Constitution. I would call that a fundamental flaw, and not a benefit. Because it's far too easy to abandon bedrock principles when there is short term gain. But in those societies, the principles in questio are NOT really bedrock, are they? I might say that the single salient distinguishing feature of the American system of government is the Bill of Rights. Without it, we would never have come to prominence as a world power, because we never would have attracted the waves of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers who migrated to this nation because of the clarion call of that document.

Westy

08-23-10, 23:08

Yes, CBS. Ten questions, ten letter grades, A-B-C-D-F.

Even better, they're sharing the results in real time. When you submit your poll, a window opens up showing bar-graphs of readers' response.

They are, of course, very clear that "this is not a scientific poll." I can't blame them for that. Because as of the moment I submitted my grades, the results were NOT pretty for the President.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6116297-503544.html?tag

Clandestine782

08-24-10, 11:18

2) I wasn't referring to what the French Revolution became - I was referring only to the underlying ideas that inspired it at it's genesis - those of Locke and Rousseau. I will grant you that the French Revolution rapidly became something far less pure than the initial ideology that spawned it. And this is a perfect example of how "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The outcome of the French Revolution is an actual result (it doesn't matter how good the principles behind it were, or if they were the same principles as for the American Revolution).

3) The only GENUINE ideology that these folks ever had, irrespective of what they may have claimed - was the Gordon Gecko credo that "Greed is Good". Greed seems to be a bad human emotion, but the fact is that it gets things done. If you had to appeal to someone's moral compass/ better side to get something done as opposed to their self interest, which do you think would get you a faster result? I teach Chemistry and deal with a moist, pulsating asshole of a manager. Maybe you could tell me that if I am managed by that guy, then some other guy doesn't have to deal with him-- and that would be appealing to my better nature. But, sorry, if you gave me that (and then made my paycheck zero), then I'm afraid that I would have to find something else to do. When I moonlight as a conversation teacher here (talking about the same shit OVER AND OVER with students who have been studying for 7 or 8 years and can't make a decent conversation), do you think I do that for my health?

4) But I also feel that it's very clear that ABSOLUTE respect for the rights of citizenry is the very underpinning of our system. If you can compromise on that whenever the "real world" impedes - then the American system has no legitimate justification to exist.Well, principles must conform to the real world but the reverse is not true. So, not trying to consider the American system (whatever that may mean) without respect to what it entails in the real world is the first step to Perdition. If it just about economic development (and that is good enough for me--- I don't care about the right to speak my mind because I don't have it in China and am none the worse off for it), then there are systems that have a lot less respect for the rights of their citizenry (i.e., Singapore) and are just as rich.

5) Good that you live in China - their methodology is probably more to your liking. I do feel that it's unfortunate that the American ideals and principles seem to be being abandoned from within, so we will never actually see which one would triumph on the World Stage in the long term - as it appears clear that we will adopt their entirely pragmatic approach fairly soon. Fortunately for me, as someone in his 50s, I won't live to see this played out to completion. There are some very serious problems the way China does things. But the thing that I most appreciate is that they do things with the minimum amount of talking. I can't stand the current President of the United States because he does SO MUCH talking with so little carefully-thought-out action. The PRC government is the direct opposite. They are very opaque, but they do take care of business (in SOME respects).

7) The fact is, Sharia would not and could not ever be implemented in a society where women have rights as individuals and educational opportunities. Never say never. Did anyone 100 years ago imagine that a black person could become president? One did. Does anyone now imagine that the United States could end up looking like Haiti (enough black administrations will do that to almost any country-- short of a nuclear device, they are the best way to destroy almost anything productive). It could.
It only exists where women are treated as chattel. If you really fear Sharia could actually take hold in America, then it is patently obvious that you don't believe in the bedrock principles of the American System.Well, systems don't exist in a vacuum. They exist because people propagate them. And if you have enough Arabs/ Muslims/ North Africans in one place, then that is EXACTLY what could happen.

If you really believe that Islam is so dangerous to the American way of life - I leave you to read the writings on Frank Gaffney. This is not a big bang sort of thing. This is step by step. The camel is trying to get his nose in the tent.
then I will simply say that you need to own up to your own belief that there is nothing special about the American system of government, and we might as well abandon it and surrender in advance to the Chinese.I wouldn't go as far as all that. But even if the Chinese have been stuck in the Qin Dynasty for the last 2,300 years.....at least they won't let themselves be changed. At least they won't let someone come to China and try to extend their own country into it.
.
As for your last point about the "benefits" of not having a written Constitution. I would call that a fundamental flaw, and not a benefit.Britain is doing just fine. Israel is doing just fine.
Because it's far too easy to abandon bedrock principles when there is short term gain. But in those societies, the principles in questio are NOT really bedrock, are they? I might say that the single salient distinguishing feature of the American system of government is the Bill of Rights. Without it, we would never have come to prominence as a world power, because we never would have attracted the waves of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers who migrated to this nation because of the clarion call of that document.Two separate issues...........A favorable business environment and a Bill of Rights/ Constitution are two very different things. Singapore is swimming in money, and laws there are very much on the side of the government (compare that to Malaysia, which is a bit more laid back but less rich). China is even WORSE. But (these days at least), they are having no problems attracting investment.

Gentleman Travel

08-24-10, 15:28

1) We'll simply have to agree to disagree about the relevance of Margaret Thatcher's opinion of Liberals. My opinion of the Religious Right brand of "Conservatives" is even less flattering (as opposed to the Libertarian small government strain of Conservatism)...
MY GOD! A high level debate, using facts, philosophy and coherent arguments on "American Politics"! Will wonders never cease?

Jackson, you must stop this immediately before reasoned discourse takes over the whole Board!!

Member #2041

08-24-10, 22:44

britain is doing just fine. israel is doing just fine.
actually, israel not so much - their main threat is demographics. they are well on their way to becoming the next south africa in the era of apartheid, as within 30-50 years, the less privileged, less educated arab population will dwarf the jewish population. if israel doesn't figure out how to let the palestinians have their own state with the full rights of an independent state, this is going to be their unavoidable future.

never say never. did anyone 100 years ago imagine that a black person could become president? one did. does anyone now imagine that the united states could end up looking like haiti (enough black administrations will do that to almost any country-- short of a nuclear device, they are the best way to destroy almost anything productive). it could. well, systems don't exist in a vacuum. they exist because people propagate them. and if you have enough arabs/ muslims/ north africans in one place, then that is exactly what could happen. frankly, i hadn't realized that i was debating with such an obvious racist. your metaphor about a black american president and sharia law is completely flawed - it was positive progress toward equality that enabled the u.s. to overcome it's prejudices and get to that point. that trend was inevitable, the only question was at what speed would it be accomplished. moving toward sharia law requires the state of human enlightenment in a society to move backwards, not forwards. as long as the society is evolving toward more education for more of it's populace, sharia can't happen. it is only if society becomes far more repressive and far less well educated than the american society already is that sharia can exist. admittedly, or education system has regressed somewhat in the past generation - but for it to continue to regress to the stage that anyone could seriously believe that sharia law was an actual threat, well our nation would have to have long since devolved past the point of anyone caring whether or not the u.s. system of government would be worth saving - we'd need to become a third world country - which, clearly is a long way off even for those of us who believe our nation may actually now be in decline. comparing our system to haiti's is laughable. the reason a place like haiti is as corrupt as it is has nothing to do with the color of it's goverment, it has to do with the fact that corruption is endemic to the society, and economic exploitation of the nation's resources and populace has been pervasive throughout it's history. education is the answer to solving those ills, and keeping something like sharia law at bay. obama won his election because he was clearly the more intelligent, more thoughtful candidate running. the fact that he has not solved the myriad of major problems that he inherited speaks far more to the severity of those issues that he inherited than it does to anything about his race. we are surely no worse off than had a mccain-palin ticket been charged with solving the same set of problems.

that being said, i'm saddened that what had been an interesting exchange of ideas has been blighted by a raft of bigotry that i didn't see coming from your end until you unleashed it in it's full fury. arabs, muslims, and north africans are no more likely to damage a society than white folks are, when they are confronted by an equivalent amount of endemic poverty and lack of education. sharia law requires an uneducated population to proliferate. so does the level of graft in a place like haiti or somalia. it has absolutely nothing to do with race, and very little to do with religion - except in that certain religious teachings have proven to be more popular amongst the poorest and worst educated people on the planet.

Australiasucks

08-25-10, 05:14

Clandestine, you must be smoking some potent stuff, Britain is not doing fine, and neither is Israel. The US is largely in the biggest economic debacle since the 1930s, the politicians were saying the worst is behind America but its obvious the crisis never ended and was merely masked by the massive amount of bailout stimulus. The patient was hemorrhaging due to a gunshot wound, the Wall Street created financial crisis, and Dr. Obama administered more blood to the US economy without stopping the hemorrhaging, hence the US is on a spending spree that is the equivalent of a poker game. Obama betting the house that the US will recover, looks like he is going to lose the house. Britain is on the verge of being thrown out of the EU, while you think this may weaken the EU it will actually make Europe stronger. I was born British myself and keep up with events there. I currently live in Australia and would never dream of returning there.

On the Israel front, things seem to be getting worse for Israel, they put themselves in a big hole, they have no friends any more, and Iran is going nuclear. Not a good sign for them.

Gentleman Travel

08-25-10, 15:08

Moving toward Sharia Law requires the state of human enlightenment in a society to move BACKWARDS, not forwards. As long as the society is evolving toward more education for more of it's populace, Sharia can't happen. It is only if society becomes far more repressive and far less well educated than the American society already is that Sharia can exist.
Not necessarily, there is a route to accepting Sharia law that passes through comtemporary "liberal" and "progressive" thinking - cultural relativism - the concept that western culture is not inherently superior to any other, and all are equally valid. In Canada, this is also cloaked in terms of "accommodation" and "diversity". So if an Islamic woman is cloaked in a burka on a hot August day, walking two steps behind her husband and forbidden to work or get educated, that is their right and simply a part of cultural accommodation. And we don't want to know what happens in private in that family (girls being pulled out of school, arranged marriages, female circumcision) because it might force us to deal with the issue that not all cultural values are compatible and not all practices benign.

Member #2041

08-25-10, 16:14

Not necessarily, there is a route to accepting Sharia law that passes through comtemporary "liberal" and "progressive" thinking - cultural relativism - the concept that western culture is not inherently superior to any other, and all are equally valid. In Canada, this is also cloaked in terms of "accommodation" and "diversity". So if an Islamic woman is cloaked in a burka on a hot August day, walking two steps behind her husband and forbidden to work or get educated, that is their right and simply a part of cultural accommodation. And we don't want to know what happens in private in that family (girls being pulled out of school, arranged marriages, female circumcision) because it might force us to deal with the issue that not all cultural values are compatible and not all practices benign.
You've still never shown a single situation in the history of the planet where a society that has educated women have adopted Sharia Law. The "route" you describe has never been traveled in human history. If you live in a civilized society and you are afraid of Sharia Law, you are also afraid of the boogeyman and any number of completely fictitious scenarios. You cannot justify oppression on the basis of something as illogical and unprecedented as the scenario you paint. We might as well be structuring our societal framework to protect us against an invasion of little green Martians. The fact is, in the U.S., the non-benign practices to which you refer are already fully legally sanctioned. We have no problem fully protecting the religious observance of Islam, without making even the slightest accommodation for the fact that some extreme fringes of Islam or other religions that might choose to oppress their women and girls. As is well understood - within our system - freedom extends until it impinges on the freedom of others. In other words - observing Islam is fully protected - but denying the girls education and mutilating them is most assuredly not protected. There is no tension whatsoever there.

Clandestine782

08-26-10, 05:55

actually, israel not so much - their main threat is demographics. they are well on their way to becoming the next south africa in the era of apartheid, as within 30-50 years, the less privileged, less educated arab population will dwarf the jewish population. if israel doesn't figure out how to let the palestinians have their own state with the full rights of an independent state, this is going to be their unavoidable future.i am not sure where you read this, but orthodox jews have lots of babies. like, 10 per family. i just finished a book called "real jews" that was about the conflict between secular and orthodox jews. and one thing that they noted was that the orthodox don't do anything except take welfare benefits, study torah/ talmud and have babies (a lot of them don't like to work or serve in the military). so, israel will not have a problem because it doesn't haev enough jews. it will have a problem because it doesn't have enough *productively employed* jews.

frankly, i hadn't realized that i was debating with such an obvious racist. i am not a racist. i'm just stating the facts. at no time that rsa was under the apartheid government did they have 25% of the population infected with hiv. you never hear anyone else except black administrations/ black people denying the link between hiv and aids or saying that hiv was created by white people. even in africa there has been a cfa franc (which is the same thing as the euro-- a currency that is backed by the trade of several countres) for long time, and yet you almost can't *give* away cfa francs in any money changing center (hong kong, for example). and that goes for any african currency (except the rand) anywhere. if you go to hk (where you can buy and sell almost anything), you will find that one thing you *won't* move will be zambian kwachas or botswanian pula or nigerian naira (etc).

i might also point out that china is in the oil producing countries in africa drillng and setting up infrastructure, because it appears that the africans have more oil than they do brainpower. how embarrassing is that?

same thing with haiti. haiti and the dominican republic are both on hispaniola, and the income in the latter is a multiple of the former. the only difference is that one side is significantly blacker than the other. pretty strange.

your metaphor about a black american president and sharia law is completely flawed - it was positive progress toward equality that enabled the u.s. to overcome it's prejudices and get to that point.the point was that people at point a can never imagine that something that happens by point b will happen. but a lot of things are possible if they happen in many small steps instead of one extra.

that trend was inevitable, the only question was at what speed would it be accomplished. moving toward sharia law requires the state of human enlightenment in a society to move backwards, not forwards. that's not true. there are lot of stupid ideas that keep cropping up/ being resurrected by the intellegensia (see: "intellectuals and society" by thomas sowell for excellent examples of this).
as long as the society is evolving toward more education for more of it's populace, sharia can't happen.see the post by gentleman traveler. the intellegensia doesn't have to accept sharia. they only have to be passive/ non-judgemental and the camel can get his nose into the tent. and the rest of his body will soon follow.
we'd need to become a third world country - saudi arabia is not a third world country. not all of the oil states have flat out sharia, but many of them have something that is very much like it.
comparing our system to haiti's is laughable. not really, in the sense that countries can and do undergo very long and dramatic declines. look at china in the tang dynasty compared to china during the great famine. how many people at that time could have thought that chinese would be practicing cannibalism?
the reason a place like haiti is as corrupt as it is has nothing to do with the color of it's goverment, it has to do with the fact that corruption is endemic to the society, and economic exploitation of the nation's resources and populace has been pervasive throughout it's history.what resources does haiti even have to exploit?
education is the answer to solving those ills, and keeping something like sharia law at bay. obama won his election because he was clearly the more intelligent, more thoughtful candidate running. the fact that he has not solved the myriad of major problems that he inherited speaks far more to the severity of those issues that he inherited than it does to anything about his race. we are surely no worse off than had a mccain-palin ticket been charged with solving the same set of problems.not sure about that one. we'll never know the alternative situation. but if you compare black administered places to non-black administered ones, just on the strength of that, you'd start asking some very uncomfortable questions.

that being said, i'm saddened that what had been an interesting exchange of ideas has been blighted by a raft of bigotry that i didn't see coming from your end until you unleashed it in it's full fury. arabs, muslims, and north africans are no more likely to damage a society than white folks are, when they are confronted by an equivalent amount of endemic poverty and lack of education. sharia law requires an uneducated population to proliferate. so does the level of graft in a place like haiti or somalia. it has absolutely nothing to do with race, and very little to do with religion - except in that certain religious teachings have proven to be more popular amongst the poorest and worst educated people on the planet.check the facts. take any random sample of african countries compared to any other countries on the planet in any other dimension(s) and see what you find. within the united states, compare detroit/ dc/ st. louis/ new orleans/ river rouge/ highland park/ east st. louis to bloomfield hills or ann arbor and see what you find. (hint: the first 7 have black administrations and the others don't. guess what difference you'll fiind.) detroit is an especially instructive example: it was a functioning city before black people took it over and collapsed after they did. so, the city didn't move. only the adminstrations did. hmmmmm.

Clandestine782

08-26-10, 05:56

Rubber Nursey

08-26-10, 06:24

How is it the the "Liberal Party" in Australia could take part in a "conservative coalition"?
LOL! I'm forever having to explain this nonsense to my American friends. Our Labor Party is (somewhat) 'liberal' and our Liberal Party is about as far from 'liberal' as you can get. Don't try to understand it. It makes no sense. You just have to do what we Australians do...ignore them completely. :p

Clandestine782

08-26-10, 12:44

More embarrassment: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/08/25/nigeria.child.witches/index.html?iref=NS1#fbid=-YyGNf9cI7u&wom=false

Westy

08-26-10, 14:02

More embarrassment: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/08/25/nigeria.child.witches/index.html?iref=NS1#fbid=-YyGNf9cI7u&wom=false
Horrific indeed. I weep for those poor, maltreated children.

But ... how does this story tie into American politics?

Member #2041

08-26-10, 16:03

I am not sure where you read this, but Orthodox Jews have LOTS of babies. Like, 10 per family. I just finished a book called "Real Jews" that was about the conflict between secular and Orthodox Jews. And one thing that they noted was that the Orthodox don't do anything except take welfare benefits, study Torah/ Talmud and have babies (a lot of them don't like to work or serve in the military). So, Israel will not have a problem because it doesn't haev enough Jews. It will have a problem because it doesn't have enough *productively employed* Jews.

I am not a racist. I'm just stating the facts. At no time that RSA was under the apartheid government did they have 25% of the population infected with HIV. You NEVER hear anyone else except black administrations/ black people denying the link between HIV and AIDS or saying that HIV was created by white people. Even in Africa there has been a CFA Franc (which is the same thing as the Euro-- a currency that is backed by the trade of several countres) for long time, and yet you almost can't *give* away CFA Francs in any money changing center (Hong Kong, for example). And that goes for any African currency (except the Rand) anywhere. If you go to HK (where you can buy and sell almost anything), you will find that one thing you *won't* move will be Zambian kwachas or Botswanian Pula or Nigerian Naira (etc).

I might also point out that China is in the oil producing countries in Africa drillng and setting up infrastructure, because it appears that the Africans have more oil than they do brainpower. How embarrassing is that?

Same thing with Haiti. Haiti and the Dominican Republic are both on Hispaniola, and the income in the latter is a multiple of the former. The only difference is that one side is significantly blacker than the other. Pretty strange.
The point was that people at point A can never imagine that something that happens by point B will happen. But a lot of things are possible IF they happen in many small steps instead of one extra.
That's not true. There are lot of stupid ideas that keep cropping up/ being resurrected by the intellegensia (see: "Intellectuals and Society" by Thomas Sowell for excellent examples of this). See the post by Gentleman Traveler. The intellegensia doesn't have to accept Sharia. They only have to be passive/ non-judgemental and the camel can get his nose into the tent. And the rest of his body will soon follow. Saudi Arabia is not a third world country. Not all of the oil states have flat out Sharia, but many of them have something that is very much like it. Not really, in the sense that countries can and do undergo very long and dramatic declines. Look at China in the Tang Dynasty compared to China during The Great Famine. How many people at that time could have thought that Chinese would be practicing cannibalism? What resources does Haiti even have to exploit? Not sure about that one. We'll never know the alternative situation. But if you compare black administered places to non-black administered ones, just on the strength of that, you'd start asking some very uncomfortable questions. Check the facts. Take any random sample of African countries compared to ANY OTHER countries on the planet in ANY OTHER dimension(s) and see what you find. Within the United States, compare Detroit/ DC/ St. Louis/ New Orleans/ River Rouge/ Highland Park/ East St. Louis to Bloomfield Hills or Ann Arbor and see what you find. (Hint: The first 7 have black administrations and the others don't. Guess what difference you'll fiind.) Detroit is an especially instructive example: It was a functioning city BEFORE black people took it over and collapsed AFTER they did. So, the city didn't move. Only the adminstrations did. Hmmmmm.

You have a clear lack of understanding of causality. Every example of disfunction that you blame on race, is actually a function of poverty or lack of an educated population. Detroit ceased to function when the jobs went away after the U.S. Auto industry moved all of it's manufacturing jobs away or eliminated them. Anyways, we're done discussing this, because your ideas are repugnant. Again, your fear of Sharia Law coming to the U.S. is irrational, because you ignore what it takes for it to happen. And your denials of your racism would be laughable if they weren't so damn nauseating.

Clandestine782

08-26-10, 16:41

You have a clear lack of understanding of causality. Every example of disfunction that you blame on race, is actually a function of poverty or lack of an educated population. Detroit ceased to function when the jobs went away after the U.S. Auto industry moved all of it's manufacturing jobs away or eliminated them. Anyways, we're done discussing this, because your ideas are repugnant. Again, your fear of Sharia Law coming to the U.S. is irrational, because you ignore what it takes for it to happen. And your denials of your racism would be laughable if they weren't so damn nauseating.
Not quite. I happen to know a little more about this than you(I grew up in a town about 18 miles west of Detroit on the I-94).

What happened in Detroit was this:

1. There was a functioning city. (As far as I know, there has NEVER been an auto plant in Detroit--all the auto plants are in Woodhaven/ Wayne/ etc. I think just about every newspaper in the country uses the word "Detroit" interchangeably with "suburbs" and they are 150% wrong.)
2. It was under a white administration until about the beginning of the 1970s. At right around that time, a guy named Coleman came and took over. He was a loud mouthed MFIC/ HNIC (for white people who don't know what those mean, they translate to "motherfucker in charge" and "head nigger in charge.")
3. He single handedly ran that city into the ground.
4. He stayed there for every bit of 20 years doing just that.
5. A guy named Dennis Archer came in after Young stepped down and tried to save the city by building Casinos (which, incidentally is the same thing that they tried to do in East St. Louis, Illinois after another black administration came there and destroyed it).
6. The casinos weren't enough to save the city (the way way they weren't in East St. Louis, Illinois).
7. In comes Kwame Kilpatrick after Archer (who got convicted on some type of fraud). He stayed there for 2 terms, and there were problems with corruption from even the very first day (and those idiots elected him AGAIN).
8. Kilpatrick went to jail, got out and was given a COURTESY job by some friends in Texas (at $100,000/ annum or so) and he still didn't pay the money he owed the city of Detroit and went BACK to jail. (I really wonder what could have been the average IQ of some people in Detroit electing such a fool twice. Not only that, but if his IQ was higher than average enough to get him elected, and got sent to jail twice on the same charges, what does it say about the average intelligence of the residents of the city?)
9. Dave Bing took over the city, and they are trying to figure out just how to not get into receivership.
10. As of the time of this writing, you can buy a house in the city for less than the price of a used car.

(As an aside, I can say that I used to go there every single weekened to visit my grandmother. And the city was rough then, but it has gotten even WORSE in the years since she died and we stopped going. Even the parts of the city that functioned then don't function any more.)

I know that it is the position of many people to start sneering (like you just did) when confronted with some uncomfortable facts about certain things (such as: it seems like the fortunes of any city/ administrative region/ country dramatically decline when black people take it over), but: 1. The evidence is overwhelming; 2. Why do people get so uncomfortable when another person points out the facts? (Look what happened to James Watson when he pointed out the same thing. He was the winner of a Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA but was abruptly retired after he pointed out the obvious: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php)

I am actually a black(ish) person (who does not vote) and I live in China (for the foreseeable future). I do *a lot* better in China, where I have no "political representation" (what you always hear black people in the States whining about). And the Chinese people don't like blacks (generally speaking), but I am able to find work here and make a good living. The fastest way for me to ruin that would be to go back to the States and live in Detroit (or any other place that black people have taken over and have destroyed/ are in the process of destroying). The second fastest way to ruin that would be to just bring black people to China and allow them to vote/ set up shop (like they have done in Guangzhou-- some very serious problems there).

As far as the causality of poverty: The authors of "The Bell Curve" have made a very strong case that it's race that's linked with intelligence and that causes poverty-- and not just a coincidence that many of the worst off people happen to be black. And that argument has been demonstrated time and time again.

I want you to notice that all black countries with an income above the world median are Overseas Dependencies of the Crown (Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands). NOT ONE self governed black African country is in the top half of the GDP per capita. Jamaica is in the top half (and still technically has the Queen as head of state). Nearly all of the lowest 30 countries are African.

Member #2041

08-26-10, 20:20

Not quite. I happen to know a little more about this than you(I grew up in a town about 18 miles west of Detroit on the I-94).

What happened in Detroit was this:

1. There was a functioning city. (As far as I know, there has NEVER been an auto plant in Detroit--all the auto plants are in Woodhaven/ Wayne/ etc. I think just about every newspaper in the country uses the word "Detroit" interchangeably with "suburbs" and they are 150% wrong.)
2. It was under a white administration until about the beginning of the 1970s. At right around that time, a guy named Coleman came and took over. He was a loud mouthed MFIC/ HNIC (for white people who don't know what those mean, they translate to "motherfucker in charge" and "head nigger in charge.")
3. He single handedly ran that city into the ground.
4. He stayed there for every bit of 20 years doing just that.
5. A guy named Dennis Archer came in after Young stepped down and tried to save the city by building Casinos (which, incidentally is the same thing that they tried to do in East St. Louis, Illinois after another black administration came there and destroyed it).
6. The casinos weren't enough to save the city (the way way they weren't in East St. Louis, Illinois).
7. In comes Kwame Kilpatrick after Archer (who got convicted on some type of fraud). He stayed there for 2 terms, and there were problems with corruption from even the very first day (and those idiots elected him AGAIN).
8. Kilpatrick went to jail, got out and was given a COURTESY job by some friends in Texas (at $100,000/ annum or so) and he still didn't pay the money he owed the city of Detroit and went BACK to jail. (I really wonder what could have been the average IQ of some people in Detroit electing such a fool twice. Not only that, but if his IQ was higher than average enough to get him elected, and got sent to jail twice on the same charges, what does it say about the average intelligence of the residents of the city?)
9. Dave Bing took over the city, and they are trying to figure out just how to not get into receivership.
10. As of the time of this writing, you can buy a house in the city for less than the price of a used car.

(As an aside, I can say that I used to go there every single weekened to visit my grandmother. And the city was rough then, but it has gotten even WORSE in the years since she died and we stopped going. Even the parts of the city that functioned then don't function any more.)

I know that it is the position of many people to start sneering (like you just did) when confronted with some uncomfortable facts about certain things (such as: it seems like the fortunes of any city/ administrative region/ country dramatically decline when black people take it over), but: 1. The evidence is overwhelming; 2. Why do people get so uncomfortable when another person points out the facts? (Look what happened to James Watson when he pointed out the same thing. He was the winner of a Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA but was abruptly retired after he pointed out the obvious: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php)

I am actually a black(ish) person (who does not vote) and I live in China (for the foreseeable future). I do *a lot* better in China, where I have no "political representation" (what you always hear black people in the States whining about). And the Chinese people don't like blacks (generally speaking), but I am able to find work here and make a good living. The fastest way for me to ruin that would be to go back to the States and live in Detroit (or any other place that black people have taken over and have destroyed/ are in the process of destroying). The second fastest way to ruin that would be to just bring black people to China and allow them to vote/ set up shop (like they have done in Guangzhou-- some very serious problems there).

As far as the causality of poverty: The authors of "The Bell Curve" have made a very strong case that it's race that's linked with intelligence and that causes poverty-- and not just a coincidence that many of the worst off people happen to be black. And that argument has been demonstrated time and time again.

I want you to notice that all black countries with an income above the world median are Overseas Dependencies of the Crown (Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands). NOT ONE self governed black African country is in the top half of the GDP per capita. Jamaica is in the top half (and still technically has the Queen as head of state). Nearly all of the lowest 30 countries are African.

So you are trying to tell us that, simultaneously:

A) You are not a racist

B) Detroit was single-handedly run into the ground by someone you called "The Head Nigger in Charge"

So far, the only compelling evidence that you have provided in support of blacks being inferior is the statement that you are black-ish. You remind me of the Dave Chappelle satirical skit about the blind, black Klansman.

The fact is, EVERY black run economy that you point out was made into a basket case by White rulers, who exploited it before leaving a highly disadvantaged population without resources or education. And the fact is, it doesn't matter exactly where the Auto plants were located - they were the job base for URBAN Detroit, and the jobs left, and the educated population went with it. What happened in Detroit was no different than what happened in the various African nations you cited.

In any case, I'm sure that we can both agree that it was beneficial to all of us that you left the U.S. to go to China. Hopefully, you'll stay there. I'm outta here to take a shower - as I feel soiled just interacting with you and your repugnant combination of hate and stupidity. It won't happen again.

Clandestine782

08-26-10, 21:08

Well, I guess there is no more rebutting to do. Someone feels soiled, and I guess he's off to change his tampon. What more can I say?

(Coleman Young referred to HIMSELF as the MFIC/ HNIC. Not my saying it. Him. Oh, and the last post meant that Kilpatrick got convicted on fraud. Not Archer.)

DeepCover

08-26-10, 22:43

Member #2041

08-26-10, 23:42

Clandestine782

08-27-10, 10:06

You fail to understand that the cities were abandoned by white capital. Blacks were able to take control only because whites were leaving the cities. Blacks took control of municipalities that were in decline. The exceptions were Chicago and Los Angeles and New York.

White capital went on to extort states out of their tax base so that now California, New York, Arizona and Michigan are on the verge of bankruptcy.

If you are Black as stated in your post then you have serious self hate issues.
I have heard that line/ parable/ narrative 1,000 times ("white capital ran away from a city and that is why blacks were able to take it over"), and it's really cute-- but it doesn't explain the facts. There are cities that are right near Detroit (Redford, for example) and that is a functioning city. The only difference is that the administration in one is black and the other it is not. Why should capital have asymmetrically flown out of one city and not another? Why can you drive 2 miles away to Windsor and see a functioning city?

I'll go a bit further: You can also go to cities that are 14 and 18miles (respectively) from Detroit. Those cities would be Inkster and Romulus (respectively). Romulus is a functioning city. Inkster is the projects and not functioning. (My grandmother lives in Inskter, and you can hear gunfire EVERY SINGLE NIGHT continuously between the hours of about midnight and 2am.) But they are *right next door* to each other.

When I lived in East Alton, Illinois, it was the SAME IDENTICAL THING. I worked nights at a service station in Pontoon Beach when I was going through graduate school. East Alton was a city with a few black people in it. (Upon moving to the Alton/ East Alton area, I found out that in a lot of those small cities they didn't like to rent to black people. I thought that it was discrimination, but as I lived there longer, I could more clearly see why.)Every single night I got the privelege of watching the customers. They were about 1/2 black and 1/2 white. 100% of the petty theft was the black customers. 100% of the drive offs were them, too. And I had to live through six of watching those idiots pilfer things. And then they would buy exactly one blunt at a time (for 99 cents-- even though a pack of 5 cost $2.87) and go somewhere and cut the tobacco out of it and then come back in with their eyes read 2 or 3 hours later. Then you would see these women come in with food stamp cards (95% black) and litters of snot-nosed rainbow tribes of children.

It is not really an issue of self-hate as much as dealing with observable, extant facts. If I pointed out that West African blacks are good sprinters and that East African ones are good long distance runners is it self-love? If I go a bit further and point out that NONE of them are good swimmers, then does it go back into self-hate? Or could it be that there is really some empirical fact to be explained?

When I pointed out the fact that the Africans/ Haitians have been losers since they took over their own governments (and that the black countries that stayed as part of the Crown did a lot better), it's not self-hate. It's an objective fact. You can look it up on any set of OECD/ World Bank tables.

Clandestine782

08-27-10, 10:12

I'm not familiar with changing tampons, since, unlike Clandestine782, I don't wear them. Tampon changing technique is clearly another area (along with that of being an inferior black person) where Clandestine782's personal expertise is undeniable.Didn't you say that you weren't talking to me any more (something about feeling "soiled"). Now you are going to have to read this post and then go and douche all over again. You will save yourself a lot of Massengil if you just put me on ignore. And in any case, you still didn't thoroughly answer any of the points that I made........

Metric

08-27-10, 20:39

I want you to notice that all black countries with an income above the world median are Overseas Dependencies of the Crown (Bahamas, Bermuda, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Virgin Islands). NOT ONE self governed black African country is in the top half of the GDP per capita. Jamaica is in the top half (and still technically has the Queen as head of state). Nearly all of the lowest 30 countries are African.I see you're not one to let the FACTS get in the way of your argument:

* Bahamas: Self-governing 1964, independence 1973
* Barbados: Independence 1966
* Jamaica: Independence 1962

And as for your assertion that a country other than the UK having the British Queen as Head of State means that country isn't an independent nation - that is complete and utter bollocks. Does that mean you consider that Canada, Australia and New Zealand aren't "really" independent nations as well? Because they share the same monarch as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm).

All that's left of your argument is racism.

Clandestine782

08-28-10, 07:32

Barbados: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados#International_rankings
It functions as a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, modelled on the British Westminster system, with Elizabeth II, Queen of Barbados, as head of state represented locally by the Governor-General, Clifford Husbands and the Prime Minister as the head of the government

Bahamas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamas#Government_and_politics

The Bahamas is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state (represented by a Governor-General).

Jamaica: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica
It remains a Commonwealth realm with Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.

I was also wrong about Jamaica even being within the top half of rankings. Actual inspection shows that:

International rankings
Organization Survey Ranking
Institute for Economics and Peace [1] Global Peace Index[57] 102 out of 144
United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index 100 out of 182
Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 99 out of 180
World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 91 out of 133

So, we have 4 different axes and they fall in the bottom half on all of them.

With respect to all of the Carribean states: All of them have currencies that are anchored by/ pegged to the US Dollar (exception=Jamaica). I believe, in fact, that the British Virgin Islands uses the US dollar.
Queen Elizabeth II appears on the banknotes and also on the obverse of the coins. She is the head of state of all the states and territories using the EC$, except for Dominica. Dominica is nevertheless a member of the Commonwealth of Nations which recognises Queen Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Caribbean_dollar

This means that the monetary policy of all those places is effectively set by the Federal Reserve. (A country has to choose one or the other. It can have EITHER a pegged currency OR set its own interest rates. It can't have both.) Jamaica sets its own interest rates and has a floating currency, but then look what happened to it compared to the other Carribbean countries.

Gentleman Travel

08-29-10, 22:16

Not exactly sure what the point is, but like Metric says, most of the Caribbean countries are self-governing and independent and have been for decades. British influence (on current government or economic policy) there is minimal. Having the Queen as Head of State and on the banknote has NOTHING to do with being self-governing or not (as exampled by Canada & Australia). It merely reflects a shared historical head of state and (usually) membership in the Commonwealth. Exceptions are Cayman Islands, Turks & Caicos, BVI, Montserrat and Anguilla (crown colonies). You want some examples to support your earlier thesis, use Cayman Islands and Bermuda - still crown colonies and quite prosperous...

The other point, about Caribbean currencies being tied to the American dollar is true in most countries and is the most breath-taking intelligent thing any of them has ever done. Got the national government out of the business of monetary policy. Even in Jamaica, which has its own currency of sorts, the US dollar is king. I was there for a week and I never even saw a Jamaican dollar! Everything was paid in USD.

Barbados: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados#International_rankings
It functions as a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, modelled on the British Westminster system, with Elizabeth II, Queen of Barbados, as head of state represented locally by the Governor-General, Clifford Husbands and the Prime Minister as the head of the government

Bahamas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamas#Government_and_politics

The Bahamas is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state (represented by a Governor-General).

Jamaica: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica
It remains a Commonwealth realm with Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.

I was also wrong about Jamaica even being within the top half of rankings. Actual inspection shows that:

International rankings
Organization Survey Ranking
Institute for Economics and Peace [1] Global Peace Index[57] 102 out of 144
United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index 100 out of 182
Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 99 out of 180
World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 91 out of 133

So, we have 4 different axes and they fall in the bottom half on all of them.

With respect to all of the Carribean states: All of them have currencies that are anchored by/ pegged to the US Dollar (exception=Jamaica). I believe, in fact, that the British Virgin Islands uses the US dollar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Caribbean_dollar

This means that the monetary policy of all those places is effectively set by the Federal Reserve. (A country has to choose one or the other. It can have EITHER a pegged currency OR set its own interest rates. It can't have both.) Jamaica sets its own interest rates and has a floating currency, but then look what happened to it compared to the other Carribbean countries.

Clandestine782

08-29-10, 22:41

DeepCover

09-03-10, 21:05

Clandestine782

09-04-10, 10:44

Or could it be that there is really some empirical fact to be explained? If you were interested in empirical evidence then I could point to American meddling in Haitian affairs going back to an embargo imposed by Thomas Jefferson, who didn't want them being a bad example for "Negro Slaves in America".Ok, can I get an idea of the scale of this meddling? And since they were on Hispaniola, why didn't they just do the same thing with the Dominican Republic? And I think you are "Texas Sharpshooting." You can find examples of governments that were taken over by blacks and then ruined independent of anything that the United States had to do with it. Zimbabwe, for example.

I might mention how France demanded and received "reparations for loss of property". Ok, so can I get a dollar amount? If it was 0.1% of the GDP of any given year (and it has been a long time since France was in Haiti)? Or was it ANY amount worth worrying about? China suffered a lot of pain during the Japanese invasion and then for several decades even after that, but they are getting their shit together-- in a country that has an unfathomably large population to deal with. The Haitians have had twice as much time (something like 206 years since independence) to come up with NOTHING.

I might end my presentation by pointing out how many times America meddled in Haitian affairs by invasions and imposition of a parasitic elite.You might end it, but you never started it to begin with. I mean think about it from the perspective of the US: Do you really want a government to collapse and send a bunch of illiterate refugees onto your shores? The US has done itself irreparable harm just by accepting so many immigrants from Cuba (those guys are actually educated and can read-- not much of which could be said for the Haitians)-- and they are just the beginning of what will possibly morph into a long, bitter language conflict.

That would leave little space to show how major cities (not suburbs like Redford, Warren etc which recieved more funding) were systematically defunded and deindustrializedI get so tired of hearing that bullshit that is repeated endlessly in Pan African Studies Departments without thinking about what it actually means. How do you systematically defund a city? (Especially given that the services that Detroit can't provide are all city funded services every place else). I'm sorry, but Coleman Young single-handedly ran the city of Detroit into the ground.
and I would even point out that this phenomenon even happened to cities without Black mayors.Give me, say, 5 examples (of where this happened without black mayors) and give me a idea of the magnitude and rate of change per unit of time. (So, did city X have $5 of federal funding in the year 2000 and then only $2.5 of funding 10 years later? Or did the funding decrease by 20% every year for 5 years?) If you take a random sample of 10 black administered cities and compare the financial solvencies of 10 non black cities (again, no Texas sharpshooting).
All that would be a waste because in the end facts are not what brought you to your conclusion. Well, no, facts ARE what brought me to my conclusion. RTFF (look it up in abbreviations) and you will see where the conversation went.

It simply is lazy stupid thinking. An analysis of American and world economics is deeper than simply saying "The Blacks fukkked it up". That thinking is a throw back to "The weather is bad cause God is angry" or a person is sick because he or she is cursed. It is stupid when white guys like me say it but it sounds particularly ignorant coming from someone purporting to be Black.I didn't make my remarks with respect to the world economy. I made it with respect to economies that have met ruin at the hands of successive black administration. Some of them were whole countries (Haiti, Zimbabwe) and others were not independent countries (Detroit, East St. Louis, Washington DC). Saying that the weather is bad because God was angry is not the same as saying that this city was ruined because of X. I can test the second because it exists in reality, but not the first.

But seriously........just based on IQ arguments, TBC did a very interesting expansion of some of the difficulties of managing people with low cognitive functioning-ability. They did it in the abstract in some of the chapters and not with respect to race.

Westy

09-05-10, 14:42

President Obama has been squawking consistently about the "budget deficit" he inherited from George W. Bush.

Oh, really? Where did that budget originate?

Article 1, Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives; but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. In other words, it's not the President's budget. It belongs to Congress. Yes, Congress.

The last "Republican" budget was 2007, with a deficit of $161 billion - reduced from about $400 billion in 2004. The 2008 budget, with its record (then) deficit of $455 billion, was the product of a Democrat-run Congress; George W. Bush forced some compromises in that one. In 2009, Congress bypassed Dubya entirely through "continuing resolutions" to keep the Federal government running until Obama came into office. The 2009 budget nearly QUADRUPLED that "record-setting" $455,000,000,000 deficit from 2008.

The smallest CBO-projected budget in the attached graph is for 2011. The Congressional Budget Office expects that one to be over $600 billion dollars; and after that, the deficit goes whoopin' and hollerin' into the sunset.

Incidentally, Barack Obama was in the Senate to vote for the 2008 budget and the 2009 "continuing resolutions".

Whose budget?

Clandestine782

09-05-10, 15:54

THANK YOU!

I get so sick of hearing people babbling about "....he inherited that deficit from Bush," as if no one knew that the budget is set every single year by Congress. Of necessity, things that are part of one budget in an earlier year can't go into the next because they can't be approved by Congress until then. It seems like almost no one pays attention in their government classes.

Nyc Expat

09-05-10, 19:37

From page 25 of Bush’s Budget Proposal on the heals of Clinton’s budget surplus. Note the bullet points.

THE PRESIDENT’S 2002 BUDGET:
A budget is much more than a collection of numbers. A budget is a
reflection of a nation’s priorities, needs, and promise. With this budget I
am confident that we can make a great Nation even better. In the midst
of this budget’s heft and detail, there is a vision for a better and more
prosperous America.—President George W. Bush
President George W. Bush’s 2002 Budget is shaped around a clearly defined
goal —the belief that Government should be activist but limited. Government
cannot create a strong economy, but it can create the conditions that permit
a free citizenry to do so.
At the same time, Government must also learn from the private sector,
finding ways to increase efficiency and customer satisfaction. The President’s
Budget moderates the rapid growth of discretionary spending that began with
the arrival of budget surpluses in 1998 while funding key Federal priorities in
education, health, environment, and other programs.
Thematic Highlights of President Bush’s 2002 Budget
• Funds the Nation’s spending priorities. For example, the budget
strengthens and reforms education, granting the Education Department the
largest percentage spending increase of any department (11.5 percent
increase in 2002).
• Moderates recent explosive growth in discretionary spending to 4.0 percent
growth in 2002, an increase of $26 billion over 2001.
• Achieves historic levels of debt reduction, retiring the maximum amount of
debt possible over 10 years ($2 trillion).
• Allocates projected $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years. Breakdown of
surplus:
—Saves all of Social Security surplus ($2.6 trillion) for Social Security
and commits to reforming the program.
—Lets taxpayers keep roughly one-fourth of the surplus they produced
($1.6 trillion over 10 years).

The rest is history. We all know but many refuse to accept reality what and why the budget became an economic disaster over the following 8 fiscal years including the steps necessary to eliminate the debt and return to prosperity achieved in the 1990s. It will take more than 2, probably more than 4 years to reverse the budget trend after 8 years of mismanagement.

Hunts

09-06-10, 01:49

From page 25 of Bush's Budget Proposal on the heals of Clinton's budget surplus. Note the bullet points.

THE PRESIDENT'S 2002 BUDGET:

A budget is much more than a collection of numbers. A budget is a reflection of a nation's priorities, needs, and promise. With this budget I am confident that we can make a great Nation even better. In the midst of this budget's heft and detail, there is a vision for a better and more prosperous America. —President George W. Bush

President George W. Bush's 2002 Budget is shaped around a clearly defined goal —the belief that Government should be activist but limited. Government cannot create a strong economy, but it can create the conditions that permit a free citizenry to do so.

At the same time, Government must also learn from the private sector, finding ways to increase efficiency and customer satisfaction. The President's Budget moderates the rapid growth of discretionary spending that began with the arrival of budget surpluses in 1998 while funding key Federal priorities in education, health, environment, and other programs.

Thematic Highlights of President Bush's 2002 Budget

• Funds the Nation's spending priorities. For example, the budget strengthens and reforms education, granting the Education Department the largest percentage spending increase of any department (11. 5 percent increase in 2002).

• Moderates recent explosive growth in discretionary spending to 4.0 percent growth in 2002, an increase of $26 billion over 2001.

• Achieves historic levels of debt reduction, retiring the maximum amount of debt possible over 10 years ($2 trillion). • Allocates projected $5. 6 trillion surplus over 10 years. Breakdown of surplus:

— Saves all of Social Security surplus ($2. 6 trillion) for Social Security and commits to reforming the program.

— Lets taxpayers keep roughly one-fourth of the surplus they produced ($1.6 trillion over 10 years).

The rest is history. We all know but many refuse to accept reality what and why the budget became an economic disaster over the following 8 fiscal years including the steps necessary to eliminate the debt and return to prosperity achieved in the 1990s. It will take more than 2, probably more than 4 years to reverse the budget trend after 8 years of mismanagement.The current administration has "spent more" than ALL previous administrations COMBINED. Please explain how we could do this and still have the official unemployment rate at 9. 6%. The Obama election team told America that they had it figured out. It would not take long to re-start the economy. How many jobs have we lost since the "stimulus Bill" was passed? We were promised an unemployment rate of no higher than 8%. Now we are told that "they" didn't realize how severe the economy was. Now that they "realize" how bad the economy is & the lack of jobs that are out there what have the ruling party provided to America? The law making body of our government has been controlled by one party since Jan 2007. Now throw in the White House and there has been TOTAL control since Jan 2009. I have one question for all that disagree How has this administration & congress helped Americans continue the American dream?

DeepCover

09-07-10, 06:30

Your conclusion that Black People are inferior is just as much magical thinking as believing in Leprachauns. Neither racism or leprachauns are debatable since both are motivated by the irrational.

DeepCover

09-07-10, 07:46

Thomas Sowell was interviewed recently on the BBC where he complains that there are too many smart people in control of government. This underscores the American conservative lionization of ignorance. Little wonder that American Conservatives loved the idiot George Bush and are all weak in the knees over the Dumbass from the North, Sara Palin. Black conservatives like one of our fellow mongers below actually wants to argue the innate inferiority of Black people forgetting that he too is allegedly "Blackish".

Having traveled to all continents but Australia I can safely say few are as stupid and hypocritical as the American conservative. Dick Cheney claimed that Ronald Reagan proved (after spending more than all previous presidents combined) that deficits don't matter. Bush occupied two nations and threatened more war but American conservatives have yet to say one billion dollars per month is too much. In fact they want to attack Iran.

In the long run American conservatives will take up arms against the nation they claim to love just as their dim witted Confederate forebearers did over a century ago. It is then that they will learn that not all progressives believe in Gun Control.

Westy

09-07-10, 13:08

Your conclusion that Black People are inferior is just as much magical thinking as believing in Leprachauns. Neither racism or leprachauns are debatable since both are motivated by the irrational.Leprechauns are great for a budget because they can make up the deficit. That pot of gold they hide at the end of the rainbow, you know. Now if there were only a pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow Coalition.

Riky Rapido

09-07-10, 13:40

The current administration has "spent more" than ALL previous administrations COMBINED. Please explain how we could do this and still have the official unemployment rate at 9. 6%. The Obama election team told America that they had it figured out. It would not take long to re-start the economy. How many jobs have we lost since the "stimulus Bill" was passed? We were promised an unemployment rate of no higher than 8%. Now we are told that "they" didn't realize how severe the economy was. Now that they "realize" how bad the economy is & the lack of jobs that are out there what have the ruling party provided to America? The law making body of our government has been controlled by one party since Jan 2007. Now throw in the White House and there has been TOTAL control since Jan 2009. I have one question for all that disagree How has this administration & congress helped Americans continue the American dream?These same old problems go round and round, both parties are responsible for the mess the good ole USA is in right now, but the real problem is the Repugs, going back to Reagan. Times were good during that era. But we are paying for it now. Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate, the government is the problem yadayada! So when I read all the horseshit being laid on Obama, my blood starts to boil. Do you recall what it was like in the early 90's, unemployment, factories shutting down. It was called the worst Recession since the Depression. Oh! It was Clinton's fault. So after 8 years of the Bush Crime Family, the awesome costs of the Iraq war, and a Repug controlled Congress, laying the blame on Obama is ludicrous. Something had to be done and the Dems have done it. Remember the first State of the Union message by Clinton? The Recession was going to last. Bill had it lucky. The information age was dropped in his lap. Well, Obama his the same problem. This Recession is going to be long and painful for many. Hopefully the change that will come slowly will be permanent. I fear the Repugs will have the upper hand again and the kind of rapid change endemic to their kind of policies, boom and bust economies, will just continue the downward spiral. I just hope my Social Security checks keep coming until I die. Following the mantra that social welfare like Social Security must be privatized is like lemming going off a cliff. I am a WASP, retired blue collar and I fear America is imperiled by TeaBaggers, and Repugs who want to return to the good old days. Whenever that was, I certainly don't want it.

Clandestine782

09-07-10, 14:19

Your conclusion that Black People are inferior is just as much magical thinking as believing in Leprachauns. Neither racism or leprachauns are debatable since both are motivated by the irrational.
That's not what I said. I just said that it appears (from all evidence) that they can't run governments. And in that case, it is not just black people. The first time Chinese people ever set up a republic was 2200 years after the first emperor. The Arabs/ Persians have also had a hard way to go in the modern world. It may or may not be genetic.

But, as long as there is market capitalism, there is something for everyone to do. So, one area in which black people are very competent is entertainment. If you listen to the recordings of the old jazz masters, those guys could find work even during times when they weren't allowed to sit in the places in which they played. And in terms of jazz technical ability, Art Tatum has not been equaled. Markets know no color.

If some person says that he doesn't enjoy the society of black people (for whatever reason), then he is not being any less rational/ more irrational than a man that says he likes shaved vagina compared to a man that won't have one. Or steak vs. pork chops. Just a matter of prefernce.

Gentleman Travel

09-07-10, 18:02

You got to love French politicians - if not French politics!

First you get President Nicholas Sarkozy ditching his wife shortly after being elected, to take up with beautiful model and singer Carla Bruni.

And an article today about the French Immigration Minister (52) marrying a hot 24 year-old Tunisian-French art student (photo below).

Not so cool is Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand, who proudly proclaimed his homosexual paedophilic romps in Thai "slave markets" in his autobiography ...

"I got into the habit of paying for boys," Mitterrand wrote, adding that his attraction to young male prostitutes continued even though he knew "the sordid details of this traffic."

"All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously ... the abundance of very attractive and immediately available young boys put me in a state of desire."

And all these guys continue to serve in cabinet!
But if an American politician gets caught dicking around it is a huge scandal, ending in divorce, usually resulting in loss of office, and an appearance on Oprah!

And then of course there is Silvio Berlusconi, Prime Minister of Italy, in a class by himself....

Hunts

09-07-10, 23:57

I just hope my Social Security checks keep coming until I die. Following the mantra that social welfare like Social Security must be privatized is like lemming going off a cliff. I am a WASP, retired blue collar and I fear America is imperiled by TeaBaggers, and Repugs who want to return to the good old days. Whenever that was, I certainly don't want it.[/QUOTE]When Slick Willy was Pres the congress was Republican. It seems that as a typical lefty you are only concerned that your social security keeps coming.Who said socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money?

Clandestine782

09-08-10, 11:30

thomas sowell was interviewed recently on the bbc where he complains that there are too many smart people in control of government. this underscores the american conservative lionization of ignorance. little wonder that american conservatives loved the idiot george bush and are all weak in the knees over the dumbass from the north, sara palin. i wonder who is dumb now? thomas sowell has been writing for decades and makes a great salary at the hoover institution after someone found out that his talents were much better used as a writer and speaker. i think he gets about $20,000 for an hour speech. as it happens, i have just read (and sold) his book "intellectuals and society" (it was reviewed on amazon.com) and so i know what he said on the bbc.

his point was (are you reading?-- one of the benefits of the written language is that you can read it as many times as necessary before you understand it without my repeating it) that: people who are intelligent in one area (such as linguistics), will over-extrapolate that intelligence to try to make/ speak on public policy. now, if you think of someone like lee kwan yew (who was a brilliant man), he was not a person who did a lot of talking. instead, he looked back on historical examples when he built singapore and engineered a *very* successful city state-- possibly the most successful majority chinese state in over 20 centuries. you could compare him to someone like the current president of the us (b. hussein obama), who is an attorney (like about 44% of the congress of the us is/ has been). his expertise is with verbal dexterity, but not necessarily engineering things (as in, "what would be the best way to allocate educational resources so as to get the optimum output?"). so, b. hussein can talk and make you believe that something will happen-- it's just that it has no resemblance to reality. (since every single word out of his mouth-- including "the" and "and" are lies-- i can pick an easy example.) remember the thing about "saving or creating x number of jobs?" that sentence was repeated so many times, that is was almost easy enough to forget that they are two separate claims. so, which is which? he was also giving speech number 10,001 talking about education. but no one seriously believes in reforming education, because if they did, they would hire an economist and then make implementations in the same no-nonsense way that japanese/ chinese people educate. (as in, if you pass this test you can move on. if not, we are going to just make a cut and it's not open for discussion.)

black conservatives like one of our fellow mongers below actually wants to argue the innate inferiority of black people forgetting that he too is allegedly "blackish". that's not what i said. what i was saying (over the course of this conversation) is that for some reason, every time black people take over a government, it is a disaster. (haiti-- a 208 year disaster. almost every country in africa. nearly every black-administered city in the united states.) what you came back with--with neither defense nor proof-- was "oh, they were systematically defunded and deindustrialized," to which i replied that (1) there are cities next door that are doing just fine (and that never had any industry) and (2) the things that detroit and east st. louis highland park and (well, you get the idea) can't even do things that are funded locally-- you know, police and public transport and things like that. there may be a mechanism behind this. (you can read murry and herrnstein where they discuss an example at great length. much of it deals with people who are not conceptually able to understand laws because of low cognitive ability.) do i need to mention that the congressional black caucus has all of the current cases for corruption? something like 42 members and (less than 10% of congress but 100% of the cases for corruption at once?). then there was that asshole jefferson (forget his name) that hid money in his freezer (???!!!??!!!).

before you diss black conservatives, why don't you actually read some things that they have written? everyone has an opinion on clarence thomas and hasn't even read his book (he's written exactly one). everyone has an opinion on bt washington and hasn't even read his one single book.

what can i say if i do make a better living in a place where i can't vote (and never will be able to) and where no one is black compared to if i did move to detroit? i wouldn't even be able to find a job washing dishes there (and that's with two degrees) because no one else can find a job there (because the city was that badly mismanaged). does "political empowerment" really matter that much? chinese people are not politically empowered (in china, indonesia, malaysia, or in the united states) but getting rich (in taiwan/ hk/ macau/ singapore/ indonesia/ malaysia they are already rich). zimbabweans are politically empowered and dying of aids. nigerians are dying of aids and relying on the chinese to maintain their infrastructure in exchange for preferred access to their oil? and the chinese come there and use their own people to do everything and don't hire even a single african. but the africans are politically free! (and unemployed and not able to handle their own infrastructure.)

having traveled to all continents but australia i can safely say few are as stupid and hypocritical as the american conservative. dick cheney claimed that ronald reagan proved (after spending more than all previous presidents combined) that deficits don't matter.do you have any numbers to back this up?
bush occupied two nations and threatened more war but american conservatives have yet to say one billion dollars per month is too much. in fact they want to attack iran.for the same reason that they wanted to attack adolf hitler.

in the long run american conservatives will take up arms against the nation they claim to love just as their dim witted confederate forebearers did over a century ago. it is then that they will learn that not all progressives believe in gun control.they don't have to take up arms against their nation. it will tear itself apart long before that is necessary. it could be language conflict (very likely) or just a general weakining of law enforcement (for any variety of reasons, including weird federal judiciary behavior or too much money invested in fighting drugs or financing a 5th column (universities) inside their country or [you fill it in]).

but after it is all said and done: i can't repeat enough times (since you didn't read any of sowell's many books or even follow his argument) that getting enough of the right people in the wrong place is enough to make a nation collapse. and that's happened many, many, many times.

so, if you look at the imperial examination system of china (textbook example) china went absolutely nowhere for 2,200 years because everyone was so busy studying the confucian classics and not trying to do any practical innovation on anything. now, they have finally come up with the idea of a republic (sort of) and they have engineers that are at the head of government-- and the government here makes policies like engineers and runs the country that same way.

something that they realize (the prc government, that is) is that: 1. most people cannot understand most of what happens around them with respect to the management of a country. (if you stipulated an average iq one standard deviation above the mean to be able to comment intelligently on a policy issue, that successfully excludes 68% of the population.); 2. there is no use trying to promise things that you can't pay for/ produce anyway, and so the easiest way to do that is to just not allow the citizens to vote so that you don't have to deliver on any promises you can't keep in any case. (i would not go that far, but i would put in an iq/ civics test as a condition of being able to vote. people who could not pass the civics test and have a score in excess of 108 would be politely refused the right to vote.)3. the easiest way to not have to get bogged down in a discussion about public policy is to just not start the discussion to begin with.

DeepCover

09-08-10, 18:26

That's not what I said. I just said that it appears (from all evidence) that they can't run governments.

Jumping to that conclusion based upon what goes on in some American Cities is like saying American Indians can't run governments because of the condition of Indians on reservations. The same can holds true of post colonial African governments.

If some person says that he doesn't enjoy the society of black people (for whatever reason), then he is not being any less rational

The "Society of Black People"? Don't try to impress me with big words.

/ more irrational than a man that says he likes shaved vagina compared to a man that won't have one. Or steak vs. pork chops. Just a matter of prefernce.

Bullshyt! the idea that Black people are inferior is more than simply preference. History has shown those that promoted it have stifled the human potential of millions. It is no less odious when the person promoting it claims to be Black.

Josechung

09-08-10, 18:33

History has shown those that promoted it have stifled the human potential of millions.What has most stifled human potential in American blacks is the victim mentality constantly drilled into their heads by the Left.

Clandestine782

09-08-10, 19:09

Bullshyt! the idea that Black people are inferior is more than simply preference. History has shown those that promoted it have stifled the human potential of millions. It is no less odious when the person promoting it claims to be Black.
1. You really need to work on using the "quote" function.
2. Not trying to impress you with big words. Everyone knows what the word "society" means. And the dictionary is free online (in case you didn't).
3. You didn't answer the questions that I put forth.
4. I see that you didn't follow the reasoning. Could you please tell me where you got lost, and I'll try to make it *even simpler.*
5. What was asserted was that: If someone decides that they don't want to hang around black people (or whatever people) for WHATEVER REASON, then that is no different to preferring chicken to beef. Or Asian girls to black ones. Or Islam to Chrisianity. It's just a matter of preference.

Westy

09-09-10, 01:49

What has most stifled human potential in American blacks is the victim mentality constantly drilled into their heads by the Left.
A very good and very important point! And it's not just true of Blacks. It's true of anyone, any group, who has been "pronounced Victim." (Except, of course, the "historical victimizers" - the scapegoats to be blamed for one's Victimhood.)

Victimhood means never having to acknowledge your own part in your "degraded" condition. It means "You OWE me" to the people you're blaming for your victimhood, to the seventh generation and beyond. It means you can blame, and blame, and blame - "It's all THEIR fault!"

If "victim" sounds like a good life-role, a cushy gig, "Rescuer!" is even more dramatic and seductive. You get the white hat, the white horse, the shining armor, all of it! "Here I come, to save the day!"

Ay, but there's the rub: You can't be a Rescuer without victims to rescue. You've got to keep reminding your followers of their victimhood; keep pointing out to them how "The Victimizers" have kept them down, even when they've stopped doing so; you've got to keep selling victimhood to stay in the Rescue Industry. So you do that, even when your followers have nothing in the way of their standing up and "being a Man." You promise milk and honey, if your followers will just keep behind you and keep pushing you up, keep polishing your shining armor and feeding your white horse. "When we Win!"

But - then you win. You've kicked out "The Oppressors" and YOU are in power. You're The Man! Your followers expect you to come through on your promises. "Where's that damn milk and honey? I'm hungry!" Well, you can buy a certain amount of milk & honey with the funds the Oppressors left in the Treasury; but you just kicked the dairy-farmers and bee-keepers the hell out, and your devoted cadre, your inner circle, have no idea which end of a bee to milk. Now what?

Just a parable....

We've seen countless examples over the centuries of Rescuers coming to power, and running their cities, their states, their nations into the ground. And it's been an equal-opportunity field, all the way. Blacks have done it, Whites have done it, Hispanics have done it, Asians have done it, the French did it in a big way in the 1790's - there is a WEALTH of bad examples.

How about some GOOD examples, of presidents and prime-ministers who have gotten it right - who have profited from the lessons of history, and managed to say "Not that way" and make it stick? One candidate is Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia; are there other Good Examples out there?

DeepCover

09-09-10, 20:00

Clandestine782

09-10-10, 01:30

You are right about the quote function and little else.

Bottom line: You can talk like us (although based on your usage of the term Black Society, I doubt it). You can try very hard to act like us and even parrot white racist rhetoric. You will always be a pathetic Black man imitating someone what you think a white man should be. Better to be yourself and maintain your self respect.
1. There there now, little lady. You sure have put up the b.itch guard! I guess I will have to make it even simpler for you. The word "society" means "company." As in (def. 7) "companionship; company: to enjoy one's society. " (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/society)
2. If you're a white guy, then you've done a good job demonstrating that both races have people on the low end of the IQ distribution (i.e., not understanding the arguments or even being able to come up with a decent response/ rebuttal).
3. Sneering is not answering the argument. (I can't believe how often people think that if they just act convincingly smug that is an answer to an argument.)
4. If you can't tell me where you got lost in the discussion (so that I can clarify the reasoning), I can't help you. If you yourself don't know, then there's not much more I can say. Even other people have responded to the arguments with at least *some* salient/ coherent points.

So, with that all said, this conversation is over. I have books to read and people with higher IQs with whom I can pursue conversation.

Clandestine782

09-12-10, 22:07

DC stopped arguing back and forth with this guy. He is on some type of mental medication.

He comes on a sex forum to debate the failures of the black race and spread white supremacy theories. If you do a quick check of his posting history appears he spent time in an Indonesian jail. Was he sexually abused? I have no idea why the moderator allows him to post unabated on this forum he serves no purpose.
Are you weighing in on a conversation that ended 3 days ago? And that I ended in my last quote?

Why don't you RTFF so that you can know what happened? I see that you have a whopping 3 posts to your name. I hope that you aren't a member who is posting under an alias and who was part of a flame war that was finished (by Jackson the moderator) approaching a year ago.

So, I am going to enumerate these points since you may be a bit slow.

1. I have posted on the internet about the use of Seroquel for insomnia (I've had this for many years). No different to if I had high blood pressure or insulin-dependent diabetes. Or if I was too old to have erections without the assistance of Vitamin V. Just that simple. (If there was a medicine that helped poor reading comprehension, I wouldn't hold it against you if you admitted to taking it.)

2. I believe that I wrote that I went to Indonesia for a summer vacation and took a teaching job there. It just happened that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time (read the story for the particulars) and had to spend the night in a jail for working on the wrong type of visa. Live and learn.

3. No, I wasn't abused as a child. And even if I was, that doesn't make my questions any less valid. (None of which Deep Cover answered).

4. The point of the argument (did you bother to read the argument?) was that people are always whining about changes of government and that what comes along later might actually be worse than what went before. And that black people have fallen into this trap MANY times-- both in and out of the USA. (Who knows? It may be genetic, but I am not sure yet.)

5. I'll extend the same courtesy to you that I did to the other person. If you kindly tell me the point in the discussion at which you got lost, I'll try to make it simpler for you. Someone was babbling about some cities being "systematically defunded and deindustrialized," but didn't bother to present any evidence one way or another about it. That same person babbled on about my being "imitation vanilla." (I guess they were saying that only a real white person could speak on these matters.)

6. There are lots of things that lots of people on this board find offensive. (Think about all the anti-sex perverts that don't like the idea of P4P.) If Jackson dealt with every single thing that everyone found offensive (and was not a violation of forum rules), I don't think he'd have time for anything else.

7. I do post sexual reports-- even though this sub-forum is about American Politics, and nothing that I've posted here with respect to this is out of place. I've specialized in cities/ places that are out of the way. (Most recently I've been reporting in Changzhou. I left the number of a reliable driver that can provide door to door girls. 400RMB for 2 shots, but he only speaks Chinese, as do all the service providers.)

DeepCover

09-13-10, 09:49

DC stopped arguing back and forth with this guy. He is on some type of mental medication. He comes on a sex forum to debate the failures of the black race and spread white supremacy theories.

I had checked his posting history before I made the first response, I agree with your conclusions about him. I also think that Progressives waste a lot time providing rational arguments to people like birthers, creationist and racist who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs.

Westy

09-13-10, 13:14

I also think that Progressives waste a lot time providing rational arguments to people like birthers, creationist and racist who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs.
And Constitutionalists find that any time spent providing rational arguments to Progressives is wasted as well - upon people who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.

DeepCover

09-13-10, 21:45

And Constitutionalists find that any time spent providing rational arguments to Progressives is wasted as well - upon people who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.

I have no problem with debating Constitutionalists as long as we are debating the constitution and rights. The constitution is an objective reality. I draw the line at arguing mythology such as "Jews are inherently evil" and other such bigotry.

Clandestine782

09-14-10, 15:13

And Constitutionalists find that any time spent providing rational arguments to Progressives is wasted as well - upon people who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs. So what goes around comes around.
Thank you! I get so tired of listening to Progressives (whatever that may mean, since forward motion in time is not always necessarily for the better). I enumerated my points and didn't get a single answer from that other poster.

I had checked his posting history before I made the first response, I agree with your conclusions about him. I also think that Progressives waste a lot time providing rational arguments to people like birthers, creationist and racist who are unwilling to process information that challenges their dogmatic beliefs.My brain works just fine. It is too active, in fact, and that is why I take sleeping pills.

I think that you are also a liar. How can I believe that either of you read over (and understood) my earlier posts when I have made about 10 posts on this topic and neither of you read or understood them? I didn't say anything about white supremacy. (For what it is worth, the book that I quoted the most was "The Bell Curve," and it, in turn was about "intelligence and class structure in American life." The racial component of the book was only 2 chapters-- even though those are the ones that everyone skipped to and read first. The authors pleaded with the readers to go back and read the whole book before the racial chapters.) It's plain old mainstream psychology. Nothing fringe or racist about it.

For the third or fourth time, this post is about American politics. What I discussed was the fact that every time a black administration has taken over a city, it has collapsed. Why can't we talk about that in a sub-forum that is titled "American Politics"?

If you had read carefully any of the things that I posted (you didn't) or understood any of the enumerated points (you didn't), then you might have at least come back with one or two intelligent questions (you didn't).

The idea that I was sketching while on the drive home today (with respect to intelligence) and that Murry and Herrnstein talked about was: If you have people who have lower IQs, then it might not be that they can't understand the things that are necessary to make an advanced society, but that the cognitive investment might just be too high. Lots of people will accept the easiest answer about something *because* it is easy. (Religious people. Other types of chauvinists.) Could it be that intelligence really *does* explain that? I mean, people who have used intelligence to try to predict things such as medical school admissions are successful. Why not try to scale up and explain the direction of whole societies based on native talent?

I guess Mr. Whopping-3-posts must have been a bit slow. I haven't gotten any clear answers to the enumerated points from him. So much for that.

Pete Benetar

05-31-13, 10:26

Soapy Smith

06-01-13, 06:18

I might have added this to the post in the Manila thread, LOL. The military industrial complex had a heyday and huge boon under Reagan and how many wars did THAT complex get us into? I would not count Grenada as a "war", OTOH in terms of impact on global stages I might certainly include Afghanistan (mujahideen, stingers etc) , though that one clearly came back to bite us in the arse. Wait, wasn't that a DEMOCRAT's War? (Charlie Wilson)

I'm impressed that you actually followed through to the "USA Politics" unused thread. This is where many of these conversations probably belong, and now that you've created the precedent I have no excuse not to move my occasional political diatribes here. I will check out these links, but I am going to try to copy and paste them again here to see if I can get them to got hot. They don't seem to be hotlinks in your post.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ike-was-right-all-along-the-danger-of-the-militaryindustrial-complex-2186133.html

It worked. The trick seems to be to do a hard carriage return after each url.

Golfinho

06-01-13, 14:29

The military industrial complex had a heyday and huge boon under Reagan and how many wars did THAT complex get us into?Soviet Union, Cold War, mutual deterrence, uhm. How fast we forget. Sole hegemon now thinks it can do whatever it wants.

Pete Benetar

06-03-13, 05:35

Sole hegemon now thinks it can do whatever it wants.Copy that; we'll see you in another six years or so

ProperMan

06-07-13, 07:00

Excellent articles, thank you gentlemen.

Soapy Smith

10-29-13, 10:35

in the philippines politics thread pete benetar wrote:

"comical the preponderant liberal bent of postings here when reality is moderate politicians of both wings are captured in usa, not so unlike what wallace writes of the pi. how many criminal indictments has the obama administration served in the six years he's been in office following the trillions of dollars stolen and redistributed upwards? how many usd has he clawed back from the scores of billionairres who's wealth grew feverishly while average incomes dropped? nada. frontline's expose on obama's doj esp criminal div point man lanny breuer illustrates to all but the delusional the capture in the us, even under the liberal's precious democratic banner."

i agree with pete's argument about politicians of both parties being in the capture of wall street. in fact, hillary will be giving a speech at a goldman sachs conference in about 14 hours, presumably for her usual speaking fee of about $200, 000. assuming she plans to run for president, she clearly knows which side of the bread gets buttered:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-98958.html

her husband, of course, employed robert rubin, former goldman sachs ceo, as his treasury secretary, george w. bush employed henry paulson (also a former goldman sachs ceo) as his treasury secretary, and both clinton and obama kept larry summers, a close friend and consultant for goldman sachs, employed in their administrations for short periods of time when he wasn't busy pissing off the feminists at harvard.

as to how many criminal indictments the obama administration has served on wall street types, it all depends. in general, no big fish have been indicted. some individuals are just too important to prosecute:

http://us.macmillan.com/withlibertyandjusticeforsome/glenngreenwald

but there have been prosecutions of investment bankers. such as:

somewhere between eight and 17 'employees' at steven a cohen capital advisors, and now it appears that, although cohen himself may evade prosecution, his firm has probably been effectively eliminated:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/17/investing/wall-street-usattorney-sac/

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/sac-capital-is-indicted/?_r=0

three 'traders' at flow traders:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/sb10001424127887323980604579031034025132054

and overall, more than 70 insider trading guilty convictions and pleas during the obama administration:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/23/us-insidertrading-jiau-idusbre99m1du20131023

oh yeah, one goldman sachs board member went down:

http://www.pe.com/business/business-headlines/20111026-wall-street-ex-goldman-board-member-indicted-in-insider-case.ece

but, following the "too important to be prosecuted" rule, it appears individual jp morgan chase executives will skate for their roles in concealing bernie madoff's activities, although the bank has agreed to a $13b penalty. what will be the long-term effect of this fine? only time will tell:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/a-13-billion-reminder-of-whats-wrong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

and jp morgan was apparently not as lucky as goldman sachs following rep001hing senate hearings in 2010:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511

for my part, do i find the democratic banner precious? no, i'm registered with no party affiliation. but the democrats do deserve some credit for the regulatory efforts they produced in dodd-frank. republican majorities in both houses of congress, on the other hand, were responsible for repealing the glass-steagall act in 1999, with bill clinton's acquiesence, thus eliminating protections intended to separate investment and commercial banking activities.

but as to humor in the situation, i'm sorry, i must be dense. dc's grievances are quite different from those ge and i have expressed, but i doubt that any of us see much humor in the problems we perceive in american politics. so help me out here. please explain the punch line to me.

one more apology: i don't have the patience to repair the hotlinks that get evaporated when posting them to the forum. if you care, figure out some keywords to look up the related stories. if you don't care, which is probably most readers, just ignore.

D Cups

10-29-13, 15:09

. dc's grievances are quite different from those ge and i have expressed, but i doubt that any of us see much humor in the problems we perceive in american politics. so help me out here. please explain the punch line to me.sk, thanks for your pm. for the record, my grievances are against obama. if he were a ceo he would have been fired in his first term. i am not a registered republican, nor from texas (as if that could predict anything) and have frequently voted independent. yes, america has greed, the upper 1 or 2, as does most countries. i believe in a flat tax. i do not think america is better than any other country but i do think it is going irretrievably downhill with all the money we give away to lazy people, defense budget, criminal justice system and immigration policies. sorry, ge, i don't think socialism is a good idea. we'd have to ask the swedes about what they think about their 70% taxes and their drug problems. young people ages 22- 30 in america have been appropriately labeled "the dumbest generation" by mark bauerlein, if anyone wants a good peek at the future of the usa and perhaps the world, read his views. i apologize to any isg members in that age category as you are probably the exception.

to my international friends around the world: it appears the entire world is fubar (effed up beyond all repair) so the only saving grace is to enjoy the company of sweet young things with an occasional beer. cheers, mates.

Soapy Smith

03-21-15, 19:09

Wow. Really wow.

So you compare the donor (USAID) emblazoning the aid they sent, to a local politician grabbing the aid from that donor and repackaging it.

Amazing. Your sense of morality is truly amazing. Are you an Investment Wanker or a Consultant by any chance?If you read more carefully you will see that I merely pointed out that many different groups emblazon their relief materials with their names. It was a descriptive rather than normative statement. So the attribution of moral equivalence is all your own. I believe it is welcome in this setting. Others have weighed in as well.

VP Binay's actions are conspicuously viewable for our moral appraisal. For Samaritan's Purse and USAID, however, moral appraisal has a number of subjective elements. I presume that Mr. Graham's followers see only beneficent intentions in the relief and evangelical work of Samaritan's Purse. As an Agnostic, however, I am more skeptical about his NGO's desire to separate its practice of relief work from its evangelism. And I am skeptical about trying to convert poor Filipino Catholics to conservative Baptist Protestantism. I believe that many individuals who act from their faith to help less fortunate people probably relieve suffering in many places where relief is needed. On the other hand, there is a demonstrated correlation between countries' religious conservatism and their poverty levels and economic inequality. Why? Because most world religions tamp down dissent by telling the masses that their suffering will be rewarded in an afterlife. Long before Karl Marx thought of it, Napoleon Bonaparte argued that "religion is the only thing that keeps the poor people from killing the rich people. ".

Judgments about the morality of USAID's actions are much more difficult to make. Where you stand depends on where you sit. It is difficult for us Americans to not let our nationalistic chauvinism affect our judgments. But perspectives from people in Pakistan, Palestine, or Yemen may be much different. Pakistanis find it difficult to trust anything from American foreign policy. The drone strikes don't help, nor did the attack on Osama Bin Laden, even though many people may have been relieved at his death. The problem from the Bin Laden strike is that the CIA set up a bogus NGO under the guise of Polio vaccinations. From this they got nurses inside the compound to draw DNA samples under the guise of vaccinating the kids. The results? An explosive outbreak of polio within Pakistan when Pakistanis started refusing vaccinations; unwillingness among Pakistani officials to work with American officials; a segment of Pakistani intelligence whose allegiances shifted toward extremist groups (or perhaps merely became more entrenched). Regardless what USAID's role may have been, I think there's little doubt that their moral standing suffered in the eyes of Pakistani onlookers.

As to the intentions of USAID, their website recently stated, and may still: "The principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States. Close to 80% of the USAID contracts and grants go directly to American firms. Foreign assistance programs have helped create major markets for agricultural goods, created new markets for American industrial exports and meant hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans. ".

From a more radical view, World Systems Theory, the objective of foreign aid is to contain development such that developing countries have to play by Western rules and become dependent on the superior resources and established markets in Western countries.

We all get to choose which of these we subscribe to. Personally, I just try to avoid going all knee jerk in my judgments. But there's another problem in attributing moral intentions to USAID: USAID is an organization, an abstraction, and as such is not capable of moral judgments or actions. It is easy--but naive--to assume that the output activities of an agency like USAID reflect the objectives of a unitary, rational national policy. They never do. Foreign policy has always reflected continuous ongoing adjustments as situations change and a persistent pushing and pulling among various interests, both inside and outside government. In this scenario morality probably plays a minor role as against political and economic interests. Unfortunately for USAID, their work since 9/11 has redirected priorities from some areas of greatest depravation to areas where the United States has greatest national security concerns. The shift in aid dollars is quite conspicuous. In many cases they and NGOs and private firms through which their aid is delivered have to work increasingly in parallel with the military. This makes their work more difficult, but it also affects external judgments about the morality of their work.

None of this points to an easy assessment of morality where foreign policies and bilateral aid are concerned. Is this just a lot of verbiage over nothing? Again, it depends where you sit. In my case, the older I get the fewer definitive answers I have for things around me. I barely even know the right questions.

Am I an "investment wanker or a consultant"? Not guilty on the first count, occasionally guilty on the second. I won't assume you were passing a moral judgment about these professions, but were you? If so, what is the basis for the judgment? BTW, it might interest you to know that a number of regular contributors to the Philippines forum make their living from consulting. Are you uncomfortable with what they do for a living?

Jelly Donut

03-21-15, 20:03

...there is a demonstrated correlation between countries' religious conservatism and their poverty levels and economic inequality.Many of the richest countries in the world are among the most religiously conservative. Qatar, Brunei, Kuwait, the UAE and even Norway all have official state religions. You could "correlate" declining church attendance in the United States with the apparent decline of the middle class. At least in the United States, being unaffiliated with a religious group suggests that you earn less than someone identifying as Hindu, Jewish, Orthodox, Buddhist, or even with any of the Mainline Protestant churches. I'm curious where you found a demonstrated correlation? It's a difficult area in which to make sweeping generalizations. Can you name a dispassionate source?

Soapy Smith

03-21-15, 21:51

Many of the richest countries in the world are among the most religiously conservative. Qatar, Brunei, Kuwait, the UAE and even Norway all have official state religions.
I'm curious where you found a demonstrated correlation? It's a difficult area in which to make sweeping generalizations. Can you name a dispassionate source?Thanks for caring enough to ask. The Gulf states you name are exceptions among Muslim countries, but if you control for wealth from oil I suspect religiosity related to GDP ceases to be positively correlated. The United States is a bit of an outlier. Despite a decline in religiosity, it still ranks quite high in religiosity compared to most industrialized countries. The likely explanation is that the country's predominant Protestantism makes Calvinist asceticism a cultural factor that encourages thrift and hard work and makes the accumulation of wealth appear to be a reflection of God's blessing. The German sociologist Max Weber had a pretty good explanation for this more than a century ago (see **The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism**).

As a source for my claim that religiosity and poverty are correlated, a Gallup Poll was a recent source. I think it qualifies as dispassionate:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx

Hopefully this will appear as a hotlink. If not, copy and paste into your browser.

Another reliable source dealing with these issues is Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart (2011). **Secular and sacred: Religion and politics worldwide**. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Also see if you can find any material from Christian Welzel, a German political scientist. He and Inglehart have done lots of work using data from the World Values Survey, maintained somewhere in Scandinavia, I think. I have a powerpoint of some of Welzel's work that I can share with you if you give me an email address in a personal message.

You could actually do your own analysis quite easily: extract World Value Survey data (they are free) on religiosity and grab GDP and income inequality data from sources like UNDP. Paste them into an Excel spreadsheet, sort the religiosity column by high to low and check out the progression of values visually for the other columns of data.

Jelly Donut

03-22-15, 01:18

Max WeberThe bit about Calvinism is persuasive. It confirms the general idea that the more religious a nation or individual is, the more likely they are to work harder, save and invest (with emphasis on saving and investing). At least this seems to be the case with Mainline Protestants (Calvinists) and perhaps with the religions I mentioned below. The general arc of Europe and it's Calvinist descendants over the past 300 years, and certainly the past 50 years, confirms that the less religious these countries and individuals are, the lower their relative economic thrust.

control for wealth from oilControlling for oil wealth makes sense, since geography is a bit of a lottery. If you controlled for wealth inherited (from Calvinists and their protege), that would also shape the results.

It's a pretty fluid topic. Is North Korea religious or not? Is any state with a personality cult around it's leader (or dead leaders) religious?

Thanks for caring enough to ask.Thanks for the response. I'm toying around with some ideas here and enjoyed your post.

Soapy Smith

04-07-16, 09:18

A little levity to offset too much serious discussion about corruption and the things that ail and animate the Philippines:

http://www.gocomics.com/candorville/2016/04/03

Many of the comments are fun, too. OlongapoJoe, if you're one of us, stand up and take a bow.

Amavida

09-28-16, 10:57

SCMP not pulling punches.

http://m.scmp.com/business/article/2023308/trumps-chinese-aspersions-are-nonsense?utm_content=buffered6d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Hutsori

10-01-16, 02:36

SCMP not pulling punches.

http://m.scmp.com/business/article/2023308/trumps-chinese-aspersions-are-nonsense?utm_content=buffered6d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferThe writer creates a nice strawman to beat. Until the 80s the west still had garment and shoe manufacturers. Often these were unionised jobs with OK pay and decent benefits. Yes, repetitive work, but so too is mounting a door on a car for an 8-hour shift.

The main problem with the trade deals of GATT and later the WTO are they ignore David Ricardo's wisdom of comparative advantage. As they began industrialising, Asian countries had advantage in menial work such as garment making, and the west had advantages elsewhere. Under GATT and the WTO protected classes based on economic development were created - kind of like positive discrimination / affirmative action. A country would be labeled emerging or newly industrialised, and it was allowed to maintain tariff and non-tariff barriers under the misguided idea of fairness.

It was "unfair" that Korea had to liberalise its auto market, for example. Korea would be allowed to retain its competitive advantages in other business sectors whilst at the same time denying its trading partners theirs. As Korea developed its auto manufacturers and began exporting to the west it still maintained these barriers; Korea could (and would) lose money exporting because Korean consumers were compelled to buy Hyundais, KIAs, and Daewoos. The few who decided to pay the outrageous import taxes for a Merc faced tax audits. Japanese cars were banned outright - the first Japanese cars to enter Korea's market were made in the USA. Think about the logic of this. By exporting its cars to developed markets like the US, Hyundai was claiming they were good enough to compete. Yet at the same it demanded and received protection in the home market because it was too weak to compete. Does this make any sense? Sure, in the world of double standards.

That's the monster GATT / WTO created. China is following the export-oriented economic develop model because it works. Look at Japan and Korea.

Trade with immediate reciprocity is fair. Each side makes some sacrifices whilst achieving some gains. The trade regime created by GATT / WTO didn't establish this. "You open now, I'll open later. " A developing county could delay opening the market to develop new industries whilst its powerhouse industries were allowed unfettered access to shatter the foreign competitors.

If people are going to embrace "free trade" then make sure the word "free" is legitimate and accurate.

GoodEnough

10-01-16, 04:51

SCMP not pulling punches.

http://m.scmp.com/business/article/2023308/trumps-chinese-aspersions-are-nonsense?utm_content=buffered6d4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferWell, everything that comes out of his mouth, to the extent anyone can re-interpret it into standard English is pretty much nonsense. On the other hand, I just read the article which is pretty much of an ideological polemic without much substance either.

Competing Economic theories not withstanding, the simple truth for me is that blue collar manufacturing jobs are never going to return to the US or to the West in general, and it's a reality that politicians dare not mention. The days when those armed with a high school diploma could find decently paid work are simply gone for the most part. Global trade, and the free flow of capital are realities that aren't going to change much regardless of protectionist rhetoric, and the only country that appears to get this (or at least the only one I've been able to identify) is Singapore. The US spends less as a percentage of GDP than other OECD countries on the retraining of workers displaced by automation or foreign competition, and I guess it's easier for politicians to make empty promises than to actually spend money to do something about helping workers to acquire relevant skills.

Yes, at Hutsori points out, the GATT and WTO probably provide an unfair competitive advantage to "developing" economies, but the former are also realities that aren't going anywhere soon. Conversely, this week's "Economist" ran a series of articles on globalisation and provided some real data on the benefits to the United States of its 20+ bilateral trade deals. By and large these benefits do not accrue to those without at least college degrees. But for me this argues for a better trained, more technically sophisticated workforce.

As others have pointed out, the Philippines plays such a small role in global trade that it remains largely unaffected by movement of capital and FDI. It's problems are mostly rooted in the fact that its protectionist trade and business laws are designed to restrict the inflow of foreign investment and they've certainly achieved that goal. I've heard nothing public from the new President about this subject.

GE.

Amavida

10-01-16, 04:51

By exporting its cars to developed markets like the US, Hyundai was claiming they were good enough to compete. Yet at the same it demanded and received protection in the home market because it was too weak to compete. Does this make any sense? Sure, in the world of double standards.

That's the monster GATT / WTO created. China is following the export-oriented economic develop model because it works. Look at Japan and Korea.

Trade with immediate reciprocity is fair. Each side makes some sacrifices whilst achieving some gains. The trade regime created by GATT / WTO didn't establish this. "You open now, I'll open later. " A developing county could delay opening the market to develop new industries whilst its powerhouse industries were allowed unfettered access to shatter the foreign competitors.

If people are going to embrace "free trade" then make sure the word "free" is legitimate and accurate.We are in agreement Huts. The backlash has begun as voters accept they have been duped by neoliberal ideology. Unfortunately their choice is the established elite or right wing nutters.

GoodEnough

10-01-16, 04:59

We are in agreement Huts. The backlash has begun as voters accept they have been duped by neoliberal ideology. Unfortunately their choice is the established elite or right wing nutters.I forgot to mention the complication of accurately calculating "value added. " Many products "imported" by the US and Europe in fact contain components exported from the US and Europe for assembly in a second or third country. So how do we treat the exports and subsequent re-imports of assembled goods? I have no idea. The Philippines for example assembles, but does not manufacture small electrical goods. Since such goods are assembled from components manufactured and designed elsewhere should they count fully as exports from the Philippines? Supply chains have become multinational and perhaps the notion of country of origin is no longer relevant.

GE.

Hutsori

10-01-16, 07:02

Competing Economic theories not withstanding, the simple truth for me is that blue collar manufacturing jobs are never going to return to the US or to the West in general, and it's a reality that politicians dare not mention.
Yet, Germany. We may think of Porsches and petrochemicals, yet it's also a pen and pencil superpower. I'll also mention that Korea today is a high-wage nation with plenty of manufacturing jobs. I recall reading a few years ago Korea's autoworkers earn more per hour than American UAW union members. How? Because it's not simply wages that determine success or failure. Germany has done very well for itself with innovative engineering. (A problem for its trade and competiveness is when a nation demands technology transfer.) The other important factor is productivity measured by the cost per unit.

To say manufacturing jobs are never going to return is defeatist. And evidence shows that this is not entirely true. Recovery becomes more difficult when the loss of know-how lasts for decades. Seasoned mentors in factories count for a lot.

I'll add it also takes a bit of nationalism. Citroen, Renault, and Peugeot survive because French consumers choose to buy French.

These are the top 10 selling car models on Q1 2016.

1 Renault Clio IV.

2 Peugeot 208.

3 Peugeot 308 II.

4 Renault Captur.

5 Peugeot 2008.

6 Citroen C3 II.

7 Dacia Sandero.

8 Volkswagen Polo.

9 Citroen C4 II Picasso.

10 Renault Twingo III.

Who here is thinking "Dacia?" Eight French models, one German, and one Romanian (owned by Renault). I used France as the example because its marques are not renown for engineering excellence like Germany and Japan's. In Italy, six of the top 10 are Italian marques. If you look throughout Europe the top selling models are dominated by the European marques, and the US / Japanese models are often made in the UK.

Here are the top 10 selling models in the US for Q2 2016.

1 Toyota Camry.

2 Honda Civic.

3 Toyota Corolla.

4 Nissan Altima.

5 Honda Accord.

6 Ford Fusion.

7 Hyundai Elantra.

8 Nissan Sentra.

9 Ford Focus.

10 Chevrolet Cruze.

Presumably some of the foreign models were assembled in the US, and the Cruze may be made outside the states since it started life as a Holden and later made by Daewoo (owned by GM).

Does Japanese engineering suddenly fall apart in Europe?

The days when those armed with a high school diploma could find decently paid work are simply gone for the most part. Global trade, and the free flow of capital are realities that aren't going to change much regardless of protectionist rhetoric, and the only country that appears to get this (or at least the only one I've been able to identify) is Singapore.Other than chicken and rice, what does Singapore make? It's a regional hub for services. When one doesn't manufacture there's not much demand for protection. It's only recently that the state is self-sufficient in potable water, and that's due to reclaimed water. I'm not criticising the effort, merely pointing out that the people's we-have-to-import-to-eat-and-drink concern has a great influence on how they perceive things and adjust to the world. Their survival literally depends on it.

The US spends less as a percentage of GDP than other OECD countries on the retraining of workers displaced by automation or foreign competition, and I guess it's easier for politicians to make empty promises than to actually spend money to do something about helping workers to acquire relevant skills.It's a criticism, but to what end? The US retrains footwear makers to what jobs? Steel making? Auto assembly? Coding another wastebook? (To digress for a moment, I read a fascinating account of how instagram, with a few dozen employees, helped put tens of thousands of people out of work.) If the foreign markets are closed to those items, and the US keeps increasing its imports of steel and cars, is the retraining ineffective? Twenty years ago people were told to re-educate themselves in IT and the service sector. Yet, I shift my accounting, software development, and many kinds of other back-office functions to India and the Philippines. Countries like France, Italy, and Germany are better protected because their languages are not global. How many Indian paralegals speak Italian? One of my girls is a lawyer. All she does is research US legal cases for US law firms. After years of doing this she knows New York laws, and those of a few other states too, better than Filipino ones. Another girl is an accountant. In her 4 years on the job she has looked at US accounts exclusively.

I have no opposition to retraining, but it needs to have a payoff, and ideally one that's viable for several years. But when Beijing demands US and European companies open their research and development centres in China the know-how is being transferred. Having lost the expertise the UK can no longer build nuclear power plants on its own; France and China have been hired to do so.

Conversely, this week's "Economist" ran a series of articles on globalisation and provided some real data on the benefits to the United States of its 20+ bilateral trade deals. By and large these benefits do not accrue to those without at least college degrees. But for me this argues for a better trained, more technically sophisticated workforce.We have to keep in mind in the US about 40 per cent of the population have uni degrees and Germany is about 28 per cent. Is Germany mistaken not training more? BTW, German tertiary education is free. Sadly for many of these US degree holders, they chose the wrong subjects. I suppose they learn how to manage debt. And this is happening in the UK, too. "Give everyone an advanced education," is too broad. It needs to be focussed in subjects that create production, wealth, tax revenue, and build communities. Social activist with a blog who works for clicks and plays ukelele at open mic night in Williamsburg, NYC isn't that career. And day after day the US and UK must keep importing medical workers. Something is amiss. The plot has been lost.

As others have pointed out, the Philippines plays such a small role in global trade that it remains largely unaffected by movement of capital and FDI. It's problems are mostly rooted in the fact that its protectionist trade and business laws are designed to restrict the inflow of foreign investment and they've certainly achieved that goal. I've heard nothing public from the new President about this subject.Yet Korea and Taiwan were very closed to FDI and inbound trade for decades. They erected protectionist barriers everywhere. And it wasn't just the government. Buy a foreign car and someone would scrape a key on it. Children were taught in school to admonish their mums who bought foreign food. The press would continually run campaigns against "overconsumption", and all the items "causing social problems" were foreign made. Korea used to jail people for smoking foreign cigarettes. This wasn't an anti-smoking campaign because domestic cigarettes were lawful; in fact, they were made by a government-owned company. The governments directed investments into the means of production ("We're going to build wealth") and the companies were forced to look overseas for business. Korea's billionaires are the families of Samsung, LG, Hyundai, etc. The Philippines' billionaires are in retail, food & beverage, and real estate. And gambling.

Hutsori

10-01-16, 07:33

I forgot to mention the complication of accurately calculating "value added. " Many products "imported" by the US and Europe in fact contain components exported from the US and Europe for assembly in a second or third country. So how do we treat the exports and subsequent re-imports of assembled goods? I have no idea. The Philippines for example assembles, but does not manufacture small electrical goods. Since such goods are assembled from components manufactured and designed elsewhere should they count fully as exports from the Philippines? Supply chains have become multinational and perhaps the notion of country of origin is no longer relevant.

GE.I agree with you here. My point is that trade deals that don't demand immediate reciprocity by all concerned are bad deals. I have no objection to a Thai-built transmission in a Spanish-assembled SEAT car provided Thailand has opened its market to the products of Spain (which would be under a Thai-EU trade deal). I have no sympathy for "Please wait a decade or two for us to catch up. " You want access now? So do we.

GoodEnough

10-01-16, 07:43

I agree with you here. My point is that trade deals that don't demand immediate reciprocity by all concerned are bad deals. I have no objection to a Thai-built transmission in a Spanish-assembled SEAT car provided Thailand has opened its market to the products of Spain (which would be under a Thai-EU trade deal). I have no sympathy for "Please wait a decade or two for us to catch up. " You want access now? So do we.I don't either, and I agree with your assessment. However, given that this country makes very little that the rest of the world actually wants--aside from OFWs--it's not really germane to this place which attracts so little in the way of DFI. The fact is that existing regulatory frameworks that discourage investment would have to be dismantled before lopsided trade agreements become a real problem here.

GE.

Engine Driver

10-01-16, 08:07

However, given that this country makes very little that the rest of the world actually wants..

GE.Hey not so fast, what about Cebu dried mangoes? Famous all over the world!

Random99

10-21-16, 03:32

Whew, D30 is giving the world a preview of what US foreign policy would look like under a Trump administration. Most likely, the demographics (women, college educated, minorities) will prevent this from happening.

Jack Burton

10-21-16, 03:40

... this place which attracts so little in the way of DFI. The fact is that existing regulatory frameworks that discourage investment would have to be dismantled before lopsided trade agreements become a real problem here.

GE.I dunno. I find mongering to be a bit one-sided, depending on who needs it more. And certainly direct "investment" is one-sided if I let it, of the "I will gladly pay you the second Tuesday of next week for Jolibees today". But I'm not a wimp, and don't do business with Whempies.

Amavida

10-29-16, 08:59

Omega 3

01-17-17, 06:05

Read an interesting article today (dated 1-15-17) at Alex Jones' Infowars, entitled "Will the CIA Assassinate Trump?" A year ago, I would have dismissed outright such an article, and even the site. Now, however, after the enormously bizarre events of the past few months, am no longer so sure.

Some effort recently has been made to discredit Infowars as a fake news site. Brings to mind the saying, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. " Ha ha.

Actually, find the Washington Post recently to be more of a fake news site. Blatantly biased and unfair reporting (brings to mind The Philippine Daily Inquirer here) and discredited "news" articles, especially regarding WaPo reporting of alleged Russian activities in the USA. See recent commentaries by Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept.

Surprisingly, John Brennan has been publicly belligerent and antagonistic, even to the point of outright arrogance. Is there really a "shadow" or "deep state" government, which thrives on the huge profits of endless conflicts and perpetual war, running things in the USA?

If so, will there be tangible and adverse consequences for the Philippines and its President, as well as for the US, and its President, in 2017?

Just one man's thoughts and questions.

OM.

Soapy Smith

02-10-17, 09:41

I have a hunch you were refering to Betsy DeVos when you made the above comments. So for your viewing entertainment and possible edification, here is a link to a recent WSJ editorial on Betsy entitled, "The Real Democratic Party, Why not a single Senate Democrat voted for Betsy DeVos." I believe the operative term here is "editorial. " The edifying purpose of editorials is to reinforce the thinking of like-minded people, and usually not to educate people with different perspectives. And please be clear that the WSJ's ideological take on the world is rarely consistent with the Democratic Party. So, is there some actual news here?

Member #4698

02-10-17, 14:25

I believe the operative term here is "editorial. " The edifying purpose of editorials is to reinforce the thinking of like-minded people, and usually not to educate people with different perspectives. And please be clear that the WSJ's ideological take on the world is rarely consistent with the Democratic Party. So, is there some actual news here?A good editorial is backed up with supporting facts. Yes, editorials may not tell both sides, but then a lot of so called "straight reporting" these days fail to tell both sides. CNN's election night coverage is a perfect example of biased "straight news".

Did you bother to read the WSJ editiorial. There is a very interesting insight into Cory Booker's motivations. I will quote it here:

"As recently as May 2016, Mr. Booker delivered an impassioned speech at the AFC's annual policy summit in Washington. He boasted about how Newark had been named by the Brookings Institution "the number four city in the country for offering parents real school choice. ".

He described the school-choice cause this way: "We are the last generation, fighting the last big battle to make true on thatthat a child born anywhere in America, from any parents, a child no matter what their race or religion or socio-economic status should have that pathway, should have that equal opportunity, and there is nothing more fundamental to that than education. That is the great liberation. ".

Some liberator. On Tuesday Mr. Booker voted no on Mrs. DeVos.

His calculation is simple. Mr. Booker is angling to run for President in 2020, and to have any chance at the Democratic nomination he needs the unions' blessing. He knows that a large chunk of both the party's delegates and campaign funding comes from the teachers unions, and so he had to repent his school-choice apostasy. ".

The last paragraph is editorial opinion. The 1st two paragraphs are fact. Look, if you don't see the unhealty relationship between the National Teacher's Union and the Democratic Party there is not much I can say to you. The fact is that American union run public schools in the inner cities are a disfunctional disgrace. If they were not we would not be having this conversation. The Dems have no ideas on how to improve things except to throw more money at the problem. At least the Republicans and Mrs. Devos have some new ideas. Why not let them try to improve things? As Trump says, "what have you got to lose?"

So what is wrong with injecting a little competition into the dysfunctional system and allowing charter schools? Please tell me why low income parents should not have a choice in where to send their kids for an education? Just like democrat politicians send their kids to expensive private schools if that is what the parents want or feel their children need. The only rational explanation why Dems fight this is because if school choice were to be succesful it would kill the golden goose. Union dues. I hope Mrs. DeVos will be successful. You should hope she is succesful too! To repeat: the current state of public eduication in the USA is a disgrace and a growing danger to our Democracy.

Wimble

02-10-17, 16:17

A good editorial is backed up with supporting facts. Yes, editorials may not tell both sides, but then a lot of so called "straight reporting" these days fail to tell both sides. CNN's election night coverage is a perfect example of biased "straight news".

Did you bother to read the WSJ editiorial.Cannot read the WSJ unless you have a subscription. The interesting issue now is the First Amendment rights. WSJ editor got in trouble about a month ago by asking for objectivity. I got a red card for my Thai post, somewhat expected. Always thought those rights were only for US citizens on US soil. Now it appears there are more imperialistic views of those rights from the US, even though they are getting trampled in the US.

D Cups

02-10-17, 19:36

The creampuff crybabies are fading away but not fast enough IMHO. Cheers.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/democrats-may-be-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-permanent-minority-party/

Omega 3

02-13-17, 18:23

Golfinho

02-14-17, 00:22

The sense I am getting is that there are huge and irreconcilable differences between "the US left (globalists)" and "the US right ("make America great again)". Huge and rancorous divisiveness, not seen since
Perhaps this is part of a stratagem created and fomented by the unscrupulous few OM.Nationalism wherever it is breaking out: Trumpmerica, Brexit, Spain-Greece-Hungary in the eurozone is just push back against the last several decades of neo-liberal (and it isn't left wing!) corporate based globalism. Notice how the US slaps down and smears any semblance of nationalism in countries Russian and Iran that they have not been able to co opt into their globalization scheme.

Dg8787

02-14-17, 01:11

The sense I am getting is that there are huge and irreconcilable differences between "the US left (globalists)" and "the US right ("make America great again)". Huge and rancorous divisiveness, not seen since perhaps the days of the America Civil War.

Perhaps this is part of a stratagem created and fomented by the unscrupulous few, to eventually sunder and split apart the USA, for the greater monetary gain of a few plutocrats? "Divide and conquer"?

Just one man's musings.

OM.I can't answer to since the days of the American Civil War as I wasn't around then.

But I believe the civility is gone. 20 some per cent of the voters were afraid to openly state their preference for Donald Trump and just went to the voting booths and voted. Now the left do not want to acknowledge him as president or his platform and will do everything to tear him down. Even worse is the right is ready to pull the carpet out from under the President. Neither political party is in charge, which is how the voters voted. Voters are tired of the do nothing politics.

Once again people want change but just don't take away their freebies!

D Cups

02-14-17, 06:28

You nailed it, Dg. OM, too. Irreconcilable. Still, I refuse to let the liberals get away with Trump-bashing given the last eight years of Obummer automatic freeloader freebies, muslim ass kissing, terrorist exonerations and trillion dollar deficits we have all suffered for. The democraps have lost face and power according to.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/democrats-may-be-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-permanent-minority-party. I don't want to be civil when I see my country brought to the brink of disaster given the above. I want to shake the shit out of dummies like good enough who is a poster boy for the idiots on the left.

But I believe the civility is gone. 20 some per cent of the voters were afraid to openly state their preference for Donald Trump and just went to the voting booths and voted. Now the left do not want to acknowledge him as president or his platform and will do everything to tear him down. Even worse is the right is ready to pull the carpet out from under the President. Neither political party is in charge, which is how the voters voted. Voters are tired of the do nothing politics.

Once again people want change but just don't take away their freebies!.

EihTooms

02-14-17, 07:03

You nailed it, Dg. OM, too. Irreconcilable. Still, I refuse to let the liberals get away with Trump-bashing given the last eight years of Obummer automatic freeloader freebies, muslim ass kissing, terrorist exonerations and trillion dollar deficits we have all suffered for. The democraps have lost face and power according to.What on Earth have you "suffered" as a result of those supposed transgressions? I'll bet the farm you, your parents and your grandparents suffered a hell of a lot more, genuine suffering and not this phony outrage "suffering" play-acted by the Dems' / Obama's political opponents, as a result of the horrifically failed Republiturd policies that led directly to the Great Republiturd Depression of the late 1920's / early 1930's, the Great Republiturd Reagan Recession of 1981-1983, and the Great Bush / Republiturd Recession of 2008-2009.

No other president of the last 100 years with the possible exception of FDR pulled us out of a deeper economic hole blasted into the system by still favorite Republiturd policies and into major economic recovery relative to where we were when he first took office than Barack Obama. Certainly no Republiturd president in history has bested him on that measure. And there isn't one chance in a trillion President Donald Trumpty-Dumpty is going to even come close to matching the improvements in the economy by the end of his term relative to what was happening in January 2017 as long as he continues to espouse and promote the exact same Supply-Side/Trickle-Down/lax regulation enforcement Republiturd economic nonsense policies that brought us those previous disasters.

Member #2041

02-14-17, 07:24

What on Earth have you "suffered" as a result of those supposed transgressions? I'll bet the farm you, your parents and your grandparents suffered a hell of a lot more, genuine suffering and not this phony outrage "suffering" play-acted by the Dems' / Obama's political opponents, as a result of the horrifically failed Republiturd policies that led directly to the Great Republiturd Depression of the late 1920's / early 1930's, the Great Republiturd Reagan Recession of 1981-1983, and the Great Bush / Republiturd Recession of 2008-2009.

No other president of the last 100 years with the possible exception of FDR pulled us out of a deeper economic hole blasted into the system by still favorite Republiturd policies and into major economic recovery relative to where we were when he first took office than Barack Obama. Certainly no Republiturd president in history has bested him on that measure. And there isn't one chance in a trillion President Donald Trumpty-Dumpty is going to even come close to matching the improvements in the economy by the end of his term relative to what was happening in January 2017 as long as he continues to espouse and promote the exact same Supply-Side/Trickle-Down/lax regulation enforcement Republiturd economic nonsense policies that brought us those previous disasters.ElhTooms, it's not worth the effort. These righties only believe what Breitbart and Faux News tell them. They actually believe that Obama was a worse President than George W. Bush. Can you imagine how ill-informed someone has to be to draw that conclusion? They forget that it was on Bush's watch that the most successful foreign attack on USA Soil ever took place, and the reason it took place is because the Bushies ignored the Clinton administration's warning that Al Qaida was the single greatest threat to USA Security. And then Bush / Cheney invaded the wrong country, because they had a hard-on for Iraqi oil, and that catastrophe has given us what is today known as ISIS. And only THEN did Bush preside over the worst economic collapse to befall this country since the Great Depression in 1929 through the 1930's. A collapse so severe that over 1/2 of the entire aggregate wealth of Americans was wiped out. Oh, and BTW, that aggregate wealth was fully restored, and then some, during the 8 years of the Obama Presidency. But god forbid, people had to actually buy adequate health insurance under Obama, rather than free-ride on the system with only ER care and catastrophic coverage that was useless if they actually needed it.

And they think that Donald Trump is THEIR savior, not the most corrupt, ill-prepared, fraudulent charlatain ever to hold the office. A guy who Vladamir Putin put into office, and who is an unstable narcissist who is so hung up by the facts that Obama had a bigger crowd at his inauguration, and lost the popular vote by 3 Million citizens (but only the citizens of the well educated states) that he can't even focus on rolling out his first major promise without fucking it up by letting Stephen Bannon try to extend it to Green-Card holders, and as a result, got it blocked in court.

Omega 3

02-14-17, 08:00

Am getting the very strong sense that there are certain vested interests who would reap enormous financial benefit from destabilizing and splitting the USA, and that destabilization is happening now.

It is in our common best interests to put aside differences and personal rancor. It is not the time for name-calling or casting blame or bickering. We must rise above all this, because we are facing a much more dangerous common threat to us all. We are at an important crossroad.

"United we stand, divided we fall".

OM.

GoodEnough

02-14-17, 11:49

ElhTooms, it's not worth the effort. These righties only believe what Breitbart and Faux News tell them. They actually believe that Obama was a worse President than George W. Bush. Can you imagine how ill-informed someone has to be to draw that conclusion? They forget that it was on Bush's watch that the most successful foreign attack on USA Soil ever took place, and the reason it took place is because the Bushies ignored the Clinton administration's warning that Al Qaida was the single greatest threat to USA Security. And then Bush / Cheney invaded the wrong country, because they had a hard-on for Iraqi oil, and that catastrophe has given us what is today known as ISIS. And only THEN did Bush preside over the worst economic collapse to befall this country since the Great Depression in 1929 through the 1930's. A collapse so severe that over 1/2 of the entire aggregate wealth of Americans was wiped out. Oh, and BTW, that aggregate wealth was fully restored, and then some, during the 8 years of the Obama Presidency. But god forbid, people had to actually buy adequate health insurance under Obama, rather than free-ride on the system with only ER care and catastrophic coverage that was useless if they actually needed it.

And they think that Donald Trump is THEIR savior, not the most corrupt, ill-prepared, fraudulent charlatain ever to hold the office. A guy who Vladamir Putin put into office, and who is an unstable narcissist who is so hung up by the facts that Obama had a bigger crowd at his inauguration, and lost the popular vote by 3 Million citizens (but only the citizens of the well educated states) that he can't even focus on rolling out his first major promise without fucking it up by letting Stephen Bannon try to extend it to Green-Card holders, and as a result, got it blocked in court.You're right, it's simply not worth the effort or time. People are either bright enough to read, understand and analyze facts and historical trends or they're not. Nothing you can say is going to make them any more intelligent. Further, since Trump supporters appear to inhabit a "fact-free" anti-science, a-historical universe, logical argumentation falls on deaf ears as you're arguing with folks who either do not understand logic and / or who automatically reject anything that doesn't confirm their warped world view. The bottom line for me is that enough people bought into the lunatic rantings of a sociopath who is now our president. That's sad and perhaps it will turn out to be tragic; however, his supporters are the lemmings of US politics and will follow him blindly over the cliff, chanting "American First" (whatever the hell that means) while plummeting to their deaths. So the trick, in my view, is to ignore the orange-skinned buffoon's visage to the extent possible, create your own little world into which his tiny fingers cannot intrude, and avoid confrontations that you cannot win. As a case in point, you might want to read the following:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/the-latest-voter-fraud-lie.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

GE.

Member #4698

02-14-17, 15:01

Do you progressives actually read the propaganda and intolerance you post? Do you even care? None of you want to have a serious debate on the issues. I have tried a couple times to elevate the conversation with GE and he backs away every time. Everything you guys say about non-progressives is true about yourselves; you are intolerant, biased, doctrinaire as well as truly misinformed. I am sorry for the name calling, but you guys started it and you won't stop even though you claim otherwise.

I have one question for you geniuses; which side do you think is more tolerant of our little hobby. Progressives or conservatives? Do you not realize that what we like to do with young Asian girls is a capital sin in the Church of the Holy Progressive and church elders would make it a crime if they had the power which sadly you are only too willing to grant them? You are cutting your own throats.

P.S. Since you guys cannot give up on the insults and refuse to have honest debates, I propose this thread be closed. The ISG is about sex not politics. The insults you guys instinctively hurl around are only going to get uglier and uglier. I would like to stay above the fray and not post here, but some of the BS you guys post can't be ignored. I used to think some of you guys were good people, but your intolerant political beliefs are making this assumption impossible to maintain. I understand that this is a sign of the times. Red shirt vs Yellow shirts, but we really should try to keep this crap out of the forum or else there will be open hostilities! Isn't what brings us together Poontang? Sadly we have reached the point where the left and the right in America cannot talk to one another about politics. Eventually one side will prevail. I sincerely hope it is not your side because we will all be a lot worse off if the left wins this fight.

I wish you all the freedom to pursue your dreams and goals. Too bad you do not wish the same for me.

D Cups

02-14-17, 15:21

What on Earth have you "suffered" To Smoothy, 2041, ge and all the other liberal idiots: the USA has suffered from record unemployment, record debt, record bureaucracy and record crime to name a few things. These are some of the reasons why obummer will go down as the worst president in the history of the USA. That and releasing known terrorist criminals so they can plan their next attack. Geez are you really THAT STUPID not to know this? His healthcare system was a disaster from inception. Of course you democrap dolts will fudge the numbers and pick your own nitnoy counterpoints -- fart factoids to disguise this reality. Choke on your beer you worthless pukes. Trump won. Deal with it. Stop whining like a baby with [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) and shit in your [CodeWord131] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord131) and in your minds.

D Cups

02-14-17, 15:31

Thanks, Natty. I think you you are right on all counts. This thread should be closed as it is not relevant to our hobby and it only exacerbates ill will among normally goodwilled individuals. If ge and others can keep their mouths shut on this topic I will, too.

Do you progressives actually read the propaganda and intolerance you post? Do you even care? None of you want to have a serious debate on the issues. I have tried a couple times to elevate the conversation with GE and he backs away every time. Everything you guys say about non-progressives is true about yourselves; you are intolerant, biased, doctrinaire as well as truly misinformed. I am sorry for the name calling, but you guys started it and you won't stop even though you claim otherwise.

I have one question for you geniuses; which side do you think is more tolerant of our little hobby. Progressives or conservatives? Do you not realize that what we like to do with young Asian girls is a capital sin in the Church of the Holy Progressive and church elders would make it a crime if they had the power which sadly you are only too willing to grant them? You are cutting your own throats.

P.S. Since you guys cannot give up on the insults and refuse to have honest debates, I propose this thread be closed. The ISG is about sex not politics. The insults you guys instinctively hurl around are only going to get uglier and uglier. I would like to stay above the fray and not post here, but some of the BS you guys post can't be ignored. I used to think some of you guys were good people, but your intolerant political beliefs are making this assumption impossible to maintain. I understand that this is a sign of the times. Red shirt vs Yellow shirts, but we really should try to keep this crap out of the forum or else there will be open hostilities! Isn't what brings us together Poontang? Sadly we have reached the point where the left and the right in America cannot talk to one another about politics. Eventually one side will prevail. I sincerely hope it is not your side because we will all be a lot worse off if the left wins this fight.

I wish you all the freedom to pursue your dreams and goals. Too bad you do not wish the same for me..

Member #2041

02-14-17, 17:01

To Smoothy, 2041, ge and all the other liberal idiots: the USA has suffered from record unemployment, record debt, record bureaucracy and record crime to name a few things. These are some of the reasons why obummer will go down as the worst president in the history of the USA. That and releasing known terrorist criminals so they can plan their next attack. Geez are you really THAT STUPID not to know this? His healthcare system was a disaster from inception. Of course you democrap dolts will fudge the numbers and pick your own nitnoy counterpoints -- fart factoids to disguise this reality. Choke on your beer you worthless pukes. Trump won. Deal with it. Stop whining like a baby with shit in your pants and in your minds.

Sorry, but when you start your ranting off with the ludicrous ignorant stupidity that Obama is the worst President in history, when there's not a single objective metric to support that he's even the worst President in the last 3, you have no credibility from the get-go, and you disqualify yourself from having any sort of intelligent discussion on the matter. We ARE dealing with Trump having been given the Presidency by Vladamir Putin and propaganda from Breitbart. Actually what we're doing is making damn sure that when Trump takes the USA down in massive failure, that our own futures are not jeopardized. I've already got property in another country, and a fully thought through exit strategy from the nation in decline that is the USA The fact is, I was ready to blow the bolts on the USA by the end of the Bush administration. I stuck around because Barack Obama vastly improved my life by improving my access to healthcare, and causing my net worth to double what it had been at the end of the Bush Presidency. The fact is, Obamacare has already saved my life, and Obama's fiscal policies doubled my wealth, so I don't need to give any credence to the uninformed rantings of the right. Enjoy the mess you and your orange savior is in the process of creating. I won't need to stick around for it, but I'll certainly be entertained by it from elsewhere.

Wimble

02-14-17, 17:51

I won't need to stick around for it, but I'll certainly be entertained by it from elsewhere.Totally encourage such moves. Vote with your feet. More civilized and peaceful. Unfortunately, the US laws and policies are being influence by non citizens, as in people with no skin in the game. When you find a better country or system, please let me know.

D Cups

02-14-17, 18:57

You must be some whacked out drug dealer, 2041. Good riddance.

Barack Obama vastly improved my life by improving my access to healthcare, and causing my net worth to double what it had been , .

Revere

02-14-17, 19:30

I will just say this word is there are a lot of angry people in Latin America right now. One example is CBP is asking DR and other Latin America citizens to sign forms and renounce their American citizenships and they will pay for there flights free back to their home country. If you run around in those countries saying you love what Trump stands for you could become a target. Understand people are not happy with their families who live here being harrassed. Just saying do not run down there talking tough or you might not come back.

Better yet, wear the "Make America Great" hat in Latin America and the Carribean and I am sure people will welcome you with open arms. Ask yourself this question if you had an OBAMA hat on their would you be afraid. You know what happens if you wear the other hat.

Just think we are going back to being hated again and not safe to travel. Do you think Latin America police would ever save you if they knew you loved trump. They will say good luck your going to need it.

One last thing, i would not be running to cuba chasing chicks if i was American. You just might be made an example of because they know no one will save you. When you [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) off foreign countries you become a target if you travel there. Tread lightly.

Member #2041

02-14-17, 19:30

You must be some whacked out drug dealer, 2041. Good riddance.

.Nope, just a self-employed diabetic, who couldn't get insurance due to that pre-existing condition prior to Obamacare. The fact that you don't even grasp that 20 million people who had pre-existing conditons couldn't get medical insurance prior to Obamacare, and were able to once the Affordable Healthcare Act got passed, is a textbook example of the sort of ignorance that pervades the Trumpettes. And my net worth doubled because the Stock Market more than doubled and the Real Estate market recovered. Each of those markets collapsed under George W. Bush, and Obama restored them to solvency. Sorry to hear that you didn't actually own a stock portfolio or a home during the robust economic recovery that Obama presided over, but that's not surprising, as most poor uneducated trash didn't.

Member #2041

02-14-17, 19:38

D Cups

02-14-17, 19:51

Member #2041

02-14-17, 20:03

You must have a hearing disability, too, in addition to mental retardation. I own a home, a business, plenty of stock and have a PhD. Lay off the sugar -- you seem quite unbalanced. Don't let the door hit you in the ass when you leave the country like all the other liberals promised to do.

.So answer this: How the fuck did YOUR net worth not double under Obama's Presidency? Obviously, it didn't, because you stated that because mine did, I must be a drug dealer. You must be a complete fucking imbecile to not have made money while holding a stock portfolio under Obama, and not have your house go UP in value under Obama. PhD notwithstanding, only idiots and people who had no assets of significance did not have their financial situation improve as a result of the Obama presidency. And since you HAD assets, idiocy is the only other explanation.

Sorry you missed it when Obama turned the U.S. economy, which was a falling knife he inherited when taking office, and his policies saved it. I appreciate the level of resentment you must have, what with a graduate degree, business and home ownership, and yet you STILL managed to fucking miss out on the most dramatic economic turnaround in 75 years. If I had fucked up that badly, I'd be resentful of everyone else who didn't too. I get it, you have my sympathy. Meanwhile, if you and your ilk and your orange savior DO manage to take the U.S. down the shitter, I won't have to go swirling down the drain with you.

D Cups

02-14-17, 20:18

D Cups

02-14-17, 20:26

Yes, 2041, congratulations, you have made me a believer of the missing link. Will you leave the USA Now?

No biggie, this is just Darwin in action, and Trumpettes don't believe in Evolution.

Member #2041

02-14-17, 20:33

My financial, professional and educational success has nothing to do with anything obummer did or didn't do. Hard work and intelligence TRUMPS lazy freeloading liberalism despite all odds. Geez even people in the depression got rich. Please take your meds 2041 before you blow a gasket and become 0000.

.The simple, objective fact is, YOU stated that because my net worth doubled under Obama, I must be a whacked out drug dealer. The ONLY rational conclusion that can be drawn from that statement is that you, not being a drug dealer, failed to achieve anything remotely approaching that level of financial success during the Obama Presidency. Which, since you owned stock, and a home, and a business, yet FAILED to achieve significant financial gains during the Obama administration, are clearly a completely incompetent imbecile.

In case you missed it, and obviously, you did, the Stock market increased by about 150% during the Obama Presidency. After declining significantly during the Bush Presidency. Home Equity also dramatically improved during the Obama Presidency, after declining precipitously during the last 3 years of the Bush Presidency. The simple fact is, Obama deserves a portion of the credit for those things. If YOU gained from those things, you DO owe some of that to Obama. And if you DIDN'T gain from those things, you must be the dumbest stock, home, and business-owning PhD to ever come down the pike. Which would certainly explain the resentment and jealousy you feel toward others at your own inadequacy and incompetence. In any case, we're done here, because you're clearly too stupid to grow intellectually. And BTW, I have advanced degrees too, most likely from better schools than yours, but I don't bother trying to flog them as a means of trying to validate otherwise moronic comments that I've made on the internet to my intellectual superiors, as you do. Sorry that I struck a nerve.

D Cups

02-14-17, 20:50

You credit obummer for your wealth? Fascinating! What other government programs are you freeloading on? Well, I concede I was wrong about you being a drug dealer but the "whacked out" part remains true.

When are you leaving the country? Can we help you with your one-way ticket?

The simple, objective fact is, YOU stated that because my net worth doubled under Obama, I must be a whacked out drug dealer. ..

Member #4698

02-14-17, 22:07

It just blows my mind when progressives say Obama did good vis a vis the economy or foreign affairs. The truth is he presided over the worst economic expansion in modern US history. The economy under Obama never grew at 3%. Furthermore, it is economic history that the more severe a downturn, the faster and more robust the economic recovery will be.

Now the question inquiring minds might want to ask is why didn't the US economy grow in a robust way during the Obama years? The answer that I am sure most of you progressives' do not want to hear is simple:

No democratically elected government presiding over a modern economy in the last 150 years has spent, borrowed and regulated its economy into prosperity. WOW! Amazing but true, because this is just not the way modern economies work and to advocate such a policy indicates a basic misunderstanding of economics or a desire to accomplish something else like wealth redistribution which never works either. Just look at Venezuela or the history of Argentina for starters. The simple truth is lower taxes and less regulation is the only way to stimulate an modern economy in order to achieve real, I say REAL, lasting results. I do not fault Obama for what he initially did in 2008. He was a neophyte and did not know any better. But by 2010 it was clear that his economic policies were not working. Only a zealot would have stuck by such failed policies and put the country through the last 6 years.

Note: in 2012 Obama did not run on his record because he could not. Instead he ran on racial identity politics and a phony "war on women" campaign that falsely painted Romney as an insensitive, racist (Progressives love to call anybody who disagrees with their religion racist), misogynist, rich man. And somehow, he pulled it off and won an undeserved 2nd term.

Hey its 2016 and you progressive believers now have an inkling of how we felt when the "amateur" was re-elected in 2012. But we did not go screwy in the head the way the left is behaving now. It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. I think a few of you guys are suffering from it right now. Relax and calm down. Everything will be ok. The sky is not falling. But don't forget this important point: TRUMP IS OBAMA's LEGACY. If there had been no 2nd term Obama, there would be no President Trump. Under a President Romney the economy would be humming at 3 to 4%, the Syria refugee crises would never have happened, and there would not have been the disasterous shameful Iran nuke deal that guarantees Iran nuclear weapons in 10 years or so. Yeah, Obama was a great president. If you believe that you have swallowed the Kool Aid and lost your rational mind.

Member #2041

02-15-17, 01:47

Sorry Natty, that's complete fiction. In actual fact there has NEVER been a STRONGER economic recovery from as deep a chasm as the one Obama inherited in 2009. That's because there has only been ONE economic downturn that bad in the past 150 years, and that was the one that Roosevelt inherited from Herbert Hoover. And in point of fact, the recovery from the Great Depression was weaker than the recovery Obama oversaw, for more than 9 years. The only thing that actually got the USA Economy moving again after the Great Depression was the buildup for WWII, a solid 11 years after the Great Depression and Stock Market crash happened in 1929. No other economic downturn in USA History is comparable to those two, because they both combined massive contractions in economic activity, and the failures of the financial infrastructure itself in both instances. When Obama took over, we were literally losing 700,000 jobs a month. Obama's stimulus put an end to that within a year (which, BTW, is what ANY economic policy requires to affect job growth. Unemployment lags the actual economic conditions by at least 9, and more typically 12 months). The fact is, the asymptote in the employment curve took place 11 months after Obama's stimulus package was approved. Under Obama, after that first year catastrophe he inherited, the economy has been adding over 200 K jobs per year, consistently for over 6 years. The fact is, Obama DID preside over economic expansion. That didn't just magically happen, it took strong measures to pull the economy out of the complete collapse that it was in during 2008, and it took over a year and a half just to end the nosedive. But that nosedive caused major systemic problems that still are a drag today, but they are FAR less serious than they were.

The claim that more severe downturns are typically followed by more rapid upturns is, quite simply as flat out wrong as it could be. That claim is utter nonsense. More severe downturns have always been followed by LESS robust recoveries.

BTW, the comparison with Venezuela is delusional, Obama never put forth anything remotely like the controlled state-run economy that exists there. A much more relevant comparison for Obama's desired programs - most of which were never implemented due to Republican obstruction in Congress, except for healthcare, would be with the Democratic Socialist safety net approach that exists in Scandanavian countries, and New Zealand. Which, BTW, are the most prosperous countries in the world per capita. And frankly the claim that Obamacare is a death-spiral failed program is a fiction. The simple fact is, it was a two phased approach. Phase 1 was to provide near universality of coverage with containment of cost increases, and AFTER near universality would be achieved, only then could cost-containment start to kick in. The fact is, we're still not out of phase 1 yet. But even so, healthcare costs under the ACA have still gone up LESS rapidly than they were increasing under the pre-Obamacare world. Even as the healthcare industry was extending coverage to 10-20 million additional citizens who happen to be the ones with the highest costs to serve because of pre-existing conditions. The fact is, Obamacare WAS working, and was doing what it was designed to do. One of Obama's great failures as President was that he didn't successfully make that case to the American people, and they only began to discover it on their own - several years into the program. So NOW, ironically, when Republicans and Trump are hell-bent to get rid of it, only now has a majority of the American population come to realize how much that they are BENEFITTING from it.

As for foreign affairs, Obama's record is mixed, certainly not great, but it is still VASTLY superior to the disastrous record of George W. Bush, who failed to defend against a successful massive attack on USA Soil, and started two disastrous wars, one of which spawned what is now ISIS, and the other of which we are still not completely extracted from.

I did not say Obama was a "great President". He was, in point of fact, an just a somewhat above average President - he ddin't accomplish anywhere near enough after his first 2 years in office to be considered great, because he never figured out how to overcome Congressional obstruction. But, quite simply, only a completely brainwashed moron with total amnesia concerning the disastrous period from 2001 to 2008, during which time we were successfully invaded by 15 guys with boxcutters, and proceeded to embark on two of the four most disastrous wars in American history, and only THEN presided over the 2nd worst economic collapse in American history would suggest that he wasn't a better President than George W. Bush, however.

And if you want to know why Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012, I'll explain it: It's because Romney never articulated any economic platform that differed in any way from that of George W. Bush - and a strong majority of the American public did NOT have amnesia about just how disastrous the Bush Presidency was. Romney even let political rancor cause him to disavow his own creation - the healthcare plan in Massachussetts that WORKS, and which is the entire basis for Obamacare. If Romney had actually take CREDIT for Obamacare, instead of contorting himself into claiming it was so evil, when he himself had implemented a virtually identical plan in Massachussetts that was a success, he might well have won - instead, HE is the one who played identity politics and claimed that half of all Americans were just lazy bums. That's why Obama spanked Romney (who, I admit, would be a FAR more capable President than Trump will be) because Romney wouldn't embrace his own beliefs and policies, because they weren't radically conservative enough for the rest of the Republican party.

It just blows my mind when progressives say Obama did good vis a vis the economy or foreign affairs. The truth is he presided over the worst economic expansion in modern US history. The economy under Obama never grew at 3%. Furthermore, it is economic history that the more severe a downturn, the faster and more robust the economic recovery will be.

Now the question inquiring minds might want to ask is why didn't the US economy grow in a robust way during the Obama years? The answer that I am sure most of you progressives' do not want to hear is simple:

No democratically elected government presiding over a modern economy in the last 150 years has spent, borrowed and regulated its economy into prosperity. WOW! Amazing but true, because this is just not the way modern economies work and to advocate such a policy indicates a basic misunderstanding of economics or a desire to accomplish something else like wealth redistribution which never works either. Just look at Venezuela or the history of Argentina for starters. The simple truth is lower taxes and less regulation is the only way to stimulate an modern economy in order to achieve real, I say REAL, lasting results. I do not fault Obama for what he initially did in 2008. He was a neophyte and did not know any better. But by 2010 it was clear that his economic policies were not working. Only a zealot would have stuck by such failed policies and put the country through the last 6 years.

Note: in 2012 Obama did not run on his record because he could not. Instead he ran on racial identity politics and a phony "war on women" campaign that falsely painted Romney as an insensitive, racist (Progressives love to call anybody who disagrees with their religion racist), misogynist, rich man. And somehow, he pulled it off and won an undeserved 2nd term.

Hey its 2016 and you progressive believers now have an inkling of how we felt when the "amateur" was re-elected in 2012. But we did not go screwy in the head the way the left is behaving now. It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. I think a few of you guys are suffering from it right now. Relax and calm down. Everything will be ok. The sky is not falling. But don't forget this important point: TRUMP IS OBAMA's LEGACY. If there had been no 2nd term Obama, there would be no President Trump. Under a President Romney the economy would be humming at 3 to 4%, the Syria refugee crises would never have happened, and there would not have been the disasterous shameful Iran nuke deal that guarantees Iran nuclear weapons in 10 years or so. Yeah, Obama was a great president. If you believe that you have swallowed the Kool Aid and lost your rational mind.

GoodEnough

02-15-17, 02:26

The claim that more severe downturns are typically followed by more rapid upturns is, quite simply as flat out wrong as it could be. That claim is utter nonsense. More severe downturns have always been followed by LESS robust recoveries.

BTW, the comparison with Venezuela is delusional, Obama never put forth anything remotely like the controlled state-run economy that exists there. A much more relevant comparison for Obama's desired programs - most of which were never implemented due to Republican obstruction in Congress, except for healthcare, would be with the Democratic Socialist safety net approach that exists in Scandanavian countries, and New Zealand. Which, BTW, are the most prosperous countries in the world per capita. And frankly the claim that Obamacare is a death-spiral failed program is a fiction. The simple fact is, it was a two phased approach. Phase 1 was to provide near universality of coverage with containment of cost increases, and AFTER near universality would be achieved, only then could cost-containment start to kick in. The fact is, we're still not out of phase 1 yet. But even so, healthcare costs under the ACA have still gone up LESS rapidly than they were increasing under the pre-Obamacare world. Even as the healthcare industry was extending coverage to 10-20 million additional citizens who happen to be the ones with the highest costs to serve because of pre-existing conditions. The fact is, Obamacare WAS working, and was doing what it was designed to do. One of Obama's great failures as President was that he didn't successfully make that case to the American people, and they only began to discover it on their own - several years into the program. So NOW, ironically, when Republicans and Trump are hell-bent to get rid of it, only now has a majority of the American population come to realize how much that they are BENEFITTING from it.

I did not say Obama was a "great President". He was, in point of fact, an just a somewhat above average President - he ddin't accomplish anywhere near enough after his first 2 years in office to be considered great, because he never figured out how to overcome Congressional obstruction. But, quite simply, only a completely brainwashed moron with total amnesia concerning the disastrous period from 2001 to 2008, during which time we were successfully invaded by 15 guys with boxcutters, and proceeded to embark on two of the four most disastrous wars in American history, and only THEN presided over the 2nd worst economic collapse in American history would suggest that he wasn't a better President than George W. Bush, however.Thanks for presenting such a logical, fact-based argument. When the other side of the debate relies less of verifiable fact and argues from the "Never mind, I know what I know," perspective however, logic flies out the window.

There's another admittedly intangible feature called grace and dignity that the Obamas bought to the White House; factors that stand in stark contrast to the tasteless clown who currently occupies the dwelling.

GE.

Dg8787

02-15-17, 02:32

Seems like the division is getting even greater. I will continue to maintain civility here.

A friend of mine just hates President Trump and posts non stop crap about him on FB almost daily for the past 6 months. Opposes every Presidential cabinet appointment just because it is a Trump appointment. Today, LOL today he likes a post praising Trump's team for listening to the Pilots Union request to overturn Obama's decision to allow Norwegian Airlines to operate in US. Of course he is a SW pilot that would be greatly affected by the foreign carrier. Now he doesn't mind this exclusion to save American jobs (his own), but deporting illegals or a 90 day travel ban? Hell no!

As I stated before, the problem is we all have our own self interest as a priority which will cause our own demise. When we vote we vote for a platform of issues, not just our singular ones. Some we like some we don't. Over all are we better off or not? If not we vote again.

Member #4698

02-15-17, 03:17

Member #2041

02-15-17, 04:05

Member #2041, I appreciate the effort it took to write your response. I am further heartened by the fact that you do consider Obama a great president. "I did not say Obama was a "great President". He was, in point of fact, an just a somewhat above average President. He didn't accomplish anywhere near enough after his first 2 years in office to be considered great, because he never figured out how to overcome Congressional obstruction." Maybe he didn't accomplish anything with Congress because he lacked the ability or confidence to negotiate and to compromise to get what he wanted. Other Presidents faced great hurtles in dealing with the opposition party in Congress too, but they overcome those problems for the good of the country. Example: Ron Reagan and Bill Clinton. Obama couldn't or wouldn't. He wasn't up to the job.

Anyway, you asserted a lot of points in your post. Perhaps I can agree on some; I know I disagree on many. But I will give you the respect you deserve to look it over carefully and respond in due course. I do note that the economy expanded during the Obama presidency. My point is the recovery could have been stronger and real wages should have gone up, which they did not. I have attached a chart from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve that shows GDP growth in the quarters following every recession since WW2. Clearly you can see that Obama's recovery is the weakest. Briefly on the Great Depression, I am sure you are aware, that there was a 2nd recesson in 1937-38 that compounded the problem, but provided evidence that Keynesian fiscal economics policies were a failure. Governments just can't spend their way out of recessions. I am sorry. It just doesn't work that way.Natty, I appreciate the fact that, unlike D Cups, you were at least willing to have a discussion on the actual merits of Obama's Presidency, rather than just resorting to the parroting of mindless blather and meritless slurs. Which is why I gave you the respect of a reply on the merits as well.

Whether or not I agree with you about why Obama was unable to overcome Congressional obstruction, it's somewhat of a moot point. It was Obama's job to martial public opinion behind his policies, and have the public force the Congress to acede to the will of the public, and it's apparent that he was unable to do that. That being said, it certainly is true that no President other than Roosevelt ever had to deal with as badly collapsed an economy as Obama, and frankly, the recovery under Obama was more robust than the recovery under Roosevelt for the first 8 years. As I said, it really took WWII for the USA To grow it's way out of the Great Depression. And it is also the case that Obama did not JUST inherit a shrinking economy, he also inherited a collapsed financial infrastructure, and situation where over half of all aggregated wealth in the economy had vanished. Frankly, if one looks impartially at the degree to which the engines of economic growth had been destroyed in 2008 prior to Obama taking office, the fact that he got the USA From rapid contraction to admittedly tepid growth as quickly as he did, is actually unprecedented. The fact is, ALL of the growth that was occurring in the economy up to 2008 had been fueled by an explosion of credit based upon stock market appreciation and increased home equity. Those underpinnings were completely blown away during the financial collapse from 2006-2009. Before Obama could even hope to see economic growth, he had to restore the credit markets back to viability. And that took the better part of 2 years to happen, and even now, credit is much tighter than it was in the early 2000's. That's the main reason that growth coming out of that recession has been less than robust. People were sitting on mounds of debt, and had to pay a substantial amount of that back before they could even begin to consume actual goods with their partially restored wealth. I'm quite sure that, a rigorous analysis of the recovery under Obama will actually show that it was as robust as could reasonably be hoped for, given the structural failure that brought about the recession. If anything, I believe that the failure of Obama's 2009 stimulus package was that it was too small, rather than it was too aggressive. Frankly, that was the time that the USA Infrastructure deficiencies should have been addressed, with a MASSIVE infusion of government construction projects, probably double the size of what was actually done. If not for the significant government spending that did happen, growth would have been more anemic than the 1-2% that we DID see in the out years of Obama's Presidency. The reason that real wages have not gone up is a function of globalization - the WORLD's wages are going up, but since we are at the leading edge of those wages, the constant drive to outsource production is what keeps U.S. wages from rising. The fact is, with ubiquitous broadband communication, there is an inexorable leveling of wage rates around the world. Donald Trump's push toward protectionism and wall-building won't stop it - it's fundamentally unstoppable as a trend.

I'll also go on record that the Affordable Care Act is actually doing as well as any alternative program could have, other than a national expansion of Medicare / Medicaid into a single-payer program. The fact is, the existing system had fully failed prior to Obamacare. Mitt Romney recognized it, and went against Republican orthodoxy to implement essentially the same program as Obamacare in Massachussetts. And it worked. And if given another 3 years, Obamacare would have accomplished near universality of coverage AND cost containment. But the simple fact is, true cost containment could never be achieved while more and more sicker people were being brought into the system. Nonetheless, the cost increases have been brought down from what they were prior to Obamacare, while at the same time, bringing nearly 20 million more people into the ranks of the insured. Once those folks had been brought into the system, from that point forward, the productivity gains could be applied to cost containment for a relatively fixed level of service, rather than expansion of service to more sicker patients, which is what we've been observing so far.

That being said, I emphasize again, that there is a world of difference between claiming that Obama was a great President, and the really unassailable case that he was a far better President than his predecessor, George W. Bush. It may be a low bar to clear, but at least if we're being honest, it is a bar that Obama EASILY DID CLEAR. It's frankly impossible to have a conversation on the merits when someone starts out with the extreme and indefensible position that Obama was the worst President EVER, when there is no plausible way to make the case that his immediate predecessor was not FAR worse, and that the catastrophic scenario that Obama inherited has to be taken into consideration when he is evaluated for posterity. The simple fact is, in 2016, we were in FAR better shape than we were in 2008. And I take issue with your premise that the depths of the 2008 recession should have made the Obama recovery more robust, when quite clearly, the severity of the crisis, along with the collapse of financial infrastructure and all available credit, represented an ongoing boat-anchor to the recovery, which NO policies or person would have been able to fully overcome in a more rapid timeframe.

GoodEnough

02-15-17, 04:21

Funny stuff. http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/many-in-nation-tired-of-explaining-things-to-idiots.

Hutsori

02-15-17, 08:36

If Romney had actually take CREDIT for Obamacare, instead of contorting himself into claiming it was so evil, when he himself had implemented a virtually identical plan in Massachussetts that was a success, he might well have won - Perhaps. One thing to consider is that in the Congressional elections of 2010, 2012, and 2014 Obama lost his majority in the House (2010) and then the Senate (2014). This all happened after Obama Care became law. Further, the Democrats saw their party lose many state governor houses and legislatures. Much of this was due to the Tea Party, which I doubt would have been receptive to Obama-esque anything, and the inability of the Democrats to get out the vote during mid-term elections. I think this limited Romney's flexibility. Obama's charisma wasn't transitive to others in his party. Reagan's was.

Not only did Reagan win more than 50% of the vote with a strongish third-party candidate participating, he then built on that by winning almost 59% in '84 - Obama's numbers went down by about 3m votes in '12. Reagan set up Bush the elder for victory in '88, and I think Bush could have won in '92 had it not been for the economic contraction, Perot, and "Read my lips, no new taxes. " (Yes, I've read the articles saying Perot didn't take votes away from Bush, but I'm unconvinced.) Clinton bashed Bush for breaking that tax pledge, which is kind of a remarkable event that a Democrat would use opposition to increased tax as a strategy. That's how far to the right the Democrats swung, all due to Reagan. Even Obama could hardly be called at Roosevelt, Truman, or LBJ Democrat.

Economic recovery was both Bush and Obama. TARP was enacted in Oct 2008, so that's Bush (and Congress). A set of mixed measures, such as TALF and CPP, shored up the banks, which at least brought stability back in a time of panic. I understand all the banks minus AIG repaid their rescue packages with interest. The automakers were also rescued by TARP because GM's and Chrysler's bankruptcies were orderly and millions were not tossed out of the factories. This is no comfort to those whose pensions were affected.

Though $100B was budgeted to remedy it, TARP did little to ease the foreclosure crisis because only $21B was spent. The result was about 10m homes were foreclosed. That's on both Bush and Obama, but I think Obama's share of the blame is larger since he had 8 years to redress this. Obama's Home Affordable Modification Program had the Treasury Department alone decide to run it through mortgage companies that had financial incentives to foreclose rather than modify loans. In 2010 it was revealed the mortgage companies were still perpetrating fraud to squeeze the borrowers, yet little was done to punish those involved. The borrowers were used to "foam the runway", allowing mortgage companies time to absorb inevitable foreclosures more slowly. Homeowners were the foam being crushed by a jumbo jet in that scenario, squeezed for as many payments as possible before ultimately losing their homes. You may read Neil Barofsky's book Bailout: An Inside Account Of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street - Barofsky was the congressionally appointed watchdog of TARP. "Treasury's bungling of HAMP and its refusal to heed our warnings and those of other TARP oversight bodies resulted in the program harming many of the people it was supposed to help. " This happened under Geithner's Treasury Department, and that's Obama.

I think Romney should have attacked Obama on home foreclosures, yet he's a traditional Republican and challenging business interests isn't in their DNA.

Looking at the 2016 election, I think anger at Wall St, i.e. banks, figured prominently. Look how Sanders eviscerated Clinton for her series of $250 k speeches to it. Much as been made about sexism, racism, "fake news", the FBI, and Russian hackers, but I think a lot of voters were deeply upset, if not enraged, that Wall St was bailed out and homeowners weren't. They learnt of Clinton pocketing cheque after cheque, and people justifiably saw that as their tax dollars going into her bank account. If I were a voter I wouldn't have voted for her just for that alone. Collect your reward once you're finished with public service entirely. It's astonishing how unaware she was of public sentiment. Maybe she thought the public wouldn't learn of these since these were private speeches, yet she should have learnt from her Bosnia under-sniper-fire incident and other episodes that these tend to blow up in one's face. For a person who was supposedly very intelligent and highly experienced, she sure was amazingly adroit in charging into problems of her own making.

Member #2041

02-15-17, 09:05

Perhaps. One thing to consider is that in the Congressional elections of 2010, 2012, and 2014 Obama lost his majority in the House (2010) and then the Senate (2014). This all happened after Obama Care became law. Further, the Democrats saw their party lose many state governor houses and legislatures. Much of this was due to the Tea Party, which I doubt would have been receptive to Obama-esque anything, and the inability of the Democrats to get out the vote during mid-term elections. I think this limited Romney's flexibility. Obama's charisma wasn't transitive to others in his party. Reagan's was.

Not only did Reagan win more than 50% of the vote with a strongish third-party candidate participating, he then built on that by winning almost 59% in '84 - Obama's numbers went down by about 3m votes in '12. Reagan set up Bush the elder for victory in '88, and I think Bush could have won in '92 had it not been for the economic contraction, Perot, and "Read my lips, no new taxes. " (Yes, I've read the articles saying Perot didn't take votes away from Bush, but I'm unconvinced.) Clinton bashed Bush for breaking that tax pledge, which is kind of a remarkable event that a Democrat would use opposition to increased tax as a strategy. That's how far to the right the Democrats swung, all due to Reagan. Even Obama could hardly be called at Roosevelt, Truman, or LBJ Democrat.

Economic recovery was both Bush and Obama. TARP was enacted in Oct 2008, so that's Bush (and Congress). A set of mixed measures, such as TALF and CPP, shored up the banks, which at least brought stability back in a time of panic. I understand all the banks minus AIG repaid their rescue packages with interest. The automakers were also rescued by TARP because GM's and Chrysler's bankruptcies were orderly and millions were not tossed out of the factories. This is no comfort to those whose pensions were affected.

Though $100B was budgeted, TARP did little to ease the foreclosure crisis because only $21B was spent. The result was about 10m homes were foreclosed. That's on both Bush and Obama, but I think Obama's share of the blame is larger since he had 8 years to redress this. Obama's Home Affordable Modification Program had the Treasury Department alone decide to run it through mortgage companies that had financial incentives to foreclose rather than modify loans. In 2010 it was revealed the mortgage companies were still perpetrating fraud to squeeze the borrowers, yet little was done to punish those involved. The borrowers were used to "foam the runway", allowing mortgage companies time to absorb inevitable foreclosures more slowly. Homeowners were the foam being crushed by a jumbo jet in that scenario, squeezed for as many payments as possible before ultimately losing their homes. You may read Neil Barofsky's book Bailout: An Inside Account Of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street - Barofsky was the congressionally appointed watchdog of TARP. "Treasury's bungling of HAMP and its refusal to heed our warnings and those of other TARP oversight bodies resulted in the program harming many of the people it was supposed to help. " This happened under Geithner's Treasury Department, and that's Obama.

I think Romney should have attacked Obama on home foreclosures, yet he's a traditional Republican and challenging business interests isn't in their DNA.

Looking at the 2016 election, I think anger at Wall St, i.e. banks, figured prominently. Look how Sanders eviscerated Clinton for her series of $250 k speeches to it. Much as been made about sexism, racism, "fake news", the FBI, and Russian hackers, but I think a lot of voters were deeply upset, if not enraged, that Wall St was bailed out and homeowners weren't. They learnt of Clinton pocketing cheque after cheque, and people justifiably saw that as their tax dollars going into her bank account. If I were a voter I wouldn't gave voted for her just for that. Collect your reward once you're finished with public service entirely. It's astonishing how unaware she was of public sentiment. Maybe she thought the public wouldn't learn of these since these were private speeches, yet she should have learnt from her Bosnia under-sniper-fire incident and other episodes that these tend to blow up in one's face. For a person who was supposedly very intelligent and highly experienced, she sure was amazingly adroit in charging into problems of her own making.TARP version 1 passed under Bush in October of 2008, but frankly, Tim Geithner created the program for Paulson, and Obama was instrumental in getting it passed, because he strongly endorsed it, when McCain's campaign was flailing without any coherent strategy to deal with the financial crisis. Frankly, TARP was initially half-baked until Geithner fully baked it, and was appointed Obama's Treasury Secretary to carry it out. There also was a follow-on TARP II which passed during Obama's first month in office. Both TARP laws were Tim Geithner's creations, and he was all along going to be Obama's Treasury Secretary even when he was working for Paulson during the last months of the Bush Presidency. In fact, Geithner had some improprieties in his personal taxes, and his nomination would have sunk because of those improprieties, except that Obama stood hard by him because he knew that Geithner was far and away the key expert on what the program needed to do and how to do it.

BTW, I agree that Clinton has several shady dealings with Wall Street, but they actually pale into insignificance compared to Trump's shady dealings with Wall Street. But Trump's supporters refused to hold him accountable in the way that they held Clinton accountable for shady dealings that were 1-2 orders of magnitude smaller than Trump's shady deals. Trump was actually telling the truth when he stated that he could murder someone on 5th Avenue and the voters would give him a pass for it. That was actually the most truthful statement he made during his entire campaign.

EihTooms

02-15-17, 11:33

It just blows my mind when progressives say Obama did good vis a vis the economy or foreign affairs. The truth is he presided over the worst economic expansion in modern US history. The economy under Obama never grew at 3%. Furthermore, it is economic history that the more severe a downturn, the faster and more robust the economic recovery will be.I'll take a slower than usual Democratic / Obama economic recovery over your typical Republican Great Depression / Recession any day. This one was slower because Republican Party leadership in Congress agreed among themselves and pledged on the night of Obama's first inauguration not to help the incoming President pass anything or do anything to pull us out of the worst economic downturn their own Republican Party policies produced, figuring they could blame the slow recovery on Obama and the Dems in the minds of dimwits who likely have no idea what a cloture vote is and ride that lie back to congressional wins in subsequent elections. Shrewd move. They were right.

Obama not having even the bare minimum 60 Democratic seats in the Senate generally required to pass anything of significance for even a single day of his presidency (he only had a bare minimum 60 seat Democratic majority "caucus", which is not the same as having all 60 seats being Democratic Party seats, for about 12 unpredictable, sporadic weeks during his first year in office), meant the Republican Senate minority could slow walk, delay, obfuscate, obstruct or outright block all the known and well-tested methods for pulling the USA Economy out of those patented Great Republican Depressions / Recessions. And that is exactly what they did.

There was no counterpart to that kind of political party leadership pledge to obstruction in the aftermath of the previous Great Republican Depressions / Recessions. The Republican Party presence in the House and Senate was too paltry during the FDR years to block his Dem recovery measures. The Democratic Party majorities in the House and Senate under Reagan weren't about to make the country suffer longer than necessary for purely political reasons when they were faced with pulling us out of Reagan's Great Recession. The Republican Party congressional minorities were not about to dig in too much to block what G. W. Bush had to do under duress and at the last minute to pull us out of his Great Crash / Recession at the end of his presidency because, hey, he was one of their own.

Of course, a handful of House Republicans still managed to trigger the biggest panic stock market sell-off Crash since the Stock Market Crash of October 1929 when they pulled their "yes" votes at the last minute on that first TARP vote on September 29, 2008, contrary to what G.W. Bush asked of them. That was horrifically damaging enough for our economy and those of many other countries around the planet, particularly on an important psychological level. But otherwise they at least went along with it on the second go around the following month. Too late to "unpanic" the stock market sell-off by then though.

D Cups

02-15-17, 16:29

You guys and the entire democrapic party are chock full of excuses. You'd rather blame than take responsibility. That is your party line MO. That's what the American people finally realized and voted in opposition. Cry and whine all you want, it is all moot now.

Obama not having even the bare minimum 60 Democratic seats..

D Cups

02-15-17, 16:34

Sorry Natty, .Waaaaa waaaa waaaaa more excuses from the crybabies. Get your mama to change your [CodeWord132] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord132).

Member #2041

02-15-17, 16:58

Waaaaa waaaa waaaaa more excuses from the crybabies. Get your mama to change your You can join the substantive part of the discussion which people on both sides are engaged in, or you can continue to act like the worthless douchebag you are. We know what we're expecting.

D Cups

02-15-17, 16:59

Funny stuff. ].Meanwhile, check out the crime in the ex-president's hometown of Chicago. That's real funny, too. Who you going to blame for that, GE? Al Capone? Lawlessness and disrespect for people and property blossumed under obummer. Real funny.

D Cups

02-15-17, 17:02

worthless.Sums it quite nicely, 2041. Cry some more. Eventually some other democrap will change your the-I-a-p-e-are for you.

D Cups

02-15-17, 17:08

actual merits of Obama's Presidency, Worthless.

D Cups

02-15-17, 17:11

You got to excuse for this, too, democraps?

Member #2041,he doubled the National Debt to 20 Trillion Dollars by borrowing more money than all other Presidents combined. If nothing is done to reduce this debt it will one day destroy us.

..

Member #2041

02-15-17, 17:28

To quote Dick Cheney: "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter ".

D Cups

02-15-17, 18:45

Like a dog returns to eat its own vomit. Vile, mangy, flea-infested stupid dog.

I'll also go on record ..

Golfinho

02-15-17, 19:28

And to get what little Obama got he doubled the National Debt to 20 Trillion Dollars by borrowing more money than all other Presidents combined. If nothing is done to reduce this debt it will one day destroy us. aA debt that can't be repaid, won't be repaid.

No need for you to lose any sleep over your being destroyed by budget deficit.

So long as USA can continue to beat back efforts to supplant its dollar as world reserve currency, the game will keep rolling along.

EihTooms

02-16-17, 01:51

To quote Dick Cheney: "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter ".Ronald Reagan TRIPLED our National Debt. Last I checked, he was still the Patron Saint of all things "Conservative Republican. " And, sure enough, the country has not been destroyed by that wildly out of control typical Republican spending spree some 30 years ago. Not totally anyay.

And he did so after inheriting from Jimmy Carter better economic conditions than any incoming Democratic president inherited from an outgoing Republican president ever; back-to-back quarterly GDP growth rates of +7. 5% and +8. 5%, a moderate and reasonable debt-to-GDP ratio, a steadily declining unemployment rate, a steadily declining inflation rate, taking the Oath of Office right after one of the best 4 year annual average private jobs creation records in USA History, our being stuck in not two, not even one stupid ground war quagmire.

Of course, that didn't prevent Reagan from getting his stupid Republican-style Supply-Side / Trickle-Down economic agenda going (fast-tracked into the system in year one by Congress out of sympathy for his taking a bullet from a nut with a gun out to impress actress Jodie Foster), whereupon we immediately reversed that declining unemployment rate into a skyrocketing one to a point where we had a 10%+ headline unemployment rate for a whopping 10 consecutive months during Reagan's second and third year in office (the BLS calculated the now popular "real" U6 rate then just like they do now, but, haha, nobody talked about it then. Must have hit somewhere around 25-30% during the Reagan years). We got under Reagan then record post-Great Republican Depression era business closures and job losses. Beginning in his second year in office we found ourselves in the worst economic downturn since that Great Republican Depression of the late 1920's / early 1930's.

Which, of course, was a notable standard quite handily surpassed by Reagan-wannabe George W. Bush right after his version of Reaganomics got cooked into the system. Trump's proposals for the economy look no different than what those guys proposed or what the Republicans proposed and passed in the mid/late 1920s in the lead up to the Great Republican Crash and Depression. Only "Yuger!" and "Greater!!" lol.

Member #4698

02-16-17, 02:04

A debt that can't be repaid, won't be repaid. <snip> So long as USA can continue to beat back efforts to supplant its dollar as world reserve currency, the game will keep rolling along.True, but how long do you predict the dollar can remain the world reserve currency. 10 years, 25 years more? The idea used to be unthinkable. Not any longer.

Member #2041

02-16-17, 02:13

True, but how long do you predict the dollar can remain the world reserve currency. 10 years, 25 years more? The idea used to be unthinkable. Not any longer.Well, for sure the Euro won't be replacing it, now that the Eurozone is coming apart. So what's left? Bitcoin? (That's a joke, in case someone wants to take it seriously).

Member #4698

02-16-17, 03:06

Ronald Reagan TRIPLED our National Debt. Last I checked, he was still the Patron Saint of all things "Conservative Republican. " And, sure enough, the country has not been destroyed by that wildly out of control typical Republican spending spree some 30 years ago. Not totally anyay.

And he did so after inheriting from Jimmy Carter better economic conditions than any incoming Democratic president inherited from an outgoing Republican president ever; back-to-back quarterly GDP growth rates of +7. 5% and +8. 5%, a moderate and reasonable debt-to-GDP ratio, a steadily declining unemployment rate, a steadily declining inflation rate, taking the Oath of Office right after one of the best 4 year annual average private jobs creation records in USA History, our being stuck in not two, not even one stupid ground war quagmire.

Of course, that didn't prevent Reagan from getting his stupid Republican-style Supply-Side / Trickle-Down economic agenda going (fast-tracked into the system in year one by Congress out of sympathy for his taking a bullet from a nut with a gun out to impress actress Jodie Foster), whereupon we immediately reversed that declining unemployment rate into a skyrocketing one to a point where we had a 10%+ headline unemployment rate for a whopping 10 consecutive months during Reagan's second and third year in office (the BLS calculated the now popular "real" U6 rate then just like they do now, but, haha, nobody talked about it then. Must have hit somewhere around 25-30% during the Reagan years). We got under Reagan then record post-Great Republican Depression era business closures and job losses. Beginning in his second year in office we found ourselves in the worst economic downturn since that Great Republican Depression of the late 1920's / early 1930's.

Which, of course, was a notable standard quite handily surpassed by Reagan-wannabe George W. Bush right after his version of Reaganomics got cooked into the system. Trump's proposals for the economy look no different than what those guys proposed or what the Republicans proposed and passed in the mid/late 1920s in the lead up to the Great Republican Crash and Depression. Only "Yuger!" and "Greater!!" lol.So much here to disagree with, so little time. I will concentrate on paragraph 2 and Jimmy Carter who I rate as one of the worst Presidents in the post World War II era. 1st, I think you are cherry picking some of the stats you cite to promote your argument. "back-to-back quarterly GDP growth rates of +7. 5% and +8. 5%". The volatile quarterly rates have no meaning. Look at the annual rates to understand the situation. I lived through this stuff. The Carter years were horrible. Here is the relevant information:

The prime rate outstripped the Federal funds rate, reaching 20% in March 1980. The "misery index," a Carter term which equals unemployment plus inflation hit 20 percent in 1980 as well, the first time since World War II. Stagflation and Jimmy Carter. The two go hand in hand. Then there is his bungling of foreign affairs: the Iranian Revolution, which we are still paying a huge penalty for now, and the US Hostage crisis which Carter completely mangled, oh yeah, I almost forgot the Russian invasion of Afganistan.

I consider Reagan, on the other hand, the greatest President of the post war era. I point to the end of stagflation, 20 plus years of economic growth after he tamed inflation with the 1982 recession (before you object you should read Paul Volker's thoughts on Reagan and what he did for the US Economy), WINNING THE COLD WAR and defeating the Soviet Union. The only other President that even comes close to this level of achevement is Franklin Roosevelt and as another BM pointed out, Roosevelt did not do so great with the economy. We have Hirohito to thank for resurecting the US economy.

But, you are right about one thing. Trump's plan to jump start the US economy is Reaganesqe or as the left likes to decry Supply Side. He plans to cut taxes across the board and get rid of Dodd Frank among other Obama era anti-growth / anti-business regulations. Yes, I expect the deficit will rise at first due to the tax cuts, the military buildup plus any fiscal spending Trump intends to implement, but after his tax cuts work their way through the economy and stimulate it properly, I predict we will see 3%, 4%, possibly even 5% real GDP growth. Of course, I could be wrong. But then so could you. So, we will have to just wait and see what happens.

In the meantime I will make you a friendly wager; if I am right about the GDP you buy me a ST session with any girl I want in Twister. If you are right, I will buy you a ST session with any girl you want in Twister. Do you accept? The bet: I predict 3% or higher real GDP within 18 months of Trump's Tax plan and the repeal of Dodd Frank signed into law.

One last thing, here are the facts comparing Reagan and Carter:

Year Inflation // Unemployment // GDP.

1976 5.8% /////// 7.7% /////// 4. 33%.

1977 6.5% ////// 7.1% /////// 4. 98%.

1978 7.6% ///// 6.1% ////// 6. 68%.

1979 11.3% //// 5.9% ////// 1. 30% (Second oil crisis).

1980 13.5% //// 7.2% ////// -0. 04%.

1981 10.3% //// 7.6% ////// 1. 29%.

1982 6.2% //// 9.7% ////// -1. 40% (Reagan Recession).

1983 3.2% ///// 9.6% ///// 7. 83%.

1984 4.3% ///// 7.5% ///// 5. 63%.

Member #2041

02-16-17, 03:58

The problem with the Reagan presidency is that it was catastrophic for anyone who was not a white male.

And BTW, Nixon and Bush I did more to defeat the Soviet Union than Reagan actually did.

Reagan did conquer the existential threat of Grenada, though, and he did prove that running up huge deficits is not problematic for the economy. A legacy that Obama has built on.

BTW, Natty, here's the bet I would propose, although the only place I could pay it off or collect on it would be in Tijuana: Over the course of the Trump Presidency, he adds fewer jobs to the economy than Obama did during his Presidency. It's A LOT easier to achieve a momentary growth rate of 3% when you're starting off with an economy that's been steady state at around 2% growth (actually it's been oscillating between 1 and 3.5%) than it is when you're starting off with a falling knife economy that's contracting at over 5% annualized, which is what Obama inherited.

And getting to over 3% briefly is nothing special, Obama did it several times. It's SUSTAINING 3% for a year or longer, and I will certainly bet that Trump does not accomplish that, unless he has Stephen Bannon fabricate some bogus fake statistics.

EihTooms

02-16-17, 05:36

So much here to disagree with, so little time. I will concentrate on paragraph 2 and Jimmy Carter who I rate as one of the worst Presidents in the post World War II era. 1st, I think you are cherry picking some of the stats you cite to promote your argument. "back-to-back quarterly GDP growth rates of +7. 5% and +8. 5%". The volatile quarterly rates have no meaning. Look at the annual rates to understand the situation. I lived through this stuff. The Carter years were horrible. Here is the relevant information:

The prime rate outstripped the Federal funds rate, reaching 20% in March 1980. The "misery index," a Carter term which equals unemployment plus inflation hit 20 percent in 1980 as well, the first time since World War II. Stagflation and Jimmy Carter. The two go hand in hand. Then there is his bungling of foreign affairs: the Iranian Revolution, which we are still paying a huge penalty for now, and the US Hostage crisis which Carter completely mangled, oh yeah, I almost forgot the Russian invasion of Afganistan.

I consider Reagan, on the other hand, the greatest President of the post war era. I point to the end of stagflation, 20 plus years of economic growth after he tamed inflation with the 1982 recession (before you object you should read Paul Volker's thoughts on Reagan and what he did for the US Economy), WINNING THE COLD WAR and defeating the Soviet Union. The only other President that even comes close to this level of achevement is Franklin Roosevelt and as another BM pointed out, Roosevelt did not do so great with the economy. We have Hirohito to thank for resurecting the US economy.

But, you are right about one thing. Trump's plan to jump start the US economy is Reaganesqe or as the left likes to decry Supply Side. He plans to cut taxes across the board and get rid of Dodd Frank among other Obama era anti-growth / anti-business regulations. Yes, I expect the deficit will rise at first due to the tax cuts, the military buildup plus any fiscal spending Trump intends to implement, but after his tax cuts work their way through the economy and stimulate it properly, I predict we will see 3%, 4%, possibly even 5% real GDP growth. Of course, I could be wrong. But then so could you. So, we will have to just wait and see what happens.

In the meantime I will make you a friendly wager; if I am right about the GDP you buy me a ST session with any girl I want in Twister. If you are right, I will buy you a ST session with any girl you want in Twister. Do you accept? The bet: I predict 3% or higher real GDP within 18 months of Trump's Tax plan and the repeal of Dodd Frank signed into law.

One last thing, here are the facts comparing Reagan and Carter:

Year Inflation // Unemployment // GDP.

1976 5.8% /////// 7.7% /////// 4. 33%.

1977 6.5% ////// 7.1% /////// 4. 98%.

1978 7.6% ///// 6.1% ////// 6. 68%.

1979 11.3% //// 5.9% ////// 1. 30% (Second oil crisis).

1980 13.5% //// 7.2% ////// -0. 04%.

1981 10.3% //// 7.6% ////// 1. 29%.

1982 6.2% //// 9.7% ////// -1. 40% (Reagan Recession).

1983 3.2% ///// 9.6% ///// 7. 83%.

1984 4.3% ///// 7.5% ///// 5. 63%.First of all, on the bet; it would all depend how GDP growth is accomplished. If the slightly improved average annual GDP growth rates achieved under Reagan vs Carter come about for Trump as they did for Reagan, by tripling the National Debt and skyrocketing the debt-to-GDP ratio, then Trump "accomplishing" the same feat is hardly worth celebrating with a wager win, isn't it?

I fail to see the startling improvement over anything in that recap of certain data for Reagan vs Carter. You get hyper-inflation as seen in the Carter years because wage inflation feeds into it. And you get wage inflation because there are too many new private sector jobs being created than there are applicants to fill them. Easy to bring that kind of "Morning in America!" result to an end; preside over an economy whose private sector jobs creation average is dwarfed by that of Jimmy Carter. You're showing Carter's average annual unemployment rate lower than Reagans. This is supposed to convince me Reagan's policies worked better than Carter's?

Sorry, but "I lived through this stuff. The Carter years were horrible", is not enough data to reverse the real data showing Carter's annual average private sector jobs gains dwarfing that of Reagan and every other Republican president before and since, just to name one way more important metric than how you felt about it. I certainly agree that Carter was a stiff while Reagan was affable and ingratiating, as long as you weren't on the wrong end of his massive tax increases on the lower income margins to pay for the disproportionate and budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy.

EihTooms

02-16-17, 05:51

...as another BM pointed out, Roosevelt did not do so great with the economy. We have Hirohito to thank for resurecting the US economy. I try never to miss an opportunity to set this oft-repeated but bogus claim straight. Look at the charts for the dramatic decline in the unemployment rate, GDP growth surging, stock market recovering, etc. from mid-1933 forward and you will see all were doing spectacularly well YEARS before we were attacked on Pearl Harbor or got involved in WWII. There was a mild 18 month set back in the improvement on some important metrics around 1937 only because FDR let up on the New Deal stimulus in order to address the debt / deficit. But then it resumed right back to positive trend in the years before December 7th, 1941.

In fact, the USA Economy suffered during our involvement in WWII. There is no data showing improvement on the usual economic measures during WWII or in the aftermath of WWII. Conservatives opposed to the Democratic New Deal type approach to recovering the economy from typical Republican major economic downturns always claim FDR's New Deal was a failure and that wars are good for the economy. But it isn't true. If that were true, then our economy should have been roaring while we were in the midst of TWO wars during the Bush2 years and the early Obama years. But it wasn't roaring. Not by a long shot.

EihTooms

02-16-17, 06:20

The prime rate outstripped the Federal funds rate, reaching 20% in March 1980. The "misery index," a Carter term which equals unemployment plus inflation hit 20 percent in 1980 as well, the first time since World War II. Stagflation and Jimmy Carter. The two go hand in hand. Then there is his bungling of foreign affairs: the Iranian Revolution, which we are still paying a huge penalty for now, and the US Hostage crisis which Carter completely mangled, oh yeah, I almost forgot the Russian invasion of Afganistan.
Raising Fed Funds / prime rates is how you tame hyper-inflation. You make the cost of borrowing money more expensive. You do that to slow down an otherwise overheated economy. That is why Carter appointed Paul Volker to be his Fed Chairman. Because Volker had a plan to tame hyper-inflation by raising the Fed Funds rate while not doing too much damage to jobs creation. Carter appointed him to do that in late 1979, knowing rising Fed Funds rates during 1980 would likely do great harm to him politically at election time. Reagan had nothing to do with bringing down hyper-inflation. Carter made the decision to appoint Volker to do it, shouldered all the heavy lifting for it, assumed all the political risk to do it.

As a side note on that subject, since you lived through those Carter and Reagan years, you must then remember that virtually anyone and everyone could deduct those high interest rates for everything from auto purchases to consumer debt re credit cards during the Carter years, just as you could and largely still can with mortgage loan interest rates. So when they had to be raised high in order to tame the effects of wage inflation in '79 and '80, most Americans, not just corporate executives with clever accountants, could reduce the bite of it come income tax time. But guess who put an end to that ability for regular rank and file American workers to take a tax deduction on ordinary consumer debt? You guessed right if you said Ronald Reagan.

The Iranian Revolution was triggered by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA overthrow of a duly democratically-elected leader of Iran in 1954 and installing the brutal Shah Pahlavi regime instead in order to keep oil prices to our liking. The Revolution was about Islamic Ayatollahs then overthrowing that brutal dictatorship, a slow and bloody 25 year march that happened to end in 1979 when Carter was president. Meanwhile, Carter got all of the USA Hostages out of Iran in exchange for nothing more than what already belonged to Iran before Reagan had a chance to screw that up more than he tried to screw it up in the days before the election. Quite a bit more positive outcome than when Reagan buckled under the slightest political risk pressure by illegally trading whatever arms Iran wanted for 7 hostages that were taken on his watch.

That Reagan event was one of a few under his watch when Iran and others in the Middle East learned you can actually come out ahead, not just break even, by causing mischief for the USA, depending on the spinal density of the commander in chief at the time.

EihTooms

02-16-17, 07:46

BTW, Natty, here's the bet I would propose, although the only place I could pay it off or collect on it would be in Tijuana: Over the course of the Trump Presidency, he adds fewer jobs to the economy than Obama did during his Presidency. It's A LOT easier to achieve a momentary growth rate of 3% when you're starting off with an economy that's been steady state at around 2% growth (actually it's been oscillating between 1 and 3.5%) than it is when you're starting off with a falling knife economy that's contracting at over 5% annualized, which is what Obama inherited.

And getting to over 3% briefly is nothing special, Obama did it several times. It's SUSTAINING 3% for a year or longer, and I will certainly bet that Trump does not accomplish that, unless he has Stephen Bannon fabricate some bogus fake statistics.Quite so. The spread between where all of the classic economic metrics were tanking in January 2009 and where they were in January 2017 on the positive side is astonishing! Annualized quarterly GDP had contracted by more than -8%! The final number for 2017 will likely be near +2%, the rate it has been hovering around for the past couple years. While most of the rest of the world has not done as well and is dragging our economy down along the way. That's a whopping 10 percentage point improvement. Seriously, it has not been done before (except by FDR) and will not be duplicated much less bested by any Republican president going forward unless he / she dumps everything Republican economic philosophy stands for and adopts everything Democratic economic philosophy stands for. And it sure as hell won't be accomplished by Donald Trump.

Of course, the special made-up conservative Republican "law" over the past 8 years is we're never supposed to compare what was happening when Obama took office to what is happening now and has been happening for years under his economic stewardship. Whenever you mention what was happening when Obama took office, hey that's "blaming Bush", don'tcha' know. LOL. No, it is the way anything meaningful is measured; how does it compare today with what was happening before.

GoodEnough

02-16-17, 08:56

Quite so. The spread between where all of the classic economic metrics were tanking in January 2009 and where they were in January 2017 on the positive side is astonishing! Annualized quarterly GDP had contracted by more than -8%! The final number for 2017 will likely be near +2%, the rate it has been hovering around for the past couple years. While most of the rest of the world has not done as well and is dragging our economy down along the way. That's a whopping 10 percentage point improvement. Seriously, it has not been done before (except by FDR) and will not be duplicated much less bested by any Republican president going forward unless he / she dumps everything Republican economic philosophy stands for and adopts everything Democratic economic philosophy stands for. And it sure as hell won't be accomplished by Donald Trump.

Of course, the special made-up conservative Republican "law" over the past 8 years is we're never supposed to compare what was happening when Obama took office to what is happening now and has been happening for years under his economic stewardship. Whenever you mention what was happening when Obama took office, hey that's "blaming Bush", don'tcha' know. LOL. No, it is the way anything meaningful is measured; how does it compare today with what was happening before.While to rational folks, these arguments are compelling, in the end you're using "facts" and "science" to convince people who believe in neither. Facts are no longer undeniable in an era of "alternative facts," characterized by the mystical "Creationism" being taught as an "alternative" to the scientific fact of evolution. It's an unwinnable battle, which is why I suggest that those of us who still believe in empiricism start our own country.

GE.

D Cups

02-16-17, 14:48

What a great discussion going on here! Yes, GE, start your own country. You can be Lord of the Fart Factory.

It's an unwinnable battle, which is why I suggest that those of us who still believe in empiricism start our own country.

GE..

D Cups

02-16-17, 15:10

Yes, play the race card, 2041. It is the only one in your hand.

The problem with the Reagan presidency is that it was catastrophic for anyone who was not a white male.

.

D Cups

02-16-17, 15:13

Top 10 obummer blunders.

10. I can't find my birth certificate! Well it might be in Indonesia but since daddy split before I was born I don't really know.

9. My brother lives in a shack somewhere in Africa. I'the like to send him some USA Taxpayer money but he doesn't have an address.

8. The constitution? Well let me rewrite it with these here executive orders.

7. Crime? What crime? I'll just ignore it and hope it goes away. Good to out of Chicago, tho.

6. Let's take Air Force One to a ballgame in Cuba! That's got to be better than dealing with world crises! Oh! And while I'm there I can let more of my terrorist buddies out of Guantanamo so they can plan their next attack! Brilliant!

5. Fuck the economy! We can always borrow more trillions from China!

4. I know, let's build a healthcare system that is SO COMPLEX that NO ONE understands it! As long it has my name on it and it benefits member number 2041 (my loyal, blithering sychophant) that's all that matters!

3. Fuck the military! Let me downsize this to the bone so I can give away more free phones, free food, free housing, free transportation, free healthcare, etc. To all the freeloaders who voted for me!

2. I hate the Clintons but if Hillary gets elected maybe I can milk even more bucks out of these stupid democrats!

1. Let's see. What can I do as a grand finale to my presidency? I know! I'll send $220 million to our enemies in Syria! I'll do it AN HOUR before inauguration because everyone will be so busy that NO ONE will notice! I'the like to send more but $220 M should be Good Enough.

EPILOGUE.

Well, I tried to destroy America, I really did my best to try to destroy America, but those Republicans, there's just too many of them! Let me see if I can find my brother in Africa and slip him a few bucks.

EXIT. FADE OUT. CLOSE CURTAIN. NO APPLAUSE.

The legacy of obummer: WORST president in the history of USA.

D Cups

02-16-17, 15:34

So much here to disagree with, so little time.Hi Natty, I appreciate your efforts here but the democraps will always find an excuse for everything. It is always some Republican's fault no matter what. Their brains are hard wired to default to these fantasy fart factoids. If none exists just make it up and dazzle them with enormous amounts of every kind of animal shit you can imagine.

D Cups

02-16-17, 15:42

You are a fool for believing that, GE. In a world of Kardashians be an Ivanka.

There's another admittedly intangible feature called grace and dignity that the Obamas bought to the White House; f

GE..

Mr Gogo

02-16-17, 16:12

Hi Natty, I appreciate your efforts here but the democraps will always find an excuse for everything. It is always some Republican's fault no matter what. Their brains are hard wired to default to these fantasy fart factoids. If none exists just make it up and dazzle them with enormous amounts of every kind of animal shit you can imagine.You sound silly! The best you can come up with is his dad leaving and his brother in Africa to make your argument as the worst US President? You conveniently give a pass to Bush who couldn't get Bin Ladin, who had the stock market at 7 k (its now at 20 k), who made up a war and later created ISIS, who had the unemployment at around 9%, and had shoes thrown at him in the Middle East. Sure Obama had faults but you only had to look at who was before him and the mess he had to clean up to at least give him credit for guiding us out of the greatest potential depression since WW2. Not to mention Congress vowing to make him fail before he got started and stopping his every move.

Its no problem though because the proof is in the pudding. In a couple years when the stock market is at 12 K and we are sending our troops of to useless wars and its war on American streets I will have this post of yours to make you out as someone who is very misinformed. Not to mention the burden 20 million uninsured people will have on our economy along with paying for a 20 billion dollar wall that will be an eyesore and a monument to people of how foolish and gullible some Americans truly are.

It's already affecting us personally as the travel industry is now taking a major hit with the immigration rule Trump tried to impose. People are becoming afraid to travel and look for these friendly countries that let us visit and bang their beautiful women to not be as accommodating to Americans in the future. Maybe when these foreign women and guys hate our guts and want to hurt us will you then realize that it wasn't so bad under Obama.

D Cups

02-16-17, 16:58

Sure Obama had faults ... In a couple years when the stock market is at 12 K ... 20 million uninsured people ....it wasn't so bad under Obama.Oh great! Another bleeding heart liberal predicting doom and gloom has joined the forum!

Member #2041

02-16-17, 17:20

Amusing when someone accuses another person who has nearly double the number of posts that they do of being an interloper. But not surprising.

Member #4698

02-16-17, 17:23

Raising Fed Funds / prime rates is how you tame hyper-inflation. You make the cost of borrowing money more expensive. You do that to slow down an otherwise overheated economy. That is why Carter appointed Paul Volker to be his Fed Chairman. Because Volker had a plan to tame hyper-inflation by raising the Fed Funds rate while not doing too much damage to jobs creation. Carter appointed him to do that in late 1979, knowing rising Fed Funds rates during 1980 would likely do great harm to him politically at election time. Reagan had nothing to do with bringing down hyper-inflation. Carter made the decision to appoint Volker to do it, shouldered all the heavy lifting for it, assumed all the political risk to do it.

As a side note on that subject, since you lived through those Carter and Reagan years, you must then remember that virtually anyone and everyone could deduct those high interest rates for everything from auto purchases to consumer debt re credit cards during the Carter years, just as you could and largely still can with mortgage loan interest rates. So when they had to be raised high in order to tame the effects of wage inflation in '79 and '80, most Americans, not just corporate executives with clever accountants, could reduce the bite of it come income tax time. But guess who put an end to that ability for regular rank and file American workers to take a tax deduction on ordinary consumer debt? You guessed right if you said Ronald Reagan.

The Iranian Revolution was triggered by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower's CIA overthrow of a duly democratically-elected leader of Iran in 1954 and installing the brutal Shah Pahlavi regime instead in order to keep oil prices to our liking. The Revolution was about Islamic Ayatollahs then overthrowing that brutal dictatorship, a slow and bloody 25 year march that happened to end in 1979 when Carter was president. Meanwhile, Carter got all of the USA Hostages out of Iran in exchange for nothing more than what already belonged to Iran before Reagan had a chance to screw that up more than he tried to screw it up in the days before the election. Quite a bit more positive outcome than when Reagan buckled under the slightest political risk pressure by illegally trading whatever arms Iran wanted for 7 hostages that were taken on his watch.

That Reagan event was one of a few under his watch when Iran and others in the Middle East learned you can actually come out ahead, not just break even, by causing mischief for the USA, depending on the spinal density of the commander in chief at the time.

The problem with the Reagan presidency is that it was catastrophic for anyone who was not a white male.

And BTW, Nixon and Bush I did more to defeat the Soviet Union than Reagan actually did.

Reagan did conquer the existential threat of Grenada, though, and he did prove that running up huge deficits is not problematic for the economy. A legacy that Obama has built on.

BTW, Natty, here's the bet I would propose, although the only place I could pay it off or collect on it would be in Tijuana: Over the course of the Trump Presidency, he adds fewer jobs to the economy than Obama did during his Presidency. It's A LOT easier to achieve a momentary growth rate of 3% when you're starting off with an economy that's been steady state at around 2% growth (actually it's been oscillating between 1 and 3.5%) than it is when you're starting off with a falling knife economy that's contracting at over 5% annualized, which is what Obama inherited.

And getting to over 3% briefly is nothing special, Obama did it several times. It's SUSTAINING 3% for a year or longer, and I will certainly bet that Trump does not accomplish that, unless he has Stephen Bannon fabricate some bogus fake statistics.EihTooms, I am familiar with your alternative view of American history. Believe it or not I do have a couple left leaning friends. It is not always easy to stay above the fray with them. Ha Ha. One of my friends turned me on to Oliver Stone's 10 part documentary entitled "The Untold History of the United States. " I watched the whole thing twice. It was amazing to me how Stone could twist everything that has happened in America since 1944. It was also very instructive to get a clear understanding of how the left views American history. I have since turned on a couple of my laissez faire conservative friends to this enlightening documentary. I must reemphasize so there is no mistaking my view; I find the documentary extraordinary and enlightening, not because I agree with anything in it, but because it shows me how the left views recent American history. It is simply amazing.

Anyway, to my point, we could go back and forth a million times and you will not convince me of the truth in your philosophy and I will never convince you of the truth in mine. In addition, right now I have better, more important things on my mind, specifically I am in the middle of settling my business and personal affairs and getting ready to depart in less than a week for my next 10.5 week trip to La La Asian Pussyland. So, you guys won't hear too much from me in the next couple of months. I will try to drop an occasional short post covering what I am up to in the appropriate forums. On my last trip in 2016, I averaged 1.25 girls per day over 9. 5 weeks and believe me, I was running on empty as I wound things up the last 10 days in BKK. But I couldn't or wouldn't stop and say no to my girls. I had Mini, who for all intents and purposes is my BKK mistress, my 2 favorite CH girls, a naughty Mango girl, plus two NEW girls I had just met. The burning question I have for this next trip is will I slow down and proceed at a more normal, sustainable pace? The answer is HELL NO! So, guys, if you never hear from me again, I want you to know one thing, I died in bed with one or two girls by my side and a smile on my face. And I have no regrets about what I have done the last 20 years. 555. It has been a gas. I want my tombstone to read, "he loved young Asian girls."

Now back to the issue at hand; I offered you a gentleman's wager. I will now refine the bet: I predict that starting the 1st full quarter beginning 18 months after Trump's tax cut, whatever it may eventually turn out to be, is enacted into law AND simultaneously 18 months after Dodd Frank is repealed or significantly rolled back; the real GDP of the US will average 3% or higher for the next full year I. E. 4 consecutive quarters going forward. That means for example, one quarter may show a 2. 5% growth rate and the next three quarters might have a 3. 25% GDP growth rate thus the average would be 3. 06% and I would win the wager. I further refine the proposed amount of the wager to be a ST session with any GO GO girl in BKK or any bar girl on Burgos of the winner's choice. The wager does not include drinks or barfine, so it's approximately a $100 Gentlemen's wager.

The reason I propose this bet is twofold. 1st I want to make things a little interesting, and 2nd I want to illustrate to everybody here that none of us really know what the next 4 years or next 8 years will be like despite the rather strong opinions we all have. I am talking to you too GE! So, guys lets dial down the rhetoric and insults. What do you say?

Now who wants to take me up on my wager? EihTooms?, GE?, Member #2041? - I am sorry, but I can't extend the bet to include Tijuana. I spent a couple months in Mexico a long time ago and I did not like the country or the girls. But hey, this is the Philippine Forum. You really should try to visit the PI. The girls here are great. It is definitely worth the time and money involved to get here.

Adios Muchachos!

D Cups

02-16-17, 17:39

Amusing when someone accuses another person who has nearly double the number of posts that they do of being an interloper. But not surprising.As if the number of posts in ISG means anything!

Member #2041

02-16-17, 17:50

Natty, I would gladly take you up on that bet, but I simply don't get value anymore from Asia trips, because of a combination of factors, the first being that I have family obligations that preclude me being away for more than a week or two at a time, and 2nd, at my age, I can't get enough pops in within a 10-12 day window to justify the effort and the cost. Secondly, as I have been spending much more time in Mexico recently and have some command of the language and culture, I have figured out how to get MUCH more mileage out of my encounters than most Mexico visitors do. Nowadays, I am getting true GFE from several regular chicas in Tijuana that is on a par with what I was getting in Asia. And I can get there by driving for a half hour, and walking another 15 minutes to the zona roja. And you would be amazed how much more sympatico a session with a Mexican chica can be when you tell her in her native tongue what an idiot Donald Trump is, and how embarrassed we are about his hate-filled ascendancy to the Presidency. So, I simply no longer get a sufficient return on my investment by traveling to Asia as I used to. I can also get ~$100 round trip flights within Mexico that are 2 hours each way, to beach venues that are as nice as the ones in Asia. Frankly, the only useful thing Trump has done for me is kill the value of the Peso with his xenophobic "build a wall to keep them out" talk. That being said, I certainly understand and have experienced the allure of fine young Asianas, and I wish I still had the time and situation in life where I could avail myself of it again. I don't begrudge you that at all.

In any case, I think you haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning that bet, and I wish we could find a common geographic venue where I could collect on it.

D Cups

02-16-17, 17:50

ready to depart in less than a week for my next 10.5 week trip to La La Asian Pussyland. So, you guys won't hear too much from me in the next couple of months. .Enjoy your trip, buddy. I have to wait until October for PI but two trips planned to DR and one to Tijuana before then. I'll try to respond to the scads of hatemail I'll be receiving in this thread. So much fun to use the democraps' words against them! For the record, I tried to scale to scale it down if one reads back a few pages, but ge, numbnuts 2041, smoothy et al kept vomiting so I feel obligated to make them eat their own vomit.

D Cups

02-16-17, 18:00

a session with a Mexican chica Oh ya, that's a credible source for foreign politics, a prostituta in Mexico! Amazing! Thanks for the good laugh, 2041!

Member #2041

02-16-17, 18:08

Who said anything about using a Mexican chica as a source for my political views? For a PhD, you sure have reading comprehension skills that crapped out at the middle-school level. What I said was, while I am telling those Mexican chicas how much I despise Trump, I am getting much better pussy and better connected and engaged GFE sessions as a result. Even a dullard such as you should be able to grasp that concept, D Cups.

D Cups

02-16-17, 18:24

Who said anything about using a Mexican chica as a source for my political views? .So now you deny having the same political views as the chica? What a great dodge, 2041! It's sad that you have to Trump bash to get a great session. But I suppose you have to do something to overcome your hideous exterior.

Member #2041

02-16-17, 18:35

So now you deny having the same political views as the chica? What a great dodge, 2041! It's sad that you have to Trump bash to get a great session. But I suppose you have to do something to overcome your hideous exterior.Again, your reading comprehension shows you to be an idiot. I said that the chica was not the SOURCE of my views. I never said that she did not agree with my views. Do try to keep up. Oh, and so that the rest of us can avoid it, could you state what institute of higher learning gave someone with such limited reading comprehension skills a PhD?

And frankly if you don't grasp the fact that establishing an emotional and intellectual connection with a hooker is a well proven method toward getting great sessions rather than just good ones, you're even dumber on more levels than I had previously thought. Which is saying something.

D Cups

02-16-17, 18:48

the chica was not the SOURCE of my views. .Oh, thanks for clarifying, 2041. Keep up with your meds, ok? We don't want to have to haul your 300 pound lard ass carcass back to the states.

Member #2041

02-16-17, 19:06

Oh, thanks for clarifying, 2041. Keep up with your meds, ok? We don't want to have to haul your 300 pound lard ass carcass back to the states.Try 180. I actually used to weigh 295. And I don't need Diabetes meds anymore. I got myself in shape starting 5 years ago. The Affordable Care Act did help to save my life, along with my own efforts. I either bicycle 30 miles a day, or swim 2 miles a day. EVERY DAY. I'm going to do a triathlon this year, and I'll be competitive in the 55 and over group. But thanks for the good thoughts. Gotta go, it's time for my ride.

D Cups

02-16-17, 19:53

That's great (seriously). Congratulations. See, I can play nice when others do. Obviously from your example, Obamacare did help some people.

Try 180. I actually used to weigh 295. And I don't need Diabetes meds anymore. I got myself in shape starting 5 years ago. The Affordable Care Act did help to save my life, along with my own efforts. I either bicycle 30 miles a day, or swim 2 miles a day. EVERY DAY. I'm going to do a triathlon this year, and I'll be competitive in the 55 and over group. But thanks for the good thoughts. Gotta go, it's time for my ride..

Member #4698

02-16-17, 23:17

In any case, I think you haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning that bet, and I wish we could find a common geographic venue where I could collect on it.How about Macau or Zurich? LOL.

Member #4698

02-17-17, 01:47

"Thursday, February 16, 2017.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 55% of Likely USA Voters approve of President Trump's job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove. The latest figures include 38% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 36% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +2. ".

I am not gloating, truly, just pointing out the outrageous refusal of the Left in America to accept the outcome of the election as a political strategy is obviously not working. Trump is currently doing better in the Rasmussen daily Tracking Poll than Obama did for most of the last 6 years of his presidency. Point: Trump is getting more popular not less. My suggestion to the anti Trumpers is relax, take a load off, have a cognac, accept for the moment what you can not change, and wait for something real to happen further down the pike that actually justifies some degree of anger and outrage before you become angry and outraged. Or not. Its up to you. It's just that nobody likes a sore loser.

Member #2041

02-17-17, 04:21

Member #2041

02-17-17, 04:32

How about Macau or Zurich? LOL.From San Diego, Macau is as far as anywhere else in Asia. And Zurich is hardly any better, not to mention not being a great location for inexpensive mongering.

Dg8787

02-17-17, 04:50

Now that we have had adequate debates and some smacking and shaming of presidents and their followers, can we move on with some brilliant ideas and resolutions to the following issues?

I promise I will forward the best solutions to the Press and congress once we reach agreement here.

Items not necessary in any order of preference or priority.

1. Illegal immigration. Prevention and present ones in USA now.

2. Annual Federal budget deficit.

3. 20 trillion dollars in debt.

3. Replacing Obamacare and with what?

4. Vetting refugees.

I will stop here for now.

Answers please. No need moronic replies.

P.S. Acknowledging someone's input does not mean approval of it. Let's be civilized.

Member #4698

02-17-17, 06:03

From San Diego, Macau is as far as anywhere else in Asia. And Zurich is hardly any better, not to mention not being a great location for inexpensive mongering.Then it looks like you won't be able to win your bet with me. Ha Ha. I don't visit Central and South America anymore. I used to travel around there a lot in my early days, but I find the general atmosphere much more hospitable in SE Asia. The last time I went to Costa Rica was in '04. It really depressed me because so much has changed and not for the better since the 70's and early 80's when I loved the country. I like the Andean countries for their beauty and do not rule out another road trip someday. I have fond memories of Chile and Argentina as well, but again it is not very likely I will ever go back. I gather you did not get my attempt at humor when I suggested Macau or Zurich. You could have won twice as much money if you had accepted that bet. I like Macau a lot for its Saunas and Chinese girls. I occasionally fly into Zurich on my way to LOS, but I have never stopped off at a brothel there. From where I live, flying the European route is the shortest duration flight to Asia. I was thinking that on your money it might be fun to visit Globe.

Rassmussen is the single most right-wing biased pollster out there. They had Mitt Romney beating Obama the day before the 2012 election. Their methodology is flawed because they only sample land lines, and miss all people who only use cell phones. Which means they severely under sample the young, latino, and black voters. Frankly, given their track record, and their broken obsolete methodology, it's amazing that they're still in business. You are correct that Rasmussen got 2012 wrong. So did I! LOL. I lost a little money betting on Romney. I really thought he would win, but he coasted on his lead the last 2 weeks of the campaign and he did not go in for the kill during the last debate on foreign policy and the Benghazi fuck up and cover up. Maybe he was looking at the Rasmussen poll. LOL. Then Sandy played right into Obama's lucky hand. You will probably disagree with this assessment too, but IMHO, if it had not been for Sandy and the photo ops of Obama acting all concerned and presidential with Christie just days before the election; Obama would have lost.

Regarding the 2016 final election polls, most pollsters got it wrong except IBD and LA Times. Rasmussen's poll was more accurate than most, however. You are certainly entitled not to believe Trump has gained in popularity since the election. No skin off my nose. I just made the point that the Democratic Party's decision to fight Trump on EVERYTHING big and small is not paying off. But like most disagreements on this thread, we shall see what we shall see.

Here is a link to the Real Clear Politics wrap up of final poll results for the 2016 election. Only IBD and LA Times predicted the correct winner, but they both goofed on the raw vote count. Rasmussen actually did pretty good with their final poll, although they got the winner wrong / they were very accurate on the raw vote count.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Golfinho

02-17-17, 07:43

True, but how long do you predict the dollar can remain the world reserve currency. 10 years, 25 years more? The idea used to be unthinkable. Not any longer.Well nobody (here at least) wants the dollar to go bad, then we'd be trapped in the USA for the duration. To remain reserve currency, simply lose remaining compunctions (if there are any left) about killing foreigners, and keep finding suckers to serve in USA's armed forces.

EihTooms

02-17-17, 09:32

EihTooms, I am familiar with your alternative view of American history. Believe it or not I do have a couple left leaning friends. It is not always easy to stay above the fray with them. Ha Ha.And then follows zero challenge to my pointing out when and why Carter's Fed Chair appointee, Paul Volker, raised Fed Funds rates (the hyper-inflation was being driven by wage inflation; far more private sector jobs being created than there were applicants to take them. Of any economic problem to have and solve, the one you want is hyper-inflation due to wage inflation), when and why the Iranian Revolution occurred (nothing to do with Jimmy Carter), ordinary folks being able to greatly reduce the pain of those Carter year interest rates through tax deductions (taken away as an option by Reagan), or any of the other specific points I made.

Just ad hominem retorts like, "I am familiar with your alternative view of American history" and fact-free touchy-feely assessments like, "I lived through this stuff. The Carter years were horrible. Here is the relevant information: whereupon you inexplicably applied 1976's 7. 7% unemployment rate to Jimmy Carter instead of the Republican president who was in office throughout the entire year of 1976 (and for almost a full month after)..?

LOL. Ok, Natty. No, I think I will graciously decline getting involved in your strained foundation of a bet. But, by all means, keep on watching those Trump press conferences and feeling the Greatness coming back to America by the minute. LOL.

Member #4698

02-17-17, 13:59

And then follows zero challenge to my pointing out when and why Carter's Fed Chair appointee, Paul Volker, raised Fed Funds rates (the hyper-inflation was being driven by wage inflation; far more private sector jobs being created than there were applicants to take them. Of any economic problem to have and solve, the one you want is hyper-inflation due to wage inflation), when and why the Iranian Revolution occurred (nothing to do with Jimmy Carter), ordinary folks being able to greatly reduce the pain of those Carter year interest rates through tax deductions (taken away as an option by Reagan), or any of the other specific points I made. Wrong again! So let me enlighten you:

Volcker and the Reagan Legacy. by Brian Domitrovic, contributing editor Forbes Magazine.

"quoting the original Reagan biographer, Lou Cannon: "Reagan's greatest domestic accomplishment breaking the back of inflation that terrified the nation in the late 1970's was a product not of 'supply side' economics ballyhooed by conservatives, but of the drastic tightening of interest rates by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. ".

Lots of things about this view don't make sense. Above all, inflation became a staggering problem only around the time that Carter picked Volcker to chair the Fed in August 1979. Inflation had been running at 7% per year since it had first picked up in 1973, and had crossed 10% once, in 1974. But in 1979,1980, and 1981 it was double-digits all three years. What gives?

Presidents usually get one opportunity to appoint a Fed chair, and Carter got his in 1978 when Arthur Burns retired. Carter named corporate executive G. William Miller to the post. As inflation persisted, Carter blamed the American people. They set the heat too high at home, labor unions wanted raises that necessitated price increases, and drivers had to have their boats and muscle cars.

All this came to a head in Carter's incredible "malaise speech" of July 1979, in which the president laid culpability for inflation squarely at the feet of American consumerism and demanded better. In a weird mood in the moments after giving the speech, Carter asked his Cabinet to resign. Carter accepted five resignations, including that of the treasury secretary. With a good part of the government now rudderless, Carter needed to fill positions fast. Miller was cashiered from the Fed and put at the helm of Treasury.

This bizarre sequence gave Carter a second opportunity to appoint a Fed chair, and in came Volcker from the New York bank. Over the remaining seventeen months of Carter's term, inflation worsened as never before, coming in at 14% in 1980; early in that year it made a bid for 20%. As Volcker led the Fed as the Carter administration waned, inflation averaged a percentage point a month.

Volcker threw everything at the wall in a vain attempt to beat down inflation in those seventeen months. Out of the gate in September 1979, Volcker raised interest rates. This had no effect. In October, he strove to limit the money supply by such measures as raising reserve requirements at banks. No results. In 1980, he conceded to credit controls whereby bank lending was curtailed. The economy went into recession. Volcker hammered away at all his devices, but as 1980 came to a close and Reagan prepared to take office, inflation was running above 10%, and the prime rate of interest somehow stood at 22%.

When Reagan became president in 1981, Volcker kept plugging away at all his tightening maneuvers. Reagan was content to let him go, even as it became apparent that Volcker might get too tight. For Reagan was introducing a transformational policy reform on the fiscal side: marginal tax cuts.

Beginning in October 1981, and coming about every six months after that for the next two years, each rate of the income tax got cut. In October, rates went down by 1%, in January another 9%, in July another 5%, with more cuts the next year. Inflation had been continuing at its double-digit level through the first two-thirds of 1981, but then it suddenly fell by more than half as the year came to a close exactly when the sequence of tax cuts started. In 1982, inflation was half the average level of the previous three years, and in 1983 it collapsed all the way to 3%, where it would roughly stay for a generation. The "Great Inflation" of 1973-1981 was a thing of the past.

The difference was not Fed policy that had remained unchanged throughout the transition. The difference was fiscal policy. Marginal tax cuts raised the after-tax return on economic activity, getting people more interested in conducting that activity. This required more money. Real demand for money spiked enormously given the Reagan tax cuts. This enabled the Fed to supply money that actually was doing something economically outside of feeding the price level.

Before, during the Great Inflation, demand for money was largely unreal. People wanted new money so they could speculate against inflation to buy gold, oil futures, real estate or what have you. This is why Volcker's attempts to raise interest rates and restrict the money supply were ineffective. High taxes and inflation had so dulled economic spirits that all money coming from the Fed was excess money to begin with.

After summer 1982, Volcker began releasing money above the old sacred "quantity targets" as the great Reagan boom took off. The episode proved that in the context of an unwieldy public sector, monetary policy itself has no hope of getting the economy back on the track of noninflationary growth.

Paul Volcker was part of the comedy of errors that was the latter stage of the Carter administration. Without Reagan, Volcker would have been another in a line of failed Fed chairmen."

LOL. Ok, Natty. No, I think I will graciously decline getting involved in your strained foundation of a bet. But, by all means, keep on watching those Trump press conferences and feeling the Greatness coming back to America by the minute. LOL.Ok I will. I love it when Trump dishes on the corrupt dishonest press of which the majority have become nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party. They deserve it! And of course it is your perogative not to accept my proposed wager. Actually I think you are being pretty smart in not making the bet. I wouldn't bet against lower taxes, less regulation and the future Trump economy either.

Member #2041

02-17-17, 16:26

Guys, I'm going to be bowing out of this conversation, as, for reasons associated to family obligations, I don't expect to be venturing into the Philippines for sex in the foreseeable future, and I prefer to spend my communication time in venues where actual news, rather than Alt. Right propaganda holds sway. Josef Goebbels would be proud of the way some folks here have embraced the messaging coming out of the Trump administration.

Member #4698

02-17-17, 16:42

I prefer to spend my communication time in venues where actual news, rather than Alt. Right propaganda holds sway. Josef Goebbels would be proud of the way some folks here have embraced the messaging coming out of the Trump administration.Right Back Atcha Peggy Sue!

Member #2041

02-17-17, 17:05

Right Back Atcha Peggy Sue!But sadly, you seem to be most deeply under the sway of the Alt. Right media. To your credit, you seem well-intentioned, as opposed to others here that are poster children for the deplorables, but so long as you allow yourself to be misinformed, and continue to embrace rather than resist your own confirmation bias, you will not be acting in your own self-interest.

In any case, adios, amigos.

D Cups

02-17-17, 17:23

deplorables, but so long as you allow yourself to be misinformed, and continue to embrace rather than resist your own confirmation bias, you will not be acting in your own self-interest.

.Deplorables. Wasn't that the term Crooked Hillary used when she lost the election? 2041, in that case I am proud to be part of "the deplorables". EVERYTHING you say about the Right can be equally said about yourself and the Left. The difference is WE WON and YOU can't handle it! Sore loser! Nevertheless, have fun in Mexico.

Member #2041

02-17-17, 18:26

In the immortal words of Henry Clay, one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the USA, and the man whom Abraham Lincoln most admired in American public life:

"I'd rather be right than be President".

D Cups

02-17-17, 19:20

Ya, keep telling yourself that, 2041.

In the immortal words of Henry Clay, one of the greatest statesmen in the history of the USA, and the man whom Abraham Lincoln most admired in American public life:

"I'd rather be right than be President"..

EihTooms

02-18-17, 06:42

Wrong again! So let me enlighten you:

Volcker and the Reagan Legacy. by Brian Domitrovic, contributing editor Forbes Magazine.

"quoting the original Reagan biographer, Lou Cannon: "Reagan's greatest domestic accomplishment breaking the back of inflation that terrified the nation in the late 1970's was a product not of 'supply side' economics ballyhooed by conservatives, but of the drastic tightening of interest rates by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. "Sorry, but the actual historical data roundly refutes what an avowed pro-Supply-Sider like Domitrovic says in Forbes Magazine regarding puff-piece biographies promoting Reagan / Supply-Side myths. Taming hyper-inflation had everything to do with Paul Volker in the Carter years, virtually nothing to do with Reagan or Reagan's Supply-Side/Trickle-Down failure. Except in only one way; Republican-style Supply-Side/Trickle-Down policy has had a consistent and perfect record of precipitating and triggering major U.S. economic downturns as it did under Reagan and one does not see hyper-inflation during times of serious economic downturn. Not in the midst of massive job losses, housing value and stock market crashes and the like. Instead, that is the time when we are hoping for signs of inflation (although not hyper-inflation) during the Democratic-style policy recovery because that is when we are certain the jobs creation trend is back on a firmly positive track.

Paul Volker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker

Chairman of the Federal Reserve
President Jimmy Carter nominated Paul Volcker to serve as chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on July 25, 1979., and was confirmed by the Senate on August 3, 1979, and took office on August 6, 1979. President Ronald Reagan renominated Volcker to a second term in 1983.Historical Chart of Fed Funds Rates:

http://www.macrotrends.net/2015/fed-funds-rate-historical-chart

Historical Chart of Inflation Rates:

http://www.macrotrends.net/1466/inflation-rates-100-year-historical-chart

Volker began to raise Fed Funds rates dramatically in late 1979, soon after being appointed to the Fed Chair by Jimmy Carter. As you can see in those charts the rate of Inflation virtually MIRRORS those Fed Funds rate increases, also FALLING dramatically immediately afterwards, within 2-3 months. As always is the case with Fed activity, much of the reaction came about by Volker merely stating or suggesting his intentions to raise Fed Funds rates sooner rather than later. Which is what he did. No, it wasn't a straight line decline without a relatively minor uptick here and there along the way. Nothing ever is in the economy. We look for major inflection points that continue on as a clear and undeniable trend.

But the demonstrably dramatic decline of true hyper-inflation in the near immediate aftermath of Volker raising those rates on Carter's watch and as Carter fully expected him to do when he appointed him and almost a YEAR before Reagan would take the Oath of Office, puts a lie to the myth that either Reagn or Reagan's disastrously failed Supply-Side / Trickle-Down policies had anything whatever to do with that major decline inflection point that occurred during the Carter years, well before Reagan took office.

I realize Reagan ran for his second term in 1984 on the infamous "Morning in America...and ain't I GREAT?!" campaign ads that were essentially ALL about how "he" and his policies tamed hyper-inflation and all that junk. So his biographers and other Supply-Siders have to ignore the actual historical record/data in order to defend their wrong-headed position and perpetuate the myth. However, and unfortunately for them, the historical record/data simply does not support their contention and instead roundly refutes it.

According to a favorite Reagan quote (actually, him quoting John Adams):

"Facts are stubborn things. And whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. "

Oh, so true. If Ronnie only knew then (or could remember) what we all know now despite his religious followers working mightily for decades to spin it otherwise. LOL.

EihTooms

02-18-17, 08:07

I love it when Trump dishes on the corrupt dishonest press of which the majority have become nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party. They deserve it! And of course it is your perogative not to accept my proposed wager. Actually I think you are being pretty smart in not making the bet. I wouldn't bet against lower taxes, less regulation and the future Trump economy either.Actually, I am all in favor of tax cuts and smart regulation, occasionally tweaked to suit the circumstances. It all depends on when and where the tax cuts go. One of the reasons I vote for Dems is because I like their tax cuts. Haven't got much use for Republican-style tax cuts, disproportionately large ones in the top margins at the expense of everyone else, since I am not a big fan of the inevitable Great Republican Depressions / Recessions, Stock Market and Housing Value Crashes that follow.

But major Dem tax cuts (and tax advantages) like the one proposed and signed into legislation by Jimmy Carter in 1978 that meant rank and file workers, not just the corporate elite, could invest a portion of their earned income in a 401K account tax deferred from every paycheck (while also reducing their payroll/income tax hit on the income) and watch it grow and compound untouched by taxes over years and years and into a healthy nest egg for retirement? I'm a big fan of that one. When Carter cut the Capital Gains Tax Rate from 39.9% to 28%? Yeah, I'm a big fan of that one, too. No president since has cut the Capital Gains Tax Rate as deeply as did Jimmy Carter.

Bill Clinton's massive tax cut on home equity gains at the sale of a primary residence as long as you have lived there for 2 of the previous 5 years? LOVE it. Single filers / home sellers get that first $250,000 of equity gain TAX FREE. Couples get the first $500,000 TAX FREE. Man, just those three brilliant Democratic Party tax cuts have helped make a comfortable retirement a reality for millions and millions of Americans, including me! LOL. Oh, and the big payroll tax cut Barack Obama put into the system in order to help pull us out of the recent Great Republican Recession? I was all for it. And it worked to do what it was meant to do.

But those idiotic Republican-style Supply-Side / Trickle-Down cuts where the top margins get a disproportionately higher tax cut than the the middle and lower margins on the assumption that those top margin folks won't just move that hot money into a bubble destined to burst and crash markets all over creation? Not a big fan of those. Oh, and the other Republican tax cut favorite where they dangle some 4% cut here or there as some great accomplishment when it turns out the country will wind up paying for it with a colossal economic crash that destroys years of stock market / investment savings and home equity? Yep, not a big fan of those either.

Revere

02-18-17, 11:55

I thought you all be interested. The worst President title will never be reached. This poll seems to be very legit:

News Chicago Inc.

Obama 12th best president, Lincoln first, Clinton 15th: Historians.

Just weeks after returning to civilian life, former president Barack Obama was rated the 12th best USA President, while Abraham Lincoln, another president who made his political bones in Illinois, retains the top position.

That's according to a poll of 91 historians rating presidential leadership conducted by C-SPAN ahead of Monday's President's Day holiday. They noted that Obama entered the top rankings for the first time, having not been rated during its last survey in 2009.

In 10 total categories of presidential characteristics, Obama, the former community organizer and Nobel Peace Prize winner came in at third for the category "Pursued Equal Justice for All," and seventh in "Moral Authority," but only at 39 for "Relations with Congress," and 24th in "International Relations. ".

One member of the polls' academic advisory team said he was impressed by Obama's 12th place finish, while another member thought he would have ranked higher. Obama came in behind such popular presidents as Ronald Reagan, who came in at ninth, but ahead of Bill Clinton, who ranked at 15.

Meanwhile Lincoln retained his first spot for the third time the poll was taken by C-SPAN since 2000.

Kabul Guy

02-18-17, 14:12

I thought you all be interested. The worst President title will never be reached. This poll seems to be very legit:

.......Wait until there are 45 names on the list.

D Cups

02-18-17, 15:29

It just amazes me the number of psychics of this thread! Do you do palm readings, too, Smoothy?

when it turns out the country will wind up paying for it with a colossal economic crash that destroys years of stock market / investment savings and home equity .

Omega 3

02-19-17, 13:13

Has anyone read "objective" US media reports recently? Seems like the US media, even the venerated old names, have morphed into biased "spin factories" or propaganda machines.

By the way, Obama reportedly had a total annual budget of one billion US $ for PR (read propaganda). That's huge!

Just one man's musings.

OM.

David L

03-18-17, 19:34

(Quoted from the Philippines politics / economics thread but felt my reply is more relevant in this thread).

Might as well get used to it. For better or for worse, China's star is ascending, especially in Asia, and particularly in the Philippines.

Conversely, America's star is falling rapidly. America is imploding, thanks to the would-be principals of destabilization who seek personal financial gain and who have so successfully brainwashed so many good folk.

Like it or not, Trump is the USA President. Suck it in, and support Trump and support America. "United we stand, divided we fall. " Do not let prevail those vultures who seek only to gain personally by destabilizing the USA, who hope that Trump and the USA will collapse.

Similarly, here, Duterte is the Philippine president. According to surveys, 80% plus of the Filipino people support Duterte. However, here also are those vultures who seek only to gain personally by destabilizing the Philippines, who hope that Duterte and the Philippines will collapse.

I know that there are those who will agree with me, and there are those who will strongly disagree with me, but this is my own honest personal opinion and prayer.

Yours sincerely,

OM.Definitely disagree man.

First of all don't try and draw parallels and analogies between Trump and Duterte. To begin with, the majority of Americans disapprove of Trump given his loss in the popular vote. Additionally, his approval ratings have continued to drop since he took office (around 45% now).

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/13/poll-trumps-approval-rating-dives-wiretap-claim-and-trumpcare/21880423/

Second, why should we "suck it in and support Trump". We stand nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so. Every single thing he's done in office since inauguration day has been a disaster. Literally every single person in his cabinet is either completely unqualified, in bed with the Russians, or gets his rocks off on oil and gas. Then you have the unconstitutional travel ban, repealing of the Affordable Care Act which will stop millions of Americans from getting a decent / affordable healthcare plan, and then replacing it with the shittiest, least thought out replacement, because "who knew healthcare could be so complicated. " Then you have the joke of a press conference, and just when everyone thought he had gotten it out of his system and were thinking he could be presidential (speech to Congress) he drops the Obama bugging allegations.

Which brings me to another point: where he gets his freaking news. The guy has access to all the information and classified intelligence in the country and he gets his news from watching Fox and from Breitbart. He dismisses all respectable news agencies and journalists as 'fake news' then goes and swallows fake news and headlines by the dozen and goes off on his twitter frenzy.

Do you truly believe that if we were to stand by idly and let him do things his way that he will somehow make America great again. ? We have the equivalent of a toddler in office. A ticking time bomb and for some reason you want us to all be on board with it. It's sad what this country has come to.

D Cups

03-18-17, 21:58

Oh great, another whiney, creampuff, liberal dolt who reads the fake news instead of the real deal. Move out of the USA Like all the other sore loser twits who said they would when Trump was elected. Meanwhile, the rest of us are enjoying record profits due to confidence in President Trump.

disagree..

D Cups

03-18-17, 22:47

Maybe / maybe not. Depends on the political affiliations of the respondents. The three "academic advisors" who conducted the study were clearly biased democrats.

I thought you all be interested. This poll seems to be very legit:

News Chicago Inc.

Obama 12th best president, Lincoln first, Clinton 15th: Historians.

..

GoodEnough

03-19-17, 00:38

Maybe / maybe not. Depends on the political affiliations of the respondents. The three "academic advisors" who conducted the study were clearly biased democrats.

.Actually, it depends on the criteria used to define the concept of "greatness" and the metrics used to measure each criterion. To the extent that those conducting the analyses were legitimate social scientists, party affiliation should not have been a factor at all. Such studies--and I've read a couple--are interesting, but they assess men who held office in widely different periods, and it's impossible to control for all of the variables associated with these differences.

How to account, for example, for the access to instant communications which enables the five year old current occupant of the White House to blurt out the impulsive electronic impulses that pass for thought in the chaotic gray mass that passes for his brain?

The Trump anomaly notwithstanding, it's very difficult to objectively compare outcomes / characteristics across such a broad span of history.

GE.

D Cups

03-19-17, 02:50

Did you even bother to read THIS study, GE? The criteria were defined. Geez, no wonder the democrats lost the election and are floundering as a party.

party affiliation should not have been a factor at all.
GE..

GoodEnough

03-19-17, 08:48

Did you even bother to read THIS study, GE? The criteria were defined. Geez, no wonder the democrats lost the election and are floundering as a party.

.So, here's a presentation of data prepared by the WEF; not exactly a group of rabid liberals frothing at the mouth to attack Trump. Pretty sure the two things all of the other countries have in common is universal, single payer healthcare and oh year, spending far less of a percentage of GDP on healthcare than the US. But it's all good, since "we're number one," and facts are irrelevant: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/this-one-chart-shows-how-far-behind-the-us-lags-in-healthcare?utm_content=buffer112e3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

GE.

Goatscrot

03-19-17, 10:07

So, here's a presentation of data prepared by the WEF; not exactly a group of rabid liberals frothing at the mouth to attack Trump. Pretty sure the two things all of the other countries have in common is universal, single payer healthcare and oh year, spending far less of a percentage of GDP on healthcare than the US. But it's all good, since "we're number one," and facts are irrelevant: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/this-one-chart-shows-how-far-behind-the-us-lags-in-healthcare?utm_content=buffer112e3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

GE.Just about every other developed nation has single payer. Health care is seen as a public service in those nations, as well it should be. The US is the outlier. Sad really. And the people who would benefit most continue to vote against their own self-interest.

GoodEnough

03-19-17, 11:40

Just about every other developed nation has single payer. Health care is seen as a public service in those nations, as well it should be. The US is the outlier. Sad really. And the people who would benefit most continue to vote against their own self-interest.Well, Mencken was right when he said, to paraphrase him: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American voter. " The great genius of the current breed of republicans is their ability to sell up as down, left as right, and exploitation of almost everyone as the greatest good for the greatest number. And there's a substantial minority stupid enough to believe them. I can't explain it, and I haven't seen any pundits who have been able to address the reasons for the momentum of nativist stupidity and blissful ignorance that characterizes much of America. I can't even hope for republicans actually growing a set an impeaching this idiot since his successor is a guy who claims to get his advice from Jesus and who believes climate change is wishful thinking and evolution just a theory. He's as dumb and dangerous as Trump but without the malevolence.

GE.

D Cups

03-19-17, 13:39

Just another misguided, mis-informed spin from another liberal fart face.

Well, Mencken was right when he said, to paraphrase him: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American voter. " The great genius of the current breed of republicans is their ability to sell up as down, left as right, and exploitation of almost everyone as the greatest good for the greatest number. And there's a substantial minority stupid enough to believe them. I can't explain it, and I haven't seen any pundits who have been able to address the reasons for the momentum of nativist stupidity and blissful ignorance that characterizes much of America. I can't even hope for republicans actually growing a set an impeaching this idiot since his successor is a guy who claims to get his advice from Jesus and who believes climate change is wishful thinking and evolution just a theory. He's as dumb and dangerous as Trump but without the malevolence.

GE..

Goatscrot

03-19-17, 15:19

Well, Mencken was right when he said, to paraphrase him: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American voter. " The great genius of the current breed of republicans is their ability to sell up as down, left as right, and exploitation of almost everyone as the greatest good for the greatest number. And there's a substantial minority stupid enough to believe them. I can't explain it, and I haven't seen any pundits who have been able to address the reasons for the momentum of nativist stupidity and blissful ignorance that characterizes much of America. I can't even hope for republicans actually growing a set an impeaching this idiot since his successor is a guy who claims to get his advice from Jesus and who believes climate change is wishful thinking and evolution just a theory. He's as dumb and dangerous as Trump but without the malevolence.

GE.Mencken was spot on. Also the anti-intellectual movement in the US is astounding. The Repubs play hardball; you also know where they stand on every issues. We progressives will not win out until we stop playing identity politics, get away from the PC crap, and start focusing solely on issues like health care, pension, gun violence, police brutality, etc.

Mr Enternational

03-19-17, 16:37

We progressives will not win out until we stop playing identity politics, get away from the PC crap, and start focusing solely on issues like health care, pension, gun violence, police brutality, etc.I don't get caught up in politics. I just want them to legalize weed.

Pension is a thing of the past. It worked when people lived 5 years past their retirement date, but these days people are living 30 and 40 years past that. What company can afford that?

Health care. I am a Navy veteran and use those benefits to my advantage.

Gun violence is part of the culture. I have had a license to carry a gun since my 21st birthday almost 24 years ago. Thankfully I have never had the need to even point my weapon at anyone. Everything should not be for everybody, because some people can not handle some things.

Police brutality. I was just watching a couple of videos this morning where cops were trying to place women under arrest but they were refusing. I think one woman was even biting the cop and when he used forced against her everyone in the crowd wanted to holler brutality. Not saying it does not exist. Sure it does, but not as much as we are led to believe.

As a Black American male I have been arrested 3 times and never experienced anything but courteousness. My brother and cousins are police officers and back in the day when my credit was bad I had applied at several agencies as well.

The last ticket I got (8 years ago maybe), I was going a little over 100 through South Carolina and the White trooper pulled me over and gave me a citation for I think 85 in a 70 so that he would not have to arrest me. Even when I mailed the fine by money order, they sent me a check back refunding it. Maybe I just have better luck than everyone else.

Lefeu

03-20-17, 03:13

...And the people who would benefit most continue to vote against their own self-interest.Indeed, these folks are fooled every time into voting against their own self-interest. I guess you can fool some of the people all the time.

Golfinho

03-20-17, 04:01

Indeed, these folks are fooled every time into voting against their own self-interest. I guess you can fool some of the people all the time.The folks are prevented by the 2-party duopoly from voting in their self-interest. Remember: if voting changed anything, they wouldn't let you do it.

Hutsori

03-20-17, 04:23

Speaking as an outsider, all you Yanks, both Republicans and Democrats, are being played for fools when you are picking up the defence burden for Europe, Japan, and S. Korea.

Europe's population is about 200 m more than the US, its economy is larger, yet it gets the nice social welfare goodies whilst the US spends more than 4% of GDP on defence. Seems to me that Europe should not only be able to protect itself, it should shoulder a comparable amount of the burden around the world.

If you believe your partners are paying you to host your forces you need to look up the definition of host. This means that locals are hired to work on the bases providing infrastructure support and the host government picks up some of the cost. In S. Korea the union so strong that as long as local employee remains employed the US government picks up the education cost of their children. Educating children is nice, isn't it? These are adult children going to university, then continuing on for advanced degrees, paid for by the US taxper. The abuse continues. On US bases and diplomatic compounds are lovely commissaries supported by the US tax payer; it picks up the shipping cost of these items so the service members pay US prices. Certainly this is fair. However, somehow European diplomats get access, so the US taxpayer supports feeding the diplomatic community too. And of course there is all the black marketing, which included the Koreans building a tunnel under the base to the liquor store so alcohol could be smuggled out. Further, to maximise its takings, the Korean government restricts the building of housing on the bases, which forces many US service members and the civilians to live "on the economy". The US taxpayer pays the rent. It's $3000+ per month in Seoul.

Thanks.

Member #4480

03-20-17, 04:48

Here's Obama's legacy of failure, by the numbers (h / t RNC):

$19.9 Trillion: The Staggering Mountain Of Debt Obama Will Leave Behind On January 20,2017. ("Daily History Of The Debt," USA Department Of Treasury, Accessed 12/23/16).

$9. 2 Trillion: The Increase In The National Debt Since Obama Took Office. ("Daily History Of The Debt," USA Department Of Treasury, Accessed 12/23/16).

$1 Trillion: Tax Increases In ObamaCare Over A Decade. ("ObamaCare: Trillion Dollar Tax Hike That Hurts Small Businesses," USA House Of Representatives Committee On Ways And Means, 3/31/16).

$870.3 Billion: Estimated Economic Cost Of All The New Federal Government Regulations Finalized Since Obama Took Office. ("Regulation Rodeo," American Action Forum, Accessed 12/27/16).

$750 Billion: The USA 's Global Trade Deficit Last Year Under Obama. (USA Census Bureau, Accessed 12/27/16).

$690 Billion: Increase In Student Debt Since Obama Took Office. ("Student Loans Owned And Securitized, Outstanding," Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis, Accessed 12/27/16).

$377 Billion: ObamaCare's Tax Hikes That Effect The Middle Class. (Glenn Kessler, "Does 'Obamacare' Have $1 Trillion In Tax Hikes, Aimed At The Middle Class," The Washington Post, 3/12/13).

$344 Billion: Estimated Economic Cost Of All The New EPA Regulations Finalized Since Obama Took Office. ("Regulation Rodeo," American Action Forum, Accessed 12/27/16).

$292 Billion: Projected Cost Of Obama's Finalized Clean Power Plan Regulations. (H. Sterling Burnett, "Economic Analysis of Clean Power Plan Shows High Cost, Minimal Benefits," The Heartland Institute, 12/2/15).

$99 Billion: The Growth In The USA 's Annual Trade Deficit With China Since Obama Took Office. ("Trade In Goods With China," USA Census Bureau, Accessed 12/27/16).

$29 Billion: Projected Annual Loss Of Coal Production Due To The Interior Department's New Stream Protection Rule. ("Economic Analysis Of Proposed Stream Protection Rule," Ramboll Environ, 10/15).

$9. 6 Billion: Projected Annual Loss Due To The EPA's 2012 Mercury Rule. ("Hearing Entitled 'A Review Of EPA's Regulatory Activity During The Obama Administration: Energy And Industrial Sectors," USA House Of Representatives Committee On Energy And Commerce, 6/30/16).

$1. 4 Billion: Projected Annual Loss Due To The EPA's 2015 Ozone Rule. ("Final Ozone Rule," American Action Forum, 10/2/15).

583 Million: Hours Of Paperwork To Deal With All The New Federal Government Regulations Finalized Since Obama Took Office. ("Regulation Rodeo," American Action Forum, Accessed 12/27/16).

$500 Million: Projected Annual Loss Due To The EPA's 2015 Coal Ash Rule. ("Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities," Federal Register, 4/17/15, pg. 21462).

$462.9 Million: Projected Annual Loss Due To The Administration's 2015 "Water Of The United States" Rule. ("Final WOTUS Rule," American Action Forum, 5/28/16).

$400 Million: What Obama Paid Iran As Part Of Its Hostage Deal To Release Prisoners Held By The State Sponsor Of Terror. (Elise Labott, Nicole Gaouette and Kevin Liptak, "US Sent Plane With $400 Million In Cash To Iran," CNN, 8/4/16).

$320 Million: Projected Annual Loss Due To The EPA's 2016 Methane Emissions Rule. ("Hearing Entitled 'A Review Of EPA's Regulatory Activity During The Obama Administration: Energy And Industrial Sectors," USA House Of Representatives Committee On Energy And Commerce, 6/30/16).

2. 3 Million: The Number Of Americans That Could Have Just One Insurer To Choose From Next Year Due To ObamaCare. (Cynthia Cox And Ashley Semanskee, Preliminary Date on Insurer Exits And Entrants In 2017 Affordable Care Act Marketplaces, Kaiser Family Foundation, 8/28/16).

2 Million: Projected Job Losses Under The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal That Obama Negotiated And Lobbied For. (Robert E. Scott and Elizabeth Glass, "Trans-Pacific Partnership, Currency Manipulation, Trade, And Jobs," Economic Policy Institute, 3/3/16).

301,000: Manufacturing Jobs Lost Since Obama Took Office. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 12/2/16).

280,000: Projected Job Loss Due To The Interior Department's New Stream Protection Rule. ("Economic Analysis Of Proposed Stream Protection Rule," Ramboll Environ, 10/15).

82,288: Number Of Criminals Illegal Immigrants Released By The Obama Administration From 2013 To 2015. (Maria Sacchetti, "Criminal Immigrants Reoffend At High Rates Than ICE Has Suggested," The Boston Globe, 6/4/16).

$8,390: The Increase In The Average Cost Of Tuition, Fees, And Room And Board At A Four Year Public College Since Obama Took Office. ("Trends In College Pricing 2016," The College Board, 10/26/16).

5,000: Reduction In The Number Of Illegal Immigrants Deported This Year Under Obama. (Rafael Bernal, "Deportations Under Obama Could Hit 10-Year Low," The Hill, 8/31/16).

$4,370: The Increase In The Average Cost Of Tuition, Fees, And Room And Board At A Four Year Public College Since Obama Took Office. ("Trends In College Pricing 2016," The College Board, 10/26/16).

2,998: The Number Of New Federal Government Regulations Finalized Since Obama Took Office. ("Regulation Rodeo," American Action Forum, Accessed 12/27/16).

970: The Number Of Counties That Could See No Competition In Healthcare Insurers In 2017 Due To ObamaCare. (Cynthia Cox And Ashley Semanskee, Preliminary Date on Insurer Exits And Entrants In 2017 Affordable Care Act Marketplaces, Kaiser Family Foundation, 8/28/16).

717: Less Democrat State House Representatives Since Obama Took Office. ("2009 State And Legislative Partisan Composition," National Conference Of State Legislatures, 1/26/09; "2016 State And Legislative Partisan Composition," National Conference Of State Legislatures, 12/6/16).

231: Less Democrat State Senators Since Obama Took Office. ("2009 State And Legislative Partisan Composition," National Conference Of State Legislatures, 1/26/09; "2016 State And Legislative Partisan Composition," National Conference Of State Legislatures, 12/6/16).

183: The Number Of New EPA Regulations Finalized Since Obama Took Office. ("Regulation Rodeo," American Action Forum, Accessed 12/27/16).

98%: Increase In Student Debt Since Obama Took Office. ("Student Loans Owned And Securitized, Outstanding," Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis, Accessed 12/27/16).

87%: The Increase In The National Debt Since Obama Took Office. ("Daily History Of The Debt," USA Department Of Treasury, Accessed 12/23/16).

63: Less Democrats In The House Of Representatives Since Obama Took Office. (Jennifer E. Manning, "Membership Of The 111th Congress: A Profile," Congressional Research Service, 12/23/09; "House Election Results," The New York Times, 12/19/16).

41: States That Saw Deductibles Increases In 2016 Under ObamaCare. (Nathan Nascimento, "The Latest Problem Under The Affordable Care Act: Deductibles," The National Review, 04/12/16).

28%: The Increase In The Average Cost Of Tuition, Fees, And Room And Board At A Four Year Public College Since Obama Took Office. ("Trends In College Pricing 2016," The College Board, 10/26/16).

23%: The Increase In The Average Cost Of Tuition, Fees, And Room And Board At A Four Year Private College Since Obama Took Office. ("Trends In College Pricing 2016," The College Board, 10/26/16).

22%: Average Increase In ObamaCare Premium's Benchmark Silver Plan In 2017. (Tami Luhby, "ObamaCare Premiums To Soar 22% CNN, 10/25/16).

21: The Number Of Tax Increases In ObamaCare That Total More Than $1 Trillion Over A Decade. ("ObamaCare: Trillion Dollar Tax Hike That Hurts Small Businesses," USA House Of Representatives Committee On Ways And Means, 3/31/16).

18: Less Democrat-Controlled State Legislative Bodies Since Obama Took Office. ("2009 State And Legislative Partisan Composition," National Conference Of State Legislatures, 1/26/09; "2016 State And Legislative Partisan Composition," National Conference Of State Legislatures, 12/6/16).

12: Less Democrat Governors Since Obama Took Office. ("2009 State And Legislative Partisan Composition," National Conference Of State Legislatures, 1/26/09; Jennifer Duffy, "Governors: 2017/2018 Race Ratings," The Cook Political Report, 12/2/16).

12: Less Democrats In The USA Senate Since Obama Took Office. (Jennifer E. Manning, "Membership Of The 111th Congress: A Profile," Congressional Research Service, 12/23/09; "House Election Results," The New York Times, 12/19/16).

11-14%: Projected Rise In Electricity Rates For Most Consumers As A Results Of Obama's Finalized Clean Power Plan Regulations. (H. Sterling Burnett, "Economic Analysis of Clean Power Plan Shows High Cost, Minimal Benefits," The Heartland Institute, 12/2/15).

5%: The Reduction Of The Percentage Of Americans Who Self Identify As Middle-Class Since Obama Took Office. (Frank Newport, "Americans' Identification As Middle Class Edges Back Up," Gallup, 12/15/16).

4%: Drop In The Rate Of Homeownership Since Obama Took Office. ("State Of Working America Data Library," Economic Policy Institute, Accessed 12/27/16).

2%: The "Anemic" Average Annual GDP Growth Since Obama Took Office. (Larry Light, "Obama's 8-Year Economic Legacy: A Mixed Bag," CBS, 12/23/16).

$0. 19: Decrease In The Median USA Hourly Wage Since Obama Took Office. ("State Of Working America Data Library," Economic Policy Institute, Accessed 12/27/16).

0: Excuses Obama Has For Why His Party's Nominee, Who Ran On His Legacy, Failed To Win In November. (The American People, 11/8/16).

Member #4566

03-20-17, 05:27

Golfinho

03-20-17, 09:21

. Good news is that Obama left the economy on its way to a robust recovery".This is a joke, right? The economy's really going to recover with all those temp waiter, bar tender and nursing home attendant part-time jobs in non-tradeable goods. But about the deficit, what's to worry: 'a debt that cannot be repaid, won't be repaid (Econ101).

D Cups

03-20-17, 14:26

What are you smoking, Pomp? Must be some pretty good shit.

too much info here. .. Obama left the economy on its way to a robust recovery..

D Cups

03-20-17, 14:33

Thanks for acknowledging this, Huts. Trump and Germany's chancellor were recently arguing over this.

Speaking as an outsider, all you Yanks, both Republicans and Democrats, are being played for fools when you are picking up the defence burden for Europe, Japan, and S. Korea.

.

EihTooms

03-20-17, 19:02

Good news is that Obama left the economy on its way to a robust recovery. You are right. No Republican president has ever left office with as much improvement in place and at work over what was occurring in the economy when he first took office as Obama did. None. And there is zero reason to believe Trump and his fellow Republicans in Congress will match much less beat Obama's record of improvement when they walk away as well.

D Cups

03-20-17, 23:44

Smoothy, take it easy on the alcohol. Your brain is fried.

You are right. No Republican president has ever left office....

Member #4480

03-21-17, 03:48

Obama's failed Domestic Policy:

1) Failure to secure the Border.

2) Illegals bringing guns, drug and diseases through the southern border.

3) Bowe Bergdahl swap.

4) Passing on the keystone pipeline.

5) 9 Trillion dollars more in debt.

6) Vast expansion of government.

7) Racial Division at all-time high.

8) Inviting Bomb Boy Ahmed to White House.

9) Disrespect for Cops.

10) Failed economic stimulus plan.

11) Constant disregard for the Constitution and tyrannical rule.

12) China overtook America as world's largest economy.

13) Double Downgrade.

14) Housing policies failed to stop foreclosures.

15) Price of healthcare has drastically risen for those purchasing it.

16) Education policies failed to curb college costs.

17) Highest percentage of Americans on Food Stamps and Medicaid.

18) Record 92,898,000 Americans over 16 years not working.

19) Lowest Labor Force participation rate of 62.7%.

20) Denying the notion of American Exceptionalism.

21) Securing the Olympics for Chicago in 2016.

22) Naming numerous Communists / Socialists / Progressives to Czar Positions.

23) Mismanagement and cover up of Terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, California.

24) Mismanagement of Gulf Oil Spill.

25) Disastrous Vetting Process of "Immigrants" from Muslim Nations.

26) Refusing to Listen to CIA / FBI that there is no way to properly vet certain immigrants from Muslim nations.

27) Fort Hood Shooting.

28) Colorado EPA Disaster.

29) Veto of 911 Crime Bill- which was overturned.

30) Worst economic recovery since the depression with anemic GDP numbers.

31) Over 94 million Americans out of the workforce.

32) Obama commutes sentence on Chelsea Manning.

33) Obama commuted the sentence of FALN activist Oscar Lpez Rivera.

Member #4480

03-21-17, 03:59

1) IRS targets Obama's enemies.

2) Benghazi.

3) Spying on the AP.

4) The ATF "Fast and Furious" scheme.

5) Sebelius demands payment.

6) The Pigford Agriculture Department Scandal.

7) The General Services Administration Las Vegas Spending Spree.

8) Veterans Affairs in Disney World and neglecting vets.

9) Solyndra.

10) New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation.

11) The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson's computer.

12) Obama's LIES about the Affordable Care Act.

13) "I'll Pass My Own Laws".

14) NSA Spying on American People.

Member #4480

03-21-17, 04:10

1) Lack of solidarity with Israel.

2) Disaster with the Arab Spring.

3) Crimea.

4) Leaving Iraq too soon and letting ISIS take over.

5) Handling of Syrian Red Line.

6) Calling ISIS "JV".

7) Failing to Recognize ISIS as a Radical (or Devout) Muslim Movement.

8) Returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits.

9) Lack of Confidence by NATO nations.

10) Signing a Disastrous Nuclear Deal with the Mullahs of Iran.

11) Paid $5 Billion & Released 5 Taliban Prisoners For Deserter Bergdahl.

12) Waging war by attacking Libya without Congressional approval.

13) Allowed the building of Chinese bases in the South China Sea and off the coast of Somalia at the entrance to the gulf of Aden.

14) Paying ransom to Iranian for hostages- and using foreign currency in unmarked plane.

15) Lying about paying ransom (which media ignored!

16) Pays tribute to Japanese at Hiroshima on US Memorial Day.

17) Obama trashed America 18 times on Asian Tour.

18) Pushing the UN Resolution condemning Israel for legally building houses in Jewish neighborhoods.

19) Released $221 million to the Palestinian Authority.

Member #2041

03-21-17, 04:19

Coalburner, how do you feel about Donald Trump lying about Obama having him bugged, and also the numerous examples of members of the Trump Administration acting in concert with the Russians to skew our election process? None of the supposed Obama "disasters" you cited would hold a candle to a Presidential candidate colluding with an enemy state to influence our elections. That's called TREASON.

Member #4480

03-21-17, 04:22

Golfinho

03-21-17, 11:39

[Deleted by Admin]

EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was redacted or deleted to remove sections of the report that were largely argumentative. Please read the Forum FAQ and the Forum's Posting Guidelines for more information. Thank You!

D Cups

03-21-17, 14:52

2041, how do you feel about Coalburner's recent posts about Obummer's sordid legacy? Can you refute any of these you braindead bonehead?

how do you feel about ..

D Cups

03-21-17, 15:14

Hi Golfinho, arguing with Pomp, 2041, GE, David Loser, Kabul and Backassward Smoothy is like teaching a group of morons integral calculus. They'll never get it. They don't have the brain capacity. They're all pissed off because they lost the election and don't have a fucking clue as to why. You might as well teach pigs to fly and sing in harmony while shitting chocolate-covered caviar.

This is a joke, right? The economy's really going to recover with all those temp waiter, bar tender and nursing home attendant part-time jobs in non-tradeable goods. But about the deficit, what's to worry: 'a debt that cannot be repaid, won't be repaid (Econ101)..

D Cups

03-21-17, 15:26

All talk and no action.

Guys, I'm going to be bowing out of this conversation, ..

Member #4480

03-21-17, 15:26

Mr. Coalburner:

A little bit too much info here. But as for the increase in debt, did you forget that when Obama took office the world was in the largest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression? Most pundits attributed the problem to the deregulation mania of the GOP Bush administration. Late in his 2nd term when the crisis began Bush himself had urged increases in government spending in order to prime the pump. This is called fiscal policy and it is the usual Government response to severe economic downturns. Good news is that Obama left the economy on its way to a robust recovery. However now we have a president with a double digit IQ who wants to rescind the Obama regulation regime. What is the quote by George Santayana, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. ".So let me get this straight, you're blaming Bush for the last 8 disastrous years of the Obama admin? Trump would gladly take that scenario over the one he's confronted with now thanks to the disastrous legacy of Obama.

BTW, what's this 'robust economy' that you're talking about? Where is your data to support this? What do you have to counter just a few of these stats:

-National debt at $20 trillion. Doubled in the last 8 years.

-Not a single year of hitting a 3% GDP in the last 8 years.

-Lowest labor participation rates since the 1970's, with 95 million Americans out of the labor force making the current unemployment rate a fantasy.

-Lowest home ownership rate in 51 years despite mortgage rates artificially kept at record lows.

-Over 11 million more Americans on food stamps.

-More than 43 million Americans now live in poverty.

-$873 billion in regulation costs. Number of regulations that been finalized under President Obama almost 3,000.

-300,000 manufacturing jobs lost.

-Global trade deficit of over $732 billion just last year.

Member #2041

03-21-17, 17:39

So let me get this straight, you're blaming Bush for the last 8 disastrous years of the Obama admin? Trump would gladly take that scenario over the one he's confronted with now thanks to the disastrous legacy of Obama.

BTW, what's this 'robust economy' that you're talking about? Where is your data to support this? What do you have to counter just a few of these stats:

-National debt at $20 trillion. Doubled in the last 8 years.

-Not a single year of hitting a 3% GDP in the last 8 years.

-Lowest labor participation rates since the 1970's, with 95 million Americans out of the labor force making the current unemployment rate a fantasy.

-Lowest home ownership rate in 51 years despite mortgage rates artificially kept at record lows.

-Over 11 million more Americans on food stamps.

-More than 43 million Americans now live in poverty.

-$873 billion in regulation costs. Number of regulations that been finalized under President Obama almost 3,000.

-300,000 manufacturing jobs lost.

-Global trade deficit of over $732 billion just last year.Actually, Obama's Presidency was NOT a disaster, with the sole exception being that it resulted in Hillary Clinton, a lousy candidate, running for President and giving us Trump.

In fact, under Obama, the economic catastrophe he inherited from Bush was reversed. The Stock Market tripled in valuation. The housing collapse was reversed. And no terrorist attacks from foreigners succeeded in the USA (a handful WERE carried out by AMERICANS against American citizens) - but this was still a vast improvement over the record his predecessor.

Most people who had any skills and education did quite well economically under the Obama Presidency. 300,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, but over 10 MILLION service jobs were gained. The lower labor participation rate is due to over tens of millions of Americans aging out of the work force as the baby boom began to reach retirement age.

Over 15 Million Americans gained access to health insurance for the first time under Obama. Trump plans on negating that, plus screwing another 9 Million more out of the ability to get insurance.

My personal Net Worth more than doubled during the Obama Presidency from when he took office in January of 2009. That's actually fairly typical. If you are an American and yours didn't, it's more a reflection on your own lack of talents than on the Obama economic recovery.

EihTooms

03-21-17, 17:47

Coalburner69 and D Cups, hate to break it to you but you can cherry pick and list all the piddly negatives you can dig up about the current economy and national security situation while ignoring all the overwhelming positives relative to what was occuring when Obama first took office more than offsetting them but there is one giant bull elephant sized bit of empirical evidence in the room arguing mightily against your contentions; even the Republicans whose expert lies you apparently swallowed whole and worked to help them get elected don't believe a word of their own lies about "how bad things are now!"

LOL. Has any incoming president enjoyed the luxury of doing virtually NOTHING significant since election night and now more than four months later more than Donald Trump? The guy is on track to soak up more three day weekends on the golf course beginning sometime Thursday afternoon in just his first six months in office at taxpayers' expense than Obama took in eight years. He is so lazy he hasn't even managed to work up an Executive Action that would stand up to the most cursory reading of it vs the USA Constitution. He somehow got through one 80 minute address to Congress reading a telepromptered speech that seems to have been unearthed from the Harding administration, so musty, moldy and tired were the classic failed Republican memes included. Now he seems determined to dither around week after week rehashing the good ol' days of his weird presidential campaign, congratulating himself for how well he bamboozled his supporters into thinking he really was going to accomplish something on their behalf and soon.

But as lackadaisical, lazy, dithering and distracted as Trump is staying up all night shouting at cable news shows on tv, tweeting nonsense and eating Big Mac Combos, the Republican leadership in Congress is luxuriating even MORE in classic Republican "doing nothingness".

I thought the economy was "in crisis!" and national security was in so much trouble Trump HAD to get that idiotic counterproductive "Muslim Ban" Executive Action in place ASAP. Or, better yet, after a week or two of basking in the glory of that aforementioned telepromptered 80 minutes of relative lucidity except for the Harding Administration list of priorities.

Apparently not. And there is a very compelling reason Trump and his fellow Republicans in Congress have not really DONE anything in the months since they have been in charge; they know things are going VERY WELL right now. The are happy to coast along in the wake of what Obama wrought through blood, sweat and tears over the past 8 years and, so typical of Republicans, "take credit" for the still ongoing record number of consecutive months of positive job growth, very low unemployment rate, rising property values, decent quarterly profits and earnings reports and the climbing stock market that accompanies all of that.

Both Trump and the Repubs in Congress know very well their "doing something" can only screw up what is actually moving along quite nicely and has been doing so for a few years now. So they aren't really doing anything. Oh, except grousing about how terrible things are while they propose and do nothing to supposedly "fix" it. LOL.

D Cups

03-21-17, 22:33

cherry pick LOL.Cherry pick? Coalburner listed four pages of facts and figures regarding Obummer's reign of shit. Can you refute even ONE of the FIFTY-SIX examples of failed domestic and foreign policies, scandals or other disasters he is responsible for?

D Cups

03-21-17, 22:36

Actually, Obama's Presidency was NOT a disaster, See Coalburner's lengthy examples and I dare you to refute just ONE of the multitude of these MAJOR FUCKUPS you delusional DOLT.

Member #4480

03-22-17, 00:08

See Coalburner's lengthy examples and I dare you to refute just ONE of the multitude of these MAJOR FUCKUPS you delusional DOLT.Don't waste anymore of your time and energy on them. They have no relevant facts or figures to counter with and when they start 'cherry picking' a few such as how an increase of low paying service jobs some how offsets the loss of high paying manufacturing jobs, and how great Obama care is, it simply doesn't pass the laugh test.

The only thing they got right was that Clinton was a horrific candidate, but then again she ran on Obama's platform and record.

Member #2041

03-22-17, 06:45

See Coalburner's lengthy examples and I dare you to refute just ONE of the multitude of these MAJOR FUCKUPS you delusional DOLT. I did in post #973. Apparently, your lack of literacy prevented you from comprehending the reply.

EihTooms

03-22-17, 06:53

Cherry pick? Coalburner listed four pages of facts and figures regarding Obummer's reign of shit. Can you refute even ONE of the FIFTY-SIX examples of failed domestic and foreign policies, scandals or other disasters he is responsible for?Uh, you mean his irrefutable "facts" like:

"9) Disrespect for Cops.

10) Failed economic stimulus plan.

11) Constant disregard for the Constitution and tyrannical rule. "

LOL.

How about a near record 75 straight months of positive jobs creation vs a net LOSS of 600,000+ private sector jobs by the end of the previous guy's grueling 8 year long disastrously failed presidency? How about regularly seeing 200,000+ jobs created per month vs LOSING 800,000 jobs per month? How about an unemployment rate steadily declining to 5% and below instead of skyrocketing toward double digits? How about a total reversal of the stock market plunge into new highs, tripling the market as measured by the S&P 500 Index? How about my property values totally recovering from the Bush / GOP crash and climbing to new highs?

All of which began to occur a couple of weeks after that supposed "10) Failed economic stimulus plan" was signed into legislation (with almost NO Repub votes, BTW) and put to work in the system. And those critical positive economic metrics never looked back or went into reverse direction ever since. Oh, and that was done at the end of February 2009. Please remind me again what Trump and his fellow Repubs in Congress have done to trigger ANYTHING as remarkably positive for the USA Economy now that they've had a month LONGER in control of the levers than Obama and the Dems had by February 2009.

But I hear Trump's golf game is coming along better than ever!

GoodEnough

03-22-17, 13:46

Uh, you mean his irrefutable "facts" like:

"9) Disrespect for Cops.

10) Failed economic stimulus plan.

11) Constant disregard for the Constitution and tyrannical rule. "

LOL.

How about a near record 75 straight months of positive jobs creation vs a net LOSS of 600,000+ private sector jobs by the end of the previous guy's grueling 8 year long disastrously failed presidency? How about regularly seeing 200,000+ jobs created per month vs LOSING 800,000 jobs per month? How about an unemployment rate steadily declining to 5% and below instead of skyrocketing toward double digits? How about a total reversal of the stock market plunge into new highs, tripling the market as measured by the S&P 500 Index? How about my property values totally recovering from the Bush / GOP crash and climbing to new highs?

All of which began to occur a couple of weeks after that supposed "10) Failed economic stimulus plan" was signed into legislation (with almost NO Repub votes, BTW) and put to work in the system. And those critical positive economic metrics never looked back or went into reverse direction ever since. Oh, and that was done at the end of February 2009. Please remind me again what Trump and his fellow Repubs in Congress have done to trigger ANYTHING as remarkably positive for the USA Economy now that they've had a month LONGER in control of the levers than Obama and the Dems had by February 2009.

But I hear Trump's golf game is coming along better than ever!🤗129303; A nice fact-based refutation. Unfortunately, we've entered into an era of fact free debate, in which what one "feels," or "knows in his heart to be true," is equivalent to fact, science, or empirical proof. Arguments with people who buy into the Trump psychosis is futile. For whatever it's worth, I think the current president is--as concurred by two pretty prominent psychiatrists whose articles I've read recently--a malignant narcissist, who can no more help what he is than your average schizophrenic. It's the supporting cast of those empowering his delusions, who believe it's fine to substitute delusion for fact, who are even more contemptible than he is. The danger for the US of course is the line between fact and delusion is becoming ever more blurred for the American public and that's a condition that may persist long after Trump is mercifully gone.

GE.

D Cups

03-22-17, 15:28

Don't waste anymore of your time and energy on them. Ya, you're right, Coalburner. Smoothy, 2041, et al you win! You couldn't win an election but you win the debate here in ISG because it makes no sense to continue. So I forfeit to your interminable stupidity and doomsday predictions. Congratulations. Now you can take your fists out of your asses and put the crystal ball in there where you will get better use out of it. I will enjoy seeing the continuous imploding of the democrapic party and all things Obama. GO TEAM TRUMP!

Member #2041

03-22-17, 22:13

All speculation, no proof.Actually, the Director of the FBI, a Republican, BTW, and the person who actually has access to the evidence, flat out called Trump a liar before a Congressional hearing, with respect to both Obama's supposed bugging of Trump tower, and Trump's tweeted claim that the FBI has found nothing to link his campaign and the Russians attempt to hack the election.

Member #4480

03-22-17, 23:51

Actually, the Director of the FBI, a Republican, BTW, and the person who actually has access to the evidence, flat out called Trump a liar before a Congressional hearing, with respect to both Obama's supposed bugging of Trump tower, and Trump's tweeted claim that the FBI has found nothing to link his campaign and the Russians attempt to hack the election.Recent developments regarding this broke today. Your news outlets (CNN, CNBC, ABC, NBC, etc) probably won't cover it, so check Fox news if you're interested.

Member #2041

03-23-17, 05:17

Recent developments regarding this broke today. Your news outlets (CNN, CNBC, ABC, NBC, etc) probably won't cover it, so check Fox news if you're interested. I saw the recent developments. They don't alter the fact that Trump made a false accusation against Obama, and was called out as a liar because of it by James Comey before Congress. What the recent developments DO suggest is that a Republican in Congress (Nunes) violated his Constitutional oath in passing information to Trump which was shared in confidential briefings. The corruption is deep amongst Trump's campaign officials. Who include the aforementioned Congressman Nunes.

Even Fox News acknowledges that if people in the Trump administration were overheard, it was because FOREIGN Agents were being lawfully surveiled, and the Trump people happened to have conversations with those foreign agents who were lawfully and appropriately being monitored. That is not in any way, shape, or form what Trump improperly called Obama out for doing, and which Comey made clear, was a false accusation made by Trump. Nothing in this new disclosure alters that fact - although it DOES impugn the credibility of Devin Nunes, and suggests that Nunes acted in violation of his oath of office.

BTW, Fox News is not a reputable news outlet, so you need to come up with a more reliable citation from a less biased source in order to have it given any credence (and BTW, Breitbart doesn't qualify). That being said, they seem to have gotten the facts correct, and only their spin and emphasis wrong. In fact, this disclosure is even MORE damning to the Trump administration, because it shows that they were in fact in contact with foreign agents who were appropriately under U.S. Intelligence Surveillance at the time.

AllTooHorny

04-23-17, 04:59

I saw the recent developments. They don't alter the fact that Trump made a false accusation against Obama, and was called out as a liar because of it by James Comey before Congress. What the recent developments DO suggest is that a Republican in Congress (Nunes) violated his Constitutional oath in passing information to Trump which was shared in confidential briefings. The corruption is deep amongst Trump's campaign officials. Who include the aforementioned Congressman Nunes.

Even Fox News acknowledges that if people in the Trump administration were overheard, it was because FOREIGN Agents were being lawfully surveiled, and the Trump people happened to have conversations with those foreign agents who were lawfully and appropriately being monitored. That is not in any way, shape, or form what Trump improperly called Obama out for doing, and which Comey made clear, was a false accusation made by Trump. Nothing in this new disclosure alters that fact - although it DOES impugn the credibility of Devin Nunes, and suggests that Nunes acted in violation of his oath of office.

BTW, Fox News is not a reputable news outlet, so you need to come up with a more reliable citation from a less biased source in order to have it given any credence (and BTW, Breitbart doesn't qualify). That being said, they seem to have gotten the facts correct, and only their spin and emphasis wrong. In fact, this disclosure is even MORE damning to the Trump administration, because it shows that they were in fact in contact with foreign agents who were appropriately under U.S. Intelligence Surveillance at the time.Don't waste your time, Member #2041. Some people just believe what they want to believe.

Naked Gunz

07-10-18, 01:45

Well gents, Trump will appoint a pro-life justice. In the eighties before HIV, I rarely wore a condom with one night stands. After my son was born, and when HIV became a thing, I started to buy them. All I can say is Roe v Wade will be challenged very soon with this appointment. I will just say that my vasectomy has saved me at least three times with intensive long-term fucking with foreign women. I would encourage everyone to take this important step to protect their own financial futures. There are too many paternity court cases on TV for a reason. You cannot trust these stupid girls to not get knocked up. The maternal instinct is too strong.

GoodEnough

07-10-18, 06:38

Don't waste your time, Member #2041. Some people just believe what they want to believe.Right you are. Facts don't work. Logical argument doesn't work. Science doesn't work. Verification of the 500 lies or so the buffoon tells each day doesn't work. In short, nothing works for those cult members. Better just to shake your head and walk away.

Golds

03-28-20, 20:43

You not have a health insurance in the US? --but you have a travel insurance, I assume? Then you much better off there in Kampala then in the war zone US with the warlord T swinging his stick. Just keep yourself 2 m away from people and hope your fuckmates are virus free.

Anyway. I survived many years of unprotected sex. I don't want to die now of an unprotected handshake.As an European I would be proud to have a leader as Trump! You may take the Merkel's, Wir schaffen das!, for free. How Democrats almost ruined your country!

Confiable

03-29-20, 16:20

As an European I would be proud to have a leader as Trump! You may take the Merkel's, Wir schaffen das!, for free. How Democrats almost ruined your country!As an American, you can have him. This guy minimize the threat of the virus just one day after the WHO declared it a pandemic. No leadership skills at all. From day one, he did not take this serious. Recently, Trump wants the nation opened up for Easter. He wants the churches pack with people. While new cases of coronavirus continues to rise and the death total as well. Yes, you can have him and his clown behavior.

Golfinho

03-29-20, 17:34

This guy minimize the threat of the virus just one day after the WHO declared it a pandemic. No leadership skills at all. From day one, he did not take this serious. While new cases of coronavirus continues to rise and the death total as well.The Chinese have been living with viral outbreaks for years. They've gotten used to it. We've all seen them everywhere wearing their masks. Two months ago, when masks were disappearing from retail shelves in America, I asked everywhere CVS, Lowe's, Home Depot, Ace Hardware 'what happened? They all said Chinese came in and bought them all and been calling on the phone non-stop asking for more. So now what we have is the new normal, a descent to the lowest common denominator, a Chinese standard of life. There's nothing any President or any leader in the Western leader could do about this. Prepare yourself for the new normal: this virus isn't going away, or it will be succeeded by a new one. At least now we know what your government thinks your life is worth: twelve-hundred dollars.

Confiable

03-29-20, 23:57

The Chinese have been living with viral outbreaks for years. They've gotten used to it. We've all seen them everywhere wearing their masks. Two months ago, when masks were disappearing from retail shelves in America, I asked everywhere CVS, Lowe's, Home Depot, Ace Hardware 'what happened? They all said Chinese came in and bought them all and been calling on the phone non-stop asking for more. So now what we have is the new normal, a descent to the lowest common denominator, a Chinese standard of life. There's nothing any President or any leader in the Western leader could do about this. Prepare yourself for the new normal: this virus isn't going away, or it will be succeeded by a new one. At least now we know what your government thinks your life is worth: twelve-hundred dollars.A capitalist society / government don't care about it's people like the USA. You are speaking to the choir. Also, american history has shown this. But also it's the fault of the government allowing so many companies to move overseas. Now you have a country that is more of a consumer than a producer. Capitalism at it's finest.

Chris P

03-30-20, 03:56

As an American, you can have him. This guy minimize the threat of the virus just one day after the WHO declared it a pandemic. No leadership skills at all. From day one, he did not take this serious. Recently, Trump wants the nation opened up for Easter. He wants the churches pack with people. While new cases of coronavirus continues to rise and the death total as well. Yes, you can have him and his clown behavior.Sorry, that's just not true. Trump restricted immigration from China very early in the crisis, back when Italian mayors were encouraging people to hug the nearest chinaman. Of course the media and democrats accused him of "racism" as always, but it would be much worse if he hadn't blocked the migration.

As for his Easter comments, that is an aim not a concrete deadline. And why shouldn't we aim to get things going as fast as possible? Every week of this terrible lockdown costs hundreds of billions of dollars and sees millions of jobs and livelihoods lost. If Obama had said the exact same thing, people like you and CNN would call it "inspiring leadership". Ho hum.

Confiable

03-30-20, 04:48

Sorry, that's just not true. Trump restricted immigration from China very early in the crisis, back when Italian mayors were encouraging people to hug the nearest chinaman. Of course the media and democrats accused him of "racism" as always, but it would be much worse if he hadn't blocked the migration.

As for his Easter comments, that is an aim not a concrete deadline. And why shouldn't we aim to get things going as fast as possible? Every week of this terrible lockdown costs hundreds of billions of dollars and sees millions of jobs and livelihoods lost. If Obama had said the exact same thing, people like you and CNN would call it "inspiring leadership". Ho hum.
Everthing I said was factual. You can research it. You defending him will not change the facts. This is not about Obama so stop deflecting. FYI I am not a democrat. So that comment was useless. Also, it was stupid of him to make the Easter remarks contrary to the advise of medical experts. That's not even debatable. It was not smart on his part no matter how you want or try to twist it. Most of the major airlines stopped/suspended flights to China prior to Trump's annoucement. Even the state department told americans not to travel to China because of the outbreak prior to Trump.

Chris P

03-30-20, 06:00

Everthing I said was factual. You can research it. You defending him will not change the facts. This is not about Obama so stop deflecting. FYI I am not a democrat. So that comment was useless. Also, it was stupid of him to make the Easter remarks contrary to the advise of medical experts. That's not even debatable. It was not smart on his part no matter how you want or try to twist it. Most of the major airlines stopped/suspended flights to China prior to Trump's annoucement. Even the state department told americans not to travel to China because of the outbreak prior to Trump.You don't seem to understand what "factual" means. Saying things like "no leadership skills at all" and "he did not take this serious" is not factual, it is your opinion (and a wrong one at that). The relevant fact here is that Trump announced restrictions on entry from China way back in January, well ahead of the curve, in the face of the usual media / democrat opposition. The only other Western country to implement restrictions on China in January was Italy, which did so on the same day as Trump. Those are facts. Go research them.

Acejack

03-30-20, 06:47

Confiable

03-30-20, 07:19

You don't seem to understand what "factual" means. Saying things like "no leadership skills at all" and "he did not take this serious" is not factual, it is your opinion (and a wrong one at that). The relevant fact here is that Trump announced restrictions on entry from China way back in January, well ahead of the curve, in the face of the usual media / democrat opposition. The only other Western country to implement restrictions on China in January was Italy, which did so on the same day as Trump. Those are facts. Go research them.Once again most major airlines stopped flying to China prior to trump's message and the state department also advised americans against going there. Proaction steps were already being taken. That is the facts. His health advisors are the ones who convinced him to implement the restriction so don't act like he came up with the idea on his own. The only positive thing he did was listen to them. Several countries also closed their borders in January- Japan, Russia, and Pakistan. So don't act like other countries were not concerned. Also, saying you have the situation under contol before you know all the facts is poor leadership skills and he made that statement more than once. Saying you want to open up the nation on Easter is just plan stupid when the pandemic is not even close to being controlled. I guess that's showing great leadership. I am done discussing this subject.

Confiable

03-30-20, 14:14

Chris P is on the money and the other "Occupy Democrat" twit can please himself. I really hate it when posters use this forum to angle in their own political views.It's obvious you can't read and comprehend. You would have known that I am an independent. I see you like to bring up labels and ignore the facts. A childish game that republicans and democrats play with each other. Grow up.

Chris P

03-30-20, 16:18

Once again most major airlines stopped flying to China prior to trump's message and the state department also advised americans against going there. Proaction steps were already being taken. That is the facts. His health advisors are the ones who convinced him to implement the restriction so don't act like he came up with the idea on his own. The only positive thing he did was listen to them. Several countries also closed their borders in January- Japan, Russia, and Pakistan. So don't act like other countries were not concerned. Also, saying you have the situation under contol before you know all the facts is poor leadership skills and he made that statement more than once. Saying you want to open up the nation on Easter is just plan stupid when the pandemic is not even close to being controlled. I guess that's showing great leadership. I am done discussing this subject.Three US-based airlines had stopped flights prior to Trump's January restrictions, but other US and international airlines had not. Trump's early actions reduced the number of corona carriers entering the USA, against the wishes of the democrats and media who claimed it was "racist". If you were impartial you would recognise that fact and applaud him for it.

I didn't "act like he came up with the idea on his own". He listened to his health advisors, and took prompt and decisive action, much more quickly than leaders of other Western nations. That looks like good leadership skills to me.

And again, either you seem not to have read my post or your geographical knowledge is severely lacking. I said Trump was the first Western leader to implement travel restrictions on China. Russia, Pakistan and Japan are not in the West.

If you want to attack Trump for something of which he is guilty, such as rudeness to his opponents, go right ahead. But when you say things which are simply not true, and then claim your incorrect opinions to be "factual", don't be surprised when people call you out on it.

Knowledge

03-30-20, 18:06

I think you nailed it about testing in the US. It won't change anything if every single American were tested. In fact, it would increase infections because even home testing kits that are mailed can spread the virus. It's all about isolation. Testing is a political football in America. Why do we hear so much about testing in American media? I believe it is because American media are more politically polarized and motivated than ever before. If you doubt that, spend an hour or two watching any of the cable news programs (you can get them on the Internet) that depend on advertising revenue and ratings. Fox, cnn, msnbc. Then spend an hour or two watching any rest of world news outlet or the cable news channels that don't depend on advertising (BBC, PBS). The difference is very striking. The ratings and advertising dependent outlets will say most anything to keep the audiences they've cultivated. More than anything else, that means 24/7 Trump.

There are many vectors. One of the now famous ones was in South Korea. An infected person was at a large mega-church conference and infected many who in turn infected many. And in Canada a dental conference and a doctors hockey tournament have infected many.

I think the testing failure was a big thing (US), but the far bigger failure is the failure to get people to isolate. Assume everyone may have it so isolate. And those that have it either recover or die. As long as they are not infecting anyone else the virus dies. It's a very simple concept. Very devastating economically but the only way to stop this thing. And that's basically what worked in China. And relentless contact tracing and testing has helped some countries. But not once it has really gotten away. And it has gotten away in the USA. No amount of testing will change anything now. Not until you get people to stop spreading it.

Testing still is important for health care workers. Don't get me wrong. You need to know that they are not spreading it. And when they have it they need to go home. But for the general population right now testing is irrelevant. In the future, yes. Some sort of testing may be needed to know who has had it and who hasn't. But that is a different test anyway.