American Politics

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2690858]58% of Americans considering the economy Fair, Good or Excellent just 2 years after the worst Trump / Repub Great crash in history that nearly wiped out every economy on the planet, mass murdered millions of people and wiped out millions upon millions of jobs and supply chains is damn good.

If they were allowed to tell the truth without being imprisoned or executed, what do you suppose that percentage would be for your beloved Russians and Chinese?[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.rt.com/business/554625-eu-russia-sanctions-dont-work/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.reuters.com/business/rouble-strengthens-moscow-russia-halts-gas-supplies-bulgaria-poland-2022-04-27/[/URL]

[QUOTE=DramaFree11;2690512]Exactly, Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries in the world, but the media conveniently leaves this out in there reports. This why I stopped going there. This war makes no sense and the longer it goes on the worse it is for everyone. Somebody, needs to win, a tie is the worst possible scenario, but Biden is too stupid to realize this.[/QUOTE][blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]

As to any corruption in Ukraine or any other country, that's also irrelevant given that Russia leads the day with kleptocratic corruption and stealing from the state coffers, killing off and jailing dissent, shutting down the press, invading a sovereign country unprovoked, gunning down seniors riding their bikes, raping women, blowing up bread lines and maternity wards, all while lying to their people about "De-Nazification" even though the democratically elected president is Jewish and extreme right entities in Ukraine failed to get more than 2% of the vote and no seats in parliament. This while you diss Western media while pitching Russian state propaganda in a hooker forum.

Ukraine nor NATO has been any threat to Putin. Democracy is though as he wants his "sphere of influence" back, but has only threats and violence to offer, nothing positive. No one wants any part of that dark world, and it has nothing to do with Biden. Vlad would have launched this eventually but wasn't about to distract from all his buttboy Trump was doing for him, killing us bungling a pandemic, the US with much higher Covid death rates than other wealthy countries, wrecking US democracy casting doubt on legit elections and instigating coups, jockeying to pull us out of NATO, and the list goes on.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2690839]Here's another round of the usual cherry picking of the data, comparing the present to the early years of Reagan's presidency as he worked to implement policies to correct the disastrous economy he inherited, that of the peanut farmer with his double digit inflation, stagflation, and spiking unemployment. Whataboutism at it's best, and coupled with cherry picking for a double fallacy. Congratulations!

Though the merits of Reaganomics can be debated among the pros and cons, it over the long haul doubled GDP growth, unemployment was gradually reduced, and inflation went from the 13.5 he inherited down to 4. 1.

[URL]https://www.cato.org/commentary/worst-recession[/URL]

[URL]https://www.thebalance.com/president-ronald-reagan-s-economic-policies-3305568[/URL]

P.S. Why not grace some of your pontificating with source citations (links)? Just a suggestion. Wink.[/QUOTE]You mean the inflation that Carter and his Fed Chairman began reducing month over month almost a year before Reagan took office?

There were about 4-5 years between the end of Reagan's Great Repub Recession and Bush1's long Repub Recession while both produced far lower average annual jobs creation than Carter's economy and all while tripling+ the national debt vs Carter.

Was that the major economic turnaround you were talking about?

Clinton won the "It's the economy, Stupid" presidential contest in 1992. Then he and his Dems passed legislation that laid the foundation for one of the longest and best economic boom times in history that was so opposite what Reagan or any other Repub had done not one single Republucan voted for it based on that objection.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2690839]Here's another round of the usual cherry picking of the data, comparing the present to the early years of Reagan's presidency as he worked to implement policies to correct the disastrous economy he inherited, that of the peanut farmer with his double digit inflation, stagflation, and spiking unemployment. Whataboutism at it's best, and coupled with cherry picking for a double fallacy. Congratulations!

Though the merits of Reaganomics can be debated among the pros and cons, it over the long haul doubled GDP growth, unemployment was gradually reduced, and inflation went from the 13.5 he inherited down to 4. 1.

[URL]https://www.cato.org/commentary/worst-recession[/URL]

[URL]https://www.thebalance.com/president-ronald-reagan-s-economic-policies-3305568[/URL]

P.S. Why not grace some of your pontificating with source citations (links)? Just a suggestion. Wink.[/QUOTE]From your first link:

[QUOTE]The deepest and longest‐​lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president[/QUOTE]It isn't even a "cherry" to pick.

Carter's mini recession barely lasted 2 quarters in early 1980.

Reagan's began in the last quarter of 1981.

There is no such thing as a "double dip" recession, certainly not separated by almost a year and after the next guy got his policies fast-tracked into the system.

It was an invented term from Repubs and pro Repub Bothsiders to excuse one of the most blatantly obvious comparisons between Dem policy success vs Repub policy failure of all time.

Here's a very interesting article from summer last year regarding use of the Tu quoque fallacy, another angle on the ad hominem which points out the existence of corruption in Ukraine to argue that they are undeserving of any help from the West. Here's a sample:

"To be sure, today's Ukraine is not yet a model liberal democracy. In Freedom House's latest global survey ranking countries according to civil and political rights, Ukraine received 60 points out of a possible 100, leaving it far behind paragons such as Norway, Finland, and Sweden.

However, within the specific historical context of the post-Soviet space, Ukraine is actually rather more democratic than one might expect. The country is clearly on a path towards greater democratization that diverges sharply from the contemporary political realities in what is an increasingly authoritarian region. Indeed, compared to Russia, which received just 20 points in the 2020 Freedom House ranking, or nearby Belarus with its 11 points, Ukraine is a relative beacon of democratic values.

The current generation of Ukrainians now take it for granted that they will enjoy genuine choice at the ballot box and are confident their votes will not be canceled out by Kremlin-style election fraud. This open and competitive political culture was evident in the country's 2019 presidential election campaign, which saw TV comic and political newcomer Volodymyr Zelenskyy win a landslide victory over the incumbent, Petro Poroshenko. The fact that an outsider could triumph so convincingly over a sitting president in a country at war illustrated the health and durability of Ukraine's democratic culture."

[URL]https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-dangers-of-echoing-russian-disinformation-on-ukraine/[/URL]

[URL]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque[/URL]

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2690858]58% of Americans considering the economy Fair, Good or Excellent just 2 years after the worst Trump / Repub Great crash in history that nearly wiped out every economy on the planet, mass murdered millions of people and wiped out millions upon millions of jobs and supply chains is damn good.

If they were allowed to tell the truth without being imprisoned or executed, what do you suppose that percentage would be for your beloved Russians and Chinese?[/QUOTE]To be more precise, it has only been 15 months since Biden took over and swung into action to recover us from the historic Trump / Repub worst across the board results and conditions of all time.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2690839]Here's another round of the usual cherry picking of the data, comparing the present to the early years of Reagan's presidency as he worked to implement policies to correct the disastrous economy he inherited, that of the peanut farmer with his double digit inflation, stagflation, and spiking unemployment. Whataboutism at it's best, and coupled with cherry picking for a double fallacy. Congratulations!

Though the merits of Reaganomics can be debated among the pros and cons, it over the long haul doubled GDP growth, unemployment was gradually reduced, and inflation went from the 13.5 he inherited down to 4. 1.

[URL]https://www.cato.org/commentary/worst-recession[/URL]

[URL]https://www.thebalance.com/president-ronald-reagan-s-economic-policies-3305568[/URL]

P.S. Why not grace some of your pontificating with source citations (links)? Just a suggestion. Wink.[/QUOTE]That's funny since your Cato opinion piece link provided zero substantiation source links for its Revisionist History claims and your Balance link merely confirmed my assertion that Reagan tripled the debt in order to create jobs and increase the GDP his economic policies failed miserably to create. This is the best they could do for Teflon Ronnie:

[QUOTE]Reaganomics reduced taxes and gave specific industries relief from federal regulatory burdens.
Reagan attempted to reduce federal spending but was relatively unsuccessful.
Reagan worked with the Federal Reserve to reduce the supply of money to lower inflation.
Critics and fans have different opinions on whether Reaganomics was effective or not; however, the economy improved.[/QUOTE]Note "worked with" the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of which Carter appointed specifically to tackle and tame hyper-inflation and was already successfully doing exactly that almost a year before Reagan took office.

I have graced several of my posts with these proper source links, which I doubt either of your links provided but didn't bother to click on every one of them:

[B]Unemployment Rate Table By Month:[/B]

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000[/URL]

[B]Jobs Created During Presidential Terms:[/B]

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms[/URL]

[B]Historical Inflation Rates by Month and Year: 1914 - 2014:[/B]

[URL]http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/[/URL]

[B]US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions[/B]

[URL]https://www.nber.org/research/data/us-business-cycle-expansions-and-contractions[/URL]

NBER is the go-to source for when USA Recessions begin and end. Neither they nor any other reputable economic overview source has ever, not once by word or chart, combined the mini recession that began and ended under Carter in early 1980 with the Great Recession we had under Reagan beginning in the 4th quarter of 1981 as your revisionist history Cato Institute opinion piece tried to pull.

[URL]https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=350[/URL]

That is an interesting and useful link to select "period", then select "quarterly", then "date range" to see what was happening with Real GDP Growth rates by quarter and country including the USA for the selected time period. Check out 1980 Q1 through 1984 Q4 and you'll see Carter's handoff quarters 1980 Q4 and 1981 Q1 were the best among them until 1983 Q3, late in Reagan's 3rd year in office.

None of those sources will contradict what I have been saying about the inflation rate trend, the unemployment rate trend and annual average jobs creation for Carter vs Reagan and, as far as I know, neither of your opinion piece links referenced them either.

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2690826]I need a 2nd reply.

Adultery? And lying under oath about adultery whilst in the White House and being whilst being deposed for being sued for sexual harassment of an employee.

Good thing that POS never needed that worthless law license, because he was disbarred after being impeached for perjury!

In the stillness of Sunday mornings, the young Bill Clinton would walk alone down the sidewalks of his home town of Hot Springs, Ark. , clutching a leather-bound Bible in his hand. His teachers thought he might become a renowned evangelist in the fashion of Billy Graham, the preacher who once received an envelope containing young Clinton's donation of hard-saved nickels and dimes.

Although his parents seldom attended church, Clinton recalls a burning need to be there. "It was an important part of my life," he said recently. "It was moral instruction. . . Trying to get closer to being a good person and understanding what life was all about. I really looked forward to it every Sunday, getting dressed up and walking that mile or so alone.[/QUOTE]As usual for a rightwingnut though, you don't bother to provide a source for this drivel. And so what? Slick Willie was a pig. So was JFK. Who cares?

But you defend the Mango Mussolini as a saint who slept with different women while married. The Orange Buffoon screwed Stormy while Melania was taking care of newborn Barron and he gets a pass. The pro-life party gets a pass for forcing a woman to have her rapist's baby. Trickle-down has never worked yet you idiots defend it like it is the Bible. And speaking of the Bible, the holier-than-thou crowd has no problem subverting the overall meaning of the book as long as they get their way.

The party of "government should let businesses make their own decisions" has absolutely no problem going after Disney when they protest a Republican law. The party of "government should let businesses make their own decisions" has no problem going after Twitter when Twitter makes their own decisions about who to ban. The party of "government should let businesses make their own decisions" has no problem going after the Seuss family when they decide not to publish a book that they consider to be racist.

See, that's the problem with the rightwingnut party. If Republicans had even a modicum of class, they'd see that virtually everything they do is hypocritical. But since they are all stupid, they can't see that. And what's worse, they are so stupid that they think that [B]we[/B] can't see it either. But they sure are good at playing the victim.

Gaetz in a statement posted to Twitter called McCarthy and Scalise "weak men."

"Rep McCarthy and Rep. Scalise held views about President Trump and me that they shared on sniveling calls with Liz Cheney, not us," Gaetz wrote. "This is the behavior of weak men, not leaders."

Moe, Larry and Curly go to Washington.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2690903]To be more precise, it has only been 15 months since Biden took over and swung into action to recover us from the historic Trump / Repub worst across the board results and conditions of all time.[/QUOTE]Unbelievable lies again. All the polls I have seen are all the exact opposite. Show proof from a legit news site or just admit you made up those numbers. 15 months of Biden created worse inflation in 40 years and GDP is going down dramatically. Trump is looking like a saint now.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2690903]To be more precise, it has only been 15 months since Biden took over and swung into action to recover us from the historic Trump / Repub worst across the board results and conditions of all time.[/QUOTE]Delusional the economy is in the tank. Even the liberal TV networks are reporting about this. Just take a look around, I just hope things do not get worse, but unfortunately I think things are going to get much worse unless Biden wakes up and gets someone to takeover or help him out.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2690903]To be more precise, it has only been 15 months since Biden took over and swung into action to recover us from the historic Trump / Repub worst across the board results and conditions of all time.[/QUOTE]And now the demented one has a GDP of -1. 6%. Nasdaq is down 20% which is bear market category. Is that Biden's GDP number or Putin's EIH?

This was a funny one from the former USA ambassador to Ukraine. The Dems proudly walked up this woman in Ukrainegate, and she, Marie Yovanovitch, got a standing ovation from Dems after her testimony in Ukrainegate.

And what did she about whether Ukraine would have been invaded if Trump were re-elected?

[URL]https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/watch-former-ukraine-ambassador-slips-admits-putin-wouldnt-have-invaded-under-trump[/URL]

"I've heard that you have also suggested that Putin might not have gone to war if Trump was still in office," said Hoover.

To which Yovanovitch replied: "Trump was very dismissive of NATO I mean, dismissive, it's obviously a diplomatic word very critical of NATO, critical of our allies," adding "And his close associates, including John Bolton, have said that if he had won a second term, he would have pulled us out of NATO. I mean, why go to war with Vladimir Putin if the United States is going to present kind of the corpse of NATO on a silver platter? You don't need to do that."

Hoover then asked: "I mean, how do you think the invasion would have been different if Trump had remained as president?

To which the former Ambassador replied: "I think that Trump would have provided Putin with enough of what he wanted that perhaps he wouldn't have invaded."

As she dug herself deeper, Yovanovitch said when asked what Ukraine would have looked like if Russia had never invaded: "We are now getting into. This is why diplomats are told never to answer hypothetical questions." Before adding "So we're getting into areas of you know, I mean, it's a hypothetical question, right? I don't know what Trump would have done, and I don't know what Putin would have done. But I can't see Trump, President Trump standing up for Ukraine the way President Biden is right now."

End of quote. This Dem loving ambassador actually thinks Ukrainians are better off with Biden and the invasion than if Trump were in office and no invasion happened. You cannot make this shit up! That woman is a moron.

And Eih only you would think the Carter economy was better than Reagan's. Reagan kicked the Dems ass in both 1980 and 1984, and you are left with saying the American people were stupid. Hell, even Carter said he was in over his head and did too much micromanagement. So let's go to the 80's version of only you: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4g5MeonGYM[/URL].

All I needed was the love you gave.

All I needed for another day.

And all I ever knew.

Only you.

You Dems really do not need a roaring economy or money just the love Biden gives, and that is all you are going to get. He he.

So Eih maybe you can sing that to Biden today. He needs to feel something watching this ship known as the American economy sinking to the bottom of the ocean.

I have put my money where my mouth is and bought inverse ETFs which have done well lately: SPXU, SDOW, and my favorite SQQQ. As the market falls, these funds go up in value.

Then I get an email today. Yes, FINRA, a stock market regulator like the SEC, is trying to stop people from buying these inverse ETFs.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") issued a notice on March 8, 2022 seeking.

Comment on measures that could prevent or restrict investors from buying a broad range of public securities.

Designated as "complex products" which could include the leveraged and inverse funds offered by.

ProShares. The ultimate impact, if any, of these measures remains unclear. However, if regulations are.

Adopted, they could, among other things, prevent or restrict investors' ability to buy the funds.

Under FINRA's potential regulations, if your investments are deemed "complex" you might be required to:

Pass a regulator-imposed test of your specialized investment knowledge.

Demonstrate a high net worth.

Get special approval from your broker.

Attest to reading certain materials.

Go through "cooling off periods" where you can't invest.

Yes, that is what we can expect from the Biden team, those nine words that can scare any American to death, "I am from the government and here to help."

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2690893]You mean the inflation that Carter and his Fed Chairman began reducing month over month almost a year before Reagan took office?

There were about 4-5 years between the end of Reagan's Great Repub Recession and Bush1's long Repub Recession while both produced far lower average annual jobs creation than Carter's economy and all while tripling+ the national debt vs Carter.

Was that the major economic turnaround you were talking about?

Clinton won the "It's the economy, Stupid" presidential contest in 1992. Then he and his Dems passed legislation that laid the foundation for one of the longest and best economic boom times in history that was so opposite what Reagan or any other Repub had done not one single Republucan voted for it based on that objection.[/QUOTE]Clinton won the "It's the economy, Stupid" presidential contest in 1992. Then he and his Dems passed legislation that laid the foundation for one of the longest and best economic boom times in history that was so opposite what Reagan or any other Repub had done not one single Republucan voted for it based on that objection.

Its the economy stoopid? And only the stoopid voted for that turd, he was installed by wall street to gut welfare for the poor and repeal Glass Steagal and shove the CCP onto the WTO.

I'm pretty Bush 41 would never been able to get any of that garbage thru.

Then the house of cards imploded the global economy with the liar loans in 2008 etc.

Thanks to all the dirtbags that voted for the slimiest criminal the White House has ever seen.

[QUOTE=PVMonger;2691015]As usual for a rightwingnut though, you don't bother to provide a source for this drivel. And so what? Slick Willie was a pig. So was JFK. Who cares?

But you defend the Mango Mussolini as a saint who slept with different women while married. The Orange Buffoon screwed Stormy while Melania was taking care of newborn Barron and he gets a pass. The pro-life party gets a pass for forcing a woman to have her rapist's baby. Trickle-down has never worked yet you idiots defend it like it is the Bible. And speaking of the Bible, the holier-than-thou crowd has no problem subverting the overall meaning of the book as long as they get their way.

The party of "government should let businesses make their own decisions" has absolutely no problem going after Disney when they protest a Republican law. The party of "government should let businesses make their own decisions" has no problem going after Twitter when Twitter makes their own decisions about who to ban. The party of "government should let businesses make their own decisions" has no problem going after the Seuss family when they decide not to publish a book that they consider to be racist.

See, that's the problem with the rightwingnut party. If Republicans had even a modicum of class, they'd see that virtually everything they do is hypocritical. But since they are all stupid, they can't see that. And what's worse, they are so stupid that they think that [B]we[/B] can't see it either. But they sure are good at playing the victim.[/QUOTE]For one I do, that POS destroyed this country.

What difference was the source?

What about its content?

Do you care more about the source than the truth?

[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/06/29/roots-of-clintons-faith-deep-varied/081f58ca-5974-4329-a675-0936011e96ac/[/URL]