American Politics

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2853087]Well, assigning blame to Reagan for the recession and unemployment in the first half of the 1980's while absolving the Fed doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Pelosi and Trump threw everything but the kitchen sink at the 2020 recession. The only voices of sanity, which came at the end of 2020, were from Senate Republicans. I don't really understand why you're complaining about the stimulus and Trump's push for lower interest rates. That's what Progressives favor, right? Modern Monetary Theory? Loose monetary policy? Don't worry about the national debt or low interest rates because you can just jack up taxes to control inflation? Well that doesn't really work, especially when you don't have the stomach to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. You just end up like Greece or Argentina.[/QUOTE]Volcker's raising of Fed Funds rates to tame inflation did produce a recession in the early 80's. It happened under Carter in the first half of 1980 and was over by the 4th Quarter of 1980. Definitely over by the 1st Quarter of 1981 as Reagan was taking the Oath of Office. By then, Volcker's method of raising the Fed Funds rate had done its job and he began stablizing and lowering them. The business world, hiring entities and job creators should have been delighted by the news of declining inflation and lowering Fed Funds rates on an almost monthly or quarter basis for the next 2-3 years after that.

But obviously they weren't. Thanks, Ronnie and his favorite idiotic Repub Supply-Side / Trickle-Down nonsence fast tracked into economy.

If high and rising rates of inflation and raising Fed Funds rates cause Great Recessions, destroyed jobs, crippled jobs creation and skyrocketed the Unrmployment Rate into multiple months of double digits, why didn't that happen all through Carter's presidency?

Why hasn't it done that under Biden?

Carter had one of the greatest jobs creation results on record, saw only a one month spike of the Unemployment Rate to 7. 8% that immediately changed trajectory to month over month declines well before Reagan took office and that one recession purposely induced by Volcker's methods barely qualified as a recession in that there was a single quarter of demonstrably GDP Growth contraction followed by a contraction in the next quarter by less than a single 1 percent.

POTUS economic stewardship, recognizing what needs to be done to avert major disasters and doing it matters.

You have just devoted months to complaining that over stimulating the economy was one of the worst moves at the worst time in USA economic history.

Yet you don't recognize what the tell giveaway of total numbskullery is for a Repub numbskull to beg his Fed Chairman to inject MORE stimulus into "The Greatest Economy Ever thanks to me being The Greatest Jobs President God Ever Created" by lowering the Fed Funds rate in the midst of all that economic wonderfulness and historic, God-approved jobs creation?

Are you now arguing in favor of MORE stimulus injected into an economy that, according to numbskull Trump, hardly needs it as long as it is a Repub numbskull begging for it?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2853086]What do you think is up with that Marquis?

On a separate note, I guess we're going to have to start digging up links from Crooks and Liars to support our posts. Tooms doesn't trust the New York Times, it's too right wing.[/QUOTE]I have probably posted more NYT links to support my contentions than Marquis has and no doubt more NYT links than Crooks and Liars links.

As pro-Repub as MSM is in general including the NYT there is no harm in linking to them in cases where they can't spin and ignore the fact that 1 + 1 = 2.

The Crooks and Liars link merely contained the video I wanted to share. It wasn't an opinion piece contracted and paid for by Crooks and Liars as NYT pieces are. It was easier for me to just copy and paste that link for it than search for it on YouTube.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2853150]Politics Girl, just nails it! Precise, succinct, truthful and pulls no punches getting to the point. One of the best videos I've seen, on false equivalencies and bothsiderism in the fourth estate.[/QUOTE]Ridiculous. The woman apparently doesn't watch MSNBC or CNN or read the New York Times or Washington Post editorial pages. Trump won't win the 2024 election, so she's hyperventilating about nothing.

If Biden wants more press coverage he needs to generate news that will sell commercials. He could take lessons from Donald Trump. Go grab some women by the pussy. Or Will Ferrell's character in The Campaign -- fuck Melania Trump on video and run it in his campaign adds. And then there's Democrat Edwin Edward's favorite strategy of getting caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

He's kind of been doing this with his son Hunter, but it would be so much more effective if Joe were the one spreading his seed, using crack cocaine, banging call girls, and talking to corrupt foreign businessmen who are giving money to his family about more than the weather. That's what the networks and newspapers want, they don't want to see his son having all the fun!

Duplicate Post

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2852955]Im not sure you can blame all of this on Trump though. A very small minority of his more ardent supporters would take things too far.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Spidy;2853126]
Oh really! ...To quote another apropos saying, "The fish rots from the head".[/QUOTE]This is a common misconception of Democrats, that Republicans are all White Supremacists who shoot schoolchildren, assassinate politicians, and conduct insurrections in their spare time. I know many Republicans, and I promise you it's a very, very small % that do that, I'd estimate way, way under 1/100th of 1%.

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2852965]"When do I point out so many spelling errors?

Uh. The two worst presidents of all time, both Repubs, both incalculable scourges on America and Americans, just within the past 23 years were installed in the White House despite losing the vote by Millions solely because there is such a thing as the Electoral College system. Well, that and that the majority in the Supreme Court was Repub too one of those times.

Clearly, it is a rigged system that favors Repubs. Rigged FOR them today, not by them in the beginning. Although in the beginning it was rigged to favor land masses and land owners over human beings.

So, in that sense, it was preordained to be rigged for Repub Red States that even today have more tumble weeds, rattle snakes and outhouses than human beings, tax payers and skyscrapers. Compared to a huge, popular and economically critical state like California, both Dakotas, Wyoming, Kansas, etc etc combined should have nothing rigged in their favor to in any way inch them toward as much national election influence as California.

However, that is what the EC system does for their benefit in terms of presidential election outcomes. Certainly not for their benefit or the benefit of the country at large in terms of the economy, national security, health, wellbeing, democracy or American values."

The 'rig' that means "to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means" first appeared in an 18th century slang dictionary with the definition "game, diversion, ridicule. See 'fun'."[/QUOTE][B]So how is it rigged? For them today[/B]

Gee, let us count the ways.

The American electorate chose Al Gore over Repub GW Disaster by half a Million votes. Yet, thanks to the deceptive and dishonest Repub majority on the Supreme Court deceptively and dishonestly granting themselves a single exception to their Party's otherwise screetching about States' Rights when they intervened and stopped the vote count in Florida at about the level of a queue at a Starbucks favoring their boy whereupon, thanks to a deceptive and dishonest EC system favoring the MINORITY recipient of presidential election votes (read: The Repub Party today) and in defiance of democracy, GW Disaster was appointed so-called potus.

The American electorate chose Hillary Clinton over Repub Donald J. Disaster by 3 Million votes. Yet, thanks to an EC system that was invented to help the MINORITY vote recipients (read: The Repub Party today) win the election despite getting fewer votes. Donald J. Disaster was appointed so-called potus.

If a mere 43,000 votes had been shifted or deceptively and dishonestly "found" by the typically deceptive and dishonest Repub state reprentatives as their deceptive and dishonest Repub Party lord and savior leader and fellow Repubs had hoped, plotted, planned and extorted some of then to do, the American electorate STILL would have chosen Joe Biden by 7 Million votes yet Repub Donald J. Disaster would have been appointed so-called potus anyway.

There is no Dem Party advantage counterpart to this anti democratic deceptiion and dishonesty. Blue states are more popular to live and work in, therefore have the greatest populations. Consequently there is no way the Dem Party is going to squeak out an EC "victory" while also losing the vote by anywhere from half a million to 7 million.

"Tiny, this stuff is junk. This one was the best of the bunch. A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1. 8%) and 53 control participants (2. 1% Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIS are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection.

If the difference is not statically significant, then the intervention does not work. Period! This % reduction is mental masturbation, a gimmick to sell an intervention that drug companies love, and it is meaningless if it does not reach statically significant.

The authors are making a big deal about 11 less infections in the mask group, and they lost 1100+ people to follow up. Do you know what this means, "Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. " I sure as hell don't.

At best, that means they prevent one infection out of 300+. Is that what people think when they wear masks or do they think it protects them 100% of the time? When you say you feel confident, does that confidence mean a less than 1% chance of working?

If you are going to mandate something, it needs to work. Period! When you mandate something proven not to work, it is not medical. It is not scientific. It is purely political. When you wear a mask under the guise of preventing infection, all you are doing is virtue signaling and making yourself feel safer. You are not safer. You just feel that way. ".

[URL]https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/religion-masking[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2853029]Baloney. You just posted a link purporting to show that neither party has an unfair edge in the electoral college. The Dakotas, Wyoming, Kansas, etc. are [b]assigned electoral votes in proportion to their populations, just like California. [/b]Trump's margin in Wyoming and North Dakota was higher than Biden's in California, and Trump's margin in South Dakota was only slightly smaller.

Trump's EC win in 2016 was a fluke. After Rutherford B. Hayes, who was selected president in a grand bargain so that Union troops would leave the south, there's been no election where a candidate lost the popular vote by more than 1% and won the electoral vote, up until 2016. And if I understand your link, this is no longer likely to happen.

This is the United STATES of America. That's probably the reason the founders came up with the electoral college. And it's a good thing that we are the United STATES. If Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Elizabeth Warren et al fully imposed their agendas on states like Wyoming and North Dakota, there just might be open rebellion.[/QUOTE]If the Electoral College votes were assigned in proportion to their population along with California then at least 16 states, almost all of them Repub Red states, would not have even 1 legitimate Electoral College vote. Yet each of them has at least 3, some have 4, 5 or more.

For 2024, California will have 54 EC votes. The population of California is approximately 40,000,000. The 16 states mentioned above have less than 1% of California's population.

54 x 1% = 0. 54.

That doesn't even qualify as 1 full Electoral College vote.

Many of those Repub Red states' populations should not even qualify for 1 Electoral College Vote re California's 54 if you counted all of their human, rattle snake, tumble weed and outhouse population combined.

Yet there they are sitting on 3, 4, 5 or more.

In my previous post about approximately 16 states, almost all of them Repub Red states, not even earning a proper proportion of Electotal College votes re California's 54 EC votes for 2024 based on population, I meant to illustrate that with this calculation and not the one that wound up in that post:

Based on California's population of approximately 40,000,000 and its 54 EC votes, any state with less than 5. 5% of California's population should not qualify for even 3 EC votes.

40,000,000 x 5. 5% = 2,200,000.

54 x 5. 5% = 2. 97.

The mostly Repub Red states I alluded to above have smaller populations than 2,200,000.

Yet there they sit with 3, 4, 5 or more EC votes. Yeah, ok, maybe if we combined their human, rattle snake, tumble weed and outhouse populations.

And we haven't touched on how the Winner-Take-All aspect of the EC system is also part of the pro-Repub rigged EC system.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2853256]In my previous post about approximately 16 states, almost all of them Repub Red states, not even earning a proper proportion of Electotal College votes re California's 54 EC votes for 2024 based on population, I meant to illustrate that with this calculation and not the one that wound up in that post:

Based on California's population of approximately 40,000,000 and its 54 EC votes, any state with less than 5. 5% of California's population should not qualify for even 3 EC votes.

40,000,000 x 5. 5% = 2,200,000.

54 x 5. 5% = 2. 97.

The mostly Repub Red states I alluded to above have smaller populations than 2,200,000.

Yet there they sit with 3, 4, 5 or more EC votes. Yeah, ok, maybe if we combined their human, rattle snake, tumble weed and outhouse populations.

And we haven't touched on how the Winner-Take-All aspect of the EC system is also part of the pro-Repub rigged EC system.[/QUOTE]Well, you learn something new every day. A state's electoral votes actually equal the total number of senators and House members.

Each state receives a number of house districts proportional to its population. The average Congressional District has a population of 761,000. The three smallest are Wyoming, Vermont and the District of Columbia, with populations of 581381,647064 and 671803 respectively. Until 2021, Montana had the largest Congressional District, a single district of over 1 million.

So, any state with a low number of electoral votes is over-represented in the electoral college, because every low population state gets the benefit of receiving two electoral votes, equivalent to that state's number of Senators. Here's a complete list of states with three or four electoral votes:

Hawaii
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Alaska
Delaware
District of Columbia
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Vermont
Wyoming

By my count that's seven blue states (including the District of Columbia) and seven red states. Contrary to your belief, small states aren't mostly red states.

As to California losing out, yeah, it does a little bit. So do red Florida and red Texas, the second and third most populous states.

Contrary to what you're saying, Republicans didn't come up with that system. James Madison and our other founders did. They were not Republicans. Furthermore, you are not going to overturn the electoral system unless you also overturn our Constitutional Republic, as any amendment to the Constitution requires ratification by 2/3 rds of the states. And the smaller states won't approve a change in the EC system.

And again, what does it matter? There have only been three elections since Rutherford B. Hayes was elected where the winner of the popular vote didn't win the election. And in two of those the losing candidate won the popular vote by a c**t hair. Hillary Clinton / Donald Trump was a fluke. Yeah, I wish Hillary had won. We might not have gotten the corporate tax cut or the COVID vaccine in record time. And we certainly wouldn't have benefitted from deregulation. But I bet Republicans would control the presidency, House and Senate today if she'd been the winner in 2016. And considering we elected a Republican Senate and House in 2016, things might have turned out just fine under Hillary. They certainly did under Bill and a Republican Congress.

The controversy about the 2000 and 2016 elections is a way for Democratic politicians to engender sanctimony and moral outrage in their supporters. The rules are the rules, and you play by them. If you lose, you accept it, unlike Donald Trump, Stacey Abrams, and many Democrats in 2000 and 2016.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2853184]Blue states are more popular to live and work in, therefore have the greatest populations. Consequently there is no way the Dem Party is going to squeak out an EC "victory" while also losing the vote by anywhere from half a million to 7 million.[/QUOTE]So why are people moving from blue states to red states?

[QUOTE=MarquisdeSade1;2853186][URL]https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/religion-masking[/URL][/QUOTE]That link just doesn't make sense.

Republicans should wear good quality masks when appropriate (like when you're sitting next to someone who's coughing), get vaccinated against infectious diseases, exercise, eat a healthy diet, and take advantage of preventative medicine. Everyone needs to be alive and healthy, to go to the polls and vote!

[QUOTE=Spidy;2853150]Politics Girl, just nails it! Precise, succinct, truthful and pulls no punches getting to the point. One of the best videos I've seen, on false equivalencies and bothsiderism in the fourth estate.[/QUOTE]LOL.

Biden White House spokesperson Ian Sams sent out a letter to news organizations Tuesday, giving instructions on how they should cover (or non-cover, as it were) the Republican impeachment inquiry announced that day by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

In one instance Sams was able to quote himself in a tweet less than 24 hours after the Washington Post obligingly used, in a headline, language from his letter about GOP efforts to "muddy waters. " The trick was made famous by Dick Cheney, who once fed a WMD story to reporters he himself then cited in a Meet The Press interview. Once, getting rolled like that was considered embarrassing, but this crew just nuzzles and begs for more. Already all summer, they've been helping blanket a quote assiduously kept out of headlines: "Five million to pay one Biden, and five million to another Biden. ".

It can't have been fun for Biden officials to see this public, especially given how neatly it lines up with son Hunter's infamous "unlike Pop I won't make you give me half your salary" quote. Next to IRS whistleblower testimony about Hunter Biden's shell companies, Devon Archer's testimony about Joe Biden's presence during his son's business calls, Joe dining with Burisma exec Vadym Pozharsky at Cafe Milano, and other matters, this is a non-ignorable story now, and the pucker factor chez Biden must be real.

Sams then linked to a series of press stories containing passages underscoring the "unverified claims" theme. Among others, he cited Axios (the FBI form "simply documents an interview with a source, and does not in itself indicate any suspicions of wrongdoing" NBC ("The bribery allegation. Wasn't substantiated") and CNN ("The FBI and prosecutors who previously reviewed the information couldn't corroborate the claims".

What did those stories have in common? They all contained quotes from Ian Sams! White House official sends instructions to reporters, citing media reports sourced to the same White House official. If this merry-go-round doesn't convince you the lines between media and politicians have been irrevocably blurred, go back and look. You'll find this same cycle of press figures packing bodies of articles with official denials, then augmenting their own text with the official's terminology: "refuted," "debunked," "no evidence of wrongdoing," etc. You can't tell who wrote the original line of defense. Despite this, Sams without irony referred to White House assertions being confirmed by "independent press" five times.

End of quote. So Biden's White House instructs the press how to report, and this crazy witch thinks the media is not doing it's job because it is not even more pro-Biden.

What about the Hunter Biden laptop story? You know the one where it was written by Hunter, "unlike Pop I won't make you give me half your salary". What happened with that? I must have missed the wall to wall coverage right before the 2020 election.

Let me state the glaringly obvious. The Bidens were putting some of the USA foreign aid money into their own pocket. Joe used Hunter to give him half of the millions that went to the Bidens. When Victor Shokin threatened those bribes, Joe Biden had him fired. When Donald Trump wanted this looked into, the Democrats tried to impeach him.

We have gone from the bullshit claim that Joe Biden was not involved and not influenced to being paid off for the perception of influence or for false influence.

But the real question is this, why the fuck would the Vice President of the USA have a foreign prosecutor fired? If you think it was for any reason outside of Joe Biden protecting the family bribes, you are out of your fucking mind.

So how is it rigged? For them today.

Gee, let us count the ways.

The American electorate chose Al Gore over Repub GW Disaster by half a Million votes. Yet, thanks to the deceptive and dishonest Repub majority on the Supreme Court deceptively and dishonestly granting themselves a single exception to their Party's otherwise screetching about States' Rights when they intervened and stopped the vote count in Florida at about the level of a queue at a Starbucks favoring their boy whereupon, thanks to a deceptive and dishonest EC system favoring the MINORITY recipient of presidential election votes (read: The Repub Party today) and in defiance of democracy, GW Disaster was appointed so-called potus.

The American electorate chose Hillary Clinton over Repub Donald J. Disaster by 3 Million votes. Yet, thanks to an EC system that was invented to help the MINORITY vote recipients (read: The Repub Party today) win the election despite getting fewer votes. Donald J. Disaster was appointed so-called potus.

If a mere 43,000 votes had been shifted or deceptively and dishonestly "found" by the typically deceptive and dishonest Repub state reprentatives as their deceptive and dishonest Repub Party lord and savior leader and fellow Repubs had hoped, plotted, planned and extorted some of then to do, the American electorate STILL would have chosen Joe Biden by 7 Million votes yet Repub Donald J. Disaster would have been appointed so-called potus anyway.

There is no Dem Party advantage counterpart to this anti democratic deceptiion and dishonesty. Blue states are more popular to live and work in, therefore have the greatest populations. Consequently there is no way the Dem Party is going to squeak out an EC "victory" while also losing the vote by anywhere from half a million to 7 million.

Take your MEDS bro.

So why are people moving from blue states to red states?

[URL]https://ktla.com/news/california/5-california-cities-ranked-among-the-10-least-educated-in-the-u-s/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.businessinsider.com/california-has-highest-poverty-level-in-the-us-census-bureau-2021-9[/URL]