[cherdano]

Here is a bookmark for little Larry:
https://projects.fiv...?ex_cid=rrpromo

[ldrews]

 cherdano, on 2017-December-24, 17:37, said:

Here is a bookmark for little Larry:
https://projects.fiv...?ex_cid=rrpromo

The poll that counts is the next Presidential election, don't you agree?

And if I remember correctly, almost all of the polls had Trump losing the last election. And the funny thing is, Hillary's popularity has dropped even more than Trump's. If the election were held again Trump would still defeat her. Isn't that something?

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-December-24, 09:58, said:

Back to your regularly scheduled programming:



Vindictiveness does not make for great governance.

But it makes for great television and ratings especially for Americans who thought the only African-Americans that should be in the White House are the ones serving food to the President, White House staff and foreign diplomats.

[Winstonm]

The poll that matters occurs Nov 2018 with the mid-terms. The only reason Trump is effective at all is due to the monopoly by the Republicans. If the house or senate or...heaven forbid...both flip, Trump is a lame duck, at best.

[Zelandakh]

 cherdano, on 2017-December-24, 17:37, said:

Here is a bookmark for little Larry:
https://projects.fiv...?ex_cid=rrpromo

Would it surprise you to learn that this is "fake news", Arend?

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-December-24, 22:23, said:

The poll that matters occurs Nov 2018 with the mid-terms. The only reason Trump is effective at all is due to the monopoly by the Republicans. If the house or senate or...heaven forbid...both flip, Trump is a lame duck, at best.

What you say about the House and Senate flipping is true. But if the tax cut/reform bill that was just passed produces the results that Trump thinks it will, the Democrats will have an uphill battle in the mid-term elections. At the moment I don't hear any cohesive program/plan coming from Democrats to address the many problems in US society.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-25, 09:44, said:

What you say about the House and Senate flipping is true. But if the tax cut/reform bill that was just passed produces the results that Trump thinks it will, the Democrats will have an uphill battle in the mid-term elections. At the moment I don't hear any cohesive program/plan coming from Democrats to address the many problems in US society.

Comment the first: The fact that you are grossly ill informed and don't seem to follow anything other than Fox News and Breitbart does not mean that the democrats don't have any cohesive plans.

In all seriousness, what does your reading list look like?

Do you read Vox or any publications from Brookings? Do you even consult centrist publications like The Atlantic or the Economist.
Did you ever bother to read the reams of policy proposals that Clinton floated in 2016?

Where do you believe that you would be exposed to policies floated by the Democrats?

Comment the Second:

I have no idea what weird little ideas are bouncing around in Trump's brain. And honestly, I don't think it matters whether he knows his tax cut won't benefit the Middle class or just doesn't care.

Here's what I do know: The University of Chicago polled 42 of the top economists in the US, Republicans and Democrats alike, on the GOP Tax cuts.
Only one thought that these changes would have any positive effect on the GNP or Growth.

Even if you believe that this is going to boost growth, how is this going to change anything in time for the fall elections?

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-25, 10:12, said:

Comment the first: The fact that you are grossly ill informed and don't seem to follow anything other than Fox News and Breitbart does not mean that the democrats don't have any cohesive plans.

In all seriousness, what does your reading list look like?

Do you read Vox or any publications from Brookings? Do you even consult centrist publications like The Atlantic or the Economist.
Did you ever bother to read the reams of policy proposals that Clinton floated in 2016?

Where do you believe that you would be exposed to policies floated by the Democrats?

Comment the Second:

I have no idea what weird little ideas are bouncing around in Trump's brain. And honestly, I don't think it matters whether he knows his tax cut won't benefit the Middle class or just doesn't care.

Here's what I do know: The University of Chicago polled 42 of the top economists in the US, Republicans and Democrats alike, on the GOP Tax cuts.
Only one thought that these changes would have any positive effect on the GNP or Growth.

Even if you believe that this is going to boost growth, how is this going to change anything in time for the fall elections?

I prefer to pay attention to where the voting happens and laws are passed. Can you point me to any plan that the Democrats in Congress have put forward?

As James Carville, a noted Democratic strategist, has said: "It's the economy, stupid!". If 80% of the taxpayers do indeed see more money in their pocket, and if the economy continues to do as well as the last couple of quarters, what is the Democratic counter? "Vote for us so you can have less money and fewer jobs!"? Doesn't sound good to me.

[ldrews]

Recently Trump made the comment: "The US has spent 7 trillion dollars on wars in the Middle East. What a waste! We could have rebuilt the entire infrastructure of the US 3 times over with that money!"

Do you agree?

[ggwhiz]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-25, 10:12, said:

Here's what I do know: The University of Chicago polled 42 of the top economists in the US, Republicans and Democrats alike, on the GOP Tax cuts.
Only one thought that these changes would have any positive effect on the GNP or Growth.

The one said after that he misread the question

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-25, 11:47, said:

Recently Trump made the comment: "The US has spent 7 trillion dollars on wars in the Middle East. What a waste! We could have rebuilt the entire infrastructure of the US 3 times over with that money!"

Do you agree?

I most certainly agree with this statement.
Indeed, I was making very similar claims on this very forum way back during the second Gulf War, the surge...

Here's the rub.
Trump is on record as favoring significant military intervention in the the Middle East include the second Gulf War.

His recent complaints about all this wasteful spending is just senseless posturing and only an Ignoramus would fall for this type of bullshit.

Simply put, Trump spews inconsistent bullshit all the time - the only theme that he seems remotely consistent about is his deep racism.

Its pointless to attach any relevance to the few comment that I might agree with. (He'll only forget what he said or issue some contradictory statement five minutes later)

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-25, 12:12, said:

I most certainly agree with this statement.
Indeed, I was making very similar claims on this very forum way back during the second Gulf War, the surge...

Here's the rub.
Trump is on record as favoring significant military intervention in the the Middle East include the second Gulf War.

His recent complaints about all this wasteful spending is just senseless posturing and only an Ignoramus would fall for this type of bullshit.

Simply put, Trump spews inconsistent bullshit all the time - the only theme that he seems remotely consistent about is his deep racism.

Its pointless to attach any relevance to the few comment that I might agree with. (He'll only forget what he said or issue some contradictory statement five minutes later)

I think the US should simply get out of the Middle East to the extent possible. Apparently you would agree with that.

[Zelandakh]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-25, 12:24, said:

I think...

Noone here gives a sh!t what you think fückhead.

[ldrews]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-December-25, 12:32, said:

Noone here gives a sh!t what you think fückhead.

Merry Christmas to you, too.

[RedSpawn]

http://jamiedupree.b...trump-nominees/

Very interesting. . .

Quote

Senate gives lump of coal to dozens of Trump nominees
Jamie Dupree
December 24, 2017 Politics.

Ratcheting up the level of conflict between Democrats in Congress and the White House, the Senate has officially returned dozens of nominations made this year by President Donald Trump, which will force the Trump Administration to go through the process of renominating the same people, or finding new choices for a variety of positions.


The returned nominees include Mr. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alexander Azar, Rep. James Bridenstine (R-OK), selected to be the head of NASA, 26 federal judges, and number of executive appointees.

While no one knows for sure who objected to the individual nominations – the Senate does not release that information – the feeling in the halls of the Senate was clear, that most of these moves were probably made by Democrats, already at odds with President Trump on a number of fronts, especially over nominations.

That means the White House must now either nominate the same people again, or find new candidates for a variety of positions.

“I wish they would fight for it just on principle,” said former Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, a Republican from Georgia, who was chosen for the Amtrak Board of Directors, but saw his nomination returned by the Senate.

Now Westmoreland will wait and see if he gets picked again.

“It’s up to them,” he said of the White House and Trump Administration.

In a review of similar year-end situations in the Senate over the last 25 years, this was by far the largest number of nominees returned to the White House; click here to read the list.

At issue is a Senate rule XXXI, which plainly states that “Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President.”

Normally at the end of the first year (session) of Congress, most of the nominations that have not been acted on are ‘held over’ to the next year – but that did not happen in 2017.

This list of nominees sent back to the White House is so expansive, that it takes over five full pages to list them in the Senate’s “Executive Calendar” for nominations.

At the end of 2003, the Senate sent back 17 nominations made by President George W. Bush.

At the end of 2009, the first year for President Barack Obama, the Senate returned eight nominations.

The Trump White House gets to make its next step on January 3, when the Second Session of the 115th Congress convenes.

[awm]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-25, 12:12, said:

I most certainly agree with this statement.
Indeed, I was making very similar claims on this very forum way back during the second Gulf War, the surge...

Here's the rub.
Trump is on record as favoring significant military intervention in the the Middle East include the second Gulf War.

His recent complaints about all this wasteful spending is just senseless posturing and only an Ignoramus would fall for this type of bullshit.

Simply put, Trump spews inconsistent bullshit all the time - the only theme that he seems remotely consistent about is his deep racism.

Its pointless to attach any relevance to the few comment that I might agree with. (He'll only forget what he said or issue some contradictory statement five minutes later)

It's easy to criticize decisions that have not worked out well with the benefit of hindsight. What's more difficult is making the right call in the present moment. Note that Trump favored the war in Iraq before he was against it.

Okay, moving closer to the present. Trump says we should get out of the middle east. While this makes sense to a lot of us, one has to come up with a good alternative plan (since presumably if we get out, terrorist groups like ISIS will still be there and carry out strikes worldwide). Trump has been president for nearly a year, and changing troop levels and/or strategy in the middle east is within his powers as commander in chief (without needing to wait for congress). Have we decreased troop levels? While the government has been less forthcoming, it seems like the number of US soldiers deployed in the middle east has increased.

Trump promised a new strategy and Mosul has just been retaken from ISIS, so even though he hasn't "gotten us out" maybe the strategy change has helped? Actually, he's handed things off to the generals and they're pursuing the same strategy the Obama administration used.

Trump has (verbally) been on all sides of the issue. He was for the Iraq war, then he was against it. He wanted to stop bombing Syria, then he bombed them for using the same chemical weapons they've been using for years. He wanted to pull out of the middle east, then he increased troop levels. He wanted a new strategy against ISIS, then pursued the same strategy as Obama, now wants credit when Obama's strategy shows progress. He's not particularly consistent in what he says (except when he says "believe me", that consistently means he's lying). But if you look at his actions on this front, he has stepped up our war efforts in Iraq and Syria, antagonized Pakistan, threatened to cancel a treaty with Iran that our allies and independent observers say is working and threatened war against North Korea. I guess threatening nuclear war is his "new strategy" but his bluster may be more worrying to US allies than to enemies. At some point his bluff will be called (perhaps by Kim Jong Un, who likes to make crazy threats of his own) and then Trump will either start an actual nuclear war or else expose his threats as pure bullshit (completely destroying any effectiveness they might have had). Doesn't seem like a good situation.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-25, 10:12, said:

Here's what I do know: The University of Chicago polled 42 of the top economists in the US, Republicans and Democrats alike, on the GOP Tax cuts.
Only one thought that these changes would have any positive effect on the GNP or Growth.

Are these the same economists that swore that there was no chance in hell of the GDP growth reaching 3% in 2017?

[Winstonm]

Fact check #70043

GDP is reported quarterly as annualized, meaning that the quarter being reported is quadrupled. A 3% annualized quarter means that the quarter growth was 0.75%. Seeing that the first quarter of 2017 was 1.2%, it will be next to impossible to end 2017 with a true annual 3.0 growth rate.

There were many quarters of 3.0 annualized growth during the Obama presidency.

End fact check.

Editorial: Empty-headed partisan proclamations about Trump's accomplishments may sway simpleton dunderheads - some posters prove that case - but most posters in the WC are made of sterner stuff and require actual real-world data to be convinced.

Here's a better source for Trump's GDP boast, Fortune:

Quote

But the comparison that he made is somewhat misleading. President Trump compared annual GDP growth in the Obama era to quarterly GDP growth in a three month period. And quarterly GDP often isn’t a good indicator for how much an economy will produce over the year, with quarterly GDP growth often differing significantly from the year’s overall GDP growth.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-25, 12:40, said:

Merry Christmas to you, too.

Happy New Year (and I sincerely hope that it is your last!)

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-25, 15:45, said:

Happy New Year (and I sincerely hope that it is your last!)

Perhaps the last that you will have to experience. Enjoy your new year!