Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shithole Countries

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by snapper View Post
    Nice whataboutism.
    How about just getting off your high horse and fix your own house before telling the Americans what to do in their house. Their house. Their rules. It's not your house and most certainly, not your rules.
    Chimo

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
      You clearly haven't seen his approval ratings.
      ^Before he won, almost all visible indications made it seem that he was a caricature and wouldn't win.
      What do you think happened? How do you explain it?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by anil View Post
        ^Before he won, almost all visible indications made it seem that he was a caricature and wouldn't win.
        What do you think happened? How do you explain it?
        Pols somewhat under-estimated his support among ticked off white working class voters. It's an error that affected multiple battleground states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin).

        Most critically, it is a SERIAL error, meaning it affected MULTIPLE states. People were assuming Clinton had, like, an 80% chance of winning Pennsylvania, 80% chance of winning Michigan, 80% chance of winning Wisconsin. Trump would have to win all three, so people figured he had long odds. 20% chance of winning in each state, multiplied by three, hey, that's .8% chance!

        In reality, once Clinton loses Pennsylvania, that meant her chances of winning there were, like, 50%, and 50% in MI, and 50% in Wisconsin. Because all those states are similar, so if you are weak in 1, chances are you are weak in the other 2. So that .8% chance is really a 12.5% chance.
        "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

        Comment


        • Originally posted by zraver View Post
          The Obama average GDP growth was 1.54% per annum. It looks likely that Trumps first year will double that to 3%. .07% on top of that is not small potatoes, if the growth continues yes the tax cuts will pay for themselves.
          Yeah, 1.54%, because the economy was in such beautiful shape when Obama took over.
          Isn't it astonishing how badly GOPers manage the economy?
          It really makes you wonder at the intelligence of the average voter.


          The CBO produces something called potential GDP. All else being equal (which it never, ever is), this number is what the economy should be doing. You can see the data, which starts in Q1 1949 and goes out into the 2020s, here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPPOT

          It given a nice confirmation to the notion that the White House changes parties when the economy isn’t doing so well.
          It also shows pretty conclusively who leaves the economy is better shape.

          The universe is 17 starts to a term of office, from 1953 to 2017.
          The measure is how far from potential the economy was – plus or minus – from its potential.
          The time period is the four quarters from Election Year Q2 to Inauguration Year Q-1 (i.e., Q2 2016 – Q1 2017 for DJT).

          Variation from real economic growth potential, by term
          DDE I _ _ +2.22%
          DDE II _ _ +2.38%
          JFK _ _ _ -2.23%
          LBJ _ _ _ +0.94%
          RMN I _ _ +2.89%
          RMN II _ +2.07%
          JEC _ _ _ -2.21%
          RWR I _ -1.94%
          RWR II _ -1.33%
          GHWB _ _ -0.24%
          WJC I _ _ -2.37%
          WJC II _ _ -0.39%
          GWB I _ _ +0.82%
          GWB II _ _ -0.85%
          BHO I _ _ -3.14%
          BHO II _ _ -3.03%
          DJT _ _ _ -0.58%

          Last four quarters of Democratic terms: +0.12%
          Last four quarters of GOPer terms: -0.47%

          Note that Reagan I handing over to Reagan II, and Reagan II handing over to GHW Bush are both counted as to how well the GOPer handled the economy.
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by snapper View Post
            I am not a leftist; my family are aristocrats, I have a signet ring with our coat of arms and we come from Central Europe. We fought the Soviets and communism in general because it stole our home - not to mention the lives of millions of others so we got off lucky. We also fought the fascist imperialism which was just as evil. It would absurd for me to even think of voting for a socialist Party - let alone a commie or a fascist.

            I reject totally your President because he is an absurdity, a traitor to Western civilization, a terrible liar and rude. Forgive me for including 'rudeness' to his list of faults and call me 'quaint' if you will but I happen to think it advisable that a Head of State be polite in public. That does not make me a leftist. I dispute his lies - not your faith.
            Can you explain the bolded part ?

            Traitor to his class is without doubt but civiilisation...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by anil View Post
              ^Before he won, almost all visible indications made it seem that he was a caricature and wouldn't win.
              What do you think happened? How do you explain it?
              Poor journalism and wishful thinking. There was one guy who called it, the old fashioned way. Travelling the country

              https://nypost.com/2016/10/30/the-se...trump-victory/

              Comment


              • Originally posted by anil View Post
                ^Before he won, almost all visible indications made it seem that he was a caricature and wouldn't win.
                What do you think happened? How do you explain it?
                I was one of those people, repeatedly saying "He won't win...the American people won't election a loathsome excuse for a human being".

                As it turns out, we were correct, all of us. He lost the (ultimately meaningless) popular vote by 2,868,691 votes.

                What we didn't count on was how badly it would be skewed in Electoral College, which is what actually matters
                (Fun fact: It's technically possible to win the White House with a mere 22% of the popular vote)

                So how do I explain it, vis-a-vis these current polls? Just what I said earlier, the bloom is off the rose.
                People that voted for Trump simply because they were fed up with the status quo have seen what a trainwreck he is.

                The midterms will ultimately decide if how much the public is fed up with the GOP.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • Asty,

                  What people do with their tax savings will always be leaky in a free economy, but investment will be significant:

                  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1F62FJ

                  Just one in a chorus.

                  As for Trump's role in all this, I give him credit for the deregulation and uptick in sentiment in 2017. The tax bill belongs to Congress but it his actions created the sense of crisis and distracted the opposition.....
                  Which I would not say is really a credit to him unless he's actually some sort of devious genius.

                  Like I said, luckiest a-hole around right now.
                  Last edited by citanon; 17 Jan 18,, 20:58.

                  Comment


                  • there's a popular theory going around liberal-land now that Trump is pretty much the savior of the Democratic Party: the only person who can simultaneously enrage/wake up the left, while also being so incompetent that the right doesn't get most of their priorities legislated.

                    GVChamp talked a bit about this earlier, but if we imagine a world where 70,000 votes changed and HRC was now President, the Dems would probably be eating further midterm losses in 2018 and 2020. which would then mean a near GOP supermajority when a Republican President rolled around in either 2020 or 2024. combined with the Census, it'd effectively lock the Dems out of power for a decade or more.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • I think that's a glass half full view from the Democrats. Well, maybe not half. Maybe 30%, or 25%. =P

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                        Asty,

                        What people do with their tax savings will always be leaky in a free economy, but investment will be significant:

                        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKBN1F62FJ

                        Just one in a chorus.

                        As for Trump's role in all this, I give him credit for the deregulation and uptick in sentiment in 2017. The tax bill belongs to Congress but it his actions created the sense of crisis and distracted the opposition.....
                        Which I would not say is really a credit to him unless he's actually some sort of devious genius.

                        Like I said, luckiest a-hole around right now.
                        Actually, the apple slice might be bigger than I thought

                        https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/1...ute-five-years

                        Though the 350 number is for sure bs.
                        Last edited by citanon; 17 Jan 18,, 21:44.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by citanon View Post
                          Actually, the apple slice might be bigger than I thought

                          https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/1...ute-five-years

                          Though the 350 number is for sure bs.
                          While bringing back off-shored cash and investing it domestically it definitely a good thing, the numbers casually thrown out in Apple corporate press release (which The Verge report is based on) are exaggerated touting.

                          Apple has previously claimed to be responsible for 2 million jobs created in the US, which would be 1 in 80 of the entire US workforce.

                          But I think it's worth noting that the part of the electorate that was vital in voting Trump into office did so on account of his campaign promises to spur job growth in sectors of the economy and areas of the country that have declined/stagnated, where despite the last several years of economic growth, people feel that they have been left behind, neglected, and overpassed. Nobody in West Virginia is going to benefit from this Apple stuff.
                          Last edited by Ironduke; 17 Jan 18,, 23:17.
                          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                            Did you just bring up something that was laid to rest before Obama even declared his intent to run for president, and do so in order to justify the actions of The Trumpet?

                            Don’t tell me you’re actually going to pretend Jeremiah Wright, someone Obama distanced himself from before declaring his intent to run for President, is someone with an influence on the man.

                            Candidate Obama saying he was outraged and saddened by Wright’s comments doesn’t seem to you, maybe just a little bit, like he disagreed with Wright’s views?

                            Really?
                            really???

                            so trump disavowing Duke, neo-Nazis and white supermacists doesn't seem to you, maybe just a little bit, like he disagreed with those views?

                            https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ist-alt-right/

                            https://www.infowars.com/watch-trump...lies-about-it/

                            There are consequential, disturbing revelations to be found when flipping through the visitors list at the White House. Bill Ayers is there no less than three times, Louis Farrakhan at
                            least once, but there is also a separate visit for his family, and the
                            infamous hater Jeremiah
                            Wright is there at least five times (four times under Jeremy, one under
                            Jeremiah). Contemptuously, Farrakhan’s visit is tagged as “MEETING WITH
                            SCIENCE CLUB MEMBERS”…Al Sharpton is there twice, and Jesse "hymietown"
                            Jackson is a regular
                            (six times).

                            It bears noting that despite solid evidence that Obama was tight with these haters, inciters and revolutionaries and traitors, he distanced himself from them during the campaign and outright lied about his ties to them. Mr. Ayers, for example, was dismissed as “a guy who lives in my
                            neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago
                            that I know.”

                            Comment


                            • Infowars...
                              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                                How about just getting off your high horse and fix your own house before telling the Americans what to do in their house. Their house. Their rules. It's not your house and most certainly, not your rules.
                                Recall 'freedom of speech'? Not like others have not or are not free to give their view on Ukraine - seem to recall you commenting there too. You are free to comment on politics in any country - being a public figure making decisions for a country invites it; the whole world is free to comment. You are Canadian but free to comment on Trump - does me having a different passport prohibit my freedom of speech more? I am afraid that forbidding others to comment on the politics of other countries than their own is beyond anyone's power as you yourself have and continue to prove by commenting on Trumpisms as a Canadian.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X