Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

20 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

Speaking from experience, the Military IS treated better under Republican leadership.  When I first enlisted in USMC in 1988, Pres Bush was in office, upon Clinton's election, the Military lost over 240,000 jobs, loss of pay increases, force reductions, etc.. In 2001, upon reentering military, Pres Bush in office, saw increases in pay, housing, etc.

Wouldn't that have more to do with congress than the president?

[visionary]

19 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Rudy apparently pulled his name. Now, who does Trump pick for Secretary of State. I'm guessing David Duke.

Well reportedly the current top pick is the Exxon CEO, with Bolton or Rohrabacher as the deputy.  

 

 

Ugh, speaking of which, just noticed this:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/12/08/rohrabacher-bolton-we-could-be-dynamic-duo-state-department/

Quote

Rohrabacher on Bolton: ‘We Could Be the Dynamic Duo’ at State Department

 

[Burgold]

I remember from back in the VOR days... Moscow LOVED Rohrabacher. They always wanted him for quotes. He was their go to guy. That's neither statement pro or anti just an FYI.

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, Rskins06 said:

Exactly when have the Democrats tried to be fiscally responsible?  Better yet, when has anyone in our government tried to be fiscally responsible?  Please, let's not try and to debate fiscal responsibility, both parties have proven to be fiscally irresponsible.  

 

Every time they've been in power, since I was old enough to vote?  

 

If you just look at the White House, for example, I came across an interesting statistic.  

 

Look at the federal deficit, as a percentage of GDP.  Look at what it was, the year before <President X> took office.  And look at what it was, in his final budget.  

 

The last time the deficit went down, under a Republican President, the President was Eisenhower.  

 

The last time the deficit went up, under a Democratic President, the President was FDR.  

[visionary]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I remember from back in the VOR days... Moscow LOVED Rohrabacher. They always wanted him for quotes. He was their go to guy. That's neither statement pro or anti just an FYI.

He has quite a negative rep among the foreign policy and human rights folks (pretty mixed batch) I follow. 

[Burgold]

Just now, visionary said:

He has quite a negative rep among the foreign policy and human rights folks I follow. 

Probably goes hand in hand with his Russia relationship.

[Rskins06]

13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Every time they've been in power, since I was old enough to vote?  

 

If you just look at the White House, for example, I came across an interesting statistic.  

 

Look at the federal deficit, as a percentage of GDP.  Look at what it was, the year before <President X> took office.  And look at what it was, in his final budget.  

 

The last time the deficit went down, under a Republican President, the President was Eisenhower.  

 

The last time the deficit went up, under a Democratic President, the President was FDR.  

I can admit it when I am wrong.  Thanks for info without insults

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

All of that information is/was readily available...

 

I don't understand how one feels comfortable enough to vote when they can't even seek out info like that 

 

I'm not trying to pick on you but there is an alarming amount of misinformation on your side 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I think a lot of people tend to discredit unemployment #s because it doesn't take into account those where unemployment has come and gone and they still don't have work.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Fair point 

 

still, misinformation is rampant 

 

and to be fair, the left are guilty too at times 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[ExoDus84]

1 hour ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

Fair point 

 

still, misinformation is rampant 

 

and to be fair, the left are guilty too at times 

 

The left is guilty on occasion, but nowhere near the level of the right. They haven't built massive "news" networks to relentlessly promote misinformation and bull****. Fox News, Breitbart, Hannity, Limbaugh. Look at the swamp of far right fake news stories flooding social media, and making their way into the tweets of Republican officials.  Trump's entire campaign was one big pile of misinformation and bull****, and his voters ate it all. To be frank, it points to the overall laziness, gullibility, or outright stupidity of his base. The huge "alt-right" movement we got was just a nice ****ty bow on top of the misinformation pie so many have been eating from. The unemployment chart above and the "facts vs. perception" thing just proves this point.

 

[Renegade7]

First another Goldman Sachs guy, then word Secretary of State could be the Exxon CEO?  Round of applause for establishment republicans rushing in their guys to save the day from having someone like gulliani in that position.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think a lot of people tend to discredit unemployment #s because it doesn't take into account those where unemployment has come and gone and they still don't have work.

 

Yes, a lot of people have been deliberately trained to dismiss the statistic that we've been using for 50 years, because it doesn't show what they want it to show.  (And just believe what fits their agenda, instead.)  

 

Wonder how so many people decided that that was valid reasoning.  

 

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

Fair point 

 

still, misinformation is rampant 

 

and to be fair, the left are guilty too at times 

One party has a lot of low information voters. The other has a lot of misinformation voters.

[RedskinsFan44]

So we had a narrow win and Russia had its thumb on the scale:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_russiahack-1215p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.734d5c5c3de8

[LadySkinsFan]

Gee, when Democrat Presidents fix the problems created by Republicans and Republican Presidents? 

I guess 2003-2008 under Bush 43 is too long ago to remember when the economy of this country almost tanked, and Obama brought us back to some prosperity. 

Me, I am selling my house before the housing market tanks again.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

3 hours ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

Fair point 

 

still, misinformation is rampant 

 

and to be fair, the left are guilty too at times 

 

I posted this last line because I thought I was gonna get flamed for being too mean. 

 

Looks like I didn't need to. I like this thread lol 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think a lot of people tend to discredit unemployment #s because it doesn't take into account those where unemployment has come and gone and they still don't have work.

 

First, you seem to be suggesting that the government unemployment numbers don't count people that are no longer getting unemployment benefits.  That's not true.

 

The most commonly talked about number (the U3) counts people that have looked for jobs in the last 4 weeks as unemployed.  If you never had a job and never got unempolyment benefit, haven't worked for years and are trying to get back into the job market, or have been out work for 8 months, if you have have looked for a job in the last 4 weeks and don't have a job, the u3 counts you as unemployed.  The U3 is down under Obama and is below its historic average.

 

The U-6, which counts anybody that says they want a job or even would like to work more as unemployed is down under Obama (14.2% Jan 2009, 9.5% Oct 2016 and 9.3% in Nov) and below its mean (data going back to 1994).

 

(The U6 is actually cited as a measure of under employment not unemployment because it actually counts people that have jobs.)

[PeterMP]

The only way you can say unemployment is up under Obama (MAYBE!) is if you start talking about the non-instituionalized civilian population (note this counts retirees, stay at home parents and people in school that don't to work (it counts people over 16 so even people in High School)), and I'm not even if that's really up over Obama.

 

The employment rate for essentially everybody over 16 that's not in the military and not in an institution is given as 62.2 for 2008 (they don't break it down by month) in 2009 it was 59.3%

 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/aa2009/cpsaat1.pdf

 

Those numbers for Nov and Oct of this year are 59.7% so we are above the 2009 number, but below the 2008 number.  I don't know what it was in Jan' 09, but it seems we were likely in that range.

 

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea03.htm

[visionary]

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

8 hours ago, Rskins06 said:

 If he fails, well, then the Democrats will  have another opportunity.  I didn't support President Obama, BUT, I never wished him to fail.  If the President fails, America fails and NOONE should wish that on ANY President.  I didn't want HRC elected, but had she won, I would not hope for her failure as that only hurts the country!

,

Well your Republican leadership had Obama's failure as one of their states goals. So you can get all indignant about my desire for Trump's failure but I'm guessing you were utterly silent when the GOP set out to cause Obama to fail. As such I could care less about your care for America now. 

 

You may be celebrating these cabinet picks, but with EVERY one of them my desire for Trump's utter and complete failure grows stronger. I pray he keeps tweeting his absurd personal attacks, I pray he continues his role with The Apprentice, I hope he continues ignoring the national security briefings, I hope he continues with his blatant conflicts of interest. And I hope he continues to flaunt his utter disregard for even the mere appearance of Presidential conduct.

#NeverChangeTrump

Maybe after his impeachment this nation can wake up and decide that the adults are best left running things.

[Rskins06]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Gee, when Democrat Presidents fix the problems created by Republicans and Republican Presidents? 

I guess 2003-2008 under Bush 43 is too long ago to remember when the economy of this country almost tanked, and Obama brought us back to some prosperity. 

Me, I am selling my house before the housing market tanks again.

When has a Democrat President fixed anything without working with Republicans?  Clinton didn't build a surplus UNTIL he worked across the isles with Republicans who had both houses his 2nd term.  Matter of fact, it was really the GOP agenda which produced a balanced budget which led to a surplus.  Dems had control of both houses during Bush's 2nd term and first 2 yrs of Obama's presidency, the economy tanked.  Also, Obama's economic policies were basically Bush's policies his last 2 yrs in office and were a large reason for the recovery.

Too often, the President gets the credit for success and blame for the failures when both houses in congress play a huge roll in both.  First time I can remember when the Republicans control White House and both houses and to be honest, I am anxious and excited to see what the next couple yrs brings.  They will either fail, at which the Democrats will gain seats OR they will succeed and the Democrats will remain the minority party and probably lose more seats, which is what I am hoping.