192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Frugal1
 
  -1  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:02 pm
@blatham,
0bama is only half black... we are still waiting for America to elect an American black as president - you can bet this American black will be conservative.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:05 pm
@Debra Law,
I'm inclined to agree with you here.


Among the prominent social/economic phenomina associated with now almost ended Obama Administration are the following;
=> a significant drop in the workforce participation rate. Many people have resigned themselves to long-term unemployment and, though able to work, are no longer counted in the unemployment statistics.
=> Lower than previous long-term GDP growth rates. We saw a fairly fast recovery from a sudden, deep recession and then leveled off at a lower than normal GDP growth rate ( a drop of over 1%/year - a very big economic effect there)
=> significant increases in measures of public dependency, including the numbers of foodstamp, recipients, those on Medicaid, Social Security disability programs, etc. (Together with the reversal of most of the provisions - and benefits - associated with the welfare reform of the Clinton years)
=> Significant drops in business investment, despite generally high profit margins. Many attribute this to the unpredictability that has resulted from.
the flood of workforce, environmental, and financial regulations that this inept administration has issued. This has a very direct bearing on the high earnings enjoyed by the investing and managing classes, compared to those who depend on wages. Instead of confidently investing profits in new enterprises, companies achieve equity growth through dividend payments and stock buy-backs.

It appears to me that Trump has outlined a pretty good approach to fixing precisely these issues. We will have to wait and see what is actually done by his Administration, and what are the observable consequences. However, most economic indicators point to increased GDP growth, job creation and investment in new and larger enterprises - all very good signs. In addition measures of consumer confidence have risen since the election, suggesting these views may be widespread among the public.
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:07 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
This is becoming your standard fallacious reply to everything: "but, but, the Clintons".

It is fallacious and used quite commonly not just by george but others as well. It presumes to give licence to excuse some favorite person or cause. It can be non-fallacious, of course, as where I might say, "X gets too much money for speeches" and the response (factual) is, "But Y gets that much money as well". But in that case, the instances compared are equivalent and the subject is the same.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:09 pm
@georgeob1,
Another major problem in the US is the increasing aging of the population.

https://aoa.acl.gov/Aging_Statistics/index.aspx

Many Americans view immigration as a problem, but that's the only way our country will increase the younger generation of workers.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:10 pm
@tony5732,
Quote:
Russia hacked information and gave that information to the people. If it wasn't even an "attack". It was blowing a Democrat cover up and not allowing democrats to lie to US citizens.

Are you seriously arguing that Putin and the existing power structure of Russia are acting so as to increase democracy, truth and transparency in America? That they merely wish, out of their respect for liberty and peoples' rights, to help America become a more vibrant democracy?
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:12 pm
@blatham,
Putin has America's best interest at heart? LOL
Debra Law
 
  2  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:16 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Well how do you feel about the hundreds of millions the Clinton's made through influence peddling and abuse of the office Hillary held as well as single speeches that brought in far more than the sum cited for a bbok in your post? Was that all OK?

This is becoming your standard fallacious reply to everything: "but, but, the Clintons".

There were consequences for Hillary Clinton's (and her husband's) past transgressions. There were lots of things she did that were not acceptable. Accordingly, millions and millions of people, myself included, refused to vote for her. She lost the election. And the same as there were consequences for Hillary's and her ilk's unacceptable acts and omissions, there will likewise be consequences for Trump's and his ilk's unacceptable acts and omissions. Why isn't that okay enough for you?


My reply was addressed to Blatham, not you.
There was nothing either false or fallacious in it ( you appear to have a fixation on syllogisms ).
The context was a response pointing out the hypocrisy of Blatham's continued pretense of objectivity in his "decades long (ahem ! ) "study" of American politics, and the stark contrast between the accusations he was making towards Palin and others, compared to his repeated denials with respect to the Clintons.

What are the qualifications for membership in Clinton's "ilk" ?




Ah. I didn't know there was a rule on this discussion board that prohibits discussion among those who choose to participate in a thread (and discussion may also include pointing out fallacious responses). Wait a minute. I don't think there is such a rule. If you desire to engage in a private discussion with another member, perhaps you should consider using the site's available private messaging service. You also have the option of placing me on ignore if you don't want to see my comments.

If you don't know the meaning of the word "ilk", there are many good dictionaries available. There were many people or "leaders" within the DNC political power structure who circled their wagons around Hillary Clinton, and they have clearly lost considerable respect and/or support. It is also interesting to see those among the GOP power structure who are now bowing down to Donald Trump as they swallow back the vomit rising from their guts. But, those are Trump's "ilk" now.

Hillary Clinton lost the election and was thus duly penalized for her many flaws (real or perceived). Every time you ignore the actual content of a post and respond with a slam against the Clintons, your fallacious diversion deserves to be pointed out. Perhaps you will alter your modus operandi, maybe not.

Frugal1
 
  -2  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
But you believe 0bama has always had America's best interest at heart - fool.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:20 pm
So Trump responds to this morning's news that Putin did a switcheroo and said "No we won't retaliate".
Quote:
President-elect Donald Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, calling him “very smart” and lauding his “great move” not to retaliate against the U.S. over sanctions intended to punish the Kremlin for launching cyberattacks targeting the American electoral system.

“Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!”
LINK

First point:
- Putin the Russian President is the good guy and out-going American President is the bad guy. There's a patriotic formulation if I ever saw one.

- Putin is like Trump - a really smart guy. Buddies forever.

- But think about the word "delay" in Trump's remark. What the hell is he saying here? "Good job, man. Smart as heck! Hold off on the punishment of America thing for now, then when the time seems right, lambast the **** out of us! Great thinking, Vlad"
Frugal1
 
  -1  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:21 pm
@georgeob1,
That's 0bama's trickle down misery - Trump will work to correct 0bama's intricate clusterfu*k of a legacy, but it's going to be a difficult job unfu*king all that 0bama has fu*ked up.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Putin has America's best interest at heart? LOL

Right wing tribalism has gotten so insane that such an argument actually gets advanced. And folks like Tony, who I think is a good guy, buy it. That's scary. It becomes very difficult to imagine anything Trump could do that would break this tribal bond. But he is acutely aware of this himself and we know this because of what he said months ago about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue and there being no consequences with his fans.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:28 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
This is becoming your standard fallacious reply to everything: "but, but, the Clintons".

It is fallacious and used quite commonly not just by george but others as well. It presumes to give licence to excuse some favorite person or cause. It can be non-fallacious, of course, as where I might say, "X gets too much money for speeches" and the response (factual) is, "But Y gets that much money as well". But in that case, the instances compared are equivalent and the subject is the same.


Your rather tortured explanation makes no sense at all.

There is nothing fallacious in my comments at all. Lots of people in many fields of endeavor, from academia, to entertainment, science, sports, politics and many others have made money based on the notoriety gained in such activities. The public merit of these actions is highly varied. Some are merely responding to a swell of enduring public interest, and at the other extreme others are merely exploiting fame or, worse, misusing public office and power for personal gain. There's another merit coordinate here, and that is the the degree of false pretense involved. I would put the Kardashians rather low on the public merit scale, but note there is no pretense involved on their part - they make no bones about being famous for being famous and making money on it. Others are far more duplicitous.

If Sarah Palin or some alleged "alt right" (whatever that is) figure gets a $300,000 book deal that is in no way comparable to $250,000 paid for multiple speecs by the Secretary of State or her husband on the implied promise of present or future political favors. The Clintons emerged "dead broke" from the White House 15 years ago and have since amassed a fortune of over $300 million by selling both their fame and ability to deliver present or future favors. ( the test here will be the going rate for their speeches and appearances in the coming year. Any bets?)

These are not the same things and the attempt to portray them as equivalent is no mere fallacy - it is a lie.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  2  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:35 pm
@blatham,
Left wing tribalism says that no matter what the results, Hillary should have won.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:38 pm
@Debra Law,
There's no "rule" involved here at all. You're free to comment on anything I or anyon else writes here. However that doesn't give you the right to take another's words our of the context in which they are written. That is deceptive. I made no logical proposition other than the hypocrisy and inconsistency involved in Blatham's pretence of scholarly objectivity, and the obvious bias he shows in the selection of the stuff he pastes here, the topics he addresses, and the slant he puts on them. He denied any Clintonian wrongdoing, and now accuses Republican & "alt right" figures of wrong doing for commercial success in exploiting their notoriety, involving sums many orders of magnitude less than what was collected by the Clintions, and without any of the obvious entanglements of her roles in government and her expected annointment as President entailed.

Lighten up. My comment about "ilk"was lighthearted and ironic.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:38 pm
@blatham,
What amazes me about Trump is his pathologic lies that's been studied by Politifact to be over 90%, and yet win the favor of American voters and the presidency. He's not even a good businessman. If he had invested his money in index funds, he'd be much richer today. He's also declared bankruptcy four times (some say 7 times). People forget; he inherited his money. He's a racial bigot, liar and scammer, and I'll never tire of repeating this about this scum.
Frugal1
 
  -1  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
CICE, you keep replacing HRC's and / or BHO's name with Trump.

HRC & BHO are the pathological congenital liars practiced in the art of bigotry & racism.

Trump is none of these things, and you know it.
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:46 pm
Quote:
The Heritage Foundation on Friday blamed President Barack Obama’s failed leadership for emboldening Russia to meddle in the presidential election and charged that the Obama administration’s sanctions “are too little, too late.”
LINK
Well of course they did. This is the emerging propaganda thrust. The appropriate response to Russians hacking into US government computers even to influence a presidential election is to indict the sitting US President. Not Russia.

We could point out that during this same period, Congress was held by Republicans and ask, "Well what the heck did they do back then? What alarums did they set off? What policy initiatives did they advance in this extremity?" There's a bunch of relevant questions we could ask here.

But the more important aspect, I'd argue, is not just this emerging propaganda theme (which we're now seeing from numerous quarters on the right) but the attempt to re-write history and chuck a ton of stuff down the Ministry of Truth's memory hole.

Obama's popularity remains very high, equal to Reagan at same point in their tenures. And Dems did win the plurality of the vote by nearly 3 million. And Trump's popularity is far lower. That's a marketing problem for the GOP. So what we are seeing (and will see far more of) is continuing efforts to derogate Obama and Clinton (and Dems by association) and to paint the past in a manner that displays Trump and Republicans as uniquely wise, strong and ethical. It's a myth-building project. It's filled with falsehoods, necessarily, but that no longer is of any consideration on the modern right.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:48 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

So Trump responds to this morning's news that Putin did a switcheroo and said "No we won't retaliate".


Well I'll give you that one. There's no doubt of Obama's ineptitude and wrongheadedness in protecting America's strategic interests and his many follies in our external relations with friends and potential foes alike. Certainly his current indignation over Putin's hacking and leaks of Podesta's e-mails is both ridiculous and absurdly inconsistent with his silence on many far worse and damaging things Putin has done during the past eight years.

However I too am mistified by these odd words and phrases by Trump about the Russian leader. I can think of some, arguably defensible, possible reasons for doing so, including collective alignments relative to China and the Moslem world, and the long-term development of Europe (these are widely held views in Europe). However I have no insight to what Trump's motives may be and find it odd that he hasn't addressed them.
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:51 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
his silence on many far worse and damaging things Putin has done during the past eight years.

What are you referring to, specifically?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Fri 30 Dec, 2016 03:52 pm
@Frugal1,
I put you on Ignore, but you're full of it as always.
That you can't even do a search on Trump's scams and lies is a testament to your ignorance.

Trump, scam artist: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-trumps-charity-is-a-scam/2016/09/14/9463468a-79ee-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.0824bde6832f

Trump the liar: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 10:23:50