I'm ignorant of what Obama did in each of the two areas. But I'm biased against anything Trump does due to his poor work ethic. A poor work ethic generally leads to suboptimal decisions and bad outcomes.
Vinny
Moderator: Global Moderator
I'm ignorant of what Obama did in each of the two areas. But I'm biased against anything Trump does due to his poor work ethic. A poor work ethic generally leads to suboptimal decisions and bad outcomes.
How many books have you read about him?Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:42 amWhat makes you think he has a poor work ethic? He has accomplished more in 3 years than any other modern President in that same amount of time.
No books are probably completely unbiased but some are more objective than others. And, I can tell the difference. The same with media.stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:11 pm Vinny,
Does it ever occur to you that most or all of the books written about Trump may not be exactly unbiased? Does it seem odd to you that all of the media have been against him from the beginning and wrote him off as unelectable (i.e., tried to convince people not to even bother voting for him)? And yet the electorate spoke otherwise. Doesn't that make you think that maybe the powers that be don't want to see him in office for some reason? Is it just that he is unlikable, which even I am willing to admit? Or does it go deeper than that?
I meant to add. And, I did say it elsewhere on another day that many (myself included) have believed that the media has been too EASY on him.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:39 pmTo your point, there are a few people who cover him favorably. The ones I'm familiar with are:vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:16 pmNo books are probably completely unbiased but some are more objective than others. And, I can tell the difference. The same with media.stuper1 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:11 pm Vinny,
Does it ever occur to you that most or all of the books written about Trump may not be exactly unbiased? Does it seem odd to you that all of the media have been against him from the beginning and wrote him off as unelectable (i.e., tried to convince people not to even bother voting for him)? And yet the electorate spoke otherwise. Doesn't that make you think that maybe the powers that be don't want to see him in office for some reason? Is it just that he is unlikable, which even I am willing to admit? Or does it go deeper than that?
And, I don't agree that all the media is as you described. Most presidents would say that the media is against them.
I know that the Republican establishment did not want him in office. That was clear and unquestioned. Well, they did not want him in office during the primaries that was the case. Once it was just him and Hillary, they definitely wanted him.
Finally, why is that the media is always perceived by the right to be so liberal when all the media is owned by conservative corporations?
And, finally, finally there is a completely right TV station known as Fox News plus the right dominates all the talk radio media, having many stars in that arena while I don't think there is either a network of liberal talk radio or any stars in that arena.
Vinny
Mark Levin
Sean Hannity
Laura Ingraham
Tucker Carlson
Rush Limbaugh
and some writers on Breitbart.
90+% of the mainstream media is relentlessly attacking him 24/7. This includes:
NBC
ABC
CBS
The Washington Post
The New York Times
CNN
MSNBC
Even Ted Koppel says so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_F-cwgMjDs
Here's a report from 2018: https://www.dailywire.com/news/study-he ... es-barrett
And here's one from 2017 by Pew Research, hardly a right-wing outfit, showing over 10x as much negative coverage of Trump as positive.
https://www.journalism.org/2017/10/02/c ... days_c-16/
Those outlets don't even try to claim anymore to be objective when reporting about Trump. They have explicitly thrown in with the Democrat party and the Deep State. The New York Times has even abruptly switched from claiming that there is no Deep State and that anyone who says there is is a conspiracy theory, to celebrating the Deep State as a patriotic endeavor to protect us from Trump: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/cl ... tate-great
Hope that helps.
Simonjester wrote:
if you can know a man by the enemies he keeps, and the nature of those who oppose him.. then trump is doing a great job..
he is opposed by
-statist who would endlessly expand the size of government
-neocons on the right and the left who would have permawar
-bureaucrats who think the government is for their benefit, and not by and of the people - for the people
-the corrupt and powerful who would prefer to escape justice and cover up the crimes they commit
-the deep state elite, a mix of the above groups
-the media industrial complex the propaganda arm of the above groups
-the unthinking American, those who believe what the propagandist have drummed into their heads.
i was a skeptical trump voter, but he 1- claimed to be an outsider and 2- was not Hillary!
honestly and much to my surprise, i am not disappointed... (so far )
Simonjester wrote:
i don't think they would oppose Hitler unless the nazi's were in direct competition with their own tyrannical ambitions..
the ideology and goals of the above groups and any tyrant, or would be tyrant (including Hitler) are very close to the same..
as for permanent change ...only time will tell... but if people wake up to the goals and methods of the above groups they are not likely to return to their slumber, and his appointing of judges who will uphold justice and not push these groups political will is huge, with long term beneficial repercussions, the pursuit and defense of liberty is without end, a process of constantly holding its opposition at bay..
It's hard to say, since the previous Presidents haven't had his approach nor his results.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:18 pm As I've said a few times, I am generally fine with what he's doing for the most part.
But does he have to be such a dickwad while doing it? Is that a requirement for it to get done?
His "majorities" had a pretty large slice of Establishment Republicans, not to mention outright traitors like McCain. They didn't give him much of what he asked for.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:18 pm --He's done nothing about the debt, projected to be more than Obama if he serves another 4 years. In such a roaring economy, we are cutting interest rates. What's actually going on behind the curtain? $5T added to the debt in a "good" economy, more than Obama added in a bad recession.
--Little/nothing about medical monopolies and pricing has been done as far as I can tell, and this is what will destroy this country more than anything else.
--And for all the talk about ending wars, why does he have to increase military spending? Don't tell me at $700 billion+ that Obama was already spending that our military was in bad shape, and now with over $900 billion it is the greatest in the world again.
Is some of this Congress's fault: sure. But he did have majorities for his first couple years and what did we get? A tax cut that put a few extra bucks in my pocket and exploded the debt.
He LED the way for the most recent tax cuts.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:03 pmIt's hard to say, since the previous Presidents haven't had his approach nor his results.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:18 pm As I've said a few times, I am generally fine with what he's doing for the most part.
But does he have to be such a dickwad while doing it? Is that a requirement for it to get done?
However, I personally think his approach is great, as do many of his other supporters.
His "majorities" had a pretty large slice of Establishment Republicans, not to mention outright traitors like McCain. They didn't give him much of what he asked for.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:18 pm --He's done nothing about the debt, projected to be more than Obama if he serves another 4 years. In such a roaring economy, we are cutting interest rates. What's actually going on behind the curtain? $5T added to the debt in a "good" economy, more than Obama added in a bad recession.
--Little/nothing about medical monopolies and pricing has been done as far as I can tell, and this is what will destroy this country more than anything else.
--And for all the talk about ending wars, why does he have to increase military spending? Don't tell me at $700 billion+ that Obama was already spending that our military was in bad shape, and now with over $900 billion it is the greatest in the world again.
Is some of this Congress's fault: sure. But he did have majorities for his first couple years and what did we get? A tax cut that put a few extra bucks in my pocket and exploded the debt.
And as for spending, that's up to Congress, not the President. Let them pass a balanced budget and see if he vetoes it; then we'll know if he's in favor of ever more debt.
Doesn't want your last two sentences say mimic what the famed liberal Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman maintains? Or, I guess, what he used to say?
That is EXACTLY what I expected. Yet he seemed to have the same attitude towards the deficit as just stated here previously. Of which I don't agree. I think that they matter tremendously. I'm forgetting whether or not Harry Browne took a position on this.
The way that a balanced budget causes recessions is the same way as sobering up causes a hangover.
Yes, that's what it means. As to how long they can keep it up, who knows? Timing is always the hardest part of predicting a disaster because the trigger is usually something unpredictable.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:26 am On the debt, what about the argument about all the interest payments to the private sector?
People have been saying for years that everything implodes if interest rates ever get back up to a "normal" level, because all the govt revenue would be going to service the debt.
So does that mean interest rates will never really rise, until it is an uncontrollable crisis the likes of which we've never seen? And how far can that can be kicked? 2 years, 10 years, 50 years?
Another pearl of wisdom from Harry Browne!Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:59 pm “The Republican and Democratic balanced budget proposals are misleading, because they don’t guarantee a balanced budget -- only ‘good intentions.’ I propose an amendment that would limit all federal spending (on-budget and off-budget) to the amount of revenues received in the prior fiscal year.”
- Harry Browne, 1996 link
Thoroughly agree with your comment, here.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:22 amThe way that a balanced budget causes recessions is the same way as sobering up causes a hangover.
Another similarity is that continuing the original harmful behavior causes the eventual reckoning to be worse.
Our economic system seems to be set up to penalize the saver and reward the profligate!ochotona wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:13 pm Economic Club of NY today: "Trump rails on Fed, notes other countries have negative rates: ‘Give me some of that money’
What a d*ck. Negative interest rates are a tax on savers, a direct wealth transfer from regular people with money in the bank, elderly people relying on fixed incomes, pensions, annuities. Spoken like the real estate serial loan defaulter scumbag Mafioso he is.