REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

POTUS Trump's Greatest Failures

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 14:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 924
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, September 6, 2017 7:20 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I had thought there was another thread about Trump's failures or broken promises, but don't see it now.


Newest broken promise: he works out a deal to increase the Debt Ceiling, without any valid excuse, reason, or rationalization.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/6/donald-trump-agrees-deb
t-limit-deal
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 7, 2017 6:22 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Anybody heard Trump is working with Pelosi/Shumer to completely eliminate the Debt Ceiling?
Then he can spend whatever he wants anytime, without restriction.

Fiscal restraint was a concern before the election, but did anybody see this coming?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 8, 2017 7:12 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Anybody heard Trump is working with Pelosi/Shumer to completely eliminate the Debt Ceiling?
Then he can spend whatever he wants anytime, without restriction.

Fiscal restraint was a concern before the election, but did anybody see this coming?



GOP had no interest in capping it either, so I think this is more of Trump just sticking a thumb in the eye of the GOP than anything. They failed on repeal/ replace, haven't moved on tax reform ( FAIR Tax, hello ? ) ... the man needs to move the chains, and if the GOP aren't going to play ball, it's on them, not Trump.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 8, 2017 6:11 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Anybody heard Trump is working with Pelosi/Shumer to completely eliminate the Debt Ceiling?
Then he can spend whatever he wants anytime, without restriction.

Fiscal restraint was a concern before the election, but did anybody see this coming?


GOP had no interest in capping it either, so I think this is more of Trump just sticking a thumb in the eye of the GOP than anything. They failed on repeal/ replace, haven't moved on tax reform ( FAIR Tax, hello ? ) ... the man needs to move the chains, and if the GOP aren't going to play ball, it's on them, not Trump.

Didn't most/many of GOP campaign on no more Debt Ceiling Increase, or at least control or restriction?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 8, 2017 6:32 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I had thought there was another thread about Trump's mfaliures or borken promises, but don't see it now.


Newest broken promise: he works out a deal to increase the Debt Ceiling, without any valid excuse, reason, or rationalization.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/6/donald-trump-agrees-deb
t-limit-deal
/

and this also throws out The Wall.

Not sure I understand why Libtards are not crowing over Pelosi's control over Trump's tweeter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 8, 2017 7:28 PM

REAVERFAN


Who thinks the wall is in any way a good idea?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 8, 2017 8:09 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Who thinks the wall is in any way a good idea?

Conservatives, Libertarians, Constutionalists, Patriots, American Citizens, Rationalists, Realists, Tax Payers, Reformers, Tea Partiers, plus almost everybody who voted for Trump.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 28, 2017 3:34 AM

OONJERAH


Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.

All the photos I've seen of our US-Mexican border show a fence,
a chain-link fence.

A big-bad Wall would be super expensive; would it be more effective?
For centuries to come, it would be tourist attraction, like the
Great Wall of China.

There is no wall in the north, between US & Canada, right?


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 28, 2017 11:40 AM

6STRINGJOKER


We don't exactly have a problem with Canadian illegals.


A wall probably isn't the answer though. If we actually enforced laws we already have, we could make it so working here while not being a citizen would be impossible, or at least far more trouble and risk than it's worth.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 28, 2017 9:13 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


One wonderful failure was the defeat of Lex Luthor Strange by Judge Moore in AL, I hear. Trump's endorsement of the RINO didn't work.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:30 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
We don't exactly have a problem with Canadian illegals.

USA is letting Illegal Aliens ship our money to Mexico, and importing terrorists.

Canada is letting a porous border filter our money into Canada. Doesn't seem like a big problem for either side, that I can tell.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 13, 2017 11:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Bump, so I don't lose track of this.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 13, 2017 12:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.



I'm with SIX: 100 days is far too short to a span of time to judge the success or failure of a President. Even nine months is too short.

Obama didn't get "Obamacare" until two years into his Presidency. (2010)

Bush II didn't achieve utter financial chaos until the very last days of his second term (2008)

Bill Clinton didn't stab the people in the back until the second half of his second term.

Although SALT 1 wasn't signed (1991) by Reagan, he DID begin the negotiations process halfway through his second term.

Nixon didn't end the Vietnam "police action" and negotiate the petrodollar until the end of his first term (1973).


The significance of some Presidential policies don't even become fully realized until ten years or more after they leave office.


*****

So given that it's early days yet on the Trump administration, it might be too soon to talk about "greatest" failures, but it sure isn't too soon to start throwing sticks on the bonfire!

I'd sure like to get into a discussion with all of you on what YOU see as Trump's biggest failures so far (SECOND, can you please restrict yourself to IMPORTANT items, instead of really stupid shit and unverifiable opinion?)

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 13, 2017 8:39 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Who thinks the wall is in any way a good idea?



I like the THREAT of a wall, as a last ditch answer to dealing with a problem that's 30+ years in the making.

And while I AM in favor of a serious upgrade in border security and deterrence, I don't think that one gigantic monolithic style wall is the answer. Never have. I always took Trump's comments to be more hyperbole and symbolism than literal.

Address the ILLEGAL immigration issue, as well as the free flow of drugs, and I'll be happy. Can't stop everything, but good grief, at least TRY !!

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 13, 2017 9:46 PM

OONJERAH



"Send more Cops!"
~Return of the Living Dead


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 14, 2017 3:22 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm with SIX: 100 days is far too short to a span of time to judge the success or failure of a President. Even nine months is too short.

Obama didn't get "Obamacare" until two years into his Presidency. (2010)

Bush II didn't achieve utter financial chaos until the very last days of his second term (2008)

Meaning the Rock The Vote Democraps in office Jan 2007, enacting FY2008 Budget which started Oct 2007 and immediately commenced the downfall into financial chaos for a year before the 2008 election, which Obama continued driving down until Mar 2009. Despite Bush43's successes before the Democraps wreaked havoc.
Quote:

Bill Clinton didn't stab the people in the back until the second half of his second term.
Which stabbing in the back? He already screwed America in 1993 and 1994, until the Gingrich Contract With America stopped his bloated spending in Nov, Dec 1995.
Quote:

Although SALT 1 wasn't signed (1991) by Reagan, he DID begin the negotiations process halfway through his second term.

Nixon didn't end the Vietnam "police action" and negotiate the petrodollar until the end of his first term (1973).

Nixon announced the end of Democrat LBJ's Vietnam War in Dec 1969. Withdrawal following the Vietnam Peace Agreement was in Apr 1973, in his second term. Fall of Saigon was Apr 1975, under Ford. Not sure if that is what you meant.
Quote:

The significance of some Presidential policies don't even become fully realized until ten years or more after they leave office.

*****

So given that it's early days yet on the Trump administration, it might be too soon to talk about "greatest" failures, but it sure isn't too soon to start throwing sticks on the bonfire!

I'd sure like to get into a discussion with all of you on what YOU see as Trump's biggest failures so far (SECOND, can you please restrict yourself to IMPORTANT items, instead of really stupid shit and unverifiable opinion?)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 16, 2017 2:17 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


That's extremely partisan of you, JSF. Please don't be like the SECOND of the rpublican party.

Quote:

Bush II didn't achieve utter financial chaos until the very last days of his second term (2008)- SIGNY

Meaning the Rock The Vote Democraps in office Jan 2007, enacting FY2008 Budget which started Oct 2007 and immediately commenced the downfall into financial chaos for a year before the 2008 election, which Obama continued driving down until Mar 2009. Despite Bush43's successes before the Democraps wreaked havoc.- JSF



It would require a breathtaking mental rewrite of history to blame the Federal budget for the monumental chaos that overtook the financial sector beginning in late 2007.

The collapse was CLEARLY sourced in the massive amount of subprime (and often fraudulent) home real estate loans, and the sale of mortgage-backed products and Credit Default Swaps by the shadow banking system to depository banks, pension funds, Fannie and Freddie, to banks and financial institutions around the world, and even to the bond insurers like AIG. That's how the "contagion" spread around the western world. Nothing was in place to stop the contagion because Clinton had repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, which was previously a hard protective line between depository institutions, and the more speculative investment banks. Clinton also signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act which allowed the creation of Credit Default Swaps and other loosey-goosey investment "products", which brought us Enron and helped usher in the Great Recession.

What BUSH managed to do was transfer wealth to the wealthy with a massive cap gain tax cut which left the less-well-off vulnerable to relying on credit and "get rich quick" schemes (like real estate bubbles).

Quote:

US mortgage-backed securities, which had risks that were hard to assess, were marketed around the world, as they offered higher yields than U.S. government bonds. Many of these securities were backed by subprime mortgages, which collapsed in value when the U.S. housing bubble burst during 2006 and homeowners began to default on their mortgage payments in large numbers starting in 2007.

The emergence of sub-prime loan losses in 2007 began the crisis and exposed other risky loans and over-inflated asset prices. With loan losses mounting and the fall of Lehman Brothers on 15 September 2008, a major panic broke out on the inter-bank loan market. There was the equivalent of a bank run on the shadow banking system, resulting in many large and well established investment and commercial banks in the United States and Europe suffering huge losses and even facing bankruptcy, resulting in massive public financial assistance (government bailouts).



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 8:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Any way, to get to Trump's hreatest failures ...

Well, I'm not sure that extending the debt ceiling was one of his "greatest" failures. The current total nation (Federal) debt is somewhere in the realm of $20.4 trillion dollars.

That's a lot, to be sure, but by comparison, the accumulated USA trade debt is somewhere in the realm of $31 trillion, and the household (credit card) debt alone is $13 trillion. Meanwhile, FINANCIAL debt ... money that was borrowed in order to "invest" (i.e speculate) has been estimated at northwards of $240 trillion. Although, if you try to look up total PRIVATE debt in the USA (as I just did) you'll find those figures remarkably hard to find.

This is something I should do more research on, but the point is that the Federal deficit ... often a sore spot with conservatives because they hate any government spending and are just as concerned with the size of the government as they are with its indebtedness .... is a tiny fraction of PRIVATE debt. So if the issue is indebtedness in general, our government debt is kind of lost in the shuffle.

Although, I DO agree that the government should control, its spending, and I personally would slash the Pentagon's budget by more than half, and use some of those savings to help fund a universal health care system, and putting our infrastructure and manufacturing back on track.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:07 AM

ESSAYSOLUTION


Quote:

[ https://theessaypro.com/writing-definition-essay/]Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Any way, to get to Trump's hreatest failures ...

Well, I'm not sure that extending the debt ceiling was one of his "greatest" failures. The current total nation (Federal) debt is somewhere in the realm of $20.4 trillion dollars.

That's a lot, to be sure, but by comparison, the accumulated USA trade debt is somewhere in the realm of $31 trillion, and the household (credit card) debt alone is $13 trillion. Meanwhile, FINANCIAL debt ... money that was borrowed in order to "invest" (i.e speculate) has been estimated at northwards of $240 trillion. Although, if you try to look up total PRIVATE debt in the USA (as I just did) you'll find those figures remarkably hard to find.

This is something I should do more research on, but the point is that the Federal deficit ... often a sore spot with conservatives because they hate any government spending and are just as concerned with the size of the government as they are with its indebtedness .... is a tiny fraction of PRIVATE debt. So if the issue is indebtedness in general, our government debt is kind of lost in the shuffle.

Although, I DO agree that the government should control, its spending, and I personally would slash the Pentagon's budget by more than half, and use some of those savings to help fund a universal health care system, and putting our infrastructure and manufacturing back on track.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake



https://theessaypro.com/writing-definition-essay/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:09 AM

ESSAYSOLUTION


Great chances to enjoy our services that will help you achieve your dream career goals. The place to have your assignments catered for https://theessaypro.com/writing-definition-essay/. No need to worry anymore about your dissertations and Essays because mega professional writers have already gathered here to handle that for you.

https://theessaypro.com/writing-definition-essay/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 12:53 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
That's extremely partisan of you, JSF. Please don't be like the SECOND of the rpublican party.
Quote:

Bush II didn't achieve utter financial chaos until the very last days of his second term (2008)- SIGNY

Meaning the Rock The Vote Democraps in office Jan 2007, enacting FY2008 Budget which started Oct 2007 and immediately commenced the downfall into financial chaos for a year before the 2008 election, which Obama continued driving down until Mar 2009. Despite Bush43's successes before the Democraps wreaked havoc.- JSF

It would require a breathtaking mental rewrite of history to blame the Federal budget for the monumental chaos that overtook the financial sector beginning in late 2007.

The collapse was CLEARLY sourced in the massive amount of subprime (and often fraudulent) home real estate loans, and the sale of mortgage-backed products and Credit Default Swaps by the shadow banking system to depository banks, pension funds, Fannie and Freddie, to banks and financial institutions around the world, and even to the bond insurers like AIG.

Good of you to point out the disastrous effects of Obama's ACORN work, before he even took Public Office. Every reasonable person knew it was a disaster at the time, and clearly that is why Obama tirelessly pursued it, because destruction and disaster was always Obama's goal.
Quote:

That's how the "contagion" spread around the western world. Nothing was in place to stop the contagion because Clinton had repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, which was previously a hard protective line between depository institutions, and the more speculative investment banks. Clinton also signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act which allowed the creation of Credit Default Swaps and other loosey-goosey investment "products", which brought us Enron and helped usher in the Great Recession.

What BUSH managed to do was transfer wealth to the wealthy with a massive cap gain tax cut which left the less-well-off vulnerable to relying on credit and "get rich quick" schemes (like real estate bubbles).
Quote:

US mortgage-backed securities, which had risks that were hard to assess, were marketed around the world, as they offered higher yields than U.S. government bonds. Many of these securities were backed by subprime mortgages, which collapsed in value when the U.S. housing bubble burst during 2006 and homeowners began to default on their mortgage payments in large numbers starting in 2007.

The emergence of sub-prime loan losses in 2007 began the crisis and exposed other risky loans and over-inflated asset prices. With loan losses mounting and the fall of Lehman Brothers on 15 September 2008, a major panic broke out on the inter-bank loan market. There was the equivalent of a bank run on the shadow banking system, resulting in many large and well established investment and commercial banks in the United States and Europe suffering huge losses and even facing bankruptcy, resulting in massive public financial assistance (government bailouts).


Reality, facts, truth can be unforgiving, and relentlessly Non-PC.

Do you believe every tidbit of revisionist tripe the Libtards present to you?
Libtards have worked tirelessly to incessantly repeat the revisionist history lies that you have mostly regurgitated here. How many times before you succumbed to the onslaught of illogic and irrationality?
What were their excuses when it was happening - do you have any idea, or recall? All of the Libtard news I saw kept saying to keep your money in the collapsing market - they had no clue.
Only the reasonable people knew what was going on. I was constantly steamed every time I saw CNN feverishly working to convince working Americans to lose all of their hard earned money. Causing needless suffering - but that is the hallmark and tradecraft of Libtards and Democraps.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:14 PM

OONJERAH


Wikipedia on D Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

As of 2017, he was the 544th richest person in the world, with
an estimated net worth of $3.5 billion.

Trump had long expressed interest in politics. He entered the 2016
presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents
in the primaries. Commentators described his political positions
as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His campaign received
extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were
controversial or false. Trump won the general election on November
8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary
Clinton.
He became the oldest & wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency,
the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to
have won the election despite losing the popular vote. His election and
policies have sparked numerous protests.

( Yeah, I know: Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Britannica.
  It's contributions from "just folks." )

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:51 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
Wikipedia on D Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

As of 2017, he was the 544th richest person in the world, with
an estimated net worth of $3.5 billion.

Trump had long expressed interest in politics. He entered the 2016
presidential race as a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents
in the primaries. Commentators described his political positions
as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His campaign received
extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were
controversial or false. Trump won the general election on November
8, 2016, in a surprise victory against Democratic opponent Hillary
Clinton.
He became the oldest & wealthiest person ever to assume the presidency,
the first without prior military or government service, and the fifth to
have won the election despite losing the popular vote. His election and
policies have sparked numerous protests.

( Yeah, I know: Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Britannica.
  It's contributions from "just folks." )

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

Kinda funny how there is no mention of Trump's plans to run against Bush41 in 1988 - as Democrat, or against Bush43 in 2004 - as Democrat, or his run in 2000 as Reform Party.
Is the source biased much? Hmmmm?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 1:34 AM

OONJERAH


As I indicated, Wikipedia: articles-donated-by-people. Dunno if
the souce is biased or merely vague, uniformed. ... Yet on this
forum, some of You seem educated enough to teach this stuff.
Did you just say that DJ Trump ran as a democrat & a reform
party before scoring as a republican? (Dedicated or Not?)

BTW, purely by accident, I have a 1987 copy of The Art of the Deal.
I didn't read it, don't know if anything in there would help to enlighten.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:04 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Do you believe every tidbit of revisionist tripe the Libtards present to you?
Libtards have worked tirelessly to incessantly repeat the revisionist history lies that you have mostly regurgitated here. How many times before you succumbed to the onslaught of illogic and irrationality?

Question: We’re told by Rex Tillerson that he’s been engaged in some secret contacts with North Korea, exploring the possibility of a diplomatic solution that might dramatically reduce North Korea’s nuclear arsenal in return for U.S. promises of regime security. If, at the same time, Trump unilaterally pulls out of the deal we’ve already signed with Iran to prevent it from developing nukes — and Trump moves to reimpose sanctions — how does that not send only one message to the North Koreans: No deal with the U.S. is worth the paper it’s written on, so you’d be wise to hold on to all your nukes?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 11:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That's extremely partisan of you, JSF. Please don't be like the SECOND of the rpublican party. Bush II didn't achieve utter financial chaos until the very last days of his second term (2008)- SIGNY

Meaning the Rock The Vote Democraps in office Jan 2007, enacting FY2008 Budget which started Oct 2007 and immediately commenced the downfall into financial chaos for a year before the 2008 election, which Obama continued driving down until Mar 2009. Despite Bush43's successes before the Democraps wreaked havoc.- JSF

It would require a breathtaking mental rewrite of history to blame the Federal budget for the monumental chaos that overtook the financial sector beginning in late 2007.

JSF, I just wanted to make that crystal clear. BTW, if you want to figure out WHO was at the controls of the Federal budget, Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2009, and Republicans were in control of the Senate over the same time period, except a 2-year gap from 1999 to 2001. A Republican was in the White House from 2000-2008.

So in the relevant time period - eight to fourteen years BEFORE the collapse, REPUBLICANS were mostly in control of DC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congres
ses


Now, to be even more factual, it wasn't Democrats who lowered taxes on the wealthy, pushed for Medicare Part D (and lied about the liabilities), and blew a massive trillion-dollars on two very expensive and pointless Mideast wars. So, if you want to see WHO created the worst deficit up until that point, look no further than GWB and the Republicans.


Quote:

The collapse was CLEARLY sourced in the massive amount of subprime (and often fraudulent) home real estate loans, and the sale of mortgage-backed products and Credit Default Swaps by the shadow banking system to depository banks, pension funds, Fannie and Freddie, to banks and financial institutions around the world, and even to the bond insurers like AIG. - SIGNY

Good of you to point out the disastrous effects of Obama's ACORN work, before he even took Public Office.

Another bullshit story. ACORN had very little to do with bank and shadow-bank (like Countrywide) subprime lending, and nothing at all to do with the creation of mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, and their sale to institutional investors around the world. We used to have a poster here ... TONY .... who worked in a bank, and he was posting how banks were just shoving mortgages out the door as fast as they could ... NINJA (no income, no job) loans, loans with surprise balloon payments or huge increases in interest rate built in, and with very, very fine print.

Even Fannie and Freddie ... the perennial whipping-boys of rightwingers .... had less to do with subprime than other real estate lenders. First of all, Fannie and Freddie DID NOT WRITE MORTGAGES OR LEND MONEY. What they did was buy mortgages from other institutions to add to their portfolios. And because of their regulatory restrictions, they bought FEWER problematic loans than other institutions. Taken as a whole, Fannie and Freddie represented only about 15% of the total crappy mortgages out there.

Quote:

Every reasonable person knew it was a disaster at the time, and clearly that is why Obama tirelessly pursued it, because destruction and disaster was always Obama's goal.- JSF
Yeah, yeah, whatever.

Quote:

That's how the "contagion" spread around the western world. Nothing was in place to stop the contagion because Clinton had repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, which was previously a hard protective line between depository institutions, and the more speculative investment banks. Clinton also signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act which allowed the creation of Credit Default Swaps and other loosey-goosey investment "products", which brought us Enron and helped usher in the Great Recession.

What BUSH managed to do was transfer wealth to the wealthy with a massive cap gain tax cut which left the less-well-off vulnerable to relying on credit and "get rich quick" schemes (like real estate bubbles). - SIGNY
Quote:

US mortgage-backed securities, which had risks that were hard to assess, were marketed around the world, as they offered higher yields than U.S. government bonds. Many of these securities were backed by subprime mortgages, which collapsed in value when the U.S. housing bubble burst during 2006 and homeowners began to default on their mortgage payments in large numbers starting in 2007.

The emergence of sub-prime loan losses in 2007 began the crisis and exposed other risky loans and over-inflated asset prices. With loan losses mounting and the fall of Lehman Brothers on 15 September 2008, a major panic broke out on the inter-bank loan market. There was the equivalent of a bank run on the shadow banking system, resulting in many large and well established investment and commercial banks in the United States and Europe suffering huge losses and even facing bankruptcy, resulting in massive public financial assistance (government bailouts).- WIKIPEDIA



Reality, facts, truth can be unforgiving, and relentlessly Non-PC.- JSF

Yes, but you only manage to see that when it's Democrats on the shitty end of the stick. Like SECOND, you tirelessly and relentlessly pursue a misguided mission, fueled by a totally warped view of history.

Quote:

Do you believe every tidbit of revisionist tripe the Libtards present to you?-
Libtards have worked tirelessly to incessantly repeat the revisionist history lies that you have mostly regurgitated here. How many times before you succumbed to the onslaught of illogic and irrationality? - JSF

No, but apparently YOU believe every tidbit of revisionist history that the anti-Democrats present to you.

Quote:

What were their excuses when it was happening - do you have any idea, or recall? All of the Libtard news I saw kept saying to keep your money in the collapsing market - they had no clue.- JSF
What a bullshit artist! There were conservatives ON THIS VERY BOARD who were willing to take the "credit" for the big bad bubble because BUSH was in office. I had a very heated and prolonged exchange with one of those right-wingers BEFORE the collapse, who kept insisting that the economy was ON FIRE! while I was the one who kept saying that is was going to burn down.

Quote:

Only the reasonable people knew what was going on. I was constantly steamed every time I saw CNN feverishly working to convince working Americans to lose all of their hard earned money. Causing needless suffering - but that is the hallmark and tradecraft of Libtards and Democraps.- JSF
The banks also did a great job convincing people to lose their shirts on loans they couldn't afford, and no, this wasn't the work of ACORN or Obama or Fannie or Freddie, it was good old-fashioned financialist GREED that won the day, as everyone tried to ride the bubble up and up and up.
Credit and blame where credit and blame is due, JSF. The GOP is just as shitty - or worse- at balancing the Federal budget than Dems.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:30 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
As I indicated, Wikipedia: articles-donated-by-people. Dunno if
the souce is biased or merely vague, uniformed. ... Yet on this
forum, some of You seem educated enough to teach this stuff.
Did you just say that DJ Trump ran as a democrat & a reform
party before scoring as a republican? (Dedicated or Not?)

BTW, purely by accident, I have a 1987 copy of The Art of the Deal.
I didn't read it, don't know if anything in there would help to enlighten.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

IIRC Trump won thousands of votes in California as Reform Party in 2000. Should be able to find that on Yahoo! Search. Lettuce know if you can't find it.
As a lifelong Democrat, with his whole family registered Democrats (cannot vote for any Party other than Dem in NY, not even for Trump himself), why would you think he would run as GOP until after already proving nonviability as the Liberal Candidate?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:44 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

That's extremely partisan of you, JSF. Please don't be like the SECOND of the rpublican party. Bush II didn't achieve utter financial chaos until the very last days of his second term (2008)- SIGNY

Meaning the Rock The Vote Democraps in office Jan 2007, enacting FY2008 Budget which started Oct 2007 and immediately commenced the downfall into financial chaos for a year before the 2008 election, which Obama continued driving down until Mar 2009. Despite Bush43's successes before the Democraps wreaked havoc.- JSF

It would require a breathtaking mental rewrite of history to blame the Federal budget for the monumental chaos that overtook the financial sector beginning in late 2007.

JSF, I just wanted to make that crystal clear. BTW, if you want to figure out WHO was at the controls of the Federal budget, Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2009, and Republicans were in control of the Senate over the same time period, except a 2-year gap from 1999 to 2001.

How can you post such obvious lies, and pretend that your Libtard Facts have any basis in reality?
The 110th Congress, in session for 2007 and 2008, was populated with 233 Democraps and 202 Republicans in the House if Representatives.
What form of Libtard Math translates that into "Republican Control" anyway?

Is everything else you posted just more lies?
Quote:



So in the relevant time period - eight to fourteen years BEFORE the collapse, REPUBLICANS were mostly in control of DC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congres
ses




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:58 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

That's extremely partisan of you, JSF. Please don't be like the SECOND of the rpublican party. Bush II didn't achieve utter financial chaos until the very last days of his second term (2008)- SIGNY

Meaning the Rock The Vote Democraps in office Jan 2007, enacting FY2008 Budget which started Oct 2007 and immediately commenced the downfall into financial chaos for a year before the 2008 election, which Obama continued driving down until Mar 2009. Despite Bush43's successes before the Democraps wreaked havoc.- JSF

It would require a breathtaking mental rewrite of history to blame the Federal budget for the monumental chaos that overtook the financial sector beginning in late 2007.

JSF, I just wanted to make that crystal clear. BTW, if you want to figure out WHO was at the controls of the Federal budget, Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2009, and Republicans were in control of the Senate over the same time period, except a 2-year gap from 1999 to 2001.

How can you post such obvious lies, and pretend that your Libtard Facts have any basis in reality?
The 110th Congress, in session for 2007 and 2008, was populated with 233 Democraps and 202 Republicans in the House if Representatives.
What form of Libtard Math translates that into "Republican Control" anyway?

The Senate had 49 Republicans. News Flash: there are a total of 100 Senators in the Senate. How is 49 of 100 equal to "Control" in Libtard Math?
With 2 "Independents" caucasing with the 49 Democrats, this 51% is where "Control" laid.
Independent Democrap Lieberman and Socialist Sanders were to the Left of Democraps, and we're not going to caucus with Republicans.

The Koolaid is strong with you.
You do good regurgitation. Your Kommandant should be proud.
GIGO.

Is everything else you posted just more lies?
Quote:


So in the relevant time period - eight to fourteen years BEFORE the collapse, REPUBLICANS were mostly in control of DC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congres
ses





Quote:


In your graph, notice the drop when GOP took control of the House in 1995?
Notice the skyrocket when Dems took control of Congress in 2007?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 18, 2017 4:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That's extremely partisan of you, JSF. Please don't be like the SECOND of the republican party. Bush II didn't achieve utter financial chaos until the very last days of his second term (2008)- SIGNY

Meaning the Rock The Vote Democraps in office Jan 2007, enacting FY2008 Budget which started Oct 2007 and immediately commenced the downfall into financial chaos for a year before the 2008 election, which Obama continued driving down until Mar 2009. Despite Bush43's successes before the Democraps wreaked havoc.- JSF

It would require a breathtaking mental rewrite of history to blame the Federal budget for the monumental chaos that overtook the financial sector beginning in late 2007. I just wanted to make that crystal clear. BTW, if you want to figure out WHO was at the controls of the Federal budget, Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2009, and Republicans were in control of the Senate over the same time period, except a 2-year gap from 1999 to 2001. - SIGNY

How can you post such obvious lies, and pretend that your Libtard Facts have any basis in reality? The 110th Congress, in session for 2007 and 2008, was populated with 233 Democraps and 202 Republicans in the House if Representatives.- JSFhe Senate had 49 Republicans. News Flash: there are a total of 100 Senators in the Senate. How is 49 of 100 equal to "Control" in Libtard Math?

In the FOURTEEN YEARS before 2008, there was a ONE YEAR GAP when the GOP was not in control of Congress? Oh whoopie-doo.

Quote:

What form of Libtard Math translates that into "Republican Control" anyway?
The chart that I was reading was very hard to figure out which lines belonged with which years. I've since linked to the actual figure, which show that the GOP was MOSTLY in control of Congress for a full 14 years before 2008. Now, you can spin that as hard as you like, but it still leaves the GOP in control of Congress for more than 90% of that pre-collapse time.

Quote:

Is everything else you posted just more lies?- JSF
, NO, but you'd sure like it to be, wouldn't you? Because it shows the GOP in at least as bad a light as the Dems when it comes to the Federal deficit. and clearly lays the blame for the collapse, not on Obama (whom you would like to blame retroactively) or the Federal government, not on Dems (except Clinton, who deregulated the banks) and not even on the GOP, but on the HOUSING BUBBLE brought about by low interest rates (a problem sources in the Fed) and human greed.

Quote:

In your graph, notice the drop when GOP took control of the House in 1995?- JSF


NO. Not even with a microscope.

All you need to know, JSF, is the total Federal debt that any President started out with, and the total Federal debt that they ended up with. CLINTON was clearly the winner in bringing down the debt, AND the deficit. He had help with increased revenues from the tech bubble .... but then, GWB had the benefit of the real estate bubble, and he STILL managed to burn through a lot of cash the the government didn't have!

I'm not going to debate this with you any further. You're cherry picking your facts like crazy, clearly seeing only what you want to see and intent on putting ALL the blame on Dems, which is counterfactual.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:39 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

That's extremely partisan of you, JSF. Please don't be like the SECOND of the republican party. Bush II didn't achieve utter financial chaos until the very last days of his second term (2008)- SIGNY

Meaning the Rock The Vote Democraps in office Jan 2007, enacting FY2008 Budget which started Oct 2007 and immediately commenced the downfall into financial chaos for a year before the 2008 election, which Obama continued driving down until Mar 2009. Despite Bush43's successes before the Democraps wreaked havoc.- JSF

It would require a breathtaking mental rewrite of history to blame the Federal budget for the monumental chaos that overtook the financial sector beginning in late 2007. I just wanted to make that crystal clear. BTW, if you want to figure out WHO was at the controls of the Federal budget, Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2009, and Republicans were in control of the Senate over the same time period, except a 2-year gap from 1999 to 2001. - SIGNY

How can you post such obvious lies, and pretend that your Libtard Facts have any basis in reality? The 110th Congress, in session for 2007 and 2008, was populated with 233 Democraps and 202 Republicans in the House if Representatives.- JSFhe Senate had 49 Republicans. News Flash: there are a total of 100 Senators in the Senate. How is 49 of 100 equal to "Control" in Libtard Math?

In the FOURTEEN YEARS before 2008, there was a ONE YEAR GAP when the GOP was not in control of Congress? Oh whoopie-doo.

Let's do the math. 1999. 2000. 2007. 2008. Golly, that looks like 4 years of the 14 you specify.
Which would be the 110th Congress, and the 106th Congress.
Quote:

Quote:

What form of Libtard Math translates that into "Republican Control" anyway?
The chart that I was reading was very hard to figure out which lines belonged with which years. I've since linked to the actual figure, which show that the GOP was MOSTLY in control of Congress for a full 14 years before 2008. Now, you can spin that as hard as you like, but it still leaves the GOP in control of Congress for more than 90% of that pre-collapse time.

14 years minus 4 equals 10. Try 71% in Real Math. Breaking News Flash: 71% is not "more than 90%" in non-Libtard Math.
Quote:

Quote:

Is everything else you posted just more lies?- JSF
clearly lays the blame for the collapse, not on Obama (whom you would like to blame retroactively)

None of your retroactive revisionism needed - reasonable people saw the blame fairly and squarely at Obamas feet, right then, before and as it was happening.
Quote:

Quote:

In your graph, notice the drop when GOP took control of the House in 1995?- JSF


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2017 7:23 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


GOP and Trump can’t figure out how to NOT cut taxes for the rich. Trump promised that his tax program wouldn’t help rich people “at all.” His Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin vowed as much in January.

These pledges have always been at odds with the plain text of Republican Party tax promises. Trump rolled out three different tax plans over the course of the campaign, and they all involved huge tax cuts for the rich. Now, however, there’s a new story. They really wanted to avoid a huge tax cut for the rich but they couldn’t figure out how. But factually it’s very easy to do if you want to do it. Details here: www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/18/16496190/mnuchin-rule

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2017 11:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


JSF, in the HOUSE, the GOP was completely in control from Jan 1995 to Jan 2007. That's 12 years. I didn't count 2008 because the collapse was already in motion partway through that year, so that's 12 years out of 13 (or 13.5 if you want to be really picky). Somewhere between 89-92% of the time depending on how much of 2008 you want to count.

In the SENATE, the GOP was in control from Jan 1995 to Jan 2007 except Jan 2001 to Jan 2003, when control of the Senate switched several times. That session began early January with a 50-50 split, but because GWB was sworn in later that month, the GOP got the tiebreaker. Early Jun 2001, Jim Jeffords switched parties from GOP to DEM, giving Dems control. In September 2001 we had the 9-11 attacks, so Congress did pretty much what GWB asked, then in Nov 2002 a Repub Jim Talent wins a special election, giving the GOP control over the Senate once again. If you look at the actual votes, there is very little of GWB's agenda which did NOT get through Congress. In an outpouring of "patriotism" and "support for the President" Congress voted for GWB's tax cut, No Child Left Behind, funding the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, the Patriot Act, and all budget priorities of the President. Again, I didn't count 2008 because the unraveling was already in process roughly halfway through the year. So, if you want to count the political effect of 9-11, the DEMS were in control only four months of that session, which puts the GOP in control roughly 86%-90% of the time.

And don't forget that there was a Republican President in the WH for the last seven of those 13 (13.5) years. Given the political configuration of the last eight years (7.5) before the meltdown, it's impossible for the Dems to have gotten a single one of their priority agenda items through.


*****

Now, as far as Obama being the source of the mortgage woes ... he was a (very junior) lawyer who worked on a lawsuit brought by black Chicago residents against Citibank, for "redlining" their mortgage process. The lawsuit was settled out of court, no decision was reached and no precedent was set. It's true that many left-of-center organizations, such as ACORN, pressed for mortgages for high-risk borrowers, but there was no LAW forcing banks to make these loans. And when we discussed this with ANTHONY, who worked in a bank which was aggressively pushing subprimes out the door, he said that was not even a consideration for the loans being made. The bank simply saw an oppty to make beaucoups bucks and then sell the liabilities on to unwary investors in the form of CDOs (collateralized debt obligations) so that's what they did.

*****

This was done on a background of (then) historically low interest rates set by the Fed. Bill Clinton supposedly won low interest rates from the Greenspan at the Fed by demonstrating fiscal responsibility ... he DID manage to reduce both the debt and the deficit. But in an act of what I can only think of as political favoritism, Greenspan KEPT the interest rates low, even as GWB zoomed the deficit into unheard-of-heights.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:24 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:


Meaning the Rock The Vote Democraps in office Jan 2007, enacting FY2008 Budget which started Oct 2007 and immediately commenced the downfall into financial chaos for a year before the 2008 election, which Obama continued driving down until Mar 2009.- JSF

It would require a breathtaking mental rewrite of history to blame the Federal budget for the monumental chaos that overtook the financial sector beginning in late 2007. I just wanted to make that crystal clear. BTW, if you want to figure out WHO was at the controls of the Federal budget, Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2009, and Republicans were in control of the Senate over the same time period, except a 2-year gap from 1999 to 2001. - SIGNY



My mistake for not checking every one of your endless plethora of errors.
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

How can you post such obvious lies, and pretend that your Libtard Facts have any basis in reality? The 110th Congress, in session for 2007 and 2008, was populated with 233 Democraps and 202 Republicans in the House if Representatives.- JSFhe Senate had 49 Republicans. News Flash: there are a total of 100 Senators in the Senate. How is 49 of 100 equal to "Control" in Libtard Math?
In the FOURTEEN YEARS before 2008, there was a ONE YEAR GAP when the GOP was not in control of Congress? Oh whoopie-doo.

Let's do the math. 1999. 2000. 2007. 2008. Golly, that looks like 4 years of the 14 you specify.
Which would be the 110th Congress, and the 106th Congress.

Replace the 1999 and 2000 of the 106th Congress with 2001 and 2002 of the 107th Congress.
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What form of Libtard Math translates that into "Republican Control" anyway?
The chart that I was reading was very hard to figure out which lines belonged with which years. I've since linked to the actual figure, which show that the GOP was MOSTLY in control of Congress for a full 14 years before 2008. Now, you can spin that as hard as you like, but it still leaves the GOP in control of Congress for more than 90% of that pre-collapse time.

14 years minus 4 equals 10. Try 71% in Real Math. Breaking News Flash: 71% is not "more than 90%" in non-Libtard Math.
Quote:

Quote:

Is everything else you posted just more lies?- JSF
clearly lays the blame for the collapse, not on Obama (whom you would like to blame retroactively)

None of your retroactive revisionism needed - reasonable people saw the blame fairly and squarely at Obamas feet, right then, before and as it was happening.
Quote:

Quote:

In your graph, notice the drop when GOP took control of the House in 1995?- JSF



The Koolaid is strong with this one. Possibly a lost cause.
The Senate of the 107th Congress had 4 months of Republican Majority in Feb, Mar, Apr, May 2001. Nov 2002 Senate was not in session, so there was no change in leadership of Majority for the Lame Duck.

So only 1.6 years of Dem control, instead of 2. 10.4 of 14 is 74%. Or 9.4 of 13 is 72%.

Retroactive charts, revisionist summaries, excuses, rationalizations keep the Koolaid concentration high, when confronted with real world, actually living through it, while paying attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 19, 2017 4:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


First of all, don't count 2008. By then, the collapse was already underway, so it's not 14 years in question, it's 13. Like I said, 13.5, if you want to be really picky.

And over ALL that time, the GOP had control of AT LEAST two of the three elements of policy-making- either they were in control of Congress, or they were in control of the House and the Presidency ... that is, when they weren't in control of all three elements.

But even IGNORING all that ... let's assume that your math is correct (which it isn't), what YOU'RE saying is that although the GOP had control of Congress "only" three-quarters of the thirteen years before 2008, and "only" had control of two of three elements of legislation 100% of the time, it's all the Democrat's fault.

The Koolaid is strong with this one, indeed.

I'm going to move off your ridiculous argument, and get back to the topic of the thread, which is Trump's greatest failures. I'll be looking at those failures not from the political standpoint of Trump failing to move his agenda items forward, but actually failing the country, as I see it.

So far, one of his biggest failings IMHO is failing to certify Iran as being in compliance with the nuclear deal. Trump has had a grotch against Iran since b4 he won the WH. As far as I can tell, it's entirely irrational from an American POV, and only makes sense if his outlook is overly influenced by Zionist advocates, i.e. Jared Kushner.

I'm busy so I'll have to get into WHY I think this is a failing later.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2017 1:01 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
First of all, don't count 2008. By then, the collapse was already underway, so it's not 14 years in question, it's 13. Like I said, 13.5, if you want to be really picky.

And over ALL that time, the GOP had control of AT LEAST two of the three elements of policy-making- either they were in control of Congress, or they were in control of the House and the Presidency ... that is, when they weren't in control of all three elements.

But even IGNORING all that ... let's assume that your math is correct (which it isn't), what YOU'RE saying is that although the GOP had control of Congress "only" three-quarters of the thirteen years before 2008, and "only" had control of two of three elements of legislation 100% of the time,

2007 and 2008 had one third, as already pointed out with Real World facts, truth, logic void of Libtard bias. So that would be 12 of 14 years, or 12 of 13 years - neither of which equals 100%.
And trying to claim that Real Math isn't correct because your Fake Libtard Math is Mo Betta is quite a hoot.
Quote:

it's all the Democrat's fault.

The Koolaid is strong with this one, indeed.

I'm going to move off your ridiculous argument, and get back to the topic of the thread, which is Trump's greatest failures. I'll be looking at those failures not from the political standpoint of Trump failing to move his agenda items forward, but actually failing the country, as I see it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 3:37 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


A far more reasonable and appropriate application of your logic is to consider how badly the Democrats have mangled America.
Democraps have had control of at least 2 of the 3 power groups you identified (House, Senate, White House) for 55.6 years of the 76 years before 2009. That is over 73%. And 32 of those years the Dems had all 3 in their control.
Republicans had at least 2 of the 3 for 20.4 years of those 76 years.
Obviously, everything wrong with America since 1932 is the fault of the Democraps, and only the recent spate of elections of reasonable Republicans has brought America back from the brink of disaster.
And Democraps kept getting us into wars. FDR got us into WWII (WWI was Wilson), HST got us into Korea, LBJ got us into Vietnam (or JFK). And Clinton left over the Jihad War after dropping all those bombs on empty tents whenever another of his never-ending supply of scandals erupted onto the front page.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:30 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


[img]





HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:42 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Democraps have had control of at least 2 of the 3 power groups you identified (House, Senate, White House) for 55.6 years of the 76 years before 2009."

I'm curious why you feel the need to go all the way back to 1933, unless all you're trying to do is inflate your argument.

In that case, let me point out how dominant republicans were going back to 1857.

But going back to 1933 - a lot has happened since then - the Great Depression, WWII, the US going off the gold standard, the petro-dollar, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the chronic trade imbalance, the rise of Germany and Japan as high-tech powerhouses and the rise of China as the cheap labor powerhouse of the planet ...

I'd think you'd want to cite more economically relevant time periods.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:18 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

[img]


Quote:


HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

Good chart. But it has too much information, too many facts which SIGs disagrees with. Remember, facts are lies, and Math is incorrect.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:36 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Democraps have had control of at least 2 of the 3 power groups you identified (House, Senate, White House) for 55.6 years of the 76 years before 2009."

I'm curious why you feel the need to go all the way back to 1933, unless all you're trying to do is inflate your argument.

In that case, let me point out how dominant republicans were going back to 1857.

But going back to 1933 - a lot has happened since then - the Great Depression, WWII, the US going off the gold standard, the petro-dollar, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the chronic trade imbalance, the rise of Germany and Japan as high-tech powerhouses and the rise of China as the cheap labor powerhouse of the planet ...

I'd think you'd want to cite more economically relevant time periods.




HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
I was not arguing that SIGs had a reasonable or logical selection of time period. I was pointing out the randomness of rationalization she used.
Per your suggested time period (your chart implies there was no other Party before Republicans), the Republucans were created to end Slavery, and defeat the Racist Democrats and their Slavery mantra. Just because America kept voting reasonably to end Slavery, and give Black Men the Right To Vote, and give Women the Right To Vote - all which Democrats opposed and objected to - does not mean a coherent fiscal doctrine was the primary factor in Party success.
After Women were granted the Right To Vote in 1920, it could be argued Blacks and women voted poorly, voted in those who opposed them.

I already cited the relevant Fiscal time period. The Rock-the-Vote teenagers of 2006, their first Federal Budget of 2008, starting in Oct 2007.
Oct 2007 was the end of the Bush43 prosperity, end end of the adults handling the fiscal reins.
In 2006, all of the 18-26 year olds had not been born before Reagan and Reaganomics, and their genius could not concieve of the economic disasters the Democraps would unleash, as in the past. Not so many decades before, teens were not even allowed to vote, and in 2006 their substandard wisdom was fully displayed for the first time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


JSF- please get off your idiocy, The chart says what I said, so please look at it more closely and interpret it correctly this time.

*****

Now as far as Trump's failures, I don't count his tweets. There's a difference between what someone SAYS and what someone DOES.

Trump tweets a lot of things, but there are only a few things that he's done, and even many of those things aren't yet completed and therefore not possible to evaluate.

TPP (Pacific nations trade) is dead, as far a I can tell. TTIP (Atlantic nations trade) is ALSO dead; it was mercy-killed by Merkel in response to Trump winning the election. That, IMHO, is a win, not a failure. It can only be turned into a failure if the trade agreements are (somehow) revived and approved. THAT would be a failure!

NAFTA is being renegotiated. Now, IMHO I would prefer to see it killed entirely; I'm not sure what will come out of negotiations, so that's still an open question.

Trump has proposed several "travel bans", none of which I have a problem with. There's no reason NOT to increase scrutiny in visitors and immigrants from nations whose vetting process is incomplete (to say the least). In fact, where ANY nation is unable to provide secure documentation on a person's ID, I think everyone from that nation should be held up for further vetting. Since the travel bans are being held up in court, they are neither a win nor a loss, yet.

Trump, by sheer jawboning and limited Presidential action, has reversed the illegal immigration trend. I think you all know how I feel about illegal immigration ... "What part of illegal don't you understand?" ... so that's a win. Now, if they would only get to amending the 14th Amendment and making English our official language, I'd feel that something important was accomplished.

Trump has taken several actions to chip away at Obamacare. I'm of two minds about that: On the one hand, Obamacare was a big wet kiss to big pharma and the insurers and was unsustainable because it didn't include cost controls. OTOH, I don't think it's wise eliminate something until you have a better replacement. Not a greatest failure, but still a failure.

Climate change? The climate accord was so weak-kneed anyway, it prolly wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. I'm not going to mourn something so flawed.

The biggest problem I've seen so far is Trumps inability to end our endless warmongering. He has not been able to extricate us from anywhere, or to reach a dialogue with anyone. In some ways, maybe taking the "full spectrum dominance" model up to- and beyond- its capabilities, our allies and partners will slowly peel off from our ridiculous and counterproductive foreign policy and we'll be left all alone, trumpeting our aggression to the wind.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Yeah America
Sun, November 19, 2017 07:46 - 19 posts
Is this really "the lowest point in our nation’s history that they can remember"?
Sun, November 19, 2017 07:43 - 161 posts
Evidence: So where are we now(II) ?
Sat, November 18, 2017 18:04 - 62 posts
The Scumbag from Alabama - 5th Accusser Surfaces
Sat, November 18, 2017 09:25 - 24 posts
The Evidens
Fri, November 17, 2017 13:52 - 720 posts
FACEBOOK: Send us your nudes (for your own protection)
Fri, November 17, 2017 11:24 - 20 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Fri, November 17, 2017 11:08 - 184 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Fri, November 17, 2017 11:02 - 611 posts
Shout out to Second - hope you are doing well
Fri, November 17, 2017 08:34 - 180 posts
Mueller, Trump and the case for Obstruction of Justice
Fri, November 17, 2017 04:15 - 102 posts
Puerto Rico - U.S. Virgin Islands
Fri, November 17, 2017 02:58 - 138 posts
Child Molester wins 3 Daytime Emmy Awards
Thu, November 16, 2017 23:55 - 16 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL