 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Other Comments » COMPTON'z politcal viewz on dis election......
FrosteeTBear
I have seen all the good times and bad--it's the same throughout history--Republicans come in -cut taxes -make everyone happy--until the country starts going downhill...........enter the democrats to up the tax rate--but soon there are more jobs--the country is doing fine.............so lets bring in another republican and cut our taxes so we will live high on the hog again--nobody learns!
Actually Republicans are very lucky that Trump won--barely---because the republican party was in a state of disappearing--might still be--they couldn't even find anybody to run----so they now grab on to Trump out of desperation.
And now you can criticize me all you want cause you know I am right--people anymore don't want hate or the old conservative bastardos that the republicans bring in and voted for Trump because he offered something different.............but will soon find out that he is just making up crapola as he goes along--trying to see what he can hype next! And after that you will be the one playing with your playdough................
[Edited on 11-29-2016 by FrosteeTBear]
November 29, 2016 at 01:55AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyDThe idiots don't bother me any--you are the smart one--I am the stupid one that has lived 63 years through all these Presidents--all you go on is what you read--I go on what I lived through.
Originally posted by FrosteeTBear
And conservatives are just mean spirited and don't care what you think about them cause their EGO has been implanted to be superior!
Frostee still needs some Playdough. The big bad conservatives are gong to push you and grandma off the cliff!
:lol:
I have seen all the good times and bad--it's the same throughout history--Republicans come in -cut taxes -make everyone happy--until the country starts going downhill...........enter the democrats to up the tax rate--but soon there are more jobs--the country is doing fine.............so lets bring in another republican and cut our taxes so we will live high on the hog again--nobody learns!
Actually Republicans are very lucky that Trump won--barely---because the republican party was in a state of disappearing--might still be--they couldn't even find anybody to run----so they now grab on to Trump out of desperation.
And now you can criticize me all you want cause you know I am right--people anymore don't want hate or the old conservative bastardos that the republicans bring in and voted for Trump because he offered something different.............but will soon find out that he is just making up crapola as he goes along--trying to see what he can hype next! And after that you will be the one playing with your playdough................
[Edited on 11-29-2016 by FrosteeTBear]
WillyD
So Republicans cut taxes and the economy goes south. Is that what happened in the early 80's? Jimmy Carter had things going well huh? LBJ too? Dot.com bubble burst at the end of Clinton's 2nd term. I guess you don't remember that, huh? Gimme a break Frostee. You sound like a buffoon. You're really showing off your in-depth knowledge of how economies work, aren't you? Very impressive.
November 29, 2016 at 04:57AM View BBCode
Yeah, 63 years and you still haven't found out that most of those Republicans and Democrats are all working or the same people. You democrats are having hard time understanding why Trump won. It's the same reason that Bernie did well (and should have beaten HRC in the primaries). We're tired of politicians who pander to one side or the other, and don't do anything but talk a good game, collect their paychecks, and accept their bribes.So Republicans cut taxes and the economy goes south. Is that what happened in the early 80's? Jimmy Carter had things going well huh? LBJ too? Dot.com bubble burst at the end of Clinton's 2nd term. I guess you don't remember that, huh? Gimme a break Frostee. You sound like a buffoon. You're really showing off your in-depth knowledge of how economies work, aren't you? Very impressive.
WillyD
I like how you go way off track here. Talking about free speech, inclusion, and acceptance of other's beliefs, and you bring up Healthcare and education.
If you think our healthcare is now better because of Obamacare, you're clueless. We have the most talented doctors in the world yes, and if you think socialized medicine will keep that true, your sadly mistaken. The affordable care act is unaffordable for many of the people it was supposed to help. The younger people who were supposed to enroll and fund the older folks, didn't enroll. System is broke. Thanks Obama and liberal nitwits! Greaat job!
November 29, 2016 at 05:04AM View BBCode
Originally posted by DW_Geoff
Originally posted by WillyD
I'm sorry, but every liberal I know is unable to self-analyze, or be objective. It's a common flaw amongst the left. The talk about inclusion and free speech, but tend to fail way short of actually doing this. They don'y realize that the end game result of their policies will eventually squash both, which is quite sad.
So what is the endgame of affordable health care and accessible higher education...Wait, I know, the deterioration of both. Now while The US has the best health care in the world, the same cannot be said for its universities.
I like how you go way off track here. Talking about free speech, inclusion, and acceptance of other's beliefs, and you bring up Healthcare and education.
If you think our healthcare is now better because of Obamacare, you're clueless. We have the most talented doctors in the world yes, and if you think socialized medicine will keep that true, your sadly mistaken. The affordable care act is unaffordable for many of the people it was supposed to help. The younger people who were supposed to enroll and fund the older folks, didn't enroll. System is broke. Thanks Obama and liberal nitwits! Greaat job!
WillyD
What makes you think I like Bush? I guess you didn't read the posts very thoroughly. Just skipped to the liberal talking points I'm guessing. Bush was a failure, just like Obama was, and just like Bill Clinton was.
Bush and Clinton, and Obama are part of the same team. They got you guys so fooled. I was that way once, trapped in the Democrat vs. Republican battle for the heart and soul of the country. It's a sham, and they just play people off against each other all the while laughing all the way to their central banks.
Trump and Bernie did a good enough job of making people think they might not be part of the establishment, and got large amounts of votes from people who were tired of the middle classes being screwed over by the rich elites. Did they fool us? Probably so. At least there's a shred of hope left. Clinton would have crushed all hope
November 29, 2016 at 05:38AM View BBCode
Originally posted by DW_Geoff
Originally posted by WillyD
I'm sorry, but every liberal I know is unable to self-analyze, or be objective. It's a common flaw amongst the left. The talk about inclusion and free speech, but tend to fail way short of actually doing this. They don'y realize that the end game result of their policies will eventually squash both, which is quite sad.
So what is the endgame of affordable health care and accessible higher education...Wait, I know, the deterioration of both. Now while The US has the best health care in the world, the same cannot be said for its universities.
And the media is very biased, and that has been proved to be the case over and over again. They didn't even try to hide it this election. And how would anyone know that what they're watching is biased if they only watch those same old sources? Go back and watch some election coverage from the 70s and 80s and compare it to today.
The media has been extremely biased, and no they did not try to hide it this election. But the Left media was more willing to criticize Obama than the Right Bush Jr. Rupert Murdoch changed the unbiased media and we have been paying for it.
LOL, don't bother answering. No ability to self analyze is common problem.
Nice, again If Bush promised to do something and didn't do it a person like you would make up some Good for the Country BS to justify it (of course it begs the question if it was bad for the country why would he...oh never mind) If Obama did the same he just be an American hating Muslim.
What makes you think I like Bush? I guess you didn't read the posts very thoroughly. Just skipped to the liberal talking points I'm guessing. Bush was a failure, just like Obama was, and just like Bill Clinton was.
Bush and Clinton, and Obama are part of the same team. They got you guys so fooled. I was that way once, trapped in the Democrat vs. Republican battle for the heart and soul of the country. It's a sham, and they just play people off against each other all the while laughing all the way to their central banks.
Trump and Bernie did a good enough job of making people think they might not be part of the establishment, and got large amounts of votes from people who were tired of the middle classes being screwed over by the rich elites. Did they fool us? Probably so. At least there's a shred of hope left. Clinton would have crushed all hope
WillyD
Rupert Murdoch didn't change the unbiased media. There hasn't been an unbiased media for a long time. Murdoch found a market. The silent majority, and has become the only check and balance to a totally out of control, and immoral media. Fox News is a much better network than CNN. The only thing CNN does well is the election coverage. Not the various commentary from scum bags like Van Jones, but the state by state, county by county analysis of exit polls, etc.
That doesn't mean Fox News doesn't have issues like the rest of the media. They don't report on many important stories going on in the rest of the world. The sad reality is that all major media outlets in our country are controlled by just a few very wealthy and connected people, that are totally colluding with the real powers that run the global economy.
November 29, 2016 at 05:44AM View BBCode
Originally posted by DW_Geoff
Originally posted by WillyD
And the media is very biased, and that has been proved to be the case over and over again. They didn't even try to hide it this election. And how would anyone know that what they're watching is biased if they only watch those same old sources? Go back and watch some election coverage from the 70s and 80s and compare it to today.
The media has been extremely biased, and no they did not try to hide it this election. But the Left media was more willing to criticize Obama than the Right Bush Jr. Rupert Murdoch changed the unbiased media and we have been paying for it.
Rupert Murdoch didn't change the unbiased media. There hasn't been an unbiased media for a long time. Murdoch found a market. The silent majority, and has become the only check and balance to a totally out of control, and immoral media. Fox News is a much better network than CNN. The only thing CNN does well is the election coverage. Not the various commentary from scum bags like Van Jones, but the state by state, county by county analysis of exit polls, etc.
That doesn't mean Fox News doesn't have issues like the rest of the media. They don't report on many important stories going on in the rest of the world. The sad reality is that all major media outlets in our country are controlled by just a few very wealthy and connected people, that are totally colluding with the real powers that run the global economy.
WillyD
Memo to DW Geoff:
Guns don't kill people. People do. They'll use vehicles, butcher knives, or whatever they can get their hands on. Another news flash for you. Governments kill more people than all of the individual murderers of the world combined. That's why we have a 2nd amendment. Only fools trust government.
The Oil thing was as much of a con game as the WMDs. Again don't presume to know what I believe. I'm pretty sure I have a much clearer picture of your beliefs than you do of mine.
Obama didn't get Osama. LOL. The military got him.
Of course, I don't trust the media much on the "War on Terror" It's all a big propaganda ploy to scare the world into going along with the world's elites' agenda. The CIA funded him against the Soviets, so what makes you think they couldn't have kept funding him? Every conspiracy needs a patsy to lay the blame. Do you still think Oswald killed Kennedy by himself? The government said so, so it must be true...
[Edited on 11-29-2016 by WillyD]
November 29, 2016 at 05:55AM View BBCode
Originally posted by DW_Geoff
Originally posted by WillyD
How many stories have you seen that were critical of Obama? 8 years, and many mistakes later, and I bet there weren't 1/100 of the negative stories that Bush saw published during his 2 terms. Why do you think that is? Obama was a good President?
Interesting, What makes a good President? I suppose its history more than anything else. Can a president stand a chance when he doesn't have the support of the house. Unlikely, In fact a President has very little influence on the lives of Americans. He tries to set an Agenda, and can block legislation. Now Conservatives will naturally dislike Obama in the first place because he was likely the most leftist of All Presidents since FDR, and I Buy that because its the current Right's view that all social programs are the root of some evil. He spoke for Gun control, and something any Republican will never say. The Bush administration loved the fear, the rainbow of alerts, protected our oil supply sent men to die in a war on false pretenses(or are you the last American to believe in WMDs). Footnote it was Obama that got Bin Laden.
Memo to DW Geoff:
Guns don't kill people. People do. They'll use vehicles, butcher knives, or whatever they can get their hands on. Another news flash for you. Governments kill more people than all of the individual murderers of the world combined. That's why we have a 2nd amendment. Only fools trust government.
The Oil thing was as much of a con game as the WMDs. Again don't presume to know what I believe. I'm pretty sure I have a much clearer picture of your beliefs than you do of mine.
Obama didn't get Osama. LOL. The military got him.
Of course, I don't trust the media much on the "War on Terror" It's all a big propaganda ploy to scare the world into going along with the world's elites' agenda. The CIA funded him against the Soviets, so what makes you think they couldn't have kept funding him? Every conspiracy needs a patsy to lay the blame. Do you still think Oswald killed Kennedy by himself? The government said so, so it must be true...
[Edited on 11-29-2016 by WillyD]
compton10101010
November 29, 2016 at 03:08PM View BBCode
willyd...............sum of yo $hit actually haz sum truth particularly no big diff between rite an left agenda wit da media bein influencial wit no check an balance...........an itz true dat layin' blame off on indavidual 2 keep govt agenda movin iz prolly true az well..........there iz no doubt dat eitha candidate fo sevral election cyclez iz bought an paid fo by special intraest in most casez.............where u git off track iz dat dis guy da got elected ain't a refreshin' change but ratha tha opportunity 2 move 2ward facism............if u think $hit iz broken then every1 will now see if da constitution holdz up.............if u ain't seein it COMPTON will refer 2 dat book wit da personality disordaz...........u can then look up yo own an trumpz...............COMPTON
FrosteeTBear
November 30, 2016 at 04:40AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyDYou are the buffoon to actually think Trump will do anything different--already he has assembled people that he thinks will be able to help him (since he knows nothing) and they are the same Governmental people that are already in there--and you are so gullible to think that is going to make a difference..........sounds like something out of stupid kid's mouths!
Yeah, 63 years and you still haven't found out that most of those Republicans and Democrats are all working or the same people. You democrats are having hard time understanding why Trump won. It's the same reason that Bernie did well (and should have beaten HRC in the primaries). We're tired of politicians who pander to one side or the other, and don't do anything but talk a good game, collect their paychecks, and accept their bribes.
So Republicans cut taxes and the economy goes south. Is that what happened in the early 80's? Jimmy Carter had things going well huh? LBJ too? Dot.com bubble burst at the end of Clinton's 2nd term. I guess you don't remember that, huh? Gimme a break Frostee. You sound like a buffoon. You're really showing off your in-depth knowledge of how economies work, aren't you? Very impressive.
thatrogue
What Frostee quotes is a historical trend since WWII, and you can read about it here: [url]http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/aa8a57a8-ac12-45c8-8f72-b3261c4c798a/jec-fact-sheet---the-economy-under-democratic-vs.-republican-presidents.pdf[/url]
and here: [url]http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/10/AER_revision.pdf[/url]
I would also refute the bolded section for the following reasons:
1. Bernie did well because people don't like HRC...she is not a charismatic figure. Some people (including women) even admitted that they don't want a woman as President. A number of people looked for a reason to vote against her, and Bernie's messages resonated well, (the impact of raising concerns about college tuition/student loans motivated the younger voters that often make up the front-line of campaign volunteer efforts). Concerns raised in the general election about the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, or missing e-mails had little impact on the primaries/caucuses. Many Dems/Liberals just didn't "like" her, from her reputation as a Hawk, to her connections to Wall Street, to her support of increased penalties for non-violent crimes, and ties to the for-profit prison industry. HRC was actually too conservative to a number of people within the party...and that came back to bite her from a voter turnout standpoint in the general election. Which leads us to:
2. HRC lost the general election because Trump is charismatic enough to sway the right number of voters in key states...because HRC's flaws were whipped into a media frenzy (along with a social media frenzy courtesy of Wikileaks)...and because HRC failed to inspire, and didn't campaign hard/focus enough in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. HRC lost Michigan by roughly 11,000 votes...she lost Wisconsin by roughly 22,000 votes...and she lost Pennsylvania by roughly 71,000 votes. In a nation of 319 million people, with 200 million registered voters, and 127 million votes cast, those 134,000 votes decided the future of our country. The bottom line is that HRC was a flawed candidate, and although Trump has significant flaws of his own, she could not get enough people, in a few key states, to come out and support her. Which is proof of:
3. There wasn't this massive groundswell of rebellion against "politicians who talk a good game, collect paychecks and take bribes". It wasn't a big "F-U" to the ruling elite". If that were the case, why were the significant majority of incumbent members of Congress re-elected? Why was Trump elected after receiving fewer total votes than McCain or Romney, who both lost? There was no massive "people's movement" against the system. The people who have significant influence over the current crop of politicians have not been negatively impacted, nor displaced. People don't really want the system changed...just modified to better care for their interests/needs. Do you think that 2A supporters want the NRA to cease lobbying politicians on their behalf? Do you think that union members want their unions to stop exerting influence?
4. The conservative media and the liberal media are both working for the same goal...it is all about ratings and dollars ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/one-billion-dollars-profit-yes-the-campaign-has-been-a-gusher-for-cnn/2016/10/27/1fc879e6-9c6f-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?utm_term=.6b3a72af01ee[/url]). To quote a line you used, they are two sides of the same coin...and people choose to support the version and seek their information from whichever side presents the story in a way that best reflects their own personal views. Which is the same thing they do with politicians.
Additionally, I posted some of these views elsewhere, but I'll repeat them here:
Trump's no outsider. For decades, he's partnered with and borrowed from the very banks he claimed were connected to HRC. He reached out to Bill Clinton, who suggested that he should run for office. How does that make him an outsider? How many poor/working class people are benefiting from the recent run-up in the stock market, or by the increase in interest rates? Most people's 401ks, other retirement accounts and/or pension funds are so small, relatively speaking, that they've made a few thousand dollars, at most. Meanwhile, Trump's tax policy is going to benefit large corporations and wealthy/upper middle class individuals far more than it benefits the poor and the large majority of the middle class. When you do the math on the tax proposal, the lowest household income to be considered in the top 1% ($388K) will get a tax benefit of approximately $51,000, or nearly $1,000/week. The median household income in the US ($52K) would get a tax benefit of approximately $2,100, or roughly $40/week. And, with the changes to the various credits, many middle class families will wind up paying more.
As a nation, we have to wake up...the vast number of manufacturing jobs that have left the U.S. are not going to come back, and the $40/week in lower taxes (for the average income family) is not going to significantly improve people's lives. We're going to need a significantly improved education system to produce different skills and a different focus...in order to succeed in a different era. We definitely need to have a strong national defense, and properly protect our borders. Unfortunately, the majority of terrorists that kill on our soil were more often than not, born and/or raised here from a young age...like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Adam Lanza, Mark Barton, Dylann Roof, Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer, Omar Mateen, Seung-Hui Cho, Nidal Hasan, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Aaron Alexis, James Holmes, Scott Dekraai, and many others. How is a wall, or restrictions on immigration going to protect us from the majority of them?
Speaking of which, I can understand how certain people in certain countries can be influenced to act against us. But these home grown traitors are a true disgrace to our nation, and we need more media coverage and public outrage against that kind of behavior (not just the furor about gun control, but more changes to how we parent, how we educate, and how we get involved in our communities). I'm all for peaceful protest if there is a clear objective to seek meaningful change...and I can understand the escalation of protest, in certain cases (like to stop things like this: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/martin-shkreli-style-drug-price-hikes-are-everywhere/[/url] and this: [url]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/how-mylan-hiked-prices-of-lots-of-other-products-besides-life-saving-epipen.html[/url]). But, as a nation, we need to make it clear to young people, our friends, families and others in our sphere of influence, that there is no need to take anyone's life unless specifically defending your own. I hope we begin to focus on that as significantly as we harp on protecting borders against external threats.
[Edited on 11-30-2016 by thatrogue]
November 30, 2016 at 11:58AM View BBCode
Originally posted by WillyDWell, there is this:
Yeah, 63 years and you still haven't found out that most of those Republicans and Democrats are all working or the same people. You democrats are having hard time understanding why Trump won. It's the same reason that Bernie did well (and should have beaten HRC in the primaries). We're tired of politicians who pander to one side or the other, and don't do anything but talk a good game, collect their paychecks, and accept their bribes.
So Republicans cut taxes and the economy goes south. Is that what happened in the early 80's? Jimmy Carter had things going well huh? LBJ too? Dot.com bubble burst at the end of Clinton's 2nd term. I guess you don't remember that, huh? Gimme a break Frostee. You sound like a buffoon. You're really showing off your in-depth knowledge of how economies work, aren't you? Very impressive.
What Frostee quotes is a historical trend since WWII, and you can read about it here: [url]http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/aa8a57a8-ac12-45c8-8f72-b3261c4c798a/jec-fact-sheet---the-economy-under-democratic-vs.-republican-presidents.pdf[/url]
and here: [url]http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/10/AER_revision.pdf[/url]
I would also refute the bolded section for the following reasons:
1. Bernie did well because people don't like HRC...she is not a charismatic figure. Some people (including women) even admitted that they don't want a woman as President. A number of people looked for a reason to vote against her, and Bernie's messages resonated well, (the impact of raising concerns about college tuition/student loans motivated the younger voters that often make up the front-line of campaign volunteer efforts). Concerns raised in the general election about the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, or missing e-mails had little impact on the primaries/caucuses. Many Dems/Liberals just didn't "like" her, from her reputation as a Hawk, to her connections to Wall Street, to her support of increased penalties for non-violent crimes, and ties to the for-profit prison industry. HRC was actually too conservative to a number of people within the party...and that came back to bite her from a voter turnout standpoint in the general election. Which leads us to:
2. HRC lost the general election because Trump is charismatic enough to sway the right number of voters in key states...because HRC's flaws were whipped into a media frenzy (along with a social media frenzy courtesy of Wikileaks)...and because HRC failed to inspire, and didn't campaign hard/focus enough in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. HRC lost Michigan by roughly 11,000 votes...she lost Wisconsin by roughly 22,000 votes...and she lost Pennsylvania by roughly 71,000 votes. In a nation of 319 million people, with 200 million registered voters, and 127 million votes cast, those 134,000 votes decided the future of our country. The bottom line is that HRC was a flawed candidate, and although Trump has significant flaws of his own, she could not get enough people, in a few key states, to come out and support her. Which is proof of:
3. There wasn't this massive groundswell of rebellion against "politicians who talk a good game, collect paychecks and take bribes". It wasn't a big "F-U" to the ruling elite". If that were the case, why were the significant majority of incumbent members of Congress re-elected? Why was Trump elected after receiving fewer total votes than McCain or Romney, who both lost? There was no massive "people's movement" against the system. The people who have significant influence over the current crop of politicians have not been negatively impacted, nor displaced. People don't really want the system changed...just modified to better care for their interests/needs. Do you think that 2A supporters want the NRA to cease lobbying politicians on their behalf? Do you think that union members want their unions to stop exerting influence?
4. The conservative media and the liberal media are both working for the same goal...it is all about ratings and dollars ([url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/one-billion-dollars-profit-yes-the-campaign-has-been-a-gusher-for-cnn/2016/10/27/1fc879e6-9c6f-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?utm_term=.6b3a72af01ee[/url]). To quote a line you used, they are two sides of the same coin...and people choose to support the version and seek their information from whichever side presents the story in a way that best reflects their own personal views. Which is the same thing they do with politicians.
Additionally, I posted some of these views elsewhere, but I'll repeat them here:
Trump's no outsider. For decades, he's partnered with and borrowed from the very banks he claimed were connected to HRC. He reached out to Bill Clinton, who suggested that he should run for office. How does that make him an outsider? How many poor/working class people are benefiting from the recent run-up in the stock market, or by the increase in interest rates? Most people's 401ks, other retirement accounts and/or pension funds are so small, relatively speaking, that they've made a few thousand dollars, at most. Meanwhile, Trump's tax policy is going to benefit large corporations and wealthy/upper middle class individuals far more than it benefits the poor and the large majority of the middle class. When you do the math on the tax proposal, the lowest household income to be considered in the top 1% ($388K) will get a tax benefit of approximately $51,000, or nearly $1,000/week. The median household income in the US ($52K) would get a tax benefit of approximately $2,100, or roughly $40/week. And, with the changes to the various credits, many middle class families will wind up paying more.
As a nation, we have to wake up...the vast number of manufacturing jobs that have left the U.S. are not going to come back, and the $40/week in lower taxes (for the average income family) is not going to significantly improve people's lives. We're going to need a significantly improved education system to produce different skills and a different focus...in order to succeed in a different era. We definitely need to have a strong national defense, and properly protect our borders. Unfortunately, the majority of terrorists that kill on our soil were more often than not, born and/or raised here from a young age...like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Adam Lanza, Mark Barton, Dylann Roof, Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer, Omar Mateen, Seung-Hui Cho, Nidal Hasan, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Aaron Alexis, James Holmes, Scott Dekraai, and many others. How is a wall, or restrictions on immigration going to protect us from the majority of them?
Speaking of which, I can understand how certain people in certain countries can be influenced to act against us. But these home grown traitors are a true disgrace to our nation, and we need more media coverage and public outrage against that kind of behavior (not just the furor about gun control, but more changes to how we parent, how we educate, and how we get involved in our communities). I'm all for peaceful protest if there is a clear objective to seek meaningful change...and I can understand the escalation of protest, in certain cases (like to stop things like this: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/martin-shkreli-style-drug-price-hikes-are-everywhere/[/url] and this: [url]http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/how-mylan-hiked-prices-of-lots-of-other-products-besides-life-saving-epipen.html[/url]). But, as a nation, we need to make it clear to young people, our friends, families and others in our sphere of influence, that there is no need to take anyone's life unless specifically defending your own. I hope we begin to focus on that as significantly as we harp on protecting borders against external threats.
[Edited on 11-30-2016 by thatrogue]
WillyD
Does your chart take into account that the dot.com bubble burst in the last quarter of Clinton's 2nd term? This is kind of like saying the Patriot's have the 2nd best defense in the NFL. We all know that they don't, but they're 2nd in PPG given up. No mention that they've played against most of the weaker offenses in the league.
In regards to your election thoughts, I agree with a lot of it, but think you're downplaying the amount of desire to see Washington changed. There was less voter turnout for sure, but there were a lot of new voters as well. Without them, the voting totals would've been down much more significantly.
November 30, 2016 at 06:06PM View BBCode
Statistics in the hands of people who don't fully understand them are dangerous things. Growth in the economy doesn't happen overnight. It takes time for new policies to take effect.Does your chart take into account that the dot.com bubble burst in the last quarter of Clinton's 2nd term? This is kind of like saying the Patriot's have the 2nd best defense in the NFL. We all know that they don't, but they're 2nd in PPG given up. No mention that they've played against most of the weaker offenses in the league.
In regards to your election thoughts, I agree with a lot of it, but think you're downplaying the amount of desire to see Washington changed. There was less voter turnout for sure, but there were a lot of new voters as well. Without them, the voting totals would've been down much more significantly.
thatrogue
Plus, the effect of policies aren't always delayed...sometimes markets and businesses react based on the expected outcome of policy changes. Look at specific companies'/industries' recent stock price performances, based on Trump's proposed policies. Look at the price of oil, based on what's currently going on with OPEC. The facts of that chart are not refutable...they're just something that many people are unwilling to acknowledge and accept, when evaluating the historical economic impact of the political parties' policies.
[Edited on 12-1-2016 by thatrogue]
December 01, 2016 at 04:11AM View BBCode
Why would you think that economists and financial experts, who monitor such trends, don't understand how to use statistics...thus making them dangerous? Of course their chart takes that into account. Much of the total loss in the dot.com bubble crash were paper losses from the impact to the stock market. GDP didn't suffer nearly as significantly as it did during the housing market bubble crash of 2007/2008...which negatively impacted liquidity and thus, severely contracted the economy.Plus, the effect of policies aren't always delayed...sometimes markets and businesses react based on the expected outcome of policy changes. Look at specific companies'/industries' recent stock price performances, based on Trump's proposed policies. Look at the price of oil, based on what's currently going on with OPEC. The facts of that chart are not refutable...they're just something that many people are unwilling to acknowledge and accept, when evaluating the historical economic impact of the political parties' policies.
[Edited on 12-1-2016 by thatrogue]
compton10101
December 01, 2016 at 08:05PM View BBCode
COMPTON thinkz rogue iz on point............COMPTON
compton10101010
December 02, 2016 at 09:36PM View BBCode
COMPTON thinkz dis ego infestaed sociopathic willyd eitha thinkz he iz da most well informed genius in da world or da rest of us should dis becum hiz campaign team an run hiz GD election 4 yearz from now since nobody knowz anythin' but hiz arrgant @zz...........in case u ain't figgered it out az da rest here have..........nobody here thinkz u know much bout world politicz in a real sense since ur stump speech fo ur kinda hate iz endin up here on simdynasty.............any1 dat impassioned on an issue on dis site an iz dat rigid on knowin dat they rite haz serious mental health disorda............since u aint doin in yoself look up narcissistic personality disorda.......try it on it will fit well..................COMPTON