Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

Free optional entertainment since (at least) 14 July 1998
...
Meanwhile… somewhere in the US the Rolling Stones were starting tour rehearsals.. 🎸🎸 © The Rolling Stones

...
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
Home Help Search Login Register Broadcast Message to Admin(s)


Pages: 1 ... 181 182 183 184 185 ... 275
Send Topic Print
The nonsense thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… 100% off topic and full of nonsense inside (Read 890,926 times)
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4550 - Oct 8th, 2019 at 8:20pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 







...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 9th, 2019 at 9:12am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4551 - Oct 8th, 2019 at 8:39pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<  ----------  Some Guy   ?!   .......... !!!!!!!!!!!   :








https://www.omaha.com/opinion/more_commentary/jonah-goldberg-the-senate-gop-s-no...









" Jonah Goldberg: The Senate GOP's no-win scenario .  "








" In response to news reports over the weekend that at least one additional administration whistleblower has come forward to say what he or she knows about President Donald Trump's Ukrainian schemes, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham tweeted, "I've seen this movie before -- with Brett Kavanaugh. More and more doesn't mean better or reliable."

Graham's raw political spinning has a fatal flaw.

Graham wants to tar the whistleblowers as part of a partisan campaign. But their motivation is largely irrelevant now because the bulk of the allegations have already been corroborated by the rough phone call transcript released by the White House and by the statements of the president and his aides. So while it's still possible that the whistleblowers are part of some elaborate Democratic or "deep state" plot to take down the president, the plotters are using truthful information to do the deed. Graham surely knows this but is opting to pretend that there's no there there.

The most charitable view of Graham's sycophancy is that the president has put him and GOP senators in general in a no-win predicament.

The political hell most Senate Republicans have found themselves in since 2016 can be described as the chasm between how Trump wants them to behave and how they believe they should govern. Virtually none of these senators can get re-elected without the third of Republicans who adore Trump, but the vulnerable ones need more than just the Trumpers to get across the finish line.

This means they have to attract less single-minded voters who are often more Trump-skeptical -- mostly suburban, college-educated Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. But because the president and his most ardent fans will not brook any criticism of the president, the senators have been left trying to thread a very narrow needle: Differentiate yourself from Donald Trump while not actually criticizing Donald Trump.

The impeachment drama is shrinking the needle's eye even more, and from both sides.

On one side is the president. For instance, going by published reporting, my own conversations with senators and Senate staffers, as well as straightforward common sense (as opposed to the fantasy reasoning one finds in some corners of cable news and Twitter), I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that virtually no GOP senator agrees with the president that his July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was, as Trump likes to say, "perfect." Beyond that, opinions differ, but it's a safe bet that most Senate Republicans think the conversation could have gone better and would dearly love for the president to say so.

Past presidents in the crosshairs of scandal have resorted to apologizing. Ronald Reagan admitted that "mistakes were made" after he stumbled on the facts during the Iran-Contra scandal. Bill Clinton initially denied everything, then told the nation, "I have sinned" and asked for forgiveness for the conduct that led to his impeachment.

Trump is determined to go another way and to punish those who disagree, as he has already tried to do with Utah Sen. Mitt Romney. That's why Graham, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio find it necessary to hide behind various parsing rationalizations. Rubio's response to Trump's calling on the Chinese to investigate Joe Biden is now the official safe harbor for Republicans: He didn't really mean it, he's just trolling the press. Ernst says, in effect, that criticizing the president won't change his behavior, so why bother?

Meanwhile, the Democrats have bungled the impeachment issue. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, in particular, has never missed an opportunity to burn any credibility he might have as a sober and honest investigator. Democratic partisans may like his red-meat rhetoric, but they lose sight of the fact that trolling Trump just makes the president's job easier.

Schiff's entirely fictional account of Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president, read into the congressional record, may have infuriated the president, but it also gave Trump a talking point and an excuse for Republicans to hide behind the unfairness of the process.

If impeachment is going to be anything other than a partisan protest immediately swatted down by the GOP-controlled Senate, Democrats need to carefully and methodically make their case through serious fact-finding -- an investigation that not only persuades at least 20 Republican senators but also a sufficient number of the voters those senators need to stay in office.

Short of that, the safer path will be for Republicans to continue to pretend everything is "perfect."










...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 9th, 2019 at 9:23am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Resident Cretin
*****
Offline



Posts: 15,814
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4552 - Oct 9th, 2019 at 7:32am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 


Hard and fast, motherfuckers.

...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Resident Cretin
*****
Offline



Posts: 15,814
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4553 - Oct 9th, 2019 at 7:47am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 9th, 2019 at 7:52am by Some Guy »  
 
IP Logged
 
Edith Grove
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline


Disco STILL sucks!

Posts: 12,336
New Orleans
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4554 - Oct 9th, 2019 at 3:11pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Some Guy wrote on Oct 9th, 2019 at 7:47am:




He's got the moves like Jagger.    Blank Frigging Stare
Back to top
 

“What rap did that was impressive was to show there are so many tone-deaf people out there,” he says. “All they need is a drum beat and somebody yelling over it and they’re happy. There’s an enormous market for people who can’t tell one note from another.” - Keef
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4555 - Oct 9th, 2019 at 8:47pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<  -----------   Some Guy   ?!  .... !!!!!!!!!!!   :









https://www.omaha.com/opinion/marc-a-thiessen-joe-biden-is-a-hypocrite-on-ukrain...








" Marc A. Thiessen: Joe Biden is a hypocrite on Ukraine . "









" WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Joe Biden has said that in holding up vital military assistance to Ukraine, President Donald Trump "used the power and resources of the United States to pressure a sovereign nation, a partner that is still under direct assault from Russia … to subvert the rule of law in the express hope of extracting a political favor."

That's rich. The aid in question is lethal military assistance that the Obama-Biden administration refused to give Ukraine.

In 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and began arming separatists in eastern Ukraine with tanks, armored vehicles and rocket launchers, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko came to Washington to plead for weapons to defend his country. In an impassioned address to a joint session of Congress -- with Biden sitting directly behind him -- Poroshenko said his country appreciated the nonlethal assistance he was getting, but declared "one cannot win a war with blankets."

The Obama-Biden administration was unmoved. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that "President Barack Obama stuck to his refusal to provide weapons or other lethal military gear to Ukraine, despite a passionate appeal Thursday for help in fighting pro-Russian rebels by Ukraine's president." Why? The administration feared that lethal aid would provoke Moscow.

So what did the administration give him? Instead of RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades), we provided MREs (meals ready to eat) -- food rations. As one frustrated former Pentagon official put it at the time, "What kind of message does that send anyway? We are sending MREs while they are being invaded by an aggressor."

Answer: a message of weakness.

When Trump took office, he delivered a message of strength. In December 2017, the new administration announced that the United States would send the lethal aid to Ukraine that Poroshenko requested and that Obama and Biden had refused -- the sale of $47 million worth of Javelin antitank missiles. In May 2018, after Ukraine tested its new Javelin missiles, Poroshenko exulted on Twitter, "Finally this day has come!" and personally thanked Trump "for supporting Ukraine and adopting a decision to provide Javelin antitank missile systems."

For Biden to now attack Trump for a temporary delay in a new round of lethal military aid reeks of hypocrisy. It was on Biden's watch that the United States refused to deliver military aid at all. Yet the same vice president who sat there impassively while Ukraine's president begged for weapons now dares to cite the Russian threat to Ukraine in castigating Trump? Talk about chutzpah.

And since Biden raised the Russian threat, let's recall that the Obama-Biden administration bears much responsibility for the annexation of Crimea that necessitated the delivery of lethal aid to Ukraine in the first place. Russia's military intervention in Ukraine came in the aftermath of the Obama-Biden administration's failure to enforce its red line against Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons by Syria. In March 2013, Biden declared, "Because we recognize the great danger Assad's chemical and biological arsenals pose to Israel and the United States, to the whole world, we've set a clear red line against the use or the transfer of those weapons."

Assad responded by using chemical weapons on innocent civilians not once, but 16 times. And yet Obama and Biden did nothing, failing to carry out even "unbelievably small" military strikes -- a decision Biden publicly defended. "We can easily say we should have bombed and gone in and taken out their air defense system," Biden said, "Well, you know, big nations can't bluff."

Bluff is what Obama and Biden did -- and Assad called their bluff. Not only that, they turned to Russia for a face-saving way out, letting Russian President Vladimir Putin broker a phony deal to have Syria disarm. It was one of the most embarrassing foreign policy debacles of the post-Cold War era. So it should come as no surprise that, when Obama threatened to impose costs on Putin if he invaded Ukraine, the Kremlin called his bluff, too. Putin knew Obama and Biden did not have the will to stand up to him in Ukraine. And he was proved right when they refused to give Ukraine lethal aid for fear of further provoking him.

None of this excuses Trump's delaying a new round of lethal military aid to Ukraine. But if this military assistance was as vital to countering the Russian threat as Biden says, then it's fair to ask: Why didn't the United States provide it when Biden was the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine? "




***************************





*** For Trump's Angels Fans ***    .......  RB  [ Pronounced  ' Ball House !  ' ]  --  Easy on the Eyes  :





https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/19/playbook-birthday-rebecca-ballhaus-142...













...







Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 10th, 2019 at 3:15pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4556 - Oct 10th, 2019 at 8:34pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  --------------  Some Guy  ?!  ... !!!!!!!!!!!!!   .....  ' The Rumble in the Jungle  '  .... ?!   :








...








https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1919959-muhammad-alis-greatest-fight-george-
foreman-and-the-rumble-in-the-jungle







" Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight: George Foreman and the Rumble in the Jungle . "









" As a huge paw sent him flying into the ropes, it was obvious to all 60,000 fans in the Stade du 20 Mai in Kinshasa, Zaire, and millions more watching live on closed-circuit television, that things were beginning to go horribly wrong for Muhammad Ali.

It was October 30, 1974. More specifically, it was the third round of his heavyweight championship fight with George Foreman, a giant of a man, a fearsome specimen of gleaming muscle with the cold, dead eyes of someone who has seen much more of the human condition than society deems healthy.

Foreman, placidly moving every bit as robotically as Frankenstein's monster, much the way Ali had comically suggested in one of the endless pre-fight press conferences, stalked him. Now, in the ring with the champion, however, it wasn't so funny.

Without mercy or the slightest sign of empathy, Foreman pursued the former champion around the 20-foot ring, launching punches from odd angles, winging hooks and power shots that thudded into Ali's body, inhuman blows that seemed too much for any man to withstand.

This was what Foreman prepared for, endlessly chopping wood and training partners in equal measure in the months leading up to the fight. This was why he threw hundreds of punches in succession during training, each one thudding into the heavy bag, each one designed to daze and destroy.

This was the onslaught that felled the great Joe Frazier, sending Ali's first conqueror flying around the ring and spawning the most iconic call in boxing history. Howard Cosell, mesmerized by what he had seen, shouted over and over "Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier."

But Ali was no ordinary mortal. On a mission, he believed from God himself, Ali withstood Foreman's offense. Instead of wilting before the storm, like a great sequoia Ali bent, leaning back into the loose ring ropes, avoiding the worst of Foreman's fury, gritting his teeth and bearing that which he could not dodge.

"What I remember most about the fight was, I went out and hit Muhammad with the hardest shot to the body I ever delivered to any opponent," Foreman later told Ali's biographer Thomas Hauser in Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times. "Anybody else in the world would have crumbled. Muhammad cringed; I could see it hurt. And then he looked at me. He had that look in his eyes, like he was saying 'I'm not going to let you hurt me.'"

Ali would take all that Foreman had, opening up his body and welcoming Big George to come into his embrace. His mouth, much like his mind, was always moving.

One was devoted to processing the nuances of the ring—angle, speed, force and intent, moving faster than any computer, a natural gift that the true masters of the ring hone to a science. The other, less science and more art, alternating between a whisper and a roar, no matter the volume, sending the same message:

"Is that all you got, George?"

*****************************************


Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 11th, 2019 at 11:11am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Edith Grove
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline


Disco STILL sucks!

Posts: 12,336
New Orleans
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4557 - Oct 11th, 2019 at 5:08am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
The end of Jackass Joe's candidacy in 43 seconds:















...
Back to top
 

“What rap did that was impressive was to show there are so many tone-deaf people out there,” he says. “All they need is a drum beat and somebody yelling over it and they’re happy. There’s an enormous market for people who can’t tell one note from another.” - Keef
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Resident Cretin
*****
Offline



Posts: 15,814
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4558 - Oct 11th, 2019 at 6:36am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
you asshats are so dumb.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gimmekeef
Rocks Off Regular
*****
Offline



Posts: 5,753
Ontario Canada
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4559 - Oct 11th, 2019 at 8:22am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Edith Grove wrote on Oct 11th, 2019 at 5:08am:
The end of Jackass Joe's candidacy in 43 seconds:


Classy as always. Gee I guess what Pence is doing then amounts to sodomy if you follow Trumps line of reasoning.













...

Back to top
 

"Runnin Like A Cat In A Thunderstorm"
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4560 - Oct 15th, 2019 at 8:33pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





       " ..... young joey .. what about the impeachment?    ........... " 










...




Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 16th, 2019 at 10:30am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4561 - Oct 15th, 2019 at 8:39pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<   ---------  Some Guy   ?!   .... !!!!!!!!!!!   :






https://www.omaha.com/opinion/michael-barone-the-democrats-default-front-runner-...








" Michael Barone: The Democrats' default front-runner and problematic nominee . "











" Is Elizabeth Warren the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination? You can make a strong argument that the answer is yes. You can also argue that she is, at most, a default front-runner and a problematic general election nominee.

And you might reasonably conclude that both arguments taken together tell you some interesting things about the current state of the Democratic Party — the world's oldest political party.

Now, I'm certainly not arguing with my Washington Examiner colleague Byron York, who wrote last week that Joe Biden is no longer the Democratic front-runner. Since then, Biden's lead over Warren in the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls has shrunk to 0.2%. On June 21, it was 20%.

Warren's admirers attribute her sharp poll rise over the last three weeks to her energetic campaigning, ranging from smiling for countless selfies to insisting "I have a plan for that" on countless issues. But she has also benefited from the problems of her opponents.

The Democrats' case for impeachment inevitably highlights Biden's son's $50,000-a-month contract with a Ukrainian natural gas company while Vice President Biden was in charge of Ukraine policy. Bernie Sanders, 78, had a heart attack Oct. 1. Kamala Harris' habit of sloppily taking stands she can't sustain has lowered her numbers from 15% to 5%. Pete Buttigieg's chipper articulateness has helped him raise millions, but his support peaked at 8% in May and June. Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker, the only other candidates ever above 5%, are now hovering around 2%.

That leaves Warren as, at most, the front-runner faute de mieux -- and one who seems to have taken some lessons from the president she obviously detests, Donald Trump.

1. Don't back down on even the diciest stands.

Her claim of Native American ancestry and her statement that she lost her teaching job because she was "visibly pregnant" don't seem well founded. And her insistence that the Ferguson cop committed "murder" is contradicted by the Obama Justice Department's thorough investigation of that tragedy.

2. Take what many consider unpopular stands on issues.

Like many Democrats, Warren seems to have concluded that if a rule-breaking candidate like Trump can be elected president, then none of the old political rules apply anymore.

So, Warren has endorsed "Medicare for All" and eliminating private health insurance. She has said she'd ban fracking for oil and natural gas. She has supported decriminalizing illegal border crossing, providing health care for illegals who get across and paying reparations to the descendants of slaves. She has ignored warnings by, among others, MSNBC's Steve Kornacki that such proposals are hugely unpopular and could be great fodder for Trump campaign ads.

Warren obviously hopes that her calls for federal oversight of large corporations and her call for a 2% wealth tax on multimillionaires will resonate with nonaffluent Trump voters. But those voters seem more concerned with elites' political correctness than convinced that Warren's proposal with send their way any money somehow mulcted from corporations. Oh, and the wealth tax is probably unconstitutional and, judging from European experience, mostly uncollectible.

Among Democratic primary voters, Warren has been scoring best with white college graduates -- the core anti-Trump constituency -- while lagging far behind among blacks and non-college whites. As Washington Post analyst David Byler tweeted, Warren's current constituency "looks like media + their neighbors," and she "matches an upscale idea of who POTUS should be." Even as she easily won reelection in Massachusetts last year, she ran well behind Hillary Clinton in "beer Democrat" constituencies.

All of which is not to say that Warren is a sure loser. Any Democratic nominee has a serious chance of beating Trump. But it says something interesting about the Democratic Party that its current three leading candidates are in their 70s and all are from overwhelmingly Democratic states (though Biden's Delaware was competitive before 2000).

Democratic activists seem to like it that way, as indicated by their fundraising. The party's contributors, surely tilted toward white college grads, seem to prefer the unusual over the conventional. Sanders and Warren, with their leftist platforms, led June-September fundraising, with about $25 million. Buttigieg outraised Biden. Andrew Yang outraised Booker and nearly outraised Harris. Marianne Williamson outraised Michael Bennet.

As for the faute de mieux front-runner, the latest IBD/TIPP poll shows Warren leading Trump 48% to 46% -- exactly the same popular vote lead Hillary Clinton had four years ago. Maybe there's an opening for some other candidate. "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 16th, 2019 at 8:07am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4562 - Oct 15th, 2019 at 9:07pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<  -----------       We Never Get Tired of Winning !!!!!!!     .................The Democratic Party has completely lost Middle America ( See : 1979 - 1991  )   :











...





Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 16th, 2019 at 4:38pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Resident Cretin
*****
Offline



Posts: 15,814
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4563 - Oct 16th, 2019 at 7:18am
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Sparky?

...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4564 - Oct 16th, 2019 at 9:30pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  ---------------  GIMMEKEEF   ?!   .... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :











https://www.omaha.com/opinion/cal-thomas-the-president-s-personality/article_9a1...








" Cal Thomas: The president's personality .  "









" Depending on the polls you read and how you read them, nearly half of those surveyed want the House impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump to continue. That is not the same as wanting him impeached, much less convicted by the Senate and removed from office, but it represents a momentum the president needs to address and soon.

The president is correct that he is being treated "unfairly" and has been since before the election, which the left still resents his having won. Still, would the president be in such deep water if he displayed a different personality, or at least was kinder to his political opponents?

Last week at a rally in Minnesota, the president said Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate in 2008 because "Biden understood how to kiss Barack Obama's ass." That gets his mostly white rally-goers energized, but what effect does it have on the rest of the country?

Ellen DeGeneres recently demonstrated a different model for relating to political opposites. She was seen at a football game sitting in a box and smiling with former President George W. Bush, whose father was criticized by some on the right for speaking of the need for a "kinder and gentler" nation. DeGeneres said people should be more kind to each other, even if they have different political beliefs.

The New York Post noted, "DeGeneres, 61, has banned numerous celebrities from appearing on her show when they have expressed views that contradict her own, including those who have vocalized their anti-gay marriage views." DeGeneres is gay and married to a woman.

Inconsistency is not unique to DeGeneres, but she has a point worth considering.

In their biography of the late Jack Kemp, who was a congressman, 1996 vice presidential candidate and later HUD secretary, Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke write: "Kemp embodied a spirit sorely missing in today's politics -- in both parties. Kemp was positive, optimistic, idealistic, energetic, growth- and opportunity-oriented. He was incapable of personal attack and negative campaigning, even when it cost him. 'The purpose of politics,' he said, 'is not to defeat your opponent as much as it is to provide superior leadership and better ideas than the opposition.' "

One of my favorite Kemp lines was that you don't beat a thesis with an anti-thesis; you beat it with a better thesis.

Trump has a better thesis. Like Kemp's promotion of supply-side economics in the 1970s, which Ronald Reagan came to embrace, leading to an economic boom, Trump's policies are working. He should spend less time calling his opponents names and more time dissecting policies that have failed the country in the past.

Democrats have nothing to offer but "free" stuff and impeachment. They are trying to make the president's personality central to what some have called a "coup." He is helping them. It is one thing to be combative, but quite another to be mean.

The president is pushing back against his critics in ways no other recent Republican president has done, and good for him for doing so. But there is a way to do it that wins votes and prevails in the next election and another way that detracts from the president's multiple achievements and could lead to political disaster.

The Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah, rhetorically asks, "Can a leopard change his spots?" At his age, Trump may not be able to change his "spots," but he can tone down the invective against opponents, which is only giving them and everyone else who hates him permission to fire back in a similar manner. "











...



We Love Trump's Women ( WSJ Angels) :


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4OBMDeWwAE0HHg.jpg


Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 17th, 2019 at 4:31pm by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Resident Cretin
*****
Offline



Posts: 15,814
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4565 - Oct 21st, 2019 at 3:14pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
It's freedom of speech
not free dumb speech.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4566 - Oct 21st, 2019 at 8:43pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<  ---------------- LEAR ?!   ...................  " MAN OF THE YEAR 1968  "   ?! ............ !!!!!!!!!!  :














...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 22nd, 2019 at 9:36am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4567 - Oct 21st, 2019 at 9:02pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





<  --------------  Nanky  ?!   ............ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :








https://www.omaha.com/opinion/cal-thomas-the-hillary-tulsi-smackdown/article_f97...







" Cal Thomas: The Hillary-Tulsi smackdown . "









" A new wrestling league is being promoted during TV coverage of Major League Baseball's post-season. The ad promises more action, more spectacle and includes women as well as men grappling with each other.

I have two candidates for their consideration: Hillary Clinton and presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii.

Last week Clinton accused Gabbard of being a "Russian asset" as Clinton offered new excuses beyond the real ones for why she lost the 2016 election. In a podcast interview with Barack Obama's 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, Clinton claimed Gabbard is being used by the Kremlin as a spoiler to assist in President Donald Trump's re-election. She made a similar assertion about Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who she says Russia also used to keep her from winning the White House.

Clinton offered no evidence to support her allegations.

Gabbard, who joined the military shortly after 9/11, fired back in the take-no-prisoner style of Trump, calling Clinton "the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party."

No parsing of words there. It's the rhetorical equivalent of what they call a "smackdown" in professional wrestling.

Gabbard later tweeted, "It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly."

Put these two in a ring, charge to watch it on TV and I'm there with popcorn. Wow! There's nothing like a good war of words for the ultimate in political entertainment. And you thought "The Apprentice" was must-see TV.

It appears Clinton cannot get over her 2016 election defeat and so she blames everyone but herself. It was because of her poor campaign, insincerity, lack of a credible platform, a sense of entitlement and an abrasive personality, as well as her failure to campaign in key states that led to her defeat. She didn't connect with voters and still comes across as cold and calculating, not to mention dishonest. But we already knew that. It was Clinton, while secretary of state and moving around classified emails on servers where they didn't belong, who came up with a "reset" button for U.S. relations with Russia. Looks like she pushed the wrong button.

So, according to Clinton, Gabbard is a Russian asset and so is Jill Stein. According to some Democrats and many in the media, Trump is/was also a Russian asset. The list appears endless, and if it were true, Russia's spy network should be promoted as number one in the world, ahead of China.

If this followed a scenario similar to the one Democrats are using against Trump and his phone call with the president of Ukraine, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., Jerald Nadler, D-N.Y., and other self-appointed keepers of American political virtue would begin another investigation. Hillary would be subpoenaed and required under oath to present evidence to prove her allegations. We know that won't happen. There are double standards when it comes to Democrats.

Larry Donnelly, an American Democrat who heads the Kennedy Summer School in Country Wexford, Ireland, tweeted in response to Hillary's statement: "I voted for Hillary Clinton. I think she's a smart, capable person who would be an infinitely better president than the man who defeated her. But her clearly orchestrated slander of Tulsi Gabbard is beneath contempt. An absolute disgrace."

That comment, along with many others, "pins" Hillary to the mat for the obligatory three-count. "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 22nd, 2019 at 9:35am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4568 - Oct 22nd, 2019 at 9:29pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 





...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 23rd, 2019 at 8:04am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4569 - Oct 22nd, 2019 at 9:44pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  --------------  Some Guy   ?!   ................ !!!!!!!!!!!! :






https://www.omaha.com/opinion/tyler-cowen-would-you-bet-against-trump-in/article...








" Tyler Cowen: Would you bet against Trump in 2020? "








" Each week brings a fresh batch of polls about the 2020 presidential campaign, but it’s also worth taking a look at the prediction markets. They can be a very useful source of information, most of all as a check on the human tendency to overreact.

Prediction markets — there are several, which allow people to bet on a particular candidate — are a quick way to get an overview of the state of the campaign. President Donald Trump is currently at about 0.40 to be re-elected, which means that it costs about 40 cents to buy a share that pays $1 if Trump wins. Under normal assumptions about the uncertainty of future economic growth, the markets rate Trump’s chances of winning at 40%.

Don’t get too carried away inferring anything about the exactness of that estimate. Still, it is a useful corrective to the argument that Trump is toast — or, alternatively, that he is a shoo-in. The market incorporates the relevant uncertainties in both directions. (Interestingly, Trump’s re-election odds have stayed pretty steady over the last week or so of negative news.)

In many cases, prediction markets show greater stability than poll results over the course of an election cycle, as they “see through” the day-to-day volatility that may buffet the polls but not affect the final outcome.

You also will see that Elizabeth Warren is a clear favorite to be the next Democratic nominee. As of this writing, her nomination victory is selling at 45 cents on the PredictIt site. Joe Biden is a distant second at 20 cents. Other prediction markets offer slightly different prices, but the overall picture is broadly consistent.

Compare this picture to the one you get from reading the mainstream media, which tend to view Biden and Warren as locked in a close struggle (and sometimes even leave the impression that Biden is the favorite). Prediction markets have usefully disabused me of that notion. They have also made me think that a possible Hillary Clinton candidacy, while still unlikely, is perhaps an undercovered story.

You may find that notion absurd. But remember: It is not a valid criticism of prediction markets to say that they didn’t predict Trump, say, or Brexit. The purpose of prediction markets is not to foresee particular upsets. They can, however, tell you in advance what would be an upset — much like probability theory can tell you that getting three heads in a row is unlikely but is of no help in predicting exactly when it will happen.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the casual use of prediction markets is that they can overrate the odds of underdogs. For instance, Andrew Yang has been hovering at about 10% for his chances of winning the Democratic nomination (meanwhile Kanye West has a 6% chance of running for president, with Mark Zuckerberg at 4%). I strongly suspect his actual chances are less than that.

Why might the market be wrong here? The most likely hypothesis is that Yang has some supporters who bet on him out of loyalty, much as some sports fans bet on their team regardless. At the same time, there aren’t so many people who want to bet against Yang. This leads to a bias in his favor. Keep in mind that when you put money into these markets, you lock up funds for some period of time, and you run the risk that the intermediary cannot redeem winning bets in a timely manner. That leads to arbitrage — and the accompanying probability estimates will be imperfect, especially for smaller sums in the less liquid markets.

Prediction markets have another potential flaw: They focus attention on clearly demarcated events that are easy to bet on, such as who will win an election or whether Rudy Giuliani will face federal charges. Sometimes these are important matters. Other times they are not.

There are more meaningful trends that are more difficult to measure, such whether Americans are feeling more lonely. These things certainly have an impact on politics, but they are not easy to bet on. Political prediction markets are undeniably useful and very often enlightening, but maybe they should come with a warning: Feel free to check the odds as often as you like, but do not let your obsession blind you to the larger issues at stake. "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 23rd, 2019 at 8:07am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4570 - Oct 24th, 2019 at 8:35pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  ----------  Some Guy    ?!   ……….  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :






https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis-impeachment-blunder-11571872364








" Pelosi’s Impeachment Blunder
The Speaker knows the interests of her anti-Trump compulsives and the Democratic Party are not aligned.  "




By Daniel Henninger
Oct. 23, 2019 7:12 pm ET






" Nancy Pelosi had the Democrats’ impeachment strategy right the first time: Don’t do it. But apparently even a lifetime in the mud-filled trenches of politics wasn’t enough to toughen the House speaker against the Democratic left’s compulsion to impeach Donald Trump.

Anyone of any political stripe knows that the most psychologically distressed Democrats have wanted to impeach this guy, somehow just get rid of him, from day one.

Before Democrats regained control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections, the Trump takedown was supposed to result from the Russian-collusion narrative, which got up to speed in January 2017 and then steamrolled across the country for two years of media leaks and the Mueller investigation, ultimately and fantastically going nowhere.

Within a day of the Mueller report’s release, dismissing the Russian-collusion story lines, the opposition pivoted to the obstruction-of-justice narrative. Somehow, the pivoters must have assumed that the American people, after enduring the Mueller odyssey, would not notice that this extraordinarily disruptive investigation had come to nothing. And that people would saddle up to join the next get-Trump posse. That didn’t work.

We’ll pause in our own narrative to posit a de minimis level of legitimacy to what they’ve done. If the opposition party and, in our unique times, the opposition press want to spend what capital and credibility they have in a round-the-clock effort to take down a sitting president, that’s their prerogative. Nothing in the Constitution says elected officials are obliged to do anything productive.

But translating the public’s votes into a permanent presidential takedown had better work, because if they don’t pull off impeachment and drive Donald Trump out of public life next year, the losses for the Democrats and the media will be devastating. It’s the familiar do-or-die stakes of trying to take out the king.


Because Donald Trump loves living dangerously, he and the increasingly mysterious Rudy Giuliani handed his opponents the unexpected excitement of the Ukraine-Biden narrative—and at last an opening for impeachment. The New York Times, delirious at the prospect, has even created an ominous little logo for its coverage, typically several pages a day—“The 45th President: Impeachment.”

Maybe it really will be the third time’s the charm for the Trump-elimination forces, but the impeachment project looks like it’s starting to go wobbly.

For starters, it’s still just sort-of an impeachment. There’s been no vote in the House and no sign the Judiciary Committee is drawing up articles of impeachment, as in the past. Instead, Adam Schiff’s intelligence committee is interviewing Ukraine-related State Department officials—in secret hearings. It resembles a show trial, with the “public” parts emerging as selective leaks to the impeachment press.

But the most telling impeachment development this week wasn’t any paraphrased testimony from Mr. Schiff’s private hearings. It was the news that Speaker Pelosi’s impeachment timetable has been delayed “to sharpen their case” for doing it.

It is now evident that a vote to impeach President Trump isn’t likely to occur before Thanksgiving, as many assumed, but will slip to December. Then, of course, the trial phase will pass to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Mr. McConnell reportedly wanted it all over by the end of the year, but what’s the rush? The Trump trial could run through January—31 priceless campaign days before the Democratic Party’s intensely competitive primaries. The Iowa caucus vote is Feb. 3, then comes New Hampshire’s primary on Feb. 11; Nevada’s caucuses are Feb. 22; and the crucially important South Carolina primary arrives Feb. 29.

Instead of competing for their party’s nomination, Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Michael Bennet will spend invaluable campaign time planted on Capitol Hill during the days that the Pelosi-Schiff Trump trial drones on. Sens. Sanders and Harris can’t call Mr. Trump the “most corrupt president” in the history of the country and then skip out on the trial of public enemy No. 1 to campaign in a downstate Iowa diner.

Joe Biden, Mayor Pete, and Hillary’s new friend Rep. Tulsi Gabbard get to romp daily through the primary states, but who’s going to notice with the Trump impeachment trial siphoning away the nation’s media’s attention?

Surely Nancy Pelosi knew when she stood firm against opening the impeachment dam that the interests of her party’s anti-Trump compulsives—nearly all from safe seats—and her party’s broader election interests were not aligned.

The left has always believed that some deus ex machina, such as Robert Mueller or a nonstop storm of negative press stories, would magically make the Trump presidency just go away—rather than the more plausible likelihood that the relentlessly combustible Mr. Trump would eventually discredit himself in the eyes of most voters.

The American left throughout its existence has had a deep mistrust of the U.S. system, so rather than wait until November 2020 for voters to sort all this out, we get this crypto-impeachment. Like the sure-thing election of 2016, it too could backfire. "







...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2019 at 9:58am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4571 - Oct 24th, 2019 at 8:54pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 




<  --------------  GIMMEKEEF   ?!   ............ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :










https://www.omaha.com/opinion/robert-j-samuelson-the-inflation-mystery/article_a...








" Robert J. Samuelson: The inflation mystery . "








" WASHINGTON -- The virtual elimination of inflation is one of the great uncovered stories of our time. If you go back to the 1970s and the early 1980s -- a period when, admittedly, many of today's Americans weren't alive -- surging inflation seemed unsolvable. From 1975 to 1980, the consumer price index (CPI) rose an average 9% a year. There was much pessimism that inflation could ever be controlled. The idea that it would essentially vanish from public debate was unthinkable. Yet, that's what has happened.

From 2010 to 2018, the CPI has increased only about 2% annually. In turn, the collapse of inflation has transformed political debate. We have gone from worrying about "stagflation" -- the coexistence of high inflation and high unemployment -- to arguing about economic growth and inequality. On the whole, this is a better place to be.

Recall the "misery index." It combines the unemployment rate and inflation. In 1980, the index was 19.6% (7.1% unemployment rate and 12.5% inflation). In 2018, it was 5.8% (3.9% unemployment and 1.9% inflation). There won't be much anti-inflation rhetoric in the 2020 campaign. Indeed, low inflation is one reason the current economic expansion is the longest in U.S. history. Despite the running feud between President Donald Trump and the Federal Reserve, there has been no sharp increase in interest rates to dampen the recovery.

But there is one gaping hole in this otherwise happy story: We don't know what's caused inflation to drop so low and to stay there. It's a "puzzle," as economist Janet Yellen, former chair of the Fed, recently put it at a Brookings Institution conference on inflation. The explanation matters. If we don't fully understand low inflation, we may misinterpret its consequences.

The inflation mystery poses a simple question: Why haven't wage gains increased faster as the economy has approached "full employment," which is crudely put between 4% and 5%? Expressed technically, the question becomes: Why isn't the Phillips Curve working? That's economist A.W. Phillips, who argued in the 1950s that, as unemployment fell, wage gains would rise. Firms would have to pay more to attract workers. Some wage gains would feed into higher prices, aka inflation.

For many years, the logic worked as expected. Consider the 1961-69 expansion. "Unemployment declined from 6.7% in 1961 to 3.6% in 1969," Yellen reported to the conference. Over the same period, inflation rose from "just under 1% to roughly 5%." In the 1970s, the experience was similar.

Yellen offered some possible explanations for the collapse of the Phillips Curve.

(1) We are misreading the labor force. Phillips originally compared unemployment rates and wage gains. But the unemployment rate may be sending the wrong signals about labor force "slack" -- the number of people willing to take a job -- and, thereby, underestimating the ability of firms to hold down wage gains. Slack may include people who leave the work force when the economy is in recession and return when the recovery takes hold.

(2) Monetary policy -- the Fed's influence on interest rates and credit conditions -- may have made people more sensitive to rising prices. In the 1980s, the Fed raised interest rates sharply to curb double-digit inflation. Monthly unemployment exceeded 10%. Unemployment soared again in the 2007-09 Great Recession. To protect themselves against a repetition, companies and consumers may limit wage and price increases. Low inflation may be self-fulfilling. If people think inflation will be low, they act to make it low. Yellen noted that "inflation expectations … have been remarkably stable, in the vicinity of 2%."

(3) Globalization and new digital technologies create downward pressure on prices. The Internet makes price comparisons easier than in the past. The ability of companies to shift production to low-cost foreign suppliers creates more slack, enabling firms either to hold down wages and prices at home or threaten to do so.

The conference offered many views. One paper argued that people form their views about inflation based on grocery shopping. Because it's the most common form of shopping, it casts a large psychological shadow. Another paper minimized globalization's effect on wages, asserting that domestic economic conditions still exert the most powerful pressures.

The central question is whether a low-inflation and low-unemployment economy is a new norm -- something the Fed can protect -- or just a fad. If it is a new norm, the consequences could be huge. A low-unemployment economy would almost certainly give the poorest and least skilled workers "a chance to turn around their lives," as Yellen said. Therein also lies a danger: The possibility is so appealing that it could cause the Fed to gamble on low inflation. "

Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 25th, 2019 at 9:26am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Some Guy
Resident Cretin
*****
Offline



Posts: 15,814
Atlanta
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4572 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 1:16pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Edith Grove
Agent Provocateur
*****
Offline


Disco STILL sucks!

Posts: 12,336
New Orleans
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4573 - Oct 27th, 2019 at 4:25pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Some Guy wrote on Oct 27th, 2019 at 1:16pm:



“Had something gone wrong, had we gotten into a firefight with the Russians, it’s to the administration’s advantage to say we informed Congress,” Schiff said during an interview Sunday with ABC’s “This Week.”



What a piece of dogshit democrat this is. Schiffty actually expects to be in on something such as this?
Let a pansy-ass California Dumbocrat in the Situation Room and it will immediately want to circumvent everything.......just because.

10 - 1 that Schiffty little bitch will use something from the "Baghdadi incident" to pad his case for impeachment.

Someone stick a pacifier in this little boy.
Back to top
 

“What rap did that was impressive was to show there are so many tone-deaf people out there,” he says. “All they need is a drum beat and somebody yelling over it and they’re happy. There’s an enormous market for people who can’t tell one note from another.” - Keef
 
IP Logged
 
Joey
I Have No Life!
*****
Offline



Posts: 20,234
Omaha , NE
Gender: male
Re: Politics thread - Enter at your own risk! Warning… Bullcrap inside
Reply #4574 - Oct 28th, 2019 at 9:00pm
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 






...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 29th, 2019 at 9:09am by Joey »  

...&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***...
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 181 182 183 184 185 ... 275
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Gazza, Voodoo Chile in Wonderland)