Thanks Trump!

The only reason we would ever go to war with China is if some Trump ------- takes the saber rattling too seriously, "fears for his life" while playing the normal cat and mouse games, and pulls the trigger. Even then itvwould require a lot of people on both sides to suspend reasoning and escalate.

It's the overuse of the term that I'm needling.

#50 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-08-19 02:13 PM

If you are talking about White Nationalists and politicians that coddle them there is no such thing as overuse

Surprise suprise Republican fascist apologists think opposing racism and white nationalism is "off the rails"

If being on the rails means coddling racists and white supremacist snowflakes then I am proudly off the rails.

My Aunt fought the Nazis from within France. She narrowly avoided death several times. When I was a kid my heroes fought for truth, justice, and the American way. Punching Nazis was an expression of patriotism.

According to the whistleblower GE has not accounted for the costs of goods sold in 25+ years and has been using accounting gimmicks to hide the losses

not Clinton, created the rust belt.

#6 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-08-16 03:13 PM

The steel industry in the USA collapsed in the late 70's and early 80's Clinton did not become President until 1993.

Tell us how Clinton went back in time and caused the steel industry to collapse.

The U.S. city of Youngstown, Ohio was among the hardest-hit areas of the steel crisis, with the announced closure of Youngstown Sheet and Tube on September 19, 1977

I think you just set a new DR record for the most outrageous "It's Clinton's fault" statement

Yep, that is the Republican failure. As I've been saying, Republicans don't rule by morality. But, they do rule by REALITY. Liberals have a morale high ground but rule by thinking they are in some fantasy world where everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya all day long. At least Republicans are ruling based on the real world, as crappy and mismanaged as it is. Once Liberals come out of their fantasy world and start combining morality with reality, Reps are doomed. But, unfortunately, Liberals have been going in the complete opposite direction since the 90s.

#14 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2019-08-16 11:57 AM

Republicans write laws to give themselves advantages at the expense of the people they rule.

You used the right word though. Republicans rule. They think the government is "in charge" of everyone else. Democrats GOVERN. They are sent to Washington by the people to represent the people and act on their behalf.

Republicans game the system and congratulate themselves when they "win" even if it knocks down other Americans.

Selfishness is not a virtue
Greed is not a virtue
cruelty is not a virtue

We can go with your number set - fine by me. Much different conclusion than HATTER5183 data set showing Obama +60% and Trump +20%. Trump has been the best thing for the economy since the Industrial Revolution.

#74 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-08-16 06:38 AM

I did not cherry pick numbers like you did I went with NOW vs the same time for Trump. You are cherry picking a time that favors Trump.

You are trying to say Trump was better by choosing the moment before the market dropped precipitously. Trump's voloatile market is bad for everybody except speculators. The Market doesn't create wealth. If someone makes money because of market swings it means they took it from someone else

But the Democrats couldn't find any0ne better, which should have been a no brainer. It's their fault he's president.

#35 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-15 07:25 PM | REPLY |

Your full of BS if you claim that anyone who voted for Trump would have voted for anyone with a (d) after their name even if it was Jesus himself.

Ask yourselves why they wanted to go in the first place since they have established themselves an anti-Israel, especially when considering the trip was being organized an organization run by a Palestinian extremist and Israel boycott defender Hanan Ashrawi.
#8 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2019-08-15 04:53 PM | REPLY |

Why would someone want to visit their parents who they haven't seen in years? What a wierd thing to want to do.

If Trump ends America's longest war ever, he will be more deserving of a Noble Prize than that Kenyan who did absolutely nothing.
Imagine that.

#1 | POSTED BY J_TREMAIN AT 2019-08-14 08:24 AM | REPLY |

What Kenyan are you referring to? Please enlighten us. No points unless you identify an actual Kenyan

"Anyone who votes for my political opponent is a bad person"...is the weakest POV that ever existed.

#13 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-08-15 12:05 AM |

Are you saying we disagree with him because he's a republican and not because he's a racist misogynist -------?

Are you saying that only other republicans are allowed to criticize him?

You need to watch out with your identity politics that put you in the place of defending Steve King because he is a republican. Your defense of him is a tacit agreement with his views

AIPAC is now supporting the two congresswomen.

s27 great story, except the Democrats had control of Congress during Obama's first two years in the White House.

#28 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-15 01:50 PM

Repeating a lie doesn't change the lie into the truth, it changes the people hearing the repeated lie. They begin to accept the lie as truth.

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

But you knew that and repeated the lie anyway. Its the republican way

Yes, by way of introduction, a statement of purpose, a preamble, which, like the preamble to the constitution, has no operative legal effect.

#72 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2019-08-14 09:04 PM | REPLY

The Preamble to the Constitution outlines the purposes of the Constitution, and defines the powers of the new government as originating from the people of the United States.

The Preamble is the what and why the constitution is the how.

he planned to bring our troops home. He also planned to close Gitmo within a year. Yet the republicans blocked his efforts for his entire presidency. Moscow Mitch Owns it

#17 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-14 10:09 PM | REPLY |

Actions have consequences. Israel is allowed to protect themselves from actions designed to harm them, whether the damage be from violence or promoting economic damage.

#2 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-08-15 01:11 PM | REPLY |

The only action was Trump's request. Talking to people in a hospital cannot harm anyone

Which takes us back to immigration - low skill workers are the last people we need more of as this change occurs. They will be the first ones displaced in bulk.

#56 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-08-15 12:21 PM | REPLY

immigrants start companies at a higher rate than native born Americans and as a result employ more people than native born Americans. They are not part of the problem. Most of the jobs they do if they don't start their own company cannot be automated anytime soon and will not be replaced.

In other news convicts want less guards in the prisons and tax cheats want less auditors at the IRS

company wanted to enact their own core values

Companies are inanimate economic objects. They have no values or opinions.

The stock market does not CREATE wealth. It just moves it around. It is an EXCHANGE.

If you buy low and sell high congratulations you are richer but someone else is equally poorer

You start with X dollars. You buy low for Y dollars. Now you have X-Y dollars. That means some Schmuck sold low, probably because he/she had to raid his /her 401(k) to get past a life event. Schmuck #1 had Z dollars now he has Z + Y dollars. The stock price goes up. You sell high for W dollars. Now you have X-Y+W dollars woohoo!! That means some Schmuck #2 bought high. He had V dollars now he has V-W dollars.

At the beginning of the day the three of you had X+Z+V dollars between you. At the end of the day the three of you have X-Y+W+Z+Y+V-W= X+Z+V dollars. NO CHANGE. The only thing that changes is whose pocket the money is in.

The stock market generates capital for businesses you say?

Yes but less than 10% of what it takes OUT of businesses.

In 2017 The NYSE averaged 32 Billion in Stock transactions a day. The only time capital is generated is when a company sells stock rather than an individual. That is done via IPOs. The total capital generated by IPOs in 2017 was $41 Billion. The rest of the transactions were between shareholders and did not generate any capital for the companies. in 2017 fortune 500 companies paid out $419 Billion in dividends.

Without immigration, the US population is already decreasing. We have immigration due to employment opportunities - you would agree with this - yes? So, then the burden is on you to state how automation does not decimate our labor force as 50% of jobs are automated away in the next 30 years. Andrew Yang is the only guy asking this question and it is one that needs to be addressed as we continue to attract illegal aliens that are low skilled - basically, the people most likely to have their professions automated.
#53 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2019-08-15 09:05 AM |

Automation is just one piece of the puzzle. Rapidly increasing worker efficiency and rising worker productivity is another. Low wages eroding the consumer base is another. All of these things add up to less jobs.

When self driving vehicles are perfected sometime in the not to distant future, there will be no reason for a long haul trucking company to buy 3 trucks and hire 3 drivers to get 24 hr coverage when they can pay a little more for 1 truck that never gets distracted while driving and doesn't have to rest every day to do the same work.

IT automation is reducing the number of middle tier IT jobs available. Just a few years ago building 1 new server took several hours and input from several people. Now you can spin up 300 active servers in less than 10 minutes. We used to have a team of 8 guys on 2 shifts who would line up 20 PCs on a workbench and go down the row each one doing a task then when they get to the end of the row going back to the beginning of the row several times before they were ready. They did that 2 shifts 5 days a week just to keep up with staging new PCs for employees. Now we have 2 guys there on 1 shift who just plug the PC's into the network and enter the MAC address in a spreadsheet. 15 minutes later they are done.

We have to have a reasoned discussion around job trends and what we will do in the not too distant future when we may only need 60 million workers. Too bad so sad I've got mine and I'm not responsible for anyone else is not a valid plan

Here in Wisconsin we dont just make COs work overtime. Instead we leave the guard towers empty at night, leaving the prison even shorter staffed. And they announced it. Now they wonder why people arent lining up to work nights at the prison with no backup.

Actually, Trump has been in office just under 2.5 years (inaugutation of the presiedent is January 20) as of last June. So extrapolated over 8 years (you can't compare 2.5 year performance to 6 year performance. I'm shocked you didn't know that), after 8 years, the stock market would be 68.5% higher under Trump.

#19 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-14 02:55 PM |

So if Trump keeps it up for the whole 8 years he will finally match what Obama did in 2.5

Winning!