• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Did Trump insult widow of Niger GI?

Not to mention that everyone knows that post-Reagan, the political pendulum had swung to the right and Bill Clinton governed from the center, worked with the Pubs on The Hill, and fell for the bullshit and repealed Glass-Steagal. As a result, the newly unfettered and reckless financial sector eventually tanked the economy. Unheeded warnings aside, go ahead and continue to convince us that middle Americans are pining for deregulation and other right-wing economic unicorns.
 
It is just strange that you go to all of this effort to claim you aren't a partisan, and here you are parroting right wing talking points.

Anybody who studied the composition of the deficits after the great recession with a lick of sense should conclude that the deficits were going to balloon whichever party was in the WH for 4 or 5 years, which they did.

Using that to attack the President is a partisan talking point.

but nuance and detail are his strong points!
 
I will bet you one American dollar that the national debt doubles by the time Trump leaves office in 2024.


you are on, but the bet will have to be symbolic because it would cost a lot more than a dollar to transfer a dollar from the US to Europe or - most unlikely - vice versa

on a personal note, I hate to take advantage of you because there are different ways that you could lose this bet, while there is only one way for me to lose it, so let's just keep it friendly and symbolic
 
It is just strange that you go to all of this effort to claim you aren't a partisan, and here you are parroting right wing talking points.

Anybody who studied the composition of the deficits after the great recession with a lick of sense should conclude that the deficits were going to balloon whichever party was in the WH for 4 or 5 years, which they did.

Using that to attack the President is a partisan talking point.

any president, Democrat or Republican, who presides over a doubling of the deficit will get criticized, and rightfully so

calling such unpartisan criticism partisan is well, highly partisan
 
any president, Democrat or Republican, who presides over a doubling of the deficit will get criticized, and rightfully so

calling such unpartisan criticism partisan is well, highly partisan
Not when you look at the drivers of the debt. We had about a 400 billion dollar debt the year before he came in and then we lost about 8 million jobs and about six or seven hundred billion in reduced tax revenues that first year. To even keep the deficit at $400 billion would have required massive government spending cuts when the economy was on the brink of depression. That would have been reckless action from either Republican or Democrat and neither one of them would have taken it. A sober non-partisan reflection would indicate that either or republican or democrat was going to be running trillion-dollar deficits for about the period that it happened. The criticism was decidedly partisan in nature.
 
Last edited:
Not when you look at the drivers of the debt. We had about a 400 billion dollar debt the year before he came in and then we lost about 8 million jobs and about six or seven hundred billion in reduced tax revenues that first year. To even keep the deficit at $400 billion would have required massive government spending cuts when the economy was on the brink of depression. That would have been reckless action from either Republican or Democrat and neither one of them would have taken it. A sober non-partisan reflection would indicate that either or republican or democrat was going to be running trillion-dollar deficits for about the period that it happened. The criticism was decidedly partisan in nature.

we are talking about the size of the increase - doubling the debt - not about whether an increase of some kind was warranted
 
we are talking about the size of the increase - doubling the debt - not about whether an increase of some kind was warranted


Which was really driven by trillion dollar plus deficits for a few years during and after the closest thing we have had to an economic breakdown since the great depression.

Tax revenues didn't even reach 2008 levels in actual dollars until 2013 (when the deficit predictability started the shrink). All this time we had increases in mandatory payments. More people were taking early social security as an example because there were no jobs and they had to eat.

If it is so easy to cut a deficit when you in a period of cumulative job losses over 3/4 years, then it should be cake for Trump to get us to a surplus. Lets see how he does or whether we can just file this away as more partisan bluster.
I
 
Last edited:
you are on, but the bet will have to be symbolic because it would cost a lot more than a dollar to transfer a dollar from the US to Europe or - most unlikely - vice versa

on a personal note, I hate to take advantage of you because there are different ways that you could lose this bet, while there is only one way for me to lose it, so let's just keep it friendly and symbolic

Agreed
 
Why can't selfish war widows respect our troops?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...c7ce4b00f08619fcb04?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
The widow of a U.S. soldier killed in Niger said she was “hurt” when President Donald Trump told her in a phone call last week that her husband “knew what he signed up for.”

“He couldn’t remember my husband’s name,” Myeshia Johnson told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Monday, referring to the presidential condolence call that ignited a weeklong controversy. “I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband’s name.”

She said Trump told her that her husband, Sgt. La David Johnson, “knew what he signed up for but it hurts anyways. And it made me cry because I was very angry at the tone in his voice and how he said it.”

The president’s call made her “very upset and hurt,” she said. “It made me cry even worse.”

Trump quickly shot back on Twitter, saying that his conversation with Johnson was “very respectful” and that he did say the fallen soldier’s name.

I'm glad to see that even our President has his limits as he didn't attack Johnson (yet).

 
We can safely add economics to the list of things sailor doesn't "teach."
 
Just this morning Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, while discussing the growing civil war in the GOP, compared two counties that he said defined "Trump Country" and "GOP Establishment Country." The typical GOP Establishment Country was Delaware County, Ohio, (in the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio), and the "Heart of Trump Country" was - Wilkes County, NC. Todd cited statistics showing the difference - Wilkes has a poverty rate of nearly 20%, an average annual income of just $33,000, and only 13% of the county's adults have a college degree, while Delaware County residents have a 4% poverty rate, an annual income of $92,000, and some 52% of adults are college-educated. Also, half of Wilkes County residents are Evangelical Christians, only 7% of Delaware County's residents are. Wilkes County is losing population, while Delaware County is gaining. If Wilkes is typical of Trump Country (and statistically it is, which is why Meet the Press showcased it), it's rather hard to argue that Trump Country represents the future of America demographically or economically, or represents the current prosperity of the nation. I also thought the comment from a fundamentalist Baptist preacher in Wilkes perfectly stated the main force that's driving Trump voters - "The people who were born here (Wilkes) love America. They remember a different America, and he's (Trump) promising to bring that back." What's driving Trump's base, I think, are mostly older, white, rural, native-born people who fundamentally hate living in 21st Century America. They are desperate to go back - to when their little towns still had easy factory jobs that didn't require college degrees or technical knowledge, when the only two racial groups they knew were dominant whites who were born and raised in these little places, and a small minority of blacks who "knew their place." Nearly every "decent" person went to the local Baptist or Evangelical church, and the only tech you needed to know was tuning your TV set to the local TV stations. These people despise and feel very uncomfortable living in Modern America, feel left behind, and see Trump as the guy who will turn the clock back for them. It's not possible, of course, and is an illusion, but they're clinging to it. How the Democrats are supposed to appeal to that base, which is steadily shrinking in size, while protecting the rights of all those minorities who have benefited from the social progress of the last half-century, and maintaining their current voting base which is growing in size demographically every year, is a real challenge. Trump's election may eventually be seen by historians not as the harbinger of something new, but rather as the last hurrah of a dying (literally) voting bloc - white, rural, native-born, religious fundamentalist culture.

Here's the NBC News article: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...defining-battle-lines-gop-s-civil-war-n812516

I hear this a lot from the olds around me. I'll bet I have heard "I don't understand why they just don't open the mills back up. We had a lot of power then and made lots of great things happens for the community". Another goodie is "Yep, I really think the end of the world is close. They talk about this a lot at my church and I feel its coming sooner rather than later with all the phones and tech gizmos".
 
Of course the other thing you hear is that it's tough to find skilled workers who show up on time and aren't on drugs.
 
Back
Top