Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Nova, Nov 7, 2018.
Obama told me not to run.
Worth reading if you haven't yet.
Despite the liberal media trying to talk us into a recession, unemployment is too low, wages are rising too fast, the economy and the market are too strong, the left is too crazy, and there is nobody in the Democratic field that I see as a serious threat to Trump in a straight-up election. It's going to come down to whatever shenanigans the libs think they can get away with. And make no mistake, they're plotting right now where to hide those boxes of 'misplaced ballots.'
It's nice that you're so obedient with the talking points. If you keep it up, maybe President Donald J. Trump will pat you on the head and call you a Good Boy.
So... unemployment isn't at record lows? The economy isn't running hot? The Dow hasn't achieved record highs under this president? Wages aren't going up?
What, exactly, are these 'talking points' you speak of, versus fact?
the ones I've seen would say "so now you agree and we can get rid of the EC, right?" And the GOP will say "oh hell no" because they know that and their Senate advantage is the only way a minority party can have any influence.
Also, it is considerably more likely Trump falls under 40% of the vote than he pulls out over 50%
so the majority of the people, rather than the majority of the acres, can determine our future - an emminately rational outcome.
to be completely fair, Change Research always comes in high on Warren but this is broad enough you can move five points from her to Biden and she's still ahead so it's unquestionably good news. She's going to win Iowa (and I base that on far more than this poll) and when she does the race completely changes, that will vault her to first in NH and give her the "can win" perception which is literally the only thing keeping Biden in front of her right now.
Democratic Primary, RCP Average:
(Now VS pre-first-debate)
Biden 30.5% (32.1)
Warren 17.3% (12.4)
Sanders 16.0% (16.5)
Harris 8.0% (7.0)
Buttigieg 5.2% (7.0)
O'Rourke 2.8% (3.3)
Booker 2.0% (2.4)
Yang 1.5% (1.3)
Gabbard 1.0% (0.8)
Castro 1.0% (0.7)
One of these things is not like the others.
More doubts regarding Warren.
then again the economy could implode right before the election. That's something no one person can control. I think the economy (or how either party spins a good/bad economy) will be the biggest factor on the day people check that D or R box.
great comment. Now tell me how Marso is wrong. You don't like what he said? No problem, just tell me how he's wrong.
Historically, a win in Iowa does not guarantee a win in NH. In fact, it tends to lead to the opposite.
These are all true points and if Trump didn't go out of his way to be such an unlikable douchebag, he'd have a lock on re-election.
Even so, Fergason PD had an image problem with the locals well before this case.
Like Warren said, it's systemic.
Obama was 44 when he took office and was full gray by the time he left. He's one of less severe examples.
But then again, black dont crack
And whose administration did the majority of those improvements happen under, again?
I know it sticks in your craw that it was the hated "Obummer" who pulled us out of the last Republican crash and cut unemployment in half, but facts are facts.
What do you disagree with, @Tracker?
Unemployment peaked at 10% about a year after the Bush crash. In January 2017, at the end of the Obama administration, it had dropped to 4.7% -- less than half. At the end of the last Obama budget in September 2017, it was 4.2%. When Trump's budgets kicked in, it continued going down a little, and this year has been basically holding steady.
IIRC the Republicans controlled Congress for a good part of the economic recovery during the Obama Admin.
At any rate presidents are not all that responsible for short term economic changes. That has been a myth since the Great Depression. The 1929 economic crash and the subsequent Great Depression happened just six months or so after Herbert Hoover took office, while the depression bottomed out and recovery began in 1933 just about six months after FDR took office.
But both of those had little to do with the actions of either president. It was mostly just standard economic cycles.
Still disagreeing? Well, I guess instead of unemployment, we could talk about the Dow Jones average, which plunged to under 10,000 after the Bush crash, rose to nearly 20,000 in January 2017, was above 22,000 at the end of Obama's last budget, and continued to rise for a while (26,000, not bad!) before beginning its current period of volatility.
But ... I thought tHe TRuMp eCOnOmY wAs bOoMiNg!
@Tracker is allergic to facts that don't fit his preconceived notions. May as well rename this smilie for him:
Have I posted anything trumpeting (pun intended) the "Trump economy"?
Though I do recognize that from a strictly political standpoint you do have to blame or credit a president for economic changes that take place AFTER he has been in office for at least one year.
Yeah.....about those facts..
And I'm still waiting for facts that point to ANY Obama initiative that has lead to the current state of the economy four years after he left office. I have yet to see a single correlation to the current economy and Obama programs(or Trumps for that matter) Surely that's out there somewhere. And no, just being in office doesn't count.
Elizabeth Warren's anti-cop rhetoric has even alarmed the Boston Herald
While her rhetoric plays great to the anti-cop wing of her party, it's going to kill her if she makes it to the general election. Most fair minded people sympathize more with cops than hardened criminals.
Does using a larger font convince you that babies are "hardened criminals"?
You mean the rich and powerful make money despite the idiocy of trump? I figured they would not let his stupidity fuck up their good thing. That does not mean we are doing anywhere near good for most.
Good thing Beto's going nowhere in the polls.
Separate names with a comma.