Duncan Hunter Indicted

[05_never_again]

Imagine being so brainwashed you didn’t know the economy was already good when Trump took office. Trump should fall on his knees and thank Obama for the economy since that’s the only reason he has a chance to be elected.

Good Lord, when can we dispense with the notion that any President has anything to do with economic performance?

 

[nuclearjunky]

Dead bodies float too

We all float down here...

 

[volbeast33]

I’m not whining. The fact that Evangelical voters are shameless hypocrites is hardly a newsworthy.

How is it hypocritical..... you only have two options.... have the left offered a better one?

 

[tvolsfan]

Good Lord, when can we dispense with the notion that any President has anything to do with economic performance?

I do definitely agree that people give the president far too much credit/blame for the economy. But Trump's blowing himself every day about economic numbers on twitter and his supporters lap it up, so it's certainly reasonable to point out the economy was good before he ever stepped into the White House.

 

[05_never_again]

I do definitely agree that people give the president far too much credit/blame for the economy. But Trump's blowing himself every day about economic numbers on twitter and his supporters lap it up, so it's certainly reasonable to point out the economy was good before he ever stepped into the White House.

"Far too much credit/blame" is putting it mildly. That implies that they still have something, even just a little bit, to do with it. It goes beyond that; this is a totally inane discussion. Trump taking personal credit for it, or liberals saying he's lucky because Obama gave him a great economy that he created, are equally stupid arguments.

Trump crowing about the stock market in particular is really stupid for him simply because he opens himself up to being attacked on that basis from the other side after a correction or even a single bad day, much less a bear market.

I will say that Donald's already done some work from a political perspective by preemptively creating a foil, Jerome Powell, to blame things on if things go south before the election. I don't know to what extent people will buy that if there is a recession between now and the election (probably not much at all), but he's been putting it in the water for about a year now that he's raising rates too fast. However, if the Fed cuts this year and there still is a slowdown or recession, Trump is doomed.

 

[05_never_again]

Because it gets him votes from the Bible thumpers, who are the only ones keeping him afloat.

Trump was elected by swing voters, who determine every election. The media perpetually underestimates how much popular support there is for Trumpist-style policies because they have very little, if any, institutional (i.e., elite) support. They have a fair amount of popular support. And some of the stuff that used to have very little institutional support, like tariffs, has more than it used to.

 

[C-south]

Good Lord, when can we dispense with the notion that any President has anything to do with economic performance?

Trump had a direct hand in lowering taxes which have helped the economy. Barry bailed out banks and industries so they could give themselves huge bonuses.

 

[newarkvol]

Trump had a direct hand in lowering taxes which have helped the economy. Barry bailed out banks and industries so they could give themselves huge bonuses.

I guess we'll put you in the "dont know" category..
....In numerous polls, the public has voiced their displeasure at the much maligned bank bailout, but most don’t know which president signed the controversial act into law. Only a third of Americans (34%) correctly say the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted by the Bush administration. Nearly half (47%) incorrectly believe TARP was passed under President Obama. Another 19% admit they do not know which president signed the bank bailout into law.

Was TARP Passed Under Bush or Obama?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Trump had a direct hand in lowering taxes which have helped the economy. Barry bailed out banks and industries so they could give themselves huge bonuses.

newarkvol caught this first (I'm jealous), in the post above.... TARP was signed into legislation by George W. Bush in October of 2008. It's hard to believe you didn't know that. It's common knowledge.

 

[C-south]

newarkvol caught this first (I'm jealous), in the post above.... TARP was signed into legislation by George W. Bush in October of 2008. It's hard to believe you didn't know that. It's common knowledge.

“Even before taking office in January 2009, Obama had signed on to the previous Bush administration's drastic, but politically unpopular, plan to directly infuse up to $700 billion in taxpayer-backed loans into the U.S. banking industry.“

 

[BowlBrother85]

“Even before taking office in January 2009, Obama had signed on to the previous Bush administration's drastic, but politically unpopular, plan to directly infuse up to $700 billion in taxpayer-backed loans into the U.S. banking industry.“

Yeah... but that legislation still has GWB's signature on it. Like it or not, TARP was his baby.

 

[tvolsfan]

"Far too much credit/blame" is putting it mildly. That implies that they still have something, even just a little bit, to do with it. It goes beyond that; this is a totally inane discussion. Trump taking personal credit for it, or liberals saying he's lucky because Obama gave him a great economy that he created, are equally stupid arguments.

Trump crowing about the stock market in particular is really stupid for him simply because he opens himself up to being attacked on that basis from the other side after a correction or even a single bad day, much less a bear market.

I will say that Donald's already done some work from a political perspective by preemptively creating a foil, Jerome Powell, to blame things on if things go south before the election. I don't know to what extent people will buy that if there is a recession between now and the election (probably not much at all), but he's been putting it in the water for about a year now that he's raising rates too fast. However, if the Fed cuts this year and there still is a slowdown or recession, Trump is doomed.

You don't think policy matters at all? Ever?

 

[tvolsfan]

Trump was elected by swing voters, who determine every election. The media perpetually underestimates how much popular support there is for Trumpist-style policies because they have very little, if any, institutional (i.e., elite) support. They have a fair amount of popular support. And some of the stuff that used to have very little institutional support, like tariffs, has more than it used to.

There is certainly truth to that. However, Trump cannot afford to lose any support from his base.

 

[BowlBrother85]

There is certainly truth to that. However, Trump cannot afford to lose any support from his base.

Even more than that, Trump still needs a low African-American voter turnout. He will need to win at least one of the following states:

Pennsylvania (Trump won by 68,000 votes in 2016)
Michigan (Trump won by 12,000 votes in 2016)
Wisconsin (Trump won by 24,000 votes in 2016)
Minnesota (Clinton won by 43,000 votes in 2016)
Nevada (Clinton won by 27,000 votes in 2016)

... and Trump cannot afford to lose any of the following states either:

Arizona (Trump won by 85,000 votes in 2016)
Florida (Trump won by 112,000 votes in 2016)
North Carolina (Trump won by 178,000 votes in 2016)
Georgia (Trump won by 212,000 votes in 2016)
Ohio (Trump won by 447,000 votes in 2016)

 

[BreatheUT]

How comical is it that Donald Trump's own Department of Justice that he routinely criticizes keeps indicting Donald Trump's biggest supporters?
Put that in your Deep State Fox News pipe and smoke it, Trumpers. People are wising up to the massive corruption in the GOP and in the White House. November 6th is going to be eye-opening.

View attachment 164280

I see you are back from your Phil Bredesen prediction like it was forgotten. Like a bad sports analyst that made a awful prediction to start the year and hoped no one remembered.

 

[05_never_again]

You don't think policy matters at all? Ever?

Not really. Federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been constant since 1950 (about 17%). It doesn't really matter what the tax rates are or what the regulations are.

Part of the scam/myth of government is them convincing you that what they say and do is of great importance.

 

[05_never_again]

Even more than that, Trump still needs a low African-American voter turnout. He will need to win at least one of the following states:

Pennsylvania (Trump won by 68,000 votes in 2016)
Michigan (Trump won by 12,000 votes in 2016)
Wisconsin (Trump won by 24,000 votes in 2016)
Minnesota (Clinton won by 43,000 votes in 2016)
Nevada (Clinton won by 27,000 votes in 2016)

... and Trump cannot afford to lose any of the following states either:

Arizona (Trump won by 85,000 votes in 2016)
Florida (Trump won by 112,000 votes in 2016)
North Carolina (Trump won by 178,000 votes in 2016)
Georgia (Trump won by 212,000 votes in 2016)
Ohio (Trump won by 447,000 votes in 2016)

He has to win nowhere near as many of those states in the top category in order to win in 2020. He lost Minnesota and Nevada in 2016, so why does he need them in 2020?

Also, Trump needs just any one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. Trump would have still won in 2016 if, for example, he lost Pennsylvania and Michigan but won Wisconsin, all else unchanged. Dubya won in 2000 and 2004 but lost all 3 of those states (won a few others that Trump didn't).

 

[05_never_again]

Trump had a direct hand in lowering taxes which have helped the economy. Barry bailed out banks and industries so they could give themselves huge bonuses.

TARP was passed in 2008, before Barry was elected. Obama supported it, as did McCain and politicians from both parties, but it was enacted before the election that year.

 

[ajvol01]

Even more than that, Trump still needs a low African-American voter turnout. He will need to win at least one of the following states:

Pennsylvania (Trump won by 68,000 votes in 2016)
Michigan (Trump won by 12,000 votes in 2016)
Wisconsin (Trump won by 24,000 votes in 2016)
Minnesota (Clinton won by 43,000 votes in 2016)
Nevada (Clinton won by 27,000 votes in 2016)

... and Trump cannot afford to lose any of the following states either:

Arizona (Trump won by 85,000 votes in 2016)
Florida (Trump won by 112,000 votes in 2016)
North Carolina (Trump won by 178,000 votes in 2016)
Georgia (Trump won by 212,000 votes in 2016)
Ohio (Trump won by 447,000 votes in 2016)

Racist IMO

 

[tvolsfan]

He has to win nowhere near as many of those states in the top category in order to win in 2020. He lost Minnesota and Nevada in 2016, so why does he need them in 2020?

Also, Trump needs just any one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. Trump would have still won in 2016 if, for example, he lost Pennsylvania and Michigan but won Wisconsin, all else unchanged. Dubya won in 2000 and 2004 but lost all 3 of those states (won a few others that Trump didn't).

I don’t think there’s any guarantee whatsoever he wins Florida.

 

[tvolsfan]

Not really. Federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been constant since 1950 (about 17%). It doesn't really matter what the tax rates are or what the regulations are.

Part of the scam/myth of government is them convincing you that what they say and do is of great importance.

We will have to disagree to at least some extent. I do think the president gets entirely too much credit/blame (particularly because it’s easiest just to remember one name to be happy or angry with), but I don’t agree that policy is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[McDad]

Not really. Federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been constant since 1950 (about 17%). It doesn't really matter what the tax rates are or what the regulations are.

Part of the scam/myth of government is them convincing you that what they say and do is of great importance.

I regret I am incapable of giving this post infinity likes.

 

[05_never_again]

I don’t think there’s any guarantee whatsoever he wins Florida.

There's not a guarantee he wins any swing state. My point is that he doesn't "need" to win each and every one of those states you mentioned in that first group. He needs to win some combination of all those states you listed. Same recipe as 2016.

Trump still would have won in 2016 even if he lost Florida, for example. Or Wisconsin, or Michigan, or Pennsylvania individually. Or even if he lost Michigan and Pennsylvania. In fact, I don't expect him to carry Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania this time. He'll lose at least one of those states, and he can even afford to lose two of them. Hell, he can even lose all three, but still win if he flipped some combination of Colorado, Nevada, and/or Virginia. Dubya was elected President twice without winning WI, MI, or PA.

 

[BowlBrother85]

He has to win nowhere near as many of those states in the top category in order to win in 2020. He lost Minnesota and Nevada in 2016, so why does he need them in 2020?

Also, Trump needs just any one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin. Trump would have still won in 2016 if, for example, he lost Pennsylvania and Michigan but won Wisconsin, all else unchanged. Dubya won in 2000 and 2004 but lost all 3 of those states (won a few others that Trump didn't).

If you take another look at the post that you replied to (it's quoted inside of post #117), I said that Trump needed to win at least ONE of those states (in the top category) ... NOT ALL of them. Try reading a little SLOWER next time.

 

[Septic]

Trump had a direct hand in lowering taxes which have helped the economy. Barry bailed out banks and industries so they could give themselves huge bonuses.

If you're going to give him credit for helping the economy with lowered taxes, you'll also need to address his hindrance of the economy with tariffs which far outweigh the effects of the tax cuts.