Messages

1651

General Comments / Re: What the CIA report *actually* says

« on: January 08, 2017, 04:27:26 PM »

*After* Trump had started nuzzling Putin's balls.

This alone earns the post more than just a "Like" .

1652

General Comments / Re: 27 cases of voter fraud detected, Laramie County, WY

« on: January 08, 2017, 11:48:42 AM »

And don't call me afaik, either.

1653

General Comments / Re: 27 cases of voter fraud detected, Laramie County, WY

« on: January 08, 2017, 07:53:06 AM »

OK, I get it.  This is how we say with a straight face that millions of illegal immigrants voted for Hillary.  It only makes sense that if 16 people did it in Wyoming, it must be a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Oh so, now we go from "We can't find evidence of it(voter fraud) happening" to "The evidence that is coming forward doesn't mean that voter fraud may be more common than some would like to think."

300,000,000 people, 146,000,000 votes cast, and according to the article cited here, as many as 27 people people MAY have voted illegally.  The article doesn't actually say conclusively that EVEN ONE did. 

But let's do a little arithmetic and assume the worst possible case that they ALL did vote illegally.  That works out to 0.000018% of votes were illegally cast nationwide. 

Focusing just on Wyoming, where 255,000 votes were cast this rises to an alarming 0.01%. 

Since 0.01% is 555x LARGER than .000018, we should assume that the actual number of illegal votes cast was actually 555x larger than anything we actually know about, so for each rumored illegal vote attempt that you hear about 555 illegal votes were actually cast. 

That's how we know that millions of illegal votes were cast for Clinton and Trump actually won the popular vote among REAL Americans.

I don't think any more proof is really need that she tried to steal the election and Trump overcame her CORRUPT attempt.

1654

General Comments / Re: What the CIA report *actually* says

« on: January 08, 2017, 07:38:32 AM »

Preference is relative. Since they were against Clinton, it follows that they preferred any alternative to her. Note their hack consisted of exposing the lies the DRC told about dealing with Sanders, another Clinton competitor.

The choice to cast Putin as pro Trump, rather than than anti Clinton as the report stated, is a McCarthyist smear from a disparate group with evidently no sense of decency.

What happened was Karma. And it didn't swing the election. HRC failed because she is white, and her core constituents didn't show up to the polls. The DNC cannot afford to field nother white presidential candidate, unless it wants to put Wisconsin and other bits of "flyover country" on their map.

It bothers me when you use what I can only describe as twisted logic to insist on your points.  I don't know what's going on with you, but I'll decline to respond to your posts for a while until you get a grip.

1655

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 07, 2017, 08:40:40 PM »

Do you think the bakery can refuse to sell donuts to Muslims?

Well, if they were cooked in bacon fat.

I'd refuse to buy them, and I'm not even Muslim.

1656

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 07, 2017, 07:39:20 PM »

Kasandra


"Of course, since if they are invited they can't refuse."

I had wondered about this. Would it make a difference if a catering business refused to cater a gay wedding?


If you have a catering business or maybe you're a DJ and you refuse to cater or host a gay wedding how is that different from a business like the Rockets in which you refuse to do a show for someone just because you don't approve of their politics or some other personal reason?

Or are caterers and DJs allowed to refuse such service but a baker isn't since they are just baking a cake and not really participating so directly?

I wish someone would answer the questions I've already raised about whether a business can refuse entry or otherwise treat customers differently because of some perceived exclusionary characteristic.  IMO, a personal service *is* different than a commodity. 

Do you think the bakery can refuse to sell donuts to Muslims?

1657

General Comments / Re: What the CIA report *actually* says

« on: January 07, 2017, 07:35:34 PM »

Please don't be obtuse.
...
I understood that was his argument. Do you understand why it's obtuse, and how it obfuscated a thread about media misrepresenting intelligence findings?

Since Putin obviously wanted Clinton to lose because he thought she would be a tough opponent, it makes no sense to imagine that he didn't act in a way to favor her opponent, whoever that might be.  It's obtuse to think otherwise.  He lucked out yugely when her opponent turned out to be Trump, who publicly kissed his ass at every opportunity and still does.  I listened to Clapper at the hearing and read a number of accounts of what the report contains (but haven't read it for myself).  You sound like you haven't done even that.

Also, Pete, your selective quote supports my argument if you only include the very next sentence that you clipped:

“Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency,” it said. “We further assess Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

1658

General Comments / Re: Will any Trump supporters abandon him?

« on: January 07, 2017, 10:34:34 AM »

If you said that Democrats have been the party trying to establish a permanent underclass dependent on handouts that they (Democrats) control over the past 50 or more years I'd agree with you.

Well, that certainly is one way to look at it if you don't like what the programs are trying to accomplish.  I suppose if you look at it that way, they should have given it one shot and then given it up as hopeless.

emocrats love to campaign on exactly that issue.  If you don't elect us, then the Republicans will take away your goodies.

Well, that certainly is one way to look at it if you don't think the people who receive help need it or legitimately benefit from it.  I suppose if you look at it that way, the money would be better spent on people who have a lot of stuff and still want more.

   

As for voting for Trump I can think of a few reasons that resonated, one of which you said:

No you can't.  Nothing you've ever said, leads to any ability to believe you understand why other rational thinking people would reach different logical conclusions than yourself.

I thought I could think for myself, but I guess you know better.  I suppose I should just take what you say as fact instead of risking thinking differently.

Enough, you know better than me.

1659

General Comments / Re: What the CIA report *actually* says

« on: January 07, 2017, 10:28:01 AM »

How is that completely different than wanting Trump to be elected?

1660

General Comments / Re: The Grinch who made Kwanzaa

« on: January 07, 2017, 10:27:12 AM »

I for one have never misconstrued Kwanzaa with a skydaddy celebration. It was designed as something that non religious blacks could celebrate instead of joining in the holiday thst the non religious of the culture oppressing them - whites - celebrated.

Whites didnt want blacks to join in their thing, so blacks made their own. Hardly surprising. It was - and is - a celebration of African heritage.  Something that, when it was created, was needed, considering the climate of the country.

I'm not at all surprised that there are Christians that celebrate it. I was expecting that.

Except that this whole canard is about nothing except what one person here has decided is not legitimate and took on a jihad to complain about it loudly and crassly.  And now he is backtracking as he often does when enough people have pointed out his baseless criticism:

Thanks for clarifying.   Yes, if I am mistaken that Kwanzaa was being promoted for divisive political purposes, then it's worthy of respect.

You're smart enough that you could have figured that out for yourself *before* you posted the racist poem that amused you.

1661

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 07, 2017, 10:23:48 AM »

So by the Kassandra DJQ standard, Trump should be able to sue musicians who refuse to perform at inauguration.

Of course, since if they are invited they can't refuse.

1662

General Comments / Re: 27 cases of voter fraud detected, Laramie County, WY

« on: January 07, 2017, 10:22:20 AM »

Because well, it's freaking Wyoming. If they actually did have 16 non-citizens vote, be they legal residents or not, then imagine what potentially happened in some other electoral districts. Where you know, you have illegal aliens running around with government issued photo identification.

OK, I get it.  This is how we say with a straight face that millions of illegal immigrants voted for Hillary.  It only makes sense that if 16 people did it in Wyoming, it must be a vast left-wing conspiracy.

1663

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 06, 2017, 03:13:04 PM »

I was opposing all religious binding arbitration, Al, and you still called me islamophobic.   

Just to be clear, I will not respond to any post that refers to me by any name other than Kasandra.  It's up to me to set the flexibility about that, not you. You can set guidelines for yourself.

1664

General Comments / Re: 27 cases of voter fraud detected, Laramie County, WY

« on: January 06, 2017, 03:10:51 PM »

Speaks for itself, I think.

Yes, but what does it say?

1665

General Comments / Re: Will any Trump supporters abandon him?

« on: January 06, 2017, 02:20:12 PM »

Poor whites voted for Trump for the same reasons that African Americans voted for Bill Clinton. Because he does a good job of 'feeling their pain' while screwing them over.

I can't quite buy that.  Democrats have been the party defending rights and programs benefiting poor and minority people in country over the past 50 or more years.  They have been fought and sometimes beaten by Republicans, one of whom famously said that 47% of the population (aka poor and/or black) love the handouts Democrats have given them.

As for voting for Trump I can think of a few reasons that resonated, one of which you said:

* Conservatives hate liberals more than they love the country
* Rural voters hate to see all the attention paid to cities, which tend to have large concentrations of poor and/or black populations
* They're unhappy with their economic status and blame the government more than business for them not having jobs
* They have been conditioned by relentless partisan attacks on FOX and other prominent conservative media outlets to think that Democrats have caused all the problems that are wrong with the country

Some of them, I'm sure, are good people, but it's hard to understand why they would vote so solidly against their own self-interest.  At least Democrats can't be said to do that.

1666

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 06, 2017, 02:11:03 PM »

For anyone giving credibility to the nonsense crowder video, here's the truth of the mattter. Hoax starts with H and ends with Crowder.

Now, if somebody wants to actually show me that a muslim business is getting a pass...

crowder stinks

For reference, Pete (your chosen name), a little caution in responding to intentionally inflammatory posts is sometimes a good idea.  You may still hold it against me that I didn't jump in, because fake news is still news, after all.

1667

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 06, 2017, 02:07:03 PM »

Not an assumption, K.

I asked you not to do that.  It makes you seem more Petty than Pete.  I would hate for that to become how you are referred to.

1668

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 06, 2017, 01:46:16 PM »

Now watch kass change the subject and refuse to address the question of why Muslim businesses are getting a pass

I wasn't responding to that, but you shouldn't assume how I would answer if I did.  Please use my full name when referring to me; I don't feel like a Kas, Kass or Kassie.  A girl has to have standards, you know...

1669

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 06, 2017, 12:15:29 PM »

As a pure libertarian, I think you should be able to refuse to make any cake for any reason. The market should sort people out on its own, with more and more people learning about the anti-gay-wedding bakers and choosing not to support their establishment.

The problem I have with "pure libertarian[ism]" is that it inherently sets no boundaries on the "beliefs" it promulgates.  If you can refuse to make a cake, can't you also refuse entry to your place of business?  If you allow entry, can you require some people to use separate facilities?  How about making them order from a different menu or shop only at certain hours?  Rand Paul opposes portions of the Civil Rights Act, which protects blacks from (local, state, federal) discrimination as a libertarian view.  Where does libertarianism end and anarchy take over?

1670

General Comments / Re: Will any Trump supporters abandon him?

« on: January 06, 2017, 12:09:07 PM »

My daughter joined her boyfriend's family for 4 days over Thanksgiving.  His father voted for Trump, whereas his wife and all of their children were adamantly against Trump and voted for Clinton.  The boyfriend and siblings spent the entire time arguing with him, trying to get him to explain why he voted as he did.  My daughter (wisely) stayed out of the argument.  When they later told me about the fiasco they said his father never did come up with a practical reason, but said he would do it again.  I can't explain it, and can't think how to overcome it.

1671

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 06, 2017, 12:01:50 PM »

I don't understand why the line is drawn at gay people. Should public businesses also be able to turn away people based upon race or religion?

Why shouldn't they be able to turn away people for any reason at all?  I can't get into some restaurants without a tie and jacket.  Should stores in Ann Arbor have to serve people wearing Michigan State emblems?  That's almost a religious issue around here.  Michigan State students riot and burn police cars even when they win, but we don't force them out of the state or the country. Instead we (via the state sponsored University they attend) give them BA degrees and they go out in the world to live lives of quiet desperation.

1672

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 05, 2017, 04:28:57 PM »

Kasandra

"You like to draw bright lines separating what you believe and what people believe differently and then judge those others negatively for their difference."

Yeah, I look at it as calling it like I see it. If I see something I don't think is right, I say so.

Liberals tell me that's wrong. I have no right to judge.

And then they promptly do the same thing to me.

You never stop drawing caricatures of "liberals" and pretending that that's what they're really like.  You call it like you see it, but you have pretty poor eyesight. 

1673

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 05, 2017, 04:25:49 PM »

I only know a few Muslims, but they are nothing like you or Cherry portray.  Let's not start yet another religious war on Ornery to prove whose religion is more intolerant or done more evil things than your own.  None of those discussions has ever led to anything like a winning argument.  Don't forget that in 1933 Germany was 99% Christian, yet German immigration continued after WWII and now they are our strongest ally in Europe.

1674

General Comments / Re: The Grinch who made Kwanzaa

« on: January 05, 2017, 04:20:55 PM »

Pete, so you don't condone the government for recognizing a "new" form of religious observance that you don't think makes sense, and further, since it's only got a small following it doesn't have real legitimacy.  Hmmm, wasn't LDS like that once?  The origins and early years of that faith aren't exactly bathed in popular esteem or glory.  Before you go crazy on me, recall that Christianity and Judaism have had their own historical problems with legitimacy.

I haven't yet commented on your "poem" that kicked off the thread, but I'll offer that it is one of the nastiest and most racist comments I've ever seen anyone on Ornery ever make.  You should apologize, and in doing that not just say you were trying to be funny.  That's what Paladino said when he was called out for saying Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla and should be sent back to the jungle to find a new mate.

1675

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 05, 2017, 04:13:37 PM »

Maybe I'm a bit sideways insisting that Muslims be more tolerant of things that are against their religion when as a conservative I can be somewhat prone to various degrees of intolerance myself, but by the same token how is it that people on the left can insist we all tolerate Islam while at the same time they refuse to tolerate conservatives?

A nonsense remark that people who don't tolerate intolerance are intolerant for that reason, which has been your argument for the last several posts you have made.  Obama is intolerant because he is tolerant of people that you are intolerant towards.  You like to draw bright lines separating what you believe and what people believe differently and then judge those others negatively for their difference. 

1676

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 05, 2017, 01:20:07 PM »

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied."


"In other words, he's saying that he doesn't think the future should belong to people who are intolerant of any religion."

What about the people who feel the future should indeed belong to people who are intolerant of any religion, and even every religion? And the people who believe that should have every right to express their discontent?

Don't they have a place in the future as well? If not, what is supposed to happen to them in the new America and the new world?

Why am I the one who has to make the liberal argument with all the people talking about celebrating the winter solstice instead of Christmas?

I'm not surprised that you are making what you think is a "liberal argument".  You are perhaps the most intolerant person posting on this forum, since virtually every position you take on any issue amounts to an exclusion or expression of distrust or xenophobia.  I know you think that people like you should be the ones to inherit the future, which is why the real "liberal argument" is to oppose what you stand for.

1677

General Comments / Re: Will any Trump supporters abandon him?

« on: January 05, 2017, 10:50:16 AM »

Yes, Trump is the reincarnation of Yogi Berra who said he never said some of the things he said.

1678

General Comments / Re: The Grinch who made Kwanzaa

« on: January 05, 2017, 10:48:20 AM »

I'm living in an Mall black neighborhood and it's all Christmas here. No Kwanzaa. Has anyonne,here,ever,known an African American family that celebrated Kwanzaa?

Yes**.  But in the spirit of full disclosure our family fashions our seasonal holiday around the winter solstice, which is the basis for the date chosen for the birth of Christ among many other pagan rituals that Christianity coopted.  You really don't want to try to justify the dates and circumstances surrounding many Christian celebrations.

** You got yerself some keybored ther, fella.

1679

General Comments / Re: Hope for Merkel and Germany

« on: January 05, 2017, 10:42:27 AM »

As Obama himself put it, "The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam."

WHAT!?

This has the context, but that doesn't do anything to help make what Obama said any better. For a supposed Constitutional scholar, he sure doesn't seem to understand the 1st Amendment very well.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obamafuture.asp

In that speech, Obama called out all forms of religious intolerance and extremism and argued for tolerance and acceptance of all religions.  Why do you have a problem with his inclusion of Islam?

1680

General Comments / Re: Will any Trump supporters abandon him?

« on: January 04, 2017, 06:51:56 PM »

Unabashed, unapologetic Trump supporter here.

To answer the question bluntly, if Trump reneges on his promises yes I will abandon him.

I'll check back with you on this promise.  The first big one will likely be the repeal of ACA.  Trump promised nobody will lose their health insurance.

But, "abandoning him" would hardly be adequate if he reneges on his promises or destroys the economy or introduces foreign conflicts by accident.  As President (like Obama), he needs to be held to the highest standard.  Remember when you attacked Obama for not living up to his vague "Hope" platform?  Well, Trump has been far more explicit and yet very vague on what he will actually try to do.

1681

General Comments / Re: Will any Trump supporters abandon him?

« on: January 03, 2017, 03:59:40 PM »

Not sure you have a "Trump Supporter" who posts on this board, so it'll be tough to answer.

Do you filter out Cherry's posts?

I personally think that Trumps intention is to neuter Congress and I believe he's capable of making it happen.

I doubt that will happen.  They will learn to gratify each other's deepest desires that aren't in conflict, but do share a lot of positions.  I think they'll get along fine for a while.  I'm just as afraid of the House agenda, fwiw.

I don't view it as inevitable. I just view it as something he may be trying to instigate, but in that case, he'll likely resign first, much like Nixon did.

But if he isn't trying to be impeached, odds are good that no such proceeding will ever happen, or if it does, it'll be a disaster for those that push for it.

It's incredibly hard to succeed in an impeachment trial in the Senate.  But to get that far the House GOP majority has to actually impeach a sitting President of their own Party.  There will be plenty of grounds to do it, which will make the House squirm, but I'm not convinced they have the balls to follow through.

1682

General Comments / Re: Satan's elves

« on: January 03, 2017, 11:28:03 AM »

When you get to tell it like it is (how it is)  you don't need ethics to  "drain the swamp"

Trump evidently tweeted against the move?

Apparently so.  Kind of surprising, but he does like to keep his monopoly.

1683

General Comments / Re: Satan's elves

« on: January 03, 2017, 09:12:17 AM »

Thread upgrade to Satan's Imps:

WASHINGTON — House Republicans, overriding their top leaders, voted on Monday to significantly curtail the power of an independent ethics office set up in 2008 in the aftermath of corruption scandals that sent three members of Congress to jail.

The move to effectively kill the Office of Congressional Ethics was not made public until late Monday, when Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced that the House Republican Conference had approved the change. There was no advance notice or debate on the measure.

The surprising vote came on the eve of the start of a new session of Congress, where emboldened Republicans are ready to push an ambitious agenda on everything from health care to infrastructure, issues that will be the subject of intense lobbying from corporate interests. The House Republicans’ move would take away both power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.

Republicans are getting to run riot over not only all Americans but indulge themselves big-time in the reflected golden glow of their Great Indulger in the White House.

1684

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: January 01, 2017, 09:18:24 AM »

Kasandra-Yes, but ______ (you can fill in the blank)

There is no but.  Trump won with the rules currently in place.  We could have a big discussion about the popular vote Vs the Electoral vote or whether the hacking or last minute email investigation impacted the results but it doesn't matter.  Trump will be the next president short of a sudden illness or death.  If you are unhappy with the system work to change it.  Sorry if this sounds blunt and believe me when I say I share your disappointment and fears of a Trump presidency.  I just think all the current attacks on the validity of the Trump win are similar to those against Obama.

I think you misappreciate what I was saying.  Trump was duly and legally elected, I don't expect his mental illness to prevent him being sworn in ***, I would like the EC to stay but to do the job it was intended to do, I will work for political action this year, I'm glad that almost nobody here defends Trump or looks toward his reign with hopeful anticipation.

*** Trump's New Year Eve morning tweet: "Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!"

1685

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: January 01, 2017, 08:58:23 AM »

Aww, boo hoo hoo.

I didn't mean to upset you.  Sanders could have won, and so could Cruz.  For that matter, so could I (not you, because you were not natural born around these parts).  Retrodicting who would have won is like what Pauli said about a paper by one of his students, "This is not right, it's not even wrong". All that matters is that you feel in your heart that you're right.

Happy New Year, we'll need it.

1686

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 31, 2016, 07:20:41 AM »

Yes, but ______ (you can fill in the blank)

1687

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 31, 2016, 03:00:39 AM »

You are deep into the motte and bailey tactic here. If the parties are "just a club" then you should have no problem with Russia messing around with a private club, since that has nothing to do with the Federal government or national security. And if Russia messing with them is a problem then they are not 'just a club.'

Nice try, but by your "logic" Russia is just an example of a group that tries to influence or steal the election.  Would you care if the mafia or Goldman Sachs did it instead of Russia?

1688

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 30, 2016, 10:23:39 PM »

I recall no provision of the Constitution granting a specific political party eternal power to choose the President in an entrenched two party system. Is this the system that was intended or chosen by the people or was it constructed by the DNC and the RNC to serve themselves?

Focus on the highlighted text.  A political Party is just a club that makes its own rules.  For all I know you have to wear monogrammed underwear to the leadership meetings and Sanders never wore his.  Tough luck, read the rules next time.

As for Trump, I give him tremendous credit for steering through the process and not only surviving but winning.  Perhaps that quality (whatever it is) is what scares me the most about him.  He may somehow keep avoiding Scylla and never crash into Charybdis and our ship will be the one wrecked.

1689

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 30, 2016, 05:00:14 PM »

For the umpteenth and lasteenth time, Sanders was not a Democrat, had no representation in the DNC, was not favored by virtually any Democrat in Congress, did nothing to support any other Democratic Party candidate and raised no money for the Party.  Why is everyone so surprised and disappointed that the Democratic Party establishment was 100% behind the putative leader of the Party who had all of those things on her side?

1690

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 30, 2016, 12:01:22 PM »

Do we really want Vladimir Putin having the power to sway elections and effectively choose successors in western countries?

The LA Times had a piece earlier this month talking about the dozens upon dozens of times that the US intervened and interfered with electoral processes in other nations during the Cold War. Experience has shown that such operations only generally lead to a maximum shift of up to 3 points for the person/party they were supporting.

According to the WP, US interference in foreign politics has had a far more determinative role on other governments.

1691

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 30, 2016, 11:58:23 AM »

Yes, you have been repeating this. You have yet to demonstrate how anything was "sabotaged", even if all allegations about what Russia did are true. If releasing true information is 'sabotage' then we have a problem far worse than Russia on our hands.

The issue is neither the hack nor the release of plausibly true information damaging to Democrats, but the selectivity of the hack-release in order to damage just one Party.  People who support the purported Russian actions are also somehow comfortable that no such hack-release was made about Republicans.  That's why I continually point out the partisan inference for support of the attack against only one Party.

1692

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 30, 2016, 11:54:55 AM »

Sanctions that would penalize Russia financially would have been more effective, but Trump has already effectively emasculated himself by siding with Russia over the FBI and the CIA.

You realize that statement left no moral difference at all between you and Trump, either in style or in substance.

Donalds comment bears no resemblance to anything Trump might say or do. It's a fair observation. In response to the actions Obama took Trump said we should just ignore what Putin did and get on with our lives.

You don't think that metaphors about cutting out parts of Trump's genitals, violent phalocentric imagery, has any resemblance to something Trump might say? Really?

That is the 3rd listed definition for "emasculate".  The first is to weaken someone's credibility or authority, which is what Donald meant.

1693

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 30, 2016, 06:55:08 AM »

Sanctions that would penalize Russia financially would have been more effective, but Trump has already effectively emasculated himself by siding with Russia over the FBI and the CIA.

You realize that statement left no moral difference at all between you and Trump, either in style or in substance.

Donalds comment bears no resemblance to anything Trump might say or do. It's a fair observation. In response to the actions Obama took Trump said we should just ignore what Putin did and get on with our lives.

1694

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 29, 2016, 08:38:36 AM »

TD:

The U.S. consumer confidence index (CCI) is an indicator designed to measure consumer confidence, which is defined as the degree of optimism on the state of the economy that consumers are expressing through their activities of savings and spending.

In other words, it reflects their current state of mind based on recent events as well as optimism for the future, which is a projection of the current state.  Yes, psychology matters since the so-called metric is confidence, a mood or attitude.

DJ:

Trump is a disaster and I'm kind of looking on with the air of a rubbernecker viewing a car wreck at this point, but don't you dare try to intimate that the DNC has no blame in this. The majority of the electorate are grade A dumbasses. The purpose of the parties is to manipulate them. And the DNC failed. So *censored*ed hard.

If we can avoid a nuclear war, Trump will be impeached in a year or two. The person we need to worry about is Pence.

You're right that Clinton became a symbol of the system and Trump represented a rejection of it.  The people she lost were mostly those who have become disenchanted with what the system does for them.  But don't forget that she outpolled him, so it's not like he overwhelmed her with voters.

1695

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 28, 2016, 08:28:22 AM »

TheDeamon, there's someone else who agrees with you about Trump's influence on the economy:

The U.S. Consumer Confidence Index for December surged nearly four points to 113.7, THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN MORE THAN 15 YEARS! Thanks Donald!

1696

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 28, 2016, 08:24:52 AM »

Before I say anything about finance I always preface it by admitting that I have no idea what's going to happen, but...

That's an odd comment for you to make, since you have consistently expressed your support for Trump based on the things he said he would do that you wanted.

The timing of the Fed's rate hike right after the election seemed like it was more than just coincidence. A suspicious person might think that they were holding off on raising rates for political purposes.

That same suspicious person might think that if a Democrat said there would be an eclipse at a certain date and time that the event was somehow a liberal conspiracy.

One other thing I hear is that if the Fed does raise rates that will explode the national debt so there is no way for them to really do it without devastating results to our national finances. Of course, if they want to really sock it to Trump that would be one way to do it. He campaigned on even more money assuming low interest rates. Fed rate hikes would put a real monkey wrench into the works.

This is exactly the kind of pre-emptive retroactive attack that I expect from people who want to hedge their bets that Trump won't actually be able to deliver on his wild and reckless promises.  The fed rate has been held low for far longer than in the past in order to nurse the recovery along.  Now that Obama has achieved the recovery to what would be considered a "healthy" state, it's time to start to return the rates to something like historical norms.

Nice try.  He's your man, own it.

1697

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 28, 2016, 06:13:49 AM »

Consumer Confidence is polling at the highest levels seen since 2001. The Real Estate market, which had been slowing considerably in the run up to the November Election is showing signs of having taken a rather significant upturn since about the middle of November, in particular housing in the upper income brackets.

The rise in consumer confidence is attributed to expectations, not results.  That isn't an indicator of any actual economic activity.  If it falls after Trump fails to deliver, it will be hard to retrofit that onto Obama's 8 consecutive years of actual economic and jobs growth.  How is improvement in the Real Estate market for "upper income brackets" a boon to the general economy?  Again, if you want to attribute that to Trump it is speculative. Also note that November is the beginning of the normal seasonal housing market spurt.  Overall, 2016 was a very good year for real estate - hardly attributable to Trump - and the trend is predicted to continue for at least another year.

Under Obama, if you're rich, or you become rich, your success came on the backs of others("You didn't build that."). You're going to be accused of exploitation and a long list of other things as well more likely than not. You'll be threatened with new regulations and laws if your "too successful" and possibly new taxes as well. After all, if you're doing so well, you should be able to afford to pay more and "spread the wealth around."

That's a political argument that has nothing to do with actual economic activity.  If you're right that the rich have realized that they'll be even richer going forward, that means that those less rich will be even less rich in the future because business (aka the rich) will have even more power to control the distribution of wealth and benefits to themselves.  Look for even more underemployment and reduction in benefits and lower incomes for salaried and hourly workers.  How is that a sign of good economic strength?

Amazon is already reporting one of its strongest holiday sales years to date. Many other retailers are looking to have done very well as well(Which would track with high consumer confidence). So economic indicators are heading up, we'll see what really happens once the rubber hits the road in January, but it seems people are liking their prospects.

They are spending money that have or expect to be able to pay off based on present economic conditions.  Do you really think people would spend an extra $1000 on Christmas gifts because they think they'll have a sudden windfall from Trump's election when the credit card bill comes in January?

I give the speculative Trump surge in "confidence" about 6 months.  Then I will pull most of my money out of equities and perhaps buy annuities, something I never would have considered in the past.  Even a .25% CD will look good at that point.

1698

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 27, 2016, 05:18:39 PM »

Wait, wasn't Obama "allowed" to blame nearly all of his 1st term problems on Bush? For that matter, he was still blaming many things on Bush going into his second term.

Wait, didn't Obama dig the country out of the deepest economic crisis in 70 years that landed on his doorstep the day he took office?  Didn't he inherit two disastrous unending wars that had contributed to that crisis?  He can't blame Bush for the *censored*storm that he created?  What similar problems have Obama left for Trump?  Don't use Iran, because that is stable.  Don't use China, because Trump is going to overturn 20-30 years of economic policy.  Don't use Obamacare, because health care costs have risen more slowly under it than in the prior decade and 20 million additional people are covered than were before.  Maybe Trump can fix the auto bailout and bankrupt GM and somehow blame Obama. Republicans are still angry about what he did on that one.

But now suddenly, since it's the Democrats who just lost the presidential office, everything that goes wrong is on Trump.

I think Trump has heralded just how badly he will handle things with his Cabinet picks.  You can't blame the wisdom, knowledge or experience of Ben Carson or Rick Perry on Obama.

While the economic surge in activity that seems to have started building since the election? Yeah, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to give those positives to Obama. Rather than crediting the looming end of Obama's/Democratic economic policies as being the trigger.

What surge in economic activity?  The stock market has taken off, but employment has increased every month since the early days of Obama's Administration.  I'm sure a more generous observer would say that has had an impact on the economy, but Trump (or maybe even Romney) will take credit for any further increases and blame any job losses on Obama.

Remarkable how it suddenly seemed to take off after the Democrats lost though. I guess we just didn't wait long enough for their policies to work?

I think you're saying that Democrats had no problem with what Trump said he would do if elected until 11/9.  Uh-huh.

1699

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 27, 2016, 03:58:51 PM »

You want to make sure that Obama shares the blame for any disaster Trump either commits or doesn't avoid.  I understand that.  But don't forget that you laid all of the failure in Iraq at Obama's feet, none to Bush.  Trump is your man, own it.  If he doesn't "undo" the problems in Iran, don't blame anyone else.  If he creates a global economic crisis by confronting China and failing to force them to his bidding, don't blame anyone else.  If he repeals Obamacare and 20 million people lose health insurance, don't blame anyone else.  The same goes for what he won't do, like building the wall or protecting social security, medicare or the environment. 

In other words, we live in an imperfect world with imperfect leaders.  As Pete put it so well, "...we finally have an electorate of "conservatives" who hate the left more than they love the country...".  But don't expect any sympathy when Trump *censored*s up.  You're one of them, so own him.

So far, Trump's cabinet picks indicate that he is going to be an absolutely fantastic President.

That's a ringing endorsement of bias and incompetence, but hardly a surprise.

1700

General Comments / Re: Cyber Showdown

« on: December 27, 2016, 09:34:45 AM »

...but we finally have an electorate of "conservatives" who hate the left more than they love the country...

For me, this is the nut of it.  Liberals aren't any more perfect than non-liberals, no matter how much we admire ourselves in the mirror, but hate has never been an element of liberalism.  One thing history teaches is that the urge to hate is an almost indelible human stain.

But before you get too smug, let me say too that Trump could resurrect the middle class and usher in a new era of American peace and prosperity, and there is equally zero chance of people like you admitting that he's anything but a disaster.

I'll measure his success by that and a number of other metrics, like not blowing up the world or losing half of Europe to Russia.  Until he achieves any of them, I'll be more than skeptical.