Cobra posted:

Donald Trump was right all along when he said to deport all the illegals, suspend immigration from all terrorist sponsored States and monitor the ones living here legally. You just don't know who is who. People come to America for freedom and a good life that they can't get in their own country.  Yet they appease radical ideology to destroy America. America needs a new beginning and Donald Trump is the man that will make the difficult choice. Difficult situation calls for drastic measures.

Well Said.

Watching a bit of John Oliver as he deals with the trump promised wall and thought  struck  me -- could trump have been watching too much "Colony"? Is that where the idea of the wall comes from or is he just in awe of the Great Wall of China? Is China so much on his mind? 

susan posted:

Watching a bit of John Oliver as he deals with the trump promised wall and thought  struck  me -- could trump have been watching too much "Colony"?

Trump needs a colonoscopy to clear his brains.

Just for the record, there is a guy living in the street next to mine. He has a 2 car garage and has these four huge flags that look like a drape from one wall to the other. Those flags are, a US one, a Florida one, a Confederate one and get this, one with the word REDNECK written in very large prints across it.   

Many use the confederate flag as sort of showing you are a rebel against "the man". I remember having a confederate flag armless tshirt but would never go for what the flag actually represented.

Redneck is another story hehehe

cain posted:

Many use the confederate flag as sort of showing you are a rebel against "the man". I remember having a confederate flag armless tshirt but would never go for what the flag actually represented.

Redneck is another story hehehe

Although I am willing to believe that Redneck women can be fun to be around.

baseman posted:

caribny posted:

 

There will be a wall, at least partial, we will go in and destroy ISIS, we will tip the balance to retain/return some manufacturing here.  Trump has set a directional agenda.

 

The last ignorant cowboy, who jumped into a region that he didn't understand, created ISIS.  Iraq was NOT  a security risk for the USA under Saddam.  Now it is a nest packed with assorted terrorists.

Trump has not told us how he will return manufacturing jobs back to the USA.  There is "in sourcing" occurring, but unless one is involved at some level in robotics, you aren't going to get a job.

Unless Trump plans to become a communist, just screaming demands isn't going to determine what corporations do.  Make the USA less attractive and they will OUTSOURCE even more jobs.  Even liberal economists say this.

Increased tariffs on imports leads to trade war.  US exports, already under pressure by global stagnation, and a strong US dollar, will be impacted when countries also place tariffs against US products.

US corporations will then be forced to locate production in these markets in order to compete with other manufacturers.  In addition Boeing will lose orders to Airbus.  Boeing is one of the US' largest exporters.

Trump is screaming, and hasn't done any serious work to address this problem.

yuji22 posted:

Cobra posted:

Donald Trump was right all along when he said to deport all the illegals, suspend immigration from all terrorist sponsored States and monitor the ones living here legally. You just don't know who is who. People come to America for freedom and a good life that they can't get in their own country.  Yet they appease radical ideology to destroy America. America needs a new beginning and Donald Trump is the man that will make the difficult choice. Difficult situation calls for drastic measures.

Well Said.

Typical brown bai KKK braying. Totally empty and ignorant.

baseman posted:

 

Obamacare IS a mess!!!

!!

And what do the GOP suggest.

Oh yes. End Obamacare so insurance companies will once again refuse to insure sick people, and place lifetime limits on claims paid.

Remove the subsidy and so many middle class people will no longer have access to health insurance.

Remove oversight over how these products are designed so pregnant women discover when they get their bill that their hospital bills weren't covered.  All written in fine print, that the average person doesn't understand.

Remove the ability of corporations to deduct health insurance premiums that they pay on behalf of their employees, so companies stop offering this benefit.

You know Obamacare isn't perfect, but its share better than the madness the GOP are talking about.

Guess who will suffer if Obamacare ends.  The same Trump goons who don't have $2k per month to buy insurance for their families.

Obviously you live in Canada, so clearly have no idea about paying for healthcare in the USA.

baseman, Hillary indeed has a deficit when it comes to the general elections' voters trust factor. Trump will be the GOP nominee in the November - and I was wrong about his chances early in the Primary season. Trump's strength is playing to the US voters' fears.

The good thing about Trump's strength is that a minority of voters will act on his clarion call about border protection, national security in the face of radial Arab terrorists who co-opt Islam, and free trade and jobs. He is totally wrong on all those but people do not care if his solutions will work only on Mars or Jupiter - it is just that he sounds good on anger.

Hillary's strengths are obvious - her public service and successes in the political arena. She also has what the Donald does not have - her party's unity. And that's an important point. When it comes to her weakness, wavering Democratic voters will eventually look across at her opponent and say - what??!!

What's important are the numbers - specifically the Electoral College seats. Can you envision Trump winning these huge States - California, New York, Illinois and Florida? The reality is in the answer to that question.

Kari posted:

 

Hillary's strengths are obvious -

What's important are the numbers - specifically the Electoral College seats. Can you envision Trump winning these huge States - California, New York, Illinois and Florida? The reality is in the answer to that question.

 

Hillary has a major white man problem. Its also unknown how enthusiastic the Democratic base is.  She isn't charismatic.  She isn't black, so will not benefit from the "ethnic loyalty" factor that Obama got.  The Democratic base has NOT recovered from the Great Recession, so aren't too happy now.

While Hillary SHOULD win, I will not guarantee that she will.  There is hostility from certain parts of the Bernie base, who might stay home, or do something stupid like voting for the Greens.

Hillary has much work to do.  She is brilliant and understands the problems and the solutions.  She isn't a media savvy politician to an electorate who expect facile answers without nuance.  Let us see how she gets passed that.

It might shock you to know how many think that "we will win so often, that we will get tired of winning" appeals to many.  This to an electorate which has been fed sound bites since the Reagan era.

baseman posted:

 

And BTW, I don't think most Muslims are terrorists or even condone it. 

Most mass murderers on educational facilities or places of employment are white men.

Should we ban all white men under 30, who seem quiet and sad, from entering these places?

Well this is what you wish with Muslims, who will be banned from even Guyana!

baseman posted:

 

If you don't do it, then US carpet bombing will have to do it, and it don't matter if we need to do it every 10 or so years for the next century!

As if Bush didn't do enough to create our current Middle East problems, you wish to compound it by killing kids on their way to school!

caribny posted:

Kari posted:

 

Hillary's strengths are obvious -

What's important are the numbers - specifically the Electoral College seats. Can you envision Trump winning these huge States - California, New York, Illinois and Florida? The reality is in the answer to that question.

 

Hillary has a major white man problem. Its also unknown how enthusiastic the Democratic base is.  She isn't charismatic.  She isn't black, so will not benefit from the "ethnic loyalty" factor that Obama got.  The Democratic base has NOT recovered from the Great Recession, so aren't too happy now.

While Hillary SHOULD win, I will not guarantee that she will.  There is hostility from certain parts of the Bernie base, who might stay home, or do something stupid like voting for the Greens.

Hillary has much work to do.  She is brilliant and understands the problems and the solutions.  She isn't a media savvy politician to an electorate who expect facile answers without nuance.  Let us see how she gets passed that.

It might shock you to know how many think that "we will win so often, that we will get tired of winning" appeals to many.  This to an electorate which has been fed sound bites since the Reagan era.

Hillary is a weak campaigner, period. But I have to report these excerpts from the New York times in an article last Monday "Why Sanders Trails Clinton Among Minority Voters", on why Sanders trail Hillary so badly among minorities; and let them speak for Hillary and what Obama has meant for minorities.

==============================================One important reason for this may be that African-Americans have experienced somewhat more favorable economic trends in recent years. While still worse off than whites, African-Americans have seen their jobless rate fall a little further than whites have, relative to a prerecession average. Furthermore, the decline has been faster for African-Americans in the last year.

The economist Robert J. Shapiro recently measured the income growth that people experience as they age. He found that, on average in 2013 and 2014 (the most recent data available), incomes for blacks in their 30s, 40s and 50s grew more rapidly than for whites in the same age group. Older people, who strongly support Mrs. Clinton, have also seen income gains relative to other groups since the recession.

......................................................

Perhaps a better explanation for Mr. Sanders’s divergent performance is that while African-Americans and white working-class Democrats are experiencing broadly similar economic trends, they interpret them differently.

A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week found that African-Americans rated the economy as good by a ratio of about four to one, versus about two to one for white Democrats and an even narrower margin for white Democrats without a college degree. A Times/CBS News poll in December found that, relative to two years earlier, roughly three times as many African-Americans said their family’s financial situation was better as said it was worse, while Democrats without a college degree were almost evenly split on this question.

Geoff Garin, a strategist for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign who currently polls for Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton “super PAC,” posited that for a more economically marginal group like African-Americans, the unemployment rate — which has declined significantly for all racial groups in recent years — carries more importance than growth in incomes and certain assets, which have been slower to recover. For whites, even working-class whites, whose jobless rate is substantially lower than that for African-Americans, the latter took on comparatively more importance.

“The major source of economic anxiety for working-class white men is not whether they have a job tomorrow,” Mr. Garin said, “it’s that they still haven’t had their personal recovery. Their recovery is about assets and income.” For African-Americans, on the other hand, “you don’t take job growth for granted.”

He cited polling data showing that working-class white Democrats were roughly as concerned about inequality as they were about job growth and economic growth, while African-Americans were overwhelmingly concerned about the latter two. It is no surprise, Mr. Garin said, that Mrs. Clinton, who has had a similar emphasis in her campaign, did better among African-Americans, while Mr. Sanders’s emphasis on inequality resonated more with whites.

In a similar vein, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that African-Americans and Hispanic voters are more likely to use the economy’s recent low point, in 2008 and 2009, as the base line for their judgment than are whites, who may focus on more recent performance, where improvement has been less pronounced.

.....................................................................................................

The Affordable Care Act may be another aspect of President Obama’s economic record that minority voters and working-class whites view differently. “Blacks and Hispanics benefited more from the A.C.A.,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a policy and advocacy group. “It was a really dramatic lowering of their uninsured rate, which was obviously material to their economic health and their overall comfort in the world.”

Mr. Minor said that while he received his health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, many of his friends “had no insurance and no possibility of getting insurance.”

“Obamacare has been a boon to them,” he said.

By contrast, many whites, who were insured at a higher rate than the other groups before the Affordable Care Act took effect, saw the program as detrimental to their interests. “The promise of Obamacare was to make it more affordable for everybody,” said J. J. Price, a firefighter and union member in Roanoke, Va., who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but Mitt Romney in 2012. “It’s done nothing but make it more expensive on us, the working class.”

Mrs. Clinton, of course, has been a dogged defender of the Affordable Care Act, while Mr. Sanders has dwelled on the program’s not going far enough. He prefers a single-payer system akin to expanding Medicare for the entire population.

The dynamic on the Affordable Care Act suggests a broader difference when it comes to African-Americans and working-class whites: When Mr. Sanders implicitly criticizes Mr. Obama from the left, white working-class Democrats may see it as advocating for their economic interests, but the claims tend to fall flat with many blacks, among whom the president is still wildly popular.

....................................................................................................

“I don’t think you can discount how important President Obama is,” said Stanley B. Greenberg, a former Clinton White House pollster who recently conducted focus groups with African-American voters in Philadelphia and Cleveland. “Obama and his election and re-election is seen as on a scale of what the civil rights movement achieved.”

He added that Mrs. Clinton, by way of her service in the administration and her eagerness to defend the president’s policies on the campaign trail, “is seen as having a more instinctive identification with Obama.”

baseman posted:

Kari posted:

caribny posted:

Kari posted:

 

Hillary's strengths are obvious -

What's important are the numbers - specifically the Electoral College seats. Can you envision Trump winning these huge States - California, New York, Illinois and Florida? The reality is in the answer to that question.

 

Hillary has a major white man problem. Its also unknown how enthusiastic the Democratic base is.  She isn't charismatic.  She isn't black, so will not benefit from the "ethnic loyalty" factor that Obama got.  The Democratic base has NOT recovered from the Great Recession, so aren't too happy now.

While Hillary SHOULD win, I will not guarantee that she will.  There is hostility from certain parts of the Bernie base, who might stay home, or do something stupid like voting for the Greens.

Hillary has much work to do.  She is brilliant and understands the problems and the solutions.  She isn't a media savvy politician to an electorate who expect facile answers without nuance.  Let us see how she gets passed that.

It might shock you to know how many think that "we will win so often, that we will get tired of winning" appeals to many.  This to an electorate which has been fed sound bites since the Reagan era.

Hillary is a weak campaigner, period. .

 

Hillary is weak, period!!

She is disingenuous and it shows.  Furthermore, she is also suffering the negatives of the destructiveness of Obama to the USA.  There needs to be change, Americans are apprehensive of a 3rd Obama term.  We need a GOP president!!

The woman has one billion dollars to make sure Trump doan win. You can imagine the foreign donors and American Business donors who are supporting this weakling in order to destroy the USA.

I hope Black votes turn away from her in droves.

Her husband had to do one over Reagan free trade agreement. He gave China most favoured nation trading status. With that, American Businesses just retrenched the whole of America. 

Donald Trump makes wild threat to 'spill the beans' on Ted Cruz's wife

Kari posted:

caribny posted:

Kari posted:

 

Hillary's strengths are obvious -

What's important are the numbers - specifically the Electoral College seats. Can you envision Trump winning these huge States - California, New York, Illinois and Florida? The reality is in the answer to that question.

 

Hillary has a major white man problem. Its also unknown how enthusiastic the Democratic base is.  She isn't charismatic.  She isn't black, so will not benefit from the "ethnic loyalty" factor that Obama got.  The Democratic base has NOT recovered from the Great Recession, so aren't too happy now.

While Hillary SHOULD win, I will not guarantee that she will.  There is hostility from certain parts of the Bernie base, who might stay home, or do something stupid like voting for the Greens.

Hillary has much work to do.  She is brilliant and understands the problems and the solutions.  She isn't a media savvy politician to an electorate who expect facile answers without nuance.  Let us see how she gets passed that.

It might shock you to know how many think that "we will win so often, that we will get tired of winning" appeals to many.  This to an electorate which has been fed sound bites since the Reagan era.

Hillary is a weak campaigner, period. But I have to report these excerpts from the New York times in an article last Monday "Why Sanders Trails Clinton Among Minority Voters", on why Sanders trail Hillary so badly among minorities; and let them speak for Hillary and what Obama has meant for minorities.

==============================================One important reason for this may be that African-Americans have experienced somewhat more favorable economic trends in recent years. While still worse off than whites, African-Americans have seen their jobless rate fall a little further than whites have, relative to a prerecession average. Furthermore, the decline has been faster for African-Americans in the last year.

The economist Robert J. Shapiro recently measured the income growth that people experience as they age. He found that, on average in 2013 and 2014 (the most recent data available), incomes for blacks in their 30s, 40s and 50s grew more rapidly than for whites in the same age group. Older people, who strongly support Mrs. Clinton, have also seen income gains relative to other groups since the recession.

......................................................

Perhaps a better explanation for Mr. Sanders’s divergent performance is that while African-Americans and white working-class Democrats are experiencing broadly similar economic trends, they interpret them differently.

A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week found that African-Americans rated the economy as good by a ratio of about four to one, versus about two to one for white Democrats and an even narrower margin for white Democrats without a college degree. A Times/CBS News poll in December found that, relative to two years earlier, roughly three times as many African-Americans said their family’s financial situation was better as said it was worse, while Democrats without a college degree were almost evenly split on this question.

Geoff Garin, a strategist for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign who currently polls for Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton “super PAC,” posited that for a more economically marginal group like African-Americans, the unemployment rate — which has declined significantly for all racial groups in recent years — carries more importance than growth in incomes and certain assets, which have been slower to recover. For whites, even working-class whites, whose jobless rate is substantially lower than that for African-Americans, the latter took on comparatively more importance.

“The major source of economic anxiety for working-class white men is not whether they have a job tomorrow,” Mr. Garin said, “it’s that they still haven’t had their personal recovery. Their recovery is about assets and income.” For African-Americans, on the other hand, “you don’t take job growth for granted.”

He cited polling data showing that working-class white Democrats were roughly as concerned about inequality as they were about job growth and economic growth, while African-Americans were overwhelmingly concerned about the latter two. It is no surprise, Mr. Garin said, that Mrs. Clinton, who has had a similar emphasis in her campaign, did better among African-Americans, while Mr. Sanders’s emphasis on inequality resonated more with whites.

In a similar vein, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that African-Americans and Hispanic voters are more likely to use the economy’s recent low point, in 2008 and 2009, as the base line for their judgment than are whites, who may focus on more recent performance, where improvement has been less pronounced.

.....................................................................................................

The Affordable Care Act may be another aspect of President Obama’s economic record that minority voters and working-class whites view differently. “Blacks and Hispanics benefited more from the A.C.A.,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a policy and advocacy group. “It was a really dramatic lowering of their uninsured rate, which was obviously material to their economic health and their overall comfort in the world.”

Mr. Minor said that while he received his health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, many of his friends “had no insurance and no possibility of getting insurance.”

“Obamacare has been a boon to them,” he said.

By contrast, many whites, who were insured at a higher rate than the other groups before the Affordable Care Act took effect, saw the program as detrimental to their interests. “The promise of Obamacare was to make it more affordable for everybody,” said J. J. Price, a firefighter and union member in Roanoke, Va., who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but Mitt Romney in 2012. “It’s done nothing but make it more expensive on us, the working class.”

Mrs. Clinton, of course, has been a dogged defender of the Affordable Care Act, while Mr. Sanders has dwelled on the program’s not going far enough. He prefers a single-payer system akin to expanding Medicare for the entire population.

The dynamic on the Affordable Care Act suggests a broader difference when it comes to African-Americans and working-class whites: When Mr. Sanders implicitly criticizes Mr. Obama from the left, white working-class Democrats may see it as advocating for their economic interests, but the claims tend to fall flat with many blacks, among whom the president is still wildly popular.

 

....................................................................................................

“I don’t think you can discount how important President Obama is,” said Stanley B. Greenberg, a former Clinton White House pollster who recently conducted focus groups with African-American voters in Philadelphia and Cleveland. “Obama and his election and re-election is seen as on a scale of what the civil rights movement achieved.”

He added that Mrs. Clinton, by way of her service in the administration and her eagerness to defend the president’s policies on the campaign trail, “is seen as having a more instinctive identification with Obama.”

 

Reading what white "experts", or black politicians say about blacks?  the politicians need to suck up the Clinton soup, and the "experts" over sample 60 y/o black females, and under sample 35 y/o black men.

Tell us what the labor force participation rate is for black men between 25-54.  THAT, more than the unemployment rate more accurately indicates the current economic standing of blacks. 

The unemployment rate only includes those who have "looked" for jobs within the last 6 months.  Folks who lost their jobs 5 years ago, and who still haven't found any aren't included in unemployment data.  Given the greater difficulty that blacks have in finding work, a higher % of those who lost their jobs in the 2007-2010 period will be among blacks not included in the labor statistics.

Let us look at median black household incomes.  Have they past 2000 levels yet, or even 2008, and I mean REAL, not nominal.  Clearly if a median income of $30k increases to $32k, that shows a higher rate than an increase from $50k to $52k. 

Or let us look at the black home ownership rate.  If it isn't more than 50% than they are worse off than they were in 2005.

Then we have blacks being forced out of major cities, like NYC,DC, or Chicago because they can no longer afford to live there (cannot  afford the rents or the property taxes).  Clearly most forced into states like SC aren't there because they want to be, given the weak economy of that state.

How many 26 year black men do you think are in polls, or surveys?

The turn out in the primaries for blacks was 40% LOWER than it was in 2008.  This shows a major enthusiasm gap.

The young are fervently Bernie, because they too despair.  Many aren't going to vote if Hillary wins.

So I say all that to say that a defeat of Trump is NOT a certainty because it is evident that the Trump Democrat exists, just as the Reagan Democrat existed. 

The question will be how many, and will they be in states like MI, MO, OH, and PA, which Hillary will have to win.  And will the black turnout be enough to offset white male defection, when we consider that Obama won some SWING states by a scant 2% gap.

It is a fact that only a few states determine who wins and who loses.  FL, VA, PA, OH, MO, and now CO.  The rest are fiercely blue, or fiercely red, or too small to matter.

BTW Sanders doesn't trail Clinton among blacks because life is so good for blacks.  Only some white "expert", or a black politician will say this. Sanders trails because he has no experience of campaigning to blacks.  He listens to Spike Lee and Cornell West.  Blacks don't listen to either.

Hillary has had 40 years, and so a better network among blacks, so her focus is on economic inclusion.  And that is her focus PRECISELY because she is aware that the recovery has by and large past a large segment of the black population by.

BTW the study showing increases in income among black for different age groups over different time horizons has a serious flaw. 

In the 90s and in the "00" there was a sharp increase in black college grads.  So part of the increase reflected that blacks in general, and black women in particular. were achieving higher levels of college attainment.

Not an Obama benefit.  Just black females being more aggressive in obtaining college education.  So the younger cohorts would see income increases more rapid than older cohorts, so we aren't comparing the same population.

Reprinted here in cadse caribny missed the import of the narrative.

==============================================“The major source of economic anxiety for working-class white men is not whether they have a job tomorrow,” Mr. Garin said, “it’s that they still haven’t had their personal recovery. Their recovery is about assets and income.” For African-Americans, on the other hand, “you don’t take job growth for granted.”

The Affordable Care Act may be another aspect of President Obama’s economic record that minority voters and working-class whites view differently. “Blacks and Hispanics benefited more from the A.C.A.,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a policy and advocacy group. “It was a really dramatic lowering of their uninsured rate, which was obviously material to their economic health and their overall comfort in the world.”

==============================================

Kari posted:

Reprinted here in cadse caribny missed the import of the narrative.

==============================================“The major source of economic anxiety for working-class white men is not whether they have a job tomorrow,” Mr. Garin said, “it’s that they still haven’t had their personal recovery. Their recovery is about assets and income.” For African-Americans, on the other hand, “you don’t take job growth for granted.”

 

The Affordable Care Act may be another aspect of President Obama’s economic record that minority voters and working-class whites view differently. “Blacks and Hispanics benefited more from the A.C.A.,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a policy and advocacy group. “It was a really dramatic lowering of their uninsured rate, which was obviously material to their economic health and their overall comfort in the world.”

==============================================

Kari if people are unemployed, or low paid they cannot pay for Obamacare, and it will eventually be canceled.

Labor force participation rate for black MEN declined from 69% in 1994 to 63% by 2014. 

This doesn't even factor in the many who might be only employed part time, when they need full time employment, and others who have had to accept jobs with vastly lower pay.

Black home ownership had reached 50% by 2000, declined to 46% by 2005 and tumbled further to 41% by December 2015.  This is LOWER than it was in 1990.  Over the past 15 years almost 20% of black homeowners have lost their homes.

Black median income (in 2015 dollars) was $40k in 2000, and only $35k by 3rd quarter 2015.

So Kari I don't know where you get the idea that blacks are happy.

The number ONE concern with blacks is the economy and their ability to find decent paying job. They would only love it if they can return to 2000 levels.  7 years of Obama did NOT erase the damage of the Bush Great Recession.

And before you think that this reflects the problems of the black dysfunctional poor (this is where almost all non blacks head when this topic is discussed) look at what happened in Prince George.  This was a very affluent black community in the DC suburbs. Interesting that its virtually no more, despite the first "black" president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ince-georges-county/

Cobra posted:

Donald Trump was right all along when he said to deport all the illegals, suspend immigration from all terrorist sponsored States and monitor the ones living here legally. You just don't know who is who. People come to America for freedom and a good life that they can't get in their own country.  Yet they appease radical ideology to destroy America. America needs a new beginning and Donald Trump is the man that will make the difficult choice. Difficult situation calls for drastic measures.

ummmmm . . . unfortunately for u, Homeland Security is actually much more interested in YOUR manifesto proudly posted (and tenaciously defended) last November here:

______________________________________

https://guyana.crowdstack.io/topic/world-police

"Why America have to be the world police to go in other people's country and tell them how to live their lives? Can you force your religion on someone else? No. Can you force democracy over sharia law? No. Can Obama tell China, Russia and North Korea to become.democratic nations? He'll no.

ISIS don't want western influence in their country and they're fighting the American disease from spreading. We must understand that these people are not terrorists, they're freedom fighters fighting for a cause American don't want to understand.

Saudi Arabia is well respected and protected by American because of the oil. Saudi's have the worse human rights record and still look good in America's eyes.

Obama need to review his foreign policy and get the he'll out of other people's country and let them live the way they chose.

If we get attacked in NYC, that would be the cause of Obama. He should then be impeached from office for fighting innocent people in their own country."

____________________________

run yuh colors up de flagpole one more time bai . . . belch like u mean it like last time

http://www.washingtonexaminer....VvEQH9S11pR.facebook

Comments attributable to Bill.   

Keep on telling you that Hillary might seize defeat from the mouth of victory.

She really needs to send Bill on a project in some remote Pacific island until after the election.

baseman posted:

/

And why is it you always beat up on baseman when he says the same things?  What is it with you, if not from Caribj, then it ain't?

But, unlike glossy-eyed Kari, you do see past the glitz of headlines and tailored talking points.  You ain't no fool.

Now, if you can only see the same with regarding to the happening in Guyana, you will have "squared the circle"!

You will note that I use 2000 as the starting point. The issue is that Bush destroyed the economy. There hasn't been full recovery under Obama. Had we had President Gore, instead of Bush, then we wouldn't have had this mess.

Note that the GOP selected Bush because they rigged the election in FL in 2000.

BTW I am still waiting for proof that a Trump presidency will not be a complete disaster for blacks. Why not show evidence that Trump has large numbers of blacks among his top management team?

baseman posted:

 

Lord have mercy on poor Kari!!!

You always "chose" to disagree when I say these things, but fine, you agree, though you agree to disagree!!

Trump will be even worse. His KKK goons will toss blacks off of work sites.  His disastrous trade policy will lead to a trade war with US exports declining.  And major corporations will simply relocate the head quarters in Toronto, and thus become Canadian companies.  Note that an HQ can be a desk, so no major changes needed.

Neither caribny or baseman understand political sentiments. A constituency feels good for reasons other than numbers. Voting numbers are what matter ultimately. Blacks feeling better now than 5 years ago is something caribny will argue vehemently to his grave, because he will show numbers about housing, jobs, etc. He disregards the support both Obama and Hillary gets from the minority community.

caribny has become Stormy-esque in his insidiousness and baseman as usual gets it wrong politically.

baseman posted:

caribny posted:

baseman posted:

 

Lord have mercy on poor Kari!!!

You always "chose" to disagree when I say these things, but fine, you agree, though you agree to disagree!!

Trump will be even worse. His KKK goons will toss blacks off of work sites.  His disastrous trade policy will lead to a trade war with US exports declining.  And major corporations will simply relocate the head quarters in Toronto, and thus become Canadian companies.  Note that an HQ can be a desk, so no major changes needed.

Nah.  You too smart to believe even what you write deh.  Come on Caribj!!

Economists, both conservative and liberal predict that a Trump, or aSanders presidency, will have this effect.

The USA is no longer this super power which can bully other nations, with no consequences to themselves. If they block imports, then US exports will be blocked.  US corporations will be forced to further outsource their operations in order to keep their overseas markets.

BTW next time you drink a Budweiser, note that it is a BRAZILIAN beer.  Note that the NYSE has substantial European ownership.

Yes there has been massive foreign investment in the USA, all threatened if the USA adopts an anti foreigner approach.

baseman posted:

 

I don't think the issue for the Black masses is how many are/could be in top management positions. 

35% of the black population in 2000 out earned the white population, so why isn't a question about the numbers of blacks that Trump has in his top management appropriate?

If blacks with the education, and the expertise cannot make it in the Trump world, then what hope for those who lack education, skills, experience, or even a knowledge has to how the world of work operates?

A test of whether some one is racist or not is to determine if they can incorporate into their institutions blacks who are competitive and qualified.

Kari posted:

Blacks feeling better now than 5 years ago

Is based on a poll. You ask some one a leading question and then you get an answer.  Much of the optimism was due to the psychic support of seeing a black family in the WH, something that most blacks didn't think would happen, as they live in a nation which they believe rejects them.

Take a poll next year when the WH becomes "white" again, and then get back to me.

I gave you data which showed that blacks are worse off than they were in 2000.  And in 2000 they were still not that well off.  Do you think that blacks love seeing their incomes dwindle?

There was a 40% drop in black turn out in the primaries in the South, where 60% of the black population lives. WHY if they are so happy?  Only 15% support Bernie so surely there should have been turn out equivalent to 2008, were blacks so Hillary enthused.  They plainly don't like Bernie, especially in the South.

Bush destroyed the economy and sent blacks back a generation.  The recovery under Obama has been modest.  So baseman damning Obama is wrong, but then your claims that all is well, and that blacks are happy, is equally nonsensical!

.

"You have to move away from thinking the race of the leaders matter that much.  Same as Guyana, in due course, Blacks [and Indians] will see their lot worsen under the PNC!!  If that is it, it's all about "Black Pride", then you can have it!!"

AIAIAI,,,confused?

baseman posted:

 

Kari is into shallow optics with a lot of window dressing.  Truth of the matter, the relative situation for Blacks have not changed under Obama.  Black un/underemployment stands at over 50%.  Obama has done nothing to redress this and he is about to vacate.  Obamacare has angered a lot and net-net Blacks are the same or worse off.

Caribj, I don't fully blame Obama, but tell me what has he done for Blacks?  What has been the effect of Obamacare on most middle income earners.  How about small business?  Labor participation has been the lowest since 1976 and the brunt of this are Blacks.

You always chastise me when I highlight this failed presidency and make it a race issue.  All the time I'm talking about the lot of Black people under Obama.  If you are happy, then fine, but I doubt most Blacks would agree with you!

You have to move away from thinking the race of the leaders matter that much.  Same as Guyana, in due course, Blacks [and Indians] will see their lot worsen under the PNC!!  If that is it, it's all about "Black Pride", then you can have it!!

Baseman define the issue properly. 

Bush destroyed the economy, and damaged the socio economic condition of blacks. 

Obama hasn't been able to fully fix the employment position for blacks, even as there has been a net 9 million INCREASE in jobs since Jan 2009, when he took office.

So who is to blame?  The man who created the problem (Bush), or the other who was terrified to specifically focus on specific programs to help blacks (Obama) because you all were too ready to scream that he is hurting whites.

My issue with you is that you refuse to attribute the BULK of the blame to Bush!  You also refuse to credit Clinton with the fact that blacks made significant progress under his presidency.

Jobs created under Reagan between Jan 1981 and Jan 1989.  16 million.

"          "         " Clinton         Jan 1993 and Jan 2001.   23 million.

"          "        "  Bush          Jan 2001 and Jan 2009    1.2 million

"          "        "   Obama          Jan 2001 and Dec 2015    9 million.

It is clear that Bush was the biggest disgrace and Clinton the biggest success.  Obama has created 7X the number of jobs than did Bush, and he still had a year to go.

Why don't you focus on where the blame lies and that is BUSH!  While Obama has had a lackluster economy, he has done way better than did Bush, who crash landed the ENTIRE world into a Great Recession!

I suggest that you stop thinking that the race of the leader matters.  Look at you screaming that this is a white man's country and loving Trump because the white supremacists also do.

And why is race an issue? Clinton, Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Kasich.  ALL white, so why is race a criteria for me.

It is for YOU, who select the man who is loved by white bigots!

I think the man has a hot spokeswoman  Katrina Pierson

Amral posted:

I think the man has a hot spokeswoman  Katrina Pierson

She rocks

baseman posted:

Nah, Bush had to deal with 9/11 and an overheated housing market which exploded.  He did not create that, he inherited it when it was already a run away train, green lighted by Greenspan!!

One would expect, with the major inflection under Bush's watch, the surge under Obama would have been a bit more acute!!  That growth seen under Obama seem like natural workforce expansion as opposed to an absorption of the unemployed.  Now, does that not square with the workforce participation?  Who you think bore the brunt?  That squares with the Black employment situation.

I ask again, tell me what has been done in almost eight years to correct the Black unemployment situation!

why? and what does that even mean?

banna, do u have any real idea what happened in 2008?

oh wait, my bad . . . i fughet i talking to the Trump camp follower who brays certain and often but is yet to detail what he mis-learned about "dead cat bounce" at trade school

redux posted:

baseman posted:

Nah, Bush had to deal with 9/11 and an overheated housing market which exploded.  He did not create that, he inherited it when it was already a run away train, green lighted by Greenspan!!

One would expect, with the major inflection under Bush's watch, the surge under Obama would have been a bit more acute!!  That growth seen under Obama seem like natural workforce expansion as opposed to an absorption of the unemployed.  Now, does that not square with the workforce participation?  Who you think bore the brunt?  That squares with the Black employment situation.

I ask again, tell me what has been done in almost eight years to correct the Black unemployment situation!

why? and what does that even mean?

banna, do u have any real idea what happened in 2008?

oh wait, my bad . . . i fughet i talking to the Trump camp follower who brays certain and often but is yet to detail what he mis-learned about "dead cat bounce" at trade school

Every once in a while, you experience it!!

baseman posted:

 

Nah, Bush had to deal with 9/11 and an overheated housing market which exploded.  He did not create that, he inherited it when it was already a run away train, green lighted by Greenspan!!

One would expect, with the major inflection under Bush's watch, the surge under Obama would have been a bit more acute!!  That growth seen under Obama seem like natural workforce expansion as opposed to an absorption of the unemployed.  Now, does that not square with the workforce participation?  Who you think bore the brunt?  That squares with the Black employment situation.

I ask again, tell me what has been done in almost eight years to correct the Black unemployment situation!

OK so net increase of 1.2 million under Bush, vs. 9 million (SO FAR AS OBAMA still had a year to go as those numbers refer to Dec 2015),and yet you still think that Bush was a better president!

But here is the joke. YOUR GOP want to remove the regulatory oversight and tighter compliance over the banking system that Obama put in place.

So why are you blaming Clinton and Obama when it is clear that Bush did NOTHING to regulate the banks, and Trump will REMOVE what regulation that there is!

Obama learned the lesson of lax regulation, and even Schumer, who was part of this mess, admit to their mistake.

NO. The GOP want to do it AGAIN!

redux posted:

!

why? and what does that even mean?

banna, do u have any real idea what happened in 2008?

oh wait, my bad . . . i fughet i talking to the Trump camp follower who brays certain and often but is yet to detail what he mis-learned about "dead cat bounce" at trade school

Bush was so embarrassed by the rejection of him by the American public, by tens of thousands of WHITE people showing up at his gate, when Obama won. They were screaming "hey hey hey, go away to George Bush".

Bush was so sad, and was such a broken man that Barack and Michelle had to escort him to his helicopter, and give him a hug.  So pathetic Bush was at the hatred with the nation had for him, even from many on the GOP, that it was just a humane thing to do.

Since than George Bush has kept a low profile, crying in the arms of his mistress, Condi Rice, who has to constantly reassure him that he isn't a bad person.

Then George goes to help Jeb in SC.  In that GOP primary Jeb was THRASHED, and had to drop out.

The legacy of the name Bush is so toxic, that even the GOP don't want to have anything to do with this!

And so here we have Obama, who is reaching the end of his presidency with a favorability rating of 50%, vs. the coke addict, and alcoholic "C minus" president, who left with 80% of the country hating him!

baseman posted:

 

Every once in a while, you experience it!!

Yes we had the Great Depression in the early 30s, and the George Bush brought us the sequel, the Great Recession in 2008!

Only George could have accomplished this. 

So bad it was that even the wives of investment bankers had to go in food stamps when the wealth of their husbands was wiped out and they lost their jobs.

I mean a woman in Scarsdale embarrassing clutching her card at the supermarket, covered over in a shawl like some Jihadist female, ashamed to be seen doing this!

Baseman has a very short memory of what Nov 2008 was all about! 

So bad it was that even rednecks in PA told their wives to "make sure that they vote for the ni99er, because he looks smart".

baseman posted:

 

Nah, I do understand and sympathize.  It's was not Bush's doing, this was a cycle about to make a hard landing. 

Clinton came to power as a weak president, because he didn't control the House and the aggressive Newt Gingrich had it in for him.

In order to get anything done Clinton compromised. He militarized the criminal justice system, "ended welfare as we know it", caved into NAFTA, and refused to streamline regulation and oversight as the financial sector became greatly transformed.

So yes Clinton certainly can share PART of the blame, but then Bush had 8 years to undo the Clinton/Gingrich damage.  In fact it got WORSE under Bush.

That is why the collapse of the housing sector and the implosion of the financial sector occurred after OVER 7 years of Bush rule.

Bush controlled BOTH the House and the Senate.  As a result of his actions, the Great Recession plunged the WORLD into misery, and many have yet to recover from it.

Interesting to note that the USA has the HEALTHIEST economy globally, among the larger economies!   Not good, and I remind Kari of this, but BETTER than Europe, or the BRIC nations!