Cruz won Maine yesterday.  Maine isn't a state that he should win. Its a Trump state filled with angry (and drug addicted) white men as their main industries have crumbled. Its not a bible belt state.

With each passing day as the Trump vulgarity is exposed, and as his ignorance is revealed in national debates, a swing vote might be emerging, which is looking for an alternate. 

Cannot be Rubio, as he descended to the same vulgarity with frat boy jokes (wonder how come he didn't talk about Trump's farts, as that was the only thing missing).

Cannot be Kasich as he isn't proving that he wants to win, probably lacks cash, so has no ground game.

So Cruz is picking up some of this.

Can Cruz win? No because his appeal is to the extremists.  So a likely scenario is a weakened Trump lacking enough delegates to be chosen as the candidate, and a huge brawl emerging at the Convention.

As to Bernie. Well its apparent that Hillary isn't very appealing to the broad swath of "progressive" whites who show up at the primaries.  She does best where the Democratic party is heavily black.

I reserve my opinion about Hillary until we get passed Michigan. It has loads of the white working class whose economic position has been hurt by the de-industrialization of the USA.  It doesn't have a dominant black vote, so that group cannot save her, if the white working class run to Bernie. 

If Hillary wins MI then the election is over, and it will be a mere matter of how many delegates Bernie brings to ensure that the platform which emerges, includes his agenda.

No way that Hillary is going to lose NY and CA with its large minority Democratic voters.  That is unless Bernie wins MI, and is FINALLY able to start a conversion with blacks and Latinos. 

Kari posted:

• . Remember that the Hispanic influence is concentrated in Texas (38) and Florida (29) and those two can go Republican easily. Only California (55) and New York (29) can counter these two.

 

The Obama factor

1. What did the Obama factor do in 2010 and in 2014?  He lost the House and the Senate, and as a result, hasn't been able to get most of his agenda through.  Blacks stayed home, even as he exhorted them to vote.

People like Obama, and feel that he has been abused by the GOP, so he gets their support, when he runs.  He gets a pass as people blame the GOP for the fact that their lives have NOT gotten better under Obama.  There is no evidence that an Obama endorsement translates into massive votes, except for himself. 

When Christie first ran as NJ governor Obama was running all over that state to get the Democratic candidate elected.  Christie won with over 20% of the black vote, 40% of the YOUNG BLACK MALE vote, and a larger Hispanic vote.  Note that Obama had been elected not that long before, so some of the cynicism which later set in (and actually worried the Obama campaign in 2012) hadn't.

I can tell you look at the blacks in church, and think that this represents the entirety of the black population.  You write as if the black population is a monolith. I am always amazed by what non blacks write about blacks.

In fact the Democrats are now worried that there was a huge drop in black turn out in VA, which they won twice because of huge black turn out. If blacks there think that Hillary is just some old white woman, many might stay home. VA then goes GOP.

2.Latinos are very important in CO, NV, NM, and AZ.  That is why Obama won those states.  Again a diminished Latino voter turn out hurts. It was also noted that the Latino turn out in the primaries was down.

The Democrats do NOT have this in the bank.  50% of their votes will come from minorities.  In the swing states a mere 2% determines who wins or loses. 

If the black vote drops from 13% of the total, which it was in 2008 as they were happy to support the first black president, and in 2012 when wide spread voter suppression by the GOP created panic. He isn't running this time, so turn out might drop to the normal 10% of the total.

If Trump is the candidate minority turn out will be high, as it is easy to project him as a bigot.  If its some one else, the election might be a snore, meaning lower minority voter turn out.

Kari posted:

• how he's able to mitigate the inevitable income inequality due to technology and globalization that necessarily create this income inequality, sans proper education.

You do know that the labor force participation rate remains at 63%, meaning that massive numbers of people still aren't officially engaged in the economy.

The rate was 66% in 2007 when the Bush induced Great Recession began.

For the group which is most important, the 25-54 group (most finished education and have yet to retire), the rate was 81%.  This compares with 85% in 2000.  This means that almost 5% of this cohort who were working in 2000 weren't in January 2016.  This translates into millions of people.  In fact we can say that the TRUE unemployment rate is probably 10%.

In addition while jobs are being created wages are lagging.  Why? Because the low unemployment rate disguises the fact that a huge hidden pool of unemployed are still available, but not included as unemployed, because they haven't officially worked for more than 6 months.  So there isn't a shortage, which would otherwise force up wages.

In addition many workers have had to trade down their jobs. Former auto plant workers are now at Walmart. Former corporate executives now work in the lower paying educational/health sectors.

This is why so many "angry" Americans exist.  The Trump, Cruz, and Bernie factions.

In addition who knows what the job market will be by the fall.  A weak energy sector, strong dollar (making exports expensive and imports cheap) and slowing growth elsewhere, have impacted the US manufacturing sector.  Consumers also seem to be more cautious as cheap credit isn't as available as it once was.

caribny,

"Cruz won Maine yesterday.  Maine isn't a state that he should win."

You obviously did not read what I said about Trump's losses - they come mostly in caucus States.

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

"....... a swing vote might be emerging, which is looking for an alternate."

Don't discount the  Ben Carson vote that went mostly to Cruz yesterday.

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

"Can Cruz win? No because his appeal is to the extremists.  So a likely scenario is a weakened Trump lacking enough delegates to be chosen as the candidate, and a huge brawl emerging at the Convention."

Agreed. Cruz is lousy with Independents and swing voters. And that's a telling factor in the General Elections too.

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

"As to Bernie. Well its apparent that Hillary isn't very appealing to the broad swath of "progressive" whites who show up at the primaries.  She does best where the Democratic party is heavily black."

The problem with Bernie is that his demographics are the ones least likely to turn out to vote. Also the institutional Democratic machinery is heavily in favor of Hillary. Just look at the Super Delegates she's locked up in State after State (it's bigger than she had over Obama in 2008)

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

"What did the Obama factor do in 2010 and in 2014?  He lost the House and the Senate, and as a result, hasn't been able to get most of his agenda through.  Blacks stayed home, even as he exhorted them to vote."

I have you these facts to consider:

• There were more shaky Senate and House seats that were Democrats than Republican ones up for grabs in those two mid-terms. That tells me statistically there will be pluses for the Republicans. This situation is reversed in 2016 and look for the Dems to retake the Senate and a few House seats (though they won't get back control of  the House).
• Most, if not all, Dems in both mid-terms ran away from Obama. They were scared of the TEA party in 2010 (which was a backlash just like a vote for Obama was in 2008 against the Iraq war and the financial collapse). They were scared of the implementation of Obama care in 2014. Now that they understand the fight against income inequality, climate change and see how the US economy is strengthening with job growth you bet they will ride Obama's coattails in 2016.
• You are yet to put forth a plausible reason for the Obama factor as being not credible in the summer to fall this year.

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

"I can tell you look at the blacks in church, and think that this represents the entirety of the black population.  You write as if the black population is a monolith. I am always amazed by what non blacks write about blacks."

Consider this caribny. What do you know about the differences between the generational Blacks in this country? I'm talking about children of  Blacks who migrated northwards in the 1920s and children of those who "got their whippings and picked cotton" in the south. Their experiences and thinking are different. You were probably (and still remain) an African-American than a Black African when it comes t perspectives on Obama. You seem to have a monopoly on who should comment about Blacks and you comment all day here about Indo-Guyanese. Gimme a break.

Al YUh gat plenty time with a renown RACIST DAAG!!!!!!!!!!!

caribny posted:

Kari posted:

• how he's able to mitigate the inevitable income inequality due to technology and globalization that necessarily create this income inequality, sans proper education.

You do know that the labor force participation rate remains at 63%, meaning that massive numbers of people still aren't officially engaged in the economy.

The rate was 66% in 2007 when the Bush induced Great Recession began.

For the group which is most important, the 25-54 group (most finished education and have yet to retire), the rate was 81%.  This compares with 85% in 2000.  This means that almost 5% of this cohort who were working in 2000 weren't in January 2016.  This translates into millions of people.  In fact we can say that the TRUE unemployment rate is probably 10%.

In addition while jobs are being created wages are lagging.  Why? Because the low unemployment rate disguises the fact that a huge hidden pool of unemployed are still available, but not included as unemployed, because they haven't officially worked for more than 6 months.  So there isn't a shortage, which would otherwise force up wages.

In addition many workers have had to trade down their jobs. Former auto plant workers are now at Walmart. Former corporate executives now work in the lower paying educational/health sectors.

This is why so many "angry" Americans exist.  The Trump, Cruz, and Bernie factions.

In addition who knows what the job market will be by the fall.  A weak energy sector, strong dollar (making exports expensive and imports cheap) and slowing growth elsewhere, have impacted the US manufacturing sector.  Consumers also seem to be more cautious as cheap credit isn't as available as it once was.

Let's respond to your Obama bashing caribny, shall we?

• Under Obama's presidency the US private sector added jobs for 72 continuous months (source: US Labor Department). This contrasts with job cuts in the public sector and we know that most State Legislators and States' Governors are Republicans.
• Year-on-year wage growth percentage rise is 2.2%. the pool of shadow workers - those who stayed out of the job market has kept this figure from rising. Two scenarios are likely - (i) as more people join the labor force wage increases will continue to be stifled; or (ii) wages will have to increase to lure those people back (assuming they are educated).
• The measure you use that includes those not actively seeking (but eligible) for full-time work dropped from 9.9% to 9.7% in the recent job report (source: US Labor Department). This happens at the same time that people who had been sidelined have jumped back into the labor market search thus keeping unemployment rate at 4.9%. Economists consider full employment when the employment rate hovers around 4% (1960s) to 5% (2000s) of the labor force.
• In the last 3 months the US labor force has risen by 1.5 million people. the proportion of Americans in the labor force declined since the 2008 financial crisis and also due to the baby boomer demographic retiring (I don't know why these statistical input gets ignored in such conversation about labor force size, even by you caribny). Globalization, shrinking wages and stagnant skills by mostly white males also led to a lot of them getting out of the labor force and getting angry. Now you see that trend is reversing and Obama gets no credit for it.
• Yes, people are angry at the economy because of the polarizing of labor depending on where you live and your education level. Low paid services jobs abound like high-education tech jobs; but manufacturing jobs are shrinking because of a fact of like - the US has moved on from low value-added manufacturing to high-end automation manufacturing. This has hurt white men more than anyone else. Poor people still have to climb the education ladder first and that has been the un-sexy mantra of this Obama Administration that people seem to miss. ?If there ever was an education President Obama is. And do not discount the loss of military-related jobs as Obama winds down our military engagement, and the budget sequestration takes effect.
• Do you know how many jobs were created since Obama signed that job-killing Obama care Bill? 14.3 million. Have uyou seen the out-sized demand for health care delivery professional since the implementation in 2014?

So let's look positively at the 1.5 million people who have been re-engaged in the labor force in the last three months caribny.....and cease your whining about Obama.

caribny posted:

Christie won with over 20% of the black vote, 40% of the YOUNG BLACK MALE vote, and a larger Hispanic vote.  

 

Caribny, what is the source of your stats here?

By the way, the stats I posted above are for US presidential elections from the US Census Bureau.

CaribJ why is it blacks cannot  write on black subject matter.

You sound like my  ignorant Egyptian cab driver I encountered last week whilst I was there. He said I cannot sayy Sissi is badd because I am not an Egyptian.

caribny posted:

 

The Democrats do NOT have this in the bank.  50% of their votes will come from minorities.  In the swing states a mere 2% determines who wins or loses. 

 

Caribny, in the last presidential elections 57% of Obama's votes came from whites versus 43% non-whites (minorities).  This is not the first time ah telling yuh dis.  Here is mo info for you; not sure if you can understand it:

caribny posted:

Kari posted:

• how he's able to mitigate the inevitable income inequality due to technology and globalization that necessarily create this income inequality, sans proper education.

You do know that the labor force participation rate remains at 63%, meaning that massive numbers of people still aren't officially engaged in the economy.

The rate was 66% in 2007 when the Bush induced Great Recession began.

For the group which is most important, the 25-54 group (most finished education and have yet to retire), the rate was 81%.  This compares with 85% in 2000.  This means that almost 5% of this cohort who were working in 2000 weren't in January 2016.  This translates into millions of people.  In fact we can say that the TRUE unemployment rate is probably 10%.

In addition while jobs are being created wages are lagging.  Why? Because the low unemployment rate disguises the fact that a huge hidden pool of unemployed are still available, but not included as unemployed, because they haven't officially worked for more than 6 months.  So there isn't a shortage, which would otherwise force up wages.

In addition many workers have had to trade down their jobs. Former auto plant workers are now at Walmart. Former corporate executives now work in the lower paying educational/health sectors.

This is why so many "angry" Americans exist.  The Trump, Cruz, and Bernie factions.

In addition who knows what the job market will be by the fall.  A weak energy sector, strong dollar (making exports expensive and imports cheap) and slowing growth elsewhere, have impacted the US manufacturing sector.  Consumers also seem to be more cautious as cheap credit isn't as available as it once was.

One of the best posts from you of recent, regardless what Kari may think.  Get behind the optics, there is a lot of doom and gloom!  I meet people everyday, many Afro and Whites, life is a daily struggle to put food on the table.  And these are skilled hard-working people!  Wages are not keeping up, medical insurance costs have skyrocketed, then there are all the tax penalties for not being able to afford! It's a losing proposition for a familys of four trying to get by on $75k, and Obama made it worse!

Wages are stagnant because large swathes of jobs have moved overseas hitting the blue collar worker.  Less such jobs, mean less jobs also for the management type since why the need is there are no people to manage.  people are not adequately factoring in the knock-on impact of shifting of reasonably skilled jobs abroad!  We are not talking making T-shirts!!

Kari posted:

caribny,

"Cruz won Maine yesterday.  Maine isn't a state that he should win."

You obviously did not read what I said about Trump's losses - they come mostly in caucus States.

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

"....... a swing vote might be emerging, which is looking for an alternate."

Don't discount the  Ben Carson vote that went mostly to Cruz yesterday.

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

"Can Cruz win? No because his appeal is to the extremists.  So a likely scenario is a weakened Trump lacking enough delegates to be chosen as the candidate, and a huge brawl emerging at the Convention."

Agreed. Cruz is lousy with Independents and swing voters. And that's a telling factor in the General Elections too.

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

"As to Bernie. Well its apparent that Hillary isn't very appealing to the broad swath of "progressive" whites who show up at the primaries.  She does best where the Democratic party is heavily black."

The problem with Bernie is that his demographics are the ones least likely to turn out to vote. Also the institutional Democratic machinery is heavily in favor of Hillary. Just look at the Super Delegates she's locked up in State after State (it's bigger than she had over Obama in 2008)

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

"What did the Obama factor do in 2010 and in 2014?  He lost the House and the Senate, and as a result, hasn't been able to get most of his agenda through.  Blacks stayed home, even as he exhorted them to vote."

I have you these facts to consider:

• There were more shaky Senate and House seats that were Democrats than Republican ones up for grabs in those two mid-terms. That tells me statistically there will be pluses for the Republicans. This situation is reversed in 2016 and look for the Dems to retake the Senate and a few House seats (though they won't get back control of  the House).
• Most, if not all, Dems in both mid-terms ran away from Obama. They were scared of the TEA party in 2010 (which was a backlash just like a vote for Obama was in 2008 against the Iraq war and the financial collapse). They were scared of the implementation of Obama care in 2014. Now that they understand the fight against income inequality, climate change and see how the US economy is strengthening with job growth you bet they will ride Obama's coattails in 2016.
• You are yet to put forth a plausible reason for the Obama factor as being not credible in the summer to fall this year.

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

"I can tell you look at the blacks in church, and think that this represents the entirety of the black population.  You write as if the black population is a monolith. I am always amazed by what non blacks write about blacks."

Consider this caribny. What do you know about the differences between the generational Blacks in this country? I'm talking about children of  Blacks who migrated northwards in the 1920s and children of those who "got their whippings and picked cotton" in the south. Their experiences and thinking are different. You were probably (and still remain) an African-American than a Black African when it comes t perspectives on Obama. You seem to have a monopoly on who should comment about Blacks and you comment all day here about Indo-Guyanese. Gimme a break.

Do you understand that I am talking about the primaries.  NOT the general.  The moderates and independents, who vote in the GOP primaries will NOT vote Trump. They don't like Cruz, but may find him preferable if he is the only alternative to Trump.

You do know that Obama won because of his focus on caucus states.  So Cruz can do the same. He isn't, at this point, going to deprive Trump of having the most delegates.  His goal is to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to be the nominee.   In fact caucuses are perfect places where he can achieve this.

Yes the Carson vote went mainly to Cruz, who also hopes that the Kasich vote also does, due to an emerging anti Trump group among the GOP.  The point is that Cruz gets the votes, not Trump, and not Rubio.  His goal is to reduce Rubio to be a nonstarter, having people holding their noses, and voting for him, rather than for Trump.

VVP posted:

caribny posted:

 

The Democrats do NOT have this in the bank.  50% of their votes will come from minorities.  In the swing states a mere 2% determines who wins or loses. 

 

Caribny, in the last presidential elections 57% of Obama's votes came from whites versus 43% non-whites (minorities).  This is not the first time ah telling yuh dis.  Here is mo info for you; not sure if you can understand it:

 

 

More minority and fewer whites now. You do now that the Hispanic is growing, and becoming registered. In addition the votes which matter are those in the swing states. If minorities don't show up in large numbers, the Democrats lose. 

In VA over 20% of the votes are black.  A mere 2% of the vote will separate who wins and who loses. Virtually all the votes that blacks cast will be for the Democrats.  Do the math and figure out that of the black vote is down 10% that is the margin of victory that Hillary just lost.

baseman posted:

 

 I meet people everyday, many Afro and Whites, life is a daily struggle to put food on the table

Thanks to George Bush.  Under Bill Clinton life was much better.

Labor force participation rates are HIGHER now than they were in 2008, so don't rant that this is all Obama's fault either.

It is the GOP who are to blame for this mess!

Chief posted:

CaribJ why is it blacks cannot  write on black subject matter.

.

Because when non blacks write about blacks you all write NONSENSE, based on the fact that your info comes from the restricted encounters with blacks, what they chose to tell you, and also largely from the media.

Every time Kari writes its clear that his info come from the few black politicians who he knows.

VVP posted:

caribny posted:

Christie won with over 20% of the black vote, 40% of the YOUNG BLACK MALE vote, and a larger Hispanic vote.  

 

Caribny, what is the source of your stats here?

NJ voting statistics and those who wondered why Christie won.

This shows that Christie won 21% of the black vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/project...rsey/exit-polls.html

Better believe that among the younger blacks, especially black males, a GOP candidate who isn't right wing (which Christie wasn't before the presidential bug bit him), and who outreaches to them, can win sizeable levels of black support.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11...for-big-victory.html

Bloomberg, running as a GOP candidate, won 50% of the black vote in 2005.

So all of those non blacks who believe that blacks are automatons who vote Democrat and so can be taken for granted, don't know what they are talking about.

If the GOP, at the national level, weren't controlled by nuts, we would also be seeing increasing inroads there. The problems of the GOP is because of the racist lunatics who run that party at the national level.

VVP posted:

Your data show HIGHER black turn out in 2008 and 2012.

Now suppose it drops to the 2004.  Several states that went Democratic, will go GOP.  VA, OH, FL, certainly being among them.

Kari posted:

caribny posted:

 

Let's respond to your Obama bashing caribny, shall we?

 

Its not Obama bashing.

Its using FEDERAL statistics to show that labor participation among the 25-54, folks in their peak working years (not in school, not retired) was 85% in 2000 and is now only 81%.

You can discuss how many millions have jobs now, but unless you tie it to the labor participation rate, you are merely indicating that the jobs created were not sufficient to offset the increase in the numbers of people of working age.

Were Americans happy there would be no angry Bernie supporters!  He is in fact capturing the rage of those who expected more from Obama, but didn't get it.

And in fact the reality is that Presidents might lose jobs (Bush certainly did) but it is the PRIVATE sector who created jobs, in this case in response to a LOW INTEREST environment.

So say thanks to the Feds for the job recovery of the past 2 years.

Kari posted:

 

Consider this caribny. What do you know about the differences between the generational Blacks in this country? I'm talking about children of  Blacks who migrated northwards in the 1920s and children of those who "got their whippings and picked cotton" in the south. Their experiences and thinking are different. You were probably (and still remain) an African-American than a Black African when it comes t perspectives on Obama. You seem to have a monopoly on who should comment about Blacks and you comment all day here about Indo-Guyanese. Gimme a break.

Let me start.

1.  I have loads of black American friends.

2. I have black American in-laws.

3. Over the past 25 years I have been actively involved in black American organizations.

4.  I live in a majority black neighborhood, where a sizeable part of the population descend from migrants from NC and other states.

5. As a Caribbean black who does business with black Americans, and therefore liable to be accused of not knowing them I have made it my BUSINESS to know black Americans.  Yes a substantial % of my clients are upper middle class American blacks!

Now can you tell me how closely you engage with black Americans.

In addition my comments about Indians are almost exclusively focused on how they interact with blacks. As a black Guyanese clearly I know LOADS of how this interaction occurs as I have been very exposed to this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...reat-Recession-began

And in fact even as of December 2015 real household median earnings still remain below where they were when Clinton left office.

Kari needs to stop reading White House press releases.  While life is much better than it was under George Bush, hardships still remain.

So cease with your nonsense that a high voter turn out among the Democratic base is guaranteed in November.

baseman posted:

caribny posted:

baseman posted:

 

 I meet people everyday, many Afro and Whites, life is a daily struggle to put food on the table

Thanks to George Bush.  Under Bill Clinton life was much better.

Labor force participation rates are HIGHER now than they were in 2008, so don't rant that this is all Obama's fault either.

It is the GOP who are to blame for this mess!

Don't use 2008 as the reference, this was the worse since the great depression and the issues leading up to it transcends Bush.  It goes way back in the early Clinton era, which did give the boom, leading to a bubble and a bust!!  And the Feds led be Greenspan all had their hands in the making!

Using 2008 as a reference to the negative for Bush in like using '91-'92 as a reference to the "positive" of the PNC!!

The extreme hardship on many lower-mid class impacting a lot of Afros is the handy work of Obama, not Bush!!  After eight years, Obama has not been able to correct the participation rate and blue-collar jobs.  How long does he need, 28 years??  Obama got his early "shellacking" but never learned to play.  He went back into his hole and figure how to get his way by decree!  Because he likes to say "he won"!!

He is clearly not a networking leader, this is why he failed!!  He prefers to "go it alone", which has its positives, but also has its risks.  Bill Clinton, on the other hand, knew when to use each skill and that was his strength!!  I would say, the major positive of having Hillary in the WH, is that Bill will be right there!!

Listen banna, Obama's economic growth is hinged on -0- to negative interest rates, huge deficit spending and lots of QE FIAT paper!!  His disastrous Obamacare has added to this Go-Go economy.  This is no boom, this is a bubble waiting to burst any day!  He will be gone, and the next person will be blamed, be it Trump, Cruz of Hillary!!

One day, mark my words, you will see Obama apologizing to the people for the mess he help to create!!  This mess will dwarf the Iraqi incursion!!

Your bigotry is getting in the way of your thinking again. Clinton left a surplus. 8 Years of bush left massive deficit leading to a collapse of the economy. Black people suffered an almost 1/3 of their collective wealth.

Obama reversed all of that. Instead of losing 1 million job a month; there is a net gain of 200k a month and the nation has seen its longest stretch of a bull market defying predictions. America is as strong as it ever was over the past four decades. But there is a black man in office so none of that can be real for you.

baseman posted:

.

Don't use 2008 as the reference, this was the worse since the great depression and the issues leading up to it transcends Bush.  It goes way back in the early Clinton era, which did give the boom, leading to a bubble and a bust!!  And the Feds led be Greenspan all had their hands in the making!

Using 2008 as a reference to the negative for Bush in like using '91-'92 as a reference to the "positive" of the PNC!!

The extreme hardship on many lower-mid class impacting a lot of Afros is the handy work of Obama, not Bush!!  After eight years, Obama has not been able to correct the participation rate and blue-collar jobs.  How long does he need, 28 years??  Obama got his early "shellacking" but never learned to play.  He went back into his hole and figure how to get his way by decree!  Because he likes to say "he won"!!

He is clearly not a networking leader, this is why he failed!!  He prefers to "go it alone", which has its positives, but also has its risks.  Bill Clinton, on the other hand, knew when to use each skill and that was his strength!!  I would say, the major positive of having Hillary in the WH, is that Bill will be right there!!

Listen banna, Obama's economic growth is hinged on -0- to negative interest rates, huge deficit spending and lots of QE FIAT paper!!  His disastrous Obamacare has added to this Go-Go economy.  This is no boom, this is a bubble waiting to burst any day!  He will be gone, and the next person will be blamed, be it Trump, Cruz of Hillary!!

One day, mark my words, you will see Obama apologizing to the people for the mess he help to create!!  This mess will dwarf the Iraqi incursion!!

Baseman 2008 was the last year of Bush.  2000 was the last year of Clinton. By any measure you can deduce real median household income and employment levels by Dec 2015 way exceeded what Bush left in Jan 2009, when the economy was imploding.

Bush had 8 years to fix any problems left by the Clinton era. Instead he refused to provide regulatory oversight over the vastly expanding derivatives, as he was asked to do. Then we had October 2008 when almost all of us thought that we were going to get the Great Depression II. 

Thanks to quick actions by the Obama administration, with the auto bailout, and other actions, we ended up with merely a Great Recession.

You cannot even tell us what is wrong with Obamacare.  All you do is parrot what the GOP tells you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...._presidential_terms

These stats are from the BLS. Under Clinton 23 million jobs were created in his 8 years.  Under George Bush fewer than 2 million jobs were created.  Under Obama 9 million jobs were created.

Not that this is NET increase, measuring from the time of inauguration to leaving office.  In the case of Obama jobs created in 2016 aren't including in the data, so his numbers are actually better.

If you want to say that Obama isn't perfect and could have done a better job, fine.  But to pretend that he is worse than Bush is PURE RACISM on your part.

baseman posted:

Stormborn posted:

.!!

Black people suffering more under Obama.  Why you think "Black-Lives-Matter" rose up!

.!!

Because blacks continue to be shot and killed by the cops, for having a broken light, or running a red light.

Note that it is YOUR Trump who orders Black Lives Matter protestors to be assaulted.

Hillary and Bernie met with them, and have committed to criminal justice reform.

Trump said that if blacks don't like it in the USA, they can return to Africa.

BIG DIFFERENCE in response.

baseman posted:

Stormborn posted:

baseman posted:

Don't use 2008 as the reference, this was the worse since the great depression and the issues leading up to it transcends Bush.  It goes way back in the early Clinton era, which did give the boom, leading to a bubble and a bust!!  And the Feds led be Greenspan all had their hands in the making!

Using 2008 as a reference to the negative for Bush in like using '91-'92 as a reference to the "positive" of the PNC!!

The extreme hardship on many lower-mid class impacting a lot of Afros is the handy work of Obama, not Bush!!  After eight years, Obama has not been able to correct the participation rate and blue-collar jobs.  How long does he need, 28 years??  Obama got his early "shellacking" but never learned to play.  He went back into his hole and figure how to get his way by decree!  Because he likes to say "he won"!!

He is clearly not a networking leader, this is why he failed!!  He prefers to "go it alone", which has its positives, but also has its risks.  Bill Clinton, on the other hand, knew when to use each skill and that was his strength!!  I would say, the major positive of having Hillary in the WH, is that Bill will be right there!!

Listen banna, Obama's economic growth is hinged on -0- to negative interest rates, huge deficit spending and lots of QE FIAT paper!!  His disastrous Obamacare has added to this Go-Go economy.  This is no boom, this is a bubble waiting to burst any day!  He will be gone, and the next person will be blamed, be it Trump, Cruz of Hillary!!

One day, mark my words, you will see Obama apologizing to the people for the mess he help to create!!  This mess will dwarf the Iraqi incursion!!

Your bigotry is getting in the way of your thinking again. Clinton left a surplus. 8 Years of bush left massive deficit leading to a collapse of the economy. Black people suffered an almost 1/3 of their collective wealth.

Obama reversed all of that. Instead of losing 1 million job a month; there is a net gain of 200k a month and the nation has seen its longest stretch of a bull market defying predictions. America is as strong as it ever was over the past four decades. But there is a black man in office so none of that can be real for you.

You too dunce to get it anyway!!  And you repeat the same nonsense!!

Black people suffering more under Obama.  Why you think "Black-Lives-Matter" rose up!

Hey, there is a Black prezzy, true, but his failure is there for all to see, don't blame it on his critics!!  Jimmy Carter was an equal failure!!  Why when I criticize his record, racism is not a motivator, but as soon as anyone criticize Obama, it's race!!  I supported him in 2008!!

The people of America will not be bullied by the loud mouthed few shouting you down at the drop of a hat!  This is not Guyana!!

And I do give him great credit for the Iran and Cuban agreements!!

The reality is that black people lost the most proportionately in the economic cascade. They are indeed poorer but not as a consequence of Obama. Chalk that up to Bush. Note the republicans stymied all his economic revival plans by refusing to tax the rich and to allocate necessary infrastructural rebuilding plans. Obama is a bad presidents only to bigots.

baseman posted:

caribny posted:

baseman posted:

Stormborn posted:

.!!

Black people suffering more under Obama.  Why you think "Black-Lives-Matter" rose up!

.!!

Because blacks continue to be shot and killed by the cops, for having a broken light, or running a red light.

And what they doing disrupting and breaking up meetings held by Hillary, Sanders, Trump, etc.  I think it bigger than police brutality!

The reaction you getting from the Trump supporters are a direct response to what they saw happened at Clinton's and Sanders' rallies.  They will not be shouted down by a few.  This is also a response to the hostile liberal media!!

Unfortunately that is the only means where they get press time. If you think protests is more odious than the prevalence of profiling and brutality and the deaths of an inordinately large number of minorities then that is your blindness.

It is also a completely distrusting comment from you, even as a bigot, to conclude that university students can be booted out of a meeting held at their school, for example. What trump does is appealing to the base and picking on innocent black students for example may give him a profile among disenchanted republicans. On the national level that would be played back for the world to see and the message will come across to more sane people...you not counted in that.

Trump does not have a problem with liberal media. He has a big problem to with global media. Even the bastion of conservative news, Fox News spent most of its time lambasting him. Hardly any of the long standing law makers of his party support him. To the contrary, many of the high profile ones call him a fraud, a windbag and a con man. Those are nice snippets for a media campaign against him.

baseman posted:

.

And what they doing disrupting and breaking up meetings held by Hillary, Sanders, Trump, etc.  I think it bigger than police brutality!

.

The fact that you think that shooting and killing innocent people, guilty of nothing more than a broken light, or making an illegal turn, is not a problem says much of you.

Trump refuses to engage the "Black Lives Matter" group, screams that if blacks don't like it in the USA they should go back to Africa, and orders his goons to assault black women.

I assume that you think that MLK should have gone to the Jim Crow folks, and agreed that "those negroes need to be kept in their place".

Racism in the application of criminal justice has done severe damage to many black communities, and has destroyed the lives of even many UPPER MIDDLE class males!

But you are a racist who hates blacks, so why the shock.

baseman posted:

.

I don't think so at all, if that was all they did/were doing.  Remember, this is not a Black and White thing.  This is about police and the public!!  But Blacks do commit most crimes and as such do fall victim most of the time!

You too consumed by Black racism, you presume others are your equal but opposite!  That is the prism through which you judge all other races!!

How is this not a black and white thing, when you then scream that  blacks are guilty, whether or not they committed a crime?

You then call me a racist for calling out YOUR racism.

People who commit the crime should do the time.  Others should be presumed innocent, and not shot down like a wild deer.

caribny posted:

baseman posted:

.

I don't think so at all, if that was all they did/were doing.  Remember, this is not a Black and White thing.  This is about police and the public!!  But Blacks do commit most crimes and as such do fall victim most of the time!

You too consumed by Black racism, you presume others are your equal but opposite!  That is the prism through which you judge all other races!!

How is this not a black and white thing, when you then scream that  blacks are guilty, whether or not they committed a crime?

You then call me a racist for calling out YOUR racism.

People who commit the crime should do the time.  Others should be presumed innocent, and not shot down like a wild deer.

And btw the protester, when booted out, were called ni99ers.  But then that isn't a racist act, according to you.

baseman posted:

...

Now, I do have sympathy for Black Americans, but I also understand the White anger and reaction!!

The US Blacks have fought and struggled and deserve a break, .

1.  Were you black, you would understand that the struggle for economic and civil rights continues TODAY, and the existence of the "Black Lives Matter" and many other groups is evidence of this.  You aren't black so get you news about blacks from Sean Hannity and Donald Trump.

2. I am involved in several organizations where we engaged in dealing with these situations.  What are YOU doing, aside from justifying attacks on black women?

3.  You arrive, piggy back on the black struggle (MANY Caribbean blacks were involved and CONTINUE to be involved in these activities).  You then CELEBRATE Trump's white gestapo beating up black women and calling them ni99ers.

You do understand white racism because you too are a black hating racist!

^{baseman posted:}

^{Stormborn posted:}

^{baseman posted}

^{And what they doing disrupting and breaking up meetings held by Hillary, Sanders, Trump, etc.  I think it bigger than police brutality!}

^{The reaction you getting from the Trump supporters are a direct response to what they saw happened at Clinton's and Sanders' rallies.  They will not be shouted down by a few.  This is also a response to the hostile liberal media!!}

^{Unfortunately that is the only means where they get press time. .}

^{Not true, they hold many marches and have the entire Liberal controlled media in their corner!!}

^{You cannot just go and shout down other people.  This is why the Trump supporters react they way the do.}

^{Now, I do have sympathy for Black Americans, but I also understand the White anger and reaction!!}

^{The US Blacks have fought and struggled and deserve a break, not people like you who destroyed Guyana and ran off here and piggy-back on MLK's accomplishments.  You were the Guyana "Jim Crow", doing in Guyana exactly what he [MLK] was fighting against here in the US, and at around the same time!}

You are excruciatingly naive. First you are black as you are cast in the category of non whites and need your civil rights protected. Secondly, the Civil rights in the US is grounded in many Caribbean blacks and their first generation kids taking on the entrenched white power structure. Caribbean peoples had their freedom a long time before the US slaves and were not well adapted for social segregation and white dominance.

I do not know I destroyed Guyana. I also can say with pride that I am married to a social justice activist here and I have been able to see much of black struggle over the past 3 and a half decades from the inside. I also went to a historically black college part of my undergraduate years where excellence and understanding of the rights of the individual was always discussed and one is immersed in a culture of black intelligence so I also have that grasp to my credit. Much of what you say here would caused you to be ostracized if you were a white politician or even if you were in any position of consequence. Only your anonymity ( presumed so) and your insignificance causes you to get away with being a bigot.

baseman posted:

caribny posted:

baseman posted:

...

Now, I do have sympathy for Black Americans, but I also understand the White anger and reaction!!

The US Blacks have fought and struggled and deserve a break, .

1.  Were you black, you would understand that the struggle for economic and civil rights continues TODAY, and the existence of the "Black Lives Matter" and many other groups is evidence of this.  You aren't black so get you news about blacks from Sean Hannity and Donald Trump.

2. I am involved in several organizations where we engaged in dealing with these situations.  What are YOU doing, aside from justifying attacks on black women?

3.  You arrive, piggy back on the black struggle (MANY Caribbean blacks were involved and CONTINUE to be involved in these activities).  You then CELEBRATE Trump's white gestapo beating up black women and calling them ni99ers.

You do understand white racism because you too are a black hating racist!

I don't count myself among the "oppressed Blacks" or any oppressed group.  You do!!  However, I understand the Black struggle and what they went through!  YOU did not, YOU were the "Jim Crow" of Guyana!!  So don't equate yourself with them.  You represented what they [Blacks] fought against, [quasi] Apartheid!!  And you now support its return to Guyana, in full glory!!

And don't lie, I never said I understood White racism, you said that.  I understand their reaction to being shouted and shut down!

To paraphrase locke, ...."we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God ... has given no one of his children such a property ....but ...he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods ( and) it cannot ... be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it."

You have no social worth except you look to the change the unjust. You cannot say you are living a just life otherwise. You would understand black struggle if you understand you are being swept along in its tide and all that you are here is a consequence of it. Your talents would be of no benefit to you in a social system that does not recognize it. You can claim you are talented only because you are allowed to express it. When you see yourself as outside history you lie to yourself.

baseman posted:

 

 

Banna, many White kids get the same treatment from cops, !

There is an ad on TV. 

An UPPER MIDDLE class black father tells his son that if he is stopped by a cop, he should immediately show his OPEN palms to the cop.  If he has to get his license, he should do it with one hand, and tell the cops what he is doing.

An UPPER MIDDLE class white father tells his son, who is about to go out, that if he gets in to trouble he should call the cops, because they are his friends.

If large numbers of whites were being brutalized by the cops they wouldn't be criticizing Beyoncé for being anti cop.  They would be PRAISING her for revealing police brutality.

So haul your flat posterior with nonsense that white kids get treated as badly by the cops as black kids are.

Do you know that EVEN BLACK COPS protest how they are treated by white cops. Yes black under cover cops have been SHOT by white cops, or otherwise humiliated.  Even SENIOR black officers!

Stormborn posted:

 

The reality is that black people lost the most proportionately in the economic cascade. They are indeed poorer but not as a consequence of Obama. Chalk that up to Bush. Note the republicans stymied all his economic revival plans by refusing to tax the rich and to allocate necessary infrastructural rebuilding plans. Obama is a bad presidents only to bigots.

 

Truth is more complicated than this.  The Bush tax cuts were removed and additional taxes levied on earned and UNEARNED income by Obama.  So the rich pay more than they did under Clinton.  Note that Reagan reversed many of his tax cuts. George HW further increased taxes (remember the "no new taxes" and then the screams when he changed his mind).

So the rich are paying more taxes.  In fact the budget deficits are being reduced, as a result of this.  FY 2009 (last Bush year) saw deficits of $1.4T.  FY 2016 will see a projected deficit of around $450B. This is the same level as Bush W's pre 2008 crisis deficits.

Here is where the problem is.

1.  The GOP have BLOCKED all attempts at increased expenditures on improved infra structure, even as our bridges collapse, and our water systems poison and slowly kill the public.

2.  The GOP intimidated Obama into canceling his plans for an Infrastructure Bank.  This when he wanted to play nice with racists who hated him.  In fact Obama lost the support of many, including me, when rather than implementing his plans, once the GOP signaled that they had no interest in compromise, he caved to them in a wasted attempt to woo them.

His reward was the loss of the House, as well as many state legislatures, which allowed massive gerrymandering of Congressional seats.

Now imagine if the Feds were buying bonds issued by this bank, instead of printing monopoly money. Buy now we would have roads, bridges, water systems, and mass transit that would make the USA look like a civilized nation, instead of the crumbling 3rd nation that it became under George W.

3.  US children and adults are among the WORST educated among citizens of rich nations.  If tiny Barbados can give most of its citizens almost free access to tertiary level education, why cannot the USA subsidize 2 year colleges, as well as adult educational programs?

The GOP want the USA to become like Brazil. A nation where the wealthy coopt state resources from themselves, leaving the rest of the population uneducated, and two levels above destitution.

You correctly remind Baseman of his Dalit origins. Like many he unreservedly worships the rich exploiting him!