What's new
By:
Filters

Here comes the recession

I wouldn’t call the Obama presidency trash. Nor would I refer to the Pelosi House and Reid Senate trash either. They worked to save the economy from a depression, The ACA improved the lives of millions, and under Obama’s watch millions of LGBT people were finally allowed to get married. DREAM Act was passed by Democrats in the House, supported by the WH, and was killed by republicans in the senate. That would’ve been nice to have passed.

If you consider that to be trash then I got nothing for ya.

One of the funniest things to see lately has been republicans finally admitting that their party and leadership is awful but then attempting to drag Democrats down with them. They just can’t really admit that one party is still competent and wasn’t ever as bad as they made it out to be under Obama.

They just can’t admit that we were right when we described their party to be the party of racists, their principles of morality and fiscal responsibility to be phony, and their leaders beholden to the 1 percent.

Pretty hilarious
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
I wouldn’t call the Obama presidency trash. Nor would I refer to the Pelosi House and Reid Senate trash either. They worked to save the economy from a depression, The ACA improved the lives of millions, and under Obama’s watch millions of LGBT people were finally allowed to get married. DREAM Act was passed by Democrats in the House, supported by the WH, and was killed by republicans in the senate. That would’ve been nice to have passed.

If you consider that to be trash then I got nothing for ya.

One of the funniest things to see lately has been republicans finally admitting that their party and leadership is awful but then attempting to drag Democrats down with them. They just can’t really admit that one party is still competent and wasn’t ever as bad as they made it out to be under Obama.

They just can’t admit that we were right when we described their party to be the party of racists, their principles of morality and fiscal responsibility to be phony, and their leaders beholden to the 1 percent.

Pretty hilarious
Click to expand...
Name the top 3 things you don't like about the Democratic party...

And if your answer is three examples of how they are too moderate I won't be surprised.
 
Gameface said:
Name the top 3 things you don't like about the Democratic party...

And if your answer is three examples of how they are too moderate I won't be surprised.
Click to expand...

Wow.

I guess running to the defense of your buddy supersedes any rational debate. While I don’t pretend to be impartial on politics, I’m a Democrat, I certainly am not blind to the party's failings or in full agreement with its platform. So I’m unsure why you’re coming at me with so much snark, as if I’m Heathme or jazzrule.

1. I disagree with the party on immigration. I don’t believe in changing illegal immigration into a mere civil offense. However, I believe the Dreamers need to be given amnesty (haven’t heard anything about them recently) and instead of beefing up border security, id like is to target business owners. We can round up and deport every Jose Sixpack today. But that won’t resolve the problem of American business owners (like trump) from thumbing their noses at our laws and hiring illegal labor. I think immigration is a big deal and it’s a moral and political mistake to merely be “the opposite” of whatever trump is on immigration.

2. Reparations is a bad idea.

3. Free college is a bad idea. I think more needs to be addressed regarding college affordability. But some of that can be mediated by focusing on trade schools and by states raising their own revenues to provide funding for higher education.

4. I do believe that Democrats in some ways have abandoned certain blue collar worker areas. Much of this damage was done in the 1990s when NAFTA was signed by Clinton. I think that was a mistake. It left many Americans in the middle high and dry.

5. Organization and messaging is terrible for the DNC. They struggle to organize at the grassroots and cannot maintain a consistent message. As the saying goes, Democrats are terrible campaigners but good governors while republicans are terrific campaigners but poor governors.

You asked for 3, I gave you 5. I could give you more. Like how I feel we’ve done a poor job trying to improve race relations since the Obama era, how we’ve been ineffective with the gun debate, how rep. Omar’s lack of tact hurts us, and how Pelosi is making a mistake slow walking impeachment. But that’s a lot of talk about and they’re minor in comparison to my disagreements with the GOP. I’m a Democrat because I believe they are on the right side on most issues.

So why did you ask me to name 3? Did you think I wouldn’t do it? As if I were blind to the party’s failings? Which would support Stoked accusation that I’m somehow a blind partisan? What do you intend to do with this information now?

If you want to disagree with me, that’s fine. Provide evidence for your opinion. But if all you and Stoked want to do is insult and be snarky, then this discussion is over. I’m not wasting my time.
 
Last edited:
This is pretty informative:



And



So essentially, Trump’s #1 economic advisor is telling us to ignore his own written work because needing to its teachings would anger Trump, get him fired, admit that the trade war is a failure, and confirm that we’re most likely heading to a recession.

Any Republican from the House or Senate want to speak up? Any? Or are we just going to plunge our nation into a recession because speaking out might anger primary voters and result in you being voted out of office?
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
Wow.

I guess running to the defense of your buddy supersedes any rational debate. While I don’t pretend to be impartial on politics, I’m a Democrat, I certainly am not blind to the party's failings or in full agreement with its platform. So I’m unsure why you’re coming at me with so much snark, as if I’m Heathme or jazzrule.

1. I disagree with the party on immigration. I don’t believe in changing illegal immigration into a mere civil offense. However, I believe the Dreamers need to be given amnesty (haven’t heard anything about them recently) and instead of beefing up border security, id like is to target business owners. We can round up and deport every Jose Sixpack today. But that won’t resolve the problem of American business owners (like trump) from thumbing their noses at our laws and hiring illegal labor. I think immigration is a big deal and it’s a moral and political mistake to merely be “the opposite” of whatever trump is on immigration.

2. Reparations is a bad idea.

3. Free college is a bad idea. I think more needs to be addressed regarding college affordability. But some of that can be mediated by focusing on trade schools and by states raising their own revenues to provide funding for higher education.

4. I do believe that Democrats in some ways have abandoned certain blue collar worker areas. Much of this damage was done in the 1990s when NAFTA was signed by Clinton. I think that was a mistake. It left many Americans in the middle high and dry.

5. Organization and messaging is terrible for the DNC. They struggle to organize at the grassroots and cannot maintain a consistent message. As the saying goes, Democrats are terrible campaigners but good governors while republicans are terrific campaigners but poor governors.

You asked for 3, I gave you 5. I could give you more. Like how I feel we’ve done a poor job trying to improve race relations since the Obama era, how we’ve been ineffective with the gun debate, how rep. Omar’s lack of tact hurts us, and how Pelosi is making a mistake slow walking impeachment. But that’s a lot of talk about and they’re minor in comparison to my disagreements with the GOP. I’m a Democrat because I believe they are on the right side on most issues.

So why did you ask me to name 3? Did you think I wouldn’t do it? As if I were blind to the party’s failings? Which would support Stoked accusation that I’m somehow a blind partisan? What do you intend to do with this information now?

If you want to disagree with me, that’s fine. Provide evidence for your opinion. But if all you and Stoked want to do is insult and be snarky, then this discussion is over. I’m not wasting my time.
Click to expand...

Thriller is pretty abrasive and clearly enjoys stating that "this conversations is over" way too much. However, this post is an example of political self-reflection. Even the most dogmatic of the left here has a level of nuance that is appropriate. I'd like to see some of our righties produce as much.
 
So I still don’t get the whole amnesty thing. ANY single person who attempts to get across our border, if apprehended, can claim amnesty?

Or is there a specific process by which such immigrants need to follow and are there specific locations to which they must go and claim amnesty?
 
NPC D4617 said:
And when Trump leaves office you socialist moma's basement dwellers will finish the country off with your need for free stuff.
Click to expand...

Socialist trump shovels billions to large ag firms after meddling in free markets. Buying votes with socialism. But yeah, I want free stuff,
 
NPC D4617 said:
Is this recession prediction like your prediction Trump is going to Jail? You know, not happening.
Click to expand...

Yet.

Seriously, it is not likely. His brand has been ruined and he will likely be broke. We tend to not put ex prezs in jail, it makes us look more like a banana republic
 
Wes Mantooth said:
So I still don’t get the whole amnesty thing. ANY single person who attempts to get across our border, if apprehended, can claim amnesty?

Or is there a specific process by which such immigrants need to follow and are there specific locations to which they must go and claim amnesty?
Click to expand...

Once they cross the border, to claim amnesty, they need to turn themselves at the earliest reasonable opportunity, as I understand it. If instead they try to hide, or get a job, etc., they forfeit their claim to amnesty.
 
One Brow said:
Once they cross the border, to claim amnesty, they need to turn themselves at the earliest reasonable opportunity, as I understand it. If instead they try to hide, or get a job, etc., they forfeit their claim to amnesty.
Click to expand...

Just to add to this, once they turn themselves in there is a preliminary interview to establish the credibility of the claim (some argue this interview doesn't weed out enough poor claims.) If they pass that interview they will then go through our system of asylum courts to actually earn asylee status and residency rights.
 
The Thriller said:
Bad economic policy needs to be awarded with bad economic results so we don’t repeat the same mistakes. Most economists have told us that Trump’s economic policy was a bad idea from the start. Apparently, enough people didn’t listen.

To me, this isn’t about being miserable. It’s about dumb people in our country voting for a stupid *** clown for president. Elections have consequences as does touching a hot stove. At some point we gotta learn!
Click to expand...

I hope someday you find someone who loves you enough to turn off the 8 daily hours of MSNBC that have shaped your crappy worldview. Seriously. . .
 
framer said:
I hope someday you find someone who loves you enough to turn off the 8 daily hours of MSNBC that have shaped your crappy worldview. Seriously. . .
Click to expand...

Happily married for over 3 years.

Have risen in the edu world from $30k per year to making a good living now. Were active in our ward teaching primary. Very happy.

Literally haven’t watched any MSNBC in months.

Any more lame arguments for me to shred? Or are you done?
 
Last edited:
Larry Kudlow said on MTP yesterday that the economy is fine.



Trump has tweeted that the economy is fine.



But if it’s fine... why would they be considering a payroll tax (which would hurt social security funding) to juice consumer spending (the primary mover of the economy) if the economy is fine?

For those of you on the right who accuse me of just being anti-right wing, why would the trump administration be considering this desperate move? Is social security overfunded? Or are we headed towards a recession and the trump administration is lying about it to the public while behind the scenes recognizing the economic peril they’re in?

Remember, I’m apparently just a blind partisan so please, here’s your invitation to educate me. Use facts and just insults. Ready go! :)

 
The Thriller said:
Larry Kudlow said on MTP yesterday that the economy is fine.



Trump has tweeted that the economy is fine.



But if it’s fine... why would they be considering a payroll tax (which would hurt social security funding) to juice consumer spending (the primary mover of the economy) if the economy is fine?

For those of you on the right who accuse me of just being anti-right wing, why would the trump administration be considering this desperate move? Is social security overfunded? Or are we headed towards a recession and the trump administration is lying about it to the public while behind the scenes recognizing the economic peril they’re in?

Remember, I’m apparently just a blind partisan so please, here’s your invitation to educate me. Use facts and just insults. Ready go! :)

Click to expand...


No Trump, your ego is so strong that it’s hurting the moral foundations this country was built upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top