Typhoon,Typhoon wrote:
That's clear enough.
Alex.
Typhoon,Typhoon wrote:
The line item veto is what lead to the falling debt VS GDP during the Clinton years. The Democrats were against it to the point they filed a lawsuit and the courts struck it down.Typhoon wrote:Reagan the debt monger. Sorry the chart and data do not square with your beliefs.Mr. Perfect wrote:Selection bias conceals trends, that's why you guys use selection bias.Typhoon wrote: Sure. An upward trend should be read as a downward trend.
Not even close Seems you are getting Trillion with a "T" confused with Billion with a "B"Typhoon wrote:All for the cost of 14 F-35 development programs? Quite the bargain deal.Doc wrote:Typhoon wrote:Never ceases to amaze how well conditioned the US electorate is to act against their own interests.
Now we can all look forward the gig economy.
I don't think so.Doc wrote:Not even close Seems you are getting Trillion with a "T" confused with Billion with a "B"Typhoon wrote:All for the cost of 14 F-35 development programs? Quite the bargain deal.Doc wrote:Typhoon wrote:Never ceases to amaze how well conditioned the US electorate is to act against their own interests.
Now we can all look forward the gig economy.
The Pentagon's top weapons tester has condemned aspects of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program in a new report, raising questions about the $1.5-trillion effort's ability to meet its already slipped production schedule, synthesize information on the battlefield and keep aircraft available to fly.
If POTUS is not all powerful, then why the current fuss?Doc wrote:The line item veto is what lead to the falling debt VS GDP during the Clinton years. The Democrats were against it to the point they filed a lawsuit and the courts struck it down.Typhoon wrote:Reagan the debt monger. Sorry the chart and data do not square with your beliefs.Mr. Perfect wrote:Selection bias conceals trends, that's why you guys use selection bias.Typhoon wrote: Sure. An upward trend should be read as a downward trend.
The place between irrelevant and all powerful?Typhoon wrote:If POTUS is not all powerful, then why the current fuss?Doc wrote:The line item veto is what lead to the falling debt VS GDP during the Clinton years. The Democrats were against it to the point they filed a lawsuit and the courts struck it down.Typhoon wrote:Reagan the debt monger. Sorry the chart and data do not square with your beliefs.Mr. Perfect wrote:Selection bias conceals trends, that's why you guys use selection bias.Typhoon wrote: Sure. An upward trend should be read as a downward trend.
That not the impression one gets from the way many people have been talking about the candidates.Doc wrote:The place between irrelevant and all powerful?Typhoon wrote:If POTUS is not all powerful, then why the current fuss?Doc wrote:The line item veto is what lead to the falling debt VS GDP during the Clinton years. The Democrats were against it to the point they filed a lawsuit and the courts struck it down.Typhoon wrote:Reagan the debt monger. Sorry the chart and data do not square with your beliefs.Mr. Perfect wrote:Selection bias conceals trends, that's why you guys use selection bias.Typhoon wrote: Sure. An upward trend should be read as a downward trend.
A politician with bipartisan appeal. An endangered species in US politics.Simple Minded wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kasich ... hampshire/
Not a bad tactical move. The next person who jumps into the race on the Dem side just might win the nomination.
Mr. Perfect, Zack, Doc, Alex, you guys got any spare time over the next 9 months?
Nastarana wrote:.
I admit I have no proof, but for what it may be worth, here is what I think about the two Democratic candidates.
First, I still think this the weakest field the Democratic Party had put out in decades.
About Sen. Sanders: I think he loves being Senator from Vermont, where he can take all kind of quixotic positions in Congress and still win elections back home. I think, my own opinion, he does not now and never did want or expect to be president. He seems to me to be clearly uncomfortable with the trappings of celebrity; Mrs. Clinton equally clearly revels in the attention.
I suspect the Sanders campaign began back when Benny Netanyahoo invited himself to address the US Congress without bothering to go through diplomatic niceties like being invited the way other heads of state do, the wimps. Sanders, like a lot of other people, was outraged and I believe Sen. Sanders was the first member of congress to publicly announce he would not attend. I doubt anyone can believably accuse Sanders of being against Israel. His non-attendance gave cover for others to also be absent. That much is known. Now comes the speculative part.
I can't help thinking that some of the more reasonable, that is not insane, members of the pro-Israel lobby approached Sanders with a request he could not refuse. Something like, "Look Bernie, this bum Benny is killing us. Obama can't control him and we can't control him. He is conspiring with Hillary to blow up the entire Mideast and when they do, the world will hate Israel and the USA both for the next 500 years. We know you are 74 and you love the job you have now, but we don't have anyone else we can turn to. All you have to do is make a good showing, let the party bosses see for themselves just how crazy and unelectable this harpy is. We will take care of finances and don't worry, we will make it through small donations, all kosher and above board, all our cousins and friends and their cousins and so on will be spending their own money, nothing questionable about it. Have your campaign send out the usual emails and we will also be sending out ours, no bribes or illegalities involved. We can provide you with security, you know how good we are at that, security that not even the press will see. Just make sure you stay off small airplanes and don't be in a hotel room alone; have your wife along and one of our guys will be near at all times." It would also not surprise me to learn that some parts of the military establishment, a group for which Col Wilkerson might be a spokesman, are discreetly making sure that Sen. Sanders stays alive.
.
Disturbing, if true.Nastarana wrote:The rest we have seen. When Sanders says in interviews that he is surprised by the amount of support he is receiving, he is telling his original supporters that he might not be able to control his own following.
Oddly enough, I thought the exact same thing about Obama in 2008. He wanted to be elected POTUS, not God. They weren't interested in a mere human. closest thing I have ever seen to a Third World Cult of Personality in America.Nastarana wrote:The rest we have seen. When Sanders says in interviews that he is surprised by the amount of support he is receiving, he is telling his original supporters that he might not be able to control his own following.
very Interesting Nastarana. Thanks for posting.Nastarana wrote:Notes from the USA: The Democratic primary
WARNING: SPECULATION FOR WHICH I HAVE NO PROOF LIES AHEAD
I admit I have no proof, but for what it may be worth, here is what I think about the two Democratic candidates.
First, I still think this the weakest field the Democratic Party had put out in decades...........
Nonc,Nonc Hilaire wrote:I think Sanders was encouraged to run and make H look more moderate, and was genuinely surprised by his success. The party thought Sanders had no chance but needed somebody else to run or there would be no debates for H to pose in. H thought she was going to be shadow boxing, and both were flabbergasted to find themselves in a genuine race.
Seconded.Simple Minded wrote:
very Interesting Nastarana. Thanks for posting.
Indeed. The Republican field is certainly not deep, but it is broad.Simple Minded wrote:The fascinating thing to me is, with a field this weak, where are the challengers in the Dem party? What were they told (threatened?) by the Dem machine to keep them out? Why does the Dem machine think she can win? Is the vote count already fixed?
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Martin O'Malley jumped in to play the role of good party solider, loyal opposition, however you want to put it. He was the one definitely asked to be the Washington Generals to Hillary's Harlem Globetrotters. I suppose for the usual goodies that come with that sort of task. Sanders was tolerated as opposition because it was figured he'd be an easy knock off candidate, and would ultimately be deferential to Hillary.
That O'Malley sunk so quickly is the shock of things not going according to plan. While it is surprising how well Sanders is doing (I'm sure to Sanders himself too, ) his mission from day one was to do well...winning a chance at the white house just wasn't originally feasible, and now it seems to be.
well said gents. Kinda like war games where someone substitutes live ammo for blanks. Or the interview where the reporter asks the professional wrestler if they are faking it and then gets knocked out.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I think Sanders was encouraged to run and make H look more moderate, and was genuinely surprised by his success. The party thought Sanders had no chance but needed somebody else to run or there would be no debates for H to pose in. H thought she was going to be shadow boxing, and both were flabbergasted to find themselves in a genuine race.
Walter Chronkite: "... and that's the way it is."Typhoon wrote:Seconded.Simple Minded wrote:
very Interesting Nastarana. Thanks for posting.
Indeed. The Republican field is certainly not deep, but it is broad.Simple Minded wrote:The fascinating thing to me is, with a field this weak, where are the challengers in the Dem party? What were they told (threatened?) by the Dem machine to keep them out? Why does the Dem machine think she can win? Is the vote count already fixed?
[Avoiding the obvious pun to follow.]
The Demopublican field consists of a venal harpy and an elderly gentleman eccentric from Vermont.
Is there really no one else in the entire Demopublican party? Or does the Clinton gang have the party elders by the balls?
Simple Minded wrote:Nastarana wrote:
The fascinating thing to me is, with a field this weak, where are the challengers in the Dem party? What were they told (threatened?) by the Dem machine to keep them out? Why does the Dem machine think she can win? Is the vote count already fixed?