| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/18/19 9:07 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Most political analysts would say that Obama's lousy economy helped Trump win in 2016 and that Trump's booming economy should help him in 2020.
(But that's not really the topic, is it?) |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/18/19 9:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I wouldn't use the word "lies" in either case, but that's not the serious issue.
The article is very interesting. There's no doubt that economic and job recovery began in Obama's second term.
But there are several indices and records the article doesn't mention. The stock market jumped up almost immediately upon Trump's election and has gone on to smash record after record, enriching tens of millions of 401(k) plans for average folk. Unemployment has not only trended down but is also setting historical records. Lowest black unemployment ever. Lowest Hispanic unemployment ever. Lowest Asian unemployment ever. Lowest women's unemployment in 74 years, and probably soon ever. Food stamps way down. Economic optimism way up. Lowering the corporate and international income tax rates from the highest in the world to very competitive levels has poured tons of money into corporations that would not have happened otherwise. This money will go to increased stock dividends and increased employee compensation, which means more spending power for those groups. Trade deals have been or are being renegotiated to better favor America. I could go on.
But maybe this all would have happened with Hillary or Bernie or Ted or Jeb or a block of granite in the White House. Maybe, but we'll never know. Meanwhile, it can only help Trump in 2020, though it may not be enough. |
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 9:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Is there even one positive trend in the "Trump" economy that isn't merely an extension of the Obama turnaround?
But let's get back to the point- i.e., the lie that the Obama economy was "lousy".
Oft-repeated (gee, I wonder why), never proved.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This could actually be a reasonable discussion.
Let me start with a proposition that I've not believed for many decades -- that economic cycles are necessarily caused by, or should be attributed to, the then current occupant of the White House. Nevertheless, it is a political and psychological reality that presidents do get the credit or blame for what happens economically on their watch, fair or not.
Most people don't read economic analyses in Forbes, especially retrospective ones that can only be published in the future. They just base their economic perspective on general feelings and personal experience. For example, in the early Obama years everyone in my family except for my wife lost their jobs due to layoffs. Politicians know these feelings and experiences and capitalize on them. Reagan: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Bush I: "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid." Trump: "Make America wealthy again."
So, while there certainly were many reasons why different people voted for Trump in 2016, a general perception of bad economic times under Obama was surely one of them, most especially in some key electoral states in the rust belt. |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/21/19 11:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| Is there even one positive trend in the "Trump" economy that isn't merely an extension of the Obama turnaround? |
Well, here's A Fun Story that illustrates a Don The Con trend we don't need, and is NOT a continuation of Obama economics. (funniest part of the video: Donald doesn't even know how to 'man' a shovel correctly)
Stock market trends are as variable as the weather, now and always, no? I've had friends screeching about their 401Ks, but regain their composure in short order. Much of what is projected as economic success is quite subjective and subject to Poofery, smoke and mirrors.
I can't think of one thing in my personal economic situation that has improved since he took office, and several have become more problematic, i.e., continuing rise of medical, fuel and food prices. [note: I don't feel Don The Con's administration is responsible for that, but still...."improvement" isn't hitting all in the same ways, if at all.]
I DO believe wealthier Americans may be enjoying gains, but that's not much help if your middle/lower classes are hurting more.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 8:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Since we're on the topic of what people not named Donald Trump are doing on the streets, let's have a look at what the OP is talking about: We have an elected official, who on paper married her brother to enter the country. Unless there was some kind of filing error (doubtful), this woman committed immigration fraud. I happen to think those chants were well justified. Meanwhile, on the other side of the political aisle, we have restaurant owners throwing out customers who have an opposing political viewpoint. We have hate groups doing violent demonstrations and gunning down (and killing) innocent police officers while chanting vicious calls for their untimely death. We have a terrorist group (officially classified) running around attacking peaceful protestors with weapons while covering their faces. We have a political takeover of a beauty pageant where women are being stripped of their titles for being conservative. We have politicians running for president who are advocating for the citizenship and taxpayer-funded healthcare of people who are here illegally and breaking laws daily. We are under attack daily by people who oppose all and any human rights in spite of what is clearly written in our Constitution. And you think that the world is mad at a bunch of people at a rally who are fed up with the lawlessness of a large number of Democrat legislators.
I got news for you: It's the behavior of the fringe left-wing that has most people angry. With regards to electing Trump, the economy absolutely had something to do with it because were stagnating. Some of you can spin the Trump economy however you want it to. It doesn't change the fact that we're here in this GLORIOUS economic boom because Trump is President and Obama (and Hillary) is NOT.
Don't blame your bad economic situation on the President. At some point you need to look in the mirror. You made bad choices in life. Live with them or do something about it. I saw my own career stagnate (partially) under Obama. It was an employer's market. I was told during that period that I was lucky to still be employed, and that my job could go to India at any time. Being the sole income provider, I was falling into the lower middle class category. Not so much the case now. The tables have turned in the Trump economy. Employers are now having to coax the currently employed away from their job. Fortunately for yours truly, I benefited from this situation. I finally left my old position after many years for something better. A position that found me, and not the other way around. And triple my previous salary. Would this spot have been available is our economy wasn't chugging along? Who knows.
So yes, this economy is ABSOLUTELY working wonders for ALL walks of life. If you have marketable skills, you can do anything you want to in this country. If you feel otherwise, maybe you're just not trying hard enough.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 1:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
It says "unproven." Even Snopes can't debunk the rumor. I would take it all back if she put the facts out there. I won't hold my breath though.
I think we should have an investigation into this. We're all about getting to the truth, right? Shouldn't the scales of justice be blind? No one is supposed to be above the law. If we can launch a fruitless 3-year investigation based on oppo-research (to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars), and another investigation on someone else in DC based on uncorroborated false accusations, isn't an investigation into something with an obvious paper trail warranted in this case?
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 1:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
It says "unproven." Even Snopes can't debunk the rumor. I would take it all back if she put the facts out there. I won't hold my breath though.
I think we should have an investigation into this. After all, we just wasted millions of dollars on an investigation of another elected official. We're all about getting to the truth, right? |
It's not her job to prove that hideous rumors are not true. The snopes article explains exactly why this conspiracy theory doesn't hold water. If someone feels there is probable cause to open an investigation into this (hint, according to the DA, there wasn't), and then finds actual evidence of malfeasance on her part, have at her. That is exactly what the millions of dollars on the other elected offical did.
But, just to point out, no one was able to "prove" that they didn't have a pedo ring in the basement of a pizza parlor either.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 1:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| It says "unproven." What's your point? Even Snopes can't debunk the rumor. I would take it all back if she put the facts out there. I won't hold my breath though. |
Just like Obama needed his papers to prove he wasn't born in Kenya?
You really can't see how racist this is?
This rumor came from a message board. You can't prove a negative, and no evidence has ever been presented that shows she did marry her brother. She has presented her immigration documents that show her siblings names, and he is not on there.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-ilhan-omar-marriage-smear-went-from-an-anonymous-post-on-an-obscure-forum-to-being-embraced-by-trump
And here's the thing..generally speaking, most Democrats don't like her. IMO, she causes more harm than good for progressive causes. She sticks her foot in her mouth all of the time, and yes..she did use a few dog whistles.
But this bullshit is ridiculous. There is only a suggestion that she married her brother because of right wing xenophobia. That's it. There is no proof that he was related.
There's plenty to criticize of her. It's interesting that the right seems to just go back to racism.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 2:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
For what it's worth, to unhijack this thread from our resident troll, this is an interesting article that explores some of the intersections of these factors.
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/18/20697940/trump-racist-tweets-racially-infused-charged
"Progressives, especially college-educated ones, tend these days to take a broad view of “racism,” seeing it as a property of abstract discriminatory systems that imbues white people and communities with “privilege” that is denied to nonwhite Americans. Conservatives are more inclined toward a narrower, more personalized, overwhelmingly psychological conception of racism. One consequence of this is that left and right sometimes end up talking past each other on the subject. But another is that progressives want to call a lot of things — starting with Donald Trump — “racist” that conservatives don’t necessarily think are bad, which calls into question the social consensus that “racist” things are by definition bad things.
Calling Trump’s racist statements racist in a more clear and forceful manner might hurt his approval ratings somewhat.
But realistically, no matter how reporters cover Trump, it’s going to remain the case that a large minority of the public thinks he’s great. Indeed, under pressure from reporters to address the situation, this is exactly what Trump reached for — he said “many people agree with me,” which is, fundamentally, true.
Under the current rules of the game, basically everyone in America has agreed that whatever it is you call “racist,” racism is very bad. Consequently, anything that’s broadly popular can’t really be racist. If progressives get their way and the term ends up being more broadly applied, then what currently plays out in the press as a disagreement over whether things are actually racist or merely “racially infused” would instead be a disagreement over whether or not racism is acceptable.
Given the progressive view that racism is a major, systemic feature of American life and an important source of privilege for the country’s white majority, it seems natural that the merits of racism would be controversial. Trump says racist things, and while most Americans seem to dislike those things, tens of millions of other Americans seem to like them, because there’s disagreement about whether saying racist things is good."
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 2:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| You really can't see how racist this is? |
Not really.
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| Just like Obama needed his papers to prove he wasn't born in Kenya? |
Yeah. But Obama DID produce papers to prove his birth. So far we've seen nothing from Ilhan Omar. She could end this today.
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| You really can't see how racist this is? |
I guess you'll have to explain it to me. I'm not seeing it. In fact, I think people just throw that word around way too casually these days. Kind of like how people are throwing around "concentration camps."
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| You can't prove a negative, and no evidence has ever been presented that shows she did marry her brother. She has presented her immigration documents that show her siblings names, and he is not on there. |
From what I've seen, her tax returns suggest otherwise. I'll agree that you can't prove a negative, which is why I said IF. That being said, half this board had no problem condemning Brett Kavanaugh.
| mercfan3 wrote: |
And here's the thing..generally speaking, most Democrats don't like her. IMO, she causes more harm than good for progressive causes. She sticks her foot in her mouth all of the time, and yes..she did use a few dog whistles.
There's plenty to criticize of her. |
Perhaps, but most Democrats are coming to her defense. So why do it? This woman is toast next year anyways. She has become the face of the party. Along with "The Squad." Quite frankly, I see only one or two of them surviving the next election cycle. At best, you're all being goaded into supporting this woman.
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| It's interesting that the right seems to just go back to racism. |
The only racism I'm seeing with regards to Rep. Omar is the anti-Semitic comments she keeps making about Jews.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 2:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| to unhijack this thread from our resident troll |
It's always back to name calling with you, isn't it? Can't handle an opposing viewpoint so it's back to hurling insults and accusing me of "trolling." I thought, maybe this one time justin won't revert back to the sophomoric comments. Well, I guess was wrong.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 2:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
This could actually be a reasonable discussion.
Let me start with a proposition that I've not believed for many decades -- that economic cycles are necessarily caused by, or should be attributed to, the then current occupant of the White House. Nevertheless, it is a political and psychological reality that presidents do get the credit or blame for what happens economically on their watch, fair or not. |
Only partially agree here. IMO, it matters more the makeup of all Congress and the Whitehouse.
Government impacts the economy. Whether it is through subsidies/grants, infrastructures and the schools, budgeting, regulating/deregulating, trade deals..etc..
The government plays a major role in the economy. That being said, obviously there are other facts (including globalization, innovations etc..)
That being said, one President's economic policies can lead into another President's term.
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Most people don't read economic analyses in Forbes, especially retrospective ones that can only be published in the future. They just base their economic perspective on general feelings and personal experience. For example, in the early Obama years everyone in my family except for my wife lost their jobs due to layoffs. Politicians know these feelings and experiences and capitalize on them. Reagan: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Bush I: "Read my lips, no new taxes!" Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid." Trump: "Make America wealthy again."
So, while there certainly were many reasons why different people voted for Trump in 2016, a general perception of bad economic times under Obama was surely one of them, most especially in some key electoral states in the rust belt. |
Which shows a short memory, but I agree that emotions carry that weight.
The Great Recession happened primarily under Bush's care. And it happened because of significant deregulation, bleeding into Obama's first term.
The primary cause of the housing crisis was a Bush Administration SEC rule change (Net Capitol Rule), allowing banks to tank significantly more risk
There are also pretty clear economic patterns, for instance..wealthy tax breaks and corporate deregulation bump up the stock market, but always end in recession. So to be fair to Bush, there are other policies that some economists point to contributing to the housing crisis (From Clinton and Reagan)..but those two Presidents did some things Bush did not.
First, Clinton clearly experienced an economic boom. The technology sector exploded while he was in office - the Clinton Administration invested 10 billion into the science and technology sector. (As well as providing tax credits for science and experimentation centers. They also made a tone of investments in green energy and biomedical research. As Clinton left office he suggested that Green Energy was the way of the future, and that the United States should invest in those areas. The United States didn't. But Germany listened. Their economy boomed because of it, and they now have the highest GDP in Europe.)
Clinton also raised taxes and moderately regulated. And he also balanced the budget. There is often some debate over how much that matters to our economy. But bottom line is, the economy ran well under Clinton, and he thought balancing the budget was important - so why wouldn't the rest of us? Obama was smart to run the Economy in the way that Clinton did. For the life of me, I can't understand why every President since Clinton hasn't. (With some obvious modern tweaks).
The stock market rose for 27 months straight under President Obama. The stock Market has grown 30% under Trump, but it had grown 65% under Obama. (And clearly, not the best indicator of economic growth, but it typically is used as such.)
Unemployment rate? Under Obama's economic policies, the unemployment rate dropped from 9.9 to 4.1. Under Trump? 4.1 to 3.9. Yes, Obama's certainly had farther to drop..but that is further evidence towards Obama's excellent economic policies.
The GDP under Trump has been good, at a 2.9 beating Obama's best year. But again, we haven't had enough of Trump's economic policies to really average it out. As Obama's is based off of eight years, and Trump's one.
This of course, doesn't go into standard of living. For instance, who cares if unemployment is at 3.9% if 25% of the population can't make a living wage off of their job? (That is true for both Obama and Trump).
For instance, subsidies from farmers after Trump screwed up soy trade will cause real harm to that industry and to United States spending. He's likely to make more decisions like that before his term is over.
But, truth is..Trump inherited an excellent economy from Obama..and we've yet to see him completely destroy it. But he has time. His economic decisions have traditionally resulted in disaster for the United States Economy, but it's possible that his removal from office and subsequent regulation will halt the inevitable free fall.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2019/05/on-the-economy-obama-owns-trump/
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 2:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
For what it's worth, to unhijack this thread from our resident troll, this is an interesting article that explores some of the intersections of these factors.
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/18/20697940/trump-racist-tweets-racially-infused-charged
"Progressives, especially college-educated ones, tend these days to take a broad view of “racism,” seeing it as a property of abstract discriminatory systems that imbues white people and communities with “privilege” that is denied to nonwhite Americans. Conservatives are more inclined toward a narrower, more personalized, overwhelmingly psychological conception of racism. One consequence of this is that left and right sometimes end up talking past each other on the subject. But another is that progressives want to call a lot of things — starting with Donald Trump — “racist” that conservatives don’t necessarily think are bad, which calls into question the social consensus that “racist” things are by definition bad things.
Calling Trump’s racist statements racist in a more clear and forceful manner might hurt his approval ratings somewhat.
But realistically, no matter how reporters cover Trump, it’s going to remain the case that a large minority of the public thinks he’s great. Indeed, under pressure from reporters to address the situation, this is exactly what Trump reached for — he said “many people agree with me,” which is, fundamentally, true.
Under the current rules of the game, basically everyone in America has agreed that whatever it is you call “racist,” racism is very bad. Consequently, anything that’s broadly popular can’t really be racist. If progressives get their way and the term ends up being more broadly applied, then what currently plays out in the press as a disagreement over whether things are actually racist or merely “racially infused” would instead be a disagreement over whether or not racism is acceptable.
Given the progressive view that racism is a major, systemic feature of American life and an important source of privilege for the country’s white majority, it seems natural that the merits of racism would be controversial. Trump says racist things, and while most Americans seem to dislike those things, tens of millions of other Americans seem to like them, because there’s disagreement about whether saying racist things is good." |
I think there is also a generational divide. I've had plenty of conversations with liberal older (white) people, who seem to think that racism is personal. A lot of it is in education, but I find younger people are more likely to listen.
I think though, that idea is letting the press off the hook. Instead of discussing whether racism is acceptable or not, there should be an explanation over systemic racism, and why they are problems that need to be fixed. Gilibrand just gave a wonderful answer to this question.
I was also reading a twitter thread from someone who campaigned against David Duke.
He explained that the initial advice to running against him was to not fully point out his racism because it would alienate white voters. The idea was to then criticize his other faults, like in taxes and such.
Duke won the Governor seat. His supporters came out for him, but the net result of not really calling a spade a spade for racist behavior was that people who would have normally been outraged weren't outraged. So they stayed home. Talking about issues he had with taxes or other flaws and faults normalized his views on race.
Then he ran for senator, and the campaign took a different turn. They campaigned against his racism. Because a lot of people agreed with racism, he actually increased the amount of votes he got. But the percent of white vote he received was 5% less, and he lost because truly more people were outraged about him and his views than not, and they cared enough to go out and vote.
My point - this election cycle needs to be about Donald Trump's racism. Not his extramarital affairs. Not his behavior on the international stage, not his failure to implement policies to combat climate change. That's all policies We should talk about..but when campaigning against Trump..it should be about his racism. And how the President of the United States (and GOP) should not be racist.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 2:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| to unhijack this thread from our resident troll |
It's always back to name calling with you, isn't it? Can't handle an opposing viewpoint so it's back to hurling insults and accusing me of "trolling." I thought, maybe this one time justin won't revert back to the sophomoric comments. Well, I guess was wrong. |
I have come to accept that is your roll here.
Take your post above. It was actually decent with most of your points. It could have led to a solid discourse.
But instead, you stated "We have an elected official, who on paper married her brother to enter the country." This is presented by you as if it were a fact, instead of an unproven conspiracy theory that has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You don't even couch it in the typical caveats of "people say" or "allegedly" or "might have" that people will use to weasel around the whole pesky "truth" factor.
So all the post ends up doing is getting a rise out of people. That is, literally, trolling. And since this is has been persistent, long term behavior, labeling you a "troll" is both fair and objective, not "name calling".
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15737
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 2:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Experts would argue that the primary cause of the housing crash of 2008 is due to the Clinton-era mandates which forced banks to loan money to those who couldn't afford to repay the loan. Debts were being bundled into packages and resold as collateral debt obligations. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the Net Capital Rule of 2004 is still in play today.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 2:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
I guess you'll have to explain it to me. I'm not seeing it. In fact, I think people just throw that word around way too casually these days. Kind of like how people are throwing around "concentration camps." |
1. The idea that she doesn't belong her, or should "go back to where she came from" is a dogwhistle suggesting that only white people belong in this country.
US law legally counts that as discrimination.
2. The idea that she would marry her brother is a xenophobic attack against Muslims. There are stereotypes of incestual relationships in the Muslim community, and suggesting that her first marriage was to her brother plays into that ideology.
3. As historians and concentration camp survivors agree - they are concentration camps. Why not try researching the definition and what is actually going on at the border.
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
From what I've seen, her tax returns suggest otherwise. I'll agree that you can't prove a negative, which is why I said IF. That being said, half this board had no problem condemning Brett Kavanaugh. |
Her tax returns suggest otherwise? Not the case. Her marriages are a tad confusing, and there were certainly issues in her campaign (But Justice Democrats/Sanders struggle with keeping their donations straight..) finance and taxes, but Again, there is no evidence suggesting that she married her brother.
An allegation of rape or attempted rape is different. The evidence WAS Doctor Ford, and she was quite credible. There were multiple accusations against him, furthering the likelihood that she was credible.
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
Perhaps, but most Democrats are coming to her defense. So why do it? This woman is toast next year anyways. She has become the face of the party. Along with "The Squad." Quite frankly, I see only one or two of them surviving the next election cycle. At best, you're all being goaded into supporting this woman. |
1. Because sexism and racism are non starters. I'll call it out towards whoever is facing it. Including the other side. The way Democrats treated Sarah Palin was abhorrent and clearly sexist. There are factions of the party who have to get their shit together on these issues too, and I'll call them out.
2. Because Omar is a human being who deserves to be treated with a basic level of respect. The racism she has been subjected to by the President of the United States should be an impeachable offense on its own. Her life is now at risk and she needs increased security - and this is not the first time Donald Trump has done that to her. Disagreeing with what she says..criticizing what she says..that's fine. But Trump went after her as a human being. He's made up lies about her. He's risked her safety. She deserves to be defended, at the very least.
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
The only racism I'm seeing with regards to Rep. Omar is the anti-Semitic comments she keeps making about Jews. |
Super interesting that you can recognize the anti-Semitic dog whistles Omar allegedly used, considering the usage isn't prominent in American society, but where unable to recognize dog whistles like "urban areas" and "go back to where you came from."
Could you explain to me why you thought Re. Omar's language was anti-Semitic?
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 2:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| justintyme wrote: |
| to unhijack this thread from our resident troll |
It's always back to name calling with you, isn't it? Can't handle an opposing viewpoint so it's back to hurling insults and accusing me of "trolling." I thought, maybe this one time justin won't revert back to the sophomoric comments. Well, I guess was wrong. |
I have come to accept that is your roll here.
Take your post above. It was actually decent with most of your points. It could have led to a solid discourse.
But instead, you stated "We have an elected official, who on paper married her brother to enter the country." This is presented by you as if it were a fact, instead of an unproven conspiracy theory that has been pretty thoroughly debunked. You don't even couch it in the typical caveats of "people say" or "allegedly" or "might have" that people will use to weasel around the whole pesky "truth" factor.
So all the post ends up doing is getting a rise out of people. That is, literally, trolling. And since this is has been persistent, long term behavior, labeling you a "troll" is both fair and objective, not "name calling". |
I can make the same argument for you, and cite countless posts of yours. So I guess that means I can label you as a clueless crybaby, if this is the road we're going down again.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19760
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 3:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stonington_QB wrote: |
| Experts would argue that the primary cause of the housing crash of 2008 is due to the Clinton-era mandates which forced banks to loan money to those who couldn't afford to repay the loan. Debts were being bundled into packages and resold as collateral debt obligations. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the Net Capital Rule of 2004 is still in play today. |
There are some people with that theory, which I mentioned.
The Net Capital Rule of 2004 encouraged risky behavior. Loans had been given out at triple the risk factors From 2003 to 2007 than in previous years.
Clinton's impact is debated, but the actual act you mentioned was unlikely to have caused a significant harm. First, it wasn't a mandate, but rather pressure. Second, it was an attempted reversal of redlining.
I am not of the opinion that the Clinton acts did much to contribute to the crisis, but they did create a situation where bailing out the banks was necessary.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 756
Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/22/19 4:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
1. The idea that she doesn't belong her, or should "go back to where she came from" is a dogwhistle suggesting that only white people belong in this country.
US law legally counts that as discrimination.
2. The idea that she would marry her brother is a xenophobic attack against Muslims. There are stereotypes of incestual relationships in the Muslim community, and suggesting that her first marriage was to her brother plays into that ideology.
3. As historians and concentration camp survivors agree - they are concentration camps. Why not try researching the definition and what is actually going on at the border.
|
1) You are taking the quote out of context and making a strawman argument out of it. No one is saying that only white people belong here.
2) It's not a xenophobic attack on Muslims. It's an accusation of fraud on her part.
3) If you were to speak to a real Holocaust survivor, they would condemn this behavior. That being said, I'm sure you can find some kook who will say anything. There is no comparison to this and Nazi Germany. I've done my research. Like who started this policy, and who else did nothing about it. As well as who IS trying to stop this (Donald Trump).
While we're on the topic, it's not hard to remember who created the asylum loophole to begin with. And who is closing it.
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Her marriages are a tad confusing, and there were certainly issues in her campaign (But Justice Democrats/Sanders struggle with keeping their donations straight..) finance and taxes, but Again, there is no evidence suggesting that she married her brother.
An allegation of rape or attempted rape is different. The evidence WAS Doctor Ford, and she was quite credible. There were multiple accusations against him, furthering the likelihood that she was credible.
|
Her marriages are confusing. And highly suspect.
What's stopping Ford from pressing charges right now? There's no statute of limitations in MD. Why didn't her friend corroborate her story? Whatever happened to Julie Swetnick?
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| Her life is now at risk and she needs increased security. |
I believe that has a lot less to do with the President's remarks and a lot more to do with her condemnation of Israel and her defense of the 9/11 hijackers, among other things she has said.
| mercfan3 wrote: |
| Super interesting that you can recognize the anti-Semitic dog whistles Omar allegedly used, considering the usage isn't prominent in American society, but where unable to recognize dog whistles like "urban areas" and "go back to where you came from." |
What is the urban areas comment all about? The President is trying to assist economically depressed cities and towns from what I've read. We'll have to see what he does. So you will have to explain this urban areas comment. With regards to go back to where you came from, you're taking that out of context.
|
|
|
|
