« prev   random   next »

12
5

Trump is doing well so far

By someone else following x   2017 Apr 21, 10:08am 14,199 views   147 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


Ended TPP, rightly tried to limit Muslim terrorist visas, increased deportation of illegal illegals (did I mention that they are here illegally?), limited H1b visas which depress US wages.

Health care was too big to deal with so far, but that's far from over.

Still absolutely zero proof of any Russian involvement in Trump's election.

A little disappointed that he fired missiles at Syria in response to gas attacks which Syria probably did not commit, but politically it was brilliant, pointing out the hypocrisy of the press: they complained he was doing nothing about Assad, then he does something and they complain about that as well. Lol, proves the elitist press is indeed the opposition party and absolutely nothing will ever satisfy them. They have no credibility.

Also disappointed that he has not called out Saudi sponsorship of worldwide terrorism.

I give Trump 7 out of 10 for performance so far.

« First    « Previous    Comments 81 - 120 of 147    Next »    Last »

81   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 23, 5:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

Wrong. The one Dem got 48% of the vote. You can't logically explain why running 1 Republican candidate vs. 4 would cause more people to vote Republican. Because it's illogical.

Wow, this is basic math. Think about it. Let me try again:

The democrats coalesced against a DNC pick and all other non-nutjob candidates backed off. Then they deluged Ossoff with tons of Hollywood and Wall Street Money, $8.1M just for one election.

The Dems didn't go for a runoff in Georgia, they were in it to win more than 50% of the vote and get the seat in round one, knowing in advance they couldn't flip the district without the divided Republican field, and an extremely well-funded candidate who practically ran as a Republican, yet they still failed to win.

The new narrative is how their one candidate against two Republicans with double digit support and two more with just under 10%, but still not getting the required majority of them, is a victory.

joeyjojojunior says

Care to wager on that one? "destroyed" = lose by 10+ pts, right? Why don't you put some money on that one?

I'll put 10 "I told you sos" down on Ossoff losing the election (period).

joeyjojojunior says

Except it isn't. It's an indication of the current feeling of US voters. And based on the special elections to date, the country has a highly positive Dem bent.

But still can't get enough votes needed to win! (Political Science Academics and Researchers sometimes call this phenomenon "Losing").
joeyjojojunior says

Except it isn't. It's an indication of the current feeling of US voters. And based on the special elections to date, the country has a highly positive Dem bent.

Yep. Like losing Ohio by 8-points, and having Wisconsin (Dem since 1988) and Pennsylvania (since 1992) flip away from the Democrats?

Florida, that went for Obama twice?

Oh, in which post-November election did they win seats? In Kansas the Democrat was 7 points behind the replacement (not incumbent) Republican candidate. I call a 7-point spread a pretty strong margin of victory. Also, the only area that went for the Democrat was Witchita, with all the surrounding areas going Republican. Meaning, the already blue became "Bluer" - but that may not win new seats (or the 2020 Presidency).

joeyjojojunior says

Once again, I'll remind you that they won GA. by 30 pts. You somehow keep forgetting that one.

Nope. That was not a typical "most votes wins" election, he needed 50%+ to win. He'll have a normal majority wins election soon, and lose.

Booger says

Poll: 67% Of Americans Say The Democrats Are Out Of Touch With Their Concerns

Yep. Where Trannies urinate is less important than Jobs in Small Town USA. Who woulda thunk it? Don't these people understand that monoculturalism is a horrible disease that takes precedence over the Economic Conditions faced by the native Working Class? That not enough Women is STEM is a looming crisis?

82   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 23, 5:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

Are you admitting Trump's close relationship with Wall St.? Or are you still in the River in Egypt?

I doubt a Billionaire who spent $66M of his own money to run needs to kowtow to Wall Street.

You'll also notice he was greatly outraised by Hillary, whose well oiled machine sucked cash from Wall Street donors.

I provided you with evidence that Bankster Buddy Obama, who outraised McCain and had Citigroup and JP Morgan folks working on his transition team to pick key personnel.

Why couldn't Obama regulate Wall St.?

"Obama’s 2009 White House summit with finance titans, in which the president warned that only he was standing "between you and the pitchforks"
http://www.newsweek.com/why-cant-obama-bring-wall-street-justice-65009

83   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 23, 5:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Wow, this is basic math. Think about it. Let me try again:

It is basic math--not sure how you can't understand. 4 Republicans that represented the whole spectrum of Republican ideals got less than 52% of the vote, but somehow you think 1 candidate that represents a much smaller set of Republican views will get MORE votes? Really?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I'll put 10 "I told you sos" down on Ossoff losing the election (period).

And the backtracking has already started. I'm guessing it will continue as the election gets closer... Soon it will be--I never said he'd win, just that it will be close. Then--of course Ossoff won, I just can't believe how close it was...

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Yep. Like losing Ohio by 8-points, and having Wisconsin (Dem since 1988) and Pennsylvania (since 1992) flip away from the Democrats?

Florida, that went for Obama twice?

bwahahaha. Now you're talking about the Presidential election?? Try to keep up. We're talking about current sentiment--not 2016. Newsflash--things have changed a lot since Trump was inaugurated.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

But still can't get enough votes needed to win!

Once again--last I checked, 48 beats 19.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I call a 7-point spread a pretty strong margin of victory

Except the generic Republican typically wins by almost 30 pts. Dems outperformed the typical election by 20+ pts there.

84   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 23, 6:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Booger says

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/23/poll-67-of-americans-say-the-democrats-are-out-of-touch-with-their-concerns/

Poll: 67% Of Americans Say The Democrats Are Out Of Touch With Their Concerns

And 62% say Republicans are out of touch with their concerns.

85   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 23, 6:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

Last I checked, this was called LOSING

You ought to check again then. The candidate who gets the most votes in an election is called the winner. And wins the election. That's pretty much the definition of winning an election.

86   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 23, 6:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

It is basic math--not sure how you can't understand. 4 Republicans that represented the whole spectrum of Republican ideals

Versus one DINO triangulating Clintonista who failed to secure the much-advertised potential victory. In other words, Ossoff failed to win in the first round, which is likely his only chance of winning.

joeyjojojunior says

And the backtracking has already started. I'm guessing it will continue as the election gets closer... Soon it will be--I never said he'd win, just that it will be close. Then--of course Ossoff won, I just can't believe how close it was...

Zzzzzzzzz. @Patrick , want to note my bet for posterity? 10 for a win, I'll give JoeyJoeJoe 5 more if Ossoff wins by 3% or more if he takes it. I get no extras, even if Ossoff gets creamed by 5%+.

joeyjojojunior says

bwahahaha. Now you're talking about the Presidential election?? Try to keep up. We're talking about current sentiment--not 2016. Newsflash--things have changed a lot since Trump was inaugurated.

You were talking about the feelings of the country.

joeyjojojunior says

Except it isn't. It's an indication of the current feeling of US voters. And based on the special elections to date, the country has a highly positive Dem bent.

Context.

You may have missed it:

Just a few months ago, there was a big event called a General Election. These things happen only once every 4 years.

In the Presidential Race, the Democrats lost two long-time Democratic strongholds, as well as others like Florida that had gone twice for Obama.

In the Senate and House, the Democrats did far worse than their already modest expectations. The Republicans are about 50 seats up in the House, and 4 in the Senate. They lost another 3 State Governors, bringing the total Democratic Governors to a measly 15 of 50.

Since November 2016, there have been two special elections, Georgia and Kansas. Georgia we discussed - Ossoff did not win. In Kansas, the Democrat was beaten by 7 points, which goes into the "Loss" column. In the Summer of 2016, there was another Special Election for Bonerhead's seat, and the Republican again won handily.

That's the current feeling. Your long term trend is this:

Since 2009, the Democrats have lost 1,042 Senators, Representatives, Governorships, and State Legislature Seats, a byproduct of which was losing control of the House and Senate.

joeyjojojunior says

Once again--last I checked, 48 beats 19.

Yep, but only in a winner takes all election. It's funny how this is like the Republican Primary in Reverse; when Trump failed to win over 50% in some of those, but typically won by a substantial margin in a crowded field, the media, #NeverTrump, and the Dems was saying the exact opposite. See below.

joeyjojojunior says

Except the generic Republican typically wins by almost 30 pts. Dems outperformed the typical election by 20+ pts there.

Except this wasn't an ordinary "Winner take all election", so your numbers are totally out of context. If it was a normal election, it wouldn't be held in April, and you'd be dancing for joy as a 20+ margin of victory in a regular Congressional election (AFTER party primaries were ONE official candidate is chosen by the major parties) in a solid red district would be a huge shakeup, which it isn't and wasn't.

87   someone else   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 23, 7:15pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Patrick , want to note my bet for posterity? 10 for a win, I'll give JoeyJoeJoe 5 more if Ossoff wins by 3% or more if he takes it. I get no extras, even if Ossoff gets creamed by 5%+.

Sure, noted.

Patrick thinks about the possibilities of guaranteeing bets online...

88   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 23, 7:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rando says

Patrick thinks about the possibilities of guaranteeing bets online...

Yes. Bookie time.

89   Gary Anderson   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 23, 7:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Trump is a racist and sexist jerk. And he is failing because the powers that be won't let him spend money. And who knows, maybe they are right. He can't do a border tax because we are already close to a recession and labor is losing profit share of GDP already. Trump is a schmuck and a royal idiot. Or he thinks he is royal and is just an idiot.

90   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 23, 7:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Versus one DINO triangulating Clintonista who failed to secure the much-advertised potential victory. In other words, Ossoff failed to win in the first round, which is likely his only chance of winning.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. He has a better chance of winning the run-off than he ever did of winning the special election. Most knowledgeable people know that.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Zzzzzzzzz. @Patrick , want to note my bet for posterity? 10 for a win, I'll give JoeyJoeJoe 5 more if Ossoff wins by 3% or more if he takes it. I get no extras, even if Ossoff gets creamed by 5%+.

What happened to "destroying" Ossoff? You gave that up pretty quick, huh?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Yep, but only in a winner takes all election. It's funny how this is like the Republican Primary in Reverse; when Trump failed to win over 50% in some of those, but typically won by a substantial margin in a crowded field, the media, #NeverTrump, and the Dems was saying the exact opposite. See below.

It's actually nothing like that. The fact that you would pretend they are the same shows you don't understand what is going on at all. Ossoff may lose-it's a 50/50 proposition. If Trump had averaged 48% in the crowded primary field, I don't think anyone would have opined that he couldn't break 50% in a smaller field.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Except this wasn't an ordinary "Winner take all election", so your numbers are totally out of context. If it was a normal election, it wouldn't be held in April, and you'd be dancing for joy as a 20+ margin of victory in a regular Congressional election (AFTER party primaries were ONE official candidate is chosen by the major parties) in a solid red district would be a huge shakeup, which it isn't and wasn't.

Yep, but history has shown that these special elections can be predictive of the next mid-term elections. And these special election results are very ominous for Republicans.

91   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 23, 7:35pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I doubt a Billionaire who spent $66M of his own money to run needs to kowtow to Wall Street.

You doubt it? Is your head in the sand? It's happening in clear view of everyone as I write this. There is no need to speculate--just open your eyes.Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Why couldn't Obama regulate Wall St.?

Uh, he did.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704684604575381120852746164

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

As opposed to Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html?_r=0
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-plan-to-erase-obama-era-wall-street-rules-is-more-generous-than-even-banks-asked-for/2017/04/20/172326f2-25e9-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.0aa921bda730

"House Republicans are launching an aggressive effort to undo regulations put in place under President Barack Obama to rein in Wall Street, potentially offering the industry sweeping relief from dozens of rules"

Once again the truth is the exact opposite of what you believe.

92   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 23, 7:54pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Gary Anderson says

Trump is a racist and sexist jerk. And he is failing because the powers that be won't let him spend money. And who knows, maybe they are right. He can't do a border tax because we are already close to a recession and labor is losing profit share of GDP already. Trump is a schmuck and a royal idiot. Or he thinks he is royal and is just an idiot.

Hello Mr. Anderson. Welcome back. We missed your entertaining posts.
Nothing changed while you were gone. Muslims are still killing us, but we have started to hit back.

93   MMR   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 23, 7:59pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

Smart people peg it at about 50/50.

What did 'smart people' peg trump election odds at?

94   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 23, 8:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MMR says

What did 'smart people' peg trump election odds at?

About 33%.

95   AllTruth   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 23, 8:13pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

When Trump finally fails big, and is either arrested and/or impeached and/or ridden out of office on a rail, because of his gross incompetence, gross corruption, treason and malfeasance, I will take no joy, as it will be a sad day for all Americans (even ignorant Trump supporters) and a sad day for America that will confirm the huge set-back we're now enduring.

96   marcus   ignore (8)   2017 Apr 23, 9:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

MMR says

What did 'smart people' peg trump election odds at?

About 33%.

Many dImbulbs rightwingers will gleefully tell you that that means they were wrong.

97   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Apr 23, 9:22pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rando says

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Patrick , want to note my bet for posterity? 10 for a win, I'll give JoeyJoeJoe 5 more if Ossoff wins by 3% or more if he takes it. I get no extras, even if Ossoff gets creamed by 5%+.

Sure, noted.

Patrick thinks about the possibilities of guaranteeing bets online...

What year is this, 2006?

The same 2006 when I was making bank using online betting exchanges with penny vig? Legally?

Oh yea, that was before the Republican President signed The Republican Safe Port Act into law, with the all important and urgent UIGEA rider which squashed that whole deal.

You Republican half-wits just love trading away My Liberty, for your Temporary Security.

You deserve what is coming, but do I?

Republican lawmakers and presidents are here from the government, and they're here to help, right guys?

WAKE THE FUCK UP

98   Quigley   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 24, 8:25am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Errc, you're what we like to call a single issue voter. Some people from the Bible Belt are that way on abortion or gay marriage. You're concerned about pot and that's pretty much it. I consider it a peripheral issue, important but not critical to national politics. Looking at the big picture, we are still ahead with shutting down the Islamist invasion and rolling back regressive policies implemented by Obummer.

99   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Apr 24, 8:41am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Quigley, you are what we (we? How many of you are there?) like to call the willfully ignorant and confused poster. I vote on all issues, the least of many important include "pot". Most importantly I vote on Constitutional Rights like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This includes Healthcare as the most important one, and protecting the Individual from being harmed by Republican Fascist legislation like Obamacare which was penned by Republicans at The Heritage Foundation, and supported by almost all Republicans.

100   P N Dr Lo R   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 24, 8:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

Gorsuch on the Supreme Court?

A wonderful thing. An able and competent jurist.

101   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Apr 24, 8:55am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

P N Dr Lo R says

errc says

Gorsuch on the Supreme Court?

A wonderful thing. An able and competent jurist.

Maybe. If you were a corporation that loves Sharia, hates Freedom, and loathes the Constitution .

However, you seem to be merely a person, so you ought be protesting his appointment out of a healthy fear of Corporations causing you harm without any recourse.

102   Gary Anderson   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 24, 9:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says

Hello Mr. Anderson. Welcome back. We missed your entertaining posts.

Nothing changed while you were gone. Muslims are still killing us, but we have started to hit back.

I see nothing has changed. You are still racist.

103   Gary Anderson   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 24, 9:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

Hey Gary, you're back after a 2 month hiatus, how was your stay in the loonie bin??

My blood pressure went down. But the fascists in power are still a threat to all of us. Let's hope they are corralled in by congress. Even congressional leaders from border states think the wall is a huge waste of money and offensive to Mexico. Did you know Mexico possesses the capability of creating a nuclear weapon? It isn't too funny once you know that.

104   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 24, 9:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. He has a better chance of winning the run-off than he ever did of winning the special election. Most knowledgeable people know that.

So Ossoff won the seat already? But then why are you talking about a run-off, then? Good luck winning a district that's been solid red since the late 70s.

As for a higher chance of winning, that's the exact opposite of what the understanding was both before the election by everybody on all sides, and still the opposite of what most are predicting. The people who are saying Ossoff has a hoot in hell in the run-off are partisan Democrats.

joeyjojojunior says

What happened to "destroying" Ossoff? You gave that up pretty quick, huh?

Are you taking this generous bet or not? Non-General elections tend to favor the party that's not in power. I know there are exta superduper Butthurt Lefties out there, and they may come out in far higher numbers. But the Republican will still win.

joeyjojojunior says

It's actually nothing like that. The fact that you would pretend they are the same shows you don't understand what is going on at all. Ossoff may lose-it's a 50/50 proposition. If Trump had averaged 48% in the crowded primary field, I don't think anyone would have opined that he couldn't break 50% in a smaller field.

joeyjojojunior says

Yep, but history has shown that these special elections can be predictive of the next mid-term elections. And these special election results are very ominous for Republicans.

Yep, but there's no sign of that in the past two special elections. Both democratic attempts were beaten off handily in Kansas and Ohio. In Georgia,
Price won his district by 24% in November, before he resigned.
Mere months ago.

105   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 24, 9:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Gary Anderson says

Even congressional leaders from border states think the wall is a huge waste of money and offensive to Mexico. Did you know Mexico possesses the capability of creating a nuclear weapon? It isn't too funny once you know that.

LOL. So if we build the wall, they will nuke us. ROFL.

106   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 24, 9:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Gary Anderson says

Strategist says

Hello Mr. Anderson. Welcome back. We missed your entertaining posts.


Nothing changed while you were gone. Muslims are still killing us, but we have started to hit back.

I see nothing has changed. You are still racist.

Oops. Did I say Muslims? I meant the Jews and the Buddhists. Sorry.

107   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 24, 10:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

Bahahahahahahahahahaa, Frank the Forever Buddy of Wall Street. Still haven't finalized the regulations, which were all red tape that dindu nothin' and were designed to not to jack shit.

What's Timothy Geitner doing these days?

Cash in now, honey, Cash in nowwwww.... Cash in now Baby... Oh Oh Oh...

Timmuh became President of Warburg Pincus. Jack Lew came from Citigroup. Those were Obama's two Treasury Secretaries. Lew went on to become Citigroup's Chief of Staff to help 'guide' Obama.
joeyjojojunior says

Once again the truth is the exact opposite of what you believe.

Elizabeth Warren doesn't agree. She says Banks are BIgger and more risk prone than they were before 2008. Must have been those 8 years of Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/elizabeth-warren-obama-banks
http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/elizabeth-warren-wells-fargo-lehman-banks-jail/

True or False: Obama's Administration had a horrible record of prosecuting financial crimes.

108   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 24, 10:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Good luck winning a district that's been solid red since the late 70s."

I know!! That shows just how far the country's sentiment has changed in the first 100 days of Trump's administration. Dems have a 50/50 chance of winning a SOLID Republican district. That's why Republicans are freaking out about the midterms.

"As for a higher chance of winning, that's the exact opposite of what the understanding was both before the election by everybody on all sides, and still the opposite of what most are predicting. The people who are saying Ossoff has a hoot in hell in the run-off are partisan Democrats."

Except I already posted a link showing you that you are full of crap.

"Yep, but there's no sign of that in the past two special elections. Both democratic attempts were beaten off handily in Kansas and Ohio. In Georgia,
Price won his district by 24% in November, before he resigned. Mere months ago."

Exactly!!!!!! Isn't it amazing that this SOLID red district is now a toss up?? Dems have gained 20+ pts in both GA and KS districts. Republican Congressmen must be crapping their pants right about now. A 20 point swing in sentiment should translate to about 100 seat gain for Dems in 2018.

Now, granted, that's unlikely to happen. But Dem takeover of the House is certainly possible.

109   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 24, 10:05am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Still waiting for all of Trump's Wall St. regulation. Oh wait--he is DE-REGULATING.

If you thought Obama wasn't tough enough on banks/Wall St.--why the hell did you vote for the guy who is bending over for them night and day?

110   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Apr 24, 10:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why didn't the Democrats reinstate Glass-Steagall in 2009 when they controlled both Houses and the Presidency - they had a clear mandate after the 2008 Election?

-------------

Why haven't your beloved Republicans reinstated G-S?

What have you Republican Sharia jihadists done with your mandate? Why not address Terrorism, which everyone knows begins and ends in Saudi Arabia?

111   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 24, 10:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

Still waiting for all of Trump's Wall St. regulation. Oh wait--he is DE-REGULATING.

Why didn't Obama have a horrible record for prosecuting Financial Crimes during his two terms? The lowest number of prosecutions of white collar crimes in 20 years, after one of the greatest financial disasters - and the greatest Taxpayer Bailout - in World History. It should have been 10x the normal prosecutions.

http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/398/

Jaime Dimon is not in jail but still running the same bank he did during the crisis.

We might never know why Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general, chose to let Wall Street off the hook with just a proverbial slap on the wrist. After six years as attorney general and a short break after leaving government last year, he recently rejoined his old Wall Street law firm, Covington & Burling, in Washington as a partner focused on litigation, complex investigations and regulatory matters.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/business/dealbook/a-clue-to-the-scarcity-of-financial-crisis-prosecutions.html

We know why Failing New York Times, and so do you. Could it maybe, just possibly, be that Holder came from a Legal Firm whose specialty is white collar crimes, and went right back after leaving? Could it possibly be the big meeting Obama had with Big Banks in early 2009, when he told them he was the only thing between them and the mob. Then he launched a Health Care Insurance Company Subsidy to distract from regulating and prosecuting Wall Street.

Elizabeth Warren Certainly wasn't happy about Obama's track record.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/elizabeth-warren-obama-banks
http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/elizabeth-warren-wells-fargo-lehman-banks-jail/

112   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Apr 24, 10:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Are we talking about Obama or Trump here?

I thought Trump is the President

113   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 24, 10:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Like I said--if cracking down on Wall St. and the banks was one of issues you based your vote on, why did you pick the guy exponentially worse than Obama?

114   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 24, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

Like I said--if cracking down on Wall St. and the banks was one of issues you based your vote on, why did you pick the guy exponentially worse than Obama?

Let's say Trump and Obama are equally bad. What was the other choice to Regulate Wall Street?

HILLARY CLINTON!?!?!?!?! LOL hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha Snoort hahahahahaha
Bill Weld and the Libertarians ??? hahahahahah

115   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 24, 10:23am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

NYT Times over election day:

116   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 24, 10:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Let's say Trump and Obama are equally bad. What was the other choice to Regulate Wall Street?"

You mean, let's lie and pretend they are the same? One regulated Wall St and banks. One is deregulating Wall St. and the banks.

Under no possible conditions could anyone ever say those two statements are the same.

117   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (4)   2017 Apr 24, 10:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

Why didn't the Democrats reinstate Glass-Steagall in 2009 when they controlled both Houses and the Presidency - they had a clear mandate after the 2008 Election?

Errc, why did the Democrats win in 2008?

Why did they lose in 2009?

118   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 24, 10:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Clearly the media didn't understand probabilities, dependent variables, and typical margins of errors in Presidential polling.

538 gave Trump ~34% chance of winning. Which was correct.

119   Strategist   ignore (2)   2017 Apr 24, 10:33am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says

About 33%.

Many dImbulbs rightwingers will gleefully tell you that that means they were wrong.

When probabilities are used, both sides are always right. Then who loses?

120   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 24, 10:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Really??? Is that why they were oversampling by YYuuggee margins to try and keep Hillary in the lead in the polls??"

They weren't oversampling as you have been shown over and over. I'm afraid it's a bit too complicated for you to understand.

"Nate was WRONG throughout the complete election cycle, to keep using him as your "benchmark" is foolish."

Nate's opinion that Trump would melt down was wrong. Nate's models, however, were very good and his predictions based on them were well done.

« First    « Previous    Comments 81 - 120 of 147    Next »    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions