Trump Spells End of Republican Party And Beginning Of Long-Overdue Realignment
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
I agree. These guys are masters of spin. Guilt by association and lies of omission to smear trumps agenda.
no one can... it requires modeling and modeling is a guess based on limited inputs... so not only is the model limited its inputs are necessarily created according to the bias of the tuner of the model.
no one can say for sure what the economy would have really been like had the tax cuts or tax increases not been made. There are almost infinite permutations and variables that could and do impact the economy.
For instance... we don't even know what consumer confidence would have been had the tax cuts or hikes not been made. Would the consumers have still shopped in the same manner. Would wall street have reacted the same... would investments have been made in startups? Would interest rates have been lower or higher.
For instance would builders have started as much new construction in anticipation of consumers having more or less money in theor pocket? what if interest rates go in the opposite direction of the hike or cut or the opposite way than they did move in real life? Would things actually depend on the the interest rate outlook and not the move itself?
no one can say for sure what the economy would have really been like had the tax cuts or tax increases not been made. There are almost infinite permutations and variables that could and do impact the economy.
For instance... we don't even know what consumer confidence would have been had the tax cuts or hikes not been made. Would the consumers have still shopped in the same manner. Would wall street have reacted the same... would investments have been made in startups? Would interest rates have been lower or higher.
For instance would builders have started as much new construction in anticipation of consumers having more or less money in theor pocket? what if interest rates go in the opposite direction of the hike or cut or the opposite way than they did move in real life? Would things actually depend on the the interest rate outlook and not the move itself?
Last edited:
It's hard to believe they could be this clueless, but Roger Stone claims the party hacks are planning to pull out all the stops to block Trump. It's almost like they secretly work for Hillary. Given the amount of money foreign governments have invested in her, it is certainly possible that the Saudis et al have bought off the party insiders to make sure she gets in.
Anyway, Stone lays out a chilling series of possibilities. http://www.infowars.com/how-the-gop-elite-plan-to-rob-donald-trump/
Anyway, Stone lays out a chilling series of possibilities. http://www.infowars.com/how-the-gop-elite-plan-to-rob-donald-trump/
Convention chairman and amnesty backer Paul Ryan has confirmed the likelihood of a "contested convention, ie an organized attempt to steal the nomination from Trump. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/273417-ryan-contested-convention-looking-more-likely
The leftwing media are signaling to the republicans that they will have their backs when they try to steal it from Trump. Consider this editorial from the Amazon Post, oops I mean Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4399d4-eb9c-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html
Here is an excerpt to give you an idea what passes for rational thinking these days among liberals:
"No, Mr. Trump must be stopped because he presents a threat to American democracy. Mr. Trump resembles other strongmen throughout history who have achieved power by manipulating democratic processes. Their playbook includes a casual embrace of violence; a willingness to wield government powers against personal enemies; contempt for a free press; demonization of anyone who is not white and Christian; intimations of dark conspiracies; and the propagation of sweeping, ugly lies. Mr. Trump has championed torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He has flirted with the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists. He has libeled and stereotyped wide swaths of humanity, including Mexicans and Muslims. He considers himself exempt from the norms of democratic contests, such as the release of tax returns, policy papers, lists of advisers and other information that voters have a right to expect."
Trump has "flirted" with the KKK and other white supremacists? Seriously? Actually change white to black and this denunciation would be a fair summary of Obama's presidency.
After sliming Trump with a series of lies, they get to the meat of it:
"Does a respect for democracy require the Republican Party to anoint its leading vote-getter? Hardly. We are not advocating that rules be broken but that they be employed to maximum effect — to force a brokered convention and nominate a conservative candidate who respects the Constitution, or to defeat Mr. Trump in some other way. If Mr. Trump is attracting 40 percent of Republicans, who in turn represent about one-quarter of the country, that is a 10 percent slice of the population — hardly a mantle of legitimacy."
The title of this editorial says it all "To defend out democracy against Trump, the GOP must aim for a brokered convention." So democracy has to be defended against the guy who got by far the most votes? Interesting approach. Further on in the editorial they allude to their real concern, as unthinkable as it is, Trump might just win, thus confirming Obama's dismal opinion of the American public. So it's better that the republican party destroy itself, but do it to defend democracy that will be threatened if Trump gets the most votes. Make sense to you?
The leftwing media are signaling to the republicans that they will have their backs when they try to steal it from Trump. Consider this editorial from the Amazon Post, oops I mean Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...4399d4-eb9c-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html
Here is an excerpt to give you an idea what passes for rational thinking these days among liberals:
"No, Mr. Trump must be stopped because he presents a threat to American democracy. Mr. Trump resembles other strongmen throughout history who have achieved power by manipulating democratic processes. Their playbook includes a casual embrace of violence; a willingness to wield government powers against personal enemies; contempt for a free press; demonization of anyone who is not white and Christian; intimations of dark conspiracies; and the propagation of sweeping, ugly lies. Mr. Trump has championed torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He has flirted with the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists. He has libeled and stereotyped wide swaths of humanity, including Mexicans and Muslims. He considers himself exempt from the norms of democratic contests, such as the release of tax returns, policy papers, lists of advisers and other information that voters have a right to expect."
Trump has "flirted" with the KKK and other white supremacists? Seriously? Actually change white to black and this denunciation would be a fair summary of Obama's presidency.
After sliming Trump with a series of lies, they get to the meat of it:
"Does a respect for democracy require the Republican Party to anoint its leading vote-getter? Hardly. We are not advocating that rules be broken but that they be employed to maximum effect — to force a brokered convention and nominate a conservative candidate who respects the Constitution, or to defeat Mr. Trump in some other way. If Mr. Trump is attracting 40 percent of Republicans, who in turn represent about one-quarter of the country, that is a 10 percent slice of the population — hardly a mantle of legitimacy."
The title of this editorial says it all "To defend out democracy against Trump, the GOP must aim for a brokered convention." So democracy has to be defended against the guy who got by far the most votes? Interesting approach. Further on in the editorial they allude to their real concern, as unthinkable as it is, Trump might just win, thus confirming Obama's dismal opinion of the American public. So it's better that the republican party destroy itself, but do it to defend democracy that will be threatened if Trump gets the most votes. Make sense to you?
So much fuss over a guy who they (Democrats) say doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of defeating Hillary in the general.?.
Trump did say he'd unite both parties, but i don't think he had in mind the establishments "Old Guard" of both united against him.
Been saying it for a very long time. The powers that be appoint who they want, give the people an illusion of choice in a rigged game pretending that a persons vote actually means something, and then they crown the already predetermined victor. This time around it's not going to be so easy for them to pull off this shell game, so they're just going to come out from behind the curtain and do it right in the light of day. Sadly, an extremely high percentage of Americans still won't have a problem with it. The United States political system is in need of a full flush enema.
I think enough people will have a problem with it that the republicans will be finished. The only way they can get elected now is to lie to us about their true agenda and try to frighten us with how awful the alternative is. Well, if they are ok with Hillary or a democrat-lite republican, why do we need them?
Trump is drawing 40% or so of primary voters. If a small percentage of them are pissed off enough to stay home or vote for the democrat out of spite, most republican officeholders will be toast. Honestly they may be toast anyway, given the mood of the electorate.
Consider what would have happened on the democrat side if Hillary had faced credible opposition and not a nut case like Bernie.
^"Consider what would have happened on the democrat side if Hillary had faced credible opposition and not a nut case like Bernie."
Indeed. Only proving my point. We get the illusion of choice.
Indeed. Only proving my point. We get the illusion of choice.
I was listening to fox (I ceased watching them on television) on the radio as I was driving my wifes car this morning. I heard the women talking head ask a question about the convention... and then she awkwardly said something about watching how candidates who were not the vote getters could be chosen as the nominee and that it was "democracy in action".
It was such a piece of bullshit it was obvious someone was telling her to say that as either a trial balloon or a plan.
It was such a piece of bullshit it was obvious someone was telling her to say that as either a trial balloon or a plan.