Sign in to follow this  
RKoch

Big upset in the Bronx.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, RKoch said:

There is little room between the two parties for a 'middle' party. We currently have a right of center party and an extreme right party. 

So you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RKoch said:

There is little room between the two parties for a 'middle' party. We currently have a right of center party and an extreme right party. 

So you & Sloops say - Are you certain that you're not just so far left that even the middle ground is frightening to you?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So you & Sloops say - Are you certain that you're not just so far left that even the middle ground is frightening to you?  

They're right.  Wall Street can do really well or amazingly well, depending on which party is in power.  They're on a roll now, which means that they will likely redline the engine and bluescreen the system again, after which working rubes will bail them out again, and surrender a bunch of their assets for upward redistribution.  The 1% always win, even when they lose.  "It's a club, and you ain't in it." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politicians and the politically connected making out like bandits at the expense of the people is a hallmark of big leftist governments. The right (I didn't say Republican) favors minimalist less intrusive government with less influence or ability to fleece the masses. Real rightists don't do bailouts.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

michael_ramirez_michael_ramirez_for_jul_05_2018_5_.jpg

So does Flint, Michigan and Puerto Rico. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck that Malarkey is an ignorant cunt. Pick the worst basket case he can find and use it as an illustration of the all.

What a pathetic maroon. Never even heard of Sweden FFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

michael_ramirez_michael_ramirez_for_jul_05_2018_5_.jpg

 

She prefers the Bolivia Example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

Politicians and the politically connected making out like bandits at the expense of the people is a hallmark of big leftist governments. The right (I didn't say Republican) favors minimalist less intrusive government with less influence or ability to fleece the masses. Real rightists don't do bailouts.

Jesus tittyfucking christ, are you on drugs?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

She prefers the Bolivia Example.

It's still the poorest country in South America in terms of GDP per capita.  It may have the fastest growing economy in the region but they still have a long way to go.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

michael_ramirez_michael_ramirez_for_jul_05_2018_5_.jpg

The last time I was in Sweden, Estonia and Finland socialism seemed to be working out just fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

 Never even heard of Sweden FFS.

The land of 50%-60% income taxes, and a 25% VAT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

So does Flint, Michigan and Puerto Rico. 

I wonder how many Venezuelans  would jump at the chance to live in either. Flint was just a whole lot of really stupid people not realizing they could solver their own problem that same day with a $20 carbon filter. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

I wonder how many Venezuelans  would jump at the chance to live in either. Flint was just a whole lot of really stupid people not realizing they could solver their own problem that same day with a $20 carbon filter. 

Do you know how that “problem” originated?  Folks were criminally charged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clove Hitch said:

The last time I was in Sweden, Estonia and Finland socialism seemed to be working out just fine

Do some more research. Sweden and Finland are not the utopias you obviously think they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its true that the USA does not understand how far right both their parties are in social terms.

European countries, the UK, NZ, Canada and Aus both swing regularly between their major parties conservative to liberal. Yet all have, and have had for decades working conditions and entitlements, social safety nets and health care services that you guys are still struggling to understand let alone implement.

Comes from isolation and being sheltered from the major impacts of two world wars IMHO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I think its true that the USA does not understand how far right both their parties are in social terms.

European countries, the UK, NZ, Canada and Aus both swing regularly between their major parties conservative to liberal. Yet all have, and have had for decades working conditions and entitlements, social safety nets and health care services that you guys are still struggling to understand let alone implement.

Comes from isolation and being sheltered from the major impacts of two world wars IMHO

Your opinion is worthless.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocasio just won another primary!  In a neighboring Bronx district, she got more Reform Party primary write-in votes than the democratic incumbent.

 

 

Rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wins primary in district she is not running in

Source: ABC News

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who scored a major political upset last month when she unseated powerful Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary for a New York City congressional seat, has also won the Reform Party primary as a write-in candidate in a different Bronx-based district over the incumbent Democratic, Rep. Jose Serrano. 


Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wins-primary-district-running/story?id=56499055 
 

 



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Ocasio just won another primary!  In a neighboring Bronx district, she got more Reform Party primary write-in votes than the democratic incumbent.

 

 

Rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wins primary in district she is not running in

Source: ABC News

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who scored a major political upset last month when she unseated powerful Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary for a New York City congressional seat, has also won the Reform Party primary as a write-in candidate in a different Bronx-based district over the incumbent Democratic, Rep. Jose Serrano. 


Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wins-primary-district-running/story?id=56499055 
 

 
 

 

as a write in? wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gutterblack said:

Jesus tittyfucking christ, are you on drugs?

If only.

Unfortunately that's the way he really is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

The last time I was in Sweden, Estonia and Finland socialism seemed to be working out just fine

Hopeless Jack Malarkey has never heard of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

as a write in? wow.

Without looking, I'll take a wild guess that this is another safe district just like the one in which she won.

Meaning, there hasn't been a primary there for a decade or more and the primary IS the general because of the safe seat thing, so... voters feel like they have no choice. Possibly because they have no choice.

This is why NOTA should be on every ballot. That's basically what the voters just said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Without looking, I'll take a wild guess that this is another safe district just like the one in which she won.

Meaning, there hasn't been a primary there for a decade or more and the primary IS the general because of the safe seat thing, so... voters feel like they have no choice. Possibly because they have no choice.

This is why NOTA should be on every ballot. That's basically what the voters just said.

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a pretty hard name to write in as a NOTA. They could have gone with something more easy like Tom, they chose her and made their intentions and support known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a pretty hard name to write in as a NOTA. They could have gone with something more easy like Tom, they chose her and made their intentions and support known.

It is a very specific NOTA and does indicate that they like her ideas.

I'd like her whole "print as much as you want" MMT idea too, if I thought it at all workable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

as a write in? wow.

It was a primary for the Reform Party. Probably a small number of voters. Still, it's rather remarkable since she wasn't running for that seat, and likely isn't eligible to serve that district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You - Ms. Ocasio-Cortez Goes to Washington!   

   ————————Starring a Cast of Tens of Trillions (of $$$$)!——————-

  • Free Healthcare for All!
  • Free Housing!
  • A Guaranteed Job!
  • No More Guns!
  • Abolish Ice (no more borders!)!
  • No More Gasoline, Diesel or Natural Gas!
  • Free Higher Education for All!
  • And a Supporting Cast of Trillions (of $$$$) More!

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396412-new-dem-star-to-rattle-dc-establishment

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 2:44 PM, J28 said:

Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You - Ms. Ocasio-Cortez Goes to Washington!   

   ————————Starring a Cast of Tens of Trillions (of $$$$)!——————-

  • Free Healthcare for All!
  • Free Housing!
  • A Guaranteed Job!
  • No More Guns!
  • Abolish Ice (no more borders!)!
  • No More Gasoline, Diesel or Natural Gas!
  • Free Higher Education for All!
  • And a Supporting Cast of Trillions (of $$$$) More!

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396412-new-dem-star-to-rattle-dc-establishment

 

 

From the article:

Quote

Ocasio-Cortez plans to hit the campaign trail for at least three other Democratic candidates in primary races this year who are backed by Justice Democrats, a PAC that supports progressives.

I wonder how that has been going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 2:44 PM, J28 said:

Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You - Ms. Ocasio-Cortez Goes to Washington!   

   ————————Starring a Cast of Tens of Trillions (of $$$$)!——————-

  • Free Healthcare for All!
  • Free Housing!
  • A Guaranteed Job!
  • No More Guns!
  • Abolish Ice (no more borders!)!
  • No More Gasoline, Diesel or Natural Gas!
  • Free Higher Education for All!
  • And a Supporting Cast of Trillions (of $$$$) More!

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396412-new-dem-star-to-rattle-dc-establishment

 

 

Haven’t you been paying attention?   Deficits don’t matter as long as billionaires get their tax cuts.   Trump and his Republicans may manage to double the Obama deficit by 2020..  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/02/09/trumps-federal-budget-deficit-1-trillion-and-beyond/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lark said:

Haven’t you been paying attention?   Deficits don’t matter as long as billionaires get their tax cuts.   Trump and his Republicans may manage to double the Obama deficit by 2020..  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/02/09/trumps-federal-budget-deficit-1-trillion-and-beyond/

It's not the tax cuts, revenues are up. It's the spending, the bastards (D and R) can't see beyond the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

It's not the tax cuts, revenues are up. It's the spending, the bastards (D and R) can't see beyond the next election.

And yet, the past two Democrats in the WH have been able to reduce the deficit during their terms, while each of the past 4 republicans have blown it through the roof. I've got a lot of bones to pick with the Democrats, but based on performance in office they are much better at fiscal responsibility than republicans. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RKoch said:

And yet, the past two Democrats in the WH have been able to reduce the deficit during their terms, while each of the past 4 republicans have blown it through the roof. I've got a lot of bones to pick with the Democrats, but based on performance in office they are much better at fiscal responsibility than republicans. 

Please....Obama added $10T to the debt. He cut the deficit yes, but from what it was in his own first year with that stupid stimulus. That's not fiscal responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dog said:

Please....Obama added $10T to the debt. He cut the deficit yes, but from what it was in his own first year with that stupid stimulus. That's not fiscal responsibility.

The total debt has risen nearly every year for decades. Deficit reduction is the rate at which it rises. Bush crashed the economy, which was only going to add to his massive deficits. Obama inherited that, restored the economy, and reduced the deficits. That's what he handed over to Trump, who is now trying to blow it up again. Your lying doesn't change the facts. There are no 'alt-facts'. The simple matter is that the republicans handle the economy like drunken sailors on shore leave. 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RKoch said:

The total debt has risen nearly every year for decades. Deficit reduction is the rate at which it rises. Bush crashed the economy, which was only going to add to his massive deficits. Obama inherited that, restored the economy, and reduced the deficits. That's what he handed over to Trump, who is now trying to blow it up again. Your lying doesn't change the facts. There are no 'alt-facts'. The simple matter is that the republicans handle the economy like drunken sailors on shore leave. 

Bullshit.... Obama only cut the deficit with respect to his own first year. He added as much debt as every one of his 43 predecessors combined.  Now some of that is debt service he inherited but then he left his successors with debt service on a debt twice the size of the one he inherited. You're right about Republican fiscal irresponsibility. You're wrong to believe Democrats are any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bullshit.... Obama only cut the deficit with respect to his own first year. He added as much debt as every one of his 43 predecessors combined.  Now some of that is debt service he inherited but then he left his successors with debt service on a debt twice the size of the one he inherited. You're right about Republican fiscal irresponsibility. You're wrong to believe Democrats are any better.

There you go doggy-styling again. Facts are facts, your made-up 'facts' are just flinging bullshit.

 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RKoch said:

There you go doggy-styling again. Facts are facts, your made-up 'facts' are just flinging bullshit.

 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Dude...You just proved my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dog said:

Dude...You just proved my point.

If your point is that Bush crashed the economy, and Obama managed to avoid Bush's Great Recession becoming  another Great Depression...yes I proved that. 

Recession = economic downturn. More unemployment, less consumer and business spending, less tax revenue. We were heading into the toilet. I gather you favored an economic collapse. The economy needed a jump-start, which was the stimulus package. I don't think it was ideal, as it was largely comprised of tax cuts, and more infrastructure and job creation was IMO a better plan. But republicans weren't going to go for that. But even with a less than ideal stimulus package Obama corrected Bush's fuckup and steered the economy back to health, which Trump is still riding (for the moment). Yes, it increased the deficit in order to restore the economy. The deficit was drastically reduced every single year thereafter....in fact, fastest deficit reduction rate in history. Think of what would have been possible without Bush's fucking things up in the first place.

Now a Trump is steering the economy towards the cliff. Many indicators are pointing that way. Again, Democrats will have to fix Republicans irresponsible 'leadership'. And again, you will complain and fling bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RKoch said:

If your point is that Bush crashed the economy, and Obama managed to avoid Bush's Great Recession becoming  another Great Depression...yes I proved that. 

Recession = economic downturn. More unemployment, less consumer and business spending, less tax revenue. We were heading into the toilet. I gather you favored an economic collapse. The economy needed a jump-start, which was the stimulus package. I don't think it was ideal, as it was largely comprised of tax cuts, and more infrastructure and job creation was IMO a better plan. But republicans weren't going to go for that. But even with a less than ideal stimulus package Obama corrected Bush's fuckup and steered the economy back to health, which Trump is still riding (for the moment). Yes, it increased the deficit in order to restore the economy. The deficit was reduced every single year thereafter. 

Obama exploded the deficit in 2009 and then claimed credit for cutting it in subsequent years. Don't be a dupe, the guy was a fiscal disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Obama exploded the deficit in 2009 and then claimed credit for cutting it in subsequent years. Don't be a dupe, the guy was a fiscal disaster.

Dog, why do you lie?

image.png.e1673d176451f03e5213be4aade71b85.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Dog, why do you lie?

image.png.e1673d176451f03e5213be4aade71b85.png

Another one citing a graph that proves my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Obama exploded the deficit in 2009 and then claimed credit for cutting it in subsequent years. Don't be a dupe, the guy was a fiscal disaster.

With the help of hindsight what would your remedy have been? What do you think would have happened if he did nothing ? What would have happened if he got to implement his plan without R opposition/demands/inputs? Do you think the GOP would have been better for the US at that moment ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Dog, why do you lie?

image.png.e1673d176451f03e5213be4aade71b85.png

Exactly. The deficit was already increasing under Bush. Obama stabilized the economy, which led to the deficit being reduced each year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dog said:

Another one citing a graph that proves my point.

That the deficit was going berserk under Bush's economic meltdown before Obama even took office? That Obama stabilized it and started reducing it? Yes to both. Facts don't lie. Only Dog lies.

Wiki:

The last year of Bush's second term was dominated by the Great Recession. GDP declined in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th quarters of 2008 by -2.7%, -1.9% and -8.2%, respectively. The recession officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, with the economy returning to consistent growth in Q3 2009,[3] although civilian employment did not return to its December 2007 peak until September 2014.[60]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

Another one citing a graph that proves my point.

Obama wasn't sworn into office until January 20, 2009. Why do you lie, Dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

Obama wasn't sworn into office until January 20, 2009. Why do you lie, Dog?

Because the facts are at odds with his agenda. So he makes up his own 'facts'. Hopefully he uses paper and washes his hands afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2007 (the U.S. government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (two months before Obama was elected and four months before he was sworn in) to fiscal 2009. It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and has increased in Trump’s first year in office.

  • Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
  • Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
  • Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year and in the teeth of the Recession)
  • Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
  • Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
  • Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
  • Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
  • Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
  • Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
  • Fiscal 2016: $587 billion
  • Fiscal 2017: $666 billion (Trump’s first year of his Presidency)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#13d966811917

 

1812830445_Screenshot(58).thumb.png.dea8209acac9d1b0995b79dabb89e21c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Obama wasn't sworn into office until January 20, 2009. Why do you lie, Dog?

Why do you falsly accuse people of lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

But the fiscal year runs until October. Why do you falsly accuse people of lying?

So even less of that exploding deficit is on the black guy's plate. The NBER says the GR ended in June 2009. Dog, why do you lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why has nothing bad ever happened? Deficits dont mean what you think they mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, VhmSays said:

The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2007 (the U.S. government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (two months before Obama was elected and four months before he was sworn in) to fiscal 2009. It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and has increased in Trump’s first year in office.

  • Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
  • Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
  • Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year and in the teeth of the Recession)
  • Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
  • Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
  • Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
  • Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
  • Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
  • Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
  • Fiscal 2016: $587 billion
  • Fiscal 2017: $666 billion (Trump’s first year of his Presidency)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#13d966811917

If those numbers are correct how did the debt increase by $9 trillion during Obama's eight years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VhmSays said:

With the help of hindsight what would your remedy have been? What do you think would have happened if he did nothing ? What would have happened if he got to implement his plan without R opposition/demands/inputs? Do you think the GOP would have been better for the US at that moment ?

Dog was fine with Bush's Great Recession turning into a Great Depression. Especially since he could blame the black guy who didn't take office until after it started. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

If those numbers are correct how did the debt increase by $9 trillion during Obama's eight years?

It was the cost to fix Bush's crashing the economy, cupcake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RKoch said:

Dog was fine with Bush's Great Recession turning into a Great Depression. Especially since he could blame the black guy who didn't take office until after it started. 

Ah the race card...The belief that conservatives are racist is bigoted...Fuck off bigot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Dog was fine with Bush's Great Recession turning into a Great Depression. Especially since he could blame the black guy who didn't take office until after it started. 

Why do you persist with this BS? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RKoch said:

It was the cost to fix Bush's crashing the economy, cupcake. 

Those deficits don't add up to the increase in the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Why do you persist with this BS? 

Because he's a bigot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn. I got called a bigot - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. Dog is however, correct in this. I am intolerant of his lying.

Dog, why do you lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Why do you persist with this BS? 

Because the lying Dog doesn't have a problem when a white Republican runs up the deficit and and crashes the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

Darn. I got called a bigot - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. Dog is however, correct in this. I am intolerant of his lying.

Dog, why do you lie?

No...I did not call you a bigot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Those deficits don't add up to the increase in the debt.

So you invented the figure. That figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RKoch said:

Because the lying Dog doesn't have a problem when a white Republican runs up the deficit and and crashes the economy.

You're a liar. I'm constantly critizing Republicans for their fiscal irresponsibility. 436

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

 He cut the deficit yes, but from what it was in his own first year with that stupid stimulus. That's not fiscal responsibility.

JFC you are a fucking imbecile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now who was president during the grey shaded region until Jan 2019? Dog, do you know the answer?

 

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Because the lying Dog doesn't have a problem when a white Republican runs up the deficit and and crashes the economy.

Of course, forgive me for being so dense as to not immediately recognize your ample justification for calling half the country racist bigots.  

You think that kinda shit is OK, and then wonder why there's so much animosity from the right to the left? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Now who was president during the grey shaded region until Jan 2019? Dog, do you know the answer?

 

image.jpeg

Convenient that your graph ends in 2016 isn't it. The latest projection for 2018 third quarter is 5%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course, forgive me for being so dense as to not immediately recognize your ample justification for calling half the country racist bigots.  

You think that kinda shit is OK, and then wonder why there's so much animosity from the right to the left? 

Nearly half the country voted for a racist bigot. They don't seem to have a problem with it. Some even run cars into crowds of people in celebration of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

Convenient that your graph ends in 2016 isn't it. The latest projection for 2018 third quarter is 5%.

Ooo, a 'projection'!!! Everybody is saying it, belief me.

care to answer the question, or are you going to deflect and bullshit as usual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RKoch said:

Nearly half the country voted for a racist bigot. They don't seem to have a problem with it. Some even run cars into crowds of people in celebration of it.

By some you mean one right? Others shoot up baseball teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

If those numbers are correct how did the debt increase by $9 trillion during Obama's eight years?

Educate yourself, don't just regurgitate Fox's spinning heads, give credit to Obama for pulling the US and with it most of the world out of the recession it was facing. This is a simple explanation of how the numbers are spun, which do you think is the most fair. Should Obama be accountable for the irrevocable costs his predecessors put in place?

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

By some you mean one right? Others shoot up baseball teams

Who was president when the economy nose-dived? Why are you ducking the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

By some you mean one right? Others shoot up baseball teams

Careful, or Jeff+Tom are going to give you a lecture on the importance of the 2A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Those deficits don't add up to the increase in the debt.

Compound interest on Vietnam, and every war sense.   Veterans benefits for all the guys that put it on the line in all those unnecessary wars,    Since we never pay a penny in principle and only part of the interest, we’re still paying for Reagan’s tax policy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lark said:

Compound interest on Vietnam, and every war sense.   Veterans benefits for all the guys that put it on the line in all those unnecessary wars,    Since we never pay a penny in principle and only part of the interest, we’re still paying for Reagan’s tax policy.  

The annual deficits should still add up the the accumulated debt over the period. As for debt service post Obama we are faced with debt service on $19T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

From the article:

Quote

Ocasio-Cortez plans to hit the campaign trail for at least three other Democratic candidates in primary races this year who are backed by Justice Democrats, a PAC that supports progressives.

I wonder how that has been going?

I guess no one has heard...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Pre$$ Corporation$ Not Welcome

They make people uncomfortable. Evil corporations are like that. So they must be excluded and not ask her any questions.

I was wondering if any of the usual (D) cheerleaders were going to mention it. I guess not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 3:32 AM, Dog said:

The annual deficits should still add up the the accumulated debt over the period. As for debt service post Obama we are faced with debt service on $19T.

Thanks to Trump and his view of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Pre$$ Corporation$ Not Welcome

They make people uncomfortable. Evil corporations are like that. So they must be excluded and not ask her any questions.

She is getting a lot of grief for this and deserves it. 

Oh, by the way dogballs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad idea. That's Trumpianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


So you haven't heard how the candidates for whom Cortez stumped did, huh?

Aw, alright. I'll spoil it. 100% defeat rate.

with a record like that she could be a Libertarian.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

with a record like that she could be a Libertarian.

Now that's funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


So you haven't heard how the candidates for whom Cortez stumped did, huh?

Aw, alright. I'll spoil it. 100% defeat rate.

Them Libertarians must be mopping the floor to get you this happy. You is a Libertarian? Right?

Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think her intent was to interact withconstituants without the distraction of a media circus. I don't think reporters taking notes were banned, just camera crews. Reporters could have also video interviewed any of the attendees outside afterwards.

I agree it was clumsily handled, she went from being a bartender to national political figure literally overnight. Bound to be a few stumbles. But a mountain is being made out of a mole hill by those with a vested interest in making sure the corporate establishment crushes the rise of any political figure center or left of center. We've seen it before with Bernie, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich,  and others. The center right will retain control of the Democratic Party at all costs...that's what they're paid to do. Winning elections is only a secondary role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
13 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:


So you haven't heard how the candidates for whom Cortez stumped did, huh?

Aw, alright. I'll spoil it. 100% defeat rate.

with a record like that she could be a Libertarian.

Indeed, and like characters such as Kucinich and Bernie, I expect I'll sometimes enjoy having her in Congress. Other times, not so much.

But the point of my post was that RKoch's guidance to go "hard left" for victory might well be comparable to "go libertarian" for victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites