patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
10,855 registered users, 3 online now: lebowski522, No news is good news, Patrick
public post private group chat

Trump is doing well so far

  share

By Patrick   Apr 21, 10:08am   ↑ like (8)   ↓ dislike (4)   1 link   1,830 views   112 comments   watch (0)   quote  

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 73-112 of 112     Last »

73   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 4:49pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick says

Trump could do more to contain health care costs in 10 minutes on TV than anything Obama did (did Obama do anything at all to limit health care costs?) by simply demanding that all bills for non-emergency medical care be presented in advance of treatment. C'mon Trump! Do it!

How would that do anything? Patients only care about what insurance won't cover, copays, etc.

74   Strategist   937/939 = 99% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 4:51pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

YEP! I prefer a politician who made his money before he took office, rather than after. Right Clinton and Blair?

That is a not a very good argument as rich people often are the most greedy.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest and they are giving away almost everything they have.
Trump has a big ego. He wants fame and fortune. He has a fortune, but what better way to get fame than by being the world's most powerful man. Even better if he goes down in history as someone who achieved major change for the better.

75   marcus   418/419 = 99% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 4:52pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick says

but he represents something Obama completely failed at: hope and change. Obama instantly got on his knees and aggressively sucked banker dick for 8 years straight.

Trump sucks corporate and banker dick better than any President ever.

Who knows, considering the amount of debt he has defaulted on and borrowed agiain, I'm not convinced that he's not beholden to citibank at an entirely different level than we've ever seen before.

The extent to which the banks own our government has not changed the slightest bit under Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html?_r=0

President Trump on Friday moved to chisel away at the Obama administration’s legacy on financial regulation, announcing steps to revisit the rules enacted after the 2008 financial crisis and to back away from a measure intended to protect consumers from bad investment advice.

After a White House meeting with executives from Wall Street, Mr. Trump signed a directive aimed at the Dodd-Frank Act, crafted by the Obama administration and passed by Congress in response to the 2008 meltdown. He also signed a memorandum that paves the way for reversing a policy, known as the fiduciary rule, that requires brokers to act in a client’s best interest, rather than seek the highest profits for themselves, when providing retirement advice.

The executive order affecting Dodd-Frank is vague in its wording and expansive in its reach. It never mentions the law by name, instead laying out “core principles” for regulations that include empowering American investors and enhancing the competitiveness of American companies. Even so, it gives the Treasury the authority to restructure major provisions of Dodd-Frank, and it directs the Treasury secretary to make sure existing laws align with administration goals.

76   Booger   219/219 = 100% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 4:54pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

How would that do anything? Patients only care about what insurance won't cover, copays, etc.

People would go to the lower cost providers. Most people do pay a percentage of the cost.

77   Strategist   937/939 = 99% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 5:10pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Booger says

joeyjojojunior says

How would that do anything? Patients only care about what insurance won't cover, copays, etc.

People would go to the lower cost providers. Most people do pay a percentage of the cost.

The lower cost providers are all out of the country. You can go to Singapore, Thailand or India to have elective surgeries done at 10% of the cost.
I had a torn meniscus removed and the total cost was a ridiculous $20,000 or something. My share was a ridiculous $3,000. We would all save money if healthcare was allowed to be outsourced.

78   Dan8267   1846/1867 = 98% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 5:21pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Another one of Trump's Kept Promises: Get a Conservative SCOTUS judge appointed.

Yeah, but that's not a good promise.

79   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 5:51pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Strategist says

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest and they are giving away almost everything they have.

Unfortunately, we didn't elect either of them.

80   Lashkar_i_Trumpi   787/787 = 100% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 6:12pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

marcus says

Trump sucks corporate and banker dick better than any President ever.

Really? Obama had Citigroup Executives vet it's cabinet picks. That same executive - Michael Froman - went on to become Chief Trade negotiator. Including of TPP.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190

Word document of potential nominees for Froman's feedback under the attachment tab. Keep in mind the date, a month before the election -- and on the heels of the financial crisis which was Fresh at the time.

So beautiful that Citigroup's American Family Fucking TPP is up in smoke.

81   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 6:24pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Really? Obama had Citigroup Executives vet it's cabinet picks. That same executive - Michael Froman - went on to become Chief Trade negotiator. Including of TPP.

Do you know what the word "vet" means? He absolutely did not have Citigroup vet anything. Froman made a list of people that had been suggested by others. Whoop di doo. That fact that you attribute something nefarious here shows how far off the reservation you are.

82   Lashkar_i_Trumpi   787/787 = 100% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 6:53pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

Do you know what the word "vet" means?

I'm sorry, I put it backwards, my bad. Here's the correction:
Froman was giving lists of Citigroup approved potential cabinet members, after considering Diversity requirements, to John Podesta.

Who was Obama's Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff?

Was it Ralph Nader?

Nefarious? Why is Honest Obama Staffers even talking with Citigroup about cabinet members a month before the election?

Did he ask Occupy Wall Street's opinion? Ask the public generally? LOL.

joeyjojojunior says

Do you know what the word "vet" means? He absolutely did not have Citigroup vet anything. Froman made a list of people that had been suggested by others. Whoop di doo. That fact that you attribute something nefarious here shows how far off the reservation you are.

Speaking of off the reservation, how many special elections to Congress have the Democrats won?

Let's see, lost a 4 way race in Georgia, lost by 7 points big league in Ohio, lost in Kansas....

83   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   Apr 22, 7:31pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I'm sorry, I put it backwards, my bad. Here's the correction:

Froman was giving lists of Citigroup approved potential cabinet members, after considering Diversity requirements, to John Podesta.

Nope. He was summarizing a list of people that had been suggested by others and putting it on paper so the Obama team could look it over.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Speaking of off the reservation, how many special elections to Congress have the Democrats won?

Let's see, lost a 4 way race in Georgia, lost by 7 points big league in Ohio, lost in Kansas....

Actually, the Dems won the 4 way race in Georgia by like 30 pts. Dems have outperformed by about 20 pts over 2014. If all Dems perform as well in 2018 as the last special elections, they will take over the house in the midterms. There are 46 districts with Republican incumbents that are more Dem friendly than the GA district where Dems just won by 30 pts.

84   Lashkar_i_Trumpi   787/787 = 100% civil   private mesage   9:55am today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

Nope. He was summarizing a list of people that had been suggested by others and putting it on paper so the Obama team could look it over.

... on his official Citigroup email.

What's Citigroup's email policy on using corporate email for political purposes? Unless, of course, it's part of his job description.

Who are these "Others"? Most likely bankster colleagues. He's not hanging out with janitors and cops.

joeyjojojunior says

Actually, the Dems won the 4 way race in Georgia by like 30 pts. Dems have outperformed by about 20 pts over 2014. If all Dems perform as well in 2018 as the last special elections, they will take over the house in the midterms. There are 46 districts with Republican incumbents that are more Dem friendly than the GA district where Dems just won by 30 pts.

They lost all the races. They will lost the final Georgia contest by several points, despite big money contributors pouring in millions from NY and California banks and insurance companies and Hollywood. I think in Kansas they lost by a wider margin than normal.

The number of Governors and legislatures controlled by Democrats is at a major low and keeps dropping.
They have no talent pool, no farm team stars.

I also heard this was the first time since WW2 that no County that voted Republican for President voted for a Democrat Representative in the South.

85   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   1:42pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

They lost all the races

Last I checked, 48 is more than 19 unless they've changed the numbering system. That is called a huge win. Yes, there will be a run-off, but you are delusional if you think it's a more than a 50/50 shot for Rs. Dems got 48% of the vote with 4 opponents. You think it's impossible that they peel off 2% of one of the losing Reps voters? And, like I said, that's a solid R district. There are 46 districts that are much less solid for Reps.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

What's Citigroup's email policy on using corporate email for political purposes?

Yes, I'm sure that's the first time a personal email was ever sent from a work account. Give it up.

86   Lashkar_i_Trumpi   787/787 = 100% civil   private mesage   3:01pm today  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

Last I checked, 48 is more than 19 unless they've changed the numbering system. That is called a huge win. Yes, there will be a run-off, but you are delusional if you think it's a more than a 50/50 shot for Rs. Dems got 48% of the vote with 4 opponents. You think it's impossible that they peel off 2% of one of the losing Reps voters? And, like I said, that's a solid R district. There are 46 districts that are much less solid for Reps.

This was a special election. Now there will be a runoff. Everybody expects Ossoff to lose by at least 3 pts, if not more. Had there been a primary first between party nominees, Ossoff would have been beaten, I think, by about 5-7 points.

Democrats failed to win in seats that were far more purple in Ohio and Kansas than almost 40 years of unbroken republicans in GA-6 from Newt Gingrich in 1979 to Tom Price who just resigned to be in the Trump Administration.

Middle America is turning it's back on Democrats. Throwing money from richy-rich Coastal city donors to suburban, rural, and rustbelt towns is not going to solve the problem.

What are the Democrats doing to change their platform?

joeyjojojunior says

Yes, I'm sure that's the first time a personal email was ever sent from a work account. Give it up.

Yeah, okay. If you're so gullible as to believe he wasn't the Citigroup point of contact with the Obama Campaign. There's more than one email from Froman, including working with an Obama legal team to assess FEC, SEC, CFTC, and other regulators and assessing Department Leadership candidates. And it's clear this isn't personal : The focus of most of his emails is on Financial Regulators.

"Oh, I'm going to send personal political emails to my friends in the Obama campaign and provide suggestions and feedback on Financial Regulators just for fun. It has NOTHING to do with Citigroup."

Real individuals would be like "Podesta, thank you for your email thanking Citigroup and myself for our big donations. Just wanted to say I love Obama's abortion stance."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3560

Who was Obama's Treasury Sec. and Chief of Staff again?

Jack Lew, former Citigroup Executive.

And that man replaced whom? Oh, another Obama Chief of Staff, another executive, but that one connected to JP Morgan.

Hate to bust your bubble but the Democrats are deep in the stink with Wall Street. It's no surprise Obama failed to regulate the big Wall Street donors who put him in.

87   Lashkar_i_Trumpi   787/787 = 100% civil   private mesage   3:18pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Also, what a surprise Froman becomes US chief negotiator on Trade Deals, all of which have serious benefits for Citigroup. Pure Coincidence!

Here are the 352 emails mentioning Froman in Podesta's Emails from 2008 to 2016. Pretty much an email a week regarding Froman. The oldest one is detailing thank you acknowledgements to be sent by the Campaign for assisting in a NY Breakfast Meeting with many Wall Street Players. Froman gets a handwritten one from Podesta and the suggestion to send a signed book from Campaign-affiliated Authors.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=Froman&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=2#searchresult

Here's the second oldest email, with Froman being given a detailed timetable for transition and other personnel picks for the Obama administration:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57036

Click on the attachment tabs. A sample:

If Froman is just a donor, why is he getting all this "sensitive" insider info?

And if he was just a donor, why was he soon appointed Chief Trade Negotiator?

88   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   3:40pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

This was a special election

Yep, it was a special election in which Dems creamed the Reps.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Everybody expects Ossoff to lose by at least 3 pts, if not more

No, they actually don't. Smart people peg it at about 50/50.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/5-takeaways-from-the-georgia-6-special-election-results/

Which is, of course, logical. With 4 candidates, Rep were able to appeal to folks all over the spectrum. With only one candidate it would not be unusual for the Dems to pull in another 2%. It's not like the Dem candidate only got 30% the first time--he got 48%. He only needs 2% more to win.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Democrats failed to win in seats that were far more purple in Ohio and Kansas than almost 40 years of unbroken republicans in GA-6 from Newt Gingrich in 1979 to Tom Price who just resigned to be in the Trump Administration.

What are you talking about? That Kansas seat was one of reddist in Congress. Dems gained 20+ pts in the special election. If they perform nationally like they did in the KS special election, it will be a HUGE Dem rout. They will pick up 100+ seats

a href="/?p=1305242&c=1402056#comment-1402056">Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Hate to bust your bubble but the Democrats are deep in the stink with Wall Street. It's no surprise Obama failed to regulate the big Wall Street donors who put him in.

You are too funny. Have you looked at Trump's Goldman Sachs cabinet?

89   Lashkar_i_Trumpi   787/787 = 100% civil   private mesage   3:48pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

Yep, it was a special election in which Dems creamed the Reps.

Only because there were several Republican contenders with similar levels of support, but only one Democratic Candidate with any substantial support for all democrats to rally around.

The Democrats are largely still Clintonista sheep, refusing to address the causes of their historic loss in a rigged election; the Republicans are having internal struggles.

Leading to a runoff where Ossoff will be destroyed.
joeyjojojunior says

What are you talking about? That Kansas seat was one of reddist in Congress. Dems gained 20+ pts in the special election. If they perform nationally like they did in the KS special election, it will be a HUGE Dem rout. They will pick up 100+ seats

They lost. Losing is Losing. They lost the Ohio seat by a bigger margin than usual, so I could make the same argument in the other direction.

Also, in most of these races, the Democrats had the most Third-Way Triangulating DINO they could find running. And they still failed!

Being 0-3 is no indication that you're going on to the Superbowl. How 'bout them Patriots?

joeyjojojunior says

You are too funny. Have you looked at Trump's Goldman Sachs cabinet?

Are you admitting Obama's close relationship with Wall Street yet, or are you still in the River in Egypt?

Mnuchin hasn't worked for Goldman in 15 years. Froman and Lew went straight into the Administration from Citigroup.

Did you know Froman went with Robert Rubin to Citigroup from the Clinton Administration?

90   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   4:45pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Only because there were several Republican contenders with similar levels of support, but only one Democratic Candidate with any substantial support for all democrats to rally around.

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.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Leading to a runoff where Ossoff will be destroyed.

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

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

They lost. Losing is Losing

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.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Being 0-3 is no indication that you're going on to the Superbowl

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

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Are you admitting Obama's close relationship with Wall Street yet

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

91   Booger   219/219 = 100% civil   private mesage   4:53pm today  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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

92   Lashkar_i_Trumpi   787/787 = 100% civil   private mesage   5:44pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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?

93   Lashkar_i_Trumpi   787/787 = 100% civil   private mesage   5:49pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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

94   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   5:56pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

95   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   6:02pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

96   Ironman   1507/1563 = 96% civil   private mesage   6:20pm today  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

Last I checked, 48 is more than 19 unless they've changed the numbering system. That is called a huge win.

Last I checked, this was called LOSING... The lone Dem candidate got 48%, which isn't even half, while everyone else got 52%... He couldn't even get a majority being a single Dem candidate..

That's called a huge LOSS!!

97   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   6:29pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

98   Ironman   1507/1563 = 96% civil   private mesage   6:32pm today  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

The candidate who gets the most votes in an election is called the winner. And wins the election.

Except in this election, they had to get OVER 50% to be declared the winner, so he was a loser. Please try and keep up.

Why do you keep spewing your bullshit?

99   Lashkar_i_Trumpi   787/787 = 100% civil   private mesage   6:40pm today  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

100   Patrick   1380/1380 = 100% civil   private mesage   7:15pm today  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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...

101   YesYNot   590/591 = 99% civil   private mesage   7:19pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick says

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

Yes. Bookie time.

102   Gary Anderson   21/21 = 100% civil   private mesage   7:26pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

103   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   7:27pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

104   Ironman   1507/1563 = 96% civil   private mesage   7:34pm today  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Gary Anderson says

And who knows,

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

105   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   7:35pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

106   Strategist   937/939 = 99% civil   private mesage   7:54pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

107   MMR   255/255 = 100% civil   private mesage   7:59pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

joeyjojojunior says

Smart people peg it at about 50/50.

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

108   joeyjojojunior   283/286 = 98% civil   private mesage   8:03pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

MMR says

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

About 33%.

109   AllTruth   4/4 = 100% civil   private mesage   8:13pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

110   marcus   418/419 = 99% civil   private mesage   9:10pm today  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

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.

111   errc   275/276 = 99% civil   private mesage   9:22pm today  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Patrick 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

« First     « Previous     Comments 73-112 of 112     Last »

home   top   users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker: