Politics Can our Republican friends here please explain something...

[Lanny]

Well Lanny? Need to print this one too? So you can use it appropriately?

More chaos? I haven't printed anything. I have no idea how you came up with that chaotic thought.

 

[Denny Crane]

I request, not demand, credible links. If it's not credible why should I waste my time on it when there's something like a 0.1% chance of it being accurate?

Your definition of "credible" is highly questionable.

That has become quite clear from reading your posts.

 

[Lanny]

The NYT piece was Krugman writing about the post-election failures. You're doing this wrong.

What Happened on Election Day
By The New York Times
since your last visit.
How the election and Donald Trump’s victory looks to Opinion writers.

Photo

Traders on the New York Stock Exchange on Nov. 1. Credit Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Paul Krugman: The Economic Fallout
By Paul Krugman
Comment 2016-11-09T00:42:44-05:00 November 9, 2016 12:42 AM ET
It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?
Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.
Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.
Under any circumstances, putting an irresponsible, ignorant man who takes his advice from all the wrong people in charge of the nation with the world’s most important economy would be very bad news. What makes it especially bad right now, however, is the fundamentally fragile state much of the world is still in, eight years after the great financial crisis.
It’s true that we’ve been adding jobs at a pretty good pace and are quite close to full employment. But we’ve been doing O.K. only thanks to extremely low interest rates. There’s nothing wrong with that per se. But what if something bad happens and the economy needs a boost? The Fed and its counterparts abroad basically have very little room for further rate cuts, and therefore very little ability to respond to adverse events.
Now comes the mother of all adverse effects — and what it brings with it is a regime that will be ignorant of economic policy and hostile to any effort to make it work. Effective fiscal support for the Fed? Not a chance. In fact, you can bet that the Fed will lose its independence, and be bullied by cranks.
So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight. I suppose we could get lucky somehow. But on economics, as on everything else, a terrible thing has just happened.

Show me a million economists and I'll show you a million predictions. No one's going to get it right all the time.

But I don't think you can throw his prediction out completely. After all, we're early in the Trump Presidency.

I've made good money in the stock market and I've now downgraded my investments to conservative because I think the economy is in for a rough spot. How soon? Who knows but it could be soon.

 

[Denny Crane]

Krugman in his own words in a "highly respected" publication like the NYTimes isn't credible.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I request, not demand, credible links. If it's not credible why should I waste my time on it when there's something like a 0.1% chance of it being accurate?

First, I think that your estimation is off. 0.1% is really low, literally 1 of a thousand data points or articles or...

Second, I laid out in pretty systematic order, including links to all sources, the NYT, LA Times, Reuters and Krugman's own blogs. You can see his words as written by him. And then just judge for yourself how correct or prescient he is. Do you think 99.9% of the NYT, LAT, Reuter's and Krugman's own words are incorrectly attributing a thought to him, or incorrectly reporting on the economic stats published by the government?

Third, your measure of "credible" may be worth looking into. We already showed this week how you were missing a pretty big story about HRC (again, in her own words on video) because the source you said that you trust did not feel that it was newsworthy enough to report to you. I absolutely understand the concept of removing things from your life that don't make you enjoy it, but it seems to hamstring any arguments going forward where you're literally not looking at data points because you limit your sources.

 

[Denny Crane]

The video can't be trusted!

 

[MarAzul]

Your definition of "credible" is highly questionable.

That has become quite clear from reading your posts.

Ha!
Lanny only wants what is agreeable to him. Must be short enough to read in a heart beat too.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Show me a million economists and I'll show you a million predictions. No one's going to get it right all the time.

Well, not exactly, but I can agree in principle that no one gets it right all the time. However, the rest of my post above points out multiple times where he epically fails. It's not that he's dumb. It's that he conflates his economic thinking with a political worldview that is incompatible with reality. Hugo Chavez was a smart man. Hugo Chavez probably believed very strongly that he was doing the right thing. Wanna take those earnings and invest them into some bolivars?

But I don't think you can throw his prediction out completely. After all, we're early in the Trump Presidency.

I guess what I'm asking is: what, other than the Nobel Prize, makes you think he is worth predicting anything? Why not listen to Stephen Moore or Robert Murphy or...?

 

[Lanny]

First, I think that your estimation is off. 0.1% is really low, literally 1 of a thousand data points or articles or...

Second, I laid out in pretty systematic order, including links to all sources, the NYT, LA Times, Reuters and Krugman's own blogs. You can see his words as written by him. And then just judge for yourself how correct or prescient he is. Do you think 99.9% of the NYT, LAT, Reuter's and Krugman's own words are incorrectly attributing a thought to him, or incorrectly reporting on the economic stats published by the government?

Third, your measure of "credible" may be worth looking into. We already showed this week how you were missing a pretty big story about HRC (again, in her own words on video) because the source you said that you trust did not feel that it was newsworthy enough to report to you. I absolutely understand the concept of removing things from your life that don't make you enjoy it, but it seems to hamstring any arguments going forward where you're literally not looking at data points because you limit your sources.

No, I don't remove stuff just because I don't enjoy reading about it. I do remove stuff that is not credible.

Yes, I said 0.1% off the top of my head, but I did qualify it as being something like that number. It's based on crap I've been linked to in the past from far Right people.

The Hillary stuff, I do not recall but I'll bet it was based on a source that simply was not credible.

I'm weary of all this bobbing and weaving and am running out of energy to continue.

Are the LA Times and Reuters credible? I'd have to say yes. But I've been at this desk too long to continue.

 

[MarAzul]

It's that he conflates his economic thinking with a political worldview

ummm, I don't think so. His political worldview is thinly covered by an economic robe. No thinking involved.
His economics including the need for inflation is specifically tailored to keep progressive empowered with tools for pandering to the electorate.
They can always run on, raising the minimum wage, protect the worker from...., income inequality. That is not economics!

Ha! Paul Volcker was also a Princeton guy, "Who is teaching this crap?"

 

[calvin natt]

I think we should all just pause and think for a second about how glorious it is that our President is in a predicament with a porn star and his VP Pence is hell bent on the sanctity of marriage between man and woman (not gays). I bet Mrs Pence loves Trumpy. How on earth all the evangelicals are SO happy with Trump is hypocrisy at its peak

 

[Denny Crane]

I think we should all just pause and think for a second about how glorious it is that our President is in a predicament with a porn star and his VP Pence is hell bent on the sanctity of marriage between man and woman (not gays). I bet Mrs Pence loves Trumpy. How on earth all the evangelicals are SO happy with Trump is hypocrisy at its peak

Impeach Trump and Pence becomes president. How about them apples?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Impeach Trump and Pence becomes president. How about them apples?

The whole scenario plays out. Meuller says Pence did nothing wrong and he becomes president.

Couple weeks later there's a leak about something Pence did and Meuller is reappointed. Rinse and repeat

 

[calvin natt]

Impeach Trump and Pence becomes president. How about them apples?

I wish

 

[Denny Crane]

I wish

I agree. It is wishful thinking. Though I absolutely do not want Pence. He'd get pretty much whatever he wanted out of congress, and I don't think there's much of his agenda I could agree with.

 

[calvin natt]

I agree. It is wishful thinking. Though I absolutely do not want Pence. He'd get pretty much whatever he wanted out of congress, and I don't think there's much of his agenda I could agree with.

There is nothing pretty much I agree with. But as much as i don’t agree with him at least I know he can string together complete sentences.

 

[Denny Crane]

There is nothing pretty much I agree with. But as much as i don’t agree with him at least I know he can string together complete sentences.

Pence was a governor and former member of congress. I think he knows how to pull the strings as president to get things done. He has a willing majority in both the house and senate to do some major damage on the social front. I would be afraid that is what his agenda would be.

Trump is a nationalist, and his policies toward immigrants and immigration are just awful and downright scary to me. But I find he's more moderate than hard right wing republicans, otherwise, on social issues. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump feels he has to let republicans have their way on some things - and that's bad, too.

 

[calvin natt]

Pence was a governor and former member of congress. I think he knows how to pull the strings as president to get things done. He has a willing majority in both the house and senate to do some major damage on the social front. I would be afraid that is what his agenda would be.

Trump is a nationalist, and his policies toward immigrants and immigration are just awful and downright scary to me. But I find he's more moderate than hard right wing republicans, otherwise, on social issues. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump feels he has to let republicans have their way on some things - and that's bad, too.

They’re both garbage. But if miraculously today Trump was ousted and Pence took over I think he’d lose the next election. But there are millions and millions who vote for Trump because they are in awe of him because he’s famous. He can do no wrong. He’s in the middle of a dispute with a goddamn porn star and IT DOESNT MATTER.

 

[MarAzul]

at least I know he can string together complete sentences.

Why on earth would a man post a sentence like this one?^^^

 

[e_blazer]

Why on earth would a man post a sentence like this one?^^^

Maybe because candidate Trump said stuff like this:

“Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

 

[Denny Crane]

They’re both garbage. But if miraculously today Trump was ousted and Pence took over I think he’d lose the next election. But there are millions and millions who vote for Trump because they are in awe of him because he’s famous. He can do no wrong. He’s in the middle of a dispute with a goddamn porn star and IT DOESNT MATTER.

Sadly, I think conservative voters are the majority, regardless of party registration. Independents definitely lean republican when it comes time to vote.

I'm not so sure Trump will be reelected, unless democrats keep on doing what won it for him the first time. Out of touch, agenda enacted didn't work all that well, abuse of governmental power (think NSA spying, spying on congress, arrests of reporters, spying on world leaders, and lots more). Running against Trump isn't going to do it - as you say, he's a rock star (as was Obama).

 

[calvin natt]

Why on earth would a man post a sentence like this one?^^^

Go do some homework. And if you think Trump is a smart man that says as much about you as it does about him.

 

[MarAzul]

Go do some homework. And if you think Trump is a smart man that says as much about you as it does about him.

Well actually I don't think you answered the question at all. I hardly think you even thought of me before you made the silly post. So let me ask it again, perhaps with more clarity.

Why on earth would a smart man post a sentence like this one?

 

[calvin natt]

Well actually I don't think you answered the question at all. I hardly think you even thought of me before you made the silly post. So let me ask it again, perhaps with more clarity.

Why on earth would a smart man post a sentence like this one?

Why would I write that?
Because he has written and said so many things that are grammatically incorrect that you can’t just write it off as a mistake. He’s consistently said and written/tweeted stupid things.
Is this making sense to you?

 

[CupWizier]

Your definition of "credible" is highly questionable.

That has become quite clear from reading your posts.

rotflmao! Says the guy that ignores anything negative posted about trump. That slick, is one of the best hypocritical comments I have seen on this forum.

 

[MarAzul]

Why would I write that?
Because he has written and said so many things that are grammatically incorrect that you can’t just write it off as a mistake. He’s consistently said and written/tweeted stupid things.
Is this making sense to you?

Ok then. But his style has been apparent to everyone for quite sometime now. Are you just noticing the style? Or want everyone else to notice you notice?

 

[calvin natt]

Ok then. But his style has been apparent to everyone for quite sometime now. Are you just noticing the style? Or want everyone else to notice you notice?

Huh? Guy. How ‘bout you just ignore my posts and I’ll do the same.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Ok then. But his style has been apparent to everyone for quite sometime now. Are you just noticing the style? Or want everyone else to notice you notice?

The noobs want to rehash the last year and a half so we have to suffer through it again.

We're at the "Denny loves Trump' stage.

Tedious at best

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Huh? Guy. How ‘bout you just ignore my posts and I’ll do the same.

You should ignore your posts. Everybody should.

 

[MarAzul]

Huh? Guy. How ‘bout you just ignore my posts and I’ll do the same.

I suspect it was virtue signaling.