Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)
Options
Comments
-
Keira Orange Store wrote: »As a matter fact, I do indeed follow the CHY and other major currencies - very closely thanks. You see, I have a very, very, large brain.
The USD has weakened against the CHY in 2018 (up to Sep 20th) when compared to 2017.
There is a lot of history between USD/CHY fx rates. You should take the time read about their history.
Fun fact for you RIGOLO. The Yuan has risen 30+ percent against the dollar since the CHY currency policy changes in 2005. You keep holding those dollars sir, nice and tight.
Haha what? What an utterly bizarre answer, how is that in any way a reply to his point? Do you have the slightest clue what you're talking about or are you just copying and pasting from a list as you seem to have been doing all along?I dont see why your "very very large brain" is raving about a 30% return over 17 years. Thats an embarassing return and doesnt even beat inflation. I hope your not managing anyones money.
Your post isnt dis-proving my point.
The Chinese government is taking huge measures to maintain some parity/stability , those measures and the rate are what tells the full story.
It was 1994 when the Chinese offered an interbank currency rate on the Yuan, but it was pegged at 8.2 to the dollar, around 96 they offered an open conversion rate, and 2005 they revalued it.
But all thru this time it was rigidly controlled at or about the 8.2 rate (like I said its a policy currency)
Project Moose took a 2005 date as his cut off starting point for his rate rise, I could have taken 1994 and effectively had the same rate... like I said it was held at 8.2 or thereabouts for a decade... I took a midpoint 2001, same year they entered the WTO as my cut off . so yeah its a 30% return after 17 years, as it would also be a 30% return after 24 years if you go back to 1994.
So yep, Id be more comfortable with Dollar position than a Yuan in that trade.
No offers from anyone on why the Chinses implemented CCF to stabilise their currency and reduce outflows.
Trump Administration is only getting warmed up on getting the Chinese to play ball on trade, currency manipulation, IP theft to name but a few. And so far all the numbers and the actions that both governments are taking are 100% demonstrating the US has the upper hand. You only have to see how the EU has come to the table now and backed up the US position .
Mathis has cancelled his trip to China, trade tensions increasing but the DOW was nearly broke its record today , so what does that tell you.
Its only bizaare if your anti-Trump and you havent the economic where withall to figure out how to spin it to reflect badly on the Trump administration.0 -
Yep just like the Trade Deficits, the Trump administration have a plan for that too.
Its in their Budget FY 2019 , Ive read most of it. It explains how they will address expenditure, especially entitlement expenditure, have a read off it and let me know what you think.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf
Lets get the mid-terms wrapped up and then I expect the administration to get back working on it with Congress , The House and Senate budget committees etc.
Im currently reading the Budget 2019 MidSession Review ,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19msr.pdf
It has a few interesting points already..theres always some posters on here trotting out CBO figures as if they are some kind of gospel..looks like the CBO will have to change their forecast AGAIN for a SECOND time post this months GDP numbers
"The CBO projected growth of 2.0 and 1.5 percent in 2018 and 2019. That has now been revised substantially—up to 3.3 and 2.4 percent, respectively, following implementation of the TCJA."
Its all good folks on the economic front, a long game , multi-faceted, all being dealt with by the Trump White house Administration
Is cutting entitlement expenditure another phrase for welfare cuts?0 -
You could look at it that way if you were an Anti-Trumper, no surprise there the anti-Trumpers espouse their economic policy, more welfare spending ,Captain Obvious wrote: »Yep just like the Trade Deficits, the Trump administration have a plan for that too.
Its in their Budget FY 2019 , Ive read most of it. It explains how they will address expenditure, especially entitlement expenditure, have a read off it and let me know what you think.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf
Lets get the mid-terms wrapped up and then I expect the administration to get back working on it with Congress , The House and Senate budget committees etc.
Im currently reading the Budget 2019 MidSession Review ,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19msr.pdf
It has a few interesting points already..theres always some posters on here trotting out CBO figures as if they are some kind of gospel..looks like the CBO will have to change their forecast AGAIN for a SECOND time post this months GDP numbers
"The CBO projected growth of 2.0 and 1.5 percent in 2018 and 2019. That has now been revised substantially—up to 3.3 and 2.4 percent, respectively, following implementation of the TCJA."
Its all good folks on the economic front, a long game , multi-faceted, all being dealt with by the Trump White house Administration
Is cutting entitlement expenditure another phrase for welfare cuts?
Or
If your pro-Trump Administration , you could look at it as instead of giving people food stamps why not give them a job, some tax cuts and a future and let them pay for their own food... AKA Unemployment rates are at their lowest this century , as are unemployment rates among minorites and afican americans etc etc
I realise anti-Trumpers struggle with economic theory but even can surely grasp that giving people jobs has a knock affect of reducing welfare spending.0 -
So you admit you were bullsh1tting and now you're waffling to try and cover, gotcha.It was 1994 when the Chinese offered an interbank currency rate on the Yuan, but it was pegged at 8.2 to the dollar, around 96 they offered an open conversion rate, and 2005 they revalued it.
But all thru this time it was rigidly controlled at or about the 8.2 rate (like I said its a policy currency)
Project Moose took a 2005 date as his cut off starting point for his rate rise, I could have taken 1994 and effectively had the same rate... like I said it was held at 8.2 or thereabouts for a decade... I took a midpoint 2001, same year they entered the WTO as my cut off . so yeah its a 30% return after 17 years, as it would also be a 30% return after 24 years if you go back to 1994.
So yep, Id be more comfortable with Dollar position than a Yuan in that trade.
No offers from anyone on why the Chinses implemented CCF to stabilise their currency and reduce outflows.
Trump Administration is only getting warmed up on getting the Chinese to play ball on trade, currency manipulation, IP theft to name but a few. And so far all the numbers and the actions that both governments are taking are 100% demonstrating the US has the upper hand. You only have to see how the EU has come to the table now and backed up the US position .
Mathis has cancelled his trip to China, trade tensions increasing but the DOW was nearly broke its record today , so what does that tell you.
Its only bizaare if your anti-Trump and you havent the economic where withall to figure out how to spin it to reflect badly on the Trump administration.0 -
Yeah but by that time it will be a Democrat president in charge having to raise taxes to pay it down and the Republicans will become fiscal conservatives again fighting for the little man and the cycle will continue.
Trump will very likely suffer zero blowback from his kicking the can of debt down the road during his time in office."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
Advertisement
-
Yep just like the Trade Deficits, the Trump administration have a plan for that too.
Its in their Budget FY 2019 , Ive read most of it. It explains how they will address expenditure, especially entitlement expenditure, have a read off it and let me know what you think.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf
Lets get the mid-terms wrapped up and then I expect the administration to get back working on it with Congress , The House and Senate budget committees etc.
Im currently reading the Budget 2019 MidSession Review ,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19msr.pdf
It has a few interesting points already..theres always some posters on here trotting out CBO figures as if they are some kind of gospel..looks like the CBO will have to change their forecast AGAIN for a SECOND time post this months GDP numbers
"The CBO projected growth of 2.0 and 1.5 percent in 2018 and 2019. That has now been revised substantially—up to 3.3 and 2.4 percent, respectively, following implementation of the TCJA."
Its all good folks on the economic front, a long game , multi-faceted, all being dealt with by the Trump White house Administration
Horsesh1t. You didn't read that. You don't even know what a budget deficit is.
Here's an oped piece from a lecturer in federal budgeting. The title neatly captures what is happening to the deficit:
"Trump trillion-dollar-plus deficits are putting America on a path to fiscal ruin"
Some salient quotes:
"The deficit is spiking. The federal government’s red ink this year is already 21 percent above what it was in 2017, and there are few prospects that the bottom line will improve anytime soon."
"..the Trump deficits that will soon reach and exceed $1 trillion are permanent and will only get worse in the years ahead."
His disregard for climate change aside, Trump is selling America's fiscal future down the toilet. At the same time, his useful idiots keep believing he's making America great again. The very idiots who will lose their entitlements and medical care while he ensures that they and their children pay for his corporate buddies' tax cuts.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »Is cutting entitlement expenditure another phrase for welfare cuts?
or to put it another way "the thing that every western country has needed to do for the last 40 years but most politicians are afraid to do"0 -
StringerBell wrote: »Yeah but by that time it will be a Democrat president in charge having to raise taxes to pay it down and the Republicans will become fiscal conservatives again fighting for the little man and the cycle will continue.
Trump will very likely suffer zero blowback from his kicking the can of debt down the road during his time in office.
Trump will be dead by the time his budget deficits finally wash through.0 -
Yep just like the Trade Deficits, the Trump administration have a plan for that too.
Its in their Budget FY 2019 , Ive read most of it. It explains how they will address expenditure, especially entitlement expenditure, have a read off it and let me know what you think.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf
Lets get the mid-terms wrapped up and then I expect the administration to get back working on it with Congress , The House and Senate budget committees etc.
Im currently reading the Budget 2019 MidSession Review ,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/19msr.pdf
It has a few interesting points already..theres always some posters on here trotting out CBO figures as if they are some kind of gospel..looks like the CBO will have to change their forecast AGAIN for a SECOND time post this months GDP numbers
"The CBO projected growth of 2.0 and 1.5 percent in 2018 and 2019. That has now been revised substantially—up to 3.3 and 2.4 percent, respectively, following implementation of the TCJA."
Its all good folks on the economic front, a long game , multi-faceted, all being dealt with by the Trump White house Administration
Do you distrust the CBO because you believe it is not getting its estimates right on what the future will be with regard to the US domestic fiscal scene and production or is your distrust based on the thought-lines of Don Trump?
Don has commented in the past of his distrust of the CBO and said he wanted it gone as an independent agency.
Seeing as it is works with congress on the US federal budget, do you agree with Don that the agency should be scrapped? Are you happy with the apparent federal deficit seeing as it's the average US citizen who will have to do the settling-up on national US debt due to its debtors or would you prefer the next US Govt to default on the deficit approved and operated by Don? The CBO has estimated the deficit will pass the 1 Trillion US dollar point by 2020, the year of the next election which Don has said he's going to run in.
I'm pasting in two links from separate media publications in respect of the CBO future deficit estimates. I like to have a look at Bloomberg on TV where it comes to the US market and financial results as it seem to keep up to literal current time on the US market.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-09/u-s-budget-deficit-to-balloon-to-1-trillion-by-2020-cbo-says.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-09/cbo-says-trump-budget-deficit-will-hit-1-trillion-2020-growth-will-slow0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »or to put it another way "the thing that every western country has needed to do for the last 40 years but most politicians are afraid to do"
Which western countries .
And why specifically .
Give us all some details Eric for your rethoric.
A bit of cause and effect if you will, since your so predisposed to this sort of viewpoint0 -
Advertisement
-
Eric Cartman wrote: »or to put it another way "the thing that every western country has needed to do for the last 40 years but most politicians are afraid to do"
It seems to me that the only logical way for the welfare costs to disappear is for the claimants to disappear. That is the crux of the matter now when it comes to Don reducing the costs of welfare to the US budget which will give him the ability to cut and spend where he wants. How that is done is the problem facing the GOP, as it is in charge of the US Admin and the houses on the hill. None of the current US budget control problems, and future federal deficit problem, can be laid at the door of the Dems. It seems to me that Don want the welfare claimants to just up and disappear so he can say the US is on the up and up. The snag with his plan is that a lot of the welfare claimants are on the US federal payroll, and that includes the US military. He will be unable to square the circle, no matter what he tells his followers and the GOP faithful. Edit. That might explain why he is being "isolationist" in nature where it come to US federal spending abroad on foreign nationals facing hardship in other non US territory outside US responsibility, incl UN world welfare works and costs.0 -
Well it appears that allegations of sexual abuse may not be the only thing Brett Kavanagh may have to answer. NBC news has obtained text messages from his Yale classmates related to the second woman who accused him, which seem to suggest that he knew of the New Yorker story published in September in July and was trying to get classmates to go on the record and publicly refute the allegations. This contradicts what he told the hearing last week that he first heard of the allegations when that story came out. That's lying under oath and that is perjury.0
-
There are more than a few commentators on the right asking what the big deal is about being a teen/uni boozer. Most people were. So what? And you know what, I agree.
But that is to misunderstand why senators are asking about it and why Kavanaugh is lying about it. Specifically, if Kavanaugh admits to black-outs when drinking, then both parties in the Ford-Kavanaugh matter can be right. As Ford says, Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her; as Kavanaugh says, he has no memory of any such assault.
The problem for Kavanaugh is, in trying to close off that argument, he's going down a path to increasing ludicrousness. He says he wasn't a heavy drinker - countless Georgetown & Yale contemporaries dispute this. He lies about the meaning of certain phrases on his beloved calendar - a 20 second google would uncover the actual meanings. He lies about things he has to and then, bizarrely about things he doesn't. The latest story to break is that Kavanaugh and surrogates are putting pressure to people around Deborah Ramirez to modify what they say to media and possibly the FBI. This is current, not historical.0 -
Well it appears that allegations of sexual abuse may not be the only thing Brett Kavanagh may have to answer. NBC news has obtained text messages from his Yale classmates related to the second woman who accused him, which seem to suggest that he knew of the New Yorker story published in September in July and was trying to get classmates to go on the record and publicly refute the allegations. This contradicts what he told the hearing last week that he first heard of the allegations when that story came out. That's lying under oath and that is perjury.
Were any of the texts sent from his Yale college mates sent to his cellphone/s or cellphones which had his billing address? If so, the record may damn him if it's listed in the latest FBI investigation report, even if it's only as an addendum on the last pages.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Were any of the texts sent from his Yale college mates sent to his cellphone/s or cellphones which had his billing address? If so, the record may damn him if it's listed in the latest FBI investigation report, even if it's only as an addendum on the last pages.
Well it claims that Bret Kavanagh "and/or" his friends/team were reaching out to the person in question. I mean surely that's witness tampering or something along those lines and he also claimed under oath when asked by senator Orin Hatch when he first heard about the New Yorker story. He said something to the effect of that week which is late September. IF these text messages are true and can be verified and corroborated then that's direct proof that he lied about his knowledge of the story and its allegations.0 -
When the Senate eventually votes on Kavanagh, what is the procedure? Is it just a vote or do each of the 50 senators give speaches first?0
-
aloyisious wrote: »Do you distrust the CBO because you believe it is not getting its estimates right on what the future will be with regard to the US domestic fiscal scene and production or is your distrust based on the thought-lines of Don Trump?
Don has commented in the past of his distrust of the CBO and said he wanted it gone as an independent agency.
I think we had this discussion before about the accuracy of the CBO figures.
You seem to have more faith in them than even the CBO itself.
Even the CBO doesnt trust its own numbers, so why anyone would is strange.
Ive previously explained where and how often they have gotten it spectacurly wrong , particularily in the NEW ERA of Trump Administration.
Its a free country, feel free to continue to use the CBO numbers if you wish.
Im certain within the next 3 months they will be along with a REVISED set of numbers that will be corrections on the numbers you have been using.
If your basing your economic assesment off their numbers then your already out of step with the real-time numbers.
Heres my thoughts on the CBO its early and I need my waffles so will just repost what I previously saidThe Economic Outlook for 2017 to 2020 CBO estimates that, in real terms, GDP will expand by 2.2 percent in calendar year 2017 and by 2.0 percent in 2018 (see Table 7 on page 21)
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?fil...017outlook.pdf
CBO projected 2% yet its hovering north of 3.1 %, thats a 33% miss on their part.
In CBO’s forecast, real GDP growth, spurred by fiscal stimulus, is 3.1 percent this year and 2.4 percent next year
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?fil...018-update.pdf
To paraphrase one of the other amateur anti-Trump economists on here,
Trump is NOT doing a Bertie, but the CBO are most definitely doing an ESRI (we all remember Dr John Fitzgeralds economic predictions) job on projections and analysis it.
My money is still with the Trump administration and Steve Mnuchin guiding the US economy, the CBO are just grinding their deep state axe.
You should read their 2019-2028 10 year budget projections, CBO already admitted adjusting their baseline deficit down by 3 trillion.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?fil...84-apb2019.pdf
And heres another oneThe CBO numbers are so given to errors and getting it wrong that in 2015 the CBO wrote a report on itself all about their forecasting errors.
You can read it here .. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/49891-forecastingrecord2015.pdf
this snippet is worth emphasining " CBO’s forecasts generally have been comparable in quality to those of the Administration and the Blue Chip consensus, with large errors by CBO tending to reflect difficulties shared by other forecasters. "
Remember this is the CBO recognising that the CBO has had large errors.
By their own admission their root mean square error on GDP is close on 1.5%, which is a sizeable error on the GDP scale.
And the numbers that came in for 2017 wage growth, inflation and treasury notes are already proving the CBO were very wrong on their 2015 2 year forecasts.
So not only have the CBO admitted they frequently got it wrong in the past, the current numbers coming in are showing they were wrong as we speak.
As to your glib comment about 'sick of experts & Brexit' . When it comes to economic forecasting , the CBO did offer one defence.
The defence being that when the CBO got it wrong , all the other experts got it wrong too.
Theres plenty statistical analysis of 'experts' getting economic forecasting wrong, this one from Buisness insider is among the easier reading for the non-mathematically minded.
http://www.businessinsider.com/8-charts-prove-economic-forecasting-doesnt-work-2016-1?IR=T
Theres also always been a question of whether the CBO has had an 'Administration ' bias, and again the CBO talk about this themselves in their own reports. My own opinion is they have, you need to only look at how they have tracked the Administrations forecasts down thru the last 2 decades.
So Im going with the Trump Administration forecasts, I think an anti-Trump bias is present in the CBO, and factor in their own error rate Im comfortable with letting Larry Mnuchin hold the reins for a while and see where things pan out, like I said its a multifaceted, short and long term policies.
Just keep in mind two things the next time you quote the CBO numbers, remember the CBO 2015 Forecasting Record report admission of 'large errors' in CBO projections and also root mean square error of 1.5% thats totally huge !0 -
There are more than a few commentators on the right asking what the big deal is about being a teen/uni boozer. Most people were. So what? And you know what, I agree.
But that is to misunderstand why senators are asking about it and why Kavanaugh is lying about it. Specifically, if Kavanaugh admits to black-outs when drinking, then both parties in the Ford-Kavanaugh matter can be right. As Ford says, Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her; as Kavanaugh says, he has no memory of any such assault.
The problem for Kavanaugh is, in trying to close off that argument, he's going down a path to increasing ludicrousness. He says he wasn't a heavy drinker - countless Georgetown & Yale contemporaries dispute this. He lies about the meaning of certain phrases on his beloved calendar - a 20 second google would uncover the actual meanings. He lies about things he has to and then, bizarrely about things he doesn't. The latest story to break is that Kavanaugh and surrogates are putting pressure to people around Deborah Ramirez to modify what they say to media and possibly the FBI. This is current, not historical.
I was listening to another Yale alumni, Jacob Weisberg talking about Kavanaigh. He was pointing out that unlike some other colleges, joining a fraternity wasn't something a lot of students automatically did at Yale. None of Weidbergs friends were in a fraternity. He mentioned though that Kavanaughs fraternity, DKE, was notorious on the campus for (a) their heavy substance abuse and (b) their (even for the 80s) objectionable attitude towards women. His general point was that, anyone who attended Yale in the 1980s, would find a DKE fratboy's stories about moderate drinking and abstinence utterly ludicrous.0 -
Well it claims that Bret Kavanagh "and/or" his friends/team were reaching out to the person in question. I mean surely that's witness tampering or something along those lines and he also claimed under oath when asked by senator Orin Hatch when he first heard about the New Yorker story. He said something to the effect of that week which is late September. IF these text messages are true and can be verified and corroborated then that's direct proof that he lied about his knowledge of the story and its allegations.
If he lied to one of his senate supporters, that should show to Orin that the judge can't even keep to the party script prepared for him to deliver at the hearing and cant help fluffing the lines with mistruths. Reaching out to witnesses while unsure what the FBI will be doing is stupid but....
Umm, substance abuse....0 -
I think we had this discussion before about the accuracy of the CBO figures.
You seem to have more faith in them than even the CBO itself.
Even the CBO doesnt trust its own numbers, so why anyone would is strange.
Ive previously explained where and how often they have gotten it spectacurly wrong , particularily in the NEW ERA of Trump Administration.
Its a free country, feel free to continue to use the CBO numbers if you wish.
Im certain within the next 3 months they will be along with a REVISED set of numbers that will be corrections on the numbers you have been using.
If your basing your economic assesment off their numbers then your already out of step with the real-time numbers.
Heres my thoughts on the CBO its early and I need my waffles so will just repost what I previously said
And heres another one
I'll take time to go over the data you've posted but can see one error in totting up in the 1st squared-off piece. CBO projected 2% yet its hovering north of 3.1 %, thats a 33% miss on their part. -
Given that any percentage graph used to mark out figure advances or reductions is set at 100%, and not 2% the miss is surely considerably less than 33% overall, more like 1.1 %. The quoted figure of 33% is, IMO, strongly misleading.0 -
Advertisement
-
Kavanaugh perjured himself multiple times. WH response - investigation cannot talk to anyone who can corroborate any part of that.
I've been talking with a K supporter over the past few days on Twitter. The Grassley/Kavanaugh story is well out there. People keep joining in to demand why I believe a liar against an innocent man on no evidence, which is a tad rich as they keep making the accusation also automatically believing K and disbelieving Ford, despite that I just keep saying there should be an investigation.
That handy Keyser lie that Grassley and K kept driving has very well permeated the argument.
Also, all sides keep calling it completely uncorroborated but as a matter of fact it isn't. There's actually quite a lot of corroboration at this point. Proof, no, but his story is looking less and less convincing.
Ugh, the whole thing is such a whitewash. I'm not entirely gone on the "I believe her" either. That's exactly why the Reps are so sure that it is a lie that "the left" have all fallen for. And the problem with sexual assault is that if you believe one, you kinda have to disbelieve the other. Which runs into innocent until proven guilty etc. Problem is, this sort of assault is stupidly common, a lot of women know that it is and have their own stories too. She was convincing. He wasn't. And this investigation has been bull**** even if it has been loosened. Plus they've disqualified the FBI report in advance anyway.0 -
SimonTemplar wrote: »When the Senate eventually votes on Kavanagh, what is the procedure? Is it just a vote or do each of the 50 senators give speaches first?
They will likely just do a roll call with a yay or nay."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
jooksavage wrote: »I was listening to another Yale alumni, Jacob Weisberg talking about Kavanaigh. He was pointing out that unlike some other colleges, joining a fraternity wasn't something a lot of students automatically did at Yale. None of Weidbergs friends were in a fraternity. He mentioned though that Kavanaughs fraternity, DKE, was notorious on the campus for (a) their heavy substance abuse and (b) their (even for the 80s) objectionable attitude towards women. His general point was that, anyone who attended Yale in the 1980s, would find a DKE fratboy's stories about moderate drinking and abstinence utterly ludicrous.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/yale-delta-kappa-epsilon-2018-1?r=US&IR=T
Yep sounds about right....DKE have been banned from Yale for 5 years because of treatment of women. This is in only the last 5 years, I can imagine what it was like in the 80's:eek: the decade of enlightenment and chivalry for women....
Edit..Oh by the way this article is from Jan 2018 well before any Kavanagh nomination6.1kWp south facing, South of Cork City
0 -
Rhineshark wrote: »Kavanaugh perjured himself multiple times. WH response - investigation cannot talk to anyone who can corroborate any part of that.
I've been talking with a K supporter over the past few days on Twitter. The Grassley/Kavanaugh story is well out there. People keep joining in to demand why I believe a liar against an innocent man on no evidence, which is a tad rich as they keep making the accusation also automatically believing K and disbelieving Ford, despite that I just keep saying there should be an investigation.
That handy Keyser lie that Grassley and K kept driving has very well permeated the argument.
Also, all sides keep calling it completely uncorroborated but as a matter of fact it isn't. There's actually quite a lot of corroboration at this point. Proof, no, but his story is looking less and less convincing.
Ugh, the whole thing is such a whitewash. I'm not entirely gone on the "I believe her" either. That's exactly why the Reps are so sure that it is a lie that "the left" have all fallen for. And the problem with sexual assault is that if you believe one, you kinda have to disbelieve the other. Which runs into innocent until proven guilty etc. Problem is, this sort of assault is stupidly common, a lot of women know that it is and have their own stories too. She was convincing. He wasn't. And this investigation has been bull**** even if it has been loosened. Plus they've disqualified the FBI report in advance anyway.
It's been clear for some times now that the strands of US public opinion has been shattered on a load of topics, voting, race, equality, gender parity of pay, promotion in careers and US citizenship itself.. Don has done his best to exacerbate the situation in his rush to remodel the US, through the levers of power in Washington, to his liking. One of the sectors that can, IMO, turn his plans on his head is the female vote. It remains to be seen if women will kowtow to his wishes next month or if there will be a swing vote against his version of what US society should be - a Peyton Place situation where women know their place in his society.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »It's been clear for some times now that the strands of US public opinion has been shattered on a load of topics, voting, race, equality, gender parity of pay, promotion in careers and US citizenship itself.. Don has done his best to exacerbate the situation in his rush to remodel the US, through the levers of power in Washington, to his liking. One of the sectors that can, IMO, turn his plans on his head is the female vote. It remains to be seen if women will kowtow to his wishes next month or if there will be a swing vote against his version of what US society should be - a Peyton Place situation where women know their place in his society.
God I hope the women they so casually disregard and denigrate turn out en masse and flatten them so hard the current lot will be dead before the Trumpist party get power again.
I am intrigued as to post-K polling.
First they came for the illegal immigrants and I did not stand up because I was not an illegal immigrant.
Then they came for the legal immigrants and lied about it and I did not speak because I wasn't sure of the truth.
Then they came for those of a different colour and I did not speak because I was white.
Then they came for women and at that point the Trumpist ideology was driven in so deep that 40% of republicans think a SCOTUS should be sworn in even if he did attempt to rape someone0 -
I think we had this discussion before about the accuracy of the CBO figures.
So how do you know what to believe?
You don't believe the media, you don't believe independent experts.
How can you be sure that the 4.2% number of correct? How can you be sure that the WH is not manipulating the employment numbers?
There are plenty of examples of the WH lying, what give you the confidence to believe anything that they are saying?0 -
In the latest piece of WH propaganda, they have edited out the footage of Trump insulting the reporter out of the official transcript.
And in petty revenge news, visas are being denied to same sex partners of diplomats and UN representatives.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/The Trump administration on Monday began denying visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees, and requiring those already in the United States to get married by the end of the year or leave the country.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »In the latest piece of WH propaganda, they have edited out the footage of Trump insulting the reporter out of the official transcript.
And in petty revenge news, visas are being denied to same sex partners of diplomats and UN representatives.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/
So, Leo's partner can't travel with him to the US? Nice.0 -
Captain Obvious wrote: »In the latest piece of WH propaganda, they have edited out the footage of Trump insulting the reporter out of the official transcript.
And in petty revenge news, visas are being denied to same sex partners of diplomats and UN representatives.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/
So they will allow them in if they are married?0 -
Advertisement
-
So, Leo's partner can't travel with him to the US? Nice.Professor Moriarty wrote: »So they will allow them in if they are married?
Nothing stopping him if he's going on a short trip, the usual visa requirements would apply.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement