Re: Winning
 

[quote=MTK;1201812]Fake news, I heard it’s more like 30%, maybe 35%, maybe even 80% from what I’m hearing[/quote]

The way I read it is that only Trump and Kavenaugh are employed, but that all their income is going to support federal aid and retirement programs, so they too are claiming unemployment benefits

Re: Winning
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1201810]No, Obama didn't walk in to a slow growth stable economy in his first term. We have agreed on that.

In his second term he did have a more stable economy to work with and gdp remained stagnant for the most part, with the NYT even going so far as to say that there was a mini recession in 2015.

As for tariffs, they were and are part of the trade negotiations, a tool to bring other countries to the discussion. short of China, I don't think the rest of the tariffs went into effect for more than a few months.

But - and this is why your comments are smoke and drivel. You repeat your few mantras over and over with no real intent to discuss, i believe just to derail honest conversations with others[/quote]

Here we go ,you haven't had an "honest discussion" on here for about two years .Talk about repeating, your constant pro trump lying and absolute no ,none , acknowledgement of his lying and dishonesty makes you and the trump cult as guilty as he is of dragging down this country. Talk to these companies about trumps tariffs.....................

[url]https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/here-are-202-companies-hurt-trumps-tariffs[/url]


They hurt this country more than it hurts China.


........and lets not forget this ,read the whole article .

[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/09/20/trump-says-he-wants-to-protect-steel-workers-why-are-they-unhappy/?utm_term=.be8df65d8e7d[/url]


[url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/09/18/president-trumps-tariffs-will-hurt-america-more-than-china/#1a03dec36276[/url]

[url]https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-war-hurting-business-texas-manufacturers-say-2018-6[/url]

Re: Winning
 

On the heels of raising wages to $15/hr...

[URL="https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/business/amazon-minimum-wage-bonus/index.html"]Amazon eliminates bonuses and stock awards for hourly workers[/URL]

Re: Winning
 

[quote=MTK;1201819]On the heels of raising wages to $15/hr...

[URL="https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/business/amazon-minimum-wage-bonus/index.html"]Amazon eliminates bonuses and stock awards for hourly workers[/URL][/quote]

Cheap bastards.

Re: Winning
 

This might work............


[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/elderly-white-apos-trump-supporters-200122189.html[/url]

Re: Winning
 

Dems played this whole thing wrong again...gop voters are now motivated for the November election where before it was mostly meh. Gop fundraising numbers off the chart the last 2 weeks...record setting.

Even after a fbi investigation...where no surprise there was nothing to confirm allegations....they will complain because simply nothing was found. Remember, the president and the gop leadership let the fbi investigation happen..they didn’t have to. They didn’t have to do it at all...they chose too.

At this point I don’t care if Kavanaugh goes thru or not...trump will nominate the woman next anyways. She go thru with zero problem and will be more conservative than Scalia ever was...

Re: Winning
 

[quote=Chico23231;1201828]Dems played this whole thing wrong again...gop voters are now motivated for the November election where before it was mostly meh. Gop fundraising numbers off the chart the last 2 weeks...record setting.

Even after a fbi investigation...where no surprise there was nothing to confirm allegations....they will complain because simply nothing was found. Remember, the president and the gop leadership let the fbi investigation happen..they didn’t have to. They didn’t have to do it at all...[B]they chose too[/B].

At this point I don’t care if Kavanaugh goes thru or not...trump will nominate the woman next anyways. She go thru with zero problem and will be more conservative than Scalia ever was...[/quote]

They chose to because they controlled who the FBI could interview, and how long the investigation can run. It was a win-win for them.

Kavanaugh wins, Trump gets his SC justice who thinks the President is immune from all crimes, it's a win-win yet again. #winning.

The reason I didn't ask for yours or Cred's opinion on Kavanaugh is because I already knew it. Every Republican, every Democrat, ~98 or so senators already had their minds made up before this weak ass investigation took place.

And the reason I don't want Kavanaugh is because he blames a woman accusing him of sexual misconduct on Democrats. And yet he's expected to be impartial after that? Bull fucking shit. He's gonna have a hard-on for Dems for the next 40 years.

This is all about protecting Trump when the Mueller report comes down saying he shouldn't be President because of his financial indiscretions over the years.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=mooby;1201835]They chose to because they controlled who the FBI could interview, and how long the investigation can run. It was a win-win for them.

Kavanaugh wins, Trump gets his SC justice who thinks the President is immune from all crimes, it's a win-win yet again. #winning.

The reason I didn't ask for yours or Cred's opinion on Kavanaugh is because I already knew it. Every Republican, every Democrat, ~98 or so senators already had their minds made up before this weak ass investigation took place.

[B]And the reason I don't want Kavanaugh is because he blames a woman accusing him of sexual misconduct on Democrats. And yet he's expected to be impartial after that? Bull fucking shit. He's gonna have a hard-on for Dems for the next 40 years.[/B]

This is all about protecting Trump when the Mueller report comes down saying he shouldn't be President because of his financial indiscretions over the years.[/quote]

You seriously believe this has nothing to do with politics? You don’t think this has been in the works behind the scenes and financed by democratic lobbyists ever since since that bitch Feinstein got that letter?

Come on...fucking sakes...this was a well organized hit job. It’s why Feinstein sat on it day 1. Go ahead and search the financed protesters list...democratic lobby groups financed everything including the protest groups. Why do you look the other way with these facts?

The president and the senate chose to get the fbi involved because they knew it was bullshit. They didn’t have to do that.

And the funniest shit is you think it’s perfectly fucking fine to smear a man and his family based on high school bullshit that couldn’t be corroborated. And you think he should just sit there and take it. I hope he sues everyone involved top to bottom. Starting with that Avenatti bitch and his client. I can’t believe nbc news put him and her on tv and gave them a platform.

facts don’t care about your feelings...it’s never been more true than this circus

Re: Winning
 

[quote=Chico23231;1201841]You seriously believe this has nothing to do with politics? You don’t think this has been in the works behind the scenes and financed by democratic lobbyists ever since since that bitch Feinstein got that letter?

Come on...fucking sakes...this was a well organized hit job. It’s why Feinstein sat on it day 1. Go ahead and search the financed protesters list...democratic lobby groups financed everything including the protest groups. Why do you look the other way with these facts?

The president and the senate chose to get the fbi involved because they knew it was bullshit. They didn’t have to do that.

And the funniest shit is you think it’s perfectly fucking fine to smear a man and his family based on high school bullshit that couldn’t be corroborated. And you think he should just sit there and take it. I hope he sues everyone involved top to bottom. Starting with that Avenatti bitch and his client. I can’t believe nbc news put him and her on tv and gave them a platform.

facts don’t care about your feelings...it’s never been more true than this circus[/quote]

Your nominee lied on the stand about his drinking habits and terms commonly used in those days. His former friends and roommates literally said they had witnessed him blackout drunk on multiple occasions.

What kind of judge lies under oath? The one who knows he's going to get backed by the ruling party unless something absolutely damning comes out.

I never mentioned the Avenatti bitch because nobody credible was taking her seriously.

I never even said I believe his accuser, because I wasn't fucking there and have no idea if it happened.

All I said was a federal judge lied under oath about his drinking based off the knowledge of those who hung out with him in those days.

The President chose to have the FBI investigation because he could control the FBI investigation. Why does the FBI investigation even matter when he shits on them daily for investigating him? One minute they're dogshit, but they're totally credible when investigating her claims? Get the fuck out of here.

I concede it was a political hit job. I also say if that it did happen, do you really think Ford should've kept her mouth shut when the guy she says did it is being nominated to a lifetime post in the highest court of the land?

The problem with sexual assault allegations is unless there's a witness or DNA evidence, it's word against word. Her accusation was doomed from the start because she has neither.

And yes, I do believe when all your former friends from college are saying you had a rep for being a blackout drunk who got feisty, and that you're lying under oath for a job interview for a lifetime position of power over a nation, that political hit jobs are necessary.

When Senate Republicans are adamant that 6-8 months or whatever time it was between Garland gets nominated and they even refuse to consider him saying they don't have enough time, yet turn around the next year and try to speed rush a fucking SC justice through before the midterms in one month because they're afraid of losing the majority, can me & mine afford to sit back and play by their rules? The rules change depending on what's necessary for the ruling party to maintain power. It's bullshit.

But the worst bullshit is that come November, every goddamn Republican is going to head to the polls while my friends stay at fucking home because no matter what I or anyone say, they think their vote doesn't fucking matter.

But why do you give a fuck?

As long as the economy keeps growing you and Cred are in the black baby!

Re: Winning
 

Mooby I don’t want this to become the norm...political hit job have no place in this process. Just continues to divide the country...it’s terrible.

And I could careless if Big Kavy blackout drinking in college...everyone was weekly. like if someone smoked a lot of weed...who cares. Shit that’s what made college fun as hell. And it just wasn’t guys either, I knew a lot of Sorority girls and reg chicks into hard drugs. It’s college!

I think we can agree the best news of the day:

[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-laquan-mcdonald-jason-van-dyke-trial-verdict-20181005-story.html[/url]

He is guilty and it’s a shame the FOP doesn’t realize something needs to change in the department

Re: Winning
 

[quote=mooby;1201842]Your nominee lied on the stand about his drinking habits and terms commonly used in those days. His former friends and roommates literally said they had witnessed him blackout drunk on multiple occasions.

What kind of judge lies under oath? The one who knows he's going to get backed by the ruling party unless something absolutely damning comes out.

I never mentioned the Avenatti bitch because nobody credible was taking her seriously.

I never even said I believe his accuser, because I wasn't fucking there and have no idea if it happened.

All I said was a federal judge lied under oath about his drinking based off the knowledge of those who hung out with him in those days.

The President chose to have the FBI investigation because he could control the FBI investigation. Why does the FBI investigation even matter when he shits on them daily for investigating him? One minute they're dogshit, but they're totally credible when investigating her claims? Get the fuck out of here.

I concede it was a political hit job. I also say if that it did happen, do you really think Ford should've kept her mouth shut when the guy she says did it is being nominated to a lifetime post in the highest court of the land?

The problem with sexual assault allegations is unless there's a witness or DNA evidence, it's word against word. Her accusation was doomed from the start because she has neither.

And yes, I do believe when all your former friends from college are saying you had a rep for being a blackout drunk who got feisty, and that you're lying under oath for a job interview for a lifetime position of power over a nation, that political hit jobs are necessary.

When Senate Republicans are adamant that 6-8 months or whatever time it was between Garland gets nominated and they even refuse to consider him saying they don't have enough time, yet turn around the next year and try to speed rush a fucking SC justice through before the midterms in one month because they're afraid of losing the majority, can me & mine afford to sit back and play by their rules? The rules change depending on what's necessary for the ruling party to maintain power. It's bullshit.

But the worst bullshit is that come November, every goddamn Republican is going to head to the polls while my friends stay at fucking home because no matter what I or anyone say, they think their vote doesn't fucking matter.

But why do you give a fuck?

As long as the economy keeps growing you and Cred are in the black baby![/quote]
+1, :food-smil

Re: Winning
 

Mooby with the mic drop

Re: Winning
 

Y’all know it was political hit job with little merit and if you admit it’s a hit job, then the rest is bullshit.

Folks celebrated the fbi investigation and the scope of that review was left to the senate and not the president. Now when it doesn’t produce an outcome you want...here come the conspiracy theories.

One minute the fbi is saving the world for investigating unfounded Russian ties and next trump is running the fbi somehow controlling Big Kavy investigation. It’s like Comey...when Comey is talking about Hillary he is scapegoat for losing the election and when he is fired, he is treated as a savior for dems.

I just want it to end...

Re: Winning
 

Mooby your post is excellent. You highlighted all that is currently wrong in DC.

Here’s where I come down. We have a nominee whose record as a lawyer and judge is exemplary. Everyone he’s worked with as a judge has been complimentary of both his work and his character.

We have believable accusations from Ford that can’t be corroborated, and we have a lot of evidence that there was oodles of drunken behavior in college.

Ultimately, his record as a judge is more recent, more pertinent to the job he’s nominated to do, and a lot longer in years.

So not to dismiss Ford’s trauma, but Mooby given your brilliant assessment of the nasty political climate we’re in, is anybody shocked that Cavanaugh responded strongly, including some lying about the extent to which he got drunk in college? His stretching of the truth there is yet another symptom of the toxicicity on Capital Hill.

I won’t make excuses for him. But what I’m saying is that DC has lowered the bar such that defensive fibbing about drinking habits from 35 years ago is understandable. And in the grand scheme, I’ll set that aside and accept his nomination as supportable because ultimately his record as a judge matters to me more than how he responded to an obvious political hit.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=Schneed10;1201849]Mooby your post is excellent. You highlighted all that is currently wrong in DC.

Here’s where I come down. We have a nominee whose record as a lawyer and judge is exemplary. Everyone he’s worked with as a judge has been complimentary of both his work and his character.

We have believable accusations from Ford that can’t be corroborated, and we have a lot of evidence that there was oodles of drunken behavior in college.

Ultimately, his record as a judge is more recent, more pertinent to the job he’s nominated to do, and a lot longer in years.

So not to dismiss Ford’s trauma, but Mooby given your brilliant assessment of the nasty political climate we’re in, is anybody shocked that Cavanaugh responded strongly, including some lying about the extent to which he got drunk in college? His stretching of the truth there is yet another symptom of the toxicicity on Capital Hill.

I won’t make excuses for him. But what I’m saying is that DC has lowered the bar such that defensive fibbing about drinking habits from 35 years ago is understandable. And in the grand scheme, I’ll set that aside and accept his nomination as supportable because ultimately his record as a judge matters to me more than how he responded to an obvious political hit.[/quote]

His drinking was a gotcha question. The worst sneaky fucking kind. If he answered yes, he got black out drunk before, the next question is so you have no way of knowing you assaulted Ford or whoever else they want to throw forwards, because you've been blacked out before? We all know blackout drunk, doesn't equal sexual assault, otherwise many of us, myself included, should be in prison. But that's not how that would have went down. We're in a sad place, on both sides (probably been like this before my time too), where party matters over truth. The ends justify the means.

In regards to whoever is on the supreme court, if you don't make your rulings based on the constitution, you should not be there. Don't care what side you're on. The SC was never supposed to be politicized like it is now. Says a lot about the "leaders" we have voted into office.

Re: Winning
 

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1201844]Mooby I don’t want this to become the norm...political hit job have no place in this process. Just continues to divide the country...it’s terrible.

And I could careless if Big Kavy blackout drinking in college...everyone was weekly. like if someone smoked a lot of weed...who cares. Shit that’s what made college fun as hell. And it just wasn’t guys either, I knew a lot of Sorority girls and reg chicks into hard drugs. It’s college!

I think we can agree the best news of the day:

[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-laquan-mcdonald-jason-van-dyke-trial-verdict-20181005-story.html[/url]

He is guilty and it’s a shame the FOP doesn’t realize something needs to change in the department[/QUOTE]Agree 100% on the link being great news.

Re: Winning
 

Everyone should read Susan Collins speech on Big Kavy...talk about presenting facts...she knocks it out the park. Thank god we have folks like this still in Congress.

I’ll say it again: Facts don’t care about your feelings. Collins is simply brilliant here:

[url]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/read-sen-susan-collins-full-speech-support-kavanaugh-n917226[/url]

Re: Winning
 

Just remember folks it’s a scary time to be a guy, meanwhile women are doing great. [emoji106][emoji106]

[emoji849]

Re: Winning
 

[quote=Schneed10;1201849]Mooby your post is excellent. You highlighted all that is currently wrong in DC.

Here’s where I come down. We have a nominee whose record as a lawyer and judge is exemplary. Everyone he’s worked with as a judge has been complimentary of both his work and his character.

We have believable accusations from Ford that can’t be corroborated, and we have a lot of evidence that there was oodles of drunken behavior in college.

Ultimately, his record as a judge is more recent, more pertinent to the job he’s nominated to do, and a lot longer in years.

So not to dismiss Ford’s trauma, but Mooby given your brilliant assessment of the nasty political climate we’re in, is anybody shocked that Cavanaugh responded strongly, including some lying about the extent to which he got drunk in college? His stretching of the truth there is yet another symptom of the toxicicity on Capital Hill.

I won’t make excuses for him. [B]But what I’m saying is that DC has lowered the bar such that defensive fibbing about drinking habits from 35 years ago is understandable.[/B] And in the grand scheme, I’ll set that aside and accept his nomination as supportable because ultimately his record as a judge matters to me more than how he responded to an obvious political hit.[/quote]

This is the most disgusting aspect to me. Lying about inside high school dumb jock jokes and drinking and yet somehow we are okay giving him a lifetime appointment. I do not agree with him politically but I would have had so much more respect if he said "Yeah Renate Alumni is exactly what it sounds like. I was a teenager with undeveloped executive functioning and know it was not appropriate to make those statements nor indicative of who I am now." Based on the testimony alone that cannot be corroborated he should get the nomination and in my opinion would have with out lying.

I know as you pointed out the toxicity of Capitol Hill this approach would've been polarizing there, but I have to believe that he would've been appointed and that it had the opportunity to have a galvanizing effect and not have the dividing effect that it will.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1201856]This is the most disgusting aspect to me. Lying about inside high school dumb jock jokes and drinking and yet somehow we are okay giving him a lifetime appointment. I [B]do not agree with him politically[/B] but I would have had so much more respect if he said "Yeah Renate Alumni is exactly what it sounds like. I was a teenager with undeveloped executive functioning and know it was not appropriate to make those statements nor indicative of who I am now." Based on the testimony alone that cannot be corroborated he should get the nomination and in my opinion would have with out lying.

I know as you pointed out the toxicity of Capitol Hill this approach would've been polarizing there, but I have to believe that he would've been appointed and that it had the opportunity to have a galvanizing effect and not have the dividing effect that it will.[/quote]

How do you know this or base this on?

what it appears to me is folks are trying to grasp at this point to anything to oppose Kavy, no matter how ridiculous it is.

I suggest you read the Susan Collins speech, there are a litany of facts about the circus, but most importantly their is a clear record of his judicial record. You may be surprised and find yourself agreeing with his decisions on important cases.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=MTK;1201855]Just remember folks it’s a scary time to be a guy, meanwhile women are doing great. [emoji106][emoji106]

[emoji849][/quote]

The threats against Susan Collins and her ability to not be bullied are something else, huh?

Re: Winning
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1201856]This is the most disgusting aspect to me. Lying about inside high school dumb jock jokes and drinking and yet somehow we are okay giving him a lifetime appointment. I do not agree with him politically but I would have had so much more respect if he said "Yeah Renate Alumni is exactly what it sounds like. I was a teenager with undeveloped executive functioning and know it was not appropriate to make those statements nor indicative of who I am now." Based on the testimony alone that cannot be corroborated he should get the nomination and in my opinion would have with out lying.

I know as you pointed out the toxicity of Capitol Hill this approach would've been polarizing there, but I have to believe that he would've been appointed and that it had the opportunity to have a galvanizing effect and not have the dividing effect that it will.[/quote]

Well said, you might be right. If DC is going to start acting like adults again it has to start somewhere.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=Chico23231;1201861]The threats against Susan Collins and her ability to not be bullied are something else, huh?[/quote]
what threats? Bullied,let's talk about a bully?


[IMG]https://i.pinimg.com/564x/50/4e/a3/504ea331b6a618f3a567130dfca80589.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Winning
 

[quote=Schneed10;1201862]Well said, you might be right. If DC is going to start acting like adults again it has to start somewhere.[/quote]

Honest question, do you think that can happen with trump in the WH?

Re: Winning
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1201850]His drinking was a gotcha question. The worst sneaky fucking kind. If he answered yes, he got black out drunk before, the next question is so you have no way of knowing you assaulted Ford or whoever else they want to throw forwards, because you've been blacked out before? We all know blackout drunk, doesn't equal sexual assault, otherwise many of us, myself included, should be in prison. But that's not how that would have went down. We're in a sad place, on both sides (probably been like this before my time too), where party matters over truth. The ends justify the means.

In regards to whoever is on the supreme court, if you don't make your rulings based on the constitution, you should not be there. Don't care what side you're on. The SC was never supposed to be politicized like it is now. Says a lot about the "leaders" we have voted into office.[/quote]

You’re right about the gotcha aspect.

As for the politicization of the SC, I actually think that’s overblown by a) people’s fears over Roe v Wade and b) the media highlighting all the times a judge ruled in favor of one political mindset and failing to mention all the times he voted in favor of the other.

We’ve seen Roberts go in unexpected directions as a SC justice and he was supposedly one of the most conservative. I think their leanings are consequential, but they still stick to the interpretations of the written statutes and constitution.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=Chico23231;1201706]WOW:

[url]https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/02/trump-trade-canada-china-warning-825358[/url]

Trump’s new loyalty test: Don’t make trade deal with China

[url]https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-affirms-china-trade-aspirations-after-some-say-usmca-impedes-any-deal-1.4118165[/url]

Fucking Ruthless by Trump and Administration. Talk about cut throat...

The new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement allows any of the countries to withdraw from the deal on six-month's notice if one of the partners enters into a free trade agreement with a non-market economy -- language widely seen as referring to China

The USMCA also requires a member country to provide notice and information to the other two partners if it plans free trade talks with a "non-market" economy

The clause in the new agreement -- which still needs formal approval in all three countries -- gives the other partners a say in the text of such a deal.

Conservative MPs repeatedly referred to that clause as a "Trump veto" during question period, while trade experts remained divided on whether that was in fact the case



This is the type of deal Trump practice in private...just fucking ruthless.[/quote]

[url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-us-not-invited-to-canadas-save-the-wto-summit-of-13-like-minded/[/url]

Re: Winning
 

CNN is starting to get it:
[URL="https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/donald-trump-presidency-supreme-court-economy/index.html"]President Donald Trump's winning streak[/URL]

The election is gonna be a crazy moment in the midst of crazy moments

Re: Winning
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1201868]CNN is starting to get it:
[URL="https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/donald-trump-presidency-supreme-court-economy/index.html"]President Donald Trump's winning streak[/URL]

The election is gonna be a crazy moment in the midst of crazy moments[/quote]

from the same link.................


The case against the President
Many of Trump's perceived achievements are hugely controversial, and his opponents will argue that they stain America's image, reverse a march toward human progress and justice, and will ultimately exert a price the nation will be paying for many years to come.
And Democrats carp that Trump is only building off the far more significant economic work of his predecessor Barack Obama in the wake of the Great Recession and argue that his tax cuts sharply worsened inequality and exploded budget deficits in a way that will haunt the economy for decades.
Trump's critics say his approach to the world threatens to buckle the international system of alliances and a rule-based trading system that made America the richest and most powerful nation in US history and a beacon of democracy.
They say his presidency is in fact most notable for a culture of corruption, falsehood and demagoguery.
There is a case to be made that Trump's constant twisting of truth, invention of false political realities and strategy of tearing at the country's racial, gender and societal divides in order to capture and wield power threaten the eternal values and institutions of the nation itself.
This week, the President stood accused of tax fraud after a New York Times investigation into his family finances in the 1990s. And, though special counsel Robert Mueller has gone quiet in election season, Trump's campaign is under investigation to see whether it conspired with a foreign power to win his election.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=Giantone;1201869]from the same link.................


{cnn not getting it} [/quote]

I said CNN was STARTING to get it. They aren't going to just roll over and start singing Alleluia, their readers would go ballistic. BUT my guess is that they have had more positive Trump pieces, and headlines the last few days then in the last two year. RCP economic polls, even CNN's all reflect greater than 50 approval for Trump's handling of the economy, and even general Trump approval numbers seem to have slowly climbing toward the 50-50 mark.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1201882]I said CNN was STARTING to get it. They aren't going to just roll over and start singing Alleluia, their readers would go ballistic. BUT my guess is that they have had more positive Trump pieces, and headlines the last few days then in the last two year. RCP economic polls, even CNN's all reflect greater than 50 approval for Trump's handling of the economy, and even general Trump approval numbers seem to have slowly climbing toward the 50-50 mark.[/quote]

no it doesn't................

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/politics/trump-approval-rating-dropped/index.html[/url]

Re: Winning
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1201884]no it doesn't................

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/politics/trump-approval-rating-dropped/index.html[/url][/QUOTE]
First that article was a month ago, kind of pointless to reference it.
Second, You have to look at the collection of polls.
realclearpolitics.com is a good neutral aggregator of all the polls in the country regardless of bias and they graph the tracking of the polls over the years. Nearly all the polls over the past 2 months have a steady 53percent negative similar to bush and obama at their midterms. Most have positives ranging from high 30s to low 40s. My point is that if all the polls have consistent negative rate, the unsure portion is likely trump voters who arent trusting pollsters.

Re: Winning
 

[QUOTE=CRedskinsRule;1201886]First that article was a month ago, kind of pointless to reference it.
Second, You have to look at the collection of polls.
realclearpolitics.com is a good neutral aggregator of all the polls in the country regardless of bias and they graph the tracking of the polls over the years. Nearly all the polls over the past 2 months have a steady 53percent negative similar to bush and obama at their midterms. Most have positives ranging from high 30s to low 40s. My point is that if all the polls have consistent negative rate, the unsure portion is likely trump voters who arent trusting pollsters.[/QUOTE]Here is the link for approval of trump handling of the economy

[url]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval_economy-6182.html#polls[/url]

Re: Winning
 

Winning............,tariffs

Automaker Ford plans layoffs, blames Trump tariffs for $1 billion loss: report



[url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ford-poised-for-layoffs-after-1-billion-trade-war-hit_us_5bbbce51e4b01470d05445e5[/url]


[url]https://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2018/10/ford_layoffs_trump_tariffs.html[/url]

Re: Winning
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1202495]Winning............,tariffs

Automaker Ford plans layoffs, blames Trump tariffs for $1 billion loss: report



[url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ford-poised-for-layoffs-after-1-billion-trade-war-hit_us_5bbbce51e4b01470d05445e5[/url]


[url]https://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2018/10/ford_layoffs_trump_tariffs.html[/url][/QUOTE]Nobody said bad businesses wouldnt be affected

From the NBC source article
[Quote]Ford is lagging behind the competition, selling an anemic 32.8 vehicles per employee. Long-time rival GM puts out 52.7 vehicles per employee. But it's unclear exactly how improved efficiencies will impact potential job cuts.[/Quote]

Re: Winning
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1202538]Nobody said bad businesses wouldnt be affected

From the NBC source article[/quote]


Ok, so are these 202 Companies bad businesses?



[url]https://reason.com/archives/2018/09/14/tariff-victims[/url]

Re: Winning
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1202564]Ok, so are these 202 Companies bad businesses?



[url]https://reason.com/archives/2018/09/14/tariff-victims[/url][/QUOTE]
I am sure some are and some are not, the tariffs no doubt will impact businesses. The company i work for buys hundreds of steel hangers a week from overseas, we have seen price increases, shortages, longer lead times. And so have our competitors. These arent unequal or unfairly added costs, so each company will make their business decusions to remain competitive. That is capitalist principles in action. Some companies will not remain, but the economy as a whole continues to grow and offer new opportunities for people throughout the country.

Is it your suggestion that, given the high economic growth and low unemployment numbers its not right for the US to make a stand against other countries unfair trade tactics with us?

If so, my question is if not now, when the economy has a resilience to handle the pressures tarriffs may create, then when would be the right time for the US to protect our country's industrial base from aggressive and blatantly unfair trade.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1202570]I am sure some are and some are not, the tariffs no doubt will impact businesses. The company i work for buys hundreds of steel hangers a week from overseas, we have seen price increases, shortages, longer lead times. And so have our competitors. These arent unequal or unfairly added costs, so each company will make their business decusions to remain competitive. That is capitalist principles in action. Some companies will not remain, but the economy as a whole continues to grow and offer new opportunities for people throughout the country.

Is it your suggestion that, given the high economic growth and low unemployment numbers its not right for the US to make a stand against other countries unfair trade tactics with us?

If so, my question is if not now, when the economy has a resilience to handle the pressures tarriffs may create, then when would be the right time for the US to protect our country's industrial base from aggressive and blatantly unfair trade.[/quote]


You are talking about "unfair trade tactics" ,I am talking about a tax the president is adding that is directly or indirectly hurting American companies . As much as republicans don't want to admit it the economic growth you speak of and low unemployment numbers were all started under the Obama Administration many of the programs that have led to those up numbers Obama tried to implement put was stopped by Congress, without Tariffs = taxes.

Re: Winning
 

Kanye in the WH... WTF

[URL="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hugely-embarrassed-trump-kanye-maggie-haberman_us_5bc0cc74e4b01a01d68a57e0"]White House Aides ‘Hugely Embarrassed’ By Trump’s Lunch With Kanye: NYT Reporter[/URL]

This was more strange than when Elvis met with Nixon

Re: Winning
 

[quote=MTK;1202724]Kanye in the WH... WTF

[URL="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hugely-embarrassed-trump-kanye-maggie-haberman_us_5bc0cc74e4b01a01d68a57e0"]White House Aides ‘Hugely Embarrassed’ By Trump’s Lunch With Kanye: NYT Reporter[/URL]

This was more strange than when Elvis met with Nixon[/quote]

Chappelle defended Kanye. Dave is the fucking man. Good enough for him good enough for me lol.

Re: Winning
 

[quote=sdskinsfan2001;1202725]Chappelle defended Kanye. Dave is the fucking man. Good enough for him good enough for me lol.[/quote]

Eh, he said he supports Kanye but he also said he shouldn't be saying all that shit.

[quote]While Chappelle thinks that his friend has good intentions, he clearly seems to feel that he’s veered off course. “I’m not mad at Kanye. That’s my brother. I love him, I support him,” Chappelle said. “But, you know, I don’t have to agree with everything that he says. I just trust him as a person of intent. But yeah, he shouldn’t say all that s***.”

[URL="https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/dave-chappelle-reacts-pal-kanye-wests-trump-love-shouldnt-say-s-172607360.html"]link[/URL][/quote]

Either way it was just a bizarre scene.