Political Roundtable Part XXIV

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

Regardless who gets the nomination both sides need to come together to defeat Trump. They agree on like 90% of policies and the media makes the divide within the Democratic Party a bigger issue then it really is.

You mean like they did the last time. Ask TGW if he would vote for a centrist Democrat.

History has a way of repeating itself. I know this is cynical and your bolded statement is obvious and correct. I just think it will be a lot easier to divide the Ds than the Rs at this point.

I think it will be easier this time for the Bernie Bros to vote for whoever wins the nomination (maybe Bernie!). Trump has been the biggest embarrassment in world history, and there won't be any shenanigans on the DNC side with the Clintons owning the fundraising apparatus.

If Hillary runs again, though...

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[Pointgod]

Regardless who gets the nomination both sides need to come together to defeat Trump. They agree on like 90% of policies and the media makes the divide within the Democratic Party a bigger issue then it really is.

You mean like they did the last time. Ask TGW if he would vote for a centrist Democrat.

History has a way of repeating itself. I know this is cynical and your bolded statement is obvious and correct. I just think it will be a lot easier to divide the Ds than the Rs at this point.

Well I’ve told TGW he was wrong last time and if he has that attitude again he will be wrong. Hopefully next time around there are more level headed people and engaged people.

What’s interesting is that the whole point of a primary is for the voters of the party to exercise their choice to represent them. So by choosing not to support that you’re going against the will of the the majority of your party. There are exceptions when someone is too vile and unqualified (I.e. Trump) but you’ll never succeed in getting what you want from a policy perspective by letting Republicans gain more power.

[gtn130]

Regardless who gets the nomination both sides need to come together to defeat Trump. They agree on like 90% of policies and the media makes the divide within the Democratic Party a bigger issue then it really is.

You mean like they did the last time. Ask TGW if he would vote for a centrist Democrat.

History has a way of repeating itself. I know this is cynical and your bolded statement is obvious and correct. I just think it will be a lot easier to divide the Ds than the Rs at this point.

Well I’ve told TGW he was wrong last time and if he has that attitude again he will be wrong. Hopefully next time around there are more level headed people and engaged people.

What’s interesting is that the whole point of a primary is for the voters of the party to exercise their choice to represent them. So by choosing not to support that you’re going against the will of the the majority of your party. There are exceptions when someone is too vile and unqualified (I.e. Trump) but you’ll never succeed in getting what you want from a policy perspective by letting Republicans gain more power.

Right. It's worth reiterating - if you sat out the 2016 election because Hillary was TOO CORRUPT then you simply weren't informed or making a rational decision. It's an embarrassment and something you should never tell anyone if you'd like to retain a modicum of self-respect.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Remind me - what was Obama's return at 1.876 years?

To be honest, I wish more people would remember because I get the impression that there is a recession on the horizon in the relatively near future. I hope I'm wrong because a recession with the kind of deficit we're seeing now is not exactly ideal.

[stilldropin20]

the people around the globe are tired of being unfairly taxed for political fallacies.

Read on Twitter

and like a cookie they all crumble

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

a good laugh for all of us.

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[TGW]

The point Doc was making was pretty clear. What problem do you have with what AOC said? Nothing she said was naive. It was 100% truth.

Except that it wasn't.

It was woefully inaccurate. As stated by a number of media across the political spectrum.

Spoiler:

...multiple fact-checkers gave a clear verdict to Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion that Pentagon accounting errors could largely cover the costs: it wasn’t true.

Left-leaning news site Vox.com explained: “The Pentagon’s accounting errors are genuinely enormous, but they’re also just accounting errors — they don’t represent actual money that can be spent on something else.”

Underscoring the disconnect between the original story and Ocasio-Cortez's Twitter claim, Vox continued: "Indeed, there simply hasn’t been $21 trillion in (nominal) Defense Department spending across the entirety of American history."

The crux of the story is not so much misspending, as an alleged lack of transparency by the Pentagon.

The New York Times noted that the $21 trillion is the value of adjustments made to Pentagon records that couldn’t be traced: “That is not the same thing as $21 trillion in spending.”


“The point, I think, was more about how we care so little about the ‘how do you pay for it’ when we are talking about war and military spending,” her spokesman told The Washington Post. “It’s only when we are talking about investing in the physical and economic well-being of our citizenry that we become concerned with the price tags.”

The Post, however, still described the original tweet as a “swing and a miss!” and awarded her claim “four Pinocchios.”

Seems as much as the right dislike the young lady and unnecessarily castigate her...the leftists equally love and unnecessarily coddle her.

We're in for a bumpy few years of AOC coverage.

If you honestly believe the Pentagon didn't spend that money, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. The Pentagon spends so much of our taxpayer money, it's scary. Most of it gets funneled to radical Islamic groups to fight against our enemies in the Middle East. Notice that despite the admitted [multiple] accounting errors, the Pentagon is never audited or held to any type of fiscal responsibility. They get a blank check every year to do god-awful evils overseas....mostly to brown and black people. And I honestly believe it's a much bigger number than $21T.

To completely disregard the point she was making over semantics is silly.

[Doug_Blew]

Dow Jones when Obama was in office
01/20/2009 .. 7,949
01/20/2017 .. 19,827
--------------------------------
149% / 8 years = 18.67% Average on initial investment per year over 8 years

Dow Jones under Trump
01/20/2017 .. 19,827 .. In office 1 year 320 days
12/04/2018 .. 24,524
-----------------------------
23.68% / 1.876 years = 12.62% Average on initial investment per year over 1.87 years


Trump's % is 2% lower than it was two days ago. And it seems that this latest decline is directly related to his tweet related to a deal with China on Auto Tariffs.

Remind me - what was Obama's return at 1.876 years?

Obama didn't use the daily fluctuations of the stock market as a barometer of how he was doing. On the other hand Trump did.

[Jamaaliver]

To completely disregard the point she was making over semantics is silly.

Yes.

The Washington Post and New York Times both are silly for pointing out an inaccurate statement from an elected official.



And AOC is beyond reproach...Got it.

[pancakes3]

fwiw, the entirety of 2018's gains were wiped out in the last 2 days.

normally the president has very little to do with day-to-day stock prices, and even their policies that could influence the economy takes weeks, if not months to impose effects. not in this case though, imo.

[dobrojim]

I wouldn't be surprised if this still was or is the case but for many years going back
to the 1980s, the pentagon had to annually get a waiver from the requirement
that their budget be audited because no one could manage to do a proper audit.

[TGW]

To completely disregard the point she was making over semantics is silly.

Yes.

The Washington Post and New York Times both are silly for pointing out an inaccurate statement from an elected official.

And AOC is beyond reproach...Got it.

The Washington Post and the NYTimes are literally controlled by the CIA (the WaPo has an ex-CIA director on their board). I take whatever they have to say on anything relating to the Pentagon or national defense with a grain of salt.

And thanks for cutting off the rest of my post. It's clear you've chosen to be a useful idiot.