Trump's New Year Message

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

13 Dec 2017, 04:35 #2321

The dirtbag didn't concede. 

Oh, well, who cares what a shit like him says? 
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply
Like

Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

13 Dec 2017, 06:49 #2322

Fortune Cookie wrote: The dirtbag didn't concede. 

Oh, well, who cares what a shit like him says? 
Moore said: "The election results are now in God's hands"!
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

13 Dec 2017, 11:44 #2323

Dun Fudgin wrote:
Fortune Cookie wrote: The dirtbag didn't concede. 

Oh, well, who cares what a shit like him says? 
Moore said: "The election results are now in God's hands"!
Who’s hands???
045B5BC1-8806-4231-9A1F-91D48FDC76D5.jpeg
Reply
Like

Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

13 Dec 2017, 12:14 #2324

Leland33 wrote:
Dun Fudgin wrote:
Fortune Cookie wrote: The dirtbag didn't concede. 

Oh, well, who cares what a shit like him says? 
Moore said: "The election results are now in God's hands"!
Who’s hands???
I think Roy Moore would have been quite a drag on the Republican party in the Senate.
He just makes them look awful.
I was not caring a whole lot one way or the other at the end and went to bed.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

13 Dec 2017, 12:49 #2325

Yeah - had a 4AM call - almost decided to make it an all nighter.

Sorry about the Putin pic.

BTW - I have to catch up on my email reading from US Representative Gabbard’s and Senator Sanders plans.

Under the “Our Revolution” Flag Bernie is setting up what looks to be another political party by forming caucuses state by state nation wide. Currently by region of Massachusetts. It sure looks like things are moving - an email to me asked if I knew of a delegate.

In the mean time, Aloha, Tulsi is shoring up the DNC. Again I’m behind in my emails and if interested I’ll post them in the Politics thread.
Reply
Like

Joined: 02 Apr 2011, 03:07

13 Dec 2017, 13:03 #2326

About a year ago I heard that Tulsi and Bernie have email list of five to ten million. Who knows if it could be many times more someday.

There’s a real power in email. It’s cheap and Bernie learned little donations build up.

How would you respond to an email just asking for a nomination for a Massachusetts caucus/Northshore Region for the “Our” Party? And not a $$$ donation but more email addresses
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

14 Dec 2017, 14:48 #2327

Can you imagine if we had someone with this kind of dignity and compassion in the White House? 

What a contrast with the sleazy scumbag who resides there now. 

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply
Like

Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

16 Dec 2017, 15:42 #2328

More news in Stupid World!

Trump administration officials are forbidding officials at the nation's top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases in any official documents being prepared for next year's budget.
Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing.
The forbidden words are: "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based," and "science-based."

I wonder if any of the Warren-hating worms here on CAO (re-fighting old, irrelevant stories ad nauseam) have any thoughts on this!
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

16 Dec 2017, 15:52 #2329

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

16 Dec 2017, 15:54 #2330

Instead of "science-based" or "evidence-based," the suggested phrase is "CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes".

In other words, first you establish the scientific evidence, then you subject it to compromise with political expediency, ideology, superstition and ignorance.

That's what happened with Mike Pence's AIDS policy in Indiana:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ ... ive-226759
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply
Like

Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 05:22

16 Dec 2017, 16:32 #2331

How can you eliminate science based and evidence based? This sounds like something directly out of " 1984".
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

16 Dec 2017, 19:46 #2332

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply
Like

Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

17 Dec 2017, 14:04 #2333

flounda wrote: How can you eliminate science based and evidence based? This sounds like something directly out of " 1984".
Ed Zachary.  Waiting (not with bated breath, I should note) for one of Chump's acolytes here (masky, dianne, et al) to defend this latest round of the destruction of reason and reality.

And still waiting for anyone to offer a defense of the Tax Bill, and its 10-year expansion of the deficit by ONE AND A HALF TRILLION DOLLARS.
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

20 Dec 2017, 15:09 #2334

Everyone should listen to this. It is the podcast from the NYT that explains how the individual mandate went from being the best thing since sliced bread to the most horrible threat to the land -- for Republicans that is. 

Hypocrites!

https://nyti.ms/2DdXW01
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply
Like

Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

20 Dec 2017, 16:15 #2335

Thank you all for doing the research but I wonder if it has any effect.
If you are arguing with positions held by people who state clearly
that they do not do evidence, algebra, scientific method or reason,
it is fruitless. We can talk to each other, but we can not change any
minds. I am totally at a loss at least until we have another election.
What a mess.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

20 Dec 2017, 17:00 #2336

Mess, indeed. I hope we can clean it up when it's all over, like Obama had to do when he was elected in 2008. 
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply
Like

Joined: 27 Apr 2011, 20:12

21 Dec 2017, 02:53 #2337

So is anyone here going to defend Rosie O'Donnell or can we all just agree she's an idiot and should be prosecuted? I for one don't think she was joking either. Shame too because I enjoyed her in the new show "Smilf" which takes place in Southie!
Reply
Like

Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

21 Dec 2017, 03:34 #2338

What did Rosie O'Donnell do that is any different than what the Repubs did? 

They bought the votes of Collins for about $2 million. Is it OK when the disgusting, treasonous, and unAmerican Mitch McConnell does this, but somehow not OK for Rosie O'Donnell to do the same? To mock how cheap Collins's sold herself for by making this offer? "

Have you not ever heard of political theater? 
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply
Like

Joined: 08 May 2013, 01:45

21 Dec 2017, 13:30 #2339

Oh poor Rosie.  Let's leave her alone- she has larger problems than attempted bribery of public officials.

On a lighter note; this ought to ease the minds of they hysterical- because no doubt they are getting their news from CNN or MSNBC and would not have learned this.   However, I suppose that the truly unhinged haters are not quite ready to let go of their anger.  Maybe they never will.  For the rest of you concerned that Schumer and Pelosi are telling the truth, giggle this may help:

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... -it-works/

The Tax Policy Center (TPC), a liberal think tank, noted that more than 80% of Americans will get tax cuts under the plan just passed. And the benefits will go to every income group, not "billionaires." This, by the way, is bolstered by other recent analyses by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation and by the widely respected nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

TPC estimates an average tax cut of about $2,140 per person. By the way, some 16% of the richest Americans — those in the top 0.1% of incomes — will face an average tax increase of $387,610.

Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute, further crunching the TPC numbers, found that while the top 1% of incomes now pay 27% of all federal taxes, they will get just 21% of the tax cuts. The bottom 80%, including the middle class, pays only 33% of all taxes, but will take home 35% of the tax cuts.

Of the 12% who will face tax hikes, they're overwhelmingly among the rich — not the middle class.
So, no, it's not "tax cuts for the rich." That's a totally bogus argument.

For that matter, so are the arguments that tax cuts tank the economy. History is replete with examples of why that isn't true.

The tax cuts on corporations and small, pass-through businesses, along with letting companies immediately expense the cost of new equipment, should lead to more business investment. So should shrinking the death tax, which should encourage more small-business investment.

How much more is an open question, but the Heritage Foundation, which employs a widely used economic model, estimates that the tax cuts will tack on 2.2% to long-term GDP, or roughly $3,000 per household.

That estimate includes a 4.5% jump in capital investment, mainly in equipment, and a hefty 9.4% gain in business structures. Along with expected rises in both the number of jobs and hours worked, after-tax wages for the average worker will be 3.5% higher than they would have been without the tax cuts.

Others see more modest, yet still significant, gains. The Tax Foundation, for instance, forecasts a long-term permanent rise of 1.7% in GDP and 1.5% for wages. It also sees 339,000 new jobs.

These aren't pie-in-the sky guesses. As history clearly shows, growth-oriented tax cuts such as these almost always have major benefits for the economy and for average workers. During the 20th century, big tax cuts in the 1920s (Harding, Coolidge), 1960s (Kennedy) and 1980s (Reagan) all yielded major growth dividends for the U.S. economy.

What's more, those past major tax cuts were to varying degrees bipartisan. Sadly, not this time. Not one Democrat voted for them. Not one.

That's why the Democrats and progressive left have become so utterly unhinged. They've failed to stop the one thing that might deny them a chance to retake both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections: an economic boom.

When the economy really begins cooking, with the economy growing close to 3%, hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created and workers seeing more in their paychecks, how will they explain that to their constituents?
Reply
Like

Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

21 Dec 2017, 14:13 #2340

Clearly the reduced percentages and increased standard deductions will lead to lower average taxes across the board for a few years until those sunset provisions start to kick in. I think the advantage is not just temporary but somewhat ephemeral though. The reduction was achieved by cutting the yearly total income of the US government. This of course means more debt unless spending is reduced dramatically. Clearly expensive programs such as social and medical benefits will be reduced. I am sure it is the lower and middle classes that will be impacted most severely by these needed reductions. Military expenditures must also be radically reduced if the tax reductions are to stick. The government is not making any promises to cut back on wars.
My problem is that I do not see the arithmetic working out. There is no way the GNP can expand enough to cover the losses and debt will escalate while social programs are cut back.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply
Like