Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Unlikely does not make it impossible or improbable

Oh wow, this is a gem.
Thank you so very much, I really needed this tonight.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Unlikely does not make it impossible or improbable

Oh wow, this is a gem.
Thank you so very much, I really needed this tonight.

you know the point I am trying to make, take your smug elsewhere.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Unlikely does not make it impossible or improbable

Oh wow, this is a gem.
Thank you so very much, I really needed this tonight.

you know the point I am trying to make, take your smug elsewhere.

Kindly becalm your mammaries, sir. No smug was intended. If you can't laugh at yourself for committing aggravated pleonasm, then you should drop the mouse, push back the keyboard and slowly step away from your computer, regardless of the subject.

However, I believe that this tangentially proves my point. Someone who thinks that "unlikely does not mean impossible or improbable", and that this support single-issue voting, surely cannot be trusted to monitor properly across multiple values. I know you'll claim this was an innocent mistake, to which I reply : what prevents your political affiliation from being just such a mistake, however innocent it may ?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Unlikely does not make it impossible or improbable

Oh wow, this is a gem.
Thank you so very much, I really needed this tonight.

you know the point I am trying to make, take your smug elsewhere.

Kindly becalm your mammaries, sir. No smug was intended. If you can't laugh at yourself for committing aggravated pleonasm, then you should drop the mouse, push back the keyboard and slowly step away from your computer, regardless of the subject.

However, I believe that this tangentially proves my point. Someone who thinks that "unlikely does not mean impossible or improbable", and that this support single-issue voting, surely cannot be trusted to monitor properly across multiple values. I know you'll claim this was an innocent mistake, to which I reply : what prevents your political affiliation from being just such a mistake, however innocent it may ?

No your just deliberately pushing and provoking trying to sound smarter than you are. You absolutely wanted to sneak in an insult.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Unlikely does not make it impossible or improbable

Oh wow, this is a gem.
Thank you so very much, I really needed this tonight.

you know the point I am trying to make, take your smug elsewhere.

Well you literally made a statement saying that something being unlikely doesn't make it improbable, which is a factually untrue statement on word use alone so without further elaboration it does seem rather silly.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Unlikely does not make it impossible or improbable

Oh wow, this is a gem.
Thank you so very much, I really needed this tonight.

you know the point I am trying to make, take your smug elsewhere.

Well you literally made a statement saying that something being unlikely doesn't make it improbable, which is a factually untrue statement on word use alone so without further elaboration it does seem rather silly.

the difference between improbable and unlikely is that improbable is not likely to be true while unlikely is not likely to happen. If I wasn't clear, ok, but that was no attempt on his part to understand or even anything remotely innocent, just an attempt to be an donkey-cave.

...So it's unlikely that the government will take our guns but not improbable that the government is taking our guns already? Apologies but I don't understand what your counter-point to his argument is.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...So it's unlikely that the government will take our guns but not improbable that the government is taking our guns already? Apologies but I don't understand what your counter-point to his argument is.

The feds cant really do it outright without a court fight, but localities and municipalities are already adding restrictions as much as they can (and sometimes they get overturned by courts) more of a creeping step by step attempt to put so many restrictions that they don't need an outright ban, basically a ban by fiat. So they are not outright saying "you cant have a gun" but they are saying "you cant have this or that gun", you cant have x amount of ammo, you cant have your gun in this jurisdiction, you can have it but it must always be locked away...etc... not really sure how to make this point clearer than the muddy water currently, but there are little death by a thousand papercut things going on, and usually funded (as most things are anymore) by outside interests.

 thekingofkings wrote:
the difference between improbable and unlikely is that improbable is not likely to be true while unlikely is not likely to happen.

What? The definition of 'improbable' is "not probable; unlikely to be true or to happen: ". The definition of 'unlikely' is "not likely to be or occur; improbable; marked by doubt." The two words are literally synonyms, both referencing each other in their definitions. People are commenting on it because you said something that is completely absurd, and keep stubbornly defending it and insulting anyone who tries to point out your mistake.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
the difference between improbable and unlikely is that improbable is not likely to be true while unlikely is not likely to happen.

What? The definition of 'improbable' is "not probable; unlikely to be true or to happen: ". The definition of 'unlikely' is "not likely to be or occur; improbable; marked by doubt." The two words are literally synonyms, both referencing each other in their definitions. People are commenting on it because you said something that is completely absurd, and keep stubbornly defending it and insulting anyone who tries to point out your mistake.

I didn't fire off the first insult but with this group I wont sit and put up with it. I took my differences from wikidiff.com,. dont like it or dont agree fine, but thats not what was happening,.

So in amongst all the other news, Trump has appointed his new Council of Economic Advisors chair, Kevin Hassett. Hassett has spent the last 15 odd years as a loyal Republican pundit, before that he tried to make it as a economics and finance commentator. His big effort as a mainstream economic commentator came in his 1999 book, DOW 36000.

Credit where credit is due, the book’s title was admirably simple, DOW 36000 argued that the DOW was going to quadruple in value, up to 36000. Hassett got this completely wrong, about four months after be made the prediction the tech bubble burst, and the market began a long slide that wiped off about a quarter of its value over the next two years. Whoops. However, being wrong about the markets isn’t by itself a career ending mistake, the markets are unpredictable. But Hassett’s call wasn’t like any ordinary prediction, it was amazingly shoddy work.

Thing is, Hassett got the most basic part of his argument wrong. He based all his work around a thing called the CAPM equation. I got taught CAPM in my first year of uni, it was in the second econ unit you do after the intro course. The guys behind it won a Nobel prize. It’s a big deal in economics, it is the foundation of understanding the value of an asset. It’s also pretty simple, with just three factors considered.

CAPM works by saying the value of an asset today is worth the dividend it pays, adjusting for how that dividend is expected to grow, and the riskiness of the asset. Put simply, price (P) is equal to the dividend stream (D), divided by the required rate of return (R), less the expected growth in dividend payments (G). P=D/(R-G). So if a share pays $1, and it is expected that this will grow by 5% each year, and the stock is risky enough to require a 10% rate of return, then the share will be worth 1/(10%-5%), or $20 per share.

Hassett fethed the equation up. Hassett didn’t used the dividend stream, he used earnings (so not the cash payments made to investors, but both cash paid to investors and earnings retained to fund more investment). This means he double counted any growth, including it both in the numerator as earnings, and in the denominator as part of the expected growth. This wasn’t a small screw up. Redoing his work with the correct formula and it goes from DOW 36000 to DOW 15000. This was a first year econ undergrad screw up that led to Hassett getting his conclusion wrong by a factor of 2.4.

And it wasn’t just the only screw up in the book. He also assumed away any reliability issues on future earnings, making the fundamental mistake of assuming that past returns, and especially growth in returns, can be extrapolated out to determine future earnings. And he presented his argument as a simple mathematical rule, as certain as gravity, when nothing in finance and economics is ever that certain.

The book was the kind of junk that would end most academic careers, even most economists, who are at least a little more sheltered from making wrong calls, given how unpredictable economics can be. But after that screw up, Hassett didn’t only survive, he thrived. He thrived because he gave up on being an economist, and went in to safe, lucrative work of shilling junk, partisan arguments for the Republicans.

As an example, in 2009 Hassett was scathing of Obama’s stimulus package. “Incredibly, some Keynesians who supported Obama’s $862 billion stimulus now claim it fell short of their goals not because the idea was flawed, but because the spending package was too small… In all likelihood the data will soon be so convincingly bad that we’ll again debate the need for an economic stimulus. Let’s hope when that begins, all will finally concede the ideas of John Maynard Keynes are as dead as the man himself.”

And yet, back in 2001, when Hassett was arguing for Bush’s tax cuts as necessary and effective to combat that recession, he argued; “the economists who studied this were quite surprised to find that fiscal policy in recessions was reasonably effective. It is just that folks tried a first punch that was too light and that generally we didn’t get big measures until well into the recession.”

So the complete opposite belief, based on nothing more than who was in the Whitehouse, and who the government stimulus was going to (Bush’s tax cut went primarily to the wealthy, Obama’s stimulus meant continuing Bush’s tax cuts, but also included direct job creation and greater welfare payments). Was Hassett lying when he said stimulus needed to be bigger, or was he lying when he was said that stimulus was a flawed idea, and that no increase could produce the desired result?

Thing is, there are good conservative economists. Lots of them. But they are economists first and conservatives second, and as a result they tend to say things that are unacceptable to Republican dogma, such as suggesting that tax cuts are not the solution to every single problem. The Republican party doesn’t want debate, it wants dogma. So instead of drawing in respected, credentialed economists with conservative beliefs, instead the party has collected a bunch of hacks who’s inadequacies forced them out of real economics work, leaving them instead to take up a line of work saying whatever political line the Republicans are trying to sell at any given moment.

The amazing thing about appointing Hassett as CEA chair is that most people have said it could have been worse. That’s true, with straight up lunatics like Kudlow and Moore being mentioned for chair of CEA, then yeah it could have been a lot worse. But the realisation that the people driving Republican economics are mostly a lot worse than the guy who couldn’t get one of the most basic, foundational formulas in economics right is absolutely damning. It is evidence of a political party buried deep in stupidity.

And this isn't just in Republican economics. Compare the ACA to the new Republican effort. During the ACA debate you couldn’t walk five steps in Washington without stepping on health industry professional, giving his own variation on the basic ACA system and spouting stats and models giving costs. The ACA went through more than 40 CBO reviews. In contrast, Paul Ryan spent a weekend with his staffers, none from health industry backgrounds, and bashed out his alternative plan. Then he got angry when the CBO tried to model its impact one time. No surprise that Ryan’s plan had nothing in it but reducing taxes on the rich, and paying for that by cutting spending as much as needed. Actual work on healthcare, reforming processes, improving markets and transparency, these things weren’t even considered in Ryan’s bill. Hearing those ideas would have meant talking to people who actually know how the industry works.

This is a party that simply doesn’t fething care what reality is. It has its one big idea, cut taxes for rich people, and all it wants is people who will loyally repeat that idea and never question even a single part of that. And so it is a party that ends up putting someone like Kevin Hassett as chair of the CEA, and people think that it could have been worse.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Unlikely does not make it impossible or improbable

Oh wow, this is a gem.
Thank you so very much, I really needed this tonight.

you know the point I am trying to make, take your smug elsewhere.

I apologize if you felt insulted. I had a very bad evening at work and this gave me more than the chuckle it should've been.

But I don't retract from saying that this is terribly shoddy logic. If something being improbable doesn't also make it unlikely, you can justify hysteria over any subject. Any position can be defended by simply starting by it's contraposition as unlikely, then assuming the position as not-improbable.

I'm sad the cheese puff story didn't get more coverage:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2017/04/07/the-deeper-meaning-of-sean-spicers-cheeseballs/

I'm still trying to decide if the camera guy knew what he was doing or not, but it was perfect.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm sad the cheese puff story didn't get more coverage:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2017/04/07/the-deeper-meaning-of-sean-spicers-cheeseballs/

I'm still trying to decide if the camera guy knew what he was doing or not, but it was perfect.

I'm still sad we all seemed to have forgotten about the time that some random guy started appearing in Bush admin press conferences asking softball questions, only have it turn out that the guy was a former male escort who had no press credentials, and was employed by a pretend news agency owned by a Republican activist group.

One of the joys of Republicans in power is that we're spoiled for surreal nonsense. On the other hand, it means Republicans in power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
So far the BDA is a bit better than 'a few camels'.

Aircraft were flying sorties from the base within two days.

As a warning and first step towards seperating Russia from Assad and thereby removing Assad from power this could potentially be meaningful. Though that depends on whether Trump follows up with anything and it's complete guesswork as to whether that will happen.

But arguing that this strike in and of itself gave meaningful damage to Syrian/Russian capability... that's a bit silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:
It's interesting that the airstrike came at the end of the day with two stories breaking regarding Russia and princeling Jared Kushner.

C.I.A. Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed

Kushner Omitted Meeting With Russians on Security Clearance Forms

To be fair, pretty much every day of every week there's new information about Trump's connections to the Russia, and the lies told to conceal those connections. No matter what day the missile was launched, it would have drowned out news about Trump's Russia connections

And for the people jumping on the "Syria proves Trump isn't a puppet," are we going to so quickly forget that Trump has a proven history of reneging on deals and attacking allies, right up to just last week when he was threatening to go after the Freedom Caucus in their primaries? Even if Russia had direct involvement with assisting Trump's campaign, they were likely working with the same assumption that the Republicans had during the primaries; that they could keep control of him.

I'm not sure too many people were ever suggesting the Trump/Putin arrangement was ever that direct. I've never seen that suggestion outside of the more humour oriented side of political coverage.

I think the relationship is a lot more simple and a lot more loose than that. Putin wanted Trump to be president. Trump wanted Trump to be president. They worked together to co-ordinate the release of Russian hacked documents to make their mutual goal happen.

You don't need direct commitments from Trump to make that deal happen. Trump had already shown he was amazingly impressionable, someone got in his ear about Ukraine, likely Manafort, and that led to the Trump team getting the GOP platform changed to a very soft stance. And the sanctions on Russia likely cost Trump business opportunities, so he had his personal motivation to dismantle those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
Yes that is correct, Obama was set to back up his red line but couldn't get support from congress before hand. Trump informed congress, but did not seek prior approval.

The official Obama line is that he wanted to stop using AUMF to give free reign for presidents to partake in foreign adventures without congressional approval. The real line is that Obama was sick of Republicans complaining about Obama doing nothing about a foreign crisis, then immediately switching to complaining about his actions after he did something. There was also concern that without a clear time pressure to react, Obama's case for acting without congressional approval was pretty weak. As such, Obama made the decision to push the thing down on the congress, and get their approval before he acted - he wanted Republicans to actually come out and take a clear position on Syria, not just assume an opposite position to whatever Obama did. It died in the house.

This is an excerpt from Charlie Savage's Power Wars, explaining what happened in the lead up to Obama's inaction.



Something which probably is getting lost in this is that Republicans slated Obama for suggesting action in 2013, after the last chemical weapons attacks, but now they're fully supportive of Trump's reaction. The partisanship is pretty hard to deny, and plays a major role in the actions of each president.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Obama bombed the snot out of Libya, past the 60 days he was allowed under the War Powers Act, and never got congressional approval.

So, no, Obama did not refuse to act based on inability to get approval from congress.

Your argument there is terrible. It hinges on some strange idea of ideological permanence, that once a person takes one action for one reason, they can never act in a different way at any other time. It also ignores that Libya and Syria were different, as Libya had a clear time pressure that Syria lacked. And it ignores that Obama might have changed political strategies, having learned from the Republican hypocrisy over Libya, this time he wanted to get them to stick to a position and remain accountable for it.

Thing is, I disagree with Obama's position on Syria, and think the really condemning fact is how much Obama's position appears driven domestic politics than human and political need in Syria. So I don't want to defend Obama's position at all. But that doesn't mean you get to make crap arguments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Trump only won 46% of the popular vote so even having an approval rating hovering around 40% shows that a majority of the people who voted for Trump don't disapprove of him. Trump started from a low support base and it's shrunk a bit which is telling but he started out on Election Day with a majority of the electorate rejecting him. I don't think there was ever much of a chance of Hillary voters or nonvoters being won over by anything Trump does.

Share of the vote and support aren't one in the same. A person can approve of the job someone is doing but still prefer someone else in the election, or disapprove of the president and vote for them anyway because they hate the alternative. But mostly what you see is president's tracking with strong positives, afterall once they win they're not just a political candidate, they're the leader of the country. Strong partisans might not, but a lot of voters will 'give them a chance'. As a result, Obama's rating by the end of April in his first term was 65%. Bush was at 62%. In comparison, Trump is at 40%. And that figure is even worse when you consider that a big driver of presidential approval is the economy, both Obama and Bush were dealing with economies in downward cycles, while Trump has inherited an economy in a long upward cycle.

And typically presidents burn off their approval scores over time, that's just how politics is - you do something people like and they expect, you do something they don't like and they never forgive you. It takes something pretty remarkable for a president to ever exceed their early approval scores, such as GW Bush's numbers soaring after 9/11. Best case scenario for Trump, and it isn't implausible especially given what we saw in 2016, is that 40% is something of a floor, that normal political gravity doesn't work against him because that 40% is made up of Trumpers and strongly partisan Republicans that will always be there. But there's no certainty that 40% is floor, and even less certainty that 40% will be competitive in 2020. It's also likely to be a big albatross in 2018.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39553250

Spanish police have arrested a Russian programmer for alleged involvement in "hacking" the US election, Spanish press reports have said.
Pyotr Levashov, arrested on 7 April in Barcelona, has now been remanded in custody.
A "legal source" also told the AFP news agency that Mr Levashov was the subject of an extradition request by the US.
The request is due to be examined by Spain's national criminal court, the agency added.
El Confidencial, a Spanish news website, has said that Mr Levashov's arrest warrant was issued by US authorities over suspected "hacking" that helped Donald Trump's campaign.
Several cybersecurity experts, including Brian Krebs, have also linked Mr Levashov to a Russian spam kingpin, who uses the alias Peter Severa.

Que?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?

Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.

Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.

The problem here is the use of the term "legitimate". This may have been a concern. It may have been the result of a causal chain of events. But no, nothing about this last election made voting on this single issue a "legitimate" act.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that in today's politics, single issue voters are socially toxic.

Like those people who voted for Hilary because she was a woman?

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
IT WAS THAT EVIL EMPIRE FROM 60 YEARS AGO. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US. WE DIDN'T TOTALLY FORCE THE UK OFF STAGE AND TAKE ITS ROLE.

Yanks truly are pathetic. Complain about Britain and then act worse as soon as you have power. I can't wait for your country to Balkanize.

And...reported.

Frazzled why are you such a light weight? You always go off on people and yet you're this easily triggered.

You know, there is the meter, and then the millimeter, and the micrometer, and the nanometer, and the picometer, but the smallest unit is the Frazzled's skin! NAH YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE HIS COUNTRY YOU HEATHEN!
Boohoo why are people so mean with the USA which is only doing good things for everybody lol !

 sebster wrote:
Who should we manipulate Trump in to firing next? "President Kushner"?

President Ivanka .

You know, there is the meter, and then the millimeter, and the micrometer, and the nanometer, and the picometer, but the smallest unit is the Frazzled's skin! NAH YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE HIS COUNTRY YOU HEATHEN!
Boohoo why are people so mean with the USA which is only doing good things for everybody lol !

You're just jealous of our Freedom Fries, our rattlesnakes, and Texas Women.



I've got some fond memories of San Angelo
And I've seen some beauty queens in El Paso
But the best lookin' women that I've ever seen
Have all been in Texas and all wearin' jeans

I'm a country plow-boy, not an urban cowboy
And I don't ride bulls but I have fought some men
Drive a pickup truck, trust in God and luck
And I live to love Texas women

I thought I'd seen beauty in faraway places
Till I looked upon those Houston faces
Spent Hollywood nights up in Beverly Hills
But they weren't nothin' like one night down in Brownsville

I'm a country plow-boy, not an urban cowboy
And I don't ride bulls but I have fought some men
Drive a pickup truck, trust in God and luck
And I live to love Texas women

I'm a pretty fair judge of the opposite sex
And I ain't seen nothin' that will touch 'em yet
They may be from Waco or out in Lampassas
But one thing about it, they all come from Texas

I'm a country plow-boy, not an urban cowboy
And I don't ride bulls but I have fought some men
Drive a pickup truck, trust in God and luck
And I live to love Texas women

I'm an Oiler fan not a soccer man
And my arms are red and so is my blood
And they make it boil with that soft Texas drawl
And I love 'em all, Texas women

Hank Williams Jr. - Texas Women

Looks like the "women voting for Clinton because she's a woman" effect was pretty mild, if even really statistically existing at all:

It's almost like women tend to vote for democrats because democrats stand up for woman's rights and not because of the gender of their candidates or something....

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's almost like women tend to vote for democrats because democrats stand up for woman's rights and not because of the gender of their candidates or something....

It's the whole "black people are racist and voted for Obama" thing all over again, despite African-Americans having had a similar vote breakdown than they have had for the past elections.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's almost like women tend to vote for democrats because democrats stand up for woman's rights and not because of the gender of their candidates or something....

Well in Kalifornia and NYC anyway.

Oh look, Brown in Kalifornia wants to raise regressive taxes on poor people again.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-jerry-brown-legislative-leaders-1490821862-htmlstory.html

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.

Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?

PSSSTTT..... Hillary lost. She can't be a scapegoat anymore because no one cares what she thinks about Syria.

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So far the BDA is a bit better than 'a few camels'.

Aircraft were flying sorties from the base within two days.

As a warning and first step towards seperating Russia from Assad and thereby removing Assad from power this could potentially be meaningful. Though that depends on whether Trump follows up with anything and it's complete guesswork as to whether that will happen.

But arguing that this strike in and of itself gave meaningful damage to Syrian/Russian capability... that's a bit silly.

It is also a bit silly to target runways. Air craft did indeed use the air strip a day or two later. That doesn't invalidate my point a damned bit. Blowing holes in runways and taxiways is a big waste of munitions in almost every case.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
To concertize this for an outsider, what would people say is the sort of cases where the SC might tip differently with Gorsuch rather than Garland?

Guns. That's the main thing "OMG VOTE TRUMP OR LOSE THE COURT" was about.

Unreasonable or not, there are folks who do legitimately fear that there is an attempt to take guns away and there are groups who have exactly that goal. Some people in the US think they would rather have european style rules on personal firearms.

The problem here is the use of the term "legitimate". This may have been a concern. It may have been the result of a causal chain of events. But no, nothing about this last election made voting on this single issue a "legitimate" act.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that in today's politics, single issue voters are socially toxic.

Like those people who voted for Hilary because she was a woman?

Exactly like them. Or like those people who voted against her because she wasn't a man.

 Easy E wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Er go, HRC would have been the same/better than Trump.

Remind me when Trump said that he would impose a no fly zone over Syria? A plan that the US military said would lead to direct military conflict with Russia who were operating aircraft over Syrian airspace?

PSSSTTT..... Hillary lost. She can't be a scapegoat anymore because no one cares what she thinks about Syria.

This thread is gold

HRC needs to stay active politically if she wants it to be her turn in 2020

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's almost like women tend to vote for democrats because democrats stand up for woman's rights and not because of the gender of their candidates or something....

Well in Kalifornia and NYC anyway.

Oh look, Brown in Kalifornia wants to raise regressive taxes on poor people again.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-gov-jerry-brown-legislative-leaders-1490821862-htmlstory.html

Wow, thats quite the spin you put on that

Here we have Texas attacking LGBT people again

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/03/29/dan-patrick-taps-groups-anti-lgbt-past-promote-bathroom-bill

But at least the cows and wiener dogs in texas will finally be safe

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/04/04/senate-panel-passes-bill-banning-bestiality-texas/

 Stevefamine wrote:


This thread is gold

HRC needs to stay active politically if she wants it to be her turn in 2020

Is that a serious post? She's done as a presidential candidate.

If she ran again up against Trump we would probably see a 3rd party president.