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.
Xenomancers wrote: If the conclusions you are drawing from that were accurate. The US population wouldn't have rissen in the past 70 years but it's more than doubled and it's economy has grown massive. There are so many factors that go into birth rates you can't make general statements about it it like that.
Religion and culture are the biggest factors in birth rate not economic status. However - economic prosperity lays the ground for people to do whatever they want to do - if they want to have big families - they are fully capable of doing so. Healthcare is well funded so people live longer. Nutrition is high so less people get sick and die. It's complicated. It is in fact very true though that econmic booms will correspond with population increase through out history. That may very well change in the future as secularism and environmentalism gain prominence.
They are accurate man. The US fertility rate has plummeted in the last 70 years, back in the 50's it was almost at 4 children per couple, its now at 1.75. A population needs a rate of 2.1 to remain stable. Immigration is literally why the US population hasn't started shrinking. This is demographics at its most basic level. The only population group in the US that even manages 2.1 is the South American group.
And to bring Japan up again, they have nearly non-existent immigration, and that's why their population is sinking. This is actually a huge issue for them, they won't have enough people to work a lot of jobs but will have to take care of their retired population.
It won't be an issue - because robots.
I mean Japan's government seems to think this is an issue. And I'd say they have a bit more knowledge in this area than you do mate.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Hardline conservatives have backed down from a threat to imminently force a House vote on impeaching Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
On Wednesday night, Freedom Caucus leaders Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) filed articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. The stated reason was mainly that Rosenstein allegedly wasn’t giving enough documents to Congress. But in context, the move — which wasn’t even certain to pass the House, let alone lead to Rosenstein’s removal from office — was clearly part of an effort by President Trump’s allies to attack the Justice Department and undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which Rosenstein supervises.
When Meadows filed the impeachment articles, only 11 of the 236 Republicans in the House were willing to sign on to them, making it unclear how much support his effort had. House Oversight Committee Chair Trey Gowdy, for instance, had said earlier that he wouldn’t back the effort (“Impeach him for what?” he asked). GOP leaders were also unenthusiastic about the controversial push, which would likely divide their party.
However, Meadows had the opportunity to use House rules to file a “privileged motion,” which would require a vote from the full House in the next two days — effectively forcing his colleagues to take a stand on impeaching Rosenstein even though there have been no hearings on the matter and little debate about it. Republicans facing tough races in November would not have been thrilled.
In the end, however, Meadows decided not to carry out that threat — for now, at least. He did not file a privileged motion for impeachment, and House Republicans announced Thursday morning that they would not vote on the matter before they leave for a month-long recess.
It is possible the effort could be revived in September when the House returns to Washington. But that would be closer to the midterms, meaning Republicans would be even less enthusiastic to take a divisive and controversial vote.
The current word is that Republican leaders agreed to hold a vote on whether Rosenstein is in contempt of Congress in the first week of September, if conservatives don’t get the documents they want by then. (That’s a weaker alternative to an impeachment vote, which at least had the potential to remove him from office.) What this was really about
The impeachment articles were thin. They complained that Rosenstein hadn’t appointed a second special counsel to look into why Carter Page was surveilled (even though the department’s inspector general is looking into it). They complained that not enough documents about the Clinton email and Trump-Russia probes had been handed over, and that there were some unnecessary redactions in some that were. And they complained that the Justice Department hadn’t handed over a document listing several people and areas Mueller was investigating (because the investigation is ongoing).
This is not exactly “high crimes and misdemeanors.” And there were inaccuracies in the impeachment articles too:
The true motivation is widely believed to be more political — protecting Trump — than substantive. “In the abstract, I’d love to see Congressional oversight playing hardball on access to documents,” Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute tweeted, “but it’s, uh, suspicious they’ve chosen to go nuclear in a case where what’s unusual is how MUCH DOJ has produced on an ongoing investigation.”
There was zero chance Rosenstein would have actually been removed from office through the impeachment process. It’s not even clear an impeachment resolution would have passed the House. Even if that were to happen, a two-thirds majority in the Senate would be required to remove Rosenstein from his position — meaning at least 16 Democratic votes would be necessary, which would never happen.
The effort’s primary purpose was clearly to undermine and discredit Rosenstein politically, and some have also feared that the goal was to create a pretext for Trump to fire Rosenstein and put someone in place who would constrain or end Mueller’s investigation. That is: If the House did vote to impeach Rosenstein or even came close to it, Trump could have just fired him and said he was too embattled to do his job anymore, without waiting for the Senate to weigh in.
Trump has reportedly mused privately about firing either Rosenstein, Mueller, or Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but he has refrained from doing so yet — evidently fearing it would cause a political crisis for his administration. Trump could change his mind at any moment, but until at least September, he won’t have a House of Representatives vote he can use as an excuse.
After conservatives had agreed to back down from the impeachment push, Speaker Paul Ryan announced publicly that he did not support impeaching Rosenstein. “I don’t think that this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said.
Meanwhile, word leaked out that Jordan, who co-wrote the impeachment articles, will soon announce that he’s running to replace the retiring Ryan as speaker.
Brad Heath
Among other things, some House Republicans want to impeach Rod Rosenstein for something that happened six months before he took office.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 14:37:49
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Interesting that, despite all the conservative tsk-tsking about Democrats talking about impeachment, that the first articles of impeachment introduced in this administration are
infinite_array wrote: Interesting that, despite all the conservative tsk-tsking about Democrats talking about impeachment, that the first articles of impeachment introduced in this administration are
from a Republic Congress
against a Republican Deputy Attorney General
who was appointed by a Republican President.
Yeah that made me laugh. And it was retroactively pulled back.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
infinite_array wrote: Interesting that, despite all the conservative tsk-tsking about Democrats talking about impeachment, that the first articles of impeachment introduced in this administration are
from a Republic Congress
against a Republican Deputy Attorney General
who was appointed by a Republican President.
Yeah that made me laugh. And it was retroactively pulled back.
The point wasn't to actually have it work. It was, as the Cheeto-in-Chief keeps doing, to throw a pall over the investigation. It's to imply that there's untowardness happening.
Latest economic data is out and it's looking good for Trump.
Growth for this quarter is 4%, the deficit is reduced by $50 billion and the employment rate is pretty damn high.
If Trump survives the scandals, and the economy holds steady, Trump could ride this economic wave all the way into 4 more years...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
infinite_array wrote: Interesting that, despite all the conservative tsk-tsking about Democrats talking about impeachment, that the first articles of impeachment introduced in this administration are
from a Republic Congress
against a Republican Deputy Attorney General
who was appointed by a Republican President.
Yeah that made me laugh. And it was retroactively pulled back.
The point wasn't to actually have it work. It was, as the Cheeto-in-Chief keeps doing, to throw a pall over the investigation. It's to imply that there's untowardness happening.
Why do you think it was pulled back so fast?
That was exactly the reason. Does it really warrant expressing that the republicians want the mueller investigation to stop?
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Growth for this quarter is 4%, the deficit is reduced by $50 billion and the employment rate is pretty damn high.
If Trump survives the scandals, and the economy holds steady, Trump could ride this economic wave all the way into 4 more years...
Wonder if he'll do a smarmy 'Look at everything I did for the economy, what do you think you can do?' speech when he leaves like Bill Clinton did. I loved listening to that speech for the sheer cockiness of it.
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
Growth for this quarter is 4%, the deficit is reduced by $50 billion and the employment rate is pretty damn high.
If Trump survives the scandals, and the economy holds steady, Trump could ride this economic wave all the way into 4 more years...
Wonder if he'll do a smarmy 'Look at everything I did for the economy, what do you think you can do?' speech when he leaves like Bill Clinton did. I loved listening to that speech for the sheer cockiness of it.
Short of taking a leak on George Washington's grave, or setting fire to the Declaration of Independence, Trump's base has shown that they couldn't really give a damn what he says or does.
If the American economy is booming in 2020, and floating voters are feeling the weight of extra coins jingling in their pockets, it's hard to see Trump losing.
After all, who votes out a POTUS at the head of an impressive economy?
But then again, a week is a long time in politics, so who knows?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Its not really an economic wave, its one of those quirks we have seen under Obama as well. Clinton did 3.8% on average, Obama did 2% and Trump is doing just under 3% on an economic upswing already in progress before he took office. Of course with the tariffs slamming down that 3% average might go down. He is actually at the bottom of the pack performance wise for a president starting his term in an upswing. Of course facts have never gotten in the way of a good rally.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/07/27 16:49:54
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its not really an economic wave, its one of those quirks we have seen under Obama as well. Clinton did 3.8% on average, Obama did 2% and Trump is doing just under 3% on an economic upswing already in progress before he took office. Of course with the tariffs slamming down that 3% average might go down. He is actually at the bottom of the pack performance wise for a president starting his term in an upswing. Of course facts have never gotten in the way of a good rally.
I wonder how much of this is down to Obama? Trump has been in office, what 18 months?
If you look at how long economic factors take from filtering down from laws being passed to street level, and all the other international factors thrown into the mix, does it not take, say, 3-4 years for effects to be felt by the populace?
Is Obama partially responsible for Trump's economic success?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 16:59:48
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its not really an economic wave, its one of those quirks we have seen under Obama as well. Clinton did 3.8% on average, Obama did 2% and Trump is doing just under 3% on an economic upswing already in progress before he took office. Of course with the tariffs slamming down that 3% average might go down. He is actually at the bottom of the pack performance wise for a president starting his term in an upswing. Of course facts have never gotten in the way of a good rally.
This. Even the article that Fraz posted originally has the majority of economists who were asked saying that this is likely to be a one off upswing as a result of increased consumer spending after the tax break. Add in China throwing in a huge order of soybeans before the tariffs came into effect and it is unlikely this level of growth will continue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 16:58:44
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its not really an economic wave, its one of those quirks we have seen under Obama as well. Clinton did 3.8% on average, Obama did 2% and Trump is doing just under 3% on an economic upswing already in progress before he took office. Of course with the tariffs slamming down that 3% average might go down. He is actually at the bottom of the pack performance wise for a president starting his term in an upswing. Of course facts have never gotten in the way of a good rally.
I wonder how much of this is down to Obama? Trump has been in office, what 18 months?
If you look at how long economic factors take from filtering down from laws being passed to street level, and all the other international factors thrown into the mix, does it not take, say, 3-4 years for effects to be felt by the populace?
Is Obama partially responsible for Trump's economic success?
Its mostly down to just the US itself, 3% before 2008 has always been the average, so that isn't anything to write home about or directly attributable to Trump, especially if he only gets to average with his tax and regulation cuts. At best it basically means those measures were worthless, at worst were going to see an economic backlash from Trump's actions. The trade war hasn't begun, harvest season isn't here yet.
It takes at least about 5 years to take effect, the issue is that there is almost no way to see if those effects are caused by said laws or just the markets. But based on the research done on previous tax cuts, its unlikely that Trump's round will have more than a marginal effect on overall GDP growth.
For the same reason its hard to directly attribute anything to Obama, the US economy preformed average when compared to other Western countries after the GFC. What Obama did do is bring some calm that enabled sustained growth, Trump's trade war isn't going to help sustain that growth.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Growth for this quarter is 4%, the deficit is reduced by $50 billion and the employment rate is pretty damn high.
If Trump survives the scandals, and the economy holds steady, Trump could ride this economic wave all the way into 4 more years...
Trump could very well win re-election if he runs.
*The Democrats will retake the House.
*The Democrats could retake the Senate.
*If the Democrats retake both then you ndependents, libertarians, and conservatives will vote with the Republicans to avoid a full on sweep.
If you want to.kick out Trump, vote Republican for Senate!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/27 17:50:42
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Growth for this quarter is 4%, the deficit is reduced by $50 billion and the employment rate is pretty damn high.
If Trump survives the scandals, and the economy holds steady, Trump could ride this economic wave all the way into 4 more years...
Trump could very well win re-election if he runs.
*The Democrats will retake the House.
*The Democrats could retake the Senate.
*If the Democrats retake both then you ndependents, libertarians, and conservatives will vote with the Republicans to avoid a full on sweep.
That's a big IF and assumption there though.
We don't even know the democratic candidate yet. For all, we know it could the Previous Attorney General under Obama.
Trump is depised by many many people. Many of whom didn't vote in the last election. I don't see him getting reelected after the disasterous first term.
Growth for this quarter is 4%, the deficit is reduced by $50 billion and the employment rate is pretty damn high.
If Trump survives the scandals, and the economy holds steady, Trump could ride this economic wave all the way into 4 more years...
Trump could very well win re-election if he runs.
*The Democrats will retake the House.
*The Democrats could retake the Senate.
*If the Democrats retake both then you ndependents, libertarians, and conservatives will vote with the Republicans to avoid a full on sweep.
If you want to.kick out Trump, vote Republican for Senate!
Like all those conservatives and libertarians voted for Clinton to avoid a full on sweep? Lets be honest, not enough voters care.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
We don't even know the democratic candidate yet. For all, we know it could the Previous Attorney General under Obama.
Trump is depised by many many people. Many of whom didn't vote in the last election. I don't see him getting reelected after the disasterous first term.
Trump absolutely could defeat another Clinton, though.
We don't even know the democratic candidate yet. For all, we know it could the Previous Attorney General under Obama.
Trump is depised by many many people. Many of whom didn't vote in the last election. I don't see him getting reelected after the disasterous first term.
Trump absolutely could defeat another Clinton, though.
Who is Clinton 2.0? Who else has 10+ years of Republican propaganda stacked up to elicit a Pavlovian hate response?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
We don't even know the democratic candidate yet. For all, we know it could the Previous Attorney General under Obama.
Trump is depised by many many people. Many of whom didn't vote in the last election. I don't see him getting reelected after the disasterous first term.
Trump absolutely could defeat another Clinton, though.
Who is Clinton 2.0? Who else has 10+ years of Republican propaganda stacked up to elicit a Pavlovian hate response?
Obama! Oh wait...
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
We don't even know the democratic candidate yet. For all, we know it could the Previous Attorney General under Obama.
Trump is depised by many many people. Many of whom didn't vote in the last election. I don't see him getting reelected after the disasterous first term.
Trump absolutely could defeat another Clinton, though.
Who is Clinton 2.0? Who else has 10+ years of Republican propaganda stacked up to elicit a Pavlovian hate response?
Obama! Oh wait...
Vote Michelle Obama in 2020! It's her turn.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
We don't even know the democratic candidate yet. For all, we know it could the Previous Attorney General under Obama.
Trump is depised by many many people. Many of whom didn't vote in the last election. I don't see him getting reelected after the disasterous first term.
Trump absolutely could defeat another Clinton, though.
Who is Clinton 2.0? Who else has 10+ years of Republican propaganda stacked up to elicit a Pavlovian hate response?
Obama! Oh wait...
Vote Michelle Obama in 2020! It's her turn.
Could you imagine if not only a black woman but an Obama ran against Trump? Half his supporter base might have an aneurysm before the end of the first debate.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
We don't even know the democratic candidate yet. For all, we know it could the Previous Attorney General under Obama.
Trump is depised by many many people. Many of whom didn't vote in the last election. I don't see him getting reelected after the disasterous first term.
Trump absolutely could defeat another Clinton, though.
Who is Clinton 2.0? Who else has 10+ years of Republican propaganda stacked up to elicit a Pavlovian hate response?
Obama! Oh wait...
Vote Michelle Obama in 2020! It's her turn.
Could you imagine if not only a black woman but an Obama ran against Trump? Half his supporter base might have an aneurysm before the end of the first debate.
I thought most of them were convinced Michelle is a man.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Disciple of Fate wrote: Could you imagine if not only a black woman but an Obama ran against Trump? Half his supporter base might have an aneurysm before the end of the first debate.
I thought most of them were convinced Michelle is a man.
To be fair that is probably among the 'nicer' opinions they hold on her...
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its not really an economic wave, its one of those quirks we have seen under Obama as well. Clinton did 3.8% on average, Obama did 2% and Trump is doing just under 3% on an economic upswing already in progress before he took office. Of course with the tariffs slamming down that 3% average might go down. He is actually at the bottom of the pack performance wise for a president starting his term in an upswing. Of course facts have never gotten in the way of a good rally.
As I expressed in a previous post, true Trumpists don't give a crap about facts. Whatever "facts" against Trump come into the light of day, they are hand-waved away with several excuses:
1. it's only what everyone does (locker room talk.)
2. The Democrats do it too. (Defrauding charities -- this is a lie of course but Trumpists believe it.)
3. I don't care.
4. Fake media.
What will be interesting is if it does actually come about that Trump is prosecuted (impeached, whatever) for illegal collusion with the Russian government to fix the election, what percentage of Trumpists will change their mind. We already know it won't be 100%.
Ever since it was disclosed that Kimberly Guilfoyle would be leaving Fox News, there have been conflicting reports about whether or not her departure was voluntary.
According to Guilfoyle’s Instagram announcement this week, she’s left her role as weekend host and legal analyst to pursue opportunities working on behalf of President Trump. She has been dating his son Donald Trump Jr. since the spring, and will now serve as vice chairwoman of America First Policies, a nonprofit organization that promotes the Trump platform.
The official word from Fox News, according to a statement to Yahoo Entertainment, gives little indication of what prompted Guilfoyle’s departure. The network confirmed only that it had “parted ways” with her.
But sources have insisted that there’s more to the story. HuffPost has now reported that Guilfoyle’s exit was allegedly prompted by an investigation into sexual misconduct claims made against her. The publication spoke to 21 unnamed sources, some of whom are said to have connections to Fox News and 21st Century Fox.
According to the HuffPost report, Guilfoyle was allegedly told to leave the network after Fox News’s human resources department looked into claims of inappropriate behavior — including that she showed co-workers photos of naked men.
“Six sources said Guilfoyle’s behavior included showing personal photographs of male genitalia to colleagues (and identifying whose genitals they were), regularly discussing sexual matters at work, and engaging in emotionally abusive behavior toward hair and makeup artists and support staff,” the HuffPost article says.
It also alleges that Guilfoyle sought the help of 21st Century Fox executive chairman Rupert Murdoch — apparently to no avail. A Murdoch spokesperson declined to comment, according to HuffPost.
The investigation reportedly began last year, with sources claiming that HR warned Guilfoyle about her conduct. The network — which has a history of sexual misconduct scandals, resulting in the exits of Bill Shine, Bill O’Reilly, and Roger Ailes — is said to have given Guilfoyle time to find new employment rather than fire her outright.
Guilfoyle’s legal team has disputed these claims and served HuffPost with a legal notice.
“Any accusations of Kimberly engaging in inappropriate workplace conduct are unequivocally baseless and have been viciously made by disgruntled and self-interested employees,” John Singer, a lawyer who represents Guilfoyle, told HuffPost. “During her lengthy and decorated tenure with the company, Kimberly was beloved, well-respected, and supportive of anyone she ever met. It’s utterly preposterous that there are those who are nefariously and greedily twisting innocent conversations amongst close friends into much more than what it actually was for financial gain. Kimberly has happily moved onto the next chapter of her life and hopes others will do the same.”
Fox News declined HuffPost’s request for comment. Yahoo Entertainment has contacted the network for a response.