Peace, Prosperity, and Power

[dreadnought]

The Republicans are able to pass any legislation requiring a simple majority provided they all vote in the same fashion. This is an advantage not a detriment.

Well, you always know how a Democrat will vote. They will always vote no. Republicans don't always follow the "party line."

 

[dreadnought]

People can fall asleep, or be distracted. Or have malicious intent.

I doubt malicious intent has much to do with auto accidents.

 

[dreadnought]

That's a contradiction, as programs have priorities.

But a computer can't choose to override its programming.

 

[GenemZ]

That's not oppression. That's a simple military defeat.

Same thing... Just different ways of doing it. They had no choice. Anything else you want to add?

 

[GenemZ]

We seem to be in a time of peace and prosperity, relatively speaking. You'd think the left would be happy. Clearly they are not. They don't have power. Would they be willing to give up peace and prosperity so that they could have power?

Just got the excerpt from a newsletter emailed to me. Thought it good to share here considering the title of this thread...



> Subject: Economic
> World Affairs
> Ref; The author is Joel Ross, Principal,
> Citadel Realty Advisors, 15
> West36th Street,
> NYC, NY. Mr. Ross publishes the Ross Rant,
> a $300 per year subscription
> newsletter, which makes predictions based upon economic
> data.
>
> Ross Rant
>
> To
> understand the trade war with China, you need to understand
> that China at the moment is having a major slowdown economically. The
> stock market is down 25%. Many
> banks are being bailed out by the government. Everything and everyone
> in China is way over levered, and the economy is therefore in a high
> risk position which the government was trying to fix. The trade
> war got in the way, forcing the government to subsidize the smaller
> banks. China is loaning tens of billions to countries like Pakistan
> to build ports and railroads and infrastructure. Problem
> is, these countries have zero possible way to ever repay these
> loans. So now they are faced with stopping the projects or asking the
> IMF to bail them out.
>
> It
> is a mess for China and the countries who took the loans. There
> is starting to be pushback
> against China for this. So, Trump’s timing to go after China is exactly
> right. They are in a weakened position right now. Ignore all the
> hype about how they could sell their $1.4 trillion of US Treasuries
> —to who??? Not going to happen. The whole world agrees China
> violates every rule on trade and steals IP. Trump is just the only one who
> is willing to take them on, with the rest of the world cheering him on
> from the sidelines. Now it appears the EU is willing to cooperate
> with Trump and revise the WTO and to push China on IP and other
> trade violations. Something they were never willing to do
> before.
>
> Can
> 4% GDP growth continue? Maybe. But 3.5% would be great.
> Remember the left, and the press
> saying in 2016 and early 2017, 2% was the new normal maximum, and the
> US was at its peak and we faced stagflation, economic decline, etc. 2%
> was the accepted number as what good growth would be. Larry
> Summers was right out there saying 4% was impossible. Some
> in the mainstream media and Wall St said getting above 2%
> was pure fantasy, and Trump was dreaming.
>
> So,
> as I have said often, ignore the talking heads, and the mainstream media.
> They all have an agenda. Almost none are
> objective. The tax bill and deregulation was a huge
> boost. The left just can’t admit
> it. There are even stories now in the
> press that 4% is really a bad thing??? 4% is great, it
> may not be 4% next quarter, but 3.5% would be terrific.
> If Trump really does a deal with the EU, Mexico and Canada, and then Japan,
> 3.5%, or better, is very realistic.
>
> Capital
> expenditures will ramp up further once the tariff
> issues
> subside
> and that uncertainty goes away. They say exports were
> hyped due to pending tariffs,
> but to do that, inventories were drawn down, so this quarter
> inventories will be rebuilt, pushing up GDP growth upward. The press
> does not want you to believe it because it means the Republicans win in
> November, so they will try to convince you otherwise. Even my
> very liberal economist friends admit privately to me that the economy is
> going to be booming for at least 6 more quarters. The key
> is to reelect Republicans to control Congress.
>
> Keep
> in mind Maxine Waters is chair of the finance committee if
> the Dems get control, and Nancy is speaker. Think
> about that combo, and the ability to get
> budgets and more tax reform done. It should drive you to the polls and to
> take all your friends with you to vote. What a trade:
> Trump, and 4% GDP, or Maxine
> Waters.
>
> If
> you want to understand Russia, and the whole gas pipeline
> issue---gas and oil is 52% of Russia’s GDP. The GDP
> of Russia is slightly smaller than NY State, around $1.5
> trillion. GDP per capita is only$8,748 in 2017. Far
> lower than in 2013. We heard this first hand when I
> was in Russia, but now the stats show it to be true.
> The standard of living in Russia is declining. 20% of the
> Russian budget goes to weapons and the
> army.
>
> So
> Trump is right - how can Germany build a new gas pipeline
> with Russia which will fund
> more weapons spending, when they are supposedly having sanctions because
> of weapons and Crimea. It is nuts. The gas line will provide Russia
> billions of new cash flow for weapons which are aimed at
> ----Germany. But Merkel also thought letting in over
> 1 million Muslims was also
> a great idea until the voters rebelled, and the rest of the EU voted
> right wing in response.
>
> Reality
> is Russia is now in economic decline due to lower oil
> prices and corruption.
> Defense spending was reduced this year. So what
> does Merkel want to do –
> build the pipeline to pay them more badly needed money. Trump is not
> out of line for his comments. The pipeline is the same as Obama paying
> Iran $150 billion just as their economy was tanking. Truth is
> Russia cannot afford to wage a real war in Europe now that Trump has forced
> NATO to materially up spending and readiness.
>
> If
> Obama was still in power Putin could take over Baltic states
> and
> have
> only a few sanctions because under Obama NATO was militarily
> unable to react. That was why Putin felt he could go
> into Crimea with no big problem.
> Putin also knew he could continue his cyber war with no real consequences
> under Obama. Don’t believe the crap about Trump favors Putin, or they
> have something on him. It is more lefty nonsense. The US
> pays 71% of NATO costs. Germany pays less than
> 1.2% of their GDP for their
> own defense. We pay far more for Germany’s defense than Germany
> does, and they can afford to pay.
>
> Trump
> is right for making this a major issue. So in 2018,
> NATO and the US are upping
> spending on defense and Russia cannot keep up. Russia is forced to
> reduce spending because oil prices did not rise as much as Putin
> needed.
>
> Under
> Obama US defense spending went down from 2013 on, and
> Russia went up a lot, and China
> even more. Obama left us in very bad and weak shape vs our main
> adversaries. It was massive US
> defense spending by Reagan vs
> Russia, that won the cold war. The story now is very similar vs Russia
> and Iran. The best way
> to win a war is to far out spend the bad guys
> until they fold with no shots being fired. A strong offensive
> capability and willingness to use it (missiles fired at Syria) is the best
> defense. Putin and Xi got the message.
> Putin blew it by favoring
> Trump. The last thing he wanted was a much stronger US military and
> stronger, capable NATO.
>
> Iran’s
> GDP is $439 billion, less than that of 14 states. And
> now it
> is
> tanking. Obama gave them $150 billion - 34% of their GDP. Iran cannot
> compete with US and Israel. Israel is much smaller by
> population and has a GDP of $320 billion. With
> sanctions Trump is imposing, Iran is in real economic
> trouble, and cannot afford a war with us, the Sunnis and
> Israel.
>
> The
> Obama nuke deal just empowered Iran to go on an expansion
> into Syria, Iraq, Yemen and
> Lebanon. Now Israel and the US are pushing back with the help of the
> Sunnis. Re imposing sanctions will severely cripple Iran and they
> will likely try to attack shipping in the straits and the Red
> Sea. It will end very badly for them now that the Sunnis, Israel and the US
> are teamed up, the US military is being rebuilt, Sadr is pushing
> back on Iran trying to control Iraq, and the Iranian people are
> protesting and ready to revolt.
>
> The
> entire Mideast situation is going to change by year end
> when
> sanctions
> go back into effect. Iran will run out of money to
> continue their expansion. What is astonishing is
> Merkel and the EU prefer to try to get around
> the US sanctions and trade with Iran instead of cooperating with us and
> destroying the regime. And the
> press thinks Trump acts badly with the
> EU?? The EU doesn’t pay for
> their own defense and they favor
> Iran
>
> The
> US economy is on a roll. It will be strong well into
> 2019 and
> maybe
> into 2020. The stock market will go up. Just be patient. Bond prices will decline
> further. All equities will continue to work. They will resolve trade
> in the next 90 days. Before November. NAFTA will get
> revised. WTO will get revised. Putin is in no economic
> shape to invade anyone, or do
> another Syria. He is now motivated to try to work with Trump. If
> oil prices stay around where they are, Russia is hurting. Q3 GDP will be
> over 3%. This is like under Reagan.
>
> Trump
> will bury Putin in military spending and Putin will have
> to
> concede
> on some issues. It will just take time. It took
> Reagan three years. If the result is no pipeline,
> Russia is in more trouble. Farm products in the EU
> will still be a big problem. Macron cannot give
> in on this and stay in
> office. From here on it is all about China, and how Xi can give in and
> not lose face.
>
> Bottom
> line, a very strong US economy and big defense spending
> will overwhelm Russia and
> Iran. A strong economy, allowing big defense spending, matters a lot
> in terms of geopolitics. The price of oil is strategic, not just
> economic.

 

[Arcangl86]

Well, you always know how a Democrat will vote. They will always vote no. Republicans don't always follow the "party line."

If Democrats will always vote no, how come most of the bills that have passed had been passed with bipartisan support?

 

[Belk]

Well, you always know how a Democrat will vote. They will always vote no. Republicans don't always follow the "party line."

I fail to see how this is relevant? That Democrats or Republicans are able to vote their conscience is the whole idea behind the republic. It does not change the fact that Republicans can pass any legislation requiring a simple majority.

 

[dreadnought]

If Democrats will always vote no, how come most of the bills that have passed had been passed with bipartisan support?

When was this?

 

[dreadnought]

I fail to see how this is relevant? That Democrats or Republicans are able to vote their conscience is the whole idea behind the republic. It does not change the fact that Republicans can pass any legislation requiring a simple majority.

It's easy to pass bills when you have a big majority. When the majority is one vote, then it isn't so easy. However, the Republicans have eliminated the individual mandate and cut the corporate tax rate.

 

[Belk]

It's easy to pass bills when you have a big majority. When the majority is one vote, then it isn't so easy. However, the Republicans have eliminated the individual mandate and cut the corporate tax rate.

I will grant that with more of a majority it is less susceptible to those who disagree. The threshold remains the same however.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, you always know how a Democrat will vote. They will always vote no. Republicans don't always follow the "party line."

And now that Donald is the Party line, Republicans who don't follow it incur his wrath.

 

[dreadnought]

And now that Donald is the Party line, Republicans who don't follow it incur his wrath.

Donald has a different way of doing things than what we are used to.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Donald has a different way of doing things than what we are used to.

Indeed -- his follower wanted him to "shake things up," and now we see that the man himself is the shakiest of all.

Are we surprised?

 

[dreadnought]

Indeed -- his follower wanted him to "shake things up," and now we see that the man himself is the shakiest of all.

Are we surprised?

You are grouping people together when you say that his followers wanted him to shake things up. I just wanted to get a Republican in the White House.

 

[Allandavid]

You are grouping people together when you say that his followers wanted him to shake things up. I just wanted to get a Republican in the White House.

No matter the cost...

 

[dreadnought]

No matter the cost...

I've said this over and over, and provided the documentation for those who don't believe me. Barack Obama threatened to withhold federal funds from schools that didn't allow boys, who wanted to be girls, to shower with girls. I believe Hillary endorsed that policy. Therefore, I wasn't going to vote for her.

I know Democrats hate Donald Trump, but it seems to me he's doing quite a good job as president. He's conservative, so liberals aren't going to agree with that.

 

[DaisyDay]

I doubt malicious intent has much to do with auto accidents.

Read up on "road rage".

 

[dreadnought]

Read up on "road rage".

Wouldn't self-driven cars have manual overrides, therefore allowing people to engage in road rage?

 

[DaisyDay]

Wouldn't self-driven cars have manual overrides, therefore allowing people to engage in road rage?

Do you no longer doubt that malicious intent has anything to do with car accidents?

 

[Veritas]

But the agenda is in plain view--anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, pro-gun, etc.

Lots of leftwing media talking points that are unfortunately misconstrued.

Anti-Abortion? Nothing wrong with protecting the unborn. It's a civil right and mentioned under our Declaration of Independance.

Anti-gay? Six gay republicans running for office in CT. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/six-gay-candidates-running-connecticut-republicans-n909701
Trump makes statements supporting LGBT: https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-bo...appeal-to-lgbt-community-in-convention-speech

Anti-immigrant? No, anti-ILLEGAL aliens. Big difference, don't confuse the two!

Pro-Gun? No, pro 2A as guaranteed in our US Constitution.