 
     |
| Radical leftists destroy everything they touch... (Page 24/32) |
|
Patrick
|
SEP 16, 05:19 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Wichita:
When leftist lie, people die.
These are the leftist. They are not good people.
|
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
SEP 17, 11:10 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
Trump was Putins lap dog. Look at the way he tried to defend Russia after their cyber attack on the US.
|
|
Look at the way he stopped the Nordstream pipe line.
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
SEP 17, 12:05 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Look at the way he stopped the Nordstream pipe line. |
|
Congress placed the sanctions on the pipeline not Trump. And here is why.
Experts said the 2017 legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in part due to widespread concerns that Trump was too cozy with Russia and Vladimir Putin.
"Trump’s early fawning of Putin sent strong signals that the U.S. would not be pursuing a tough policy towards Russia," said Susanne Wengle, a University of Notre Dame political scientist.
Congress felt it had to get involved because both parties feared Trump could not be trusted with Russia, and they didn’t want to leave him the unilateral power to end sanctions via executive order, said Yoshiko M. Herrera, a University Wisconsin-Madison political scientist.
When it came time to sign the bill, Trump did so grudgingly and called it "seriously flawed."
|
|
|
|
MidEngineManiac
|
SEP 17, 12:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Patrick:
|
|
Add more hot sauce. And black pepper. And garlic....
|
|
|
|
jdv
|
SEP 18, 08:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
randye
|
SEP 18, 09:46 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by fredtoast:
Congress felt it had to get involved because both parties feared Trump could not be trusted with Russia, and they didn’t want to leave him the unilateral power to end sanctions via executive order, said Yoshiko M. Herrera, a University Wisconsin-Madison political scientist.
When it came time to sign the bill, Trump did so grudgingly and called it "seriously flawed."
[/i] |
|
How lucky for you that you have "Yoshiko" to sort everything out for you.
|
|
|
|
fredtoast
|
SEP 18, 10:57 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
How lucky for you that you have "Yoshiko" to sort everything out for you. |
|
She did not sort anything out for me. I just searched for a quote from a qualified authority to backup my opinion, and hers was the first I found.
But I am glad we were able to sort everything out for you.
You're welcome.[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 09-19-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
SEP 18, 11:33 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
How lucky for you [fredtoast] that you have "Yoshiko" to sort everything out for you. |
|
The sentence that I just quoted is someone's idea of a response? A reaction? A criticism of what fredtoast has said? A riposte?
That's as lame as it gets.
The good news for people like randye is that Yoshiko makes house calls to lend her expertise to those who would like to supplement their understanding of current day politics at the national and international level. An in-house consultant service. Or in randye's case... "tutoring." Strictly on the up and up, of course. No hanky-panky.
Guess what? I just made that up. Not all of it. My first two paragraphs stand. Just the part that starts with "The good news..." Yeah, I made that up. A rhetorical device. As distinct from a rhetorical divorce—but that would be a topic for another day.
 [This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-19-2023).]
|
|
|
|
Wichita
|
SEP 19, 07:55 PM
|
|
 [This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 09-19-2023).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
SEP 20, 03:58 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Wichita:
|
|
Paul Krugman had an op-ed in the New York Times as recently as August 4, on how to think about the national debt.
Krugman did not reference "Wichita" by name, but it's clear that he was thinking about people like Wichita when he (Krugman) said this:
| quote | ... let’s note that most economists believe that there is some limit to how much debt the U.S. government can take on as a percentage of gross domestic product. (Pro tip: The ratio is what matters, not the absolute dollar value. Never take anyone who rants about TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS seriously.)
But history and the experience of other countries suggest that we’re still a long way from that limit. |
|
It's as if Krugman highlighted this Pennock's post from Wichita with one of those laser pointers and said "Wichita has a data plot, but he does not have an argument or make any point, because he does not put his data plot in any context, or explain how it advances any particular argument or idea."
"Wichita can talk all he wants about the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS of the U.S. national debt, but in so far as he does not relate any of his debt-related numbers to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, or look at any of his debt-related TRILLIONS using the guidance of recent and relevant history, or factor in the import of "r"—the interest rate on government debt—and "g"—the economy’s growth rate—Wichita and people like Wichita are just 'blowing smoke.' They literally don't know what they are talking about."
"Wonking Out: Is a U.S. Debt Crisis Looming? Is It Even Possible?"
Paul Krugman for the New York Times; August 4, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/202...omy-debt-crisis.html[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-20-2023).]
|
|
|
|