(07-29-2018 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you guys really think there was not a large portion of people that opposed Obama just because of who he was? Be that because he was a democrat, because he was black, because he from Chicago, because he went to Harvard, and on and on?
Similarly to Trump, Obama oversaw sustained economic growth, began reducing the deficit, and so on and plenty of people never gave him credit in the same way there are plenty of partisans not giving Trump credit.
I literally never said anything about anyone posting on this board falling in that category - but way to project that. I don’t project and think OO is talking about me when he says there are plenty of partisans who won’t give Trump any credit because he has actually seen me do that. For some reason, though, Owl#’s decides to say I was one of those partisans...

(07-29-2018 06:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you guys really think there was not a large portion of people that opposed Obama just because of who he was? Be that because he was a democrat, because he was black, because he from Chicago, because he went to Harvard, and on and on?
Similarly to Trump, Obama oversaw sustained economic growth, began reducing the deficit, and so on and plenty of people never gave him credit in the same way there are plenty of partisans not giving Trump credit.
I literally never said anything about anyone posting on this board falling in that category - but way to project that. I don’t project and think OO is talking about me when he says there are plenty of partisans who won’t give Trump any credit because he has actually seen me do that. For some reason, though, Owl#’s decides to say I was one of those partisans...

I did not like Obama because I spent a military career fighting communism, and he was way too close to that for me.

As far as “sustained economic growth” he took over at or slightly after the bottom of a recession, and starting from that point in the cycle it would have been pretty difficult not to have faster growth than he did. By the way exactly what did Bush do to cause the recession and what did Obamado to turn it around. And “reducing the deficit” is true if and only if you attribute the 2009 budget, signed by Obama, to Bush. I believe that as of the end of Obama’s second term, the nine largest budget deficits in our history were all Obama budgets.

And as far as the partisan comment, perhaps you could refer me to your comments that do not fit that description. I am having trouble finding them on my own. If you want to call me partisan because I did not praise Obama, that is your right. But it is not because I'm too partisan to give him credit. It's because I have a hard time finding any good that he did. I think many of his supporters have the same problem, which is why they are so quick to give him credit for things that he did not do.

(07-29-2018 10:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I posted two days ago that the economic numbers that we’re seeing our good, but have a tempered view since it is just one quarter and other economic indicators are lagging.

(07-27-2018 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-15402508.html#pid15402508
I posted two days ago that the economic numbers that we’re seeing our good, but have a tempered view since it is just one quarter and other economic indicators are lagging. Hardly a partisan view, IMO. It pretty much follows a similar line of thinking as your post.

Quote:And I didn’t call you partisan, did I? You’re generally a very thoughtful and well reasoned poster. I think this is the first post in a long time where I haven’t thought that, as you’re very quick to try and label me as someone who is unable to get past party labels when discussing issues. Can you tell me why exactly you felt the need to play that card?

(07-30-2018 12:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  https://csnbbs.com/thread-797972-post-15402508.html#pid15402508
I posted two days ago that the economic numbers that we’re seeing our good, but have a tempered view since it is just one quarter and other economic indicators are lagging. Hardly a partisan view, IMO. It pretty much follows a similar line of thinking as your post.

Repeating your referenced post:

"I assume you were posting happy posts when similar numbers were posted under Obama?
"It is good news, for sure. But we need multiple data points to establish a trend or show stabilized, but higher, GDP growth.
"We also need to show wage growth, which has continued to lag behind unemployment numbers and these GDP numbers."

The reason someone didn't post "happy posts when similar numbers were posted under Obama" is that those similar numbers didn't happen.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/from-doom-to-boom

"The U.S. economy grew at an annualized 4.1 percent in the second quarter, the highest rate since 2014. Last quarter was the fifth straight with more than 2 percent growth, a streak we haven’t seen since 2005-2006. The five full quarters of the Trump administration have averaged 3.19 percent."

I find it particularly interesting the you say we need "multiple data points" when one of the very things that distinguishes Trump's numbers from Obama's is sustained growth over several consecutive quarters. The other obvious one, of course, is that Obama took over at or shortly after the bottom of a recession, where growth should happen at a rapid rate, whereas Trump took over what was supposedly a healthy economy with a much higher baseline from which to measure growth.

Sustained growth means a lot more than one quarter. My problem with Trump is that this trade war stuff, if it goes badly, could very quickly erode that momentum. But I have to admit, so far, so good.

Quote:And I didn’t call you partisan, did I? You’re generally a very thoughtful and well reasoned poster. I think this is the first post in a long time where I haven’t thought that, as you’re very quick to try and label me as someone who is unable to get past party labels when discussing issues. Can you tell me why exactly you felt the need to play that card?

No, you didn't call me a partisan. I did. Or at least I stated that my failure to give Obama credit for good things fit your partisan description. But it was not because of any of the kind of partisanship you suggest, particularly the race-motivated part that you not so subtly work in. I didn't give Obama much credit for doing good things, because I didn't see many good things that he did. "Was president when SEAL Team SIX killed Osama bin Laden," was easily his greatest "achievement" as president IMO, and I didn't see much of him doing any achieving there, past simply continuing to breathe as events unfolded.

And I'm sorry but I really don't think you get very far past party labels, if at all. If the post you referenced and I quoted is your idea of getting past partisanship, then no, that's not it. I thank you for your kind comments. To the extent that I'm not a partisan, it's because unfortunately I don't think very much of either side. I've posted where I would go enough on here that I don't need to repeat it. I don't see either side going that direction. Trump has done more that I like (tax cuts, Gorsuch) than I think Hillary would have, and clearly far more than Obama did. The problem is that he remains a threat to do more that I won't like (tariffs, wall) than Hillary would have (though not more than Obama).

(07-30-2018 07:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Had someone posted the article from Washington Examiner, my response would have been different. Instead, the focus was on a growth rate over 4%, which is currently a single data point...

Quote:I picked a post quickly that, to me, does show a willingness to get past party labels. If I couldn’t get past party labels I wouldn’t give Trump credit for the 4.1% growth this past quarter. I’ve also said that I was supportive of the change in corporate tax rates that Trump passed, but not of the rest of the tax bill because of the issues it caused with the deficit.

Quote:I’ve also offered my opinion on what Dem leaders have done poorly over the years, something a partisan really wouldn’t. My personal views align much closer to the Dems than to the Reps, and I absolutely loathe Trump for numerous reasons, but I hardly think I’m a partisan Never Trumper who can’t get past the fact that he is a Republican. I’d like you to show me some evidence as to why you think I can’t get past the party label, as what you’ve said about me suggests I don’t have the ability to take in information and give it a fair analysis.

(07-30-2018 07:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, that’s a lot of projection of what you think Dems want. Have you seen any of them campaigning on the economy tanking? Or even about Trump’s personal life?

In reality, Dems know they can’t campaign on a potentially tanking economy because that’s a non-winner, and only the most cynical person would think that Dems actively want it to tank and put people out. From an economic standpoint, they can campaign on the ballooning deficit that the “fiscally conservative” Republican Party has engineered, or the lagging wage growth, or continued growth of income inequality.

They are also generally aware that, while Trump’s personal issues and rhetoric get eyeballs on news networks, it won’t win voters. If you listen to Dems running for office, they are focusing almost exclusively on policy issues because they know that trying to play the Trump card won’t work - just look at 2016...

(07-30-2018 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 07:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Had someone posted the article from Washington Examiner, my response would have been different. Instead, the focus was on a growth rate over 4%, which is currently a single data point...

OK, I'll take your word for that. But my point was that the multiple data point view is currently more favorable to Trump than Obama.

Quote:I picked a post quickly that, to me, does show a willingness to get past party labels. If I couldn’t get past party labels I wouldn’t give Trump credit for the 4.1% growth this past quarter. I’ve also said that I was supportive of the change in corporate tax rates that Trump passed, but not of the rest of the tax bill because of the issues it caused with the deficit.

Agree as to being far more supportive of the corporate rate reduction than to the changes in individual taxes. But the impact of either on the deficit is far less significant than what was already baked into the cake by Obama. On the one hand, democrats are screaming "OMG it adds a trillion dollars to the debt," without being honest enough to state that such trillion dollar effect is over 10 years, to a budget that is already tracking toward a trillion dollar per year deficit thanks to what Obama and the democrats put in place and left in place. Unless those tax cuts truly are offset by growth, yes our deficit will reach 100% of GDP at some point. But without those tax cuts, it was going to get there anyway, and only a few years later. That's the problem that needs addressing, and neither side seems willing to do that.

Quote:I’ve also offered my opinion on what Dem leaders have done poorly over the years, something a partisan really wouldn’t. My personal views align much closer to the Dems than to the Reps, and I absolutely loathe Trump for numerous reasons, but I hardly think I’m a partisan Never Trumper who can’t get past the fact that he is a Republican. I’d like you to show me some evidence as to why you think I can’t get past the party label, as what you’ve said about me suggests I don’t have the ability to take in information and give it a fair analysis.

The only criticisms of democrats that I recall coming from you was in cases where their policies did not lean sufficiently far left to suit you. I haven't seen a criticism where you wished democrats would be more willing to compromise and work with republicans. I can recall criticisms of republicans for not "compromising" where compromise meant sell out their principles and march in solidarity behind the democrats. But I don't think that qualifies you as not a partisan.

As far as giving examples, I'd say that the quote you cited to prove your lack of partisanship is at best damning with faint praise. More, "that's okay, but let's see what happens over the longer term," than truly supportive of Trump or his policies. Perhaps you could make a stronger case for your lack of partisanship by providing examples where you have supported republican or conservative policies over democrat or leftist policies.

I'm totally displeased with the positions of both parties on most issues. I suppose either party could adopt the issue positions that I advocate, and I would support a party that did. But so far neither one has.

(07-29-2018 06:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as “sustained economic growth” he took over at or slightly after the bottom of a recession, and starting from that point in the cycle it would have been pretty difficult not to have faster growth than he did.

(12-21-2009 03:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I expect total economic disaster--for want of a better way to describe it, say 20-50 million people unemployed and 20-50% inflation as steady state conditions lasting 10 years or more. I have a priest friend who knows little about economics, but sees a huge crash coming because our greed and hubris will catch up with us. I find it interesting how we both get to the same result, via totally different paths. What neither he nor I can predict is timing, but a great sickness is clearly there.

Obviously, neither he nor I prays for that. What we both pray is that the American people will wake up and realize that we are on the wrong course before it is too late. But neither of us is optimistic that will happen.

(07-30-2018 01:35 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

New marching orders. Sure there was collusion, so what?

(07-30-2018 01:32 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 06:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as “sustained economic growth” he took over at or slightly after the bottom of a recession, and starting from that point in the cycle it would have been pretty difficult not to have faster growth than he did.

Yeah, maybe. But you'd think someone who produced a litany of moronic posts like these around the time Obama took office would be less cavalier about the consistent growth and trend he presided over.

(12-21-2009 03:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I expect total economic disaster--for want of a better way to describe it, say 20-50 million people unemployed and 20-50% inflation as steady state conditions lasting 10 years or more. I have a priest friend who knows little about economics, but sees a huge crash coming because our greed and hubris will catch up with us. I find it interesting how we both get to the same result, via totally different paths. What neither he nor I can predict is timing, but a great sickness is clearly there.
Obviously, neither he nor I prays for that. What we both pray is that the American people will wake up and realize that we are on the wrong course before it is too late. But neither of us is optimistic that will happen.

(07-30-2018 01:35 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

New marching orders. Sure there was collusion, so what?

(07-29-2018 01:55 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So, I'm interested. In light of the actual text of the of the FISA application, is there anyone here who cares to defend then Nunes memo?

The memo states its purpose to be to "[provide] Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation". (emph mine)

The FBI was very concerned about the memo, saying "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy".

The FBI's concerns were borne out completely. Specifically, in the section where the memo purports to inform members about the application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier, it spends two paragraphs describing things the application did not mention -- the DNC, Clinton, the DNC again, Clinton again, etc. But it wholly omits all of the application's actual discussion of the political origins of the dossier. Specifically, the application says "the FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign", but the memo makes no mention of this.

There is no universe in which an update on the significant facts of the FISA application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier would fail to mention that the application says that it was likely created for the purpose of discrediting Trump's campaign. Yet that's just what Nunes did. And he intended his memo to be published in a vacuum -- as the only discussion available of the application's contents. I can't see how any would see Nunes's memo as anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead its audience through omission. But I'm sure someone here sees it differently.

(07-30-2018 02:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 01:55 PM)JOwl Wrote:  So, I'm interested. In light of the actual text of the of the FISA application, is there anyone here who cares to defend then Nunes memo?

The memo states its purpose to be to "[provide] Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee's ongoing investigation". (emph mine)

The FBI was very concerned about the memo, saying "we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy".

The FBI's concerns were borne out completely. Specifically, in the section where the memo purports to inform members about the application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier, it spends two paragraphs describing things the application did not mention -- the DNC, Clinton, the DNC again, Clinton again, etc. But it wholly omits all of the application's actual discussion of the political origins of the dossier. Specifically, the application says "the FBI speculates that the identified US person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign", but the memo makes no mention of this.

There is no universe in which an update on the significant facts of the FISA application's discussion of the political origins of the dossier would fail to mention that the application says that it was likely created for the purpose of discrediting Trump's campaign. Yet that's just what Nunes did. And he intended his memo to be published in a vacuum -- as the only discussion available of the application's contents. I can't see how any would see Nunes's memo as anything other than a deliberate attempt to mislead its audience through omission. But I'm sure someone here sees it differently.

This is the first time aside from an Enron defense that I have heard that anyone claim that one sentence tucked into a footnote fits anywhere near 'full disclosure of a material and cogent fact', especially when that one footnote sentence doesnt even refer to the Parties or Individuals as anything more than an the aforesaid indirect references. Kudos to you JOwl.... (I guess...)