If President Trump doesn’t win re-election, I’m going to leave the country, and move to Russia.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
The Fake News Depot
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Just checking in. I see the Fake News media is still bat crazy over Trump. Nothing changes with them I guess.
The Press has determined that if you solicit dirt from a hostile power on a campaign opponent, that's not illegal. In fact, it's perfectly fine. However, if the hostile power approaches you with dirt on an opponent, you in big trubble, buddy.
The Press (and of course, most of the Democrats) also doesn't know the difference between listening and treason. They think there can be a situation, in the United States, in your own building, where it would be illegal to listen to someone talk.
The Press also cannot seem to fathom that in business (and very often in politics), if someone approaches you with some really juicy information, so juicy that you would really really really want to hear it, that there's a 98% chance that they're telling you that in order to get a meeting with you, and the meeting won't be about the juicy thing at all.
Incidentally, the President is not above the law! No one is above the law!
Well, except illegal immigrants. They're above the law. Explicitly.
The Press (and of course, most of the Democrats) also doesn't know the difference between listening and treason. They think there can be a situation, in the United States, in your own building, where it would be illegal to listen to someone talk.
The Press also cannot seem to fathom that in business (and very often in politics), if someone approaches you with some really juicy information, so juicy that you would really really really want to hear it, that there's a 98% chance that they're telling you that in order to get a meeting with you, and the meeting won't be about the juicy thing at all.
Incidentally, the President is not above the law! No one is above the law!
Well, except illegal immigrants. They're above the law. Explicitly.
It's getting hard to keep track of all the new rules that the Fake News media keep making in deeming what is treasonous behavior and what isnt. They're twisting themselves into pretzels. I saw this last night. At about the 10 min mark his guest finally tries to distinguish what the difference is. If operation research information originally comes from the Russians but is laundered thru a couple intermediaries, then it must be ok? But if a foreigner approaches Trump with information about a political opponent, he is supposed to firmly shove two fingers in each ear and repeatedly yell blah, blah, blah, I can't hear you. Blah, blah, blah.
Otherwise it's a treasonous and impeachable offense according to Dems and their Fake News media cohorts.
Otherwise it's a treasonous and impeachable offense according to Dems and their Fake News media cohorts.
The Mainstream Media could report a bad story on a candidate, and it’d be over for the candidates. Be it Bush Sr looking at his watch, Sarah Palin for being Sarah Palin, Dukakis and his army hat.
Context didn’t matter, negative story was the kiss of death.
Then President Trump comes along and they’d screaming one negative story after another, for years now.
They’re so confused. They don’t know what to do.
They didn’t realize that people went along with the negative stories because Establishment wasn’t always idiots.
I personally believe the tipping point was Obama paying Iran so much money, and when asked did you get the hostages, they had a blank look, like what hostages?
Then Obama literally tried to make a case that American hostages wasn’t important.
I don’t blame Obama on a personal level, but I blame Establishment, they became so concerned about their own personal agenda they forgot they were representing a country.
The biggest issue they have now isn’t President Trump. Their biggest issue is the American people now expect results. If the President after Trump doesn’t beat his economic record, then they’re a failure. No longer can you have Obama saying, well I didn’t lead us into the Great Recession, so that’s success. Those days are shot. Americans now demand results, results the Establishment doesn’t want us to have.
Even the FED has shot up their % so high to make Trump look worse, AND for future Establishment Presidents (they hope) can be made to look better simply by the FED lowering the %.
Establishment obviously wants America to lose. This is both Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats. I just wonder how many more will wake up to this in 2020?
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Context didn’t matter, negative story was the kiss of death.
Then President Trump comes along and they’d screaming one negative story after another, for years now.
They’re so confused. They don’t know what to do.
They didn’t realize that people went along with the negative stories because Establishment wasn’t always idiots.
I personally believe the tipping point was Obama paying Iran so much money, and when asked did you get the hostages, they had a blank look, like what hostages?
Then Obama literally tried to make a case that American hostages wasn’t important.
I don’t blame Obama on a personal level, but I blame Establishment, they became so concerned about their own personal agenda they forgot they were representing a country.
The biggest issue they have now isn’t President Trump. Their biggest issue is the American people now expect results. If the President after Trump doesn’t beat his economic record, then they’re a failure. No longer can you have Obama saying, well I didn’t lead us into the Great Recession, so that’s success. Those days are shot. Americans now demand results, results the Establishment doesn’t want us to have.
Even the FED has shot up their % so high to make Trump look worse, AND for future Establishment Presidents (they hope) can be made to look better simply by the FED lowering the %.
Establishment obviously wants America to lose. This is both Establishment Republicans and Establishment Democrats. I just wonder how many more will wake up to this in 2020?
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Last edited:
Obama gave Iran a Get-Out-Of-Jail card by lifting the sanctions that were strangling their economy and added a planeload of cash to boot. Aiding and abetting a state sponsor of terrorism at its finest, and the MSM yawned. Fast forward to the present and we see them once attacking Saudi oil tankers with no outrage from the MSM, just a few articles. But what if the US or the Saudis retaliate? It will be the beginning of the end of the world.
Iran removed unexploded mine from oil tanker, U.S. says
The U.S. military on Friday released a video it said showed Iran’s Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the oil tankers...
www.marketwatch.com
You do realize that the money we “gave” Iran was their money that was frozen the last time that sanctions were put in place.
Iran talks like they are in a position of power buy they know better than try to actually start something they know will end badly for them. I would bet that these attacks are being done by one of Iran’s enemys, they can’t beat them but they can try to draw the USA into the fight and we can do it for them.
Sent from my iPad using EO Forums
Iran talks like they are in a position of power buy they know better than try to actually start something they know will end badly for them. I would bet that these attacks are being done by one of Iran’s enemys, they can’t beat them but they can try to draw the USA into the fight and we can do it for them.
Sent from my iPad using EO Forums
Yes. Frozen because Iran was using that money to sponsor terrorism.
White men can't jump.
Black men can't swim.
The Left can't meme.
Memes inspire libertarian thought, freedom of thought. That's a very dangerous thing to the Left.
Instagram just purged 30 of the most popular meme accounts, all of them right-leaning, with a total of more than 40 million followers. Ahead of the 2020 election. Coincidence? Not a chance.
Facebook owns Instagram.
Black men can't swim.
The Left can't meme.
Memes inspire libertarian thought, freedom of thought. That's a very dangerous thing to the Left.
Instagram just purged 30 of the most popular meme accounts, all of them right-leaning, with a total of more than 40 million followers. Ahead of the 2020 election. Coincidence? Not a chance.
Facebook owns Instagram.
Violating the company's terms of use isn't a good enough reason?
Instagram shuts down dozens of accounts used to make money
Not when the Terms of Service (and Community Guidelines) are crafted so that whatever liberals do falls within the rules, and whatever conservatives do violate the rules. Twitter's Jack Dorsey got owned huge on that one on a Joe Rogan podcast by Tim Pool a while back, and finally had to admit that some of the terms and guidelines are themselves biased, written and applied by biased people with a biased agenda. The rules are written to be so vague that they can be applied any way these companies like. For example, "objectionable content" and "hate speech" covers hurt feewings and anything else the companies don't like.
Understood but that's not what's referenced in the attached article.
That's just one article. There's a bunch of them out there, plus Twitter comments from those who lost their accounts.
Having an account removed for "violating the terms of service" is a breathtakingly large blanket. Thaaaat's convenient. Notice how no one is ever told specifically, exactly, which term they violated. Happens on all the social media platforms.
This is how FAKE NEWS starts <giggle>
When you see all the Memes, so many Memes, you know how they started.
But as Don Jr said, "No, Chris is not the N-word to Italians. It just means you're the dumb brother."
For being an on-air personality that Fredo sure has a limited vocabulary.
Road to recession becoming clearer
Downturn isn’t a given, but trade wars, business spending flash warnings.
By NEIL IRWIN New York Times
These three things are all true: The United States almost certainly isn’t in a recession right now. It may well avoid one for the foreseeable future. But the chances that the nation will fall into recession have increased sharply in the last two weeks.
That is the unmistakable message that global investors in the bond market are sending. Longer-term interest rates have plunged since the end of July — a shift that historically tends to predict slower growth, interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and a heightened risk that the economy slips into outright contraction.
This is happening in an economy that, by most indicators, is solid. The U.S. economy is growing at a roughly 2% rate and keeps adding jobs at a healthy clip. There is no sign of the kind of huge, obvious bubbles that triggered the last two recessions, the equivalent of dot-com stocks in 2000 or housing in 2007.
So if there’s going to be a recession in 2020 — if the pessimistic signals in the financial markets prove correct — how would it happen? There are plenty of clues, in the details of recent economic reports, in signals from the markets and in the recent history of recessions and near recessions.
President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again execution of the trade war with China and other countries has fed uncertainty into businesses’ decisionmaking. Corporate investment spending is softening, despite the big tax cut that Trump said would boost it. And the combination of central banks that are at the outer limits of their ability to stimulate growth, and an inward turn by many countries, could make governments less effective at responding to a downturn.
“It is potentially a self-inflicted-wound type of recession,” said Tara Sinclair, an economist who studies business cycles at George Washington University. “But how deep that gash goes depends on many other characteristics of the economy and the policy response thereafter.”
There are parallels to the past. Often, a recession results when some widely held belief about the world turns out to be false. In 2001, it was that a technology boom would fuel the economy and the stock market indefinitely; in 2007, it was that the housing market would never melt down across all regions at once.
This time around, the belief in doubt is that the world will only become more stable and interconnected over time, and that trade, currency and diplomatic relationships can be counted upon.
Recessions result not just when something bad happens in the economy; bad things happen all the time. Recessions occur when those initial shocks are multiplied, in ways that reverberate worldwide. The dot-com crash was accentuated by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and a rash of corporate scandals. The 2007 housing bust in the United States became a global financial crisis in 2008 only because banks worldwide took huge losses on mortgage debt.
The starting point for the international tensions that could lead to a recession in the United States is business investment spending, especially in the industrial sector. As corporate CEOs look around the world and make their plans for investment and hiring in the year ahead, they aren’t liking what they see.
The economies in China and many of its Asian neighbors are getting weaker, partly as a result of the trade war with the U.S. The European economy, which has muddled along for years with low growth, may be tumbling into a recession, and if Britain crashes out of the European Union with no exit deal Oct. 31, Europe could face still deeper challenges.
Already, a key measure of business capital spending in the United States, “fixed nonresidential investment,” was in negative territory in the second quarter. And in the nation’s factories, the rate of growth has slowed for five consecutive months, according to the Institute for Supply Management’s index.
The trade war between China and the U.S. is a big part of the reason. The conflict has made it difficult for many global firms to plan their operations — and in some cases, it may lead them to sit on their hands rather than invest.
Still, if the downturn remains confined to business spending, it will be hard — just as a matter of arithmetic — for an overall contraction to result. Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy, vs. about 14% for business investment.
So far, American consumers are spending enthusiastically, driving overall growth. But there are a few ways the freeze-up in business confidence could change that.
Turbulence in global markets — and the news reports attached to that turbulence — could reduce consumer confidence and lead Americans to pull back on their buying.
Or more directly, if businesses pull back on investment spending, they may also make moves that reduce consumers’ incomes, including layoffs and hiring freezes.
If that’s the worst of it — trade wars, slower business spending and weaker overseas economies — the U.S. could probably weather it without falling into contraction. But there are risks out there that could multiply those shocks.
One is the buildup of corporate debt. Businesses have taken on more debt in an era of low interest rates, which leaves them more vulnerable to failure if the economy were to soften or interest rates were to rise. A pullback because of trade wars could cause a wave of bankruptcies that turns a mild slowdown into something worse.
“A highly leveraged business sector could amplify any economic downturn as companies are forced to lay off workers and cut back on investments,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in a May speech.
But the biggest risk multiplier may come out of the policy world. In past recessions, the Fed had plenty of room to cut interest rates as a stimulus measure, and fiscal policymakers have been willing to pour money into weaker economies.
The Fed’s main target interest rate is just over 2% now, compared with 5.25% heading into the last recession in 2007. Other global central banks have even less wiggle room.
And a polarizing president and a divided Congress are unlikely to find much common ground in stimulating the economy. In early 2008, for example, as a recession took hold, the George W. Bush administration negotiated a $152 billion stimulus package with a Democratic Congress to try to lessen the damage.
It seems unlikely that Trump, heading into a reelection battle, would find the same harmony with Democrats today.
“You could get a widespread fiscal response to a recession,” said Megan Greene, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “That would be really nice, but I’d also like a unicorn for my birthday.”
Downturn isn’t a given, but trade wars, business spending flash warnings.
By NEIL IRWIN New York Times
These three things are all true: The United States almost certainly isn’t in a recession right now. It may well avoid one for the foreseeable future. But the chances that the nation will fall into recession have increased sharply in the last two weeks.
That is the unmistakable message that global investors in the bond market are sending. Longer-term interest rates have plunged since the end of July — a shift that historically tends to predict slower growth, interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and a heightened risk that the economy slips into outright contraction.
This is happening in an economy that, by most indicators, is solid. The U.S. economy is growing at a roughly 2% rate and keeps adding jobs at a healthy clip. There is no sign of the kind of huge, obvious bubbles that triggered the last two recessions, the equivalent of dot-com stocks in 2000 or housing in 2007.
So if there’s going to be a recession in 2020 — if the pessimistic signals in the financial markets prove correct — how would it happen? There are plenty of clues, in the details of recent economic reports, in signals from the markets and in the recent history of recessions and near recessions.
President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again execution of the trade war with China and other countries has fed uncertainty into businesses’ decisionmaking. Corporate investment spending is softening, despite the big tax cut that Trump said would boost it. And the combination of central banks that are at the outer limits of their ability to stimulate growth, and an inward turn by many countries, could make governments less effective at responding to a downturn.
“It is potentially a self-inflicted-wound type of recession,” said Tara Sinclair, an economist who studies business cycles at George Washington University. “But how deep that gash goes depends on many other characteristics of the economy and the policy response thereafter.”
There are parallels to the past. Often, a recession results when some widely held belief about the world turns out to be false. In 2001, it was that a technology boom would fuel the economy and the stock market indefinitely; in 2007, it was that the housing market would never melt down across all regions at once.
This time around, the belief in doubt is that the world will only become more stable and interconnected over time, and that trade, currency and diplomatic relationships can be counted upon.
Recessions result not just when something bad happens in the economy; bad things happen all the time. Recessions occur when those initial shocks are multiplied, in ways that reverberate worldwide. The dot-com crash was accentuated by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and a rash of corporate scandals. The 2007 housing bust in the United States became a global financial crisis in 2008 only because banks worldwide took huge losses on mortgage debt.
The starting point for the international tensions that could lead to a recession in the United States is business investment spending, especially in the industrial sector. As corporate CEOs look around the world and make their plans for investment and hiring in the year ahead, they aren’t liking what they see.
The economies in China and many of its Asian neighbors are getting weaker, partly as a result of the trade war with the U.S. The European economy, which has muddled along for years with low growth, may be tumbling into a recession, and if Britain crashes out of the European Union with no exit deal Oct. 31, Europe could face still deeper challenges.
Already, a key measure of business capital spending in the United States, “fixed nonresidential investment,” was in negative territory in the second quarter. And in the nation’s factories, the rate of growth has slowed for five consecutive months, according to the Institute for Supply Management’s index.
The trade war between China and the U.S. is a big part of the reason. The conflict has made it difficult for many global firms to plan their operations — and in some cases, it may lead them to sit on their hands rather than invest.
Still, if the downturn remains confined to business spending, it will be hard — just as a matter of arithmetic — for an overall contraction to result. Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy, vs. about 14% for business investment.
So far, American consumers are spending enthusiastically, driving overall growth. But there are a few ways the freeze-up in business confidence could change that.
Turbulence in global markets — and the news reports attached to that turbulence — could reduce consumer confidence and lead Americans to pull back on their buying.
Or more directly, if businesses pull back on investment spending, they may also make moves that reduce consumers’ incomes, including layoffs and hiring freezes.
If that’s the worst of it — trade wars, slower business spending and weaker overseas economies — the U.S. could probably weather it without falling into contraction. But there are risks out there that could multiply those shocks.
One is the buildup of corporate debt. Businesses have taken on more debt in an era of low interest rates, which leaves them more vulnerable to failure if the economy were to soften or interest rates were to rise. A pullback because of trade wars could cause a wave of bankruptcies that turns a mild slowdown into something worse.
“A highly leveraged business sector could amplify any economic downturn as companies are forced to lay off workers and cut back on investments,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell in a May speech.
But the biggest risk multiplier may come out of the policy world. In past recessions, the Fed had plenty of room to cut interest rates as a stimulus measure, and fiscal policymakers have been willing to pour money into weaker economies.
The Fed’s main target interest rate is just over 2% now, compared with 5.25% heading into the last recession in 2007. Other global central banks have even less wiggle room.
And a polarizing president and a divided Congress are unlikely to find much common ground in stimulating the economy. In early 2008, for example, as a recession took hold, the George W. Bush administration negotiated a $152 billion stimulus package with a Democratic Congress to try to lessen the damage.
It seems unlikely that Trump, heading into a reelection battle, would find the same harmony with Democrats today.
“You could get a widespread fiscal response to a recession,” said Megan Greene, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “That would be really nice, but I’d also like a unicorn for my birthday.”
When sleepy Joe is the best you have, desperation starts to set in.