Republicans certainly gained seats in the the midterm, but lost the presidency and seats in both the Senate and house in 2012.
The cost of the ACA goes way beyond a few seats.
The Dems went from a super majority because the GOP was (rightfully) despised to losing control of the House (at the next election) and then the Senate as soon as enough Senators who'd voted for the ACA faced election.
If the ACA had been popular, or if the dems had just backed off and done nothing, they would have kept their super majority MUCH longer because there's no way Ted's seat would have gone to the GOP.
If the Dems had enacted popular legislation they would have kept the House, they might or might not have lost their Super Majority but they'd still be in the majority in the Senate and thus would now have tilted the Supreme Court Left. The Elderly Leftist Supremes might have been convinced to retire and be replaced by Obama.
The GOP taking power in 2010 across multiple states was huge because of the Census and gerrymandering, the Dems would have been the group doing that if they could have stayed the party of fiscal responsibility for two years.
Imagine the Tea Party never existing because Obama governed like a fiscal conservative (or at least moderate) and the GOP was still burdened with the reputation of being the party of incompetent war, big, irresponsible spending and irresponsible tax cuts.
I don’t think the political expense actually has been that extreme.
We've been through about three election cycles where it's been a serious issue, and has caused Dems to either retire or lose elections. Incumbents losing elections is seriously rare.
...people who don’t need insurance must pay into the system for the entire model to work...
This is the wrong discussion, and was the wrong discussion back when the Dems did the ACA.
What the country needed was medical reform (i.e. cost), not medical insurance reform (coverage).
The Dems turned the system upside down, promised all sorts of things, including that costs would go down, and delivered increasing costs, a government mandate on my person, and a broken website.
Further, IMHO the dems' leadership was counting on entitlements being almost impossible to remove after enacted to safeguard the ACA. Of course I also think they believed the ACA would work better than it has at reducing expenses and so forth, and that the political expense wouldn't be this extreme.
Maybe... but we're running the risk of thinking that anyone other than HRC could have beaten Trump.
Time after time after time I proclaimed Trump couldn't go any further, and I was always wrong. At every step I underestimated him, at some point I have to wonder if it's something other than luck, especially with people like Scott Adams dissecting his moves.
I’ve explained the holes I see in the theory, you keep trying to imply she’s guilty by math, I’ve pointed out the holes in that...
Your "holes" include accepting that a 30 Trillion to one chance happened in her favor, with the destruction of her husband's career waiting in the background if it didn't work.
And even after that, you have no explanation for her consistently getting the high/low of the day other than corruption.
my belief that *that* is not only explainable via bribery does not mean I cannot point out *other* examples of bribery.
So bribery is only a problem when the GOP does it?
whether or not she managed to get a $100,000 bribe almost *thirty years ago* is not particularly relevant to the modern day.
She has a history of cleverly disguising how she gets bribes. She and her family are worth hundreds of millions of dollars after a lifetime on gov salaries. She's openly accepting money with one hand and giving out government favors with the other, with only the thinnest of fig leaves separating the two.
And one of Trump's big arguments is government only serves the interests of the elites.
If you want what the gov does to be popular, and the expansion of gov to be popular, then you can't have openly corrupt people running it and you can't be making excuses for them when they are.
And they made some paid speeches. Speeches, I must point out, that are standard practice for almost *everyone* in politics when not in power.
The key words there are "when not in power". Now that it's true I expect Bill's speaking fee to go down a lot and fewer people will be willing to pay it.
Trump is either nowhere near as rich as he claims, *or* he’s someone absurdly greedy and very insecure in his money and willing to do anything for amounts of money that *should* be trivial. Or some combination of that.
Trump claims $10 Billion, Forbes claims $4 Billion (so yes, he's nowhere near as rich) AND he's absurdly greedy (cashing $0.13 checks) AND insecure in his money (ex-wives' prenup).
It's possible that he *had* to run for President, just keep his empire from collapsing like a house of cards.... it's also possible being president was just the next rung up for someone *that* narcissistic.
Why do you think having a president that *can* be bribed without anyone noticing is going to *cut down* on corruption? Should this not be your *entire focus* if you care about corruption?
It's awful to have the possibility of invisible corruption, but he couldn't have been trading in gov favors until today. Tolerating open corruption tells everyone in the government what is and is not acceptable.
We have to have, or to codify, as some sort of principle, that the president cannot just own opaque entities via which he can be given money without us being able to see where it’s coming from!
Even if we were going to do this, and imho we probably should, Trump would still be grandfathered out for the whole "unfix-able" reasons you went over... and it might take a Constitutional Amendment.
One of the nasty things here is the voters knew darn well what they were getting when they put him in office. Another nasty part is Trump's empire is legal, and even legit. I don't see how Congress can insist the people are wrong and impeach Trump for having his empire when that's what he ran on and why he won.
Fundamentally Trump's election was a result of the political class to failing to police themselves and failing to listen to the people.
And that crew passed a good-but-not-perfect law. What you call “sovereignty” is really a demand that your preferences get veto power over elections. Which is nonsense.
That law has cost the Dems a lot of elections. The American people spoke up at the time, Obama rammed it through anyway, and the Dems have been losing elections ever since.
That pieces of the ACA poll well doesn't change the fact that a lot of politicians have lost their jobs over it.
How did Obama get elected by the margins he did if he didn’t have policies (including expanding health care) that people wanted?
Obamacare was carefully timed to roll out after the election, and there were other issues. Election-wise the ACA has been an amazing gift for the GOP.
Ted Kennedy's seat was given to a guy for the explicit purpose of preventing it; Wave after wave of GOP politicians has been elected because they denounced ACA; Wave after wave of Dems have been thrown out of office for voting for it.
Obama himself is popular, everyone else supported the ACA at their own risk.
You realize a sizable (but hard to nail down) percentage was against it because they supported a public option or medicare for all.
And these are the people who are throwing Dems out of office and putting in GOP politicians who promise to get rid of the ACA?
What limits his ability to make structural changes is the fact he has very little idea how anything at all works. He is, basically, the opposite of a wonk. He is an anti-wonk in every field...
Where we might see something useful is him stealing other people's ideas (not a horrible skill for a politician). Ryan makes a proposal, Trump puts a "made by Trump" sticker on it to make it "the best ever" and we're off.
IMHO we'll be very lucky if we get one useful overhaul of anything before the spending begins.
Trump didn't run on a pro-growth platform, that sharply limits his ability to make structural changes, assuming he even knows what would be useful which is also doubtful.
So McConnell hadn’t committed, in advance, to organizing lockstep opposition to everything the Dems and Obama proposed no matter what it was? Odd that he then went and said the opposite.
Just like every other opposition party has done with every other first term President.
The Dems on this forum have been making suggestions for how to make Trump a one term President (or even less than that), I'm reasonably sure the professional Dems are plotting against Trump as well.
Bush x2 opened with nasty feelings which didn't go away until 911. He was often referred to as "Commander and Thief".
Here's something they were saying about Reagan: The meeting occurred as delegates praised Cuomo's stern warnings that continued divisions within the party could enable President Reagan to win a second term and subject the nation to the threat of "economic crisis . . . fiscal disaster or . . . nuclear holocaust."
Good Presidents work around that sort of thing, normally by mobilising public support for whatever they want to do.
Obama didn't have that skill set going into the office. The talk of him uniting everyone was in defiance of his history and resume which showed no such skills.
But most importantly, the thing I really only internalized a few days ago: The left can’t be the targets of the rage anymore. We’re out. We’re done. Your turn.
The last time the GOP was in charge we got an expensive new entitlement, war poorly fought, and an unpaid for tax cut. I used to joke that they were spending money like drunk dems.
We'll see if they've learned their lesson and will do something for the economy rather than spending other people's money.
I said he shouldn’t be allowed to *serve as president* without disclosing his finances.
I'm not opposed, but I'm not sure we can get enough detail to do any good for the reasons you've laid out.
So, duh, maybe he *was* good at giving advice after all...
I'm waiting to hear how HRC can consistently get the top or bottom trade of the day.
It's 11am, her chosen option opened at $5 and is now at $8. What magic "system" tells her if this is the high of the day? That skill is worth Billions if not Trillions of dollars.
The only way to consistently get the high/low price of the day is if you're making so many trades you get (most) all the prices of the day (which the office as a whole was), but then that takes us back to her trades simply being given to her retroactively (which is what the office was also doing).
Trump, meanwhile, has a system were *literally everyone in the world can give him money without anyone noticing*... They just make a check out to one of his businesses, tada. The end. It’s not even a conspiracy. It’s just a check.
I am all in favour of good, non-corrupt, governance. This is why I've been so appalled at the Clintons openly accepting money from people they're doing government business with and doing government favours for.
That behaviour, i.e. that being an elite means you get to work the levers of the government for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, imho is a big reason why Trump got elected (and why Bernie was so hard to beat in the primary). HRC is a walking example of the system not policing itself, so the people turned to an outsider.
Trump, for all his (many) warts, can't possibly have a history of accepting bribes to do the government's business because he wasn't part of the government.
Ideally we wouldn't have put ourselves into this situation, as for what to do now... I guess we have to live with a President who can, in theory, be bribed. The good news is he's already so rich it might not matter, the bad news (link below) is he's so hyper focused on money that it might.
You mean that the media has made the mistake of believing that he means what he’s said?
Trump has said everything about every issue. Then people pick and choose what they want to hear, with the media picking one version and his supporters picking another. It's all very Biblical.
Don Zeko:
Political parties do lots of things simultaneously. If we’re going to talk about how Dems have no policy or don’t care about the working class, we need to talk about how bailing out Detroit...
Detroit was bailed out by the GOP (they control both Michigan's governor and the government)
, making health care more affordable for poor people,
Everyone can not subsidise everyone. The working class sees their own healthcare insurance go up and understands they're the ones subsidising the poor.
...just generally delivering eight years of declining unemployment and eventually wage gains etc. don’t count.
The economy is something they are giving you "credit" for, except "blame" might be a better word. It's been 8 years, is it Obama's economy yet or are we still supposed to blame Bush?
If you want to pay for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (etc), growth is a big problem. The alternative to growth is serious entitlement "reform".
Which results in *less* employment, not more.
The Luddite fallacy is the simple observation that new technology does not lead to higher overall unemployment in the economy. New technology doesn’t destroy jobs – it only changes the composition of jobs in the economy.
This link details exactly what you're saying... and why you're wrong.
I can’t figure out whether you’re 100% in the bag for him, or Jaybirding your disdain for him in a slightly less obvious way.
I voted for Johnson rather than accept Kodos or Kang. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRdNOQcfp-8
But I'm also anti-hysteria and anti-hype. A fair amount of the criticism leveled against Trump strikes me as election year straw man stuff. Trump, to his discredit, seems to like the attention generated by that sort of thing but whatever.
IMHO we're looking at the following:
Trump Strengths: Experienced at management, leadership, showmanship, business, and making money. Has worked with people across all political groups. Pragmatic.
Trump Weaknesses: Erratic(?). Narcissistic. Old. Has put little effort into political thinking. Never held office. No military experience. No legal experience. Takes office with anti-free trade and anti-illegal-immigration promises.
Trump Misc: Loves his money more than his wives. Has switched political parties multiple times. Apparently has little political ideology, could have run as a Dem if the situation were different. HRC went to one of the Trump family weddings.
Trump as a reasonable guy: Daughter and some grandchildren are Jewish. He endorsed gay marriage yesterday on 60 minutes. Every GOP President gets branded as Hitler by the Dems so this isn't the first time we've seen this.
First of all, the reason we know that is that *she disclosed that*,
The New York Times broke that story.
And, again, I’m finding it amazing that all these people who attacked Hillary Clinton by *literally pouring over her entire financial history and finding stuff they think is dodgy* seem to think there’s no problem with Trump keeping his finances *completely and utterly secret*.
HRC's "entire financial history" is managing to earn hundreds of millions of dollars working for the gov on a salary not even slightly close to that, while openly mixing her personal/professional business/responsibilities.
As for Trump, although I think it's a problem, I also think that what the Dems did with Romney made the whole thing moot. You burned Romney for just showing his finances, even though there was nothing there. Trump's finances is at least 1000x times as complex so could be far more easily misrepresented. The political damage he took from hiding them was a lot less than for showing them.
Since you're going to scream "wolf (bad finances)" no matter what he does or says, regardless of what the facts are, there's no point in listening to you on this issue. Especially since you've applied a very different standard for HRC.
no one’s ever figured out anything that anyone might have been trying to bribe Bill to do.
Wiki has been sanitized (again) on this issue, but every now and then they go over Tyson Food's business in front of Bill.
the CEO of Tyson Food supported Bill opponent in reelection.
True, but that was years later.
Your premise is that someone was part of a thing a thing at his brokerage that he literally sued brokerage for doing to him.
We're talking about her, not him. While she was getting crazy results, he was posting losses, which makes it somewhat absurd that he's the master giving advise while she was the student. He couldn't follow his own advise?
The facts are these: HRC was able to consistently trade at the top or bottom of the daily market(!), make shockingly good profits with shorts in a rising market(!), and was using money which if it'd gone the other way would have destroyed her husband's political career(!). That office was "giving" people favourable trades after the fact during the exact time she did her thing.
And faced with those facts, you and I reach opposite conclusions... which is fine, but keep in mind just how high a bar you're creating for believing in corruption and misconduct.
The idea itself comes from the Heritage Foundation, and was a Mitt Romney initiative.
Obama got all those Dem votes with proposals from the right wing? Seriously? And he didn't get any right wing votes at all? After he figured out he wasn't getting any GOP votes he didn't move to the left? And other people have pointed out that the GOP didn't propose anything?
Here's a link from March of 2010 (i.e. before it was known politicians would be voted out of office for supporting Obamacare) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664
The Dems passed the most left wing bill they could, unless the GOP was willing to support "the public option" there was no point in them trying to contribute.
Is this the part where you claim the GOP was all mean and nasty to Obama, and it was their fault and not his?
My expectation is we're going to see the Dems be all mean and nasty to Trump... and then we'll see. He'll either be so thin-skinned that he can't do anything, or he'll figure out a way to work with them (or around them) and show the Presidency is hard and shouldn't be someone's first real job.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “A One Party Nation”
Excellent post. Very insightful.
"
The cost of the ACA goes way beyond a few seats.
The Dems went from a super majority because the GOP was (rightfully) despised to losing control of the House (at the next election) and then the Senate as soon as enough Senators who'd voted for the ACA faced election.
If the ACA had been popular, or if the dems had just backed off and done nothing, they would have kept their super majority MUCH longer because there's no way Ted's seat would have gone to the GOP.
If the Dems had enacted popular legislation they would have kept the House, they might or might not have lost their Super Majority but they'd still be in the majority in the Senate and thus would now have tilted the Supreme Court Left. The Elderly Leftist Supremes might have been convinced to retire and be replaced by Obama.
The GOP taking power in 2010 across multiple states was huge because of the Census and gerrymandering, the Dems would have been the group doing that if they could have stayed the party of fiscal responsibility for two years.
Imagine the Tea Party never existing because Obama governed like a fiscal conservative (or at least moderate) and the GOP was still burdened with the reputation of being the party of incompetent war, big, irresponsible spending and irresponsible tax cuts.
"
We've been through about three election cycles where it's been a serious issue, and has caused Dems to either retire or lose elections. Incumbents losing elections is seriously rare.
This is the wrong discussion, and was the wrong discussion back when the Dems did the ACA.
What the country needed was medical reform (i.e. cost), not medical insurance reform (coverage).
The Dems turned the system upside down, promised all sorts of things, including that costs would go down, and delivered increasing costs, a government mandate on my person, and a broken website.
"
@davidtc
I'll second what Koz said.
Further, IMHO the dems' leadership was counting on entitlements being almost impossible to remove after enacted to safeguard the ACA. Of course I also think they believed the ACA would work better than it has at reducing expenses and so forth, and that the political expense wouldn't be this extreme.
"
Maybe... but we're running the risk of thinking that anyone other than HRC could have beaten Trump.
Time after time after time I proclaimed Trump couldn't go any further, and I was always wrong. At every step I underestimated him, at some point I have to wonder if it's something other than luck, especially with people like Scott Adams dissecting his moves.
On “The Scorecard”
Your "holes" include accepting that a 30 Trillion to one chance happened in her favor, with the destruction of her husband's career waiting in the background if it didn't work.
And even after that, you have no explanation for her consistently getting the high/low of the day other than corruption.
So bribery is only a problem when the GOP does it?
She has a history of cleverly disguising how she gets bribes. She and her family are worth hundreds of millions of dollars after a lifetime on gov salaries. She's openly accepting money with one hand and giving out government favors with the other, with only the thinnest of fig leaves separating the two.
And one of Trump's big arguments is government only serves the interests of the elites.
If you want what the gov does to be popular, and the expansion of gov to be popular, then you can't have openly corrupt people running it and you can't be making excuses for them when they are.
The key words there are "when not in power". Now that it's true I expect Bill's speaking fee to go down a lot and fewer people will be willing to pay it.
Trump claims $10 Billion, Forbes claims $4 Billion (so yes, he's nowhere near as rich) AND he's absurdly greedy (cashing $0.13 checks) AND insecure in his money (ex-wives' prenup).
It's possible that he *had* to run for President, just keep his empire from collapsing like a house of cards.... it's also possible being president was just the next rung up for someone *that* narcissistic.
It's awful to have the possibility of invisible corruption, but he couldn't have been trading in gov favors until today. Tolerating open corruption tells everyone in the government what is and is not acceptable.
Even if we were going to do this, and imho we probably should, Trump would still be grandfathered out for the whole "unfix-able" reasons you went over... and it might take a Constitutional Amendment.
One of the nasty things here is the voters knew darn well what they were getting when they put him in office. Another nasty part is Trump's empire is legal, and even legit. I don't see how Congress can insist the people are wrong and impeach Trump for having his empire when that's what he ran on and why he won.
Fundamentally Trump's election was a result of the political class to failing to police themselves and failing to listen to the people.
On “A One Party Nation”
That law has cost the Dems a lot of elections. The American people spoke up at the time, Obama rammed it through anyway, and the Dems have been losing elections ever since.
That pieces of the ACA poll well doesn't change the fact that a lot of politicians have lost their jobs over it.
"
Obamacare was carefully timed to roll out after the election, and there were other issues. Election-wise the ACA has been an amazing gift for the GOP.
Ted Kennedy's seat was given to a guy for the explicit purpose of preventing it; Wave after wave of GOP politicians has been elected because they denounced ACA; Wave after wave of Dems have been thrown out of office for voting for it.
Obama himself is popular, everyone else supported the ACA at their own risk.
And these are the people who are throwing Dems out of office and putting in GOP politicians who promise to get rid of the ACA?
"
You say the word "racist" and I translate that into "not a Democrat".
I didn't vote for Trump for other reasons, but the "racist" charge has been used so often and for so little reason that it's been devalued.
"
Where we might see something useful is him stealing other people's ideas (not a horrible skill for a politician). Ryan makes a proposal, Trump puts a "made by Trump" sticker on it to make it "the best ever" and we're off.
"
IMHO we'll be very lucky if we get one useful overhaul of anything before the spending begins.
Trump didn't run on a pro-growth platform, that sharply limits his ability to make structural changes, assuming he even knows what would be useful which is also doubtful.
"
Just like every other opposition party has done with every other first term President.
The Dems on this forum have been making suggestions for how to make Trump a one term President (or even less than that), I'm reasonably sure the professional Dems are plotting against Trump as well.
Bush x2 opened with nasty feelings which didn't go away until 911. He was often referred to as "Commander and Thief".
Here's something they were saying about Reagan: The meeting occurred as delegates praised Cuomo's stern warnings that continued divisions within the party could enable President Reagan to win a second term and subject the nation to the threat of "economic crisis . . . fiscal disaster or . . . nuclear holocaust."
Good Presidents work around that sort of thing, normally by mobilising public support for whatever they want to do.
Obama didn't have that skill set going into the office. The talk of him uniting everyone was in defiance of his history and resume which showed no such skills.
"
The last time the GOP was in charge we got an expensive new entitlement, war poorly fought, and an unpaid for tax cut. I used to joke that they were spending money like drunk dems.
We'll see if they've learned their lesson and will do something for the economy rather than spending other people's money.
On “The Scorecard”
I'm not opposed, but I'm not sure we can get enough detail to do any good for the reasons you've laid out.
I'm waiting to hear how HRC can consistently get the top or bottom trade of the day.
It's 11am, her chosen option opened at $5 and is now at $8. What magic "system" tells her if this is the high of the day? That skill is worth Billions if not Trillions of dollars.
The only way to consistently get the high/low price of the day is if you're making so many trades you get (most) all the prices of the day (which the office as a whole was), but then that takes us back to her trades simply being given to her retroactively (which is what the office was also doing).
I am all in favour of good, non-corrupt, governance. This is why I've been so appalled at the Clintons openly accepting money from people they're doing government business with and doing government favours for.
That behaviour, i.e. that being an elite means you get to work the levers of the government for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, imho is a big reason why Trump got elected (and why Bernie was so hard to beat in the primary). HRC is a walking example of the system not policing itself, so the people turned to an outsider.
Trump, for all his (many) warts, can't possibly have a history of accepting bribes to do the government's business because he wasn't part of the government.
Ideally we wouldn't have put ourselves into this situation, as for what to do now... I guess we have to live with a President who can, in theory, be bribed. The good news is he's already so rich it might not matter, the bad news (link below) is he's so hyper focused on money that it might.
http://fusion.net/story/170645/donald-trump-check-prank-spy/
On “A One Party Nation”
Trump has said everything about every issue. Then people pick and choose what they want to hear, with the media picking one version and his supporters picking another. It's all very Biblical.
On “Jack Move II”
1st, you just narrowed the topic to SS alone and that's very different than paying for all of our promises.
2nd, What? Politicians long since retired or dead made the promise, therefore it should be possible to raise taxes high enough to pay for it?
Then what? Increasing GDP is the best (and perhaps only) way to pay for our various promises.
On “A One Party Nation”
Very much agreed.
"
I'm a numbers guy, and the numbers have been 10 years without 3% growth, i.e. awful.
http://cdn.cnsnews.com/10_straight_years-gdp_growth-chart.jpg
"
Detroit was bailed out by the GOP (they control both Michigan's governor and the government)
Everyone can not subsidise everyone. The working class sees their own healthcare insurance go up and understands they're the ones subsidising the poor.
The economy is something they are giving you "credit" for, except "blame" might be a better word. It's been 8 years, is it Obama's economy yet or are we still supposed to blame Bush?
On “Jack Move II”
If you want to pay for Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (etc), growth is a big problem. The alternative to growth is serious entitlement "reform".
The Luddite fallacy is the simple observation that new technology does not lead to higher overall unemployment in the economy. New technology doesn’t destroy jobs – it only changes the composition of jobs in the economy.
This link details exactly what you're saying... and why you're wrong.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-fallacy/
On “The Scorecard”
I voted for Johnson rather than accept Kodos or Kang. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRdNOQcfp-8
But I'm also anti-hysteria and anti-hype. A fair amount of the criticism leveled against Trump strikes me as election year straw man stuff. Trump, to his discredit, seems to like the attention generated by that sort of thing but whatever.
IMHO we're looking at the following:
Trump Strengths: Experienced at management, leadership, showmanship, business, and making money. Has worked with people across all political groups. Pragmatic.
Trump Weaknesses: Erratic(?). Narcissistic. Old. Has put little effort into political thinking. Never held office. No military experience. No legal experience. Takes office with anti-free trade and anti-illegal-immigration promises.
Trump Misc: Loves his money more than his wives. Has switched political parties multiple times. Apparently has little political ideology, could have run as a Dem if the situation were different. HRC went to one of the Trump family weddings.
Trump as a reasonable guy: Daughter and some grandchildren are Jewish. He endorsed gay marriage yesterday on 60 minutes. Every GOP President gets branded as Hitler by the Dems so this isn't the first time we've seen this.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153172272041/how-to-break-an-illusion
On “Jack Move II”
It's probably not a good idea to ask bureaucrats to figure out if their own job is necessary, and if their job needs to be expanded or whatever.
On “The Scorecard”
The New York Times broke that story.
HRC's "entire financial history" is managing to earn hundreds of millions of dollars working for the gov on a salary not even slightly close to that, while openly mixing her personal/professional business/responsibilities.
As for Trump, although I think it's a problem, I also think that what the Dems did with Romney made the whole thing moot. You burned Romney for just showing his finances, even though there was nothing there. Trump's finances is at least 1000x times as complex so could be far more easily misrepresented. The political damage he took from hiding them was a lot less than for showing them.
Since you're going to scream "wolf (bad finances)" no matter what he does or says, regardless of what the facts are, there's no point in listening to you on this issue. Especially since you've applied a very different standard for HRC.
Wiki has been sanitized (again) on this issue, but every now and then they go over Tyson Food's business in front of Bill.
True, but that was years later.
We're talking about her, not him. While she was getting crazy results, he was posting losses, which makes it somewhat absurd that he's the master giving advise while she was the student. He couldn't follow his own advise?
The facts are these: HRC was able to consistently trade at the top or bottom of the daily market(!), make shockingly good profits with shorts in a rising market(!), and was using money which if it'd gone the other way would have destroyed her husband's political career(!). That office was "giving" people favourable trades after the fact during the exact time she did her thing.
And faced with those facts, you and I reach opposite conclusions... which is fine, but keep in mind just how high a bar you're creating for believing in corruption and misconduct.
On “Jack Move II”
Obama got all those Dem votes with proposals from the right wing? Seriously? And he didn't get any right wing votes at all? After he figured out he wasn't getting any GOP votes he didn't move to the left? And other people have pointed out that the GOP didn't propose anything?
Here's a link from March of 2010 (i.e. before it was known politicians would be voted out of office for supporting Obamacare) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664
The Dems passed the most left wing bill they could, unless the GOP was willing to support "the public option" there was no point in them trying to contribute.
"
Is this the part where you claim the GOP was all mean and nasty to Obama, and it was their fault and not his?
My expectation is we're going to see the Dems be all mean and nasty to Trump... and then we'll see. He'll either be so thin-skinned that he can't do anything, or he'll figure out a way to work with them (or around them) and show the Presidency is hard and shouldn't be someone's first real job.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.