Republicans Will Complain No Matter What

[red viking]

First, they complain about inflation, even though Trump is the one that planted the initial seeds by raising spending while lowering taxes. LIterally, printing money llike Al Capone. The Federal Reserve tries like hell to bring inflation down by raising interest rates. A huge part of inflation is wage inflation, which is caused by an extremely tight labor market. 

Now, were getting what we wanted. Inflation has come down and they are complaining about very slightly elevated unemployment numbers, but only compared to what we had before. Still, not high at all by historical standards. 

These people are literally impossible. They will ALWAYS find something to complain about when a Democrat is in the White House and will say the economy is great, no matter what, if a Republican is in the White House. 

The hypocrisy is unbelievable!!!!!! 

[Scouts Honor]

lol

how many marches do we have?

now do the left

[WrestlingRasta]

6 hours ago, red viking said:

The hypocrisy is unbelievable!!!!!! 

 

[billyhoyle]

I just don't think they are well organized in their messaging.  Going crazy over a 2% drop in the stock market after it being up 25% on the year...Anybody who has had a 401K longer than a week knows that is not a big deal, and now they look stupid because it is on the way back up.  The inflation was bad, but not historically bad (it was up to 12-13% when Carter lost to Reagan). I think overplaying that hand was a mistake as well.  

There are a couple issues that they could focus on like immigration, spending/debt (this would require an actual conservative running and not a populist like Trump), and crime (in a reasonable way, not the over the top language that trump uses) that could be very effective.  But they can't help but repeatedly overreact, which minimizes the issues that people feel strongly about. 

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

I just don't think they are well organized in their messaging.  Going crazy over a 2% drop in the stock market after it being up 25% on the year...Anybody who has had a 401K longer than a week knows that is not a big deal, and now they look stupid because it is on the way back up.  The inflation was bad, but not historically bad (it was up to 12-13% when Carter lost to Reagan). I think overplaying that hand was a mistake as well.  

There are a couple issues that they could focus on like immigration, spending/debt (this would require an actual conservative running and not a populist like Trump), and crime (in a reasonable way, not the over the top language that trump uses) that could be very effective.  But they can't help but repeatedly overreact, which minimizes the issues that people feel strongly about. 

Trying to help you out here.  First of all, the market; three or more straight down days is something that’s going to create emotions.  There was also the news of international market turmoil.  Then there’s the inflation rates.  They don’t use the same method as they used when Carter was in.  If they did, the numbers would be much closer.  For reference, the same hamburger that cost $3.99lb before Biden is now $6.99lb.  Using the same method that was used during Carter, the numbers would be double what’s been reported.  
 

Trump consistently talks about issues.  Immigration, inflation, spending, taxes, foreign policy, and the one Kamala never mentions - liberty.  An ABC reporter at the  NABJ Conference made a long accusatory, offensive statement and eventually said somebody had said Kamala was a DEI hire, and she asked him if he would tell that person to stop saying that.  He started with a retort to her inappropriate manner and she pushed the subject on him, did he think Kamala was a DEI hire?  He said he didn’t know and tried to go to other topics, implying it didn’t matter what race she was, but she had been inconsistent, or vague about it.  That’s what you saw if you watched it, as I did, but not if you saw the reporting of it.  The reports tend to imply it was Trump that brought up race as a subject.  Funny thing is, is that Biden said she was at the top of his DEI hiring effort. 
 

 

[mspart]

Yep, he said it there.   She was picked for diversity.  For those scoring at home, diversity is what the first letter represents in DEI.   He did not pick her because she was the best to choose from, he did not pick her because she was intelligent.   He picked her because she was diverse.   He said it right there.  

mspart

Edited August 8 by mspart

[headshuck]

.

[Scouts Honor]

what happened to democrats

this is the 1992 platform, sounds lamost like MAGA

[Scouts Honor]

 

[ionel]

4 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

 

Pretty sure its the White House's job to clamp down on free speech correct?  

[RockLobster]

On 8/8/2024 at 6:46 PM, mspart said:

Yep, he said it there.   She was picked for diversity.  For those scoring at home, diversity is what the first letter represents in DEI.   He did not pick her because she was the best to choose from, he did not pick her because she was intelligent.   He picked her because she was diverse.   He said it right there.  

mspart

Way to go, weak tit. 

Don't stand up for yourself, don't stand up for anybody else, just cave to whatever rando's on the internet say.

You don't know her, you don't know how intelligent she is, you don't know anything about her except from rando's.

Yet you pretend to know what you don't know at all.

If you're flat out racist - I get it then. That makes sense (in a nonsensical way) of your post.

If you aren't racist - then I don't get it at all. Why denigrate someone who you don't at all know?

Get your shit together, weak tit.

You used to be a good poster.

[Bigbrog]

6 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Way to go, weak tit. 

Don't stand up for yourself, don't stand up for anybody else, just cave to whatever rando's on the internet say.

You don't know her, you don't know how intelligent she is, you don't know anything about her except from rando's.

Yet you pretend to know what you don't know at all.

If you're flat out racist - I get it then. That makes sense (in a nonsensical way) of your post.

If you aren't racist - then I don't get it at all. Why denigrate someone who you don't at all know?

Get your shit together, weak tit.

You used to be a good poster.

So you know her than?? 

You don't pretend to know what you don't know at all? 

Are you racist...if so I get it, if not you are a liar.

Nice way to start your post by the way.  How old are you by the way?

[red viking]

On 8/9/2024 at 4:20 AM, Scouts Honor said:

what happened to democrats

this is the 1992 platform, sounds lamost like MAGA

Source? Looks suspects to me. Probably taken out of context. The REAL platform was much longer so I think you cherry picked this stuff and left other important elements out. More right-wing dishonesty. It happens literally every time you folks say something. 

Edited August 13 by red viking

[Scouts Honor]

democrats will complain about anything

[jross]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

Source? Looks suspects to me. Probably taken out of context. The REAL platform was much longer so I think you cherry picked this stuff and left other important elements out. More right-wing dishonesty. It happens literally every time you folks say something. 

Why don't you do the research and come back?

You keep posting bullshit based on bullshit.

After you've done the exercise, perhaps everyone will learn how to post less bullshit.

[Scouts Honor]

extracted from

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1992-democratic-party-platform

[Scouts Honor]

15 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Way to go, weak tit. 

Don't stand up for yourself, don't stand up for anybody else, just cave to whatever rando's on the internet say.

 

says a rando on the internet 

[RockLobster]

7 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

says a rando on the internet 

Except that I'm not a rando to that particular poster.

Maybe pick how and where you post more selectively. For example, in this thread you should STFU.

[Scouts Honor]

12 hours ago, RockLobster said:

 

Maybe pick how and where you post more selectively. For example, in this thread you should STFU.

 

[mspart]

Yes, he is such a nice poster, never denigrates anyone on the boards and is always cordial. 

mspart

On 8/12/2024 at 11:42 PM, RockLobster said:

Way to go, weak tit. 

Don't stand up for yourself, don't stand up for anybody else, just cave to whatever rando's on the internet say.

You don't know her, you don't know how intelligent she is, you don't know anything about her except from rando's.

Yet you pretend to know what you don't know at all.

If you're flat out racist - I get it then. That makes sense (in a nonsensical way) of your post.

If you aren't racist - then I don't get it at all. Why denigrate someone who you don't at all know?

Get your shit together, weak tit.

You used to be a good poster.

Actually, I did not call you names.   Actually I referenced the video of Biden saying he chose her because of the color of her skin and the lack of male genitalia.   I did not infer that from the internet.   He said it.   If you don't like that he said it, too bad.   He said it and you have no defense of it because it is the truth, and he said it.  You don't argue with Biden about it.  All you can do is call me names here and try to disparage me or others that point it out.   It is weak and not very interesting.   You need to try harder to abide by your credo of positive posting.  As for your hypocritical posting here, I suggest you look in the mirror as you are seriously projecting here. 

mspart

[RockLobster]

 

On 8/8/2024 at 6:46 PM, mspart said:

Yep, he said it there.   She was picked for diversity.  For those scoring at home, diversity is what the first letter represents in DEI.   He did not pick her because she was the best to choose from, he did not pick her because she was intelligent.   He picked her because she was diverse.   He said it right there.  

mspart

Here we go through it again, weak tit. I included both posts above for people to easily review.

• Biden did NOT say She was picked for diversity.
• He did say diversity was important and that it starts at the top, but he did NOT say that was why she was selected.
• He didn't comment on her detailed credentials (of which she has many)
  • Any notion that she wasn't the best, or wasn't very intelligent, was purely YOUR contribution.
  • Your comment that she didn't have "male genitalia" is also purely YOURS.

It's all there in the posts for everybody to see. You can try to lie, but the posts prove the truth.

Maybe you're being twisted by your super sketchy 'internet buddies' or you are in cahoots with them. Doesn't matter.

Either way, step up and start posting with some integrity, or not, your choice on who you want to be.