doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com OT..A Day starter

This is just a dodge. Besides, WJC 1992-2000, GWB, 200-2008. The great recession started in 2008

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/

Now if your point is the relaxing of lending standards during Clinton's term, its more complicated then that.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/feb/03/who-caused-financial-crisis-great-recession

But really, doesn't your response just ignore the real issue?

I would again refer you to this article, which is now common knowledge:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/

Yup Obama was right there having steak with the boys planning on how to block his every move. Oh wait a sec, no he wasn't, he was being inaugurated, which means they developed their policy of NO before he was even the president.

No, it's not a dodge. It's the facts. Clinton had the aim of putting people who couldn't afford mortgages into home ownership. He relaxed the standards and let Wall Street loose. It actually isn't that complicated. Cause and effect.

That's exactly what happened. Of course Hillary's main stream media will never tell you that but those are the reasons of the 2008 collapse.

Chris, haven't figured out how to link from my iPad so now I'm at my desktop. In case the link doesn't work, I copied the whole article. From the Spectator magazine:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/why-i...hts_41_NON_SUBS



Why I joined the list of intellectuals for Trump
A wide range of conservative thinkers are backing the Donald � and only a narrow group is opposing him
Daniel McCarthy


Daniel McCarthy
The Spectator

8 October 2016



Last week more than 130 right-wing thinkers put their names to a defiant document � a list of �Scholars and Writers for America� in support of Donald Trump. It includes the editors of five of the country�s leading conservative journals of ideas: R.R. Reno of the Christian conservative First Things; Roger Kimball of the New Criterion, the right�s leading journal of the arts; Charles Kesler of the Claremont Review of Books; the American Spectator�s R. Emmett Tyrrell; and me, the editor of the American Conservative. (Notably lacking are names from America�s oldest conservative magazine, National Review, which has been as hostile to Trump as the columnists of the New York Times and Washington Post. NR, representing what now seems like the establishment wing of the right, published a ludicrously ineffective cover story in February demanding that Republicans not nominate Trump.)

The list of scholars and writers for Trump includes high-profile thinkers who have also succeeded in business and politics � such as Peter Thiel, Conrad Black and Newt Gingrich � as well as academics who are at the top of their fields, such as the philosophers Scott Soames, Robert Koons, Daniel N. Robinson and Daniel Bonevac. Predictably, the list elicited outraged and snarky social-network comments suggesting comparisons with a few other philosophers, notably the Nazis Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt. As a Twitter or Facebook remark, that may be merely in bad taste, but in the hard-left climate of opinion on many American -university campuses, it could be taken seriously. The risks that conservative scholars take in openly supporting Trump are real. Before the release of the list, there was much debate among its signatories about whether to include a statement about scholars who wanted to sign but feared for their careers.

The list was the brainchild of F.H. Buckley, a law professor at George Mason University near Washington DC. Buckley � no relation to William F. Buckley, the late founder of National Review � has occasionally written speeches for Trump, but the list was compiled and promoted without input from the campaign, a necessity given US election law. Given the official Trump campaign�s shambolic nature, the informal approach was best anyway.


What becomes obvious from comparing Buckley�s list with the roll call of �Never Trump� journalists writing in the New York Times, Washington Post and magazines such as National Review and the Weekly Standard is how broad the intellectual support for Trump is compared with the narrow social and ideological range of the anti-Trump right. Buckley�s list includes nationalist conservatives, libertarian conservatives, neoconservatives and Christian right intellectuals from around the country, including deeply conservative states like Texas and unshakably liberal-Democratic ones like California. Hillsdale College in Michigan contributes several signers, including the president of the college, Larry Arnn. The anti-Trump right, by contrast, occupies what�s called the �Acela corridor� served by the US passenger rail system�s fastest train, the Acela, which runs between Washington and New York.

But the divide among America�s right-leaning minds is not so much geographic as cultural � a divide between those who affirm the nation state and see liberal Republicanism (as much as the liberal Democratic party) as a threat to it and those who find Trump simply too brash and obnoxious to be presidential material. Anti-Trump conservatives might not identify as globalists, but they value the kind of polite disagreement one finds at Davos more than they worry about America�s borders or cultural solidarity.

The conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, responding to the list, correctly characterized the view of many of the signatories that �Trump is correct on particular issues (immigration, foreign policy, the importance of the nation-state) where the bipartisan consensus is often wrong, and his candidacy is a chance to vote against an elite worldview that desperately needs to be chastened and rebuked.� But Douthat insists that however valid some of those concerns may be, the Donald is temperamentally unsuited to the White House. �Trump�s zest for self-sabotage, his wild swings, his inability to delegate or take advice, are not mere flaws; they are defining characteristics.�

And yet Trump has succeeded not just in one field but in many � in property, in television and now in politics, by winning the Republican nomination against well-funded rivals who had the support of the establishment right. Barack Obama won the White House in 2008 by promising �hope and change�. Trump � so temperamentally unlike every other recent Republican and Democratic nominee � promises to be a much greater force for change. Already he has changed the Republican party and the conservative movement, re-opening essential questions of foreign policy, immigration and the needs of the American workforce.

This is why I support him and why I signed on to �Scholars and Writers for America�. If President Trump does keep out of wars like the one the last Republican president started in Iraq, if he limits immigration and helps restore the US labour force to prosperity, he will have done what no other Republican or Democrat could do. On the other hand, should he live down to the worst expectations � getting into wars like Iraq to, as he puts it, �seize the oil�, or inflaming racial tensions at home � I have no doubt that he would be even more effectively opposed in his folly than George W. Bush was. The anti-war and civil-libertarian left, which has been conspicuously silent in the Obama years, would roar back to life.

The opposite would be true with President Hillary Clinton: in advancing globalist economics and pushing a foreign policy of interventionism and nation-building, she would have the support of many Republicans in Congress � and of Acela conservatives in the pages of the New York Times and Washington Post. She will reduce the left to sycophancy and make accomplices of the right�s �wets�. (Or �squishes�, as we call them here.) Whether Trump succeeds or fails as a president, he will force American politics to make a choice between globalism and the nation. With Clinton there will be no choice, only more of the same disastrous policies we have seen under both of the last two presidents. With Clinton, there is neither hope nor change.

What you conveniently ignore Chris, is that the American mainstream media is by every possible measure, biased in favour of both the Democrats AND the political status quo. They are insiders every bit as much as the politicians in Washington.

They have a vested interest (in their view) of supporting Obama, of supporting both Clintons. They have an even greater vested interest in tearing down Trump. Thus the unprecedented search for dirt. (That's not to say Trump doesn't provide it, but other candidates have never been subjected to this level of vitriolic investigation by the press).

That makes most of what is written in favour of Obama, in favour of Clinton (H & B) somewhat suspect, as if coming from party operatives.

On the other hand, EVERYTHING written about Trump is coming from those who have a vested interest in his destruction, whether Dem or GOP in outlook.

What I am surprised at is the inability of more Americans to see what Trump and Clinton each really represent. Especially after 20 years of increasing complaint about both sides of the aisles.

A decent and demonstrably capable man like Mitt Romney got screwed by the media. A lightweight coward who plays the race card at every opportunity, dividing not bringing the races together, like Obama got lionized. Trump is the predictable result of the cynical game that been played by Washington/New York/LA insiders for 20 years.

James, how could it be an "inappropriate" insult? Since when were you The Fringe? And it's been over for so long-- for his alienation of women and racial minorities to favour a declining white majority---let's inject a little fun.

You say you'll put your money on Trump and the universal opprobrium visited on him by the world won't stand up to intellectual scrutiny. I say the frat boy analogy here is a good one: he's an infantile sociopath who didn't develop.

Money shouldn't pass between friends in these matters so I'll bet a barrel of bluebill or black decoys to one decoy of yours that America will abandon his entreaties in the same way as the GOP's distinguished luminaries have already.

How about it?

The way I read your comment was that you were referring to those who support Trump as "The fringe"

LOL, I like those odds King but I'm not a betting man. Managed to travel to Vegas 25-30 times and never play the casinos. (Except once when my wife asked me to teach her blackjack. She won around $300 and though this gambling thing is easy. Shocked later to understand the concept of beginners luck. Haha!)

As you may have gleaned from our conversations over the years King, I am somewhat familiar with those kind of Wall St/Bay St high net worth individuals and have been most of my life. One of my friends from college years was profiled in the book Liar's Poker by Michael Lewis, a book that is acknowledged to have defined and exposed the excesses of Wall Street in the late 1980's. I grew up among the sons of billionaires and politically powerful. Turns out it's not my cup of tea. But nevertheless what it taught me is most of them could be "caught out" by the press if the press decided to turn it's gaze on one of them. Most men, in what they think to be private moments, have said stupid things. Even very good men.

15 years ago one scion of a billionaire I knew used to send a limo to a local hotspot, known for the attractiveness of their waitresses, at closing time. At this point in time he was in his late 30's and being groomed to take over the multi billion dollar enterprise. Married, with children. The girls would be whisked to a private location on the edge of the city where he had built a private lake for water skiing and an accompanying lodge. You can imagine the scene, I'm sure. The point being that the limo never arrived empty.

I count Trump's less than savory pronouncements about women to Bush to be both unsurprising and honest. Trump is right. For a man in his position of fame and power, there are women who will happily submit to that kind of sexual exploitation. Of course, they expect to gain from the transaction and usually do. We may think it's crude....but it's true.

Once again, even inadvertently Trump throws off the muzzle of Political Correctness and speaks the truth about some women and their behavior in proximity to power and wealth.

Do you actually think Pierre Trudeau at 50 would have been able to capture the attentions of a beautiful 20 year old if it weren't for power and wealth? Bill with Monica Lewinski?

Don't forget, the elites and the media were pretty comfortable about which way the vote was going for Brexit. I'll wait for the actual election before I count my chickens.

"What I am surprised at is the inability of more Americans to see what Trump and Clinton each really represent. Especially after 20 years of increasing complaint about both sides of the aisles."

You're right on there, James. Sanders' authentic explanation attracted tens of millions of dispirited Republicans and Democrats. I question American "inability" to recognize what's going on. Dysfunction is partly because of their system.

Media unprecedented piling-on---non-disclosure taxes, business acumen, ambiguity , temperament, anything to defeat him---is to escape accusations of being responsible for his election.

Same reason increasing numbers of "decent and demonstrably capable" GOP leaders are declaring they'll be no part of him, as their responsibility to their constituents, to build the Grand Old Party from the pieces.