Discussion:
Biden's 'inept' administration brings big bucks to Americans' coffers
Add Reply
docufo
2021-10-18 12:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Despite the ranting and raving about the alleged poor leadership of Joe
Biden and Kamala ("comma la") Harris, and mesmerized Trumpers claiming
nothing has gotten any better since they began administering, things
aren't nearly so dire, at least monetarily.

The overall economic milieu is much better than Republicans' spurious
claims.

Actually, in terms of financial health and growth of the nation, it's
not anywhere near doomsday.

In fact, the economy under Biden has not hit the skids at all. It is
picking up nearly where it had left off before the COVID restrictions
dominated. But, as it appears the national economy is heading for full
recovery, very troubling factors have arisen.

Read on (quoted):

Sluggish income growth has been a defining economic problem of recent
decades. With only brief exceptions, the incomes of most middle-class
and working-class American families have grown frustratingly slowly —
trailing well behind economic growth — since the late 1970s.

Surprisingly, however, the past two years have been one of those
exceptions. Even amid a global pandemic, most American households are
doing better financially than they were in 2019.

How could that be? A pandemic is not a financial crisis. Covid-19 has
caused a horrible amount of death and illness and interrupted the daily
rhythms of life. But it has not damaged credit markets or household
balance sheets, as the housing bubble of the early 2000s did. Instead,
the pandemic caused a sharp, brief recession.

Today, the unemployment rate has fallen back below 5 percent. The value
of homes — the largest asset for most families — has continued rising.
The S&P 500 is more than 30 percent higher than it was before the
pandemic. And the federal government, across both the Trump and Biden
administrations, has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy, much
of it through checks sent directly to people.

As a result, incomes have surged: (graph)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Household wealth has also risen:
Data adjusted for inflation; household net worth for bottom 20 percent
of earners in 2018 is unavailable.Sources: Federal Reserve Board,
Moody’s Analytics (graph)

Wealth inequality has increased over the past two years, because stock
ownership is highly concentrated among the affluent. But income
inequality has declined, with the largest percentage income gains coming
toward the bottom of the economic spectrum, because government stimulus
programs were focused there.

The full picture is a country relatively flush with cash. “The household
balance sheet is far and away the strongest part of the economy’s
balance sheet,” Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics,
told me.

These trends are mostly positive. Compared with before the pandemic,
most families — not all, to be sure — can more easily afford college
tuition, a medical procedure, a house repair, a new vehicle and many
other expenses.

But the glut of cash has also created complications. If you’re trying to
figure out why the country is struggling with some new economic problems
— including labor shortages, rising inflation and supply-chain problems
like backups at ports — the cash glut is a big part of the explanation.
‘Off the charts’

The economic dynamics behind rising inflation and the supply-chain
problems are fairly straightforward: It’s a case of demand exceeding supply.

Not only do Americans have more money than they did in 2020 or 2019, but
many also spent the past two years delaying some purchases. In recent
months, they have started buying again, especially physical goods. Many
services — like restaurant meals, movies and vacations — are still
affected by Covid.

The surge in goods purchases has been remarkable: Inflation-adjusted
retail spending across the U.S. has risen 14 percent over the past two
years, according to Commerce Department data released Friday. That’s a
larger increase than over the previous seven years combined. “Demand is
off the charts,” as Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary, said
on CNN yesterday.

Americans aren’t the only ones buying more goods, either. In other
countries, consumers also have pent-up demand, and governments have
enacted large pandemic stimulus programs. This chart — based on data
compiled by Jason Furman, a Harvard economics professor — shows the
recent rise in consumer spending across high-income countries:
O.E.C.D. data includes U.S.Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development

There are other reasons for the supply-chain problems and rising
inflation. Covid precautions and pandemic disruptions at factories,
warehouses and ports are also playing a role. “The world is nowhere near
being fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, and that means factories
in, say, Vietnam are still having trouble keeping up with demand as
workers keep getting sick,” The Washington Post’s Amber Phillips wrote.

But the cash glut is the primary reason for increasing demand. “There is
a sudden and massive surge of demand that far outweighs the market’s
capacity,” Craig Fuller, the chief executive of FreightWaves, a
publication that covers logistics, wrote recently.

If anything, some observers have made the situation seem more
complicated than it is, suggesting that the economy is suffering from a
mysterious ailment, like 1970s-style “stagflation” (a mix of stagnation
and inflation). “The use of ‘stagflation’ is wrong,” Olivier Blanchard,
a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, wrote last
week. “We are not seeing anything like stagnation. What we are seeing
instead is very strong growth, fueled by private and public demand,
hitting supply constraints, and leading to some sharp price increases.”
It won’t last

There is no quick solution for these problems. Private companies and
government officials are taking steps to expand the supply chain, like
President Biden’s recent announcement that the Port of Los Angeles will
operate 24 hours a day. Moves like that will probably help modestly. But
supply-chain delays and uncomfortably high inflation probably will last
for at least a few more months.

I do think it’s important to keep in mind that the cash glut is almost
certainly a temporary phenomenon, created by the pandemic. It will
probably end by next year. The big government stimulus programs have
mostly ended already.

The underlying problems that have caused sluggish income growth over the
past few decades, by contrast, are not likely to disappear. The balance
of power between employers and workers remains tilted toward employers,
because of rising corporate concentration and shrinking labor unions,
which will hold down wage growth. And slowing educational gains mean
that the U.S. work force will continue to have a hard time keeping up
with technological change.

All of this creates a difficult task for policymakers, including members
of Congress debating Biden’s agenda. They face a set of long-term
economic challenges quite different from the immediate challenges. Right
now, American families have so much money that the rest of the economy
is having a hard time keeping up. Sometime soon, many families will
probably be struggling again.

In an upcoming newsletter, I’ll dig into another consequence of the cash
glut: the current shortage of workers in many industries.

NYT newsletter (email) 10/18/2021

As for the Trumpers' claim Joe Biden turned over vast numbers of
advanced weaponry to the Taliban, and gave terrorists overall a windfall
of hardware, it is not the acquisition of military materiel that
represent an impossible advantage over US and allied forces. Nothing
like that scenario at all. US and allied military have far more
sophisticated hardware and tons more of it.

What should be their chief concern is not more nasty terrorism over
there, but the rise of domestic right-wing extremist terrorism right
here. And their push for an armed insurrection and/or great social
upheaval which they sickly hope will finally give them the "savior" the
"rigged" election stole away. They're simply obsessed with following a
proven business fraud that's loonier with every passing day.

It's a matter of one President, duly elected, against a rival
ex-President that refuses to concede, and instead is building an ugly
mob psychology to support his run for 2024's election.

Tribalism or fascism, is America's new dark trend and it's embodied by
the GOP. As Donnie warns America he and his cult (and the GOP) will sit
out the next two national elections IF his "conclusive" evidence of
election rigging isn't accepted as fact by then.

The stage is set for an insurrection. How it evolves we will all soon see.

~y=
"
docufo
2021-10-18 12:50:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by docufo
Despite the ranting and raving about the alleged poor leadership of Joe
Biden and Kamala ("comma la") Harris, and mesmerized Trumpers claiming
nothing has gotten any better since they began administering, things
aren't nearly so dire, at least monetarily.
The overall economic milieu is much better than Republicans' spurious
claims.
Actually, in terms of financial health and growth of the nation, it's
not anywhere near doomsday.
In fact, the economy under Biden has not hit the skids at all. It is
picking up nearly where it had left off before the COVID restrictions
dominated. But, as it appears the national economy is heading for full
recovery, very troubling factors have arisen.
Sluggish income growth has been a defining economic problem of recent
decades. With only brief exceptions, the incomes of most middle-class
and working-class American families have grown frustratingly slowly —
trailing well behind economic growth — since the late 1970s.
Surprisingly, however, the past two years have been one of those
exceptions. Even amid a global pandemic, most American households are
doing better financially than they were in 2019.
How could that be? A pandemic is not a financial crisis. Covid-19 has
caused a horrible amount of death and illness and interrupted the daily
rhythms of life. But it has not damaged credit markets or household
balance sheets, as the housing bubble of the early 2000s did. Instead,
the pandemic caused a sharp, brief recession.
Today, the unemployment rate has fallen back below 5 percent. The value
of homes — the largest asset for most families — has continued rising.
The S&P 500 is more than 30 percent higher than it was before the
pandemic. And the federal government, across both the Trump and Biden
administrations, has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy, much
of it through checks sent directly to people.
As a result, incomes have surged: (graph)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Data adjusted for inflation; household net worth for bottom 20 percent
of earners in 2018 is unavailable.Sources: Federal Reserve Board,
Moody’s Analytics (graph)
Wealth inequality has increased over the past two years, because stock
ownership is highly concentrated among the affluent. But income
inequality has declined, with the largest percentage income gains coming
toward the bottom of the economic spectrum, because government stimulus
programs were focused there.
The full picture is a country relatively flush with cash. “The household
balance sheet is far and away the strongest part of the economy’s
balance sheet,” Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics,
told me.
These trends are mostly positive. Compared with before the pandemic,
most families — not all, to be sure — can more easily afford college
tuition, a medical procedure, a house repair, a new vehicle and many
other expenses.
But the glut of cash has also created complications. If you’re trying to
figure out why the country is struggling with some new economic problems
— including labor shortages, rising inflation and supply-chain problems
like backups at ports — the cash glut is a big part of the explanation.
‘Off the charts’
The economic dynamics behind rising inflation and the supply-chain
problems are fairly straightforward: It’s a case of demand exceeding supply.
Not only do Americans have more money than they did in 2020 or 2019, but
many also spent the past two years delaying some purchases. In recent
months, they have started buying again, especially physical goods. Many
services — like restaurant meals, movies and vacations — are still
affected by Covid.
The surge in goods purchases has been remarkable: Inflation-adjusted
retail spending across the U.S. has risen 14 percent over the past two
years, according to Commerce Department data released Friday. That’s a
larger increase than over the previous seven years combined. “Demand is
off the charts,” as Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary, said
on CNN yesterday.
Americans aren’t the only ones buying more goods, either. In other
countries, consumers also have pent-up demand, and governments have
enacted large pandemic stimulus programs. This chart — based on data
compiled by Jason Furman, a Harvard economics professor — shows the
O.E.C.D. data includes U.S.Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development
There are other reasons for the supply-chain problems and rising
inflation. Covid precautions and pandemic disruptions at factories,
warehouses and ports are also playing a role. “The world is nowhere near
being fully vaccinated against the coronavirus, and that means factories
in, say, Vietnam are still having trouble keeping up with demand as
workers keep getting sick,” The Washington Post’s Amber Phillips wrote.
But the cash glut is the primary reason for increasing demand. “There is
a sudden and massive surge of demand that far outweighs the market’s
capacity,” Craig Fuller, the chief executive of FreightWaves, a
publication that covers logistics, wrote recently.
If anything, some observers have made the situation seem more
complicated than it is, suggesting that the economy is suffering from a
mysterious ailment, like 1970s-style “stagflation” (a mix of stagnation
and inflation). “The use of ‘stagflation’ is wrong,” Olivier Blanchard,
a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, wrote last
week. “We are not seeing anything like stagnation. What we are seeing
instead is very strong growth, fueled by private and public demand,
hitting supply constraints, and leading to some sharp price increases.”
It won’t last
There is no quick solution for these problems. Private companies and
government officials are taking steps to expand the supply chain, like
President Biden’s recent announcement that the Port of Los Angeles will
operate 24 hours a day. Moves like that will probably help modestly. But
supply-chain delays and uncomfortably high inflation probably will last
for at least a few more months.
I do think it’s important to keep in mind that the cash glut is almost
certainly a temporary phenomenon, created by the pandemic. It will
probably end by next year. The big government stimulus programs have
mostly ended already.
The underlying problems that have caused sluggish income growth over the
past few decades, by contrast, are not likely to disappear. The balance
of power between employers and workers remains tilted toward employers,
because of rising corporate concentration and shrinking labor unions,
which will hold down wage growth. And slowing educational gains mean
that the U.S. work force will continue to have a hard time keeping up
with technological change.
All of this creates a difficult task for policymakers, including members
of Congress debating Biden’s agenda. They face a set of long-term
economic challenges quite different from the immediate challenges. Right
now, American families have so much money that the rest of the economy
is having a hard time keeping up. Sometime soon, many families will
probably be struggling again.
In an upcoming newsletter, I’ll dig into another consequence of the cash
glut: the current shortage of workers in many industries.
NYT newsletter (email) 10/18/2021
*CORRECTION* --
Post by docufo
As for the Trumpers' claim Joe Biden turned over vast numbers of
advanced weaponry to the Taliban, and gave terrorists overall a windfall
of hardware, it is not an acquisition of military materiel that
represents an impossible advantage US and allied forces cannot easily overcome. Nothing
like that scenario at all. US and allied military have far more
sophisticated hardware and tons more of it.
The war in Afghanistan has finally ended, both for our incredilby long
involvement and for their civil war that rattled on for decades more
thanks to Soviet and US occupations.

The Taliban and other terror groups have had no problem with killing and
destroying before their acquisition of US hardware. Lots of small arms
and ammo supplies make up much of the cache. The Taliban and other
groups do not own the skies or the seas. And they are vastly outnumbered
and whatever aircraft they can fly, represent virtually no significant
advantage over US and allied forces.

It's just another sore-headed campaign to somehow raise Donnie from the
dead while depicting Biden as an old-age zombie that might even be demon
possessed! LOL!

~y~
V
Steven Douglas
2021-10-19 05:55:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by docufo
Despite the ranting and raving about the alleged poor leadership of Joe
Biden and Kamala ("comma la") Harris, and mesmerized Trumpers claiming
nothing has gotten any better since they began administering, things
aren't nearly so dire, at least monetarily.
I read the spin you provided, but there must be some reason his
Headline: "Why Has Biden’s Approval Rating Gotten So Low So Quickly?"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-has-bidens-approval-rating-gotten-so-low-so-quickly/
Scroll down a short distance and take a look at the graph at that
link, with his presidential job approval number spiraling downward,
while his disapproval number is going up. Any idea why he started
out with positive numbers, but those numbers are now upside down?
For the same reason(s) popularity ratings for Reagan nose-dived
dramatically after his 1982 Beirut decision
It was 1983. In fact, it was late 1983, and his job approval number
a month later was above 50%. I realize you're ill-informed, I expect
that of you now, no matter what topic you decide to discuss.

Headline: "Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup
Poll Review"

[excerpt] His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 -- not
only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result
of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the
terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.

By 1984, Reagan's job approval ratings were consistently above the
50% line that is a symbolic standard for an incumbent president seeking
re-election.

In Gallup's last October poll before the November 1984 election, Reagan
received a 58% job approval rating, and he went on to soundly defeat
Democratic nominee Walter Mondale by a 59% to 41% popular vote
margin, receiving 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13. [end excerpt]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
The sharp recession at that time added to it.
The sharp recession he inherited from the failed Jimmy Carter.
For the same reason(s) JFK's popularity ratings tanked after his secret
military invasion at the Bay Of Pigs went awry badly.
Hmm, JFK's job approval went UP after the Bay of Pigs, showing
yet again just how ill-informed you are.

Headline: "Gallup Vault: Cuba Embargo Popular After Bay of Pigs Fiasco"

[excerpt] Despite Kennedy's own disappointment over the Bay of Pigs,
61% of Americans approved of his handling of the Cuba invasion in
Gallup's late April 1961 poll, while just 15% disapproved and 24%
were unsure. Separately, his overall job approval rating rose to 83%,
up from 78% just before the invasion. [end excerpt]

https://news.gallup.com/vault/190772/gallup-vault-cuba-embargo-popular-bay-pigs-fiasco.aspx

That's two items in which you've been glaringly wrong, Want to try
again?
Or, for the same reasons LBJ's popularity sank steadily (after a
landslide election victory over Goldwater) mismanaging and lying about
Vietnam that forced him to withdraw from his reelection campaign.
Finally! You got one right! Congratulations.

So apparently you're comparing Biden's disastrous withdrawal from
Afghanistan to LBJ's disastrous management of the Vietnam war?
Okay, I can agree with that. No wonder Biden is so unpopular right
now. Thank you for explaining it to me.
docufo
2021-10-20 22:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Despite the ranting and raving about the alleged poor leadership of Joe
Biden and Kamala ("comma la") Harris, and mesmerized Trumpers claiming
nothing has gotten any better since they began administering, things
aren't nearly so dire, at least monetarily.
I read the spin you provided, but there must be some reason his
Headline: "Why Has Biden’s Approval Rating Gotten So Low So Quickly?"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-has-bidens-approval-rating-gotten-so-low-so-quickly/
Scroll down a short distance and take a look at the graph at that
link, with his presidential job approval number spiraling downward,
while his disapproval number is going up. Any idea why he started
out with positive numbers, but those numbers are now upside down?
For the same reason(s) popularity ratings for Reagan nose-dived
dramatically after his 1982 Beirut decision
It was 1983. In fact, it was late 1983, and his job approval number
a month later was above 50%. I realize you're ill-informed, I expect
that of you now, no matter what topic you decide to discuss.
Headline: "Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup
Poll Review"
[excerpt] His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 -- not
only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result
of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the
terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.
By 1984, Reagan's job approval ratings were consistently above the
50% line that is a symbolic standard for an incumbent president seeking
re-election.
In Gallup's last October poll before the November 1984 election, Reagan
received a 58% job approval rating, and he went on to soundly defeat
Democratic nominee Walter Mondale by a 59% to 41% popular vote
margin, receiving 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13. [end excerpt]
https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
The sharp recession at that time added to it.
The sharp recession he inherited from the failed Jimmy Carter.
Quote for the quackery:

Between 1980 and 1982 the U.S. economy experienced a deep recession, the
primary cause of which was the disinflationary monetary policy adopted
by the Federal Reserve. The recession coincided with U.S. President
Ronald Reagan’s steep cuts in domestic spending and led to minor
political fallout for the Republican Party. A gradual loosening of
monetary policy as well as the stimulative effects of tax cuts and
defense spending increases promoted a sustained yet uneven recovery.

DESCRIPTION:

In January 1980 the U.S. economy entered a recession that, at the time,
was the most significant since the Great Depression. One of the causes
of the early 1980s recession was the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which
sparked a second large round of oil price increases. More important,
however, were Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker’s efforts to tame
inflation through restrictive monetary policy, which had the expected
effect of dampening economic growth. The American economy experienced a
modest recovery beginning in the summer of 1980 but declined again from
July 1981 to November 1982.

The robust recovery that followed remains the source of considerable
dispute, with some giving credit to the stimulative effects of the
Reagan era tax cuts (link to paper on 1981 OBRA and ERTA), others
crediting the Reagan era defense buildup ("military Keynesianism"), and
others pointing to the Fed’s gradual loosening of monetary policy.
Nevertheless, the recovery was both uneven and tenuous. During the 1980s
the incomes of wealthy and working class Americans began to diverge
sharply, and Reagan’s fiscal policies led to unprecedented federal
budget deficits and a massive buildup of the national debt.

The 1980-82 recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research
considers as two separate recessions (one lasting for the first six
months of 1980, the other from July 1981 to November 1982), had modest
political consequences for Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republican
Party. Public opinion polls showed widespread disapproval with Reagan’s
handling of the economy, and Democrats gained 26 House seats in the 1982
midterm elections. Yet Reagan’s approval ratings recovered along with
the economy in late 1982, and he easily won reelection in 1984.
https://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/1980srecession.html
Post by Steven Douglas
For the same reason(s) JFK's popularity ratings tanked after his secret
military invasion at the Bay Of Pigs went awry badly.
Hmm, JFK's job approval went UP after the Bay of Pigs, showing
yet again just how ill-informed you are.
Headline: "Gallup Vault: Cuba Embargo Popular After Bay of Pigs Fiasco"
[excerpt] Despite Kennedy's own disappointment over the Bay of Pigs,
61% of Americans approved of his handling of the Cuba invasion in
Gallup's late April 1961 poll, while just 15% disapproved and 24%
were unsure. Separately, his overall job approval rating rose to 83%,
up from 78% just before the invasion. [end excerpt]
https://news.gallup.com/vault/190772/gallup-vault-cuba-embargo-popular-bay-pigs-fiasco.aspx
That's two items in which you've been glaringly wrong, Want to try
again?
Or, for the same reasons LBJ's popularity sank steadily (after a
landslide election victory over Goldwater) mismanaging and lying about
Vietnam that forced him to withdraw from his reelection campaign.
Finally! You got one right! Congratulations.
No, I got two right. You got one very wrong. Carter wasn't in office
when the twin-recessionary period hit. And it was laid mostly on the
back of Reagan, as historians have written it. Reagan's twin-recessions
months apart.

You can't get the history of your own party right.
Post by Steven Douglas
So apparently you're comparing Biden's disastrous withdrawal from
Afghanistan to LBJ's disastrous management of the Vietnam war?
Okay, I can agree with that. No wonder Biden is so unpopular right
now. Thank you for explaining it to me.
The decision to reenter Beirut was made in 1983, but they entered it in
1982 and then were pulled out temporarily. It was Reagan's decision
against his Def. Sec. and military advisors. And it then set up the
disaster the next year. The decision in 1982 caused his ratings to slide
and then they slid even more when 241 were killed. He took "full
responsibility" and that was supposed to make the dead's relatives feel
better, apparently. His arrogance, recklessness and ignorance caused a
military tragedy far worse than anything Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal
caused in terms of lives lost.

Read what you don't know: (quote)

A suicide bomber drives a truck packed with explosives into the U.S.
Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 U.S. military personnel. That
same morning, 58 French soldiers were killed in their barracks two miles
away in a separate suicide terrorist attack. The U.S. Marines were part
of a multinational force sent to Lebanon in August 1982 to oversee the
Palestinian withdrawal from Lebanon. From its inception, the mission was
plagued with problems–and a mounting body count.

In 1975, a bloody civil war erupted in Lebanon, with Palestinian and
leftist Muslim guerrillas battling militias of the Christian Phalange
Party, the Maronite Christian community, and other groups. During the
next few years, Syrian, Israeli, and United Nations interventions failed
to resolve the factional fighting, and on August 20, 1982, a
multinational force including 800 U.S. Marines was ordered to Beirut to
help coordinate the Palestinian withdrawal.

The Marines left Lebanese territory on September 10 but returned in
strengthened numbers on September 29, following the massacre of
Palestinian refugees by a Christian militia. The next day, the first
U.S. Marine to die during the mission was killed while defusing a bomb.
Other Marines fell prey to snipers. On April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber
driving a van devastated the U.S. embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people,
including 17 Americans. Then, on October 23, a Lebanese terrorist plowed
his bomb-laden truck through three guard posts, a barbed-wire fence, and
into the lobby of the Marines Corps headquarters in Beirut, where he
detonated a massive bomb, killing 241 marine, navy, and army personnel.
The bomb, which was made of a sophisticated explosive enhanced by gas,
had an explosive power equivalent to 18,000 pounds of dynamite. The
identities of the embassy and barracks bombers were not determined, but
they were suspected to be Shiite terrorists associated with Iran.

After the barracks bombing, many questioned whether President Ronald
Reagan had a solid policy aim in Lebanon. Serious questions also arose
over the quality of security in the American sector of war-torn Beirut.
The U.S. peacekeeping force occupied an exposed area near the airport,
but for political reasons the marine commander had not been allowed to
maintain a completely secure perimeter before the attack. In a national
address on October 23, President Reagan vowed to keep the marines in
Lebanon, but just four months later he announced the end of the American
role in the peacekeeping force. On February 26, 1984, the main force of
marines left Lebanon, leaving just a small contingent to guard the U.S.
embassy in Beirut.

After the barracks bombing, many questioned whether President Ronald
Reagan had a solid policy aim in Lebanon. Serious questions also arose
over the quality of security in the American sector of war-torn Beirut.
The U.S. peacekeeping force occupied an exposed area near the airport,
but for political reasons the marine commander had not been allowed to
maintain a completely secure perimeter before the attack. In a national
address on October 23, President Reagan vowed to keep the marines in
Lebanon, but just four months later he announced the end of the American
role in the peacekeeping force. On February 26, 1984, the main force of
marines left Lebanon, leaving just a small contingent to guard the U.S.
embassy in Beirut.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/beirut-barracks-blown-up

He went on to get reelected during a big boom which most often makes a
majority of Americans to value money over morals, or even human lives.

It happened repeatedly since last year's pathogen when we sadly
discovered keeping the money machine going is a higher priority than
saving lives.

You were a part of it and still are, feeding distrust into a time of
mounting chaos and talk of civil war. It doesn't matter to you and
Donnie, though, because big bucks, ego and nationalism are far more
attractive than moral principles and personal/social responsibility.

Sad.

~)=
"
Steven Douglas
2021-10-21 06:51:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Despite the ranting and raving about the alleged poor leadership of Joe
Biden and Kamala ("comma la") Harris, and mesmerized Trumpers claiming
nothing has gotten any better since they began administering, things
aren't nearly so dire, at least monetarily.
I read the spin you provided, but there must be some reason his
Headline: "Why Has Biden’s Approval Rating Gotten So Low So Quickly?"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-has-bidens-approval-rating-gotten-so-low-so-quickly/
Scroll down a short distance and take a look at the graph at that
link, with his presidential job approval number spiraling downward,
while his disapproval number is going up. Any idea why he started
out with positive numbers, but those numbers are now upside down?
For the same reason(s) popularity ratings for Reagan nose-dived
dramatically after his 1982 Beirut decision
It was 1983. In fact, it was late 1983, and his job approval number
a month later was above 50%. I realize you're ill-informed, I expect
that of you now, no matter what topic you decide to discuss.
Headline: "Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup
Poll Review"
[excerpt] His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 -- not
only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result
of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the
terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.
By 1984, Reagan's job approval ratings were consistently above the
50% line that is a symbolic standard for an incumbent president seeking
re-election.
In Gallup's last October poll before the November 1984 election, Reagan
received a 58% job approval rating, and he went on to soundly defeat
Democratic nominee Walter Mondale by a 59% to 41% popular vote
margin, receiving 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13. [end excerpt]
https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
The sharp recession at that time added to it.
The sharp recession he inherited from the failed Jimmy Carter.
Between 1980 and 1982 the U.S. economy experienced a deep recession, the
primary cause of which was the disinflationary monetary policy adopted
by the Federal Reserve. The recession coincided with U.S. President
Ronald Reagan’s steep cuts in domestic spending and led to minor
political fallout for the Republican Party. A gradual loosening of
monetary policy as well as the stimulative effects of tax cuts and
defense spending increases promoted a sustained yet uneven recovery.
In January 1980 the U.S. economy entered a recession that, at the time,
was the most significant since the Great Depression.
You made it clear below that you have no idea who was
president in January of 1980. You think it was Reagan,
don't you?
Post by docufo
One of the causes
of the early 1980s recession was the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which
sparked a second large round of oil price increases. More important,
however, were Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker’s efforts to tame
inflation through restrictive monetary policy, which had the expected
effect of dampening economic growth. The American economy experienced a
modest recovery beginning in the summer of 1980
It was so modest that it was not unnoticeable to those
of us in the real world and not some leftist think tank.
Post by docufo
but declined again from July 1981 to November 1982.
This is leftist spin from Berkley. There was no recovery
from Jimmy Carter's recession until Reagan's policies
kicked in, which took a couple of years to get out of
that deep recession.
Post by docufo
The robust recovery that followed remains the source of considerable
dispute, with some giving credit to the stimulative effects of the
Reagan era tax cuts (link to paper on 1981 OBRA and ERTA), others
crediting the Reagan era defense buildup ("military Keynesianism"), and
others pointing to the Fed’s gradual loosening of monetary policy.
Nevertheless, the recovery was both uneven and tenuous. During the 1980s
the incomes of wealthy and working class Americans began to diverge
sharply, and Reagan’s fiscal policies led to unprecedented federal
budget deficits and a massive buildup of the national debt.
The 1980-82 recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research
considers as two separate recessions (one lasting for the first six
months of 1980, the other from July 1981 to November 1982), had modest
political consequences for Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republican
Party. Public opinion polls showed widespread disapproval with Reagan’s
handling of the economy, and Democrats gained 26 House seats in the 1982
midterm elections. Yet Reagan’s approval ratings recovered along with
the economy in late 1982, and he easily won reelection in 1984.
https://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/1980srecession.html
Post by Steven Douglas
For the same reason(s) JFK's popularity ratings tanked after his secret
military invasion at the Bay Of Pigs went awry badly.
Hmm, JFK's job approval went UP after the Bay of Pigs, showing
yet again just how ill-informed you are.
Headline: "Gallup Vault: Cuba Embargo Popular After Bay of Pigs Fiasco"
[excerpt] Despite Kennedy's own disappointment over the Bay of Pigs,
61% of Americans approved of his handling of the Cuba invasion in
Gallup's late April 1961 poll, while just 15% disapproved and 24%
were unsure. Separately, his overall job approval rating rose to 83%,
up from 78% just before the invasion. [end excerpt]
https://news.gallup.com/vault/190772/gallup-vault-cuba-embargo-popular-bay-pigs-fiasco.aspx
That's two items in which you've been glaringly wrong, Want to try
again?
Or, for the same reasons LBJ's popularity sank steadily (after a
landslide election victory over Goldwater) mismanaging and lying about
Vietnam that forced him to withdraw from his reelection campaign.
Finally! You got one right! Congratulations.
No, I got two right.
No, you said Reagan's and JFK's approval numbers went
down when they actually went up. I realize you're trying
to change the subject now, but you're still wrong about
your false claims about Reagan's and JFK's approval
numbers.
Post by docufo
You got one very wrong.
Carter wasn't in office
when the twin-recessionary period hit.
This is where you made it clear that you have no idea that
Carter was president in January of 1980. Just another
example of how ill-informed you are.
Post by docufo
And it was laid mostly on the
back of Reagan, as historians have written it.
Oh, your leftist historians? I really don't care what they
think, I lived through that time and I know what happened.
Post by docufo
Reagan's twin-recessions months apart.
It's amazing that you want to blame Reagan for things that
happened in 1980, while Carter was still in office. Why do
you think Carter lost reelection in such a landslide?
Post by docufo
You can't get the history of your own party right.
Oh, the irony!
docufo
2021-10-25 16:26:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Despite the ranting and raving about the alleged poor leadership of Joe
Biden and Kamala ("comma la") Harris, and mesmerized Trumpers claiming
nothing has gotten any better since they began administering, things
aren't nearly so dire, at least monetarily.
I read the spin you provided, but there must be some reason his
Headline: "Why Has Biden’s Approval Rating Gotten So Low So Quickly?"
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-has-bidens-approval-rating-gotten-so-low-so-quickly/
Scroll down a short distance and take a look at the graph at that
link, with his presidential job approval number spiraling downward,
while his disapproval number is going up. Any idea why he started
out with positive numbers, but those numbers are now upside down?
For the same reason(s) popularity ratings for Reagan nose-dived
dramatically after his 1982 Beirut decision
It was 1983. In fact, it was late 1983, and his job approval number
a month later was above 50%. I realize you're ill-informed, I expect
that of you now, no matter what topic you decide to discuss.
Headline: "Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup
Poll Review"
[excerpt] His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 -- not
only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result
of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the
terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.
By 1984, Reagan's job approval ratings were consistently above the
50% line that is a symbolic standard for an incumbent president seeking
re-election.
In Gallup's last October poll before the November 1984 election, Reagan
received a 58% job approval rating, and he went on to soundly defeat
Democratic nominee Walter Mondale by a 59% to 41% popular vote
margin, receiving 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13. [end excerpt]
https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
The sharp recession at that time added to it.
The sharp recession he inherited from the failed Jimmy Carter.
Between 1980 and 1982 the U.S. economy experienced a deep recession, the
primary cause of which was the disinflationary monetary policy adopted
by the Federal Reserve. The recession coincided with U.S. President
Ronald Reagan’s steep cuts in domestic spending and led to minor
political fallout for the Republican Party. A gradual loosening of
monetary policy as well as the stimulative effects of tax cuts and
defense spending increases promoted a sustained yet uneven recovery.
In January 1980 the U.S. economy entered a recession that, at the time,
was the most significant since the Great Depression.
You made it clear below that you have no idea who was
president in January of 1980. You think it was Reagan,
don't you?
Post by docufo
One of the causes
of the early 1980s recession was the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which
sparked a second large round of oil price increases. More important,
however, were Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker’s efforts to tame
inflation through restrictive monetary policy, which had the expected
effect of dampening economic growth. The American economy experienced a
modest recovery beginning in the summer of 1980
It was so modest that it was not unnoticeable to those
of us in the real world and not some leftist think tank.
Post by docufo
but declined again from July 1981 to November 1982.
This is leftist spin from Berkley. There was no recovery
from Jimmy Carter's recession until Reagan's policies
kicked in, which took a couple of years to get out of
that deep recession.
Post by docufo
The robust recovery that followed remains the source of considerable
dispute, with some giving credit to the stimulative effects of the
Reagan era tax cuts (link to paper on 1981 OBRA and ERTA), others
crediting the Reagan era defense buildup ("military Keynesianism"), and
others pointing to the Fed’s gradual loosening of monetary policy.
Nevertheless, the recovery was both uneven and tenuous. During the 1980s
the incomes of wealthy and working class Americans began to diverge
sharply, and Reagan’s fiscal policies led to unprecedented federal
budget deficits and a massive buildup of the national debt.
The 1980-82 recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research
considers as two separate recessions (one lasting for the first six
months of 1980, the other from July 1981 to November 1982), had modest
political consequences for Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republican
Party. Public opinion polls showed widespread disapproval with Reagan’s
handling of the economy, and Democrats gained 26 House seats in the 1982
midterm elections. Yet Reagan’s approval ratings recovered along with
the economy in late 1982, and he easily won reelection in 1984.
https://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/1980srecession.html
Post by Steven Douglas
For the same reason(s) JFK's popularity ratings tanked after his secret
military invasion at the Bay Of Pigs went awry badly.
Hmm, JFK's job approval went UP after the Bay of Pigs, showing
yet again just how ill-informed you are.
Headline: "Gallup Vault: Cuba Embargo Popular After Bay of Pigs Fiasco"
[excerpt] Despite Kennedy's own disappointment over the Bay of Pigs,
61% of Americans approved of his handling of the Cuba invasion in
Gallup's late April 1961 poll, while just 15% disapproved and 24%
were unsure. Separately, his overall job approval rating rose to 83%,
up from 78% just before the invasion. [end excerpt]
https://news.gallup.com/vault/190772/gallup-vault-cuba-embargo-popular-bay-pigs-fiasco.aspx
That's two items in which you've been glaringly wrong, Want to try
again?
Or, for the same reasons LBJ's popularity sank steadily (after a
landslide election victory over Goldwater) mismanaging and lying about
Vietnam that forced him to withdraw from his reelection campaign.
Finally! You got one right! Congratulations.
No, I got two right.
No, you said Reagan's and JFK's approval numbers went
down when they actually went up. I realize you're trying
to change the subject now, but you're still wrong about
your false claims about Reagan's and JFK's approval
numbers.
Post by docufo
You got one very wrong.
Carter wasn't in office
when the twin-recessionary period hit.
This is where you made it clear that you have no idea that
Carter was president in January of 1980. Just another
example of how ill-informed you are.
Post by docufo
And it was laid mostly on the
back of Reagan, as historians have written it.
Oh, your leftist historians? I really don't care what they
think, I lived through that time and I know what happened.
Post by docufo
Reagan's twin-recessions months apart.
It's amazing that you want to blame Reagan for things that
happened in 1980, while Carter was still in office. Why do
you think Carter lost reelection in such a landslide?
Post by docufo
You can't get the history of your own party right.
Oh, the irony!
Let's grovel for the tiny triumphs, shall we? LOL!

Yes, Carter was in office when Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in
Tehran - we should blame him for decades of subterfuge of Iran by the US
government with an unpopular puppet leader installed in the 1950's which
led to a radicalized deposed leader, Khomeini, exploiting their anger
towards the US and its allies. That led, in turn, to the seizure of the
US Embassy and years of more confrontations with Iran which Reagan
exploited for his political benefit - but not before sending his Defense
Sec. Rumsfeld for a friendly dinner and chat to enlist Hussein's help in
confronting Iran. And after all that insanity, his former VP Bush became
President and attacked Iraq for invading Kuwait, and then GWH's son
attacked Iraq for supposedly attempting to kill his daddy. And then...!

And that's just a part of the sickening violent and quite stupid
involvement the USA has had in just that part of the mess that is always
the Middle East, never without multiple crises that the USA feels it
must resolve, resorting to militarized responses and setting up more ill
feelings and confrontations on both sides.

Carter brought two ancient foes, Egyptian Arab Muslims and Judea/Israeli
Jews together in a historic peace pact that has lasted to this day,
while other Presidents have presided over "MORE OF THE SAME" mayhem that
we still witness today in that region. No end in sight for war hawks
like yourself, who admitted you couldn't recall a US war with foreign
nations you haven't supported since at least the 1960's.

As Carter left office, Ronald Reagan was rewarded with the release of
the hostages and then went onto currying favor with Saddam in US
opposition to Iran, which at that time, was a major source of oil and
gas we dearly needed.

So, after Carter's "big loss" at election time, Ronnie went into 1981-82
with a very hard, but short recession that led to Reagonomics which ran
the national debt to a record high level. The "national debt," of
course, has always been used by whichever party's not in a majority in
DC as a bewildering "doomsday" hard sell - which, magically, never
wrecks the economy as predicted - since the predictive "disaster" is
always moved forward on the calendar the closer the "fateful year" gets.
LOL!

~y=
v
Steven Douglas
2021-11-01 20:16:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Carter wasn't in office
when the twin-recessionary period hit.
This is where you made it clear that you have no idea that
Carter was president in January of 1980. Just another
example of how ill-informed you are.
Post by docufo
And it was laid mostly on the
back of Reagan, as historians have written it.
Oh, your leftist historians? I really don't care what they
think, I lived through that time and I know what happened.
Post by docufo
Reagan's twin-recessions months apart.
It's amazing that you want to blame Reagan for things that
happened in 1980, while Carter was still in office. Why do
you think Carter lost reelection in such a landslide?
Post by docufo
You can't get the history of your own party right.
Oh, the irony!
Let's grovel for the tiny triumphs, shall we?
Is that what you were doing when you incorrectly said I can't
get the history of my own party right?
Post by docufo
Yes, Carter was in office when Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in
Tehran - we should blame him for decades of subterfuge of Iran by the US
government with an unpopular puppet leader installed in the 1950's which
led to a radicalized deposed leader, Khomeini, exploiting their anger
towards the US and its allies. That led, in turn, to the seizure of the
US Embassy and years of more confrontations with Iran which Reagan
exploited for his political benefit - but not before sending his Defense
Sec. Rumsfeld for a friendly dinner and chat to enlist Hussein's help in
confronting Iran.
The Iran-Iraq war began in 1980. Just to remind you, Reagan had
not taken office when that war broke out. But it was Jimmy Carter
and his administration that began the overtures to Iraq to resume
diplomatic relations. Just so there is no confusion (since you seem
to believe Reagan was President in 1980), the following memo from
within the State Department was made in 1979. I assure you, Reagan
was definitely not in office in 1979.

[quoting State Department internal memo from 1979] “The U.S. is
prepared to resume diplomatic relations with Iraq whenever Iraq is
ready to do so. We would welcome such a step.” [end quote]

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1977-80v18/d135
Post by docufo
And after all that insanity, his former VP Bush became
President and attacked Iraq for invading Kuwait,
A coalition of 39 countries joined that attack. Or do you falsely believe
that GHW Bush did that all by himself?
Post by docufo
and then GWH's son
attacked Iraq for supposedly attempting to kill his daddy.
Actually, it was Bill Clinton who offered the first salvos to Iraq
for attempting to kill our former president. Have you forgotten
about that, or did you just never know about it?
And then...!

And then Trump came along and engineered some peace deals
between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors!
Post by docufo
And that's just a part of the sickening violent and quite stupid
involvement the USA has had in just that part of the mess that is always
the Middle East, never without multiple crises that the USA feels it
must resolve, resorting to militarized responses and setting up more ill
feelings and confrontations on both sides.
Trump was in the middle of bringing those great peace deals.
It's such a shame that he wasn't given a chance to complete
that process.
Post by docufo
Carter brought two ancient foes, Egyptian Arab Muslims and Judea/Israeli
Jews together in a historic peace pact that has lasted to this day,
while other Presidents have presided over "MORE OF THE SAME" mayhem that
we still witness today in that region.
That's not true. How quickly you forget about Trump's great
achievements! Or is it that you just never knew about it?
Post by docufo
No end in sight for war hawks like yourself,
There was an end in sight, but Trump was not given a chance
to finish the job.
Post by docufo
who admitted you couldn't recall a US war with foreign
nations you haven't supported since at least the 1960's.
JFK said "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to
assure the survival and the success of liberty."

It is certainly clear that this country no longer believes that.
Of course you'll continue to pretend that you're JFK guy, but
you know in your heart that you are not.

I hate the evil in this world, while you seem to love and defend
it. Someone once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing."

If you had your way (with your pacifism, which requires doing
NOTHING to stop evil), evil would prevail in this world.
Post by docufo
As Carter left office, Ronald Reagan was rewarded with the release of
the hostages and then went onto currying favor with Saddam in US
opposition to Iran, which at that time, was a major source of oil and
gas we dearly needed.
It wasn't just that, it was that the communists (whom you love
and adore) were also courting him, and we wanted to prevent
him from going over to their side.
Post by docufo
So, after Carter's "big loss" at election time, Ronnie went into 1981-82
with a very hard, but short recession that led to Reagonomics which ran
the national debt to a record high level.
Of course you don't know that Reaganomics actually increased
revenue to the federal treasury. It was increases in spending on
domestic programs that led to the deficits. That spending was
instituted by Democrats in Congress, who would only give Reagan
the increases in defense spending (during the Cold War) he wanted
by taking even larger increases in domestic spending.

Notice that the only time the budget has been balanced in recent
memory was during Clinton's presidency, when Republicans ran
Congress and did not give Clinton the huge domestic spending
bills he wanted passed.
Steven Douglas
2021-11-02 21:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Carter wasn't in office
when the twin-recessionary period hit.
This is where you made it clear that you have no idea that
Carter was president in January of 1980. Just another
example of how ill-informed you are.
Post by docufo
And it was laid mostly on the
back of Reagan, as historians have written it.
Oh, your leftist historians? I really don't care what they
think, I lived through that time and I know what happened.
Post by docufo
Reagan's twin-recessions months apart.
It's amazing that you want to blame Reagan for things that
happened in 1980, while Carter was still in office. Why do
you think Carter lost reelection in such a landslide?
Post by docufo
You can't get the history of your own party right.
Oh, the irony!
Let's grovel for the tiny triumphs, shall we?
Is that what you were doing when you incorrectly said I can't
get the history of my own party right?
Post by docufo
Yes, Carter was in office when Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in
Tehran - we should blame him for decades of subterfuge of Iran by the US
government with an unpopular puppet leader installed in the 1950's which
led to a radicalized deposed leader, Khomeini, exploiting their anger
towards the US and its allies. That led, in turn, to the seizure of the
US Embassy and years of more confrontations with Iran which Reagan
exploited for his political benefit - but not before sending his Defense
Sec. Rumsfeld for a friendly dinner and chat to enlist Hussein's help in
confronting Iran.
The Iran-Iraq war began in 1980. Just to remind you, Reagan had
not taken office when that war broke out. But it was Jimmy Carter
and his administration that began the overtures to Iraq to resume
diplomatic relations. Just so there is no confusion (since you seem
to believe Reagan was President in 1980), the following memo from
within the State Department was made in 1979. I assure you, Reagan
was definitely not in office in 1979.
Yes, the Iran-Iraq War began in 1980 after Saddam attacked Iran,
supported by US satellite and conventional aircraft surveillance that
was under both administrations' watch.
What was your point about Rumsfeld meeting Saddam if it
was actually Carter's administration that opened the door to
better relations with Iraq?
You have a poor reading
comprehension. I never said he was in office in 1979 or 80.
You blamed Carter's recession on Reagan when you said,
"Carter wasn't in office when the twin-recessionary period
hit." You wrote that in this thread, and you were wrong. But
then you're always so ill-informed, how could you ever not
be wrong?
When naval
confrontations occurred in the Gulf in 1987-88 between US and Iranian
ships, Reagan sought a more friendly relationship with Saddam. And that
what was behind Rumsfeld's dinner date with Saddam.
So what? Carter's administration wanted a more friendly
relationship with Saddam, too. So what?
Post by Steven Douglas
[quoting State Department internal memo from 1979] “The U.S. is
prepared to resume diplomatic relations with Iraq whenever Iraq is
ready to do so. We would welcome such a step.” [end quote]
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1977-80v18/d135
I expected you to ignore this. Thanks for proving me right.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
And after all that insanity, his former VP Bush became
President and attacked Iraq for invading Kuwait,
A coalition of 39 countries joined that attack. Or do you falsely believe
that GHW Bush did that all by himself?
LOL! Oh, you mean the few hundred Poles that joined up? Or--?
Or the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark,
Sweden, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, among many
others? The cost of that war was $61 billion, of which $54
billion was paid by allies in the coalition. You didn't know
any of this, did you?

In addition, for your information, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and
other Gulf states paid $36 of that $54 billion. Germany and
Japan paid $16 billion. Do you still want to insist that it was
just Poland (a valuable ally that actually was onboard with
their support)? Why do you want to demean them?
The USA
was all over the battle areas, dominating the war action by far, ground,
air and naval.
We're the 3rd largest population in the world, and the largest
country in that coalition. Of course we led the way. We also
led the way in World War II, with General Eisenhower as the
Supreme Commander of allied forces in Europe. Do you also
have a problem with that?
Nope, the USA led the charge and had the biggest investment in oil and
gas production and deliveries.
So apparently you believe we should have just let Saddam
take over Kuwait?
It's amazing how you sat in this nation back then, watching live on TV
the US bombardment of Iraq, twice in history,
Here again you show your ignorance. You have completely
ignored the bombardments of Iraq by Bill Clinton (1993, and
again in 1998) haven't you? Or, as is more likely, you just don't
know anything about those events.
by mostly US forces,
With support of many allies, with support of the Democratic
leadership in this country (including the Clintons, and both
Democratic leaders in congress, among many other Democrats).
chew
on your gourmet fudge and accept all the invasions and occupations,
So you really do believe Saddam should have been allowed
to keep Kuwait?
regime changes and resulting long and hard times for those peoples as
necessary to get control over the "evil Islamic extremists" and give
Islam itself hard slams for being "inferior" to Christianity.
The wars against Saddam had nothing to do with Islam.
And then elect and support a psychopathic race-baiting authoritarian
President, even now as ex-Prez, who never made any serious attempt to
bring Palestine and Israel together in peace.
Actually, it's the Palestinians who have never made a serious
attempt to bring peace. They don't want a two-state solution,
they want a one-state solution with Israel no longer existing.
A man whose support among
white supremacists meant helping Jews wasn't part of his agenda overall.
Trump renounced and denounced any white supremacist
support, and it's the height of illogic to deny that the vast
majority of Israelis love Trump. But then you have always
shown yourself to be a man of illogic -- along with ill-informed.
JTEM is Magic
2021-11-02 22:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
What was your point about Rumsfeld meeting Saddam if it
was actually Carter's administration that opened the door to
better relations with Iraq?
This is how I know you're trolling.

Carter: We think we can work with this guy. We are not going to
war with them.

Republicans: We sent Rumsfeld to make deals with him. April
Galspie told him that the U.S. had no opinion on his dispute with
Kuwait, effectively giving him a blank check. AND lavished him
to "Farm Credits" knowing he was converting them to cash to
buy weapons & develop WMDs. And we thought he was a rogue
dictator that we needed to go to war against. Twice.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/666444340305018880
Steven Douglas
2021-11-03 16:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is Magic
Post by Steven Douglas
What was your point about Rumsfeld meeting Saddam if it
was actually Carter's administration that opened the door to
better relations with Iraq?
This is how I know you're trolling.
Oh, the irony. The most infamous troll in the history of usenet
is calling me a troll!!!! Oh my!!!
Post by JTEM is Magic
Carter: We think we can work with this guy. We are not going to
war with them.
That was 1980.
Post by JTEM is Magic
Republicans: We sent Rumsfeld to make deals with him.
That was 1984.
Post by JTEM is Magic
April
Galspie told him that the U.S. had no opinion on his dispute with
Kuwait,
That was 1990. Reagan was not president in 1990, just so you
know. I realize Doc thought Reagan was president in 1980, and
now you seem to think Reagan was president in 1990. He wasn't,
I assure you.
JTEM is Magic
2021-11-03 19:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by JTEM is Magic
Carter: We think we can work with this guy. We are not going to
war with them.
That was 1980.
So Carter didn't work with Saddam thinking he was a rogue dictator
that worth going to war against.
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by JTEM is Magic
Republicans: We sent Rumsfeld to make deals with him.
That was 1984.
Did their attitudes change after the USS Stark was attacked? Or when
Iraqi forces were positioned on the Kuwaiti border?
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by JTEM is Magic
April
Galspie told him that the U.S. had no opinion on his dispute with
Kuwait,
That was 1990.
The same year that the man behind the Iraqi Super Gun project was
assassinated, but two years after it began. And also 1990 was years
after the Republicans sold Iraq their Anthrax spores.
Post by Steven Douglas
Reagan was not president in 1990
What a relief.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/666789124141940736
Steven Douglas
2021-11-04 17:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is Magic
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by JTEM is Magic
Carter: We think we can work with this guy. We are not going to
war with them.
That was 1980.
So Carter didn't work with Saddam thinking he was a rogue dictator
that worth going to war against.
That was 1980. Do you know what Clinton did in 1993 and again in 1998?
Things change.
Post by JTEM is Magic
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by JTEM is Magic
Republicans: We sent Rumsfeld to make deals with him.
That was 1984.
Did their attitudes change after the USS Stark was attacked?
I don't think so. They accepted the Iraqi explanation that it was
not intentional, but a case of mistaken identity.
Post by JTEM is Magic
Or when Iraqi forces were positioned on the Kuwaiti border?
Saddam completely miscalculated the response to that, didn't he?
Egypt's leader tried to get Saddam to agree to negotiations, but
Saddam said no. When Saddam's army invaded Kuwait, the action
was immediately met with condemnation from the vast majority
of the Islamic world. The leaders of the Islamic world asked the
U.S. and other Western nations to intervene.

Saddam could have ended it right there by backing his troops out
of Kuwait, but he chose war instead. What was your point again?
Post by JTEM is Magic
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by JTEM is Magic
April
Galspie told him that the U.S. had no opinion on his dispute with
Kuwait,
That was 1990.
The same year that the man behind the Iraqi Super Gun project was
assassinated,
That's a murder that has never been solved, with many suspects.
Or do you think you have that list narrowed down?
Post by JTEM is Magic
but two years after it began. And also 1990 was years
after the Republicans sold Iraq their Anthrax spores.
Do you think the U.S. is the only country in the world? Do you
think it's possible that other countries were also selling dual
use chemicals to Iraq during that time? Those shipments
were being made to Iraqi universities and pharmaceutical
laboratories for legitimate research purposes that Saddam
said they were for.

Remember, that was back when even you admit that Carter
and later presidents thought we could work with Saddam.
Once it became clear that he was lying and using those
shipments for weapons, those shipments were stopped.
Post by JTEM is Magic
Post by Steven Douglas
Reagan was not president in 1990
What a relief.
Really, you liked Bush better?
Steven Douglas
2021-11-03 17:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Matthew 7:16-23
King James Version
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I'm looking for Biden's fruits. Nothing is better since he was elected.
Look at gas prices. Look at grocery prices. Look at his job approval
numbers, in a downward spiral.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
ye that work iniquity.
(unquote)
Thank you for posting that, Doc! I look at Trump's accomplishments,
which include the peace deals he engineered in the Middle East. I
look at the great economy and low unemployment numbers he
brought about.

And now I look at the Virginia's new governor-elect, and the close
race in New Jersey that no one expected, and I am encouraged that
this country might move away from the wrong track it's been on for
the last 10 months, and start moving in the right direction again!
Mike
2021-11-03 17:58:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Matthew 7:16-23
King James Version
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I'm looking for Biden's fruits. Nothing is better since he was elected.
Look at gas prices. Look at grocery prices. Look at his job approval
numbers, in a downward spiral.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
ye that work iniquity.
(unquote)
Thank you for posting that, Doc! I look at Trump's accomplishments,
which include the peace deals he engineered in the Middle East. I
look at the great economy and low unemployment numbers he
brought about.
And now I look at the Virginia's new governor-elect, and the close
race in New Jersey that no one expected, and I am encouraged that
this country might move away from the wrong track it's been on for
the last 10 months, and start moving in the right direction again!
Something has happened to you after taking the vaccine Steven,
you don't seem as interested in the Bible as you used to. I'm not
sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
Steven Douglas
2021-11-04 17:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mike
Something has happened to you after taking the vaccine Steven,
I took the vaccine almost eight months ago.
Post by Mike
you don't seem as interested in the Bible as you used to.
I read from the Bible every day. How things "seem" to you is not
always reality, though you do have a way of inventing your own
reality that you then attempt to project on to me.
Post by Mike
I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.
I'm not sure if it's a good or a bad thing that you live in your own
little fantasy world that you think is reality.
docufo
2021-11-03 20:57:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Matthew 7:16-23
King James Version
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I'm looking for Biden's fruits. Nothing is better since he was elected.
Look at gas prices. Look at grocery prices. Look at his job approval
numbers, in a downward spiral.
Over 100,000 Americans died from COVID because of Donald's erratic
irresponsible administration of the pandemic. That's from Dr. Birx who'd
likely never want to be employed by Donald ever again after his news
conference antics that both embarrassed her and himself.
No fruit bared from dead rotting bodies in the ground, junior. Innocents
made into victims by a poor leader, Donald, and tens of millions badly
deluded he's the nation's guiding light ironically in the darkness of
one man's tortured soul.
Post by Steven Douglas
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
ye that work iniquity.
(unquote)
Thank you for posting that, Doc!
You're welcome but I'd expect you'd gotten around to posting it to
reverse the charges, so to speak.

I look at Trump's accomplishments,
Post by Steven Douglas
which include the peace deals he engineered in the Middle East. I
look at the great economy and low unemployment numbers he
brought about.
And now I look at the Virginia's new governor-elect, and the close
race in New Jersey that no one expected, and I am encouraged that
this country might move away from the wrong track it's been on for
the last 10 months, and start moving in the right direction again!
What Donald brought with him is all the darkness of the human mind and
soul (if one exists), exemplified by attracting every racist and
religiously bigoted group and individual around with plenty of juicy red
meat thrown out to his cult in every rally. And additionally being a
magnet for political extremist hacks like yourself, who incredulously
believe Donnie's behavior can be excused because he's filled your and
their pockets with lots of money, beat down several categories of
minorities, attempted to make Latinos crossing the border illegally into
a huge mean army of killers, rapists and other criminal types.

Donnie did what good fascists are best known for in history - divide and
conquer. Spread divisiveness, distrust, fear and hatred across several
platforms of media, and occasionally throw tantrums like the hissy fit
he's STILL in claiming he's the winner of 2020's "rigged" election!!

You are his handmaiden, his shoe shiner, his bed warmer.

=!-
~
JTEM is Magic
2021-11-03 21:04:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by docufo
Over 100,000 Americans died from COVID
And you didn't get this from the media, because you explained how you don't
do that, you're not influenced in any way/shape/form by the media, all your
information is beamed into your skull straight from an orbiting UFO.

And I believe you. Well. Not really. But I'm telling you that I believe you and
don't even notice all your wildly contradictory views because, I dunno, I
suppose I derive at least as much entertainment from it as you do with your
trolling.

Plus it keeps me distracted which if not entertainment is close enough.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/666789124141940736
docufo
2021-11-04 07:58:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is Magic
Post by docufo
Over 100,000 Americans died from COVID
And you didn't get this from the media, because you explained how you don't
do that, you're not influenced in any way/shape/form by the media, all your
information is beamed into your skull straight from an orbiting UFO.
And I believe you. Well. Not really. But I'm telling you that I believe you and
don't even notice all your wildly contradictory views because, I dunno, I
suppose I derive at least as much entertainment from it as you do with your
trolling.
Plus it keeps me distracted which if not entertainment is close enough.
If one of those 100,000 unnecessarily dead due to Trump's mishandling
was your beloved family or friends, you'd be less flippant about the
additional widespread suffering and death he caused.

I quote:

Donald Trump's failures during the pandemic cost more than 100,000
American lives, former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr.
Deborah Birx told lawmakers earlier this month, according to newly
released testimony.

Birx told the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis in
hearings Oct. 12 and 13 that the former president and other officials
were distracted by the election he ended up losing, the Hill reports.

"I felt like the White House had gotten somewhat complacent through the
campaign season," Birx said. She said many administration officials were
"actively campaigning and not as present in the White House as previously."

Birx said many of the approximately 450,000 COVID deaths during the
Trump administration could have been avoided if her recommendations had
been followed.

"I believe if we had fully implemented the mask mandates, the reduction
in indoor dining, the getting friends and family to understand the risk
of gathering in private homes, and we had increased testing," fatalities
could have been cut by 30% to 40%, she said, per the Washington Post.

https://centurylink.net/news/read/article/newser-birx_more_than_100k_died_after_trump_ignored_advic-rnewsersyn

Since you've not lost anyone (yet) you care about greatly, COVID
continues to be like a hoax or fantasy. It'd ceased to be that many
months ago for those who lost their loved ones. And the dismissal and
coldness by which you and so many Donnie deuce eaters refer to the
efforts to stop the spreaders proves that there's no real interest in
finding the truth when it's easier to cook up juicy pieces of red
partisan propaganda meat, pre-civil war style.

6}6
~
Steven Douglas
2021-11-04 17:43:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Matthew 7:16-23
King James Version
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I'm looking for Biden's fruits. Nothing is better since he was elected.
Look at gas prices. Look at grocery prices. Look at his job approval
numbers, in a downward spiral.
Over 100,000 Americans died from COVID because of Donald's erratic
irresponsible administration of the pandemic.
Remember when Trump instituted the travel ban on China, and
Biden and other irresponsible Democrats condemned him for
doing it? They called him racist, xenophobic, and every other
name in the book they could think of because Trump did the
right thing.

Meanwhile, weeks AFTER Trump's travel ban, good ol' Nancy
Pelosi was in San Francisco's Chinatown without a mask, and
asking eveyone to come on down to Chinatown and party like
there's no tomorrow!!! Without a mask!!!

I am so sick of you and your ridiculous leftist friends trying to
make this all about Trump. You people are truly deranged, and
you don't even know how sick you are.
Post by docufo
That's from Dr. Birx
Oh, the lady who told us we could not get together with our
families for Thanksgiving last year, while she was busy doing
exactly what she ordered the rest of us not to do? This pack
of leftist hypocrites is one of the reasons the commonwealth
of Virginia just rejected the Democrats (in a preview of what's
coming for the Democrats a year from now).
docufo
2021-11-05 03:53:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Matthew 7:16-23
King James Version
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I'm looking for Biden's fruits. Nothing is better since he was elected.
Look at gas prices. Look at grocery prices. Look at his job approval
numbers, in a downward spiral.
Over 100,000 Americans died from COVID because of Donald's erratic
irresponsible administration of the pandemic.
Remember when Trump instituted the travel ban on China, and
Biden and other irresponsible Democrats condemned him for
doing it? They called him racist, xenophobic, and every other
name in the book they could think of because Trump did the
right thing.
Meanwhile, weeks AFTER Trump's travel ban, good ol' Nancy
Pelosi was in San Francisco's Chinatown without a mask, and
asking eveyone to come on down to Chinatown and party like
there's no tomorrow!!! Without a mask!!!
I am so sick of you and your ridiculous leftist friends trying to
make this all about Trump. You people are truly deranged, and
you don't even know how sick you are.
Post by docufo
That's from Dr. Birx
Oh, the lady who told us we could not get together with our
families for Thanksgiving last year, while she was busy doing
exactly what she ordered the rest of us not to do? This pack
of leftist hypocrites is one of the reasons the commonwealth
of Virginia just rejected the Democrats (in a preview of what's
coming for the Democrats a year from now).
It was the woman doctor Trump appointed as a medical advisor along with
Fauci, who became right-wing hate targets after he openly argued with
their advice.

Instead of finding "comrades in dismissals" anywhere or anyway you can
find them, including Birx's "hypocrisy", rationalizing your disturbing
dismissive attitude towards a historic plague's death dealing and
resultant family miseries, you should come clean that it's primarily
your, Donnie and the GOP's extreme narcissism and partisan fanaticism
feeding your and their delusions America is being destroyed by leftists.

A dangerous rationalization and fantasy that aligns itself perfectly
with Donnie's drive to divide our people into warring factions in order
to satiate his revengeful mindset after losing the election.

After the horrid disaster in bloodletting in the last civil war or any
war for that matter, the warring idiots have to make peace and co-exist
among their former enemies, and this war's aftermath will be no
different unless a secession movement makes it potentially permanent. No
secession movement of any significance yet detected, but events are
moving rapidly downward.

Instead of refashioning the plague to provide even more comforting
rationalizations, or revising the Jan. 6th Capitol insurrection, or
ignoring Donnie's psychopathy in rigging an electoral hoax, you and the
cultists should be getting ready for the Apocalypse and Jesus' return by
cleaning up your immoral and antisocial behaviors so as to ensure his
blessings.

~y+
V

~y=
V
Steven Douglas
2021-11-05 04:11:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Matthew 7:16-23
King James Version
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I'm looking for Biden's fruits. Nothing is better since he was elected.
Look at gas prices. Look at grocery prices. Look at his job approval
numbers, in a downward spiral.
Over 100,000 Americans died from COVID because of Donald's erratic
irresponsible administration of the pandemic.
Remember when Trump instituted the travel ban on China, and
Biden and other irresponsible Democrats condemned him for
doing it? They called him racist, xenophobic, and every other
name in the book they could think of because Trump did the
right thing.
Meanwhile, weeks AFTER Trump's travel ban, good ol' Nancy
Pelosi was in San Francisco's Chinatown without a mask, and
asking eveyone to come on down to Chinatown and party like
there's no tomorrow!!! Without a mask!!!
I am so sick of you and your ridiculous leftist friends trying to
make this all about Trump. You people are truly deranged, and
you don't even know how sick you are.
Post by docufo
That's from Dr. Birx
Oh, the lady who told us we could not get together with our
families for Thanksgiving last year, while she was busy doing
exactly what she ordered the rest of us not to do? This pack
of leftist hypocrites is one of the reasons the commonwealth
of Virginia just rejected the Democrats (in a preview of what's
coming for the Democrats a year from now).
It was the woman doctor Trump appointed as a medical advisor
Headline: "Birx travels, family visits highlight pandemic safety perils"

[excerpt] As COVID-19 cases skyrocketed before the Thanksgiving
holiday weekend, Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House
coronavirus response, warned Americans to “be vigilant” and limit
celebrations to “your immediate household.”

For many Americans that guidance has been difficult to abide,
including for Birx herself.

The day after Thanksgiving, she traveled to one of her vacation
properties on Fenwick Island in Delaware. She was accompanied
by three generations of her family from two households. Birx, her
husband Paige Reffe, a daughter, son-in-law and two young
grandchildren were present. [end excerpt]

https://apnews.com/article/travel-pandemics-only-on-ap-delaware-thanksgiving-52810c22488fff7e6bb70746bdc9bc61

She lost all credibility, yet you want to continue to prop her up as
some sort of sainted guru.

[excerpt] “To me this disqualifies her from any future government
health position,” said Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the
Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security. “It’s a
terrible message for someone in public health to be sending to the
American people.” [end excerpt]

https://apnews.com/article/travel-pandemics-only-on-ap-delaware-thanksgiving-52810c22488fff7e6bb70746bdc9bc61
JTEM is Magic
2021-11-05 18:03:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
All credibility lost would be the case for Donnie whose erratic support
of his own health advisors
Well he should have been steady in his support of advisors who said masks
were useless and that everyone needs to where masks and then was
photographed in public without them...

The only thing consistent is your need for negative attention.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/667035351126327296/still-doing-target-photoshoots-and-bad-gun
Steven Douglas
2021-11-06 17:17:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Matthew 7:16-23
King James Version
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I'm looking for Biden's fruits. Nothing is better since he was elected.
Look at gas prices. Look at grocery prices. Look at his job approval
numbers, in a downward spiral.
Over 100,000 Americans died from COVID because of Donald's erratic
irresponsible administration of the pandemic.
Remember when Trump instituted the travel ban on China, and
Biden and other irresponsible Democrats condemned him for
doing it? They called him racist, xenophobic, and every other
name in the book they could think of because Trump did the
right thing.
Meanwhile, weeks AFTER Trump's travel ban, good ol' Nancy
Pelosi was in San Francisco's Chinatown without a mask, and
asking eveyone to come on down to Chinatown and party like
there's no tomorrow!!! Without a mask!!!
I am so sick of you and your ridiculous leftist friends trying to
make this all about Trump. You people are truly deranged, and
you don't even know how sick you are.
Post by docufo
That's from Dr. Birx
Oh, the lady who told us we could not get together with our
families for Thanksgiving last year, while she was busy doing
exactly what she ordered the rest of us not to do? This pack
of leftist hypocrites is one of the reasons the commonwealth
of Virginia just rejected the Democrats (in a preview of what's
coming for the Democrats a year from now).
It was the woman doctor Trump appointed as a medical advisor
Headline: "Birx travels, family visits highlight pandemic safety perils"
[excerpt] As COVID-19 cases skyrocketed before the Thanksgiving
holiday weekend, Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House
coronavirus response, warned Americans to “be vigilant” and limit
celebrations to “your immediate household.”
For many Americans that guidance has been difficult to abide,
including for Birx herself.
The day after Thanksgiving, she traveled to one of her vacation
properties on Fenwick Island in Delaware. She was accompanied
by three generations of her family from two households. Birx, her
husband Paige Reffe, a daughter, son-in-law and two young
grandchildren were present. [end excerpt]
https://apnews.com/article/travel-pandemics-only-on-ap-delaware-thanksgiving-52810c22488fff7e6bb70746bdc9bc61
She lost all credibility, yet you want to continue to prop her up as
some sort of sainted guru.
[excerpt] “To me this disqualifies her from any future government
health position,” said Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the
Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security. “It’s a
terrible message for someone in public health to be sending to the
American people.” [end excerpt]
https://apnews.com/article/travel-pandemics-only-on-ap-delaware-thanksgiving-52810c22488fff7e6bb70746bdc9bc61
All credibility lost
Thank you for acknowledging that Birx's credibility was long ago
lost.
Steven Douglas
2021-11-06 20:54:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Matthew 7:16-23
King James Version
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I'm looking for Biden's fruits. Nothing is better since he was elected.
Look at gas prices. Look at grocery prices. Look at his job approval
numbers, in a downward spiral.
Over 100,000 Americans died from COVID because of Donald's erratic
irresponsible administration of the pandemic.
Remember when Trump instituted the travel ban on China, and
Biden and other irresponsible Democrats condemned him for
doing it? They called him racist, xenophobic, and every other
name in the book they could think of because Trump did the
right thing.
Meanwhile, weeks AFTER Trump's travel ban, good ol' Nancy
Pelosi was in San Francisco's Chinatown without a mask, and
asking eveyone to come on down to Chinatown and party like
there's no tomorrow!!! Without a mask!!!
I am so sick of you and your ridiculous leftist friends trying to
make this all about Trump. You people are truly deranged, and
you don't even know how sick you are.
Post by docufo
That's from Dr. Birx
Oh, the lady who told us we could not get together with our
families for Thanksgiving last year, while she was busy doing
exactly what she ordered the rest of us not to do? This pack
of leftist hypocrites is one of the reasons the commonwealth
of Virginia just rejected the Democrats (in a preview of what's
coming for the Democrats a year from now).
It was the woman doctor Trump appointed as a medical advisor
Headline: "Birx travels, family visits highlight pandemic safety perils"
[excerpt] As COVID-19 cases skyrocketed before the Thanksgiving
holiday weekend, Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House
coronavirus response, warned Americans to “be vigilant” and limit
celebrations to “your immediate household.”
For many Americans that guidance has been difficult to abide,
including for Birx herself.
The day after Thanksgiving, she traveled to one of her vacation
properties on Fenwick Island in Delaware. She was accompanied
by three generations of her family from two households. Birx, her
husband Paige Reffe, a daughter, son-in-law and two young
grandchildren were present. [end excerpt]
https://apnews.com/article/travel-pandemics-only-on-ap-delaware-thanksgiving-52810c22488fff7e6bb70746bdc9bc61
She lost all credibility, yet you want to continue to prop her up as
some sort of sainted guru.
[excerpt] “To me this disqualifies her from any future government
health position,” said Dr. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the
Georgetown Center for Global Health Science and Security. “It’s a
terrible message for someone in public health to be sending to the
American people.” [end excerpt]
https://apnews.com/article/travel-pandemics-only-on-ap-delaware-thanksgiving-52810c22488fff7e6bb70746bdc9bc61
All credibility lost
Thank you for acknowledging that Birx's credibility was long ago
lost.
Her "credibility" problem amounted to a single slip
That's all it takes. For example, weeks after Trump instituted the
China travel ban, Pelosi showed up in San Francisco's Chinatown
without a mask; and with all the local and national news cameras
focused on her, she asked the people of California and the nation
to come to Chinatown and join her in partying without a mask!

docufo
2021-11-03 20:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Carter wasn't in office
when the twin-recessionary period hit.
This is where you made it clear that you have no idea that
Carter was president in January of 1980. Just another
example of how ill-informed you are.
Post by docufo
And it was laid mostly on the
back of Reagan, as historians have written it.
Oh, your leftist historians? I really don't care what they
think, I lived through that time and I know what happened.
Post by docufo
Reagan's twin-recessions months apart.
It's amazing that you want to blame Reagan for things that
happened in 1980, while Carter was still in office. Why do
you think Carter lost reelection in such a landslide?
Post by docufo
You can't get the history of your own party right.
Oh, the irony!
Let's grovel for the tiny triumphs, shall we?
Is that what you were doing when you incorrectly said I can't
get the history of my own party right?
Post by docufo
Yes, Carter was in office when Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in
Tehran - we should blame him for decades of subterfuge of Iran by the US
government with an unpopular puppet leader installed in the 1950's which
led to a radicalized deposed leader, Khomeini, exploiting their anger
towards the US and its allies. That led, in turn, to the seizure of the
US Embassy and years of more confrontations with Iran which Reagan
exploited for his political benefit - but not before sending his Defense
Sec. Rumsfeld for a friendly dinner and chat to enlist Hussein's help in
confronting Iran.
The Iran-Iraq war began in 1980. Just to remind you, Reagan had
not taken office when that war broke out. But it was Jimmy Carter
and his administration that began the overtures to Iraq to resume
diplomatic relations. Just so there is no confusion (since you seem
to believe Reagan was President in 1980), the following memo from
within the State Department was made in 1979. I assure you, Reagan
was definitely not in office in 1979.
Yes, the Iran-Iraq War began in 1980 after Saddam attacked Iran,
supported by US satellite and conventional aircraft surveillance that
was under both administrations' watch.
What was your point about Rumsfeld meeting Saddam if it
was actually Carter's administration that opened the door to
better relations with Iraq?
An elaboration on the work Carter started since the tensions between
Iran and the USA made oil deliveries precarious and the markets too
unstable. It was judge to be strategically necessary to enlist Saddam's
"help" in disorienting and weakening Iran's regime - which it ultimately
did not.

You forget that in 1980-82 oil and gas deliveries were still vital to US
and allied interests - more than enough to undermine Iran's control over
oil which was second in importance only to Saudi Arabia's production.

The USA's subterfuge and miscellaneous military invasions did tremendous
damage to warming relations with Iran which aids and abets many
terrorist groups - and hence we're still far away, thanks to Donnie's
pull out adding more distrust, from any resolution to the perpetual
violence in that region.The USA's Israel-oriented policies and
self-interest have dirtied the diplomatic waters there for decades,
making any peaceful existence almost unimaginable to most observers.

The USA sowed those seeds of distrust and conflict decades ago by
undermining Iran's government, from inside and outside, with the latest
slap-down being Donnie's rejection of the Iran nuke agreement. He, like
your foolish self, want Iranian mullahs to grant access to virtually all
of Iran's military-industrial secret projects, and to implicitly promise
they'll never attack Israel or any other nation with nukes! LOL! Well,
there's two add-ons that any rational mature analyst would call "smoke
signals and war drums" by the USA.

By making two extreme preconditions to a successful nuclear control
agreement, rightwing extremists hope to keep Iran and the USA on a
virtual war footing for decades more.

I'd bet you'd just love bombing Iran and were sorely disappointed Donnie
backed off at the last minute from bombing Iran for shooting down a
robot drone.

Donnie: "A military guy said to me, 'Sir, our latest analysis indicates
140 dead Iranians from our bombardment!', and I thought we shouldn't
kill all those people because of a robot drone shot down, so I canceled
it ten minutes to launch," Donnie (paraphrased) told disbelieving
reporters.
LOL!

When Obama canceled his cruise missile bombardment of Syria you and the
extremists were quite angry with him - "No guts! Wimp! Gas the kids!
Osama loves Syria! Assad's the winner!" and other utterances of
banana-throwing Rep chimps back then.

When Donnie canceled his bombardment of the much hated Iran, you and the
Trumpers hardly said anything negative. "Maybe Trump didn't want to kill
innocent people avenging a stupid robot drone's shoot down!" was the
refrain. The fact is Donald's a lot more smoke than fire and fury. Add
on mirrors, and you got a quick rundown on his persona.
Post by Steven Douglas
You have a poor reading
comprehension. I never said he was in office in 1979 or 80.
You blamed Carter's recession on Reagan when you said,
"Carter wasn't in office when the twin-recessionary period
hit." You wrote that in this thread, and you were wrong. But
then you're always so ill-informed, how could you ever not
be wrong?
What I meant to say
In other words, what you would have said if you were no so
ill-informed?
NO, what I mean by "what I meant to say" is that the linguistics weren't
clear enough for your limited reading comprehension. I keep forgetting
to draw you a virtual linguistical picture so your self-righteous biased
brain can make sense of it.
If we had to count the number of times you claimed to have not read a
large part of my messages in reply, cutting them out in your replies as
"nonsense" you'd prefer not to waste your precious time on - one would
truly wonder why you get so upset over a minor linguistical error.

The fact is that the first segment of the "twin recessions" which
Carter's tenure encompassed at the end of his administration in 1980 was
only an appetizer for the big downfall in 1981-82 under Ronald.
Donald and Ronald are your heroes today, eh?
A sad reflection on how much your morals have deteriorated since
Ronnie's daze. Ronnie, for all the idiocy and horseshit he embodied, was
still miles away from the horrid behaviors Donnie exhibits. You'd do
well to recall the vast behavioral gulf between the two leaders, at
least publicly. Ronald was a cream puff compared to Donald's porcupine
persona - whose quills of craziness have gotten stuck in your squirming
noodles.

~y~
V oila!
is that the main hard impact of the
twin-recessionary period didn't have Carter in office.
The whole thing was Carter's recession, which is a major
reason he was not reelected. Reagan fixed it, and was
reelected with landslide proportions.
Steven Douglas
2021-11-04 17:35:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Carter wasn't in office
when the twin-recessionary period hit.
This is where you made it clear that you have no idea that
Carter was president in January of 1980. Just another
example of how ill-informed you are.
Post by docufo
And it was laid mostly on the
back of Reagan, as historians have written it.
Oh, your leftist historians? I really don't care what they
think, I lived through that time and I know what happened.
Post by docufo
Reagan's twin-recessions months apart.
It's amazing that you want to blame Reagan for things that
happened in 1980, while Carter was still in office. Why do
you think Carter lost reelection in such a landslide?
Post by docufo
You can't get the history of your own party right.
Oh, the irony!
Let's grovel for the tiny triumphs, shall we?
Is that what you were doing when you incorrectly said I can't
get the history of my own party right?
Post by docufo
Yes, Carter was in office when Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in
Tehran - we should blame him for decades of subterfuge of Iran by the US
government with an unpopular puppet leader installed in the 1950's which
led to a radicalized deposed leader, Khomeini, exploiting their anger
towards the US and its allies. That led, in turn, to the seizure of the
US Embassy and years of more confrontations with Iran which Reagan
exploited for his political benefit - but not before sending his Defense
Sec. Rumsfeld for a friendly dinner and chat to enlist Hussein's help in
confronting Iran.
The Iran-Iraq war began in 1980. Just to remind you, Reagan had
not taken office when that war broke out. But it was Jimmy Carter
and his administration that began the overtures to Iraq to resume
diplomatic relations. Just so there is no confusion (since you seem
to believe Reagan was President in 1980), the following memo from
within the State Department was made in 1979. I assure you, Reagan
was definitely not in office in 1979.
Yes, the Iran-Iraq War began in 1980 after Saddam attacked Iran,
supported by US satellite and conventional aircraft surveillance that
was under both administrations' watch.
What was your point about Rumsfeld meeting Saddam if it
was actually Carter's administration that opened the door to
better relations with Iraq?
An elaboration on the work Carter started
True.
docufo
2021-11-03 00:12:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
Carter wasn't in office
when the twin-recessionary period hit.
This is where you made it clear that you have no idea that
Carter was president in January of 1980. Just another
example of how ill-informed you are.
Post by docufo
And it was laid mostly on the
back of Reagan, as historians have written it.
Oh, your leftist historians? I really don't care what they
think, I lived through that time and I know what happened.
Post by docufo
Reagan's twin-recessions months apart.
It's amazing that you want to blame Reagan for things that
happened in 1980, while Carter was still in office. Why do
you think Carter lost reelection in such a landslide?
Post by docufo
You can't get the history of your own party right.
Oh, the irony!
Let's grovel for the tiny triumphs, shall we?
Is that what you were doing when you incorrectly said I can't
get the history of my own party right?
Post by docufo
Yes, Carter was in office when Iranian radicals seized the US Embassy in
Tehran - we should blame him for decades of subterfuge of Iran by the US
government with an unpopular puppet leader installed in the 1950's which
led to a radicalized deposed leader, Khomeini, exploiting their anger
towards the US and its allies. That led, in turn, to the seizure of the
US Embassy and years of more confrontations with Iran which Reagan
exploited for his political benefit - but not before sending his Defense
Sec. Rumsfeld for a friendly dinner and chat to enlist Hussein's help in
confronting Iran.
The Iran-Iraq war began in 1980. Just to remind you, Reagan had
not taken office when that war broke out. But it was Jimmy Carter
and his administration that began the overtures to Iraq to resume
diplomatic relations. Just so there is no confusion (since you seem
to believe Reagan was President in 1980), the following memo from
within the State Department was made in 1979. I assure you, Reagan
was definitely not in office in 1979.
Yes, the Iran-Iraq War began in 1980 after Saddam attacked Iran,
supported by US satellite and conventional aircraft surveillance that
was under both administrations' watch. You have a poor reading
comprehension. I never said he was in office in 1979 or 80. When naval
confrontations occurred in the Gulf in 1987-88 between US and Iranian
ships, Reagan sought a more friendly relationship with Saddam. And that
what was behind Rumsfeld's dinner date with Saddam.
Post by Steven Douglas
[quoting State Department internal memo from 1979] “The U.S. is
prepared to resume diplomatic relations with Iraq whenever Iraq is
ready to do so. We would welcome such a step.” [end quote]
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1977-80v18/d135
Post by docufo
And after all that insanity, his former VP Bush became
President and attacked Iraq for invading Kuwait,
A coalition of 39 countries joined that attack. Or do you falsely believe
that GHW Bush did that all by himself?
LOL! Oh, you mean the few hundred Poles that joined up? Or--? The USA
was all over the battle areas, dominating the war action by far, ground,
air and naval.
Nope, the USA led the charge and had the biggest investment in oil and
gas production and deliveries.
It's amazing how you sat in this nation back then, watching live on TV
the US bombardment of Iraq, twice in history, by mostly US forces, chew
on your gourmet fudge and accept all the invasions and occupations,
regime changes and resulting long and hard times for those peoples as
necessary to get control over the "evil Islamic extremists" and give
Islam itself hard slams for being "inferior" to Christianity.
And then elect and support a psychopathic race-baiting authoritarian
President, even now as ex-Prez, who never made any serious attempt to
bring Palestine and Israel together in peace. A man whose support among
white supremacists meant helping Jews wasn't part of his agenda overall.
Staying in power was his main agenda even if it meant courting the worst
right-wing extremists.
He was the hero to a majority of Israeli conservative Jews there because
he was the President that finally recognized Jerusalem as the true
capitol, and underlined it with a US Embassy slinky Ivanka's champagne
christening!
The only President to make good on his promise to make Jerusalem the
capitol! Whoopeeee! But, then there was no Palestinian participation, so
the little rockets rained down on Israel once more, with a horridly
devastating retaliatory destruction of Palestine's inner city area!
Progress made towards peace by Donnie Doomsday? Nah! He's out for every
fucking vote he can get anyway he can get it.
More warfare as a result? NO problem for the Madman of Mar-A-Lago!! He's
into constant warfare himself. Chaos, too.
~y=
 Q
Post by Steven Douglas
Post by docufo
and then GWH's son
attacked Iraq for supposedly attempting to kill his daddy.
Actually, it was Bill Clinton who offered the first salvos to Iraq
for attempting to kill our former president. Have you forgotten
about that, or did you just never know about it?
And then...!
And then Trump came along and engineered some peace deals
between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors!
Post by docufo
And that's just a part of the sickening violent and quite stupid
involvement the USA has had in just that part of the mess that is always
the Middle East, never without multiple crises that the USA feels it
must resolve, resorting to militarized responses and setting up more ill
feelings and confrontations on both sides.
Trump was in the middle of bringing those great peace deals.
It's such a shame that he wasn't given a chance to complete
that process.
Post by docufo
Carter brought two ancient foes, Egyptian Arab Muslims and Judea/Israeli
Jews together in a historic peace pact that has lasted to this day,
while other Presidents have presided over "MORE OF THE SAME" mayhem that
we still witness today in that region.
That's not true. How quickly you forget about Trump's great
achievements! Or is it that you just never knew about it?
Post by docufo
No end in sight for war hawks like yourself,
There was an end in sight, but Trump was not given a chance
to finish the job.
Post by docufo
who admitted you couldn't recall a US war with foreign
nations you haven't supported since at least the 1960's.
JFK said "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to
assure the survival and the success of liberty."
It is certainly clear that this country no longer believes that.
Of course you'll continue to pretend that you're JFK guy, but
you know in your heart that you are not.
I hate the evil in this world, while you seem to love and defend
it. Someone once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing."
If you had your way (with your pacifism, which requires doing
NOTHING to stop evil), evil would prevail in this world.
Post by docufo
As Carter left office, Ronald Reagan was rewarded with the release of
the hostages and then went onto currying favor with Saddam in US
opposition to Iran, which at that time, was a major source of oil and
gas we dearly needed.
It wasn't just that, it was that the communists (whom you love
and adore) were also courting him, and we wanted to prevent
him from going over to their side.
Post by docufo
So, after Carter's "big loss" at election time, Ronnie went into 1981-82
with a very hard, but short recession that led to Reagonomics which ran
the national debt to a record high level.
Of course you don't know that Reaganomics actually increased
revenue to the federal treasury. It was increases in spending on
domestic programs that led to the deficits. That spending was
instituted by Democrats in Congress, who would only give Reagan
the increases in defense spending (during the Cold War) he wanted
by taking even larger increases in domestic spending.
Notice that the only time the budget has been balanced in recent
memory was during Clinton's presidency, when Republicans ran
Congress and did not give Clinton the huge domestic spending
bills he wanted passed.
I submit this bit of horrifying reality to challenge your alt reality
regenerated by swindler Donnie, that quickly makes mincemeat out of
Ronnie's "gloriously nostalgic" 8 years: (quote)

Reagan pushed for deregulation of industries, including banking; he
slashed income taxes for the wealthiest Americans in an experiment known
as “supply side” economics, which held falsely that cutting rates for
the rich would increase revenues and eliminate the federal deficit.

Over the years, “supply side” would evolve into a secular religion for
many on the Right, but Reagan’s budget director David Stockman once
blurted out the truth, that it would lead to red ink “as far as the eye
could see.”

While conceding that some of Reagan’s economic plans did not work out as
intended, his defenders including many mainstream journalists still
argue that Reagan should be hailed as a great President because he “won
the Cold War,” a short-hand phrase that they like to attach to his
historical biography.

However, a strong case can be made that the Cold War was won well before
Reagan arrived in the White House. Indeed, in the 1970s, it was a common
perception in the U.S. intelligence community that the Cold War between
the United States and the Soviet Union was winding down, in large part
because the Soviet economic model had failed in the technological race
with the West.

That was the view of many Kremlinologists in the CIA’s analytical
division. Also, I was told by a senior CIA’s operations official that
some of the CIA’s best spies inside the Soviet hierarchy supported the
view that the Soviet Union was headed toward collapse, not surging
toward world supremacy, as Reagan and his foreign policy team insisted
in the early 1980s.

The CIA analysis was the basis for the détente that was launched by
Nixon and Ford, essentially seeking a negotiated solution to the most
dangerous remaining aspects of the Cold War.

The Afghan Debacle

In that view, Soviet military operations, including sending troops into
Afghanistan in 1979, were mostly defensive in nature. In Afghanistan,
the Soviets hoped to prop up a pro-communist government that was seeking
to modernize the country but was beset by opposition from Islamic
fundamentalists who were getting covert support from the U.S. government.

Though the Afghan covert operation originated with Cold Warriors in the
Carter administration, especially national security adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski, the war was dramatically ramped up under Reagan, who traded
U.S. acquiescence toward Pakistan’s nuclear bomb for its help in
shipping sophisticated weapons to the Afghan jihadists (including a
young Saudi named Osama bin Laden).

While Reagan’s acolytes cite the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as
decisive in “winning the Cold War,” the counter-argument is that Moscow
was already in disarray and while failure in Afghanistan may have sped
the Soviet Union’s final collapse it also created twin dangers for the
future of the world: the rise of al-Qaeda terrorism and the nuclear bomb
in the hands of Pakistan’s unstable Islamic Republic.

Trade-offs elsewhere in the world also damaged long-term U.S. interests.
In Latin America, for instance, Reagan’s brutal strategy of arming
right-wing militaries to crush peasant, student and labor uprisings left
the region with a legacy of anti-Americanism that is now resurfacing in
the emergence of populist leftist governments.

In Nicaragua, for instance, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega (whom Reagan
once denounced as a “dictator in designer glasses”) is now back in
power. In El Salvador, the leftist FMLN won the latest national
elections. Indeed, across the region, hostility to Washington is now the
rule, creating openings for China, Iran, Cuba and other American rivals.

In the early 1980s, Reagan also credentialed a young generation of
neocon intellectuals, who pioneered a concept called “perception
management,” the shaping of how Americans saw, understood and were
frightened by threats from abroad.

Many honest reporters saw their careers damaged when they resisted the
lies and distortions of the Reagan administration. Likewise, U.S.
intelligence analysts were purged when they refused to bend to the
propaganda demands from above.

To marginalize dissent, Reagan and his subordinates stoked anger toward
anyone who challenged the era’s feel-good optimism. Skeptics were not
just honorable critics, they were un-American defeatists or in Jeane
Kirkpatrick’s memorable attack line they would “blame America first.”

Under Reagan, a right-wing infrastructure also took shape, linking media
outlets (magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) with well-financed think
tanks that churned out endless op-eds and research papers. Plus, there
were attack groups that went after mainstream journalists who dared
disclose information that poked holes in Reagan’s propaganda themes.

In effect, Reagan’s team created a faux reality for the American public.
Civil wars in Central America between impoverished peasants and wealthy
oligarchs became East-West showdowns. U.S.-backed insurgents in
Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan were transformed from corrupt, brutal
(often drug-tainted) thugs into noble “freedom-fighters.”

With the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan also revived Richard Nixon’s theory
of an imperial presidency that could ignore the nation’s laws and evade
accountability through criminal cover-ups. That behavior also would rear
its head again in the war crimes of George W. Bush. [For details on
Reagan’s abuses, see Robert Parry’s Lost History and Secrecy & Privilege.]

Wall Street Greed

The American Dream also dimmed during Reagan’s tenure. While he played
the role of the nation’s kindly grandfather, his operatives divided the
American people, using “wedge issues” to deepen grievances especially of
white men who were encouraged to see themselves as victims of “reverse
discrimination” and “political correctness.”

Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican
banner (as so-called “Reagan Democrats”), their economic interests were
being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; “free trade”
policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were
decaying; drug use among the young was soaring.

Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying
old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an
average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993,
the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker.
(At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was
more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

Many other trends set during the Reagan era continued to corrode the
U.S. political process in the years after Reagan left office. After
9/11, for instance, the neocons reemerged as a dominant force, reprising
their “perception management” tactics, depicting the “war on terror”
like the last days of the Cold War as a terrifying conflict between good
and evil.

The hyping of the Islamic threat mirrored the neocons’ exaggerated
depiction of the Soviet menace in the 1980s and again the propaganda
strategy worked. Many Americans let their emotions run wild, from the
hunger for revenge after 9/11 to the war fever over invading Iraq.

Arguably, the descent into this dark fantasyland that Ronald Reagan
began in the early 1980s reached its nadir in the flag-waving early days
of the Iraq War. Only gradually did reality begin to reassert itself as
the death toll mounted in Iraq and the Katrina disaster reminded
Americans why they needed an effective government.

Still, the disasters set in motion by Ronald Reagan continued to roll
in. Bush’s Reagan-esque tax cuts for the rich blew another huge hole in
the federal budget and the Reagan-esque anti-regulatory fervor led to a
massive financial meltdown that threw the nation into economic chaos.

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/20/ronald-reagan-worst-president-ever/

The moral, social decline of America began in the 1980s while we were
enjoying a booming period that hid the degeneration, and pretty much
DisneyLand America continued rolling on until Islamic radicals attacked
NYC and DC on 9-11-2001. After than shocking event, ultraconservatives
grouped around GW Bush to push him into being more like Ronnie - tough
talking, militaristic, insanely nationalistic.

And it partly worked, but neocons like yourself yearned for a
resurrection of Ronnie. Not finding any real satisfaction with
conventional politicians like Mitt Romney and miffed by mavericks like
McCain, neocons like yourself discovered Donnie Darko. He was full of
spittin' fire and mad about money! And he has now become the apparent
reshaping force pushing the GOP into extremism, even as he contends his
"electoral victory theft" by evil radical Dems dictates a mass rejection
of the electoral system in 2022 and 2024, which he has fervently called
for.

Your Ronnie began the drift downward to moral and social decay decades
ago when it pitted the extreme Right against the Left, backed by
evangelicals, and now backed additionally by white supremacist groups.
And the message from your side has always been that conservatives are
morally, socially, intellectually superior folks threatened by the
"inferior" qualities of the Left. And that means the leftists need to be
treated like deadly pathogens, endangering Ronnie and Donnie's Fantasy
Land of endless wealth, narcissism galore, nutty nationalism and
hegemonic domination over all other nations, sucking out vast resources
of the planet to keep Minnie and Mickey happy lil' mice.

Well, you and your ilk had your day in the Sun, junior. And now it's
time for some more hard reality - civil war. War being humanity's
biggest behavioral failure, its most costly and foolhardy, wasteful and
degenerative.

And you can owe its earliest beginnings to the Ronald Reagan era. And
now topped by an ex-Republican President, Donnie, that won't concede
while uniting an angry, violent variety of hate groups to ensure Jan.
6th wasn't just a shot fired over the bow.

~yo
Q
docufo
2021-11-03 21:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by docufo
I submit this bit of horrifying reality to challenge your alt reality
regenerated by swindler Donnie, that quickly makes mincemeat out of
Ronnie's "gloriously nostalgic" 8 years: (quote)
Reagan pushed for deregulation of industries,
I didn't say it was a bad economic move, only that it was a popular
policy under both administrations because it was widely believed, among
Keynesians anyway, that it made the market of services more competitive,
thus less costly to the consumer.
Carter, Ford, and Reagan and even Clinton all got on the deregulation
train because polls showed a good majority accepted it reducing costs to
consumers.
I recall the deregulation of the telephone industry by Reagan dropped my
monthly bill markedly, ending the virtual monopoly on that industry by a
relative few big telecom companies.
Carter deregulated the airlines. Carter deregulated the rail
industry. Carter deregulated the trucking industry. Carter
deregulated financial institutions. Carter's next target was
the communications industry, but he did not have time to
finish that before the end of his term. But at least he tried!
As for the remainder of your post, I looked at your source
before I read it, and I have no interest in reading the left
leaning bias of your source. But thanks anyway.
If you'd read all of it, you'd noticed the writer isn't criticizing
deregulation but stating the economic conditions and political reactions
back then in order to address. And then he emphasizes that while the
consumers were getting a temporary windfall, CEOs were getting a much
bigger one from Ronnie's deep cuts in their taxes, which Ronnie somehow
figured they'd be good Samaritans with the extra dough. LOL!

You'd likely have swallowed that Ronald horseshit back then, praising
the richest under Reagan as good loving Christians out to spread the
holy green around to the needy.

~)=
V
Loading...