ADVERTISEMENT

Trump: No White House invite for NBA champs, ‘we’ll see’ about Caps

The MSM desperately try to make it a referendum about Trump. Trump disavowed them, but obviously not as fast as you wanted him to.

Indeed, it was not as quickly or as forceful as I would have liked him to - and part of that is because the white supremacists thought trump was only saying what he needed to say politically, but really supports their cause.
If you disagree and think he did enough, that's fine.

To add context here as well. I also commented here that Obama did a poor job on race relations and thought he could have done better on several occasions. Probably my biggest criticism towards him.
I just think Trump's rhetoric crossed a line and he let it fester too long, and he hasn't done enough to correct that.
 
Indeed, it was not as quickly or as forceful as I would have liked him to - and part of that is because the white supremacists thought trump was only saying what he needed to say politically, but really supports their cause.
If you disagree and think he did enough, that's fine.

To add context here as well. I also commented here that Obama did a poor job on race relations and thought he could have done better on several occasions. Probably my biggest criticism towards him.
I just think Trump's rhetoric crossed a line and he let it fester too long, and he hasn't done enough to correct that.
Fair enough...Trump is a media whore. He wants to be public enemy number one and be lauded at the same time.
 
Just like Obama’s policies to bring us out of the worst economic crisis in 80 years, Trumps policies will also take time to fully judge. In my opinion his tax policy and his planned tarrifs and isolating the US from our allies are not good for America.

Your talk of current obstruction is absolute nonsense. Republicans hold the house and senate. The GOP could get anything through that they wanted to, unlike Obama who actually had a majority party fighting him.
That is a ridiculous statement of you know anything at all about government. To pass the Senate you need a super majority of 66 votes. We're in our second year of his presidency and he still doesn't have many of his appointments confirmed. Wake up and open your eyes to what's happening.

Your statement that Obama got us out of the worst economic crisis in 80 years...It has been called the worst recovery in history. All he did was cripple the banking industry and stifle the economy. His recovery consisted of doubling the national debt by spending more than every president before him combined. He created unsustainable government jobs for infrastructure and nothing else, oh and dumped billions into a government funded solar program that went bankrupt.
 
The term SCIF by itself is too general to put a dollar figure on. It can be a single room or an entire building. We costed one out for a crime center which was only a 200 square foot room.

On a humorous note, here is the original SCIF. LOL

 
his planned tarrifs

Once again, hatred is blinding you.

His obvious end game is to eliminate tariffs on both sides. How he gets there is another story.

(BTW, it is spelled T-A-R-I-F-F)
 
Last edited:
That is a ridiculous statement of you know anything at all about government. To pass the Senate you need a super majority of 66 votes. We're in our second year of his presidency and he still doesn't have many of his appointments confirmed. Wake up and open your eyes to what's happening.

Your statement that Obama got us out of the worst economic crisis in 80 years...It has been called the worst recovery in history. All he did was cripple the banking industry and stifle the economy. His recovery consisted of doubling the national debt by spending more than every president before him combined. He created unsustainable government jobs for infrastructure and nothing else, oh and dumped billions into a government funded solar program that went bankrupt.

You honestly just don’t have a strong grasp on reality. How can you possibly complain about Trump not having a super majority when Obama didn’t even have a majority for his last 6 years in office? Flawed logic there.

The rest of your post is entirely talking points and just not true... other than how much Obama spent, and yes, you have to spend to stimulate a struggling economy.

If you’re worried about the debt, you aren’t concerned with our tax cut which will drastically cut revenues without any material budget cuts? The 2018 deficit is on track to be the largest deficit since Obama’s first year in office except that deficit was related to a national crisis and this one will be a payoff to the donor class.

Obama passed the stimulus which which most economists agreee stopped the bleeding and prevented prevented unemployment from reaching 12+. If the jobs created were unsustainable jobs, we wouldn’t have had continuous job growth every single month for the rest of his presidency. Was it a magic pill that fixed everything? No. Was it far better than the alternative of letting the market work itself out? Yes.
 
Once again, hatred is blinding you.

His obvious end game is to eliminate tariffs on both sides. How he gets there is another story.

(BTW,it is spelled T-A-R-I-F-F)

He can say whatever he wants (as he often does) but his talks on changes to the tariffs is measured around an “imbalance”.. we don’t need to balance our trade to have a positive impact to the US economy and even if the tariffs he is added are short term, they will cause a distuption to US industry and raise prices of consumer goods that we import, lowering purchase power.

Sorry, that is bad policy.
 
You honestly just don’t have a strong grasp on reality. How can you possibly complain about Trump not having a super majority when Obama didn’t even have a majority for his last 6 years in office? Flawed logic there.

The rest of your post is entirely talking points and just not true... other than how much Obama spent, and yes, you have to spend to stimulate a struggling economy.

If you’re worried about the debt, you aren’t concerned with our tax cut which will drastically cut revenues without any material budget cuts? The 2018 deficit is on track to be the largest deficit since Obama’s first year in office except that deficit was related to a national crisis and this one will be a payoff to the donor class.

Obama passed the stimulus which which most economists agreee stopped the bleeding and prevented prevented unemployment from reaching 12+. If the jobs created were unsustainable jobs, we wouldn’t have had continuous job growth every single month for the rest of his presidency. Was it a magic pill that fixed everything? No. Was it far better than the alternative of letting the market work itself out? Yes.
You sure you graduated SHU? First off the tax cuts were meant to stimulate the economy and encourage lower taxes but by having the highest labor participation in decades, has actually seen government revenues spike to record levels. Increasing taxes doesn't work which has been proven time and time again.

Typical dem, you fail to answer the question or address facts. Obama did nothing but increase taxes and spend us to oblivion. His "recovery" was worst than post depression. The only reason unemployment numbers went down is because of increased and extended entitlements, people stopped looking for work which skewed the #s
 
He can say whatever he wants (as he often does) but his talks on changes to the tariffs is measured around an “imbalance”.. we don’t need to balance our trade to have a positive impact to the US economy and even if the tariffs he is added are short term, they will cause a distuption to US industry and raise prices of consumer goods that we import, lowering purchase power.

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems you are interpreting his use of "imbalance" as being synonymous with "trade deficit". I don't see it that way. I interpret "balance" as "Free and fair trade".

Additionally, short-term disruption for a long-term gain is not necessarily a bad thing.

Sorry, that is bad policy.

That is your opinion.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems you are interpreting his use of "imbalance" as being synonymous with "trade deficit". I don't see it that way. I interpret "balance" as "Free and fair trade".

Additionally, short-term disruption for a long-term gain is not necessarily a bad thing..

Yes, I believe he is talking about a trade deficit because he has talked about the trade deficit many, many times. He talks about the actual numbers that we are losing to mexico, Canada China etc..
A free and fair trade system acknowledges trade deficits occur, Trump campaigned against and continues to speak out against trade deficits.

Short term disruptions can have very broad effects - potentially very bad for our economy. - and yes it is my opinion that it is bad policy, but one that is shared by many economists.
 
You sure you graduated SHU?

Typical dem,s

See, once you start talking about education and calling people "typical dem" - It stops any desire to have an honest discussion with you.
Yes, I have a undergrad and graduate degree from SHU - both in accounting.

You're not adding anything of substance. Please support your arguments.


"by having the highest labor participation in decades"

Wrong. The participation rate is a tick lower than it was when Trump was elected.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

"has actually seen government revenues spike to record levels"
Federal revenue reaches record levels every year.

Our deficit is on track to go up.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/382033-deficit-nears-600-billion-in-first-half-of-2018


"Increasing taxes doesn't work which has been proven time and time again"

Cite?

"the only reason unemployment numbers went down is because of increased and extended entitlements, people stopped looking for work which skewed the #s"

Cite?
 
Phillips: Donald Trump inviting a Capitals team of mostly non-Americans to the White House, while spurning other teams, is another example of his fake patriotism
By CARRON J. PHILLIPS
JUN 12, 2018 | 7:30 AM

On first thought, it makes sense that the Washington Capitals would be a shoo-in to be invited to the White House.

But if you look at the roster, you might have a change of heart.

The team's best player is from Russia. The Stanley Cup hero is a Canadian-born black man. And only seven players on the team are American.

But yet, our President, whose campaign has been linked to having dealings with Russia, has deemed Capitals star and Conn Smythe Trophy winner Alex Ovechkin as a "true superstar" and would prefer that a team full of non-Americans visit his home to be celebrated, rather than inviting championship teams full of actual Americans.

"I think we'll have the Caps. I mean, we'll see," Trump said last week. "You know, my attitude: If they want to be here, it's the greatest place on Earth, I'm here. If they don't want to be here, I don't want them."

Trump's affinity for selecting whom he wants to visit the White House based on the person’s race and gender has led to these visits turning into a political litmus test for athletes.

"Sports are not a distraction from politics — they are politics by a different means," University of Southern California sociologist Ben Carrington recently said. "Because Trump's administration is so highly charged, it's understandable that many players would refuse to attend. It's happened before, but never on this scale."

One of the Capitals was already on record saying he wouldn't go to the White House before Washington even won the Stanley Cup.

"The things that he (Trump) spews are straight-up racist and sexist," Devante Smith-Pelly said before Game 5.

"Some of the things he's said are pretty gross. I'm not too into politics, so I don't know all his other views, but his rhetoric I definitely don't agree with. It hasn't come up here, but I think I already have my mind made up."

And this is coming from a black man who was born in the Toronto-area and only works in America.

Smith-Pelly is one of the two black players on the Capitals roster and played a huge part in the team winning its first Stanley Cup title. During the postseason, he scored seven goals, matching his entire total over 75 regular-season games.

He also tied Ovechkin for most third-period goals this postseason (5), as his goals in Games 3, 4 and 5 either sealed the deal for the Caps, put them ahead for good or tied the game when they were trailing.

Smith-Pelly's absence would speak volumes for two reasons. First, one of the two black players on the team would be missing from the photo. And second, one of the "clutchest" performers from the the series would be nowhere to be found.

"It's incredibly difficult for these athletes, and not a choice they have imposed on themselves," Cornell University professor Grant Farred had said.

"A reporter is asking you about your win, and you're now having to deal with an obviously political question, not of your making. It's not a good situation to be in, one way or the other."

Farred also believes that the President is going to the well too many times with his supporters by repeatedly harping on anthem protests and questioning players' patriotism.

"How many swing voters can he afford to alienate?" Farred said.

The comedy in this is that Trump and his administration still don't understand that the Capitals aren't the best team to be fawning over at this particular moment.

Over the weekend, White House senior advisers Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner posed for a picture with Ovechkin at Cafe Milano in the Georgetown.

"Sports are not a distraction from politics – they are politics by a different means"

Because when you realize that Kushner, who was named as a "very senior" member of Trump's transition team, reportedly directed former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, to contact Russia, you then suddenly understand why taking a picture with a "Russian superstar" is a really bad idea.

Ever since the Warriors said "thanks, but no thanks" to a possible White House visit after winning the NBA Finals last year, while the Pittsburgh Penguins happily accepted their invitation just days later, the conversation about whom Trump strategically decides to invite to the White House, and why, has continued.

It's impossible to ignore the fact that race and gender have made a huge impact on the President's decisions.

But once he included the idea of patriotism into the narrative by rescinding the Philadelphia Eagles' invitation, the conversation shifted.

Because if this was really about patriotism, a team with only seven Americans on it should be less considered.

But, this isn't what this is about.

It's about one man's ego and his affinity for only inviting people to his house who will stroke it.

— with News Wire Services

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/h...rump-capitals-white-house-20180612-story.html
 
See, once you start talking about education and calling people "typical dem" - It stops any desire to have an honest discussion with you.
Yes, I have a undergrad and graduate degree from SHU - both in accounting.

You're not adding anything of substance. Please support your arguments.


"by having the highest labor participation in decades"

Wrong. The participation rate is a tick lower than it was when Trump was elected.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

"has actually seen government revenues spike to record levels"
Federal revenue reaches record levels every year.

Our deficit is on track to go up.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/382033-deficit-nears-600-billion-in-first-half-of-2018


"Increasing taxes doesn't work which has been proven time and time again"

Cite?

"the only reason unemployment numbers went down is because of increased and extended entitlements, people stopped looking for work which skewed the #s"

Cite?
Ok citing:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...-labor-force-number-grew-18-obama-took-office
--------------------------------------
Obama's small-business tax increase won't just hurt the economy in the short term. It also will stifle entrepreneurship, which will lower economic growth. ... Higher taxes shrink the pool of available income the small business has to tap.Oct 17, 2010

Tax Increase Would Kill Economic Growth, Jobs | The Heritage ...
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/.../tax-increase-would-kill-economic-growth-jobs


As far as labor participation rates over Obama's 8 years for chart supports my point on his manipulated unemployment #'s as it went down every year in office. Trump had the lowest unemployment in decades... the labor participation will follow. We actually have less people looking for jobs than available job postings.

You say not use the typical dem reference but your only solution to any problem is to raise taxes expand government.

If you're an accountant I can see why you don't like the tax cuts...simpler tax code, less loopholes, less need for an accountant. Honestly being in sales myself it hurts me because I can no longer write off my travel or unreimbursed entertainment but overall I see the benefits to the economy as a whole.

Your statement that Gov revenue increases every year is false. It fell off under Obama until increasing taxes. There is the difference, Dems increase revenue by increasing taxes and retarding growth while Trump is increasing revenue by lowering taxes, fostering growth which increases the tax base.
 
Ok citing:

That's your research? Op-eds from 2010 without any actual evidence to if they were true or not?

What's hysterical is that both of the links you provided as evidence to your argument proved to be wrong.

"It is in this troubled economic environment that President Barack Obama and his allies are pressing ahead with plans to raise taxes. Higher taxes always mean slower economic growth and fewer jobs. In fact, the Heritage Foundation estimates that the Obama tax increase would cause Ohio to lose almost 27,000 jobs per year over the next decade. "

The unemployment rate in Ohio went from 9.8% (the date of that article) - to 5% by the time Obama left office.

You say not use the typical dem reference but your only solution to any problem is to raise taxes expand government.

No it's not. Raising taxes is a tool to be used when it is needed. It isn't the solution to every problem.
There is a balance and it should be increased and decreased depending on our environment.

If you're an accountant I can see why you don't like the tax cuts...simpler tax code, less loopholes, less need for an accountant.

I'm an auditor. Tax law doesn't impact me much.

Your statement that Gov revenue increases every year is false. It fell off under Obama until increasing taxes.

Again - you just keep posting stuff that isn't true and really easy to look up.
Federal revenue increased every year from 2009 on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobbie Solo
That's your research? Op-eds from 2010 without any actual evidence to if they were true or not?

What's hysterical is that both of the links you provided as evidence to your argument proved to be wrong.

"It is in this troubled economic environment that President Barack Obama and his allies are pressing ahead with plans to raise taxes. Higher taxes always mean slower economic growth and fewer jobs. In fact, the Heritage Foundation estimates that the Obama tax increase would cause Ohio to lose almost 27,000 jobs per year over the next decade. "

The unemployment rate in Ohio went from 9.8% (the date of that article) - to 5% by the time Obama left office.



No it's not. Raising taxes is a tool to be used when it is needed. It isn't the solution to every problem.
There is a balance and it should be increased and decreased depending on our environment.



I'm an auditor. Tax law doesn't impact me much.



Again - you just keep posting stuff that isn't true and really easy to look up.
Federal revenue increased every year from 2009 on.

You say what I post isn't true and yet only pick and choose what you address.
I certainly don't have time to go through countless articles. You're citing one state where unemployment supposedly went down as proof of an improved economy, where manufacturing was killed. Perfect example of the manipulation of unemployment numbers where jobs left the state, people stopped looking for work thus no longer counted on workforce numbers.

We get it, you like higher taxes so here's an idea, donate your extra money to the IRS. Let the rest of us keep what we earn.

Bottom line is if you like socialism, you should move to a socialist country.
 
I certainly don't have time to go through countless articles. You're citing one state where unemployment supposedly went down as proof of an improved economy, where manufacturing was killed. Perfect example of the manipulation of unemployment numbers where jobs left the state, people stopped looking for work thus no longer counted on workforce numbers.

Well find the time!
If this is something you passionately believe in. Find the time to figure out if you are correct because you cited an op-ed which said Ohio will lose 25,000 jobs per year after 2010. Except when you look at the data - READILY available to you... The number of people employed in Ohio increased by more than 40,000 per year over the next 6 years.

You can't just say something is true when there is data available which shows you are just plain wrong.

We get it, you like higher taxes so here's an idea, donate your extra money to the IRS. Let the rest of us keep what we earn.

I don't "like" higher taxes - I want our tax policy to work to be the best for our economy and provide enough revenue to close our deficit.

Bottom line is if you like socialism, you should move to a socialist country.

Don't know how you extracted that I am a socialist from this conversation but I guess anyone who disagrees with you should leave the country? Cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobbie Solo
Well find the time!
If this is something you passionately believe in. Find the time to figure out if you are correct because you cited an op-ed which said Ohio will lose 25,000 jobs per year after 2010. Except when you look at the data - READILY available to you... The number of people employed in Ohio increased by more than 40,000 per year over the next 6 years.

You can't just say something is true when there is data available which shows you are just plain wrong.



I don't "like" higher taxes - I want our tax policy to work to be the best for our economy and provide enough revenue to close our deficit.



Don't know how you extracted that I am a socialist from this conversation but I guess anyone who disagrees with you should leave the country? Cool.
Here you should line these facts.. one of from FNN

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/economy/2017/01/06/obama-economy-10-charts-final/3.html

Vs

https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx
 

As if you can possibly compare Obama entering office while the US is hemorrhaging jobs to Trump entering office at a time of growth and increasing employment.

You keep rambling to find your argument which is why it has changed serval times in this thread.

Good that you’re finding time to do some research into actual data now. Keep going.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT