Why do Republicans only shut down the government during Democratic administrations?
Clinton in the 90s, Obama in 2011 and now Biden.
Why were they blowing the debt sky high (6 trillion) under Trump instead of getting tough when they controlled all 3 branches of government?
For the record, I think both parties have been irresponsible for my entire lifetime. But I would encourage the voters to look in the mirror. We did this. Not the politicians.
My first inclination is to extra carefully assess the objectivity or accuracy of anything intertwined with politics regardless of the party, side, etc, before accepting as factual. And unfortunately more things seem to be getting intertwined with politics these days (on all sides, by both parties, etc).
"For the record, I think both parties have been irresponsible for my entire lifetime. But I would encourage the voters to look in the mirror. We did this. Not the politicians."
This is exactly right, joj!
Based on having the power of our democracy to vote for the people on the ballet.
However, how we got here is an interesting analysis and varies, depending on the politician and dynamic. In most of the dysfunctional cases, people supporting politicians that don't belong in office are the result of the majority of voters being easily convinced to align with the politician and information sources that tell them things they want to believe in.
The MSM and other media have an incredibly powerful influence on people of both parties.
Very charismatic charlatan politicians themselves can say very convincing sounding things that people want to believe.
The most mind boggling element to this is that we live in the age of information. People's access to information to fact check everything is right there. It's not that tough for everybody to do. It doesn't take a genius.
But here's the thing.
1. People are busy and don't have time to fact check.
2. Many don't want to fact check because they want to believe in things that line up with their political ideologies.
3. People pick their favorite sources to tell them the news and they rely on THOSE sources. So whatever they believe in now, they hear/read only news that reinforces that.
4. The age of information, includes massively increasing extreme sources that exploit this principle of human cognitive bias that believes things that line up with the already determined belief system. Many of these sources feature DISinformation.
5. The MSM is a mouthpiece for one side. The war in Ukraine for instance with 1.5 year of lying propaganda to support it. The fake climate crisis(who could be against "saving the planet"?). Fox on the other side makes up scenarios to blame the Jan 6 riot on Nancy Pelosi or security or Rap Epps, a supposed FBI plant that incited the riot to frame Trump. And that Trump really won the 2020 election but it was stolen..........and their viewers believe it all for 1 reason. BECAUSE THEY WANT IT TO BE TRUE!!!
6. People will readily fact check or be skeptical of things that contradict what THEY THINK they know. If its consistent with what they think they know or tells them what they want to be true...........IT GETS A FREE PASS.
7. So the bottom line is that we are being profoundly manipulated by powerful gatekeepers and sources exploiting our weaknesses as human beings.
8. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what we want because the party controls our choices, despite the above. The D voters are crystal clear that they DON'T want Joe Biden on the ballet in 2024 by a vast majority. But most of the best qualified D leaders that would make, potentially the best presidents/leaders are falling in line with what the party is doing to shove Joe Biden down their throats because they don't want to weaken their current DISinformation position (that he's so cognitively sharp that he's ready to be president for another 5 years) by admitting he's too old to run in 2024.
"My first inclination is to extra carefully assess the objectivity or accuracy of anything intertwined with politics regardless of the party, side, etc, before accepting as factual. And unfortunately more things seem to be getting intertwined with politics these days (on all sides, by both parties, etc)."
Larry,
Wonderful philosophy and you've shown that you live by that/set a great example with your posts here!
It's definitely post of the week(which, if you take out my posts, is not exactly tough to get anymore). With an assist from joj for starting this thread.
And the absolute reason posts have shrunk here is because we aren't an echo chamber.
People prefer to go to one of hundreds of echo chambers that tell them what they want to hear/read.
I'm pretty anal about challenging, debunking and fact checking EVERYTHING and it often means busting what they just got done reading/hearing at their favorite echo chamber.
Why am I this way?
Because the opposite is what's destroying our country........the echo chambers misleading and lying to people to exploit their cognitive bias and manipulate them.
People that go there are victims of the information gatekeeper charlatans.
People that come here are INFORMED!
In today's world it's IGNORANCE IS BLISS!
People are much happier living in a manufactured world where everything they believe in can be true. Just go to their favorite echo chamber and it is true.
On the other hand, almost nobody goes to echo chambers from the other side that are just as convinced in the things that they want to be truel So the only information each side gets, by design reinforces all the things that they are right about and all the things that they are wrong about. AND THEY CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE!
Nobody likes to find out they are wrong. That's what will happen when they post things from their echo chambers here.
"Why do Republicans only shut down the government during Democratic administrations?
Clinton in the 90s, Obama in 2011 and now Biden."
++++++++++++++
Thanks much, Joj!
Demonstrating what I stated in the previous post below.
As you can see below, you sort of CHERRY PICKED a statistic to blame Rs.
Because Ds shut down the government when Carter was president doesn't somehow qualify the shut down as being better.
They also shut down the government when R Gerald Ford was president.
I also think that blaming it on Rs by the media is extremely misleading.
If just a handful of the 200+ Ds would vote for the more moderate bill IT WOULD PASS. Instead almost all the Rs except for a handful will vote for it.
So there are 200 reasons that the Ds are blocking the bill.
And there are 5 reasons the Rs are blocking the bill.su
But it's the Rs fault, entirely because they have such a tiny majority, that they can only win against the Ds that are TOTALLY OPPOSING EVERYTHING if they also completely unite and all vote against the Ds.
This describes an extraordinarily divisive and dysfunctional political system!
I would like to compliment joj but also others that still come here even when they are sometimes "challenged" by me.
They also provide a great deal of enlightening points, that I would never see and learn from because my radar doesn't cover all the sources they/you use.
Larry already has the moderate/objective, see both sides mentality because he usually practices the scientific method when it comes to his politics too. He has the mind of an honest scientist, that uses data. facts and evidence to lead the way to the truth.
His love for weather and statistics, using data/observations and evidence to gain discernment, applied to politics too gives him a huge advantage over most people.
Many people decide what they want to be true first, then look for information and sources that tell them what they want to believe to make that true.
The scientific method requires us to be skeptical of ALL information, especially the information that we want to believe because of our human cognitive bias.
In today's world, it's an impossible thing to do with most people.
The stronger our alignment is to one party, the more impossible it is for that individual.
The mindset of a meteorologist
Larry already has this.
Weather forecasting is based on using the physical principles of the chaotic atmosphere which are represented by thousands of mathematical equations that are used in weather models to solve equations that tell us what the values for key measures will be going out 2 weeks.
But the equations aren't perfect and measuring current conditions has a lot of gaps, especially in data sparse areas. Add in the chaotic nature of the atmosphere and you have the recipe for weather forecast models to change frequently. The farther out the period, the bigger the changes.
But that's what makes it so challenging and fun.
It's also what demands using the scientific method to be the best meteorologist you can be.
When a meteorologist makes a forecast, of course they WANT to be right, just like in every other field, especially politics.
However, the mentality goes in a completely different direction after that, when it comes to looking at new weather information compared to somebody that goes to Fox or CNN to get the news they want to hear.
When NEW weather model updates are coming out around the clock and NEW weather is evolving before their eyes, they look hardest for CHANGES compared to the previous weather models and CHANGES to what they thought was going to happen. They are paying the most attention to see what they might have wrong.
The reason they look for why they were wrong before with the last forecast, using the scientific method is because they want to get it better with the next forecast.
A meteorologist is not judged by their first forecast. It's assumed by everybody that they will get a ton of forecasts wrong, especially those with initial outlooks for the extended periods.
They are judged by HOW LONG IT TOOK THEM TO GET IT RIGHT!
The quickest way to get it right is to focus as much attention as possible on elements that have changed that are making the first forecast wrong, then acknowledging it ASAP and adjusting the outlook based on the newest/freshest information.
Never get married to a weather forecast.
The mindset of a trader
Much like the meteorologist, "Never get married to a position"
Before you put on a position/trade, you do a lot of research. That means looking at fundamentals, news, technical/price charts, seasonals and other items before making a decision to put the trade on.
But every trade has an ENTRY point and an EXIT point.
Both are just as important to the difference in price between them.
What often happens, because of human nature is that BEFORE we ENTER a position, we are very objective. There's no skin in the game. Nothing to lose. Nothing being risked.
Then, AFTER the trade is on, emotions are usually higher. Traders have a tendency to want to believe information that is good for their trade more than equally valid information that is bad for their trade.
This can cause them to hold on to a loser instead of cutting losses, which is the biggest mistake because the #1 priority of a trader is to limit losses. Maintain the equity and live to trade another day with a better opportunity.
A good question to ask is often:
"If I wasn't long soybeans here already and down XX thousand, would I put this position on right now at this price?"
If the answer is definitively no, then get out ASAP.
If the answer is objectively yes, the last thing you want to do is SELL beans, exactly where you would be BUYING beans if you were not long and getting paranoid about the big drawdown.
Even so, if the market continues to NOT react the way you thought, then don't risk too much money on a market that your skill level for price predicting is crummy.
A often used expression goes "the market is always right!"
I understand that means the CURRENT price but the reality is that, outside of the current price, the market is ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG!
Otherwise, the price would stay the same all day long, every day.
A trader makes money by ascertaining by how much the market is wrong with its FUTURE price.
Bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate passed the deal, which will fund the government through Nov. 17 but lacks additional aid for Ukraine
+++++++++++++++++
This is wonderful news............NO ADDITIONAL AID FOR UKRAINE!!!!!!
"No additional aid for Ukraine".
Putin is happy. China is happy. Trump is happy. Dictators and enemies of democracy everywhere are happy.
You don't have to give me your narrative Mike. I've read it before. Respectfully, I disagree.
And may I ask why nearly all of my posts end up being about something other than the subject?
As was this post: GOP Fiscally Born Again (and Again)
Yes, joj I'm completely aware that you never comment on this topic because you disagree and don't want to be the target of one of my screeds.
Screed or not, every position I take uses authentic facts and applies the scientific method with ZERO political affiliation and attempts to focus the attacks on the entities responsible and NOT the victims, which include the captured brains.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/98691/
Here's my latest screed, which is meant to apply to EVERYBODY, including me.
I give you tremendous credit coming here and making countless great, insightful posts despite the Grand Canyon separating us with regards to the war in Ukraine.
my positions are based on authentic facts as well. Like the fact that a non-democratic Russia launched an unprovoked attack on the democratically elected Ukrainian people.
Ukraine was not about to join NATO. That too is a fact.
"Ukraine was not about to join NATO. That too is a fact."
Thanks joj,
With all due respect, because you are one of the brightest people that I know and can be objective at times and very contemplative.
You're using sources that tell you what you want to read/hear and what they want you to think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
Relations between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) started in 1991.[1] Ukraine applied to integrate with a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2008.[2][3] Plans for NATO membership were shelved by Ukraine following the 2010 presidential election in which Viktor Yanukovych, who preferred to keep the country closer to Russia, was elected President.[4] Yanukovych fled Ukraine in February 2014 during the Revolution of Dignity.[5] The interim Yatsenyuk Government initially said that it had no plans to join NATO.[6] However, following the Russian annexation of Crimea and Russian military support for armed separatists in eastern Ukraine, the Second Yatsenyuk Government made joining NATO a priority.[7] In February 2019, the Ukrainian parliament voted to amend the Constitution of Ukraine to state Ukraine's goal of NATO and European Union membership.[8][9]
At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would eventually become a NATO member with the MAP as an integral part of the process, and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy without outside interference.[10]NATO Secretary GeneralJens Stoltenberg also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession to NATO "as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when large countries decide what smaller ones should do."[11]Before further actions on NATO membership were taken, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
July 11, 2023
+++++++++++++++
We completely agree that what Russia/Putin did was REALLY WRONG.
You are convinced this was the only response/path for us to take. I couldn’t disagree more.
If you've read any of my posts, that come with all the evidence you know that the facts indicate that after Biden was elected, in the Fall of 2021, he had Zelensky visit him in Washington and Zelensky, suddenly stopped negotiating for peace with Russia and instead insisted that Ukraine join NATO. Zelensky's campaign platform promise that got him elected was negotiating peace with Russia.
Putin insisted that he would never let Ukraine join NATO and would invade Ukraine to prevent that from happening.
NATO/Biden and Zelensky told him to shove it, knowing he would invade.
Please read the information about this at the link below and give me your comments.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/97707/#98023
Yes, the invasion was dead wrong by Putin but it never had to happen.
NATO/Biden/Zelensky knew what would happen if they stopped negotiating with Russia(Putin has legit concerns because they are being surrounding by NATO.
Are you saying all this was worth Ukraine joining NATO or are you denying it all?
Blaming Putin and claiming we had no control of the outcome is dead wrong!
We had 2 choices.
1. NOT STOP the negotiations with Putin and give him something........like assurance that Ukraine would not become part of NATO(with US/NATO weapons pointed at Russia from Ukraine) for X number of years and avoid every bit of this war or
2. Tell Putin to shove it, knowing that he was going to invade based on his fears of NATO and have this massive war with 1 billion times more harm than what joining NATO is worth. Ukraine could never win it (except in manufactured propaganda realities)
3. There is no #3. Ukraine getting closer to joining NATO and Russia NOT invading was never an option.
I picked #1.
What is your reasoning for justifying #2 above?
"Leaders agree to expedite Ukrainian membership in NATO." - (dated in 2023... Thank you Putin)
I would negotiate and give Putin the face-saving agreement that Ukraine will not be admitted to NATO.
In return, Putin would have to pull out all of Russia's invading troops from Ukrainian soil. Now that choice you gave me assumes that the US has the power to impose a settlement on the Ukrainian people, who might be inclined to want Russia to pay reparations for the war.
But yes, if there is an exit ramp for this horrible war, then by all means.....
Thanks, joj!
That was the original agreement that Putin wanted BEFORE the war and I'm thinking that he won't accept those terms anymore.
Usually, when countries win wars they get something and the ones that lose the war, sadly here lose something. Putin has already annexed part of Ukraine(not recognized) and will very likely not give that up.
But the meaning of winning and losing is not always clear with wars. In most cases, especially this one, both sides lose badly and even after we negotiate some sort of settlement (the sooner the better) there will be different entities claiming different things.
There are a dozen different possible outcomes and some of them might include outbreaks of violence in disputed land. Sound familiar?
https://www.ausa.org/articles/meaning-victory
The 2 sides seem so far apart at this point that an agreement for peace will be hard to come by.
Absolutely, I think the U.S. controls the fate. Again, this doesn't mean that Putin isn't responsible for ALL of it but half of Zelensky's army is gone and the only reason the living half can keep fighting is with U.S. weapons.
Zelensky, apparently wants to fight until he doesn't have anybody left and as long as they have weapons for their suicide missions. If the U.S. completely pulls the plug, they will be running out of tools to fight with and even he might have to face reality.
Emphatic promises from the leader of the strongest military country in the world that we are supporting him to win the war, battling on the ground, are the exact WRONG messages.
When he loses U.S. backing completely(which has already started) what will his half army do?
Biden and NATO will have their unpredictable, face saving spins on this in public (more propaganda).
Behind close doors, it's hard to imagine they don't hear the fat lady singing and are discussing how to end it, best case scenario.
I could be wrong on that part. If the war continues in 2024, it will also be an increasing anchor, pulling down Biden's presidential hopes. I honestly still think he will not run.
Democrats can't possibly think he's the best person in the party to run for president in 2024. They are just waiting to publicly announce that he's not running based on a strategy that keeps Biden looking as strong as possible for as long as possible here in his 1st term and only term.
Pretending that he's ready for 5 more years is part of that. It's nothing more than a marking strategy.
The D party has plenty of much better qualified, electable candidates that are paying homage to the marketing strategy.
Who would you like to run, joj?
What do you think of Gavin Newsom?
Yeah, I know he says he's all in on Biden.
The California Democrat told NBC "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd that "President Biden is going to run" and he's "looking forward to getting him re-elected."
++++++++++++
I am speculating with low confidence that Biden will make some sort of announcement that he's not running after his doctors suddenly discover a serious condition which is the reason.
What do you think of Kamala?
Being such a weak VP, associated with Biden and not getting high scores in polls seems to count her out.
The US and all of the European democracies are behind Ukraine. Particularly Poland, who understandably fear they are next. All of the authoritarian dictatorships are behind Russia. Capitulation is the "negotiated settlement" that would satisfy Putin.
We don't agree on the nature of this conflict and I don't want to keep going in circles.
------
If the question is who do I want the Ds to run for president, I would answer Newsome. He's sharp. I saw him take apart Hannity in an interview on Fox. (you could probably find it on YouTube). If you ask me who I would want to BE president it would be Buttigieg. Bright, thoughtful and always calm and composed. But I don't think America is ready for a gay president. I was impressed with Kamala Harris on the campaign trail but her poll numbers are too low. On the Rs side, I'll take anyone who is not MAGA.
GOP was at first for smaller government. Then they were for no government. Now they consider the government to be the enemy. DOJ, FBI, the courts, the Military generals, and of course the free press. A 2nd term by Trump could be the end of our Republic.
I've always liked Mayor Pete from Indiana and some of his policies and maybe our youngest son being gay is a bias.
However, he has some other really bad policies, like doubling our financial commitments to the fake climate crisis accord and horrible, country destructive, key energy policies that cause me to reconsider from the damage he would do.
