39 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 34 previous comments
- You don't get it, do you? These were the same polls that said Hillary would win, and we all know how that ended up.42w
- your ignorance of what the polls said is breathtaking.
The latest polls just prior to the election said she was ahead in the popular vote and extremely close in critical battleground states.
On election day, she won the popular vote by 3% and the actual errors in the battleground states were within the stated margin of error for each poll.
The polls were right. Nate Silver never had Trump's odds below 1:10 and just before the election, he had Trump's odds at almost 3:10.
So, no the polls didn't say that Hillary would win. They said it was more likely she would win but still quite close.
You are ignorant of the facts. Again.42w
- on vacations, you realize that 45 has already spent in his first month what it took Obama to spend in a year. And it will cost the US taxpayer $30 million per month to secure Trump tower for Trump, to say nothing of securing Mar a Lago, the "Southern White House".
Right? You were already aware of those facts? You weren't simply letting your amazement about Obama's vacation cost total to blind you to facts. Of course not. You chose not to mention that because of some other reason than ignorance.
Second, the president may go to beautiful locations, but he's always on as president, so the office of the president moves with him. Pretending that Obama spent $100 million of taxpayer money and was somehow lazy or uninterested in the job (which appears to be the subtext of your remark) is again, ignorant of the facts.
Finally, $100 million to send the US head of state on various vacations is a rounding error in the budget and seems like a very reasonable sum over an 8 year period. Bush spent more than that, and 45 is on track to spend 20-30x that amount on non-White House security+travel, so lets not get too bent out of shape for Obama's travel.42w
- On the banks in 2008, I know more than a little about it. My education is graduate level economics, and I participated in a bunch of the analysis of west coast financial institutions as a consultant for Cato. Your characterization is laughably simplistic. Even if some of those banks eventually failed, the bailout bought time and restored confidence in a financial system that appeared to be completely unmoored.
However, I can already tell from your comments on other topics that actually informing you about the rationale, the alternatives available, and (though I preferred a bailout of individuals and not banks) that ultimately the Bush/Obama bailout was not a mistake.
If we hadn't acted, the confidence crisis that was happening was growing into complete collapse. For all that I hate the blowback we're getting from neocon foreign policy and how Bush let Cheney and Rove run far too much of US policy, Bush did good enough on the banks to avert disaster, and Obama carried Bush's actions across the finish line, which was critical to maintaining the very weak confidence being rebuilt.42w
- So Enki, tell me how this bailout to failing banks, with many going bankrupt anyway, was supposed to have restored the confidence of the American people? You can use all the fancy words you want to, but it all boils down to common sense. Apparently Mr Obama did not do his homework before implementing this bailout. It was bound to fail from the start. All presidents will spend millions on flying here and there to meet with heads of countries or attend necessary meetings. But not all of them will bring not only their own family but 20 of their friends and extended family with them. Remember, that means more security, more high priced luxurious accommodations, more fancy meals in overpriced restaurants. I, and most Americans are not at all opposed to vacations for presidents and their families. In fact, I'm in full support of that. But with all that needs fixing in this country, do you really think Obama was justified in taking multiply vacations (not the same as work related travel)....to exotic places, often when there was a crisis somewhere that needed his attention!42w
- Owen Iverson In the first place, there are people who buy expensive jewelry, just as there are those who buy expensive shoes, purses, etc...If you don't want to buy a 10,000.00 bracelet then don't! It's called free enterprise. I'm sure she also has other items available for a more modest price. And I'm sure there are some who would buy expensive jewelry if they could afford it. Some don't care one way or another. But that's your choice. She has as much right to sell a quality product as anyone else does. This is still America. Liberals have totally lost sight of that fact!42w