No living President, Secretary of State or FED Chairman endorse Trump

[jc456]

So you don't know what the difference is. Comparative advantage when comparing economies refers to natural advantages such as agricultural land or mineral resources or even location, but competitive advantage includes all of that but also other things such as the quality of the work force or efficiency of operations or the manipulation of the currency to keep export prices low government subsidies, and government regulations, etc.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Competitive advantage is a microeconomic concept, usually referring to price competition when one company is able to produce a product cheaper than another because of greater efficiency of operation or technological innovation. It can also apply to nations if one nation's work force is superior to another's or it has superior technology or if its government devalues its currency to make its exports cheaper or subsidizes businesses to produce there.

In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.

I spoke of competitive advantage, but either through ignorance of dishonesty Icebergslim pretended I had said comparative advantage.

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Can you name these "left wing economists"?


In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.


Good L*rd! Is there an "off" button on this gasbag?

You discuss economics like a literature major.

He's a certified financial salesman. He takes certification exams where he memorizes definitions. He doesn't really understand them, he just quotes on the exams what he memorized. That's why he didn't understand comparative advantage. He didn't realize how many types of comparative advantages there are from the definition he memorized.

All he does is sell loaded mutual funds, it's not impressive

how many candidates has Trump defeated already? got that number do ya now?

16 in the primaries, no one in an actual election. Point?

how many has Hitlery beaten?

 

[Redfish]

Correct me if I am wrong but no living President, Secretary of State or FED Chairman endorses Trump..

These are the people who know what the job on President is about and not one of them said Trump can do it...

Sorry this looks like evidence and we know how the Trump side just hates facts and evidence....

Won't matter anyway, he and Clinton are both one term presidents who will do nothing more then hold the place for the next guy. As long as trump don't nuke anyone, or Hillary doesn't get anymore people killed or die her self all will be as it was for the last 12 years.

What makes you think she would be a bad president.... She was a very popular and successful Senator and SOS....

She is liked on both side of the aisles, she has the ability to actually get things done... Republicans often praise her as a person you can do a deal with.

only in the parallel universe where you libtardians reside. She is the most hated person in DC, and the most dishonest, and in DC that is saying a lot.

 

[kaz]

Left wing economists have long argued that because of its vast land area and wealth of natural resources by the principle of comparative advantage the US should have developed into an agricultural and mining economy instead of the industrial powerhouse it became.

Can you name these "left wing economists"?


In other words, comparative advantages are created by nature and competitive advantages are created by governments.


Good L*rd! Is there an "off" button on this gasbag?

You discuss economics like a literature major.

He's a certified financial salesman. He takes certification exams where he memorizes definitions. He doesn't really understand them, he just quotes on the exams what he memorized. That's why he didn't understand comparative advantage. He didn't realize how many types of comparative advantages there are from the definition he memorized.

All he does is sell loaded mutual funds, it's not impressive

how many candidates has Trump defeated already? got that number do ya now?

16 in the primaries, no one in an actual election. Point?

how many has Hitlery beaten?

What is the relevance of this?

 

[jc456]

You discuss economics like a literature major.

He's a certified financial salesman. He takes certification exams where he memorizes definitions. He doesn't really understand them, he just quotes on the exams what he memorized. That's why he didn't understand comparative advantage. He didn't realize how many types of comparative advantages there are from the definition he memorized.

All he does is sell loaded mutual funds, it's not impressive

how many candidates has Trump defeated already? got that number do ya now?

16 in the primaries, no one in an actual election. Point?

how many has Hitlery beaten?

What is the relevance of this?

the point my man is to prove your statement he's a certified financial salesman as a useless statement. So you wish to compare successes, post your candidates and I'll post mine, but to make a generalization that a Trump is a salesman and he defeated 16 contenders and hitlery one, is like talking like a fool you are. BTW, folks with much better credentials than ole Hitlery. so?

 

[Dana7360]

i'm never going to say that this president was a great president. but we've had far worse and congress didn't obstruct them from the day they were inaugurated. i'm not sure how you lead under those circumstances.

First two years of his presidency he had a congress that was controlled by his party, and he still couldn't get things done.

The ironic thing is, for years Democrats said, "If Republicans were more like John McCain, we could actually support them", and the minute the GOP nominated the actual John McCain, Democrats rejected him for the pinup boy. So now you act all surprised when the GOP goes nuts and nominates a Nazi who promises to crack some heads?

democrats need to start building their back bench. they need to put democrats in statehouse jobs, and local jobs and start developing the depth that the GOP has. what republicans can't have is all three branches of government. clearly they can't even be trusted with two. it is irksome when democrats get one million more votes in House races than the GOP and the GOP still usurps the House because of gerrymandering. that too needs to be changed and that will come from the courts at some point.

depth didn't help the GOP this time. They had lots of qualified candidates and they nominated Trump anyway. Meanwhile, the Democrats came way too close to nominating Comrade Bernie.

What should happen is both parties need to realize, "Hey, the people elected us to get some work done, let's get some work done". If Trump is winning, it's because he's created the illusion of someone who can get shit done.

Have no illusions... if Hillary wins, she's a one-term president who will have a 30% approval rating. And that assumes that we don't have a recession, which we probably will. The democrats will get slaughtered in the 2018 midterms and the GOP will be in a great position in 2020. Heck, I might even vote for them if they nominate someone who isn't batshit crazy.

I'm so sorry. You're mistaken.

The House was controlled by democrats those first two years.

The senate wasn't. The republicans refused to relinquish control by use of the filibuster.

If you remember in 2008, the democrats technically had those 60 seats for a short time. The problem was that the senators weren't in their seats.

Al Franken would have been the 60th person but he wasn't sworn in to take his seat until July 2009. Which meant only 59 seats were filled with democrats.

By the time that Al Franken was sworn in two democratic senators were dying.

Robert Byrd and Teddy Kennedy had those seats but they weren't in them to cast their votes. So the democrats had 58 votes.

Both died. The man who replaced Teddy Kennedy was a republican so that lost the 60 seats.

The democrats never, once had the 60 votes to overcome the republican non stop filibuster.

Wrong. Obamacare was voted in 60-39 with all 60 votes being Democrats and the two independents who caucused with the Democrats. All 39 votes were Republican.

You're just wrong, Holmes

No I'm not wrong.

Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy got out of their death beds to go to the senate to cast their votes for the ACA.

Ted Kennedy worked to get health care for Americans most of his life and there was no way he was going to miss that vote. Plus none of the republicans would vote on it so Byrd and Kennedy had to go to the senate to cast their votes. Which I find terrible. If the republicans had not been total jerks and used the filibuster, Kennedy and Byrd wouldn't have had to go to cast their votes. A simple majority vote would have done it but the republicans destroyed democracy in the senate so they could keep control of the senate. If they had not been such babies and not filibustered every single piece of legislation including the ACA, more legislation would have been passed and those 2 dying senators wouldn't have had to go to the congress to cast their votes for the ACA.

The ACA was the only piece of legislation that those men left their death beds to cast a vote.

You republicans should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting people who forced those 2 men to leave their death beds to cast their vote.

So your lying and rationalization won't work with me. I, like so many other Americans, remember it. It happened not that long ago.

Well you're the Republican, Holmes. It was your party that failed to defeat Obamacare.

Given that not a single one of your Republican Party voted for Obamacare, how did Democrats get 60 votes if they never had a filibuster proof majority?

I don't know why you think you can type those lies and get away with it.

I've never been a republican in my life. I've never voted for a republican or conservative ever. I've voted Green, Independent, democratic and once when I was young and stupid, I even voted for a libertarian. But just the once, that's the closest I've ever come to voting for a conservative and I'll be the first to say it was a stupid vote.

I've been a registered Independent since I first registered to vote in 1978. I've voted in every single election since 1978. People gave their lives so that I have that right to vote and I will never spit on their graves or their memory or their sacrifice by not voting.

I'm a liberal.

I have never supported republican economic or social policies.

You might want to think before you start typing your lies. Maybe you'll be able to come up with better and more believable lies if you take the time to think about it first.

But then, you're just not that bright.

 

[g5000]

Correct me if I am wrong but no living President, Secretary of State or FED Chairman endorses Trump..

These are the people who know what the job on President is about and not one of them said Trump can do it...

Sorry this looks like evidence and we know how the Trump side just hates facts and evidence....

They're all part of The Establishment, man. When the revolution comes, we're putting The Man up against the wall.

(takes drag from a joint)

These fascist pigs are going down. We're going to join hands with our comrades in Russia and it is going to be beautiful, man. Just beautiful.

(offers a daisy)

 

[kaz]

He's a certified financial salesman. He takes certification exams where he memorizes definitions. He doesn't really understand them, he just quotes on the exams what he memorized. That's why he didn't understand comparative advantage. He didn't realize how many types of comparative advantages there are from the definition he memorized.

All he does is sell loaded mutual funds, it's not impressive

how many candidates has Trump defeated already? got that number do ya now?

16 in the primaries, no one in an actual election. Point?

how many has Hitlery beaten?

What is the relevance of this?

the point my man is to prove your statement he's a certified financial salesman as a useless statement. So you wish to compare successes, post your candidates and I'll post mine, but to make a generalization that a Trump is a salesman and he defeated 16 contenders and hitlery one, is like talking like a fool you are. BTW, folks with much better credentials than ole Hitlery. so?

IcebergSlim is a financial salesman, I wasn't talking about Trump. I still don't see how your posts made sense though

 

[jc456]

how many candidates has Trump defeated already? got that number do ya now?

16 in the primaries, no one in an actual election. Point?

how many has Hitlery beaten?

What is the relevance of this?

the point my man is to prove your statement he's a certified financial salesman as a useless statement. So you wish to compare successes, post your candidates and I'll post mine, but to make a generalization that a Trump is a salesman and he defeated 16 contenders and hitlery one, is like talking like a fool you are. BTW, folks with much better credentials than ole Hitlery. so?

IcebergSlim is a financial salesman, I wasn't talking about Trump. I still don't see how your posts made sense though

ok

 

[kaz]

First two years of his presidency he had a congress that was controlled by his party, and he still couldn't get things done.

The ironic thing is, for years Democrats said, "If Republicans were more like John McCain, we could actually support them", and the minute the GOP nominated the actual John McCain, Democrats rejected him for the pinup boy. So now you act all surprised when the GOP goes nuts and nominates a Nazi who promises to crack some heads?

depth didn't help the GOP this time. They had lots of qualified candidates and they nominated Trump anyway. Meanwhile, the Democrats came way too close to nominating Comrade Bernie.

What should happen is both parties need to realize, "Hey, the people elected us to get some work done, let's get some work done". If Trump is winning, it's because he's created the illusion of someone who can get shit done.

Have no illusions... if Hillary wins, she's a one-term president who will have a 30% approval rating. And that assumes that we don't have a recession, which we probably will. The democrats will get slaughtered in the 2018 midterms and the GOP will be in a great position in 2020. Heck, I might even vote for them if they nominate someone who isn't batshit crazy.

I'm so sorry. You're mistaken.

The House was controlled by democrats those first two years.

The senate wasn't. The republicans refused to relinquish control by use of the filibuster.

If you remember in 2008, the democrats technically had those 60 seats for a short time. The problem was that the senators weren't in their seats.

Al Franken would have been the 60th person but he wasn't sworn in to take his seat until July 2009. Which meant only 59 seats were filled with democrats.

By the time that Al Franken was sworn in two democratic senators were dying.

Robert Byrd and Teddy Kennedy had those seats but they weren't in them to cast their votes. So the democrats had 58 votes.

Both died. The man who replaced Teddy Kennedy was a republican so that lost the 60 seats.

The democrats never, once had the 60 votes to overcome the republican non stop filibuster.

Wrong. Obamacare was voted in 60-39 with all 60 votes being Democrats and the two independents who caucused with the Democrats. All 39 votes were Republican.

You're just wrong, Holmes

No I'm not wrong.

Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy got out of their death beds to go to the senate to cast their votes for the ACA.

Ted Kennedy worked to get health care for Americans most of his life and there was no way he was going to miss that vote. Plus none of the republicans would vote on it so Byrd and Kennedy had to go to the senate to cast their votes. Which I find terrible. If the republicans had not been total jerks and used the filibuster, Kennedy and Byrd wouldn't have had to go to cast their votes. A simple majority vote would have done it but the republicans destroyed democracy in the senate so they could keep control of the senate. If they had not been such babies and not filibustered every single piece of legislation including the ACA, more legislation would have been passed and those 2 dying senators wouldn't have had to go to the congress to cast their votes for the ACA.

The ACA was the only piece of legislation that those men left their death beds to cast a vote.

You republicans should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting people who forced those 2 men to leave their death beds to cast their vote.

So your lying and rationalization won't work with me. I, like so many other Americans, remember it. It happened not that long ago.

Well you're the Republican, Holmes. It was your party that failed to defeat Obamacare.

Given that not a single one of your Republican Party voted for Obamacare, how did Democrats get 60 votes if they never had a filibuster proof majority?

I don't know why you think you can type those lies and get away with it.

I've never been a republican in my life. I've never voted for a republican or conservative ever. I've voted Green, Independent, democratic and once when I was young and stupid, I even voted for a libertarian. But just the once, that's the closest I've ever come to voting for a conservative and I'll be the first to say it was a stupid vote.

I've been a registered Independent since I first registered to vote in 1978. I've voted in every single election since 1978. People gave their lives so that I have that right to vote and I will never spit on their graves or their memory or their sacrifice by not voting.

I'm a liberal.

I have never supported republican economic or social policies.

You might want to think before you start typing your lies. Maybe you'll be able to come up with better and more believable lies if you take the time to think about it first.

But then, you're just not that bright.

Dana - You're a Republican
Kaz - You're a Republican
Dana - What I'm not a Republican, you're not that bright

The facts seem to indicate the reverse, dumb ass. You know I'm not a Republican. You've been reading my posts for years. How did you possibly not get that?

 

[kaz]

Indeed. My hope was that your pride in your self image as a reasonable person would lead you to be less insulting and more engaging

I started insulting you when you made clear you weren't processing a single thing that I said and just kept repeating the same points to me.

I've told you that several times, yet you say this. The irony that again you proved I was right, you're not reading my posts

 

[jc456]

Indeed. My hope was that your pride in your self image as a reasonable person would lead you to be less insulting and more engaging

I started insulting you when you made clear you weren't processing a single thing that I said and just kept repeating the same points to me.

I've told you that several times, yet you say this. The irony that again you proved I was right, you're not reading my posts

you right?

 

[kaz]

Indeed. My hope was that your pride in your self image as a reasonable person would lead you to be less insulting and more engaging

I started insulting you when you made clear you weren't processing a single thing that I said and just kept repeating the same points to me.

I've told you that several times, yet you say this. The irony that again you proved I was right, you're not reading my posts

you right?

So if someone's not a Trump supporter, they are wrong on every point on every subject. Got it

 

[jc456]

Indeed. My hope was that your pride in your self image as a reasonable person would lead you to be less insulting and more engaging

I started insulting you when you made clear you weren't processing a single thing that I said and just kept repeating the same points to me.

I've told you that several times, yet you say this. The irony that again you proved I was right, you're not reading my posts

you right?

So if someone's not a Trump supporter, they are wrong on every point on every subject. Got it

did I claim that? put up and argument you feel is correct and let's debate. you keep posting ad hominem, I can't debate that.

 

[JoeB131]

PA laws were designed to fight systemic discrimination, and actual harm. Not to figure out who's butt hurt is better than another's. That is where we are at right now, and it is stupid and divisive.

No, there's no question on that point. The Customer is always right. Problem solved. If you don't like your customers get out of that business.

You don't lose your civil rights automatically when you sell something, there has to be a compelling government interest. Using PA's against movie theaters and restaurants was part of a bigger struggle to create economic and political equality between blacks and whites after Jim Crow laws were made unconstitutional.

What Civil Right did Mr. and Mrs. Wifebeater lose when they were told they had to obey the law? Did they lose their right to go to church? Did they get deprived of their ability to express their opinion. Were they deprived of their day in court? This isn't a civil rights issue, this is a business law issue, and the business law was settled 50 years ago.

Considering gays are on average more affluent, and currently have more political power in most areas than blacks did back then, the two situations are not comparable.

Well, actually, they are. Again, I've known people who've been fired because they were gay... I've known people who were beaten up because they were gay. When that shit comes to an end, then maybe I'll take you all seriously on how butthurt the Wifebeater is that he can't bring his bigotry to the job.

 

[JoeB131]

**** you, you race baiting asshole.

Not my fault you think that your life will be happier if they beat up on some brown people.

You will still be a redneck loser, Cleetus.

 

[jc456]

PA laws were designed to fight systemic discrimination, and actual harm. Not to figure out who's butt hurt is better than another's. That is where we are at right now, and it is stupid and divisive.

No, there's no question on that point. The Customer is always right. Problem solved. If you don't like your customers get out of that business.

You don't lose your civil rights automatically when you sell something, there has to be a compelling government interest. Using PA's against movie theaters and restaurants was part of a bigger struggle to create economic and political equality between blacks and whites after Jim Crow laws were made unconstitutional.

What Civil Right did Mr. and Mrs. Wifebeater lose when they were told they had to obey the law? Did they lose their right to go to church? Did they get deprived of their ability to express their opinion. Were they deprived of their day in court? This isn't a civil rights issue, this is a business law issue, and the business law was settled 50 years ago.

Considering gays are on average more affluent, and currently have more political power in most areas than blacks did back then, the two situations are not comparable.

Well, actually, they are. Again, I've known people who've been fired because they were gay... I've known people who were beaten up because they were gay. When that shit comes to an end, then maybe I'll take you all seriously on how butthurt the Wifebeater is that he can't bring his bigotry to the job.

no shoes, no shirt, no service. I think you're wrong.

 

[jc456]

**** you, you race baiting asshole.

Not my fault you think that your life will be happier if they beat up on some brown people.

You will still be a redneck loser, Cleetus.

seems it is you with the race issue.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws were designed to fight systemic discrimination, and actual harm. Not to figure out who's butt hurt is better than another's. That is where we are at right now, and it is stupid and divisive.

No, there's no question on that point. The Customer is always right. Problem solved. If you don't like your customers get out of that business.

You don't lose your civil rights automatically when you sell something, there has to be a compelling government interest. Using PA's against movie theaters and restaurants was part of a bigger struggle to create economic and political equality between blacks and whites after Jim Crow laws were made unconstitutional.

What Civil Right did Mr. and Mrs. Wifebeater lose when they were told they had to obey the law? Did they lose their right to go to church? Did they get deprived of their ability to express their opinion. Were they deprived of their day in court? This isn't a civil rights issue, this is a business law issue, and the business law was settled 50 years ago.

Considering gays are on average more affluent, and currently have more political power in most areas than blacks did back then, the two situations are not comparable.

Well, actually, they are. Again, I've known people who've been fired because they were gay... I've known people who were beaten up because they were gay. When that shit comes to an end, then maybe I'll take you all seriously on how butthurt the Wifebeater is that he can't bring his bigotry to the job.

So a person who hires an Engineer to determine if a load bearing wall is load bearing is right if he ignores the engineer's advice?

They lost the free exercise of their religion, over nothing more than hurt feelings. and again you lie about the wifebeating thing.

I've been beaten up because I was nerdy in School, should I now want to **** over all the bullies from back then?

 

[Dana7360]

I'm so sorry. You're mistaken.

The House was controlled by democrats those first two years.

The senate wasn't. The republicans refused to relinquish control by use of the filibuster.

If you remember in 2008, the democrats technically had those 60 seats for a short time. The problem was that the senators weren't in their seats.

Al Franken would have been the 60th person but he wasn't sworn in to take his seat until July 2009. Which meant only 59 seats were filled with democrats.

By the time that Al Franken was sworn in two democratic senators were dying.

Robert Byrd and Teddy Kennedy had those seats but they weren't in them to cast their votes. So the democrats had 58 votes.

Both died. The man who replaced Teddy Kennedy was a republican so that lost the 60 seats.

The democrats never, once had the 60 votes to overcome the republican non stop filibuster.

Wrong. Obamacare was voted in 60-39 with all 60 votes being Democrats and the two independents who caucused with the Democrats. All 39 votes were Republican.

You're just wrong, Holmes

No I'm not wrong.

Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy got out of their death beds to go to the senate to cast their votes for the ACA.

Ted Kennedy worked to get health care for Americans most of his life and there was no way he was going to miss that vote. Plus none of the republicans would vote on it so Byrd and Kennedy had to go to the senate to cast their votes. Which I find terrible. If the republicans had not been total jerks and used the filibuster, Kennedy and Byrd wouldn't have had to go to cast their votes. A simple majority vote would have done it but the republicans destroyed democracy in the senate so they could keep control of the senate. If they had not been such babies and not filibustered every single piece of legislation including the ACA, more legislation would have been passed and those 2 dying senators wouldn't have had to go to the congress to cast their votes for the ACA.

The ACA was the only piece of legislation that those men left their death beds to cast a vote.

You republicans should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting people who forced those 2 men to leave their death beds to cast their vote.

So your lying and rationalization won't work with me. I, like so many other Americans, remember it. It happened not that long ago.

Well you're the Republican, Holmes. It was your party that failed to defeat Obamacare.

Given that not a single one of your Republican Party voted for Obamacare, how did Democrats get 60 votes if they never had a filibuster proof majority?

I don't know why you think you can type those lies and get away with it.

I've never been a republican in my life. I've never voted for a republican or conservative ever. I've voted Green, Independent, democratic and once when I was young and stupid, I even voted for a libertarian. But just the once, that's the closest I've ever come to voting for a conservative and I'll be the first to say it was a stupid vote.

I've been a registered Independent since I first registered to vote in 1978. I've voted in every single election since 1978. People gave their lives so that I have that right to vote and I will never spit on their graves or their memory or their sacrifice by not voting.

I'm a liberal.

I have never supported republican economic or social policies.

You might want to think before you start typing your lies. Maybe you'll be able to come up with better and more believable lies if you take the time to think about it first.

But then, you're just not that bright.

Dana - You're a Republican
Kaz - You're a Republican
Dana - What I'm not a Republican, you're not that bright

The facts seem to indicate the reverse, dumb ass. You know I'm not a Republican. You've been reading my posts for years. How did you possibly not get that?

I have never been a republican in my life.

I used the wrong word on you when I said you republicans. I should have used either you conservatives or you bat crap crazy people.

Either way, the republican party forced those men out of their death beds to cast those very important votes if the republicans had not destroyed democracy in our senate, they wouldn't have had to leave their death beds to break that childish republican filibuster on that very important legislation.

The fact is, the democrats had the majority in the senate but because the childish republicans refused to relinquish their control by use of the non stop filibuster, the democrats never had 60 democratic votes to break that unending filibuster.

You can lie to yourself all you want but you're only fooling yourself. Anyone who actually knows the facts is laughing at you. Like I am.

However I'm had enough laughing at stupid people like you for today. Don't bother replying. I won't read it. I usually scroll right past your posts and will do so even if I see that it's a reply to me.

Have a nice time arguing with yourself.

 

[JoeB131]

So a person who hires an Engineer to determine if a load bearing wall is load bearing is right if he ignores the engineer's advice?

Well, no, an Engineer's position would be based on facts. As opposed to Mr. Wifebeater who thinks that a magic fairy in the sky doesn't like the *****-licking.

They lost the free exercise of their religion, over nothing more than hurt feelings. and again you lie about the wifebeating thing.

Again, I suspect there were a whole bunch of people who broke Biblical rules this guy had no problem serving. This guy is using religion to excuse his homophobia.

I've been beaten up because I was nerdy in School, should I now want to **** over all the bullies from back then?

Absofuckinglutely. In fact, there is nothing sweeter than settling old scores!!!!