quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "The TPP has already been mentioned"

How, specifically, would a treaty like TPP reduce CO2 emissions?

---

Beats me. You chose to post opposition to the TPP via a link that said the TPP might increase global warming.

---

And I said at the time that was not my reason for opposing TPP. I don't believe TPP would do a damn thing to stop climate change, so since you brought it up as a way to stop climate change, it's still in your court to say how it does that.

---

Wrong. You cut this part out when you quoted me, but it shows you got my stance exactly backward.

Here's my quote: "Personally, I'm willing to trade a small increase in global warming for the economic benefits of decreased union influence, increased corporate influence (since they are the ones with skin in the game, especially as to IP) and no stifling regulations to protect unions and the environment. Leave those to sovereign nations."

So which of the 6 liberal points in your Roosevelt Institute link were you relying on to oppose the TPP?

---

Sounds like you are admitting the TPP won't help the environment.

---

I don't know or care if it will or won't. I didn't bring the environment into this thread, you did when linked that liberal anti-trade website. Shoulda read before pasting...

---

Are you that dense, or just that bitter? I brought up TPP in a trade discussion to point out that even liberals had problems with it, and because I read more widely than you seem to believe I do. That in no way means, nor did I say or imply, that I wholly agreed with the paper's conclusions. My statements all along have been consistent on the dubious quality of activists' claims and the true nature of the issue, but you were busy looking to argue rather than learn anything.

It's blindingly apparent that you don't even have a decent guess about what would really lessen the effects of climate change you obsess on so much, which is consistent with your own habit of flinging things without looking to see what they were first. You have told everyone here much about your thinking style and the character of your argument.

---

What is your real reason for opposing the TPP?

---

Why indeed.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "The TPP has already been mentioned"

How, specifically, would a treaty like TPP reduce CO2 emissions?

---

Beats me. You chose to post opposition to the TPP via a link that said the TPP might increase global warming.

---

And I said at the time that was not my reason for opposing TPP. I don't believe TPP would do a damn thing to stop climate change, so since you brought it up as a way to stop climate change, it's still in your court to say how it does that.

---

Wrong. You cut this part out when you quoted me, but it shows you got my stance exactly backward.

Here's my quote: "Personally, I'm willing to trade a small increase in global warming for the economic benefits of decreased union influence, increased corporate influence (since they are the ones with skin in the game, especially as to IP) and no stifling regulations to protect unions and the environment. Leave those to sovereign nations."

So which of the 6 liberal points in your Roosevelt Institute link were you relying on to oppose the TPP?

---

Sounds like you are admitting the TPP won't help the environment.

---

I don't know or care if it will or won't. I didn't bring the environment into this thread, you did when linked that liberal anti-trade website. Shoulda read before pasting...

---

Are you that dense, or just that bitter? I brought up TPP in a trade discussion to point out that even liberals had problems with it, and because I read more widely than you seem to believe I do. That in no way means, nor did I say or imply, that I wholly agreed with the paper's conclusions. My statements all along have been consistent on the dubious quality of activists' claims and the true nature of the issue, but you were busy looking to argue rather than learn anything.

It's blindingly apparent that you don't even have a decent guess about what would really lessen the effects of climate change you obsess on so much, which is consistent with your own habit of flinging things without looking to see what they were first. You have told everyone here much about your thinking style and the character of your argument.

---

Dude. I asked you which of the six liberal points you were standing behind and only now have you decided that you posted it to show liberal opposition to TPP. Big whoop. So I guess we still don't know why you oppose the TPP.

As to my solution to global warming I posted it on tbe aporopriate thread, triggering you into a rant about not putting it into my own words, For the tenth time...

So.

What is your real reason for opposing the TPP?

---

I posted it earlier, but I'll wait until you give an answer here for how you plan to control climate.

I asked first, after all.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "The TPP has already been mentioned"

How, specifically, would a treaty like TPP reduce CO2 emissions?

---

Beats me. You chose to post opposition to the TPP via a link that said the TPP might increase global warming.

---

And I said at the time that was not my reason for opposing TPP. I don't believe TPP would do a damn thing to stop climate change, so since you brought it up as a way to stop climate change, it's still in your court to say how it does that.

---

Wrong. You cut this part out when you quoted me, but it shows you got my stance exactly backward.

Here's my quote: "Personally, I'm willing to trade a small increase in global warming for the economic benefits of decreased union influence, increased corporate influence (since they are the ones with skin in the game, especially as to IP) and no stifling regulations to protect unions and the environment. Leave those to sovereign nations."

So which of the 6 liberal points in your Roosevelt Institute link were you relying on to oppose the TPP?

---

Sounds like you are admitting the TPP won't help the environment.

---

I don't know or care if it will or won't. I didn't bring the environment into this thread, you did when linked that liberal anti-trade website. Shoulda read before pasting...

---

Are you that dense, or just that bitter? I brought up TPP in a trade discussion to point out that even liberals had problems with it, and because I read more widely than you seem to believe I do. That in no way means, nor did I say or imply, that I wholly agreed with the paper's conclusions. My statements all along have been consistent on the dubious quality of activists' claims and the true nature of the issue, but you were busy looking to argue rather than learn anything.

It's blindingly apparent that you don't even have a decent guess about what would really lessen the effects of climate change you obsess on so much, which is consistent with your own habit of flinging things without looking to see what they were first. You have told everyone here much about your thinking style and the character of your argument.

---

Dude. I asked you which of the six liberal points you were standing behind and only now have you decided that you posted it to show liberal opposition to TPP. Big whoop. So I guess we still don't know why you oppose the TPP.

As to my solution to global warming I posted it on tbe aporopriate thread, triggering you into a rant about not putting it into my own words, For the tenth time...

So.

What is your real reason for opposing the TPP?

---

I posted it earlier, but I'll wait until you give an answer here for how you plan to control climate.

I asked first, after all.

---

If you want to stand by protecting unions more power to ya.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "The TPP has already been mentioned"

How, specifically, would a treaty like TPP reduce CO2 emissions?

---

Beats me. You chose to post opposition to the TPP via a link that said the TPP might increase global warming.

---

And I said at the time that was not my reason for opposing TPP. I don't believe TPP would do a damn thing to stop climate change, so since you brought it up as a way to stop climate change, it's still in your court to say how it does that.

---

Wrong. You cut this part out when you quoted me, but it shows you got my stance exactly backward.

Here's my quote: "Personally, I'm willing to trade a small increase in global warming for the economic benefits of decreased union influence, increased corporate influence (since they are the ones with skin in the game, especially as to IP) and no stifling regulations to protect unions and the environment. Leave those to sovereign nations."

So which of the 6 liberal points in your Roosevelt Institute link were you relying on to oppose the TPP?

---

Sounds like you are admitting the TPP won't help the environment.

---

I don't know or care if it will or won't. I didn't bring the environment into this thread, you did when linked that liberal anti-trade website. Shoulda read before pasting...

---

Are you that dense, or just that bitter? I brought up TPP in a trade discussion to point out that even liberals had problems with it, and because I read more widely than you seem to believe I do. That in no way means, nor did I say or imply, that I wholly agreed with the paper's conclusions. My statements all along have been consistent on the dubious quality of activists' claims and the true nature of the issue, but you were busy looking to argue rather than learn anything.

It's blindingly apparent that you don't even have a decent guess about what would really lessen the effects of climate change you obsess on so much, which is consistent with your own habit of flinging things without looking to see what they were first. You have told everyone here much about your thinking style and the character of your argument.

---

Dude. I asked you which of the six liberal points you were standing behind and only now have you decided that you posted it to show liberal opposition to TPP. Big whoop. So I guess we still don't know why you oppose the TPP.

As to my solution to global warming I posted it on tbe aporopriate thread, triggering you into a rant about not putting it into my own words, For the tenth time...

So.

What is your real reason for opposing the TPP?

---

I posted it earlier, but I'll wait until you give an answer here for how you plan to control climate.

I asked first, after all.

---

If you want to stand by protecting unions more power to ya.

---

So, you still got nothin'.

OK then.

As for unions, depends on which one, some do good work, some were/are little more than fronts for criminals.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "The TPP has already been mentioned"

How, specifically, would a treaty like TPP reduce CO2 emissions?

---

Beats me. You chose to post opposition to the TPP via a link that said the TPP might increase global warming.

---

And I said at the time that was not my reason for opposing TPP. I don't believe TPP would do a damn thing to stop climate change, so since you brought it up as a way to stop climate change, it's still in your court to say how it does that.

---

Wrong. You cut this part out when you quoted me, but it shows you got my stance exactly backward.

Here's my quote: "Personally, I'm willing to trade a small increase in global warming for the economic benefits of decreased union influence, increased corporate influence (since they are the ones with skin in the game, especially as to IP) and no stifling regulations to protect unions and the environment. Leave those to sovereign nations."

So which of the 6 liberal points in your Roosevelt Institute link were you relying on to oppose the TPP?

---

Sounds like you are admitting the TPP won't help the environment.

---

I don't know or care if it will or won't. I didn't bring the environment into this thread, you did when linked that liberal anti-trade website. Shoulda read before pasting...

---

Are you that dense, or just that bitter? I brought up TPP in a trade discussion to point out that even liberals had problems with it, and because I read more widely than you seem to believe I do. That in no way means, nor did I say or imply, that I wholly agreed with the paper's conclusions. My statements all along have been consistent on the dubious quality of activists' claims and the true nature of the issue, but you were busy looking to argue rather than learn anything.

It's blindingly apparent that you don't even have a decent guess about what would really lessen the effects of climate change you obsess on so much, which is consistent with your own habit of flinging things without looking to see what they were first. You have told everyone here much about your thinking style and the character of your argument.

---

Dude. I asked you which of the six liberal points you were standing behind and only now have you decided that you posted it to show liberal opposition to TPP. Big whoop. So I guess we still don't know why you oppose the TPP.

As to my solution to global warming I posted it on tbe aporopriate thread, triggering you into a rant about not putting it into my own words, For the tenth time...

So.

What is your real reason for opposing the TPP?

---

I posted it earlier, but I'll wait until you give an answer here for how you plan to control climate.

I asked first, after all.

---

If you want to stand by protecting unions more power to ya.

---

So, you still got nothin'.

OK then.

As for unions, depends on which one, some do good work, some were/are little more than fronts for criminals.

---

Sigh. Reinventing Fire. Click a link and, for once, read it.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "The TPP has already been mentioned"

How, specifically, would a treaty like TPP reduce CO2 emissions?

---

Beats me. You chose to post opposition to the TPP via a link that said the TPP might increase global warming.

---

And I said at the time that was not my reason for opposing TPP. I don't believe TPP would do a damn thing to stop climate change, so since you brought it up as a way to stop climate change, it's still in your court to say how it does that.

---

Wrong. You cut this part out when you quoted me, but it shows you got my stance exactly backward.

Here's my quote: "Personally, I'm willing to trade a small increase in global warming for the economic benefits of decreased union influence, increased corporate influence (since they are the ones with skin in the game, especially as to IP) and no stifling regulations to protect unions and the environment. Leave those to sovereign nations."

So which of the 6 liberal points in your Roosevelt Institute link were you relying on to oppose the TPP?

---

Sounds like you are admitting the TPP won't help the environment.

---

I don't know or care if it will or won't. I didn't bring the environment into this thread, you did when linked that liberal anti-trade website. Shoulda read before pasting...

---

Are you that dense, or just that bitter? I brought up TPP in a trade discussion to point out that even liberals had problems with it, and because I read more widely than you seem to believe I do. That in no way means, nor did I say or imply, that I wholly agreed with the paper's conclusions. My statements all along have been consistent on the dubious quality of activists' claims and the true nature of the issue, but you were busy looking to argue rather than learn anything.

It's blindingly apparent that you don't even have a decent guess about what would really lessen the effects of climate change you obsess on so much, which is consistent with your own habit of flinging things without looking to see what they were first. You have told everyone here much about your thinking style and the character of your argument.

---

Dude. I asked you which of the six liberal points you were standing behind and only now have you decided that you posted it to show liberal opposition to TPP. Big whoop. So I guess we still don't know why you oppose the TPP.

As to my solution to global warming I posted it on tbe aporopriate thread, triggering you into a rant about not putting it into my own words, For the tenth time...

So.

What is your real reason for opposing the TPP?

---

I posted it earlier, but I'll wait until you give an answer here for how you plan to control climate.

I asked first, after all.

---

If you want to stand by protecting unions more power to ya.

---

So, you still got nothin'.

OK then.

As for unions, depends on which one, some do good work, some were/are little more than fronts for criminals.

---

Sigh. Reinventing Fire. Click a link and, for once, read it.

---

For once, explain your own opinion clearly.

Anyone can post links, but you leave them, run away and hide, then ignore efforts to discuss the topic.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "The TPP has already been mentioned"

How, specifically, would a treaty like TPP reduce CO2 emissions?

---

Beats me. You chose to post opposition to the TPP via a link that said the TPP might increase global warming.

---

And I said at the time that was not my reason for opposing TPP. I don't believe TPP would do a damn thing to stop climate change, so since you brought it up as a way to stop climate change, it's still in your court to say how it does that.

---

Wrong. You cut this part out when you quoted me, but it shows you got my stance exactly backward.

Here's my quote: "Personally, I'm willing to trade a small increase in global warming for the economic benefits of decreased union influence, increased corporate influence (since they are the ones with skin in the game, especially as to IP) and no stifling regulations to protect unions and the environment. Leave those to sovereign nations."

So which of the 6 liberal points in your Roosevelt Institute link were you relying on to oppose the TPP?

---

Sounds like you are admitting the TPP won't help the environment.

---

I don't know or care if it will or won't. I didn't bring the environment into this thread, you did when linked that liberal anti-trade website. Shoulda read before pasting...

---

Are you that dense, or just that bitter? I brought up TPP in a trade discussion to point out that even liberals had problems with it, and because I read more widely than you seem to believe I do. That in no way means, nor did I say or imply, that I wholly agreed with the paper's conclusions. My statements all along have been consistent on the dubious quality of activists' claims and the true nature of the issue, but you were busy looking to argue rather than learn anything.

It's blindingly apparent that you don't even have a decent guess about what would really lessen the effects of climate change you obsess on so much, which is consistent with your own habit of flinging things without looking to see what they were first. You have told everyone here much about your thinking style and the character of your argument.

---

Dude. I asked you which of the six liberal points you were standing behind and only now have you decided that you posted it to show liberal opposition to TPP. Big whoop. So I guess we still don't know why you oppose the TPP.

As to my solution to global warming I posted it on tbe aporopriate thread, triggering you into a rant about not putting it into my own words, For the tenth time...

So.

What is your real reason for opposing the TPP?

---

I posted it earlier, but I'll wait until you give an answer here for how you plan to control climate.

I asked first, after all.

---

If you want to stand by protecting unions more power to ya.

---

So, you still got nothin'.

OK then.

As for unions, depends on which one, some do good work, some were/are little more than fronts for criminals.

---

Sigh. Reinventing Fire. Click a link and, for once, read it.

---

For once, explain your own opinion clearly.

Anyone can post links, but you leave them, run away and hide, then ignore efforts to discuss the topic.

---

Last time: I believe we can mitigate the effects of global warming with no new laws. No new tech (although we will benefit from it). Purely private, no Green New Deal. And grow the economy at the same time.

If you really wanted to discuss this you'd go read the link to the summaries of Reinventing Fire.

And I have never run from this opinion, I have posted it many, many times. You are boring our readers.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash: "The TPP has already been mentioned"

How, specifically, would a treaty like TPP reduce CO2 emissions?

---

Beats me. You chose to post opposition to the TPP via a link that said the TPP might increase global warming.

---

And I said at the time that was not my reason for opposing TPP. I don't believe TPP would do a damn thing to stop climate change, so since you brought it up as a way to stop climate change, it's still in your court to say how it does that.

---

Wrong. You cut this part out when you quoted me, but it shows you got my stance exactly backward.

Here's my quote: "Personally, I'm willing to trade a small increase in global warming for the economic benefits of decreased union influence, increased corporate influence (since they are the ones with skin in the game, especially as to IP) and no stifling regulations to protect unions and the environment. Leave those to sovereign nations."

So which of the 6 liberal points in your Roosevelt Institute link were you relying on to oppose the TPP?

---

Sounds like you are admitting the TPP won't help the environment.

---

I don't know or care if it will or won't. I didn't bring the environment into this thread, you did when linked that liberal anti-trade website. Shoulda read before pasting...

---

Are you that dense, or just that bitter? I brought up TPP in a trade discussion to point out that even liberals had problems with it, and because I read more widely than you seem to believe I do. That in no way means, nor did I say or imply, that I wholly agreed with the paper's conclusions. My statements all along have been consistent on the dubious quality of activists' claims and the true nature of the issue, but you were busy looking to argue rather than learn anything.

It's blindingly apparent that you don't even have a decent guess about what would really lessen the effects of climate change you obsess on so much, which is consistent with your own habit of flinging things without looking to see what they were first. You have told everyone here much about your thinking style and the character of your argument.

---

Dude. I asked you which of the six liberal points you were standing behind and only now have you decided that you posted it to show liberal opposition to TPP. Big whoop. So I guess we still don't know why you oppose the TPP.

As to my solution to global warming I posted it on tbe aporopriate thread, triggering you into a rant about not putting it into my own words, For the tenth time...

So.

What is your real reason for opposing the TPP?

---

I posted it earlier, but I'll wait until you give an answer here for how you plan to control climate.

I asked first, after all.

---

If you want to stand by protecting unions more power to ya.

---

So, you still got nothin'.

OK then.

As for unions, depends on which one, some do good work, some were/are little more than fronts for criminals.

---

Sigh. Reinventing Fire. Click a link and, for once, read it.

---

For once, explain your own opinion clearly.

Anyone can post links, but you leave them, run away and hide, then ignore efforts to discuss the topic.

---

Last time: I believe we can mitigate the effects of global warming with no new laws. No new tech (although we will benefit from it). Purely private, no Green New Deal. And grow the economy at the same time.

If you really wanted to discuss this you'd go read the link to the summaries of Reinventing Fire.

And I have never run from this opinion, I have posted it many, many times. You are boring our readers.

---

You never give details.

You work real hard to be vague. The best you can manages is a link to something else with a bland "read it", as if that demonstrates an actual attempt to explain your solutions.

I read the summaries. Amway copycats, it seems. Not one real explanation of how this is supposed to work.

You got nothing, and it's more and more obvious with each evasion.

But sure, your next post will be more wounded pride and deflection.

You're so much a Democrat, I oughta just call you Mini Beto.

Forbes lays the blame with the Fed, not the trade war.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/08/09/next-recession-all-on-fed-not-china-trade-war/#221f68577e31

"In fact, for the market, the pending recession has more to do with the Fed than the China trade war, now expected to go into high gear in September. Most pundits will blame the trade war, though even Fed chairman Jerome Powell said in his rate cutting speech to Congress two weeks ago that tariff stress is not yet showing up in the data."

quash said:

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/yield-curve-inversion-recession-indicator-flashes-starkest-warning-financial-crisis-2019-8

---

How many indicators or forecasting models or political 'experts' have been wrong about pretty much everything since 2016?

Who knows how long this continues but so far so good - in fact so far so GREAT.

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/yield-curve-inversion-recession-indicator-flashes-starkest-warning-financial-crisis-2019-8

---

How many indicators or forecasting models or political 'experts' have been wrong about pretty much everything since 2016?

Who knows how long this continues but so far so good - in fact so far so GREAT.

---

How's that 6% GDP coming?

Glad you are not in steel or soybeans.

Trump understands completely where his opponent's core weaknesses are. Although these disrupters continually mount a surprisingly adroit disinformation campaign using, a number of foreign and American globalist politicians ,business execs, opposition party tools, and the hopeless emotive types like q and t... Trump is rather conspicuously unmoved. And why is he unmoved?

The answer is simple: Trump's got this.

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/yield-curve-inversion-recession-indicator-flashes-starkest-warning-financial-crisis-2019-8

---

How many indicators or forecasting models or political 'experts' have been wrong about pretty much everything since 2016?

Who knows how long this continues but so far so good - in fact so far so GREAT.

---

How's that 6% GDP coming?

Glad you are not in steel or soybeans.

---

No sector is always going to perform well, it's just impossible. But, this post was more about the threads most of you all were posting months ago and earlier this year pissed off that the stock market was taking a slight dip. I couldn't find the specific thread and who started it but I think you see what I'm getting at.

It's my understanding China has released tariffs on Soybeans.

This thread was about democrats warning us, 5 months ago, that a recession was inevitable

Is anyone noticing a recession now?

I wonder how many things the lying, cheating and stealing democrat party has said about Trump that have never materialized?

Most anything they've ever said probably?

I'm including democrats here, and resident Libtard Liberaltarians!

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/yield-curve-inversion-recession-indicator-flashes-starkest-warning-financial-crisis-2019-8

---

How many indicators or forecasting models or political 'experts' have been wrong about pretty much everything since 2016?

Who knows how long this continues but so far so good - in fact so far so GREAT.

---

How's that 6% GDP coming?

Glad you are not in steel or soybeans.

---

^^^ Paid troll

Liberaltarian

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/yield-curve-inversion-recession-indicator-flashes-starkest-warning-financial-crisis-2019-8

---

How many indicators or forecasting models or political 'experts' have been wrong about pretty much everything since 2016?

Who knows how long this continues but so far so good - in fact so far so GREAT.

---

How's that 6% GDP coming?

Glad you are not in steel or soybeans.

---

No sector is always going to perform well, it's just impossible. But, this post was more about the threads most of you all were posting months ago and earlier this year pissed off that the stock market was taking a slight dip. I couldn't find the specific thread and who started it but I think you see what I'm getting at.

It's my understanding China has released tariffs on Soybeans.

---

Yes, many China tariffs will be lifted in January

That's why Trump put tariffs on China that 3/4 of this board was whining about!

Wake up people, Trump beat China, it just took time

Be patient

I think everyone would agree both parties need to get a handle on spending.

Best economy in half a century....yet Trump haters merely look for anything to complain about .

Human nature ....

Canada2017 said:

---

Best economy in half a century....yet Trump haters merely look for anything to complain about .

Human nature ....

---

I think majority realize it's the best economy in half century like you say

I think they're just out working and enjoying the economy and not spending time talking about it and just working and enjoying family

The anti-Trump whiners seem loud because of that. Whiners are just today's losers in this economy! Too bad for them

Florda_mike said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Best economy in half a century....yet Trump haters merely look for anything to complain about .

Human nature ....

---

I think majority realize it's the best economy in half century like you say

I think they're just out working and enjoying the economy and not spending time talking about it and just working and enjoying family

The anti-Trump whiners seem loud because of that. Whiners are just today's losers in this economy! Too bad for them

---

Fair enough.

Merry Christmas my friend .

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/yield-curve-inversion-recession-indicator-flashes-starkest-warning-financial-crisis-2019-8

---

How many indicators or forecasting models or political 'experts' have been wrong about pretty much everything since 2016?

Who knows how long this continues but so far so good - in fact so far so GREAT.

---

How's that 6% GDP coming?

Glad you are not in steel or soybeans.

---

No sector is always going to perform well, it's just impossible. But, this post was more about the threads most of you all were posting months ago and earlier this year pissed off that the stock market was taking a slight dip. I couldn't find the specific thread and who started it but I think you see what I'm getting at.

It's my understanding China has released tariffs on Soybeans.

---

Contrary to stovepipe et al, I never give the president credit or grief for the market or the economy, except when it is warranted. This was one of the few times.

We have full employment, a small tax break that gave us a brief wind at our backs, and Trump disrupts the market with tariffs. GDP should be well over 3%, but...

riflebear said:

---

I think everyone would agree both parties need to get a handle on spending.

---

Yes. Currently the handle is set on twice the increased revenue: 8% increase in spending. This is nuts. The only time we cut spending is when the president is a Democrat and the Congress is Republican. Bring back Bill and Newt.

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

quash said:

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/yield-curve-inversion-recession-indicator-flashes-starkest-warning-financial-crisis-2019-8

---

How many indicators or forecasting models or political 'experts' have been wrong about pretty much everything since 2016?

Who knows how long this continues but so far so good - in fact so far so GREAT.

---

How's that 6% GDP coming?

Glad you are not in steel or soybeans.

---

No sector is always going to perform well, it's just impossible. But, this post was more about the threads most of you all were posting months ago and earlier this year pissed off that the stock market was taking a slight dip. I couldn't find the specific thread and who started it but I think you see what I'm getting at.

It's my understanding China has released tariffs on Soybeans.

---

Contrary to stovepipe et al, I never give the president credit or grief for the market or the economy, except when it is warranted. This was one of the few times.

We have full employment, a small tax break that gave us a brief wind at our backs, and Trump disrupts the market with tariffs. GDP should be well over 3%, but...

---

Economics, long term, you know nothing of

riflebear said:

---

---

Some tariffs won't be implemented but the others stay.

IP promises, which have been made for 20 years.

And a partial resumption of ag purchases.

So, still worse than the status quo ante. Great.

Its working Dick head.,.

Economic idiocy post

"still worse than the status quo ante"

Nope.

corncob pipe said:

---

Its working Dick head.,.

---

How so? We are not even back to where we were before Trump displayed his first misunderstanding of how balance of trade works.

quash said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

Its working Dick head.,.

---

How so? We are not even back to where we were before Trump displayed his first misunderstanding of how balance of trade works.

---

Quash > Trump in business?

Can't get much funnier than that

And quash truly believes it too

Canada2017 said:

---

Best economy in half a century....yet Trump haters merely look for anything to complain about .

Human nature ....

---

We have to enjoy it while we can and position ones self for when the socialists take it down again.

quash said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

Its working Dick head.,.

---

How so? We are not even back to where we were before Trump displayed his first misunderstanding of how balance of trade works.

---

Permit me to doubt that claim.

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

Its working Dick head.,.

---

How so? We are not even back to where we were before Trump displayed his first misunderstanding of how balance of trade works.

---

Quash > Trump in business?

Can't get much funnier than that

And quash truly believes it too

---

Will just say they've declared BK less times than agent orange who only amassed a multi billion dollar empire and met worth because his dad gave him
Millions

Math is hard

Baylor3216 said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

Its working Dick head.,.

---

How so? We are not even back to where we were before Trump displayed his first misunderstanding of how balance of trade works.

---

Quash > Trump in business?

Can't get much funnier than that

And quash truly believes it too

---

Will just say they've declared BK less times than agent orange who only amassed a multi billion dollar empire and met worth because his dad gave him
Millions

Math is hard

---

Just goes to show, some folks can repeat a story they like far more often than they bother to find out the facts of the matter.

Makes me wonder how many of them understand the difference between personal bankruptcy and a business reorganization?

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

corncob pipe said:

---

Its working Dick head.,.

---

How so? We are not even back to where we were before Trump displayed his first misunderstanding of how balance of trade works.

---

Permit me to doubt that claim.

---

Feel free.

In support of my position:

https://www.cato.org/blog/few-details-us-china-phase-one-trade-deal?fbclid=IwAR0KrNMZ7b5UtDpetPGpRMhH0NXKaKytz_-Hk1z3Mcut3tFpkPNR0bPTZK8