Trump approval among women tanking: Trump approval among women hits lowest point in more than a year

Cheat? How? Be specific, so I can apologize when you prove yourself next Nov, or laugh at you, time will tell...

 

Thank you for telling me the standard party line on each president you used Democratic party terms to describe.

 

Also Republicans in elected positions should be concerned about it, because females are gonna vote them out!

 

Sleep, to take off on your replies, to wit:

1. No. He wasn't bad considering the horrible economic circumstances that already existed when he took office, but he was nevertheless an amateur.

Above is about Obama. Yes he definitely was an amateur and never lost that level of being a good president.

I know it was horrible. I also know that Bush really spent his last several months trying to cure the problems. So Obama inherited the fixes that Bush had already supplied to fix the economy.

2. No. "The C Student" got us into two wars that we'll still be paying for when our grandchildren are old enough to retire. He was nothing more than a puppet for the defense contracting industry, especially Dick Cheney. Ever notice that GW never spoke while Cheney was eating or drinking? (Yes, that's a joke.)f

You spent a lot more effort running down all the republicans than any of the Democrats. I am older than you yet do communicate with a woman in Florida who is 96 and she despised Clinton and also Obama, so not all women feel as you feel.

Bush laid out plans for two wars. Fortunately, he picked one fine General to come up with two plans. Plan A was for Afghanistan and Plan B for Iraq. Here is the guts of both plans. A was to pour in cash to the Afghans who wanted to get rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces and back them up with our own massive air attacks. CASH was the order of the day and that was cheaper than using our own Army invading forces. Bush approved both plans. When we provided massive air support, that was the key to whipping the Taliban and eliminating the Al Qaeda. Bush dropped by air massive supplies of food to please the rest of the non fighting Afghans. s

Plan B called for a variety of things. 1. Assemble a mass of troops from Kuwait and also Turkey. Turkey's parliament killed that part of the plan. So Gen. Franks simply added special forces coming in from Jordan. And he planned on massive speed and firepower. But he planned not to destroy Iraq's infrastructure. He took pains not to harm the oil fields, pipes, etc. And he went hard at Saddam and eliminated his homes habitability by air. Franks also made certain our ground troops had the latest electronic technology. Franks was able to track and watch all of his forces on computers. And he told his ground commanders to make use of the air power themselves. Franks did a brilliant job coordinating all of his forces and he tolerated no "this battle belongs to only me, nonsense". He got the military forces to work in harmony. This is the best all time use of our military.

Bush ordered them to spend only one year max in Iraq. Since he had used Afghani forces in Afghanistan, he actually did not expect our own forces would have to play a large role. But they did. But only after both the Taliban and Al Qaeda were whipped.

3. No. Reagonomics, aka "trickle down" economics, was an epic fail, which makes me wonder why conservatives are still trying to do the same crap, like Trump's tax cut for the rich which was supposed to stimulate the economy and generate more and better paying jobs.

Reagan's economics was perfect. Trickle down was not invented by Reagan. It was not what he did. Mainly his plan was to reduce taxes and amp up investing. The ACRS is his tool to ramp up investing to produce massive jobs. Democrats are never able to talk about ACRS sinde others persuaded them it was trickle down. Which is not true.
Trump made one error. He should have also used ACRS. ACRS is a super powerful tool. Better than tax cuts. ACRS forces more spending aka more jobs and more investing.

You keep forgetting that Reagan handed out cash to taxpayers as did Bush.

And also you forget the impact that 300 million have if they even have a few more dollars to spend. That is a huge sum of money. Far more than the Rich pay.

4. Mr. Smarmy as I call him was never formally charged with anything remotely like rape. Those tales are just as phony as the ones about Trump raping a 13 year old girl ... no proof. However, Clinton's greatness is in the fact that he's the only president in decades that left us with a budget surplus.

Clinton would have been charged with rape if the MeToo women were in action. When Clinton raped the girl in England, I blame England for that lack of justice.
When he raped Juanita Broaddrick, I blame Arkansas law for protecting it's then AG. Clinton was serving as the AG when he raped her. Rape is easier to prove now due to DNA in the rape kits. Clinton was plainly lucky he escaped justice. Clinton did not engineer any budget surplus. His blessing is the Dot.com boom. That caused more taxes to flow in and he had not planned for it. So crediting him is flying the false Clinton flag.

 

You didn't read my post. What you assume about what I assume isn't what I said. Go back and read my post again. Hint-majority doesn't equal all.

 

I’m on a mobile so your sig isn’t displayed.

If women actually earned less for the same job, then any business owner with 2 brain cells or more would hire women over men. Business logic trumps your emotional BS talking point.

 

Then why not hire women everywhere if you can pay them less?

What kind of an idiot businessman hires unnecessary overpaid (male) help?

 

Sounds like an excuse. You just select "Show Desktop Site" and you have everything. In any case, it says "*NB: It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments, and I suggest you do the same. Please refrain from responding if the only argument you can come up with is a Conspiracy Theory."

Hmmm who should I believe? Your "logic" or hundreds of scientific studies and data that prove that income inequality is a real problem....

 

What you believe is up to you. I stick with business logic, a place where your talking points cannot survive.

 

Let me explode just one little myth you posted. "Reagonomics" was a takeoff from the Laffer Curve invented by a UCLA economics professor Arthur Laffler. Laffler hypothesized that government revenue followed a predictable curve that showed if taxes were reduced, revenues to the government increased. He was a member of Reagan's economic council.

The problem is, the Laffer Curve isn't a straight line. It is, in fact a curve that shows if one is one the exact spot of the curve it can achieve its objective. Too low on the curve = reduced taxes massive deficits. Too high on the curve = higher taxes and massive deficits. Republicans, being their DNA goes that way, dropped taxes too far and deficits went through the roof. It was Reagan's baby so he rightly took the fall.

The Laffer curve hasn't improved, but Republicans use it anyway. Trump used it and deficits skyrocketed. Very predictable.

 

Read my sig. I don't "believe"... I research!

 

Bull pucky. I even have my own nicknames for them. And I've never registered with any political party.

Come on, your turn, don't be shy. Or was your post just a way for you to pontificate? Or to pick a fight?

How about I ask you about different presidents?

1. Was Bush senior a good president?
2. Was LBJ a good president?
3. Was Ford a good president?

I'll even give you a break and only ask after those three, since I have no idea how old you are.

 

Don't split hairs. You know full well what you were implying.

 

Because he's sexist and doesn't like working with women?

Sheesh, you're expecting me to find reason and logic in a man's thinking? I gave up on that a long time ago ... in a galaxy far, far away.

 

CT forum is thataway - - - - >

 

I guessed wrong if you do not vote Democratic. If so, Apology offered.
No, I do not pick fights. This forum is not the best way to dig into such matters.
Bush Sr was adequate. I voted for him and he let me down. And he had a chance to finish off Saddam.
LBJ is one I also voted for and he punked this country. Frankly when he invaded Vietnam, at first I backed him since I was then a very loyal Democrat. As the war progressed, I got sick it was a way to send young men and women to a foreign land to be shot at. He had no intention of winning.
Ford never got elected. Mild manner of nature he was able to keep the Feds running well. I think even Democrats think he did a good job but hated that he pardoned Nixon.
I am 81.

As to my comments on my previous list, believe me this is a lot more than party opinion. I truly watched all of them and put in many hours studying all of them.

Take Obama, he could have turned out better. A tip for you. Obama took office and the oil pipeline from Canada to the USA was a virtually done deal All US agencies approved it. Obama hated oil so he yanked it off the table and said he was studying it. Well he screwed around for 8 years and finally stopped it. Trump made it happen. Some saw Obama as intelligent. HE did too many things in a slow witted way and I question his actual intelligence. Take decisions on troop levels, he could waste 6 months in study yet be slow of action. HE was at the top of the food chain and had lots of experts. Surely he could have been decisive.

 

I shall humor myself telling the forum one more time. Trickle down is a Democratic party myth.
ACRS is why the Reagan program was so stunning it worked well. Do you even know what ACRS is?

As to your point over the Laffer Curve, Art simply used it to point at a direction. And the curve is pretty accurate.The laffer curve is not why the Reagan economy worked so well. ACRS is why it did.

 

The reason the poor remain poor is they simply refuse to set goals. Any student of the economy understands what goals are and why they work. But to claim there is a real problem with income inequality is not to suggest a good proper answer.

Goal setting is a proven system. Even the poor set goals should they want to get a newer car. The poor seldom owns a new car due to the majority of them refusing to set goals. This should be a number 1 topic when in high school. Grade school kids need to set goals and teachers owe them the system to create profits when you set goals. And this is not the complete lesson on rising from poverty but it sure is a good kick starter.

 

By actually taking over some voting machines, just like they dd in 2016 and you'll never convince me they didn't. Laugh all you please, I live to entertain.

 

Smear campaign continues, that's all MSNBC has

 

Thinking the cowboys and cowgirls would go along with fundamentally changing America is ludicrous

 

It's not propaganda I worry about. Americans have nothing but political propaganda thrown at us constantly, like Lucrezia Borgia with poison, we're immune, It's cheating I said and cheating I meant, cheating, actually getting into the machines and changing votes. Something like 16 States have no paper trail elections, that means that no "audit" of them can ever be trusted

The Russians have the best cyber war experts there are, while Trump and Moscow Mitch are in CHARGE of our election security. And you're saying they're not going to CHEAT?? Pull the other one, they get jealous.

What kind of censorship are you talking about. That Dems will tell people that Facebook has to take them down if they flat out LIE? Isn't that called fraud, and already illegal?

 

What cowboys are these?

 

In red. ..these cowboys and cowgirls..

 

It was a rejection... by the ones the Democrats left behind..