It wasn't just about Moore. The GOP agenda is unpopular.

Jones is pretty much going to have to side with the Republicans if he wants to keep his seat in 2018 it was conservative women in Alabama that gave him the boost over the Democrat smear campaign of Moore ...

 

All Jones needs to win in 2018 is the same big turnout of Blacks and women. White males are the hated part of our society now, the older ones are dying like flies, and so now, minorities, plus all these women who consider themselves to be "aggrieved" because of White males, plus the liberal "news" media, will make certain that Progressivism can continue to spread full-force in Alabama and everywhere else in the country... like malignant cancer.

Oh, and believe this, if nothing else -- charges and heated allegations against White males will continue to fly, but NO PROOF will be offered for any of them....

."I'm female and I'm Black! So, me in 2020...?!" . "This just gets better and better!"

 

From YOUR cite:

So, first of all, this boom the WSJ is talking about is NOT about Trump. It came from Obama. Period!

Next, Republicans are claiming that the deficit caused by their tax cut will be paid for by growth. But, there already is growth that is as fast as the Fed will allow. In fact, the Fed is strongly considering SLOWING growth.

That leaves Republicans with NO CLAIM on how their deficit will be covered.[/QUOTE]

 

You're trying to pretend that Republican legislation is popular.

Jones does need to serve his constituency.

But, that doesn't mean he has to toady to the highly unpopular Trump/McConnell direction.

And, he'll have plenty of opportunity to communicate with his constituency to show what he is doing for them.

 

JFK was a liberal and what he said was liberal.

The alt right and 1% of today are all about greed and what they can take for themselves. Just look at the GOP tax bill for hard evidence of that greed and avarice by the alt right and 1%.

 

Jones will be the candidate in 3 years time and if he does right by the people of AL as far as jobs and healthcare goes he stands a better chance as the incumbent. On top of that you intend to be running your odious BLOTUS in 2020 which will guarantee a yuuuge turnout of Dems in AL.

 

Links behind paywalls are a PF rule violation.

That economic forecasters are making those kinds if asinine predictions means that they are pulling it out of their butts.

The Wall Street Casino is the bubble this time and anyone hyping that the market is going to continue to rise is part of the bubble.

Why is Warren Buffett sitting on $100 billion in cash if the market is still going to rise?

 

Not sure I entirely agree. I think Moorse explains why many white republicans, especially women decided not to show, but I think there is a definite correlation between the republican agenda, and some of the motivation of Black and poorer Americans to show up. They weren't super worried about Trump - until he came with a republican house and senate that might actually give the man real power.

 

I beg to differ. I'll quote another president "It's the economy stupid." Human nature and Americans dictate when things are going good not to mess with it.
The latest Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index was released this morning based on data collected through November 14. The headline number of 129.5 was an increase from the final reading of 126.2 for October, an upward revision from 125.9, and remains at a 17 year high. Today's number was above the Investing.com consensus of 124.0. https://www.advisorperspectives.com...8/consumer-confidence-remains-at-17-year-high
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-poll-donald-trump-leads-strong-on-terrorism-economy/

 

Somebody forgot to tell them since Trump has been president black unemployment dropped in half. Under the Messiah it was 16%, now it's a bit over 7.

 

Intelligent people do not believe the economic ship of state can be steered in less than a couple of years by any President. This is still Obama's economy, imo.

 

[/QUOTE]

The economy always turns around after a bubble bursts. Obama was more worried about social programs and could have done much better on jobs.

 

The economy always turns around after a bubble bursts. Obama was more worried about social programs and could have done much better on jobs.[/QUOTE]
How does a prez do much better on virtually anything with an obstructionist Congress?

 

So what specifically did President Obama do in 8 years that benefited the economy? What did Congress stop him from doing?

 

So far it has been easy. By killing Obama’s phone and pen job crushing regulations.

 

Anyone who believes they have a right to what other people have earned fits the definition of "parasite"- asking your country to do for you, because you won't do for yourself.
The top 1% already pay more tax than the lower 90% combined- and yet that is not enough for you? That is the true definition of greed.
You are also failing to pay attention to any report on the tax legislation except those written just for people like you.

Such people's expertise seem to be limited to manipulation and whining; complaining that they are victims of those who are paying their bills because they aren't yet paying 100% of them. Perhaps your parents raised you to believe that. Mine would have kicked my butt for thinking it. They taught me to support myself as well as my nation.

 

The economy always turns around after a bubble bursts. Obama was more worried about social programs and could have done much better on jobs.[/QUOTE]
Easy to say, lol!

If you will bother to notice, manufacturing production returned to full production within about a year. The catch is that those companies were busily figuring out how to produce without hiring.

And, they did a damn good job of that, as employment in that sector failed to return.

The catch here is that our economy has been undergoing some fundamental changes that you may want to "blame" on Obama for partisan political reasons, but don't really hold up when actually examined.

 

The catch is that the wealthy are the ones who define the system.

Then, they want OTHERS to pay for it.

Look what happened in real estate. Look what's going on in health care - not just now, but for decades. Look at all the nations we've been bombing. etc.

The USA would look and run very differently if it were designed with the requirements of the middle class in mind.

Then, the rich come along and whine that they aren't getting richer fast enough. So, we have to borrow $1.5T in order to forgiven them their taxes!!!

Then, YOU come along and try to justify your whining.

 

All congressional leaders are unpopular regardless of party.

Speaker Ryan 28% favorable 51% unfavorable
Majority Leader Senator McConnell 16% favorable 57% unfavorable
Minority Leader Pelosi 27% favorable 52% unfavorable
Minority Leader Senator Schumer 26% favorable 42% unfavorable

Democrats in Congress 31% favorable 52% unfavorable
Republicans in Congress 23% favorable 63% unfavorable

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gptk5yjub1/econTabReport.pdf

Bottom line is Republicans are disliked a bit more than Democrats, but the majority of Americans dislike and have a negative view of all congressional leaders and both congressional parties. No love there, just who one hates the least or the most. Nothing to crow about if one is a Republican or Democrat. Most Americans think both parties are the pits. The problem is in our two party system one usually must choose one or the other. The devil or party or candidates one hates the least or the party or candidate one wants to lose less than the other one.

Sure the Democrats should have a very big year next year. No doubt about that. But it isn't because America as a whole wants the Democrats to win, they just want to get rid of Republicans. If we had a viable third party, that third party would win hands down sending both major parties packing. Being disliked or hated a bit less than the other party is nothing in my book to be proud of. Perhaps it is in yours. But that is our two party system.

People nowadays vote against the candidates and party they want to lose the most, not for any party or candidate they want to win. If they had there druthers, both would lose. But that isn't how it works in a two party system in which Republicans and Democrats have a monopoly. This is why we have Trump as president. A majority of Americans didn't want neither Trump nor Clinton to be our next president, they just decided Trump was the lesser of the two evils, the least horrible candidate, the one they wanted to lose a bit less than Clinton. Welcome to modern day politics.

 

And you- haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

IF the wealthy define the system- WHY are the top 1% paying more than the bottom 90% combined? Sound like the facts are just the opposite of your claims.

What happened in real estate? In order to accommodate the middle and lower classes, the government set up circumstances where homes could be bought with zero or low down payments- and loaned mortgage money to all kinds of buyers that couldn't possibly pay it back. It wasn't the people who borrowed the money who lost their butts- it was the people who backed those loans, both individual investors and various banks and mortgage companies.

Given the above, the USA IS operated with the middle class in mind. Businesses don't do well when the average buyer is poor; it is to their benefit that the general public's economy is in good and strong condition. The difference is that you can't legislate or decree that economic health, you can't take it from one and give it to another. It takes Productivity make it happen- and that takes thriving, aggressive businesses operating in a favorable environment, PLUS a good workforce that isn't pre-occupied with hating their employer and seeing work as slavery. It's that last part that stands more in the way than anything else.

The rich are getting richer because they are doing what others are not willing to do- and all the nation benefits from it. IF you want to be part of that growth, all you have to do is invest. Many of the top companies are happy to have you on as a financial partner- but of course if you wish to share in the profits, you risk sharing in the loss

IF you had put $10,000 with Warren Buffet's company in 1970 and never added a dime- you would be worth over $5 million today.
You can buy that company's stock today (BRK) and it's still doing great, averaging 14% annual gains over the last 25 years.
At that level of performance- If you had put $10K in 10 years ago, you would have over $36K today. Your 10K would have earned you $2600 per year.
All you have to do is stop whining and get on the bus.

Or, if you are a liberal, you can just wait for the Publisher's Clearing House check to arrive.

 

Immigration, in every state Trump won. That will be enough to see him re-elected. Add in tax reform, defeating ISIS, putting conservatives on the bench, and Trump wins 2020, hands down. Democrats have no platform, no leaders, and no credibility...

 

Oh, gee - your first sentence is so in the spirit of this board. Please help make your veiled ad hom more prevalent.

The top 1% pay more because they CAN. If they didn't want to pay more, then they could call for the USA to stop carrying out wars all over the world, for example.

Yes, the government set up conditions such that Wall Street could steal the homes of an enormous number Americans. Victory!

And, noticing that result the Republicans refuse to put in place the regulation that would prevent that from happening again! After all, it was a vast source of wealth for the wealthy the first time around. Then, YOU come along and suggest they are doing this for the middle class!!! Please get over yourself.

Suggesting the wealth disparity in America is to be blamed on those without the wealth is far to ridiculous to warrant a response.

You have NO IDEA who I am, so can your ridiculous advice. It's been many years since I made a personal business decision so small as $10K. I am NOT in this for myself. I'm in it to try to slow the whiney super rich who can't be satisfied until the rest pay them tribute by surrendering their very ability to make a living wage.

So, your advice is that middle class America should have coughed up $10K to invest 10 years ago!!!

Do you know what was going on with the wealth of the middle class in 2007???

My God!

 

Easy to say, lol!

If you will bother to notice, manufacturing production returned to full production within about a year. The catch is that those companies were busily figuring out how to produce without hiring.

And, they did a damn good job of that, as employment in that sector failed to return.

The catch here is that our economy has been undergoing some fundamental changes that you may want to "blame" on Obama for partisan political reasons, but don't really hold up when actually examined.[/QUOTE]

Must be the reason for he recent positive job growth.

 

The fact that there has not been a change in trend job growth numbers since Don began making it easier for polluters to pollute, etc., blasts a large hole in your argument.