holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

But you were accusing me of posting posting fake articles and lies??.I don't understand, you agree with me that Trump isn't involved in the daily briefings, which by the way is a big deal, but yet you thought I should have said he was too busy and Pence was sitting in on the daily briefings??..So where is the lie and fake news??

How many ways can I explain this? Tell the full story. MSM often tells the truth, but they lie too. But what they are experts at is what you just did. You only told the part that fitted your narrative. Nothing personal, just give us those 3 sentences instead of the 1. Sure, we sometimes selectively edit, so to speak, but we all should be more careful of that.

Maybe an analogy - If the police arrest a man for hitting a woman and put him in jail, but didn't know that it was in self defense because the woman had a gun, well they are sort of missing things. Tell more of the story.

I already said, it isn't a big deal but I'd prefer it. He is going faster than any President-elect (last time I looked) regarding the appointments, so it isn't like he is golfing or something.

So, Fake isn't just fake, it is avoiding things. Is telling a white lie lying? I think being dishonest and having an agenda with a post is lying - I don't mean out of accident, but when it becomes the norm. When you have more data but choose to just give the part that supports your perspective (repeatedly), it is not fair, it is not full, it is biased. And that amounts to lying. Which is why MSM are a bunch of liars and why they are dying before our eyes. Well, the banking system is too, but that is another story, or is it?...

I know we have been down this road before, but in the sake of maybe getting everyone to mention some faults of "their candidate" so to speak - what problems do you have with Hillary?
Maybe if we see none of these candidates are perfect, then we can come from a more humble place. (And I'm not saying it to hold above your head, I already have listed mine, a few times.)

The daily presidential briefings are not for the president's eyes only..It is for the top members of his administration..Like VP, Secretary of State, Defense, National Security Advisor. Or whom ever he deems necessary..But he should be part of it as the country has elected him to do so..That's the story, not if there is coverage on daily briefings..

You really won't bend at all, eh? You can't just put your foot in the circle and take a little responsibility?
I agree, he should be a part of it, but he's only been elect 2 weeks. Relax a bit.

Maybe address some of what I said. How do you think it looks when I really try to answer your question, and you jump over most of what I said, and just restate your point (though expounding on it) but once again, ignoring the rest of the story?

You can't find a flaw in Hillary?

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

So given the volume of lies he has told throughout his campaign (and his life) and the volume of shady business dealings he's been involved in, you still hold out hope that he's not lying? Really?

This is way more than hope. We are running for our lives from war. Do you really not see where Hillary would have taken us? Just look at her past bad decisions regarding war, her language recently towards Russia, the picture is clear. Doesn't require thinking, contemplating, etc. You run from people like that.

I would have basically taken a tic-tac-toe playing chicken with each square being a major decision, over Hillary.
I have that much more trust in the Universe, they some one like Hillary who doesn't realize she is an intrinsic part of it.

Regarding Trump, I actually think he is trying to change things, drain the Swamp, so to speak. If I'm wrong, no love loss, but Hillary didn't get in and I think the world did good there.

Trump also supported the Iraq invasion. The difference is Hillary had to make a decisive vote that was going to be in the public record forever. Trump had the luxury of waffling, being vague and waiting to see the results before decisively criticizing the action and claiming his proof (after his first two attempts at proof were proven to be bogus) was to say he told Hannity.

He has also made some pretty hawk-ish statements and will have a hawk (Flynn) advising him. Not to mention Trump's very curious (suspicious) relationship with Russia. I understand your dislike of Hillary. What I can't understand for the life of me is how anything Trump has done or said gives anyone an ounce of comfort that he isn't going to be a complete disaster and far worse than Hillary. Just about every criticism you have a Hillary, Trump is like 2x worse.

My support of Trump comes down to a few simple things:
Cleaning up the corruption - As he put it "Draining the Swamp".
Spending money on America instead the rest of the world. The debt is just too high, we can't keep this up.
Having a responsible immigration policy, not relatively open borders. If we weren't bombing the world there would be less risk here, but having a war on terror, war on drugs, war on peoples, etc. just makes that open border awfully enticing.

Now, maybe he lies about those things, but I still don't want Hillary. My spider senses really are strong regarding her - "keep away" they say...

We are between a rock and a hard place, the economy is still likely to crash, Obama tripled our debt (due to the 2008 crisis I imagine). There is no easy in this. Hillary supporters might have solace in the economy crashing, but unless a miracle happens, I can't see it staying afloat, no matter the president. So, Trumps tax cuts (which better also have spending cuts) are a little chance to turn things around, perhaps the Universe adds some magic, I'll take that.

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Apparently, they may only do a machine recount rather than hand recount in Wisconsin. That's so sketchy. The whole point was that we don't know if the machines are counting the votes correctly.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/28/elections-staff-layout-recount-timeline/94539210/

And if there's any rigging it is with the machines that can be hacked as well as undocumented immigrants being allowed to vote.

American citizens don't want to go to the polls..You think undocumented immigrants want to go vote when they aren't even on the rolls?..In republicans mind undocumented turnout is 1000%..

With the 2016 election behind us and a Trump administration preparing to transition into power, it is widely expected that changes in trade policy are on the way.

Trade deals were a more prominent campaign topic that at any time in a generation, with populist movements within both parties capitalizing on apprehension about free trade and a growing sentiment that trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have left American workers behind. Indeed, Mr. Trump made campaign promises to scuttle American involvement in NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and to pursue a more protectionist trade policy with China.

But what do the independent data and research tell us about free trade, and what it actually means for American workers? In several new policy briefs and posts, Brookings experts have addressed these questions and others to help provide guidance for the new administration. Below are five facts derived from their research about the current state of free trade in the U.S.

1. The U.S. has been running a trade deficit since the 1970s—but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Except for a brief period in the early 1990s, the U.S. has been running a trade deficit since the 1970s. Though the deficit is commonly written off as evidence that the U.S. is made worse off by trade, Joshua Meltzer, a senior fellow in Global Economy and Development, argues that there’s more to the story.

Over the past 30 years, Melzter explains, a widening U.S. trade deficit has been correlated with rising GDP and lower unemployment—which Meltzer argues is associated with the economic impact of capital inflows into the U.S. These inflows, he says, “reflect confidence in the U.S. economy as foreigners demand U.S. assets such as bonds, equities, and real estate.” Yet capital inflows,” he notes, “put upward pressure on the dollar and on U.S. asset prices, making imports cheaper and exports less competitive which widens the trade deficit.”

2. Greater reliance on imports is not correlated with unemployment, and trade agreements like the TPP can have a net positive effect on jobs.

Both Meltzer and Foreign Policy Senior Fellow Mireya Solís point out that international trade has had a positive impact on overall U.S. job growth, and that the TPP could continue that trend. The TPP specifically, notes Solís, is estimated to result in a net positive (albeit small) effect on job creation and wages: 128,000 jobs, and increases in real wages (0.19 percent) by 2032.

Moreover, Solís points out that under the TPP, annual increases in real income for Americans (i.e., an expansion in their purchasing power) are estimated to range from $57 billion to $131 billion by 2032 (compared to the baseline scenario without the TPP).

3. Technology, not international trade, is the primary force behind lost manufacturing jobs.

Many are quick to blame trade for a loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector, yet Solís affirms that the predominant force behind losses in manufacturing employment has been technological change (85 percent), not international trade. As she explains, automation has transformed the American factory, and the advent of new technologies (like robotics and 3D printing) has rendered many low-skilled jobs unnecessary.

Metropolitan Policy Program Senior Fellow Mark Muro also examined this trend in a recent post, pointing out that the total inflation-adjusted output of the U.S. manufacturing sector is actually higher today than it has ever been, even though the sector’s employment growth has remained relatively stagnant.

“These diverging lines—which reflect the sector’s improved productivity—highlight a huge problem with Trump’s promises to help workers by reshoring millions of manufacturing jobs [by renegotiating trade deals],” Muro argues. “America is already producing a lot. And in any event, the return of more manufacturing won’t bring back many jobs because the labor is increasingly being done by robots.”

And Solís agrees: “Simply put, we are producing more with fewer people.”

4. Services are the most significant drivers of the U.S. economy and are an increasing component of international trade.

“There is little mention in current trade debates,” Meltzer points out, “of the gains to the U.S. from expanding services trade.” Services, he says, comprise over 80 percent of U.S. GDP, and in 2014 alone the U.S. exported $710.6 billion in services and imported $477.4 billion in services, producing a $233.2 billion surplus. The services trade surplus is also growing, up from $84.8 billion in 2004.

5. NAFTA is mutually beneficial to the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and weakening it could lead to unintended consequences.

While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump labeled the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) “the worst trade deal ever signed.” But according to Foreign Policy Senior Fellow Vanda Felbab-Brown the benefits of NAFTA—and the risks of weakening or repealing it– are significant for the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

In addition to “both basic facts and overwhelming evidence from economic studies” chronicling the economic benefits of the agreement for all three member nations, Felbab-Brown argues that renegotiating NAFTA could also have unintended effects on crime and immigration. “Not only is U.S. security enhanced by good cooperation with Mexico,” Felbab-Brown says, “but weakening U.S.-Mexico economic integration can exacerbate both criminality in Mexico and outmigration pressures to the United States.” Weakening NAFTA, she warns, “would likely result in more impoverished Mexicans seeking to enter the United States illegally to make basic ends meet or face pressures to work in illegal economies and join criminal groups.”

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

So given the volume of lies he has told throughout his campaign (and his life) and the volume of shady business dealings he's been involved in, you still hold out hope that he's not lying? Really?

This is way more than hope. We are running for our lives from war. Do you really not see where Hillary would have taken us? Just look at her past bad decisions regarding war, her language recently towards Russia, the picture is clear. Doesn't require thinking, contemplating, etc. You run from people like that.

I would have basically taken a tic-tac-toe playing chicken with each square being a major decision, over Hillary.
I have that much more trust in the Universe, they some one like Hillary who doesn't realize she is an intrinsic part of it.

Regarding Trump, I actually think he is trying to change things, drain the Swamp, so to speak. If I'm wrong, no love loss, but Hillary didn't get in and I think the world did good there.

Trump also supported the Iraq invasion. The difference is Hillary had to make a decisive vote that was going to be in the public record forever. Trump had the luxury of waffling, being vague and waiting to see the results before decisively criticizing the action and claiming his proof (after his first two attempts at proof were proven to be bogus) was to say he told Hannity.

He has also made some pretty hawk-ish statements and will have a hawk (Flynn) advising him. Not to mention Trump's very curious (suspicious) relationship with Russia. I understand your dislike of Hillary. What I can't understand for the life of me is how anything Trump has done or said gives anyone an ounce of comfort that he isn't going to be a complete disaster and far worse than Hillary. Just about every criticism you have a Hillary, Trump is like 2x worse.

My support of Trump comes down to a few simple things:
Cleaning up the corruption - As he put it "Draining the Swamp".
Spending money on America instead the rest of the world. The debt is just too high, we can't keep this up.
Having a responsible immigration policy, not relatively open borders. If we weren't bombing the world there would be less risk here, but having a war on terror, war on drugs, war on peoples, etc. just makes that open border awfully enticing.

Now, maybe he lies about those things, but I still don't want Hillary. My spider senses really are strong regarding her - "keep away" they say...

We are between a rock and a hard place, the economy is still likely to crash, Obama tripled our debt (due to the 2008 crisis I imagine). There is no easy in this. Hillary supporters might have solace in the economy crashing, but unless a miracle happens, I can't see it staying afloat, no matter the president. So, Trumps tax cuts (which better also have spending cuts) are a little chance to turn things around, perhaps the Universe adds some magic, I'll take that.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Apparently, they may only do a machine recount rather than hand recount in Wisconsin. That's so sketchy. The whole point was that we don't know if the machines are counting the votes correctly.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/28/elections-staff-layout-recount-timeline/94539210/

And if there's any rigging it is with the machines that can be hacked as well as undocumented immigrants being allowed to vote.

American citizens don't want to go to the polls..You think undocumented immigrants want to go vote when they aren't even on the rolls?..In republicans mind undocumented turnout is 1000%..

LOL - maybe the undocumented immigrants have a stronger sense of civic duty than American citizens do!

I really don't understand this suspicion that the undocumented are voting in our national elections. This obsession with George Soros. Trump's own claims of millions voting illegally. Maybe guns is right: conversation is useless. I've been fact-checking, questioning, asking for data, conceding points where I can figuring that the favor will be returned. But I feel like I'm using Emily Post etiquette in a bar fight. It's simply an approach to facts, truth, and logic I don't get. If this is the guy we get for America's lack of civic engagement, anti-intellectualism, money corrupted politics, and profit-driven news media, well... this is what we get.

At this point, I feel like working with kids on critical thinking, civics, and media literacy is the only hope. Because a lot of you adults are hopeless, including our President-elect.

It's confounding to be honest..I used to vote republican in some instances given the politician stance on the issues but that can't happen anymore...They(republicans) now vote as a block in congress..It's like they also shun facts, data and only gravitate to their ideology and beliefs regardless of the cost...

djsunyc wrote:trump has not tweeted one thing about ohio university incident. why?
trump has not tweeted anything about the racial hate crimes committed since his election. why?

he claims twitter is a powerful communication tool but not one comment about anything regarding racial attacks. why?

can someone explain it to me?

THE MORNING PLUM:

Donald Trump has chosen GOP Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, a longtime critic of the Affordable Care Act, as his secretary for Health and Human Services. This likely means that, at best, the health law will be repealed and replaced by something that covers far fewer people, or that, at worst, it will get repealed outright, leaving even more people without coverage.

So what does this mean for poor and working-class white Trump voters who are currently benefiting from the law, some no doubt enjoying health coverage for the first time in their lives?

Jonathan Cohn has a good piece explaining what the choice of Rep. Price means in policy terms. Unlike many Republicans, Price has at least given a lot of thought to how to replace the ACA. But Price’s own replacement proposal would roll back the Medicaid expansion, a substantial portion of financial assistance for others getting coverage, and a fair amount of regulation of the individual market. And so, the likely end result (again, at best) is that a lot of the 20 million people who would lose coverage due to repeal will remain without coverage, and protections for those with bad medical conditions will be eroded.

The core philosophical difference here is that conservatives want far less in government spending and regulations designed to cover poor and sick people, protect consumers and enforce a minimum standard for coverage. As a result, they are willing to tolerate far lower standards in those areas, though some also want conservative reforms to strive to make very cheap bare-bones catastrophic coverage widely available. Liberals think we should spend and regulate to the degree necessary to move toward universal care and see expanded and improved coverage as part of a broader effort to progress toward a higher societally guaranteed minimum standard of living. Conservatives won the election, and apparently, we are now going to do it their way. Elections have consequences.

Indeed, all this should immediately cast doubt on the notion that Trump will clash with congressional Republicans over the future of the safety net. During the primaries, Trump famously said he would not allow people to “die on the street,” which, along with his vows not to touch entitlements, led many to see him as an unorthodox Republican when it comes to the proper scope of government protections for the poor and unhealthy. But now Trump appears prepared to go along with the most conservative congressional Republicans on these matters.

I have obtained new numbers from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index that suggest that a lot of poor and working-class whites — who voted for Trump in disproportionate numbers — have benefited from Obamacare, meaning they likely stand to lose out from its repeal (and even its replacement with something that covers far fewer people). Gallup-Healthways numbers from earlier this fall showed that overall, the national uninsured rate has plummeted to a new low of 10 percent, a drop of over six percentage points since the law went into effect — which alone is a major achievement.

But that drop, it turns out, is even more pronounced among poor whites. Gallup-Healthways tells me that among whites without a college degree who have household incomes of under $36,000, the uninsured rate has dropped from 25 percent in 2013 to 15 percent now — a drop of 10 percentage points. It’s often noted that the law has disproportionately expanded coverage among African Americans and Latinos. That is correct, but it has also disproportionately expanded coverage among poor white people.

Now, it’s hard to know how many people we’re talking about here. But other evidence supports the idea that a lot of red state voters have gained coverage from the law. In some parts of rural Kentucky, the Medicaid expansion has greatly expanded coverage. And CBS News recently reported that even some Republican officials in the GOP-led states that expanded Medicaid are not prepared to see that evaporate. Gallup-Healthways numbers also show that the drop in the uninsured rate has outpaced the national average in some red states that have expanded Medicaid, like Kentucky, Arkansas, and West Virginia.

Did people benefiting from Obamacare who voted for Trump really expect repeal to happen? I think we need more reporting on this question. Yes, Trump did repeatedly say he would repeal Obamacare. But he also said he would replace it with “something terrific.” And he explicitly went out of his way to create the impression that he does not agree ideologically with Republicans who are hostile to government efforts to supply health care to those who can’t afford it.

Now, it’s always possible that many voters backed Trump in the full knowledge that their Obamacare might be repealed, for other reasons — because, for instance, he’ll supposedly bring manufacturing and coal jobs roaring back. Before long, those voters will learn whether their bet was a well-placed one. It’s also possible that Trump will surprise us all and insist on some kind of replacement that somehow preserves much of Obamacare’s coverage expansion. And a kick-the-can-down-the-road scenario which keeps deferring the harshest fallout from repeal is also a possibility.

But it now looks more likely that we’ll see a substantial rollback of the progress toward universal health coverage we’ve seen in the past few years. News organizations love to venture into Trump’s America to hear voters explain that Trump spoke far more directly to their economic struggles than Democrats did. Maybe now we’ll get more coverage of those inhabitants of Trump’s America who are set to lose their health care, too.