The New Moderate Speaks!
Yes, I was invited to spread the moderate gospel over the airwaves — for one radio interview, at least. Court Lewis, host of American Variety Radio, chatted with me a few months ago about moderate principles, where moderates stand on various issues (I suddenly had to become a spokesman for my notoriously independent-minded peers), the potential for a moderate movement, and our mutual regard for Teddy Roosevelt. (In fact, you’ll have the rare privilege of hearing me launch into my impression of TR, based on recordings of his speeches.)
After the interview aired, the host informed me that TR’s great-grandson was listening in! How did he know? The old gentleman wrote to tell him that he loved my impression of his famous relative. I was, as the 26th President might have put it, “dee-lighted.”
Note: The host mispronounces my name, but I didn’t bother to correct him. I pronounce it BAY-un.
Here’s the link to the show:
Click here to play radio interview
If this link doesn’t play on your device, go to American Variety Radio, click on the square menu icon, look under “Past Shows,” and click on #391.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate.
All written material at The New Moderate copyright 2007-2019 by Rick Bayan.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Rick I think you represented the moderate positions well, but like all moderates, we may not agree on each of the positions you took. And it is hard being a moderate and being asked what moderates support. Hard to comment without personal ideas coming into play.
But a couple of comments.
1. You comment moderates don’t attack each other. You might want to read comments posted to the website. Many attacks on one person especially.
2. Independents not being able to vote in primaries. Your state must be one of the very few that will not allow that. Had it not been for open primaries, I doubt we would have had Trump as the crappy right candidate to go with the crappy left candidate the democrats provided.
3. Government run healthcare reimbursement for those without employer insurance. Once again I comment and this time ask you to research the British system and how they have held down cost. Not until every last healthcare provider from the janitors to the brain surgeons, the local doctors office, the local pharmacy, the local pharmacist, the labs and the hospitals are under the government employment and control will we ever control costs. Last time I checked, most all nurses, pharmacist, doctors and other healthcare professionals made 30% more that in the UK. If we could cut salaries by 30%, that could reduce healthcare cost in this country by 20%. And then doing what they do with drugs and supplies could cut another 5%-10%.
We need to control costs, not control reimbursement rates and when you have drug companies and big tech companies (MRI’s, CT SCANNERS) against government against insurance companies against doctors against nurses against hospitals, and all against each other, everyone has their own special interest and no cost will ever be cut. ly rates will continue to increase or quality cut to that less than in the UK.
Ron;
Despite some of the acrimony here – TNM is pretty tame compared to most political blogs.
The lest informed most fact free most prone to ad hominem posters here are much less offensive than those you find on most political blogs.
Yes true, much better than other sites, but there are days when many comments are not on subject, but on the commenter. And yes, I have been guilty myself. Sometimes it is easier to talk about the one commenting than to offer alternatives to the positions.
Ron;
With respect to primaries.
I do not share your fixation that there is some specifically better way to do things.
I do not think I agree with your conclusion that the structure of the primaries gave us Trump.
I think The primary contest was the most difficult for Trump.
But you are free to disagree, and might even be right. I have thought about what you say.
As to different structures for primaries – I am not looking to defend what we have, I am more highly skeptical that some other arrangement is inherently better.
All change is not good.
This is close to my view on “gerrymandering”
First it is a tiny problem.
Next it is dangerous.
Last in reality the “fixes” are worse than the cure.
I am more upset witht he mess that is our court system than anything else. – criminal, civil whatever our local, state and federal judiciary is incompetent and has destroyed the rule of law. They are more corrupt than our politicians – not in the sense they are being bribed, but in that they abuse power without even knowing it. And they are more dangerous.
The last thing I want is the courts getting sucked into gerrymandering – or any other election related conflicts. The cure is worse than the disease.
There are myriads of ways to run elections. Some of which would better serve my ideolgy and some would be worse. NONE are inherently right or wrong.
To the extent I want to see our elections change it is to preclude even the appearance of fraud, and to structure the process such that fraud is more difficult and that the process itself is self checking and self fixing.
I want voter ID. There can be little doubt about most forms of inperson fraud.
I want open and transparent handling of ballots
I want everything opaque – like computers and machines eliminated or at the very least completely independently and manually verifiable after the fact – by anyone.
I want absentee balloting reduced to the greatest extent possible.
I want early voting eliminated.
We vote in person on election day – rain or snow or dark of night.
I want close elections to be resolved – not by courts or committees but by the people.
No recounts, no legal wrongling over hanging chad or voter intent, if one candidate does not outright win with over 50% of the vote – have a runnoff.
The changes you propose do not address the credibility of the process, they focus on altering the outcome.
I am mostly not a big fan of altering the rules of the game for the explicit purpose of altering the outcome. Not even if it produces an outcome I would prefer.
Doing so is essentially the ends justifies the means.
Dave, I think what you say you want has about as good a chance to happen as my closed primaries. I think closed primaries are much easier to create than my desire to fix the gerrymandering issue. I still fight with myself over states rights v logical district lines developed by non state agencies.
But my party primary issue is based on party politics. Parties have political beliefs. People who register as members of that party in most cases agree with those beliefs. The state party leaders are free to allow or deny individuals from being included in their primary. That should also apply to voters. A party should not have individuals from unaffliated or opposition positions crossing over and choosing a candidate far removed from the politics of the party they will represent.
I am registered republican. I disliked Cruz, but along with the other major candidates, I could have voted for him. I, along with many other GOP members, got stuck with what I consider a non GOP nominee that represented the worst of America in his person actions. That due to many undeclarded or cross over voters that had beliefs far removed from established GOP beliefs. I had to vote for Johnson to vote for someone who had some of what I supported.
Democrats should choose their candidate. Republicans should choose their candidate. Unaffiliated should not have a voice until the general election. It should not be the other way around like it is now where voters like me end up with someone like Trump who was evefything but a Republican until he decided to run for president, then became a member of that party in registration only.
“Dave, I think what you say you want has about as good a chance to happen as my closed primaries.”
A significant portion of what I am asking for is near certain – atleast in red and pink states. We are in the midst of attempting to accomplish some of it now.
The left has successfully delayed, but it is not stopping it.
Other parts of what I want – which are really less controversial, are harder to accomplish – because people do not care enough.
” I think closed primaries are much easier to create than my desire to fix the gerrymandering issue.”
Parties have the right to run primaries however they please. I do not think the state should have ANYTHING to do with primaries.
That said the rules for getting into a general election should be consistent for all.
“I still fight with myself over states rights v logical district lines developed by non state agencies.”
There is absolutely positively no means of taking a corruptible political process and shifting it from the legislature to others without it remaining a corruptible political process.
“But my party primary issue is based on party politics. Parties have political beliefs. People who register as members of that party in most cases agree with those beliefs. The state party leaders are free to allow or deny individuals from being included in their primary. That should also apply to voters. A party should not have individuals from unaffliated or opposition positions crossing over and choosing a candidate far removed from the politics of the party they will represent.”
I do not think primaries are the business of government.
What is the business of government is the rules for getting on the ballot in a general election. That is it.
“I disliked Cruz”
Cruz is highly dislikeable – much more so than even Trump. But if you get past the dislikeability on policy issues he is about as close to libertarian as you can get without admitting to being libertarian.
“I could have voted for him.”
Trump was pretty close to my last choice among republicans.
Like you I do not know how he got through the GOP primary. I really thought after his attack on McCain he was toast.
All that said – Trump did get elected for a reason. I keep saying this over and over but no one seems to be listening.
Van Jones was correct – Trump was “backlash”.
Trump was a response to the left going way too far.
Everything that the left loath’s about Trump is pretty much why he won.
He is the “anti-PC” candidate.
One of the big reasons I think Trump will win “bigly” in 2020 – is that nothing has changed – if anything the left has gotten worse and Trump will be an incumbent.
“I, along with many other GOP members, got stuck with what I consider a non GOP nominee that represented the worst of America in his person actions.”
Trumpism is not incompatible with big tent republicanism. Policy wise Trump is “Pat Buchannon” A perenial republican candidate.
” That due to many undeclarded or cross over voters that had beliefs far removed from established GOP beliefs.”
That is also why he won the general.
Overall I think 2016 was likely to be a GOP victory.
But I also think that the electorate chose Trump deliberately – not necescarily democrats and republicans. An awful lot of Trump voters were disaffected by both parties – which may explain 2018 – they had nothing to vote for in 2018 or if they did it was for a Trump supporting Senator.
“I had to vote for Johnson to vote for someone who had some of what I supported.” To the extent I had issues with Johnson – he was not libertarian enough. He got in trouble in the libertarian convention because he fell on the side of forcing people to make cakes for others.
“Democrats should choose their candidate. Republicans should choose their candidate. Unaffiliated should not have a voice until the general election.”
Why ? that is my “big” point. I can answer why I want the structure one particular way – values. But I can not state a principle that requires what you are after. While I am not saying that you can not hav things how you want them, But there is a difference between value conflicts and principle conflicts.
We are not entitled to have our values met. While real principles are NOT subject to the whim of the majority.
Ultmately I mostly can not stand listening to Trump – or much of the media – and I do not.
When I block out all the noise and focus on Trump’s acts adn accomplishments as president, he scores highly.
That is not the same as universally endorsing his policies.
Even in Trump’s actions – there are plenty to complain about.
But that would have been True of Johnson or Cruz.
At the same time Trump has MOSTLY been the most libertarain president elected in my lifetime – far from perfect, but we lived through Obama and Bush and Clinton
I am not going to go all bull-goose-looney over Trump.
He is an improvement in MOST important ways from Obama and the Bush’s.
Dave I moved it over to this post. Other one took forever to load with all the comments.
You ask what I disliked about Trump.
I do not judge him for what is being investigated. That is for the courts to decide or the congress.
I support many of his programs, most specifically his trade and immigration policies since congress will not do its job and fix the trade problems nor reform immigration to address the many problems we have. Just letting more immigrants in without a comprehensive reform only adds to the problems we have with states fighting the feds over immigrants.
I support his reversal of all the Obama E.O’s.
I support his tax policies, maybe because I am paying less tax, and I don’t consider myself rich. And my kids are paying less and they sure as hell are not rich.
And I support his position on the Paris Accords and Healthcare. Both were gigantic idiotic agreements and legislation that I have commented on many times.
But I am sick of muiltiple daily tweets that somehow I see when i am even trying to avoid that crap. He tweeted yesterday or today “General’ McChrystal got fired like a dog by Obama, Last assignment a total bust. Known for big, dumb mouth.
If a person was an employee of mine or was the CEO of a company I owned and he consistently posted crap like that, I would fire his ass in a heartbeat. I don’t care what good he was doing for the company, I could find someone else to replace him. Put your finger in a pot of water and see how big a hole it leaves when you remove it. That is how indispensable you are to any company. You leave a ripple and then everything smooths out.
I hold the president to the same standards. Saying someone is fired like a dog and has a big dumb mouth is unacceptable in business and especially the president. And he does it with much of his other daily crap he posts.
I did not like him when he ran, I do not like him now, I did not vote for him, nor would I vote for him in the future. He is an ass that cant shut up. His words totally destroy any good he is doing.
“Eventually Schumer asked a third time for one reason Trump wouldn’t accept the offer, and Trump responded: “I would look foolish if I did that.”
This from a guy who said he could shoot someone on Fifth Ave.; foolish is his worst fear?
dduck, if I were in his shoes, I might not say I would look foolish. I might say something where all of them would get up and leave. Something like being no way I would agree to something based on something they would do in the future. Accepting something the democrats propose now based on renegotiating something in the future when all strenght is lost is like promising a kid in the winter with snow on the ground that we can have a snow ball fight in August after it warms up. NEVER HAPPEN. As far as I know, he never agreed with any deal other than the house bill. Why should he agree to deal for an agreement.in the future when he has some leverage now?
Congress reminds me of many of our younger generation. They want someone else making all their decisions, something like the 30 year old living in their parents basement.
People tend to look folish when they accept bad offers.
Moved from previous thread: Screwed again! “Shutdown Leaves Food, Medicine and Pay in Doubt in Indian Country”https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/us/native-american-government-shutdown.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
I hope the, “it’s about time”, two new Native American Reps rip into the government for all its abuses.
Dave “If they actually want a shot at regaining serious control of government – they need to stand for something.” 😂😂😂😂😂
Now thats a good joke! Senate standing for something. I would be surprised if they all dont sit when they pee.
My point to the democrats and the left was that just being opposed to Trump is NOT going to return them to power.
Democrats in the house did better than I expected – though they did much worse in the senate – and it easily could have been much worse for democrats in both the house and the senate.
Republicans did badly when they were the Anti-Clinton party.
Thank you Rick for your persistence. One could find some reason to hope that the trump takeover would move more moderates into being politically active. In any case the 2018 congressional results were certainly affected by the moderates vote. So, we do exist and, sometimes even are important.
Donald’s Debt Economy
Trump asked every cabinet department to cut 10% from their budget.
Do you think that is going to happen ?
Those of you on the left have made sure than any Trump appointees who were fiscally serious were tanked.
We are operating with only 75% of government right now – the world is not coming to an end.
How about if we make that PERMANENT ?
President Hypocrite asking for cuts? But giving himself and others a bonus?
“Pence and top Trump appointees to get $10,000 raises as hundreds of thousands of federal workers go without pay in shutdown”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/04/while-federal-workers-go-without-pay-senior-trump-administration-officials-are-poised-get-raises/
Trump lost in 2016 by 3 points. He lost in 2018 by 8 points. He has no mandate to remake the US in his image, and he is losing with his ego driven bull in a China shop approach. The resistance will continue, it’s natural. Unfortunately he is The Story and will be until he is safely in the rear view mirror.
The wall as some kind of a huge concrete money sink is a vast oversimplification of a complex problem. Yes, there is an actual border security problem but Trump’s caricature of an answer would not fix it. He is in the wrong holding so many people hostage. If he will lose his battle I hope that calmer more rational people can listen to what the point headed wonks, engineers, and generally actually informed people would propose.
Conservatives: people who react in horror to every suggestion to limit the gun Carnage by American home grown nuts while being terrified of not building a giant ineffective monstrousity and maintaining it because of their over the top fear of a Hispanic takeover that there no evidence of. Since they are willing to shove their answers down the national throat having lost in the vote, then they are going to have to be stopped or we are going to be held hostage over and over whenever Ann coulture or Rush have a tantrum.
He is NOT remaking the US in “his image”.
What he has a “mandate” to do is undo all the things that Obama did outside the law.
And he is doing that.
Further there is ALWAYS a mandate to reduce government infringement on liberty.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
John Stuart Mill
There is no need for a mandate to decrease the infringement on peoples rights.
No the wall is NOT the answer to all problems. Yes, the situation is complex.
The wall is a part of a solution, not the entirety.
Jay proposed Drones and helicopters and increased surveilance.
Those are much MORE expensive – and ineffective.
Or more accurately much less effective absent a physical barrier.
The Berlin Wall was heinous – particularly as it sought to keep people IN.
But it was very very very effective for 50 years.
The Israeli Wall is extremely effective.
Regardless – the fundimental problem is that neither Trump nor his supporters, nor republicans nor I trust the left – YOU.
The wall was a part of a 1986 compromise between republicans and democrats.
both sides agreed to it 4 decades ago. It was approved – it is authorized by law – and has been repeatedly.
What did not happen was approval of funding. That was supposed to be part of the deal – the compromise. But democrats in 2016 CHEATED, and after getting their part of the bargain renigged.
Nor is this the only time this has occurred.
For very large numbers of republicans the wall has become a matter of principle.
It is proof that the left can not be trusted AT ALL.
And honestly you can not.
I share more values with the left than the right.
But I trust Trump much more than Clinton or Biden or Obama or YOU.
Trust means living up to your agreements.
Democrats agreed to the wall in 1986, and several times since.
Trump promised the wall in his campaign.
It is time for those on the left to live up to their promises.
Kicking and screaming if necescary.
You and others at TNM elevate Compromise to a principle.
Which it is not.
But compromise requires trust – and the left is NOT trustworthy.
Can we atleast be honest about the polls.
42% strongly disapprove – 34% strongly approve.
Not 53/25.
How are calmer more rational people going to prevail – they do not exist.
You claim there are better solutions – yet you have not offered them.
You are correct that border security is “complex”.
But if you want simple and low cost – there is only one solution – “open borders” – that means tossing our drug laws ALL OF THEM – I will support that – but I doubt you can get 1 in ten others to. It means pitching most of our labor laws. We can not employ tens of millions of new low skilled members of the labor force at the current minimum wage. It means driving wages down for those at the bottom. It means balloning costs to the social safety net – or ending it.
I would support all that – but despite my idealism, the realism in me knows that is not happening.
Regardless – if you actually want to push ideals – then push ideals. Not meaningless pablum claiming to be ideals.
Accepting that we are going to have border security, A physical barrier is the cheapest most effective START to accomplishing that.
It is not alone sufficient.
It is probably possible to accomplish the same thing – without a phyiscal barrier – but at far greater cost.
When you rail about the cost of the wall – there are only two possibilities – you are stupid/hypocritical, but any effective alternative is MORE expensive, or you do not really want border security. If so then be open about that.
You can easily guess my reaction to your comment. Ron, (if this winds up in the wrong place, it’s your more harm than good comment). Why the general world of conservatives can’t admit that trump does more harm than good, even from a a conservative policy point of view, is beyond me. All the energy they put into defending the indefensible boggles my mind. 25 percent support him with adoration, another 15 percent will tolerate his nonsense if they get some things they want, 52 percent oppose him, and 8 percent believe that they will have a beer. Nearly twice as many people strongly oppose him as strongly support him. He lost the popular vote and got really beaten in the midterm s. He is not in astrong position, and neither are his supporters. Eventually, he will be gone and conservatives are going to be in a big hole with moderates for a long time.
Roby, I don’t know how many times I have to say this. I did not like the man, I do not like the man now and I do not think he will change so I could find myself disliking him any less. I did not vote for the man, I thought he was a typical New York City assh*%& and I still do.
However, I had thought Hillary was a bitch from the minute she made the comment on January 26, 1992 about Tammie Wynette standing by her man and baking cookies. She then stood by her man for 24 years or so just so she could run for president. As well as her calling 48% of Americans Deplorables. All added to the liberal policies of the democrats, I could not vote for her either.
And I suspect it will be a Libertarian I vote for in 202 if they are not some radical like McAfee that keeps running and if that happens, my ballot will have a blank spot for president.
But that does not mean I do not support some of his policies. Unlike many, I am able to separate policy from persona.
If you want to discuss policy, fine. If persona, then I don’t know how much more I can say that I have not already said!
Jeez, Ron, did you ever misinterpret me. I thought your original comment was fantastic. I guess I should have just said exactly that instead of being oblique.
Roby, well damn, That is why written words on the internet can get someone in trouble. I just read the first two sentences of your comment and kind of squished them together and made a bad “assumption”, completely overlooking the “good comment” in the first sentence you wrote. Add to that I could not even find what I had said earlier ended up causing a bunch of garbage being written on my part.
Sorry, will try to do better going forward.
Ron, Ron, you are so wrong about Trump. He is not a typical NY a——. In fact every NYer knew he was a superior Queens A———-, for a long time.
We NYCers are pretty smart and excel at spotting his type and shun them. Too bad the rest of the country, excluding NJ, can’t spot grifters.
I accept your apology, in advance.
BTW, initially, I thought that getting rid of him other than by election, would be a very bad idea. Not any more though, I and all other NYers underestimated his ineptitude and total ignorance.
I agree.
Most NYers when referring to him before politics described him by using NY endearments like Smuck and Putz. Now it’s more like asshole & Dickhead.
Well thats what I called him when he was running. But that does not change his policies that many I agree with. Debate policies and I will comment. Post crap from Twitter about his personal actions, I delete.
🎼 Then time will tell just who has fell
And who’s been left behind
When you go your way and I go mine. 🎼
https://g.co/kgs/rfCPYc
OK dduck, I thought NYC was made up of 5 boroughs. Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island and Brooklyn . But its all NYC.
What you said, Roby. 🙂 Good to see you again.
“Why the general world of conservatives can’t admit that trump does more harm than good, even from a a conservative policy point of view, is beyond me.”
What does that mean ? It is a word salad of gobbledygook.
Trump was elected by voters to undo much of what Obama did.
He was elected to restore prosperity.
He was elected to reduce the power of government.
Hes has succeeded – maybe not as much as he promised, but quite well over all.
There are things he has not succeeded at.
Reducing the power of government has not thus far reduced the cost of government.
You say Trump harms conservatives – HOW ?
He is polling higher than he did on election day. He is polling as well as Obama did at this time in his presidency – and Obama won in 2012.
Republicans lost the house, but made better than expected gains in the senate.
The economy could be stronger – and he promised better. But it is stellar compared to the past 20 years.
In terms of the policies he pushes for – they are mostly things that Republicans have claimed they beleived for decades.
Dave “There were approximately 3M people in the US that Obama’s program would have applied to. But Obama’s DACA required those people to apply for the program. Only about 800K did.”
Again, ,moved this discussion. Other tread took way to long to load, even on desk top.
Then 2.2M people were smart, 800K had questionable intelligence. Anyone who believes our government when they tell them “Hey your illegal, you come in and apply, we will review your application and then we will give your a card or whatever to stay” IS OUT OF THEIR MIND!
That”s like the road runner taking a stick of dynamite from the coyote and he tells RR “Don’t worry, its not lit”.
Or better yet, The FBI asking for an interview and saying “You don’t need a lawyer present, this is an informal meeting and nothing you say will be used in the future.”
Jonathan Turley has been sort of coming out more recently regarding the democratic party.
Turley is a democrat and a very prominent law professor who writes an excellent blog on law and current events.
While I disagree with his support of the Mueller investigation – if the foundation is rotten the whole house comes down. otherwise he is pretty good – particularly on the law.
He is by no means pro-trump. I am pretty sure he has stated that he voted for Clinton.
Regardless he is starting to take on the democratic party – for not being the democratic party.
For abandoning their values and principles in their zeal to “get Trump”.
Here is his article on the return of Pelosi as speaker of the house.
I am not a big Pelosi fan. But the democratic party has gone so far to the left that Pelosi – who is the rep from berkeley seems almost moderate.
I do not think Speaker Pelosi is a mistake for democrats specifically because of Pelosi.
Pelosi is a mistake because she is exactly what the “new democrats” who won the house in 2018 said they would NOT do.
Pelosi as speaker is a repudiation by the democratic party of the promises and positions that won them the house. There were myriads of close house races won by candidates who were promising something different, Who were promising to govern. Who were promising bipartisanship even with Trump. Who were promising moderation. Those DO NOT make up the majority of democrats or of democratic congressmen – they are essentially the right flank of the democratic party. But they are also the most vulnerable flank of the democratic party.
They are the representatives most likely to loose in 2020 with Trump running and two years of political outrage which is what they ran against.
The democratic party is destroying its future. It is betting on the Occasio-Cortez’s not the Connor Lambs.
We’re in another government freeze and both parties seem content to keep it going. Both parties are almost worthless. Both are political tribes that spend most of their energy pushing against one another, And what energy is left is spent on gaining reelection. The needs of the People are ignored! The border wall’s cost of $20 billion is chicken feed compared with the agriculture bill just passed. The only people that can change the situation (Congress) don’t care. I hope Trump doesn’t fold!
Welcome Mr. Halyard;
What if there was a government shutdown and no one noticed ?
https://spectator.us/shutdown-redundant-government/
Mr. Halyard;
Am I correct in gathering that you are arguing for bi-partisanship ?
You say that the needs of the people should not be ignored.
What in your view are the needs of the people ?
What is it that government needs to do for us beyond what it is already doing ?
Well said. I agree 100%.
Five or six years back I was strongly in favor of a physical wall/barrier across the entire Southern border. After listening to criticisms of that, and thinking it through, I’m now in favor of building containment fences/barriers like the ones at San Diego, in places near other border cities and areas known to be illegal crossovers, but not along other vast stretches of borderland where few migrants would trek to cross. For those places we should install high tech survailance systems, with quick response helicopter and/or motorcycle teams for interdiction, as we already do to some extent, and how Australia secures it’s 37,000 kilometers coastline.
Satellite technology is already in place at the Mexican Border. DHS provides detailed survailance photos of illegal crossing hot spots to Border Patrol agents daily. Expanding those systems will be far less expensive and intrusive on the environment than physical walls Requiring perpetual maintenance, repair, and inspection. We already know how expensive it is to maintain the border barriers and survailance already in place – $1.7 Billion was allocated the past two years.
As to Trump holding his ground, screw him and his bullshit lies of Mexico paying for it, and his bullshit boast he’d proudly take personal responsibility for shutting down the government.
Your comments strongly suggest that you accept that it is legitimate to control border crossings.
That for you this debate is merely a question of the methods.
I would entirely agree that within reason we should make use of technology to “secure our borders”.
That said we have decades of experience with technological approaches – they are an enhancement, they are a supliment, they are very useful.
They are not a replacement for a physical barrier.
We can debate whether a 12′ or 18′ or 30′ physical barrier is needed.
But absent a physical barrier the effectiveness of technological enhancements diminishes significantly.
There is no barrier – wall or technology that can completely preclude determined people from crossing.
The purpose of the barriers is to reduce the incentives to reduce the ease and to give CBP sufficient time to respond.
One of the problems with the technology is that while agents are dealing with one group of crossers – others cross almost brazenly elsewhere.
The solution requires agents, technology and a wall. as well as policy changes.
The more difficult to wall is to circumvent – the lower the technology and HR costs for the same level of effectiveness.
One of the other issues forgotten in all of this is that the crossers – or atleast their managers are fairly sophisticated.
An extremely common technique is to release a group of crossers at one point to tie up all the CBP in that region and then send drugs and other large groups accross just far enough away that CBP can not engage.
Quite often existing technology allows the CBP to know they are being gamed, but there is little they can do about it.
On of the purposes of sending the guard to the border was to free CBP agents from monitoring tasks and allow them to actually interdict smugglers.
The prime reason for deploying the military was to string something like 500miles of concertina wire right in front of “the caravans”.
But concertina wire is a temporary solution – though it will likely be effective until past 2020.
Physical barriers do have a cost to maintain – so do technological barriers and human resources. Physical barriers are the LEAST expensive to maintian
You cite helicopters – helicopters are probably the most expensive means of enforcement.
So you rush agents in to stop a group of crossers.
Now what ?
Further a physcial barrier accomplishes something NOTHING else does.
Every single immigrant who can be prevented from successfully crossing the barrier does not need to be detained. They do not become the responsibiltiy of the US government until they have crossed.
We have no media battles over family separation or the treatment in detainment exampls for those still in Mexico.
We intuitively understand we have no responsibility for people who are not inside the country.
I would build a complete physical barrier and I would go one step further – if someone is observed illegally crossing and caught – do not detain them. Return them to the other side of the border – no hearing no nothing.
If you want to actually get in – cross at a checkpoint.
“The solution requires agents, technology and a wall. as well as policy changes.”
Wall/fence in selected areas, where they will deter enough illegals to be effective for the cost. What part of that doesn’t penetrate the wall around your thinking apparatus?
Aside: it’s just another insignificient fib from your bro, Dave, but I’m sure you’ll have a jolly explanation for Trumping making it:
“Trump said he was receiving an overwhelming number of calls supporting his wall.
However, the WH switchboard is closed because of the government shutdown.”
Do overwhelming numbers of Americans have his personal phone number?
William Arkins letter of resignation from MSNBC.
This is excellent, you really should rear it all the way through.
https://pastebin.com/HGfyzzJ9
One portion I find interesting is that Arkin criticises Trump as a naive ill informed bumbling fool who apparently accidentally is right about nearly everything.
I would ask those on the left:
Are you for endless war ? Are you for the war mongering of the Chenney’s and Boot’s and myriads of other neo-cons ? do you beleive that every foreign affairs issue is a justification for US shows of force ? Do you beleive we need or should want a 750B military ?
Do you beleive that we should be working to reduce WMD’s throughout the world ?
Do you beleive that we can end or seriously diminish global terrorism through the use of military force ? Do you beleive that we should divide the world into our enemies – China and Russia and that we should oppose whatever China and Russia might want ?
Do you beleive that the US China and Russia might have common ground on anything ?
Do you beleive that any gains in China or Russia’s influence in the world come at the expense of the US ? Do you beleive that the US MUST win every global conflict, every global argument ?
The most terrifying part of Mr. Arkin’s letter is that the National Security aparatus is growing stronger and more autonimous.
That is the real story.
The left is so engrossed in their anti-trump fantasies that they arr not only ignoring but empowering the national security aparatus.
The real story is that in later 2015 apartently with the support of the president that national security aparatus – the “deep state” decided they were going to pick the winners and losers in our election.
It is not “russian influence” that we should be concerned about. It is the much more sophistcated influence of the “deep State” of the National security aparatus.
Many have noted that aside from Sen. Graham Hillary Clinton was the most significant HAWK in the election. Clinton was the neo-con. Clinton was the establishment candidate, Clinton was the candidate of endless wars of the CIA, of NSA, of FBI or DOJ.
The Clinton email fiasco could not be allowed to derail her election – and so the “deep state” assured that it did not. Despite negligence and misconduct that had sent many prominent people to jail – Hillary must be exhonerated.
Having done that Trump targetted the “deep state” from the start. Trump ran as the anti-war candidate, Trump run on a platform of draining the swamp – and the swamp fought back.
They targeted his political campaign from 2015. They spied on him. They manufactured false intelligence in order to justify further spying. The sicced the CIA on him and his campaign,
The NSA, foreign intelligence services, the DOJ and FBI. The entire deep state was in sync in targeting Trump as a threat to their power.
The continued their war with Trump after his election.
Those of you on the left worry about Trump the totalitarian, Trump the fascist. and are so filled with Trump hatred that you totally miss the fact that it is our national security aparatus that has sought to improperly “influence” our elections.
Dear Tin Hat Dave.
The DOW closed down 660 points today.
The devious Deep State deplorables are messing with the markets to undermine Trump!
Damn, we are in deep shit now!
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us-economy-added-312000-jobs-in-december-missing-passing-expectations
I thought you said tarrifs were killing us ?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/04/manufacturing-posts-best-calendar-year-for-job-gains-since-1997.html
So the Dow is up almost 3000 since its low AND RISING STEEPLY.
If the previous drop was “trump’s fault” – or caused by the Shutdown
Doesn;’t that mean the subsequent rise is equally meaningful ?
Just to be clear – I do not beleive either.
The DJIA is effected by all kinds of things – including “fake news”.
In the longer term I am concerned because I beleive that Obama’s economic policies discouraged corporate investment and encouraged profit taking – driving stock values UP artificially. I am not sure that garbage has been cleared yet.
Dave “trade is not the business of government”
I offer this as a debate point. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution states that the United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
So it is clearly in my mind the business of government to regulate trade with foreign countries. And this to me includes insuring that the country gets a fair deal in these agreements.
I do not want the government telling you, me or anyone else what we can buy or what we have to buy. Hell, I have been bitching for years about the government shoving Obamacare down the throats of people who do not want nor need healthcare insurance.
But it is in the best interests of this country to insure we have fair deals. Why the devil are most cars made by AMERICAN auto makers made outside the United States? Why do we allow China to impose large tariffs on our cars, but we allow GM (who we bailed out just a few years ago) to eliminate jobs in America and produce cars in China and send them here duty free.
You say that’s good because it keeps the price low. I say BS. If that were the case, a Buick Envision would cost 25% less than a Toyota or BMW of the same class car. It does not. They are just making more money off that car than if built in America and sold for the same price as is sold now. The Toyota Highlander is made in Indiana and starts at $32,000. The Buick Envision is made in China and starts at $32,000. Where is your savings? And I would suggest most people would agree a Toyota is a much superior car to a Buick, unless your Chinese.
Read our founders on the commerce clause – also read the contracts clause of the constitution and the federalist papers and a century of what is called “dormant commerce clause” decisions.
The purpose of the commerce clause was explicitly to deprive the states the power to regulate commerce.
Next, I have repeatedly made clear that while we should NOT ever allow government to do more than the constitution allows – atleast without amending the constitution, that does nto inherently mean that any federal action that is permitted by the constitution is inherently a good one or a good idea.
TRADE IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT!!!!
The absence of a specific bar to government interferance with trade in the constitution does not make something idiotic into something virtuous.
I do not support Trump on Trade – but I tolerate – meaning I am not going frothing at the mouth crazy over what he is doing regarding trade – because for the most part his actions are pretty puny, and because I beleive – and the evidence so far is that the ultimate goal is free trade.
The fact that I am unwilling to join the “Argh! Trumpers!” over Trump’s trade policies does not mean that I support them or yours.
I am increasingly disturbed that nothing has happened regarding the UK – though there has been alot of talk.
Trump should flat out offer the UK a pure free trade relationship – anything the UK makes can be sold in the US with no additional tarrifs and regulatory burden in return for exactly the same access to UK markets. I strongly suspect the UK would love that.
Frankly we could reconstruct the former British common market – with the addition of the US and Mexico.
How about an absolute free trade pact with every former british commonewealth/colony plus Mexico ?
That would seriously advantage the UK in negotiations with the EU and the US with China.
The US is already the single largest market in the world and very nearly the largest producer.
Such a deal would dwarf any other trade deal ever.
A major factor in the UK’s decision to leave the EU was EU control of UK trade.
The UK is one of the largest trading nations in the world – even today.
The EU severely restricted its trade with the rest of the world in return for free trade with the EU. But the EU was rapidly approaching the point where trade outsid ethe EU was larger than inside.
Two funniest remarks today: “I know more about drones than anyone”. This after his error filled “lecture” on Afghanistan and Soviet Union/Russia yesterday to an enthralled cabinet.
“I would build a complete physical barrier…….. by our resident non-Trump liker and cheapskate; but won’t contribute to wall fund”.
Two peas in a pod, although our pea is 10X smarter than Mr. Bone Spurs.
🎶 Where have all the tariffs gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the tariffs gone?
Long time ago
Trump has resurrected them
One by one..
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn? 🎶
BREAKING: Trump economic adviser Kevin Hassett predicts “a heck of a lot of” U.S. companies will join Apple in announcing lower than expected earnings because of trade war, per @ToluseO
The sky is falling !!! AAPL Stock is only up 40% since 1/1/2017.
BTW stock has been on a exagerated high since post 2018.
The Obama policies that targeted small business,. the massive regulation increase the fiscal policies that discourage investment ALL work to raise stock prices.
All increases in stock prices are not GOOD.
Trump’s reversal of all of these with certainty leave stocks prices closer to where they belong.
Just like housing – we want the increase in price of stock to reflect and actual increase in value.
AAPL was 115 on 1/1/2017, it is 142 now. that seems appropriate.
While I would prefer to have bought AAPL at 115 and sold at 227,
that is pure speculation.
An actual robust economy does not have major stocks rising 100% in 18 months.
Well DUH! What would someone smart enough to understand economics expect? After years of losing companies to China due to there controlling our product going in, but we allow their products in willy nilly come in and then we decide to make things fair, hurt is going to happen short term.
I might be one of the few percentage who have a different perspective. When we made decisions at the Health System, we never looked at 3 months, 6 months, 12 month impacts. We looked at 48 months to 72 months and what the results were projected to do.
So Jay, find some information on what a fair trade policy will look like in 60 months and what the impact.on economics in the country will be compared to today. I support it because I believe our economy will be better off in 60 months when we can sell an American F150 Ford truck in China the same as Buick sells their Envision. Both with out Tariffs.
If you can find something to refute that, then post it and we can debate why we accept different thoughts. But spare us the short term impact analysis that is just political posturing, from either party to attack or cover asses.
I oppose actual Trade Wars.
I am completely at odds with Ron over Trade – though I would note for your edification that like Ron – possibly much more so than Ron, that huge portion of blue collar democrats in the rust belt who voted for Trump very strongly support all of these trade policies – AND MORE.
At the same time I have followed actually credible sources on all of this.
For all the rhetoric the US is NOT in a trade war. Trump’s tarriffs are relatively puny. They are nothing like past Tarriffs. I would remind you that in the 19th century the only source for federal revenue was tarriffs and excise taxes primarily on alcohol.
There is a reason that the 16th amendment preceded the 18th and that the 19th amendment occured at much the same time.
According to actual market analysts the total economic cost of Trump’s tarriffs – at their maximum level is less than 0.25% in growth. That is 1/10 of the gain from Obama to Trump.
I am not going to whigg out over Trump Tarriffs until they become something real rather than purely symbolic.
But I greatly appreciate that you and so much of the left have suddenly discovered the merits of free markets.
So much of what you were told about Flynn not only was false, but the FBI/DOJ was aware it was false and essentially sabatoged Flynn by classifying the evidence that he was NOT colluding with Russia – but actually helping US intelligence on his trips to Russia.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/423558-exculpatory-russia-evidence-about-mike-flynn-that-us-intel-kept-secret
“Why Is Trump Spouting Russian Propaganda?
The president’s endorsement of the U.S.S.R.’s invasion of Afghanistan echoes a narrative promoted by Vladimir Putin.”
The historical truth: “By the end of 1979, the Kabul-based Communist government was teetering, nearing collapse. The Soviet authorities in Moscow blamed the incompetence, corruption, and internecine violence of their local allies. In December 1979, they overthrew and killed the then-Communist leader, installed somebody more compliant, and deployed 85,000 troops to enforce their rule over the countryside. The Soviets had expected a brief, decisive intervention like those in Prague in 1968 or Budapest in 1956. Instead, the war turned into a grinding Vietnam-in-reverse. The Soviets withdrew, defeated, in 1989.”
“The war in Afghanistan helped bring about that collapse, not because it bankrupted the Soviet regime—that was an effect of the break in the price of oil after 1985—but because it forced a reckoning between the Soviet regime and Soviet society. As casualties mounted, as soldiers returned home addicted to heroin, Soviet citizens began demanding the right to speak the truth, not only about the war in Afghanistan, but about all Soviet reality.’
So far Trump has not said he knows “more about history than anyone”. Maybe after his cabinet of losers licks his boots he will bashfully admit it.
Whoops, for the above: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/trump-just-endorsed-ussrs-invasion-afghanistan/579361/
So cool department: “New Muslim congresswoman to be sworn in with Thomas Jefferson’s centuries-old Quran”
Read more here: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article223866655.html#storylink=cpy
It’s not the crime, but the cover up (ask Nixon’s ghost and Clinton’s…….):
“Undocumented Worker Says Trump Resort Shielded Her From Secret Service”
Erdogan not out of the legal woods over Washington D.C. rampage. “Turkey Pulse
Lawsuit over Washington violence looms over US-Turkey relations
Amberin Zaman January 3, 2019
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/01/lawsuit-washington-violence-us-turkey-relations.html#ixzz5bbf7n4aB
JAY??!!!! Lets look at it like Moderates. From both sides!
Yesterday,you posted negative tweets and info about economy and how the stock market tanked.
So what happened today with jobs report, stock market and interest rates?
Great one day news about the stock market uptick.
If you’re sure it soon wont flatten back on a downward path, add to your portfolio now!
Good to see additional jobs were added to the employment ranks – about the same number to cover government employees presently not getting paid for work.
Jay I love your “sky is falling” reports when a daily or monthly report comes out that is negative about Trump”s economics and you post numerous negative comments about that, but when we get a report that shows 312,000 jobs created, 2.1 M jobs created in the last 12-18 months, hourly wage rates increasing 3.2%, black unemployment down to just over 6%, total unemployment less than 4% and at 1:45 the Dow is up 725 points, its just “Great one day news about the stock market”
And by the way, those government employees you say equal the number of jobs created are just on an extended vacation, WILL GET PAID when they go back to work JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS HAVE in past sutdowns.
In my way of thinking, when you are unemployed, you don’t have a job, you have to go look for a job and you don’t get paid when you are laid off. Unemployed is not sitting at home waiting for the government offices to reopen so they can cut you a check for the time you were sitting on your ass or off somewhere enjoying the beach or mountains and not have any benefit time charged.
If someone came to me and said, “Ron, stay home for a couple weeks. When you get back, we will pay you for that time and we will not charge you annual leave”, I would say “Bring it on!!!!”
Ron, if furloughed workers (those sent home) are paid for not working during Trump’s shutdown, that means US taxpayers are footing the bill for their extended vacation pay. Plus the work they should be doing is not being done.
Trump owns the Shutdown (he bragged he would personally take responsibility for it, remember?). Can We The People sue him personally for duel restitution of money and services we lost (and keep losing) for his shutdown?
Yes, I agree that we are paying for work not being done now. But I have two thoughts on that subject.
1. I hold that we need two things. The first being a complete (or as complete as possible) closure of our souther border, along with a complete reform of immigration policies. In my thinking, the second will never happen until the first is accomplished. Why would Democrats, who see future voters from that demographic or GOP rich business owners who have a large supply of low wage illegal workers now want to support immigration reform that would impact those benefits for both parties?
2. Only non essential workers are not working. That means most of the work they do really does not need to be done or it will get done when they get back to work. If it gets done, then we really are not paying anymore for their hours. Yes, a few things might hurt, but most make no difference what-so-ever. I hold we could lay off 1/2 the non essentials permanently and not even notice. Did we really have any lasting impact from the Obama administration 16 day total government shutdown other than some peoples trip getting screwed up when national parks closed? I have not heard anything now about bad things happening from that closure.
As for immigration reform, we need to stop with the limits on numbers, we need to look at needed workers from Chicken processing feather pluckers to doctors, we need to change requirements to allow someone who has entered legally to stay here as long as they are productuve immigrants , we need to change some of the requirements for citizenship to allow those born here or who have been working here to earn and achieve citizenship earlier than now. But if one of your parents is not a citizen, then your birth location should not determine citizenship.
But none of this will ever happen until the border is no longer an election issue. Border security is one of the reasons we are stuck with Trump.
And Ron, show me proof Trump’s policies have had any influence on the ‘good’ economic news and are not a continuation of the same trends at work during the previous administration.
Jay, this is the latest eonomic article I could find written by a more centrist or left of center owned media outlet to avoid ” thats just some crap written by Fox business reporters”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-growth-on-fire.html
And remember, figures dont lie, but liars can figure, so anything can be questioned, those can be answered and sceptics will still question.
But questioing something from NBC owned might be.more difficult to question.
Also, Ron – keep in mind those added jobs show hirings in November, traditionally a high hiring month for seasonal holiday jobs. We can expect to see many of those jobs vanish in higher unemployment numbers this month. If So, are you going to praise Trumplestilskin economics for that?
Jay, check where these occurred. Few in retail compared to healthcare .Healthcare is not seasonal.
Democrats and many independents, along with some conservatives, think Donal Trump is mentally deranged, but I dont think he is completely crazy like Nancy Pelosi! She recently ( last day or so) said somethink like ” we have to open the government before we can negotiate the wall”.
Now who in their right mind gives up all their bargaining chips and then goes to the table with nothing. If the GOP buckles under now, there is little chance for many republicans in the 2020 elections.
Just like taking a hard line on trade, short term pain is going to have to be felt to get long term gains!
Pelosi bargaining chip:
“Forty-seven percent of adults in the U.S. hold Trump responsible, while 33 percent blame Democrats in Congress, according to the Dec. 21-25 poll…” Yesterday’s Reuters/Ipsos poll.
So? Whats more important, being responsible and doing whats best for the country, or buckling under to get reelected?
I hold Trump responsible AND I am happy about the shutdown.
How does that factor in ?
Purportedly the 2013 GOP shutdown was highly unpopular – much worse than this. Something like 70% opposed.
Yet 9 months later Republicans decimated democrats at the polls.
Polls do not measure values well.
That is what markets are for.
Even voting is a crappy means of making decisions compared to markets.
One of the reasons that government should be small is that decisions made in the markets are made better and more accurately reflect our nuanced complex and desparate values.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/no-deal-on-shutdown-but-talks-to-continue-through-the-weekend
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/pelosi-says-government-must-re-open-for-border-talks-to-proceed?srnd=premium
Yep I mentioned that > “Now who in their right mind gives up all their bargaining chips and then goes to the table with nothing. If the GOP buckles under now, there is little chance for many republicans in the 2020 elections.”
Pelosi and Shumer must think Trump has lost every connection to reality.
This is like buying a car, giving the dealer a check, signing the ownership papers and then telling the dealer you want to negotiate a better price.
Absolute nonsense.
“We really cannot resolve this until we open up government, and we made that clear to the president,” Pelosi told reporters after the nearly two-hour meeting.
Why ?
As noted there is absolutely no reason for any of us to trust those on the left.
I do not have a problem with Pelosi’s negotiating position – except the presumption that it is anything but a negotiating position.
We will survive as a nation if the shutdown continues.
We will survive if it does not.
We will survive regardless of how this debate is resolved.
There are outcomes that are better and those that are worse.
There are many factors in this. I am not sure if Trump’s threat is credible, but neither is Pelosi’s position.
The fundimental issue is the effect on ordinary americans.
This is a republican president managing a partial shutdown. to a great extent he can target the pain at people who are never voting for him anyway and away from those who likely will.
But not completely. I doubt he can continue this for months – but neither can Democrats.
Further the longer this lasts and the less pain that ordinary people feel the weaker the position of the left.
https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-coming-democratic-disillusion/
Trump Shutdown Consequences
“Washington (CNN) Hundreds of Transportation Security Administration officers, who are required to work without paychecks through the partial government shutdown, have called out from work this week from at least four major airports, according to two senior agency officials and three TSA employee union officials.
The mass call outs could inevitably mean air travel is less secure, especially as the shutdown enters its second week with no clear end to the political stalemate in sight.”
If they are essential, the do what Reagan did with FAA. Order them back to work and if they dont come back FIRE THEM!
Ron, didn’t those Reagan era employees go out on what was determined to be an illegal strike?
Reagan had legal authority to do that.
Trump doesn’t have any authority to fire employees on short term sick leave, permitted in their employment contracts. And they’re likely sick with Trump worry fatigue – a legitimate medical excuse. See, I told you Trump disease would infect America.
If they cant produce a doctors note that they were sick, then I think they could be terminated.
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/leave-administration/fact-sheets/personal-sick-leave/
Hard to say what the personnel policies require fir “essential” employees.
I would end the TSA – what do I care.
Every terrorist threat to airlines since 9/11 was thwarted by Passengers.
Regardless security is the responsibility of the airlines – not the government.
They can not only handle it more effectively they have better incentives – and competition.
Securtity is like everything else we value and the government steps in to interfere with.
It is a value not a principle – it is not absolute.
The human cost of our security today is TOO HIGH for its benefit.
That is what always happens when government gets involved.
We elevate security to a principle – it is not, rather than a value, we forget that it is one of many values and that we make tradeoffs between values.
There is absolutely no instance of true voluntary exchange where the situations like the TSA or DMV would be tolerated. We only accept being mistreated, delayed and tortured because it is government.
Ha ha ha!
Let the commercial airlines be in charge of security.
Sod sob sob.
Sometimes I don’t know to laugh or cry at your silliness.
Well Jay, you love government and trust government, so I guess you would be crying.
dave and I mistrust government and I think, with proper controls, private industry can do thing better and cheaper. So we would be smiling.
Ron, I don’t love and trust government.
Nor do I hate and revile it.
I feel about government as I feel about automobiles: it’s a useful machine, but has to be driven with caution.
I’m sure you feel that way too.
Our differences of opinion concern what regulations to allow or restrict.
I
Jay ” I feel about government as I feel about automobiles: it’s a useful machine, but has to be driven with caution.
I’m sure you feel that way too.
Our differences of opinion concern what regulations to allow or restrict”
Well not really. Using your automobile reference, I view government like I do a Rolls Royce. Cost way too much, uses way too many resources to operate and provides no additional benefits than a Chevy Malibu or Toyota Camry. You get the same results from operating any of them, except one cost ten times the other.
Again we agree, we don’t need a Rolls; but nor do we want a jalopy lacking advancements necessary in the modern world, like power breaks, automatic transmission, seat belts & air bags, signal lights, air conditioner & heater, windshield wipers.
Times change. Government of necessity adapts. We no longer live in a horse-less crank-start carriage era: even the cheapest of new vehicles have GPS installed. Yes, you can drive without it, but it sure comes in handy when you’re lost.
Yes, advances should take place. But we have gone from the era of crank start government where just the basics were provided as with the old model T’s (in todays thinking) to a government that tries to provide everything that one would find in a Rolls, Maserati and Ferrari 250 GTO.
I would prefer a government that provides a Chevy, Toyota or Ford level of service, and that would be the Chevy Cruze, Toyota Yaris and Ford Fiesta. They all have what is needed to get one from point A to point B, and can go coast to coast.
That is where I differ with the political left leaners. They don’t understand we can not afford the Rolls and Ferrari. And they don’t understand that cars like that have many more problems than ones with just basic accessories, just as government that tries to do too much has many more problems than government that should be providing just basic needs.
Dave “Regardless security is the responsibility of the airlines – not the government.”
Amen!!!
If people think it should be a requirement, then I, being much more moderate than you, would accept congress passing legislation that required airlines using the FAA system to provide screeners for those getting on their planes and have guidelines concerning what needs to be screened. (minimum standards)
(and before anyone asked questions concerning which airlines using the FAA system, that is where the airlines, FAA and congress would need to determine who that covers)
Then let the airlines form a company that is jointly owned if they don’t want to do it themselves and let that company provide the screeners at each airport. I would suggest the $4B that the airlines collect now to cover the cost of about 47,000 TSA agents would more than cover the costs if they ran the agents themselves. That is $85,000 a year on average, almost twice what the cost per agent is paid currently.
And yes this is another anti government comment from me because the government can screw up most anything and double the cost of most all they touch. It isn’t their money and there are no limits, so why worry?.
“We only accept being mistreated, delayed and tortured because it is government.”
Ever fly on El Al out of Ben Gurion Airport?
That’s El Al airport security in action, and makes tooth extraction seem pleasant. El Al is responsible for it’s own boarding security, but the airport is patrolled by armed Israeli soldiers, and other armed security agents, and the
Israeli government pays 97.5% of the airlines’ security costs – and is subject to government oversight.
You use El Al as an example – which to some extent makes my point – though Israeli government control of airports and subsidies complicate things.
Imagine if you will – airlines being completely responsible for secutity.
What would that mean ?
Some airlines would be like El Al – you would be analy probed but you would know that there were no bombs on the plane and likely armed security riding with you – and you would pay for that.
And “liberty air” would be another aliternative available to you.
LA would use the least intrusive least expensive approach to security.
Getting on to a plane would be quicker, and cost would be lower.
And YOU would get to choose.
Further all the airlines – both the El Al’s at one end and the LA’s at the other would be competing – all would have incentives to reduce costs. All would have incentives to improve security.
All would be looking for the ways to provide the best security at the lowest cost and inconvenience to customers.
When government steps in that dynamism DIES.
Why as an example do you presume that anything TSA does is the most effective means of providing security ?
One of the most important things we know about security – post Lockerbee, is that it is critical to make certain that everyone who checks a bag gets on the plane. The number of actual suicide bombers is incredibly low.
We also know post 9/11 that the most effective security on the plane – is the passengers themselves. It is pretty well known that Flight 93 and Flight 77 did not reach their targets because passengers went after the hijackers.
Post 9/11 every attack that has been thwarted was done by passengers
Just to be clear I am not proposing that is the only security we should have.
What I am proposing is that like most every other problem in the world we allow smart people in markets rather than smart people in government bureaucracies work this out.
I would further note that the smart people rarely find the right answer on the the first (or the tenth) try. That we solve problems by itterative refinement, that the process is dynamic.
Further everytime we find an effective way to improve security – terrorists adapt – so we must be free to adapt too.
Only markets do that.
Ultimately if you get government out of this – you are likely to end up with the same or better net effective security that is FAR FAR FAR less intrusive.
Forcing people through TSA has an enormous cost – it adds about 1HR to each trip.
2.6M passengers fly EACH DAY in the US – that is an additional 2.6M hours of wasted life dealing with “security” every day
that is the equivalent of 3.6 Lives wasted every day or about 1200 lives wasted per year in airline security.
If TSA killed 1200 people a year – we would be demanding changes – but effectively that is what they are doing – they are stealing 1200 life equivalants in wasted time in airports/year.
Ultimately people know and understand this.
We could reduce automobile deaths to near zero by changing the speed limit to 5MPH. But the actual wasted life would be far greater.
Almost 40,000 people are killed in cars in the US each year – and we still drive.
We are prepared to accept less than perfect safety – when the cost of that safety – not just in $ but in lost time exceeds the benefits.
Only markets ultimately and intuitively (and dynamically) get this right.
Only markets get it right – because they are driven by real costs and by consumers not experts.
In a market the role of experts is to give consumers what they want.
In government the role of experts is to give bureaucrats what they want.
There are over 60 airlines that regularly use LAX.
Don’t you see the unfeasibility of them independently overseeing their own security?
(In Israel the state has an equilevant FAA, military assisted, supervising other airline’s boarding security and physical airport security)
https://www.flylax.com/en/lax-airline-list
Your concerned that Air Travel – the safest means of travel (and that safety has NOTHING to do with the TSA). might get a little less safe.
The information below is from DHS – and whether republican or democrat, I do not have a high level of trust for government agencies. That said – how much do you think it is off by ?
10% ? A factor of 2 ? A factor of 10 ? A factor of 100 ?
How bad does this data have to be before it is LESS significant that whatever you think the issue is with TSA ?
Rather than preventing terrorists from hijacking planes – what is wrong with stopping them from entering the country ?
I went through the Wikipedia data for “acts of terrorism” post 9/11.
Almost 50% of those since 9/11 were committed by first generation muslim immigrants.
Adding in 2nd generation radicalized youth brings the numbers to about 75%
Maybe wikipedia’s data is wrong ? Maybe those here and in the media who keep telling us that no no no we do not have to worry about foreign terrorists are right and have real data to back it up ? But Wikipedia tends to lean left, so why would they screw this up ?
Just to be clear since all you have to do is say muslim and you will be accused of being a racist – I welcome immigrants – including muslims. I hosted a family of burmese muslims for 2 years. I will be happy to discuss reasonable means to broaden our immigration.
I will be perfectly happy – and I would bet that Trump and Republicans would too, to allow unlimited numbers of immigrants from anywhere in the world who can get some person or organization to take meaningful financial responsibility for them for say 5 years.
I am also happy to actually discuss open borders – but there are many things that have to be addressed to do so – and I have no respect for those who claim they do not want open borders but have not seen any limit to immigration they are not opposed to, and have no interest in trying to determine how to make actual open borders work.
Open borders – in any form would be a massive disruption to the fabric of this country.
Done properly it would be a net good disruption – but we should not delude ourselves, immigration can be and often is significantly net positive – but there are ALOT of losers.
All alternatives to open borders have limits on immigration.
If you are not prepared to discuss those limits – then you are for defacto open borders – which is the WORST POSSIBLE FORM of open borders.
I have no respect for the ostriches on the left who are sticking their heads in the sand.
President Donald J. Trump sent every member of Congress the slides from the security update that Pelosi and Schumer ignored. According to that presentation, Customs and Border Protection seized 850 tons of narcotics and arrested 17,000 adults with existing criminal records in fiscal year 2018, blocked 3,755 known or suspected terrorists from entering the country in FY 2017, and apprehended 6,000 gang members. How much of these substances and how many of these dangerous individuals eluded federal officials? Who knows?
Where’s the link to those interdiction numbers?
From my own Wikipedia search all I could find from public realm reporting was that 15 suspected terrorists have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border, or en route, since 2001. Most terrorist interceptions have been at US airports and ports of entry.
Show me your link & I’ll show you mine.
And President Poop has had nothing to do with those arrests/stoppages.
Another example of the rubber band snapping back when stretched too far.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/02/bolsonaro-takes-office-in-brazil.html
The world is seeing more and more reactions from voters throwing out the left and replacing with the right.
And what happens with those with more moderating views?
National Debt up Two Trillion in las two years. But who cares, Do the Reps, Dems or Libs?
Nah
Well dduck I care. WAY WAY back when I first found this site, Obama was in office and he had created a commision by E.O. to look at ways to control the debt and deficit. It was the Simpsom Bowles or Bowles Simpson Commission. There were 18 member, if I remember right, with 9 from each party. They worked on a plan and many like me thought what they came up with was a good solution. 66% saving from expense reduction and 33% from tax increases. Over a given period of time, the budget balanced.
Congress and Obama saw the outcome and it was dropped like a hit potato. There was BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION to the recommendations, the last time I remember bipartisanship ruling in congress. The democrats opposed spending cuts and the GOP opposed the tax package.
Had that happened we would be well on our way to a balanced budget .
And dont say that I support Trumps tax cuts that increased the budget. Had Simoson Bowles taken.place in 2011, no one can predict what 2019 would be looking like other than the deficit might be almost gone. And I think what SB recommended in 2010 will be forced upon government at sometime in the future.
Good, Ron. I thought with all the talk around here that no one noticed the debt elephant in the room, the Reps being the blindest.
I also cheered SB and saw how it was ignored.
Tax increase will not work. PERIOD!!!!.
Christine Romer – Obama’s chief economic advisor did some very effective analysis of taxes accross the entire EEOC and her results fairly effectively demonstrate that the revenue optimizing peak for taxes is approximately 35% – that is TOTAL taxes. We are above that already.
Higher taxes will bring in LESS revenue not more.
That aspect of Simpson Bowles was economic garbage.
You can restructure taxes – there are some types of taxes that are less economically destructive than others. Of course those taxes that produce more revenue without as much economic destruction tend to be the least popular taxes. Sales taxes – higher taxes on the middle class.
There is a reason that Europes incredibly high tax rates are highly regressive – particularly targetting the middle class.
I would further note that the revenue optimizing maximum tax rates is NOT the optimal tax rate.
We separately know that government larger than 20% of the economy reduces growth by 1% for each 10% increase in the size of government.
Our data below 20% is poor, but I would expect that the optimal size of government is somewhere between 3-9% of GDP – that would be based on the US in the 19th century and the 7.5% average growth we had at the time.
Dave, if I can get the government spending cut by $670B and taxes go up $330B and then have a balanced budget from there on, I blueve in the long run that is a win. Once youcstarve the beast, then you change spending where the savings will continue to accrue and taxes can be cut more than the 330B in the future.
You can keep argueing that we need to cut spending until the cows come home and it will never happen!!! Not until be are bankrupt, interest become a massive expense and benefits can not be paid for. Then massive increases in taxes will happen!
I am willing to accept minor increaees in taxes to get significant decreases in spending.
DD;
I do not recall anyone outside of the right and libertarians caring about deficits in the past.
Moderates, democrats and the left do not say squat about deficits until republicans are in power.
I am not happy that Trump and Republicans have not addressed the deficit.
Though effective deficit reduction is near political suicide.
Unless you are willing to go after entilements and defense – you are at best going to make draconian cuts to the rest just to break even – if that.
I would absolutely cut the federal government to the bone – get right of the department of energy, education, EPA, Housing, Labor, FCC, FEC, and strip much of the rest to the bone.
Trump has not done a fraction of what I would do.
But he has TRIED to make fairly substantial cuts, and though his successes are small they are greater than any prior president.
BUT he has significantly increased Defense – as did Obama.
And entitlements have increased dramatically on autopilot.
Further entitlements are increasingly in the red – SS and HI tax collections are well under expenditures and will be forever, and that money adds directly to the deficit
I would slash Defense in HALF – possibly more.
But that would still leave the elephant in the room – entitlements.
Neither party is touching entitlements.
And without doing that we are screwed.
If you look at the year/year deficits, the really big deal was the deal between Obama and republicans to get rid of the sequester.
Deficits under Obama peaked at over 1.4T Before the sequester was eliminated they were down to $400B, after the sequester was dropped they shot up to 800-900B.
Average yearly deficts for Trumps first term will match those of Obama’s last, and will be much less than Obama’s first.
Some parts of that art artifacts – Much of the 2017 budget was set by Obama.
Just as much of 2009 was set by Bush. ‘
Though Obama was responsible for ARRA.
I did not support the increased military spending – not under Obama, not under Trump.
Jay,you mention in a couple places polls indicating support for or agaist Trump. Do you know how these polls are conducted?
I ask this because polls can result in much different outcomes based on how they are created. If 42% of the respondents strongly disapprove of Trump, are these polls asking respondents based on each states percent of the popular vote?
If the polls is done this way, it will produce different results than randomly selecting voters across America and asking them. That process could show 42% disapproval, but Trump could still carry the electoral vote since approval by state voters can vary greatly from national results.
You’re right, individual polls can be slanted, and you need composite poll samples to have a better read on the topic under discussion.
But if Trump can chortle over select polls he likes, I can do the same for polls that disparage him.
The only poll that matters is the election.
And even there – we disempower government because elections are binary and do not truly reflect the will of the people.
Where possible – and they are not possible for everything, markets most accurately reflect peoples desires.
Free markets allow us to express each of our values proportionate to its individual relative strength.
Nothing else comes close to capturing our real values.
“A GoFundMe page to raise money for President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall has raked in over $18.5 million in just two weeks with an ultimate goal of $1 billion, and inspired at least one competing page dedicated to paying for ladders to get people over said wall (that page has so far raised over $158,000 with a $100 million goal after being established on Dec. 19).”
If you support the Trump Wall, even though you say you don’t like him, shouldn’t you contribute to the fund. If you don’t, and I am pointing to Libs on this blog, are you all just talk?
Nancy Is willing to donate one dollar $….
I forgot to ask how much of the $18 Mil. is Trump’s contribution.
He is a phony and cheap to boot.
If this was a donor restrictec not for profit organization raising these funds, I might send $100. If you think about it, $5B divided by each vote Trump received was just $80. each.
But a gofundme account is like betting on the Cleaveland Browns to win this years super bowl.
I wont give anything to any gofundme page. No better than investing in cryptocurrency. Who knows where it ends up?
Yeah, well I guess that’s that.
I give money to homeless people, to people on the street, to anyone who asks – if I have money to give.
Who knows where it ends up ?
I do not give to the Clinton Foundation –
Who knows where it ends up ?
I would bet that GoFundme funds are more likely to go to the purpose asserted than funds contributed to a non-profit.
New topic. Not really political. Just a WOW for those not in NYC
Who knew Taxi cab owner/ operators had more than a million invested in each cab.
No wonder they are so pissed with Uber/Lyft. And NYC for not protecting their business.
OOPS. Heres the link
https://nypost.com/2017/04/05/taxi-medallions-reach-lowest-value-of-21st-century/
Why should taxi medallions even exist ?
They are an artificial form of property created by government.
Properly they are anti-property.
They force funds to be invested and tied up when if the govenrment stayed out no many would be invested in medalions – but we would still have cabs.
Well I agree with you. I do think that certain safety requirements be met so someone is not riding around in a death trap car because there will always be someone without a pot top piss in deciding to offer a service and then if your killed, your relatives have no recourse. And the owner who might not get killed just gets a slap on the wrist and spends a few years in jail which they could probably care less.
But other than that, I don’t think the government should be creating winners and losers. That is not the role of government. Private enterprise should be controlling taxi service, Uber and Lyft.
And since the genies out of the bottle, there is no way in hell that it ever goes back in.Try all they might, private operators will always exist, just as escort services exist even with prostitution laws on the books.
Why shouldn’t somebody without a pot to piss in and a death trap care be allowed to run a taxi service ?
If a taxi shows up that you do not trust – are you going to take it ?
The services like lyft and uber have ratings systems – the drivers/cars get rated, and the customers get rated back.
Sounds like an effective means of ensuring that you get value.
Long ago we debated some NYC jewish slum lord who was murdered.
He was providing shitholes to the homeless and drug addicts for $100/month.
These were horrible places to live. But they were better than the street.
NYC closed him down – and thousands ended up on the street – a few even died.
Whenever you decide that someone should not be able to provide really bad service cheap, you are deciding that really really poor people, people at the bottom have to go completely without.
Free markets are voluntary.
No one is forced to exchange.
Prohibiting the use of force IS the legitimate role of government.
Free markets do not assure that we get what we want.
Only that we are always free to say no.
All choices are up to us.
Whether it is a taxi or air travel – deciding what you are willing to pay for better, or safer should always be YOUR choice
AND you should always remember that what your chose regarding quality or safety – or whatever standards you think government should regulate – there is someone else out their who either would not or can not choose the same, and if you force your standards by law – you are depriving someone of what little they can afford – or are willing to afford.
Drug adicts living in non-code-compliant shitholes is better than living on the street. deathTrap taxis are better than none at all.
Dave, we will never ever agree. Your level of Libertarianism is off the charts. I accept anyone should be free to exchange goods and services without government interference. But your trust in your fellow man thinking you wont die invan accident or from some other short cut someone might take is also off the charts.
I thing government is too involved in most everything we have going on today. But I also know people are going to risk your safety in many cases. So I accept that cars need to be inspected to be on the roads in NC. That means that all cars, including taxi’s are on the road with fewer issues than if the cars are not inspected. We hardly ever hear of a blow out causing an accident, or break failure the same like we heard years ago.
Now this I could get behind if I were anywhere close to driving distance for a day. Wonder how many will really show up or just give lip service.
Interesting to see what Liberals, Conservatives, Moderates and others do to the national areas with our trash. In that, people are much the same/ Either you respect what you have or you don’t. I saw pictures of Yosemite Mat Park and there are many people that need to be banned for any national park,
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2019/01/04/libertarian-party-to-clean-up-national-mall-during-government-shutdown/?fbclid=IwAR2Gq3PEhUmQk2mUk02mruYp2uhuTNkBQ9iufGFUWrJdZ-cbRc7Peel-cxg
Many national parks are run using private services that have management contracts.
These are not likely shutdown.
True, but others are not. Nice to see some groups stepping up to make a difference. Most people are all hot air and do nothing. Other don’t give a crap and trash the places. But they are the ones that just throw their trash anywhere anytime. Most big cities are like that for the most part and need daily street cleaning and sweeping.
The constitution severely limits the property that the federal govenrment is permitted to own.
This is why there is very little federal land on the east coast – as our founders sold it all to private owners.
They understood that if you want something to be taken care of and put to its best use – it must be owned – and not be government.
But why would we bother to follow the constitution.
Tell him why he’s incapable of having this knowledgeable opinion, from your more experienced perch, Dave/John
https://twitter.com/colmorrisdavis/status/1081403761111781377?s=21
“800,000 federal workers won’t be getting paid tomorrow”
I would call that a start.
The economy is adding 311,000 jobs a month, we shoudl be able to put them ALL into productive jobs that will make ALL of us better off in a few months.
“including a quarter-million U.S Military Veterans”
False the military was funded.
There is some issue with VA funding – that is unrelated to the shutdown, and is a failure of congress.
“but this guy will get a $10,000 taxpayer funded raise ”
True – congress was so caught up in bickering over the wall they failed to pass legistation stopping an automatic pay raise – or maybe they did so deliberately.
Regardless it is not related tot he shutdown and if Pelosi passes the legislation rolling back the pay raise – The senate will pass it and Trump will sign it.
It would help if you quit blaming things that have nothing to do with the shutdown and the shutdown.
Un oh… Trump is sounding very Dave/John like with his claims of superior knowledge. D/J – don’t take this appropriation of your scepter of superiority lying down!
By Scott Martelle
If Trump thinks migrants in the U.S. illegally are dangerous, why has he hired so many of them? https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-2-enter-the-fray-if-trump-thinks-undocumented-migrants-1546619872-htmlstory.html
“In fact, Trump has profited before from the labor of people working in the U.S. without permission, including clients of his modeling agency and Polish laborers who demolished a store to make way for his flagship Trump Towers project in Manhattan (Trump paid nearly $1.4 million in a legal settlement for that one).
Possibly because your claim is inaccurate.
Trump has repeatedly states that some illegal immigrants are “very fine people”.
But some are not.
He is however trying to deport the ones with criminal records – generally evidence of being dangerous, and the left is seeking to thwart that – often with horrible results.
You can of course identify Mr. Martelle’s bias – as well as yours with phrases like “profited before from the labor of people …”
If you are employed – legally or otherwise – your employer is profiting from your labor.
If they are not – you are unlikely to remain employed long.
People are employed specifically because their employer can profit from their labor.
That is the ONLY reason people are employed.
Dave “If you are employed – legally or otherwise – your employer is profiting from your labor.
If they are not – you are unlikely to remain employed long.”
Yes, but those hired illegally provide more profits from their labor than legal hires.
One, hire someone for an amount for the day instead of per hour, the hourly rate can be less than minimum wage.
Two, hire illegally, no required federal employer taxes.
Three, no required employer state taxes
Four, no other cost like workmans comp, etc.
In June 2015 while campaigning he said this:
QUOTE: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Is the word ILLEGAL hidden somewhere in the quote.
And are the ‘yous’ he’s referring to, are they Hispanics.
And since then, has he said anything but negatives about Southern Border immigrants, legal or illegal?
Tell the truth Dave/John, isn’t he intentionally stirring up race hatred… come on, admit it
Waiting….
““In fact, Trump has profited before from the labor of people working in the U.S. without permission, including clients of his modeling agency and Polish laborers who demolished a store to make way for his flagship Trump Towers project in Manhattan (Trump paid nearly $1.4 million in a legal settlement for that one).”
All political!!!!
Left wants open borders, let anyone in, after a few years, more left voting minorities. For proof, look at California demographics in the late 60’s compared to now and compare voter rolls for same period.
Right yells publically for a wall, but privately these are a great pool of workers that can be hired off the books at much reduced cost of legal emp!oyees. Construction workers, chicken processing workers, house cleaners, lawn maintence, you name it, conservative voting rich benefit from this pool of workers.
Now, instead of saying Trump benefits from this illegal pool of workers, ask why would he be pushing to close down this pool? What could happen in any agreement for a wall that would benefit the rich businesses? Think about it. Forget the past, whats good for them in the future?
“Left wants open borders, let anyone in”
Balony.
A small insignificant minority of Americans favor open borders, but the majority of Dems (you consider all Dems left, correct) do NOT favor it.
Show me the Dems who ran for office this election who campaigned in favor of open borders.
Jay, “Balony”
Give it up Jay! The left does not want a secure birder anymore than the right.
You can argue that until it snows in Miami and itvstill won’t be true.
Ron, the quote is TRUE, are you refuting facts? Don’t be like the other Lib.
Damn, do I comment in a foriegn language? I agree totally. Read what I posted. I said this is all political. Both sides want open borders to meet their needs. The left wants voters, the right wants cheap labor.
Jay, as the good liberal will say libs dont want open borders.
Dave as the Trump supporter will say the conservative does not want open borders.
I say they both benefit and both want insecure borders, but wont say that.
what more can I say?
Ron, you’re brainwashed by false statistics.
Check this California poll on the Southern Border Wall.
See the percent in favor of ‘open borders’?
1%! That includes the 28% of California eligible voters who are Hispanic.
https://www.isidewith.com/poll/2905607533/9333303
Jay, I am sorry that there are so many people on each side of the political spectrum that believe what politicians tell them. The right believed Trump when he said Mexico wouod pay for the wall. The left believe that Demicrats do not want minorities entering the country and increasing support in future years.
No one brain washed me. No one told me the right supoorts illegals to increase cheap labor. I look at California way back when I lived there and Reagan was governor and I look at it today. Overwhelmingly minority and overwhelmingly liberal. I watched our health system during years of expansion and the greatest number of construction workers hired by the contractors building new buildings were day laborers that could not speak english. At the end of the day, they got paid in cash. Just in the last couple years my daughter had a house built. Carpenters, sheetrock and brick masons were unable to speak English. I suspect most were illegal and paid cash.
So my beliefs in border security is based on what I see. If it looks like an elephant, dont try convincing me its a pregnant cow.
And Jay, let me make it clear. The people may not want open borders. And the politicians will say they dont want open borders. But they are not telling the people the truth, they are telling them what they wsnt to hear.
Now ask yourself this question. Why did congress split up all the funding for government operations, pass those bills over the past few months, but the one supporting Homeland Security was left to the last minute? If they knew it was going to be the most contentious, would you not work on it first to give more time to work out a compromise?
No, they want a political agenda item, they will come up with some BS compromise that wont solve any immigration issue, DACA will still be illegal, illegals will still cross rhe border. illegals here will not screened by any job verification system and growth in minority population will increase liberal voter rolls and business will still have theur cheap illegal labor.
But this does come from someone who distrust government, which includes politicians. You can believe their crap if you want.
“Remembering Jan. 19, 1977, the day it snowed in South Florida. It was a day that no one could have imagined. And even when it happened, some people had a hard time believing it.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave_of_January_1977
Wellvdang, I’ll use Lake Havasu next time. But it did not snow in Miami city, just the Miami area!
Right. Close enough. 🙂
Trump’s shutdown is endangering the safety of those using airlines:
“In a scorchingly fact-based letter to President Trump, the Air Line Pilots Association — which represents 61,000 pilots — used simple words.
Its president, Captain Joe DePete wrote:
I am writing to urge you to take the necessary steps to immediately end the shutdown of government agencies that is adversely affecting the safety, security and efficiency of our national airspace system.”
https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/delta-united-airlines-pilots-to-president-trump-cut-nonsense.html
Something is not fact based merely by assertion.
It is a fact that the Airline pilots association has written a letter. The rest is primarily opinion.
Regardless – if you do not want the shutdown – fund the wall. It is quite simple.
This is a policy disagreement nothing more.
Trump has no right to get the wall built. Democrats have no right to prevent it.
Each has some power they can excercise to attempt to get what they want.
If pilots are so concerned – then they should choose not to fly.
Personally, though I do not expect it, I hope for a very long shutdown. It is unlikely that many government employees can hold out without pay for that long.
Inevitably they will start seeking actually productive private sector jobs at some point.
That would be incredibly good for all of us – less government employees, more people in jobs that require producing something of value.
Further if enough people leave government – and we do not replace some of them, we may save money and reduce the burden of government on the state.
As to the APA – lets just privatize everything associated with air travel
Why should government have anything to do with air travel at all ?
Interestingly in much of the world – including socialist europe a significantly greater portion of control of air travel is private.
So if you and your family show up for a flight and the flight crew is in front of the boarding line with signs saying “This Flight May Be Hazardous To Your Life” you are going to smile at them, ignore the warnings, and board because it’s not a fact based opinion?
Where you or the APA saying the same thing when Obama shutdown the government over funding PPACA ?
Please explain how that was different ?
In both cases the law existed to empower the president.
In both cases congress refused to fund the law.
In 2013 you blamed republicans
In 2019 you are blaming republicans.
Seems to be a theme.
Whenever you do not get what you want – it is the republicans fault.
It does not matter what it is you want.
It does not matter whether what you want is reasonable, or has broad public support – if you want it – that is enough. Government mush deliver.
In fact, I criticized Obama for his shutdown.
I wasn’t in favor of Obamacare as then proposed.
Over time it hasn’t turned out as bad as I thought it would, but the Republican tax cut for the 1% is hurting it as it’s hurting other US infrastructure.
Again, for the umpteenth time: I was an Obama critic.
But as bad as I thought he was, I’d take him in a millisecond over President Motherfu**er.
Jay;
The left DEFACTO wants open borders. When you do not support limitations on what can cross the borders – that is “open borders”.
Whatever limitations you support – and it does not matter what those limitations are – if you have limits you must enforce those limits.
If you say 50M people can cross the border and immigrate legally each year, you must have some means of assuring that 51M do not.
Whether you make it 5M, or 50K, or 50 unless you have the means to enforce those limits – you effectively have no limits.
And that is what this fight is about, and why it is accurate to say the democrats are after open borders – whether they are open about that or not.
I would further note that democrats are NOT engaged in any discussion regarding what the limits are.
While Trump has offered to put all kinds of other discussions on the table – there is no engagement by democrats on any of those issues.
Democrats are not engaged in determining what the limits are – who is permitted to legally immigrate and how many.
They are seeking to preclude enforcing ANY limits.
A wall is NOT the only means of enforcing limits.
It is however the most efficient and cheapest means.
We already know that the wall is effective – whether it is israel or the berlin wall or just the parts of the US border with wall now – in all those places unrestricted movement has ended – almost entirely.
Conversely where there are no walls enormous human resources are required AND unrestricted movement is less significantly impeded.
Ultimately – the Wall alone is not sufficient. But a wall with LESS CBP agents is more efficient and effective than no wall and more CBP agents.
“So if you and your family show up for a flight and the flight crew is in front of the boarding line with signs saying “This Flight May Be Hazardous To Your Life” you are going to smile at them, ignore the warnings, and board because it’s not a fact based opinion?”
That would be correct – if I show up at an airport for a flight – I am free to decide on my own whether I wish to fly or not, whether the conditions are safe enough for me.
Today airtravel is BY FAR the safest means of transportation with 0.07 fatalities per billion passenger miles – nearly all of those in “general aviation” not airlines.
Trains are 7 times more dangerous
Busses are about twice as dangerous,
Cars and trucks are 100 times more dangerous.
So based on the FACTS – no I would not give a crap what the APA says.
But you are free to make your own choices for yourself – and you can use facts, feelings or a Ouija board to do so.
Still using Asbestos insulating board in your home?
Ad Hominem as a substitute for argument.
Paul Revere: “The British are coming!”
Dubious Dave: “Unfounded supposition, Sir!”
Red Herring Fallacy.
Revere made an assertion that was supported by actual evidence.
The comparable analogy would be Trump is saying “the illegal immigrants are coming” – and the left is saying – “I can not see them”, while they camp at our borders.
“The left DEFACTO wants open borders. When you do not support limitations on what can cross the borders – that is “open borders”.”
Making unsubstantiated claims like that makes you DEFACTO Dubious Dave.
Prove that assertion Donald-Clone.
Jay, I admire patience; I have none.
I guess repeating nonsense over and over is a form of patience.
It is not one that should be admired.
Not an unsubstantiated claim. In fact the quote substantiates it.
What are the limitations that the left supports ? And what are the EFECTIVE means to impliment those limits ?
If you do not have concrete answers to those questions then you are defacto for open borders.
BTW I HAVE Proved the assertion – it is called logic, you should try it sometime.
Your assertion that the left does not support open borders is logically false.
When you do not support any effective means of achieving an objective – then you logically and defacto oppose the objective.
I am fully prepared to have a discussion of “open borders” and what is necescary to have them.
I am fully prepared to obliterate all our drug laws, making any need to secure the border against drug trafficking unnecessary.
I am fully prepared to obliterate the assorted labor laws and entitlements that make the free movement of legal immigrants accross the border impossible.
But the left is not prepared to have those discussions.
You want the status quo – drug laws that very costly and ineffective that you will not enforce, and labor laws and entitlements that ensure that “illegal immigrants” as well as innumerable others must commit myriads of crimes just to remain in the US.
Are you saying the status quo works ? It worked badly for Obama. Except that he is enforcing the law somewhat more vigorously – Trump is doing nothing regarding immigration that Obama did not do first. His executive orders – parrot those of Obama. Child separation started under Obama, Detaining people caught near the border – started under Obama.
Obama had the benefit of a weak economy – immigration subsides when our economy is weak and rises when it is strong.
“In fact, I criticized Obama for his shutdown.
I wasn’t in favor of Obamacare as then proposed.
Over time it hasn’t turned out as bad as I thought it would”
Actually yes it has turned out pretty much as bad as expected – that is the reason that both Trump and Obama have waived so much of it and that it has been so heavily modified.
“but the Republican tax cut for the 1% is hurting it as it’s hurting other US infrastructure.”
Nope – the baseline budget has increased for every year in every area for decades.
Separately all the claims of disasterous infrastructure – INCLUDING those of Trump fail the Mark I eyeball test.
Tell me one place in this country where the infrastructure is not substantially better than 20, 30, 40 years ago.
I would further note that we spend something like 350B on “shovel ready” projects in 2009.
Where did that money go ? Was there no benefit to that ? That was spending above and beyond the normal spending of the state local and federal government.
“Again, for the umpteenth time: I was an Obama critic.”
We have been here a long time. I recall fighting with you over the same issues for all of that time. I do not recall you as consequentially criticizing Obama.
“But as bad as I thought he was, I’d take him in a millisecond over President Motherfu**er.”
Based on FACTS, Trump is a far better president. He is better than Obama, He is Better than Both Bush’s. It is open to debate whether he is better than Clinton – Trump has only been president for 2 years – though Clinton failed at foreign policy – though mostly in small ways, and Trump is more successful – thus far mostly in small ways.
Economically it is a dead heat – growth was higher under Clinton – but Clinton inherited a strong economy and Trump inherited a weak one.
The fact is that Obama and the Bush’s were POOR PRESIDENT’s.
The Bush’s were nice people – I would have said Obama was in 2016, but I am deeply disturbed by what I have learned since. It was possible to pass the IRS scandal off as the over zealous acts of underling’s when it stood alone, but what is increasingly evident is that Obama used the presidency as a political weapon for 8 years, Targeting political oppositions, Targetting Congress, Targetting Journalists, and ultimately targeting his successor.
The fish rots from the head.
Nice blinders you’ve chosen to wear.
“The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2012 that Obamacare will save $109 billion over the next decade. And in more recent reports, the non-partisan agency has credited the law with helping drive down the government’s deficit because its insurance expansion programs have cost less than initially expected.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/6/25/18001920/how-much-does-obamacare-cost-the-government
Jay, this is the type of reporting that progides false information as there is way too much not explained. Such as over 45% of most providers business is Medicare. The government reduces reimbursement for Medicare, that has nothing to do with Obamacare and providers chages practice patterns for that 45%. Once you change practice pattern for more than 30% of your patients, 100% get that new way of service. So reduced reimbursement for 45% changes prectices to be less costly, thus reducing cost for 100%. And that is not Obamacare.
Figures dont lie but liars can figure!
Ron;
Efforts to solve the immigration issue have been ongoing for over a decade.
There are clips of Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer and other democrats clearly stating the necessity of a wall for border security.
Further this issue came to a head in March with Schumer threatening to shut government down then. Trump then as now was happy to deal with the democrats on the other issues they want – DACA, Family separation, …. So long as the wall was authorized.
Purportedly Schumer agreed in March an then renigged.
Absolutely BOTH republicans and democrats pushed this to the last minute.
The republicans funded nearly all the rest of government – weakening any threat of a shutdown, and democrats prayed for a victory in Nov. to increase their leverage.
Both got what they wanted – so nothing has really changed.
And I am perfectly comfortable with a long partial shutdown.
Both got what they wanted. Screw the country. Illegals still getting in. Dems getting more future voters. Conservatives getting more cheap labor. DACA not addressed. Long term illegals not addressed.
Piss on all of the politicians, from Trump on down to that one rep from WY. They all care less about the average American citizen.
And the average American citizen gets what they deserve, because they keep voting for asses like Trump, McConnell, Shumer and Pelosi.
“Ron, you’re brainwashed by false statistics.
Check this California poll on the Southern Border Wall.
See the percent in favor of ‘open borders’?
1%! That includes the 28% of California eligible voters who are Hispanic.”
If when asked I say – I am opposed to shooting you, and then I shoot you.
it is pretty obvious what I really meant.
And if you claim 50,000 Dems are murderers, and a murder is committed by one, you’d gloat that you were right.
BTW, have I told you lately what a Haw-Haw you are….
It is trivial to win any argument if you can make up whatever claims you wish about your opponent.
I can just assert “Jay is a kiddie didler” and declare victory.
If n people commit murder, it is reasonable to conclude that when they claimed to oppose murder – that claim was not particularly strong.
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Haw-Haw.
BTW – does that even have any meaning ?
“Yes, but those hired illegally provide more profits from their labor than legal hires.”
Profit in a free market ALWAYS converges arround risk. PERIOD.
If something is illegal – it has greater risk and there must be a higher profit to justify the risk.
BTW if something is illegal – but the risk of any consequence is low, profits will be little different than they are in the legal market.
The relationship between profits and risk is the same REGARDLESS of the activity.
Innovators take a risk on new products or new means of producing products and if successfully they BRIEFLY make high profits – in line with the risks they took.
But quite quickly as they are successful, and the risk drops profits drop back to levels comensurate with the risk being taken.
While the relationship between profits and risk is not absolute – several factors – government interventions or subsidies, or shortages can temporarily create high profits with miniumal risk.
Those instances are rare and they do not last long.
There is absolutely nothing that humans or government can do to sustainably divorce risk and profit.
Ron;
“Dave, we will never ever agree. Your level of Libertarianism is off the charts. I accept anyone should be free to exchange goods and services without government interference. But your trust in your fellow man thinking you wont die in van accident or from some other short cut someone might take is also off the charts.”
Please name something that you are afraid of, that is seriously harmful, that you think requires regulation that is not ALL of the below:
Extremely rare
A crime – by that I mean something like assault or murder that has been a crime for as long as we have had laws.
A breach of contract
A tort.
I can not think of anything. Even Anarcho-Capitalists – which I am not, are not looking to eliminate criminal law, contract law or tort law, they are just looking to privatize enforcement.
My “off the charts” libertarianism seeks only to not make things that are already illegal (and rare) multiple ways, not illegal in even more ways.
HOWEVER, if there is an act that:
Is not otherwise a crime,
is not a breach of contract,
is not a tort.
Then NO! I do not want it regulated.
All crimes are unjustified uses of force to infringe on the rights of others.
Killing or injuring others deliberately or recklessly or foreseably is a crime.
Any regulation that is about deliberately, recklessly or foreseably using force to infringe on the rights of others is REDUNDANT.
If you have a contract with someone else – and all free market exchanges are contracts, and you breach that contract, that too is already illegal and we have no need for regulations that impose burdens on people they are already obligated to by contract.
If you breach a duty of care to others, resulting in harm to another – that would be a tort. There are no need for regulations that duplicate Tort Law.
Most every fear I have ever heard you express falls into ALL of these catagories of things that are already illegal without any regulations.
Anything that regulations seek to prevent – that is not covered by criminal, contract and tort law – is not anything of the things you worry about, and is NOT anything that should be regulated.
The fundimental problem with regulation is that they are a priori, They govern means NOT ends.
There is an enormous gulf between – you may not kill your neighbor, and you may not spray your garden with roundup.
The former bars you from causing harm – regardless of the means you use to do it.
The latter bars a means – whether it causes harm or not.
Dave, wha n you ssk me to name something I am afraid of that is already not legal is not a good example.
For instance, it is illegal to provide a service that will harm someone. And if harm occurs, then those providing service will be tried and convictec. But that does no good for the ones who are dead or permanently disabled.
So where you dont want the intervening step where the harms risk is significantly reduced by inspections or other regulation, I want someone making sure products and services are safe. It does not need to be government, but some independent group.
But we have debated this issue many times, say exactly the same things over and over and get no where. And again we do the same.
There is no evidence that any regulation has ever effectively “intervened”.
Further, the government does not “really” intervene ahead of time.
There are – and can be no where near enough government inspectors to enforce apriori but a tiny portion of all regulations. The economy would grind to a halt if their were.
Just as with the laws I cite – enforcement is ALWAYS an after the fact event.
Every year were read stories of harms that occur because regulations were not followed.
Ultimately the teeth of every regulation – is the same as the teeth of the same law I am refering to. It is that if you do something that harms others, AND YOU GET CAUGHT, you will be punished.
People are almost never punished proactively for the harm they might cause.
But they are rarely punished – not for harm, but for offending those in power.
Regulation differs from other law – not in that it actually works as a preventative. The primary preventive facet of all law – criminal, civil, tort AND regulation is the near certainty of punishment WHEN HARM OCCURS,
Regulation gives those in government – not the power to prevent harm, but the power to punish enemies, or those who will not kowtow.
That is a flaw not a feature.
Further regulation stiffles creativity, innovation – we have plenty of data on that. We will never know precisely what invention is never born as a consequence of regulation, but we do know that more regulation results in less innovation.
Finally – we have no right to preclude people from doing things that MIGHT harm others. That is the infringement on rights based on oppinion, not fact.
Contra your claim – criminal, contract and tort law do have enormous preventive effect.
Anyone prepared to go to jail for violating a criminal law – is not going to be detered by a regulation. Anyone detered by a regulation will be as or more effectively stopped by criminal contract and tort law.
With one glaring exception. Criminal contract and tort law requires ACTUAL harm to result in punishment.
Regulation not only punishes harm – though no better than criminal contract and torts, but it imposes a threat of punishment where there is no harm.
Dave, no one can prove a negative. No one can tell anyone else how many accidents have been eliminated in North Carolina since the state began vehicle inspections and if they tried, they would be a fool or a liar. No one can tell you how many people have not been made sick because eateries are graded.
YES! There are still people that do wrong. But my distrust of people tells me that there are many who are not trying to skirt safety like they might if there were not inspections.
You are black and white. People will do good or bad regardless of regulation. I am gray. There is a subset within your groups that will change behavior from bad to good. Not all and those are still the ones we hear about, but some that we never hear about.
It is always possible to persuade yourself of a hypothetical risk that justifies regulation.
I have observed before that society is advanced by those approximately 10% of us that are willing to take risks.
Clearly 90% of us are not. If we allow the 90% to dictate – and that is precisely what regulation does, then we radically reduce improvement.
Just to be clear – if we take risks – sometimes bad things happen.
Of course if we do not bad things also happen – just different bad things.
The extent to which the FDA regulates the creation of new drugs absolutely positively reduces the number of people killed by drugs that have not been thoroughly tested.
But it also kills many more people who have problems that could be cured by drugs that will never occur – because the market is just not large enough to justify the cost.
You can identify regulated markets by the scale and homogenity of businesses in those markets.
Absent regulation there are businesses ranging from mom and pops to global giants. Because in everyarea there are smaller markets that are just nbot big enough to be worth while for the global giants, but plenty large for mom and pop to function profitably. Nor is this binary. there are problems too small for global giants but big enough that larger businesses can profit.
A full spectrum.
Because the wants and needs of humans are not black and white or uniform.
Regulated markets ultimately kill all but the global giants.
Look at health care ? How many new drugs are produced in somebodies garage each year ? And Why not ? Aside from the fact that the next multibillion dollar miracle cure is as likely to evolve in a garage as in a 10,000 person corporate lab, tens of thousands of drugs are ONLY going to be developed in a garage.
Big drug companies kill off development of innumerable promising drugs every year – not because they have no value or are dangerous, bhut because they do not have a market large enough to justify the cost to bring them to market.
I am using drugs as an example but this is ALWAYS the case – in every area.
I want to amplify further on risk.
It is probable that as a basically healthy person I am unwilling to take the risks associated with unregulated drugs. Again 90% of us are really risk averse.
But even those of us who are risk averse frequently change our minds – when nature takes away our choices.
If I develop terminal cancer that no regulated drug will cure, my willingness to take a risk for a possible cure will skyrocket. If I develop a “orphan” disease – I will be far more willing to take a risk to rid myself of that debilitation.
It is probable that if I – the terminal cancer patient or the person with the orphan disease am allowed to take whatever risks I want – that some charlatans will prey on me. But so will people seeking to profit from helping me. The harm to society – and even me by the charlatans will ultimately be outweighed buy even a small number of advances that would not have occured otherwise.
My point is that human norms are risk aversion. But even those norms are situational. It is NOT moral to take away the choice to take risks from entrepeneurs. AND it is NOT moral to take that choice away from ordinary people who have the misfortune to have needs that fall outside the norms that transform them from being risk averse to risk takers.
Even if you could successfully do what you claim regulations do – prevent harm, you would still do more total harm than good, because all improvement involves risk, and that is incompatible with regulation as a concpet.
Hay BAY-un!
:- )
I am “dee-lighted.” when you speak and thoroughly entertained // if not educated. I hope you continue to find your inner “Big Oak” and share.
I hope you got some extra energy from the Chargers win, you will need it to around here.
A view on Trump from the LEFT – Trump is better than Bush or Obama.
There is alot of crap in this, but that does not matter, The evaluations of what Trump HAS done as opposed to what he should have done FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LEFT
or atleast what the left used to say they beleived is pretty good.
What the editorial really demonstrates is that democrats have degenorated into the party of Anti-Trump, without any consideration of actual democrat values and principles, much less ones that actually work.
https://theweek.com/articles/815101/case-optimism-about-trump
What nonsense!!! – Doesn;t the Detroit news understand that democratic policy is to thwart Trump. It is irrelevant what Trump wants. It is irrelevant what is good for the country. It is irrelevant what values and principles the left has claimed where core in the past.
If Trump is for it – RESIST!!!!
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/editorials/2019/01/06/editorial-dems-should-swap-wall-immigration-reform/2483294002/
Dear Vidkun Quisling:
When you have cancer (Trump) attacking your body, you concentrate on removing that first, then worry about repairing your knee cartilage.
When you are having problems with your knee you should not be fixating on worrying about a cancer that you do not have.
I beleive that things could be one hell of alot better than they are right now. I beleive that 5% growth is sustainable and we are far short of that.
I am deeply concerned about our debt and deficit.
I can come up with a long long list of other concerns that I have, things I think Trump could do much better on.
At the same time Trump has inarguably out performed Obama and Bush by almost every important metric. He is on track to outperform Clinton.
If using your analogy Trump is cancer – Bush and Obama were ebola, and we are all necrotic and dead.
The outrage is WAY over the top.
Your “cancer” remark makes that clear.
In inumerable ways the country is headed in the wrong direction.
But it is headed in the wrong direction LESS than anytime in 16 years.
We can do better.
Maybe we can even do better than Trump – though I actually doubt it.
I would rather have had Gary Johnson or Rand Paul as president, but I do not think either could have accomplished a fraction of what Trump has accomplished that matters to me.
They might have been more ideolgoically pure, they might have been less offensive, but they would have been less effective too.
Yup, old news, but still “collateral” damage:
“Trump Has Promised to Bring Jobs Back. His Tariffs Threaten to Send Them Away.”
“It’s a tax that comes right off the bottom line,” said EBW’s president, Cory Steeby. “It totally incentivizes you to move out of the United States and build either in Canada or Mexico. These are active conversations right now.”
“There’s no intelligence to the way this is being done,” Mr. Steeby said. “The tariffs are designed to hurt China, but they are being paid by American companies.”
Logic, reason, persuasive discourse is useless at this point when discussing Trump-The-Malignant with his rationalizing MAGAts.
If Trump uses the National Emergency ploy tomorrow, I guarantee his anus sucking syncophants will pucker up and kiss his flatulent ass for taking that Hitleresque route.
OK – I’m predicting tomorrow Trump ends the Govt Shutdown and declares a National Emergency on the Southern Border.
That’s win-win for him, short term. No more criticism for the Trump Shutdown, and proof to his supporters he has done everything he could to build the wall – when it inevitably gets shot down by the courts. Tomorrow, look for him to reference a number of obscure and tangential Legal precedents for authority… (they will be knawed in short order to the bone by the courts)… but #Trumpanzees will applaud him anyway, blame Liberal judges, media, Dems conveniently forgetting their con artist Prez guaranteed Mexico would pay for it.
All this does is shows me the president may have powers they were never intended to have, but congress did not want to make hard decisions, so they createc an octopus of regulations with the president as the body. And I suspect they wont do one thing about it, even if Trump acts.
This is why everything government does today seems to end up in court.
And again, Americans deserve what they get. They vote in these wimpy ass congressional officials that become more interested in career than country.
The question of whether this “”national emergency” ploy is legal or constitutional is really irrelevant – much of what I have read strongly suggests it is arguably inside of the presidents powers.
At the same time it is an unusual application of those powers.
In fact it exposes a relatively deliberate conflict in the constitution.
The constitution gives the president great power to act regarding national security, borders, and foreign relations, but it gives congress and particularly the house control of the purse.
Essentially the constitution says that in certain areas the president can do as he pleases, but it also says that congress need not chose to pay for it.
My expectation is all of this is a typical Trump negotiating tactic.
That it is not real, and that he is not going to do this – maybe.
The one thing I would not rule out is that there is a “secret” deal between Schumer, Pelosi and Trump – esentially – we will not approve wall funding but if it ends the shutdown we will allow you to build the wall by declaring a national emergency – so long as we can publicly rail at you about it.
I am not claiming to know that is what will/has occurred, but it is a way out for all involved that saves face for everyone.
regardless, I will stand opposed to this.
A proper deal should be negotiated regarding immigration, Trump and democrats should resolve this. That is what the people want. That is the right thing. Trump building the wall using emergency powers will not solve many immigration issues that need addressed.
Further like the democrats pulling the nuclear switch it will open the doors to broader future use of emergency powers.
It is a mistake – not an end of the world foaming and frothing mistake, but one none-the-less.
Trump has thus far governed by NARROWING what the president can do to what the constitution clearly allows.
It would be a mistake to shift to the more traditional presidential model of expanding executive powers as much as possible.
And jobs are up – WAY UP, last month set new records. The number of new jobs last month was 312K – 145K is the number necescary to maintian a stable economy.
There were something like 40K new manufacturing jobs – that is completely unheard of.
If Trump’s “tarriff’s” are actually hurting then something else he is doing is incredibly good.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fmikepatton%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F11%2FNew-Jobs-2.png&f=1
If 2020 is about Job creation – barring disaster – Trump will be re-elected in a landslide.
Who would of have thunk we would have a president that helps people that like to defend any position that jibes with their tribal viewpoints. But here’s the genius of Trump, he lets the defenders of his positions (call them “supporters”- got to be nice-) two, or more, chances to defend him.
First he says I will do something, right away in the case returning troops from Syria, then when he speaks (consults?) to his minders, he reverses course and says he never said what he said (it’s on tape, as usual). Defenders jump on that and come up with a new defense. Mexico will pay, no the U.S. will pay, no start a GoFundMe, no the sky is falling, it’s an emergency. Let’s go to court and see if Brett supports Trump or the U.S.
History of Russia/Afghanistan: “well it could have happened that way, who knows?”
It’s a full time job, but at least it keeps them alert. 🙂
Well in my mind he just isnt as good a liar as seasoned politicians.
“If you like your doctor………”
They are ALL FULL OF BS!
I am pretty sure I can find lots of video of Obama saying that we would be out of afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo in 90 days – and we are still a decade later in all three.
Or video of “If you like your doctor you can keep them”.
Or video of “Benghazi was not an organized and planned terrorist attack”
Or video of Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, Durbin, and Hillary telling us all the necescity of a wall on our southern border.
I would prefer that all of Trump’s remarks were precise.
I would also prefer a lamborghini.
If Trump’s statements regarding withdrawl from Syria and Afghanistan are as deceiptful as any of those I cite above – you can be certain his voters will hold him accountable.
I do not think anyone expected our Troops were returning that day.
I would further note that we have heard days of whining by the left that has become a wholely owned franchise of the endless war neocons, that this was abrupt, precipitous and unplanned.
And now you are bemoaning the fact that it is not – and was not. There are news stories that Trump informed State and DOD at this time LAST YEAR to prepare for the inevitable withdrawl from syria and Afghanistan.
Put simply this entire “Argh! Trump!” news cycle has been another example of stupid leftist phony outrage.
As Prof. Turley noted – The left today is unrecognizable. There is no connection to past values or principles. the left is predictable only in the sense that if Trump does it they will oppose.
I am disappointed that more progress has not been made regarding North Korea. It is fair to conclude Trump promised more and faster progress. At the same time more has been accomplished than the entire past 30 years. There have been some setbacks in NK. Everything is NOT on track to meet the expectations Trump created. HOWEVER, NK is not “off the rails”, it is still proceding in a positive way albeit more slowly and with occasional fits and stops.
The same can be said of afghanistan, Syria, and numerous other of Trump’s promises.
If Government were a business – The measure of Trump’s delivery on expectations would be failure. But govenrment is not a business, and by the standards of past government Trump’s delivery on expectations is completely unequaled.
I did not vote for Trump – but focusing on what matters rather than the noise, there is no rational basis for the incredible hyperbole and outrage that permeats the left and the media.
You would think that Putin developed a secret zombie ray that allowed him to compell voters to elect Stalin/Hitler/Mao all wrapped in one.
Where are the death camps ? Where is the Trump equivalent of EO 9066 – oops I forget that was by the hero of the Left FDR. Where are the world leaders we have assassinated – no that was Kennedy who actually authorized the assassination of an ally. Where are the manufactured ballots – no that was Johnson. Where is the obstruction of justice – no that was Nixon, Where was the perjury – no that was Clinton. Where is the fraudulent intelligence assessments to justify a war – no that was Bush.
I can make a long long list of the criminal acts of prior presidents that Trump has NOT done.
I can not find any he has.
And yet if you listen to the left Atila the Hun has invaded Washington.
Lets compare AOC to Trump.
While Trump has exagerated his background – at the same time he has real accomplishments. He did graduate from Wharton, he did take over multimillion dollar family businesses and build them to multi-billion dollar businesses, he did succeed in NYC housing, he did succeed in Manhatan Comerical real estate, he did succeed in global real estate, in golf courses, resorts, casino’s beauty pagents and reality TV. And he won an election no one beleived he could.
As president he has dropped unemployment to numbers almost never heard of from the very low numbers at the end of the Obama administration, he has had a full year of 3+% growth for the first time in almost 20 years – which we were told was impossible.
Even manufacturing jobs are increasing significantly.
Trump has been president for less than two years and has accomplished things Obama could not accomplish in 8, and that we have not seen in 16.
An awful lot of Trumps accomplishment should be mundane.
3% crowth SHOULD be ho-hum But we have not seen it in so long it seems stelar.
Black unemployment is the lowest it has been in 50 years.
SATIRE: Only six non-U.S. people stopped at southern border and 41 at the northern border. What does that prove? “I like people that don’t get caught” says Trump. Real terrorists, thousands are invading us, and we don’t count them.
They fly in, come by boat sneak in on borders and it’s an emergency.
Real News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/only-six-immigrants-terrorism-database-stopped-cbp-southern-border-first-n955861
The exact number is classified – but Nielson is working to declassify it.
But NBC – is correct ? Did they count themselves ?
I have a pretty low level of trust of government statistics – for very good reason.
But the press just makes shit up.
The odds of the 4000 figure being correct are small.
The odds of NBC being correct are zero.
I would suggest some other factors – because this has come up in other contexts before
there is not a single list – there are many lists for different purposes and with different criteria for getting on them.
Further most of those lists are – as Nielson said “classified’
This was raised in the context of gun regulation – why can’t we bar someone on one of those lists from owning a gun ?
Because you can not deny someone a right without due process. using say the “no fly list” to bar people from owning guns would either require making the no fly list public – which DHS refuses to do, even if DHS did not make the list public – you could find out you were on it by trying to buy a gun. Further there is currently no official means to get off the no fly list – should you manage to get on. But if you deny people the right to buy a gun then you would have to provide due process which would include and explanation for why they were turned down and a process to appeal inclusion.
I do not BTW think massive numbers of Al Qeda terrorists are trying to sneak into the US at our southern border. Which would also be my guess why NBC is wrong.
It is likely that DHS is counting as “terrorists” people who have nothing to do with traditional mideastern terrorist groups – but are affliated with violent efforts to overthrow regimes in south and central america.
But that is a guess.
Finally, I would note that 19 people from the mideast – mostly SA orchestrated the worst act of terroism in US history, costing immediately over 3,000 lives and subsequently 100’s of thousands – according to NGO’s and at current best estimates $5.4T and several thousand more US soldiers.
I am not sure I care that much what the “number” of terrorists stopped are.
Legal immigration to the US is about 1M/year.
Harvard conducted a study intended to debunk the administration claim that there are about 11M illegal immigrants presently in the US – their result ? It is probably more than double that.
Those crossing the southern border vary from a low of about 600K to a high of about 1.4M depending on the relative economic environment – when the US economy is strong those crossing from the south increase dramatically when it is weaker they drop.
There is also some flow of illegals south – some come and for a variety of reasons return, sometimes temporarily sometimes permanently.
Regardless, the number of terrorists, criminals, etc. are no matter what a small fraction of the total.
I beleive the estimate was that about 13,000 underage or pretend underage MS-13 soldiers crossed during the brief period Obama was giving a near free pass to unaccompanied minors.
The effect of that influx on MS-13 has been felt accross the country – in drugs and violence.
But even if we completely ignore the criminals.
If there are 1.4M people crossing the southern border when the US economy is strong – that is more than 100K per month.
Total US labor force is about 160M people. Presumably these people are coming into the US for jobs. That either means that almost the entire job growth in the US each month is being consumed by illegal immigrants – OR there is a market for “illegal workers” that can absorb 100K+ people per month OR that these people are coming here and not working ?
No matter what you are talking about very large numbers and a significant effect on US employment.
I will be happy to discuss with you how to reshape US policy to legally admit nearly everyone who wants to come here. But those changes are not tiny.
In the meantime what is current policy – which is to allow a large number of illegal immigrants – defacto because we do not have the means to stop them requires that they live in the shadows, that they are illegal, that they can not work legally – which means we are talking an enormous number of people working illegally.
The left likes to crack down on employers who hire illegal aliens – except for being less efficient and more stupid how is that different from stopping them at the border ?
If you successfully shutdown every employer hiring illegal aliens – which you are never going to manage to do, then you would accomplish much the same thing as the wall – at far greater cost.
If you do not shutdown employers but you preclude employers from “exploiting” them, you might as well adopt open borders – because that is defacto what you have accomplished.
I am tired of this nonsense of those on the left saying “I am not for open borders, but I am opposed to Trump’s policies”. If you are for the current defacto arrangement – you are not for open borders – you are for something WORSE than open borders.
If you do not like Trump’s policies – not that they are really Trump’s he is merely enforcing the laws we already have, then lets discuss how to change those policies – pass laws.
It should be pretty self evident at this point that Trump is adamant as hell about the wall.
That he is flexible on myriads of issues – in return for “the wall”.
13,000 MS-13 soldiers crossed during the brief period when Obama…
This from our ” facts” man.
Reliable source?
MS-13 is a group whose methods are beyond ruthless, this is a disease, most of all in the central American countries where they have taken root. They have committed some heinous murders in the US as well. According to wiki the gang numbers 10000, which is less than 1 percent of gang members and accounts for a similar share of gang murders.
That number is an FBI estmate. Their targets are other young central Americans, especially females. The wall is almost completely irrelevant to MS-13 and Visa versa, except for the right wing hoopla. The wall: a solution in search of a problem.
I am far more scared of home grown American loonies, including those with political-ideological grudges and their access to weapons (thanks in great part to the NRA)I than I am of the people coming across our southern border.
And that is an opinion that has solid facts behind it.
Roby, “thanks in great part to the NRA” .
Again this is a debate that will nevef be settled. Where you blame the NRA, others “blame” the founding fathers.
Some look at the 2nd amendment andcsay it is outdated. It means the military and not individuals. Others look at the writings when the founders were creating the Bill of Rights and see wording that supoorts “Americans” right to bear arms.
Those that trust government support tighter controls. Others, like me, who have no trust.in government do not support any changes.
Another phony from NY: “EXCLUSIVE: Yorktown Elitist and Bronx Hoaxer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Went by “Sandy” Well into College at Boston U (VIDEO)”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/exclusive-yorktown-elitist-and-bronx-hoaxer-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-went-by-sandy-well-into-college-at-boston-u-video/
When even Whoopi blasts you are on your way. WG blasted Trump too.
I hate to defend AOC – but politicians lying about or exagerating their past is so common as to be meaningless. Fauxcahantas comes to mind.
If you voted for AOC and you beleived what she said and would have voted otherwise – then you are free to be outraged.
What I find disturbing about AOC is that she speaks as if she does come from the hood in the bronx. She is incapable of readable gramar, she should be an embarassment to the schools and colleges she attended, she has a degree in economics – and can not add.
There are people on the left who share here views who are more articulate and decently educated and can make an understandable argument.
AOC may have attended the best schools but she got an education worse than one would expect from south bronx.
She isn’t any worse at grammar and spelling and syntax or any more confused in general than Trump.
Let’s gets rid of both of them politically.
Is there a reason I care what name she used in college ?
I am far more concerned about her stupid assertion that moral and factual are somehow distinct.
If you do not know the facts – you have no basis to make moral assessments.
Murder is morally wrong – self defense is not. It is facts that determine whether a killing is murder or self defense.
I can not think of any real world moral judgement that you can make without facts.
I will be happy to debate morality with you hypothetically, but ultimately applying theory requires facts.
I agree with Max on this:
Libertarian Dave-John, where do you fit in on this pie chart?
https://www.isidewith.com/poll/1861919956/339382531
https://twitter.com/othe_red21/status/1082703959968702464?s=21
I oppose the use of eminent Domain – probably even to build a wall.
Though I would note two things that:
Libertarians are near universally opposed to ED – or at most support very limited ED.
Conservatives are not nearly so well defined on the issue.
Opposition to ED is a core value for SOME conservatives.
Next for those who generally oppose ED but do support it for some critical purposes, “The Wall” would likely qualify.
Using ED to build a pipeline – NOPE.
Using ED to build a football stadium – Nope.
Using ED to build a highway – – probably not.
Using ED to build a border wall – that would fit into legitimate for even many libertarians, and most conservative – It is a legitimate function of government.
Last – I think you will find that ED is not necescary to build the wall.
People owning land along the border have long ago lost effective use of it, and CBP and illegals are already roaming freely accross their land.
Do Texans want that wall – over 600 miles of it along the Tex-Mex border…?
They oppose it:
https://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Poll-Texas-voters-oppose-border-walll-12847966.php
Your poll is almost a year old.
Your poll has Ted and Beto in a dead heat.
Cruz Beat Beto by 3 pts despite Beto outspending him 2:1.
Government should NEVER be allowed to seize the property of one person and give it to another – even for a purported public purpose – See Kelo, wrongly decided.
There are extremely rare instances where government can seize private property for a compelling public purpose with appropriate compensation. But those are EXTREMELY RARE. In general if the govenrment wants something it should buy it from a willing seller just like everyone else.
Well it is going to be interesting.
Dems block funding for border wall barrier.
Government shut down
Compromise negotiations bring nothing
Trump decides to use National Emergency
Government reopened
Trump supporters happy.
Trump delivers on promise
Dems sad
Dems find individuals harmed by action
Courts stay Nat Emer. action
Dems happy
Trump supporters blame court
Border not secure, DACA not solved, nothing changes
Congress did not need to put their vote on record
Both win since their bases are happy with actions taken and courts are the bad guys.
“Trump decides to use National Emergency”
You mean he decides to lie about a non-existent National Emergency.
Are you OK with that?
If so, you gonna be OK when the next Dem President declares a National Emergency to institute drastic measures for climate control because of adverse weather forecasts?
“Are you OK with that?”
No!!!!!!
Did I say that???? No! I was playing out the political shit thats going on.
I have said for years congress has given the president powers that never should be there and the chickens are coming home to roost.
ALL presidential powers should be terminated immediately if NOT SPECIFICALLY written in the constitution. Then each power needs to be reviewed and approved for a period not exceeding 5 years if found to be needed. Or rewritten if needed not to exceed 5 years ,then reviewed and reapproved.
TO MANY PEOPLE TRUST GOVERNMENT! I DONT!! Now you might see why!!!!!
Would you favor an Amendment that limited the kinds of guns and ammo a civilian could possess?
That is an open ended question, so I give a qualified answer.
Yes, I would support the process to amend the constitution.
As for the details, I cant answer that.as they types of weapons and armament are not provided.
“Would you favor an Amendment that limited the kinds of guns and ammo a civilian could possess?”
No.
but that is the wrong question.
You are free today to attempt to pass such and amendment, and if you do it becomes part of the constitution – whether I like it or not.
BTW – you would not amend the constitution to ban specific guns and ammunition. You would amend the constitution to allow legislation to ban specific guns and ammunition.
I would greatly prefer that when you are going to infringe on individual rights and/or expand the power of government you would go through the process of amending the constitution to do so.
“BTW – you would not amend the constitution to ban specific guns and ammunition. You would amend the constitution to allow legislation to ban specific guns and ammunition.”
If the 26th amendment states the right to vote will not be infringed if the voter is 18 or over, then why could the amendment not specify that owning guns that meet the certain criteria would not be infringec.
JAY…As I said earlier, I would need specifics. I would still support the process if an amendment wss proposed, but there would be NO WAY I would support if it was what Dave wrote. I would be nuts to give government a blank check on gun control.
I do not know what will actually happen, and there are some indications that democrats are going to allow Trump to declare a national emergency as a means to giving him what he wants without having to vote for it.
I am opposed to that – It seems pretty clear to me the national emergency powers of the president do not involve spending money not allocated by congress.
I am also opposed to it because though I strongly support Trump narrowing the powers of the president. I oppose his expanding them.
Just to be clear – the fundimental question is not whether there is a national emergency – there is more than sufficient basis for that.
The relevant issues is whether the emergency allows unilateral action that has long term effects by the president without authorization by congress.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that our immigration policy has been a disasterous unsustainable mess for decades. that it is as damaging as the Steel Strike in the midst of the Korean war.
But the emergency is NOT such that congress is unable to act.
I do not think the president should ever have the power to unilaterally act in circumstances where the time and oportunity for congress to act exists.
I would say the same thing regarding the courts
Roberts as an example was wrong to uphold PPACA – he was wrong because the mandate was not passed as a tax.
SCOTUS is not empowered to legislate – to fix an unconstitutional choice of congress. We still had a house and senate at the time.
SCOTUS could have found PPACA properly unconstitutional and left congress to determine if they wanted to fix it.
It is not POTUS or SCOTUS’s role to act unilaterally – even if congress wont.
Dave-John, I admit you are right, claiming Trump is keeping him campaigning promise, to run the government as he ran his businesses
Trump Airlines…Shutdown 🚫
Trump University…Shutdown🚫
Trump Casino…Shutdown 🚫
Businesses that do not succeed should fail and be shutdown.
Government programs that do not succeed should fail and be shutdown.
Alot of what Trump is doing is shutting down failure – I have no problem with that.
As to your various Trump failures – the average entrepeneur fails seven times before they succeed. The current life of a fortune 500 company is just over 15 years.
Businesses succeed and they fail, Often they succeed for a long time before failing.
It is natural. there is nothing wrong with it. During their success many many people benefit – clients, employees, shareholders. When they ultimately fail and most businesses do ultimately fail, it is the shareholders who take the loss.
Waiting for Trump tonight to truthfully acknowledge more criminals enter the country thru airports than the border, and for him to call for walls around airports. Hopefully they’ll be beautiful too
Aside from being factually incorrect, your observation is irrelevant.
If wear causes flat tires and debris on the road causes flat tires,
and more flats are due to wear – should we not clear debris ?
You are offering a red herring – and a straw man.
I am near certain Trump would be happy to beef up immigration controls at airports – and in a way that is precisely what the Executive Order that you ranted about did.
It required more extensive vetting by State and foreign countries of people seeking to come to the US from countries with high rates of terrorism and poor records.
So not only are you beating a straw man – but you are doing so badly.
Trump is not SOLELY after a wall. He is after better immigration control broadly.
His so called “muslim ban” is a completely different means of reducing the number of people who get in illegally.
I would further guess that your airport claim is false – because it is misstated.
The large number of “illegal immigrants” who overstay their visa’s entered LEGALLY.
They were never going to be stopped at the airports. They came with a valid VISA.
They became illegal when they remained past when their visa expired.
They did not become “criminals” at the airport.
I do not entirely agree with Trump on immigration.
But spraying idiotic false facts and hysteria does not advance anything.
And honestly – compared to the media and the left and to you Trump is a font of Truth.
https://www.nysun.com/national/how-trump-confounds-the-fact-checkers/90528/
I really do not care much what Trump says.
But there are clues that a deal is brewing – presuming that Manchin’s remarks reflect more than one democrat.
My guess is there is. The structure of the shutdown is such that it harms democrats – most of us have not noticed.
We get this hysterical stories that airports security is somehow going to hell – when air travel could be 10 times less safe and still be safer than cars.
Or that 250,000 veterans are not being paid – which is false.
Regardless several things are at play.
First the news is nearly all about the Shutdown and Trump.
Second – the majority of people really do not care much and are not being effected.
Third most of those harmed are democrats. And infact there is a great danger to the left if Trump successfully drags this out for a long long time. Furloughed workers as well as workers who are not being paid but must work who give up and accept private employment ARE NOT LIKELY COMING BACK. And that is actually a very good thing for everyone – except democrats.
Almost everyone apoplectic over the shutdown did not and will not ever vote for Trump.
There is likely a great deal of pressure to end the shutdown at the moment – BY DEMOCRATS ON DEMOCRATS. At a minimum all those federal workers.
Trump does not care much that they are steamed – as I said they were not ever voting for him. But Schumer and company DO CARE.
Fourth democrats planned the early january news cycle to be about the new democratic house. It was supposed to be about the democratic agenda. They were supposed to start doing things ASAP. Thus far their have either made fools of themselves or been completely overshaddowed by the shutdown. Regardless, they have not had their corronation, and their truimphant returun to power. The change has been barely noticed.
Any agenda has been side tracked. And Again the message that the democratic party is nothing more than the “anti-trump” party has been greatly re-inforced – by democrats.
BTW I sort of liked Manchin’s proposal – though I would go farther.
He wants to see the 2013 immigration bill that passed the house to get a vote in the senate.
As a condition for providing funding for the wall.
There are innumerable immigration bills that have died because they could not get a vote in the senate.
Mostly I favor the 60 vote rule in the senate – as a means of slowing the growth of government.
But there are possibly better approaches.
The first BIG DEAL would be assuring that all provisions of all bills are germain.
I do not know how to do it. Such rules already exist but are not enforced.
But if legislation was limited to germain provisions – that would put a serious crimp on log rolling and other forms of legislative mashup – where support for a bill is acquired by adding enough pork to get congressment to vote for something that stinks because enough of it is good for them. This is a bigger problem in the senate because there are fewer senators.
I would also like to see a line item veto – that would require a constitutional amendment.
But the ability of the president to strike individual lines from legislation – might be the most effective means to resisting log rolling and pork
Next there should be a pretty free amendment process – in the house and senate.
It should be much easier for congressmen to get a vote on amendments to bills.
While amendments are a means to expand a bill they are also a means to constrain it.
Regardless if an amendment can get a majority of votes – that provision should be come part of the legislation.
Dave. I have not been hearing this.
“There is likely a great deal of pressure to end the shutdown at the moment – BY DEMOCRATS ON DEMOCRATS. ”
Please provide where this came from so I can read…Thanks
words of wisdom from Dave-John:
“the majority of people really do not care much and are not being effected”
OK, we’ll wait until 150 million Americans are hurting… thanks for clearing that up…
And Dave-John’s right: fuck those 800,000 federal employers missing paychecks, let them find work elsewhere, even though most have spouses and/or children to feed and house during the job search. Serves them right for not heeding people like D-J to keep their snouts out of the government trough
A new place for “moderates” (I use that to thwart quibblers) to get some more quality opinions.
https://thebulwark.com/
Thanks for the link.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-border-wall-every-congressperson-along-southern-border-opposes-border-wall-funding-2019-1-8/
“Rep. Will Hurd, a Texas Republican who represents more of the southern border than any other member of Congress, was one of a handful of Republicans to side with Democrats last week on the funding bill.”
Over 800 miles of border in his district.
Why would he do this?
https://apnews.com/608b9fcbca5941348e2ac8796e94c8cd
Manafort is 100% sleaze, he is his creature not Trump’s. Trump just likes this type- kindred souls. Manafort has been doing this kind of dealing in information and deals for years. He MAY be a lone wolf.
Manafort is a sleaze – as is AxelRod, the Podesta’s. Plouffe, Rove, …..
And pretty much every politician on the planet associates with them
Manafort is most definitely NOT a lone wolf.
So manafort MIGHT have shared data with an american who MIGHT have ties to RUSSIA.
The Data may or may not be public data.
When you have something of substance – get back to me.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-shutdown-poll-idUSKCN1P223U
I don’t know why it is taking so long for Trump to pull the “Emergency” brake end the shutdown, and then declare victory as he would be saving all those “people being harmed by the Dems.
So it goes to court, win or lose he gains time and can still negotiate a deal with, by now, the worn down and pragmatic Dems. DACA still looks like a good bargaining chip to me along with sophisticated barriers (anti-tunnel detectors) a nice perk for some defense contractors,
oh and a dose of compromise.
If you support trading DACA and/or pretty much anything for “the wall”, then why are you blaming all this on Trump ?
Trump has said the Wall in some form is not negotiable – but everything else is.
The Wall for DACA deal was in the table in March – Schumer accepted and then renigged.
After reading numerous oppions regarding whether Trump can build the wall by declaring an emergency – I think Turley is correct.
I do not agree with doing so – but congress has clearly delegated that authority to Trump.
It should rescind it. but it has not. Many Obama EO’s that I find distastefull relied on congress delegating authority.
I do not beleive congress can constitutionally delegate its authority.
I would be happy to see the courts decide that. but it is not happeneing.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/424314-yes-trump-has-authority-to-declare-national-emergency-for-border-wall
The 2018 election effectively put an end to the delusion that nobody cares about Trump’s nonsenses.
All kinds of people from every ideology except perhaps libertarian understand that it’s wrong to cut off the paychecks to workers over a political fight. Perhaps people who have a blind hatred of government think it’s cool, the rest of us understand it’s wrong, cruel, unfair.
Roby, I feel sorry for anyone caught in this mess. But we have two opposing views that neither party is willing to budge. When one says they will not negotiate the primary issue until the government is opened and the other holds that all negotiating leverage is lost if they do that, then I hold the blame is 50-50.
The other issue is the fact the number #1 issue in the funding of government was Mitch and Ryan waiting until the last minute to fund this part of government, then tried to do a stop gap measure to February to reopen. Kick the can and then face the same problem, hopeing it miraculously disappears.
At some point, our immigration problems need to be solved. Democrat leaders do not want this solved. Many Republican leaders do not want it solved.
If this fails, then I think they need to terminate ICE, eliminate border patrol, open all roads into the country and let anyone and everyone in.
Why keep playing this idiotic game with “catch me if you can”. There is no gray area. This one is black and white. You either do everything you can to secure the border or open it completely. What we do now is not working.
And it is because both parties have an election issue they can use to generate votes. WHY CHANGE THAT?!!!
“then I hold the blame is 50-50“
Ron, bank robbers have taken hostages inside a bank after cops have surrounded them. They demand to be provided a safe escape or they won’t release the hostages.
If the cops refuse are they 50% responsible?
Trump INITIATED the shutdown, refusing to sign a bipartisan bill.
The bawling baby buffoon is 99.99% to blame.
Jay, show me documentation that the senate passed $5B for wall funding. I can not find that. I find a number of articles where some form of funding was discussed, but not $5B.
And dont use a life threatening hostage situation as an example. Government workers HAVE NOT missed a check yet!!!! No one has starved to death.
When Trump goes to a meeting, sits down, asked ” are you willing to include funding for a wall in an agreement” , Pelosi says “No”, Trump get up and says,” then we dont have anything to discuss” and leaves and the Shumer describes this as a temper tantrum, then you can clearly see the problem, ( or at least I can).
The issue IS THE WALL! Why be there if it is not going to be discussed?
Ron
The US and other countries have spent a fortune on foreign aide – and it has failed.
Over 1T was spent on Africa in the past 50 years – and in most places conditions are worse.
As most of the world has improved Those places we have given aide have stagnated.
China went from greater poverty that africa – the largest mass starvation in history was during “the great leap forward”, to a first world nation.
I am not opposed to people giving Aide to other people.
I am vehemently opposed to countries giving aide to other countries.
It is at best waste and often makes things worse.
We have seen one thing that does work – The immigrants gathered at our southern border are NOT mexican.
NAFTA has raised the standard of living in Mexico sufficiently that illegal mexican immigration is just a trickle.
Roby, this is not a rhetorical question. I have tried to come up with a solution.
How do you pay employees when probably 60-70% of cost is salary and not give up negotiating power.
Right now both parties have their hecks on the chopping block and neither is moving.
There is no right to a paycheck.
The free market means trading value for value.
It is not an entitlement.
I have small sympathy for those who are working without getting paid.
Though congress can fix that and they can quit and go elsewhere.
I have zero sympathy for those sitting at home who we all know will eventually get paid for not working.
Anne coulture is of course feeling very proud. Government by the influence of a racist right wing windbag on an unfit POTUS. That has to fail.
This is not about Colture. While I am not a big colture fan – I trust her far more than you.
Which is not very much.
More of this “Trump is a racist” garbage.
He probably is – about as much as you and I.
Everything is not about race.
The fraction of immigrants that are white is miniscule.
To the extent the immigration fight is about race it is about whether we admit more brown people then yellow people.
But the real issue is how many people do we admit – not specifically who.
I am prepared to allow almost anyone who wants to come here in.
Contingent on changing the rest of our laws so that is sustainable.
That FEMA money includes funds to help the now suffering fire victims to survive, many still living in shelters on donated clothing and food. And BTW, that Northern CA fire location voted for Trump.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/09/donald-trump-fema-california-wildfires/2523581002/
Lets really solve the problem
Shut down FEMA.
Sell nearly all federal lands or give them to the state they are in.
The constitution severely restricts the right of the federal government to own land within a state. It may do so where that use is necessary and proper for the exercise of an enumerated power. For the first 100 years of our existance the federal government acted to dispose of nearly all its federal land holdings. That is why there is severly limited federal land holdings in the east and midwest.
I would note that we also do not have these massive “forest fires” in the east and midwest.
The problems in California are very specific to California – we do not have them in Oregon or Washington. Even the large forest fires that occur in the rocky mountain regions occasionally – and are a direct consequence of over a century of forest mismanagement, are different from those in CA. Dealing with Forest Fires in CA should be a CA problem.
We have a two processes for socializing the cost of natural disasters – charity and insurance.
The Chicago Fire, the San Francisco earthquake and fire, the Johnstown flood and innumerable other substantial natural disasters were dealt with entirely and rapidly without federal involvement primarly through charity and insurance. Even fire departments in places like NYC were private organizations operated by insurance companies for much of US history. In my area nearly all fire departments are volunteer organizations – they solicit funds each year – and most people donate.
Dealing with natural disasters is not a constitutionally enumerated federal power. Frankly it is not even a legitimate state power.
Shifting natural disaster costs to government encourages recklessness.
That is essentially what Trump is arguing – though less eloquently.
We spent hundreds of billions on Katrina – and got almost nothing for it. We spent enormous amounts on Sandy – which was not even a huricane by the time it hit land.
Federal Natural disaster funding is just a form of political graft.
It is easy for politicians to vote for, and handled nearly unaccountably and wastefully.
Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson pioneered activist government – claiming that a more powerful federal government was a necesity in the industrial era – to regulate things such as drugs, food safety, labor conditions.
Harding and Coolidge brought about a “return to normalicy” after Wilson.
While Harding was corrupt he was short lived and Coolidge was the model of rectitude.
He had a more minimalist approach to government than Trump, Possibly even than Gary Johnson, while being exactly what everyone left and right today claim they want regarding Character.
FEMA or its precursor was created in 1928 after the 1927 Mississippi floods – a disaster roughly equivalent to Katrina.
Coolidge called the emerging legislation “the most radical and dangerous bill that has had the countenance of the Congress since I have been president.”
He did everything in his power to limit the scope and the duration of the emergency legislation, which still endup larded up with bailouts for banks and railroads.
He used all his authority as president to narrow the scope of the legislation as much as possible, and though he ultimately singed the legislation, he did so privately with no public fan fare, He thought is was a horrible idea – and it was.
From 1928 on we have come to rely on the federal govenrment in the event of most any disaster – even beyond natural disasters. From the inception of federal disaster relief the primary beneficiaries are ALWAYS special interests.
Federal involvement discourages charity, it discourages responsible behavior – by individuals, and by state and local govenrments, it discourages insurance.
All in all it is a collasal mistake. One for which the evidence is readily available and compelling.
Go visit new orleans today and see what hundreds of billions of federal aide has done .
Almost nothing.
In the real world recovery from natural disasters is almost entirely accomplished by ordinary people – usually by the victims of the disaster, Outside money – particularly unaccountable federal money does not help. If anything it makes things worse.
In a perfect world what would happen here is that intelligent capable citizens would be prompted to educate themselves on all the subtlties and nuances of this issue and people would be more able to tell shit from shinola. In a better world we would start to throw out the simplistic answers and start looking for ways to influence the root causes. Mexico is on the verge of being a failed state the conditions in Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, are hellish, especially for young women. That is at the root of this. That is where people should look for game changing answers.
The party bases do live simple caricatures of this and many other problems, so we are stuck in limbo. Honestly, democracies suck at working out complex issues like this, politics is all about fear and instant gratification.
That was a reply to your reply Ron, but the CIA unfortunately has hacked WordPress and is disrupting attempts to converse. (Dark humor alert).
No Roby, it is a consequence of the shutdown, the electrons moving that make the internet possible requires the US government constant monitoring or things go haywire.
Didn’t you know that DIA – is department of internet adjusment and CIA is constant internet adjustment and FEC is fiddle with electronic communications.
Mexico has alot of problems, but it does not appear to be on the verge of failing as a state – evidenced by the fact that very few mexicans are caught up in illegal immigration.
I am not looking to downplay mexico’s significant problems but she is not doing nearly so bad as the rest of central america and many parts of south america.
I would further suggest that you heed your own advice – or that of George Washington.
The entire purpose of the wall is to change the terms of immigration.
Absent a wall – whoever wants can enter the US. We get to decide who and how to throw out after the fact.
With a wall rather than dealing with them after the fact, we have greater ability to prevent them for crossing – and we are not responsible until they do.
God only knows where the CIA (or is it Russian hackers?) Will move my answer to you Ron, but my best answer to your non rhetorical question is that shutting down the government is a morally wrong way of negotiating, no matter which side does it. This is not the way to negotiate.
Get moderates to vote in primaries, the we may get to a more intelligent political problem solving.
Roby, if you me or others here decided to negotiate this issue, our trust of each other would probably allow us to open the government because I would expect you, or anyone else here, to be open to different ideas and solutions. I suspect we could work out something to solve the problems.
However, If I made that decision to meet with the government open and others came dug in without any room for negotiating, the next time something came up, I would not back down. You could only screw over me once.
That is where we are today. There is no way in hell anyone can or should trust Pelosi or Shumer. They have been there long enough for anyone with 1\2 a brain cell to know you can not trust anything they say.
If the parties want this fixed, pick two moderates from the house and senate from each party and let them rewrite immigration. Then see if it would pass, and if so, let Trump veto or sign.
But right now I would not reopen because the Dems will say “thank you, we win” and march off into the sunset, never to be seen working on the problem until the next closure.
When you loose trust, working to fix anything is much more difficult.
Shutting down the Govt has caused MULTIPLE problems in addition to the border problem. The budget was approved by Dems & GOP. Reopen the Govt and THEN they can negotiate the border in good faith.
Republicans tried that Argument with Obama.
Most of the funding bills for the federal government were already passed – that is why this is only a partial shutdown.
There are several left that have nothing to do with the wall – Congress can pass those too and minimize the impact of the shutdown.
Democrats have NEVER negotiated in good faith on the wall.
BTW the Wall is “budgeted” it has been for decades, It was approved by congress in 1986 and remains by law approved. It is not Funded, something democrats agreed to in 1986 and then renigged and have been renigging every year since.
Jay,
The shutdown has not caused any problems of consequence.
In fact it has demonstrated that a great deal of the federal govenrment does nothing of value.
Something Calvin Coolidge noted 100 years ago, and is still true today.
We spend near 1/4 of GDP on something that does almost nothing.
It is the CIA in league with Russian hackers.
Unless it is Russian hackers in league with the CIA.
If trump wanted a wall what he needed to do was behave like a decent ant intelligent morally responsible leader for the past two years. Then he would have won the 2018 election. Instead we know how he behaved and how badly he lost the House. So, he has lost the fight to dictate his answers.
Reagan wanted a wall – and democrats agreed. Every republican since has promised a wall.
The closest to any success was Bush who got a ‘fence”
Democrats have been claiming to want a wall for 40 years.
There is hours of video.
Schumer agreed to the grand bargain in March – wall for DACA – and then reniged.
Republicans clearly lost the house – why remains debateable.
Republicans also did better than expected in the Senate.
The Senate is where Republicans have been delivering on Trump’s promises.
I do not know what 2018 means regarding Trump – I do not think you do either.
I am not sure anyone does.
He is not dictating answers – he is attempting to keep a campaign promise.
Just as Obama did.
There is little consequential difference – except that you liked Obama’s promise and do not like Trump’s. That and Trump’s demand is arguably constitutional, and Obama’s was not.
Your claim is garbage.
If Trump wanted a wall he needed to get elected president running on a platform to build a wall that his voters expected him to keep.
One party wanted the wall, but they were not able to manage it when they controlled the presidency, the house, and the Senate. So, they are in no position to get it now, after being repudiated as a party and losing the house. Democracy should not be about forcing solutions that a majority oppose by shutting down the government until they force their answer on us. And, you may remember that I have said it was tragic that Dems in their hubris forced Obamacare on acountry that did not support it.
Roby, this is a difficult subject to understand. Over many years, the USA has spent trillions for foreign aide and many more milli ons from private not for profit charities for improving conditions in f oreign countries.
What I have said before is we need to help improve conditions in countries south of us. I hear about organizations helping African countries, or Haiti, but I never hear about anything where we do much for hispanic countries south of us.
If you have a cancer growing close, why not help eliminate it before it spreads further. I dont support boots on the ground, but I think one could look at Columbia to see what could happen. Not everything is eradicated in Columbia, but conditions are greatly.improved.
With the right leadership, which I dont see from any party or politician now, those same improvements could happen in central America.
We are on the same page on this part of the situation Ron.
Trump Shutdown In Operation:
“The ongoing federal government shutdown has stopped most food safety inspections, but the FDA is planning to resume at least some of them.
To do it, the agency will have to force furloughed workers to come back without pay.
This means FDA inspectors are not looking for salmonella in breakfast cereal, E. coli in romaine lettuce, or listeria in ice cream. Companies can still make their own checks, of course, and the FDA is still announcing those recalls.
That’s from NBCNEWS
So ? Why does it matter that is is from NBC ?
To the extent it matters at all it makes the claim LESS credible.
“This means FDA inspectors are not looking for salmonella in breakfast cereal, E. coli in romaine lettuce, or listeria in ice cream. Companies can still make their own checks, of course, ”
Hmm, Do you think General Mills or McDonald’s are going to decide to poison there customers while the FDA is away ?
BTW when is the last time you saw an FDA inspector at a McDonalds ?
Do you really think that the FDA has any consequential effect on food safety ?
The real threat is that we furlough all these workers and NOTHING BAD HAPPENS.
That is probably overstating it. NOTHING UNUSUAL HAPPENS.
Something bad happens everyday – and it will continue to do so – whether the FDA is up and running or not.
One Party wanted the wall ?
The House and Senate Republicans shutdown government in order to preclude Obama from getting funding for PPACA and FAILED.
You are arguing spin. Trump may get what he wants. He may not.
“Democracy should not be about forcing solutions that a majority oppose by shutting down the government until they force their answer on us.”
Possibly – but we are not a democracy.
Further precisely what you describe happens all the time.
A majority of people opposed PPACA when it was passed.
I can name inumerable things hat a majority of people opposed that the left wanted that have happened. Most of which ARE actually morally wrong.
BTW I will be happy go with government may never ACT – i.e. increases its power, or do something that does not at the time have the support of 51% of the people.
In fact I would say government may not act if as few as 15% vigorously oppose.
BTW there is a reciprocal to that – any government law or policy that does not MAINTAIN the support of the people may/should be repealed.
Agree to that and we can get rid of 2/3 of government.
One of the problems with one party or the other breaching norms – is that you do not get to go back.
Clinton normalized the concept that character does not matter as president.
You and I may disagree – but even social conservatives begrudgingly bought that.
You can call them hypocrits – but people living in glass houses should not throw stones.
Democrats invoked the nuclear option in the senate.
The consequences is that they have no voice to stop Trump appointing federalist judges.
While I like Trump’s judicial appointments, I would prefer the status quo before democrats went nuclear. We are not getting that back.
Obama normalized the concept that the house alone or the house and senate together are NOT sufficient to limit spending on something the president wants.
You can not go back.
Trump may be bluffing with his state of emergency threat – Trump does bluff, but he is not someone who it is wise to call his bluff.
Lots of people are certain how this will play out. I am uninclinded to make predictions.
As someone else pointed out – Democrats forced Bush I to back peddle on his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge and it cost him the next election.
I think Schumer, Pelosi, Trump, and republicans are very cognizant of that.
My instincts say that Trump is highly unlikely to back down.
Further the shutdown has already cost much more than the wall.
The left has no moral high ground on this issue as every single substantial democrat has endorsed the wall in the past.
Further to make a moral argument – you have to actually make the argument not just assert it. And democrats will not do that – if the Wall is immoral – that is tatamount to saying anything less than open borders is immoral.
Dave-John, I bet you would have picked the ‘under’…
https://www.actionnetwork.com/politics/president-trump-lies-prop-bets-sportsbook-big-losses
There is no way on the planet I would take a bet conditioned on an evaluation by the WaPo fact checker. Any conclusion by WaPo is at best random. and at worst politically biased.
But if I were to bet based on WaPo – I would bet for way over – not based on what Trump would say – but what WaPo would claim.
Whatever Trump’s problems with credibility those of the press and particularly “fact checkers”
is worse.
Real Clear Investigations has been doing multiple stories on the state of fact checking, and those stories are pretty damning.
Fact checkers do not follow what few standards they have, do not generally make public their standards and get the actual facts sufficiently wrong as to make them useless.
ONE – just one of their big problems is confusing headlines with articles.
They will frequently rate a story as true – even if the headline is blatantly false, or the story as false because only the headline is false, and they do so in a blatantly political fashion.
Regardless, fact checkers serve no purpose.
We live in the internet era. If you do not trust others – and therefore need fact checkers – why would you trust fact checkers ?
Good article on fact checking.
Aparently the assorted fact checkers attacking Trump’s recent speach had to pull many of their own fact checks – because their own newpapers had reported the same facts Trump had asserted and they were calling false.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/10/january-2019-when-media-fact-checkers-finally-jump/
BorderFence Past Problems
We’ve already built 600 miles of fencing, completed in 2015 along the southwest border from California to Texas. It was made up of 299 miles of vehicle barriers and 350 miles of pedestrian fence, including steel fences varying in height between 18 and 26 feet at border towns.
“A 2017 (GAO) report, citing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, found that from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2015, the U.S.-Mexico border fence had been breached 9,287 times, at an average cost of $784 per breach to repair.[14] The same GAO report concluded that “CBP cannot measure the contribution of fencing to border security operations along the southwest border because it has not developed metrics for this assessment.”[12] GAO noted that because the government lacked such data, it was unable to assess the effectiveness of border fencing, and therefore could not “identify the cost effectiveness of border fencing compared to other assets the agency deploys, including Border Patrol agents and various surveillance technologies.”[15]
The fence is routinely climbed or otherwise circumvented.[9] The GAO reported in 2017 that both pedestrian and vehicle barriers have been defeated by various methods, including using ramps to drive vehicles “up and over” vehicle fencing in the sector; scaling, jumping over, or breaching pedestrian fencing; burrowing or tunneling underground; and even using small aircraft.[16] /New York Times/ op-ed writer Lawrence Downes wrote in 2013: “A climber with a rope can hop it in less than half a minute. … Smugglers with jackhammers tunnel under it. They throw drugs and rocks over it. The fence is breached not just by sunlight and shadows, but also the hooded gaze of drug-cartel lookouts, and by bullets. Border agents describe their job as an unending battle of wits, a cat-mouse game with the constant threat of violence.”[9][17]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006
We have this “lacked data” stupidity all the time.
The CA to Mexico border has been significantly upgraded since 2006.
Illegal immigration into SD and CA over the CA border has dwindled to a trickle.
This is the same stupid claim offered regarding voter ID.
The fact is we know that in many districts more people have voted than are registered.
There is no doubt there is fraud. The only question is who committed that fraud.
Voter Fraud is nearly impossible to prosecute – because you have to prove that a person who gave no identity claimed to be someone else and voted.
You really think people are building ramps and driving a vehicle “up and over”
Have you ever dropped 18′ ? The odds of dropping 18’ft without a serious injury are near zero. The odds of dropping 30′ are zero.
Try dropping a car or truck 18′
If what you say is occuring it is NOT occuring where the “wall” is 18=30 ft.
Regardless, all you are doing is making a compelling argument for a 30′ concrete barrier.
That said I will agree with you that no physical barrier is impenatrable.
But it takes a great deal of time to circumvent an 18′ steel barrier and orders of magnitude more to circumvent a 30′ concrete barrier.
Increasing the TIME is the entire point of the barrier.
If it take 20min per person to cross few if any will get accross before CBP arrives.
“The fence is breached not just by sunlight and shadows, but also the hooded gaze of drug-cartel lookouts, and by bullets. Border agents describe their job as an unending battle of wits, a cat-mouse game with the constant threat of violence.”
And yet we keep hearing there is no crisis or justification for the wall.
WHILE you are claiming that the border is a very dangerous place that is controlled by violent people.
Make up your mind.
Did no one ever teach you logic ?
When your own argument contradict themselves – you have zero credibility.
It’s immoral to make government employees suffer for political gain, as Trump has done. And please no BS about others have done it before. Multiple wrongs don’t make it right.
Now the Coast Guard is about lose their pay – this month they were paid with reserve funds, but it was one time only. They’ll soon be fucked like others not getting paid.
But not to worry, they have been advised on ways to get by during Trump’s shutdown:
“Employees of the U.S. Coast Guard who are facing a long U.S. government shutdown just received a suggestion: To get by without pay, consider holding a garage sale, babysitting, dog-walking or serving as a “mystery shopper.””
Maybe Trump can toss them paper towels or toilet paper on his next visit.
Anothef Bush43 idoitic signed legislation. Who the hell thought it a good idea putting the CG in DHS hands. They are military and should be DOD!
But Trump can easily change this problem by E.O.
“The U.S. Coast Guard reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. However, under 14 U.S.C. § 3 as amended by section 211 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, upon the declaration of war and when Congress so directs in the declaration, or when the President directs, the Coast Guard operates under the Department of Defense as a service in the Department of the Navy.”
So someone needs to tell him this!
We actually need ICE and CBP. We do not need most of DHS.
“But Trump can easily change this problem by E.O.”
Huh? I thought you were against EOs?
I am against E.O’s when the law does not spcifically state what a president can or cant do. For instance, Obama’s legal team sorted through legal documents and found missing informatio or hazy information to circumvent laws. In Jan 2016, Obama issued an EO concerning gun control after loopholes in current laws were found or missing informstion was identified. That is what I disagree with and that process is used WAY TOO OFTEN!
The legislation I quote specifically allows the president to shift the CG to the DOD!
The President would be following congressional directives, not acting unilaterally like a distator!
A distator! That’s a great neologism for Trump, Ron: Disasterous Dictator!
As to EOs not already specified in law, I guess you would have frowned upon President Abraham Lincoln when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation In 1863 – the most famous EO.
Jay you are going off the deep end. Lincoln had powers provided by the president’s authority to suppress rebellion (war powers) within the constitution and this was used in the southern states only. If this was today, it would come under the national emergency act from the late 70’s.in addition to constitutional authority.
The Proclamation was issued under authority granted by the constitution based on him being Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution. He based his decision on his power to free persons held as slaves in those states that were in rebellion as a war measure for suppressing the civil war . If this was today, that proclamation would have covered the four slave-holding states that were not in rebellion: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. Those states were not named in the Proclamation since he did not have constitutional authority.
THE DIFFERENCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND SPECIFIC LANGUAGE CONTAINED WITHIN!!!
Show me one EO that Obama issued where language specific to that EO was in the constitution and where articles were quoted as support like ones that can be used and were used in the A.P. by Lincoln.
Let’s not quibble, Ron – you may be right, but many historians attach an executive order tag to it.
Here’s just one from Wikipedia: “The Emancipation Proclamation, or Proclamation 95, was a presidential proclamation and EXECUTIVE ORDER issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863” (My CAPS).
Yes, the Constitution did give Lincoln power to repress rebellion as Commander in Chief, but
It didn’t specify how he was to do that. His Proclamation née executive order was made on his own ‘sincerely believed’ opinion it was an ‘act of justice, warranted by the Constitution.’
Or so he said. His earlier thoughts on slavery are a little murky. But in deference to your superior historical credentials I will henceforth refrain from describing the Proclamation as an EO, unless that is Trump issues his own Wall-Fence-Moat Proclamation.
.
Jay, not sure exactly what I wrote and it is way too hard to find something on wordpress after 100 or so comments.
If I did not state it, yes, I agree it was an E.O.
and I dont object to EO’S that the president has clear authorization to issue. The Amancipation Proc. was what that should be used for. Trump has clear authorization to move the Coast Guard to D.O.D. so they can get paid.
And in many cases, my objections are not even directed toward presidential E.O.s. They are directed toward ” as determined by the secretary if XXX” which gives that department unlimited powers until the next secretary come in ( like the mileage standards the EPA issued a few years ago that were reversed by Trumps EPA) How does any company plan with 4 year or less rules in place?
I worked in a profession that was filled with “gray words” that left too much for interpretation. So we paid huge amounts over my career to consultants who made large salaries to tell us what they thought was legal or fraud. And even then, many providers were fined for what the government decided was fraud when the division of health and human resources interpreted congressional words different than providers.
So when it comes to legislation, I am black and white. And few words at that because the more words, the more interpretation.
That is what makes our constitution so unique.
We theoretically agree on a lot of issues, Ron; the few we differ on seem to be causing the most smoke.
And that smoke might linger for awhile since it is being created by two trust issues.
1. Your total dislike and distrust of Trump
2. My dislike and distrust of government.
I’m not sure we may be able to rectify those differences.
By the way, I have no problem with Trump transferring the CG as you suggest
Not getting paid for not working is not immoral.
Nor is anything they are experiencing “pain”.
Regardless, like every other employee in the country they are and were free to seek other employment before, now, and later.
Frankly I hope a very large number of them do.
That would be fantastic for the country.
Removing them from jobs that have a double negative impact on average standard og living and shifting them to productive jobs where they will raise standard of living for themselves and everyone else.
The employment of people at the public expense in jobs that are not productive and are not necescary to protect the actual liberty of others – that would be immoral.
Firing people for an indefinite period without cause is immoral.
Stopping or limiting public service to citizens for political advantage is unconscionable.
Defending it is self centered nitwitism.
Congress is free to explicitly fund parts of the government such as the coast guard any time they want. I have zero doubt Trump will sign narrow bills that fund specific parts of the government like the coast guard.
Separately – I would be very careful about these claims that X is not funded.
75-80% of the government is funded. Most of the stories about things that are not funded right now have either been outright lies or radically incorrect misrepresentations.
BTW it appears this is the only shutdown ever where congress did NOT pass an emergency supliment to cover the military and coast guard – so Blame Nancy, she can fix this anytime she wants.
While I have not made the “this has happened before” argument – specifically regarding the coast guard it has not – and that is congresses fault.
But why am I precluded from making that argument.
You claim this is immoral now – why was it not immoral then in the past ?
The fact is that to the extent there are moral issues at all – they favor the shutdown.
Regardless, if as you say “this time is different” the burden is on you to prove that.
“shutting down the government is a morally wrong way of negotiating, no matter which side does it. This is not the way to negotiate.”
Why is it morally wrong ?
We have had two years of “moral outrage” from the left – but not the slightest moral foundation for that “moral outrage”. Something is not immoral because you assert it is.
What is the basis for your assertion – how do you determine moral/immoral.
I have explained the principles that I use to measure morality – over and over again.
Those principles are nearly universally accepted – even by you, though you seem to think they only apply to individuals or that moral principles can be overcome by popular vote.
Which BTW they can not be and still remain principles, rather than merely values.
I have not merely presented those principles but demonstrated in numerous logical ways that morality itself is actually logically dependent on those principles – that you can not have morality without those principles. I have further pragnmatically democtrated that in the real world those principles work and the alternatives do not.
What you you done ?
For years I have begged and pleaded for your moral principles. On rare occasions you have fed me a few values – very rare occasions. But values are not principles.
Values are contextual and highly individual – values are incredibly subjective
Not only do values vary between individuals – they vary within an individual.
And that is fine, there is no contradiction, because they are only values.
Principles are immutable.
I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Dave 95 percent of what you post is some variation of “there is no….” Your one trick does not interest me or have any effect on reality. You are simply a wordy denial machine. The number of things you have denied were happening that have come to pass in any case over the years is quite large.
ISTANBUL — President Trump’s muddled plan to withdraw the United States from Syria fell into further disarray on Tuesday after Turkey’s leader rebuffed Mr. Trump’s emissary, John R. Bolton, and angrily dismissed his demand that Turkey agree to protect America’s Kurdish allies.
“It was the latest, most vivid example of what has become a recurring motif in Mr. Trump’s idiosyncratic, leader-to-leader foreign policy: a senior American official humiliated by a foreign head of state who evidently calculated that he could extract a better deal by talking directly to Mr. Trump.
So ?
Yes, trump has done well in foreign policy by ignoring the state department.
Trump has just announced that if Turkey “hits” the Kurds, the US will “devastate” Turkey economically.
Though frankly I think we should stay out of the messes of other nations.
We are not obligated to right every wrong in the world.
I can not wait to here the response from the left.
Is Trump going to get it for threatening Turkey ?
Or are we going to hear the neo-con chorus that economic sanctions are not enough we must go to war ?
Yes, the NYT can make erroneous news, but at least they try to correct the record:
Here’s the Times‘ correction:
A previous version of this article misidentified the people to whom Paul Manafort wanted a Russian associate to send polling data. Mr. Manafort wanted the data sent to two Ukrainian oligarchs, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov, not Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to the Kremlin”
Can Fox or the WE do as well?
“Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forest fires that, with proper Forest Management, would never happen. Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!’
Just like any third world dictator would do to his political enemies.
Iowa GOP rep. Steve King, a guy effusively praised by trump and supported by trump as “a smart person who has the right opinions on almost everything” is quoted asking the NYT “when white supremacy somehow became a dirty word”. We will all wait for trump to have a presidential reaction. He would half to take time out from his busy schedule doing important thing so like threatening to axe disaster relief.
I can count on one libertarian here to say that King is an idiot who should not be in government. I can also count on our other libertarian to say that while he is not a big fan of king, Obama blah blah blah blah blah and liberals blah blah blah, and no one cares if king and trump defend right supremacy anyhow because the important thing that we all need to focus on is drowning government in the bathtub.
Roby, what scares me more is those like Stephany Murphy (FL) or Tim Scott (SC) becoming dinosaurs and the Trumps, Kings, Ocasio-Cortez or Ellisons becoming the “norm” and future of the parties.
How have the majority of Americans, moderate America, become the real silent.majority that no one cares about?
How has the parties been commandeered by the fringes of the parties?
Isnt this how many democratic countries fall to one extreme government or the other?
Trump won on “Make America Great Again” .
I think we need a campaign based on “Wake Up America”
Ron;
Let me ask you something about Trump.
You did not vote for him – neither did I. He did not make me any binding agreements. For an agreement to be binding – there must be consideration – in this instance, Trump makes a bunch of campaign promises, and people who care about those things chose to vote for him based on those promises.
Those of us who did NOT vote for him have little voice in this.
At best we get to decide if we will change TO an Pre Trump vote in 2020.
The question of whether this is a promise kept of not lies SOLELY with those who voted for him.
So try to put yourself in their shoes.
Myriads of politicians have [romised the trumnp voters many things for decades.
The wall promise is near 40 years old.
Every president has promised to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem since Nixon.
Trump promised to kill TPP
Trump promised to Renegotiate NAFTA
Trump promised to Kill the Iran deal.
Trump promised to defeat ISIS quickly and leave.
Trump promised to get out of Afghanistan
Trump promised to enforce immigration laws.
Trump promised to Increase military spending
Trump promised to cut taxes,
Trump promised to shift from multilateral to bilateral trade deals.
Trump promised to unburden us from crippling regulations.
Trump promised to get out of the Paris accords.
Trump promise to approve they Keystone XL, and the DAPL.
Trump promised to get out of the way of Fracking.
Trump promised to allow US energy exports
Trump promised to repeal the PPACA mandate, lower prices and increase choices.
Trump promised to increase economic growth.
Trump promised to lower unemployment
Trump promised to appoint a supreme court justice from the Federalist list of 25.
He promised to appoint federalist federal judges.
The above and many many other things are promises that Trump has KEPT.
You may not agree with those promises.
You may think they were a mistake – But Trump has still kept them regardless.
Absolutely there are campaign promises he has not kept and will never keep and some that he might still keep- or might not.
There are some he has kept that I wish he had not.
But I can not think of any president in my lifetime that has actually kept so many of the campaign promises he has made – significant one and less significant ones.
For most people THIS is the foundation of trust.
This is also why the left is so vigorously seeking to paint Trump as a liar by nit picking, to distract people from the fact that he has kept so many campaign promises.
Dave, first I like your list. Why the GOP political party does not publish this monthly, using social media and getting it out is hard to understand.
Now for my list with Trump on that. You and I have had this conversation. I support almost everything Trump has done. And all that is on your list. But I have to say I think his personal actions overshadow much of what he does good. No one knows what Ted Cruz would have done or anyone else.
So my dislike for Trump the person makes it really hard for me to vote for Trump the politician. And I hold, and will hold until people give me definitive proof, and not crap from polling information, etc that cross over independent/ unaffliated/ democrats provided Trump with the support in early primaries that froze funding for others that ended up dropping out. If the GOP wants me voting for GOP nominee, then I want the GOP selecting the candidate. Not individuals with no GOP blood at all.
LMAO, Roby. And throw in a quote from someone for the cherry on top of the Tower of Bable.
Show me the pesos!
I am not especially interested in defending the “Mexico will pay for it” claim.
It is stupid to defend – partly because Trump supporters actually understood what he meant, and the left clearly does not.
But mostly because – as Reporter Salena noted during the campaign – Trump’s opponents take him litteraly but not seriously, his supporters take him seriously but not litterally.
That is one of the most excellent observations regarding Trump that has been made.
And it is the critical problem of all this anti-Trump outrage.
Taken absolutely litterally Trump lies in nearly everything he says (as does nearly everyone).
Evaluated seriously rather than litterally he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.
Certainly Obama was less prone to speaking in a way that was so easy to take apart.
At the same time What Promises did Obama deliver on after 8 years ?
Like it or not Trump has delivered more in 2 than Obama did in 8.
Further you are on the weak side of this argument.
If Trump gets his wall – he wins with his supporters – and the credibility of his future promises increases significantly.
If Trump puts up a sufficiently strong fight and loses – Trump STILL looks like someone willing to go to the mat to keep his promises.
You keep making these “liar liar pants on fire” claims regarding Trump.
At the same time – it is OBVIOUS that your fear of Trump is NOT rooted in his lies.
But that what he says is the truth.
“It is stupid to defend – partly because Trump supporters actually understood what he meant, and the left clearly does not.”
No, you may not have taken him literally, but the OVERWHEALMING majority of his dumbass supporters did. And you are a despicable motherhumper to defend candidates for president lying to get elected.
“No, you may not have taken him literally, but the OVERWHEALMING majority of his dumbass supporters did. And you are a despicable motherhumper to defend candidates for president lying to get elected.”
Hillarious response. You insult trump supporters and then claim to know what they thing, and go on to sexual defamation, and the pretense that Trump is not the LEAST lying candidate to ever get elected president.
The entire Benghazi investigation was quite literally about a very serious lie told to get elected.
You MIGHT be right about Trump voters. They MIGHT turn on him just as republicans turned on GWB over Read My Lips.
It is also possible the earth will reverse its rotation about the sun tomorow.
Neither are likely. Trump’s core support has not changed – really pretty much ever.
“And you are a despicable motherhumper to defend candidates for president lying to get elected.”
If that was actually what I was doing – that would make me indistinguishable from the entire left including you.
But that is not the case.
I am defending actual rights. It is irrelevant whether those are the rights of people I think are good or bad.
The best of us can count on no more rights than the worst of us.
I am also defending facts.
It is an indisputable fact that Trump has kept more campaign promises than any major presidentiial candidate in my life time.
That is not defense, it is fact.
Put so that hopefully a left wing nut can understand – if Trump lies repeatedly about important things – by any rational standard he does so LESS than any other significant politician.
The problem is that you can not deal with that.
Where were Wilke and Tapper over “Benghazi was a spontaneous protest to an internet video” ?
As Whoppers go that it far more significant.
First that was a false statement about a significant fact that Obama and Clinton KNEW was false at the time they said it.
It is not an unkept promise, it is lie about a FACT.
Next – why does it matter what Tapper and Wilke think ?
Does it matter what Stalin thinks about capitalism ?
Is Mao’s oppinion of free enterprise going to have any weight with Warren Buffet ?
Trump did not make this promise to Tapper or Wilke – he made it to his own voters.
THEY get to decide whether they got what they wanted – you do not.
Well I could not avoid “BooHoo” NBC coverage of the shutdown. Wife had it on while I was fixing dinner. Basically people not getting a check, but they screwed up. They left in a comment by a federal worker that said ” unemployment insurance will run out sometime “. So unemployment ranges from 400 to 650 a week depending on stste. And that is payable.until the worker returns to work. If they get back pay, then they have to reimburse the state.
So lets get the news TO TELL THE WHOLE DAMN STORY! Yes, $400 a week will be less than they make and this is about equivalent to a gross income of $533.00. But they are not going to starve. Steak? No. Pinto beans and corn bread? Yes (But I apologize since Pinto beans and corn bread is one of my favorates). Concert ticket s? No. Walk on the beach or hiking trail, Yes.
So the dems know what Trump wants. What HUGE deal do the dems want? DACA with citizenship after 5 years? More?
Come to the table. Tell America you are going to negotiate. $5B for XXX(most everything dems want). If Trump walks, then they have a big election issue. “We wanted to fund the wall in return for kids and young adults educated and molded by American values and Trump refused” or whatever they ask.
I think that would turn too many moderate leaning house and senate GOP members that they would vote for that including Graham.
My question is, seeing that it is pretty clear that sopport for a wall isn’t much higher than one third of the country, and coincides pretty much to Trump’s base, why do we inevitably have to agree to a so-called wall (which in fact ain’t gonna be at all like what it’s supporters have in mind). We can’t say no to the POTUS and his base?
“We can’t say no to the POTUS and his base?”
Well why not if you so choose?
Voters will decide who is more to blame.
And Trump can keep what he has now.
But I guess he did receive more electoral votes and carried more states. He received those votes based on a wall in his platform and he has senate support to keep a small part of the government closed. And he has the power of the veto if congress passes anything he does not like and congress has the veto override if they so choose.
Then we have 2020 to remove him if there are enough states flipping blue to remove him from office since they did not support his wall idea.
But my thoughts were $5B is small change to get a huge immigration reform bill. And because congress has given POTUS unlimited powers, this is only 23 months until a new POTUS may come in. No way $5B is going to be spent by then. Just E.O. that out of existence after 2020.
(Ha! no I dont like um, but they are there that can be used)
It would take years to build any significient length of wall-fence-barrier. Thousands of legal suits will inundate the courts, over eminent domain, costs, ecological and structural concerns, etc. I just read this, it will address some of the problems facing attempts to fence the border.
Now if this is true, why would the Democrats throw away this golden chance to obtain permanent status for DACA and a good chance for a pathwsy to citizenship? That for a wall ( that will be tied up in court and after 2020 when Trump is defeated, funding is not renewed by the next administration)
You are presuming that something that is not binary is.
About 35% of people STRONGLY support a wall.
Strength of support dminenses after that. If I recall correctly only about 16% STRONGLY oppose a wall. Between those two extremes there is more opposition than support. but it is not strong. Polls taken last March had 80% of people supporting trading a wall for DACA. I have not heard that polled recently, but since support for a Wall has nearly doubled over time, I would be surprised if that has diminished.
I would note that “support” for the revolutionary war was about the same as support for the wall. The situation was very nearly the same.
About 1/3 of people strongly favoring independence, a smaller minority strongly opposed and a great gulf between that did not feel strongly.
Jay;
If the problems building a wall are so insurmountable – why do you care if the legislation passes ?
Ron, I can ask you in return why did the GOP Congress not give trump his wall when they were in control? Because the wall is an unpopular giant government project that will cost far more than projected and still likely fail and they did not want to oown that. So now the Dem house is supposed to give trump what the GOP house would not?
“I can ask you in return why did the GOP Congress not give trump his wall when they were in control? ”
I will reiterate what I have said many times. (And relate this to Trump notbreally being a main stream Republican)
Neither party wants immigration fixed. It is too benefitial to both. Democrats get voters, both from young whites that support illegals and future citizens from illegals now. GOP business leaders get cheap labor, many cash based that avoid taxes and benefits.
And this is a HUGE base motivator during elections for both parties.
If this was not the case, why has Mitch McConnell been MIA during wall meetings?
Jay;
330miles of the enhanced fencing – I beleive that is the 18′ high steel slat fencing was built LAST YEAR.
At that rate it will take less than 10 years to build the entire wall.
More than 80% of the California border has a wall – I beleive that occured during Bush – though Trump has repaired or replaced some of the crappy parts that are failing.
CA illegal immigration dropped from 640K+ per year to only a few thousand.
BTW the 10 year claim – presumes that every foot of the border needs a wall.
Probably less than 70% of it needs a wall. Other parts are already naturally difficult to penatrate.
Further the objections you “structural engineer” made are not structural engineering objections. You are citing her as an expert on something she is not expert at.
Dave, wonder why California Democrats are leading the “stop the wall” effort. If you don’t have a problem and can get votes from it, why not be front and center!
Yep Iove government. They are so trustworthy and righteous. AND THAT INCLUDES TRUMP!
BTW, reading parts of her statement – I think your “structural engineer” is a fraud. There are some errors in her writing that sugest either she does nto have the education she claims or standards have declined.
Her reference to “Daubert” makes it pretty clear she has no clue what “daubert” means.
Actual practicing Engineers RARELY have MS’s.
I am an architect – I have a BS,. Architects with BS’s look down their noses at Architects with MS’s. An MS in architecture means one of three things – you could not get through architectural school in the normal 5 years, you went to an architectural school that could not get their 5 year program acredited or you are looking to be a college professor, not a practiving architect.
Engineering degrees are 4 years, so getting an MS in engineering is even more dubious. What she does NOT say is that she has a PE – an engineering license. That is far more important than an MS.
Some of the assertions she makes are true – because they are true of every single federal program ever. The current wall costs already reflect that.
I beleive last year Trump built 330Miles of wall with $2.5B in funding.
That is ACTUAL COSTS – including all the factors your source cites.
I beleive Trump’s total Wall program is about 1500Miles. That would take less that 5 years and cost 11B at the current rates.
Those are real figures using real wall constructed in 2018 that already includes all the factors your “engineer” factors in.
BTW qualifying in court as an “expert” is not particularly difficult.
I have testified in court as an expert on accounting, building codes, and building costs. My background, professional experience, and education would qualify me to testify as an expert on almost anything related to architecture – and that includes the construction of walls.
Architecture is a broader profession that engineering.
To get an architecural license you have to pass 5 full days worth of tests, including a full day of structural engineering tests.
Most architects have 1 full year of structural engineering – that is about 2/3 what a structural engineer has – remember an architectural degree takes 5 years, and engineering degree takes only 4.
Due to transfers, I have 2 full years of structural engineering at two of the top engineering schools in the country – significantly better than UH.
Additionally, I have more science and math than most engineers.
I took science and math courses to raise my GPA – again at two of the top schools in the country. I did not go to MIT or Stanford – I went to RPI and GaTech. GaTech is currently the #8 school in the nation. RPI is #41. UH is not listed. And unless RPI has declined significantly in the past 35 years RPI is a better school than GaTech, and nearly as good as MIT #1.
The real big fight over the wall is getting it into the budget.
Trump got 2.5B for the wall last year – but not as part of the normal budget.
What this fight is really about is that if Trump gets wall funding as part of the budget – it will be there every year for atleast the next decade and will take superhuman effort to get rid of it.
We are not fighting over $5B but over $50B/10 years – which is also why Trump is prepared to compromise the number down.
When a Dem POTUS and her base set their hearts on something in another 3 years that most people don’t support, the chickens will be home.
And if they set their hearts on something naive that a majority think in some fuzzy way that they want conservatives are going to be in a Very hard spot once we have established the standard that the base of the party in power must get it’s ways.
Yes, Roby. Gun laws and climate change immediately come to mind: both of those easily defended as genuine national emergency issues .
“Yes, Roby. Gun laws and climate change immediately come to mind: both of those easily defended as genuine national emergency issues .:
If they are so easily defended – why have you failed to do so.
“Climate change” is more semantic fraud – the climate has changed naturally for billions of years. It has changed in ways favorable to man and in ways hostile to man and will do so again and again, and we are powerless to do anything but adapt.
The left wing nut nansense is NOT about “climate change”. Everytime you use the phrase “climate change” you are subtly admitting you have no real crisis and no argument.
The actual scientific debate – to the extent any real debate exists, is over Catastrophic anthropogenic Global Warming.
To defend that you must prove:
That what is occuring is actually caused by man.
That it is unusual.
That it is catastophic.
That it is a bad thing.
You can not prove ANY of those elements.
Further it is pretty much self evident at this time that after over 30 years – The predictions of the high priests of warmendom have FAILED. In Hanson’s famous congressional testimony he predictions that by 2020 the earth would be 2C hotter than it was then – it is 0.2C warmer – almost all of that from 1990 to 2000. There has been very little change in global temperatures since 2000.
Conclusiving disproving warmists.
The same is true of “gun control”.
The entire premise of gun control rests of the fake argument that guns cause violence. But all of human history demonstrates the opposite.
Cave men – that is 150K years before guns, had a 50% probability of dying a violent death – at the hands of another human. The entire history of humanity is the slow decline in rates of violence. That decline is inversely proportionate to the INCREASE in weapons. I have repeatedly pointed out that “common sense” is not a useful guide to determining much of anything – we do not share the same “common sense” despite the name. The existance of “entrepeneurs” inherently means some of us are able to see what makes sense better than others, and more important – that the “common” perspective is often wrong. If we relied on “common sense” rather than uncommon sense, we would still live in caves and still have a 50:50 chance of dying a violent death before 25.
No credible study has ever found a link between weapons of any kind and violence.
As has been noted repeatedly is what is a neat perfect controlled laboratory study, AZ imposed a near total ban on firearms whole NZ did not. Demographically the populations are near identical. They had the same rates of violence as each other at the time – decades later, if anything the rates in NZ are lower.
Nor is this the only statistical refutation.
BOTH your claims are NOT “easily defended”, and in fact neither can be defended at all – atleast not using facts, logic and reason.
But of course that is the point. You are seeking to use your feelings to justify the use of force. That is the SOLE argument that you actually have.
.
The “chickens have already come to roost” – PPACA.
I have repeatedly argued that there are many criteria for govenrment acting.
Public support – in the strict democratic way you use it is not one of those. However strong public opposition IS.
Regardless, I would find your argument more compelling if you were sincere about it. The vast majority of what congress passes – regardless of party, does not have strong support.
Quite often to get something through congress requires massive log rolling.
Ultimately to buy enough votes we cobble together these “compromises” – where we do things like trade the wall for DACA, or the infamous Nebraska CornHusker kickback to get PPACA.
I will be happy to join you in precluding any such political compromises.
And nothing will every pass.
I can live with that – can you ?
Absent declaring a state of emergency or something like that Trump is NOT trying to get his way unilaterally.
The choice is not simply a wall or no wall.
Trump has been pretty overt – He wants a Wall, in return he will support some other things democrats want.
That is the purported “compromise” that “moderates” claim to approve of.
BTW there is no reason to ever compromise if you have sufficient support to accomplish what you want without it.
So if you beleive in compromise as a principle or a value, this is exactly where it applies.
Jay, note the irony, Dave is arguing for a gigantic open-ended government project that has failed in the past. He has finally seen the light, government will fix this by pouring money into it!
I like the DACA for Wall negotiation with this added caveat: Wall Tax to pay for it.
Jay great idea!! I like it. And adding just 1/10% to your tax liability would pay for it in one year
If your tax liability was 5,000, then it would be $5,005. If $200,000, then instead it would be $200,200. And if $1,000, then $1,001.
Love it. Great idea!
Just sell drugs confiscated at the border on Silk Road and you could pay for it in a few days.
Drink while you can, clean water supplies are shrinking.
“UN says Gulf’s thirst for water causing toxic brine problem
United Nations scientists warn that desalination is creating huge volumes of chemical-laced brine that risks contaminating food chains”
“We have to address potentially severe downsides of desalination — the harm of brine and chemical pollution to the marine environment and human health,” said Vladimir Smakhtin, the director for the Hamilton, Canada-based UN Institute for Water Environment and Health.
Together, the world’s 16,000 desalination plants produce enough effluent every year to cover Florida with a foot of toxic brine, according to the peer-reviewed UN study, which was published by Elsevier’s journal Science of the Total Environment.”
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/technology/411020-un-says-gulfs-thirst-for-water-causing-toxic-brine-problem
Satire: Who needs more regulations from big governments.
NO ONE is forcing you to drink.
Get your Acme Sweat Recycling Suit and, remember, in a pinch you can drink your own urine.
The UN is about the least credible organization you could come up with on this.
Water is 1000%% recycleable and recycled.
There is absolutely nothing you can do to water that does not near immediately return it to nature.
We could desalinize the entire contents of the pacific every year and so long as that water returned to the pacific with no more contamination than in the past the pacific would remain on net unchanged.
That does not mean that the consumption of water can not create local issues.
The Russians pretty much destroyed the Aral Sea – but by diverting it to irrigate massive cotton fields. There are many other instances of humans wreaking havoc on specific resources in limited contexts by massive acts – pretty much always by GOVERNMENT.
Almost always socialist governments.
BTW what desalinzation produces is not “efluent”.
All desalinization does is separate sea water into components – drinkable water and minerals.
So long as the separated drinking water ultimately returns to the gulf – which it mostly will,
returning the separate minerals causes no actual harm.
Though I suspect that is unlikely to occur.
Says law – the law of supply and demand, states that anything in sufficient supply will create a demand – it will become valueable.
If there is a large and reliable supply of brine, then it will be used as raw material for some product.
This truth is why there are few if any “recycling” laws in the US that apply to business.
Business will always eventually recycle waste into a product.
I have noted this before – but when a Mexican farmer picks a chicken for dinner – 50% of that chicken ends up in the garbage, only half is consumed as food.
When a chicken enters a nearby tyson plant 98% of that chicken is converted into some product or other.
Satire requires more meaningful grains of truth.
We need more regulation – is an overt call for the use of force.
Your “satire” pokes fun at your positions, not mine.
Further you misconstrue alternatives. When force is not involved – there are infinite choices – not merely “acme sweat recycling suits” and “recycling your own urine”. the later of which is actually extremely feasible and ultimately ALWAYS happens naturally.
You also miss or unintentionally highlight the core issue.
No one forces you to drink. The laws of nature which are not a person, do.
No one forces you to work to sustain your life. The laws of nature do.
The POINT is not that you do not have to drink or produce – unless you are going to die, you must both drink and produce.
The POINT is that neither I nor anyone else has a positive duty to assure that you can drink or produce. You are obligated to quench your thirst yourself.
You can try to debate that – but you will trivially lose. If you impose a positive duty to unilaterally sustain others you have an unsustainable arrangement and ultimately things collapse.
Blah blah. Snore.
“”Blah blah. Snore.”
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F82%2F62%2F2c%2F82622ca59d4ddd1d5f9a5bc646e286fc.jpg&f=1
Bleat, bleat, fart.
Ron, while the shutdown continues those collecting unemployment insurance will certainly be eating less, you included.
Jay, to quote a smart man “Blah, Blah, Snooze”.
Dave-John, your right!
Trump supporters knew what he meant about Mexico paying!
Adam Schiff ? Really ?
Regardless, If Trump’s coters think that they were lied to about Mexico paying – as they were by George Bush’s Read my Lips pledge – then they will drop Trump in 2020 like Bush in 1992.
What I see is the left outraged and trying to persuade Trump voters to be incensed and it is not working.
You beleive otherwise – maybe your right.
Or maybe you are having another 2016 moment where you thought Hillary was going to win.
I would remind everyone that – Brexit was supposed to lose. Trump was supposed to lose,
The left and the media and the pundits have been misgaging the public in the US and accross the world.
And post backlash they are in denial.
I am now hearing idiots claim that Putin gave Trump significant support – Nope.
There is no doubt that Putin invested in an effort to disrupt the US election.
There is no doubt it was a miniscule effort that has paid enormous dividends.
He has accomplished exactly what he wanted we are fighting over the integrity of our own election which makes it impossible to criticise his elections.
There is no doubt that Russian efforts were close to neutral as to who they favored.
All this and more is self evident from actual facts.
But the left and the media do not give a crap about facts.
2/3 of democrats actually beleive Russians hacked election computers and changed votes.
That beleive is like beleive in global warming – religious faith absent evidence.
For a left tilted article – this is a pretty good article on the Federalist society as well as federalism originalism and textualism.
The author notes the shift of some left constitutional scholars to originalist approaches.
I highly welcome that – Though I can find no originalist argument supporting affirmative action – not even in the reconstruction amendments – those on the left are welcome to look for one.
I think Barnet does an excellent job in his book on the lost constitution of demonstrating that the Reconstruction admentments were an effort to combine extending the full rights of citizenship to blacks with restoring the importance of the 9th amendment.
The argument that the reconstruction amendments support affirmative action is ludicrously stupid. The reconstruction amendments are actually BROADER than the 9th amendement, they not only limit the governments ability to infringe on individual rights – even unenumerated ones, but the limit the governments ability to infringe on priviledges and immunities – which in the 18th and 19th centuries were bore than just rights.
Regardless, I welcome those on the left to explore the actual historical constitutional traditions of our founders and the authors of the assorted amendments.
The 14th amendment was the foundation for the warren courts incorporation of the bill of rights against the states – one of many things the Warren court actually got right.
There was a time – in my lifetime when those on the left cared what the constitution said rather than what the wanted it to day
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/01/02/feature/conquerors-of-the-courts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b1214f4f2679
Logical discussion about the morality of a border wall.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/08/why-is-a-border-wall-immoral/
When you call someone else a liar – you bet your credibility against theirs.
In Trump’s recent speach – the left and the media exposed themselves as frauds and liars.
If you call something a crisis – you can not call others liars when they do.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/09/medias-angry-response-to-president-trumps-oval-office-speech-comes-up-short/
More bad water news.
https://www.nytimes.com/201…
“As the oceans continue to heat up, those effects will become more catastrophic, scientists say. Rainier, more powerful storms like Hurricane Harvey in 2017 and Hurricane Florence in 2018 will become more common, and coastlines around the world will flood more frequently. Coral reefs, whose fish populations are sources of food for hundreds of millions of people, will come under increasing stress; a fifth of all corals have already died in the past three years.
People in the tropics, who rely heavily on fish for protein, could be hard hit, said Kathryn Matthews, deputy chief scientist for the conservation ……”
There is still a ray of rationality in college, although minute.
https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5988524950001/?#sp=show-clips
Look into heterodox accademy.
Not stated in your clip.
If it is germain to what is being discussed in the class there is not only nothing wrong with but it is appropriate to CHALLENGE those views that offend you. It is not OK to SILENCE them.
Shakespeare was unbelievably progressive for his time – he actually poked alot of fun at traditional gender roles.
But even literature that is crushingly sterotypical of those roles in its time.
it is still important to learn and understand what that literature offers irrespective of where it is wrong.
We have 10 millenia of history – pretty much all of it will offend SJW’s. if we refuse to expose ourselves to anything in the past because of what was wrong in that past, we end learning, worse we lose what we have learned, we will rapidly revery to disaster.
Here I will officially state that I loathe hate and despise the progressive movement and consider them to be among the chief examples of mass stupidity. Bernie, Warren and now the most over hyped news story of 2019, AOC, the new Bella abzug. I am going to puke if I see one more news story on my Google feed about whatever idiot thing AOS said or tweeted today.
And if I had a time machine I would go back and poison the person who invented Twitter before he could unleash it on us. Come to think of it there are a Lot of people who would not be safe from me and my time machine.
Which is why you should not have a time machine.
There is alot about twitter to hate.
But the worst issue with Twitter is that twitter itself is putting its thumb of the scales of what speach should be heard.
The cacaphony is otherwise a good thing – not a bad one.
Twitter is showing us as we are – not as the facade we paint.
That is an improvement.
Further twitter and the internet in general means that all oppinions have a platform and that generally – aside from the stupid acts of Twitter Facebook, Google etc to supress some viewpoints – all viewpoints are expressed approximatley respective of their weight as ideas and of their support NOT based on some elites judgement of them.
That is GOOD not bed.
Much of what we know today – is because we are not being spoon fed by 3 nearly homogenous networks.
AOC is popular among the right at the moment because she is someone on the left that is the mirror of Trump – only stupider.
AOC makes Trump look good.
If the left and media were not so focused on Trump outrage AOC would not be getting coverage.
With respect to your obeservations regarding progressives.
I would note that they are a far greater threat than Trump.
Trump talks about restricting the speach of others – but he never does anything.
The left is actively and agressively involved in supressing the speach of others in every way they can immagine.
First they came for Richard Spensor, and no one spoke because he was a white supremist.
Then they came for Robert Benjamin – and no one spoke up because though he was a centrist, he used the N word (in satire).
Then they will come for Roby, and Jay, and DD, and no one will speak up, because there will be no one left
God help me but I have to say this, trump and AOC:
A twit and a twat.
I now voluntarily banish myself and resign myself to never giving another weather report.
Roby, T ulsi Gabbart announced yesterday. Look at ontheissues.org and based on her positions, she is rated dead center liberal. For instance, she supports a one payer system for healthcare reimbursement. She supported Sanders in 2016.
Now read this. A threat. How far the party is moving left. And we further divide.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-run-foreign-policy_us_5c393bb2e4b01c93e00a0009
Two thirds of Americans do not support trump using emergency powers to fund the wall. 75 percent of Republicans support it. Today’s news is full of GOP officials saying it would all be legal. Obama, wrong trump right they say regarding using a presidential power to go over the head of Congress.
If the poll would have specifically about the wh plan to transfer disaster funding to pay for it I bet the could have hit 80+ disapproval and still found GOP voters approving. I hate loathe despise the GOP. We are so screwed, idiots left and right.
I linked to Johnathan Turley’s peice on the legality of using emergency powers.
Those republicans or democrats claiming that Trump may not invoke emergency powers unilaterally without congresses authorization to build the wall – using the Truman Steel case as the basis – are CORRECT. He cant.
But Trump can use Emergency powers because confgress has actually authorized Trump to do so. Read Turley’s artical – our current immigration law – passed by congress gives the president broad powers to act unilaterally – including to spend money.
I do not think there is any question remaining after reading Turley that Trump CAN build the wall using emergency powers.
BUT I do not think he should. Further I do not think congress should have delegated that much authority to the president.
If Trump does invoke emergency powers – the courts are near certain to stop him immediately – some 9th circuit judge will decide against Trump and impose a nationwide restraining order.
But it is highly likely that given the facts and the law SCOTUS will correctly side with Trump.
You presume the funding would come from disaster funding. That is just one of many possibilities. The easiest is to get it from the military budget. $5B is less than 1% of the DOD.
I also tripped over something else last night.
Trump is after funding to build 330M of the slatted metal fencing – the metal is a compromise he has already made with democrats – he wanted concrete, While the metal fencing is very effective, the concrete wall is even more effective.
Regardless, Trump built 150mi of the slatted metal fencing in 2018. For the most part Trump is looking for money to SLIGHTLY expand what is already being done.
Other things I found – illegal crossings in 2018 were DOWN from before. BUT Family crossings are WAY up.
Why ? Because if you cross as a single adult you are near certain to be deported quickly.
There is no incentive for single adults to attempt to cross the border – they are likely to be caught and near certain to be returned.
But our current law makes it near impossible to return a family. Part of the mass over Trump’s handling of families, is because Trump was seeking for a way to return families.
Anyone caught crossing the border can be deported on an expedited basis – IF and ONLY if they are detained. Once they are released the process goes from 90 days to 18 months for single adults and indefinite for families.
We continuously forget that our law drives the behavior of immigrants.
We are not seeing families – because people wish to come as families.
It is much easier for a single adult to cross. It is also much less dangerous.
But we have made that ineffective, so immigrants have adapted.
Obama changed the polices regarding unaccompanied minors – and in 2 months the number of unaccompanied minors skyroketed until Obama reveresed policy.
We see the same with families at the border.
“Regardless, Trump built 150mi of the slatted metal fencing in 2018.”
Really?
Or are you as full of deceptive BS as your soul brother Lyin Donnie?
No new fencing barriers slatted or otherwise were build in the US last year.
However, sometime in the future… IF Congress allocates the $5 billion, officials with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, want to build about 200 miles of new AND replacement barriers in high priority areas.
And ongoing repair and replacement has been ongoing, and 160 miles of additional repair and upgrade is scheduled to be constructed (mostly barbed wire) along the Ca AZ borders starting next month.
“Other things I found – illegal crossings in 2018 were DOWN from before. BUT Family crossings are WAY up.”
And illegals crossing BACK across the border into Mexico are exceeding all illegal crossings in. How will they continue to leave with impenetrable wall-fences blocking them. Will the barriers be designed with one-way exit doors?
Rather than a poll, lets just change the law to empower the people.
Any person or group who is willing to take full financial responsibility for the immigrant of their choosing may do so.
If Sorros wishes to fund 1000’s of immigrants – fine. If your church wishes to – fine.
If you wish to personally – fine.
You get to pick who you sponsor. If you want to sponsor poor brown people – OK.
If you want to sponsor those from the mideast – fine.
Rather than political democracy – how about giving a real voice to the people.
Rather than allowing the majority to use force to impose their position on all.
Allow each of us to do as we choose while taking responsibility for that choice.
I doubt he will use it. If he did, they go to court in either 4th or 9th district, judge stays E.O., government reopens, and it take a number ofvweeks to get through the system. SCOTUS has to have time to finalize decision. Trump loses all negotiating power and Democrats get everything they want. No immigration reform, borders hard to protect, families getting caught and news stories of kids being detained, great election images.
Country screwed, parties benefit, individuals hurt!
Salon saying “God Help Us Trump is right”
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/09/god-help-us-trump-is-right-about-something/
There is so much in this I can not keep track of it all.
Regardless, it ties Fusion GPS to the same Russian Oligarch’s that purportedly were helping Trump.
And it ties the false flag operation against Roy Moore to the Senate intelligence committee repoirt and to multiple democratic senators.
I have absolutely Zero sympathy for Roy Moore.
Of the few things Trump has done that I find completely dispicable – supporting Moore is one of those, and pardoning Arpio is another.
But as disgusting as Moore might be, deliberately creating fake accounts made to look like Russian accounts and then claiming that Moore’s election was being aided by Russia is pretty bad.
I would note that if this is legal – and I beleive it actually is or should be – then absolutely everything the Trump campaign is alleged to have done is also legal.
Conversely if what Trump is alleged to have done is illegal – this was illegal.
But most importantly this makes it even more likely that the only conspiracy in all of this was one to “get Trump”.
All the players involved in “getting moore” were also involved in the efforts to set up Trump and the Trump campaign.
The already overly strong argument that there was a broad conspiracy between “the deep state” the Obama whitehouse, russian oligarchs, assorted wealthy democrats, the Clinton campaign, and democratic operatives to set the Trump campaign up, has gotten much much stronger.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/10/fusion-gps-russia-false-flag/
You all know what I think about government and its incompetence in many areas, but I ask you to look at the below link and pictures and especially number 5. Can someone please tell me what good that is doing if someone really wants to get into the country? Who approved that?
But I do find it interesting that so many people in California are fighting the wall. Could that be because 80% of the California border already has some sort of barrier? Maybe Nancy Pelosi should introduce a bill to tear those down since they are immoral and it is her home state. How can they be appropriate to stay there if they are immoral?
https://www.nbcnews.com/slideshow/u-s-mexico-border-now-n685936
There’s 600 miles of fencing and other security barries in Texas, and a majority of Texans don’t want more of it.
I get it, do you? Fencing makes sense along parts of the border, but not other stretches.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20160915/majority-of-texans-oppose-border-wall-poll-says
I guess I am mentally challenged because I look at the 5 th picture and ask how could a pet owner or a farmer think this would keep animals within an enclosed area and how does anyone think that is going to stop people from entering.
For anyone that argues “walls work” damn right that one works! Why would you climb over it when you can walk around the end!
How many billions have we already spent and we have this idiocy? I am going back to my many comments already. If we have this mess and wasted money where holes are miles long, then get rid of all walls and let them in!
JAY, can you tell me you really believe that mess is working?
Sorry Ron, that was supposed to be posted on a Dave-John thread…not this one.
I’m in favor of protecting the southern border: more formable fences in heavily trafficked areas; more reasonable/economical methods in other places. Like the Israelis fencing, it needs 24/7 hi-tech surveillance and quick response teams for breaches. Whatever is installed, it will only deter economic migrants; and have little to no effect on drug trafficking or actual terrorists, and little to no effect to those seeking amnesty.
I agree with your disdain of the three progressives, Roby – but not of lumping Battling Bella Abzug in with them.
Bella, an authentic 1970s Liberal, in the decades before Liberal went Lopsided, was on the correct historical side of almost every major issue she championed/initiated in office – from gay and women rights, to government transparency, to Vietnam, to Nixon opposition. And she early on shrewdly understood how to manipulate media attention: her hats, her Laverne & Shirley NYC idioms (“Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel“).
As to AOC, she does need to stifle it (or it’s gonna be… pow… right in the kisser…to quote renowned NYC bus driver Kramden). But now with Hillary’s on the sidelines AOC is a necessary right wing media focus of disdain (like Warren) to fill in the Clinton vitriolic void.
Roby/Jay, Liberals from the 70’s were nothing like liberals from today. While liberals today believe in force to attain their desired outcome, liberals from the 70s belived in equal treatment and individual liberties.
I was one of them! That is when I became one who believed in Libertarian issues. Many of the liberals in the 70’s were very Libertarian. Equal rights, no descrimination, sexual freedoms, both straight and gay, anti war, Nixon/Kennedy health plan( no mandate), freedom of speech and many more.
Todays liberals beliebe in force to achieve their agenda. Higher taxes on the rich, mandated healthcare, force created by Paris Accords, force from EPA on land owners, force on those with religious objections to LGBT issues and forced silencing of opposing views on college campuses. And I suspect I could add many more.
So JFK would never be nominated in my opinion for president. Just his views on military, foreign affairs and taxes would eliminate him today.
I agree with your assessment of liberal change, Ron – or did you miss my Liberal Lopsided comment?
I was just stcking my nose into the conversation. Just a comment, not disagreeing.
I looked up Bella’s bio to refresh my impressions. She was pretty far out on the left, as I remembered. She certainly had accomplished a lot more than AOC before getting to Congress and had formidable mind.
AOC hasn’t accomplished a thing yet other than providing a n endless list of wildly naive impossible to pass proposals that make great copy for the press and allow the right to make her the poster girl for the Dem party when she is possibly actually it’s leftmost congressperson. The press has created her but it’s gone to her head, she is the attention loving celebrity while all the other new Dem reps are still just learning the ropes. She is capable of doing a lot of damage and is oblivious to that. The press bears the blame for writing a pile of stories every day. There are 2-3 AOC stories at the top of my news feed daily. I never open them. I say that she will likely accomplish nothing in terms of legislation but will have a large effect nonetheless. If she didn’t exist the GOP would need to create her.
Agree, she’s an annoying pain in the ass (except when effectively prodding Trump tweets); like Trump, she’s an attention/publicity junkie; and like him I think her core beliefs are elastic.
AOC is the democrats gift to republicans.
She spews total nonsense even more than Trump, and she is far less intelligent.
I think that the fact that democrats elected AOC is a reflection on democrats – and should be.
Nothing to Hide, yeah, sure…
———————
“President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. U.S. officials learned of Trump’s actions when a White House adviser and a senior State Department official sought information from the interpreter beyond a readout shared by Tillerson.
The constraints that Trump imposed are part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries.
As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference.
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is thought to be in the final stages of an investigation that has focused largely on whether Trump or his associates conspired with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. The new details about Trump’s continued secrecy underscore the extent to which little is known about his communications with Putin since becoming president…
Former U.S. officials said that Trump’s behavior is at odds with the known practices of previous presidents, who have relied on senior aides to witness meetings and take comprehensive notes then shared with other officials and departments.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-concealed-details-of-his-face-to-face-encounters-with-putin-from-senior-officials-in-administration/2019/01/12/65f6686c-1434-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html
———————-
If I was the interpreter, I’d be asking Mueller for round the clock protection
WTF?
“U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years”
So what ?
In 2013 there was no record of any of Clinton’s communications with anyone.
And to this day many remain missing.
Regardless, Presidents learned with watergate not to keep records of their conversations.
I would be surprised if there are records of Trump’s converstations with almost anyone.
Trump does not have anything but a recollection of what he said to Comey.
I doubt that there are records of what he said to Netenyahu.
I doubt there are records of what Obama said to most world leaders.
What is said does not matter.
What is DONE is what matters.
You place weird importance on words.
More bullshit babble from you, Dave-John.
Notes were taken of ALL Clinton’s meetings with foreign heads of state; they’re ALL in the National Archives and/or the Clinton Presidential Library.
You/the press keeps saying this is unusual.
I HIGHLY doubt that.
I think the exact opposite is true.
We only have Obama’s remarks to Medved – because he made them with an open mike.
As you note Tillerson was present. If there was anything worth noting – Tillerson knows it.
I do suspect Trump is a bit more circumspect than prior presidents.
He has a whitehouse full of carreer government employee democrats who have demonstrated that they will stab him in the back at a moments notice.
That said – why do you presume that interpreters keep notes ?
Their job is to interpret. It is not to set policy, not to spin policy, not to report on what was discussed, not to make a record. It is to accurately translate that is all.
To the extent what is said in these meetings matters – it matters because it is turned into action.
If Putin and Trump spend 5 hours telling each other knock knock jokes – that is not really anyone’s business.
If they discuss changes to our nuclear weapons treaties – that is not anyone’s business,
if they agree to changes THAT MATTERS.
At the same time absolutely anything that Trump might agree to with Putin ultimately must be documented by myriads of people. Because no agreement exists until the agreement is put into effect, and neither Trump nor putin can act without informing others.
The point, Nincompoop,is TRUMP CONFISCATED the translator’s notes.
What innocent reason was there for him to do that?
You’re fast migrating from deplorable to disgusting Trump apologist.
” TRUMP CONFISCATED the translator’s notes.”
Kind of like Nixon erasing 18.5 minutes of tape.
Yes. Sneaky birds of a feather destroy evidence (against them) together.
If you were an interpreter and you are talking to anyone (including Mueller) without the presidents permission about conversations between Putin and Trump you are breaking a raft of laws, and you should be in jail.
You do not seem to grasp that constitutionally the entire executive works for the president, not the other way arround.
As usual, you’re full of crap.
The only legal restriction she’s under is not passing on information covered by national security. If she’s called to testify before Congress, she can talk about anything else discussed there.
And if Trump tries to stop her from testifying, claiming his conversations with Putin fall under the national security umbrella, so much the better: under 50 U.S. Code § 3091 – General congressional oversight provisions, she can be summoned to testify in private before the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: they not only have clearance to hear classified information, the President is charged to inform those committees of any matters relating to the security of the nation, present or anticipated.
If Trump worked out any sneaky arrangements with Putin, and didn’t inform those committees, he’s in violation of the law – an impeachable charge I’ll bet.
“News Analysis
No, Trump’s Tax Cut Isn’t Paying for Itself (at Least Not Yet)
Federal revenues rose slightly in the 2018 fiscal year. But that doesn’t mean the $1.5 trillion tax cut is bringing in more revenue than it’s losing.”
“This is exactly what most forecasters predicted
When the tax law passed, members of Congress had all sorts of evidence suggesting it would accelerate America’s growing budget deficits. The Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center predicted that the new law would add at least $1 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years, even after accounting for additional economic growth. The Penn Wharton Budget Model predicted it would add $2 trillion. The most optimistic mainstream model that analyzed all the provisions of the new law, from the Tax Foundation, predicted it would add about $450 billion to the deficit after accounting for additional growth. “
dduck, I am a fiscal hawk. I wished the Obama adminstration had closed down givernment and made congress pass Simpson Bowles. But that did not happen.
So now I dont care. If they had not cut taxes, then they would have just increased spending. No politician has ever seen a dollar they want to save once the IRS gets its hands on it. So do I want the government having it and spending it, or have it back in the hands of those generating it.
I would rather the generators.
Now give me a bala nced budget amendment, I will support that almost 100%. The caveat is what they put in it where it could be broken or what accounting tricks that could be used to make it look balanced.
You give these politicians a dollar, they will budget spending $1.10. Now that is not much if its just a dime. Multiple that by $100T and its real money!
Ron, the point is******* they lied*****, as badly as Obama did. I’m sure you criticized him for his government backed figures at that time.
That is past, but preemptively, I figured it would be thrown up as a smoke screen by someone.
So what about the current lie “that it would pay for itself”.
Can we agree*** they lied***, no matter how you feel about politicians and bucks.
Yep, they lied. What’s new? They all lie. That’s how they get elected.
And is it anything different than “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance?”
I believe there is a huge difference. Trumps lie does not impact me, my family or any one person personally. Spending $5B additional dollars is a small impact on me specifically, like a few hundred dollars if distributed for each man, woman , transgender, bi-sexual and any other identification over 18.
Obama’s lie impacted millions and personally. Doctors lost. Excess insurance cost, insurance dropped. etc. You know the story.
So if we want to go back on presidents for any number of years and rank their lies, I don’t think Trumps campaign promise is even in the top 5.
AND___REMEBER___ I did not vote for him___ I will not vote for him___I don’t like him as a person. I am not defending a lie. ___BUt when everyone else throws up Trumps campaign promise lies, then they have to be compared to previous lies.
And if anyone really believed those promises, I would like to understand those individuals. Could they be the never voters that registered as independents and stuck the GOP with Trump as the nominee by voting in open primaries.?
I don’t defend him, but I want each president evaluated the same. If a campaign promise not fulfilled is a lie, then list them all! And include lies concerning legislation to get it passed.
“They all lie”
Ron, the difference between Trump’s lies and other typical politician lies is the difference between being squirted by a water pistol and submerged underwater in a barrel of urine.
Jay, I dislike Trump as a person. I have since before he said “Look at that face. ‘Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” about Fiorina or his comparing ” penis sizes with Marco Rubio. How the hell people with 1/2 a brain cell voted for him in the primaries is lost on me.
But when someone tells “average America” that the legislation passed to control health care cost will not impact them keeping their doctor or their insurance knowing full well that changes will be created and those go on to impacting millions, I can not compare that to “Mexico will pay for the wall”
But I understand where others not with this thinking are coming from. I dislike Obama for his policies as much as I dislike Trump, the person. Others who supported the Obama agenda are much more likely to give BO a pass, but crucify Trump. I get that!
To reiterate: I was a critic of Obama care when it was proposed.
But in retrospect, the ‘lose doctors’ complaint is at best a limp flag.
Yes it’s true some insurance companies discontinued health plans that had covered millions of people, and thereby lost doctors who accepted those plans – but those were people who had bought health insurance directly, not through an employer. Those canceled plans didn’t meet the coverage standards of the new law.
My daughter, self-employed, was one of those who’s plan was cancelled, and she bitched loudly to me that she lost one of her doctors, and had to find a replacement under Obama rules. But subsequently she was able to keep other doctors, she found a suitable new replacement doctor, and – surprise – she has more extensive coverage now!
More important, she wasn’t penalized for her existing conditions requiring medical attention (two serious). Now, though she’s paying a little more money for insurance, overall she’s happy with Obamacare – but worried that Trump & Republicans will end it, and NOT protect previous conditions in whatever (if anything) replaces it.
Jay I am happy your daughter has insurance and she is happy with her situation.
But does that justify the force placed on individuals that do not want nor need insurance. For instance, I know there are two mid 30’s men, make over 100K per year, unmarried, have numerous different investments and saving accounts and one of them is health savings. They put a certain percentage of their income into savings and use that for health expenses. One has bought a insurance policy that covers catastrophic cost, something in the 6 digits, the other no.
So until the mandate was written out of the act, are you OK with government force in telling you, me or anyone else what we do or do not have to buy.
I am not! That is not what freedom is based on and should not be part of any legislation.
I can just here the left if the GOP ever got super majority of the congress and had the presidency and proposed the ASSA. (American Safety and Security Act). In that legislation would be a requirement that every household owns a gun for their own protection.
Outlandish? You bet, but no different than every man and woman over whatever age has to buy private enterprise health insurance regardless of need.
Good questions/POVs Ron.
I’ll try to provide good responses later: today is a wet rainy day in LA – my wife & I decided it’s good weather for home cooking. She’s baking fresh Italian baguettes, moist & fluffy; I’m making my world-class meatballs, to go with my world-class spaghetti sauce – time consuming but WORTH IT!
The sauce is done; meatballs are in process. Here’s the meatball recipe, if you feel ambitious to impress family or friends or your own taste buds try them.
BAKED MEATBALLS
• Preheat oven to 425 degrees F
• 1/4 cup plain bread crumbs
• 1/4 cup milk
• 2 tablespoons olive oil
• 1 onion, diced
• 1/2 pound ground beef
• 1/2 pound ground pork
• 1 egg
• 1 tablespoon parsley, chopped
• 2 cloves garlic, crushed
• 1 teaspoon salt
• 1 /2 teaspoon ground black pepper
• Prep 20 m,Cook 35 m, Ready In 2 h 15 m
1. Cover a baking sheet with foil and spray lightly with cooking spray.
2. Soak bread crumbs in milk in a small bowl for 20 minutes.
3. Heat olive oil in a skillet over medium heat. Cook and stir onions in hot oil until translucent, about 20 minutes.
4. Mix beef and pork together in a large bowl. Stir onions, bread crumb mixture, eggs, parsley, garlic, salt, black pepper, red pepper flakes, Italian herb seasoning, and Parmesan cheese into meat mixture with a rubber spatula until combined. Cover and refrigerate for about one hour.
5. Preheat an oven to 425 degrees F (220 degrees C).
6. Using wet hands, form meat mixture into balls about 1 1/2 inches in diameter. Arrange onto prepared baking sheet.
7. Bake in the preheated oven until browned and cooked through, 15 to 20 minutes.
Yum!
Simspon Bowles proposed tax increases. Those would have been counter productive.
The total tax burden in the US is ABOVE the revenue optimizing maximum.
You can not get more tax revenue by increasing tax rates further.
All you will do is weaken the economy, not produce more revenue.
It appears to be impossible for most people to grasp this – even some intelligent ones.
Within the past few days both Tucker Carlson and Anne Coulter have proposed “taxing the rich”
Aparently AOC is not the only idiot unaware of the decades of scholarship and data on tax rates and revenue.
Ron we are STILL above the revenue optimizing maximum tax rate.
So long as we are any tax increase will decrease revenue, and any tax decrease that is not enormous will either be neutral or increase revenue.
We are near the appogee of the curve – and the top is relatively flat – which is why the tax changes of the past 75 years have had negligable effect on the tax revenue as a percent of the economy.
If we increase taxes slightly – we will lose revenue SLIGHTLY and harm the economy SLIGHTLY.
If we decrease taxes slightly – we will increase revenue SLIGHTLY and improve the economy SLIGHTLY
To get dramatic effects we must do dramatic changes.
Simpson Bowles starved the government of 67 cents, while using 33 cents to finally balance the budget.
I am willing for the government to rewrite tax policy to eliminate loopholes and other deductions, like solar power, electric car, and other deductions meant to promote an industry. I would also look at depreciation and depletion allowances.
Now if I looked at my budget and someone told me I could save 67 cents, but I would have to take a pay cut of 33 cents, would I not need to look closely at that?
So I would accpet the SB compromise, but no one in government would.
A balanced budget is important.
Reducing spending is MUCH MORE important.
Commism is inherently a “balanced budget” – everything belongs to government” Everything is spent by government – which decides what you get to keep.
Government must operate inside its means – or ultimately government will fail.
But that does nto mean government should be free to tax more in the hope of spending more.
Our standard of living is what we produce LESS that which government consumes.
The larger the portion of the economy governmenet consumes – the worse off we are – balanced budget or not.
dd;
“the point is******* they lied*****”
That would be false. I do not recall being promised this tax cut would be revenue neutral – yet according to the very article cited here it is.
Deficits are increasing because spending is increasing, and because interest rates are increasing. I beleive every basis point the Fed increases interest rates increases the deficit by $200B.
We are in a catch 22 that we knew was coming.
Current fed rates are too low. But raising rates will raise the deficit AND may harm the economy.
BTW EVERY fed rate change has positive and negative impacts.
When the fed gets it right the benefits outweigh the negatives.
I am not trying to say the Fed should not raise rates when appropriate – only that doing so will explode the deficit.
It will also increase incomes for retirees and those living off of investments.
“Ron, the difference between Trump’s lies and other typical politician lies is the difference between being squirted by a water pistol and submerged underwater in a barrel of urine.”
Yes, Trump is nailing us with a water pistol.
A rabbi’s view of “trump lies”
https://spectator.org/the-dems-who-cried-wolf/
Jay;
With respect to your daughter.
1). It is irrelevant whether she is happy now.
You seem to think that government can do to us whatever it pleases so long as it produces the appearance of a better result than we would have ourselves.
Government is NOT our nanny. Freedom means freedom to make our OWN choices – bad ones or good ones.
PPACA took away from your daughter the right to make her own choices.
That is evil in an of itself.
Hitler claimed the extermination of jews would produce benefits for others – and it is likely he was correct. But we are not free to murder 7M people to benefit 100M or 1B. The ends do not justify the means EVER.
PPACA was and remains immoral.
If your daughter is actually better off – and the actual numbers strongly suggest otherwise, that is irrelevant. It does not change that what was done was wrong. It does not change that undoing it is RIGHT.
Every right thing we do is not automatically also good for all of us.
Sometimes acting morally has a price. While acting immorally benefits us.
If I can steal and not get caught – I am better off, but that is not a good thing.
2). Most people including your daughter are inherently CONSERVATIVE, and that is a good thing. She apparently was opposed to PPACA – and by your own description she lost something that she was happy with at the time.
Now she has something different – and she AGAIN is opposed to changing.
That is called being conservative.
The left counts on it.
For most people Social Security is a BAD DEAL.
For most people PPACA is a BAD DEAL.
But once in place it is hard to get rid of – because people do not like changes that effect them.
3). Your claim that things are all honky dory now, presumes that you know how things would have been had PPACA not passed and it presumes they would be worse. More specifically it presumes that they would be 200B/year worse – because that is the cost of PPACA. That is about $1000/person worse. If you beleive that PPACA has created 1000/year/person in new value – you are smoking whacky weed.
This tax cut was not expected to “pay for itself” however the graph you provided as well as the data in the first paragraph of your article REFUTE your own headline
After several years of small declines Revenues rose.
Put TRIVIALLY the tax cuts have cost nothing.
To conclude otherwise requires beliving that had hillary been elected – growth would have spike taxes would have stayed the same or increased and revenue would have increased.
That is a fairly tale. What is clear from the first paragraph is that despite a substantial reduction in tax RATES revenue is INCREASING.
Dramatically ? That remains to be seen.
What is CERTAIN is that revenues did not DROP dramatically.
BTW you can go review the work of Christine Romer – Obama’s Cheif Economic Advisor in the first term and grasp this.
Upper marginal taxes about 35% are net LOSERS in terms of revenue.
Corporate taxes at almost any rate are net LOSERS in terms of revenue.
Why is it so hard for those of you on the left to understand that if you increase tax rates – people chose to make less. To be less productive.
Even those Nordic social democracies you all love learned this. Swedish tax rates are near FLAT – the vast majority of tax revenue in sweden comes from the middle class.
The swedes learned that high corporate and upper margin income taxes lose revenue.
“News Analysis
No, Trump’s Tax Cut Isn’t Paying for Itself (at Least Not Yet)
Federal revenues rose slightly in the 2018 fiscal year.”
“But that doesn’t mean the $1.5 trillion tax cut is bringing in more revenue than it’s losing.”
FALSE – litterally in its own terms. It revenues are UP then it is NOT losing revenue.
This is more leftist idiocy. The beleif that higher taxes MUST produce more revenue.
No they must not – and in fact they rarely do.
There is alot of solid economic data that the revenue optimizing maximum top TOTAL tax rate is about 35% – that means Federal, State, Local taxes of all forms added together over 35% will reduce revenue in comparison to a lower rate.
Knowing the exact point at which tax increase produce less revenue requires data – like romers.
Knowing that there is a point at which that occurs – something the left has not yet figured out, requires nothing more than simple logic.
Tax revenue if the tax rate is 0 will be 0. Tax revenue if the tax rate is 100% will be zero.
The revenue optimizing tax rate MUST be below 100% and above 0%.
Real world data from our nation and nations accross the world shows that the revenue optimizing maximum upper rate is about 35%.
BTW the revenue optimizing maximum is NOT the optimal tax rate.
The optimal tax rate is the rate at which sufficient government is funded that reduced government does no negatively impact standard of living, but no government that reduces standard of living is funded. That rate si KNOWN to be below 20% MAXIMUM, we do not have enough modern data to know exactly how far below 20% that is.
But 19th century data suggests TOTAL government should cost 3-8% of GDP.
BTW the graph in your article shows something else that intelligent people have noted for a long time. Within the range of tax policy changes that have occured in the past 75 years, tax revenues are fairly constant regardless of tax rates (as a percent of GDP) fluctuating primarily as a consequence of economic changes, not tax policy changes.
Put simply absent tax rate changes much larger than we have seen in the past 75 years – tax rates have little or no effect on federal revenue.
Because loud mouth Wall/barrier/white picket fence advocates were too cheap to put their money where their mouth is:
“GoFundMe refunding donors the $20 million raised for a border wall after campaign failed to reach goal But Brian Kolfage is starting a new campaign to build the wall privately”
They all lie, that’s your argument. I’m not sure you really are a fiscal conservative.
The Reps were warned by experts, not politicians.
“They all lie, that’s your argument. I’m not sure you really are a fiscal conservative.”
So when I see and understand something is true, then I can ‘t call a snake a snake?
So here is my point s and beliefs.
I supported Simpson-Bowles as written!
Neither party, including Obama accepted their recommendations
Neither party is going to accept changes to any program where decreased spending will make a difference.
If there is a choice between you and I having a dollar in our pocket from a tax cut or government keeping the dollar and spending it, I want you and I to have it.
A lie is a lie! Political promises are at best comments to energize a base. In many cases, they are just lies regardless of party affiliation.
Can unpaid workers be forced to work?
“The ongoing federal government shutdown has stopped most food safety inspections, but the Food and Drug Administration is planning to resume at least some of them. To do it, the agency will have to force furloughed workers to come back without pay.
FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb said he is trying to pinpoint the most essential inspections, while making sure that employees do not suffer too much.”
My favorite Tea Party Conservative says this:
“Our FBI launched an investigation into our sitting President because they were concerned he might be a Russian spy.”
True – but “concern” is not a justification for an investigation.
EVIDENCE is. Todate there is no EVIDENCE.
One of the reasons that “concern” is not sufficient – is anyone can make up concerns from thin air – as was one here.
Clinton was not investigated over her email server until The state department responded to Judicial Watches FOIA requests for information on a topic that Clinton had to have addressed as Sec State – with “no responsive documents”. JW requested discovery on the basis that was impossible, and the court agreed. It was in the process of that discovery that State department aides supplied EVIDENCE that Clinton’s state department emails were on her own private mail server. Whether classified or not this is illegal – a violation of federal records laws. JW’s discovery prompted a re-opening of the ben ghazi hearings – and a formal referal to the FBI to investigate.
Clinton had previously LIED to the house and senate committees, she and some of her aides had LIED to the court during discovery – and we have not yet touched the issue of classified emails.
We have a solid basis for a criminal investigation.
At the START of the investigation – several crimes had already been committed,
At the start there was probable cause for several more.
In the course of the investigation – there was actual obstruction of justice as well as destruction of evidence.
These are all REAL things that actually occured.
Can you provide ANY EVIDENCE even today that any actual crime involving Trump, the Trump campaign and Russia occured ?
There is no basis at this moment for an investigation that has been going on for 3 years.
MacCarthy only covers the highlites.
He fails to note that ALL of the Russians alleged to have anything to do with Trump or the Trump campaign in some nefarious way have been tied to either MI6, the FBI, the CIA or now Fusion GPS.
MacCarthy also glosses over some important points.
Had Trump discovered what was going on after the election – he should not have FIRED the entire top of the FBI. He should have fired them and then ordered them charged with Crimes.
It is a crime to run a criminal investigation of a political enemy absent sufficient cause.
Not “concerns” – actual probable cause – evidence.
The “Plumbers” has “Concerns” about the McGovern campaign. That did not justify spying on them.
The plumbers only existed because J Edgar refused to do for Nixon what Comey did for Obama.
How do you not understand that this entire investigation is the worst political crime in US history,
If Trump was using the FBI to investigate Warren or Gillibrand for Collusion with Russia or pretty much anything else right now, he would be impeached the moment we found out.
Not only is this offensive – but it eliminates any doubt there was about prior corrupt practices in the Obama administration.
Using the IRS to target political enemies – again Nixon tried and failed – Obama succeeded.
MAYBE I could beleive that Lois Lerhner was a loose cannon – but for the fact that Holder refused to investigate and having survived IRS gate – Obama’s use of government agencies to conduct political espionage increased.
Ask Rosen and Atkinson about the Obama administration targeting journalists – spying on them, getting warrants on them – something that AGAIN has never been done before.
Ask Feinstein about the CIA spying on the senate ? Again never been done before.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-fbi-russia-investigation-was-always-about-trump
The more were learn the less credible it is to beleive that Rosenstein was just engaged in satire when he threatened to wear a wire on the president.
“True – but “concern” is not a justification for an investigation.
EVIDENCE is. Todate there is no EVIDENCE.”
Dear Dope, you are pathetically dumb.
If there is CONCERN, you Dingbat, they START investigating to see if there’s merit in the concerns.
1- you don’t KNOW what evidence they uncovered; But Mueller does.
2- the circumstantial evidence since then is SUBSTANTIAL that Trump is aiding and abetting Russia. There’s a dozen synopsis explaining that out there today, but a waste of my time to link them for you. You’re deaf,DUMB, and blind to the mounting evidence. But I’ll ask you this:
What innocent explanation do you have for Trump confiscating his interpteter’s notes at the Putin meeting.
“If there is CONCERN, you Dingbat, they START investigating to see if there’s merit in the concerns.”
Nope!!!
It is trivial to claim to be concerned.
I can claim to be concerned that Obama was being paid off by ukrainian transexual killers to cover up genocide in Tibet.
That is not a basis for an investigation.
You start an investigation when you have EVIDENCE that some concern you have has merit.
Provide that Evidence.
“1- you don’t KNOW what evidence they uncovered; But Mueller does.”
Ignoring the fact that the mueller investigation leaks like a seive, that no matter how much you threaten you can not keep grand jurors, secretaries, legal aides, from talking, and the press is incredibly resourceful and is watching everything mueller does like a hawk.
H?e cleared the entire floor of a federal court for an emergency hearing over xmas, and the press speculated and then eventually figured out what it was all about – the initial speculation was wrong.
We get tiny clues when redactions are not perfect – or when the same thing becomes public through multiple sources.
You also forget that you can threaten your staff, you can threaten grand jurors, but you have absolutely no ability to gag witnesses.
As Mueller has discovered – Manafort, Flynn, even Stone and Corsi can tell Trump and his lawyers EVERYTHING they are being asked.
They can also tell the press.
So yes, we actually have a pretty good idea what Mueller knows.
Or better put we have a pretty good idea that Mueller has no secret smoking guns.
You also forget that the press has far far more resources than Mueller and has been on this for longer. They can not subpeona, but they tend to be far batter at persuasion, again if there was anything to know – they would know it.
But MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL.
Whether we know what Mueller knows NOW, we actually do know what the DOJ/FBI knew at the time this started.
And the answer is they did NOT have actual evidence sufficient to open an investigation based on DOJ/FBI guidelines and the requirements of the constitution.
You keep putting the cart before the horse.
You keep pretending that you can dig and dig and dig – and as long as you ultimately find something, your digging is justified.
But investigations are not retroactively justified – though they can fail catastrophically as this one is if they never find anything.
“2- the circumstantial evidence since then is SUBSTANTIAL that Trump is aiding and abetting Russia. There’s a dozen synopsis explaining that out there today, but a waste of my time to link them for you. You’re deaf,DUMB, and blind to the mounting evidence. But I’ll ask you this:”
You seem to be under the delusion that emotions are circumstantial evidence.
You are clueless as to what constitutes evidence circumstantial or otherwise.
Your beleif about something is NOT circumstantial evidence.
A finger print in a room proves the person tied to that finger print was in the room. It does nto tell us when, and it does not tell us they committed a crime – that is circumstantial evidence.
The dozens of “synopisis” you claim are out there – are oppinion peices – they are not evidence, they are speculation – that is not evidence.
“What innocent explanation do you have for Trump confiscating his interpteter’s notes at the Putin meeting.”
Simple – privacy. Trump has had major problems with a permanent whitehouse staff that CRIMINALLY leaks like a seive.
There is in fact no reason in the world for an interpreter to keep notes.
Interpreters are their to interpret. They are employed for their skills with language. They are not policy guru’s they are not recorders, they are not transcriptionists.
I am hard pressed to think of any reason that an interpreter should keep notes in the first place.
If I was involved in ANYTHING requiring an interpreter – public or private and I found the interpreter was keeping notes – I would demand the notes and fire the interpreter.
As is typical – you continue to assert that the fact that you wish to know something is the same as a right to know, and that any action that impedes your ability to know what you have no right to know is the same as circumstantial evidence of a crime.
It is NOT.
I would further note that NORMALLY Circumstantial evidence is used to demonstrate that YOU committed a crime.
It is NOT typically used to prove that a crime was committed.
Habeus Corpus – is fundimentally a demand for proof that a crime was actually committed.
We very very rarely establish that a crime occurred through circumstantial evidence. That is highly dangerous.
The constitution prohibits issuing warrants short of EVIDENCE demonstrating probable cause that a crime has been committed.
The entire fight over the FISA warrants is because the Steele Dossier is NOT credible evidence – it does not meet the 4th amendment standard, nor the higher FISA court standard that an actual crime was committed.
The SC statue requires that the SC investigate a CRIME, to allege a crime – there must be EVIDENCE – not just concern.
You should contrast this with the Clinton email investigation.
AT THE START – we knew that Sec. Clinton’s state department communications did not exist at the state department.
We also knew that ALOT of what the Sec. State does is DEFACTO classified,. Even the Sec. States calendar is CLASSIFIED.
Further some of Clinton’s records had been subpeoned by congress, and what was provided was spartan, State was also subject to FOIA requests – and discovery order by a court related to one of these resulted in learning that Clinton had a private email server.
Prior to that there was NO government investigation. The Benghazi committee using the fact that a private email server was discovered with government documents on it requested an investigation.
The DOJ./FBI at this point had probable cause that several crimes were committed. The absence of all communications records at State and the presence of 10’s of thousands of state department communications on a private email server demonstrated that laws regarding federal record keeping had been violated and that probable cause existed that 18cfr793 was violated.
Note ABSOLUTELY nothing here is “circumstantial”.
Though further evidence was ultimately obtained – such as that 10’s of thousands of emails had been destroyed while subject to discovery (another crime). From the start the only open questions were – how much classified information was on Clinton’s private mail server, how did it get there, and did foreign powers have access to it.
Despite Comey’s claims otherwise – Clinton’s intentions were NOT relevant.
Or better put only relevant to determine the specific crime committed.
If classified infomation was present on Clinton’s mail server – ONE peice would be proof of a crime.
Reckjlessness and negligence – just as with homocide by vehicle to no make a crime into innocent conduct, they merely make it a lessor crime.
We are not free to drive drunk, or speed or drive recklessly, kill someone and then claim innocence because we did not intend to do anything bad.
I am continuously harping on the left’s fixation with “intentions”.
An act that is not a crime rarely becomes a crime because of criminal intentions.
Trump can intend to do evil – so long as his actions are constitutionally and otherwise legal they are NOT crimes.
Clinton can intend to do good (do you really beleive that), so long as her acts are illegal, they are criminal regardless of intentions.
Put simply you seem incapable of distinguishing between evidence, circumstantial evidence, and feelings.
Today’s Best Tweet
(for Ron, who waits for tweets with great anticipation 😉)
Obviously a joke – but if it isn’t ? So what ?
Treason is defined in the constitution – it is not maleable.
Our founders were familiar – intimately with the english proclivity to accuse disenters of treason
Precisely as you and the left are doing,
and defined treason in the constitution sufficiently narrowly as to preclude exactly the kind of garbage you are spraying – though unfortunately that has not worked.
Where does this ludicrous idea that Trump is conspiring with Putin to commit Treason come from ?
It is irrational. What is Putin going to do – offer Trump a Dacha on the baltic ?
Trump can not spend in the remainder of his life all the money he currently has.
There is no more power in the world than president of the United States.
So what does Putin have to offer ?
The US relationship with Russia is little different than under Obama.
If Putin purportedly bought Trump – he got nothing for it.
Not to mention do you really beleive that a multibillionaire got “bought” by something like $1M in bad campaign adds – about half of which were for Hillary ?
Rather than go to all this trouble to “conspire” with Russia, Trump could just dump another 4 minutes worth of interest on his current investment into his campaign fund.
“Treason is defined in the constitution – it is not maleable.”
How reading retarded are you?
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”
You see the ‘ors’ ??
What do you think ‘adhering to their enemies’ means – physically sticking to them with scotch tape? Do you think aid and comfort means bandaging them and giving them coffee and donuts?
The US doesn’t have to be in a declared war to charge someone with treason (look it up). Or be arrested for treasonous (in the Treacherous meaning of it) actions, and thereafter convicted and executed (the Rosenbergs).
And SCOTUS has never examined the consequences of treasonous crimes based on stupidity. Trump may be the first.
I wonder, can those who aid and abet treasonous stupidity (you) br charged as accomplices?
Like I said. 18.5 minutes of tape?
This is your Presidential lump of excretion insulting Warren today in his presidential imitation of a fuckhead.
I agree the spot is dumb, but only a mentally President of the US would comment this way.
https://twitter.com/jackohman/status/1084634443808002050?s=21
Trump – Dave-John’s guy – threatening/obstructing a witness about to testify before the House.
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-chairmen-issue-warning-after-president-s-statements-on-cohen-testimony
So ?
What do you expect ? I would point out that Cohen has plead guilty to lying to congress, except that I really do not expect that he is going to lie.
There is little we do not already know about the Daniels NDA – not that Cohen is a credible source.
Spittle contests over the details do not matter.
The most critical issue is that there is nothing in any version of the facts that would make what happened a crime – no matter how much you wish otherwise.
Your distaste for something does not make it a crime.
The next area of inquiry would be regarding Russia.
Cohen has steadfastly denied through to the moment any political involvement with russia.
Are you expecting that to change ?
Lets say Cohen testifies that he actually did go to prague and met with and paid off russian hackers for Trump – that is the left wing nut fantasy testimony.
It is not enough that he says this, it is not enough that he testifies to it under oath – he has already plead to lying.
He must assert facts that are proveable, he must provide evidence.
One of the problems with the Mueller investigation tactics is that no matter how hard you twist peoples arm to get them to tell you what you want to hear – to be useful it must be the truth.
Do you have any doubt that Micheal Cohen would testify to heinous crimes committed by Trump right now – if that would get him out of jail ?
Of Course he would. So would Manafort who has spent the last year in solitary confinement.
Getting people to “sing” is one thing, the danger is that they will compose.
But it does the left absolutely no good to have Cohen or Manafort turn on Trump, unless they can say something that has evidence to support it.
Mueller has shredded these peoples lives. He has gone through their computers, their emails, their bank records – absolutely everything.
Mueller is beating these people up to get them to tell him something that if he was smart he already knows they credibly can not.
Your fundimental problem is that you BELIEVE that something evil occured – and you do so with absolute certainty. Therefore you are incapable of grasping that Cohen has no way out.
Anything he says, anything he does to try to help himself has got to be proveably true.
if Cohen or Manafort had the evidence, if they really did the evil you beleive they did, they would have flipped and provided proof to Mueller long ago.
Do you honestly believe after the things Trump has said of Cohen or Cohen of Trump that Cohen is still holding out for a pardon ?
Manafort has already spent a year in jail – most in solitary. Even if Trump pardon’s/commutes his sentence – and I think he should eventually commute, it is not happening soon.
Manafort could have escaped any jail time and kept his money long ago by ratting out Trump.
If he had anything worthwhile to say.
The entire Trump Russia collusion nonsense requires a large conspiracy with a mafia like code of Omerta.
Manafort, Cohen, Papadoulis, Flynn, Page, Stone Corsi, …
These are not Mafia henchmen, who are going to die before they give Trump up, who are hoping for an eventual pardon or communtation.
They are not ratting out Trump because they have nothing to say.
That has been obvious for over 2 years. It has been obvious from the begining.
This investigation has never been about Trump/Russia collusion.
That has been ludicrously stupid from the start.
Trump russia collusion is just a pretext to investigate Trump in the hope of finding a crime.
And if you do not understand why that is criminal then you are stupider than I credit you.
President Stupid’s Shutdown Effecting Farmers
“Now, farmers and farm groups say that federal crop payments have stopped flowing. Farmers cannot get federally backed operating loans to buy seed for their spring planting, or feed for their livestock. They cannot look up new government data about beef prices or soybean yields to make decisions about planting and selling their goods in an ever-changing global market.” NYTIMES
http://www.michiganradio.org/post/partial-government-shutdown-affecting-michigan-farmers
“Jim Byrum is President of the Michigan Agribusiness Association. He says so far, the impact of the shutdown on farmers is minimal, because it’s winter. ”
Guess NY Times is goosing up the impact at this time. But what the hell, why report facts and the truth?
Er, Ron – Trump’s AG SEC said this today, ON FOX.
Agriculture Secretary Perdue: Farmers Hurting, Shutdown Needs to ‘End Now’ | Newsmax.com
“Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said Monday his department is working to get staffers back to work on a temporary basis to help farmers hurt by the partial government shutdown — but the “real answer” is for the shutdown “to end now.”
In an interview with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, Perdue said the Farm Service Agency has run out of funding, which has forced Perdue to work with the Office of Management and Budget to try getting farmers loans. “. newsmax.
Well we have a difference of opinion. So based on two agricultural representatives , one without a political agenda and one with a poltical agenda disagreeing, I guess I dont know enough to form a opinion.agricultural
So I need more info.
And this, from NC farmers:
“They’re playing a game of basically Russian Roulette, and it affects the people out here,” Revels said. “It’s having a big effect on us being able to do things we need to do this time of the year, when we’re really not in the field doing much work.”
With the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency offices closed, Revels said farmers are unable to turn in important paperwork and federal loans and payments, including disaster relief payments, are now on hold.
“We’re just like everybody else,” Revels said. “We don’t draw a paycheck every week like most people do, but still, every dollar that we get is important to us. We need it to pay bills like anybody else.”
https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/wake-county-news/central-nc-farmers-say-government-shutdown-is-hurting-them/1699806207
This has nothing to do with farming. It is disaster relief and Tariff relief funds for the most part.
So we have two assholes farting at each other. Trump farts what he wants, Pelosi farts no. So who pulls off the gas mask first?
I feel sorry for anyone caught in this mess. But voters voted for the mess we are in. One group wanted secured borders and voted for Trump. Another group wanted lax border security and voted for Pelosi,( after their border was 80%+ secure.)
So congress, do your damn job, pass legislation congress agrees on, send it to Trump and then go on record to sustain or override a veto.
What the hell is so hard for people to understand we do jot elect a king? We elect congress to create and pass bills. The president can approve or not. Congress can support him or not. If they support him, then a new bill is developed.
And this from Kansas farmer:
““I don’t know where we’re at from here,” Brunkow told Here & Now. “On top of not having a farm bill and not having crop insurance, our Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, our local offices are shutdown. We’re kind of in limbo right now.”
https://www.nhpr.org/post/how-government-shutdown-hurting-farmers#stream/0
And this is definitely not NYT slanted.
The Government Shutdown Risks Shutting Down Family Farms
https://www.farmaid.org/about-us/
“Now, farmers and farm groups say that federal crop payments have stopped flowing.”
The farm bill passed – it is one of the last bills to get passed. Any impact of the “shutdown” on farmer is inconsequential.
Separately – I oppose federal subsidies – even to farmers. If by some chance the shutdown is interfering with those – that is cause to celebrate.
I want those receiving subsidies of any kind from government to treat those subsidies as risky and unreliable. Or better yet just end them.
“Farmers cannot get federally backed operating loans to buy seed for their spring planting, or feed for their livestock.”
Again the farm bill passed – this is likely fake news.
But again – if so – Great, the federal government should not be backing loans – not to farmers, not to students, not to anyone.
“They cannot look up new government data about beef prices”
Beef is sold on privately run exchanges. The data is readily available.
Regardless, it is not the role of government to keep track of beef or other prices.
“or soybean yields to make decisions about planting and selling their goods in an ever-changing global market.”
again crap. Soybean yeilds are not highly dynamic. They are a function of the soil on your specific farm. They do not change because it is 2019 – unless condictions on your farm change.
This entire article is “fake news” – first almost all of it is a LIE – the farm bill passed.
But even if it were not a lie, most of it is still manufactured nonsense.
I just love this lunacy that we must end the shutdown because 800,000 federal workers are “suffering”.
They can end their suffering trivially – get a productive job outside of government.
There would be a tripple benefit to all of us.
One of the benefits of this shutdown is hopefully that some of them will have left to go elsewhere.
What is disturbing about this shutdown is that they are really getting a defered payment vacation. They are not working – and the world has not come to an end. We clearly did not need whatever they are doing. and yet when this is over we are going to pay them for having done nothing.
Free markets are an exchange of value for value – if you work for me – I give you money, and you do the work I consider of value to me in return. If you do not do the work – I do not give you money. If I do not give you money – you do not do the work.
There is no – i am obligated to give you money and you provide nothing in return.
Donnie’s Dave-John:
Isn’t Tom Nichols someone whose intellect and politics you once respected?
If he and others of the same reasoning ability see this, what happened to your ability to objectively assess?
“The president clearly has something to hide. As I have written many times over the past two years, it is highly unlikely that there is any innocent explanation for the remarkable frequency and depth of the Trump coterie’s interactions with Russia for some 30 years, and especially during the campaign.
While Trump is not an “agent” of the Russian Federation (too many people use this kind of language without knowing what it means to counterintelligence officials), it seems at this point beyond argument that the president personally fears Russian President Vladimir Putin for reasons that can only suggest the existence of compromising information.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/13/mounting-evidence-trump-fears-putin-compromising-information-column/2564892002/
“Isn’t Tim Nichols ….”
That would require me to know Nichols, I do not
Regardless, what relevance would that have ?
I way the oppinions of some people higher than others when making choices.
Ultimately I make my own choices.
Way to much of what we all do – but specifically YOU is massive appeals to authority.
Obviously if you stand alone on an issue, there are lots of reasons for you to examine your logic carefully – the odds of all being wrong save you are slim.
At the same time there are myriads of historical examples of EXACTLY that – Galleleo pops up instantly.
Regardless, we are not dealing with all minus one scenario’s.
We are not even close.
Nor are we dealing with binary choices – another of your favorite fallacies.
You keep spewing this nonsense that anyone who agrees with Trump on some issues,
or even more narrowly does nto accept that everythign that Trump does or says is the end of the world, is some Trump zombie – that it total bullshit – and it is both a logically fallacious and morally improper argument.
But morals are not the strong suit for those on the left.
Probably because the left is ideologically detached from morality.
I have asked you constantly for some underlying principles that underpin your values and beleifs.
I have yet to get any.
You are unmoored, making up whatever position you want on an issue based on your guts or what some talking head says.
As I have repeatedly asserted the foundation of morality is individual liberty – free will.
Morality DOES NOT EXIST without free will.
All moral measures are ultimately decisions about liberty.
With respect to your article – The premise is demonstrably FALSE.
Feelings are NOT evidence.
Beliefs are NOT evidence.
Spin is NOT evidence.
Trump’s “behavior” towards Russia has NOT always been a security concern – nor is it at the moment.
This is more of this garbage that words matter more than deeds.
Absolutely during the 2016 Campaign Trump said very stupid fawning things about Putin.
And yet we elected him.
Subsequently Trump’s ACTIONS towards Putin have been no different than Obama’s
Sometimes favoring Russia, sometimes not.
But more importantly Trump’s decisions have CONSISTENTLY been CONSISTENT with his campaign promises.
He promised to kill ISIS and leave Syria. He promised to leave afghanistan.
He did not make these promises contingent on getting the approval of neo-con’s.
For much of the past two decades MAJORITIES of american’s want our military OUT of the mideast, For much of the past two decades MAJORITIES of american’s want to end this We are the policemen of the world garbage.
Every presidential candidate INCLUDING Bush II Ran on that platform.
Bush ran opposing the nation building of Clinton and Gore, and went on attempt more failed nation building than Clinton and Gore ever attempted.
Obama promised to get us out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo.
Instead as president he got us into Libya, the Ukraine, and Syria.
Starting during Bush – but exploding during Obama fracking has nearly eliminated the important of mideastern oil as a national interest.
Alone among US presidents in the past 20 years Trump is taking atleast half steps to actually do what he promised – as opposed to EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT democrat or republican who once elected was OWNED by neo-cons and rather than get us out of these messes, they created MORE.
To be clear – I do not give all that much of a shit whether Russia’s influence in the mid east waxes or wanes based on ANYTHING.
The cold war is OVER – WE WON. Russia has a shitload of nukes – if she did not, she would be be a third rate world power. Russia is NOT a super power. Our foreign choices should NOT be driven by what harms or helps Russia.
“Have you at long last no shame ?”
Is there anything you actually beleive in Jay ?
Your and the rantings of the left regarding Russia would be far more convincing if you did not have a long long history of supporting exactly the things Trump is doing.
Because neo-cons are never trumpers – they have taken over part of your brian and gotten you to abandon principles.
While I opposed the efforts to frame Dick Chenney for the non-crime of not-outing valerie Plame, that did not alter the fact that I loath Dick Chenney and everything he stands for.
I did so in 2001, and I do today.
I did when the neo-cons were Republicans, and I do today now that they have taken ownership of the minds of everyone on the left.
Absolutely one of the big differences – and probably a subtle factor in the 2016 election results was that Hillary Clinton was the most hawkish candidate in the election – except possibly Lindsey Graham.
Absolutley everyone else – all other republicans and all other democrats were fighting to stake out some position between complete isolationism and non-interventionism.
That is where Trump ran, and that is how Trump has acted as president.
That is what Libertarians have wanted pretty much forever, that is what the left has claimed it wanted for decades.
But your hatred of Trump is so great that you accept without question that anything Trump does is wrong – even if it is something you vigorously advocated for for years.
You and Nichols should get a clue.
This argument/rant is illogical.
Tell me – if we open up the entire realm of hypothetical possibilities – what is it that Putin can have on Trump ?
You need something big enough that it would destroy trump.
The so called “pee tape” would likely have done so during the election, it would not now.
You need something that actually makes sense.
This conspiring with Russia to win the election garbage has never made sense.
Why would ANYONE go to an enormous amount of effort to make clandestine arrangements with Russia to get something like $1M in abysmally bad campaign adds ?
There is only one reason any political candidate has EVER danced with foreign powers – MONEY. Clinton received significant funds from the Chinese in 1992. There was a big stink about that. Obama received fairly substantial donations in 2008 from credit card contributions in the mideast. There is not even a claim that Putin provided Trump with money. The only political candidate receiving money from Russia was CLINTON!!!.
The efforts of Russia to “influence” our election are prima fascia proof of how difficult and worthless that is. The Guardian had more influence on the US election than putins stupid adds.
So why is it that you think Trump conspired with Russia – what does putin have to offer that Trump might want ?
You and Nichols claim Putin must have something on Trump.
So what would that be – something that actually makes sense.
Not this garbage.
We know all about the Clinton’s relationship with Russia – it was entirely about MONEY.
They traded political access for massive amounts of money. They did so almost openly.
What is it you think Putin has that is more significant than that ?
Next – you need something that Putin has absolute proof of that is damning,
AND it must be something that no one who is not scared shitless of putin has access to.
It is incredibly difficult to keep secrets. You would have us beleive that between Stone Corsi, Cohen, Manafort, Flynn, Papadoulis, Page, ….. that not a single one knows something AND can be flipped ?
Or that whatever this secret that Putin purportedly has – no one else knows ?
The press has been digging for years.
Mueller has been digging with the power to bring people in front of a grand jury, and to subpeona them.
Are you telling me that Mueller has found some deep dark secret AND that not a single person on a grand jury has leaked it ?
As time goes by we find MORE and MORE evidence that the investigation itself was corrupt from the start.
Todate that is ZERO evidence of whatever it is that you are looking for – except your beleif.
This is a religion for you. It is not about facts, or law or evidence.
And Nichols argument is the same – and BTW logically false.
In fact the opposite.
“You and Nichols should get a clue”
That’s like a rodent telling German Shepards to think more clearly…
You still don’t know who Tom Nichols is?
You’re like a dishwasher criticizing an oceanographer about the properties of water.
It’s illegal for Dumpster Trumpster to destroy any government documents relating to his presidency. LOCK HIM UP!
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164
“It’s illegal for Dumpster Trumpster to destroy any government documents relating to his presidency. ”
No it is not – for multiple reasons.
Everything is not a record or a document.
Everything that is a record or a document is not required to be preserved.
I am actually a strong proponent of government having to do everything in public and on the record – or atleast nearly everything.
I would support passing laws to that effect. but the current federal records laws do not require all conversations to have records, or the preservation of notes – particularly not something like interpreters notes.
Further the one priviledge which the courts do respect regarding the president is that of having private communications.
Nixon made the mistake of recording his communications. Otherwise he could have precluded those advising him from testifying regarding any advice they gave him.
We want those communicating with the president to be able to say anything – no matter how off the wall.
This is part of this who left wing nonsense.
I even disagree with MacCarthy – who does not beleive that Trump’s firing of Comey is obstruction of justice – unless Mueller can prove a bad intention.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. With very few exceptions a crime is an act. A legal act does not become a crime because of bad intentions.
What Trump SAYS may be annoying and imflamitory, but what matters is what he DOES.
Either Trump can legitimately fire Comey – or he can not. PERIOD.
If he can, then his reasons do not matter.
Whatever Putin and Trump said to each other is entirely meaningless.
Unless it results in actions – and if it results in actions – we see those.
They are not hidden.
Not a single AOC story in my Google feed today, oh happiness!
Trump down 12 in Rasmussen, which is callibrated by the 2018 election as being shifted 8 points to the right. So this agrees with other polls recently that have the trump gap at about -20. Which where it ought to be if we are not a truly degraded nation.
Oh, and yes trump is a traitor as I have believed since he took Putin’s side against American intelligence agencies. Duh, he is a traitor, and his party and it’s voters are mostly fine with that. History will not undervalue the importance of this fact.
So if the US intelligence agencies are WRONG – the president is still required to “side” with them ?
BTW “took russias side” over what ?
AGAIN Treason is defined in the constitution DELIBERATELY to avoid exactly the stupid assertions you are making.
It is a “truly degraded nation” that treats political differences as treasonous.
I have no idea where you are getting your rassmussen numbers but according to the 1/14/2019 Rassussen daily presidential approval tracking poll:
Trump’s approval is virtually unchanged since October.
Further from innauguration through to today it has matched that of Obama near perfectly.
In fact from April of 2018 through to early January Trumps approval was MOSTLY higher than Obama;’s at the same time – though only by a few points. At the moment it is lower – by a few points. Not enough to see daylight.
Are you saying that Obama was a treasonous scoundrel that the american people turned on – and yet they re-elected him ?
What is amazing is depsite the fact that it is well documented that Trump has gotten 3 times the negative attention from the press that Obama did, That with few exceptions Obama’s highest negative press was less than Trump lowest negative press,.
And yet Trump is still at the same approval as Obama.
What is self evident is that you, democrats and those on the left have zero interest in reality or facts.
If you are going to make claims – you can atleast get your facts straight.
So you define happiness as a day AOC did not do or say something stupid ?
Roby, I find little daylight between AOC and you.
She inarticulately spouts political and economic nonsense – so bad even Anderson cooper can not let her slide.
Aside from the Anderson Cooper part – what distinguishes you from her ?
You do not have her spotlight, You do not have a vote in congress. That is about the only difference.
I have yet to here from you a real argument – about pretty much anything.
Frankly even AOC does a better job of actually making arguments – hers are just hilariously stupid and factually wrong. You have yet to reach that standard.
I will be happy to address any issue of your choosing where we disagree, using
ACTUAL facts, ACTUAL logic, ACTUAL reason.
None of this manufactured nonsense – no appeals to authority, no appeals to emotion, no naked assertions, no ad hominem.
Your meaningless post(s) plus $2.39 will get you a loaf of wonder bread. As in the case of almost all of your posts it boils down to “there is no…”.
The convince Dave challenge is like the fly to the sun and walk on it challenge. In any case, Nothing will be proven on a political blog. Life will do the proving. One of us will be closer to the truth about trump and the Russians in the fullness of time.
$2.39 for Wonder bread. Where the heck are you shopping? Target has it for $1.79.
I buy it at the bread outlet for 79 cents a loaf.
The judge will be the history books that will be written decades from now, not you Dave, and not me and not internet opinions. If we choose to disagree with the final verdict that is a matter of personal choice. But, it’s a weightless personal opinion and nothing more. Imagining otherwise is delusional.
Ron, you must have that time machine Dave won’t permit me to have. I actually thought that wonder bread went out of business in the time of soupy sales. Does it still build strong bodies. 12 ways? All that for .79.
Roby
https://www.wonderbread.com
Maybe its a regional thing now.
Maybe Trump ate many WB sandwiches and one of the strond body parts was
ummm…hands!
So Trump should side with the same intelligence agencies that:
Told us that Iraq was developing WMD’s ?
This is what the left used to say about our intelligence agencies.
Now because Trump is at odds with them you are fawning over them ?
https://www.thenation.com/article/cias-failures/
I am near ecstatic that Trump is leaving Syria and reducing our presence in Afghanistan.
If anything I want more!!!!!! We are not the world’s policemen.
Accusing those pushing us into wars and conflict all over the place of treason would be stupid hyperbole – BUT they are FAR more dangerous than Trump.
Nor do I give a fig whether Trump’s choice benefit Russia, or China.
What I care about is how they impact the US.
If we are spending our blood and our treasure on foreign adventures then the burden is heavy on those advocating for those adventures to prove they are worth that blood and treasure.
Current estimates of the cost of the mideast mess since 2001 are CONSERVATIVELTY approaching $6T. the cost in blood immeasureable. Soldiers wounded in Iraq through 2014 are “officially” 32,000, that does not include the rest of the mideast, that does not include civilian casualties.
The great american novel – Larry Norman.
I was born and raised an orphan in a land that once was free
In a land that poured its love out on the moon;
And I grew up in the shadows of your silos filled with grain
But you never helped to fill my empty spoon
And when I was ten you murdered law with courtroom politics
And you learned to make a lie sound just like truth;
But I know you better now and I don’t fall for all your tricks
And you’ve lost the one advantage of my youth
You kill a black man at midnight just for talking to your daughter
Then you make his wife your mistress and you leave her without water;
And the sheet you wear upon your face is the sheet your children sleep on
At every meal you say a prayer; you don’t believe but still you keep on
And your money says in God we trust
But it’s against the law to pray in school;
You say we beat the Russians to the moon
And I say you starved your children to do it
You are far across the ocean but the war is not your own
And while you’re winning theirs, you’re gonna lose the one at home;
Do you really think the only way to bring about the peace
Is to sacrifice your children and kill all your enemies?
The politicians all make speeches while the news men all take note
And they exaggerate the issues as they shove them down our throats;
Is it really up to them whether this country sinks or floats?
Well I wonder who would lead us if none of us would vote
Your Google feed left out this front page story: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/nyregion/ocasio-cortez-democrats-congress.html
The coverage on her reminds me of another loud mouth NYer.
“The coverage on her reminds me of another loud mouth NYer.”
Absolutely.
I do not get a vote on AOC’s membership in congress.
I do get a vote for President
otherwise things are much the same.
Each of us is free to like or dislike, one, both, neither,
We are free to vote accordingly,
we are free to insult as we wish.
But that is pretty much the limits of what we can do within the law.
I do not understand why the Bronx elected AOC.
You do not understand why the country elected Trump.
Our lack of understanding does not empower us to take action outside the law.
“You do not understand why the country elected TrumpL
The country didn’t elect trump.
“The country didn’t elect trump.”
The government seems to disagree, even Obama accepted that Trump won.
We have rules – in this case a constitution. We play by the rules, we run elections by the rules. In football it is not the team with the most yards, in basketball it is not the time with the most time with the ball. In baseball it is not the team with the most strikeouts.
In each of these as with elections we can change the rules – doing so will change the game.
Both Trump and Clinton competed to win the most electoral college votes – NOT the most popular votes. You can win every single statistic at the superbowl – save the score and you go home the loser, the goat. The process is all about winning electoral votes – there is no consolation prize for winning the most popular votes or for winning the most minority votes or womens votes or ….
If you do not like that – change the rules.
But there are reasons for the rules as they are – though some things have changed, one purpose of the elctoral college was to increase the importance of ALL states in the election.
The electoral college is a form of “gerrymandering” conducted by our founders – to diminish the outsized importance of those who live in the cities the coasts and the populous states. We already see the mess that we have in California when people who are clueless about what it takes to grow fruit of grain get to make the life rules for those who do.
The electoral college was intended and succeeds at amplifying the influence of minorities – those in rural and suburban areas.
AS I said it is plain an simple a form of gerrymandering – but so is direct popular election,.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2016/election-results.html
“Your meaningless post(s) plus $2.39 will get you a loaf of wonder bread. As in the case of almost all of your posts it boils down to “there is no…”.”
Oppinions are free, you can hold whatever oppinion you wish, but the use of force is not justified by mere oppinions.
You say that the Truth will be proven “in the fullness of time” – and in saying so you make my point and lose the argument.
We do not use force – and all actions of government are force and require justification, on a mere opinion.
While we do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for everything that government does. We do require “probable cause” to do most of what is involved in an “investigation”
If probable cause that some crime was committed existed, you could name the crime and cite the actual evidence.
As you can not – the requisite basis for an investigation does not exist.
Trump bandies about “witch hunt” alot.
What constitutes a “witch hunt” – are you literal about it – a hunt for witches ?
Or does it mean an investigation without foundation ?
If there is a foundation – then you should be able to clearly identify it.
We might not agree whether wrong doing occured, but we atleast agree that some events actually occurred – we have evidence of them.
“The convince Dave challenge is like the fly to the sun and walk on it challenge.”
With respect to the use of force – aka govenrment, that is close to how things should be.
Today homosexuals mostly enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals. That was not true through most of history. Is that change merely some cultural whimsy – or is it an honest recognition that sexual orientation is NOT a justification for the use of force ?
If our oppinions shift again in 100 years – is it OK to criminalize homosexuality ?
In many parts of the world people do not share our oppinions and they use government force against homosexuals – is that OK – because that is not our culture, or is that wrong on some fundimental basis that goes beyond culture ?
The nazi’s wanted to exterminate jews – for the greater good.
Is that unacceptable for some fundimental reason, or just because you debate that it was the greater good ?
In your private life you are free – short of the use of force to do or beleive as you please.
You do not like homosexuals – that is your right. You do not want to sell wedding cakes to them – fine, but I might not buy from your bakery.
But if you wish to compell government to arrest them – your oppinion is NOT a justifiation for force.
Most everything we discuss at TNM is about politics – and that means GOVERNMENT and that means FORCE.
And the use of force means – oppinion is NOT sufficient.
It is not just me you need to prove your point to. You need to meet the standard needed to justify the use of force. Otherwise you are not free to demand government action.
Though you are still free to beleive as you wish and to act short of force on your own.
“In any case, Nothing will be proven on a political blog. Life will do the proving. One of us will be closer to the truth about trump and the Russians in the fullness of time.”
While you are correct – what you fail to grasp is that we have been from the begining at the point were we did not have sufficient evidence to investigate – to use force.
Further you do not seem to grasp that given the actual facts that we know, the odds of arriving at anything resembling what you beleive are very near zero.
The left has claimed the mantle of the party of “hope” – and today you are hoping the future will prove that bad things you beleive are actually true.
That is a bizarre form of hope.
From the begining of Obama’s presidency – I hoped he would succeed. I hoped I was wrong,
I hoped that he would bring about recovery.
Ultimately my hope proved futile – something I expected, because it was hope against the evidence.
But you are hoping – against the evidence for failure.
I am glad I am not you.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/14/rand-paul-neighbor-attack-senator-have-surgery-canada/2568200002/
Rand Paul puts his hernia where his mouth is:
😄🤣👍
“Those who chuckled at this supposed irony missed a major detail, even though it was noted in the press coverage: Paul’s surgery will take place at the Shouldice Hernia Hospital in Thornhill, Ontario. The clinic is private, and run for profit; The Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale, who is from Thornhill, notes that it was “grandfathered in to Ontario’s socialized health system.”
Paul is going to a private for profit hospital – and that somehow hypocracy ?
Do you lefties pay any attention ?
Can you read ?
Do you hear Canada and assume “socilaist” or “russian” and assume Putin ?
https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/14/rand-paul-canada-surgery-clinic-private
Jeez. Please someone explain that his hernia is going into his private libertarian mouth, the opposite of hypocrisy.
Your every drivel is fraught with misunderstanding an obfuscation.
“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the voice of an ignorant generation”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-the-voice-of-an-ignorant-generation
I do not agree with this entirely – but it is a START.
We need a FULL discussion about Immigration.
Though we need to go beyond whether we want a little or a lot.
We need to decicde what we want AND how to accomplish it.
It is not enough to decide we only want 500K immigrants per year or to decide we want 3M.
Or even we want anyone who wishes to come here.
We must also look at how to make those choices work.
I harp on the fact that I want open borders – but I understand that comes with consequences.
We can decide to open our border tomorow. If we do not make a number of other changes – the effects will be huge, broad and accross our society.
I can choose to have a long gravel drive way, but I can not do so and expect magic to clear the snow in the winter. Choices come with consequences, and we need to think about those too.
It is not enough to decide if we want few or many immigrants. We must also decide how we are going to impliment whatever choice we make.
Scher rightly points out that Trump claimed to support significant legal immigration – and he is lying about that. Though I think Scher is reaching on the claim that Trump is significantly making rather than enforcing existing law.
Scher’s note that we are not building a northern wall is disengenuous.
If Billions in drugs and millions of illegals were crossing from the north we probebly would.
That said he still has a point.
ANY limit on immigration means WE MUST CHOOSE.
My wife and I decided to adopt rather than to have biological children.
Whether we liked it or not, that choice came with consequences – lots of other choices.
Instead of random chance combining our genes and giving us a boy or girl smart or not, healthy or not, that we would love no matter what, we had to choose – boy or girl, domestic or international, What country, what race.
When adopting our son, we literally had to go to a website and pick children from photo’s and dossier’s.
Am I racist because I chose children from Asia rather than South america ?
Or am I racially enlightened because I did not pick a white child from eastern europe – for reasons that had nothing to do with race ?
I did not want these choices, but by chosing to adopt I had to make them.
I was very happy with adopting from china – because once we picked China – China picked everything else. 9 months later they sent us a photo – and the moment we saw that photo THAT was OUR daughter. There were millions of other children throughout the world at that time available for adoption. But this one picture once given to us, became OUR daughter.
It could have been any other child, there is no complelling logical reason for one over the other. Still choices have to be made.
With our son there were even more choices. With each one it was evident that in making a choice, we were also deciding AGAINST myriads of other children.
We were playing god, deciding things that are normally decided by chance.
I say all of this because immigration involves EXACTLY the same choices.
Both the left and the right are hiding from those choices. Though the left is more disengenuous about it.
I think one of the big reasons for opposition to the wall, and even for Pelosi’s claim that a wall is immoral – is hiding from difficult choices.
Pelosi and the democrats want to say they want border security and limits. But they really want not to have to make the tough choices. To let the border leak like a seive and then bemoan the drugs and crime and low wage low skill employment and illegal employment that come with that.
If you do not want enforceable limits on immigration – you OWN what follows, and you should be prepared to openly embrace and make the decisions necescary to make that work.
The debate over “The wall” vs other measures is stupid – yes there are other means – those are less effective and more expensive. No a Wall is not in and of itself sufficient.
Ultimately a wall means WE HAVE TO CHOOSE.
It means we have to decide who to let in and who to keep out.
Scher notes that asylum aprovals have declined.
What he does not say is that ever more people are asking for assylum on ever weaker grounds.
If we want to grant asylum based on abusive spouses – fine change the law.
That is my point CHOOSE.
Making choices is difficult.
It means saying NO.
It means saying no to people you want to say yes to.
Most people never have to hire someone. Most people never have to fire someone.
Most of us go through life without having to make myriads of difficult choices.
Fine – but your oppinion of how those who make difficult choices should decide does not count for much.
There are alot of accusations of “racism” and to some extent there is a “form” of racism involved. One I am actually very familiar with.
Not the choice between whites and others, but between one non-white group and another.
The left does not want a southern wall – not because suddenly hordes of white europeans will dominate immigration. But because the consequence of securing the borders inhernetly means more asians – my yellow people, more people like my children, and less hispanics.
Just like I had to make a choice – so do the rest of you. If you take ANY position besides open boarders AND the consequences that come with that, then you MUST make choices.
You can make those choices by default – oppose securing the border and just bemoan the consequences, pretend that the results were not a choice. Or you can secure the border which means being compelled to openly make choices.
Worse still you will have to make choices that you have claimed it is immoral to make.
Guess what – life is about making choices, not liking to have to make them does not make them into moral or immoral choices.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/14/lets_have_a_real_immigration_debate_139165.html
???. Even by your standards this is gibberish as a response to anything I said dave.
I will let your reaction to my objectively true statement the trump is 12 points underwater in todaysrassmussen poll act as one of thousands of examples of your typical ” logical” way of dealing wit reality.
Like trump you have incredible belief in your own BS. I did not actually say so, but trump has lost on the order of 6-8 points of popularity in tpolls in the last weeks and even Rasmussen has detected that, -12 now, where he has had trump near 50-50 for most of the last year. In your daveish way, that polling result is something you believe you can change with your BS. That is delusional, not logical. But, you are in luck, your nonsense plus .79 will get you a loaf of Wonder bread.
You say Trump is 12 points underwater on Rassmusen today.
I am not exactly sure what that means.
Regardless I responded that Rassmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll – which overlays Trump’s current approval with that of Obama at the same point shows no significant divergence between the two at the same time.
Whatever your 12 point underwater assertion means regarding Trump – it meant the same thing about Obama at the same time – didn’t it ?
Or do the same facts have different meaning when they are facts about Trump rather than Obama ?
There is no BS here – aside your attempts to convert and apples to apples comparison into one with apples and oranges.
There is no illogic.
Trumps current approval is within a point or two of Obama’s at the same day of his presidency. It has been within a few points every day of Trump’s presidency.
It has been a point or two higher sometimes and a point or two lower.
We can apply calculus to them and the area under the curves is very nearly identical.
Not only are their approvals the same at the current point, they are the same at every point.
It is as if they were siamese twins or something.
Any conclusion you draw from Trump’s approval – the exact same conclusion would LOGICALLY apply to Obama’s at the same time.
At this moment Trump is 4pts below Obama on the same day – a month ago he was 3pts above. But a few days before that he was 2 pts below.
For nearly all their 2nd year in office neither Trump nor Obama went over 50% very often at all.
What I would find interesting is Trump’s approval has only taken a small hit DESPITE being in histories longest shutdown. One which you remind us all repeatedly everyone blames Trump for.
Obama was not in the middle of a govenrment shutdown in 2011
By the end of the 2013 Shutdown Obama’s approval had cratered to 40.3% – according to RCP – my guess is that Rassmussen was several points worse.
Trump has been above 50% in Rassmussen in the past year more than Obama was – but still not very often.
I really wish I could pull a jpeg of Rassmussen – because it is much easier to understand in a graphic than 1000, words.
But the key point is – Trump’s approval has gone up and down in a narrow range and continues to do so. Obama’s approval went up and down in the same range at the same time.
There is nothing unusual going on.
As is typical – you are HOPING for something.
But hope is not fact.
Starting from your claimed inability to understand what 12 points underwater even means it’s pure denial of reality. Which is the essence of your shtick. Trump is in deep shit I say, you say he isn’t. Time will tell. I haven’t wasted too much time on your BS this time around and I am not going to waste any more. Your “arguments” mostly don’t pass the laugh test.
Roby
As to what 12 points underwater means – it means exactly the same thing for Trump as it did for Obama.
It is that simple.
I really wish I could post the rassmusen graph since you have made that the issue.
Rassmussen overlays Trumps approval with Obama’s.
Obama started his presidency with Significantly higher approval than Trump.
But within 6 months they converged. For the past 18 months Trump and Obama’s approval at the same time have been nearly the same.
Trump has been lower than at the moment, Obama had periods lower than Trump currently.
I fully expect small declines so long as the shutdown continues.
Those declines are matched by those of congress as a whole, republicans in congress democrats in congress, Pelosi, Schumer – all will continue to decline so long as the shutdown continues.
That said the negative impact of this shutdown is inconsequential compared to that of 2013, The 2013 shutdown absolutely hammered republicans in congress. And yet less than 1 year later the GOP obliterated congressional democrats.
Put simply there is only one poll that counts – the election.
The only meaning of presidential approval rates, or congressional approval rates or ….. is what it portends for the next election.
I would further note that this shutdown is far worse for Dems that Trump.
Pelosi and dems came in promising change, they have been totally shutdown, little is happening and little will in congress until the shutdown ends.
As a big proponent of limited government I favor that.
The longer this continues the worse it will be for dems.
And the less overall bad it is for Trump.
Dems should have made the best deal they could in December.
The longer this goes on the easier it is for Trump to go to his base and say
“I tried” – give me a repubican congress again, should he capitulate.
But the longer this goes – even if they win the more harmful it is for dems.
Most of the media is about the shutdown. That is actually good for Trump.
Maybe you recall the movie “wag the dog” where the president started a war to distract from other problems.
Trump has less stupid questions about other idiocies so long as the shutdown continues. All the news is about the shutdown.
Further the left keeps yelling the sky is falling – and yet the sky has not fallen.
That undermines your credibility.
Trump can afford to have a few actual speed bumps,
Only the most hard core libertarian beleives you can shutdown 25% of the govenrment with zero negative impact for long.
Though I am surprised at how little impact there has been, and how stupid the chicken littles have been .
Do you understand how damaging to progressivism it would be if there is a really long shutdown and very little negative impact ?
With every week that goes by – more people are going to ask – why are furloughed government workers going to get paid for having done nothing the past month or two ? Solidarity only goes so far. We are a cvery envious people and when we see somebody else getting something we want we either demand it for ourselves or demand it be taken from others.
Sympathy for govenrment workers only goes so far.
Further those workers can only hold out so long – eventually they will seek private jobs – and as I have repeated over and over and over – that is a really good thing.
The longer this goes on the fewer government workers will return – and that is a good thing.
The longer this goes on the more preasure govenrment workers will put on DEMOCRATS.
So long as the shutdown does not have the big impact the left keeps threatening – Trump wins and the left loses and big government loses.
Limited government republicans have been after this scenario for a long long time.
I beleive Trump has been planing for this since he was elected. And this is not just about the wall.
Republicans and democrats have tried to use government shutdowns as a political weapon for decades.
Total shutdowns – such as those during Reagan favor democrats.
Shutdowns with a democrat as president favor democrats – as the president can control the impact of the pain.
But one of the gifts Paul Ryan left Trump – was getting the critical portions of the budget passed before the end of 2018.
This limited shutdown with trump as president has calculus that favors Trump and republicans.
Schumer rolled quickly last march. Today democrats think control of the house changes things – it does if we are talking about a shutdown in 2020, where Pelosi gets to control what parts of the budget get passed.
But most of the 2019 budget was passed by Ryan.
Pelosi’s leverage is small. And trump’s power to mitigate harms is large.
As he repeatedly says – this could go on forever.
But I do not think it will.
Mitt Romney says there’s NO place in the GOP or Congress for Steve King, calling on him to resign. “I think he ought to step aside and I think Congress ought to make it very clear he has no place there.”
But Dave-John, tell Mitt how wrong he is, there’s no constitutional requirement for a duly elected Congress-person to quit because his own party colleagues insist he do so.
But if shunning works, and King resigns, will it be inapppropriate for them to tell Trump to take a hike too? On basis of your humongous law background will you opine on the constitionality of shunning.
Demand King resign – don’t. I really do not care.
I do not fixate on King as you do. There are lots of nutcase congresspersons.
We can argue that AOC should resign for mental defects.
Should Rep. Tlaib resign for calling ANYONE a “motherf#$%ker” on the floor of the house?
Franken resigned for sexually assaulting women. One of the most honorable things he has done.
Joe Biden who has done the same far more often is the democrats leading contender for president.
Ask whoever you want to resign.
Regardless, Mitt does not get to decide who has a place in congress.
Voters do.
If you really want King out – vote him out.
Regardless, this entire discussion is stupid.
You seem to think that standards only apply to republicans.
If Mitt wants to demand that King leave congress and the GOP – why not Tlaib ?
Tlaib actually had left wing groups falling all over themselves to de-endorse her.
But she was running unopposed.
Tlaib meets the state departments definition of anti-semitc.
We can play this game forever.
Can you name a republican in congress as corrupt as Menendez ?
He nearly got beat in the primary by someone no one heard of , and an unknown republican gave him a run for his money in the general.
We can play which party has the most offensive politicians forever.
A pox on them all – Sen. Romney included.
Shun whoever you want – it is not a constitutional issue.
My guess is that if I looked at him closely I would probably want King to resign too.
But that would be little distinction from 535 other members of congress.
You are also free to call on Trump to resign – just as people called on Clinton to resign.
Clinton didn’t, Trump is unlikely to.
You are free to try and impeach Trump just as Republican did to Clinton.
Did that work very well for the GOP ?
This is beyond belief: “Trump also had other private conversations with Putin at meetings of global leaders outside the presence of aides. He spoke at length with Putin at a banquet at the same 2017 global conference in Hamburg, where only Putin’s interpreter was present. Trump also had a brief conversation with Putin at a Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires last month.”
Only a Russian interpreter in the room!!!! Got it, we and the president’s staff, intelligence officials and advisors DON”T need to know. Mr. “I saw them celebrating on roof tops in Jersey City after 9/11” will give them a true and accurate report on the meeting.
Before some idiot says it: It was for security since there have been so many WH leaks. LMAO.
Wait, wait here it is, the definitive explanation from someone that is more wordy and, ahem, believable than anyone here on TNM.
Again you presume some right know or need to know where one does not exist.
Lets say Trump is conspiring with Putin to give the Russians all the US nuclear codes.
They have a meeting – with only russians present, the plot is put together.
Trump leaves the meeting. Now HOW DOES HE FACILITATE THE PLOT ?
Does he sneak up on the Col. with the nuclear football whap him on the head and grab the codes and rush into another meeting with Putin ?
Trump does not PERSONALLY do much of anything.
He directs others. It does not matter what Putin tells him, or what he tells Putin.
Trump can not act in Putin’s benefit without directing someone else to do something.
We got it – you do not trust Trump, and you want special scrutiny of everything he does.
Only that is not how things work.
If you do not want any meetings with anyone in government without records – change the law.
That would be fine with me. but i is not how things are now.
House republicans wanted to know what went on in several meetings between various members of DOJ/FBI, we are past the hints that there was a conspiracy against Trump and well into pretty open admission.
So why is the House of representatives not entitled to know what was going on in those meetings ?
It can ask people what they recall, and it can ask for notes, but there is no requirement that most government meetings be recorded.
You are trying to manufacture outrage from thin air.
Your suspicions of someone else are not proof of anything.
I am glad that Trump is making you suspicious of govenrment – you should be.
But not just of Trump, but all government.
While you were worried about what Trump was telling Putin, Harrold Martin at NSA was selling 50Terabytes of classified information to hackers across the world.
There are far worse things to worry about than Trump.
You are worried about what Trump might deliberately tell the russians.
Yet you had no concern about what Hillary recklessly shared with 5 hostile foreign powers – including the Chinese in real time.
“Again you presume some right know or need to know where one does not exist.”
Again you presume there is no right or need to know if a president is behaving improperly.
Whoops: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6590017/Kellyanne-defends-Trumps-one-one-meeting-Putin-saying-great-number-leaks.html
Whoops what ?
Any conversation that the president has with a foreign leader would be defacto classified, likely at the highest level.
Any leak of that conversation would be a crime – and we have had alot of that.
The leak of Flynn’s communication with Kislyak was a HUGE security breach and a very serious crime – yet no one has been prosecuted.
There are only a few people who would have had access to that information, so it should be very easy to find the leak.
It is pretty much certainly someone at NSA or FBI.
Regardless, I think it is quite reasonable for Trump to insist that interpreters do not take notes, or that they destroy their notes. I can not think of a good reason an interpreter needs notes.
“Any leak of that conversation would be a crime”
Testimony before relevant Congressional committees with National Security clearance is not leaking, dummie.
So those evil Russians – particularly Kaspersky who the US government has banned from its computers is responsible for cluing the NSA into their largest classified information breach in US history. Did the NSA or FBI catch the bad guys ? Nope – Kaspersjy did.
One wonders why they did not just say screw it and buy the entire trove – I am sure Putin would have rewarded them handsomely.
Regardless, the point – for the clueless, is that every single Russian, person of russian descent is not some evil Troll looking to destroy the US and working with Putin to do so.
Even Putin himself – though not among the worlds most attractive world leaders is not ALWAYS our enemy on everything.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/09/russia-kaspersky-lab-nsa-cybersecurity-1089131
Just watched the Tulsi Gabbard interview from this past Sunday on the CNN Van Jones show.
She was terrific and smart.
She is currently being attacked by extreme liberals. You will probably get the opinions an facts in coming weeks because I think some Dems dislike her for dissing the DNC and more importantly she has a mind of her own and is a square peg in a round Dem political hole.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tulsi+gabbard+on+van+jones+show+cnn&qpvt=tulsi+gabbard+on+van+jones+show+cnn&FORM=VDRE
So far, she has my vote.
Dems could do much worse.
I would note that about 1/3 of the recent posts have Trashed Trump for withdrawing from Syria.
Gabbard is if anything even more of a non-interventionist than Trump.
On the Issues Ranks Gabbard as a libertarian leaning progressive.
I think the libertarian leaning is “wishful thinking”.
With few exceptions she is a pretty typical progressive.
But she is strongly anti-war, anti-interventionist.
My post made it sound like being anti-war and non-interventionist was antithetical to being progressive.
Liberals and progressives have in the past been near perfectly anti-war and non-interventionist.
The current neo-con streak is new, due either to absorbing fleeing neocons who were never a good fit for republicans or the “we are opposed to everything Trump is for” position of the current left.
Gabbard is a traditional progressive,
I think she’d be an excellent VP choice
Gabbard is far from anything I think would be even a good choice.
At the same time she appears to stand head and shoulders above most Dems and many republicans.
Excellent is a relative term. She appears to be one of the least bad choices that dems could make.
If you wish to call that excellent – I guess I can accept that.
I am a bit disturbed because she does not have much of a record on many issues that are important to me.
Further that are a large number of issues that she is wrong on. But mostly she does not seem to be wrong in the gargauntuanly stupid way that Sanders is.
The big area where she is pretty clear about where she stands is the military, and there she speaks with some credibility as a former service person.
She wants to slash defense spending, and she wants us out of myriads of foreign entanglements.
On that I fully agree.
I have made the argument that voting to use force to infringe on the rights of others is immoral. I have sought some support for that assertion – after all voting is a right, why can’t you vote as you please ?
I should have know to look for something from John Stuart Mill – probably the most intelligent human ever to live.
Voting is not a right. Contra constant claims by both the left and the right, actual rights do not come with obligations or responsibilities.
There is as an example no enforceable duty to use your right to free speach in a way that does not offend others.
Rights do NOT give you power over others – and therefore carry no responsibilities other than to yourself.
When you excercise power over others, it is not by right, but by trust.
Parents have power over children – and therefore have duties.
Guardians, Fiduciaries, and other positions of power over others are by trust, not by right.
Voting is an excercise of power over others, and it comes with obligations.
Holding public office comes with power over others and is comes with responsibilities.
When you excercise power over others – force, you must justify that force.
The use of power without justification is immoral.
“The spirit of vote by ballot—the interpretation likely to be put on it in the mind of an elector—is that the suffrage is given to him for himself; for his particular use and benefit, and not as a trust for the public. . . . [D]emocrats think them-selves greatly concerned in maintaining that the franchise is what they term a right, not a trust. . . . In whatever way we define or understand the idea of a right, no person can have a right . . . to power over others: every such power, which he is allowed to possess, is morally, in the fullest force of the term, a trust. But the exercise of any political function, either as an elector or as a representative, is power over others”
California immigrant excels.
Amazing!
https://twitter.com/uclagymnastics/status/1084325320935657472?s=21
Looking at the politics of the U.K. and us, how much the politicians in both countries have in common.
Donald Trump won based on a number of issues. But among the larger of those, if not the largest was immingration and border security. Brexit was approved by voters based on a number of issues, but among those was immigration, which was considered one of the top reasons for approval. According to BBC, “Prime Minister Theresa May said one of the main messages she took from the Leave vote was that the British people wanted to see a reduction in immigration. She has said this will be a focus of Brexit negotiations as she remains committed to getting net migration – the difference between the numbers entering and leaving the country – down to a “sustainable” level, which she defines as being below 100,000 a year.” It has also been discussed that she is not fully supportive of Brexit, so she has settled for Brexit lite.
In both cases the politicians are ignoring the people. America wants secure borders. America wants immigration reform. U.K. wants immigration controls. Americas congressional leaders refuse to negotiate, they refuse to develop legislation to address the problems, they are afraid for their careers. Theresa May refused to negotiate in good faith Brexit and presented parliament with a agreement few would support. One member of parliament compared it to America during the revolution. “EU membership without representation.”
One positive for the U.K. They can dissolve parliament and call elections anytime and hold those within 60 days. They can “fire” their leaders.
“America wants secure borders. America wants immigration reform.”
Correct. Polls show high numbers of voters Dem & GOP are in favor of both.
Polls also show high numbers of voters (Texas included) against the Wall, and in favor of citizenship for Dreamers.
Most American want to get to the same destination; a majority disagree with the dumbfuck who’s driving the bus and the route he’s dangerously driving.
Jay, I dont care what some dumbfuck suit in D.C.says they want. I dont care what America people polled says they want. I dont care what some liberal ass in Austin Texas says they want.
I put up with assholes in hospital administration for 35 years that sat in “Mahogany Row” making assinine decisions that middle management had to make work because these people had no experience with the problems being addressed, they had their 24×24 masters degree diplomas hanging over head in their office and they thought they had all the answers.
WRONG! The employees and supervisors involved with the issues had the answers! A few upper managers were smart enough to ask them for suggestions.
I care about three things.
1. Trump ran and was elected because he said he would build a wall.
2. Trump has asked those.in the trenchex what they want.
3. Those doing the work want the wall! Link: And less than a year old.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/
So when the ones doing the work are surveyed by an “INDEPENDENT” group, and not the liberal mouth pieces from NY Times or Huff Post, then I will believe them when they say the BP does not support the wall. Right now they want it.
So again. $5 billion is not going to build 2000 miles of wall.$5B will build 200 miles of wall, just like the agent being interviewed suggest!
And I say once again… Congress do your constitutional responsibility as stated in the constitution. Pass a funding bill, send it to Trump, let him sign or veto, then address a veto if thats what happens. If it passes great, everything opens. If he vetos and GOP does not overide, then the blame rest completely with the GOP.
No more blaming Chuck and Nancy. Why is this so damn hard for anti-trumpers to understand?
Right and wrong, what works and what does not are not decided by polls.
As we have also learned – even the winners in elections are not decided by polls.
BTW you constantly accuse Trump of being a liar.
Yet hear you are demanding that he break his promise.
You are demanding that he lie.
You claim all his purported lies are a demonstration of bad character.
But character is not doing what is easy, it is not doing what everyone wants you to, it is doing what is hard. It is keeping commitments even when most would let you slide.
But you tell me Trump has not character.
By your own argument – he is doing something that has no upside for him.
You claim that support for the wall is not there, that everyone would be happier if he just capitulated. So why doesn’t he ?
According to you – it is not in his interests to continue.
Either you are wrong and it actually is, or you are seeing actual character from a person you claim has none.
I find leftism so impossible to understand – it is so completely devoid of logic.
How is the “driving” dangerous ?
Trump is confrontational – he is not dangerous.
You have spent weeks telling us how the shutdown was bringing the world to an end – and yet the sky is not falling.
We have heard how these words of trump or those actions were the end of the world – yet the world has not ended.
In fact IN ARGUABLY on net things are better – growth is faster, Job creation has increased. It took eight years for Obama to bring unemployment back to pre-recession norms. It is FAR HARDER to decrease unemployment the closer you get to those norms, and yet the decrease in unemployment has continued rather than leveled of as should be expected. We are below 4% unemployment.
Partly that is because Obama’s numbers were cooked – we were not counting those who left the world force, we were not counting the decrease in labor force participation, we were told that was structural – a result of changing demographics – and yet unemplolyment continues to decline and labor force participation rise.
You say that the shutdown is harming growth – how so ?
Employment does not rise – unless employers beleive they can productively use more workers. While employment is not a direct measure of the economy, it is a strong indirect one. If the shutdown is having a serious negative impact – employment should be changing significantly.
Regardless you say the bus driver is dangerous.
If 3.4% economic growth is dangereous – “Please sir, can I have more ?”
The fact is we have had 3 full years of TDS, of outrage of this garbage that Trump is the end of the world, and yet things continue to improve.
If you want a rational discussion – lots of us are prepared to have it.
I am fully prepared to discuss how we can do better than we are.
I do not think Trump is some savior, or has some golden touch.
The big change is that he is NOT F”ing up as much as Obama.
There are still plenty of ways we can do better.
Another first for the great Trump presidency :
We have been through this before. It is not a big deal. And the reason it has never happened before is every past congress has either before or during the shutdown passed legislation appropriating funds for the USCG.
BTW did you read the actual letter
Here you can listen to Adm. Schultz on the border – on
Oh, No!” Fox.
“Seventy percent of U.S. adults said it is bad strategy for Trump to bring the government to a grinding halt over a policy disagreement, such as funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. That includes 96 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of people who identify as politically independent and 35 percent of Republicans.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-americans-blame-trump-for-the-shutdown
But DoDo Donald’s Dopey Supporters (guess who) will claim he/it is only keeping a campaign promise. They would be likely to say the same thing if Trump promised to urinate on Congressional Dems, and attempted to do so.
And here we have Roby saying that Trump’s numbers have tanked – to almost the same level as Obama’s at the same time.
You do not seem to understand this is not a democracy – we do not govern based on peoples feelings from the last poll.
You also keep playing this “supporters” game.
I am my own person – my decisions are not driven by Trump.
It is pretty evident that a large body of Trump haters are – otherwise how does one explain the huge defection of those on the left from non-interventionist and anti-war positions to full throated neoconns all of a sudden.
I beleive we have debated shutdowns before. I supported the GOP 2013 shutdown – though I think not raising the debt ceiling is a far better tactic. Regardless PPACA should have been killed long ago, and government spending should have been cut.
I also supported the highly disliked sequester. I am deeply disturbed that it is gone.
I support this shutdown – even if the purpose has nothing to do with the wall.
I wish Trump was more serious about cutting spending – but Hillary would not have.
However much I disagree with Trump on many issues – neither Hillary nor most democrats would have been better.
My positions are not tied to the person.
I think it is good that we have gone so long with 75% of the federal govenrment and mostly not noticed. I think it is time to permanently lay most of these people off. It is better for them, better for the economy, and better for the country. And all that is true regardless of whether Trump is involved or not.
The Trump Shutdown
From NYT today:
“WASHINGTON — The partial government shutdown is inflicting far greater damage on the United States economy than previously estimated, the White House acknowledged on Tuesday, as President Trump’s economists doubled projections of how much economic growth is being lost each week the standoff with Democrats continues.
The revised estimates from the Council of Economic Advisers show that the shutdown, now in its fourth week, is beginning to have real economic consequences. The analysis, and other projections from outside the White House, suggests that the shutdown has already weighed significantly on growth and could ultimately push the United States economy into a contraction.”
The longer this goes on, the more I believe Trump is less likely to change his position. Trump is not a politician. He is not in this as a career. He is not worried about reelection.
But he is driven by ego. He promised certain things. The biggest, the wall. I dont think anyone will be able to tell him to back down and accept defeat, especially at the hands of Nancy Pelosi.
Congress is going to have to do their job. They have to give him a way out.
But then that will require Nancy to compromise. Will her ego allow her to accept anything more than the current wall budget. Would she sign off on $3B for DACA?
i doubt it. From my viewpoint, each day that passes reenforces the current standoff.
This is no longer political in my mind. It is personal, Nancy v Donald.
This is going to take someone willing to put their neck on the chopping block, circumvent Pelosi and come up with a compromise to go to the senate that will force McConnell to act.
So far McConnell has been MIA, and smart at that. You dont get in the middle of a pissing contest between two skunks
The left and the media is desparate to make this into a crisis.
While the Stossel clip I linked is right and Paul Krugman is WRONG this is not some grand libertarian experiment. No sane libertarian would want to pay for more government but get less.
At the same time – there is no crisis, and there are few hiccups.
In fact it should be pretty obvious to most people that with a few small adjustments – authorizing payment to the USCG as an example – something both parties have agreed to in every prior shutdown, that we could go on like this forever.
That is the great fear of the left, the media, Pelosi and Shumer. What if you are all crying wolf ? What happens if this goes on for a really long time and most americans barely notice ?
Jay and Company have come up with a long list of “catastrophes” that this shutdown has brought. Most are not even speed bumps. Regardless, none of them amount to $1T/year – and that is the approximate portion of government shutdown right now.
The bad news is this shutdown does not effect the core spending problems in the country. But it does address those at the periphery.
It should be self evident already that even the most left wing nut could take a small portion of the $1T that the portion of government shutdown currently costs and cover all the purported catastrophes that are supposedly occuring.
What happens if this goes on a month or two and all we have is a few more of these speed bumps ?
What happens when most americans see a convincing demonstration that a large portion of the federal govenrment is of little value ?
Yes, this is about the wall for Trump. But it is not for all of us.
I am happy to see a real life demonstration that government is just not all that important in our lives.
There was a bitch about meat inspectors – as stossel noted those are mostly in the Agriculture department and hard at work. But he noted something else two – most meat plants have MORE inspectors than government requires and impose food safety measures that are not required by regulation, they produce food MUCH safer than govenrment standards.
Why ? Because that is what consumers want, and because they can afford it – though ultimately once consumers decide to pay for more value, the cost of those gains declines.
I heard a radio add recently for Lasik for $250 – that is less than I pay for a pair of glasses.
We get better quality. safer food, workplaces etc because we have raised our standard of living to the point we can afford to express that value.
Even the counter productive demand for regulations is driven by our higher standard of living. None of workplace, or product safety regulations existed 200 years ago – we could not afford them – and we knew it.
Please identify a way in which the shutdown reduces what is produced in the country ?
Unless you can do that, it will have no NEGATIVE effect on the economy,
Quite simply I do not beleive ANY growth is lost by this government shutdown.
Making nonsensical claims of impact based on ‘feelings” is not science, it is no economics.
Real economic effects are not invisible. Difference in economic growth post Obama is not huge – but it is self evident. As was noted last month Manufacturing in the US has actually grown. Poor people and minorities are being hired – that is what happens as we approach full employment, wages – particularly near the bottom rise as there is more competition for workers.
Of course those in government think that government is indispensible.
I see only one short term negative impact – which would inevitably be a long term positive impact. Furloughed government workers moving to the private workforce would reduce upwards preasure on wages – for 3-4 months, but it would increase production over the long run government workers produce NOTHING – that is why the shutdown can only have negligable economic impact. Moving government workers to productive private jobs has a POSITIVE economic impact – because private workers get paid to PRODUCE VALUE.
Again – the point. Economics is NOT vodoo. Economic growth or decline is the change in what is produced. Government does not produce. The impact of government on the economy is indirect. It is the extent to which what government does makes us more or less productive. The actual rule of law makes us more efficient – we waste less time and effort securing for ourselves what government secures, we can count on the enforcement of agreements. We can count on lower levels of destructive lawless behavior.
Conversely, regulation has a NEGATIVE economic impact – much of the change in economic growth under Trump has been the reduction in fear of increased regulation and some small decreases.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/15/disagreeing-conventional-wisdom-crime/
Ron, you had better believe trump cares about reelection. Sealed indictments hang over his head after he leaves office.
You do understand you do not get to just make up the law.
Prosecutors do not get to say – we want to indict someone – but not right now, so we are going to “seal it”. They are very rare, and must have a compelling justification, and can not be used to circumvent the rights of the accused.
It is pretty well established law that a sitting president can not be indicted – sealed or otherwise.
I am not sure I agree that is a good idea, though I do think it was a mistake for SCOTUS to allow the Paula Jones case to proceed while Clinton was president.
Regardless, if you can not indict him, you can not get arround that by sealing it.
Further, we keep playing this stupid game that Mueller or some other prosecutor has secret information that the rest of us do not.
AGAIN The Mueller investigation leaks like a sieve. People in his office leak, people on grand juries leak, the press is watching him like a hawk. They know everywhere anyone associated with him goes, Courts leak, much of what he does must be done publicly. There are now several prominent democrats with connections to Mueller who are spreading the news that those suffering from TDS should expect to be disappointed.
If Mueller had anything of substance – we would have known long ago.
Further the evidence WATCHING Mueller, is that he long ago left the Trump/Russia Collusion thing.
Maybe you will get some miracle.
Though it speaks volumes regarding YOUR character that you are actually HOPING absent evidence that someone else turns out to be a criminal.
Don’t moral people hope that we have less crime, not more ?
When Obama was elected I “hoped” that he would prove to be a good president. I hoped that he would not be corrupt. Though I disagreed on many issues of policy and even the fundimentals of government – even through most of the early scandals,. I was prepared to beleive they were just over zealous subordinates.
What is increasingly clear is that Holder and later lynch deliberately tanked any investigation that MIGHT lead to the whitehouse.
I would like to have beleived that IRSGATE stopped with Lois Lehrner – it was a very serious crime – which of course Holder tanked the investigation. Probably because Lerhner was involved in leaking tax returns too, and we know that though she provided them, they got to the press from DOJ not lehner.
But the Strzok and page texts demonstrate that the Trump investigation was started B?Y OBAMA in Dec. 2015, and that he was personally involved on a weekly basis.
You can hope and pray that Mueller has found the kryptonite to “get Trump”, but we KNOW AS FACT that as late as Mark 2017 exactly what DOJ/FBI has – and that was NADA, ZIPPO,
It has been argued here and in the NYT that the FBI can investigate people based on Concerns – no , actually they can not. Concerns without evidence are nothing but feelings – and not even justifiable ones at that. The “defense” of the FBI being offered today is that Trump was not sufficiently concerned about Russia, that he considered Russia the far greater threat to the US. That is a political question, that is ultimately the domain of the president NOT the FBI.
Does the FBI get to decide that Obama might be an Iranian agent because he favored Iran over many of our traditional alies ? Obama’s choices regarding Iran were WRONG, But they were not evidence of treason or any crime. They were not a basis for the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, … to investigate Obama. At the same times the Clinton’s were drowning in Russian Oligarch money – while Hillary was Sec. State. That is a legitimate “concern”, and there is plenty of evidence to warrant investigation, and the NY FBI office badly wanted to investigate, and that investigation was SPIKED.
What facts known in Dec. 2015, or March 2016 justified the FBI’s concerns ?
The entirety of Trump’s “policy differences” with the FBI, NSA, …. are based on public expressions well known to voters when Trump was elected.
It was no secret that Trump had little interest in Russia. It was no secret that Trump thought NATO’s mission had ended and that it was a waste of money. It was no secret that Trump thought China was the major threat to the US. We now hear the press reporting breathlessly that Trump had secret conversations about pulling the US out of NATO – OMG TREASON!
Bunk, Trump had PUBLIC converstations about getting us out of NATO – BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED. Regardless, Secret, public, whatever such discussions are not crimes, not treason, and in fact they are the legitimate choices of the president.
You do not seem to understand – the washington bureacracy does not get to decide US policy decisions. Those are made EXCLUSIVELY by those we elect, and the power to make those decisions divied by the constitution. Trump has the power to unilaterally withdrawl from NATO. At worst he might need Senate approval, though I am not sure he does.
There is nowhere in the law or constitution that he needs FBI approval, or NSA approval or CIA approval.
Absolutely Trump has on occasion chosen NOT to heed the advice of the permanent washington establishment. Surprise Surprise, he was elected based on the premise that that permanent washington establishment is the swamp. That they are not to be trusted.
The recent news is NOT that The FBI had a legitimate basis for investigating Trump – they did not, it is that the FBI as unilaterlly investigating a president for holding differnet policy views than those at the FBI – ones that the american people atleast accepted, if not endorsed when he was elected. The actions of the FBI in investigating Trump are not merely unjustified, they are criminal, anti-democratic, unconstitutional, and pretty close to an actual coup. The FBI does not get to decide “we think the presidents choice to de-emphasize the russian threat and emphasize the chinese one ” is a basis for investigating the president for Treason.
Do you understand that means that you are empowering the FBI to decide on its own – without oversight what the polices of the US toward foreign nations will be, because any president that disagrees will be suspected of and investigated for Treason by the FBI.
The FBI is not even supposed to have significant involvement in foreign affairs.
I hereby posit Ian’s first law: The longer and more indignant a dave denial is, the more merit whatever point he is hotly denying has.
The phrase “methinks thou doth protest too much” never had a more appropriate target.
If I were cruel and had too much spare time I would think up a set of, say ten word posts, each of which could force him into tens of thousands of words of denial. Don’t worry, I am not going to do that.
I have been starting to learn the Mendelssohn violin concerto in e minor. In doing some research on the piece I found out that Mendelssohn wrote an earlier violin concerto in d minor, when he was 12. Then I found a performance of that by an 11 year old virtuoso, Leia Zhu. An 11 year old playing the composition of a 12 year old :
Now, ask yourself, are there better uses of the minutes of a human life than endlessly arguing with a hard-wired denial machine?
In otherwords – you have no argument.
You have no interest in facts – when someone present facts – they must be wrong – because it is too much difficiulty to read facts, and if you can not fit the facts into a soundbite – well that too is proof that they must be wrong.
Do you have actual evidence that sealed indictiments exist ?
Do you understand that legallly if you can not indict someone,
you can not indict them under seal either ?
Do you understand that the law and the constitution is not something to be gamed ?
A refutation of a stupid and unsupported assertion is just that refutation.
This idiotic word game trying to gin up hollocaust denial allusions is stupid and immoral.
If you want your assertions taken seriously – use facts logic reason to support them, Not ad hominem and semantics.
The argument that you should spend your time listening to bach or Mendelssohn applies more strongly to your lunatic unsupported allegations than it does to my response.
No one is stopping you from listening to whatever you want.
At the same time lobbing idiotic and unsupported political grenades and then claiming life is too short and there are more important things to do than to bother to consider the facts that refute some stupid made up assertion of your is diseninguuous and immoral.
Who needs facts – you have feelings, and Mendelssohn, isn’t that all anyone needs.
Roby, you might believe that, but my complete distrust of government fuels a different belief in me.
Ask yourself why did the Clinton investigation die a fast death once she was defeated? Why was nothing handled on illegal torture after 43.You might have your thinking. Mine is based on the the unwritten agreement between parties where “we wont charge your president or officials when your administration ends so you wont charge ours in the future when ours leave”
That is how you see it. But how does trump see it? The trump indictments may very well have been already made and sealed by the investigation, which has been widely discussed and trump I am sure is aware of.
trump lives by revenge and payback adn I am sure expects the same. He will be fighting hard for reelection.
I would think he sees saving face now and not losing to Pelosi will make reelection easier. So how does he see his supporters viewing if he lost to Pelosi?
I would think anyone who voted for him based on the wall will say, “&*^&* him, he is no better than all the other asses in the swamp” should he give in to Pelosi and they will walk away.
If I had any inclination to vote for him next time, i sure would.
Ron,
I mostly have no problem with the Clinton investigations dying after she was defeated. ALL these investigations should have died then.
While there is an awful lot of criminal political misconduct that has gone on in DOJ/FBI/CIA prior (and post) election, and something very serious needs to be done about it, the 2016 election was brutal. That is what you get when democrats decide to run someone as self evidently corrupt as Clinton.
Obama should have pardoned everyone. I asked that at the time.
Trump should have when Obama did not. I asked that too.
Ford was right to pardon Nixon.
What we have now is the consequences of not ending this.
While there is lots of evidence of criminal misconduct and crimes regarding Clinton, she is honestly finished. Most of us do not give a crap about the clinton’s anymore – until they stupidly crawl out of their cave and make a public nusance of themselves. It appears that democrats are wise enough to know that Clinton is dead meat, a rotting carrcass that cost them the election – though I think 2016 was inevitably a republican year. That without Obama on the ticket Democrats could not overcome american Obama policy exhaustion – in fact Trump probably would have beaten Obama.
We are long past any reason for the Trump investigation continuing.
The recent NYT article makes it clear that the FBI/DOJ was targetting Trump ALL A LONG and continued to do so covertly after the election. That they NEVER had sufficient evidence to do so, that the investigation targeted Trump – not the Trump campaign, not Russia, from the begining. That Carter Page, and Russia were all pretexts, that the root of the investigation was the determiniation of Trump’s purported betters that Trump was unsuited to be president – a decision that belongs to the electorate – not any part of the federal government. The NYT story makes it pretty clear – this was a broad conspiracy.
We do not have those involved saying “no, no, we did not do that”. They are saying that what they did was lawful and justified.
I want to be clear on that – WE ARE PAST debating whether there was a conspiracy to “get Trump”. The only relevant somewhat unanswered question is the defense being raised – was what was done justifiable by law ?
That is it. That is the only question. If Those int he Obama administration were justified – not only were their actions legitimate – but similar actions of others past and present would be justified.
One of the impeachment counts against Nixon was that he attempted to use the IRS and FBI and CIA to target political enemies.
If we accept that Obama can do that – then the articles of impeachment against Nixon were a blatantly partisan hack job.
If Obama can do that – then so can Trump, and any future president.
Though there is evidence of Obama’s involvement, even that is not a necescaity here.
Are the assorted agencies of the govenrment allowed to do this on their own ?
Does it matter whether the DOJ/FBI/CIA have the support of the current president or are actively thwarting the current president – if they are engaged in official conduct without appropriate justification ?
To Jay, and Roby and DD – I can argue about what should be sufficient to justify what occured. But the actual standard as important as that may be is overshaddowed by the fact that whatever standard you defend, that standard is the one that must be applied uniformly – left/right democrat republic male/female, gay/straight.
I can argue that “concern” is not a foundation for a criminal investigation of ANYONE. But if I can not convince you – that means that “concern” is a justification for a criminal investigation of ANYONE!
What if instead of FBI …. deciding that Trump’s focus on China rather than Russia was of concern sufficient to justify a criminal investigation of the president for treason, Then why couldn’t the same FBI choose to investigate Obama secretly for shifting the US favor to Iran ? During Obama’s tenure plenty of people were “concerned’ that Obama was a secret Muslim. After all he attended an Idras, I can come up with a long list of “facts” that reach the level of “concern” regarding Obama.
Obama’s decisions regarding Iran were WRONG!!!!.
They were NOT Crimes.
I happen to think Trump’s de-emphasis of Russia was CORRECT,
I think his fixation on China is WRONG!
But NEITHER is a crime.
Regardless, we are past any debate over WHAT occurred – there was absolutely and organized conspiracy within the federal govenrment to target Trump – as a candidate and as president. Anyone still debating the existance of a conspiracy whose goal was to assure Trump did not become president and after he did, that he did not remain president is arguing against what are now the openly accepted FACTS.
We had a big political uproar in October when it was revealed that Rosenstein had discussed applying the 25th amendment and wearing a wire on the president. Rosenstein assured us this was just a joke.
But the testimony of James Baker – the basis for the NYT story, makes no appologies This was no joke. Not merely Rosenstein, but a significant portion of the upper tier of DOJ/FBI in March of 2017 was jointly engaged in a criminal investigation targeting a sitting president essentially for Treason, based on public conduct that voters were fully aware of when electing him.
There is absolutely zero doubt that Comey, Baker, Rosenstein and Company rejected the choice of the electorate – that based on the same “evidence” that voters had – they reached different conclusions and beleived that in their appointed positions they had the power to thwart the voters.
It is also self evident and admitted at this point that beyond public conduct the basis for the investigation was the Steele Dossier – NOTHING ELSE.
If you are comfortable with what was done to Trump – then you will have no issue when it is done to YOU or yours.
I heard the other night, either on ABC or PBS in a round table discussion that the indications are the Mueller investigation is winding down and there is “very little there” and many people are going to be disappointed when it comes out.
no one on the panel disagreed and there were not many conservatives in that group.
Depends on your definition of very little.
I don’t expect to see a signed contract between Trump and Putin for services rendered, or videos of Trump passing memory sticks to Russian operatives. But I won’t be surprised to see a shitload of forensic bookkeeping and banking records indicating money laundering transactions between Trump entities and Russians connected to Putin’s government, plus other financial links that will provide motive for Donald’s attempts to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference in Trump’s election.
Unlike individuals on both sides of the issue that either want him impeached or would walk in front of him in a sea of snipers, I have no idea what “very little” represents. So I wait to make a decision when Mueller releases his report. My only desire is this is rele ased unredacted so we see all and the re are not 10,000 different tweets, articles,etc determining different opinions. That does not do any good for the country.
All I said was this was reported on a very liberal outlet by a very liberal reporter and none of the very liberal individuals at the table questioned his ” very little” comment.
So the only opinion I made was “very little” must be correct since no one objected.
Ron, I’m truly dissapointed that you have not come to appreciate how detrimental this scum sucker is to our nation. That you’re not calling for his removal is saddening.
“Ron, I’m truly dissapointed that you have not come to appreciate how detrimental this scum sucker is to our nation. That you’re not calling for his removal is saddening.”
Jay,
When I have proven facts that would hold up in court, then I will provide my input. Being a scum sucker is not grounds for removal. I know of no laws where being a scum sucker was the charge in court. I dont recall the constitution providing the authority to remove someone because they are a scum sucker. The constitution provide for removal from office for committing offences like treason, bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Please provide me with the information where Trump has been convicted of treason, bribery or other crimes. I will then call for his removal! As for scum sucker, I made my voice heard in 2016. I knew then he was a scum sucker and voted accordingly. I voted for Johnson.
Being a scum sucket is up to voters to reach a verdict. That is what the constitution calls for.
Tell me where I am wrong based on the law of the country, not MSNBC’s and Rachel MadCow’s laws.
Roby shares your complete distrust of government – he just does not grasp that.
The entire Argh! Trump! nonsense is just that – Distrust of government.
Or atleast government when they do not like who was elected.
They are channeling Madison without knowing it
If Men were angels – but men are not angels, and trust in government is not sufficient, even elections are not sufficient, But scrupulous adherance to the rule of law is a necescity – when those at the top of DOJ/FBI are saying the president is a bad person, and the president is saying they are bad person’s,
it is not our feelings that should decide the issue, it is the rule of law.
The actions of Baker, Ohr, Strzok, Comey, Rosenstein were either justified – and would be against any president where ranking public servants disagreed with a presidents policy choices, or they were not justified – in which case they are a criminal abuse of power under cover of authority.
WE all agree that government is not to be trusted – though Roby might qualify that with something like – government by those he does not like is not to be trusted. It is still a deed (and justified) distrust of government.
Roby I there is no basis for a sealed indictment.
You seem to think that the rule of law is a menu of choices,
I think it should be possible to indict a sitting president – but the current state of the law is that can not be done. There is no exception for “sealed” indictments.
US attorney’s and prosecutors do not get to say – I think these people committed crimes – but the current administration sees it otherwise, so I will indict and seal the indictiment in the hope that a future administration will think differently.
That is NAKED political corruption.
And now we are going from – you have to BELEIVE that Mueller has secret evidence no one else has ever been able to feret out. To – and it is so secret that you do not get to be told about it until Trump is no longer president.
But still you MUST BELEIVE!!!!!
Your feelings, concerns, beleifs, hopes, are not justifications for the use of force.
“But I won’t be surprised to see a shitload of forensic bookkeeping and banking records indicating money laundering transactions between Trump entities and Russians connected to Putin’s government, plus other financial links that will provide motive for Donald’s attempts to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference in Trump’s election.”
So we are back to the stupid Russian FB adds flipped the election argument.
Specifically addressing you money argument.
I beleive the documented cost of these Russian adds was about $1M.
That is about 4 seconds worth of interest on Trump’s investments.
So you think Donald Trump – rather than reach into his own pocker and pony up another $1M for well produced Social Media Adds from capable people that he actually knows, instead involved himself in an eleborate scheme with Putin that no one has been able to find evidence of – so the Trump campaign trade craft must have been incredibly good.
Do you understand the cost of all the elaborate trade craft by the Trump people needed to assure this never sees the sun is far greater than $1M
Do you understand that all the people in the room for the Natalya meeting would not have showed up for a meeting about $1m in social media spending
Next you are alleging money laundering.
How is that supposed to work ?
Money laundering is where a criminal tries to take illegally earned unrecorded money and turn it into legitimate money that can be spent without attracting attention.
Is your allegation that Trump is laundering Putin’s money ?
Or Putin is laundering Trump’s money ?
Do you understand that from the perspective of someone such as Putin who is the leader of a totalitarian state – there is no such thing as money laundering. Putin can do pretty much anything he pleases with all the money of Russia.
And Trump has more money that he can possibly spend before the end of his life
So who is it who paid who for what ?
I would further note that If Putin wanted Trump to be happy – if he wanted Trump to be more wealthy, he had a trivially simple way to do so:
Direct Moscow to approve Trump Tower Russia.
The very thing that Cohen lied to congress about is the absolute proof that there is nothing between Putin and Trump.
So you think somewhere in Trump’s financial records you are going to find
Checks or xfers from Trump to Putin for say $100K to keep the pee tape secret ?
Or is Trump paying to have the DNC hacked ?
Or is he paying for FB adds ?
Or is Putin paying Trump for an apartment in Miami ?
Or for dropping sanctions ?
You are trying to make money important in a game that has absolutely nothing to do with money.
Something is totally screwed up as these are coming directed to me and I dont know what your addressing. Pleade start a new thread.
“plus other financial links that will provide motive for Donald’s attempts to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference in Trump’s election.”
Prove Trump was involved in some conspiracy with Russia – and there is no need to find any financial motives for Trump to “obstruct justice”
If you do not prove that – there is no chance you will separately prove some financial entanglement.
I would separately note that – the DOJ/FBI/CIA/Mueller have NEVER investigated Russian interferance in the election.
This has been an investigation of Trump from the begining – everything Russia was the chosen narrative.
Just to be clear – I am not asserting my beleif – we now KNOW this because Baker, Comey, McCabe, etc have documented that in writing or in testimony or both.
“Ron, I’m truly dissapointed that you have not come to appreciate how detrimental this scum sucker is to our nation. That you’re not calling for his removal is saddening.”
Jay – you and the rest of those suffering from Trump Derangemrnt syndrome have been asked repeatedly for evidence of how Trump is “detrimental to our nation”
You keep responding with the trump word salad and media firestorm of the week.
I and other have told you – facts and actions are far more important than words.
It is inarguable that the nation as a whole is net better off than under Obama.
In pretty much every way that you claim to be worse off – that is of your own making. You choose to be outraged over Trumps words.
You could just as easily choose to ignore them.
To the extent you are worse off it is because of your own choices.
Most of us are better off.
Is Trump the cause for everything that is better ? No.
But it is a fair assessment to conclude that the difference in the rate of improvement between 2009-2016 and 2017 to the present can to a significant degree be attributed to having Trump as president rather than Obama.
If we are going to impeach a president because they are detrimental to the nation – then Obama would be ahead of Trump in line.
I will be happy to listen to arguments that we can do better that Trump.
But the assertion that Trump has been on net detrimental is FALSE.
https://twitter.com/morintoon/status/1085645564195160065?s=21
So Jay – what could go wrong ?
What can Putin Trump agree to that would be treasonous, or criminal or disasterous that ALSO does nto require any visible ACT on the part of Trump ?
“Vlad old buddy old pal and wonderful person, if you do not release the pee tapes, I will end the sanctions”
But the sanctions have not ended.
In fact overall Trump has actually been tougher on Russia than “wait until after the election when I can be more flexible” Obama.
BTW but for the open mike there would have been ZERO record of Obama’s conversation with Medved – what could go wrong ?
Just to be clear – I would support legislation that assured that ABSOLUTELY everything said by anyone in government must be “on the record”.
It would make government far more cumbersome – which I think is fantastic.
But there is no such law currently.
Fox News Legal analyst Andrew Napolitano is among those who have addressed this issue of a sealed indictment. This is not some scheme that I personally cooked up to make Dave flip his lid.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-trumps-legal-woes-continue-to-grow
You can watch the attached video, it is similar but not identical in Napolitano’s comments. His is not a lefty, not a loony and not ignorant of the law.
“It seems that every time we look at the legal maneuverings that reflect upon President Donald Trump, the allegations of unlawful behavior by him add up. We know that two teams of federal prosecutors are examining his pre-presidential and his in-office behavior.
Special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating whether Trump and his campaign reached an agreement with any foreign nationals — particularly Russians — to receive anything of value and whether he obstructed justice by trying to shut down an FBI investigation of his first national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. And federal prosecutors in Manhattan are looking at bank fraud and campaign financing fraud.
The receipt by a campaign for federal office of anything of value from a foreign national is a criminal act, as is an agreement to receive the thing of value from a foreign national, whether or not it arrives. As is the case with nearly all federal crimes, one can be prosecuted for committing the crime itself or, when others are involved, for conspiring to commit the crime or for attempting to commit it.
The career federal prosecutors in New York have told a federal judge that they have evidence that Trump conspired with Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, and David Pecker, his former friend who owns the National Enquirer, to violate campaign finance laws. They have also told the judge that Trump orchestrated Cohen’s crimes and paid Cohen to commit them. The prosecutors know that he who pays for crimes can be as criminally liable as he who accepts the payment and commits the crimes.
What were the crimes? They consisted in hiding illegal campaign receipts and expenses from federal regulators and deceiving them. The receipts were corporate donations — prohibited under federal law. The expenses were payments made to two women who claim to have been paramours of Trump’s — claims he has repeatedly denied — in return for their silence in the fall of 2016, all done to benefit Trump’s presidential campaign.
Had these receipts and payments been innocent mistakes or clerical errors, they could have been addressed with fines and returning the money — about $350,000 — to the donors. They became criminal because the donations were part of an elaborate scheme of cooked books and phony invoices to deceive federal regulators, and they resulted in the Trump campaign’s filing false reports to the feds. All of this was done, according to federal prosecutors, knowingly and intentionally pursuant to a conspiracy among Trump, Cohen and Pecker.
What became of the conspirators? Cohen infamously pleaded guilty to this and other crimes and was sentenced to three years in a federal prison. When Trump learned that his former lawyer had been debriefed by the FBI for 70 hours, Trump called him a “rat.” Pecker received a form of immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony to federal prosecutors and to a federal grand jury about Trump and Cohen.
It is highly unusual for federal prosecutors to characterize a person who is not a defendant in their case as the orchestrator and paymaster of the crimes they are prosecuting, unless they intend to charge that person. Such a person — here, the president — is often referred to as an “unindicted co-conspirator.”
Can Trump be charged with these crimes? Has he been, in a sealed indictment? The Department of Justice has three modern-day legal opinions on the subject of charging a president. Two of them say that a president cannot be charged with a crime while in office, and one says that a president can be charged.
All three opinions counsel that if a statute of limitations — the period of time after the crime has been committed and during which a prosecution must be commenced or waived — is about to expire, the president may need to be indicted in secret, so as to preserve the government’s ability to prosecute him for his crimes after he leaves office yet also preserve the president’s ability to conduct the duties of his office unimpeded by the burdens of a criminal prosecution.
The statute of limitations in this case is five years. The conspiracy took place in 2016. The math for Trump is daunting.
Why should you care about this? The president is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land. He has sworn an oath to enforce all laws faithfully. If he is a lawbreaker himself, he violates his oath, making it difficult for the legal, judicial and law enforcement communities to take his enforcement decisions seriously.
This week, Flynn was due to be sentenced for lying to the FBI. (His sentencing was postponed.) Though it may appear at first to have been a little white lie and though the FBI no doubt knew it was a lie at the time Flynn articulated it, it turns out that Flynn was also a paid foreign agent for Turkey — a spy, if you will, for an ally we currently have a strained relationship with — while working in the Trump campaign. Had U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan not skeptically approached the sentencing of Flynn, we might not know any of this. Did Donald Trump know any of this when he hired Michael Flynn?
The rule of law in America is what keeps us free from tyranny. The rule of law — which the president has sworn his solemn oath to support — means that no one is above the law’s requirements or below its protections. It also means that those who make law enforcement decisions have a public commitment to obeying the law.
Short of that, we don’t have the rule of law. We have the rule of whoever is temporarily at the top of the heap.
And to be clear – whatever free speach issues you think you have with Cohen/Trump and Daniels – increase those exponentially when you drag the national enquirer in.
Everything the press does regarding a political campaign has VALUE to one campaign or the other. MAYBE you could claim that straight reporting was exempt for campaign finance laws – but what about Op Eds ?
Pecker decided he had nothing to lose by cooperating with Mueller.
Outside of the lunatic left which unfortunatley is now a pretty large portion of the country, no one sane thinks that campaign finance laws apply to the press.
This BTW is really an argument for why they should apply to NO ONE.
I would also note that Napalitano’s facts are in error.
Federal Prosecutors have not to our knowledge told a federal judge any such thing.
Federal prosecutors negotiated a plea deal with Cohen where Cohen’s statement to the court confesses SOME of those things.
Federal prosecutors speak to court about crimes by CHARGING them.
One of the issues that came up in the Manafort case was limiting Federal prosecutors to those allegations they had actually charged Manafort with.
A federal prosecutor can not charge you with shop lifting and go into court and say – the defendant is a kiddie didler.
If you are unwilling to charge a crime as a prosecutor, you can discuss it in court.
This also came up with Sulivan. Flynn has a very narrow plea bargain. So long as Flynn adheres to the Plea bargain Mueller can not raise with Sulivan any of the charges against Flynn that are dismissed by the Plea Bargain. That is part of what was so outrageous about Sulivans remarks and why he very quickly backed away from them.
The standard for a judge is even higher than the prosecutor.
Essentially If Flynn comes before the court, and lies and says he committed to crime he is pleaing to, then Mueller must come before the court and lie and say he agreed that Flynn was NOT guilty of the other charges against him, and the court can ONLY consider the facts directly related to the crime being plead to as well as whether Flynn and Mueller upheld their ends of the deal.
“The receipt by a campaign for federal office of anything of value from a foreign national is a criminal act, as is an agreement to receive the thing of value from a foreign national, whether or not it arrives. ”
So the recciept from Christopher Steele – a foreign national of the steele dossier – a collection of intelligence purportedly of great value from not merely foreign nationals but according to Steele from FSB and GRU officers, by the Clinton campaign is not covered by this ?
Jay get a clue ANY broad interpretation of the law that you propose – even via Napoleon, that resolves to Trump or the Trump campaign committing a crime, will simultaneously prove the Clinton campaign did so 10 times over.
This is not “whataboutism” it is actually logic.
If you beleive a specific set of facts makes the actions of A a crime, then the same set of facts also make the action of B a crime.
If you also beleive that A committed a crime, but B did not – you are wrong, and illogical.
Either both did or neither did.
The law is not one thing for Trump and another thing for Clinton.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/06/digenova-toensing-napolitano
Now this is where I can flil my lid and have an anal hemmorrage.n
https://www.wsj.com/articles/coast-guard-are-members-caught-in-shutdown-11547676778
And what is suggested by our great leaders in high places, in the CG, DHS Congress, etc. The CG members can have garage sales or do house sitting to earn extra money.
Yeah right, try that as an enlisted member with two kids and a wife whike you are on a cutter.
This pissing contest between Donald and Nancy is unacceptable, And congress not doing anything is despicable.
And what do we hear on the news. The Secret Service and TSA not getting paid. Thats also BS. They are not risking their lives like the CG rescuing people like the CG.
Our military should not be Nancy’s and Donald’s pawns.
In every prior shutdown CG funding was covered by a bill specifically covering the CG during the shutdown. A bill was put forward this time but dems refused,
Every aspect of this is being contested.
Repubs put forward individual bills to fund specific critical things.
Dems will only approve bills that fund everything while negotiating.
If you have everything you want – there is no reason to negotiate.
BTW DHS as a concept was Stupid when Bush came up with it and it remains stupid now.
I am not really sure I agree with the Assessment that the Coast Guard is military – they used to be under treasury. I would further say – without downplaying what those int he CG do that the job is LESS risky than say farming. Lets not exagerate the dangers of what they do.
Regardless, if you want CG to be military – put them under the department of defense.
But I do not see them as exactly military – they are more like the border patrol – except on the ocean, with a bit of lifeguard thrown in.
I would note that like the military members of the CG receive free housing. healthcare. and meals. They are in far better shape without pay than a TSA agent – who must pay rent and food. The primary differences being the TSA agent is free to leave.
Trump wants to talk about using emergency power to build the wall.
Contrary to what others here have claimed the best legal analysis and the clearest reading of laws passed by congress is that Trump does have that authority.
At the same time I do not think he should do that.
HOWEVER I do think that a case can be made that for those people not furloughed – anyone deemed essential who must work, they also must be paid, and that Trump either has the authority to pay them or he has the ability to declare a state of emergency and pay them
But they must meet whatever the requirements of essential services.
I do not think during shutdowns we should have 3 catagories – those who still work and still get paid, those who still work and do not get paid, and those who do not work and do not get paid.
If you work – you get paid. If you do not work – you do not get paid, not even after the shutdown is over. If you are a non-essential government employee and you can not deal with not getting paid during furlough’s – then get a private job or take vacation during the shutdown. The salary of a government employee is for the work they do,
So if they are not military and they are Border Patrol, why did I have a husband and wife stantioned at different times in a ship off the coast of Central and South America. To achieve the rank of Chief P.O., they had to spend 6 months off shore.
This is a pissing contest between two egos. One elected by 87% of supporters or about 250,000 voters and one with about 48% and 63,000,000 votes.. It wax the.idiocy of Bush 43 that placed them under DHS.
If Trump cared, he would order the CG under the Department of Navy by EO. He has legislative authority tobdo that.
To address yourremarks about them being the same as the TSA worker. They are not! The TSA worker is free to quit! The CG enlisted individual is not!
“So if they are not military and they are Border Patrol, why did I have a husband and wife stantioned at different times in a ship off the coast of Central and South America. To achieve the rank of Chief P.O., they had to spend 6 months off shore.”
You are asking me why government does stupid things ?
I beleive during WWII and possibly WWI the CG actually engaged German submarines.
There are also some additional responsibilities imposed on the CG involving the support of US military operations.
The predecessor of the CG – was revenue cutters – I beleive going back to the time of our founders. Their job was dealing with taxes and contraband – much as the CG today.
Adding a few military requirements and structing the CG like the military does nto make them the military.
Their are ranks within police forces, and likely in the border patrol. Even the scouts have ranks.
Regardless, I am not looking to piss on the CG,
If you really want to push the idea that they are military – put them under DoD not DHS.
Further I absolutely beleive that if the government decides that someone must work, it has at the same time decided that it must pay them.
Either Shut down the CG or pay them.
I do not have much problem with furloughing 800K government wokers and NOT paying them – “no workee, no payee”.
If you are not happy – find another job.
I have a major problem with ordering someone to work and not paying them.
Even with a promise they will get paid in the future.
Link the article or cut and paste it – both is a bit excessive.
Napolitono is fairly libertarian, and he is generally someone I respect.
But he is not actually very good with the law. And he is pretty solidly wrong here.
Nearly all campaign finance law violations are NOT criminal.
Prosecutors tried to push a criminal theory using a set of facts much more egregious than this with Edwards – they lost in front of a jury so the decision was never reviewed by appelate courts.
Regardless the FEC chair AT THAT TIME and every single FEC chair since has not merely said that the edwards prosecution was wrong, but that Edwards use of ACTUAL campaign money to pay his mistress did NOT violate the law or the FEC guidelines.
BTW there is a reason for the FEC chair to hold this view – one that Napolitano does not address and the very aspect that your effort to criminalize this relies.
If the law is interpreted as broadly as you are trying to do – then it is facially unconstitutional.
That is the reason that every FEC chair has opposed this interpretation.
Under this broad interpretation any cost associated with anything any candidate does that MIGHT benefit him as a candidate must be viewed as a campaign contribution.
That would include the cost of any clothes they wear while campaigning – or at any public appearance or at any private appearance that might benefit their campaign.
That would include toothpaste and toilet paper, that would include deoderant, that would include food – it would include myriads of things that the candidate would have to do or might choose to do NO MATTER WHAT, so long as it was arguable that they benefitted the campaign.
You might get that past the 9th circuit, you will not get that past SCOTUS.
We have had these arguments repeatedly.
Personally I think pretty much all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional – they run afoul of free speech – which BTW is ANOTHER issue in this particularly instance.
Ms. Daniels was being paid not to speak – that is not only legal, it is also a free speech right.
I know it is hard for those on the left to grasp this – but the right to free speech includes the right to speak, not speak, speak anonymously, to pay for speech and to pay someone not to speak.
There are 250 years of precidents covering all of this.
I would further note that campaign finances laws DO NOT apply to a candidates OWN money – again the courts decided that decades ago.
There could be a really really really bad argument that Cohen was guilty of an unreported political contribution IF and ONLY IF Cohen paid for the NDA.
But there is no means of arguing that Trump would have committed a crime if Cohen paid for it, and no way of arguing there is a crime if Trump paid for it.
So Napalitono is wrong for myriads of reasons – and honestly he should know better.
Lets try this again – there is not ONE reason this claim is wrong – there are a dozen.
It is near certain that EVERY ONE of those arguments would prevail at SCOTUS – but only one must.
On of the better people on this issue has been Derschowitz. Though Turley has been pretty good to.
That said you should have a clue that this is nonsense because although Cohen stated that he violated campaign finance laws as part of his “allocution” – he was NOT charged with that, and he did not actually plead to that. If the US ADA intended to indict someone else for campaign finance violations arising from the NDA payments to Stormy Daniels, there are several things he would near certain do:
1) Absolutely DO NOT have Cohen plead to lying under oath. That makes him worthless as a witness.
2). Have him actually plead guilty to the crime you intend to prosecute against others.
3). Have him plead guilty to conspiring to commit that crime.
As you should pretty much be able to tell from the Flynn and other Plea deals – there is unfortunately no enforceable requireement that the person pleading actually be guilty of the crime they are pleading to. That is part of the problem with this stupid dance going on in Sulivan’s court. Flynn WANTS the court to step in and say this is prosecutorial misconduct – because it is, and because Flynn did not commit the crime he is pleading to.
But Flynn can not say that with out the entire deal going down the tubes.
If Flynn says to Sulivan – I am not guilty of the crime I am being charged with but I am pleading anyway to avoid getting bankrupted by Mueller – Sullivan will immediately reject the deal. Mueller did not agree to a Nolo or Alford Plea, to get the deal Flynn must confess in court on the record to being guilty – even if that is a lie. Anything short of that and the deal goes south.
Anyway, my point is that what the person pleads guilty to – the actual crime charged and plead not assorted things that are said in the paper work matters greatly.
Most of the pleas tied to Mueller have been for or including “Crim-in-falsi”
That is highly unusual, and never done if you are planning to use the person pleading as a witness – because you have discredited your own witness.
Anyway, as Cohen did not actually plead to a campaign finance law violationm, the US ADA SDNYC has made Cohen useless as a witness and tellegraphed that he is NOT filing campaign finance charges. Probably because even he is not stupid enough to push such a dead bang loser legal theory.
Please explain. I have no idea what you are writing about!
The Mouth that Babbles, at it again…
This is complex – because refuting a whisper down the lane claim is always messy.
“Jay say, Napolitona says, that the SD NY ADA says to the court that Cohen committed and conspired to commit campaign finance law violations. ”
That mess is approximately what I am trying to refute.
1). Napolitona DOES say approximately that.
Sometimes people I respect make errors.
2). The SD NY ADA did NOT say any such thing to the court.
The SD NY ADA DID have Cohen include statements to that effect in his plea. These are Cohen’s statements, not the SD NY ADA – though with near certainty the SD NY ADA requested them.
This was done this way because – the ADA can not speak about a crime he is not charging – but Cohen can.
It is political theater – it has no weight – first and foremost because once you plead Cohen for Crim-in-falsi nothing he says has probative value.
Mueller has this problem all over the place – these “lying to the FBI” pleas have been noted by numerous lawyers to be a very unwise move.
No matter what Cohen says in his court statements, he is pleading guilty of tax evasion and lying to the senate – NOT Campaign finance crimes.
The court can take Cohen statements into account in sentencing him, but they have no other value.
Cohen saying he did something in a plea statement – rather than pleading to it, is meaningless.
If the SD NY ADA was going to charge others with campaign finance law violations – they would not have plead Cohen to lying to congress and they would have plead Cohen to the campaign finance law violations.
Cohen is not likely to care about anything beyond how much time he gets.
I think Cohen is pretty slimy. But I know a long list of equally slimy lawyers – many of whom are prosecutors and some of whom are judges. None of whom are in jail though many should be,
Being a slimy and incompetent lawyer is not a crime.
The lying to congress charge is ludicrous. As much as I might dislike Cohen errors about the last date he communicated with someone in Russia regarding a deal that never happened is not substanitive.
Mueller – and the rest of you should read the court cases on assorted forms of criminal lying. Merely making a false statement under oath (or to the FBI) is NOT sufficient. Doing so KNOWINGLY is not sufficient. One of several additional elements is that the lie must be about something of importance.
The exact date at which Cohen stopped doing something that was neither a crime, nor even successful is not something of importance. Congress was not mislead in a way that altered the outcome of its deliberations.
The same is True – even more so of Flynn and Papadoulis and Van Der Zandt – the other Crim-in-Falsi pleas.
No one less that Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a case on this explicitly stated that you can not permit government to prosecute people for misrepresenting to the government something the government already knows or is not important.
If you allow that you allow prosecutors to manufacture crimes by questioning people until they contradict something.
Put differently there is no such thing as a perjury trap – because if the government already knows the truth your lie is not a crime.
Lying to the government is a crime – because the lie interferes with the investigation. If it does not, there is no crime.
Please, TSA Workers, Don’t Come Back
And take the rest of your federal colleagues with you.
https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/09/please-tsa-workers-dont-come-back
We must investigate the FBI and DOJ – from Volokh
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/14/why-the-fbis-counterintelligence-probe-o
If you want an actual negative effect of the shutdown – that in reality just proves the stupidity of regulation try this.
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/16/the-shutdown-and-the-first-amendment
The difference between what people think they know and what they actually know.
https://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/15/survey-shows-most-extreme-opponents-of-g
All that good government in San Francisco
https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/16/san-francisco-property-owner-fights-city
Rudy Giuliani to @ChrisCuomo: “I never said there was no collusion between the campaign or between people in the campaign. I have not. I said the president of the United States,” adding that Trump “didn’t commit a crime.”
So if there was collusion from Trump campaign people, but Trump didn’t participate directly.
Like Nixon didn’t personally break into Watergate…
Rudy may not be willing to say it – but I am.
Todate the DOJ/FBI/CIA/Mueller have found no evidence of criminal interactions between anyone in the Trump campaign and the Russian Government.
REINS something we should all be able to agree on – though I doubt we will
https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/11/a-new-bill-would-rein-in-the-executive-o
Who is the worst landlord in New York City ?
According the the New York AG – it is the New York City Housing Authority.
For those of you certain that polls are meaningful.
The majority of americans when polled want to ban the farming of animals.
But very few of us are vergitarians or vegans – and the numbers are stagnant, while our consumption of meat is INCREASING.
So what is it that we really want ? What are our actual values ?
Polls are a very poor measure of values.
Markets are the only accurate measure of our values.
Willet is one of the judges in Trump’s original Supreme court short list.
https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/12/liberty-has-a-new-champion-on
The world is getting better,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-is-getting-quietly-relentlessly-better-11546430400
And better still says NYT
And better still says WAPO
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-fall-for-the-doomsday-predictions/2019/01/08/46a4ced2-1361-11e9-b6ad-9cfd62dbb0a8_story.html?utm_term=.28ec0258c5ab
We are all going to be rich – says the financial times.
http://www.businessbvi.com/business/item/3526-why-i-predict-we-will-be-wealthier-in-the-future
Those damn righty Tea Party conservatives are at it again!
More of the same anti Trump nonsense from another well known conservative.
What collusion ?
Sorry Jonah, but this is more manufactured news.
Guliani is somewhat Clumsy sometimes.
Regardless – has some big news broke I have not heard ?
Has Stone been caught on video in August meeting with Putin ?
There remains NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION.
That Said Guiliani appears to be making the same argument that I and many many others have made – primarily as a hypothetical.
Collusion is not a crime.
Trump could have met publicly or privately with Putin prior to the election.
He didn’t, but he could have.
Alot is made of the “contact” between low level Trump surogates and “russians”
These “russians” are
American citizens born in Russia
FBI informants.
Russian businesmen that there are legitimate reasons for these people to have communicated with,
Ukrainians – because we all know that even though the russians and ukrainians are killing each other that really they are bossum buddies.
MI6 agents claiming to know russians.
Very indirect contact with Julian Assange – who the left has made into an Honorary Russian.
Do you remember that point about the left not having principles of values, that everything changes with the moment.
The left was worshiping Assange when he was making trouble for Bush.
The left has pardoned Chelsea/Bradley Manning whose leaks to Asange may have gotten people killed
But Asange is now some evil Russian Troll – how fickle those on the left are.
It is only ok to leak damaging information if it is harmful to the right.
It is OK for Manning to have released information that might have gotten US soldiers killed, it was OK for Asange to publish it.
But publishing DNC emails revealing that the DNC was in the tank for Clintion – that makes you are russian troll.
It is amazing, in so many ways the left is channelling Joe MacCarthy.
The Red Scare deplatfoming the demonization of russian and anyone who does not think they are the most evil thing on the face of the earth. blacklists, demogogery, ad hominem,
The left has become what it hates the most about the right
We would not have known anything about What Obama and Medved were saying to each other – but for the fact that Obama accidentally left his mike on.
This is more manufactured news.
BTW the Obama administration was the most agressive actor against leaks in US history there were more prosecutions for leaking than under all other presidents before combined.
Trump is trying to stop leaks by making them impossible, rather than by assuring that you go to jail.
Brilliant Nancy, like the cartoon character Nancy, you have snatched the political football from Charlie Brown, better known now as Trump. LMAO!
Taking the cameras away from Trump is like taking blood away from Dracula
“The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President,
On January 3rd, it was my privilege as Speaker to invite you to deliver the State of the Union address on January 29. The Constitution calls for the President to “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” During the 19th Century and up until the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, these annual State of the Union messages were delivered to Congress in writing. And since the start of modern budgeting in Fiscal Year 1977, a State of the Union address has never been delivered during a government shutdown.
In September 2018, Secretary Nielsen designated State of the Union Addresses as National Special Security Events (NSSEs), recognizing the need for “the full resources of the Federal Government to be brought to bear” to ensure the security of these events. The extraordinary demands presented by NSSEs require weeks of detailed planning with dozens of agencies working together to prepare for the safety of all participants.
The U.S. Secret Service was designated as the lead federal agency responsible for coordinating, planning, exercising, and implementing security for National Special Security Events by Public Law 106-544, December 19, 2000. However, both the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security have not been funded for 26 days now – with critical departments hamstrung by furloughs.
Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
NANCY PELOSI”
As Best as I can tell – this is fully within Pelosi’s power.
I think it is a hamfisted stupid political move on her part. While it may win her points with her base it makes her look petty – at a time when she is trying to claim Trump is the petty one.
I also think that it is long past time to revert to the 19th century letter delivered to congress.
But that is a decision that should be made by all – though it wont be.
I have no idea precisely how Trump will respond, But I suspect he will win the engagement.
One choice he has is to give the SOTU from the oval office.
Or possibly even better from Clemson University Stadium – or some other forum that is essentially a Trump rally.
Why does Trump care that 535 congressmen and SCOTUS are in the room for one of his speeches ?
My ran a factory in the food industry – which is heavily jewish.
She said it was always better negotiating with the jews than the christians.
The Jews wanted a good deal and they would bargain shrewdly, they seemed to know better than you did at what price you would lose money, and they understood that it was in their interests not to push you so hard you went bankrupt.
While the christians wanted to win every negotiation. They did not care if you made money, they did not care if you went bankrupt.
I think that applies to the differences between Trump and the left and is demonstrated by the Differences between Trump and Pelosi in this fight.
Trumps objective is the wall. You can agree with that, or disagree with it. But it is going to be damn near impossible to come to a deal with him unless he gets the wall.
While Pelosi and the left talk about the wall and immigration and ……
Their objective is to defeat Trump.
Even here – I do not think many of the more left leaning posters here are really committed to the positions they argue. That is a part of why all the ad hominem. Politics for those on the left is blood sport. It has been since the french revolution.
Most everything I have ever read about China under Mao was that there was no ideology – or better put communist dogma changed from day to day with Mao’s whim. But you had better keep up – or your dead.
The left is as brutal possibly even more so with its own who veer too far from the fold – and the borders of the fold change daily, as they are with conservatives.
It is not the values and principles that matter, it is the beleif that you are better than others.
Any threat to that perception must be destroyed.
Trump is often petty, he “punches back twice as hard” and then moves on.
He is not vindictive. the left is vindictive. Anyone who challenges them must be destroyed.
So many on the left think he is angry and fearful, and going to have a stroke.
Yet from what I can tell he is having fun.
But the left is near blowing a gasket.
I find it hillarious that so many on the left are now sainting McCain, or Romney, even the bushes. During the election the left was telling us all – with conviction that Bush, McCain, Romney were the end of the world, they were hateful hating haters, racists, homophobes, too close to the KKK.
There is pretty much nothing said by the left about Trump that was not said by the left about Bush, McCain and Romney. The only difference is that the accusations targeted at Trump never end, they are 24×7 and they are at 1000db.
Trump is far from perfect, there is plenty to criticise, but in just two years he is the most effective president in the 21st century.
And the left is still trying to figure out how to take their ball and go home.
dduck, Really?
Who watches that crap these days other than his base, or any presidents base.
Who is really paying attention to what piss Nancy is spraying on Donald.
They are both playing to their base. Nancy can’t budge because she barely made it as speaker by “buying” her far left liberal votes and Donald can’t budge since that is his primary campaign promise.
It all comes down to which ego is going to crack. Who gets more pressure. Right now Mitch McConnell is not letting anything come to the senate floor that would put GOP senators on record. If they passed a house continuation, Trump would veto it because his ego would not allow him to sign a continuation. Then the senate would have to go on record for an override. By knowing this and not allowing a vote, moderate senators who may break from the president are being protected. That’s why Mitch is MIA.
That is not right, it is not best for the country, but that is the game being played and right now both sides are tied in the minds of the captains.
And I suspect this will go into many OT’s before the end game comes.
Ron said:
dduck, Really?
Who watches that crap these days other than his base, or any presidents base.
JS says: He can do the SOTU from the oval office.
I say he loses his 535 audience, has fewer people watching- I won’t-, and his ego takes a big hit being outsmarted by a woman.
Still LMAO
You might be laughing, but those who dislike Pelosi just said “WAY TO GO POTUS”
Like I said many times, never get in a pissing contest with a shunk. And Mitch knows to stay out of the middle between two of them.
But seriously, I think all congressional spending should be closed, for staff and elected officials, including travel until this is worked out. But congress always makes sure they are taken care of and to hell with American citizens except rich donors.
Right, the same core supporters who would applaud if he arrested her.
But the Blowback from Republican lawmakers is evident. They recognize the dangerous precedent he just set.
And if Mueller turns up enough dirt on Trump and/or his advisors, more reps from both parties will be willing to initiate the ultimate political middle finger to him. IMPEACHMENT!
DD
I think Trump managed to best Pelosi on this one – and it is not over.
One of the mistakes Pelosi made in cancelling the invite was presuming there was nothing Trump could do.
At the moment we do not know what MORE Trump will do – beyond Cancelling Pelosi’s trip to Brussell’s while she was on the tarmac.
Because government is shutdown, and the negotiations to re-open it take place in Washington – Not Brussels or Hawaii.
Trump may delay the SOTU.
He may do it in the Senate
He may do it in writing.
He may do it as a big Trump Rally at the border.
Or something else I have not thought of – and that is the point.
I played Chess in HS. I was 2nd board on my HS team which was the county Champion.
It is generally considered good tactics to “check” your opponents King.
I had one game where my opponent checked me more than a dozen times.
I won. He converted my King from a passive defensive piece to an aggressive piece that roamed the board capturing his.
The point is that some tactical move is not necescarily a good move because it sounds good at the time. Whether it proves to be a good move depends on the response of your opponent, and when your opponent has numerous possible responses – possibly infinite possible responses, you could easily lose a gambit you think you must win.
Canceling Pelosi’s flight – only a small move and unlikely to be Trump’s final move, was viscious and brilliant.
Trump comes across as a Petulant Child, But he does so in a way that makes it crystal clear that he is reacting to another petulant Child.
Trump wins constantly by being the lessor evil – that is how he beat Clinton.
Pelosi gave Trump the perfect oportunity to Punch back twice as hard, and make both of them look bad. Pelosi loses that exchange already – and it is not over yet.
Or maybe Mitch is blocking things from coming to the floor because “the Wall” has been a republican promise since 1986.
Mitch is far from my favorite guy. Frankly I can not think of anyone in the leadership in the house or senate who I would call a good person.
I can not tell the moral difference between Reid and McConnel.
Regardless, I think that Mitch McConnel is acting in Mitch McConnel’s interests, and I think he beleives he is acting in the GOP’s interests.
BTW I do not think forcing Trump to veto something has that high a cost for Trump.
“Regardless, I think that Mitch McConnel is acting in Mitch McConnel’s interests, and I think he beleives he is acting in the GOP’s interests.”
BINGO!
And Pelosi in Pelosi’s interest and the Democrats interest.
But the real question. Who is acting in America’s interest?
“And if Mueller turns up enough dirt on Trump and/or his advisors, ”
We have been hearing that for years.
Have you heard the story of the boy who cried wolf ?
Regardless, if there was evidence – we would have it by now.
Your hoping against the odds, looking to shoot the moon, or betting on box cars.
The difference between the left and Trump’s america.
https://spectator.us/big-macs-trump-gets-america/
Ron, I have been among those that have “disliked” Pilosi/Reid for many, many years.
But, when someone scores a big gotcha, be it Trump or Pelosi, I give them the credit they are due, that is what moderates do.
Maybe this thing where Trump is trying to stop Pelosi and a delegation from traveling will turn out to be a winner.
Other than someones beliefs that gambling is morally bad, can someone please tell me why the government is making laws like this? Is there any reason other than this is good for rich casino owners like Sheldon Adelson who owns the Las Vegas Sands Corp.
So now instead of making bets legally, we will be finding ways to make them illegally.
You can add this to my list of “How government controls and F’s with your life”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gambling/us-justice-dept-broadens-restrictions-on-internet-gambling-idUSKCN1P91XD
Those damn Lefty writers keep sticking their noses into Trump’s affairs.
Oh, sorry – he’s a renowned conservative novelist…
https://twitter.com/bradthor/status/1085980328605421568?s=21
As I said before – I like Thor’s books, but I find his anti-Trump views incredibly hypocritical – as would anyone who has actually read his books.
His presidents and whitehouse operatives ARE what the left fears in Trump.
Thor merely paints them as virtuously violating the law and the constitution clandestinely
I also like Meryl Steeps acting. Does that require me to place any more weight than my neighbor in her political views.
Brad Thor is an excellent writer of fiction. I will likely buy his next book.
I do not follow him on Twitter. There are plenty of people on the left who make better arguments.
No, Dave – that’s not an iceberg dead ahead.
Keeping sipping your cocktail on the Titanic Lounge Deck, and ignore those shouted warnings… glug glug glug…..
“I rigged online polls”.
Extra, Extra, News at 11, Crime of the century
Guess what Trump still lost – somebody else rigged them better.
It is an online poll for god’s sake it is a screaming plea to be rigged.
Women carrying purses with valuables on crowded streets are easy targets screaming to get robbed; so let’s not chastise the purse snatchers…
More non-analogous analogies.
So Cohen and Trump conspired to commit a non-crime, but were beat because someone did better than they did, and you are wigging out ?
We should punish people who commit crimes. All acts you do not like are not crimes.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/17/government-shutdown-nancy-pelosi-white-house-state-of-the-union/2602378002/
If this was not so infantile, it would be amuzing.
“I dont want you giving a speech to congress because you might get some support for your closing government”
Damn, you wont let me address congress, I am taking my Air Force plane back and you cant take your trip”
the difference between children fighting and adults fighting is egos. Children dont have egos developed fully, so they usually work out their differences.
Absolutely Trump’s responses is totally completely childish.
At the same time, it makes it perfectly clear that Pelosi’s move was totally completely childish.
As long as this looks like a food fight – Pelosi loses.
There is enormous speculation about SOTU.
Aparently Pelosi is now saying she did NOT actually disinvite Trump.
George Washington Aparently gave a SOTU in the Senate – I thought there were not SITU’s that were not letters prior to Woodrow Wilson.
There are many suggesting that Trump should just go somewhere and have another big Trump rally instead and call it the People SOTU.
I favor the last.
Regardless, several – including prominent democratic Strategists beleive this was a loss for Pelosi – no matter what happens.
“Regardless, several – including prominent democratic Strategists beleive this was a loss for Pelosi ”
With these actions, the loser is not Trump nor Pelosi. I is the America citizens that are the losers. To many think it is me, you and them. No! America!!!
“With these actions, the loser is not Trump nor Pelosi. I is the America citizens that are the losers. To many think it is me, you and them. No! America!!!”
I disagree – though Paul Krugman is incorrect – this is not some great libertarian experiment, it still a test of how much government we need.
We are at what 5 weeks of a 25% shutdown ? There are glitches – which the left amplifies in frothing derangement. There is little that anyone to the right of Pelosi think could not be fixed by bringing back maybe 10% of the 800,000 furloughed.
Personally, I think we could go far deeper.
The longer this goes on – the worse for democrats. Mostly this is not effecting the american people – if YOU are the loser – how so ?
It is possible there will be some short term small disruption of the economy, but very little of government has a positive impact on productivity. The long term impact will be positive not negative. It is pretense to beleive that 800,000 people doing nothing from home is more negative than 800,000 people doing nothing from work.
I tripped over an article somewhere that suggested the vast majority of government employees at work actively interfere with doing anything at all.
That the entire government could run on about 15% of its current staff and do so BETTER.
I was not happy about Tillerson leaving state – because he was actively working to cut the state department by 35%, Pompeo has brought most of those cut back. One of the differences between Trump’s business appointments and his government appointments is that people from business want lean and mean. People from government think large is a signifier of power.
Regardless, all or nearly all the critical foreign relations accomplishments of the Trump presidency have come from the Whitehouse, not state.
America is the loser when we have sandbox infant elected American leaders digging into their dirty diapers and throwing crap at each other. How else is a sane individual suppose to evaluate the idiocy of cancelling SOTU/Military transport.
Mumm. The last few days a lot of genuine conservative commentators I’m reading are saying cancelling the SOTU event is a good idea. It may have bipartisan support in Congress. Trump (and you) should be in favor of resuming submitting a written SOTU as a Step toward national unity
I could care less if he delivers the SOTU. I have not listened to any in the last many years, probably 20-25. I may have listened to Bush 43 after 9-11, not sure.( I think I may have jumped in during commercial breaks on Trumps first one) I live on Tobacco Road where NC State, Duke, North Carolina and Wake Forest play basketball. On Tuesdays there is usually a 7:00 game and a 9:00 game and they are playing other ACC teams. That’s the important stuff in this part of the country.
I don’t care if he delivers it from the White House restroom. It will all be just a bunch of gas bag political junk like they all are with the Presidents tooting their own horn and getting their ego petted with all the party supporters jumping up and down like jack in the boxes to clap every word they say.
“That the entire government could run on about 15% of its current staff and do so BETTER.”
So if 15% of Govt workers are inefficient let’s send home 80% of them, including the ones doing good work.
Your car may not be getting good mileage, John-Dave; next time you go for gas crash it into the gas pump.
“So if 15% of Govt workers are inefficient let’s send home 80% of them, including the ones doing good work.”
You can not read. 80% of government workers are not merely inefficient, they are a detriment to even the tasks you think government should do.
Approx. 15% are capable.
BTW, this is not My claim – though it sounds about right, but one from someone in government.
If we are going to discuss off the wall things – I beleive by Monday or Tuesday the Furlough’s will be long enough that current law allows the government to lay off those furloughed PERMANENTLY.
But there are strings. There are all kinds of rules covering who among those furloughed goes first (and last). That makes it hard to get rid of the dead wood.
Except that the shutdown allows department heads to designate who they keep working and who they do not.
Those who are still working – whether paid or not, are not subject to converting their furlough to a layoff and permanent unemployment.
While among those furloughed layoff’s must be done using factors like seniority. In fact there are rules that explicitly prohibit singling out unproductive employees in choosing who to convert to a permanent layoff.
Anyway Trump has had almost a year to plan this.
The “rumor” is that Departments have identified those people who are productive – and defined them as necescary and kept them during the shutdown – so they are not subject to conversion to layoff – basically circumventing the furlough provision that prevents you from using a furlough to get rid of the incompetent.
The claim is that sometime Soon Trump will anounce massive layoffs of govenrment employees.
I do not actually think there is an organized plan as indicated above.
But that does not mean the threat does not exist.
Reagan fared very well after canning PATCO.
Within a few days Trump could announce that 50% of those currently furloughed are being permanently layed off.
Or he could just threaten it.
Like his threat to declare a national emergency – it would probably result in massive litigation, but even a small chance that he could prevail – which he could is a huge risk to the left. –
Flip Flop?
Or Rudy Splat?
LMAO picturing Nancy’s luggage being delivered to her office. Score one for Trump. Got it Ron. Next Trump can substitute a floppy rubber gavel when she’s not looking and she can make sure he has dry felt tip pens for his next EO signing.
F—- the country, eh.
If SNL writers were not so anti trump/ pro liberal, they could do a complete show on this tit for tat between these two. And probably one that would go down as one of their classics. But being one sided would just be snother political message.
SNL WILL do that; comedy comes first.
Hopefully that is what they will do. I have not watched since Alex Baldwin became the focal point on the show and nothing else for anything worth watching.
What Does…
18 USC § 1622 subornation of perjury
18 USC § 1512 witness tampering
18 USC§ 1505 Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Have In Common?
Impeachment For Trump!
“BuzzFeed News has tonight printed perhaps the most damaging claim against Donald Trump yet, a claim that, if true (a very big “if”), produces evidence against the president that is remarkably similar to evidence used to support articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. And while there are numerous news reports regarding Trump’s activities that either remain unproven or have been debunked, this report is rendered especially plausible by documents the special counsel’s office filed just last month.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/report-accuses-donald-trump-of-suborning-perjury-like-clinton-and-nixon/
18 U.S.C. § 1622:
“Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
Please read the actual statues you cite. Crimes have more than names. They have elements. To commit a crime you most have ACTED to meet each and every one of the elements. Suborning perjury as an example requires that you induce someone to lie under oath. There are several other elements as well.
When Bill Clinton plead with Monica Lewinsky to lie about their affair in a affadivt that the provided to Paula Jones’s attorney’s – that was suborning perjury.
I have no clue how you think that Trump subborned perjury – I have as of yet heard no credible claim that he has asked anyone to lie about anything – in court or out.
Witness tampering also has elements – which Mueller forgot when he indicted Manafort for it.
The witness must be someone IDENTIFIED by the opposing party. You must INDUCE them to lie, not to testify or to falsely alter their testimony.
Prosecutors do not have the power to preclude defendants from seeking out favorable witnesses, They do not have the power to preclude defendants from persuading prosecution witnesses to change their testimony. Engaging with some random person is not wiotness tampering.
Obstruction – there are about 5 obstruction statutes. AGain EACH has a very specific set of requirements. You can not violate 1505 – the one you cited, unless there is an actual proceeding you are interfering with. So any actions of Trump prior to Mueller convening a grand jury is not a violation of 1505. That would rule out the “Comey” garbage.
Regardless, AGAIN crimes are SPECIFIC.
Outside a few deluded left wing talking heads, there is no one credible making a specific allegation of a violation of a specific crime.
I would further note EVERY SINGLE CRIME you have noted is a process crime.
It is a claim of interferance in the investigation of another crime.
It is incredibly rare to actually prosecute a process crime absent an underlying crime.
Further your own assertions essentially PROVE the criminality of the prosecutors.
You STILL have no Crime that was being investigated.
Essentially you are claiming that it is a crime to interfere with injustice and corruption.
Coincidentally this just brilliant article was just published.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/impeachment-trump/580468/
Jay, As before, I will let the process play out before deciding guilt.
BUT, I will ask the same question I have asked in different formats.
IF impeachment is justified and Pelosi and leadership continues to fight that movement, are they doing that for the benefit of America or for the benefit of the democrat party?
I asked that based on the writers comment in the Atlantic ” When the House impeached Bill Clinton, in 1998, his popularity soared; in the Senate, even some Republicans voted against convicting him of the charges.” Does she think it is best for democrats to avoid making Trump more popular even given the fact the democrats think he is destroying the country?
I don’t know what Pillosi or other Dem leadership is/are thinking, Ron.
Maybe they’re thinking too slow.
The article was illuminating. Maybe some of those Dems will heed it.
I just thought of a reason for Dems delaying the start of Trump impeachment process, Ron. If it starts closer to the 2020 elections, and enough credible negative Trump evidence comes out, that could gain Dem seats in the Senate, possibly enough (with a few disgruntled Republicans as well) to tip the vote to remove TurdBrain Trump from office.
So you have bought into my thinking that Mueller is playing a political investigation and is waiting to release info so it does the most good for democrats and the most damage for Trump.
Wellcome aboard the “Mueller lynching Bandwagon”
Where did I say that was Mueller’s strategy?
No where.
I suggested it MAY BE the Dem House strategy to wait until he’s ended his investigation.
The article suggested numerous reasons for them not pushing forward, the investigation was but one of them.
There is no secret reason that the cooler heads among dems are not moving to impeach Trump. Because it is a politically stupid idea, and no matter what other complaint I might have about Pelosi and her cronies, they are not that stupid.
And you are still playing this stupid game of “hoping” for evidence.
Might happen, cows might fly.
I do not really give a damn about the dems strategy.
I care about the facts. We have facts that demonstrate actual crimes and abuse of power by Clinton, Obama, DOJ/FBI. Facts that meet the requirements of the law.
We have no credible allegations of crimes regarding Trump. Which BTW is proof of the criminal political corruption.
One of the reasons to require an ACTUAL crime to open an investigation is so that you can not investigate whoever the hell you please.
There remains no crime to investigate at the start of this even TODAY.
The assorted “crimes” you cited are all AFTER the start of the investigation, and are all tremndous overreach.
“Where did I say that was Mueller’s strategy?
No where.
I suggested it MAY BE”
Totally agree – we have NO evidence of any strategy (or anything else), only the hope of what MAY BE.
There is more evidence of a 2nd shooter on the grassy knowl than all the attacks on Trump combined.
If the democratic controlled house wishes to waste its time on impeachment and investigating Trump – they are free to do so, and to face the benefits or consequences.
I honestly hope they waste their time doing so.
AS noted before, The bits of Bruce Ohr’s congressional testimony that have been released PROVE many things – amoung them that Adam Schiff’s Russia/Trump memo was not merely wrong, but that it was a LIE – that Schiff knew when he wrote it that the FBI had the Steele Dossier in July or 2016, that the KNEW at the time that it was a product of the Clinton campaign, that the knew that Steele hated Trump and wanted to destroy him, that Fusion GPS was heavily involved that it was salacious, and dubious, and that knowledge of all these issues was widespread in the upper tiers of DOJ/FBI in July of 2016.
That the Steele Dossier – not anything else was the basis for escalating the investigation, and for the FISA warrant.
Just ot be clear – not only are the above FACTS, but they were known by everyone associated with the Investigation and many beyond that, and they were known by house democrats when their memo stated otherwise.
You froth at the mouth over lying. What can be worse that a report on russian interferance in our election that provides the public with knowingly false and deliberately misleading information,
Nancy still kicking flaccid Trump butt today:
“Asked if she viewed Trump canceling her overseas congressional trip as retaliation for her calling to reschedule the State of the Union, Nancy Pelosi says, “I would hope not. I don’t think the president would be that petty, do you?” Via ABC
That after a morning blitz of reports that Trump had endangered the safety of others, releasing info about commercial flights & destinations for the trip..
“In light of the grave threats caused by the President’s action, the delegation has decided to postpone the trip so as not to further endanger our troops and security personnel, or the other travelers on the flights.”
Of course Trump is being Petty, So was Pelosi.
Pelosi can not accuse Trump of being petty because she was first.
BTW Trump CAN NOT release information about commercial flights and destinations, that is already PUBLIC. Do you and the press even think before you make this nonsense up.
If Pelosi wants to end the shutdown – she should stay in Washington.
Further it seems to me that Trump saved Pelosi from the bad press of drinking wine and slurping caviar in Europe while her furloughed homey’s try to make ends meet.
She canceled Davos – why is the federal government paying for what is in esence a vaction for swamp creatures anyway ?
I would be happy to see such perks terminated uniformly.
“BTW Trump CAN NOT release information about commercial flights and destinations, that is already PUBLIC. Do you and the press even think before you make this nonsense up.”
More ignoramic nonsense.
Trump’s announcement that Pellosi and others were immediately going to those specific places, but not on military aircraft, LOUDLY BROADCASTS the time and destination mode of transportation, making it PUBLIC, you moron, and would put those Democratic lawmakers AND passengers and crew at risk of terrorist attack.
Responsible MSM has a policy of not releasing secret congressional trips to dangerous locations if they learn of them. You ignorant of that as well?
“would put those Democratic lawmakers AND passengers and crew at risk of terrorist attack.”
Jay, if you ground the flight and they dont go, how do you put them in danger? How are terrorist going to get to them when they are in D. C.? Did he announce they were flying there when they were about to land?
Sorry I miss your logic that cancelling a flight puts them in danger of a terrorist attack.
if they go by commercial, thats their choice!
“BTW Trump CAN NOT release information about commercial flights and destinations, that is already PUBLIC. Do you and the press even think before you make this nonsense up.”
Dave, throw out all logic and follow the links used by reporter who wrote about it.
Pelosi using secret military flight.
Trump did not release that secret.
Trump cancelled military flight and released that info after the fact about the trip.
Trump suggested commercial flight.
Commercial flight public info.
Therefore, suggesting pelosi use widely know commercial flight = illegal release of top secret info concerning Pelosi trip.
You and I can see where there is no logical link as written. But the ill informed and ” feed me more crap” public eats this crap up!
And the sad thing about it is these ignorant and brain dead people that believe this stuff vote. If they did not, reporters would not be writing “if,then” articles that dont compute.
Everyone new Pelosi was going to DAVOS – it is one her web site.
If she was not going by government transport she was inherently going commerical air – or by ship.
Regardless, Trump did NOT identify what flight she was taking – she had no commercial flight scheduled. He merely told her she could fly by comercial carrier if she chose.
He said she (meaning THEY) was going to Afghanistan you moron.
You quoted Trump yourself: “I am sorry to inform you that your trip to Brussels, Egypt, and Afghanistan has been postponed.” He publically ALERTED a congregation of Democrats was going to a war zone.
As to the stopover in Brussels, it wasn’t to attend The Davos conference. That was a pilot flying break, and for the Dems to confer with our military and with NATO members freaked out over Dumbass Donald’s threats. Trump did just pull the plug on the U.S. delegation attending the Davos conference, which wasn’t scheduled until next week.
You really are a babbling bonehead when it comes to Trump apologizing.
“Responsible MSM has a policy of not releasing secret congressional trips to dangerous locations if they learn of them. You ignorant of that as well?”
absolute BUNK!! This was NOT a secret Trump.
Congressmen pretty much NEVER take secret trips.
Congressmen do everything publicly with a phalanx of reporters.
And no the press does NOT keep “secret” congressional trips – it reports pretty much everything about them.
No Trump did NOT
There is a much easier way to refute this nonsense you and the press are spewing.
Rather than argue about what some stupid reporter or you say Trump said.
Here is what Trump wrote.
Dear Madame Speaker:
Due to the Shutdown, I am sorry to inform you that your trip to Brussels, Egypt, and Afghanistan has been postponed. We will reschedule this seven-day excursion when the Shutdown is over. In light of the 800,000 great American workers not receiving pay, I am sure you would agree that postponing this public relations event is totally appropriate. I also feel that, during this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the Shutdown. Obviously, if you would like to make your journey by flying commercial, that would certainly be your prerogative.
I look forward to seeing you soon and even more forward to watching our open and dangerous Southern Border finally receive the attention, funding, and security it so desperately deserves!
Sincerely,
Donald Trump
None of your claims are True. You are just making shit up. This is why you have no credibility.
Jay, get a clue – you want to keep this up – “kit only gets worse”
More ad hominem and nonsense rather than facts.
I beleive Pelosi made the letter public.
Regardless, though I beleive Pelosi had publicly announced her trip, regardless it was not secret.
JW has reams of documentation of this and several other Pelosi Trips as well as correspondence – obtained through FOIA request – put simply the trip was NOT secret.
Congresspeople do not travel secretly.
Pelosi specifically requests military transport constantly – so that her husband can travel with her in style for free. He correspondece with DoD documents this.
The left and House democrats demanded Prices firing for using government transport rather than flying commercial.
Bu that standard Pelosi should join price and the other Trump administration officials she has chastized and resign for government waste and corruption.
As to your claims regarding DAVOS – yeah, Right,.
BTW Pelosi’s was NOT the only trip Trump canceled.
You claim this is all top secret – that is of course we JW has had information on it and other Pelosi Trips for months.
But lets presume it is. Trump canceled a “top secret” Trip A leak of a non-event has not security implications.
Trump has zero control of what Pelosi does on her own.
She is free to make the trip commercial, change her itenerary – which was NOT actually revealed, or do pretty much whatever she wants – secretly if she wants.
Though I highly doubt that Pelosi is taking herself, other congressmen, their families, and the press on a “secret mission” to afghanistan.
Pelosi can do whatever she wants in Brussel’s – meet with NATO, join the yellow shirts, go to DAVOS.
But you should make up your mind – was the stop in brussels a pilot break or to meet with Nato ? BTW it was a Military flight, if they really wanted to keep it secret they could fly to afghanistan Direct. You can fly commercial from NYC to Beijing non-stop – no need for a multi-day “pilot break”. I am pretty sure that the military can manage to get to afghanistan without a break.
In fact during GWII Military pilots flew B2’s from the US West to Iraq and back in a single flight – hundreds of times.
NATO should be freaked out. I would have no problems ending NATO
I would note that an end to NATO is not inherently an end to military relations with western countries, It is just a reflection fo the fact that the USSR has collapsed.
Lots of nonsense is spewed over all of this.
If Russia invades Estonia – with or without NATO, Europe is going to defend Estonia, and the US is likely to provide assistance.
But we will no longer be OBLIGATED to.
For most of the cold war the likely primary impediment to Russian invading Europe was US nuclear weapons, and the promise to NATO to use them in response to a Soviet attack.
Today Europe is militarily much more cabable and Russia is NOT the USSR.
It can act militarily in immediate neighboring countries in regions with large ethnic russian populations. It can not take on Europe.
Unless you have not been paying attention – aparently Pelosi has a LONG LOG record of abuse of military air travel.
In 2010 – when she was last speaker – she personally ran up over $2M in charges for military travel. Just to be clear – the military does NOT provide congress with seating on normal military transport, they have about 3 dozen planes that are roughly similar to Air Force one, These are the same planes that Sec. Price was fired for wasting – Pelosi spent almost 10 times what Price spent for a single year.
Most of Pelosi’s travel – was back and forth to her own district each weekend. Further Pelosi has a reputation for canceling about 50% of her trips – often after the pilots and crew have traveled to the location needed to pick up pelosi and planes had been fueled and preflighted.
The airforce begged pelosi’s office for more advance warning if she was going to cancel and basically got told to F off.
There are emails indicating that the reason that Pelosi did not fly commercial for many of these flights was because she would have had to pay for her spouses ticket.
I do not think two first class tickets coast to coast cost more than $6000,
One flight for Pelosi cost the government 238K
Pelosi is one of the wealthyiest members of congress with a net worth of 120M
Just to be clear – Pelosi is not alone in wasting Tax payer money on travel – BTW the average cost for Meals and liquor for a Pelosi junket is $10K alone – that is more than most families spend for a years food.
Plenty of republicans go on this junkets.
So explain how this kicked anyones butt. Guess since I think both of them are just a huge ego sitting upon an asshole, I am lost in your evaluation.
They share the same asshole?
Gross.
😉
Democrats are lost – they stand for nothing beyond Trump opposition.
https://freebeacon.com/politics/the-lackluster-democratic-field/
No, they rightfully stand for TRUMP REMOVAL.
Here’s a question for you to answer: if one of the many conversations in which Cohen recorded Trump has him asking Cohen to lie, will you demand Trump be impeached?
I am surprised t sc responded at all
They hvnot typically responded to purported leaks
It is possible they are concerned because the ig report is coming soon
We certainly hates iPads
I can understand why those of you posting that way are frustrated
Above was posted by we in wrong place
You avoided answering the question
“Here’s a question for you to answer: if one of the many conversations in which Cohen recorded Trump has him asking Cohen to lie, will you demand Trump be impeached?”
No.
However if you have proof – such as your recordings, that Trump asked someone to Lie under oath – then the answer would be yes.
Lying and lying under oath are not the same.
Subborning perjury should result in impeachment.
Now I have a question for you.
Did you demand that Clinton be impeached ?
Clinton asked Monica Lewinsky to lie in a sworn affidavit – and she did.
That is why the Blue Dress was so important.
It proved that Lewinsky had lied under oath – and resulted in her testifying that Clinton had asked her to.
The issue was not sex, it was about lying under oath AND about subborning perjury.
But democrats pretended it was all about Sex.
So another question – is it OK to not impeach Trump – if he asked Cohen to lie under oath about Sex ?
I would further note that in an unusual move the SC office explicitly denied the facts alleged in the Buzzfeed story.
Mueller has pretty much flat out said that Cohen has NOT told him that Trump asked him to lie, there are no tapes of that.
You are again hoping for a disaster for Trump – against the odds.
I would ask something else.
I was mostly politically at Odds with Obama.
But from the election forward I HOPED that he would be a better president that I expected. Or I HOPED that he was right and I was wrong about most of the things I know to be true.
My HOPE did not alter my intellect, Still I did not want Obama to fail. I did not want him to destroyed.
Obama did not fail as badly as I expected – in terms of policy, though he still failed. At the conclusion of his term I THOUGHT he had served with integrity, if not skill. I have subsequently had to alter my view on that.
Regardless, it was NEVER my HOPE that Obama fail.
America would be better off if I had been wrong about all the issues I disagreed with Obama – we would be better off as a country if socialism lite actually worked. My intellect tells me that it can not – and I am not going to stop vigorously opposing those who can not see that and are blind to the facts and to history. But I do not HOPE that when we make poor choices they will bite us in the ass.
I would be perfectly happy to live in a world where Obama’s policies actually worked. But that is not the real world.
You actively want Trump to fail. You want him to fail even if that will harm large numbers of americans. You like many democrats are cheering for a recession or acts of terror.
Though Trump is less wrong on matters of policy than Obama – there are still things he is wrong about.
I still HOPE that where he is wrong – it will not result in disaster.
I have noted over and over that Trump is wrong – atleast in his remarks regarding Free Trade. But I still hope that the wrong choices he makes will not prove disasterous – even if they are wrong.
Mostly I think Trump is a quasi Free Trader. He actually beleives in Free Trade – but unlike most real free traders, he beleives that must be reciprocal.
And he is using threats of Tarriffs (or actual tarrifs) to acheive his goal of more free trade.
I do not beleive the end justifies the means – even When Trump does it.
So Trump’s bullying approach to acheive Free Trade is wrong.
But it is not more wrong than Obama’s managed Trade approach.
The point is that overall I hope Trump succeeds, or where he is wrong the failure is not too costly.
I hope that – not because I am in the tank for Trump.
But because I care about the country.
I am also very angry about what YOU and the left are doing.
Not because I care much about Trump.
Impeach him if you want – you do not understand, he was elected for a reason. One of the major forces driving Trump’s election was backlash against the left. That has not gone away. It will get worse if you destroy him.
Nothing will fix that short of the left backing away from its politics of destruction. Get rid of Trump – and you will inevitably get something worse.
We can debate whether there is an electoral majority opposed to the left – Trump did not win the majority of the vote – but he did win 63M votes and the election. If that is not enough – the longer the left continues – the more votes against them there will be.
Trump is not a threat to the country – outside of rhetoric he has actually been a pretty tame president. But what follows Trump is likely to be a threat.
One last thought. When democrats went Nuclear in the senate, they lost that contest, Trump will shift the bench by the time he leaves much more than Obama did. It is increasingly likely that Ginsburg will not survive Trump’s first Term – certainly not his second.
The tactics being used to destroy Trump right now – will be used against democrats in the future. Unless we stand together against this lawless nonsense. And you and the left are unable to see that it does you no good to “get Trump” if it costs you the rule of law in the process.
No I didn’t think lying under oath and trying to cover up a blow job in the Oval Office rose to impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. Did you? But I thought it worthy of Clinton’s resignation, and LOUDLY said so.
Trump is so despicable that I believe him lying about tying his shoelaces is impeachable, under interpretation of Trump ‘misdemeanor’ equivalence is equal to assholeness in modern parlance.
His assholeness is obvious to commentators across the political spectrum, including (as I previous mentioned) commentators you professed to have respected in the past. Here’s what one of them has to say about him today:
“Dislike of him should be tempered by this consideration: He is an almost inexpressibly sad specimen. It must be misery to awaken to another day of being Donald Trump. He seems to have as many friends as his pluperfect self-centeredness allows, and as he has earned in an entirely transactional life. His historical ignorance deprives him of the satisfaction of working in a house where much magnificent history has been made. His childlike ignorance — preserved by a lifetime of single-minded self-promotion — concerning governance and economics guarantees that whenever he must interact with experienced and accomplished people, he is as bewildered as a kindergartener at a seminar on string theory.” George Will.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-a-misery-it-must-be-to-be-donald-trump/2019/01/18/d0e05eea-1a82-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html
“No I didn’t think lying under oath and trying to cover up a blow job in the Oval Office rose to impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors. Did you? ”
Yes, and you forgot suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice.
There is no half credible claim against Trump that even comes close to the offenses of Clinton.
Trump had consensual sex more than a decade ago with an adult who was not a subordinate. And when sHE asked for money to keep quite about it – he paid her.
Clinton, had sex with an intern – a subordinate, barely more than a teen, in the oval office, while president, lied under oath about it, and persuaded the intern to also lie under oath.
Those are not Apples to Apples.
Trump has always been a “ladies man” and not in a sense that I find appealing. But there are no credible allegations that he has sexually assaulted anyone.
Clinton sexually assaulted NUMEROUS people and has atleast one credible claim of RAPE.
Clinton used Arkansas State Troopers to help lure women and to cover up afterwards.
Please tell me what evidence you have of wrong doing by Trump that come CLOSE to that of Bill Clinton ?
BTW – just because I respect someone does not mean I agree with them all the time about everything.
With respect to Will’s comments – he might be correct.
But my guess is that Donald Trump wakes up everyday happy to be Donald Trump.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe Will is wrong maybe you are wrong.
Ultimately whether DT likes himself or not does not matter much.
I remain as always more interested in what he does than what he says.
Yes, “assholeness” is an impeachable offense – because anything is.
But the final standard is the electorate. More specifically those who voted FOR Trump. It is ultimately irrelevant how many of those who hate Trump you can persuade to hate him even more.
I am not telling house democrats what to do. They are capable of making their own choices. But I would suggest that just like 2016 did not work as expected They should think about how 2020 might go depending on what they do.
I don’t have to to respond to your BS point by point in this ignorant comment, but these will suffice.
“you forgot suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice.”
That was blowjob related, not obstruction of justice, lying during campaign, colliding with Russian businesses lying like Comrade Trump as done
“Trump had consensual sex more than a decade ago with an adult who was not a subordinate. And when sHE asked for money to keep quite about it – he paid her.”
Which non-subordinate, the Porn Star or the Playboy Nude?
Show proof that either one asked to be paid.
“I remain as always more interested in what he does than what he says.”
He said HE would shut down the government and HE would proudly take the blame for it. So you accept that he’s to blame, right…
This is a pretty good explanation of why Trump’s low popularity did not matter in 2016 and likely will not matter in 2020.
So long as the left is at war with so much of the people, Trump is likely to have their support.
Even in the event Trump loses – that just magnifies the scale of the backlash after 4 or 8 years of another Obama.
On some of the issues raised in this article – I think the left is right. I support the actual rights of homosexuals, or other LGBTQ members. But the left wants more than rights. They want each and every one of us to be forced to accept their values – to internalize them – without debate,
As the author notes – Christians and Catholics in spain in the 30’s did not need to like Franco, they just needed to be tired of having their churches burned by the left.
You do not persuade people by force.
Even the purported Russian nonsense fits into this.
There is no claim that Trump won the election because Russians put a gun to voters heads.
Even the most egregious mythical narative of the left as to how the Russians gave Trump the election, was by exposing the Truth – the DNC emails, and by persuasion.
The open claim of the left is that it is entitled to control who can speak, what ideas can be expressed and by whom.
So long as that remains true all who hold any view outside the acceptable domain of the left, will unite in opposition. Behind Trump if necescary, or someone even stronger if that fails.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/karen-pence-condensed-symbol/
OK my Libertarian, “Stay the hell out of business” thoughts are at it again. In an NBC report about the superbowl, they comment “The Department of Homeland Security is heavily involved with keeping the event safe from terrorism and other threats, working with the NFL, FBI and local law enforcement agencies.That includes personnel from the Secret Service, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. All of those agencies have been hit by the shutdown — as has the FBI.”
Why the hell are American taxpayers paying to protect the business of the multi-billion dollar NFL, making owners and players who are already drowning in money, richer? If Disneyworld sees an average of about 55,000 visitors per day, with a maximum of around 100,000 that they reach during holiday periods, and they protect visitors through their private security forces, why cant the NFL pay for the security at the superbowl.
If security is that important, why not hire the unpaid government workers and pay them to provide the security the NFL deems necessary?
Or does the NFL provide the security and this is another “the sky is falling” report by the liberal press to scare people? It only made me mad because they said the government is covering the costs for the government assistance.
Much of what government does i either unnecescary or not its business.
If you are concerned – don’t attend the superbowl.
“If you are concerned – don’t attend the superbowl.”
Dave I never said I was attending the superbowl,
Let’s ask the 75,000 plus fans who will attend the game in Atlanta Ga (a Trump-Republican State) if they don’t want their tax money spent protecting them…
So you want your federal tax money to be used for Disneyland, Universal Studio, and other theme parks? You want your federal tax money being used for college football games?
Are these any different than the super bowl? They all have 75,000 or so fans attending at some point in time, many multiple times. The NFL is owned by billionaires. Why cant they reimburse the government if that DHS has to be part of security or contract with DH S workers as a second job once a year?
Jay, why the devil do you do the exact opposite of Dave. Dave supports Trump regardless and wants no government. You will tear down Trump regardless and finds nothing government is involved in unneeded or bad.s
I accept some government, but why should we spend millions on one game when there are other attractions just as attended and those millionaires and billionaries pay for their own security. These guys should also be reimbursing state and local governments because they are making millions on one game!
At an event as SUPER as the SuperBowl, one that would be SUPER devastating to Americans to see terrorized, with SUPER-DUPER world wide live media coverage showing it, yes!
GA is republican – Atlanta is NOT.
School For Scoundrels- the old one- might be one a good primer for T and P:
https://www.bing.com/videos…
Well well we’ll…
Mueller apparently isn’t out to get Trump atbany cost…
Exactly correct. I never thought much of this particular branch of the Cohen story, it’s based on speculation that is likely unprovable. Kudus to Mueller. I was encouraged by Barr’s characterization of Mueller, at least there is some sanity left in the world. It would be great if everyone, left and right would stop their hysterical over reactions to “sources say” stories and wait for the actual report.
The root cause is having an unfit scoundrel as POTUS, a cross between Jerry Springer, Alex Jones, Richard Nixon and Pat Buchanan. It’s natural for the opposition and press to go after him in kind, but it can backfire and yesterday it did.
It has backfired ALOT.
The entire 2016 election results were a gigantic backfire against leftist political correctness.
I would further note – Trump sought the spotlight since before I started college – a long long time ago. He long ago learned he was not going to get good press and how to capitalize on bad press.
I would ask you what message Trump’s supporters should take away from the Buzzfeed story and the SC office denial ?
One easy take away is that all the negative stories about are lies.
That may not be the truth – but so many of the negative stories about Trump have proven to be lies it is easy to understand why people would not trust anything negative about Trump from the press.
The boy who cried wolf – only did so 3 times before people quit believing him.
What of NYT ? WaPo ? …..
At what point is it that no one but the lefts true beleivers buys what the media is saying ?
“At what point is it that no one but the lefts true believers buys what the media is saying ?”
My pessimistic self believes 30% what the media is saying, 30% won’t ever believe what the media is saying concerning Trump and the other 40% are not paying attention and could care less.
Republican Congressman: Trump’s Border Crisis Is a ‘Myth’
A conversation with Texas Rep. Will Hurd, who knows the border better than most of his colleagues
By Andy Kroll
“Hurd’s district includes 820 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, more than any other member of the House of Representatives. But if you’re expecting Hurd, who was narrowly re-elected to a third term last year, to support President Trump’s “big, beautiful wall” and stand with the decision to partially shut down the federal government over the fight, you’ve got it all wrong. Trump’s border crisis is a “myth,” Hurd tells Rolling Stone, and a wall made of cement or steel slats is a “third-century solution to a 21st-century problem.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/will-hurd-border-wall-myth-781204/
And I can cite actual ranchersom nvm living on the border who say otherwise
You are engaging in stupid fallacious appeals to non authorities
Screw the kids, they should have stayed home, wherever that was.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-weighed-targeting-migrant-families-speeding-deportation-children-n958811
“WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials weighed speeding up the deportation of migrant children by denying them their legal right to asylum hearings after separating them from their parents, according to comments on a late 2017 draft of what became the administration’s family separation policy obtained by NBC News.
The draft also shows officials wanted to specifically target parents in migrant families for increased prosecutions, contradicting the administration’s previous statements. In June, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said the administration did “not have a policy of separating families at the border” but was simply enforcing existing law.”
Weighed not equal did
Therefore meaningless
Fake news
And the rest of the story becomes nonsense
More Dumb Dave Deception
You adamantly insist Pelosi was on her way to attend The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos on her stopover in Brussels before Trump prevented her traveling group from flying there on a military plane.
Official date for Davos 2019 (from their website) “Davos will begin on January 22 and end on January 25, 2019.”
Ernest request: stop spouting false bullshit.
So, most of us has commented on this need! So get off your butt and write both of your senators and rep.if you really meant we needed this. Can do it by email. Just one small step, but a beginning!
https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=ADB73AEB-5234-4B07-8475-8F79210878B4&fbclid=IwAR1CRQkBGqVwESNgULniQzXOWP_Emtuo8JRTxlrLeBFT1pTSeqZOmdlM9uU
Point of information:
It’s not necessary to get off our butts to email our Congress Persons 😏
Rather than a specific number of terms as a Rep, Senator, ….
I would prefer a fixed limit to the duration of ones elected federal service.
Say 24years. That is a career for most people.
You can have 24 years – as a representative, Senator, president, in whatever combination you can manage.
But not 25.
Well I am not going to shoot down the first creditable amendment to limit 99%+ of elected officials to 18 years over 2 possible years if one person is reelected president.
That is what is wrong with taking a position that compromise is bad. We either get nothing or we keep the current mess we have now. In your position of not supporting this amendment, we dont get term limits and we are stuck with the mess we have now. A double whammy!
I would also prefer higher age limits for public Office.
AOC is too young and stupid.
Stupidity is not limited by age. Bernie Sanders is not that much different, nor is Elizabeth Warren in their positions.
If we are debating age limits, I would prefer ones that limit elections to those where the president and congressional rep/ senators would have to be under 68 on the last day of their term being elected to.
Turley has an excellent balanced rational piece in the Hill today, the buzz feed story says more about the media than the president. In these wacked out times reading the thoughts of rational people is a comfort.
Link?
It’s not showing up yet at thehill.com
I can’t link on my cell Jay, but I just googled Buzz feed story says more… and it came right up. I think you will enjoy it when you find it . The Hill is my most likely source of rational thought these days.
Thanks, found it…
Best quote: “it is not a crime for politicians to lie to the American public. If it were, Washington would be a ghost town.”
More from the Hill (from Howard Stern no less):
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/424620-stern-rips-trumps-border-wall-something-the-morons-can-get
I’ve never been a Stern fan, but he nailed it and he knows trump well.
I like Howard Stern, and yes the border Wall is something Moron’s can get behind.
But Stern is making a typical elitist error.
He is joining what Nasim Taleb calls the circle of IYI – intellectual yet idiot.
You do not need a wall – if you have open borders.
But you can not have open borders without either radical social and governmental change OR disaster. Further the political support flat out does not exist.
Assuming you are not pushing Open borders – “the wall” will not solve every problem. Frankly government does not solve problems – not even those that actually are its responsibility. It mitigates them. Government does not eliminate crime. Nothing government does “solves” the problem of crime.
But many things government does reduces the problem of crime.
The wall is the same. It is not a solution – there is no solution.
It is an improvement over the status quo.
I would further note – Every single high profile democrat – from Pelosi, to Durbin, to Schumer to Clinton to Obama has been for “the wall” in the past – even voting for it.
Any arguments that anyone makes that presume Trump is stupid for advocating for a wall, make the same claim about All those democrats.
You can argue they have changed – they have learned, they have become enlightened – and perhaps they have, though I see no evidence of that.
Democrats oppose “the wall” for only a few reasons.
Trump is for it.
To preserve power.
Some time ago several prominent political scientists proposed that demographics was driving the democrats towards a permanent majority.
But they missed several important Trends.
Every single past minority has started as democrat and slowly moved to republic as their standard of living has risen.
Nearly every eastern european minority block, as well as the irish were solidly democrat decades ago – now none are.
Even hispanics move Republican as generations pass.
The democratic party can not survive without a constant large influx of new immigrants. It does not matter whether they are legal or not.
It would be preferable if they became legal quickly, became citizens and voted as fast as possible,. But even if those first generation immigrants did not become citizens or vote – their children would, and their childrens children, It takes about 3 generations before the shift to the right starts – typically, sometimes more. But it is inevitable.
Absent constant new immigrant blood – it is democrats who are doomed to a permanent minority.
And that is really what this fight is about.
For democrats – it is about survival – for the left it is about feelings. for Trump voters it is about jobs, for Republicans it is about survival too.
So I would be prepared for a long shutdown.
BTW if walls are so ludicrously stupid why is everyone building them ?
The rich build them, Even the aspiring rich build them, Businesses build them, and nations throughout Europe are building them.
One of the major factors driving Brexit – and one ripping Europe appart right now is immigration.
I follow Turley at Res ipsa loquitur
He posts several articles a day, many of which are carried by the Hill.
Which one are you refering to ?
The Buzzfeed Story BTW is “fake news”
Even Mueller felt the need to come out and discredit it.
See David French, The unmanning of conservatism. Most of all I appreciated his comments on Mueller as an old marine decorated for valor in Vietnam. French himself is a veteran who served in Iraq. Trump not only took the rich boys escape, he compared his sex life to combat and stated that” women’s vaginas are like landmines.” On the Stern show.
Those who served should get credit for serving,
Those who served in combat particularly
Those who served with valor especially.
But all of those things do not unfortunately assure integrity elsewhere in life.
I mostly respect McCain and would not join the idiots criticising his service – but his actions regarding Charles Keating were wrong – though aparently the norm anymore – See Menendez and Waters and … Further he and his staff were tied to the Steele Dossier.
Trump’s treatment of McCain was wrong – but McCain’s efforts at vengence were no better.
Rep. Duke Cunningham was the only Vietnam ACE
He was convicted of public corruption.
Rep. Rangle served with distinction in Korea – he was at Chosen
I disagreeed with him politically, but that is OK
He left the house in scandal.
I can go on and on.
I know little of Mueller’s service. But respect anyone who went to Vietnam.
But his record as a prosecutor and FBI director is ABYSMAL and CORRUPT.
Not necescarily politically corrupt, But corrupt nonetheless.
As with other people who served in the military with distinction – some allowances may be made, But not enough to excuse egregious misconduct.
Just to be clear – I do not merely Disagree with Mueller’s actions as Special Counsel, but nearly every action he has taken that has come to the attention of the public in a LONG career with DOJ and FBI.
He is proof that in government incompetence gets you promoted.
His carreer should have been over several times in the past.
As an example his vidictive personal destruction of Richard Jewel, Or Bruce Ivers,. or …
Mueller played a key role and pretty much always a BAD role in just about every high profile FBI case in my lifetime. Ruby Ridge, Wacco, The Atlanta Bombing, the Anthrax Letters, The FBI Labs fiasco, On and on and on.
The theme throughout is absolute faith in his own correctness – at the same time as being completely totally wrong and bullheadedly pushing forward anyway to the determent of justice and to the harm of innocent people.
And ALL of that is BEFORE Trump.
Pelosi’s vindictivenes
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/15/pelosi-rice-judiciary-committee-1102772
Thomas Sowell Still Brilliant at 88.
What he is pointing out – something that is pretty standard here – is that fallacious arguments – particularly ad hominem and Straw men, do not advance our understanding of anything.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/17/fact-free_politics_139209.html
There ya go again, filling in the blanks with your own words to distort what he said – the exact point of his article. Or are you too dense to understand you did that?
Figure out what you did yet?
Hint: keywords.
Or you could just read what he wrote.
Jay, I have been reading Sowell since I was a teen,
I am working my way through his basic economics text.
If one of us misunderstood him – that would be you.
Regardless, he was pretty clear – make your arguments without using fallacies such as ad hominem, and straw men.
So aparently CBS thinks MS-13 really is a serious problem.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ms-13-illegal-immigration-families-in-crisis-cbsn-originals/
The Supreme Court Unanimously ruled that the EPA can not regulate someone’s property to protect the habitat of an endangered species that is not actually cable of surviving on that property.
https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/supreme-court-victory-for-edward-poitevent-property-rights/
PLF is aparently going to follow this with a case challenging EPA rules that protect the habitat of an endangered species that does not exist.
One wonders why these cases even exist ?
At the same time – to those of you who have so much faith in government – this idiocy is NOT unusual.
In the past the courts have defered to agencies – so called chevron deference.
There are some hints that era may be ending.
Though there is a fundimental problem.
One aspect of “chevron deference” is correct. The courts are NOT the appropriate forum for resolving issues of science (or economics, or engineering, or ….).
The courts are supposed to be about law.
It is not the appropriate role for the courts to protect our rights from infringement by bad science.
It is their role to protect our rights from infringement PERIOD.
That is what it means if something is a right.
Well there are way too many on the left who believe whats the government’s is the government’s and what is yours is the government’s.
The refreshing thing about this case is the fact that there are resources available that fund these cases. In way too many, the jack boots know they can run roughshod over people and without money for legal services, they can not take it all the way to SCOTUS.
Do not presume such resources will always be available.
The left is very actively seeking to defund anyone who disagrees with them.
That is fundimentally the CORE of all these campaign finance laws.
That was at the CORE of Obama’s efforts to sic the IRS on groups that opposed his policies.
I had forgotten that Mueller was involved in the Enron/Arthur Anderson fiasco.
And AGAIN espousing ludicrously broad legal theories that SCOTUS rejected unanimously
More documents “disappear” related to the Mueller team.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/14/missing-key-documents-alleged-misconduct-robert-muellers-lead-prosecutor/
Whatever you want to do to Rep. King, you should be doing here to.
https://nypost.com/2019/01/14/pelosi-democrats-should-discipline-tlaibs-anti-semitism/
When you can not even get Glenn Greenwald on your side your toast.
Real Civil Libertarians – such as Derschowitz and Greenwald do not change their views because the party in power has changed.
Greenwald points out the FBI’s conduct though revolting and criminal, is not unusual.
That should be disturbing to most of you
But “Argh! Trump!!”
I was reading in an NYT story about the “increasing legal peril” facing Trump,
Where have I heard that before ?
In every single story about Trump and this mess.
You would think that Trump’s ability to survive “legal peril” is near infinite.
Or maybe the real problem is he is in no legal peril because there is no there there.
Regardless, it is near certain one or the other.
I would note that there is NOT and “i am not going to talk about that” priviledge regarding testimony under oath.
House republicans should have subpeoned Comey – then he could not threaten to leave.
Comey is losely correct there is a priviledge with respect to his Lawyers
BUT as thos of you on the left have noted – that privileged does not exist if the lawyer participates in a criminal act.
If Comey’s lawyers did not have security clearances at the time he shared the memo’s with them – that is a crime.
If Comey were actually investigated for criminal conduct – his lawyers could seek and would likely get a security clearance so that Comey could share information with them.
But that requires Comey to atleast be under investigation, and it requires his lawyers to request a clearance.
Regardless, Comey’s own careless handling of Classified information – and this is not the only instance disqualified him from his actions regarding Clinton.
You can not investigate someone else for allegedly criminal conduct that you are committing yourself.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-letter-reveals-fbi-divisions-over-clinton-case-decision-conflicting-claims-on-rosenstein-controversy
Another smoke free “smoking gun”.
Can I point out there is a reason that the left is always WRONG about these things.
It is not because Trump is some superhero or saint.
It is because the underlying alleged conduct – colluding with Russia regarding the election is so ludicrously stupid that no matter how evil Trump actually is he would not do it.
People do things because they benefit from them.
I can not understand why most of you do not grasp that tremendous efforts to get paltry assistance from Putin makes no sense. Trump could more easily Just pull a few nickels from
his pockets and fund a far better effort on his own.
Even if as the left claims – Trump is Putin’s operative – the last thing Putin would have done is risk exposing that during the election.
If Putin had Trump by the balls – Putin would not have spent chump change on bad internet adds. He would have directed Trump to spend his own money on something more effective OR ELSE.
I think the “Trump is a Russian Operative” meme is ludicrously stupid.
But if you really want to go there – atleast put together a scheme that makes sense.
What is even more disturbing is that not only do idiots on the left beleive this nonsense – but that in March of 2017 the upper Tiers of DOJ and FBI beleived this nonsense enough to try and investigate.
It is self evidence now – practically admitted that the core of the Trump Russia investigation – atleast post election was trying to twart and punish Trump for policy differences.
Trump had to be a Russian Spy – because he disagreed with “The Russia House” within the US Government.
Nancy Pelosi – Cleaning Up Washington !!!
For all of those of you so convinced hat government should interfere with political speach.
Get a clue – that is NEVER going to work out how you wish.
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/03/first-on-pelosis-agenda-limiting-free-speech-and-forcing-taxpayers-to-fund-democrats/
Trump’s Tweets Today (so far).
1—Dems already rejected my offer
2—We’re not offering amnesty
3—Maybe we’ll offer amnesty later
4—Or maybe I’ll start deporting people
5—Pelosi will never deal
6—Pelosi’s city is disgusting
7—Let’s keep talking, Nancy?
8—Hispanics love me!
9—We’re already building the wall anyway
Per Nate Silver
No string theory? Just to show George Will who is bewildered?
Is there a reason you can not cite Trump’s tweets from Trump ?
It is not like @realdonaldtrump is a secret Twitter account.
Separately – what part of these tweets is the problem for you ?
Dear lazy ass, you said you respected Nate Silver; all you had to do was google his name for today’s Trump link.
I do not consider Nate a “god” – he thoroughly botched the 2016 election. He has been very good sometimes and not others.
But that is besides the point.
Where possible I prefer primary sources.
It is not like @realdonaldtrump is an obscure source.
Do I trust Nate to cite correctly – probably – but everyone makes mistakes.
That is why primary sources are better.
Beyond that what is it about what Trump said that has you frothing and foaming ?
EVERYTHING that Trump says seems to set you off.
Trump is sometimes right,
Somethings wrong,
Sometimes outrageous.
He is not always wrong and always outrageous.
Most of the tweets you cite – right or wrong do not concern me.
“Gabbard says Democrats share blame in shutdown logjam”https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/gabbard-democrats-republicans-shutdown-1116066
oNavy is not going to like that. Gabby is going to find herself chairing the Capital Environmental Services committee. (Inspecting restroom, break rooms and cafeteria.
Sorry, my computer changed Nancy to Navy, Why, no idea, auto fill, spell check and all that auto stuff is turned off.(I thought)
Happens all the time. I reread some of my own posts and see what autocorrect has done with them.
Good for Gabbard
Screw Pelosi, Schumer and McConnel. Tulsi is still my #1 Pres/VP candidate, but she needs to get more name/face recognition to get traction against the big mouth phonies.
dduck, I agree with your comment 50%. For the democrats, I think she would be a good alternative for the top of the ticket. I don’t want to see her as the democrats token on the ticket as VP. She is worth more than a ceremonial attendee at world leaders meetings and funerals.
I would like to see a woman as president. I supported Elizabeth Dole way back when. But not one like the bitches that seem to be attractive to the democrats like Clinton and Pelosi. he democrats have many that are not in that category.
I don’t know enough about T.G. to know how far left she is and if I could find myself voting for her or not.But I do know she has the personality of someone that I could find myself voting for.
Aparently there was a furror accross Twitter and social medio over and evil group of catholic students in MAGA hats disrupting some native american protest at the Lincoln Memorial.
I say aparently – because despite all the media attention and jumping to conclusions the actual facts appear to be quite different.
I am glad that CNN was willing to post this statement by the purported “leader” of the misconduct.
Given what the much longer video shows, this student is far more polite and nicer about the real instigators of this nonsense, that I would have been.
The left ALMOST pulled off another Charlottesville. For a while they had many – including the city these students are from and the school and church they came from beleiving lies being spread about them. Fortunately these students were unbeleivably non-confrontational faced with ADULTS behaving badly.
But god forbid we should not view everything from the lens of politics.
I found it odd that we have thousands of left wing nuts behaving badly and violently throughout the country – and what makes the BIG news story is “fake news” about some catholic teens waiting for a bus after a pro-life rally trying to avoid a confrontation provoked by bigotted hateful racist counter protestors from the left.
So long as the media does NOT represent the facts honestly, so long as it allows partisanship to misrepresent good conduct as bad and bad conduct as good, we can expect those being favored by the media to become ever more violent.
I would further note – if you were a principle at a catholic school after this event – would you allow students from your school to go to public protests that advocate for your religious values ?
Of course not. Regardless of what the “news” finally is on this, the objective of the left has been acheived. This student has been slandered and traumatized , as have his peers, his school, and his religion. It is near certain that his choice, that of fellow students, that of the school and of the church will be to be silent. And that was the whole point.
Finally I would remind you that – you can silence people in public, you can not silence them at the polls – atleast not yet.
AGAIN the left lost 2016 because calling everyone who does not agree with you “hateful, hating haters” is itself hateful, bigotted, and often racist, mysoginist and homophobic.
The left IS what it hates the most – intolerant and full of hatred.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/20/us/covington-kentucky-student-statement/index.html
Dave, here is another detailed description that goes step by step with the video and is not someones own interpretation for the most part.
https://www.10news.com/news/national/new-video-shows-different-side-of-encounter-between-native-american-elder-and-teens-in-maga-hats
But what is so damn scary is those like Breitbart or Buzzfeed can post something that is complete lies and it goes viral. Few are verifying information when reposting. And the protesters creating the apparent problems go unnoticed!
Even Deb Haaland, a congresswomen jumps on the bandwsgon and chastizes the teens. How can we expect something different when elected officials dont check news stories before commenting.
Who thought when Obama jumped to conclusions and made his “race baiting” comment about Michael Brown’s trajic death and his family never holding him in their arms that this would become the norm in America, not just by politicians, but also by those that shape peoples perceptions, the press.
Was this the timeline?
Obnoxious Black Jews were cursing out multiple groups and individuals (they’re well known race baiting idiots, doing the same confrontational stchick for years).
They start insulting the Catholic students, who respond in kind.
The Indian Drumer and some Indians chanters slowly move among the Catholic kids, to get between them and the cursing black idiots.
And the Catholic kids welcome them with…. respect or ridicule?
Once again we sometimes get the wrong angle on a story, especially when our tribal instincts favor our pre-conditioning:
“Statement of Nick Sandmann, Covington Catholic High School junior, regarding incident at the Lincoln Memorial”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01…
This school may have some ‘splainin’ to do.
This just shows how something can get blown completely out of hand by people with an agenda. And there are too many people with an opinion before they know any facts. Their opinion is formed without any facts! They read, they react, they tweet, they share, all without doing any research before that happens.
And that comes from the morally corrupt individuals that call themselves reporters who write information like this that only perpetuates the development of racial division. Why? Because racial division in this country is GOOD. It gives the left an issue that will energize the minority voters to vote when they may not over accurate party political information and positions.
Why would anyone get excited over black body paint in a blackout game if not tied to racial issues? Please note in this picture the number of students dressed in black. Well, according to Snopes that school has “blackout games” where everyone wears black. Ever see whiteout games or redout games where people paint their whole frigin body with white or red? Well it is now only acceptable to paint your body with white, blue, green and other non-racial colors. Yellow (Asians), brown( Hispanics) and red (Native Americans) is no longer acceptable along with Black (African American) since all those colors are racist attacks on the minority races.
At some point all of this liberal propaganda that is being promoted by the liberal individuals that call themselves reporters is going to backfire. Either people will begin to realize the wool being pulled over their eyes by these people and they will begin to ignore it or we are going to be back in the 60’s with riots like Watts and other cities, but this time the death and destruction will be far greater because it will be national and not isolated to a few larger cities.
And then the liberal can blame Trump. Right? Oh, and by the way, that picture is from 2012 according to Heavy.com, whatever the hell that is, some rag sheet that calls itself media I guess. But Trump will be blamed all the same.
Ron, the “liberal media” covers race stories and people get worked up because of the larger context, historically and still today. Consider the Toledo GM plant racist environment lawsuit story that is also in the news now. Is that just liberal BS too? Here in liberal Vermont we also have this kind of thing, look up one Max Misch whose blatant racist tormenting of a black state legislator was among the racial attacks she put up with until finally she just resigned, not worth it to her to absorb any more punishment. Unfortunately the race story is not some long ago forgotten problem, So, people are interested in the racial angle, so the media covers it. Should they not? The wrong in some stories will be, er, black and white, some cases will be shades of gray, some stories will turn out to be wrong (but see about 50% of the inflammatory garbage FOX news puts out, also making a big profit on inflammatory divisive rear and hate mongering).
Blackface is a pretty out of place idea given history, that should have been realized long ago everywhere. Paint your face green for a sporting event, fine, the frogs have no feelings about it and no history of slavery, lynching, etc.
Liberals may tend to see racism almost everywhere, conservatives may tend to see it almost nowhere… and moderates? I’d like to think moderates take race stories on a case by case basis and don’t exaggerate it but don’t try to pretend it does not exist and is not painfully destructive when it is real, which it is far too often.
Roby, yes, people see things totally opposite in racial issues. I think “blackface” is racist and objectionable. It should not happen. Wear all black cloths, paint your face, hands and any other part of your body black is totally different. Wear black pants and paint your body waist up black is totally different.
But I see the world completely different because I am not looking for racist issues in every action. A blackout fans night is going to promte a “blackout”. Someone had to go back through years of pictures and video to dig up this picture.
Hear a story check the facts, write the article, publish the article..all fine.
Hear a story, write the article, find historical pictures, distort the facts of the picture to fit the article, publish the article, check the facts leading to the story after others find distorted facts, find article totally wrong, not fine.
But then I see nothing wrong with the beautiful murals at Notra Dame. A few objected, so they are all now covered.
http://time.com/5509116/notre-dame-cover-christopher-columbus-murals/
You can decide if you think this good bad or “whatever”.
It is bad – but not for quite the typical reason.
It would be nice if we could using todays standards properly judge people in the past,
But we can not – and I would not presume we will judge them the same in the future.
But obliterating them is not the right choice.
Whether left wing nuts like it or not, Columbus’s “discovery” of the new world was a huge historical milestone – as were every single other event that the left wishes to oblitarate.
When we hide these things – we deprive ourselves of the benefits of the knowledge of history.
It is possible that Columbus’s impact on native americans is far worse than most on the left claim. There is some evidence that the native population of North america may have been as high as 30M at the time of columbus and that disesases brought by early europeans wiped out 90% of the indigeonous population.
That number might be high – I am dubious that there were 30m natives in NA in 1492.
But it is still possible the number was pretty damn high
That would be worse than all the european plagues combined.
At the same time – Columbus changed the world – in negative ways, but also in positive ways.
Like it or not the western exploration of the world and the spreading and development of western though radically changed the world.
Throughout human history standard of living rarely rose by 1%/century – often lower than 1%/milenia.
Starting in approximately the 14th century – the tail end of the “dark ages” standards of living slowly started to rise. The rate of improvement would be considered horible today, but it was phenomenal in comparison to anything previous.
Initially this growth was almost exclusively in europe, Through to the 18th century it wa confined primarily to europeans – wherever they were located, but starting in the 18th century and exploding in the mid 19th century it spread throughout the world.
There is one and only one thing that strongly correlates to all the facts we know about this change in standards of living – the evolving high value of individual freedom.
Columbus and the spaniards may have infected the new world with small pox, but they, like our founding fathers and myriads of other westerners who =-987654
interrupted
who did dispicable things by our modern standards, also spread something ultimately much more important than disease, they spread the philosophy that improves the quality of human life more than anything else ever.
I do not know what Trump thinks of when he talks about making america great again.
I do not know what those who flock to his rallies think.
I am not sure they have a clear idea of precisely what they means
but whatever they mean it is absolute truth that the idea of individual liberty is the best thing that has ever happened tot he world by far, and that while as Newton said, he saw far by standing on the shoulders of the giants before him, at the same time, the epicenter for individual liberty starting in the 14th century was europe and it ultimately moved to the US during the 19th century.
That is our exceptionalism, it is why we still produce more nobel per capita than anywhere else in the world – by a significant margin.
It is also our gift to the rest of the world.
Switching from the positive to the negative.
Most of the evil that is attributed to white european men, runs through the entirety of human history and through every single race and culture.
Columbus is not even close to the must destrucitve force in history – It is probable that Genghis Khan was.
Western europeans did not invent slavery, they did not even perfect it. It existed throughout human history and remains in some places even today.
They did not invent conquest and as heinous as western conquests might have been, they pale in comparsion to those of other cultures – I mentioned Khan.
Separately the north american native indians are the 3rd wave of immigrants that came to the new world from asia. Just like the prior two groups and just like western europeans after them “they came they saw, they conquered”.
The genocide of western europeans is small compared to predecessors from elsewhere.
Muslims make a huge deal about the “crusaders”, yet islam has spread violently throughout the world right from the time of Mohamed through the present. Prior to Mohamed the mideast was filled with christians and jews, and other religions, Continuing right through today those are being exterminated by muslims.
Slavery including negro slavery existed throughout the world well into the 20th century.
There are blacks in africa and south america who are only a bit more than 1 generation away from slavery.
Absolutely the english ended slavery before americans did, and though parts of europe continued it after the US it was never as significant as in the US, But the west – including the US ended slavery BEFORE the rest of the world.
Some of what Columbus did – was despicable, as was some of what Jefferson and Washington and Madison did.
But even so they were AHEAD of the rest of the world – except for europe in ending these dispicable practices.
The left pretends that histories losers were somehow more noble and self sacrificing than histories winners. That is false. At the very worst – the west was no better morally than those they conquered, at best though they fall far below our modern standards they were the enlightened of the past.
Yes and no.
Superior cultures defeat and subjudicate inferior cultures.
That’s the process.
The left is no more prone to reevaluating inequities than the right.
Have I told you lately to GFY?
Aparently with the shutdown there has been a sharp increase in the viewing of internet porn.
purportedly by furloughed government workers.
Given that furloughed workers will eventually be paid for their furloughed time – that means US tax payers will have paid government employees to watch porn.
Trump shutdown the government. He proudly did it.
Trump signed the legislation guaranteeing furloughed workers will be paid.
Trump pissed away all that money, but you’re not blaming him for the waste in money and services… because?
Have I told you lately to GFY?
PS – food stamp applications are also up sharply among those not being paid now, as is alcohol usage and anti-depressants …
Jay, when you go looking for a new home and you find one for $600,000, but you think it is worth $500,000 (yes in CA thats in the slums), do you sign the papers, transfer the deed and the say ” I need a better price, how about $525,000″ , or do you offer that, negotiate and then sign?
Trump will come to the table. Chuck and Nancy will not. So Trump is using the only high card in the deck he has to get them there. If anyone thinks Nancy will negotiate a better border security system once the high card is discarded, they have to be totally insane.
This is no longer politics. This is totally personal on their part and 800,000 federal workers are paying the price. They could have come to the table with a multitude of different items, but they screwed themselves when they did not list the moon in demands along with no new money for the wall. They have nothing to give up other than money for the wall now and that is a defeat. Trump can negotiate, Nancy basically said no new money and anything new is a loss for her.
And the losers are the federal workers and American public.
Better analogy:
Your neighbor steals your car.
He bargains with you to return it for the full retail price (think $5 billion), but after a year he gets to take it away again and keep the ransom money.
Trump shut down the Govt.
He owns it.
Your analogy flew way over my head. Sorry, I have no idea what your talking about.
BUT:
“Trump shut down the Govt.
He owns it.”
You bet he did! Yes he does! In my mind anyway and for good reason. That is his Ace. If he discards that, he goes home with nothing, flat broke in the eyes of those who want the damn border controlled!
So answer this.
1. Nancy does not need to worry because she has 90% of her states border secure. WHY? What is the reason for that wall?
2. If a wall is so damn immoral, lets tear down all of it along the CA border and let all of those trapped in Tijuana into CA. And all the others in caravans coming this way.
3. Why stop them from coming into CA, but not other border states?
4. Is she not being a hypocrite when she is so dead set against a wall, but her southern border is currently being upgraded? Just this spring a third project near San Diego started, replacing approximately 14 miles of 8- to 10-foot-high scrap metal wall with an 18- to 30-foot bollard-style wall topped off with an anti-climbing plate. The project begins approximately a half-mile from the Pacific Ocean coastline and extends eastward to the base of Otay Mountain in East San Diego County. The project is estimated to cost $147 million; 50 panels have been installed as of June 20. WHY DO YOU NEED THAT? Shes says they dont work. Why waste the money?
Sorry when someone tells me I don’t need something but they have it because they need it, that is BS. That is just more division being created in America.
Let me help you understand, it’s straightforward.
Neighbor takes car.
Trump shuts down Govt.
N ransoms car return for $$$.
T ransoms Govt reopen & DACA RELIEF for Wall $$$
But the car return is temporary.
And the DACA RELIEF is temporary.
So the thief gets paid for stealing the car, and the victim loses the ransom money in exchange for temporarily driving his stolen car.
Ron I’m in favor of more extensive border security, always have been. That includes more fence/wall barriers where needed, but not across the entire border- a strategic and ecological disaster that would do far more harm than good.
According to this article, the $5B will build and replace 215 miles of a 2000 mile border.
So once ahain I blame GOP messenging . Right now it sounds like $5B will build and fence in the comp lete border.l
So I am going to say once again something I have said many times. What we have is not working. We have over 20 million illegals in the country. So I want to go back to the borders and entry rules we had in the 60’s when people in California could take day trips to Tijuana for whatever reason. South of us could come in without much checking.
If we have a drug problem, change the laws so drugs from south of us are not profitable. That could also eliminate gang problems. If prostitution is a problem, then change the laws to eliminate the profitability for cartels to operate brothels.
After 50+ years of doing the same thing and not making a dent in the problem, something new needs to happen. And it starts with a open border.
Ron, in the previous spending bill for border security Dems approved $1.6 billion for border fence upgrades and expansion. Trump has only spent about $0.5 billion of it, leaving a $billion unspent.
Come on, you know Trump’s a bullshit artist.
He’sFUBARing our nation beyond belief.
If we had a decent moderate Dem or GOP President, we could address the real border problems that face us.
REMOVE TRUMP.
He’s CANCER.
SAVE THE USA.
PS: Trump’s offer to “give” temporary relief to DACA beneficiaries in exchange for his wall, was already in effect per Supreme Court and lower court decisions.
“Trump shutdown the government. He proudly did it.”
Agreed – though I will note that he needed Pelosi and Schumer’s help to do so. Lots of people could have stopped this.
“Trump signed the legislation guaranteeing furloughed workers will be paid.”
Citation please ?
While we all know that these people are going to get paid for having done nothing – that is the norm in shutdowns that does not make it a good idea.
“Trump pissed away all that money, but you’re not blaming him for the waste in money and services… because?”
He is not “wasting” “services” – clearly unnecescary things are not being done. I fully support not doing most of the things that are not being done during the shutdown. I would like to see the federal government NOT do an awful lot more. It is never a waste to not do something that does nto need done.
If Trump actually already signed somethign agreeing to pay for all of this – I oppose that – and my guess is that in the future he likely will.
It is agreeing to pay anyone who has not delivered value for value that is the waste. Whether on furlough or working it is self evident that no value is provided by much of this “work”.
“Have I told you lately to GFY?”
Have you ever not made a post that was almost totally ad hominem and other fallacy from end to end ?
“PS – food stamp applications are also up sharply among those not being paid now, as is alcohol usage and anti-depressants …”
So how is it that people paid what federal government employees are paid qualify for food stamps ?
How is it that people paid HALF what federal government employees are paid qualify for food stamps ?
Regardless, those furloughed are FREE TO CHOOSE.
They can choose PORN, They can choose ALCOHOL, they can choose ANTI-DEPRESANTS, or they can choose to go out and find a real productive job. An honest job that delivers value to others in return for payment, value for value – like Garbage collector.
Just to be clear – I have no animosity towards federal employees.
Furloughed or otherwise. But just like you and I they are responsible for themselves.
My clients expect me to deliver value – or I do not get paid.
That is how it is supposed to be.
When I deliver value – I am better off, they are better off, the world is better off.
If you receive value without delivering value – everyone except you is WORSE off.
Personally there is little difference between federal workers furloughed and
actually at work. We get nothing of value either way.
Trump should end the shutdown – these workers have been furloughed over 30 days – the federal government can now legally lay them off ALL OF THEM.
That would end the shutdown FAST.
It would also end the idiotic obligation to pay something for nothing.
I am “proud” to be able to pay for those folks to watch porn. They deserve our empathy and support. All putzes are free to disagree.
You can send all the money you want to my paypal account and I will be happy to use it to “watch porn” for you.
We do not need a federal government for you to support people watching porn.
No they do NOT deserve our “empathy” – though you are free to stupidly empathize.
This is not about “blame”.
This is about reality. You receive value from others in return for delivering value.
ANYTHING else makes ALL of us worse off.
I fully support any federal worker Furloughed or not, going out and finding a productive job.
I have more respect for those cleaning septic tanks than people getting paid for doing nothing or nothing of value.
I do not care who you are. I do not care if you work for the government or GM or …..
What you are paid is for the value you deliver NOTHING ELSE.
If you do not deliver value – you should not be paid.
Ultimately we can only afford a small portion of parasites – those living off the production of the rest of us without producing value themselves.
If I must empathizes – I will empathize with those with little intelligence who are still struggling to hold onto and perform at whatever crappy job they managed to get and deliver some value.
I respect and empathize with the person who shovels shit to take care of themselves.
All of humanity survives even thrives SOLELY because of what some of us produce.
If at the end of the day you have produced a dozen hamburgers, you have given the world and yourself far more than those who produce nothing.
Free Speech is a right your survivial is NOT, it is paid for by what you produce.
“President Trump’s personal lawyer on Monday walked back the timeline he had offered a day earlier on when negotiations ended with Russian officials about a proposed Trump Tower project in Moscow, calling his comments “hypothetical” and not intended to convey facts.
The latest statement from the lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, was described as a clarification of remarks he made to The New York Times in an interview on Sunday, as well as other remarks he made in interviews on Sunday television news shows.”
NOT hypothetical: Rudy, you are a schmuck, and your client deserves you. Schmuck to schmuck.
I begin to wonder if Rudy isn’t secretly trying to subvert trump. Perhaps he was the secret author of the NYT resistance piece. It does not seem that anyone could be so clumsy. Or perhaps Rudy’s brain has aged as badly as his face. He is just part of the riff Raff that mysteriously surrounded trump.
Now this:
https://nypost.com/2019/01/22/giuliani-says-tapes-prove-trumps-innocence-then-says-there-are-no-tapes/
Jay – there are obviously tapes.
What there are not, is tapes documenting what Buzzfeed claimed.
You only see a contradiction because you are fixated on shallow analysis and semantics.
So let’s hear the tapes to learn what they do or don’t confirm. OK?
The daily Rasmussen polls continue to show a stable 12 point decline. Let trump and his supporters try to argue that one into a plus. He is losing the low support he had in the middle and is even negative in the white no college voters. Yes, this is a real sign of weakness.
I don’t believe the shutdown alone explains his decline. I think his declaration of victory against ISIS followed by the ISIS attack that killed our troops and his shabby treatment of Mattis also have taken a toll on his support in the center and right, along with his general daily nonsense. Some on the right are succumbing to trump fatigue.
Barring some large win for him, say with North Korea and or China, this a looking like a generally bad news year for trump, the year that trump fatigue is going to take a real toll among the 15% who have been willing to go along reluctantly with him. He needs a big win or else. I can see a path to trump not being the 2020 GOP candidate, his worst cases scenario set of events. I can also see a path where it turns around for him.
I can also see the possibility where Trump decides to be a one term president on his own.
Why? A president usually accomplishs much of their agenda during the first two years of their term. They all have a list of promises a mile long, but just a handful that define a presidency. Something like development of a major resort and creating a few small builings on the road coming in for gas stations, convience stores etc. The resort is what matters.The first term ends with most everything they will get done getting finished.
Trump has finished or has in process all his big items. The two in process will be settled this year. China trade and the wall. Right now all the reports indicate an agreement with China is stalled by one issue only. Intellectual properties. Somehow I see that getting settled through give and take on both sides where everyone can say they won. The other issue is the wall. I dont seeing Trump crumbling on this, but can Pelosi keep 25% of the government closed? At least there has to be two people “negotiating” to get something decided. Within 6 months, something will be done.
So what is left for Trump other than what the constitution actually authorizes. Foreign policy. Trump and foreign policy for 4 years? Really?
I can see him announcing that he will not seek the nomination.
Trumplestilskin will not leave voluntarily.
And if he’s forced to resign, he’ll pull a Nixon pardon from Pence, and open a GoFundMe account that will bulge with billions of Russian Oligarch Thank You Dollars 💵
The public support for getting our of Syria and Afghanistan is enormous.
So long as there are US troops in the mideast they will be targeted by terrorists – most of us understand that.
Our involvment in Syria has just about the least public support of anything we have done in the mideast. Most americans are happy to see ASAD & ISIS kill each other – and if the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis, Iranian’s. Saudi’s and russians all wish to join in killing we are fine with staying out of it. 60% of americans support leaving. Near 100% of the washington elite – of both parties wants us to stay for some unspecified time period.
This country is NOT neocon. But apparently the DNC has become neocon.
Had Bush rushed into Syria – YOU and the lest would be all over it bitching about how stupid a move that was.
I think that most americans regret going into Iraq and Libya today.
The only explanation for your position is that you are blinded by Trump hatred.
I have little doubt that if Hillary of Obama announced withdraw – you wouls support it.
I would note that AFTER the Beruit bombing wich killed over 200 marines Reagan withdrew US forced from Lebanon.
Lebanon remains a mess to this day – 40 years later. But it is NOT a place where american soldiers are getting killed every day.
Reagan was more quietly opposed by much the same people that Trump is.
Maybe you are right and Trump’s withdraw from syria has hurt him in polls.
But I doubt it.
Regardless, it was the right thing to do.
Nor should we draw down in Afghanistan. We should LEAVE.
To the extent I oppose Trump on this it is that he should have left sooner.
While I think you are wrong on public support – even if you are not,
sometimes the right thing is not the popular thing.
So apparently Twitter has found as a result of the CCS debacle that there are brazillians trying to “influence our elections” – favoring democrats.
Why can’t all of you give it up. You can not stop people througout the world from social media advocacy – persuasion over US or any other elections,.
And if we were not brain did and suffering from leftist brain rot, you would understand that WE SHOULD NOT WANT TO!!!!.
Freedom means accepting fools with geniuses, Sinners with saints, people who wish you ill with those who want the best. Freedom means the bad with the good.
The means does not exist and will never exist to separate the good and the bad regarding speech. And even if you think that might be possible doing so means using highly subjective value judgments, and an inherent presumption that you are not only right, but so right you can impose your will by force on others.
It is not even OK – it is how it is supposed to work when bad stories like the CCS “fake news
” get out, and there is push back and when we are lucky as seems to be the case, even the media is forced to correct itself. That is how things are supposed to work.
Twitter censoring the “brazillian” account that aparently started this – is WRONG.
Though not illegal. Just as we should push back against “fake news” we should push back against censhorship – even private censorship. If social media does nto get its act together – and that DOES NOT mean do as the left wants and figure out how to censor better, but to actually understand that free speech is THE core value they should be protecting not F’ing with, then either government will step in and that will be BAD, or social media will fracture.
What will NOT happen long run, is arriving at a world where the left gets to control what people can say.
Regardless, you can not police this. The price of free speech is sometimes we get bas speech. Get over it. It is how freedom works. It is how it is supposed to. You can not restrict the bad without harming the good.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/tech/twitter-suspends-account-native-american-maga-teens/
I completely agree with everything Fienstein says below – though I think she means something different from what she says.
We do deserve the FULL story – and that includes finding out what the actual basis for this investigation was. Because today 3 years after it started there STILL is not a basis to start and investigation.
Absolutely if the FBI …. actually new something we do not know that justified an incestigation – WE SHOULD KNOW, At the same time if there is nothing more than what we have seen thus far – then there MUST be consequence to prevent this from happening ever again.
Political witchhunts belong in congress. I have no desire to reign in either those in the house or senate from chasing whatever stupid glittery thing appeals to them.
The only exception being that congress is NOT free to investigate anybodies private life.
We do not need a repeat of the McCarthy commission and the house unamerican activities committee.
But investigations by law enforcement must be conducted LAWFULLY.
Just as we do not want the house or senate prying into peoples private lifes on a whim – the FBI and DOJ should not either.
There are standards – both in the law, in the DOJ guidlines and the constitution.
Those standards should be much higher. We have allowed the war on drugs to erode them
but even those too relaxed standards were not followed and there MUST be consequences.
If history teaches us anything it is that whatever the left does to the right politicially, the right will do back in turn – and visa versa.
I do not want Trump or some GOP successor using the FBI for political purposes anymore than I want Obama to.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, added in a statement, without directly mentioning Graham, that Republicans should “join in a bipartisan effort to get the facts to the American people, who deserve to know the full story of what happened during and after the 2016 election.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/426249-graham-angers-dems-by-digging-into-clinton-obama-controversies
Glenn Greenwald’s top 10 “fake news” stories about Trump/Russia.
You should see a theme.
I would bet that most of you still beleive atleast one is true.
NONE of them are.
Nearly all have been PROVEN FALSE – which is hard to do.
There ya go again, distorting facts to fit your perverse agenda, the Motherhumpers on the right are just as guilty.
Have I told you lately to GFY?
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
Jay
It is an article by the intercept – I did not write it.
Are you saying that Glenn Greenwald – on the most knowledgeable reporters in the area of nations security issues and solidly to the left of Bernie Sanders is wrong about the facts ?
And which facts would those be that he is wrong about ?
Regardless, while clearly you have had a beef with me,
You do not seem to have figured out that you also have a beef with the facts, and with everyone who has any interest in accuracy regarding the facts.
I am just going to address one of your “politifact” nonsense judgements.
I am going to choose one of the most outrageous ones and one most similar to the allegations against Trump.
Gutfields claim that Kennedy met with the KGB to undermine Reagan during the 1984 election.
I have no idea whether that is true. Nor does Politifact, nor do you.
What we do know is that AFTER the fall of the USSR when the Soviet archives were fairly freely available, a memo was found in those archives addressing efforts by Sen. Kennedy through Sen. Tunney to setup a meeting with Andropov and Kennedy.
The memo exists – if you wish you can search the internet and find it.
Many news organizations including forbes have run stories based on it.
It is possible the memo is a fake – crafted by someone after the fact to implicate Kennedy for some reason. Maybe, but it certainly has nothing to do with Trump – reporting on this memo dates back to atleast the early 2000’s.
Most have presumed the memo itself is real – meaning this is a real memo from the Soviet archives NOT something faked like the Bush National Guard documents. The memo first surfaced in 1992 – it was not manufactured for Trump’s benefit in the 2016 election.
That still does not make it true, the russians are infamous for “faking” stuff like this. Though that does not explain why they never used it. Regardless, it is entirely possible that the KGB concocted the entire memo with the intention of using it at some point to blackmail or embarras Kennedy.
It is equally possible that the memo is true – meaning Tunney did contact the KGB with the intention of setting up a meeting with Kennedy, but that the other issues discussed in the memo are false.
There would have been nothing wrong with a meeting between Kennedy and Andropov, just as there was nothing wrong with a meeting between Trump and Mexico’s Nieto.
Politifact’s verdict rests on the fact that Sen. Tunney denies that any of this ever took place. But Tunney would near certain deny this whether it was true or false.
So Politifact is actually incorrect. Gutfield’s remarks are NOT “mostly false”.
They are really just unknowable.
Now lets contrast that with the Trump/Russia story.
There is no memo – at the very best there are a few emails between jr. members of Trump’s campaign about the preliminaries of Trump meeting PUBLICLY with Putin. These are UNIVERSALLY shot down by higher ups in the Trump Campaign – Manafort, Stone, Lewendowsky. It is xtal clear that the top tier of the Trump campaign did NOT want a meeting between Trump and Putin.
Further as with Kennedy no such meeting took place.
The closest we have to “documentation” of Trump/Russia collusion is the Steele Dossier – The Kennedy claim is documented by a memo that ha a high probability of coming from the KGB archives. The Steele Dossier as we are now learning is MOSTLY the fabrications of Glenn Simpson, but PURPORTEDLY was from FSB/GRU agents who fed information to Steele for money. Accepting the latter – which is increasingly unlikely that is much the same as the Kennedy Memo – except received through a long “whisper down the lane” chain.
As with the Kennedy Memo – it is entirely possible that it is a Russian fake – i.e. the Russians themselves are engaged in a false flag operation – in one instance to embarras and discredit Kennedy – though they never did that, in the other an effort to embarras/discredit Trump.
You can beleive the memo is false, you can beleive it is true,
But it is very hard to beleive that the kennedy memo is false while at the same time beleiving the Steele Dossier is true.
Tunney denies that anything in the Kennedy Memo ever took place.
A long list of people deny that anything in the steele dossier ever took place.
In the instance of the Kennedy Memo the events are 40 years old, it is near impossible to corroborate or disprove details. Though even if the memo was a KGB fake, it would be presumed that the KGB went to atleast the same degree of care which purportedly went into the Steele Dossier.
If the object of the memo is to blackmail or discredit, whether it is Kennedy or Trump the presumption is that the Russians would have gone to enough trouble to assure it was not easily discredited.
Put simply – YOU and Politifact FAIL horribly at “fact checking”.
The “facts” are very similar between the claims regarding Kennedy and those regarding Trump.
You can weigh those alleged facts as you wish.
But you can not assert that any part of the Trump/Russia collusion story is more credible than the Kennedy/Russia claim.
To the extent one is more credible or dubious – the Trump claims are more dubious – those have been thoroughly vetted contemporaneously.
The DOJ/FBI Mueller, the Press have all purportedly investigated the crap out of them. If a single assertion in the Steele Dossier were actually true we would have some evidence – a passport stamp, a hotel record, a rental car record, a picture from a surveailance camera.
Though periodically the media bursts forth with some new claim that “evidence” has finally emerged – none of that has ever turned to substance.
I have no problem with Politifacts – claim that the Kennedy Collusion claim is “mostly false”
I have major problems with it coming from any source that believes the Trump/Russia claim.
All you have done is prove that politifact and yourself are hypocritical.
Let’s spend $20 to $50 million on border blockades and maintenance … while our infrastructure crumbles
http://www.businessinsider.com/asce-gives-us-infrastructure-a-d-2017-3
Proof of blindness – of course the ASCE will tell you we need to spend more money on them.
But someone alive more than a few seconds and not blind knows that claims of infrastructure crumbling are ludicrously wrong.
The US consumed 142B gallons of gasoline in 2017 – it is likely higher today that does not count diesel. Or taxes on aviation fuel.
Taxes on Gasoline and Diesel average about $0.50/gal that is close to 100B in gas taxes collected per year. Those taxes are purportedly earmarked for infrastructure.
That is more than enough to maintain and expand our infrastructure.
There is SOME gamemanship played with the fuel taxes, but mostly they are spent on infrastructure. Most of the “game playing” is stupid things like directing some of it to CA’s high speed rail boondoggle.
Regardless deploy your Mark I eyeball.
A few days ago I traveled to allentown. In my 20’s I did that twice a week. At the time it took 2hrs and about half the trip was secondary roads. Today it takes 1hr 20min and nearly all the roads are highways. Further in the 80’s they were not in good condition today they are in pretty good condition.
I am using Allentown as an example – but whether local or other longer distance trips – it is the same, their are more roads today, they are better, and in better condition than 30 years ago.
You have a choice – you can beleive your eyes and your own experience with the world, and that of every other human you know old enough to recall roads 10, 20, 40 years ago,
Or you can beleive the ASCE who is looking for more money and the attendant power and influence.
There is never not a good excuse to spend money if that is what you want to do.
There is never enough money for any task.
At the same time throwing more money at things usually makes more problems.
ARRA was a complete and total waste of lots and lots of money. There are several economic studies that assert that it did more economic harm than good
If we were not trillions in debt, If we were floating in money I would still say ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING.
I would further note that this appears to be an area where you agree with Trump – and I disagree. He ran for president promising to build and fix roads etc.
That is a promise I hope he DOES NOT keep.
Fortunately it is not one he is highly likely to.
Why ?
Because there are very few places in the country with serious infrastrucure problems.
And nearly all of those – such as Flynn are the consequence of poor political decision making.
Even Hamilton the current darling of the left understood this.
When the Revolution was over he worked to federalize all war debt – the war was a necescary function of the country and paying off all the debt was good for the country.
Later when many states found themselves greatly indebt from building canals – the infrastructure boondoggle of their times, Hamilton told them to go pound sand.
It is arguable that Infrastructure is not a governement responsibility.
Most successful infrastructure projects in the US prior to the 20th century were privately funded. While there was pork and greed and corruption and the government just could not keep itself out of things – selling land to railroads on incredibly favorable terms, mostly the government stayed out of infrastructure.
Our railroads, subways and bus systems were initially private. Most remained private through the 1960’s The freight rail system which after decades of federal mismanagement was eventually released from government bondage by Jimmy Carter is now the envy of the world.
We have an entirely private freight system that has no equal anywhere. It is cheap and at the same time profitable – so much so that the freight rail system almost entirely subsidizes our F’d up passenger system.
Interestingly given the current TSA nonsense in nearly all the rest of the world – airports and air traffic control is PRIVATE. Canada that bastion of socialism – completely private end to end air transportation system. –
So please – lets end the crocodile tears.
Dumb-Dumb…
Roads are OK, more or less.
Bridges & Dams another story.
This just shows how fragile our society is today. Foreign operatives know how to manipulate information , further the divide and undermine our democracy. And there are way too many that believe ” if it on the internet it has to be true”. And established media seems to have decided that reporting a story fast is more important than the facts behind a story. Now the problems are the threats agaist the school, death threats against the kids, cancelled classes and fear these young kids feel because someone made up a story.
I would love to see anyone and everyone who perpetuated this story held responsible to the fullest extent, but that will never happen.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/21/2020fight-suspended-twitter-after-helping-covingto/
The students probably have a defamation claim, That is about it.
The appropriate response to this is to learn that the press is not close to trustworthy.
BTW even National Review got snookered by this.
Regardless, what was done to CCS is immoral. It is not and should not be illegal.
We need to understand that we live in a “brave new world”.
That EVERYONE has a voice today. But that all voices are not honest and credible.
Free speech comes at a price – some people lie and try to manipulate you.
That is just how it is. Free speech is far to valuable to risk even the slightest threat.
I would personally get rid of defamation laws.
We do not need to go after people for successfully duping us.
They have actually done us all a service.
They have shown us that we need better discernment.
That we are way to beleiving of claims that fit with our preconnceptions.
The press has serious egg on its face.
But I doubt it will stiffle anything for more than a day or two.
So do not expect change from the media.
But YOU can change – don’t blindly accept things.
Most of those we pretend are authorities – AREN’T
Buying appeals to authority are stupid regardless – even when those go to a great deal of trouble to protect their reputation.
LEarn to be skeptical of authorities – like the media.
“We do not need to go after people for successfully duping us.
They have actually done us all a service.
They have shown us that we need better discernment.”
So in a time when we had a more difficult time communicating lies and personal destruction, we needed defamation laws. Now that it is as easy as posting a comment on the internet and it goes viral, we do not?
I think we need stronger defamation laws, not less at this time. That is because people access twitter, read a tweet, say “that agrees with my personal opinion” and they share across all forms of media they can get their fingers on. They don’t take the time to ask if there is any truth to the story. They dont make a comment indicating “is there truth to this comment?” They just post it as truth.
So in the era of written paper communications when a few thousand might see a bad news story, we now have an environment where millions see the same story and because it is retweeted/reshared..it becomes much more accepted truth. We are also in a period of time where those with “news?” sites are much less likely to check out stories so they get the jump. They make the National Enquirer look like wimps in media reporting.
How many times have you seen something someone shares from twitter that has no factual proof to back it up?. Then asked, how many people saw this lie or misrepresentation?
Parents would have to be idiots to pursue a defamation suit – imagine how minutely their kids online media will be scrutinized, and after their postings becomes public will they happy at what’s revealed?
The ‘grinning kid’s’ Facebook page has already been pulled.
Jay, thanks for pointing this out. Just another example of how those hell bent on destroying the moral fiber of this country and dividing us further.
Women took years before #metoo took root and those sexually abused felt as though they could speak up against a wrong.
How long will it take for people like Covington kids to feel like they can withstand the negative impact of exercising their right’s and not allow the liberals that are offended by anything they disagree with to lie and destroy reputations with no penalty.
Sad for America.
Ron, I also thought Trump would declare victory, count the billions his bottom line has grown to and proceed with the Moscow tower and his bust on Mt. Rushmore.
But with the threat of state and Federal civil and criminal, cases that could nail him without the presidential shield, I am now doubtful.
Pence can’t save him on everything, there is too much.
So he may hunker down in his bunker, if he manages to beat what will be another piss poor Dem candidate; won’t they ever learn?
Do you really think they would want to make a martyr of him after he chose not to run? And does NY really want to bring down his empire? He would be the front page news for years, taking all the steam out of a program promoted by a new president. And that could be a Democrat.
Ron, absolutely, 100%, I guarantee it. Most NYers have hated him for many years.
Why a Dem, BTW, if he leaves and the Dems put up another weak candidate, say like Warren, then the Reps could win.
That’s why I am hoping Kasich goes third party and draws votes from Pence, etc. Then I think the Dems would have a better chance (please!- without Warren or some identity candidate).
“But with the threat of state and Federal civil and criminal, cases that could nail him without the presidential shield, ”
And what would those cases be ?
Sorry. I see nothing that poses any substantial risk to Trump.
I do not know what to make of the SC denial of the Buzzfeed story – but my guess is that as the IG has been following the Trump investigation and as the IG is clearly very pissed that Mueller wiped Page and Strzok’s phones – that would be destruction of evidence, a crime,
That Mueller is himself now threatened and is probably dotting his eyes and crossing his t’s.
My look into the xtal ball ?
Mueller’s report is issued soon.
There is nothing substanitive in it, but lots of inuendo.
Barr publishes a synopisis stripped of the innuendo,
Democrats scream bloody murder
We fight over this for a few more years.
Eventually it all becomes public
And there is no there there.
I doubt Trump has much fear about this.
I think he is angry and upset – because this nonsense is an attack on his ego.
Not because there is any substance.
Since you really want to play the stupid pardon game – Trump does nto need Pence to pardon him. It is already established law that he can pardon himself.
But presidential pardons are limited to federal crimes.
That said I have yet to hear a state allegation that has much chance of making it infront of a jury.
And what Civil claims are you so feverish about ?
Most if not all were resolved before he was elected.
I am not aware of a meaningful civil claim against Trump.
From what I can tell there is a fairly high possibility he will win damages from Stormy Daniels.
Trump has already been awarded legal fees in Daniels defamation lawsuit.
What you have is all pretty much like that.
Wildly exagerated legal claims that are gradually being laughed out of court.
Atleast once they reach a court that tries to follow the law.
Self-pardons:
“The legal and constitutional ability of a president to pardon himself (self-pardon) is an unresolved issue. During the Watergate scandal, President Nixon’s lawyer suggested that a self-pardon would be legal, while the Department of Justice issued a memorandum opinion on August 5, 1974, stating that a president cannot pardon himself.[20] The 1974 memo laid out a scenario in which, under the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the president could declare himself unable to perform his duties and could appoint the vice president as acting president. The acting president could then pardon the president and “thereafter the president could either resign or resume the duties of his office.”[20]” Wikipedia
This looks crediable. At least its something with documents. Not sure how he gets them, but according to some stories he has outed many who have claimed viet nam in their background using dd214 forms
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CIXIzvyAlLA
Does it matter ? I noticed that he called himself a Vietnam Times Vet.
Regardless, Phillips is NOT the issue – he is not the one who released the video.
Mostly he just seems to have capitalized on the publicity. As well as following the lead of others in misprinting the Catholic students as aggressors.
The really big deal here is the press. They took a snippet of a larger video that was ambiguous in its meaning and they bought into claims that it meant far more than the video itself can carry and did not bother to research what actually occurred.
Dave, Philips is a good part of the problem. He could have squelched that from the beginning by simply telling the truth.
And my next comment might be something negative about Satan and see how you can come to the devils defense. Is there anyone you won’t defend?
“And my next comment might be something negative about Satan and see how you can come to the devils defense. Is there anyone you won’t defend?”
I will defend freedom – especially the freedom of dispicable people.
If we do not support free speech for those we do not like – whether they are Sandmann at CCS or Philips then we can not expect to have it for ourselves.
Though not important to the issue of freedom I would note:
The CCS students did not seek anything out.
They went to a pro-life rally – you can judge them pro or con for that.
AFTERWARDS they gathered to wait for a bus home.
At the time they were not protesting, they were minding their own business at the Lincoln Memorial.
The Black Israelites decided to harras them. That is adults deliberately trying to provoke confrontation with teens.
Phillips separately inserted himself into the mess.
I have not watched the entire two hours.
It is possible that the teens did not act perfectly for all two hours.
That is not supposed to be the standard.
And that is the problem with the media narrative.
Whatever the truth is, it is not what one brief clip in 2 hours APPEARS to show – if you make enough assumptions.
Everyone should not have to watch the full 2hrs to determine what actually happened.
That is what the media is supposed to be there for. To gather the WHOLE story and then summarize it for us – ACCURATELY.
It should be obvious to all at this point that the media not merely was DUPED, but they deliberately tried to DUPE the rest of us.
I keep harping that business depends on Trust – that includes the media.
Every single choice we make involving interactions with others has elements of trust. Particularly those involving exchange.
Every person here who carps on the need for government interferance in free exchange forgets that litterally billions of transactions occur in between every single one that goes wrong.
And USUALLY when one goes wrong the impact on the BUSINESS is huge and negative.
I wish I could say that would be the case here.
Unfortunately, those like myself who have lost trust for most of the media – have no more trust to lose. And those who think everything is about narative, who think that it is not the Truth that matters, but the “truthiness” – that the Covington Story is OK because even if false – well it could be true.
It is not true about these particular catholic Teens, or it is true they have just gotten good at camapflage.
When facts and trust lose their meaning the social fabric shreds.
Jay carps on me for purportedly defending Trump.
To some small extent I do. So far he is the least bad president we have had since Reagan. Anymore that is a glowing endorsement.
Some of the things Jay or others whig out about Trump is wrong about, or ham fisted or ….
But even when wrong, his wrongs just do not rise to the level of outrage we have.
I am not the big “centrist” or advocate of compromise. Yet those here who claim they are are taking EXTREME positions regarding Trump.
Positions which are just not warranted by the facts.
I do not like the way Trump tweets nor his speaking style nor the way he exagerates or embelishes., and occasionaly outright lies.
But though different stylistically it is not actually different substanitively from other recent presidents. In fact Trump misrepresents LESS that Obama did about things of consequence.
Regardless those of you who claim to be centrists, moderates, and to prize compromise – absolutely refuse to compromise over ANYTHING regarding Trump.
We have Jay ranting that Trump MUST be removed as president ASAP because ….. Well because he is Trump.
I would prefer a president different from Trump. But that is not one of the choices I had. I voted, and Trump is what we got.
Like every president in my lifetime, he is not the savior he claims to be or the demon his detractors claim.
As with Obama I pray that he succeeds – for the good of the country.
I pray that the tax cuts work.
I pray that his trade war with China works.
I pray that leaving Syrian and Afghanistan works.
I pray that his wall works.
I pray that he strikes a deal with NK.
…..
I do not agree with all these things.
Even some I sort of agree with I do not agree with how Trump is going about them.
But none of it rises to the level of outrage.
I am STILL outraged that the IRS engaged in viewpoint discrimination under Obama. I am increasingly incensed that our law enforcement and intelligence services were used to target a political enemy.
Compared to these Trump’s “outrage of the day” is inconsequential.
If Democrats ran a better candidate, I would consider voting for them.
So far that seems highly unlikely. Democratic candidates are rushing to apeas the far left like lemmings.
Over the weekend Trump floated his “compromise”.
I thought that was ho-hum. Is there anyone who did not know that there was a dreamers for wall deal to me made ?
Despite my personal disinterest, the offer seems to have had some impact.
and has weakened democrats.
Support for Trump’s deal range from 56% to 72%.
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/daca-dreamers-donald-trump-daca-deal/2018/01/23/id/838932/
Democrats have not countered, nor explained why they will not take a deal that a near super majority of americans – including hispanics find acceptable.
Even some left media outlets are arguing that congressional democrats must respond.
trying to predict the effect if this continues to drag on is reading tea leaves,
but my guess is that absent a significant large disaster easily tied (even falsely) to the shutdown, time is on Trump’s side. those on the left operate on feelings and their feelings for furloughed workers are more important than the so called principles that the left can not even articulate.
On the opposite side the longer this goes with little impact the stronger the future impetus to slash government.
I doubt Trump could get the public to support laying off 800,00 government workers. But I think 2/3 or the country could get behind a federal hiring freeze, as well as measures to encourage existing federal workers to go elsewhere.
Dave, you commented “Does it matter ? I noticed that he called himself a Vietnam Times Vet. Regardless, Phillips is NOT the issue – he is not the one who released the video.
Mostly he just seems to have capitalized on the publicity. As well as following the lead of others in misprinting the Catholic students as aggressors.”
You can defend his actions all you want. But in my mind freedom of speech does not include spreading lies and mistruths that flame outrage in others to the point that threats are made against people and organizations.
You may think he was only capitalizing on publicity, but I believe his interview on the news was a big part of this situation becoming much larger than it should. You can read and watch and come up with a different opinion. But I cant defend his words and their aftermath.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nathan-phillips-interview-cnn-falsehoods-inconsistencies/
That Trump that Trump that damn Trump, he deceived you from the start…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/22/donald-trump-pursued-business-deal-russia-hid-voters-editorials-debates/2642773002/
If you like your doctor you can keep them.
If you like your insurance you can keep it.
Benghazi was a spontaneous response to an internet video, not an organized terrorist attack.
I did not have sex with that woman.
All but the last of those had a direct impact on the american people.
But what about whataboutism?
BTW, have I suggested lately that you perform a self-rectal exam with cranium?
God, No! not the stupid Ukrain Platform plank argument again.
Please go and read the top 10 false Trump stories by Greenwald – the Ukraine idiocy is ONE of those.
The plank was STRENGTHENED not weakened.
If your reporter can not get that right – why should we beleive anythijng he claims.
As to what would voters do had they known ?
Obviously any claim is guessing.
But as the reporter noted, there were a LONG LIST of Trump matters regarding Russia that were PUBLICLY KNOWN during the election.
My guess is if I google it there is likely a Trump Tower Moscow story during the election.
The likely impact on voters of a letter of intent to build a Trump tower in Moscow would have had zero impact.
The fact remains even to this day, that while Trump openly advocated a more favorable policy towards Russia DURING THE ELECTION, the candidate with the strongest ties to Russia BY FAR was HILLARY.
Did you read the article ?
The “letter of intent” was signed in Oct. 2015.
That is 9 months to a year before the statements you claim are lies.
Nor has Trump’s desire to build a Trump tower in every major city in the world – including moscow ever been a secret.
Trump Jr. as well as other TESTIFIED to the senate than by Jan. of 2016 any deal trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow had FIZZLED. No one killed it, it was just their profesional view that the deal was not going to happen any time soon.
They also TESTIFIED that they were aware that Cohen and Sater were on their own trying to “revive” the deal.
So I am pulling a “Jay” and posting a tweet concerning government spending from Adran Norman. Thought some might find the information informative. This is why I do not support tax increases and support government spending cuts as well as a zero based budget….Never happen!!!
https://t.co/pnJ5X3wkfK
It is self evident by now from the shutdown that we do not need about 25% of the federal government.
To the extent that those ranting about the harms of the partial shutdown have even the smallest point – every single problem they address can be resolved for a small fraction of the 25% of government that is shutdown.
It is time to tell Furloughed workers that most of them are being layed off.
Do that and they can collect unemployment. That solves their immediate financial problems and gets them about the task of finding new jobs.
They will be entitled to back pay to the point at which they were layed off – whether they worked or not – but not going forward.
Ron, the GOP is screwing with you.
They won’t let you challenge Trump for the presidency.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/republican-party-passes-resolution-cancel-gop-primary-due-trumps-effective-presidency/
Not screwing with me. I won’t vote for him nor the democrat. And I might not vote for the libertarian either if it is some off the wall candidate they seem to dig up. I doubt Johnson would be on the ticket after losing 2 or 3 times.
I don’t have that much time left on earth so what happens in 2020 will have little impact on me. Its my kids that need to wake up and see what is happening on the left. AOC is not just another pretty face in the Democrat party. She is the future of the party. When she has most all the moderate candidates running apologizing for past votes and actions (including Sanders), one has no difficulty seeing where this country will end up in 10 years.
Anyone like me will be calling the Obama years the good ol’ days.
I strongly suspect this story will fizzle into nothing.
We do nto even know it is true and the state of the media is so bad that there is little reason to beleive it.
But lets say it is.
So what ? Some random committee votes not to have a primary.
I would be surprised if there is no GOP primary.
Though I do not expect a credible challenge to Trump.
Regardless, the RNC gets to decide its own rules – just as the DNC does.
The goals of the RNC and DNC are the best interests of their party – not pleasing the left or Jay.
I am not a republican – so I really do not care.
Even the libertarian party gets to set its own rules for people who wish to run for office as libertarians.
Ron, take a breath. The USA is not in it’s genes a left wing culture. No left wing radical like AOC will ever be successful at turning the US into a college campus. There are few things you can get 80 percent of Americans to agree on but 80 percent hate PC. AOC will damage the Dem party more than she helps it.
It more in the American genes to go too far to the right, as we are seeing. Even then trump failed to get his top priority wall when the GOP was in possession of all the levers.
The worst danger is that we are becoming a culture of warring ignoramous es who do not understand reality.
She’s like a female socialist version of black Harlem Charlie Rangel – a relectable irritant to Dems, but necessary to tolerate because of the small but vocal constituency she represents
Anonymous?, when I comment as I did, I am not saying that this will happen overnight. But I am saying that those like AOC can and will have a significant impact on the direction of the country drip by drip. And when the government does something, there is little chance it will ever be repealed. PPACA is a very good example.
Look at the democrats today. Why is Gabbart apologizing for her position on same sex marriage years ago when SSM was not politically correct. Why is Biden apologizing for actions during his time in senate. Why is Harris apologizing for her time as attorney general.
Because all run counter to the far left political beliefs.
Well I am asking another question. I am reading an AP article in the paper called “Ky. school under fire after online video” In the article Philips states he heard the yell ” build the wall” and “go back to the reservation ” as well as some on video making the tomahawk chop gesture.
So is ” build the wall racist”? If so I guess I am racist.
Yes, ” go back to the reservation is racist”. I think that should not be communicated.
But now the tomahawk chop. If that is racist, why can fans at Florida State and Atlanta Braves constantly chant the indian war or fight chant (aaah a aaah ah a a a aaah) and gesture the chop the whole game and not be called out? If its offensive, the its offensive, no exceptions!
First – there are several long video’s of the interaction. Thus far NONE have confirmed any of these claims.
The students claim that
They were chanting school chants – like from pep rallies and football games
They though Phillips was joining them – atleast initially he was supporting them, because he was drumming to the beat of THEIR chants.
Every single one of these claims that the CCS students were doing something evil requires you to buy a very leftist interpretation of some small part of what we have video of and to deny that there is any other possible explanation.
I do not think the students say they were doing tomahawk chops.
Are we going to examine absolutely everything that people might do at a pep rally or football game or a protest march and try to determine if there are HINTS of cultural appropriation ?
I do not care if they were saying “build the wall” and doing tomahawk chops. Or even saying “go back to the reservation”.
I would defend their right to do so – just as I defended those at Charlottesville.
As I would defend Phillips right to beat his drum and the Black Hebrew Israelites right to spew all kinds of slurs at these students.
Free speech is a right even those I do not like have.
But all that said – there is no evidence of misconduct by the CCS students.
At the very best/worst they might not have handled thing PERFECTLY.
But they actually tried. And we should not demand perfection of Catholic students, people in pro-life groups, people wearing MAGA hats, Trump supporters, ….
Just as the media CLEARLY does nto demand perfection from Phillips, or the Black Hebrew Israelites.
Freedom is messy, there was some tension here. But no one got violent and the only evidence of actually offensive conduct is that of the Black Hebrew Israelites.
Even Phillips does not appear to have done anything wrong during the event.
His mistakes are lying AFTER the event.
No chanting “build a wall is NOT racist”.
And to answer Roby in advance neither is “tomohawk chops” in ANY context.
You are free to constuct your own moral precepts based on whatever stupid criteria you want.
You are not free to force them on the rest of us.
Specifically with respect to “tomahawk chops”.
Contextualizing morality diminishes it.
Murder is murder. It is not acceptable in some context.
The more complex you make the framework fo morality the more you weaken it.
If you do the tomahok chop at a game that is one context. If you do it at an indigenous peoples event and you are wearing your conservative political beliefs on your head, that is another context. If you say build that wall, it is not racist. If you scream build the wall at a hispanic person as you walk by them on the street, yeah, that is a different story. There is a rich trove of youtube and other videos showing MAGA racist assholes harassing and threatening random black and hispanic people specifically mentioning trump, deportation, the superiority of being white, and the idea that america belongs to the whites and not their black or hispanic target. Go look, you will find that there are many of these videos. There is a real thing, MAGA asshole racist trump supporters feeling like trump has given them the green light to attack non whites. They would make any decent person ill to watch.
However, the nice Covington kid, Sandmann, was not that. I like the kid, I sympathize with him. He is polite, well spoken, respectful. He did nothing more than stand his ground and smile while someone beat a drum in his face without any explanation of why. And that after having been the object of a tirade by some wretched bunch of religious fanatics. I have read the tweets of various left wing celebrities directed at the lady who invited Sandmann on her TV show, comparing the kid to nearly every mass murdering fiend in history I think the attacks on him are disgusting, I loathe the people doing it. Unhinged fanatics who have lost all perspective and the better part of their humanity with it. Vile. The right lost their tiny minds because AOC danced. Now the left are losing their tiny minds because Sandmann smiled.
Now, the other side. David Hogg tweeted in response to the Sarah Sanders tweet that she had “never seen so many people so happy to destroy the life of a kid”. Hogg tweeted: “Really?” Touche. Sympathy only goes to one’s ideological friends. There is no actual principle involved for these people.
Now, Hogg came into the public eye because had his fellow students and friends massacred while he and others tried to hide from the mass murdering nut in his school and he decided to become politically active. Sandmann had a drum beaten in his face and was made a media object.. Attacking Hogg the way many conservatives did made me puke. Our chief trump worshiper here joined in enthusiastically on the Hogg bashing, I did not say anything. it was not worth it, its who she is. But my opinion of her and anyone doing that …. Laura Ingram has a gay brother who has denounced her character, and boy is he ever in the know. Ingram is very popular and predictably has made Sandmann a cause, oh, how could people be so cruel to a kid she would like to know. This has made Ingram a wealthy woman because there are so many who are like her.
These disgusting people are destroying us. Some are even getting rich doing it. To all the sanctimonious bastards and bitches on the right who tried to destroy one kid and with no sense of irony or human decency turned around and praised and defended another one, making ideological pawns of kids lives, and to those on the left who saw what was wrong with the right wing attacks on Hogg but are now attacking Sandmann in the same way, Fuuuucccckkk You! I loathe hate and despise these ideologically driven nuts who using technology to turn America into a fucking Jerry Springer shit fight.
Roby, good comments. I agree, especially the last comment.
But I do question the issue with the tomahawk chop. If schools have eliminated their indian mascots and there is such a roar over “Red Skins”, then why not Atlanta doing the chop. It sure does not signify indians chopping wood!
I understand Florida State for the most part. They have permission from the Seminole tribe to use that nickname and they have had good relationship since 1947 with the tribe.
According to Baseball Reference, “during the 1960s, the F.S.marching band “the War Chiefs” introduced a Seminole cheer, which was called the “massacre” in which the band chanted to a “Native American” beat. This was apparently the first stage as well as the long version of the current popular Seminole cry. It is believed that students from a fraternity section of the stadium began waving their arms in a “chopping motion”, a repetitious bend at the elbow, to symbolize a tomahawk swinging down. The gesture has generated a lot of criticism, as perpetuating stereotypically false images of native savagery.”
Well the natives Were savage, while the European invaders were even more effective savages. War is for savages. I am am sure that you personally would not do the tomohok chop in front of a native American and you might be horrified if one of your family or friends did. It’s a matter of context.
Some members of that school group we’re actually being buttholes, it’s common enough among teens and does not require a maga hat or media attention. Their group served as a sort of rorscharch test, people saw what they wanted to see. I saw silly typical teens.
Anonymous equals Roby (unless some other anonymous pops up).
Culture is not OWNED.
That is just nonsense.
It is also stupid in other ways.
A sports “tomahawk chop” is not the same as an actual tomahawk chop” the one is clearly what is typically called “fair use” a parody of sorts of the other.
It may be a sign of respect or disrespect, it also may be a sign that the crowd likes the last play.
We could call it a karate chop and it would be the same thing – but that is appropriating Japanese culture – or is it Chinese or is it Tibetain or is it Korean or is it indian. And that is the point, these things are not owned.
Are we all forbidden from wearing clothes – because that is cultural appropriation of some long lost culture ?
Must we all give up eating corn ?
This entire mess is nonsense. Get over it. No culture owns or controls even their own image to the world. Not even whites.
What is moral does nto change based on what hat you are wearing.
Is there a context in which you think rape is acceptable ?
Everything that someone else chooses to be offended by is not a moral offense.
BTW this was NOT an indiginous peoples event.
This occured at the lincoln memorial on the mall in DC after a pro-life rally these students were attending.
If you are going to make a huge deal out of context – that is the context.
There were likely other “events” at the mall. There was no “indiginous peoples event”.
There near certainly were lots of groups of people sharing some common theme throughout the mall.
We can not define morality such that moving 100 ft at random changes what is and is not moral.
Support for a wall is approximately the same among hispanics as whites.
There is no special reason to beleive that hispancis would take any more offense than others to “build a wall”.
If you “scream” at someone – you are likely wrong because you are screaming, not because of what you are screaming.
Regardless, the morality of what you are saying is NOT based on the emotional reaction of those who are hearing.
This contextual morality argument is nonsense.
If you try to apply it logically it will blow up in your face.
Is AOC immoral because I am scared of what she says ?
This is a variation of the ludicrously stupid “safe space” argument.
Your “safe space” is your home. In that space YOU get to decide what others may say, and if they can not follow your rules, you may exclude them.
In other peoples space YOU do nto get to make the rules.
In public that is the space owned by governement, there are very few rules allowed.
Regardless no group is entitled to some protection of their “feelings” is all groups are not entitled to protection of their feelings.
I am glad that you deen to grant Sandman his rights because you have sympathy for him. Because he is polite, etc.
Get a clue – you do not get to grant others their rights. Rights are NOT something you must earn, If Sandman was the same kind of total asshole the Black Hebrew Israelites were – he is still entitled to his rights.
I will take your word for the accuracy of Sander’s remarks to Hogg.
But Hogg did not get thrust on the public stage HE CHOOSE IT.
Myriads of other students shared the same experience – many of whom hold complete opposite views to his.
Hogg is absolutely entitled to speak. He is NOT entitled to have his words or himself respected. Respect is earned by your conduct, not what randomly happened to you.
Respect is NOT a right. Hogg has a right to speak, he does not have a right to respect.
Absolutely there are MAGA hatted assholes out there.
There are assholes in absolutely every possible flavor there is.
NO advocating for MAGA does NOT mean condoning the violence of a few assholes.
But addressing your ACTUAL premise – the political violence committed by people in MAGA hats or Trump supporters is MINISCULE compared to that commited by those on the left.
There has been more violent leftist nonsense in Portland than the entire right combined since Trump’s election.
Yes, you can find videos – and I can follow them with 20 videos of those on the left behaving badly.
Your argument is GARBAGE.
There is an issue with political violence today – and that issue is on the left.
The existance of a few idiots on the right – because there are ALWAYS a few idiots, does NOT impugn the entire right. Nor even merely Trump and Trump supporters.
BUT the huge disparity between violence on the left and violence on the right demonstartates that if there is any innate tendency to violence, if there is some core ideological tie to violence it is from the LEFT.
I do expect that if all this continues eventually you will get REAL violence from the right.
There are circumstances in which violence is actually justified.
I address justification CONSTANTLY here – and you ignore it.
But here you are once again on a moral soap box, spraying rules of morality to the res of us without ANY foundation for those rules.
You say context matters – WHAT PRINCIPLE underpins that assertion ?
Or is your concept of morality just a random collection of rules that “feels good” to you ?
What PRINCIPLES that we all or most all share entitles you to determine that context matters with regard to morality ?
Violence is justified in response to actual violence.
Violence is also justified when the rule of law breaks down.
If you are going to step up on a moral soap box and attempt to impose the rules of conduct and morality on others – they you are OBLIGATED to defend those rules and to provide the principles they are based on.
Your rights you freedom pertain to your own domain, when you seek to impose on others by force, you are outside your rights, and you are obligated to justify your infringement ont he rights of others.
“Go look, you will find that there are many of these videos. There is a real thing, MAGA asshole racist trump supporters feeling like trump has given them the green light to attack non whites. They would make any decent person ill to watch.”
Given that we live today in the cell phone video youtube culture – actually there are very very few of these videos. You can easily find ten times as many of leftists behaving violently.
If you are going to make a stupid “fear” justification, then you should be aware of the actual facts regarding what we should realistically fear.
You child is a thousand times more likely to be killed by what is under your kitchen sink than by a school shooter.
In any given news story claiming so violence by some Trump supporter – the odds favor the story being WRONG. As an example Christian was just a garden variety paranoid, but if you really wish to wrap him in politics – his social media portrayed him as a Sanders supporter.
NYC spiked reports of Hate Crimes after Trump’s election – with an equal sized spike in FALSE reports – hmm,
How many stories of muslim girls being attacked by MAGA hatted boogeymen have to turn out to be a daughter afraid of being beaten by her father for being out late before you grasp that there is no MAGA hatted monster under the bed.
Yet, throughout the country we have real instances of real violence by those on the left.
Mobs beating in Tucker Carlson’s door, or chasing an assortment of republicans out of resturaunts. Antifa taking over the streets of seattle and beating old men who just want to drive down the street. And on and on.
Did you not see the video’s of berkeley burning when Milo tried to speak ?
Or Murray and his left wing college professor escort being beaten as they were driven out of middlebury ?
I can come up with dozens of incidences where campus violence has shutdown a non-left wing speaker – and even a few where those on the left have shutdown one of their own (evergreen).
I can come up with more individual videos of left wingnuts being violent than there were members of the alt right at charlottesvile.
If there is a political violence problem in this country today – it comes from the left.
And Laura Ingram is an example of what ?
Right wing violence ?
I only marginally know of her and I do not care.
Nor do I care about her “character” or what her gay brother thinks about her “character”.
You are free to have whatever oppinions of other peoples character you want.
That does nto make you right,
Nor does it justify violence.
I honestly can not grasp why you bring up Laura Ingram – aside from an oblique oppinion that she has bad character and you do not like her.
How exactly is it that a compare and contrast between her and Sandman is meaningful.
Sandman is a high school student at a right to life march. H did not ask for national attention.
In a confrontation not of his chosing he managed well – not perfectly but well.
And in response the left trashed him – and now is making excuses.
There is no excuse to justify the behavior of the left regarding these students.
Ingram is a talking head. To my knowledge she has not advocated for violence.
Saying that she is a talking head is probably the same as saying that she is an asshole.
And that would apply to Maddow, Tapper, Acosta, ….
She bears more responsibilty for what she says – because no one accidentally thrust her into the spotlight, she chose it.
Regardless, I can make no sense of your comparison.
I have made Sandman a cause – as I have about just about anyone over free speech.
Does making an issue into a cause make you morally repugnant ?
Unfortunately I am not getting wealthy at it.
But I welcome donations.
Regardless, how does the fact that Ingram has gotten wealthy matter at all ?
Do you think Tapper is not wealthy or Anderson Cooper ?
I do not know alot about Ingram except that she is on the right.
What I have learned from you is:
She has bad character – because her gay brother says so.
She has made Sandman into a cause and somehow that is dubios.
She is wealthy – and that is the equivalent of evil – except if you are on the left.
What is your point regarding Ingram ?
The difference between the right wing attacks on Hogg and the left wing attacks on Sandman is trivial.
Hogg CHOOSE the spotlight.
No one sane thinks ill of Hogg because he was shot at in school.
But Hogg stepped onto the public stage on his own.
If you step up on the soap box you should expect others who disagree to try to take you down. There is nothing wrong or immoral about that.
Sandman did NOT seek the public spotlight. He was at the Lincoln memorial after a protest waiting for a bus, when the Black Hebrew Israelites, and Nathan Phillips approached Sandman and his group unsolicited, and they posted a video of the encounter on the internet, and they the left attacked Sandman FALSELY based not on his own chosen efforts at public advocacy but on false representations of conduct that was never intended as public expression of his views.
Put differently – Sandman has a compelling defamation case – Hogg does not.
There is no moral equivalence between attacks on Sandman and attacks on Hogg.
Yeah, here is one of those MAGA hatted violent loons.
More violent maga hatted racists.
More violent MAGA hatted right wingers
More of that Trove of videos
Aparently people wearing american flag hats are violent too!
More MAGA violence
Even dangerous violent 3rd graders in MAGA hats.
And violent MAGA hatted 6th graders
More violent MAGA hat wearers in the university.
Violent blacks wearing MAGA hats.
More violent MAGA hat conduct in High School.
And violent Gay latino maga hat wearing republicans.
I’m old enough to remember this…
“I will shut down the government. I am proud to shut down the government. I will be the one to shut it down. I am not going to blame you for it. I will take the mantle of shutting it down.” –
According to an AP-NORC poll, 6 in 10 Americans blame Trump for the government shutdown.
“Overall, 34 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s job performance in a survey conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That’s down from 42 percent a month earlier and nears the lowest mark of his two-year presidency.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-shows-a-vast-majority-of-americans-blame-president-trump-for-shutdown-2019-01-24
Today the short-term Schumer funding bill to reopen the government got more votes than the Trump-backed bill – in a Republican Senate.
Republican senators who voted for House-passed Democratic non-wall proposal:
• Sen. Alexander
• Sen. Collins
• Sen. Gardner
• Sen. Isakson
• Sen. Murkowski
• Sen. Romney
So ?
Think hard.
You’ll see the implication.
My opinion has been the same throughout. Trump and the GOP blew this. They had two years to do this . They lost the house , big time. Their train has left the station. The principal this is about now is that if we don’t want Ann coulture shutting down the government by tweet every year then this has to end. Coulture has backed trump into a losing position. The people who made the choice to hold the workers hostage and shut down vital service s have to learn. That happens only by them losing. That are losing.
Anon, I could agree if it were not for Trump. Trump always seems to have an ace in the hole. Pelosi cancel SOTU, Trump cancel trip (just an example, no debate needed as to who won on that one since that has already happened).
And I think he is willing to allow the agencies to stay closed until some agreement is reached. Remember, he is not a politician, he is a businessman, using legal or illegal methods depending on your views. And in that he would be more inclined to stand his ground than a politician worried about a career that might get cut short.
Ron at some point it will occur to him that he can’t winby pleasing 35 percent of the people and making permanent enemies of many more people than he is pleasing. He would fare better by folding for the sake of the country. Every day that passes puts him in a weaker position. Even he will eventually have to see that. When you are in a hole, stop digging even if your name is trump.
This is not about Colture.
You are free to beleive as you please.
Trumps numbers rose a few points in this week.
Trump has a major advantage in this – he really does not have very far down he can go. His core supporters will be with him no matter what.
I think Pelosi and Schumers approval is below 20%.
I have no idea what is going to happen – maybe Trump will cave soon.
Though I doubt it. He has no reason to.
Do you honestly think pressure on Trump is building ?
I have been hearing you and the rest of the left spouting that whatever the fake news of the day or the outrage of the day is the last straw.
You claim Trump’s numbers are down – they are something live 7pts ABOVE his low. They are about 5pts above Obama’s low,. They are above the numbers on election day – if this is Trump in trouble what Does Trump doing well look like ?
The shutdown has gone 5 weeks, The world has not ended. There is no compelling reason it can not go on indefinitely.
There is no compelling reason for Trump to give in.
Trump has offered a compromise. I do not think that compromise is that big a deal. Pretty much everyone knew Trump would accept a dreamers for Wall deal. But he has made it official. What is more likely is that Republicans will not accept that deal.
I would remind you that Trump’s big deal is the wall, But Senate Republicans are less attached tot he wall than to other issues that democrats do not want that Trump does not care about.
Any deal is likely to require alot of senate democrats to vote for it – because several senate republicans will vote against it.
Regardless something like 70% support Trump’s deal.
PPACA never saw that kind of public support.
I find it odd that in politics – the purportedly democratic left does not need popular majority support to get legislation passed, yet Republicans can not pass legislation like Trump’s immigration deal that has 70% support, or Voter=ID that has 70% support from MINORITIES.
And we have to listen to this garbage from the left that things that 70% of the people want are racist.
Look I do not think something should be done just because 70% of people want it.
But according to the things you tell me are your principle – you do.
So my libertarian is coming out. I am dead set against almost all government seizure of assets, especially by eminent domain. Much of “the wall” money is for a new wall where there is no wall in Texas. All of that land is privately owned and according to most reports I have read, land owners will not sell land based on current land values. That means owners will face seizure based on assessed value of the land using eminent domain. They will take this to every court possible and can tie it up for almost 10 years before it may get to SCOTUS ( also legal thinking not mine). In addition, some of it is along the river. Walls cant be built along rivers and in flood plains, so it gets moved back, allowing.immigrants to cross river, put one foot on USA land and then the processing in court begins. So in these areas nothing changes.
So I am back to taking down all walls, changing any federal laws that support illegals, revising any regulations that encourage illegal entry so that is not present and letting them in. If the states want to use state funds for illegals, that is their right.
The thing is you can not have laws that 50% of the country enforces and 50% that looks the other way. You cant have one state protected with walls and three states with open borders for the most part. And that is what we have today
There has never been a point in time when Republicans had 60 votes in the senate.
Some poll by a Utah paper found 58% found the shutdown as no big deal.
Of course that is Utah
Then there is
“Latinos are increasingly rallying for President Trump, according to data from a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.
The poll notes that 50 percent of Latinos surveyed approve of the job Trump is doing, a 19-point increase from December of last year.”
I think one needs to be careful about polls – because they provide binary representations of values and values are not binary.
It is not so important how many people feel the Shutdown is a bad thing, it is important how many people are changing their votes based on the shutdown and HOW are they changing them.
You make a big deal of the house takeover by democrats.
Yet historically that is what happens.
Still I was surprised by it. I expected the democrats to do less well.
So that means something.
At the same time the Republicans did better than expected in the Senate, and came close to doing MUCH better than expected.
Democrats now own the house. They will own what they do with it in 2020.
Dave please document the NPR poll about latinos support of trump. I tried to find it and could not locate what you quote. Thanks
Ron
Trump does not have any Aces in the hole.
Things have generally worked out in his favor – because democrats and the press have jumped the shark on everything.
I constantly here on the news that the story of the moment is the last straw, or the begining of the end.
All that presumes that there is some great evil that Trump has done that must eventually out.
What if there is not ?
It is increasingly evidence that all the attacks on Trump are manufactured.
They have no basis in facts.
Trump does not pull aces from up his sleeve, he does not need to. So long as the claims against him are false – he has little to worry about.
I am honestly surprised that Trump derangement syndrome has continued this long.
One of the things we have all learned from political scandals – such as those of the clinton’s, is that it does not matter what the truth is, if you can drag things out long enough people lose interest.
Had everything come out regarding Clinton all at once – he would have been impeached, convicted and removed.
Had everything regarding the criminal politicaly corrupt investigation of Trump came out at once – half DOJ would be in jail now.
Had everything regarding Trump come out at once ? Nothing.
Because there is nothing. In fact overtime every bit of inuendo has eventually turned to dust.
Those true beleivers here will never change their minds.
But I welcome Adam Schiff and democrats further investigating dry holes.
Investigating the crap out of Trump ultimately makes you look bad if you come up with nothing in the end.
Trump’s “ace in the hole” is there is nothing there.
Nor does it take much to appreciate that.
Trump does not have to be some white knight, to not be so stupid as to “collude with the Russians”.
I have made this argument over and over – but What is it that those of you who think there is some substance to this think Putin has to offer Trump ?
Russian election influence ? Really ? Trump could throw a few seconds worth of interest on your investments to some madison avenue firm
You say Trump has been a russian operative for years – how so ?
Until Jan. 2017 Trump had zero access to anything effecting National security.
What did Trump do for years for Putin ? Help Russians buy Condo’s in FL ?
Just not the stuff of Bond novels.
What Trump had before the election that Putin might have valued is open and obvious – the ability to produce things – all perfectly legal things,
We get this stupid garbage about Trump “laundering money” generally an argument from people who have no clue what money laundering is.
Real wealth is comes from the creation of value.
There is very limited ability to get rich by plunder, or fraud or money laundering.
Even Drug dealers and the mafia do not get rich by money laundering.
They get rich by trading value for value, by giving people what they want – Drugs, loans, gambling. Most orgnaized crime is violent, it is outside the law, but it is still constrained by the laws of economics – VALUE FOR VALUE.
No drug kingpin anywhere in the world can survive without giving people what they want.
Money laundering is an artifact of the fact that the government has stupidly made an otherwise voluntary transaction into a crime.
Because it is crime that makes it harder to use the money made – by trading value for value, and the purpose of money laundering is to convert the money involved in illegal trades of value for value into money that can be spent the same as other money.
Yes, a few people can get rich on money laundering.
But very few – because there is no money to launder unless people trade value for value and the government declares that trade illegal.
So much of the idiocy of the left rests on the stupidity that most wealth is created without creating value.
The incredibly wealthy are nearly all incredibly wealthy because they gave people something they want.
Even the people who are incredibly wealthy as a result of crime – still traded value for value.
There remains less than a 5pt difference between Trump today and Obama at the same time in his presidency.
Whatever Trump polls mean today – Obama polls must have meant then.
Confessing to a murder does not make you a murderer.
Claiming to have graduated with honors does not mean you did.
Trump can say whatever he wants regarding the shutdown.
Reality has nothing to do with what Trump (or anyone else) says.
Incoherent nonsense.
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Use your words Jay. You can make an actual argument, you can make a comment that is more than just ad hominem and fallacy.
There is nothing to think about Jay.
You confuse understanding and caring.
The democrats bill only get 52 votes. It needs 60 to end debate.
Those are the rules of the senate.
The republican bill got 50 votes – but there were 2 republicans absent who near certain would have voted for it.
Still not 60.
Either side has to pick up 8 votes to pass something in the senate.
Sandman was interviewed by NBC Today.
He came accross incredibly well.
Thought he interviewer was polite her questions showed incredible bias. It will be interesting to see if she asks the same thing of Phillips.
She successfully backs Sandman into regretting not taking a variety of different actions.
All well and good – except today it is only those not on the left who are expected to back down to behave perfectly.
Why did Phillips approach the students ?
Why didn’t Phillips leave ?
Why didn’t Phillips do whatever it is that the host thinks Sandman should have done differently ?
Why are so many on the left calling Sandman and his family and his school and issuing death threats ?
Those of you on the left here say that it is the right that is dangerous – but who is receiving death threats and who is issuing them ?
What is anyone at this time at CCS protesting ?
What are they even protesting ?
The message that CCS and so many on the right got from this is shut up, back down, do nothing that in the slightest way might offend the left.
And too many are going to respond exactly like that.
What do you think the odds CCS sends students to DC ever again are ?
And that is the point – the object of the left is to SILENCE all opposition.
If you wonder about 2016 – this should give you a clue.
In the voting both there is no one to silence you.
Oh look: Trump practices nepotism with national security risks.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/officials-rejected-jared-kushner-top-secret-security-clearance-were-overruled-n962221
Trey Gowdy was interviewed today regarding Sandman,
He made one excellent statement.
People do not need to like you to vote for you.
But hey are not going to vote for you if they beleive you do not like them.
That is the problem with Hillaries deplorables comment.
Democrats will never get the votes of people who the democrats accuse of being hateful hating haters.
No matter how low Trump’s numbers go – he will win in 2020, so long as democrats continue to call the majority of the electorate hateful hating haters.
I would note – the left calls Trump a racist, and a hater, and ….
But Trump does not tell black voters, or women, or other minorities he hates them, or accuse them of being haters. the only people Trump openly hates cant vote.
But the left hates people who can vote.
So these are the people investigating Trump ?
JS, I like this blog, and wish to participate in it, but I am not able to do so very well. This may be due to my deficient blogging skills.
I’m asking in a nice way, to please cut down on the size and numbers of your comments. It is hard for me to maneuver or follow a discussion; there may be others that feel the same way.
Thank you.
Stone put on ice! Finally! But, the trail leads higher into the guts of the trump campaign, deeper into the riff Raff that surround it source, the riff Raff in chief. Collusion may not be a crime, but conspiracy is. Hot debate over the evidence will only by based on fact after the Mueller report has been released. He has the evidence, we don’t. All the same fevered denialism is gauranteed from “experts.”
Anonymous being Roby.
A rattier rat than Stone would be hard to find, going back decades . Just the type to do Trump’s dirty work.
This sums it up…
Trump Shutdown shut’s down airport
Its irrelevant, all those NY fliers are Democrats. And, this won’t have any effect on the economy, no, no, it may even be Good for it.
Dubious Dave is right- we can get unpaid or furloughed government employees to do good work for free!
The FBI may not be getting paid right now, but still they arrested Roger Stone for the public good!
Ron, I cannot find a way to put this in a more sensible place than at the bottom. Your comment above:
“So I am back to taking down all walls, changing any federal laws that support illegals, revising any regulations that encourage illegal entry so that is not present and letting them in. If the states want to use state funds for illegals, that is their right.”
Bravo. I can’t think of anything less libertarian than that #$%^@ wall.
In fact, about 4 years back Dave argued strongly here that it was foolish to worry about illegals and refugees doing harm and that these people are not statistically violent and only strengthen America in the long run in spite of isolated acts of terrorism. That to me is the logical libertarian position. He argued it So strongly that in a several week exchange he drove JB into an incandescent rage and even finally exasperated Priscilla. I remember this exchange well, it is one of the few times I saw dave passionately argue and stick to a position that is in direct opposition to the ideas, fears, and tactics of the GOP, even at the cost of really driving our conservatives here batty.
The libertarian viewpoint Dave argued on illegals and refugees and the wrongness of efforts to prevent them from entering the US was NOT trumpian, it was in fact 180 degrees in opposition to the trump rhetoric on these issues. Daves view on the matter at that historical time was definitely Not congenial to the ears of conservatives like JB and Priscilla.
A lengthy “there is no …” denial is sure to occur, but I am sure I could find that previous conversation and repost dave’s ferocious opposition to the ideas that are now the bedrock of the trump presidency.
Anyhow, Ron, Good on you.
Roby, I remember Dave comments well. And I did not believe in all those things he said, but I have come to accept them based on the issues we face, the security we do not have on the border, the fact that Nancy is arguing against a wall after her state has almost the complete border sealed in some manner and the private land owners in Texas not wanting their property split and confiscated by the government. I remember on picture of a home where the government built the wall inside where the owners had their home. They had a driveway to enter and exit, as well as opening for their cattle to range on their land. Immigrants simply walked through the openings.
Its time to completely change what is not working.
“Conservative journalist Charlie Sykes referred to President Trump’s rhetoric on his long-promised border wall as the Mount “Vesuvius of misinformation” in an interview Thursday on “Rising.”
“Here is the Vesuvius of misinformation here, the fact is, the wall will not stop drugs. It will not stop crime. It will not be effective,” Sykes, editor-in-chief of the Bulwark and vocal Trump critic, told Hill.TV’s Buck Sexton and Jamal Simmons.
“Most of the drugs come through the ports of entry,” he continued.
“The president of the United States, because he told folks at a rally he was going to build a wall, and Mexico was going to pay for it has now shut down the federal government over this one issue,” he said. ”
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/426761-conservative-journalist-says-trumps-rhetoric-on-border-is-the-vesuvius-of
“Charlie Sykes” has a Wikipedia page – I would suggest reading it.
I guess it is possible to call him a republican or a conservative, but it is also possible to call him a democrat and a liberal, Frankly he is what my grandmother would call a “queer bird”.
Regardless, if we are going to keep playing these stupid appeals to authority – then aren’t we obligated to Build the Wall – because Schumer, Pelosi, Obama and Clinton all demanded it and voted for it ?
Or are you incapable of thinking for yourself ?
I have never understood these ludicrously stupid claims.
Absolutely – there are many ways drugs come into the country.
Absolutely there are many ways that illegal immigrants get into the country.
I am not aware of anyone saying otherwise.
Are you saying that because 60% of drugs come in one way – we should do nothing about the other 40% ?
Are you saying that because lots of people overstay their visas – though MOST of those leave usually within a year, and those have a paper trail that we can follow to find them, that
those who cross the border unnoticed are not something that we need to address ?
Jays having a meltdown over the airport slow downs
I’m having a meltdown over this.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/426824-schumer-blocks-bill-to-pay-coast-guard
Our military should never be caught in the middle of a pissing contest between politicians.
I agree 100 percent. When I saw that story I thought immediately of your reaction.
What I would like to know is how could all federal employees be spared this threat in the future. This blackmail route should not exist. Is there any way to prevent this short of a constitutional amendment?
Once upon a time a magazine publisher, national Lampoon had a cover, buy this magazine or we’ll shoot this dog. That’s about what these government shut downs involve.
There is no way that shutdowns are going to be avoided, Even when there was more compromise and working across the isle, we still had them. A list copied from an article.
This list of government shutdowns in the past was drawn from Congressional Research Service reports:
2018 (President Donald Trump): Dec. 22 to (ongoing)
2018 (President Donald Trump): Jan. 20 to Jan. 23 – 3 days
2018 (President Donald Trump): Feb. 9 – 1 day.
2013 (President Barack Obama): Oct. 1 to Oct. 17 – 16 days
1995-1996 (President Bill Clinton): December 5, 1995, to January 6, 1996, – 21 days
1995 (President Bill Clinton): Nov. 13 to 19 – 5 days
1990 (President George H.W. Bush): October 5 to 9 – 3 days
1987 (President Ronald Reagan): December 18 to December 20 – 1 day
1986 (President Ronald Reagan): October 16 to October 18 – 1 day
1984 (President Ronald Reagan): October 3 to October 5 – 1 day
1984 (President Ronald Reagan): September 30 to October 3 – 2 days
1983 (President Ronald Reagan): November 10 to November 14 – 3 days
1982 (President Ronald Reagan): December 17 to December 21 – 3 days
1982 (President Ronald Reagan): September 30 to October 2 – 1 day
1981 (President Ronald Reagan): November 20 to November 23 – 2 days
1979 (President Jimmy Carter): September 30 to October 12 – 11 days
1978 (President Jimmy Carter): September 30 to October 18 18 days
1977 (President Jimmy Carter): November 30 to December 9 – 8 days
1977 (President Jimmy Carter): October 31 to November 9 – 8 days
1977 (President Jimmy Carter): September 30 to October 13 – 12 days.
1976 (President Gerald Ford): September 30 to October 11 – 10 days
It appears even the great negotiators, Carter and Reagan had them almost every year of their presidency. But they did not last too long since people liked each other back then.
Today we have sandbox politics with skuck pissing contests.
But I was wrong. Trump broke. And now I give him a chance of reelection no better than Jimmy Carter.
Ron, in my view there are many possible futures regarding 2020. Nothing is set in stone, how many events have happened in the last 2 years and how many will happen in the next 2? Trump has yet to face a crisis not of his own making. Personally I do not believe that the American electorate has a genuinely left wing POTUS in it. But, time will tell. Keep our powder dry and watch history slowly unfold.
That is simple – determine what is actually essential regarding the federal government and get rid of the rest.
No the coast guard should not be caught in the middle of this.
And our airports and ATC should have been privatized long ago.
If we are re-opening the federal government SOLELY because 800K federal workers who have not done anything for 5 weeks have not been paid – then we need to lay off most of them.
Since when is the purpose of the federal government to provide sinecures for democrats ?
Dave, et al…One well known business reporter who does not seem to report things based on politics, but based on facts reported today that it was not so much about the TSA and FAA caliing in sick, because airports have delays all the time and LaGaurdia was not much worse than some other days.
What turned the tide was the IRS. He reported that people are now doing taxes, calling the IRS and no one is answering. The congressional members offices are getting many calls and complaints. When it became something other than govt employees not getting a check or a few flyers getting delayed and became a much larger issue with many more people in the middle and lower middle class being impacted, GOP congressmen were willing to bail on Trump.
Careers over country!
If you want to spare federal employees this ordeal in the future – lay them off.
What should at this moment be crystal clear is that over 800K federal employees are pretty much NOT necescary.
As I have repeated thoughout this – if you are not producing, then you are a drag on everyone else’s standard of living.
I have zero problems being concerned about people who contribute real value.
But why exactly are we weeping over the fact that people who we are clearly having little trouble doing without are not working at something we clearly do not need ?
If you are so concerned about them – I am fully prepared to PAY THEM for some short period to go look for other productive Jobs.
I will be absolutely happy to provide them with retaining – even though the evidence is that government retraining programs are disasterous.
I will be happy to give them all extended unemployment benefits – as they search for real productive jobs.
But please do not ask me to cry because they have moved from government offices doing nothing of consequence to their homes doing nothing of consequence.
I have listened here for 5 weeks to an assortment of claims that “the sky was falling”. Yet the sky has not fallen.
Every single failure or inconvenience during this shutdown could have been resolved with a miniscule (in government terms) amount of finding – yet 25% of government was shutdown and we all barely noticed.
I am told that Jay is melting down because ATC’s conducting the same kind of illegal strike that Reagan fired them all for in 1981 slowed things down at airports.
Sounds to me like just one more good reason to privatize airports and ATC – just like all those “social democracies” the left loves.
Regardless, are you really saying that we must pay about $1T a year inorder to have ATC’s do their jobs ?
If that is the case – we are f’d as a country. We might as well give up, We have become the UK post churchill – a total socialist basket case that did not recover for 40 years.
Goniff Dave, stop distorting the numbers.
First, about 400,000 were sent home, the other half were working unpaid, most putting in 10 to 12 hours daily, some working 6 days a week to make up for the shortened staff work overload. The shutdown cost to the public has yet to be determined – but just calculating the loss of time and money to airline passengers should give even a cement head like you a clue that the loses will be astronomical.
Second, your statement that ”we must pay about $1T a year inorder to have ATC’s do their jobs” is utter inflated bullshit. Taxes on airline tickets and baggage pay for those salaries and other related airport security – that’s an excise & facility tax on travelers and shippers, not on taxpayers.
https://www.travelzoo.com/blog/information-air-fees-taxes/
And I’m not adverse to privatizing the operation of civil air navigation. A private, non-share capital corporation like Nav Canada would suit me fine: guess how those Canadians pay airport and ATC salaries – with the same airline ticket taxes US flyers pay.
BTW – have I politely told you lately to GFY?
Jay, you make good comments, some a right leaning individual can agree with, then support comments with documentation pertaining to positions.
Then you revert to the liberal attack comments found on so many other political sites by commenting ” BTW – have I politely told you lately to GFY?” Is this really necessary?
“Is this really necessary?”
No, but it feels good, like smacking on anti Trump bumper stickers.
https://www.democraticstuff.com/resize/Shared/images/product/Demstuff/BS55019.png?bw=600&w=600&bh=600&h=600
Schumer and the Dems held firm.
Trump just folded.
My son-in-law’s mom has been sitting for HOURS in Atlanta, waiting for a flight today, after waiting longer for her flight there earlier this week. I’ll pass on your good thoughts to her, Ron, whenever she gets home.
Sorry for her wait.
But someone needs to “Reaganize” the ones who called in sick and cant provide a physician document that they were sick. And I posted personnel guide on another thread that the feds can ask for this if questionable sick days were used.
Yes Trump folded, caved, gave in, whatever one wants to call it. If he thinks Pelosi is going to give him anything by Feb 15, I want whatever he is smoking. He just turned a brick into a fortress for getting anything in the future. Why he went on national TV to show that is unbelievable.
And his conservative base that voted for him will look to him like they looked at McCain, Romney and others then said ” whatever not worth voting”.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present Madam President Warren.
She would have been fine in Canada and most of the rest of the world – where the ATC and airports are PRIVATE.
Ron, I have no idea what this means.
Yes, there is lots of cheering from democrats.
Trump did this because of pressure from Republicans – particularly Rep. Meadows.
Meadows is NOT some center right republican.
We have listened to democrats CLAIM that if Trump would reopen the government – THEN they would negotiate.
There were way to many republicans who actually believe that is true.
I think they are smoking wacky week.
In 3 weeks we shall see.
I tend to agree this is a mistake on Trump’s part.
Though not nearly the disaster it is painted as.
But we shall see.
Regardless, you can beleive that Pelosi “kicked trump’s balls” if you want,
at the same time Democrats have come accross as MORE pig headed than Trump. If you think that is a win. Good for you.
I would further note – that if this really is some monumental capitulation by Trump – then we are one step closer to anarchy.
There are 63 Million people who voted for Trump a large portion over this issue. They are very angry people – they have been PROMISED this wall by politicians on the right and left since 1986.
Do most of you not understand that the wall has ALREADY been authorized – infact it has been authorized BY BOTH PARTIES for 40 years.
We are just playing a stupid game over funding.
I would further note – that message those Trump republicans will get if they “lose” on this, is they need someone with bigger balls who is MORE obnoxious and stubborn than Trump.
Republicans purportedly “lost” the 2013 shutdown, 2014 was a massive REPUBLICAN Sweep that was less than a year later.
Republican voters determined that if they were going to get anywhere they needed to control ALL of congress overwhelmingly.
And in 2014 they accomplished just that.
Trump was elected as a backlash against exactly this kind of inability of democrats to respect that much of the country DOES NOT share their views.
All that is happening is that the left is creating an ever angrier electorate.
You can look arround the world – at the UK at Europe, at South America, and you can see the results of overreach by the left.
The left does not seem to grasp that winning is losing if you alienate too many people.
Dave, I said this was a total loss for Trumps position on the border because they open the government, they begin negotiation, DACA changes proposed, Nancy says yes, more judges, Nancy says yes, more border patrol agents, Nancy says yes, more money for a wall, structure, etc, Nancy says NO! Feb 15th comes around, does the senate blink and pass Nancy’s bill? If so, does trump veto? If so we are right back to where we are, govt closes and the skunk pissing contest starts again, but this time Nancy is twice as dug in because she won the first round. Or if he signs, he can get up and talk for 30 minutes and put lipstick on the pig, but its still a pig. Thats what he tried today, but no words can cover up he got castrated!
So to assure that your relatives are not inconveined – we must pay for $1T of government that we clearly do not need ?
Donald Trump’s horrible no good very bad day, er week, er, month…
Ron;
this is being painted as a win for Pelosi and democrats.
MAYBE it is – though that has yet to be seen.
It also MIGHT just be an effort at face saving by both sides.
I am not going to predict anything.
But as to the actual FACTS.
This is close to meaningless.
Pelosi demanded that the government be re-opened or their would be no negotiations.
Republicans – not just Trump have REPEATEDLY said no to that.
Why – because there is 40 years of history of BAD FAITH on the part of democrats on this issue. The wall has been BIPARTISAN authorized by law since 1986.
Democrats have opposed funding of what they have already approved.
So we have a “compromise” – Government will re-open for 21 days.
Democrats are now in the spotlight – they must negotiate.
As I understand the structure of the “deal”, they have agreed to send a house and senate bill to a conference committee and then vote on what comes out of the conference committee.
This is actually a pretty normal process – but it gets senate republicans past the 60 vote hurdle in the Senate.
If the house bill has no wall funding and the senate bill does,
the conference is free to produce a result that has none, lots, or some.
Whatever the conference produces but get an up/down vote in the house/senate. Conference bills MUST be voted on.
If there is a conference bill with wall funding – and it passes Pelosi can claim to have done her best.
If there is one without wall funding – then Trump is still free to veto it.
The BIG DEAL of this “agreement” is that the GOP bill will get passed in the Senate.
Republicans have traded that for 21 days of the government being opened and pay for furloughed workers.
The 2nd BIG DEAL is that it does provide a mechanism for Pelosi to lose without appearing to have backed down.
That may not be what happened. But it looks like it to me.
Dave, “this is being painted as a win for Pelosi and democrats.
MAYBE it is – though that has yet to be seen.”
If you dont follow your senators and congressmen/women on Facebook, you might want to do that. It does not give a definitive look at the thinking of all the public, but it does give a good representation of how both sides think. Right now in NC one side see a huge win and the other side see a turncoat.
Pelosi kicked his butt.
You got that right. But put it in terms Trump can understand.
Pelosi performed a castration on him!
She did ? How so ?
There is a 21 day deal, that is all.
Let me put it a different way – YOU and Pelosi have told all of us this is about Trump’s ego.
If that is actually the case – then Trump would not have agreed to any deal.
Either Trump does not feel like he lost anything, or you are wrong about Trump and his ego.
The stupidity of people once they get swallowed by an ideology or party is incredible. The left bullied a kid who wore a maga hat a smiled. The right bullied a kid who survived a massacre of his schoolmates. Both are indignant in turn that anyone could be so cruel as to bully a kid. Fucking zombie idiots, all of them.
Today every party loving numbskull in the country is either thrilled or outraged that the newly Dem house did not give trump his wall. It was the GOP controlled house that did not give trump and his fanatics their wall.
Nancy didn’t beat trump, trump beat trump, with a big assist from coulture and Limbaugh. And most of all, the GOP house and Senate beat trump over the last two years. Wall fever has reached it’s high point, the wall is not ever going to be more popular, the rational arguments against a wall as Trump’s and his supporters saw it appear every day. There may even be some rational construction of more barriers of various kinds in the future, but the WALL, the magnificent cure all answer to crime, drugs and the heartbreak of psoriasis is deader than dead.
Let me add that threats that the wall supporters are going to go all anarchist on us because they did not get what they want are even more imbecilic and contemptible than the idiocy of overlooking the incredibly obvious fact that the GOP owned Congress and the WH since 2016 and could have but Did Not satisfy the demands of the wall mob, probably because many Republicans in Congress secretly have working brains that they carefully hide from their idiot GOP base.
So since 2016, the GOP did not do their job on border security. Had 52 or 51 after McCain became ill. 60 required for spending bills. No way to get 8 democrats to vote for it. How did they fail? Why bring it to the floor if known for defeat.
Alot to be said in agreement, but two comments.
1. In every negotiation, there has to be give and take. RR and Tip O coming together in SS changes. JFK giving up Nuk’s in Turkey for Russia secretly removing them from Cuba. But the ultimate was “Tweedledee Tweedledum”. During Teddy Roosevelts term, there was a coal strike that went on from Sept 1901 to March 1902. People had no heat, hospitals had no heat, people were freezing cold. Roosevelt proposed a group to work out issues, but coal mine owners said “no labor leaders”. After hours of fighting, someone proposed adding a labor leader and announce his position as a “Socialist” educated in social issues. Everyone said great, Teddy said ” OK we put on Tweedledee and call him Tweedledum”. The strike ended shortly after.
In the current situation, Nancy is not negotiating. Would she “Tweedledee” the wall and give Trump any face saving. I seriously doubt it unless forced to by her caucus.
2. In todays environment, nothing happens without the world watching. Every move made by politicians are scrutinized. Can Nancy negotiate and save face after saying NO? I doubt it.
Nancy is out for blood. She injured Trump. On Feb 15th she looks to put the dagger in the last time. Anything she says in public in PC bull crap.
Ron, you and and Jay and dduck could most likely discuss a barrier system as a part of the answer to illegal immigration and have a sensible discussion. None of us I don’t believe would be thinking of anything like what trump and his wall supporters had in mind the magical great Wall of China, or the American Hadrian’s wall, that in it’s biglyness and grandeur solves every problem that scares consrvatives about border permeability.
Trump and his supporters will take any concession or compromise as merely being a “down payment”. So, I don’t like to see them lose and let this question be answered more calmly over future years.
Roby( I think), yes sensible people can come up with sensible solutions. The key word is sensible. Sensible people would have given us Bush, Kasich, Rubio or even Cruz instead of Trump.
Sensible is not a word you would put under a picture of Pelosi.
But now that Trump has been neutered, he is no longer a potent figure in this issue. He will try to be, but the left will file suit in the western courts and I believe the courts will side with Pelosi when he declares an emergency, if he actually does it.
There is one issue that is driving the problems we have now and that is how the democrats in the house stay so united, while the GOP is the party that is represented by moderates to very conservative in both chambers. So while the democrats are untied, the GOP is like a pack of cats, all with their own rules and beliefs. The democrats are the collective while the GOP is the individuals.
The “sensible” discussion you are purportedly having is an agreement to do PRECISELY what Trump is asking for.
Trump wants 5.7B for some form of physical barrier – that will be for 330M repairs to deteriorating walls and new walls along an approximately 3000 mile border.
BTW the Great Wall of China worked for about 1000 years and was only breached by treason.
The wall in Israel has worked.
As you note the Romans build walls – presumably they worked – atleast for 1000 years.
Wow, what a f,d up typo. I’d Like to see them lose… I am sure anyone could have guessed my intent, other than this smart ass technology.
I have to start reading my posts before I press send this technology is weirdiing them in the worst way.isuspect you can understand my meaning.
If we all went on a long guided tour of the border, and then we all got doctorate in immigration issues I am sure we would not have the opinion s we have now. This whole set of issues is complex on every level. The “WALL” is a handwaving answer from a barstool in Joe’s bar and grill .
Back to Covington, but slightly different approach.
Those caught in the social media turmoil.
…Mostly well off kids
…White kids
…Religious kids
…Kids wearing MAGA hats.
If you list the things that the left does not like..
…Rich..Berney Sanders and AOC constantly attacking well off people.
…White..Many politicians including Obama (Ferguson) have negative white comments
… Religious kids..Many, like Obama (people clinging to their guns and religion) attack religion
…Kids wearing MAGA hats.. Clinton calling 50%of Trump supporters deplorables.
We have heard for years from the left anti descrimination, inclusion and not painting everyone with the same brush that has opposing views.
But these kids checked off every negative criteria on the lefts hit list. Did they not paint these kids and treat them exactly.like they preach others should not do?
I like well off people.
I like white people too.
Religious people are OK, until their religious superstition interfears with social rights. Remember God told them drinking alcohol should be illegal, illegitimate children are products of sinful fornication, homosexuality should be illegal, and Donald Trump is holy.
Kids wearing MAGA hats should be chastised for anti social behavior and given detention, as they are for throwing spitballs in class.
GOP OBSTRUCTING MUELLER
REPUBLICANS will do what they can to stop the #OrangeTraitor from impeachment.
“The House Intelligence Committee ARE NOT APPOINTING any members to the Intelligence Committee. Therefore the committee can’t send testimony transcripts to Robert Mueller until they have a full set of members.
The trump apologists are also screwing with my posts here (stop that Dave). Two I posted never appeared today. And editing now is troublesome.
Jay, I am having the same problem when using a hand held device. One I wrote went into “posting”, sat there, the screen brought up TNM page and stopped. The comment did not post. This happens to me when Word Press gets 700-800 comments. So to insure something post correctly and I dont wznt to write it again, I use the desk top.
This should make clear why Trump can not have obstructed justice by firing Comey.
Government can not criminally obstruct government by acting within its legitimate powers.
Regardless sounds like a perfectly legitimate tactic to me.
To be clear, nothing GOP congressmen can do would preclude Mueller from subpeonaing congressional testimony.
I also suspect you would have no objections from the GOP is all testimony was just made public. It is democrats who CONTINUE to thwart making testimony public.
Roger Stone is complaining of this with his current indictment.
He is being accused of “lying to congress” – yet he and his attorney’s have been trying to get transcripts of his OWN testimony to congress since he testified – and democrats have thwarted that. Yet Mueller has Stones testimoney.
If you ever bother to read the law on perjury – it REQUIRES that there must have been an oportunity to correct false testimony.
Comey’s letter to congress regarding the Weiner laptop was a CORRECTION to his prior testimony.
WE are quite litterally duplicating the Soviet courts. We are charging people with crimes without allowing them to know the evidence against them, under circumstances where the government CREATES the crime.
Stone has also noted that Mueller is making the absolutely ludicrous claim that Stone obstructed justice by withholding EXCULPATORY evidence.
Mueller’s indictment of Stone are based on texts found on an Old cell phone that Stone did not recall, that prove that he DID NOT communicate directly with Assange.
And that he had no foreknowledge of anything.
Jay;
Hopefully you jest.
I have neither the ability nor the desire to interfere with your posting.
We all have our problems.
I am having problems getting “logged” into wordpress.
You can tell because my posts are showing up as John Say, but without my gravitar.
I ultimately gave up – as long as I am able to post the details do not matter.
For about a month I was using an ipad to post.
I did note that WordPress is very unfreindly to tablets.
I must be doing something completely different. I never sign into wordpress unless it is through the e-mail reply, or a few times when I post something as the first comment. Many times that is after I have commented from the email signin. That way I do not have to page through 1000 comments to find new ones, I can comment as a “reply” from the email and it post under the comment I am addressing and it seems to keep stuff in order.
The only thing I have problems with is handheld device access when comments gets over 500 or so, then it takes a minute or so to load all the comments before I can do anything else. when that happens, I use the desktop.
As previously stated, I’m in favor of extending or adding some walls-barriers in illegal high traffic crossing landscapes. But with or without more physical barriers, high tech surveillance and quick response teams will make the border more secure. Or more of this will happen (not to mention cheaper extension ladders, now on sale in Mexican border towns.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense understands cartels will find ways to smuggle drugs. Drones are much better than “mules” and they hold more than a human gut. They also cost much less than miles of tunnel. And if you cant control them from entering airport space, how do you control over miles of open range in TX, NM and AZ.? They are also using small subs to smuggle drugs. Walls dont work under water.
The issue is too multifaceted for political soundbites. What works for people and vehicles does not work fortechnology based equipment.
Lets not get into a debate over Drones vs. XXX as a means of smuggling drugs.
Absolutely if you stop one means of smuggling drugs you will open up another.
Many drugs are manufactured in the US.
Fentynal is sent to the US in the mail from China.
Trumps 5.7B will add or repair approximately 330M of physical barrier along the southern border.
Currently there is fence/wall along 90% of the california border with Mexico. Crossings in CA have been reduced by more than 95% – there is little doubt that the wall works.
No one is objecting to drones, surveilance and quick response teams.
Alone they are just about the least effective and most costly means of doing the job.
Combined with a wall each exponentially increases the effectiveness of the other.
No one is arguing that a wall alone is effective.
Are you arguing that Drones alone or Drones and QRT’s are effective ?
With BOTH – you need LESS total people, because crossing a physical barrier is time consuming, and you have more time for the QRT to get to the point of incursion.
Further if you can prevent the actual crossing – then you need not (and can not) detain the crosser.
So long as drugs are illegal and people still want them anyway – we are going to have a massive ilegal drug problem, and there will be enormous incentives to trasnport drugs accross the border.
BTW I though you claimed that moving drugs accross the border was not a major problem, that drugs came through ports of entry ?
Drugs are going to come in by numerous different means – any new technology that makes it easier will be employed – as well as old technology.
Walls are not a solution – THERE IS NO SOLUTION
But they are a cost effective means of reducing on part of the problem and of making other forms of interdiction more effective.
The left keeps harping on other means of securing the border.
Absolutely – Drones, QRT, other forms of monitoring.
All of these AND a wall work TOGETHER – to amplify each others effectivness.
How long is it going to take you to surmount a 32′ wall with an extension ladder ?
Even the older fences at 18′ are very difficult and time consuming to scale.
And that is the point. It takes CBP approximately 15-30 minutes to get to an incursion once it has been detected – Drones are at best detection, They are a very weak deterent.
So lets eliminate walls at prisons – since all we need is drones and QRT’s .
It takes a good drone to kill a bad drone. And Trump: “I know more about drones than anybody”. Prove it by creating a network of protective drones and call it a drone wall.
The red drones can have MAGA stenciled on them. Those druggies will have to stay with tunnels and fake bananas.
And, of course, make sure Boeing or Northrup gets the contract in case you need to laser weaponize them.
.
If I understand you correctly – you have no objections to making it impossible for people to cross the border illegally ? Correct ? Using Drones and other means of doing so is acceptable ?
Your objections are entirely to a “wall” ?
You and democrats have shutdown the government over a difference of oppinion as to the appropriate tools to preclude illegal crossing ?
At the same time you are frothing mad and claiming “racism”
If Drones will have exactly the same effect as a Wall – then how is a wall racist, but Drones are not ?
If favoring a wall is racist, why isn’t favoring drones racist ?
Next – CBP, Drones, all the technological means – though all PART of a process have several serious OBVIOUS inherenet flaws.
Drones are monitoring – they do not stop anything. At best the tell you that someone has crossed, They are not an impediment, they are not a deterent, and they require a large boarder patrol force to have any value at all.
That is unless you are talking about bringing drones like predators to the border and you are intent on using them to kill those crossing illegally – I presume that is not the case.
Drones do not stop people from crossing. Once someone has crossed into the US the requirements of the law, and the burden of the border patrol and customs and immigration increase substantially.
CBP and ICE have no authority over people on the south side of the border, we can not arrest them, and obviously we can not deport them. If a wall prevents someone from crossing directly – or by slowing their effort enough that CBP can arrive and prevent the crossing, that is the end of it. They are not deported or detained. The cost of boarder enforcement remains law.
But once someone crosses the bored if they are caught within I beleive 100 miles of the border they are detained for 90 days before being deported. that has a significant cost, and adds substantial additional demands.
Dave, good questions on being racist regardless of ones position on walls (working or not), immigration, open borders, etc. But you forgot one big racist question.
Why is a wall in TX, NM and AZ racist, but 80% of California having a wall not racist? I have heard queen Nancy answering that either.
TYPO; I have NOT heard queen Nancy answering that one either.
Mucusman, as always you got it all wrong.
“That is unless you are talking about bringing drones like predators to the border and you are intent on using them to kill those crossing illegally – I presume that is not the case.”
Of course this what I meant. Fried brown people can not steal our jobs and you don’t have to provide the luxurious housing that we have been providing.
Walls and barriers can take months and years to plan (long bipartisan border survey) deciding what type (cement, steel, white plastic) asking for competitive (or not) contract bids (“no one knows more about contract bids that screw the contractors than me”), environmental/animal rights studies, and the actual building/erecting time. Too, too long,
As some past president once said: ” I love the smell of napalm in the morning”.
“Trump’s golf course employed undocumented workers — and then fired them amid showdown over border wall”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump’s-golf-course-employed-undocumented-workers-—-and-then-fired-them-amid-showdown-over-border-wall/ar-BBSM6cP?ocid=spartanntp
“During the meetings, they were fired because they are undocumented immigrants, according to interviews with the workers and their attorney. The fired workers are from Latin America.
The sudden firings — which were previously unreported — follow last year’s revelations of undocumented labor at a Trump club in New Jersey, where employees were subsequently dismissed. The firings show Trump’s business was relying on undocumented workers even as the president demanded a border wall to keep out such immigrants.”
So What ?
Figure out what you actually want ?
Are you trying to say that we should not stop people from crossing the border ?
That having done so we should not hire them ?
But that if we do hire them – we should not fire them ?
If these people were here illegally – then they should be deported.
If you do not like that – CHANGE THE LAW.
I will likely support you on that.
I loath the law that makes employers responsible for determining the legal status of employees – that imposes an impossible burden on employers.
It also encourages lawlessness – both deliberate an unintended
If the Trump organizations acted properly in employing these people – they had them fill out I-9’s and were provided with the required documents – then there is nothing that the Trump organization did that is wrong.
If they did not follow the requirements of the law – then prosecute them.
If the Trump organizations subsequently discovered these people were not legal – they are OBLIGATED BY LAW to fire them.
Again if you do not like that CHANGE THE LAW.
Ron;
The “deal” was that if government was re-opened temporarily democrats would negotiate in good faith.
The “claim” prior to this is that they would not negotiate with a gun to their head.
There is also a further aspect to this “deal” – I think.
As I understand the agreement – the house and Senate are each going to pass their own version of the GOP Senate bill. And then it is going to a conference committee to be reconciled.
That is a common process – though not normally for highly contentious items.
That means the Senate passes the bill with the wall funding.
The house passes it without wall funding.
The conference committee “reconciles” the two.
They conference can do as it pleases, but likely it “compromises” – less wall finding that Trump wants but not zero.
The bill goes to the house and senate who get an up/down vote – no amendments accept or decline what the conference resolved.
These very rarely lose.
Trump then can veto or sign it.
So if a “compromise” bill gets to Trumps desk with wall funding Trump grumbles and signs.
If it does not have wall funding he vetos.
I am GUESSING – but I actually think this is a face saving ploy by all parties.
Trump declares victory when he signs a bill with some of what he wants.
Pelosi claims she won the shutdown and forced Trump to re-open government and he did not get what he wanted on the wall.
But that is a guess.
Trump’s rose garden remarks were spin heavy. But they we not the remarks of someone who was done fighting either.
What I offer above – may not happen. Or it may happen in some modified version.
Democrats may hope the conference committee “compromise” has no wall funding and that it passes in the Senate, and Trump is forced to choose to veto it or not. That may happen.
There is also alot of posturing here – as I noted in the remarks about Trump’s ego.
Trump needs to alter the perception this is a personal spat between him and Pelosi. He needs to alter the perception that it is about his ego.
His “compromise” proposal from Monday was an effort to do that.
At the same Time Pelosi is likely under huge presure from government employees – they want paid. they may be pressuring Trump too, but they are 90% or more democrats and they vote – usually. Pelosi has more to fear from them and they have more leverage on her. They may well want Pelosi to win and they may oppose a wall – but they want paid, and the longer this goes on the greater their risk of losing their jobs entirely.
Pelosi need to “look” like she won,
Anyway, all the above is speculation.
We will see what reality is over the next 3 weeks.
Dave, yes everything is speculation and anything can happen. But I know what I believe and I also know what many in NC believe. I have “liked” facebook pages for the two senators and our representative. What I see in all the comments is either they need to support the democrats position (the democrats leaving comments) or that Trump crumbled, he is a “turn coat”, he is just another “swamp politician giving in” etc etc. There are very few comments like “lets wait and see what comes out of this”
And when you piss off a sector of voters that supported you based on certain issues, it is much harder to say “wait, you dont see the end game”. They see what happened now and they are going to believe he lied to them just as he lies about 1000 other things each year.
Until he grows another pair, he is neutered in my book. And I have never known gonads to regenerate!
There has been an enormous amount of discussion of this – here and elsewhere.
The left has near unanimously declared victory.
There are a plethora of oppinions on the right.
Some of the early reaction was like that of Coulter – that Trump caved.
I do not think he “caved” – but I do think it was probably a mistake.
But then again – I have a different agenda from Trump.
While I do see the merit of the wall, At the same time it is just not that big a deal for me. I do not understand why democrats do not agree to it – they have repeatedly in the past.
Jay posted earlier – why couldn’t every body compromise on a couple of hundred miles in the most critical locations and repairs to other – Well that is EXACTLY what Trump is after – 330Miles – nearly exacly home much was built/repaired in 2018. And BTW we not only know that walls work, we know they work in California, and we know they worked with respect to the Caravans as the military deployment was specifically to put up about 500M of concertina wire in front of the Caravans. But that is not a permanent solution.
As much as Jay may loath Trump, what he proposed as a compromise is actually precisely what Trump’s ASK is.
I want to see the shutdown continue – that is my issue. I want to see it continue long enough for government workers to start seeking jobs elsewhere – because that is really good for all of us. Tripply good.
I want to see it continue long enough that people realize that we do not need 25% of government.
That is my thing. But Trump did not make a campaign promise of a long long shutdown. He made a campaign promise of a wall.
I will absolutely agree with you – that if republicans think he gave up without much of a fight – then yes trump is toast.
Right now we were getting the heat of the moment reactions.
After people think about things – sometimes they feel differently.
Further, while democrats and the left declared victory – Trump did not capitulate. He continues to assert – there will be a wall or the shutdown will continue or he will do something else.
I do not want him to go the “emergency powers” route. Though many legal oppinions I have read beleive that is in his powers – I am less sure, and more important I am very sure I do not want broad emergency powers in the hands of the president – over “emergencies” like this. Further if he does that – it is near certain that the left will find some Obama court to stop it, and we will have to wait on the supreme court. And I do not want the supreme court to decide this issue. I do not want them to say yes to Trump, AND I do not want them to say no to Trump.
This should be resolved between the executive and congress.
Further I have been listening to other “talking heads” on this.
The details of what Trump agreed to actually matter.
Unless I misunderstand this – The democrats have AGREED in return for reopening government for 21 days, THAT.
The Republican funding bill will get a vote in the Senate – and we already know it will pass – so long as it can not be fillibustered.
Agreeing to bring it to the floor – ends the fillibuster threat.
The house will ALSO pass a bill.
Those two bills will go to a joint house senate conference – that is the normal means of resolving differnences between competeing bills on the same topic.
What comes out of the conference committee will then be required to get an UP/DOWN vote in the house and Senate.
If the both chambers do not pass and Trump does not sign whatever comes out of conference – the shutdown will resume.
Pelosi has made myriads of demands – to avoid confronting the actual issue of the wall – because the Wall is a loser issue for pelosi.
Jay or Roby or DD can quote whatever polls they want – but something like 80% of americans – a super-super majority see the best resolution of this to be some form of Dreamers for wall deal. Whatever the opposition to the Wall is – it is NOT outside the far left that strong.
Trump has given Pelosi every single procedural objection she has wanted.
What he has NOT given up on is the Wall.
The next 21 days of news cycle are not going to be about the Shutdown – they are going to be about the Wall. Those are losing news cycles for democrats.
No matter what happens the press, the left, jay, DD, and roby are going to spin it as a disaster for Trump and all Trumps fault.
But if Pelosi does not NOW sit down and actually negotiate the wall, an enormous number of people will blame HER and the democrats.
I would further note – we are well into the start of the democratic House.
Democrats have about 16 months to make their case before the next election cycle begins.
Jay and Roby and DD and the left can beleive whatever they want – but if the next 16 months are about the wall or shutdowns or Trump – democrats are going to lose badly in 2020.
I would also note – I keep returning to the 2013 shutdown – that is constantly portrayed as a republican disaster.
Yet it was followed shortly by possibly the biggest republican sweep ever.
One that lasted for 4 years, and brought republicans back to the whitehouse.
I do not beleive the 2013 shutdown was a disaster.
I beleive it was a major factor in republicans winning big in 2014.
I do not think that Republicans have to win to prevail in elections.
But they have to try.
GHWB was villified and likely lost in 1992 because it was widely beleived than not only did he not win – he did not try. That his promise was nothing more than hot air.
But that is just my speculation.
What is increasingly obvious from the posts here – by DD, Jay and Roby, is that all of you are far more reasonable that Schumer and Pelosi.
Each of you is willing to authorize some wall in conjunction with an assortment of other measures.
That is pretty much what Trump wants.
The 5.7B for “the wall” is for 330Miles of repairs to existing wall and new wall.
It is essentially a reauthorization of what was approved in 2017. Last year Trump was able to repair about 220miles of existing wall and build about 90 miles of new wall.
In 2006 congress authorized the building and repair of wall along the CA border – and that reduced illegal immigration into CA by over 90%.
Frankly this fight is not over “the wall”.
There are really three sides to this. The House and Senate Republicans are NOT on exactly the same page as Trump.
House and senate republicans are after pretty severe restrictions to illegal immigration.
They either do not want to fix DACA, or if they do it is a ONE TIME fix – they want to make sure the law is clear that in the future the accompanying children of illegal immigrants are also illegal immigrants. To the extent republicans support a DACA fix they do not want a path to citizenship.
Trump wants a wall. He wants better border security. He wants laws that are clear not self contradictory and work. There has been significant tension between Trump and congressional republicans over DACA – because Trump is perfectly willing to capitulate on DACA in return for a wall.
Democrats seem to beleive they are in an existential fight – and they may well be.
We have recently determined that the number of illegal immigrants in the US is DOUBLE what we thought it was.
The survival of the democratic party depends on a large and sustained influx of immigrants – particularly poor ones. These vote overwhelmingly democrat.
But like all other groups – as they reside in the US longer as generations pass, as their standard of living rises, their votes shift to republicans.
The democratic arguments whether on walls or any other immigration issues look inconsistent and self contradictory – unless you consider that the objective of the democrats is to assure the largest possible influx of illegal immigrants.
https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/democrats-border-security-hoax/
The hypocracy of the left.
https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2019/01/20/harry-reid-exposes-greatest-liberal-scam-of-alltime-n2539256
A pretty good review of the Sandman/Phillips episode.
I particularly like the author’s “what if” the full video never emerged ?
because we now know a fuller picture, we know that many jumped to conclusions based on the first clip.
But the absence of video of the prior hour would not change what had actually happened.
The left, the media, are engaged in a constant “rush to judgement”.
It is not merely that the do not wait for the full facts, it is that they presume that they know all they need to know.
If the longer video never emerged – the facts would not change, but Sandman’s ability to get himself aquitted in the court of public oppinion would be.
It is quite clear from the full video that Sandman was a nervous teen doing his best in a difficult situation.
But absent the full video – Sandman would be the racist biggot who bullied a native american vietnam vet.
The facts would not change – but Sandman’s life would.
Further still as the article notes – taken complete at face value – the excerpted video shows nothing of consequence.
Lets say that Sandman smirked as he stood toe to toe with a native american. Lets say that the CCS students chanted “build the wall” , lets say every subsequently false claim of the media was somehow magically true.
Absolutely nothing illegal occured.
In fact if Sandman and his fellow students had made racial slurs – they would be no more evil than the black hebrew israelites in the longer video.
Is anyone demanding their destruction ?
In the past week the media has demanded the destruction of Rep. King over inappropriate remarks in an interview, and republicans have pretty much complied. King has had just about everything that can be done to him by congress done.
Yet we have several atleast equally egregious remarks made by miority democratic congressmen in the past few weeks FROM THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.
Without consequence.
I am not asking for consequences. Merely pointing out that these congressmen – like King are answerable to their constituents for their remarks NOT congress, not america, not the world.
Louis Farakan and Al Sharpton are the Democrats David Dukes.
But there is a difference – republicans are expected to shun dukes to avoid contributions from him or anyone associated with him, to return any they might get.
While democrats cavort with Farakan and Sharpton, curry their support, favor and money, and that of their supporters.
Farakan and Duke are flip sides of the same coin.
But the left and the media do not deal with them nearly the same.
Dave “I particularly like the author’s “what if” the full video never emerged ?”
One has to wonder what would be had twitter been around in the 60’s, the reporters were like they are today reporting unsubstantiated news and people jumped to conclusions like the Catholic Diocesan leader did concerning the students at Covington. Would JFK be looked at in the same light if hundred, if not thousands of posts took place concerning his bedding of Marilyn Monroe and others in the White House residence. Would the Nixon issues been different had Woodward and Bernstein ran a story well before gather all the facts? Would RR been reelected had his mental issues been released before the reelection campaign started?
Social media has played no good in politics for the most part. It is way too easy to retweet or share something that has no factual proof, no one checks the facts before sharing and too much damage is done to recover from false accusations.
We remain at odds regarding the changes to the media.
Sorry but the media was worse in the 60’s and 70’s
Absolutely it was more moderate and I think the overal quality of reporting was better.
But there were only 3 voices – and they were all the same voice.
defacto censoring everything to fit some slightly left of center POV is not an improvement over the myriads of competing points of view today.
Further more moderately biased is not unbiased.
AS I have argued many times before – quite often the Truth IS at one extreme or the other – not the middle.
Our modern chaotic world of information demands that each of us learn to evaluate the information we receive and separate the wheat from the chaffe.
But in truth so did that of the past – it was just easier to pretend that moderate bias is somehow supperior to left or right bias.
The objective of discernment is to find the Truth – not to find the center, or the left or the right.
As much as I would like to improve the chaotic system we have today, I do not want to go back to Walter Chronkite, or Huntley Brinkley.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/mill/
Dave “But there were only 3 voices – and they were all the same voice.”
I would rather have 3 voices telling the factual truth, even if slanted to one side or the other, than to have 1000 voices where one reports incorrect stories and the other 999 run like hell to report that story before the other 998 can get it in print or on social media.
Need I remind you that Mark Penn is a Democrat and was part of the Clinton campaigns in the 90’s and 2008.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/427103-muellers-selective-prosecution-of-stone-venezuelan-style
I would note another thing about not merely the prosecution of Stone, but of Manafort and they rest of the Trump campaign.
The prosecution as conducted is itself FACIALLY improper and corrupt.
The unequivocal message is “help Trump and government will ruin your life”.
Stone is quite literally being prosecuted for purportedly lying to congress about EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. For purportedly NOT providing Congress with the evidence of his own innocence.
I am further honestly surprised the press is on the wrong side of this.
Like him or not Stone is a journalist.
One whose politics you do not like ? Fine, but this is an overt effort to criminalize political differences.
Stone was investigated by Mueller for what ? For appearing omniscient during a political campaign. For doing the same as Woodward and Bernstein did during Watergate, For doing the same as Washington Post did with the Pentagon papers.
Stone (and Corsi) claim that they are being pressured by Mueller to flip on Trump.
And I am sure Roby, DD, Jay and the entire left are breathlessly hoping for precisely that.
Yet, it is crystal clear from Mueller’s OWN indictiment that they have NOTHING to offer Mueller about the actual subject of his own investigation.
Mueller has PROVEN them innocent, and then indicted stone, because Stone did not appropriately KowTow to Mueller.
As Penn noted, Podesta (Clinton campaign chairman) testified to congress that the Clinton Campaign had nothing to do with funding the steele dossier, while being represented in congress by the very lawyer that hired Perkings Coi and Fusion GPS. Et the very least there is a serious conflict of interest and porofessional ethics violation by Elias, at the very least Podesta is oblivious to millions of dollars of spending for which he was responsible for and had to authorize. More likely Podesta lied to congress.
I am not sure that Stone lied to congress – we have out of context snippets of Stones testimony, but no one aside from Mueller has his complete testimony. Even Stones’ lawyers can not get a trasnscript of their own clients testimony.
Regardless, Mueller’s indictment is for lying about EXCULPATORY evidence.
Podesta’s testimony is a lie about INCULPATORY evidence.
The lies of McCabe, Comey, Strzok, Clinton, Clapper, …. are all INCULPATORY.
In the event Stone’s actual testimony is false, his lie hid his own INNOCENCE.
All these other lies hide actual misconduct.
Again the message recieved loud and clear is the rules of politics and journalism are different for republicans.
I do not beleive you should be going after this kind of garbage – right or left at all.
But if you do you must address the same misconduct by either party in the same way.
Otherwise you are engaged in a “chilling effect” on free political speech.
I have no doubt that the left explicitly hopes that all republicans in the future will be far more careful about their words and actions in political campaigns – lest they face the full poower of law enforcement.
And that is EXACTLY what is wrong here.
The evil of the MacCarthy hearings was that the power of govenrmen was being brought to bear against americans for their political beleifs.
Today instead of corruptly persecuting people for their adherance to communism, we are persecuting them for supporting Trumpism or republicanism.
Since some of you keep dwelling on 2018.
Here is an analysis of Florida in 2018.
Basically Florida – a Swing State was an absolute disaster for Democrats.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/25/trump-2020-elections-florida-1125442
This is his numbers in Dec. Will be interesting to see for January. right no he is underwater in Florida (as well as NC, and that is why we have democrat sheriffs in counties in NC that had not had democrats for 30+ years)
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/
I think that trying to assign meaning to any of these polls at this time is lunacy.
No Trump is not why there are democratic sherrifs in counties in NC that have not seen democrat in 30+ years
In different places in the country you are seeing locally unique shifts.
Virginia and more slowly NC have been going blue for a long time.
Northern virginia – which is a giant suburb of DC has finally overwhelmed and otherwise red state. Specific urban areas in NC have flipped blue – while the state as a whole remains red.
Democrats are fleeing California and New York and new england and heading to Florida, NC, the southwest.
They are not arriving and converting to republicans – to the great ire of those living there for generations.
Further I am not especially fixated on polls. Daily polls are nearly useless. At most they give us small clues regarding elections.
Immediately after the 2013 Shutdown Republican polls numbers were in the toilet. Far far worse than at the moment. The GOP totally dominated the 2014 election – either despite the shutdown or possibly BECAUSE of the shutdown. Or maybe the only poll that matters is the election itself.
2018 is very hard to understand. It is inarguable that democrats did not do well in the house – better even than I expected. But nothing outside of historic norms. I do not personally beleive that historic norms are all that important.
So I am willing to entertain that democrats success in the house is meaningful.
Alot of the gains are using the lefts favorite term – Gerrymandered.
The PA supreme court bought a ludicrously stupid gerrymandering argument and created a gerrymandered map of its own that was openly hostile to republicans and overtly favorable to democrats.
Many Republican candidates were weak.
California essentially engaged in fraud to steal numerous long time republican seats. California litterally made legal the fraud that Republicans were accused of in NC.
Democrats outspent republicans 2:1 further they had good MODERATE house candidates often running against weak republicans.
I would note the wingnuts like AOC are from historically deep blue districts. AOC upset a democrat – not a republican. All the left wing loons in congress come from very very safe blue districts. And those are the real power in Pelosi’s house. Having won the house in 2018 Pelosi seems to be doing most everything in her power to disadvantage the very representatives who gave her power in 2020. How well do you think that those new democrats who eschewed impeachment and investigation talk and talked about working with Trump and bucking democratic leadership will do in 2020 when clearly their campaign promises were meaningless ?
The left paints the house election as a referendum on Trump.
Maybe in some ways that is true. I am trying to discern those.
Inarrguably the senate races WERE a referndum on Trump. And Trump did incredibly well in those and came very close to doing impossibly well.
The Senate map in 2020 favors democrats – But they start out at a -1 defict.
Jones only chance of winning again in Alabama is if Moore somehow manages to be the GOP nominee, That is just not happening.
The Odds of the GOP losing the senate are about zero.
It is highly unlikely republicans will pick up seats, but they could easily break even.
Meanwhile nothing has changed that should alter the election in the states Trump won in 2016. The Blue states Trump flipped are places Trump has made his base very happy.
Trump will run as an incumbent which is a tremendous advantage.
It is near cerain he will fact a democrat running to the left of Clinton.
It is near certain no moderate democrat can win the democratic nomination.
It is unlikely that Trump will face a democrat with the incredibly high negatives of clinton. At the same time he is not going to face an experienced candidate with high positives.
Howard Dean called Tulsi Gabbard the only unqualified democratic canidate.
I think she is possibly the only credible Threat to Trump.
I do not think the shutdown actually harmed republicans. In fact I think despite polls in 2014 it helped republicans and I think it will again in 2020.
SCOTUS will be a major campaign issue – Republicans have been looking to retake the supreme court for decades. But they feel betrayed by the appointments of Roberts, Kennedy, and Souter.
I do not know a single person who did not vote for Hillary wil will vote for a democrat because of Trump’s supreme court nominees.
Absolutely the left is energized over the supreme court.
But it does nto matter how angry people who were never going to vote for Trump get. Many conservatives say out 2016 because they did not like and Trust Trump. They did not beleive him regarding Supreme court or other campaign promises.
It is likely those people will vote in 2020.
Nor is this just about the supreme court.
With a few exceptions that have managed to make the news Trump’s federal court apointments overall have been stellar. It is a bit early to judge but Gorsuch appears to the the most libertarian SCOTUS appointment EVER, and many of Trump’s federal bench apointments are the same.
I would further note – these ARE NOT Scalia’s or Bork’s or Alito’s or even Thomas’s, This is a federalist remaking of the bench – not a conservative remaking. While that is NOT strictly speaking libertarian it is about the most libertarian you can expect from a republican.
I did not vote for Trump is 2016 and it is not likely I will in 2020.
But if I did, it would be because of the courts. Eight years of this caliber of federal court apointments could change the country in unbeleivably positive ways.
This is the court that will get government OFF all of our backs.
Whether it is out of our businesses or out of our personal lives or restoring our civil and criminal rights.
I want the first amendment back, and the 2nd, and the 4th and the 5th.
I want property rights back. I want it presumed that individual liberty is more important than whatever government wishes to do and that the burden is on government to prove justification – not the other way arround.
Just to be clear – I do not expect Trump to bring about libertopia – or anything close.
I expect to disagree with many federal court decisions by Trump appointees.
But I expect the tide to be moving more towards individual liberty than it was before. I do not think that even Rand Paul would have done as well on federal apointments.
It is also clear that the Kavanaugh hearings had a strong effect on the senate election in 2018 – though not the house.
That bodes very well for Trump in 2020.
Dave do you live in NC? Or do you just think you know everything?
I live here. I hear the news nightly. I read the editorials. I listen to the right and the left news comments. The reason we have democrat sheriffs is because the turnout for the left was far greater than the turnout for the right.
According to US News, November 7 “More North Carolina voters went to the polls for this election than in any non-presidential election since 1990, when Republican Jesse Helms and Democrat Harvey Gantt fought for Helms’ U.S. Senate seat.”
And the increase was on the left in the counties with the larger cities.In Forsyth County where i live we have 264,000 register voters with 155,000 of those Republican or unaffiliated. We have not even had a democrat on the ticket for sheriff for years and this year the democrat got 54% of the vote. Analysis shows not only did the turnout increase, but those supporting Trump in 2016, many switched and voted straight ticket democrat.
So before making unsubstantiated comments absent of facts, check out the issues. That is what people are doing on twitter that is screwing up this country and other blindly following their lead. Even the leader of the diocese in Kentucky apologized because he drank twitter cool-aide and had to regurgitate it since it was not true.
Don’t tell me that turning blue like Va caused this shift until you have facts to back that up. Yes the whole state is turning blue and state wide, we are seeing a shift in outcomes. But that is due to the rapid increase in population in Wake, Durham and surrounding counties (Raleigh-Durham, Chapel Hill) and Mecklingberg (Charlotte). But that was not where the shifts occurred because they are already represented by left politics. It was ion the conservative counties that the sheriffs and local commissioners shifted.
What does it take to destroy faith in this evil monster ?
It is irrelevant what you call it.
When you place more power in the hands of government the consequences are BAD.
All the very policies advocated by the left in the US
DO NOT WORK!!
How many more Cuba’s or Venezuela’s or USSR’s do we have to have before you learn the fundimentals of economics rest on human behavior and absent changing that in ways that we have NEVER managed the laws of economics are immutable.
Efforts by government to control an aspect of the economy FAIL ALWAYS.
Price controls, minimum wages, Subsidies – all the assorted elements of ACA
have ALWAYS failed every time they have been tried.
Sometimes colossally, sometimes to smaller degrees – but always failure.
One of the things Revealed more recently as the Ohr Testimony has been made public is the highly unusual nature of the Steele Dossier investigation.
Hakes notes the process used by the FBI/DOJ to produce a warrant application to the FISA court.
None of that process was followed. OIPR was NOT involved in the review of the warrant application.
Further an absolutely fundimental aspect of the process was ignored by Both Ohr and Baker.
That is that those who are sources, can not also have roles as evaluators of those sources.
Both Baker and Ohr were independently involved in providing the Steele Dossier to the FBI/DOJ. ;That role PRECLUDED having a decision making role in determining the reliability of the Dossier.
Looking at the partial process that Hakey describes – Baker and Ohr BOTH functioned as the agents whom someone at OIPR would receive invormation and question demanding verification of its credibility as well as BOTH seriving as the higher ups in DOJ/FBI would would have further questioned the work of OIPR and signed off on it when they were satisified.
In this instance OIPR was completely removed. Rank and File FBI agents were completely removed.
The Steele Dossier entered the FBI/DOJ at the highest levels. did not go through any normal vetting or process, and the decisions regarding its credibility were made by the very same people who provided it. This is not just unusual, it has not been done since J Edgar Hoover and the Church Commission.
Can we expect Adam Schiff to have the same courage and fortitude of Frank Church – to demand of the FBI/DOJ that they cease circumventing the rules and the law and targeting US persons without proper constitutional protections ?
It is absolutely essential for those on the left to protect the FISA warrant against page.
If that warrant was gamed or corruptly obtained, we not merely have a “fruit of the poisonoius tree” problem we have the problem that even today there is no more evidence than the FBI had in Oct 2016. If the Carter Page Warrant was corrupt the entire subsequent investigation – including Mueller is corrupt.
Further, these people – Mueller, Rosenstein, McCabe, Comey, Yates, Brennnan, Strzok, Weinstein, all know this.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/425913-who-allowed-fisa-surveillance-abuse-new-attorney-general-must-find-out
Snore
Let me get this straight – George Papadolis went to Jail because he made a two week error in the time line of an email that he received. Flynn is going to jail because he failed to mention that Kislyak raised the subject of sanctions in an interview with FBI agents – that was not supposed to be about Kislyak or the communications of an incoming NSA., that Van Der Zant went to jail for a similar minor email timeline error, the list of people persecuted by Mueller for minor errors of recollection is long – and now they are going after Stone for failing to recollect exculpatory information on an old cell phone.
So you are happy about this, and you clearly then think that lying – to the FBI, to Congress, to the Courts is a very serious matter – even small lies.
Yet different people in the FBI tell congress under oath and in some cases publicly that they got the Steele Dossier sometime in late September – Long after the FBI has started its investigation of the Trump campaign – which absent the Steele Dossier has NO FOUNDATION.
And Bruce Ohr and James Baker – people near the Top of DOJ/FBI testify that not only did the FBI/DOJ have the Dossier in July BEFORE formally opening the investigation, but that the KNEW then where it came from, They KNEW then that it lacked credibility, and The “They” who knew – is EVERYONE who has subsequently claimed they were unsure when or where they got it but that it was in September or October.
That these same people at the TOP of the FBI/DOJ told the FISA court that information that they have repeatedly characterized under oath was scurilous and unverified – that was what they said in July 2018, and it is what they testified to in May of 2017, they SWORE to the FISA court that it was verified and credible – that is the standard necescary for a warrant under the 4th amendment.
So that pack of lies – as well as Clappers lies to congress, Clintons lies to the FBI and Congress and the american people. Clintons destruction of subpeonad evidence –
Those are sufficiently insignificant you are prepared to overlook ?
No Jay – Not “snore”
The word you are looking for is Hypocracy – YOURS.
We can debate all kinds of issues. We can honestly disagree on what the law is, or what it should be. But if you are unable to hold those you like to the same standards as those you hate – everything else does not matter.
Any scheme where the standards are based on your personal feelings – who you like and who you do not, are corrupt, immoral and unethical.
Nothing to “snore” about.
Excellent take on AOC.
https://www.arcamax.com/politics/fromtheright/secupp/s-2169306?ezine=628
I like SE Cupp but to put it politely in this editorial “shit is full of shit”.
Trump did not beget AOC – it is the other way arround.
Obama, or more acurately the personalization of politics by the left, the PC, the constant personal accusations created Trump, or more accurately they created the environment in which he would succeed.
Further – whether we are talking AOC or Trump we should always recognize that they are spokesmen for many many others.
Destroying Trump will do NOTHING to change the fact that he speaks for tens possibly hundreds of millions of americans who do not feel that they have any voice besides Trump.
Destroy Trump and the NEXT time – and rest assured there WILL be a next time, they will come back with someone even stronger. The next time you will get a real authoritarian.
AOC also speaks for many many people from the left, and as clueless as she is – and she is FAR FAR more clueless than Trump. She succeeded in pulling off an upset political campaign. She deserves credit for that. But in her life that is ALL she has ever succeeded at.
So many people keep this game up that Trump is somehow clueless or stupid.
I will admit that it is easy to find him underwhelming and to underestimate him.
But I will remind you over and over that he has accomplished an enormous amount – before being president and as president.
Privately he has been enormously successful in MULTIPLE careers. Anyone who thinks that you can succeed at that level through luck or chance or accident or inheritance, or by cheating – is an idiot. Bernie Maddoff – probably the most famous actual crook of all times had a net worth of $80M. Maddoff got to the point where he could bilk people of billions through REAL success. Even he did not become wealthy through fraud.
I know those on the left continue to beleive you can not do well in life without resorting to lying cheating and stealling – but the truth is the opposite. It is damn near impossible to succeed in life unless you can get people to trust you. They do not need to like you. They do not need to beleive you are a good person, they do not need to beleive that you will be kind and generous to them. They MUST beleive that if they invest in you, that you will make money for them, or they will not invest in you. There are few confidence men who successfully play on millionaires and billionaires. Maddoff is the only one I know of.
And to do so, he had to develop a reputation for being trustworthy over many many years.
Beyond Trump’s private success is his success as president.
He won – when no one else thought he had a chance.
Having been elected he faces a left that is outraged and just shy of violent.
He defeated not merely the republican establishment but even the normal republican anti-establishment. He is the ultimate outsider. And yet economic grown has almost doubled.
Unemployment continues to decline – even beyond what is supposed to be the natural upper limit, wages are rising – particularly for those at the bottom. He has not managed to accomplish every campaign policy goal he promised – but in one form or another he has accomplished orders of magnitude more of those than any other president in history.
He did so with a disorganized GOP and the entire left unified in opposition.
The mideast is still a mess -= but is it much less of a mess than it was when he was elected, I do not think there is a president since Reagan that could say that.
I can go on and one. I do not even agree with all his promises, but he has made and kept them.
All this despite the left, the media and many posters here telling us every day how awful he is, how incompetent he is.
He said he was getting out of Syrian and Afghanistan – we are getting out of syria and afghanistan. You can fight about the wisdom of that – though it what is really disturbing is that it is so shocking to you that a president would actually do what he said he would.
In 50 years we will see whether AOC is a jestor, a fluke or someone truly capable who is less than perfectly careful in what she says. I am betting on jestor,
I have said before that I welcome Schiff and Company wasting their time further investigating the crap out of Trump/Russia collusion.
I keep getting told how awful Trumps apointments were – except when they decide to leave – then suddenly they are heros.
I am not sure this entire Trump Russia nonsense was not something Trump cooked up himself – that is a joke, but one with a point. The left wastes its time and effort on a stupid fraud,. meanwhile quietly Trump dismantles the Obama mess and gets things moving.
2020 is coming and how is Trump going to win Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania AGAIN ? Exactly the same was as he did before.
Only in 2020 he is not the dark horse unknown. He is the president with a record of success.
And democrats will have spent 4 years chasing snipes.
I keep hearing about polls and how Trump si somehow dead meat.
On July 1, 2015 Trump’s support was 33% and Clintons was 53%.
Trhough election day there were only 2 days in July where Trump polled ahead of clinton – by 2 pts.
One election day the polls showed Clinton with a 3pt lead.
Trump still won. Trump’s approvat rating on Election day was below where it is today.
And was below where it is today for most of the campaign.
I am sorry Ron there is good reason to wonder whether AOC is a light weight, and airhead, maybe in 20 years we will learn she is a force to be reckoned with.
Trump on the other hand may be offensive and prone to exageration, you may even oppose what he has accomplished, but it is impossibel to argue that he is not accomoplished,
You can try to argue that he says stupid things you can not argue that he is or does stupid things.
AOC and Trump are not part of the same world.
logorrhea
Jay. Do you have an argument ?
Facts, Logic, Reason.
Robert Barr was a republican congressmen from Georgia famous (like Lindsey Graham) for his role in the Clinton Impeachment.
Barr was also involved in the Patriot act and several horrendous drug laws.
Barr left congress, left the republican party, became a libertarian repudiated the patriot act and the drug law that bears his name and ran in 2008 as the libertarian candidate for president.
Barr is also a former US attorney who sought for and convicted a republican congressmen of perjury – so he knows a little about perjury.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/26/stone-indictment-dishonors-justice-system/
Dave, the irony here is sky high.
First, you Love gridlock. You have written songs, poems, and odes to partisan gridlock that prevents silly big government programs that try to modify human behavior. So, you should be in heaven right now.
Next, you yourself are advocating for a huge ineffective open ended government project, and what’s more it’s a project to solve a problem that you have strenuously argued does not exist here on these pages not so long ago.
Finally, you are pissed at the Dems for not signing on to this boondoggle. Oh, the splendid irony. Here, I will begin your reply for you: ” There is no irony…”
Roby, I think when you parse out 90% of the unnecessary verbage in Dave’s comments you will find he has not supported a wall for the most part. He has commented that immigration needs to be changed to eliminate the motivation i.e. social programs, minimum wage etc and then walls would not be required. But what he has supported is the processes going on in government (not the close down)
Try 97%.
Ha, no reply from Dave to my comment on the irony of him supporting a huge open ended government project that has worked poorly and tries to modify human behavior in a most unlibertarian manner. The Wall. Dave Never let’s a critical comment slide without a rebutal, but this one got by. I hit my target square on! The irony is sky high.
As you may recall, I have been saying for many months Muellers investigation and all the indictments that have little to do with collusion is all a political anti-Trump witch hunt. And that comes from me, someone who dislikes Trump.
But now we have Roger Stone who will be going on trial. When will that trial happen? About a year or so from now. What begins on a year or so? The presidential election. So Mueller gets what he has desired all along. A distraction for Trump.
Given this and the fact Trump’s spread between approval and disapproval increased -10 points in many polls since he was neutered, I am increasing my odds to close to a 1/3rd chance Trump does not run.
Political anti Trump witch hunt?
Mueller’s a Republican, right?
Maybe it’s an ideological idealistic witch hunt – Mueller, and his minions, decided Trump – a Russian asset – was rotting Conservative Republicanism to the core, and they patriotically vowed to remove as many of the decaying apples from the Trump barrel as possible.
If their assessment is correct (surely you know it’s likely), aren’t you happy to see as much rotten apple removal as possible?
And if you really want Trump replaced by a different Republican candidate in 2020, why aren’t you rooting for Mueller to present sufficient evidence to have that happen?
Jay, Mueller a republican? Yes he is.
Trump an establishment republican? Absolute not!
If Trump was Chris Christie or Marko Rubio, that investigation would have been over with long ago, given the same issues.
Mueller views Trump as a cancer on the republican party but is willing to kill the patient to get rid of the disease instead of treating the disease itself.
You’re saying that if Christie and Rubio and their family members and their campaign staff had the same number of suspicious dealings, associations, conversations, emails, meetings with the very same Russians (on US watchlists) as Trump and his cohorts did – they wouldn’t have been investigated by the FBI?
If either Christie or Rubio made the same Pro Putin statements, if they encouraged Russia to release Clinton’s missing emails, if they set up meetings with the Russians to get that info – and lied about the meetings, the contacts, the associations, the purpose of those interactions over and over and over and over… you wouldn’t want that investigated?
Really?
Really?
Yes
Is lying to congress the responsibility of a special investigator?
Is lying to the FBI the respinsibility of the SI
Is payoff to whores and others the responsibility of the SI?y
And anything else that is not collusion the responsibility of the SI?
Roger Stone should be the responsibility of the congress or FBI, whoever investigates lying to them, NOT MUELLER!
Bannon should be the responsibility of the state or FBI or whoever char ge money laundering, NOT MUELLER!!
If the damning information is not collusion, it needs to be referred to appropriate agencies. Or, lets do everthing by SI and get rid of the FBI.
“If the damning information is not collusion, it needs to be referred to appropriate agencies.”
Read the MANDATE!
Do you see the word ‘collusion’ anywhere in it? No.
Do you see his authority to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise from the investigation?” And his authority to prosecute any federal crimes arising from the investigation? Do you need to borrow my reading glasses to decipher the words?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html
“as well as other matters that “may arise directly from the investigation.”
And that my friend is what the hell is wrong with the special investigator laws. It gives one man free reign to run rough shod over individuals, call them in, say this is an interview, you dont need an attorney, we just want to ask a couple questions and then you find yourself facing 15 years because you answered a couple questions incorrectly.
I am sorry I have such a deep seated opinion on the rights of Americans and how investigations should be handled. I am sorry I can not buy into the theory that if you don’t like what someone did, we can appoint someone to find some untruth that you stated that will get you 15 to 20.; I am sorry I believe that local law enforcement, state law enforcement, the FBI, the SEC and others have clear directives on what they can and should not do and that SI’s don’t have that restriction, but should. Clinton’s whitewater investigation should never have ended in lying and obstruction impeachment hearings because it had nothing to do with Whitewater.
So if you can not accept my strict rules that should be present in any investigation, sorry. But you will never convince me that when Mueller found anything that did not have anything to do with collusion, it should have gone into the regular process of investigation by the appropriate agencies.
According to a NY Times article “As a special counsel, Mr. Mueller can choose whether to consult with or inform the Justice Department about his investigation. He is authorized to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” according to Mr. Rosenstein’s order naming him to the post, as well as other matters that “may arise directly from the investigation.” He is empowered to press criminal charges, and he can request additional resources subject to the review of an assistant attorney general.”
“as well as other matters that “may arise directly from the investigation.” That one statement gives one man too much power, since “Mr. Mueller can choose whether to consult with or inform the Justice Department about his investigation”. That means no one needs to know what the F he is doing until he has done it. No! there needs to be oversight so this country does not turn into a jackboot society.
So you and I will just have to disagree because someone who has complete trust in government and the people associated with government will never understand those that have complete distrust for government unless proven otherwise. Mueller has not proven to be trustworthy in my book.
“And that my friend is what the hell is wrong with the special investigator laws. It gives one man free reign to run rough shod over individuals, call them in, say this is an interview, you dont need an attorney, we just want to ask a couple questions and then you find yourself facing 15 years because you answered a couple questions incorrectly.”
Manafort: 8 counts of tax and bank fraud. Wow, he must have been totally confused on a lot of incorrectly answered questions.
Cohen: another 8 counts of financial crimes, and the poor guy was ‘confused’ multiple times. About dates of discussions with Schlump, to minimize Trump’s link to the Moscow project and to limit “the ongoing Russia investigations. Lies to Congress under oath shouldn’t be criminal either – right Ron? It’s their job to legislate, not prosecute, correct? Testimony to Congress and to congressional investigators should be taken as non judgementally as locker room chat.
Jay, like I said, we will never agree. You trust a system the sets up a one man law enforcement agency that, according to the NYTimes, does not have to consult or report to anyone.
I support one where oversight is required. I support a system where a SI would find financial crimes, that evidence would be forwarded to the FBI, SEC or state agency who has this responsibility. If he finds lies to congress, then the evidence should be sent to the FBI. If he finds collusion, then he proceeds with the investigation and charges those involved.
But Jay, it goes to your total trust in government and my near total distrust in government!
Prez Schlump’s Shutdown
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/shutdown-cost-u-s-economy-11-billion-budget-office-says-n963531
Yep, and just think, if Nancy had agreed to $5B, we would be net to the good for $6 B.
So there is blame on both sides to two shunks in a pissing contest
And Jay, another reason Nancy does not want border security. Right now CA has three additional house seats due to 2.5 M illegals in CA. CA could get another in 2020 with more illegals.
Ron, if you’re the CEO of a bank with numerous branches and thieves threaten to blow up one of them unless they get $5 million, and there’s $12 million in that bank vault, do you pay them the $5 mil in extortion money?
No, because that would set a precedent for future extortion. And if they blow up the bank are you going to place equal blame on the thieves and the CEO?
And Ron, what 3 additional California House seats are you referring to?
California didn’t gain or lose any Congressional House seats after the last diurnal census in 2010. Was it back in 2000?
After 2010 Texas picked up 4 new seats. Were they the result of illegals counted in that census?
Jay OK let me put it in different terms. I don’t think you will accept what i am saying with your hatred for Trump, but here it goes.
Trump says he wants $5B. No negotiation. Nancy said No! No negotiations. Trump refuses to sign off on any current funding amounts for the border. Government closes. So now we have a standoff. 30+ days goes by and finally a break. Senate agrees to vote on two separate bills. neither passes. So we are still in a standoff. So Nancy neutered Trump in the eyes of many when he decides to give in and jettison his $5B position. He opens government. Then congress assigns individuals to work on an agreement, one from the house and one from the senate, then a reconciliation of the two. That will go to him for signiture. Somewhere with probably$2-$2.5B.
Why would Nancy not come on TV and suggest this to begin with? Why didn’t Trump suggest this? Because we have two f’in assholes that put their ego above the country. It cost an estimate $11B according to your figures. I have seen something like $3B we will never recover.
Now for the congressional seats. For each 650,000-700,000 census individuals, a house seat is assigned. In the 2010 census, California had an estimated 2.5 million illegals. Divide that by 675,000 (average 650-700) and that ends up giving California 3.7 additional seats they would not have if not for illegals. Today, the best numbers I could find on a internet search estimated California now has 3,059,000 illegals. Divide that by 675,000 and you now have California with 4.5 additional seats that will occur in 2020, and that does not include the change in the last year or so. California might have 5+ more because of illegals.
Anyway, if Nancy did not support soft border security, she would have 49-50 representatives instead of 53. And in 2020, she may have 55, caused mainly due to illegals where she would have 49-50 without illegals.
So that is where I developed the 3-4 seats and why she does not support strong immigration laws. Could be as many as 6 by 2020.
If you took those seats and they ended up in more moderate states, there could be a slightly different environment in D.C.
And we are fighting over whether the census is allowed to ask if a person is a citizen.
The short form asked that through MOST of the history of this country. It was stopped sometime in the 60’s.
The long form has ALWAYS asked.
Trump has put the citizenship question back on the short form.
And the courts have stopped him (so far), because they claim he has the wrong motives.
This is nonsense.
Is there no difference between a citizen in the US and someone who is not a citizen ?
If we can not ask on the census if you are a citizen – is the next step by the courts prohibiting us from asking when you vote ?
Do we follow that by barring even asking if you are a resident ?
If you are unwilling to accept that there is a meaningful distinction between citizens and non-citizens – you are only a short distance from allowing everyone to vote in US elections.
Which is very strange coming from the left who is freaked out that Russians might have influence US voters.
Aparently the left is more concerned about illegal non existant russian votes than illegal votes from central and south americans that are real.
Many of our rights we have extended to anyone residing in the US.
The right to free speech, the right to a fair trial are all NOT dependent on whether you are a US citizen. But some rights belong only to citizens.
Though there is much fraud – generally non-ctizens particulary illegal non-citizens are not entitled to entitlements.
Non-ctizens are not entitled to vote.
Given that the most fundimental purpose of the census is voting, it is not merely legitimate, it is essential that we ask who is a citizen.
This is also increasingly important as there is some legitimate debate as to the actual immigrant population of the US.
Until recently the accepted figure for illegal aliens has been about 11M.
This was and still is the official government figure.
But Harvard/MIT recently did a study. They expected to find the real number was LOWER than that. Instead their data concluded the number was more than DOUBLE that number.
Trump has more recently been using the 25M number for the harvard study.
The fact is WE DO NOT KNOW.
Trump did NOT make up the 25M number.
But it is NOT the official government number.
It is actually important for us to know whether we have 25M or 11M illegal aliens in the US.
I’m in favor of asking the immigration question on the census.
That’s the purpose of a census, to determine who is here.
The more demographic info assembled the better.
The wall is authorized by law – and has been since 1986.
The law also requiires the executive to prevent people crossing the border illegally from entering.
The law also dictates who can enter and who can not and obligates the executive to enforce that law.
The “bank robbers” would be those trying to enter illegallly – and the Bank CEO would be obligated to prevent the bank robbers from raiding the bank vaults – even if he had to spend money to make the vaults more secure.
As is typical of leftists – your analogy is inverted.
You are incapable of telling lawful from unlawful, right from wrong.
This would be because you make judgements based on feelings not principles.
1) The figure is garbage.
There is only ONE measure of the economy as a whole – GDP, which is the same as rise in standard of living.
We will see the GDP figures in a few months – not now, but there is no evidence todate that they are falling.
Government produces NOTHING. Shutting down government has little effect on GDP.
2). Lets assume for the sake of argument this is true – that would mean DEMOCRATS frittered away 11B dollars to attempt to avoid building a wall.
Or more Simply – Pelosi and democrats F’d up.
But but but Prez Schlump promised America the tax cut would boost business spending and job groth.
(Reuters) -“ The Trump administration’s $1.5 trillion cut tax package appeared to have no major impact on businesses’ capital investment or hiring plans, according to a survey released a year after the biggest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in more than 30 years.
The National Association of Business Economics’ (NABE) quarterly business conditions poll published on Monday found that while some companies reported accelerating investments because of lower corporate taxes, 84 percent of respondents said they had not changed plans. That compares to 81 percent in the previous survey published in October.”
So the massive increase in hiring that has occured – that is just fiction ?
According to economists – the natural rate of unemployment is somewhere arround 4%.
It was very close to that when Trump took office.
The closer you are to that “natural rate” the harder it is to lower unemployment.
It took Obama nearly a decade to being unemployment back to near 4%.
Trump has not merely continued to lower unemployment, but the rate of new job creation has INCREASED.
Further growth is nearly 100% higher than it was – that means we are more productive.
Put more succinctly – Reuters is full of shit.
You do not need a “survey”, All you need is actual obserations of the economy.
At the same time – I will be happy to cede – because almost a century of economic data supports it, that tax cuts without spending cuts has a much smaller positive economic impact.
There is no doubt that the economy is doing much better since Trump was elected.
There are many theories as to why.
It is my view that the primary positive impact from Trump’s presidncy is NOT the tax cuts, but the choking of the regulatory beast.
But you are free to differ.
But you are still stuck with a stronger economy, lower unemployment, and raising wages – and the effects are greatest for those at the bottom.
I would also note – though again there are many factors, that post tax cut the stock market declined.
ONE of many reasons for that is that under Obama the policies disfavored investment and favored profit taking – driving stock prices up.
Trump has shifted the incentives towards investment and that lowers stock prices.
To be clear – the effect of the Fed interest rates is larger than anything else.
Further the trade off between stock prices and investment is SHORT TERM.
Shifting to investment means SHORT TERM lower stock prices, and long term higher ones.
Further all of this is relative to the current rate of growth.
Under Trump growth has nearly doubled – so stock prices are going to increase.
But LESS in the short term, than they would have without the tax cuts – and more in the long term.
We played games with economic statistics through the Obama administration – and now you are doing the same with Trump.
The absolute most critical economic statistic is the growth rate.
The growth rate is the same as the rate of increase in standard of living.
That is what everyone cares about.
The growth rate is the agregate statistic that encapsulates all the positive and negative effects of every other statistic combined.
At any given time – no matter who is present there will be some economic data moving in a positive direction and some moving negative.
It is not ever possible to get everything moving positive at the same time.
Further it is very dangerous to concentrate on improving specific statistics – that is what created the housing bubble.
I am near certain the survey you are citing is WRONG – meaning it is not measuring reality.
In fact that is pretty much self evident.
Surveys tend not to measure reality, but perception.
We just hope they are aligned.
But whether the survey is correct or not – it is the overall behavior of the economy that matters. Not one narrow measure.
That is true whether we are looking at Trump or Obama, or Bush.
The good news is that the economy is doing OK.
I would like to be clear on that Too.
Trump is NOT presiding over a boom – atleast not thus far.
He is presiding over a NORMAL economy.
It just feels like a boom, because we have had an the same anemic economy that is typical of european social democracies over the pas 2 decades – probably because we had increasingly resembled a european social democracy.
We have been there so long that normal looks to us like a BOOM.
This is not a boom. It is just normal.
At the same time – I wonder why is it that you seem positively joyful at even the prospect that the economy MIGHT be bad ?
While I predicted the failures of Obama’s economics – I was not happy about it.
I would have prefered that what Obama did worked – even though I disagree with it. Because the economic consequences of the federal govenrment are paid for by our people.
You seem so badly to want Trump to fail that you can be gleeful that you think the economy is going to hell.
I care that our government is following the best economic policy BECAUSE that positively impacts peoples standard of living.
If it were actually possible to improve standard of living by doing things I beleive should fail – I would support that.
I would rather have a president I hated and a rising standard of living,
Than a president I loved and a falling one.
You clearly seem to feel the opposite.
That is immoral
“He is presiding over a NORMAL economy.”
He is presiding over Obama’s inherited economy.
Surely you admit that.
“He is presiding over Obama’s inherited economy.
Surely you admit that.”
No!. I do not “admit thinks that are ludicrously stupid and not true.
WP ate a longer reply. But even a cursory examination of actual data would refute any argument that Trump inherited the current economy from Obama.
Obama had 4-5 extremely good quarters. But he had few strings of 3-4 quarters over 2% in a row. Trump has had 6 quarters over 2% in a row.
It is not 8 because of the sub 2% economy he inherited.
I do not think Obama went a full year ever without atleast 1 sub 1% quarter.
There has not be any Trump quarter below 1.6% (1Q2017) and no quarter below 2% since Trump crossed the 2% threshold.
Inarguably the economy is not nearly as strong as Trump claims it is.
But it feels strong to most of us – because it has been two decades since we have seen sustained 3% growth.
You’re an asshole in denial
Any questions?
Wait a sec! Didn’t Prez Schlump guarantee his new NAFTA would close the Mexico-US trade gap?
“Mexico posted its highest trade surplus on record in December despite efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to reduce the nation’s shipments to his country by redoing the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Mexico, which sends the vast majority of its exports to the U.S., saw its surplus soar to $1.8 billion, the most for any month since data has been collected in 1999. Automotive exports rose 7.4 percent from a year earlier to $11.5 billion dollars, while oil-product imports fell 15.5 percent to $1.38 billion.” (Bloomberg)
Jay, pleaee start doing some research and educate yourself on any subject you comment on.
You are correct, Trump did say the new agreement would cut trade imbalance.
That will happen when BOTH countries SENATES APPROVE the agreement.
NEITHER ONE HAS SO FAR¡!!!!!!!!! We are still under the old agreement
https://globalnews.ca/news/4556786/new-nafta-agreement-usmca-congress-approval/
I’ll send your objection to the source of the story, Ron, I quoted Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-28/mexico-posts-record-high-trade-surplus-even-after-nafta-redo
Good grief Jay, are you really that gullable.
Bloomberg is a site that is completely against Trump. They wrote this article in such a way that facts were quoted, statement of truth was presented, but one major fact was left out.
Yes, the trade imbalance got worse.
Yes, it was after a new agreement between Trump and the Mexican President signed off.
But the most important fact left out. No changes have, or will, take place until after both countries government approves the deal, and then there will be a date it becomes effective.
Please explain why you and so many others think we have a king that snaps his fingers and it happens? That is not what happens. Even Obama, with his pen, could not make the new NAFTA, effective immediately.
So for further reference when you read the liberal missing facts info on treaties, “Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which, upon receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority vote of the United States Senate, become binding with the force of federal law.”
Bloomberg News is against Trump?
I’ve found my own Fox News!
Yay 😃
Not sure what your saying, but Michael Bloomberg is the founding member of Bloomberg news. How much more anti trump can you get without going to CNN and MSNBC?
Trade is one area where I ignore what Trump says and look at what he does.
Regardless, Trump did NOT promise to make trade surpluses and deficits go away.
He promised to make trade “fairer”.
In practice he has acted to make Trade freer – though he has done so by threatening to make it less free.
Regardless of What Trump says – or what Bloomberg says – Trade deficits are entirely meaningless. Any trade deficit MUST be matched by a capital account surplus.
If Mexico aquires massive numbers of green slips of paper called Dollars from us – there are only a few things they are good for.
It can use them to buy goods from the US.
If can use them to buy goods from others who will buy goods from the US
If can use them to invest in the US.
It can burn them.
The best thing that any foreign country can do for the US is to have a huge trade deficit and do nothing with those little green slips of paper.
Regardless Trade is one of very very things in economics that is actually zero sum.
I have no idea about your source.
Trading economics has trade with Mexico is very volatile quarter to quarter.
But our end of 2018 Trade was significantly positive – according to TE.
But over the long term it is really fairly close to zero
Further it is not different between Obama and Trump.
If you want to argue that THUS far nothing Trump has done has altered the balance of trade with mexico – that would be correct.
This is an FYI. When you hear about medical false claims, incorrect payments, fraud and abuse, please keep in mind that there are now 68,000 ICD-10 medical codes used for billing claims. ICD stands for International Codes for Desease and the 10 is the version now in use. Version 9 had around 16,000 codes.
Who, other than Einstein, could understand 68,000 codes, even with computer help? And our government requires this coding, instead of flat rate billing for the general service received, like “Hip Replacement $xxxx.xx”
So, AOC is backing Maduro. This is the moment for her ascent to hero status to be brought crashing down to earth by the members of the Dem party and it’s associated media who are Not inclined to AOC ism. Moderate Dems kill this idiotic socialist movement while you have the chance or regret it forever.
The cats out of the bag. Hard to catch and put it back in.
Just for your phrase derivation amusement, Ron:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letting_the_cat_out_of_the_bag
Interesting. thanks. But putting that cat back in the bag is much easier than the ones I was talking about.
And for those not from the south, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” has nothing to do with “cats”. It is how to skin a catfish after catching it.
I just googled AOC Roby, and as of yesterday I can’t find any statement’s of her support for him, or any criticisms either. Did she just come out with that?
But this turned up, regarding a different female democrat newcomer backing Maduro…
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rep-omar-backs-maduro-regime-shares-state-run-propaganda-on-social-media
Soon enough we will all be told by the left that Maduro is really a fascist and that Venezuela is really a right wing regime
Rewriting history is the norm for the left.
Well, she criticize d Trump’s delegitimizing of Maduro as un democratic and concerning, which I guess was mild by her standards. Maduro is even less legitimate than his buddy putin, so she is full of shit. Omar, good Lord, something worse than AOC. Lord love a duck are we fucked.
AOC has endorsed the stalled negotiations to remove Maduro that have been going on fruitlessly for years. She has openly opposed the efforts by various governments including our own to support Guaido.
Ultimately it is not AOC that is the issue – it is the MASSIVE support of the left FOR YEARS of Chavez, and Maduro and Venzeulan socialism.
We have been told by the Sander’s and Micheal Moores and other prominent lefties that Venezeula was a socialist success story – not just another in the long long list of socialist failures.
Now the meme is shifting – Venezeuala did not get it “perfect” – Maduro is the wrong leader.
Any political system that requires perfection will be a disaster.
Read Madison in Federalist 51 over and over.
Ihttps://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/j/jamesmadison/105473/jamesmadison1.jpg
Let hell freeze, I will support trump in his efforts to bring down madro, short of military intervention.
Further, if the left-progressive faction gets one of their members in as the Dem candidate in 2020 I will hope the GOP wins in a landslide, beats them like a rug.
My father, the traditional liberal, think Hubert Humphrey, told me that the NYT is pushing AOC daily and attacking Biden, much to his disgust. Aaaarrrrgg! Moderates are really losing everywhere. What a #$@&* nightmare.
Roby I would like to hear more from Starbucks CEO Shultz and his plan for America.
But I question his wisdom given how Trump has been treated as an outsider to D.C. and being a billionaire/Millionaire. I think he has to have a screw loose to even consider a run for president.
Now for a question for everyone.
We capture billions in drug money yearly. Just from El Chapo we captured around 14 Billion. What the hell do we do with that money? Why not use it to build the wall? He is Mexican and then mexico would be paying for the wall, right?
Or do we just piss it away like we do so much other moneys, never to see any benefit?
Purportedly the Shutdown cost $3B – something I doubt.
But lets assume it did.
Trump is quietly shutting down the war in afghanistan.
That costs us about $3B/month.
Lots of people you call Lefties (as well as anti-Trump Righties)are giving him credit for that.
It’s like training a dog who constantly craps inside the house – when he correctly craps outside, you pat him on the head and offer praise, hoping he’ll maintain proper doggie behavior
Ron, I am really intrigued by Schultz…at least based on the positions that he’s outlined so far. He seems to be a genuine centrist, and is very open about the Democrats move to the far left, as the reason that he’s considering a run.
Of course, early indications don’t mean much…we’ve certainly seen even more promising candidates self-destruct, before they ever got as far as the primary season. And Democrats, including Mr. Soda and Gun banner himself, Michael Bloomberg, seem ready to tear Schultz apart, long before he’s gotten any traction, because they’re panicked at the idea that a moderate might ruin their chances at defeating Trump. (Kind of funny that many of them are talking about boycotting Starbucks, even though Schultz is no longer the CEO of Starbucks, and is not affiliated with the company at all.
But, after watching the cringeworthy performance of Liz ” I’m gonna go get me a beer” Warren , and the far left positions taken by Kamala Harris in her CNN town hall ( No more private heath insurance, even as supplemental, banning all semi-automatic weapons, etc.), I wouldn’t be surprised if Schultz makes this a 3-way race. He’s already working on getting on the ballot in all 50 states, and has hired a PR and a campaign manager, so maybe he can pull it off.
I would have to hear more about his views on foreign policy, immigration, and free speech, before I could call him a genuine moderate, but his economic and healthcare positions sound good.
And I think that using the drug money to build barrier walls where needed would be a great use of the money. But Congress would have to approve and the Democrats would never allow that to pass the House. I’m not sure you could get a majority of Republicans to approve that. They would much rather piss it away on Planned Parenthood, NPR, and funding studies of transgenderism in hamsters.
You could easily finance border security with a Wealth Tax; as the wealthy have more to lose from illegal immigration, they should be willing to pay more taxes to safeguard their investments & assets here.
Sounds fair. And they can be presented windshield stickers acknowledging “I Protect The Border!”
Not unless Congress approved that specifically.
There is little about Schultz out there. What there is, is intriguing, but I would have to hear alot more from him before having much of an oppinion.
Almost every firearm in existance today is a “semi-automatic weapon”.
“A semi-automatic firearm, or self-loading firearm, is one that not only fires a bullet each time the trigger is pulled, but also performs all steps necessary to prepare it to discharge again” Nearly all handguns are semi-automatic.
Many rifles are.
Let’s follow Australia’s example.
Outlaw some really horrific automatic weapons, but specifically requiring separate licensing for other guns by category.
Like this:
Examples of the firearms in the five Australian licensing categories are:
Category A: rimfire rifles, and single and double barrel shotguns.
Category B: single shot and repeating centre fire rifles.
Category C: semi automatic rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds; and semi automatic or pump action shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds.
Category D: self-loading centre fire rifles.
Category H: handguns.
And let’s require separate proficiency tests for each weapon, as we do for autos and big trucks.
You don’t object to that, right.
Nope not voter Fraud to be seen. None, Zippo, Nada.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/voter-fraud-texas-evidence-non-citizens-voting/
Yup, some tiny amount of possible voter fraud, over 20 years, hardly any of those flagged proven to have actually voted illegally.
Read this, and educate yourself to facts, not politically exaggerated speculation
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-non-citizen-voters/
Did you actually read your “snopes fact check ?”
It is not a fact check. It does not actually dispute anything.
It just tries to explain it.
And most of the sources Snopes uses are news stories often oppinion peices.
Please read RealClear’s guide to fact checking.
Fact checkers sourcing the media to refute “facts” that are not specifically about the media is improper – though widely done.
Further Snopes wastes alot of space on “motive”.
A typical left wing nut tactic – we chose not to beleive certain facts because we do not like the people who provided them or their motives.
Finally – snopes or otherwise – we can disagree on the magnitude of the problem
Even Snopes did not manage to discount the FACT that the problem is FAR larger than the left has claimed.
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/29/texas-voter-citizenship-list-problems-state-tells-counties/
Why is the left apoplectic over foreign involvement in our elections and totally stonewalling anything that appears illegal immigrants are doing in voting illegally?
I’m in favor of limiting both.
Aren’t you?
Are NDAs signed by White House Staff – paid for by taxpayers – enforceable?
Yes, secure secret info can’t be divulged, but can observations about staff efficiency and other office gossip be censored?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/29/donald-trump-cliff-sims-team-of-vipers/2708590002/
Yes
If you do not like that – change the law.
The government like any other employer can “censor” the work related speech of its employees.
So yes water cooler gosip about your job can be censored.
BTW Obama had far nastier employment agreements/NDA than Trump
Misinformed baloney.
They can only restrict government related work when a person still works at the job.
Plus they can whistle blow ineptness or corruption per the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.
How do you manage to come up with wrong answers so frequently?
“Misinformed baloney.”
That would be incorrect. Government as an employer has mostly the same rights as any other employer.
“They can only restrict government related work when a person still works at the job.”
Nope, There are a few areas in which government as an employer is more restricted than other employers. But for the most part, we are not discussing “censorship” or any infringement on rights. And NDA is a contractual exchange of some of your rights for something else.
EVERY free exchange is a trade of some rights for something else.
Stormy Daniels took money in return for her right to speak about her affair with Trump. People seeking jobs at the whitehouse take money in return for a job at the whitehouse and some restrictions on their conduct.
Absolutely those restrictions can continue after the leave the job.
But generally what the law allows as far as restrictions continuing past employment depends on the specific restrictions and their duration.
Non-competes as an example are perfectly legal.
Life-time noncompetes are usually not.
“Plus they can whistle blow ineptness or corruption per the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.”
The whistleblower act would have no application here is numerous ways,
First as YOU have said – these people are no longer government employees – the whistlerblower act does not apply to them.
Further you can not waive your right to speak about something that is actually criminal. So these NDA;s would not apply to anything that the Whistleblower statute applied to anyway.
“How do you manage to come up with wrong answers so frequently?”
Facts, logic, reason – you should try it.
Jay, it is quite clear you are clueless about:
individual rights – what is and what is not a right.
The fact that one can (and we all do) exchange our rights for other things we value all the time. In fact what are typically called “contract rights” are typically the rights we get in exchange for natural rights.
In return for my clients purchase of the natural right of my labor, I get a contract right to get paid, and they get a contract right to my work.
This is how rights work. There are a very few natural rights that we generally accept that you can not voluntarily trade – as an example you can not sell yourself into slavery.
Next on your list of cluelessness would be everything “whistleblower” related.
The whistleblower act is LAW.
The whistleblower act protects current federal employees from retaliation when they report:
Crimes,
Waste of funds,
Substantial and specific threats to safety.
It is inapplicable to former employees.
It is inapplicable to political differences,
It is inapplicable where there is no threat of retaliation against the employee.
It is inapplicable if the complaint is not made to the OSC.
There is no whistleblower protection for people who go to the press.
Or who write a book.
Presumably you have heard of “unconstitutionally vague”.
Laws are required to be clear.
And finally and again – even the whistleblower act is unnecescary if you are speaking about a crime. You are always free to speak out about a crime.
As I have told you before – it is pretty easy to be right all the time in blog comments. All that is required is to check your facts beforehand.
I doubt you looked up the Whistleblower Act before posting.
But I did before replying.
Though I did not really need to, because it really could not be anything but what it is and remain constitutional.
I am a proponent of open government. I honestly do not care very much about this.
I would have little problem with passing laws that required nearly everything in government to be out in the open except what really falls under national security.
I think full disclosure and transparency would be excellent.
It would also grind government to a halt – again something I fully support.
But neither you nor I get to make up the law to suit our wishes.
Like them or not, NDA’s or other contractual restrictions on one’s speech in return for a job are pretty standard – even in government work.
Once again you are throwing a fit of outrage over something that not only is not outrageous – it is normal.
If you want to change the law – I will probably support you – in the context of government.
But I am not going flip out because Trump is doing what other presidents have done for decades.
Stop spreading false information.
The only NDAs required in previous administrations related to security issues, not the sweeping NDAs Trump foisted on Govt employees.
Factually educate yourself.
https://www.bustle.com/p/did-obama-require-non-disclosure-agreements-trump-broke-precedent-again-10081835
Trump Political Payoffs
(don’t tell me others have done it; wrong is wrong )
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-town-95-new-undisclosed-trump-administration-appointees
“And I’m sure some of these political appointees are good people.”
LMAO, they are all unqualified as is the appointer in chief.
Look at that duffus Whitaker, they practically had to drag him off the stage.
dduck, who is Whitaker and what did he do. Nothing on link I could see. Only talked about the number of appointees.
Nothing new. Everyone gets paid back for their support.
This was from March 2017 before the election
https://presidentialtransition.org/blog/posts/160316_help-wanted-4000-appointees.php
“duffus” is left wingnut code for “not a left wingnut”.
Wow!
Trump has hired people !!!!
Stop the presses!! The world is coming to an end.
I have no idea if these are “good people”. I doubt most of the people Obama hired, or Bush hired, or the Clinton foundation hired are “good people”.
Hopefully they will accomplish something of value.
But it is government I would not hold my breath.
Trump appointed them – so it should be completely assumed they will be an anethema to the left. Really ! Do we need to go through the list of Obama appointees that make no sense beyond ideology ?
BTW it is quite common to hire people from industry to the departments that regulate those industries – again do we need to go through the list of Obama appointees ?
The only difference between the insiders that republicans appoint and those the democrats appoint is your characterization of their motives.
I do not care what their motives are. I care that they do a good job. And my definition, of what constitutes a good job at EPA is pretty much the exact opposite or what yours is – so it is likely I will be happy and you will not.
But that is a political difference – well except for the fact that your idea of politically happy means controling other and mine means freeing them.
Wrong is wrong.
But you have only offered inuendo – not even a clear allegation of wrong.
Government hires people from the industries they regulate ALL THE TIME.
It is NOT inherently wrong. What would be WRONG would be hiring people who are completely clueless about the industries they regulate.
Absolutely it is possible that government hiring involves corrruption.
Adn as you say “wrong is wrong”
Making allegations you can not support is WRONG.
Defaming people is WRONG
Guilt by association is WRONG.
If you have evidence rather than innuendo – present it.
Acting AG.
He shouldn’t have spoken about Mueller and that upset others in the department and they abruptly ended the meeting.
Sorry, I don’t have a link.
Why shouldn’t he have spoken about Mueller ? He is LITERALLY Muellers boss.
And it is LONG PAST time Mueller had a boss.
If others in the department are upset – it is time for them to quit.
I am upset as hell about Mueller.
I am surprised that Whitaker did not fire him.
I am very dubious about Barr as AG specifically because he has said positive things about Muellers reputation. Muellers reputation long before Trump was as a gestapo bully.
Is there anyone here who is going to defend what he did to Richard Jewel ? Or Bruce Ivers ?
Presumably you are upset because Whitaker said Mueller was winding down.
That has been rumoured for a long time. The Stone indictment gave the left hope that maybe that was false.
Regardless, are you assuming Whitaker is lying ?
Or are you angry because Whitaker is telling the truth ?
Unless Whitaker is lying – what exactly is wrong with what Whitaker said ?
While “supervising” Mueller Rosenstein held press conferences all the time.
Are you saying that only those people you approve of are allowed to supervise Mueller ?
Are you saying that you get personal approval of anything said about Mueller ?
If Whitaker is lying about the Mueller investigation winding down, then everyone – right and left is going to crucify him.
If he is stating the facts – there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Maybe, yes, no, could be, who knows, so change the law, who cares, it doesn’t matter, consider the source, Please apply the answer you prefer or is applicable.
The point – which you clearly missed – was there is alot we do not know.
Therefore there are many posibilities.
But there is only one possibilitiy that justifies outrage – and that one is near certain to be false.
“consider the source” is an inverse appeal to authority – except when the source is not actually a source. The media is almost NEVER and actual source for anything except stories about the media.
Noting that something claimed as a source is NOT a source – is a valid argument.
Holey s—-, you are living up to the portrayal in your case study. Thanks.
Some real economics.
https://economics21.org/math-problem-could-sink-bernieaoc-agenda
Ha, I posted this to the wrong topic. Sorry, I will have to repost it here:
On the 2020 election, since it has started. Trump could win in a landslide if all falls perfectly for him. He could lose in a landslide if all goes wrong. There are a lot of balls in the air at present, China, Lil Kim and NK, trumps views on NATO and other US military commitments, Syria, ISIS, Afghanistan, the economy, and Mueller. Almost the only trump ball that is a solid result is the economy (and the SCOTUS nominees which may not be a plus for trump with the electorate as a whole). Who the dem party nominates is going to have a Huge impact. Which wing of the party will triumph?
My vote is meaningless, given where I live, but there is a nearly 0 chance I would vote for a progressive democrat. I suppose I could do it if the prog had a chance to win and trump’s mess gets to be utterly critically intolerable, all his balls in the air come up as disasters. There are many like me who’s votes are not meaningless.
Best case scenario for trump: all his foreign policy and trade initiative balls in the air bring positive fruit and are popular. The economy does not falter. The dems chose a prog candidate. Mueller’s findings implicate his campaign but not him directly. Enough Wall gets built to satisfy his base. Trump wins in a landslide.
Worst case for trump, NK pulls the football away, ISIS is loudly not dead, there is no agreement with China that is clearly a US win, Afghanistan falls into disaster, Mueller’s results damn the trump campaign and trump personally, the dems somehow pick a candidate who is more or less not living in an economic and social policy land of delusions. The Wall clearly is a loss for trump. Then trump could lose in a landslide.
So, really its going to be some mix of these factors coming down for and against trump. Could trump in max wounded condition still beat a Warren? I have no idea, it could be a very close thing, or not.
Then there is the 3rd party candidate wildcard. I would be enthusiastically on board with Schultz if trump is not beatable due to some combination of the factors I mentioned. Shultz may even be able to leverage the dem party into choosing a more moderate candidate by coming right out and saying that he is going to run as an independent if they choose a progressive nominee, then he could let his campaign go if they choose a Biden. Ha, in my wildest dreams trump fails, the dems choose a lunatic, and Shultz wins and establishes a moderate turf. But I quit smoking dope when I was about 18, so…
Like any sane person I am hoping that the economy remains good, that NK disarms, that China alters its course, that ISIS is defeated, that Afghanistan does not fall back to the state it was in after we leave, that trump has not managed to really damage NATO and our alliance with South Korea. I am hoping all the trump balls in the air somehow come down as winners for Americans.
Anyone who thinks they know as of the moment how all this will play out is welcome to mortgage their house and bet everything they have got. Otherwise, its just noisy handwaving.
I replied to the original Roby, wherever it was posted…
In case anyone thinks I’ve gone soft of trump this link describes the universe I live in regarding the trump ideas on ISIS, NK and Afghanistan. Its the universe the intel agencies are living in, not the trump impulse and instinct of the day. trump claims ISIS has been all but destroyed in the last 5 weeks.
““When I became President, ISIS was out of control in Syria & running rampant. Since then tremendous progress made, especially over last 5 weeks. Caliphate will soon be destroyed, unthinkable two years ago,” the president said.”
And the intel chiefs, he says, are “naive.”
Pure trumpian BS and lies.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/427591-trump-pushes-back-on-intel-chief-isis-will-soon-be-destroyed
All depends upon how you’re defining Caliphate. Most define a Caliphate as territory controlled by an Islamic ruler, but Sunnis and Shia Muslims have different ideas of what a true Caliphate is…so, it’s not so odd that Westerners would have a different idea of what constitutes a defeat of ISIS.
During the Obama administration, ISIS controlled vast amounts of territory in Syria and Iraq. Now, they control almost no territory at all. So in that sense, ISIS has been defeated.
Are there still jihadis who consider themselves ISIS? Sure, just as there are still members of Al Qaeda. And they will continue to regroup and fight to establish another Caliphate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-once-vast-isis-caliphate-is-now-reduced-to-a-pair-of-villages-in-syria/2019/01/25/39cbd85c-2015-11e9-a759-2b8541bbbe20_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.151dd0b6c31e
If we’re going to keep troops in the ME until there are no jihadis, we will be in the ME until the end of time. There are those who argue that we need to be there in perpetuity. Trump isn’t one of them.
In other words its a question like “it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.” trump and the gop base in general took a very hard line on ISIS during the campaign and Obama and the dems were said to be soft on terror. Where are these opinions and these people now? Previously trump declared that it was ISIS itself that had been destroyed. Some advisor somehow got him to grasp that it gives him some kind of legalistic argument if he says caliphate instead of ISIS. Its still putting lipstick on a pig. The caliphate is the leaders and the believers and the terrorists who act in the name of ISIS.
That softy Obama got bin laden, trump, the man of steel, did not get Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. It matters.
It is beyond naive to declare that ISIS has been destroyed. His generals and his intel people, who he has shown continual contempt for, disagree. That is important. The successes of the “destroyed” ISIS in the future will appropriately be on trump.
M
Not at all. “Caliphate” has an actual definition. The author of the Washington Post article seems to understand the complexity of the issue,and I would wager that he is not a Trump apologist. The argument that we can never leave the ME, until every last ISIS jihadi is gone is a specious one. This is not a simple right/wrong by any means, and the intelligence community has been wrong as much as it has been right. I don’t pretend to know if
Oops, hit “reply” by mistake.
At any rate, I am not going to automatically accept that sending/keeping troops in Syria is the right answer, any more that I will accept that pulling them out is the best idea.
I do know, however, that the idea of an Islamic caliphate is much older than the existence of ISIS, or any other recent Islamist terrorist group waging jihad.
If what is important to you is the meaning of the word caliphate then fine. That is the least part of my concern.
My point is that it is irresponsible and beyond naive to call ISIS destroyed, that the intel and military people don’t agree and that trump now owns the consequences of his irresponsible declaration of the destruction of ISIS and his actions to withdraw before he has gotten Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. Now, perhaps Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has seen the error of his ways and will dedicate his future career to building hospitals for disabled children rather than plotting revenge acts of terror, but I doubt it.
As well, another point is that the GOP base would Never stand for this from a democratic president, they would be in a foaming rage and he/she would be called weak, careless, feckless, etc., among the nicer words, and need to be replaced ASAP.
Perhaps. Our politics have become very poisonous. Just as Democrats insist that a border wall is immoral, when a couple of years ago, they were all in favor. In any case, I don’t think that the destruction of the Third Reich eliminated every Nazi, nor did I think that our defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria was the utter end of ISIS. I think that the argument is whether it is prudent to withdraw US troops. On that, I am open to the arguments of both sides.
I am not a wall historian and I do not know what democrat said what when. I do know that trump took the border/immigrant/refugee and hyper politicized it. Once we were may have been talking about border security with barriers, fences etc. Four or five years back JB was wishing for a wall with armed snipers to shoot to kill anything that moved on the Mexican side. trump found that sentiment was strong via is polling and turned the border issue into the Wall issue, a mythological-proportion answer to all the fears of a brown invasion of our European culture, spanish language becoming equal to English, a dem conspiracy to rig elections, murderers rapists, bad hombres.
All the arguments and statements trump made that made the complete magnificent border Wall the holy grail to his followers, including the white nationalists among them, were just as offensive to the ears of people such as myself as they were beautiful to the ears of many conservatives and some other people as well. So, now the issue is super-politicized and is no longer about a sort of engineering problem but about white nationalism, weakness on crime and drugs, derailing democracy, etc. Rush stated a few days back that the Dem. position on the wall means that the dems support murderers. (is there a “finger” icon, like a happy face but giving the finger?) So, now people on the dem side have their backs up and do not wish to give in to the Wall where we would have supported barriers, whatever you want to call them BT (Before trump). If not for trump ironically, it would be a Lot easier to build at least some fencing and barriers more or less apolitically. But that has passed and its on trump and his rhetoric and naive promises.
You don’t need to be a “wall historian”. All you need to do is be honest about the fact that, until Trump was elected, every leading Democrat, including all of the current party leaders, pretended to support border enforcement. This goes back to the 1980’s when Reagan agreed to an amnesty, in return for stricter and stronger border enforcement ( check out the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, if you want to verify). The amnesty happened, the border enforcement never did. And, today, neither party is in favor of border enforcement. Dems want voters, Republicans want money from the Chamber of Commerce and big businesses that profit from cheap overseas and illegal workers. I’m not a huge wall fan, although I think it would help immensely. Mandatory E-verify and voter ID laws would be more helpful. But, there is no longer any compromise to be had. And if you think that is the sole fault of Trump and the Republicans, then you’re just not paying attention.
The fundimental difference between ISIS and Al Qeda is that ISIS explicitly sought to occupy and hold territory as a nation.
If no territory in the mideast is occupied as a nation – then ISIS has been destroyed.
That does nto mean an end to terrorism, but a shift in power from ISIS to Al Qeda.
The distinction between ISIS and Al Qeda is that ISIS was determined to hold turf – to become a nation.
ISIS is dead. Islamic Terrorism is not.
No it does not depend on the meaning of the word “is”.
So long as you accept ISIS’s own definition of who they are – and what they value – they have been defeated.
I am fully prepared to accept that was inevitable – whether Obama, Trump or Clinton was president The decision of ISIS to define themselves in terms of holding territory in the mideast made it trivial and inevitable that they would be defeated.
Unfortunately ISIS’s loss is Al Qeda or other islamic terrorists gain.
Roby.
ISIS and “the caliphate” are essentially the same thing.
ISIS formed essentially from differences of oppinion within Al Qeda.
While bin Laden was alive – Al Qeda remained a stateless terrorst organization. Because Bin Laden understood that trying to hold territory meant going directly toe to toe with the US miltary and that meant anhilation.
With Osama’s death Al Qeda fractured and the group advocating becoming an actual force attempting to hold teritory became dominate.
Inarguably – as Osama and pretty much everyone else with a clue predicted they were destroyed.
But the people who made up ISIS who have not been killed are near certain back with Al Qeda or other terrorist groups.
Whether you call it ISIS, ISIL, the islamic state, the caliphate – it is still all the same. It is mideastern terrorists intent on forming a nation and a government.
And they have been destroyed.
I would credit Trump with remaining focused on that. Obama tended to be flighty regarding foreign policy.
But the destruction of ISIS was inevitable no matter who was president.
It just might have been faster with Trump.
The more fundimental issue regardless militarily leaving the mideast.
My trust of our intelligence aparatus has never been high – that used to be a hallmark of those on the left.
But even if they are currently correct – so what.
If we leave now, will we have to come back later ?
Possibly. So What ?
It does not matter if the intelligence services are correct.
It is time to leave.
This is not Trump speak. It is the position of most americans weary of endless wars without explanation.
“Just as Democrats insist that a border wall is immoral, when a couple of years ago, they were all in favor.”
Exaggeration, on both counts.
Most Dems (& Republicans & Independents) against it are critical of the excessive cost of a full border wall, and the unlikihood it will do much if anything to reduce drug smuggling, terrorist infiltration, or appreciably reduce illegal transients looking for work sneaking into the US.
No one is advocating a “full border wall”. That’s a straw man argument.
Well, it’s a straw-brained idea for sure, propergated by strawhead Donnie himself:
“I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall.”
Has Trump ever said he’d accept anything but a full border wall?
Show me the link.
Today he tweeted this (my caps for emphasis)
“More troops being sent to the Southern Border to stop the attempted Invasion of Illegals, through large Caravans, into our Country. We have stopped the previous Caravans, and we will stop these also. WITH A WALL it would be soooo much easier and less expensive. Being Built!”
Question: did any of the fencing/barriers WARN us of those Caravans to alert troop interdiction? Quick response teams will be needed to stop illegal entry, no matter where barriers are erected.
Dems offered to build (extend) some walls.
He said NO deal.
Today they’re offering this:
$22 billion in total funding for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
$675 million for scanners at points of entry
$502 million for “humanitarian concerns at the border” such as food and medical care
$400 million in border security technology, 1,000 new customs agents
$156.7 million for new boats, planes and sensors.
If President Petulant Putz rejects that, who’s harming border security more than him?
Whats in the $22 billion? The rest is just pocket change when it comes to government spending. They won’t get much for that.
And the $500 million for humanitarian aide should not be part of DHS budget. That should come out of state department budget or where ever foreign aide is hidden. That has nothing to do with border security.
Democrat smoke and mirrors.
A better question, Ron – what will the $5 Billion get for the wall Trump want’s to build?
Would that even pay for the building plans, feasibility studies, eminenent domain acquisitions, legal fees, environmental accommodations?
The type of wall – see through steel slat barriers- is the one that the Border Patrol and Homeland Security dept has already recommended and Trump has been clear that he will go with that recommendation. As far as the other considerations, why not just appropriate the $5.7B, literally less than .01 % of the federal budget, and let Trump worry about it?
Most Americans don’t want it built:
“The Quinnipiac University National Poll published Tuesday found that opposition to the wall held steady at 55 percent in the new survey.”
And NOBODY has evaluated the feasibility of building barriers along the entire Mexico border.
There haven’t been any geographical maps presented to show barrier locations along the border.
“Texas, which accounts for more than half the border, has almost no fencing, with hundreds of miles of open border at a stretch.
A network investigation of public records found that walling the border in this wide-open area could require disrupting or seizing nearly 5,000 parcels of property. “
https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/
Read this for a full account of the problems that will be encountered in building and maintaining a 2,000 mile long barrier.
It all depends on how you ask the question, Jay. When asked if they are in favor of “Trump’s Wall”, a majority say no. When asked if they are in favor of some form of barrier, fence or wall, a majority are in favor. And, the current proposal is for about 250 miles of steel slat barriers at locations identified by the Border Patrol as being most in need. Not to mention that we’ve been replacing old border fencing already. (Haven’t heard Nancy and Chuck complaining about that). There may very well be some legitimate obstacles that need to be addressed with the wall. But if the professionals who work at protecting the border say that physical barriers will help them do a better job, then why not? Physical barriers do work, after all, and, in combination with high tech stuff and increased numbers of border patrols and asylum judges, there would be significant reduction in illegal immigration. And, no one is talking about a 2,000 mile barrier…why do you keep insisting that that is the plan?
1- See Roby’s response to Ron about the GOP Platform statement concerning a full on wall across the entire border.
2- Show us ANY statement from Trump where he says he’ll accept anything but a full on border wall-barrier.
3- Massive increases of border barriers will slightly reduce illegal immigration, not significiently; hardly stop drug smuggling, or terrorist infiltration.
4- A reasonable compromise: Dems agree to finance those 200 miles of needed barriers, in exchange for a real BIPARTISAN evaluation of the feasibility of additional physical barriers at the border, and nonpartisan estimates of the actual costs (all of them!) of building and maintaining it for 20 years – the report released before the 2020 elections. Then the PEOPLE can decide to proceed or not, by voting for or against candidates on each side.
Well, here is an article from PBS, referring to 330 miles of barrier…I’ve seen estimates from 250 to 500, but the point remains that, between the approximately 700 miles that already exists, and the natural barriers which prevent easy crossings, there is no need for 2000 miles.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-the-status-of-trumps-u-s-mexico-border-wall
But the whole issue has become hyper-politicized on both sides. Much of this is Trump’s own fault, for not getting the money while the GOP controlled the House. This quote from the PBS article sums it up:
“The president, seeking to show progress on one of his signature campaign promises, has repeatedly said he’s begun construction on the wall with smaller amounts of money that Congress approved for border security. The Democrats, seeking to prove they haven’t caved to Trump, say they would only fund improvements to border security that include fencing.”
Trump is the only one compromising, but it’s because he has to. The Democrats will never compromise, at least not until after the next election. They would rather anything than Trump getting any small part of his campaign promise, because they think that will separate him from his base. But I think that they’re shooting themselves in the political foot, by allowing extremists like AOC, Ilhan Omar and even Kamala Harris, who has begun to sound like a Marxist, to become the face of the party. If they don’t run a semi-moderate candidate, I think Trump’s base will stick with him.
It is pretty close to inarguable that the situation in Syria at the moment is better than in 2016.
It is possible to argue that trump did nothing thus far in Syria that Obama would not have.
Except possibly leave.
But Trump’s statement is correct. The only question is whether Trump is responsible.
As to the intelligence services – since when has the left become lapdogs for DIA, CIA, DNI, NSA ?
If you have faith in our intelligence services – I have some yellow cake to sell you.
I would suggest re-reading Eisenhowers farewell address.
It is odd how the left and right have reversed on so many things.
Skepticism of our intelligence agencies is wise. Simply believing their word is gospel is foolish. I agree with you there. But simply discounting or disbelieving anything they say because they have made mistakes, including horrible ones, is ridiculous. These agencies have many resources, people, technology, experience. They do a very difficult job and it can go disastrously wrong and everyone will know and be on their case. I do not think that their success rate is so low that they are worthy of contempt and dismissal. I don’t want to simply abandon them and do without, which would also be Really disastrous.
Analogy–>Doctors and surgeons make hideous mistakes at times despite all the science, training, and technology behind their work. I’m still going to see a doctor if I think I have any serious medical problem, rather than a “wellness practitioner” or “holistic healer.” But there are many people who are so cynical about doctors and their faults that they will go lie under a crystal rather than use 21st century medicine.
Accepting the instinct of a former casino owner who spends too much of his time making idiotic comments on twitter rather than doing much reading of the reports his experts make is about the equivalent of consulting a holistic healer instead of a surgeon when you need a tumor removed.
I give trump credit for having the guts to take risks and hold firm to his convictions. If it all comes out great he will deserve credit. But if it goes bad he will deserve the blame. We can guarantee he won’t accept blame and do his best to blame anyone else. The Buck stops here with trump if the buck involves success. It stops somewhere else when the buck involves failure. We will see.
“Skepticism of our intelligence agencies is wise.”
The known track record of our “intelligence” agencies on “intelligence” is abysmal
Actually trusting them on much of anything rests primarily on faith.
Faith that what they have accomplished that we do not know about is significant.
Maybe it is – but we do not know, and likely will never know.
“These agencies have many resources, people, technology, experience.”
Absolutely – but in the real world those are all not all that important.
The major accomplishments in the world are made by people facing limits.
This is again one of the major problems with government.
Inherent in almost every debate about government is the presumption that throwing more money at a problem with solve it.
Money is as likely to cause problems as to solve them.
One of the major advantages outside of government is the existance of constraints. When you figure out how to run your own life – you have to figure out how to do everything you want with the resources you have.
It is the cale of what you want and the limited resources that you have that drives efficiency – trying to figure out how to get more for less.
That pretty much does nto exist inside government.
And yet – whether you are an individual or even a major corporation it is the fact that you have myriads of competing goals for what are inherently limited resources is what drives efficient quality solutions.
You should read about “public choice theory” – the gist of it is that pretty much every incentive in the free market that works towards good – works towards evil inside of government. Pretty much every incentive in the free market towards evil – is even worse in government.
Put simply – it is incredibly hard to get government right.
“They do a very difficult job and it can go disastrously wrong and everyone will know and be on their case.”
Whether they succeed or fail – nearly all the time we do NOT know.
“I do not think that their success rate is so low that they are worthy of contempt and dismissal.”
Contempt – most of the time not – dismissal, absolutely.
Please tell me of a major intelligence community success story ?
I am tripping over more and more Mueller stuff – and I am finding he is tied into the Wen Ho Lee fiasco – not merely did the FBI pretty much torture the wrong guy and lie about it, but they never got the right guy – and in this instance that is counter intelligence work.
Some time ago I refered everyone to the Netflix movie about the NSA expert that was canned post 9/11 – because he demonstrated that the NSA already had the ability to have detected 9/11. Because they did not want him going to congress and saying “we do not need to spend billions of dollars”. Because the DAY AFTER 9/11 the NSA was telling everybody to put together their funding proposals because it was christmas.
Absolutely germain to the moment is the DNC email hacking.
CrowdStrike did the analysis. They are pretty much the only cybersecurity firm that claims to be able to attribute a source to an attack – because all the rest are smart enough to know that even capable script kiddies can hack somebody and make it look like the hack came from somewhere else.
There does not exist any absolute technological means to attribute a source to any hack of any kind anywhere in the world.
At best you are playing probability games and even their – it is imposible to tell a mistake on the part of the hacker from a false flag left by a hacker.
I think the case that the DNC was NOT hacked by “guicifer 2.0” is damning.
Yet – the US IC and the media are still pushing that.
Frankly – though there is pretty compelling evidence that the DNC was “hacked” – Twice, the evidence that the emails were taken by the hackers is quite poor. The odds based on ACTUAL evidence still favor a leak not a hack.
Asange claims that the DNC source was a leak not a hack.
Asange has far less reason to lie than anyone else in this.
Asange is also a perfect demonstration of the hypocracy of the left – when Asange was embarrassing Bush – he was the darling of the left.
When he started embarrasing Obama – suddenly he is suspicious.
When he embarrasses the DNC – now he is a russian stoolie.
Wikileaks does not review the material they release carefully enough and as a result it sometimes puts people at risk.
Beyond that they provide the world a service.
“I don’t want to simply abandon them and do without”
I am not making that argument – but I will if you wish.
Frankly I do not beleive the intelligence agencies anywhere int he world at all that effective – MAYBE Mossad. But the risk of being completely obliterated helps. I think that history teaches us that in times of actual war, our “intelligence” services are motivated and tend to prove valuable – though usually at great cost and they still make myriads of stupid mistakes that cost lives. I think the record of peace time intelligence is pathetic – not just ours but that of the entire world.
The US is responsible for numerous botched coups.
“which would also be Really disastrous.”
It would – how so ?
The direct cost of 9/11 was $7B dollars.
The US spends just under $100B/year on intelligence.
What is it that we get that is worth 100B ?
“Doctors and surgeons make hideous mistakes at times despite all the science, training, and technology behind their work.”
Doctors are answerable for their mistakes. Further doctors must compete for your patronage. You have the ability to check out your doctors track record before picking one.
“I’m still going to see a doctor if I think I have any serious medical problem, rather than a “wellness practitioner” or “holistic healer.”
One of the advances of the 21st century and the internet is the availablity of private competition for intelligence services.
Approximately in the 90’s a major shift took place – cryptography shifted fromt he domain of government to that of academics and hackers.
Today the state of the art in everything cryptographic is no longer the government – not even close.
That is a HUGE deal. Much is made of the russian use of the hacker community – and it should be. Eastern European hackers are likely better overall than western intelligence service counterparts – and they are much cheaper – of course putin is going to make use of them.
But we have gone beyond just cryptography and hacking – there are litterally private intelligence services available.
The absolute best data on NK has come from private sources – NOT the US government. It is the US private intelligence community that figured out that NK was significantly more advanced than previously beleived. If you want you can go on youtube and find their work and how they determined myriads of things about NK’s capablities that the US IC completely missed.
As is typical – one of the big factors – is private intelligence works for profit.
To get paid they must deliver value – not only must they provide information not available elsewhere, but they must do so with a high degree of reliability.
Major faux pauxs – like those that lead to the Iraq War and they are out of business.
The US intelligence of the iraq war is extremely revealing of the inherent problems in govenrment intelligence. Killing off political bias is nearly impossible. I recently watched “fair game” a netflix movie about the start of the iraq war and the Valerie Plame affair – and while Sean Penn is a major part of it and puts an ideological tilt on the whole movie that weakens it,
There is still even if carcitured some very very real points.
You can beleive the Bush people looking to go after Iraq did not want the truth or you can beleive they were sincere and really and truly believed Sadam had WMD’s and that colored everything.
But you can not escape the fact that what the IC found was what we wanted to find. Get a clue – that is ALWAYS true. In the private world confirmation bais has consequences – people do not hire you again if you are that wrong.
In govenrment NOT alllowing politics to color your assessments has negative consequences.
One of the issues addressed repeatedly in the current neo-con and IC driven assessments that are at odds with Trump is that the people doing the assessments have internalized Russia primarily and China secondarily as THE ABSOLUTE THREAT to the US. They see EVERYTHING through that lens.
Whether it is military leaders like Curtis LeMay or Douglas McAurthur, or the generations of US spooks and soldiers that followed. Our military and IC starts with the presumption that Russia and then China or THE THREAT.
Sometimes that is true. But not always. LeMay and MacArthur were great military leaders. They also BOTH would have brought about nuclear confrontation if not reigned in.
Nothing has changed.
“Accepting the instinct of a former casino owner who spends too much of his time making idiotic comments on twitter rather than doing much reading of the reports his experts make is about the equivalent of consulting a holistic healer instead of a surgeon when you need a tumor removed.”
to twist your analogy – I would be far more likely to trust the assessment of someone who had succeeded in multiple domains than one who had expertise and no real demonstrated success in one – particularly when the real decision is NOT specificially about “russia” but about the overall best interests of the US.
Trump has succeeded in residential real estate in NYC, In commerical real estate, in regional, national, and global markets, in gambling, in beauty pagents, in televison and in politics. You can downplay those success all you want. But please show me a dozen other people who have succeeded across multiple domains. Trump does not come off to me as a “high IQ person”. But the statistical evidence is compelling – the people with the highest intelligence are those who can succeed accross many domains.
At the core of that is a facet of intelligence called “systemitizing” – the ability to look at things and find the patterns to how they work, to sort the relevant from the irrelevant, to do so quickly and easily.
Interestingly it is a personality trait at which libertarians dominate conservatives and progressives.
Regardless, it is the most critical personality attribute to high intelligence AND to success. It is precisely the attribute one should look for in a leader.
And despite the fact that when he talks Trump comes off as a cretanous bore, there are not a handlful of people in the world with the same demonstrated ability to “systematize” as Trump has DEMONSTRATED.
As to your IC and “experts” – please tell me what are their credentials – not what have they studied, not what is their claimed area of expertise, but what is their track record ?
How many current “generals” have a record of having done incredibly well in some conflict ? Even the best of our current “generals” – have fought in conflicts where they had overwhelming military superiority. They were shooting fish in a barrel – and most of them are gone – retired.
I cited MacArthur and LeMay before – please name anyone today with the actual track record of them ? Or Patton or Eisenhower or ….
We started WWII with a deep bench of “generals” – and quite quickly we fired scads of failures. Because just having risen to the rank to General does not mean you actually know what you are doing. In fact the demands for a peacetime general and a wartime one are radically different.
The same is true of the IC – so please tell me who in the IC has a real track record of proven success ?
The fact – which we all know if we are being honest – is our IC has BOTCHED every major intelligence matter of the past 50 years (or more).
In the real world of government outside of rare periods of existential threat that bring everyone together and MOSTLY favor real competence over ass kissing and various forms of politics the cream does NOT rise to the top.
I have been begging all of you to actually look at Muellers past – this is someone that both the right and left has sold to us as a real law enforcement officer without peer. Someone we can trust.
But review the his actual past and honestly ask yourself – how did this guy manage to keep rising ? how is it that he F’d up so many times and with each one ended up CLIMBING the public ladder.
I am sure there are plenty of “good people” in government.
But the incentives are designed to keep THEM down, to drive them out and to promote the dregs not the cream.
The failure of government – whether it is Maduro and Chavez, or Hilter, or Stalin or just the less than stellar capability of the US IC is not accidental.
The core reason that socialism fails – is that the incentives are wrong.
All socialism fundimentallhy is, is the idea that we should run everything the way we run government.
“I give trump credit for having the guts to take risks and hold firm to his convictions. If it all comes out great he will deserve credit. But if it goes bad he will deserve the blame.”
Absolutely – and that ALWAYS should be the case.
I would note though – specifically with respect to Afghanistan and Syria – it will turn out badly NO MATTER WHAT.
We have spent almost two decades in Afghanistan – is there anyone who thinks that another year or two or five will make a difference ?
Is Afghanistan going to go to hell when we leave – highly likely.
Whether that is today or tomorow.
Do you honestly think Syria is going to go well – whether we stay or leave.
ISIS/ISIL/The Caliphate has been defeated. Lots of terrorists have been killed or captured. And lots have not. those will remain bad guys – whether we leave or stay. they will seek to do evil to us – whether we leave or stay.
Terrorism has NOT been defeated – and it is not likely to be defeated any time soon. Trump is not claiming to have ended Terrorism, only ISIS.
We will with certainty see many of the same evil doers again and again and again. And if we kill them – they will be replaced by other evil doers.
“We can guarantee he won’t accept blame and do his best to blame anyone else. The Buck stops here with trump if the buck involves success. It stops somewhere else when the buck involves failure. We will see.”
Absolutely agree – I do not recall Obama taking responsibility for his failures either.
In fact I can not think of anyone associated with government EVER saying – we tried X, we seriously thought it would work, it didn’t – lets stop X and find another answer.
When government fails the answer becomes – we can make it work with more money.
Isn’t that what we have been doing in afghanistan for 20 years ?
A soldier on Syria
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-i-sued-my-commander-in-chief-president-obama-syria-afghanistan/
Clearly Trump caved
This is how free markets and free speech actually work.
It is not important specifically what the outcome is.
PETA threatened McD’s with protests – McD’s changed its policies regarding farming chickens.
If the NFL got behind protests and that boosted participation – that would be the right outcome too.
When we leave people free in all other ways but preclude the use of force conflicts are resolved by the weight of our competing values.
In this instance footballs fans determined that they did NOT want sports events to be the venue for these protests – that is not racist. It does not even mean broad disagreement on those policies. It does mean that fans spoke loudly that football games were not the time and place.
Further – this outcome was not readily apparent. Some people and groups supported player protests, some opposed teams split over how to address this. Different approaches were tried until finally an outcome was reached that made fans happy.
Further unlike politics the issue was actually resolved – atleast for some time to come.
No one has censored players – they are free to speak. They can do as they please off the field. On the field if they wish to get paid they need to focus on football.
https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/nfl-kneeling-controversy-brent-bozell/
Some interesting political theory.
Or why our government was designed the way it is.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/30/conflating_ideas_weakens_constitutional_principles_139317.html
What is most disturbing is that the Obama DOJ/FBI knew everything the rest of us now know 3 years ago. This is a farce today and it was a farce when it started. Those pushing it from begining to end KNEW that
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/29/roger-stone-not-guilty-plea-donald-trump-russian-collusion-bail-column/2710177002/
Would an Independent 3rd Party elected president, without a significient block of House and Senate members aligned with him/her be Impotent In Office? Or would the Veto power be enough to finess legislation?
I believe anyone winning as an independent would be a strong message to both parties that the American public is fed up with their crap and that would provide impetus for money to come into supporting independent candidates for the house and senate.
The GOP is being taken over by fringe candidates like Trump and the Democrats are being taken over by far left zealots like AOC. They both have alot in common. They both appeal to the “forgotten” voter who does not believe they have a voice. They both could care less what the party elders think of them. They both play to the cameras and are in popularity contest. The democrats most likely will end up with someone AOC can align with and not someone like Biden who she will take on.And they both know the moderates do not have a choice other than not voting or holding their noses when voting.
But only those like me will accept these thoughts. too many others believe the democrats are moving in the right direction.
That’s an excellent question, Jay. I think, to a great extent, we’re seeing it with Trump. He chose to run as a Republican, because he saw the opportunity to win the nomination, and because his ideology more closely matched the GOP’s. But, the vast majority of the GOP hated him from Day 1, and many Republican voters, including me, voted for him because he was not Hillary Clinton.
But he has a powerful base, and if he were to go 3rd party, the base would follow. So the GOP humors him, for the most part.
Nevertheless, I think that his election has shown that a president who is not “ordained” by one of the two major parties, is going to face an enormous amount of opposition ~ from his/her own party, as well as the opposition party. And in particular, from the deep state, which has come out of the shadows and shown itself to be a real thing, just as Eisenhower warned decades ago. And of course, from the media, unless that candidate can somehow use the media to get elected, as Trump did. That may not be possible again, since the mainstream media regrets its role in helping Trump, despite the fact that they thought he would be the easiest candidate for Hillary to beat. I’ve notices that Schultz has been interviewed by Dana Perino on Fox, but I haven’t seen him on other networks. Has he been on?
Anyway, I do believe that the impotence of the GOP, combined with the increasing far leftwing drift of the Democrats, may cause a 3rd party nominee to be elected in the near future. The best scenario,perhaps, for that person would be a 3rd party that had run congressional candidates that also won…but who knows? I think that the Resistance is showing us all what will happen to any “non-approved” president in the future.
An independent president would likely defuse most of the partisanship in congress – so long as they were truly independent.
An awful lot of what goes on in congress is posturing – D’s are for something so R’s oppose – or visa versa.
If there was a significant independent voice Both D’s and R’s would have to make more of their choices on the merits.
An independent would not eliminate partisan politics but it would likely ratchet it down.
When does the warring end ?
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-afghanistan-war-never-ending-trump-ivo-daalder-0104-20190103-story.html
Sarah Sanders: God ‘wanted Donald Trump to become president’
Well, there you have it.
Guess we’ll have to submit to the Invisible Entity’s will.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/politics/sarah-sanders-god-trump/index.html
If god had anything to do with insignificant issue like our elections, everyone would be living the life of peace. But man does not always make wise decisions, so the world ends up with less than desirable leaders.
Anyone making comments such as this needs to go back to studing the bible to learn the actual meaning of gods word.l
And for non believers, just add this to the rest of the poppy-cock spewed by the Christian right.
Free will requires that God not intervene in the affairs of man.
This is pretty strong stuff:
“President Donald Trump is no stranger to bad poll numbers.
His net approval rating (approval rating minus disapproval rating) has consistently been negative.
But that figure on its own doesn’t necessarily mean Trump will be defeated in 2020. As conservative commentators like Newt Gingrich and Hugh Hewitt have correctly pointed out, President Ronald Reagan had similarly low approval ratings at this point in his presidency before going on to a blowout victory in his 1984 re-election campaign.
New polling finds, however, the depth of the opposition against Trump is considerably deeper than it was against Reagan. This suggests Trump could have a much more difficult job turning around his bad ratings than Reagan or really any president in the modern polling era.
An astounding 56% of voters said they would definitely vote against Trump in the 2020 general election, compared with 28% who said they would definitely vote for him and 14% who would consider voting for him, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll…..”
These numbers are a considerable drop from a previous poll I remember from a month or so back where I believe it was 53% of voters said they would definitely vote against Trump in the 2020 general election to 37% who said they would definitely vote for him, if memory serves and it often doesn’t.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/30/politics/donald-trump-reelection-numbers-2020/index.html
I still believe trump could win, even in a landslide but it will take a lot of things lining up his way.
Roby;
Not only could Trump win, you have things backwards – alot would have to go wrong for Trump to lose.
There is little difference in Trumps approval today from his approval on Nov. 8, 2016.
It is unlikely democrats will nominate a candidate with the tremondous negatives of Hillary Clinton. At the same time they do not have a candidate with the stature of Hillary Clinton.
Trump will be running as an incumbent – just as Obama did.
But Trump will be running with an economy that is nearly 100% stronger than Obama did.
On most of the issues that Trump and the left are fighting over – the country either strongly supports Trump – or opposes democrats.
All the lead democrats are tacking left for the primaries. That will make it very very hard for them to get elected in the general.
I do not know much about this Schultz. But I do know that rather than trying to chase him out of the election Democrats should CLAIM him as their own.
The best chance for democrats to beat Trump is to try to take the center from him.
But as a party they are absolutely intent on doing the exact opposite.
I would not have thought that Obama could win in 2012 – but he did – and Trump will too for not merely much the same reasons – but for even better ones.
There are things that could go wrong and ruin Trump’s chances in 2020.
A recession as an example would likely doom him.
That is pretty close to the only thing that has any real chance.
I am not sure that some horrendous foreign policy mess, or some heinous act of terrorism in the US would do it. But it might.
Most anything else that would cost him the election would likely also be bad enough that he would be impeached and convicted in the senate, and the probability of that is near zero.
Mueller is going to come to an end – and he is going to have nothing but inuendo
I would like it if americans wopuld actually face the political corruption of our government that is reflected by this baseless investigation. Unfortunately I do not think that most people will grasp how much worse than watergate this has been and we will ultimately pay for that in the future. The stupid excesses of the left – the gaming the law, all eventually come back to bite them. Trump’s ability to fill the courts top to bottom with federalists was a gift from harry reid and democrats. I do not know precisely how we will all pay for this poilitical corruption of CIA/DOJ/FBI by the Obama whitehouse – but I assure you – absent consequences this will happen again, and it is unlikely to be the right that is the victim next time.
But even without a true understanding of the corruption of the investigation itself. the longer this mess continues and the less consequential the results are the stronger the backlash will be – and it will be against the left.
You talk about the anger and the outrage – what happens as it slowly becomes more apparent to people that it all rests on lies ?
Trump was elected in 2016 atleast in part on a titlewave of backlash against the PC garbage of the left.
As too your polls – they do not mean anything.
Real candidates have far more warts than generic ones.
And even polls of real candidates do not matter until people are about to enter the voting both.
According to all the final polls before the 2016 Election Trump was going to lose.
According to Nate Silver 90-95% Clinton had won. Silver was still pushing that after Florida fell, and after PA fell.
I do not know how at this moment Trump will win FL, PA, OH, WI again.
I do not know how he did in 2016. Further, On Nov. 8, 2016 it was LESS likely that he would win those states than it is today.
I would have bet Silver was right. I would have lost that bet big time.
Almost everything that has changed since 2016 has changed in Trump’s favor.
He is now the incumbent.
He has had 4 years to F’up – and despite the “nattering nabobs of negativism” he has not actually F.d up and in fact he has done quite well. He has kept more campaign promises than I think any other president in history.
He will likely come into the election with a strong economy, we will no longer be so heavily entrenched in the mideast. We will be out of Syria, out or nearly out of Afghanistan.
Both could go to hell – it is near certain they will not go well. But they would not go well if we stayed. Regardless, voters will not care much whether they go to hell or not, so long as it does not directly effect them, and so long as their sons and daughters are not at risk.
You say Trump has no support from the military – you are likely right, he will not have the support of “the generals”. But the people who do the killing and dying for us will have his vote. Trump is not one of them – he is not a veteran, and he is smart enough not to play games with their lives. He can not stand in front of them and say – I fought, and now you must fight. but he can stand infront of them and say – I did not fight and I will not waste your lives for some sand halfway accross the world, or because some elitist in the CIA has Russia on the brain and thinks that the worlds largest military should be threatened by a country that would be third world, but for its nuclear weapons.
If democrats are stupid – the house will spend the next two years investigating Trump and getting nowhere. We will have another two years of the breathless chirping every night – this lastest leak, this latest rumor, that will be the one that finally proves Trump is a russian assets. or whatever the wet dream of the left.
On the one hand it is very difficult for Trump to prove a negative.
At the same time most of us understand that if there was anything of substance to any of this, it already would have come out.
Regardless, if democrats want to lose in 2020 they should spend the next 2 years fixated on Trump.
Another notch up in the anti Trump vote?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/2020-electorate-will-be-least-white-most-diverse-ever-n964776
And that will continue with each new election.
It is also ultimately what will drive the US libertarian NOT left.
The more diverse we are the less common ground we have the lighter government must be.
It is those countries with the most affluent and least diverse populations that can tolerate the largest government.
You want to make everything about Trump and/or republicans, but ultimately greater diversity of anykind (or all kinds) requires greater tolerance and requires government that presumes to impose on us ever less of what it thinks is best for us.
As to your specific assertion regarding Trump and the GOP.
As a generalization minorities tend to vote democratic.
But that is one of myriads of demographic patterns.
Poor new immigrants – legal or otherwise tend to vote democratic.
But all past immigrant groups tend to move more conservative the longer they have been here.
Trump’s support among hispanics ROSE dramatically during the shutdown.
In other research I have followed those researchers bothering to make the distinction are finding significant differences between illegal hispanic immigrants, legal hispanic immigrants and hispanic non-immigrants.
As I have noted before with nearly every demographic group – the more generations they have been here, and the more affluent they become the less likely they are to vote democrat.
As people age they become move conservative. That bodes horribly for the left – because while in bad news for the right the current cohort of the young are much more politically active than in the past, at the same time they are overall starting more conservative and particularly more libertarian than past young cohorts.
They are only going to become more conservative as they age.
Even the baby boomers eventually became conservative.
Growing up makes you more conservative.
Getting a job makes you more conservative,.
Keeping a job makes you more conservative.
Getting married makes you more conservative.
Buying a home makes you more conservative.
Having children makes you more conservative.
These are all trends that will remain forever.
They are trends that apply – whether you are black, jewish, hispanic, gay.
One of the reasons that this Wall fight is so brutal. One of the reasons that democrats are so entrenched and are essentially advocates of open borders without makeing the case for open borders or admitting that is their position, is absent a couple of million new poor immigrants each year, the future of the democratic party is bleak.
Or not.
https://spectator.us/shutdown-swing-states-border/
Roby:
I do know that trump took the border/immigrant/refugee and hyper politicized it.
NO!!!
And this is reflective of the huge error that the left makes regarding Trump.
Trump has not created ANY of the issues that he has adopted.
Nor has he “hyper politicized” them.
Resolving immigration has been a difficult task for 40+ years.
There have been numerous interim deals – and a long history of the left renigging on Border Wall deals.
There were significant bipartisan efforts during the obama administration – and those failed.
One of the most fundimental reasons that immigration issues remain politically iresolveable is that democrats DO NOT WANT TO SOLVE them.
Democrats do not want a deal. They do not want to find any resolution to immigration issues.
They want it to remain a political hot potato forever. It is red meat for their base.
While it is also red meat for the republican base – it is not that difficult to placate the right on immigration.
Many other hot button issues of the moment are much the same.
A classic Dave “there is no…” post based entirely on your own opinion. The caps and !!! fail to add weight to your weightless denial of my obvious point.
I never said or implied that trump created these issues, but he Did greatly add to the political profile and rancour of the issues with his customary incendiary bombastic and racially charged rhetoric. This got one group adoringly on his side and made sure another, larger group would never be on his side. We see the result of this dynamic in the positions of the two parties in trumps failed shut down and how it has worked out in terms of public opinion, with a clear loss to trump and the GOP.
I continue to be amused by the irony of your wrath at democrats over not supporting trump’s wall campaign, its a huge open ended government project of very limited effectiveness in the past aimed at changing human behavior. Ha, you should be applauding them, its the libertarian thing to do in this case!
Roby,
I am not relying on my own opinion for anything here.
Just facts, reality, history.
As noted – immigration has been a contentious issue long before Trump adopted it.
In point of fact Trump’s position is MORE MODERATE than the GOP overall.
Had republicans been pushing Trump’s current position on immigration in 2013 – there would have been a deal.
The pew data shows that the hyperpartisan divide we see today started in 2008 – not 2015. That by 2015 the middle had already hollowed out.
Trump did not CREATE anything with respect to our divisions.
ALL he did was recognize them and articulate a position strongly held by large numbers of americans who before Trump had not found a clear voice.
He is still their voice – which is why they are loyal too them.
At the same time – blaming Trump is a necescity for the left.
So long as you continue to buy this fiction that Trump has dragged the world rather than Trump saw what many others did not and got ahead of them,
then you are incapable of grasping that getting rid of Trump is a temporary solution at best.
In many ways Clinton’s comments about “deplorables” was spot on.
The left thinks more than 50% of this country is deplorable. Trump understood that and put himself out there as the leader of the deplorables.
Getting rid of trump will not change the fact that a very large portion of the country is angry with you – because you have spent decades calling them hateful hating haters.
In the unlikely chance you finish off Trump – their next leader will be WORSE.
If you want to end the bitterness – you have to confront the source.
And so long as you think that is Trump – so long as you are unable to look in the mirror and grasp that you can not call 10’s of millions of your fellow americans hateful, hating haters, and not expect them to grow to hate you, we will remain bitterly divided.
Nor are my observations new. This is a pattern of failure the left has followed repeatedly accross the world and in the US in the past.
It does not end well.
Learn some tolerance.
Learn that that when you impose your will on others by force – you make enemies of those who disagree. That even when you are in the majority that is still a poor choice.
Learn that good intentions are not enough,
Still just your own weightless opinion. A lecture on the universe according to dave.
“Learn some tolerance.”
Ha, more irony! This admonition from a man whose perpetual over the top white-hot hatred of “the left,” which lumps ordinary moderate and liberal democrats in with Stalin in indiscriminate fashion as being hardly different, is the single most fixed point of his posts.
Sure Dave, lets all learn tolerance. You go first.
“Learn that that when you impose your will on others by force – you make enemies of those who disagree. ”
Great. now stop trying to use government to impose your wall on us. Libertarian, HA!
So your argument is that without Trump these issues would have just seethed under the surface and that would be better ?
Let Me be perfectly clear.
No only didn’t Trump create these issues – for the most part THE LEFT created them.
Trump was elected for giving a voice to all those who felt like they were being pissed on by THE LEFT.
You still do not seem to grasp that if you call someone a hateful, hating hater, you should not be surprised if the hate you.
Let me be clear on something else.
This country is FAR LESS RACIST THAN EVER BEFORE.
Trumnp may not be the most enlightened person on the planet, but he is not some KKK racist. What he is saying that you are calling racist is what lots – often a majority of americans think.
When you say that is racist – you are saying that the majority of americans are racist. While that is false – even if it were true – you will lose.
The left has made this mess – whether what it claims is true or not.
If as you say Trump is spouting racism – that is racism that is shared by very large numbers of people – and therefore you lose.
If what is actually true – being adult enough to understand that life involves making choices, and that there is ZERO difference in real meaning between the word CHOSE and the word DISCRIMINATE.
I have repeatedly told you – I support open borders – but if we CHOSE that, it comes with consequences. We can not allow anyone who wants to, to come here without expecting massive societal changes – changes in which “the most vulnerable among us” are going to be the losers.
CHOICES have consequences – grow up.
If we do not have open borders – which anyone who is not a complete moron grasps we are just not going to have, then we are ultimately going to have to MAKE CHOICES
And that means making exactly those “racist” decisions you accuse Trump of making.
Most americans do not think it is racist to be more vigalent about the people we allow into the country from places where terroism is rampant and where women, religious and other minorities are treated like shit.
Most amercans do not think it is racist to say if we are going to have a million immigrants enter the country each year – we would prefer they were doctors (of which we have a great shortage) or engineers, or at the very least people capable of flipping a burger at McDonald’s.
Most americans understand that if we accept large numbers of immigrants from “shithole countries” that they are going to bring some of their problems with them. That those people from those countries are going to take much longer to be truly productive.
Most every single “policy” where you pronounce Trump “racist” – either a very large minority or in many instances an overwhelming majority of the country SHARES HIS VIEWS.
Put differently if you have so watered down the definition of racist that you can not see the difference between Trump and the KKK – then you have labeled the majority of americans racist.
AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
Trump has not created the outrage, the histrionics.
YOU HAVE.
You have done so by exactly the nonsense in your response.
This is not about Trump. This is all about YOU. It has ALWAYS been about YOU – THE LEFT.
Dave, reread my words carefully and you will find they do not say anything that you are reacting in a rage about. Chill out, for gods sake, before you burst a blood vessel. Unemotional facts, logic, and reason, remember?
Roby
So I lump moderate democrats in with Stalin ?
Where are these moderate democrats ?
Please tell me where the JFK’s are ?
Where the Bill Clinton’s are ?
The radical left in the 60’s was the Berkeley Free Speech movement.
Today the left is trying to shut down free speech.
Pklease tell me what the differences is between Hugo Chavez and Bernie Sanders ? Or Kamela Harris or Elizabeth Warren ?
Even Hillary Clinton campaigned on free college for everyone.
And the touchstone of the left at the moment is medicate for all.
As best as I can tell this Howard Schultz guy is what I might call a “moderate lefty” – and the left is pissing all over him.
We just finished 8 years of Obama – is he your idea of a “moderate lefty” ?
Prior to Thatcher “moderate lefties” in England drove that country to very near third world nation status – am I supposed to be only “moderately angry with moderate lefties” ?
Get a clue – the entire ideology of the left DOES NOT WORK.
In small doses it fails less badly and more slowly.
That is NOT something to be praised.
So let me make it CLEAR – when you infringe on individual liberty – without justificantion, and without near certainty that your infringement will have a benficial effect significantly greater than the seen and unseen negative effects – you act immorally, you act wrongly, you act immoderately. The difference between your actions and those of Stalin are merely one of degree.
But let me go a bit further.
If we were to somehow say there was a moderate left – that moderate left is blind and fixated on the wrong problems.
Let us presume – as you assert all of the evils that you claim for Trump.
That he is some racist.
Inarguably he is NOT dragging us back to the 19th century.
You can take nearly every offensive thing that Trump has said or done as president or candidate and find Barack Obama having said it 15 years ago.
Are you telling me that Obama was a secret KKK member ?
The CHANGE is on the LEFT.
Either you are part of it and support it, or you are blind to it and in that blindness culpable.
Inarguably our colleges – particularly the elite colleges are bastions of incredible intolerance – not only will you be cruicified if you are a conservative, but if you do not hew sufficiently to the left – you will be destroyed.
Hardly a day passes without some story of leftists eating other leftists at college.
As I have noted – you wigged out about the alt-right at Charlottesville.
Absolutely they were provateteurs.
They were also outnumbered by radical leftists somewhere between 2:1 and 5:1. And the alt-right people had to come from a dozen states just to reach that level – the lunatic leftists were from a few blocks away.
Any major city in this country sports antifa members who DWARF the entire alt-right in the US.
We have leftist idiocy going on all over the place – and you are ranting about Trump because he is purportedly racist against brown people.
The left has elected actual antisemites to congress – and you tell me that Trump – whose daughter converted to judiaism is an anti-semite ?
Yes, Roby – GROW UP.
Take of the rose colored glasses and look at the REAL WORLD.
We have lots of problems. The ones you are worried about – DO NOT RATE AT ALL.
You have carped “racism, racism, racism” constantly.
Absolutely the US is still a racist country. Though it is probably the lest racist in the world.
My daughter is Chinese, my son is Korean. I kind of know a thing or two about racism. the fact that this country is going bankrupt is a far greater threat to their future than what racism remains.
The left is histrionic about things that are unimportant.
You doubt me – turn on the news, turn on Rachel Maddow or CNN
or whoever you think is those “moderates” on the left.
They are all worked up into a lather.
You would think the world was coming to an end.
You would think that Hitler has moved into the white house
some of them has said as much.
The left has us talking serious about impeaching a president – for what ?
Because you do not like the way he speaks ?
Look arround you – the sky is not falling.
Trump has not formed his own whitehouse goon squad and raided the McGovern campaign.
That would be Obama who used the DOJ/CIA/FBI to raid the Trump Campaign.
Trump flushed the Iran deal – oh my god IMPEACH!!!
Trump threatened to leave NATO – IMPEACH NOW.
He shat on the Paris accords – NOW! NOW! NOW!
He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem – OUT! OUT! OUT!
He is leaving Syria and Afghanistan – HOW DARE HE.
He replaced Scalia with Gorsuch and Kennedy with Kavanaugh – DAMN HIM.
He has slowly repleaded a wide variety of Obama regulations – WE WILL ALL DIE OF POISONOUS SMOG.
No Roby YOU are hysterical.
Trump is far from perfect. Thus far he is one of the better presidents in my lifetime. That is not good – our presidents have been pretty awful.
But no Trump is not a justification for your hysteria.
And more importantly – neither are the 10s of millions of americans who he gives a voice.
When you piss on him, you piss on them.
And in fact you pissed on them – before there was a Trump.
The problem is YOUR intolerance.
If YOU are “the moderate left” – you are not particularly moderate.
More importantly you are dangerous.
As dangerous as Stalin ?
Yes, just over more time.
You have already adopted the “find me the man and I will find you the crime” narative of Leventia Berria – why is it not appropriate to compare you to Stalin ?
“extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!
moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
Listening to NPR and then another talk station this morning (not Fox), some interesting information and comparisons concerning Mexico came to light. May be something to it and there may not.
When Hugo Chavez was elected president, he came to power based on promises to the people that he would “give ” them certain things. In order to do that, he “took” certain things from the people, including the oil companies. Today, Venezuela is nothing but a third world country with millions escaping poverty to other countries. They are crossing borders in mass.
Today, Mexico has a new president in office for a short time. López Obrador was a candidate for the third time in the 2018 presidential election and won 53 percent of the vote. His policy proposals include increases in financial aid for students and the elderly, amnesty for some drug war criminals, universal access to public colleges, a referendum on energy reforms that will end Pemex’s monopoly in the oil industry and increased social spending.
One of his first acts as president was to stop looting of gas from Pemex gas lines. Not using law enforcement or the military to protect the gas lines that transport gas and oil, but closing down the gas lines and shipping by rail and truck. Much more costly and much slower in shipment time. Today gas shortages are widespread in larger cities and the black market for gas is rampant. That was the same condition that was created in Venezuela when the oil companies were nationalized, and the first of many situations that damned Venezuela economically..
So when Obrador makes good on his other promises and the country begins its slide into socialism more so than today, will Mexico have the same economic response to the nationalized healthcare, education and other social program spending?
And if Mexico has this same response economically (which most all countries have that move toward more socialistic governments), will the people of Mexico have the same response as Venezuela when their economic conditions deteriorate.
And if so, which border will the millions that match Venezuela departing population numbers try to cross? And can that country they try to enter control millions trying to enter?
I have no idea what the long term effects of Obrador will be.
It is still to early to tell what he will actually do.
That said – illegal mexican immigration is extremely low right now – the current illegal immigrants are coming from elsewhere.
This is part of why Trump has reasonable support among hispanics in the US for border security – because it is not mexicans trying to cross right now.
It is people even the mexicans consider invaders.
Chavez took the most prosperous country in South america and turned it into a third world hell hole.
The good news is get rid of Madora and reverse these stupid policies and venezuela can recover quickly.
If you are correct and Mexico is headed down the same path – then we damn well better finish a wall and quickly. Because when Mexico starts going to hell millions will be trying to cross.
Regardless, how many times do those of you on the left have to try this nonsense before you grasp it does not work.
What did Chavez do in Venezuella that Sanders or Harris, or AOC do not want to do in the US ?
Obrodor sounds much the same – if he tries do to what you claim he has promised we can expect the same disaster we have seen everywhere else that has been tried.
These ideas do not work.
“Regardless, how many times do those of you on the left have to try this nonsense before you grasp it does not work.”
Who on earth are you addressing? Who here on TMN do you believe is a Chavez? It couldn’t be me, who is in a red hot rage at the prog free everything nonsense. Can you you actually be so unanchored from the earth that you believe that I am out there nationalizing the American oil industry in between making my posts?
Hilarious. Weird, but hilarious.
Wow!
So you can offer the same policies and programs, but because you do not litterally identify with the guy – you are worlds apart ?
Get a clue Roby,
Look at what the democratic party is selling ?
It all sounds good – just like What Chavez was selling. It should, it is the same stuff.
Some of the older more lefties were praising Chavez as a hero until the same programs that initially made him a hero in their eyes started to fall apart.
Do you think Chavez came to power by promising to destroy the country ?
Of course not – he came to power by promising the same things that Sanders promised, that Clinton promised that Kamela Harris is promising, that Warren is promising.
It is even possible that Chavez beleived his own promises, that he beleived that he could make things better. It is possible that Saners beleives that that Warren believes that, that YOU beleive that.
But this stuff does not work. It did not work during the french revolution.
It did not work in the USSR, in China, in Cuba, in the UK, in those nordic social democracies you love, in Venezeula.
It did not fail in the same ways or equally badly everywhere.
For the most part in the west before getting too deeply entrench those countries back away – atleast a little, at best the western social democracies strapped themselves with burdensome systems high taxes, stagnant growth.
We just finished 8 years of the republican version of this garbage and followed it by 8 years of the democratic version of it.
I beleive Bush averaged 2.2% growth. Obama only managed 1.8% – do you think those are accidents ?
Growth was declining at the end of 2016.
Is that (or worse) what you want to bring back ?
I do not care whether you are selling Soviet Socialism of that of Sweden.
When you tell people that you can steal from others to give free things to some, and that the results are not going to go badly – no matter how good intentioned you might be – history tells us that YOU WILL FAIL.
And the losers will be the very people you are trying to help.
You are selling the same thing that Chavez was selling. It is not the salesman that is the problem – it is the product.
Regardless, of all the serious problems this country faces – NOTHING that the left is carping about is one of those.
So the shutdown was harming the economy ?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/213000-private-sector-jobs-created-in-january-adp-says-2019-01-30
Roby;
What is “the moderate left” – is it the media – CNN, NBC ?
Tom Brokaw – the left from a prior generation. Made the mistake of saying outloud things that were so uncontroversial that Democrats like Barbara Jordan and Bill Clinton said them frequently, and Brokaw has been roundly denounced. So much so that he apologized
What was his crime – suggesting that it would be good for immigrants to learn english.
Roby – this is not some fringe Stalinists ostracizing Brokaw.
You say I am falsely comparing much of the left to Stalin.
Maybe 1984 and “thought crime” would be the better analogy.
Or Mao publicly humilating backsliders and capitalist roaders and demanding they engage in self criticism.
If you do not want the comparisons to Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez – then do not channel Stalin, Mao, ……
When it is that hard to tell the difference between NBC and Pravda, I think you are on the wrong side of the analogy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/30/tucker_carlson_tom_brokaw_expressed_an_unauthorized_opinion_on_immigration_a_thought_crime.html?jwsource=cl
Roby
“No, I am not a Democrat,” Schultz said. “I do not affiliate myself with the Democratic Party who is so far Left, who basically wants the government to take over healthcare, which we cannot afford. Government to give free college to everybody, and the government to give everyone a job.”
Tell me again that the left is moderate ?
I spent a week in Alabama this fall. I went to Selma, Montgomery, Tuskegee,
you could go to jail in the 50’s if you were the wrong color and sat in the wrong seat.
Or worse – people died.
While we should not lose sight of the underlying good that is this country, there is little doubt that people stood up, took risks and fought evil to bring about important change to this country.
The modern left sees themselves as the heirs to those who fought for and brought about those changes in the past.
But the modern left faces a problem – there are no great injustices left to fix – while far from perfect, we no longer Lynch people for looking at a white woman.
4 decades ago you go co to jail for being gay. Today – maybe some right wing nut evangelical will not make you a wedding cake. 6 decades ago women died from back alley abortions – today they can buy a safe $20 morning after pill.
There are no consequential battles against racism, sexism, homophobia left to be fought.
The “big” movement of the moment is for the transgendered – that is 0.3% of the population.
Are we fighting to keep them from getting locked up ? No we are fighting over what bathroom they can use – and even there, most of us do not give a crap, except where it comes to children.
But if you listen to those on the left today – we live in the most racist, hateful, homophobic period of US history.
Progressive Woodrow Wilson showed a KKK propoganda film in the whitehouse, and drove blacks out of the civil service.
Yet, the media and the left Tell me Trump is the most racist president ever.
The left is suffering from an existential crisis. There are no major objective left to accomplish, there are no great evils left to overcome. We are not perfect, but we are just not lynching people right and left.
The modern social justice warrior can rise up and fight the great injustice of Tom Brokaw having the termidity to day outloud that maybe immigrants should learn english and they can tweet our Brokaws demise from their couches without ever leaving their homes.
They can pretend to be Martin Luther King Jr. without fearing even an unkind remark much less assassination.
So what do do ?
In the absence of real problems – manufacture fake ones.
Roby:
Can you you actually be so unanchored from the earth that you believe that I am out there nationalizing the American oil industry in between making my posts?
Yes, I have noticed the sudden attacks on your part at some of the more extreme positions of the progressive left. Finding them surprising in light of your past defense of other progressive programs.
I would ask – what distinguishes one of these redistributive programs from another ?
What is it that you beleive one is important enough to argue for but another must be opposed ?
I would ask you why you think some kind of price control program – PPACA is a combination of Freebies and price controls as well as other economic idiocy, is any different – Chavez and Maduro and every other failed socialist regime – as well as Richard Nixon tried price controls.
On rare occasions that have worked slightly less disasterously than others, but they never work. they do not work for Chavez, and they did not work for Nixon.
There is no fundimental difference between a a price control and a freebie in terms of economics. To the extent there is a difference – price controls work even worse.
Freebies eleminate significant portions of the free market – while price controls create destrictive conflicts within markets – there are fundimental and important reasons markets must be free, because otherwise they tend to self destruct.
Why is regulation different ? All it does is impose the cost of something some elites in govenrment think is beneficial on large numbers of others who had they wanted that would have asked for and paid for it.
Why is free education a problem for you – but minimum wages are not ?
Why is a takeover of the oil industry a problem for you but a take over of heathcare not ?
Or is a partial takeover OK ? Is half stupid something to be proud of ?
If free education is so obviously wrong – why is welfare or housing assistance not ?
Are subsidies of individuals OK with you, but those of businesses are not ?
Is it OK to subsidize farmers – purportedly lowering the price of food OK ?
Do you actually beleive that works ?
What about subsidies for solar energy ? Hlow well did solyandra work out ?
How about the Chevy Volt ?
Cash for Clunkers ?
I do not presume that you are universally in favor of all of those.
But I also know that you are not universally opposed.
In answer to your question as to why I do not much care about your efforts to distinguish yourself from Stalin or Chavez or Nixon I think Churchill makes the point.
“Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?”
Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”
Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
― Winston S. Churchill
If I am not consistent in my positions – please point that out to me.
Unlikely you. I do not believe that only doing something half stupid is going to turn out well.
In fact – often doing something half stupid may be worse than fully stupid.
My guess is the free college is actually worse than the government subsidized loan programs we have today. But I would not be completely shocked to find that fully subsized was less of a disaster than partly.
Roby:
“Sure Dave, lets all learn tolerance. You go first.”
I do not tolerate using force to restrict the liberty of others.
I am not going to change regarding that. I am not going to excuse that position.
Should I be tolerant of murders rapists and thieves ?
Have I accused you of anything that you have not openly self identified yourself ?
Roby:
Great. now stop trying to use government to impose your wall on us. Libertarian, HA!
I have repeatedly owned open borders – with everything that requires.
I have not heard anything close to that kind of honesty from anyone on the left.
As to the wall – I am not trying to pretend that is the proper solution to anything.
It is just the best that can be done given that there is no chance you are prepared to even discuss the changes necescary to actually make open borders work.
I would further note that the defense of the nations borders is one of few legitimate tasks of government.
But I am prepared to eliminate walls, fences, the border patrol, ICE – in a heartbeat,
but with them must go minimum wages, the entire social safetynet, all or drug laws and regulations, really pretty much all regulations – because if products from other countries can cross the boarder unimpeded then all regulation is meaningless.
You do not understand your own hypocrisy.
Just about every single law regulation and value that progressives favor – depends on border security. If you allow people to come and go wherever they please you effectively allow products to come and go as they please.
“Dave, reread my words carefully and you will find they do not say anything that you are reacting in a rage about. Chill out, for gods sake, before you burst a blood vessel. Unemotional facts, logic, and reason, remember?”
More left wing omniscience. Why do you presume to know my feelings ?
To the extent I have addressed emotions – they have been those openly admitted and expressed by you.
Tell me that Trump does not have you and the left all riled up and we can strike nearly all emotional issues from the discussion.
We can actually debate the issues – something to few even here actually do.
Facts, logic, reason?
Really?
Its all gone Ka-Blooeey and the underlying contradictions, ironies and blind rage are clear for all to see.
I’ve made my point.
Jay, January 20thh, 8:58 pm.
You made a comment about a full border wall.
So who is advocating that?
https://globalnews.ca/news/4793962/donald-trump-border-wall-550-miles/
You are listening to too much Rachel Mad(C)ow and not doing enough research of actual facts.
I have not heard anyone say 2000 miles of wall. If you have, can you provide link(s). And not some third or fourth party twitter crap, actual comments of those in the administration. And not democrat spin either.
The GOP 2016 platform did:
“That is why we support building a wall along
our southern border and protecting all ports of
entry. The border wall must cover the entirety
of the southern border and must be sufficient to
stop both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. ”
Its easy to find the 2016 platform and then you can use the “find” function of your browser to find these words.
Its a stupid idea, but yes, the 2016 GOP platform did support it.
Roby, thanks. That is one place I did not look because I never pay any attention to party platforms anyway. All they are is pie-in-the-sky wish list for candidates to pick and choose things to support.
But has Trump, who Jay and democrats since the election, has said supports 2000 miles of wall said “2000 miles of wall”.
Ron, you can see my USA today link below, it gives the list of many different ideas the POTUS has had on the wall since 2015. 2000 miles is not among them I do not believe. However, it is also true that he did reference the GOP platform at one point, which has the phrase entirety of the southern border. I did not look into the platform, I googled “trump entire border wall” and sifted through the results which led me to USA today which led me to the platform. I did find several unsolid references in news stories to trump stating the need for a “complete” wall in the last year. His language is a matter of impulse.
Why are you so desparate to manufacture controversy ?
Are you saying that Democrats will be Ok with building a wall everywhere EXCEPT thouse places where the existing physical landscape is such that natural barriers are already sufficient ?
Are you saying that Republicans are to be taken more litterally than actual literal and therefore would be constructing a 30′ wall on the materhorn given a chance ?
When democrats and the left are prepared to have a discussion that includes physical barriers – we can address the debate over exactly where they are necescary and where they are not.
I would also reference Barr’s recent testimony in congress on the subject – as well as numerous current news stories.
Trump has managed to build about 700 miles of wall since getting elected More than half of that is upgrades to existing wall, but some of it is new.
Where he has build walls that stop both vehicles and pedestrians illegal immigration in that area has stopped or near stopped.
BUT increasingly remote areas without a wall are now seeing spiking illegal immigration.
The net is DOWN, but the construction of walls in popular locations to cross results in more crossing in unpopular areas.
As Barr noted – there is not ONE solution to any of our problems – illegal immigrants, drugs, ….
Whatever we improve – will result in changes in behavior by those we thwart.
Better drug security at ports of entry will mean more drugs crossing the board at remote locations.
More walls in popular locations mean more crossings in remote locations.
We will never stop illegal immigration. We will never stop drugs.
But so long as we are going to have laws against either or both we will need to do many things to enforce those laws. Otherwise we are worse off than if we did not have those laws at all.
I would like to have a real conversation on open borders and ending the war on drugs.
Small parts of that are actually happening – we have been decriminalizing some parts of our drug laws and will likely continue.
But border security is very nearly binary.
You can legalize Marijuana fully – you will still have illegal drugs crossing the border and all the crime and violence associated with that.
To eliminate the need for border security you must legalize all drugs.
Even that is not enough – you will end up with products not made under our regulatory regime crossing illegally.
You can buy antibiotics easily from China or Canada today – so not only do you need to “build a wall” at the border – you are going to have to search ever package crossing the border.
The point is that every law that you impose that impacts those inside the US but not everyone everywhere in the world, creates a reason to move people or things accross borders.
Whether it is walls or drones or CBP agents – all of these are the costs of our laws.
If you value the laws – you MUST pay the costs to enforce them – and that includes walls.
If you do not value the laws – then lets get rid of them.
This nonsense of laws that we choose to selectively enforce is hypocritical garbage – and it is dangerous.
Roby;
really ? are we to the point of quibling over whether we need 2000M of wall of 1500M ?
There is already 750M – almost half of it in CA.
Absolutely it is more important in some places than others – and 3 decades ago we started with the place with the worst problem – CA.
In fact the wall in CA is so old it is now starting to fall apart and needs serious repairs. 2/3 of Trump’s “wall money” is for upgrades, maintance and repairs to places that already have walls.
I am not interested in arguing over whether there needs to be a 30′ wall accross 100% of the southern border.
What needs done is to continuously extend the existing wall until illegal crossings decline sufficiently that more wall is not cost effective.
Does that mean all 2000M ? Maybe. but probably not.
The thoughts of the POTUS on the wall have been on an endless journey of day to day contradictory impulsive formulations. They seem incoherent, but he is the POTUS.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/08/trump-wall-concept-timeline/2503855002/
You can do exactly the same thing to Obama’s remarks about PPACA.
It is amazing what you can find on the web.
Here is an NYT article from 2002 by William Safire.
Sharyl Attkisson provides a long list of bunglings by the FBI and DOJ over the years,
Many of which I had forgotten, and a suprisingly large number of which are directly or indirectly tied to Mueller.
These is nothing unusal about the way Mueller has acted as Special Counsel. He has been the same bumbling bully for decades. He seems to be inextricably linked to almost every single instance of the FBI hounding an innocent person that has occured in the past 40 years.
I had forgotten what was done to Wen Ho Lee.
Unfortunately AG nominee Barr is tied to several of these too.
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/427738-guilty-until-proven-innocent-is-a-dangerous-bylaw
The left has made a hero out of Valeria Plame and James Wilson and demanded and received a Special Counsel to investigate the source of the leak of a single sentence of information in a Robert Novak editorial that revealed Valerie Plames identity as a CIA agent.
That was one small peice of classified information – an important secret, but not nearly as highly classified as any of the information that has leaked regarding Flynn or Page.
But we have a problem – because Comey’s exhoneration of Clinton’s mass dump of the most classified information that government holds lowers the bar so far that it is easy to be confused into beleiving that leaking classified information is not a serious crime.
After all the FBI did not care that Clinton was leaking classified information to the chinese and 4 other hostile foreign powers in real time.
Solomon builds on the already compelling case that the entire Trump/Russia thing was a setup from the start.
Manafort is being eviscerated because he may have shared polling data with Klimick.
Klimick is a likely Russian agent identified by the FBI over a decade ago.
That FBI warned the McCain Campaign about Klimick and McCain took measures to assure that those people in his campaign with ties to Klimick did not share information with him.
The FBI under Obama claims to continue to be aware of Klimick as a Russian operative, as well as purportedly adding Carter Page to their list – a bizarre addition as Page worked with the FBI to expose Russian corruption in the US related to the U1 deal.
An investigation that Robert Mueller not on;y participated in but participated in covering up.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/424910-how-news-media-omissions-distort-russia-probe-narrative-and-shield
So we have the democrats engaged in investigations of the children of opposing presidential candidates.
And we now have separate confirmation under oath that the DOJ/FBI received the Steele Dossier in July no November – that makes much of what has been said publicly false and more importantly it makes atleast the testimony of Glenn Simpson a lie.
So where is the indictment of Simpson ?
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/30/nellie-ohr-ivanka-trump-fusion-gps/
I am sorry – it also indirectly confirms that Andrew Weisman and 3 other members of the SC team were actively involved in the DOJ/FBI Steele Dossier investigation.
Which at the very least makes them witnesses and therefore conflicted.
Either the FBI/DOJ bungled the clinton email server investigation or they deliberately sabatoged it. We now know that they knew or should have known that Clinton’s emails had been accessed by the chinese and that they ignored this and did not investigate.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-fbi-ignored-major-lead-on-clinton-emails-closed-door-testimonies-suggest_2782019.html
According to a March, 2018 report from the US Customs and Border protection, walls are being built or replaced in California.
“In San Diego, 14 miles of outdated steel plate barrier will be replaced with a bollard structure—hollow steel beams filled with concrete and steel rods. The bollard design provides agents with needed visibility into Mexico while improving protection.
Vietnam-era helicopter landing mats were used to construct the primary pedestrian barrier on San Diego’s border. Without the ability to see through it, the mats hinder agent safety.
At least two miles of the border barrier in Calexico, California, is already being replaced with 30-foot bollard wall.”
Why the hell is the Trump administration doing ANYTHING to protect California when California leadership will do nothing to protect Texas, New Mexico or Arizone.
SCREW California and use that money for other states where illegal crossings occur.
If Nancy wants illegals in this country, let them into her state and let California pay for them!
Why protect her state and not others, causing increased costs in other states?
That is total insanity on Trumps part in my mind! Help those first that will work with you to mke things better, not those that oppose every move just for politics.
This is a good point, Ron. Why not remove the “immoral” border wall at Tijuana and replace it with the “digital wall” that the Democrats on the negotiating team are advocating for Texas and Arizona? If sensors and drones are all it takes to keep tens of thousands of illegals from bum rushing the border, then let California show us how it’s done! They can set up a voter registration station, right inside the US border, as well as hand out info on Covered California and Medi-Cal.
About the same percentage of sane Texans as Californians are NOT in favor of a full border wall. About the same percentage agrees illegal immigration is a problem.
More patrolling.
Walls only where needed.
Will Mexico pay for some walls?
Have Donnie check on that
https://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Poll-Texas-voters-oppose-border-walll-12847966.php
“Walls only where needed.”
Well, of course. That is Trump’s position, which he most recently reiterated in his Rose Garden speech last week.
I repeat, no one is advocating for a 2000 mile wall. It would be a waste of money.
Let’s have the press ask him:
“Mister Prez, would you be willing to settle for partial walls in selected places?”
A deal maker would take that deal.
But dipshit Donnie would not.
(My inner imp says he would if the sections had Trump Wall signage)
““Mister Prez, would you be willing to settle for partial walls in selected places?””
You DO NOT negotiate in the press!!!!!!!
You do it at a negotiating table where all positions are discussed.
This media negotiating is making our government look like the laughing stock in the world.
And Queen Nancy is a 50%+ partner in this issue!
I just listened to the full Rose Garden press interview..
He said “We need a Great Wall or barrier to keep them (illegals) from getting through.”
How did you interpret he wanted A GREAT WALL stretching across the Mexican Border as anything less thanto a 99% full border barrier?
Jay how many different ways do you need to see or hear something before you beleive it?
https://www.bustle.com/p/what-does-smart-wall-mean-trumps-border-security-comments-took-unexpected-turn-15902007
“We do not need 2,000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shining sea, we never did, we never proposed that, we never wanted that, because we have barriers at the border where our natural structures are as good as anything we can build,”
“The walls we are building are not medieval walls,” Trump said. “They are smart walls designed to meet the needs of front-line border agents and are operationally effective.”
These are direct quotes from his speech. Not sure what you listened to.
My apology, you’re right – I Googled “Rose Garden press interview wall” and assumed the link I watched was the full interview.
BTW “From seas to shining sea” is an inept phrase for him to have used. That only says he doesn’t intend to build barriers from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans.
As I said before, I’m in favor of additional physical barriers where necessary. Out of the approx 2,000 mile border, how many miles of wall-fencing is he proposing? From where to where?
Demanding he gets $5 billion up front with no info what he intends to do with the money, with no preliminary mapping, is a definite ‘no way, Jose.’ Trump should in good faith (ha) agree to present a serious proposal with relevant mapping, costs, time estimates. He can use a couple of million from the Dems Big Billion security offer for the study. An honorable (ho ho) politician who is proposing a massive physical barrier across the Southern Border would properly inform the American people of the ACTUAL size and scope before proceeding.
Don’t you want to know that? Or do,you want to find out after the fact, like those people who invested in his casinos, or the false promises he made to get golf properties built in Scotland:
In Scotland, Trump Built a Wall. Then He Sent Residents the Bill.
Jay, the $5 billion will cover from 200-250 miles of new or replacement barriers. That is about 10% of the border.
Once again we witness the piss poor messaging of the GOP. To get this info, you need to dig as it is not one that shows readily when doing a search.
The democrats have done a great job defining the issue as a bordervwall complete from texas to california. And they never mention Nancy made sure her state got first bids on the original money so she can jow say NO!
Jay;
About the same portion of the population STRONGLY supports that wall as strongly opposes it – about 25% on either side.
Basically 50% of the population holds a position and has zero interest in compromising.
Pretty much everybody is for stronger border security.
Further support for the wall is UP significantly since last year, it is up among republicans, it is way up among moderates, it is up among college graduates.
Click to access 1203a1GovernmentShutdown.pdf
“Why the hell is the Trump administration doing ANYTHING to protect California when California leadership will do nothing to protect Texas, New Mexico or Arizone.”
Ron, pop a laxative; the digestive accumulation is backing up to your brain.
The money for those imrovements-Repair was approved by bipartisan vote, part of the border security money allocated in the previous spending bill – still mostly unspent. The Dems voted to include $1.6 billion for new and replacement wall systems in the Rio Grande Valley, Tucson, Yuma, El Centro and San Diego sectors. That includes money spent by the Army Corps of Engineers for construction, real estate acquisition, and program management. Guess what – reports of ballooning costs determined new barrier construction was going to be way more expensive than projected. The original $25 billion estimate was conservative (meaning Conservatives low balled the numbers).
Your criticism that California lawmakers don’t want any new border barriers erected is bullshit. In fact Californians are more in favor of increasing border security than Texans, notably those representing districts near the border. Should Trump withhold barrier money to those Texas cities not in favor of additional land confiscation to build new walls?
I’m in favor of adding fencing where it will work to inhibit illegal crossings; but not along mega miles of uninhabited desert waste land – you might as well dig money ditches there to drain decades of tax dollars. survailance via satellite, drones, hi tech video will work better, for way less disruption to the land, property, and taxpayer resources
Jay “Your criticism that California lawmakers don’t want any new border barriers erected is bullshit. In fact Californians are more in favor of increasing border security than Texans, notably those representing districts near the border. ”
Sorry, but your BS is just more BS. If California lawmakers are open to more wall construction, why the hell do I keep seeing this crap in the news?
https://wtop.com/national/2019/02/trump-pelosi-remain-far-apart-on-the-border-wall-issue/
Are you saying it is fine that Queen Nancy is unwilling to negotiate anything? All she does is keeps saying no to everything,(except DACA and other reforms to allows illegals to stay here).
This whole thing is two skunks with their asses in the air spraying crap into the air and hoping their stench smells lees offensive than the others.
Negotiations take two individuals with differing opinions to come to the table and talk about those differences. Then if an agreement is not reached, a deal is dead and the next steps take place. In this case, government closure or national emergency.
Pelosi is refusing to even talk. Do you accept that? I don’t. And if Trump refuses to accept a lessor amount for security if she did come to the table, then I would feel the same about him.
But right now, she is the problem. And only because she wants to make him a one term president so her Socialist Democrat followers can take over.
“Ron, pop a laxative; the digestive accumulation is backing up to your brain.”
Is there anyone you will not insult ?
Why do you think EVERYONE ELSE is popping a gourd ?
Ron is making a rational argument about hypocrisy.
Your response is potty humour ?
If you do not want to be called a juvenile, don’t act like one.
I beleive you have said you are old enough to have grandchildren.
Is there a reason you have to act like a toddler ?
Jay;
Much of what you cite is correct, but it is also incomplete.
There is a wall along almost the entire California Mexico Border today.
The peoples republic of california – the most progressive state in the country also has the most complete and most impenetrable border wall in the country.
Absolutely there is money in the budget to maintain and even improve that wall. Much of it is 30 years old and some of it is in pretty bad shape.
But the CA wall has worked – reducing Illegal immigration in CA by 95% since 1992.
Everything Government does costs more than projected.
That said – I beleive the $25B number for a southern wall in all the places that need a wall is still solid.
Trump has built, upgraded or repaired 700Miles of border wall since getting elected. The entire border with mexico is less than 2000 miles long.
Trumps 5.7B is not entirely for wall – but part of it is to pay for another 300M – about 2/3 of which is repairs maintanence and upgrades – not new wall.
As the wall is extended – problems in the areas where there is a wall are going DOWN, Not only is illegal immigration going down, but crime, drug traficing, …..
BUT problems in places where there is no wall are increasing.
This is exactly what you would expect.
Absent a complete barrier – people will just cross where there is no barrier.
Obviously we should concentrate on the places where the problems are.
But as walls are built in those places – the problems move to where there is no wall.
Sorry Ron: I’ve become Trumpified, praising you when you agree with me, cursing you out when you disagree.
Think of us like the Hawaii Five O cop partners, Steve McGarrett and Danny Williams – constantly exchanging barbed insults, but underneath the quibbling good pals.
Yes Jay, it is easy to pop a cork in this political environment. My best friend for 40+ years ( and best man years ago) had political leaning much.like mine. That was when both parties were more closely aligned. But while I maintained a more Libertarian right of center position, he moved very left due to his wife being a “bleeding heart liberal”. So when we are together, I refrain from commenting until he gets on the MSNBC talking points train. At that time I just tell him ” to shut the “F” up because I dont want to hear that left wing BS”
And we continue to be friends, so I dont take thing personally in sites like this. IfI do, then I just leave like I have other so called “moderate” sites.
If there is no zero tollerance for the GOP, then there should ge no tollerance for democrats.
https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/article_67fdd682-2662-11e9-a7d1-c7ed70e09b50.html
This was in 1984 and after he had graduated from college, no some stupid high school kids mistake.
Let’s ban Eddie Murphy too for his racist Whiteface portrayal
So your rant about Trump being a racist, how bad that impacts the country and how he needs to be removed from office, but a democrat says it and you just post something else where someone did white face?
Really?
I never said Trump is a racist.
I said he’s a bigot.
And an asshole,
And a con man.
And an habitual liar
And a hypocrite.
And a low life muthafucka who demeans the presidency.
Don’t you agree?
🙄
Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Jay;
With respect to your list of negative attributes of Trump.
Pretty much every one holds true for pretty much every politiican from either party.
Further to the extent that each is true most of them are MORE true about his predecessors.
Do I wish we had a better president than Trump ? Absolutely.
I voted for a much better choice – Gary Johnson.
That said – Trump’s presidency is like his economy.
You would call it ordinary – except that it is so long since we have seen ordinary that he appears to be great.
The Northam situation is complex.
Brian Stevenson says “a man is not the worst thing he has ever done”
Something we should all remember.
Ordinarily I would dismiss this old Northam yearbook photo.
But for several things.
Northam narrowly defeated Gillespie by calling Gillespie a racist.
If the left wants to play this game that we can reverse the outcome of elections based on assassinating the character of the winner AFTER the election is over – then what is good for the goose is good for the gander and Northam must go, and to be fair he should be replaced by Gillespie.
It is also important to END this tactic of screaming hateful, hating hater, every time you disagree with someone.
I think it is quite reasonable to establish – that if you accuse someone else of racism, and evidence emerges of your own past racism – you are disqualified and must resign.
The point is NOT to hold people accountable for conduct in the distant past.
To me Northam’s “crime” is not an antique racist photo that i likely a juvenile joke.
It is accusing his opponent of being racist with no basis.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/reminder-ralph-northam-won-after-calling-ed-gillespie-racist/
And he is a great showman in the mold of P.T> Barnum: “Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public.” … and maybe: “There’s a sucker born every minute” and a Trump to fleece him.
So what is the snake oil that Trump is selling ?
How are we being fleeced ?
Your post is ad hominem – it does not even actually assert a fact of any kind.
We can discuss facts, we can even discuss assertions and allegations.
Who knows atleast some of the time I might agree with you,
but naked insults have no meaning.
Please renew your meds.
dd;
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.TmaGUAKlRW9OvWdn-ux26gHaG8%26pid%3D15.1&f=1
Most interesting is the Reuter’s ipos poll finding that telling democrats that Trump supports something – even lying to democrats that Trump supports something causes democratic support for that to tank.
Telling democrats that Trump supported universal healthcare cause support amoung democrats to drop almost 20pts.
We see this with the withdraw from afghanistan and Syria.
Barack Obama ran in 2008 promising to close Gitmo and bring our troops home quickly from Afghanistan and Iraq.
At that time virtually no one was arguing that we should stay anywhere in the mideast for another decade. To the extent that Republicans and democrats, even the military disagreed, it was merely a question of how many months it would take to return home.
Some republicans thought that Obama was naive beleiving we could be out of Iraq and afghanistan in 9months. No one thought Obama was an idiot, a traitor, a russian puppet because he promised to bring troops home quickly.
Obama failed to keep that promise – disasterously. In 2016 we were in more places in the mideast than we had been in 2008.
But many of the same people who cheered at Obama’s promise to bring our troops home are calling Trump a no nothing nitwit for actually doing what Obama promised a decade ago.
It is very hard for me to beleive that alot of the opposition to many Trump policies has nothing to do with the policies, and everything to do with Trump.
Too many of you completely skip having jumped from one position to the other without explanation. Even posters on TNM are railing at positions that they supported a few years ago, and I beleive would still support today – except that Trump has adopted them, and everything Trump must be wrong.
https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/columnists/deroy-murdock-breaking-news-walls-do-work/article_ed6ef135-9a85-5c4c-b54e-c87232153b55.html
Ha! This is so very true.
Perhaps Trump should start advocating for Medicare for All and sanctuary for all illegals, including criminals, and the Democrats would start opposing those policies…
The reuters/ipos poll tested exactly what you propose – and that is exactly what happened.
Take any program or policy and tell a democrat that it is Trumps and there is as much as a 20pt swing in their support.
This should not be surprising as there are lots of internet journalists who have been doing this for a long time.
They go to college campuses and that interview students asking their support for various policies – but changing whose policies they are – Obama’s vs. Trump’s.
They typically get very strong support of all of Trump’s policies if they are framed as Obama’s and very strong opposition to Obama’s policies, if they are framed as Trump’s.
I am sure you can do the same thing to conservatives in reverse – but I will bet that the swing is much much smaller.
Put simply there are more lemmings on the left who make their choices based on what the elite tell them. So much so that all they need is to beleive that their masters directed something and they support it.
This is particularly evident on the withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan.
I would bet I can go back in time here at TNM and find that many of those here who are opposing Trump withdrawing were supporting Obama doing exactly the same thing several years ago.
Combined message, Dave and Jay.
First, Jay,
you said you called Trump a bigot. Dictionaries list the following as synonyms for bigot. “synonyms
dogmatist · partisan · sectarian · prejudiced person · racist · racialist · sexist · homophobe · chauvinist · jingoist · anti-Semite · male chauvinist pig. ”
And there are other examples where bigot has been used in example sentences that refer to racial issues. So, yes, you have called Trump a racist, but not using that actual word.
Dave, in debating the wall issue and my comments about California, redistributing the existing funding to other states and Queen Nancy, my point(s) in this whole mess is the method of non-negotiating going on. Maybe behind the scenes the moderates in each party will find an acceptable compromise, but then how does it get to a vote?
And after a vote, how does it get past Trump?
Both Pelosi and Trump have planted their flags in certain positions. Trumps may be in hard clay, Pelosi’s seems to be in cement. When this happens America loses.
How does this get past Trump ?
Trump is the public picture of the conflict, but there is more going on than Trump.
Trump’s primary issue is the wall. It appears likely he will sign anything that includes sufficient wall funding.
But other republicans are after other things or unwilling to concede on other things.
As an example if there are not enough republican votes for the specific dreamer legislation, then the bill will not likely pass in the senate – whether it has wall funding or not.
“When this happens America loses.”
Why ? This is the actual process our founders gave us. It was deliberately designed to make it difficult to expand the power of the federal government.
The only thing particularly unique here is that border security is actually a constitutionally mandated function of government.
Regardless, I do not have a problem with this process. What is problematic is that everyone thinks it is such a big deal.
I wish this were the norm.
It should be this hard for government to expand in any NEW way.
It should always be possible for a minority in government to stop almost anything.
Where this becomes a problem, and the mistake our founders made is that this should only work in blocking things.
It should NOT be possible for a minority to force an expansion or to sustain an expansion.
A minority should always be capable of preventing government from growing,
but never capable of forcing it to grow.
Otherwise – I am comfortable with this.
If govenrment employees do not like the uncertainties of shutdowns – find private jobs.
I also have a problem with paying government employees who did not work.
Your pay is for what you have produced. While the relationship is not always perfect, it is still critical. Everything we consume is paid for by everything we produce.
Ultimately we can not consume if we do not produce.
That is the engine of the world. That is what raises our standard of living.
Some sanity.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/restaurant-owner-bans-make-america-great-again-hats-then-apologizes/
What is racist is NOT defined by your or anyone else’s emotional response.
Racism is determined by the intentions of the ACTOR.
This must be the case – otherwise we could define whatever we want as racist and then condemn whoever we want as racist.
Which is precisely what the left has been doing that is tearing this country apart.
Democrats are the party of Crazy.
https://freebeacon.com/columns/the-democrats-lose-their-minds/
Schultz, is absolutely right.
To Roby and your claim that I am hyperventilating and vastly overstating the extreme positions of those on the left.
I am saying pretty much the same thing Howard Schultz is.
The left – not just the extreme left, but most of the democratic party has “lost its mind”.
A democratic congresswoman is accusing the US of fostering a Coup against Maduro and she is rewarded with a seat on the foreign relations committee ?
ALL of the leading contenders in the democratic party are advocating openly socialist policies.
A few years ago we debated here whether it was fair to call democrats socialists.
That debate is over – not because conservatives won it, but because democrats have openly embraced socialism.
The very people who were claiming it was evil to call them socialists are now calling themselves socialists.
The left radicalizes another american.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/why-i-wear-a-maga-hat-these-days-and-i-didnt-start-out-as-a-trump-fan
Aparently 2019 is going to be the start of new abortions wars.
The left is so concerned that Trump SCOTUS appointess might reverse Rowe that they LEFT is making abortion a prominent issue.
This country had reached an uneasy truce on abortion. We strive to fullfill Bill Clinton’s wish that abortions are legal and rare.
The state of science and technology is advancing as should always have been expected – on one hand we have a cheap over the counter pill that allows terminating a pregnancy within days of conception, at the other end we are able to save and even allow to thrive infants born as early as 20 weeks.
The abortion conflict in this country is one of the most nasty and viscious.
And it is once again rearing its ugly head.
Though I beleive Rowe was wrongly decided – meaning basing the decision on science rather than law and rights was a serious mistake and a part of why we still are in conflict. I think it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS is ever going to do anything but narrow legal abortion by small amounts. Atleast I hope that is the case. Regardless of the arguments of pro-life and pro-choice factions, stoking the flames of the abortion conflict would make current political bitterness seem tepid. As I said my hope is that SCOTUS will mostly leave abortion alone.
But the fear on the left is so great they are acting accross the country pre-emptively and quite stupidly.
AGAIN Abortion is possibly the most deviceive and dangerous political issue in existance.
It makes PPACA or the wall look inconsequential
Just as SCOTUS should not aggravate our passions and bring this issue to a boil – neither should those on the left. And yet that is precisely what they are doing.
I do not beleive that SCOTUS – even a starkly conservative SCOTUS would significantly disrupt the status quo on abortion – but I do fear they might stupidly do so.
But the left has completely mitigated any fear that SCOTUS might rekindle the war over Abortion by stupidly doing so themselves.
The abortion issue in the US is a sleeping dog that should be allowed to lie.
And yet NY and aparently VA are intent on kicking the dog.
I do not share the views on abortion of the editorial above. In fact I do not share those of either side.
At the same time I do not want anything disturbing the detente that exists.
It was bad enough that NY decided to vastly expand the scope of legal abortions, but as the author notes – celebrating by making the WTC glow pink is absolutely lunatic stupid.
It is a move designed to piss people off to inflame passions.
Nor do I understand it politically.
Absolutely there are large numbers of Women for whom abortion rights are a compelling political motivator – but there is an equally large number of WOMEN for whom the OPPOSITE is true. While the political parties have over time polarized such that republicans are the pro-life party and democrats are the pro-choice party – this has not always been the case. My state elected a pro-life democrat as governor not all that long ago.
Outside of formal politics pro-life democrats still exist.
I would excoriate those on the right if they actually took significant steps to limit abortions beyond what Rowe allows. It would be a serious political blunder for republicans to tee up a Rowe test case to try to get SCOTUS to reverse Rowe.
It is atleast as large a blunder for the left to do the same.
Further abortion is the one issue that actually provokes real violence from those on the right.
While the left is constantly harping over the violence of those on the right – despite the fact that to attribute political violence to the right – you have to include in the umbrella of political violence the actions of the mentally disturbed and to pretend that it is their politics rather than their mental health that is the issue – while the majority of left wing violence is clearly POLITICAL and not a mental health issue.
Abortion is the one area where a small portion of those opposing abortion will feel wrongly justified in becoming violent.
We do not need more assassinations of doctors or bombings of abortion clinics.
We particularly do not need it as in so many other areas the rule of law is faltering.
http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_32424927/irrational-dems-stand-way-immigration-compromise
Numerous studies have been conducted determining whether school competition – greater availabity of competition to brick and mortar public schools fosters character and tolerance.
NONE of those studies find an negative impact and 2/3 of those studies find a statistically significant positive impact.
If you want your child to grow up to be a more tolerant adult with stronger character – do not send them to a brick and mortar public school.
https://www.cato.org/blog/more-competition-better-citizens
The gist:
The impact of the shutdown was negligable,
The future economy may not be as hot as Trump projects, but it will like exceed the predictions of the Fed and CBO – in other words it will be better than the Obama economy through to the election.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-economy-is-fundamentally-strong-for-now-2019-01-31
Yes, Lets eat the rich. That will make things so much better.
It is very frustrating that we even have to argue about economic stupidity that has been repeatedly refuted both by fact, and by research, and by theory.
But there are an enormous number of things that large numbers of intelligent people beleive that are indistinguishable from beilief that the earth is flat.
The nonsense about income inequality is one of those.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/economic-inequality-helps-drive-growth/?utm_source=feedotorg&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fee_partners&utm_campaign=FEE%20Daily&utm_content=69402477&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8SUC55ja9
Wisdom from Thomas Sowell.
Our efforts to help quite often do harm.
Maybe a century ago it was plausible and moral to beleive in much of what the left sells.
Today it is NOT.
If you use force to harm others – no matter what your “intentions” that is wrong.
If you do so when you know or should know otherwise – that is very wrong.
https://spectator.org/lessons-from-the-past/
So what, they are not forcing women to have babies.
So change the law.
Government controls and regulations never work.
There should be no walls to stop people, God would want that.
NYT: “Three people who operated multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses in Southern California were arrested Thursday in the biggest federal criminal probe ever to target the thriving industry, in which pregnant women come to the United States to give birth so their children will become American citizens.
The businesses coached their clients to deceive United States immigration officials and pay indigent rates at hospitals to deliver their babies, even though many of the clients were wealthy, investigators said. Some Chinese couples were charged as much as $100,000 for a birth-tourism package that included housing, nannies and shopping excursions to Gucci.”
“Mr. Zito, the special agent, said clients were advised to claim they lacked insurance, which entitled them to pay the indigent rate at whichever hospital they used to deliver their babies.
In some cases, he said, the women returned to China and canceled their credit card to avoid paying even that rate, about $4,000, which is a fraction of what it costs most women in the United States to deliver a baby.”
No one should force you to keep an unwanted credit card, you should have free choice.
Hospitals should make their own rules to avoid indigents and doctors could refuse to treat
suspicious looking ladies.
I guess I have to clarify something about force
The prohibition against force only applies to humans and only the conduct of humans is the domain of government
Nature and only two laws often involve force
Nature has forced us to eat drink sleep
It dictates that a fertilized egg will likely become a child
It is only recently that there has been much choice in that
The Phillips curve and Keynesian economics are inextricably linked – if one is false the other is too.
The phillips curve should have been dumped into the dustbin of economic fallacy by Volker in the 80’s.
Why is anyone much less the FED still paying attention to it ?
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2019/02/01/economic_data_are_clear_phillips_curve_points_in_the_wrong_direction_103597.html
Another one of Nancy’s dirty tricks.
After all I did for them.
I told you some of them were good people.
He can’t be responsible for the actions of all his people, think of Cohen.
Fox won’t show them, they are fake news.
This is an Emergency and he should get some active duty soldiers to fill their jobs.
NYT: “Undocumented Workers Lose Their Jobs at Yet Another Trump Property”
“Ms. Morales, who is protected from deportation because she applied for asylum, was invited by her Democratic congresswoman, Bonnie Watson Coleman, to attend the State of the Union address on Tuesday. Also attending will be Sandra Diaz, a native of Costa Rica and a legal resident of the United States who said she was undocumented when she worked at the Trump resort. She will be the guest of Representative Jimmy Gomez, a California Democrat.”
????
What is it you are ranting about ?
Are you upset because Trump hired illegals ? Are you upset because he followed the law and fired them ?
I really can make not sense of you.
In left world – illegal immigrants can march into the US unimpeded.
We are not permitted to hire them – because they are illegals.
But if some evil business gives them what they want and actually hires them and pays them to do a job – that is a crime and exploitation.
Then if that business complies with your laws and wishes and fires them – it is again the same business being evil by taking peoples jobs – jobs you made laws preventing them from having.
I have told you repeatedly – I will be happy to discuss actual open borders.
But open borders means – the end to minimum wages, and the end to criminalizing employers for giving people jobs that those people freely choose to accept.
It means lots of other things you will not like too.
And what is it with these democrats from the house of representatives – inviting people that they have made criminals to the SOTU ?
Aren’t we supposed to be locking them up ?
Get a clue – if you do not like the law – change it.
The rest of this is just stupid nonsense.
You demonstrated that Trump is a hypocrite – by proving that democrats are both hypocrites and morons.
Is that your idea of a win ?
Regardless, that was obvious beforehand.
One of the things you do not seem to understand about most of your attacks on Trump.
Like this one – when you manage to land a punch – you hit yourself twice for everytime you strike Trump.
That is fine by me.
LMAO. Still waiting for your meds, eh.
Come on Dave, get a brain will you? He only fired them AFTER the press storm about it. Once again you ignore his hypocrisy, you hypocrite.
Now we know what Putin and Trump discussed surreptitiously at their one-on-one meetings.
Lets see – the Russians have been violating the treaty for eons.
China is not a part of the treaty and is doing what it pleases.
Only the US has actually been following the treaty.
And in your world flushing a treaty that only constrains the US is somehow an act favoring Russia ?
Given that Russia has not been complying with the treaty – what is it that get from this ?
You think Trump and Putin conspired to …. do what Putin was doing all along anyway ?
let’s see, by having Trump officially end the treaty Putin can openly announce and proceed full scale with developing new weapons and blame the US withdrawal. But you’ll still tout this as trump being tough on Russia, and not as a Russian toady.
By the way, what ever happened to those sanctions Trump was supposed to slap on Russia after the poisonings of those Russians in London? Duh.
Everything that Trump does is not “being tough on Russia” just as everything Obama did was not “being tough on russia”
The Russian Reset was not “tough on Russia” the U1 deal was not “tough on Russia”.
For the most part Obama swooned over Russia far more than Trump – he just did not so obviously vocalize his admiration for Putin.
No one understands the reasons that Trump fawned over Putin during the campaign. But the campaign is over – as is the fawning.
Yes I would rather have Russia OVERTLY reject an agreement they are already violating.
We would all really prefer to have a binding INF treaty – one that Russia would abide by, and China would join. But that was not one of the choices.
This is not a great accomplishment of Trump, it is also not a catastrophic failure. It is a small improvement over the status quo.
While his reasoning is crap
There is no economic output from government workers. At best there is the benefits that the rule of law provides in improved output from private workers.
Most regulation has a negative impact on the economic – as does enforcing it.
Confidence in the ability of government to make policy is gibberish. The economy is better of the less of that we have.
Regardless, Powell does get that the shutdown had little or no economic cost.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/30/fed-chair-powell-says-economy-will-make-back-most-of-shutdown-effect-in-the-next-quarter.html
Massive indirect economic output. An obvious example USDOT
Not massive – and no USDOT is not an example. Much less an obvious one.
To a large extent Transportation in the US is funded by gasoline taxes.
And it trivially could be entirely funded by them – if politicians would keep their hands off them. I would also be relatively trivial to restructure transportation so that it was enjtirely privately provided and maintained and still funded by use. And it would likely cost about 2/3 what it does now and be substantially better.
In the rare instance government does step in and produce – or more accurately, when it inserts itself into the supply chain because even highways are privately constructed, it does so with significantly less efficiency than private production.
I keep telling you that government is force – that is the PURPOSE of government. The use or threat of force to inhibit the use of force by others,
To ensure that all private interactions are free of force and to ensure that
To ensure that when a binding agreement is reached that all parties perform that agreement.
That is the value that government adds.
During the shutdown all aspects of that were working.
Dave, when we pat federal gas tax in PN, NC, CA, OR any state, that money should syptay in those states unless for use on interstate projects. I have no problem with those taxes gojng to states for Interstate projects son one does not have to travel outdated roads if AR, OK or NM does jot have koney to duilf I40, etc.
But NO money should go to rapid transit for NY, IL or any other local projects and that is what the Fast Act in 2017 allowed. As far as I can remember, about 20 billion. If NewYork wants more subways, then they should pay for them. We should not be subsidizing that or any of the boondoggle in CA known as their bullet train.
And that is what the left wants with big government. redistribution of funds.
Ron
Gas taxes are the equivalent of paying for what you use
When we fund unralated things or projects in other regions we destroy that
If you drive in am then you buy gas in am
Transportation taxes should be collected by the state not federal government and spent in the state
Further taxes on auto fuel should pay for roads
Taxes on jet fuel for flying
Trains and subways should be funded by usersI guess I have to clarify something about force
The prohibition against force only applies to humans and only the conduct of humans is the domain of government
Nature and only two laws often involve force
Nature has forced us to eat drink sleep
It dictates that a fertilized egg will likely become a child
It is only recently that there has been much choice in that
Dave “Transportation taxes should be collected by the state not federal government and spent in the state”
This purist Libertarian thinking works in theory but not in reality. If we want interstate roads from coast to coast and border to border, then this does not work. OK, with its limited population and long stretches of roads will never be able to afford the interstate roads without federal help. Maybe if OK put on a $1.50 per gallon tax or put tolls every 50 miles on the main roads through thevstate, then they might be able to pay for it. But then drivers crossing OK are going to buy fuel in AR or in NM where gas will be cheaper.
I have been west a few times on I40 and am glad the federal government allocates funds nationally. that
BUT that does not mean I support gas taxes going to build subways, bullet trains to nowhere from nowhere or rapid transit systems in cities taking advantage of funds coming out of states not needing transit systems.
A good deed indead.: “Chicago Woman Got 30 Hotel Rooms for Homeless People During Severe Cold Snap.”
Good for her.
I would be more impressed with the left if instead of GoFundMe’s with millions for McCabe and Ford, they were running gogundmes to house homeless people.
So numerous left wing media companies are laying off journalists.
And the layed off journalists are pissed because people are sugesting that maybe they should #learntocode ?
“Fetid Right wingers” – did not cost them their jobs.
Even if those tweeting #learntocode are gleeful that left wingnuts have been laid off how is that anymore vile than say Wishing Trump was impeached, assassinated or has a stroke ?
It is in poor taste to wish ill to others.
It is in poor taste to gloat over the misfortunes of others – even your ideological enemies.
It is also something that people right and left do all the time.
Regardless tweeting #learntocode to someone without a job is not some great moral offense.
As someone who has been “coding” since 1974 – probably the last thing the computer world needs is lots of unemployed journalists coding with the same crappy logic they used for journalism.
Computers are rigid about logic. If you are not good with logic – for god’s sake DO NOT #learntocode. We have enough crappy software in the world.
The only way that tweeting #learntocode at an unemployed journalist is evil – is that they might take you up on it and wreak havoc on the world.
Regardless, I find is quite interesting that journalists think that others suggesting that when they have no job and the profession they have chosen is overfull of clueless left wing nuts and therefore their prospects are poor in that profession, that learning a new skill that would increase your value to the world and your employment prospects – that is somehow evil ?
It amazes me how the left wingnut mind works. Or doesn’t
It is not “fetid right wingers” that cost you your job – it is your choice to go into a buyers market with insufficient skills in your chosen profession to attract a buyer.
It is not morally repugnant to suggest that you might want to add to your skills and look at other professions.
Form that ancient fetid right winger – Stephen Crane.
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/153019/fetid-right-wing-origins-learn-code
Oh My the evil Gavin McInnes spewing Hate Speech!!!!
Well you can say Virginia democrats eat ther own.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lt-gov-justin-fairfax-suggests-gov-northam-behind-leaked-sexual-assault-allegation
“Trump Chooses David Bernhardt, a Former Oil Lobbyist, to Head the Interior Dept.”
Makes sense, why not, he knows where all the dirty, er, influential money is.
And:
“Regarding concerns about Mr. Bernhardt’s possible conflicts of interest, Mr. Connaughton said, “A seasoned government professional like Dave knows how to take off his industry hat and put on his government hat.”
What could go wrong?
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/heraldextra.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/10/01013080-7572-5414-b693-5faa1888e2ba/585451a2ef4cb.image.jpg?resize=400%2C290U
“Far-Left Democrats Are Normalizing Anti-Semitism In Democratic Party”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42998/ocasio-cortez-omar-tlaib-take-democrats-anti-ryan-saavedra
I don’t know if this is isn’t a far-left news outlet. Could be,
Woops, make that far-right, or, whatever.
This is just another example of how the socialist view economic control. Almost 50% of Americans over the age of 35 has an individual retirement account , mostly invested in corporate stocks, while another large lercentage has company retirement accounts also highly invested in corporate stocks.
Trying to control how companies use cash, ie stock buy backs and dividends, is nothing more than government taking control of industries.
AOC will love this.
https://www.rttnews.com/2975843/schumer-sanders-propose-restrictions-on-corporate-share-buybacks.aspx
General Trump Fixing It On His Own.
“I don’t need no stinkin’ consultations’
This generation’s best Conservative vilifier
https://thebulwark.com/your-guide-to-tonights-trumpian-word-vomit/
How does one view TV tonight. In NC, on Tobacco Rd, most watch ACC basketball beginning at 7:00 ET and ending at 11:00, all on ESPN stations.
Who wants to watch nothing but political BS where 1/2 the chamber is growling and the other 1/2 is jumping up and down wetting their pants with every word spoken.
Jefferson had it right about SOTU. We dont have a king. Put it in writing and deliver it to congress and let them read it.
Best newsworthy scenario tonight:
Trump starts insulting Democrats.
Pelosi gavels a warning to remain civil.
Trump insults her.
She has Trump forcefully removed from podium.
Trump’s Secret Service security officers tangle with United States Capitol Police Officers, responsible for maintaining order in the House.
All hell breaks loose
Before I go on with my thoughts for today, anyone interested in moving over to censorship where few comments are present? With 1100 comments, tablets are no longer working well for commenting.
So now for my daily diatribe. Today I was listening to the business news channel and there were comments about tax revenues, government spending and the deficit. And the comments were made that there was a spending problem by the GOP member commenting and there was a tax issue by the democrat commenting.
So I looked at the tax revenues since 1990. They are as follows.
1990 $1.03T
2000 $2.03T
2010 $2.16T
2015 $3.25T
2016 $3.27T
2017 $3.32T
2018 $3.34T Est
2019 $3.42T Est
All numbers are office of management and budget
Now if you take $1.03T and increase that by 4% compounded yearly, 2019 would end up with right at $3.0T (rounded), so in my estimation there does not seem to be much wrong with an average growth in government receipts over 29 years of 4% per year compounded.
So if the government deficits have grown to a trillion again from the 500 billion range, then the problem can not be taxes and tax revenues.
Taking the 1990 spending budget of $1.1T and applying that same 4% compounded growth over the same period as the taxes, the total expenditures for FY 19 should be $3.5T, right at the projected tax revenues.
But wait, projected spending is at around $4.4 T or right at the deficits of $1 T that is being projected.
So now I want someone to tell me where I have gone wrong. The only thing I can determine is the growth in government programs have increased along with the “this year plus inflation” budgeting resulting in deficits of this magnitude.
Wars, social programs, entitlement spending and other programs politicians will not address is the problem, Not revenues.
?????
Move to censorship good idea.
Go, I’ll follow your next comment there…
Government revenue growing by 4% a year means government revenue is growing FASTER than the economy.
Growth in the later half of the 20th century was 3.5% not 4%, growth int he 21st century was 2% not 4%.
Government should grow SLOWER than the economy – because a larger economy does NOT inherently need more government,
More people would require more government. But all people getting richer likely means LESS government.
Dave, see response under Censorship
Testing: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/07/democrats-trumps-tax-returns-1155583
They got Capone.
‘What’s really off-putting is a discussion focused on Ms. Harris’s biracial background instead of on her views, but there’s the rub. In 2019, the only things that truly distinguish the Democratic candidates are superficial characteristics. On any number of issues—single-payer health care, guaranteed jobs, free college—Ms. Harris and Mr. Booker dutifully toe the progressive line. The irony is that there was a time not too long ago when they weren’t afraid to express sensible opinions …………
“The Democratic Party today could benefit from some diversity of thought on these matters and others, but as Howard Schultz is learning, their base isn’t in the mood. That means Sens. Booker and Harris will likely spend an inordinate amount of time on the campaign trail apologizing for once making so much sense. ere unpopular among fellow Democrats.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-love-diversity-except-when-it-comes-to-thought-11549411119
Hello, anyone out there?
dduck, we mived over to censorship a couple days ago. Way to hard to comment with 1100 already present.
But I have seen your comments here through email notifications.