View Full Version : American Politics
Most US state departments (those that have taken the time to look) are now distancing themselves from the animal origin hypothesis, despite trying desperately to prove it for the past 3 years. That in itself is strong evidence. I think the US has enough paperwork and other documenation to conclude the lab leak theory without the need to seek info rom China.Uh huh. Common knowledge. In Congress right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYmBAWtjoQw
Quite incredible what the Dems are doing to free speech in the USA.
It is beconing a crime to hold dissenting views from the govt, those that attend conferences and meetings with opposite political parties will be silenced, jailed, raided, murdered. Lies and blind obsequience are now the norm. Ity sounds like the worst tales our of Communist China and the 50's Soviet Union.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEkpvId1VqQ
Its not YT that one should trust or distrust, it is the content provider. John Campbell has proven to be a remarkable source of info over the past 3 years. Most US state departments (those that have taken the time to look) are now distancing themselves from the animal origin hypothesis, despite trying desperately to prove it for the past 3 years. That in itself is strong evidence. I think the US has enough paperwork and other documenation to conclude the lab leak theory without the need to seek info rom China. Bcos USA was working w China on the virus when it was leaked. USA and China caused the pandemic that killed millions.So if it originated in a bat cave but none of those earliest cases were noted and reported to the responsible countries by the Pandemic Prevention and Response agents so they would have had the easy 2-3 months heads up required to avert Trump's Pandemic and the millions of deaths, millions of jobs and businesses wiped out, worldwide economic and supply-chain collapse, the resulting lingering inflation, etc in the first place because Trump defunded and removed the agents whose very job it was to do exactly that 5+ months before those first cases emerged against all expert warnings for him not to do something so stupid and dangerous, how is that materially different in terms of the historic damage Trump's Pandemic has wrought if it turns out those early cases were instead caused by a lab leak, which would likely have been noted and reported by those agents Trump removed even faster?
Trump's Pandemic resulting from unreported early cases originating from a lab leak Good but originating from unreported early cases originating from a bat cave Bad?
So if it originated in a bat cave but none of those earliest cases were noted and reported to the responsible countries by the Pandemic Prevention and Response agents so they would have had the easy 2-3 months heads up required to avert Trump's Pandemic ...
Trump's Pandemic resulting from unreported early cases originating from a lab leak Good but originating from unreported early cases originating from a bat cave Bad?I didn't say anything about Trump. He is your obsession, not mine. I would say it is much fairer to say this is Fauci's pandemic, not Trump's. USA has been funding GoF research in China for many years prior to Trump. USA and China governments caused these millions of deaths, hence the huge cover up til mow.
What is good and bad. To know the truth is good, to lie is bad. That way we can learn and prevent it from happening again, rather than dooming oursleves to a cycle of identical errors.
Quite incredible what the Dems are doing to free speech in the USA.
It is beconing a crime to hold dissenting views from the govt, those that attend conferences and meetings with opposite political parties will be silenced, jailed, raided, murdered. Lies and blind obsequience are now the norm. Ity sounds like the worst tales our of Communist China and the 50's Soviet Union.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEkpvId1VqQSo when Rhonda Santis appoints a new "board" to place rules on Floriduh's largest employer because the employer publicly disagreed with Rhonda's policies, that's OK? When did Rhonda become a Dem?
Beijing4987
04-26-23, 21:46
Yes, we need to scrutinize and vet the "messengers" That are pushing conspiracies. Cambell, PH Doctor of The coming economic crashes Mortenson, and of course, Kim Iverson, all cashing in on the latest political football. Of course, "common knowledge" is spread from mouth to ear and YouTube clicks. Check out the histories of anyone on their digital soapbox and their "facts" They will move on to the next big controversy, long after Toni Fauci fades from the headlines. Talking heads, explaining to you what really is happening, or merely "asking questions" like the white nationalist jettisoned in the Risk vs Reward, Murdoch calculation.
CheckMate1
04-26-23, 23:49
Yes, we need to scrutinize and vet the "messengers" That are pushing conspiracies. Cambell, PH Doctor of The coming economic crashes Mortenson, and of course, Kim Iverson, all cashing in on the latest political football. Of course, "common knowledge" is spread from mouth to ear and YouTube clicks. Check out the histories of anyone on their digital soapbox and their "facts" They will move on to the next big controversy, long after Toni Fauci fades from the headlines. Talking heads, explaining to you what really is happening, or merely "asking questions" like the white nationalist jettisoned in the Risk vs Reward, Murdoch calculation.The primary problem is with people jumping from one headline to another. Most of these "headlines" do not affect us individually, and yet, people like to jump onto one side or the other. Youtubers, and other platform producers use these click baits to drive their products. I don't blame them, nor people clicking onto them. Where it becomes a problem is that, once the clicker viewed a video, they somehow become experts on the subject matter. They can't wait to spread the important "info" to everyone they meet. The problem with this of course is that in a couple days or weeks, they become expert in other fields and have forgotten the first episode.
Case Study: Mike Lindell. He bought "information" that he was so sure that he had the credible evidence that he bet $5 M on it, only to be ordered to pay out $5 million dollars by an arbitrator because it was proven otherwise. Lindell is wealthy enough that he can afford this, but it took him down a rabbit hole that may, in the end, wasted years of his life in pursuing this. He could have avoided this, even after he bought the "info", by hiring a computer forensic expert to go throught the data for him. What would that have cost him, $20 K, $100 K? Smaller than $5 M I would guess.
We use the YMMV and RTFF quotes quite a bit on this forum. Do the same on other platforms.
Beijing4987
04-27-23, 02:41
Lindell has taken up permanent residence with Alice. His cubicle is next to that of Robert Kennedy, the lesser, and the Cocaine Bear posing as a legislator, from Notrh Georgia.
Lindell has taken up permanent residence with Alice. His cubicle is next to that of Robert Kennedy, the lesser, and the Cocaine Bear posing as a legislator, from Notrh Georgia.My Pillow also sells My Slippers.
Never trust a man who sells bedroom slippers for a living. LOL.
I didn't say anything about Trump. He is your obsession, not mine. I would say it is much fairer to say this is Fauci's pandemic, not Trump's. USA has been funding GoF research in China for many years prior to Trump. USA and China governments caused these millions of deaths, hence the huge cover up til mow.
What is good and bad. To know the truth is good, to lie is bad. That way we can learn and prevent it from happening again, rather than dooming oursleves to a cycle of identical errors.Funding the study of coronavirus in order to better combat the spread of it is Good.
Thank you, Dr. Fauci.
Defunding and removing the agents assigned to the job of monitoring and reporting the earliest cases of its spread, against all expert warnings not to do something so stupid and dangerous, whether from a lab leak, a bat cave or a tranny peeing in the toilet stall next to yours and thereby unnecessarily allowing a Pandemic to develop is Bad.
Thank you, Trump.
Funding the study of coronavirus in order to better combat the spread of it is Good.
Thank you, Dr. Fauci.
Defunding and removing the agents assigned to the job of monitoring and reporting the earliest cases of its spread,
Thank you, Trump.Funding the GoF research on COVID then trying to cover up the source by lying about it and supressing debate from public debate, then lying about the efficacy of vaxes and supressing debate on that too. Thank you, Dr. Fauci.
Not sure where his numbers stack up compared to Hitler, Churchill and Stalin now.
Funding the GoF research on COVID then trying to cover up the source by lying about it and supressing debate from public debate, then lying about the efficacy of vaxes and supressing debate on that too. Thank you, Dr. Fauci.
Not sure where his numbers stack up compared to Hitler, Churchill and Stalin now.Cute. Lumping Fauci and Churchill with the likes of Hitler and Stalin.
Now we know everything about your numbers.
Cute. Lumping Fauci and Churchill with the likes of Hitler and Stalin.
Now we know everything about your numbers.Yep, the outright Repubs and pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersider Wingers are desperate to deflect responsibility for allowing, creating and developing Trump's Pandemic from Trump that they have fabricated numbers and made up BS stories about Dr. Fauci in order to do it.
At least Trump's lawyers, close advisors and supporters get indicted, fined, go to jail and suffer reasonable penalties for making dangerous shit up to impress Dear Leader. But creative writers on the internet who do that pretty much get a free pass for it. That's a shame.
So you do not understand the insurance industry or the role of the USA navy in global trade? If you do not understand those items, then any prediction on where currencies are headed is bound to be wrong. And your comment on the USA navy just shows me that you are only interested in the bad things the USA does and none of the good.
Why can't you google a story on USA navy and its history on piracy? Afraid you might read something positive on the USA military?https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/guides/these-are-the-worlds-20-largest-insurance-companies-in-2022-421548.aspx
6 of the world's largest 20 insurance companies are registered in USA. That is only 30%.
Looking purely at marine insurance – 35% of top 10 companies:
https://www.fnfresearch.com/blog/top-10-companies-in-marine-insurance-market/348/
Besides which, why do you think the loss of the petro-dollar status for the USD would result in these 6 companies refusing to provide international insurance? Seems an unsubstantiated claim to me. US companies operate in a supposedly capitalist market and are free to follow the money. Apart from when the US become the authoritarian bully and instructs companies to block particular sectors (often to their own detriment).
So I see no validity in your insurance comments.
As for your piracy / US Navy claims. I did some quick research and can find nothing to support your claim. It's your claim – you substantiate it. Or I will have to presume this is just nonsense too, just like your understanding of socialism.
Superb show here from Kim Iversen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-_4v8mamuo
First 7 minutes she speaks well about how the mainstream media works, and how it relates to Tucker Carlson. Then she has an excellent chat w RFK. This is the best I have seen from him. But given all that KI has just said, there is zero chance he will even be heard.
This is where we are folks. 2 sides of the same dirty coin. Even RFK admits it.
Elvis 2008
05-01-23, 18:35
Or I will have to presume this is just nonsense too, just like your understanding of socialism.Initially, the socialist worker party's political strategy focused on antibig business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric.
That is a quote from wikipedia on the National socialistic German Workers' Party also known as the Nazi party. You will have to distinguish yourself from the Nazi party TK because I really do not see much difference between you and them economically.
Wiki defines, Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
In your world, somehow the USA is fascist and Italy under Mussolini was not. I do not see how this can be but then again you have your own definition of things.
As for your piracy / US Navy claims. I did some quick research and can find nothing to support your claim. It's your claim you substantiate it.From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea.
It was not even two years since America had won their independence from Great Britain. It needed trade with southern Europe which unfortunately put American vessels directly in the path of the Barbary pirates. Great Britain, France, etc. Paid surcharges to Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco, and Tunis to allow safe passage for their vessels. America not only did not have the money for that protection, it had no one authorized to provide it. Because we had no navy and nothing to threaten the pirates with, our insurance rate was about 20 times higher than the others.
For Jefferson, this had a personal aspect as well. His beloved wife had died in 1782, and though he had their eldest daughter, 10-year-old Martha with him in Paris, he wanted to bring 6-year-old Polly over but was terrified of a pirate attack. He instructed his brother-in-law to send her only in a British or French vessel, as both nations paid hefty tributes for safety.
That was 250 or so years ago.
Here is today: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/counter-piracy/.
Like I said, you are like Tooms. With him, Republican=bad. With you USA=bad. With him Democrat=good. With you socialism=good. And both of you two stuff whatever facts or narratives there are to fit your belief system.
National socialistic German Workers' Party also known as the Nazi party. You will have to distinguish yourself from the Nazi party TK because I really do not see much difference between you and them economically.
Wiki defines, Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
In your world, somehow the USA is fascist and Italy under Mussolini was not. I do not see how this can be but then again you have your own definition of things.
Here is today: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/counter-piracy/.
Like I said, you are like Tooms. With him, Republican=bad. With you USA=bad. With him Democrat=good. With you socialism=good. And both of you two stuff whatever facts or narratives there are to fit your belief system.Elvis, why are you so vehemently against an ideology when you so clearly know nothing about it?
Why don't you read a little about it, so you can make an informed opinion about it? It would be a hugely more respectful thing to do than to criticize something with total nonsense.
Your comments on the Nazis and their links to socialism are equally ludicrous. Yes, your summary is mostly correct. Nazism is "a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology". Surely that should tell you enough to indicate it has nothing to do with socialism, which is FAR LEFT? Indeed one of the earliest political crimes that the Nazi party did was to purge the country of socialist leaders. It imprisoned and murdered them. It fought and lost an ideological war against a socialist country. It used the word "socialist" in its name to try to make it popular with the working class, but the Nazis were actually a party of the business class – hence right wing. Read more here: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302.
Yes, Mussolini was also fascist. When did I claim otherwise?
As for your piracy section – that was so naïve it was almost sweet. A short video clip made by and for the promotion of the US Navy. No bias there, right? And the video itself explains that there is only piracy and naval action off the coast of Somalia, not worldwide. And the area is monitored by coalition forces, not just the US Navy. So your totally wrong on every conceivable point, Elvis. The US Navy secures international shipping. Hahaha. OMG Elvis, that was funny.
USA=bad – yes, and I support it with examples. You reply with drivel.
It used the word "socialist" in its name to try to make it popular with the working class, but the Nazis were actually a party of the business class .A great example of names that mean nothing - "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" - the name of a country that has a sole political party.
A succinct explanation of the economic history of Puerto Rico under US imperialist rule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iju8pBdbmxE
Elvis 2008
05-05-23, 18:26
Elvis, why are you so vehemently against an ideology when you so clearly know nothing about it?LOL. You think I do not know what socialism is? It is when government controls all resources and doles it out as it sees fit.
The hallmarks of capitalism are rule of law, private ownership, small but essential government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets. If you allow these principles to flourish, economic wealth will follow. However, the growth will be uneven. Capitalism facilitates growth but rewards the hardest working and savviest. Socialism strives for equality.
The goal of capitalism is the government as referee, and the problem today is those with money far too often are paying the referee off which is crony capitalism. Slapping ESG scores on business was the equivalent of asking companies: How pro-Democratic party are you? It is this intermingling of corporation and government that bothers me the most. SCOTUS also made a huge mistake with its Citizens United decision allowing corporations more power than individuals in an election.
With socialist nations, they will turn to captialism when they need money. Both Russia and China did this, but the culture is what it is. Both went from rule of law and free elections to dictator for life who can change law at any whim. Venezuela did this with Chavez as well. Once this happens, decline is inevitable. Companies care less about pleasing their customers and more about pleasing their leaders. It can be leftist or right wing. Socialism is whatever the leader wants. It is government control of resources.
Saying Hitler was not socialist is hilarious. He was a dictator and took whatever he wanted and doled out resources as he wished. True, there was more private ownership in Nazi Germany than in Stalin's USSR but the reason for that was for Hitler's financial benefit. Hitler passed laws called enabling laws that made him a dictator. Hugo Chavez copied Hilter on this BTW. Corporations knew who they served.
An interesting question for socialists is if you take away the racism and war mongering, what did the Nazis do that you objected to? The reality is very little.
As for your piracy section that was so nave it was almost sweet. A short video clip made by and for the promotion of the US Navy. No bias there, right? And the video itself explains that there is only piracy and naval action off the coast of Somalia, not worldwide. And the area is monitored by coalition forces, not just the US Navy. So your totally wrong on every conceivable point, Elvis. The US Navy secures international shipping. Hahaha. OMG Elvis, that was funny.
USA=bad yes, and I support it with examples. You reply with drivel.Yeah, I am going to back off on that now. Peter Zeihan mentioned this about the USA navy and global trade. It is true that the USA has the biggest blue ocean navy that can project power anywhere in the world. The second largest air force in the world actually belongs to the USA navy, however the notion that the USA is keeping oceanic trade open seems to be more of an American navy slogan than reality when I dug deeper into it.
However the larger point Zeihan was getting at was that the nature of globalism is on the down swing, and I do agree with that. The USA no longer needs to secure oil from the Persian Gulf. We have plenty of our own now. And blowing up the Russia's Nordstream pipeline was done in part to allow the USA to EXPORT natural gas to Europe. The amount has been in the billions and will soon be in the trillions. Maybe you should start calling it the petroEuro now.
The USA is more interested in being a regional than global player, and money is being shifted away from China to Mexico, Canada, Central America, Canada, and to a lesser degree Colombia and Chile, and you are going to see those nations prosper while China falters.
This guy obviously engages in the same kind of research to arrive at his conclusions as every other Repub and pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersider. He might indeed be 3-4 of the Dem-bashing posters here using different nics:
https://twitter.com/ricswartzlander/status/1652141805595676674?s=20
John Clayton
05-06-23, 20:32
LOL. You think I do not know what socialism is? ...Yeah, you don't:
https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448#text=The%20 main%20 difference%20 is%20 that, by%20 a%20 democratically%2 Delected%20 government.
CheckMate1
05-06-23, 21:30
Yeah, you don't:
https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448#text=The%20 main%20 difference%20 is%20 that, by%20 a%20 democratically%2 Delected%20 government.Thanks, JC.
LOL. You think I do not know what socialism is? It is when government controls all resources and doles it out as it sees fit.
The hallmarks of capitalism are rule of law, private ownership, small but essential government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets. Capitalism facilitates growth but rewards the hardest working and savviest.
With socialist nations, they will turn to captialism when they need money. Both Russia and China did this, but the culture is what it is. Both went from rule of law and free elections to dictator for life who can change law at any whim. Venezuela did this with Chavez as well.
Saying Hitler was not socialist is hilarious. He was a dictator and took whatever he wanted and doled out resources as he wished. An interesting question for socialists is if you take away the racism and war mongering, what did the Nazis do that you objected to? The reality is very little.
Yeah, I am going to back off on that now. Peter Zeihan mentioned this about the USA navy and global trade.Firstly, great to hear you have realized there is no hidden treasure in your pirate story.
Now, on to the more interesting and significant matter of your ignorance of socialism. It is very clear from your comments that you have no idea what socialism is. I am not surprised. It is intentional BS propaganda that you have bought in to from your leaders, deliberate misinformation designed so that you will hate the idea of socialism. It has been a deliberate USA policy since the 1940's and 50's.
Have you ever taken the political compass test? Give it a go. It is pretty interesting, and also you will learn smthg - https://www.politicalcompass.org/test.
A political position is a combination of 2 positions you have a position on the horiz axis and on the vert axis. Horiz is left / right views, vert axis is authoritarian / libertarian. Hence you will learn that authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism. A govt can be equally authoritarian or libertarian both to the left and to the right. So your comments about dictatorships and socialism are just garbage. Have you never heard of anarcho-socialism? It's a form of socialism without any government control. Examples of right wing dictatorships : Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Estado Novo, Francoist Spain, various governments in Colombia, Chile, Brazil since WW2.
Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. I have told you this before. Likewise you do not understand what capitalism private ownership of the means of production. Size of govt, rule of law, open markets these are irrelevant to what capitalism is. Open markets can function well under socialism. I explained this to you before. "regulatory efficiency" I dunno what this means.
"Capitalism rewards the hardest working and savviest" I could not disagree with any stronger. It most certainly does not. It rewards the wealthy and the most selfish and ruthless. That much is clear from fundamentals. And there are plenty of rewards for hard work under socialism too.
Hitler I answered this in my prev comments. You clearly didn't read what I wrote. Hitler privatized several industries, murdered and incarcerated socialists. Nearly every action he took was UN-socialist. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302.
Again Elvis, you clearly need to do some research in to what socialism is You have bought in to the US govt propaganda lie that it is some murderous dictatorial plot to remove everyone's freedoms and happiness. And the examples you give are all of authoritarian social democracies (I. E. 'bad' capitalist countries). Try reading this for starters:
https://www.socialism101.com/basic
LivingFossil
05-07-23, 04:25
If you are running for president I don't care what are your other issues if you support making it legal in America and unlocking Americas greatness then I will vote for you.
Who or when is this going to happen?
Traveling for sex outside of America sucks, but America is an amazing country!
If you are running for president I don't care what are your other issues if you support making it legal in America and unlocking Americas greatness then I will vote for you.
Traveling for sex outside of America sucks, but America is an amazing country!Paid sex is legal in many parts of America. Just head to the south.
LivingFossil
05-07-23, 17:49
Paid sex is legal in many parts of America. Just head to the south.In USA just in one county by Las Vegas?
In USA just in one county by Las Vegas?JustTK's probably referring to the Americas, specifically Latin America.
Have you ever taken the political compass test? Give it a go. It is pretty interesting, and also you will learn smthg - https://www.politicalcompass.org/test.JustTK, I took the test and fall square in the middle of the bottom right quadrant, meaning socially liberal and economically to the "right". I believe only a few percent of Americans fall in the same quadrant. Most people want government to run other peoples' lives. They're all for picking peoples' pockets and / or legislating what they can do with their bodies. Just as you and I believe the USA government shouldn't dictate to other countries what they can do, so I believe the U.S. government shouldn't dictate to me what I can and can't do, without good reason.
Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. I have told you this before. Likewise you do not understand what capitalism private ownership of the means of production. Size of govt, rule of law, open markets these are irrelevant to what capitalism is. Open markets can function well under socialism. I explained this to you before. "regulatory efficiency" I dunno what this means.
"Capitalism rewards the hardest working and savviest" I could not disagree with any stronger. It most certainly does not. It rewards the wealthy and the most selfish and ruthless. That much is clear from fundamentals. And there are plenty of rewards for hard work under socialism too.Can you name a single socialist country in Europe or the Americas that prospered? I can't think of a single one. I can think of a number that are or were basket cases, including.
The Soviet Union
Poland
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Yugoslavia
Venezuela
Cuba
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Again Elvis, you clearly need to do some research in to what socialism is You have bought in to the US govt propaganda lie that it is some murderous dictatorial plot to remove everyone's freedoms and happiness. And the examples you give are all of authoritarian social democracies (I. E. 'bad' capitalist countries). Try reading this for starters:
https://www.socialism101.com/basicThe section on "the right to food and water" is a hoot. How many people have died of starvation because of "worker ownership of the means of production"? Certainly tens of millions, maybe hundreds. Notable examples include famines in Cambodia (1979), the Ukrainian SSR (1932-1934), North Korea (1995-1999), The Soviet Union (1921-1922), and China (1958-1962). There are examples where collectivization of agriculture turned out badly, in countries that you wouldn't necessarily classify as "socialist. " Mexico and Zimbabwe come to mind.
Just from looking at the changes in the tax tables after the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) I could tell the TCJA made our tax system more progressive -- see Tables 1 and 2, here:
https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/
But Democrats could argue the tax tables alone don't take into account the effects of the Qualified Business Income deduction and some other changes to the tax code implemented by the TCJA, which preferentially benefitted higher income earners.
Well, Justin Haskins figured out a nifty way around this problem. He simply compared the percentage change in average federal income taxes paid by filers in various income groups before (2017) and after (2018) the TCJA. You can see the results in the last column in Table 1, on page 3, here:
https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/Trumps%20Tax%20Cuts%20Policy%20Paper.pdf
The results are striking. Tax returns showing income in the range of $1 to $20,000 saw income taxes reduced by 27% to 88%. Those filers making from $20,000 to $100,000 paid 15% to 21% less tax. Taxpayers in the $100,000 to $500,000 brackets paid 11% to 13% less. And those making in excess of $500,000 paid only 3% to 9% less.
So when you hear someone say that the Republican tax cuts just helped the better off and didn't do jack for the workingman, realize he's full of it.
JustTK's probably referring to the Americas, specifically Latin America.Right. He didn't mention USA.
JustTK, I took the test and fall square in the middle of the bottom right quadrant, meaning socially liberal and economically to the "right". I believe only a few percent of Americans fall in the same quadrant. Most people want government to run other peoples' lives.
(I am bottom-left quadrant.).
Interesting how you feel about your fellow countrymen. It would be interesting to see some stats on this. My hunch would be that they are right wing and close to centre on liberal-authoritarian axis.
If you are correct, then that would speak volumes about your so-called democracy. Bcos then the government would not be representing the people's interests. How surprising is that! Hehe.
Can you name a single socialist country in Europe or the Americas that prospered? I can't think of a single one. I can think of a number that are or were basket cases, including.
This wasn't a discussion on the pros / cons of socialism. Rather it is me trying to demonstrate to Elvis that he hasnt a clue what socialism is.
If you want a discussion on pros / cons, we can have it. But first please recheck before we start that you understand the difference between social democracy and democatic socialism.
This wasn't a discussion on the pros / cons of socialism. Rather it is me trying to demonstrate to Elvis that he hasnt a clue what socialism is.Elvis doesn't have a clue about anything, but you did say that "open markets can function well under socialism. ".
Tiny was absolutely right debunking this notion with an unimpeachable fact that economically successful socialist states have never existed in the world history.
Thus, your statement is false. There is no proof that "open markets can function well under socialism. " This has never happened before.
NB. I hope you do realize (unlike Bernie Sanders) that neither Denmark nor Sweden are socialist countries. It's quite sad when an old man calls himself a "democratic socialist" with no clue of what socialism really is.
Just from looking at the changes in the tax tables after the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) I could tell the TCJA made our tax system more progressive -- see Tables 1 and 2, here:
https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/
But Democrats could argue the tax tables alone don't take into account the effects of the Qualified Business Income deduction and some other changes to the tax code implemented by the TCJA, which preferentially benefitted higher income earners.
Well, Justin Haskins figured out a nifty way around this problem. He simply compared the percentage change in average federal income taxes paid by filers in various income groups before (2017) and after (2018) the TCJA. You can see the results in the last column in Table 1, on page 3, here:
https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/Trumps%20Tax%20Cuts%20Policy%20Paper.pdf
The results are striking. Tax returns showing income in the range of $1 to $20,000 saw income taxes reduced by 27% to 88%. Those filers making from $20,000 to $100,000 paid 15% to 21% less tax. Taxpayers in the $100,000 to $500,000 brackets paid 11% to 13% less. And those making in excess of $500,000 paid only 3% to 9% less.
So when you hear someone say that the Republican tax cuts just helped the better off and didn't do jack for the workingman, realize he's full of it.When you hear someone cite the effects of the Republican tax cuts on the lower and middle income margins a year after they were enacted without mentioning what everyone else knew about them, that they were cleverly crafted by the Republicans to sunset after 2-3 election cycles, realize he is full of it.
By the time those tax cuts had evaporated for the lower and middle income margins, Trump and his fellow Repubs had apparently planned to overthrow American democracy enough not to worry about losing anymore elections on the basis that their Jobs Creating and Economy Expansion record of results vs that of the Dems has been atrocious since the late 1920's.
Aside from the most basic characteristic of all Repub "tax / economic policy", it being the wrong thing to do at the wrong time, the doubling of the Estate Tax and Gift Tax giveaway to further the "Dynasty Building For The Wealthy" Repub agenda and the cover it provided before its 2026 sunset for all but Trump Crime Family-type "businesses" to pay for it by cutting resources essential to producing broad and wide-range economic expansion and job growth rather than typical Repub Trickle-Down nothingness, proved it to be just another costly Do Nothing, Know Nothing Repub regressive economic blunder.
BROOKINGS
A fixable mistake: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Sept. 25, 2019
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/09/25/a-fixable-mistake-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA, P. L. 115-97) was the largest tax overhaul since 1986. Rushed through Congress without adequate hearings and passed by a near-party-line vote, the law is a major legislative blunder badly in need of correction. The overall critique is simple: by providing large, regressive, deficit-financed tax cuts to an economy with low unemployment, rising long-term inequality, and high debt, the law was the wrong thing at the wrong time. It will take resources from future generations and from todays lower- and middle-income households to enrich todays well-to-do. It will take resources away from other badly needed social and economic priorities. The bill was so unpopular with the public that Republican members of Congress like Chris Collins and Lindsey Graham resorted to justifying their support by saying that their donors would cut off funding otherwise.
Elvis 2008
05-08-23, 19:27
This wasn't a discussion on the pros / cons of socialism. Rather it is me trying to demonstrate to Elvis that he hasnt a clue what socialism is.This is what you are blathering on about? You take communism and substitute the worker owns things but is managed by the state versus the state owning things (which is meaningless drivel) and toss in freedom of religion and that is the solution to the world's problems? LOL. This is the Venezuelan model.
"We workers are not paid our worth. The value that a worker produces is worth more than the wage he's given. His boss exploits him and his labor for profit. To make money. In the workplace, the worker lives under the dictatorship of his boss. He does not have freedom of speech (he can be fired for saying the "wrong" thing) and there is no democracy; the CEO and the Board of Directors decide everything. The workers are generally not allowed to make decisions for themselves or for the entire company. ".
So the law of supply and demand does not apply to workers? And there is no business where the worker makes money and the owner / manager loses everything? LOL. Are you fucking kidding me? Most businesses fail. This is the stupidest shit I have ever read.
And if you are a third world country like Venezuela, how are you going to attract foreign investment? Are you going to tell companies, "Hey, if you invest here, we are going to steal your business because everything here belongs to the worker. " OMG. Well at least now I know why Venezuela is the way it is. The Venezuelans believed this nonsense.
And you can own land but the worker / government owns all means of production. So if I decide to use my land and grow crops and start a business, then the government / fellow worker owns it? Yeah, that worked real well in the USSR.
Hell, in the USSR, they showed that the people who owned and worked the private lands were only 2% of the lands but grew 30% of the crops. Again, socialists always turn to capitalism when the going gets rough.
If ever there were a country that SHOULD have made it with socialism, it would have been Venezuela with its massive oil reserves and other resources. In truth, the only people who got rich in Venezuela were not the workers but those working for the government and stealing the country blind. It explains the desperation. The people who rose to the top there are not the most productive but the lying, stealing psychopaths.
What is amazing is when you travel and can actually feel the stress and pain of the people. I will never forget going from the USSR to Finland. I was young then but I could literally feel the desperation and unhappiness of the Soviet people and warmth of the Fins. I did not speak either language but I could sense the unhappiness and happiness. I never thought I would feel it again, but I did when I traveled from Venezuela to Colombia.
In contrast, the happiest country I have ever been to was Singapore. I couldn't believe it. Kids were playing outside, smiling, and it reminded me of my growing up in the safe suburbs of my youth. Crime and despair were almost nonexistent then. It was like the show the Wonder Years. I was there at the time of the OJ Simpson verdict and asked the people of Singapore how OJ would have been handled there. I got the same answer from everyone. There would have been no court room show, and the whole thing would have been wrapped up in 3 months.
What really shocked me was the attitude the citizens had with the police. They said, "Yeah, our police would not have screwed up like the American police. " And then there was this comment that caused my jaw to drop, "Our police are fair. " and I heard it over and over again. What other country has citizens who brag about their police? That is what you get when rule of law is clear.
If you took those people and their system and moved it to Venezuela and kicked the Venezuelans out, that country would be the richest on earth. Singapore has nothing resource wise, but they have a system where honesty and hard work pay off versus that of Venezuela where what paid off was subterfuge and lying.
And why is Venezuela such a train wreck? Yeah, it is all the fault of the USA.
We have 3. 4% employment in the USA. Any worker who is not treated well can find his "value" at another company. The very notion that every management team is colluding to keep worker's pay low is hilarious.
This whole socialist thing sounds like the crazy women with golden pussy syndrome who think their pussies are priceless.
Aside from the most basic characteristic of all Repub "tax / economic policy", it being the wrong thing to do at the wrong time, the doubling of the Estate Tax and Gift Tax giveaway to further the "Dynasty Building For The Wealthy" Repub agenda and the cover it provided before its 2026 sunset for all but Trump Crime Family-type "businesses" to pay for it by cutting resources essential to producing broad and wide-range economic expansion and job growth rather than typical Repub Trickle-Down nothingness, proved it to be just another costly Do Nothing, Know Nothing Repub regressive economic blunder.
BROOKINGS
A fixable mistake: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Sept. 25, 2019
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/09/25/a-fixable-mistake-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
When I wrote, "so when you hear someone say that the Republican tax cuts just helped the better off and didn't do jack for the workingman, realize he's full of it," I wasn't referring to you or other esteemed board members. Rather I was referring to politicians, the media, and partisan hired guns like William G. Gale, who wrote the Brookings piece.
The gift and estate tax levy is akin to what Nazis did to Jews before World War II, only applied instead to rich people. It entails taking 40% of everything that a person gives away or dies with, in excess of the exemption. Describing the increase in the exemption as a giveaway is baloney. You're justifying theft.
Furthermore you are wrong about the Qualified Business Income deduction. It sunsets on December 31, 2025.
As to your link, Gale is right in one respect. Republicans controlled the presidency, House and Senate in 2017 and 2018, and are reputedly the party of fiscal sanity. IMHO they should have cut spending. Certainly, given that the economy was in good shape, they should have managed to reduce the national debt as a % of GDP. Instead it grew marginally.
That said, the estimated $1.5 trillion cost of the TCJA over a 10 year period was peanuts compared to the $5 trillion+ in additional spending authorized by Democrats when they controlled the presidency, House and Senate in 2021 and 2022. I put cost in quotation marks, because leaving more money in the hands of the people and businesses is not a cost.
When Gale, in his 2019 piece, characterizes the TCJA as regressive, he's full of shit. At that point in time, you could have looked at the tax tables and known that. The marginal rates on people making $200,000 to $424,000 actually went up, from 33% to 35%.
At this point in time we have the benefit of more history, including IRS tax statistics for the year after the cuts took effect. You can pull them here:
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income
Haskins (see link in my last post) simply compared 2018 tax paid to 2017 tax paid. If you're handy with Excel you can do the same thing in about 30 minutes. All the effects of the TCJA, not just the changes in the tax brackets, are manifested in the actual amounts of taxes paid. Thus say a wealthy businessman benefits from lower tax rates from the Qualified Business Income deduction. That's incorporated into the tax he paid in 2018. Maybe he owns stock in a company. The dividends are higher and the share price goes up because the corporate income tax was lowered, and, as encouraged by the TCJA, the company repatriated cash from overseas. He collects the dividends and sells the stock and that gain is incorporated in his 2018 income.
I don't see how you can argue with that, and if your man Gale revisited his 2019 piece, he'd have to eat crow.
History has proven Gale wrong in other ways. Here's a 2022 piece from an economist at the Federal Reserve,
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/papers/2020/wp2001#:~:text=The%20estimates%20imply%20a%20tax,cost%20of%20nearly%20%24158%20billion.
The economist, Anil Kumar, estimates the TCJA resulted in 1.5 million more jobs. GDP at the end of 3 years was 1.23 percentage points higher than it would have been otherwise. The loss in tax revenue was 0.8% of GDP. Going past three years, undoubtedly GDP will continue to grow in excess of what it would have if we'd kept the pre-TCJA tax regime in place. Please note that 1.23% increase by 2020 is much higher than the 0.5% increase by 2028 quoted by your man Gale.
Furthermore, your man Gale was wrong about corporate tax revenues. Corporate tax revenues only fell by 2.3% for 2017 to 2018, and 6% for 2018 to 2019. The TCJA, with lower corporate rates, higher tax rates on foreign income, and provisions to encourage repatriation of cash from overseas, encouraged companies to invest in the USA instead of other countries. But it took some time for that to happen, and in 2022 corporate tax revenues were the highest since 2014.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX
When I wrote, "so when you hear someone say that the Republican tax cuts just helped the better off and didn't do jack for the workingman, realize he's full of it," I wasn't referring to you or other esteemed board members. Rather I was referring to politicians, the media, and partisan hired guns like William G. Gale, who wrote the Brookings piece.
The gift and estate tax levy is akin to what Nazis did to Jews before World War II, only applied instead to rich people. It entails taking 40% of everything that a person gives away or dies with, in excess of the exemption. Describing the increase in the exemption as a giveaway is baloney. You're justifying theft.
Furthermore you are wrong about the Qualified Business Income deduction. It sunsets on December 31, 2025.
As to your link, Gale is right in one respect. Republicans controlled the presidency, House and Senate in 2017 and 2018, and are reputedly the party of fiscal sanity. IMHO they should have cut spending. Certainly, given that the economy was in good shape, they should have managed to reduce the national debt as a % of GDP. Instead it grew marginally.
That said, the estimated $1.5 trillion cost of the TCJA over a 10 year period was peanuts compared to the $5 trillion+ in additional spending authorized by Democrats when they controlled the presidency, House and Senate in 2021 and 2022. I put cost in quotation marks, because leaving more money in the hands of the people and businesses is not a cost.
When Gale, in his 2019 piece, characterizes the TCJA as regressive, he's full of shit. At that point in time, you could have looked at the tax tables and known that. The marginal rates on people making $200,000 to $424,000 actually went up, from 33% to 35%.
At this point in time we have the benefit of more history, including IRS tax statistics for the year after the cuts took effect. You can pull them here:
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income
Haskins (see link in my last post) simply compared 2018 tax paid to 2017 tax paid. If you're handy with Excel you can do the same thing in about 30 minutes. All the effects of the TCJA, not just the changes in the tax brackets, are manifested in the actual amounts of taxes paid. Thus say a wealthy businessman benefits from lower tax rates from the Qualified Business Income deduction. That's incorporated into the tax he paid in 2018. Maybe he owns stock in a company. The dividends are higher and the share price goes up because the corporate income tax was lowered, and, as encouraged by the TCJA, the company repatriated cash from overseas. He collects the dividends and sells the stock and that gain is incorporated in his 2018 income.
I don't see how you can argue with that, and if your man Gale revisited his 2019 piece, he'd have to eat crow.
History has proven Gale wrong in other ways. Here's a 2022 piece from an economist at the Federal Reserve,
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/papers/2020/wp2001#:~:text=The%20estimates%20imply%20a%20tax,cost%20of%20nearly%20%24158%20billion.
The economist, Anil Kumar, estimates the TCJA resulted in 1.5 million more jobs. GDP at the end of 3 years was 1.23 percentage points higher than it would have been otherwise. The loss in tax revenue was 0.8% of GDP. Going past three years, undoubtedly GDP will continue to grow in excess of what it would have if we'd kept the pre-TCJA tax regime in place. Please note that 1.23% increase by 2020 is much higher than the 0.5% increase by 2028 quoted by your man Gale.
Furthermore, your man Gale was wrong about corporate tax revenues. Corporate tax revenues only fell by 2.3% for 2017 to 2018, and 6% for 2018 to 2019. The TCJA, with lower corporate rates, higher tax rates on foreign income, and provisions to encourage repatriation of cash from overseas, encouraged companies to invest in the USA instead of other countries. But it took some time for that to happen, and in 2022 corporate tax revenues were the highest since 2014.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAXThe estate tax of 10 million wasn't high enough, they needed to raise it, because so many of us are bequeathing 10 million dollars? Seriously? This is who our government prioritizes?
When I wrote, "so when you hear someone say that the Republican tax cuts just helped the better off and didn't do jack for the workingman, realize he's full of it," I wasn't referring to you or other esteemed board members. Rather I was referring to politicians, the media, and partisan hired guns like William G. Gale, who wrote the Brookings piece.
The gift and estate tax levy is akin to what Nazis did to Jews before World War II, only applied instead to rich people. It entails taking 40% of everything that a person gives away or dies with, in excess of the exemption. Describing the increase in the exemption as a giveaway is baloney. You're justifying theft.
Furthermore you are wrong about the Qualified Business Income deduction. It sunsets on December 31, 2025.
As to your link, Gale is right in one respect. Republicans controlled the presidency, House and Senate in 2017 and 2018, and are reputedly the party of fiscal sanity. IMHO they should have cut spending. Certainly, given that the economy was in good shape, they should have managed to reduce the national debt as a % of GDP. Instead it grew marginally.
That said, the estimated $1.5 trillion cost of the TCJA over a 10 year period was peanuts compared to the $5 trillion+ in additional spending authorized by Democrats when they controlled the presidency, House and Senate in 2021 and 2022. I put cost in quotation marks, because leaving more money in the hands of the people and businesses is not a cost.
When Gale, in his 2019 piece, characterizes the TCJA as regressive, he's full of shit. At that point in time, you could have looked at the tax tables and known that. The marginal rates on people making $200,000 to $424,000 actually went up, from 33% to 35%.
At this point in time we have the benefit of more history, including IRS tax statistics for the year after the cuts took effect. You can pull them here:
https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-individual-statistical-tables-by-size-of-adjusted-gross-income
Haskins (see link in my last post) simply compared 2018 tax paid to 2017 tax paid. If you're handy with Excel you can do the same thing in about 30 minutes. All the effects of the TCJA, not just the changes in the tax brackets, are manifested in the actual amounts of taxes paid. Thus say a wealthy businessman benefits from lower tax rates from the Qualified Business Income deduction. That's incorporated into the tax he paid in 2018. Maybe he owns stock in a company. The dividends are higher and the share price goes up because the corporate income tax was lowered, and, as encouraged by the TCJA, the company repatriated cash from overseas. He collects the dividends and sells the stock and that gain is incorporated in his 2018 income.
I don't see how you can argue with that, and if your man Gale revisited his 2019 piece, he'd have to eat crow.
History has proven Gale wrong in other ways. Here's a 2022 piece from an economist at the Federal Reserve,
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/papers/2020/wp2001#:~:text=The%20estimates%20imply%20a%20tax,cost%20of%20nearly%20%24158%20billion.
The economist, Anil Kumar, estimates the TCJA resulted in 1.5 million more jobs. GDP at the end of 3 years was 1.23 percentage points higher than it would have been otherwise. The loss in tax revenue was 0.8% of GDP. Going past three years, undoubtedly GDP will continue to grow in excess of what it would have if we'd kept the pre-TCJA tax regime in place. Please note that 1.23% increase by 2020 is much higher than the 0.5% increase by 2028 quoted by your man Gale.
Furthermore, your man Gale was wrong about corporate tax revenues. Corporate tax revenues only fell by 2.3% for 2017 to 2018, and 6% for 2018 to 2019. The TCJA, with lower corporate rates, higher tax rates on foreign income, and provisions to encourage repatriation of cash from overseas, encouraged companies to invest in the USA instead of other countries. But it took some time for that to happen, and in 2022 corporate tax revenues were the highest since 2014.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAXWhere would you have cut spending to pay for the $Trillions+ the Repub TCJA was projected to cost the American taxpayer in exchange for not even a 1 percentage point increase in GDP Growth and a Million fewer jobs with it than without it?
Tax Policy Center
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlook
To finance TCJAs tax cuts, the government will issue additional Treasury securities and pay additional debt service. Including that spending, the deficit effects of TCJA are larger. CBOs 2018 update, for example, puts the conventional deficit increase from TCJA at almost $2.3 trillion over its first decade. The corresponding dynamic score is a $1.9 trillion increase.Of course, the Repub Party IS calling for cuts in spending now that their TCJA's pointless debt is a major player in why the debt ceiling must be raised to pay for it.
Guess where?
Had Joe Biden not reacted with speed and brilliance at the SOTU Address, Social Security and Medicare would be front and center today on the Repub list of cut demands. And still might be at some point.
Whatever their demands are, guaranteed they aren't going to hurt Warren Buffett or Elon Musk.
Either way, there is no reason on Earth based on their historical record of behavior and results that the entire point of Repubs jacking up the deficit by $Trillions+ for an economic "stimulus" that accomplished virtually nothing except to produce fewer jobs with it than without it was to use it as another tool to produce deep USA economic decline and, if possible, another Repub worldwide economic disaster.
BTW, I wasn't referring to the Qualified Business Income Deduction when I mentioned Trump Crime Family "style" busines tax breaks that were made permanent. Criminals like the Trumps will always be able to launder income through one corporate shield or another in order to dodge paying taxes.
The estate tax of 10 million wasn't high enough, they needed to raise it, because so many of us are bequeathing 10 million dollars? Seriously? This is who our government prioritizes?It's theft in my book, the 99.8%, less some people like me, stealing from the 0. 2%.
Where would you have cut spending to pay for the $Trillions+ the Repub TCJA was projected to cost the American taxpayer in exchange for not even a 1 percentage point increase in GDP Growth and a Million fewer jobs with it than without it?If I were dictator? I'd cut the military. We already spend more than the next highest 9 countries put together on defense. And move spending and taxation to the states and localities over time. The power of the purse and decisions on how to spend are best made closest to the people, not in Washington D.C. This would entail cuts in education, health, transportation, housing, labor, etc. Cut out most agriculture subsidies and corporate welfare. And with time replace Social Security and Medicare with something like what Singapore has, where individuals use their own accounts funded through payroll contributions to pay for retirement and, say, the first $10,000 of medical expense per year. That would be backed up with a safety net, including medical insurance. You'd keep expenditures at the federal level which make sense. I'd probably fund the NIH and pandemic preparedness expenditure at similar levels as you would if you were dictator, for example. And we do need a military, just a smaller one.
Tax Policy Center
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-tcja-affect-federal-budget-outlookThis left-of-center Tax Policy Center piece must be dated too, like the Brookings piece. They say, "Tax revenues will average just 16.7 percent of GDP from 2020 to 2024, according to CBO's latest projections. That's well below the 17.4 percent of GDP average from 1970 to 2019. " First of all, from an Excel download of the following data, the average federal receipts as a % of GDP from 1970 to 2019 were 17.0%. Federal receipts as a % of GDP in fiscal 2021 and 2022 were 17.4% and 19.2% respectively. Receipts in 2022 were in fact the second highest of any year since 1945, and the fourth highest in American history. And the only tax changes the Democratic government which controlled the presidency and Congress during 2021 and 2022 made didn't take effect until January 1, 2023. So tax revenues under the TCJA tax regime are far outperforming what the CBO predicted.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Either way, there is no reason on Earth based on their historical record of behavior and results that the entire point of Repubs jacking up the deficit by $Trillions+ for an economic "stimulus" that accomplished virtually nothing except to produce fewer jobs .Absolutely untrue. Please recall the Federal Reserve piece from 2022 that estimated the TCJA added 1.5 million jobs. Tax cuts create jobs. From Mertens and Ravn's classic paper, "A cut in the APITR (average personal income tax rate) raises employment, lowers the unemployment rate, and increases hours worked per worker. " Which makes sense. When the government's taking less of your paycheck, you're more motivated to work. There's probably some kind of multiplier effect too, where by leaving more money in the hands of the people to spend on consumption you end up growing employment.
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1359910/1/aer.103.4.1212.pdf
BTW, I wasn't referring to the Qualified Business Income Deduction when I mentioned Trump Crime Family "style" busines tax breaks that were made permanent. Criminals like the Trumps will always be able to launder income through one corporate shield or another in order to dodge paying taxes.Well, the Trump family owns pass through entities like LLC's and Sub S Corporations. The tax breaks for those expires at the end of 2025. The permanent cuts for for C Corporations, and I don't believe they account for a significant part of the family's worth.
I believe in treating taxpayers equally so would agree with you about the special tax break businesses like Trump's received in the TCJA. Only large companies with either lots of employment expense or lots of depreciation expense received the benefit of the QBI deduction, and Trump's rental real estate businesses qualified. I also agree with you about the corporate shield and dodging taxes. It's nuts that Trump was able to bankrupt his Atlantic City operation, and as a result receive $900 million in carried forward tax losses that he used to shield income in future years. It was his bondholders that lost the money, and yet he still ended up with the tax deduction. There's a good NYT series on this if you're interested.
If I were dictator? I'd cut the military. We already spend more than the next highest 9 countries put together on defense. And move spending and taxation to the states and localities over time. The power of the purse and decisions on how to spend are best made closest to the people, not in Washington D.C. This would entail cuts in education, health, transportation, housing, labor, etc. Cut out most agriculture subsidies and corporate welfare. And with time replace Social Security and Medicare with something like what Singapore has, where individuals use their own accounts funded through payroll contributions to pay for retirement and, say, the first $10,000 of medical expense per year. That would be backed up with a safety net, including medical insurance. You'd keep expenditures at the federal level which make sense. I'd probably fund the NIH and pandemic preparedness expenditure at similar levels as you would if you were dictator, for example. And we do need a military, just a smaller one.
This left-of-center Tax Policy Center piece must be dated too, like the Brookings piece. They say, "Tax revenues will average just 16.7 percent of GDP from 2020 to 2024, according to CBO's latest projections. That's well below the 17.4 percent of GDP average from 1970 to 2019. " First of all, from an Excel download of the following data, the average federal receipts as a % of GDP from 1970 to 2019 were 17.0%. Federal receipts as a % of GDP in fiscal 2021 and 2022 were 17.4% and 19.2% respectively. Receipts in 2022 were in fact the second highest of any year since 1945, and the fourth highest in American history. And the only tax changes the Democratic government which controlled the presidency and Congress during 2021 and 2022 made didn't take effect until January 1, 2023. So tax revenues under the TCJA tax regime are far outperforming what the CBO predicted.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Absolutely untrue. Please recall the Federal Reserve piece from 2022 that estimated the TCJA added 1.5 million jobs. Tax cuts create jobs. From Mertens and Ravn's classic paper, "A cut in the APITR (average personal income tax rate) raises employment, lowers the unemployment rate, and increases hours worked per worker. " Which makes sense. When the government's taking less of your paycheck, you're more motivated to work. There's probably some kind of multiplier effect too, where by leaving more money in the hands of the people to spend on consumption you end up growing employment.
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1359910/1/aer.103.4.1212.pdf
Well, the Trump family owns pass through entities like LLC's and Sub S Corporations. The tax breaks for those expires at the end of 2025. The permanent cuts for for C Corporations, and I don't believe they account for a significant part of the family's worth.
I believe in treating taxpayers equally so would agree with you about the special tax break businesses like Trump's received in the TCJA. Only large companies with either lots of employment expense or lots of depreciation expense received the benefit of the QBI deduction, and Trump's rental real estate businesses qualified. I also agree with you about the corporate shield and dodging taxes. It's nuts that Trump was able to bankrupt his Atlantic City operation, and as a result receive $900 million in carried forward tax losses that he used to shield income in future years. It was his bondholders that lost the money, and yet he still ended up with the tax deduction. There's a good NYT series on this if you're interested.Aside from the fact that my point has always been that the $Trillions+ Repub TCJA created FEWER jobs for America with it than without it, proven by your citation of it supposedly creating a paltry 1. 5 million jobs in an uncited or specified number of years vs the number of jobs that were created in that same span of years prior to the passage of it, now that we are down to what would need to be cut in order to pay the extraordinary deficit-ballooning cost of it, do you have any estimation of the millions upon millions of jobs that would be wiped out, what that would do to the economy and for how many years or decades should your dictatorial cuts wish list come true?
You have provided more proof for how and why Repub tax cuts / policy have been and still are disastrous for the USA economy. Maybe Repubs should all move to Singapore and live in Repub Nirvana bliss. Although I'm not sure how another primary goal of Repubs besides wiping out millions of USA jobs, crashing the USA economy and making already wealthy corporations even wealthier, namely to make sure every school child-hating loon is armed with a fully loaded AR-15, will go over with the Singaporeans.
Aside from the fact that my point has always been that the $Trillions+ Repub TCJA created FEWER jobs for America with it than without it, proven by your citation of it supposedly creating a paltry 1. 5 million jobs in an uncited or specified number of years vs the number of jobs that were created in that same span of years prior to the passage of it, now that we are down to what would need to be cut in order to pay the extraordinary deficit-ballooning cost of it, do you have any estimation of the millions upon millions of jobs that would be wiped out, what that would do to the economy and for how many years or decades should your dictatorial cuts wish list come true?
You have provided more proof for how and why Repub tax cuts / policy have been and still are disastrous for the USA economy. Maybe Repubs should all move to Singapore and live in Repub Nirvana bliss. Although I'm not sure how another primary goal of Repubs besides wiping out millions of USA jobs, crashing the USA economy and making already wealthy corporations even wealthier, namely to make sure every school child-hating loon is armed with a fully loaded AR-15, will go over with the Singaporeans.OK, I'll repeat the link, for the paper written by the Federal Reserve Board economist in 2022:
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/papers/2020/wp2001#text=The%20 estimates%20 imply%20 a%20 tax, cost%20 of%20 nearly%20%24158%20 billion.
In 2018 alone, the first year after the provisions of the TCJA took effect, 4.2 million jobs were added, and the economist estimates that 1.5 million of those jobs were attributable to the TCJA. The economist estimates that, in 2018, the TCJA resulted in $158 billion lower federal revenues, which equates to $105,000 per job ($158 billion / 1.5 million jobs = 105,000/ job).
I do not believe it's reasonable to say each job "cost" $105,000. Rather, the the federal government left $158 billion more in the private sector during 2018 as a result of the TCJA, and one of the positive effects was the creation of 1.5 million jobs, in 2018 alone.
Originally, the CBO, JCT and others estimated the TCJA would reduce government revenues by around $1.5 trillion over 10 years. (Estimates ran from 1 trillion to 2 trillion according to your link. I'm picking the midpoint.) Again, however, government revenues as a % of GDP were the 2nd highest in 2022 since 1945. And revenues from the corporate income tax in 2022 were much higher than predicted. Thus the reduction may be less than $1.5 trillion.
And, again, the reduction in revenues from the TCJA pales by the side of the additional $5 trillion in unfunded expenditures passed into law by the Democrats in 2021 and 2022. What did we get for those expenditures? Well, inflation kicked off months earlier in 2021 in the USA compared to the rest of the world, as a result of the American Rescue Plan. Inflation in goods and services rose faster than wages, meaning workers real (inflation-adjusted) income dropped. Hundreds of billions will mindlessly be pumped into the pockets of "green energy" entrepreneurs and chip manufacturers who donated to the Democratic Party. And hundreds of billions more will be spent on infrastructure projects in the districts and states of the Congressmen and Senators who voted for the bill. Wouldn't it make more sense if the states and municipalities selected and paid for infrastructure? I can guaran-damn-tee you the money would be spent more efficiently.
Of course, in your view that doesn't matter, because all legislation passed by Democrats is gold and all legislation passed by Republicans is shit. "Democrat good, Republican bad."
My "cut list", accomplished over a period of years (many years for social security and Medicare), would reduce federal government expenditures by a whole lot more than $1.5 trillion. And Californians could still spend just as much money as they want on reparations, green energy, handouts, and everything else under the sun. The problem is that our federal Congressmen, Senators and Presidents want to run everything everywhere. They believe in concentrating as much power as possible in their hands and the hands of the federal bureaucracy. And that's just not as efficient as running and funding government at the state and local level.
OK, I'll repeat the link, for the paper written by the Federal Reserve Board economist in 2022:
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/papers/2020/wp2001#text=The%20 estimates%20 imply%20 a%20 tax, cost%20 of%20 nearly%20%24158%20 billion.
In 2018 alone, the first year after the provisions of the TCJA took effect, 4.2 million jobs were added, and the economist estimates that 1.5 million of those jobs were attributable to the TCJA. The economist estimates that, in 2018, the TCJA resulted in $158 billion lower federal revenues, which equates to $105,000 per job ($158 billion / 1.5 million jobs = 105,000/ job).
I do not believe it's reasonable to say each job "cost" $105,000. Rather, the the federal government left $158 billion more in the private sector during 2018 as a result of the TCJA, and one of the positive effects was the creation of 1.5 million jobs, in 2018 alone.
Originally, the CBO, JCT and others estimated the TCJA would reduce government revenues by around $1.5 trillion over 10 years. (Estimates ran from 1 trillion to 2 trillion according to your link. I'm picking the midpoint.) Again, however, government revenues as a % of GDP were the 2nd highest in 2022 since 1945. And revenues from the corporate income tax in 2022 were much higher than predicted. Thus the reduction may be less than $1.5 trillion.
And, again, the reduction in revenues from the TCJA pales by the side of the additional $5 trillion in unfunded expenditures passed into law by the Democrats in 2021 and 2022. What did we get for those expenditures? Well, inflation kicked off months earlier in 2021 in the USA compared to the rest of the world, as a result of the American Rescue Plan. Inflation in goods and services rose faster than wages, meaning workers real (inflation-adjusted) income dropped. Hundreds of billions will mindlessly be pumped into the pockets of "green energy" entrepreneurs and chip manufacturers who donated to the Democratic Party. And hundreds of billions more will be spent on infrastructure projects in the districts and states of the Congressmen and Senators who voted for the bill. Wouldn't it make more sense if the states and municipalities selected and paid for infrastructure? I can guaran-damn-tee you the money would be spent more efficiently.
Of course, in your view that doesn't matter, because all legislation passed by Democrats is gold and all legislation passed by Republicans is shit. "Democrat good, Republican bad."
My "cut list", accomplished over a period of years (many years for social security and Medicare), would reduce federal government expenditures by a whole lot more than $1.5 trillion. And Californians could still spend just as much money as they want on reparations, green energy, handouts, and everything else under the sun. The problem is that our federal Congressmen, Senators and Presidents want to run everything everywhere. They believe in concentrating as much power as possible in their hands and the hands of the federal bureaucracy. And that's just not as efficient as running and funding government at the state and local level.You forgot to mention we also got a historic economic recovery for America, I would argue leading the world into a historic recovery from the worst Great Repub Economic, Health and National Security Disaster of all time. Oh, and creating 7 Million jobs so far and still counting by remarkable numbers almost every month, a 50+ year record low unemployment rate, an all time low unemployment rate for African Americans, NO Repub-style Great Recession, etc.
That was probably just a Bothsider / Neithersider oversight since it didn't immediately leap out of your tortured math to come up with something, anything that suggests all those Great Repub Depressions, Great Repub Recessions and Great Repub Jobs Destruction are really no different and, hey, might even be better for America than all those Great Dem Recoveries, Great Dem Economic Expansions and Great Dem Jobs Creation.
You forgot to mention we also got a historic economic recovery for America, I would argue leading the world into a historic recovery from the worst Great Repub Economic, Health and National Security Disaster of all time. Oh, and creating 7 Million jobs so far and still counting by remarkable numbers almost every month, a 50+ year record low unemployment rate, an all time low unemployment rate for African Americans, NO Repub-style Great Recession, etc.We were essentially at the same unemployment rate pre-COVID, thanks in part to the jobs created by the TCJA. And since a Democratic Senate, House and President didn't see fit to modify any of the provisions of the TCJA, the same tax regime, with its favorable effect on jobs, was in effect when Biden took the reins and we rebounded from COVID.
On the other hand, the labor force participation rate, which declined markedly during the Obama administration, was 63.3% pre-COVID, and currently has only rebounded to 62.6%. A lot of people have stopped looking for work.
The majority of analysts are predicting a recession. When that happens, the unemployment rate will go up. Your post, above, will not age well.
Interesting inititaive taken by California here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/08/us/california-reparations-task-force/index.html
If it goes ahead, it would set a precedent for other states.
Caricom (an organisation of Caribbean nations) is also pressing Europe for reparations:
https://caricom.org/caricom-ten-point-plan-for-reparatory-justice/
ChuchoLoco
05-10-23, 21:09
Interesting inititaive taken by California here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/08/us/california-reparations-task-force/index.html
If it goes ahead, it would set a precedent for other states.
Caricom (an organisation of Caribbean nations) is also pressing Europe for reparations:
https://caricom.org/caricom-ten-point-plan-for-reparatory-justice/And I want reparations too. My family came here and built the steel mills over an hundred years ago. They were severely discriminated against by WASPs. But worked their asses off only to later lose everything to reverse discrimination. Where's our reparations? You must be nuts or related to those who are crying. Sorry but I've been through reverse discrimination for too many years so I resent this stupid act that I'll pay for. Will you contribute? Nothing like buying votes with our money. You need to spend some time in an inner city and see how free money gets wasted. Oh yes, I forgot you're the guy who said working out has no health benefit. ,it's only for vanity. Reparations have no benefit except to those who do nothing to deserve another handout.
Trump is a fool in so many ways but those who want to give out reparations are bigger fools and I will jump to the other side if this becomes the norm!
We were essentially at the same unemployment rate pre-COVID, thanks in part to the jobs created by the TCJA. And since a Democratic Senate, House and President didn't see fit to modify any of the provisions of the TCJA, the same tax regime, with its favorable effect on jobs, was in effect when Biden took the reins and we rebounded from COVID.
On the other hand, the labor force participation rate, which declined markedly during the Obama administration, was 63.3% pre-COVID, and currently has only rebounded to 62.6%. A lot of people have stopped looking for work.
The majority of analysts are predicting a recession. When that happens, the unemployment rate will go up. Your post, above, will not age well.The unemployment rate had been in a steady downward trajectory after Bush's Great Repub Recession skyrocketed it starting soon after Obama and the Dems passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. It was clearly zooming downward to below 4% LONG before the TCJA was passed. Neither the TCJA nor anything else proposed, fought for and passed by Repubs had anything whatsoever to do with getting the unemployment rate there.
See attached BLS line chart covering 2007 to 2018 below and please explain how the TCJA got the unemployment rate to "essentially at the same" level it is today, below 4%:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Also, so now you are saying the inevitable but transitory Trump's Pandemic Crash rebound-related inflation was the fault of Trump and his Repubs for passing the TCJA, which you are now crediting with that rebound? I thought it was evil Joe Biden and his evil Dems who caused that inflation by putting too much money into Americans' pockets and all that. Which flies in the face of what happened when, according to you, Americans had more money put into their pockets by those fabulous Repub tax cuts.
Wow. Those were some miraculous Repub tax cuts; Good and Non Inflationary whenever they do whatever it is you want to give them credit for doing. Quite the opposite of how you characterize that same result with Dem policies. LOL.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I have been reading and hearing warnings from economic experts and gurus about that "Great Biden / Dem Recession, Massive Job Losses and Skyrocketing Unemployment Rate" coming any minute now for, what, 2 1/2 years now. I heard the same thing about the Great Clinton / Dem Recession and the Great Obama / Dem Recession for a full 8 years each.
The unemployment rate had been in a steady downward trajectory after Bush's Great Repub Recession skyrocketed it starting soon after Obama and the Dems passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. It was clearly zooming downward to below 4% LONG before the TCJA was passed. Neither the TCJA nor anything else proposed, fought for and passed by Repubs had anything whatsoever to do with getting the unemployment rate there.
See attached BLS line chart covering 2007 to 2018 below and please explain how the TCJA got the unemployment rate to "essentially at the same" level it is today, below 4%:
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Also, so now you are saying the inevitable but transitory Trump's Pandemic Crash rebound-related inflation was the fault of Trump and his Repubs for passing the TCJA, which you are now crediting with that rebound? I thought it was evil Joe Biden and his evil Dems who caused that inflation by putting too much money into Americans' pockets and all that. Which flies in the face of what happened when, according to you, Americans had more money put into their pockets by those fabulous Repub tax cuts.
Wow. Those were some miraculous Repub tax cuts; Good and Non Inflationary whenever they do whatever it is you want to give them credit for doing. Quite the opposite of how you characterize that same result with Dem policies. LOL.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I have been reading and hearing warnings from economic experts and gurus about that "Great Biden / Dem Recession, Massive Job Losses and Skyrocketing Unemployment Rate" coming any minute now for, what, 2 1/2 years now. I heard the same thing about the Great Clinton / Dem Recession and the Great Obama / Dem Recession for a full 8 years each.Biden and the Democrats will have very little to do with your so called "Great Biden / Dem Recession. " I'll blame it mostly on the business cycle and higher interest rates. If the Fed had started raising interest rates when Biden's inflationary American Rescue Plan was passed in 2021, we probably would have been looking at a softer landing. But I blame that more on the Fed than Democrats. Democrats are always going to spend, spend, spend. And the Republicans are almost as bad. The Fed should have been the adult in the room.
A slowdown in bank lending and problems with commercial real estate loans may be contributing factors as well. I would credit Yellen, Gruenberg and Powell for doing what they could to prevent deposit runs and bank failures this year. And say they could have done more if not for political opposition to "bailing out" uninsured depositors. And that political opposition is coming more from the Republican side of the aisle.
I'm going to take the word of the Fed economist over your trend following expertise. And he says 1. 5 million jobs were added by the TCJA, just in 2018.
If you assume those 1. 5 million people would be unemployed if not for the TCJA, then, given that the total labor force is around 155 million, unemployment is around one percentage point lower than it would be otherwise. That would mean the unemployment rate without the TCJA would be 4. 5%, not counting jobs created after 2018 that wouldn't be there without the TCJA.
I am not as you say crediting the TCJA with the rebound after pandemic. The TCJA only cut federal government revenues by 0.8% of GDP. If I were dictator, I'd cut federal government revenues by more. And federal spending by a whole lot more. Over a period of years.
And the pandemic crash would have occurred no matter who was president.
Trump doesn't want his Repub Party and the country to wait until his Fed Chairman appointee gets around to blundering us into another Great Repub Recession / Depression and Massive Jobs Destruction. No, he wants his Repub Party to produce another one by June 1 if not sooner!
Trump urges GOP to let U.S. default on debt if Dems don't accept spending cuts
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/11/trump-endorses-debt-ceiling-default.html?__source=androidappshare
Also, so now you are saying the inevitable but transitory Trump's Pandemic Crash rebound-related inflation was the fault of Trump and his Repubs for passing the TCJA, which you are now crediting with that rebound? I thought it was evil Joe Biden and his evil Dems who caused that inflation by putting too much money into Americans' pockets and all that. Which flies in the face of what happened when, according to you, Americans had more money put into their pockets by those fabulous Repub tax cuts.OK, let's look at inflation. At the end of February, 2021, YoY CPI inflation was running 1.7% per year. The Democrats' $1. 9 trillion American rescue plan (ARP) was passed in March, 2021, and the government mailed out $1400 checks to most Americans that month. This was despite the fact that the economy was already humming. The annualized quarterly change in GDP was 35.3% in 3Q 2020, 3.9% in 4Q 2020, and 6.3% in 1Q 2021. Larry Summers noted that COVID had reduced wages by about $250 to $300 billion over the course of 2020. Trump and Pelosi pushed through $900 billion of stimulus in December, 2020 -- the amount would have been much higher if not for the restraining influence of Republican Senators. Then Biden and a Democratic Congress follow up with $1.9 trillion more three months later (the ARP), without a single Republican vote. That was 9% of GDP! So you have 0.9 trillion + 1.9 trillion = 2. 8 trillion in stimulus to bridge a $250 billion to $300 billion gap in reduced wages. That resulted in a savings overhang (savings in excess of what it would have been without the stimulus) of about $2.5 trillion. That is, $2.5 trillion more in cash, chasing goods and services when consumers decided to spend the money.
That's a great recipe for inflation, and that's what happened. At the end of February, 2021, YoY inflation was running 1.7%. The ARP checks again went out in March of 2021. April inflation was 4.2%, and May was 5.0%. Inflation in Europe for the same two months was 1.6% and 2% respectively.
So, again, Biden et al's 1.9 trillion stimulus represented about 9% of GDP, pumped into the economy at the worst possible time.
How much extra money was left in the hands of the people and businesses as a result of the TCJA during the year after the ARP was passed? Well, based on earlier estimates, about 160 billion, or about 0.8% of GDP. It might have been a lot less. Government revenues were 17.4% of GDP in the year ended September 30,2021, and 19.2% of GDP in the year ended September 30,2022. Those numbers are above the long term average (1970 to 2019) of 17%. So maybe the "stimulus" provided by the TCJA in the year after the ARP was passed was considerably less than 0 8%.
But yeah, if it makes you feel secure in the superiority of Democratic Politicians, and you some how identify with that, go on believing that it was the TCJA that kicked off inflation.
Trump doesn't want his Repub Party and the country to wait until his Fed Chairman appointee gets around to blundering us into another Great Repub Recession / Depression and Massive Jobs Destruction. No, he wants his Repub Party to produce another one by June 1 if not sooner!
Trump urges GOP to let U.S. default on debt if Dems don't accept spending cuts
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/11/trump-endorses-debt-ceiling-default.html?__source=androidappshareIf there is a default, it's because Biden and Yellen and others want a default for political purposes. All they have to do is maintain interest payments on the debt and cut other government expenditures, and there will be no default.
And I want reparations too. My family came here and built the steel mills over an hundred years ago. They were severely discriminated against by WASPs. You must be nuts or related to those who are crying. Will you contribute? Reparations have no benefit except to those who do nothing to deserve another handout.If you read my comment again you will note that I didn't express an opinion. And I am not from USA or Europe so I won't be asked to pay anything.
I am not familiar with your fmily story nor what a WASP is. So I am not position to comment on that. BUt what makes you say "Reparations have no benefit except to those who do nothing to deserve another handout. " IS there a historical record to support your claim?
Let's say I qualify for a payment. I use the money to start a small business that provide for me and my family. This means that I would not qualify for or deserve another benefit, yet the reparation have provided benefit. So surely this is an example which contradicts your statement?
Fascinating idea put forward here. I am not sure I have ever heard it myself. Its about how capitalism (remember, the freedom ideology) requires closed borders in order to function well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXrWtRZofmE&t=823s
Watch it until 20 min mark. You can apply this to USA too, although its a UK news show.
If there is a default, it's because Biden and Yellen and others want a default for political purposes. All they have to do is maintain interest payments on the debt and cut other government expenditures, and there will be no default.So just "pay the interest" and "cut other government expenditures"?
How about we demonstrate to the world that we are not all Deadbeat Repubs here who can't be trusted to pay the bills Trump and Deadbeat Repubs racked up to the tune of 25% of all the debt the USA had racked up since the beginning without any bullshit hostage-taking and still damaging brinkmanship that might again result in Deadbeat Repubs lowering our credit rating?
You know, the way Deadbeat Repubs did at least 3 times under Trump when he and they added $Trillions to the debt / deficit with practically nothing of value to show for it even before Trump laid the groundwork for, created and developed Trump's Pandemic.
ChuchoLoco
05-12-23, 03:33
If you read my comment again you will note that I didn't express an opinion. And I am not from USA or Europe so I won't be asked to pay anything.
I am not familiar with your fmily story nor what a WASP is. So I am not position to comment on that. BUt what makes you say "Reparations have no benefit except to those who do nothing to deserve another handout. " IS there a historical record to support your claim?
Let's say I qualify for a payment. I use the money to start a small business that provide for me and my family. This means that I would not qualify for or deserve another benefit, yet the reparation have provided benefit. So surely this is an example which contradicts your statement?Start a business with your own money not some undeserved handout. I agree with you on many things but since you are not from USA you really can't know or promote such a thing. I think maybe you are from South Africa and even though there was minority white rule and segregation, it's a totally different history and situation. I wish slavered never took place but it was the Dutch who did most. WASP is white Anglo Saxon Protestant. I did study some about Mandela just a few years ago and he was a most incredible man. We all should be more like him. When I was young, Imwas a carpenter apprentice during the 70's. Jobs were impossible to get. But the city I lived in received a lot of federal money. There was a black mayor and his policy was that all jobs had to be manned by minorities! No whites! I lived in that shit hole city but couldn't work there! That's when I learned about reverse racism and changed my mind about the whole poor black men.
You can't understand but it's a real sore spot with me. Unless you have lived in a neighborhood or city that changed racially you can't relate. No personal attack on you.
Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden.
A 65-page report, a press conference, and nothing to show for it.
May 11, 2023
https://newrepublic.com/post/172627/republicans-admit-no-incriminating-evidence-joe-biden
Republicans big investigation into the Biden family has revealed not a lot.
The House GOP accused Joe Biden and his family on Wednesday of engaging in business with foreign entitiesbut were unable to provide any actual evidence linking the president to any wrongdoing.
House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer released a 65-page memo detailing a sprawling investigation into Biden and some of his relatives, particularly his son Hunter Biden. Nowhere in the massive document was there a specific allegation of a crime committed by Biden or any of his relatives.
During a press conference explaining the investigation, Comer was asked if he had evidence directly linking Biden to corruption. The Kentucky Republican hemmed and hawed but ultimately admitted he didnt.
The memo accuses the Biden family of involvement in a scheme to peddle influence in Romania from 2015 to 2017, as well as financial dealings with individuals in China. Hunter Bidens name comes up repeatedly. But the memo contains scant details of all of these alleged dealings, nor does it contain any evidence that any laws were broken or that Biden was involved in his sons Chinese business.Never fear, admitted Repubs and pro Repub Bothsiders / Neithersiders, this nothingess on Biden will still be a centerpiece of the Know Nothing, Do Nothing Repub campaign against him in 2024.
And, never fear, pro Repub Mainstream Media will be right there for them every step of the way to suggest there might still be kinda sorta maybe something kinda sorta maybe there for America to consider in their vote instead of, you know, the irrefutable historic data and record of results showing their beloved Repubs to be absolutely atrocious at handling the USA economy, national security, protecting and defending the Constitution and American democracy.
Fascinating idea put forward here. I am not sure I have ever heard it myself. Its about how capitalism (remember, the freedom ideology) requires closed borders in order to function well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXrWtRZofmE&t=823s
Watch it until 20 min mark. You can apply this to USA too, although its a UK news show.No, the guy on the left, Michael Walker, is right. Capitalism is all for more open borders. Walker correctly states that the Economist, the flagship publication of British liberal capitalism, encourages immigration. So do USA Corporations, which are always trying to get the government to issue more H1 B immigrant visas. I believe you define socialism as a system where workers control the businesses. Well then, it's the socialists and the labor unions which historically have been the biggest critics of immigration in the USA and the UK. They don't want competition for jobs. They'd rather the poor Mexican or African stay home and starve to death. And yes, more recently the populist right, represented by leaders like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is very anti immigrant.
The most capitalist countries in the world, Singapore and Hong Kong, are the easiest to visit. Practically no one needs a visa. And socialist or formerly socialist countries like Russia, China and Vietnam are among the hardest. I had to jump through hoops to get visas to go there anyway.
I’m an anarcho Libertarian capitalist, and my personal view is that the USA should allow anyone to immigrate who believes in Capitalism and who would vote for Republicans.
ReparationsI'm with you ChuchoLoco. San Francisco is considering $5,000,000 payments to every eligible black adult, the elimination of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years, and homes for $1.00 a family, among other recommendations from the city-appointed reparations committee.
https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-black-reparations-5-million-36899f7974c751950a8ce0e444f86189
The state of California's reparations task force has approved recommendations which could give black residents $1.2 million each as compensation for slavery.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12055465/California-panel-approves-reparations-proposal-life-long-black-residents-1-2million.html
I don't get it. The people who deserve reparations are dead. Black, white, brown and yellow Americans are all better off than most people in the world. There are a lot of Nigerians, Ukrainians, Venezuelans and Chinese who would give their right nuts to go to America.
Yes, Black Americans on average don't receive as good of education or health care. And we should do more to alleviate that. But these multimillion dollar per person reparations are nuts. As I understand it, there never was much slavery in California, and it was outlawed in the 1840's, almost 200 years ago.
BUT, if Californians want to do that, I think they should have at it. As long as it doesn't affect my taxes I don't really care.
but since you are not from USA you really can't know or promote such a thing. That's when I learned about reverse racism and changed my mind about the whole poor black men.
Unless you have lived in a neighborhood or city that changed racially you can't relate.Firstly, I have lived in 2 countries where I was prejudiced against by the government bcos of my colour / origins. Not that it matters. One of those countries was where I heard this refrain as an excuse so often it was sickening "you were not from here, so how would you know, so shut up" - this is the most feeble excuse bcos I found that actually the most ignorant people were the ones that were living there at that time bcos they were subjected to the strongest propaganda by thier governments. They only heard one side (the false side) of the arguments.
I believe all forms of discrimination are abhorrent. That is why I am all for open borders. An end to nation states.
I don't have my mind set firmly yet on what the best way forward should be. At this point, I think some form of reparation is due. Simply bcos it has never been settled. BUt that could be in the form investment in prev disadvantaged regions, natuonal housing projects, citizenship opportunities (for the CARICOM nations). But before all this, we must put an end to continued discrimation that exists, otherwsie the 'debt' simply gets bigger.
ChuchoLoco
05-12-23, 21:01
Firstly, I have lived in 2 countries where I was prejudiced against by the government bcos of my colour / origins. Not that it matters. One of those countries was where I heard this refrain as an excuse so often it was sickening "you were not from here, so how would you know, so shut up" - this is the most feeble excuse bcos I found that actually the most ignorant people were the ones that were living there at that time bcos they were subjected to the strongest propaganda by thier governments. They only heard one side (the false side) of the arguments.
I believe all forms of discrimination are abhorrent. That is why I am all for open borders. An end to nation states.
I don't have my mind set firmly yet on what the best way forward should be. At this point, I think some form of reparation is due. Simply bcos it has never been settled. BUt that could be in the form investment in prev disadvantaged regions, natuonal housing projects, citizenship opportunities (for the CARICOM nations). But before all this, we must put an end to continued discrimation that exists, otherwsie the 'debt' simply gets bigger.TK,
I haven't walked in your shoes and you haven't walked in mine.
CL.
ChuchoLoco
05-12-23, 21:32
I'm with you ChuchoLoco. San Francisco is considering $5,000,000 payments to every eligible black adult, the elimination of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years, and homes for $1.00 a family, among other recommendations from the city-appointed reparations committee.
https://apnews.com/article/san-francisco-black-reparations-5-million-36899f7974c751950a8ce0e444f86189
The state of California's reparations task force has approved recommendations which could give black residents $1.2 million each as compensation for slavery.
Tiny,
Which one of the recipients was a slave? Thats just insane! The problem is that if California does it then they will want it in all states. Most wont be so stupid to do so, at least I hope not. The grocery store and the local Target cose to my house have a mixed clientele. This is because the grocery stores and others in minority areas here have closed for reasons that I wont go into here. But what I have noticed is that the shopping carts are full and the cars and SUVs the minority clients drive are for the most part, much nicer than mine. Im talking Audi, Lexus, Mercedes and late model US cars. I drive a Honda 2019 HRV so its decent and really what I can afford and all that I need. But I am really amazed every time Im in the parking lots.
I agree with what you have said too. Sometimes I wish that I was younger but the way things are going, maybe Im better off being a class of 69.Another couple years and Ill have to settle for the old gals. What a horrible thought! Hahaha. Get it while you can. Just say No to reparations should be a new motto.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12055465/California-panel-approves-reparations-proposal-life-long-black-residents-1-2million.html
I don't get it. The people who deserve reparations are dead. Black, white, brown and yellow Americans are all better off than most people in the world. There are a lot of Nigerians, Ukrainians, Venezuelans and Chinese who would give their right nuts to go to America.
Yes, Black Americans on average don't receive as good of education or health care. And we should do more to alleviate that. But these multimillion dollar per person reparations are nuts. As I understand it, there never was much slavery in California, and it was outlawed in the 1840's, almost 200 years ago.
BUT, if Californians want to do that, I think they should have at it. As long as it doesn't affect my taxes I don't really care.Tiny, my turn to agree with you and all that you said.
The local grocery store and Target have a mixed clientele but more minorities the last couple years because all the stores in their neighborhoods have closed for reasons you can imagine. Their shopping cars are full and many pay with those welfare cards or whatever they use now but you should see the cars they drive. All new luxury foreign cars or SUVs. All better than my Honda HRV bare bones model. If California does it, everyone in every state will want and cry for it. Man, I used to want to be young but the way this is going, better to be from the class of '69 as I am.
The nice thing about Medellin for me until the last couple years was getting away from things.
I don't have my mind set firmly yet on what the best way forward should be. At this point, I think some form of reparation is due. Simply bcos it has never been settled. BUt that could be in the form investment in prev disadvantaged regions, natuonal housing projects, citizenship opportunities (for the CARICOM nations). But before all this, we must put an end to continued discrimation that exists, otherwsie the 'debt' simply gets bigger.JustTK, This actually is quite reasonable IMHO, if you're talking about countries like Jamaica, Dominica and Haiti that truly are poor. From having seen a couple of museums in Caribbean countries, yes, peoples' ancestors were subjected to incredible hardship by Europeans, who should have left their former colonies in better shape.
Where ChuchoLoco and I are having a problem is when this is extended to the USA. Or in my mind to other prosperous places like the Bahamas, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands. Many of us aren't as well off as the people we'd be paying reparations to.
This is a must watch for half the participants here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX74Hij3aMM
And its funny as FK for the rest.
This is a must watch for half the participants here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX74Hij3aMM
And its funny as FK for the rest.Yes, Jimmy Dore is funny as fuck if you find unmitigated ill-informed BS to be funny.
"After 8 years of Obama Americans' lives were worse" or some such BS "and that's why they voted for Trump and not Hillary.
Uh. Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. Yep, the first woman nominee for a major political party, one who had been lied about and demonized by the opposition for the previous 30+ years got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump.
And that was because Americans' lives were no better in 2016 after 7 years of steady, straight line declines in the Unemployment Rate, a record number of consecutive months of job gains and NO Great Recession vs the USA economy Crashing down around our ears at a historic level into millions upon millions of job losses and the Greatest Repub Recession in late 2008/ early 2009 since the Great Repub Depression of the late 1920's / early 1930's.
Way to rewrite history, Jimmy. LOL.
That is, according to idiot Jimmy Dore and, presumably, some lamebrain drunks they asked at local bars. LOL.
So that other brain dead idiot, Dr. Phil, pointed out that Dems and Repubs each held control of the government for about 50% of the time over the past few decades and, oh look, nothing has changed or improved. Uh-huh. Except he neglected to mention that the 50% of the time Repubs were in control we were plunged into the worst economic downturns of all time, Trump's term being just the latest example, vs the 50% of the time when Dems were in control we enjoyed the Greatest Recoveries, Expansions and Job Gains of all time, Biden's term being the latest example of that.
I really couldn't stomach any more than that and it was only the first 5-6 minutes of that astonishing BS fest.
"After 8 years of Obama Americans' lives were worse" or some such BS "and that's why they voted for Trump and not Hillary.
Uh. Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. Yep, trs got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump.
I couldn't have scripted it any better.
Republicans Finally Admit They Have No Incriminating Evidence on Joe Biden.
A 65-page report, a press conference, and nothing to show for it.
May 11, 2023Silly Republicans. If you're going to try to lock up Tony Soprano, do you go after Meadow and A. J. Soprano? Would you go after the kids of mob bosses? Of course not. You go after the capos and the lieutenants. The made men. In Biden's case, that's people like Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries and Merrick Garland. We're not literally talking "family" here.
The silly Republicans are hyper-focused on a tree and totally missing the forest. Yes, the Biden Family Criminal Syndicate is much, much bigger than the actual Biden family. The sums of money we're talking about are 100,000X greater than the measly amount Hunter received for attempted influence peddling.
Last week on Morning Joe (MSNBC), Steve Rattner, one of the enablers of the Syndicate, approvingly said Biden planned to steal an additional $5.5 trillion from American citizens and businesses over the next 10 years through higher taxes.
Now the EPA is planning to require natural gas and coal fired power plants to eliminate nearly all their carbon dioxide emissions in just a little over a decade. That may involve stealing another trillion from shareholders in the utility companies and the gas and coal companies who will end up with stranded assets. Or from consumers who will pay much higher prices for electricity when the utilities pass through the cost of carbon sequestration to them.
Then there are the new proposed rules from the EPA, that will ensure 67% of new passenger cars and 25% of heavy trucks sold in the USA are all-electric by 2032. That's going to cost a bundle.
And how about Biden's attempt to shut down oil and gas drilling on federal lands and federal offshore leases? If he'd been successful in that, he would have stranded hundreds of billions in assets.
And as a part of this enterprise in theft, Joe Biden, the Godfather (aka "the Don", aka "The Big Guy") and other Democratic Politicians will hand out a ton of money to their contributors, green energy entrepreneurs and the like. They got a good start with the ridiculously-named "Inflation Reduction Act." A Wall Street Journal editorial estimates the green handouts and subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act will cost over $1 trillion.
I'm sure there are other examples. I know a bit about taxes and energy so am familiar with the ones described above. However, just as the mafia engages in many endeavors, like extortion, drugs, gambling, and theft, so too the Democratic Party crime syndicate must be stealing in other ways than just through taxation and energy.
This is not a slam on you and other esteemed board members who are Democratic Party sympathizers. You are simply mistaken, just like the innocents in Sinaloa who idolized El Chapo or the people in Medellin who loved Pablo Escobar. Hopefully with time you will learn.
Silly Republicans. If you're going to try to lock up Tony Soprano, do you go after Meadow and A. J. Soprano? Would you go after the kids of mob bosses? Of course not. You go after the capos and the lieutenants. The made men. In Biden's case, that's people like Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries and Merrick Garland. We're not literally talking "family" here.
The silly Republicans are hyper-focused on a tree and totally missing the forest. Yes, the Biden Family Criminal Syndicate is much, much bigger than the actual Biden family. The sums of money we're talking about are 100,000X greater than the measly amount Hunter received for attempted influence peddling.
Last week on Morning Joe (MSNBC), Steve Rattner, one of the enablers of the Syndicate, approvingly said Biden planned to steal an additional $5.5 trillion from American citizens and businesses over the next 10 years through higher taxes.
Now the EPA is planning to require natural gas and coal fired power plants to eliminate nearly all their carbon dioxide emissions in just a little over a decade. That may involve stealing another trillion from shareholders in the utility companies and the gas and coal companies who will end up with stranded assets. Or from consumers who will pay much higher prices for electricity when the utilities pass through the cost of carbon sequestration to them.
Then there are the new proposed rules from the EPA, that will ensure 67% of new passenger cars and 25% of heavy trucks sold in the USA are all-electric by 2032. That's going to cost a bundle.
And how about Biden's attempt to shut down oil and gas drilling on federal lands and federal offshore leases? If he'd been successful in that, he would have stranded hundreds of billions in assets.
And as a part of this enterprise in theft, Joe Biden, the Godfather (aka "the Don", aka "The Big Guy") and other Democratic Politicians will hand out a ton of money to their contributors, green energy entrepreneurs and the like. They got a good start with the ridiculously-named "Inflation Reduction Act." A Wall Street Journal editorial estimates the green handouts and subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act will cost over $1 trillion.
I'm sure there are other examples. I know a bit about taxes and energy so am familiar with the ones described above. However, just as the mafia engages in many endeavors, like extortion, drugs, gambling, and theft, so too the Democratic Party crime syndicate must be stealing in other ways than just through taxation and energy.
This is not a slam on you and other esteemed board members who are Democratic Party sympathizers. You are simply mistaken, just like the innocents in Sinaloa who idolized El Chapo or the people in Medellin who loved Pablo Escobar. Hopefully with time you will learn.Damn. Repubs must be dumb as fuck if they can't uncover, reveal, charge, indict and convict "the Don", "the Big Guy" Joe Biden on all those terrible crimes you cited.
Especially with Biden being so old, confused and addle-brained I bet he would mistake a clear photo of his wife for a sexual assault accuser "not remotely his type" multiple times under oath even with millions of dollars riding on it.
Maybe all those Repubs missed it because they were blinded by light from Jewish Space Lasers.
Damn. Repubs must be dumb as fuck if they can't uncover, reveal, charge, indict and convict "the Don", "the Big Guy" Joe Biden on all those terrible crimes you cited.
Especially with Biden being so old, confused and addle-brained I bet he would mistake a clear photo of his wife for a sexual assault accuser "not remotely his type" multiple times under oath even with millions of dollars riding on it.
Maybe all those Repubs missed it because they were blinded by light from Jewish Space Lasers.LOL, Good one!
Silly Republicans. If you're going to try to lock up Tony Soprano, do you go after Meadow and A. J. Soprano? Would you go after the kids of mob bosses? Of course not. You go after the capos and the lieutenants. The made men. In Biden's case, that's people like Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries and Merrick Garland. We're not literally talking "family" here.
The silly Republicans are hyper-focused on a tree and totally missing the forest. Yes, the Biden Family Criminal Syndicate is much, much bigger than the actual Biden family. The sums of money we're talking about are 100,000X greater than the measly amount Hunter received for attempted influence peddling.Hate the guy all you want, but criminal syndicate? None of the talking points in your post (even if some of them weren't outright ridiculous) don't rise to the level of criminality. You're talking about a dude who started making some more-or-less serious money only AFTER he stopped being Vice President. All he had to do to keep that Ka-Ching for good, is refrain from politics till the end of his natural life.
Damn. Repubs must be dumb as fuck if they can't uncover, reveal, charge, indict and convict "the Don", "the Big Guy" Joe Biden on all those terrible crimes you cited.
Especially with Biden being so old, confused and addle-brained I bet he would mistake a clear photo of his wife for a sexual assault accuser "not remotely his type" multiple times under oath even with millions of dollars riding on it.
Maybe all those Repubs missed it because they were blinded by light from Jewish Space Lasers.Yet they keep calling President Biden "senile". It makes one wonder if they know the meaning of the word.
Hate the guy all you want, but criminal syndicate? None of the talking points in your post (even if some of them weren't outright ridiculous) don't rise to the level of criminality. You're talking about a dude who started making some more-or-less serious money only AFTER he stopped being Vice President. All he had to do to keep that Ka-Ching for good, is refrain from politics till the end of his natural life.Do you think I'm that stupid Xpartan? Did you read the entire post? No, raising taxes and imposing crazy, draconian regulations are not crimes, in the legal sense. Handing out subsidies to favored industries and campaign contributors usually isnt either.
I don't disagree with you. I will say that Biden exercised extremely poor judgement in loading Hunter onto that plane when he went to China as Vice President. And he shouldn't have telegraphed to the IRS and Justice Department that his son “did nothing wrong.” I read an IRS agent investigating Hunter had to get into the whistle blower program, presumably because higher ups figured tangling with Hunter wouldn't be good for their careers. Shades of Lois Lerner. Obama telegraphed to her that he didn't want any pro Republican organizations approved by the IRS, and she complied.
Yet they keep calling President Biden "senile". It makes one wonder if they know the meaning of the word.Senile, right. Like Vincent Gigante.
MarquisdeSade1
05-16-23, 00:35
Senile, right. Like Vincent Gigante.https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/kamala-harris-is-the-reason-biden-is-running/
MarquisdeSade1
05-16-23, 00:39
Senile, right. Like Vincent Gigante.Great clip.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2023/05/09/nolte-tucker-carlson-announces-new-show-on-twitter-soon/
MarquisdeSade1
05-17-23, 04:43
This is a must watch for half the participants here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX74Hij3aMM
And its funny as FK for the rest.https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-can-anybody-take-them-seriously/
Do you think I'm that stupid Xpartan? No.
Did you read the entire post? Yes.
No, raising taxes and imposing crazy, draconian regulations are not crimes, in the legal sense. Handing out subsidies to favored industries and campaign contributors usually isnt either.Exactly!
You don't like the guy and his policies, and that's fine.
But at least you can see why that "criminal syndicate" thingy didn't seat well with me.
CheckMate1
05-18-23, 00:28
No.
Yes.
Exactly!
You don't like the guy and his policies, and that's fine.
But at least you can see why that "criminal syndicate" thingy didn't seat well with me.I agree. Don't like his policies, cool. We can debate on it.
Accusing someone of a crime, have some evidence, not just hearsays, rumors, or conspiracy theories.
Side note, when the person who's leading the charge says, "Well, unfortunately we can't track down the informant. We are hopeful the informant is still there," a. How do you lose informant? Be. Couldn't you have recorded your conversations?
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/kamala-harris-is-the-reason-biden-is-running/Good link Marquis. One thing to add, if Biden and Hillary Clinton hadn't run in 2020 and 2016 respectively, the Democratic nominee could very well have been a bsc Progressive like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Reasonable Democrats, like say Michael Bloomberg, Michael Bennet, Steve Bullock and John Hickenlooper never got traction. So Biden was the "closest to moderate" popular candidate the Democratic Party could come up with. The Democrats presumably would have more difficulty in the general election with a candidate like Sanders, than Biden. If the same situation exists in 2024 then maybe a Biden candidacy makes a lot of sense, from the Democrats' perspective.
The Progressives were able to have their cake and eat it too though. Biden was more electable than Sanders. And after the general election, he swung to the left. For example, it's hard to know whether Biden or Elizabeth Warren, through her accolytes installed throughout his administration, is calling the shots for financial regulation. And the Biden administration is pushing the Green agenda as hard as it can without ruining the Party's chances at the polls.
No.
Yes.
Exactly!
You don't like the guy and his policies, and that's fine.
But at least you can see why that "criminal syndicate" thingy didn't seat well with me.
I agree. Don't like his policies, cool. We can debate on it.
Accusing someone of a crime, have some evidence, not just hearsays, rumors, or conspiracy theories.
Side note, when the person who's leading the charge says, "Well, unfortunately we can't track down the informant. We are hopeful the informant is still there," a. How do you lose informant? Be. Couldn't you have recorded your conversations?Gentlemen, you're a bit too fixated on word choice and political correctness. I simply believe that, figuratively speaking, Biden and the majority of Congressional Democrats are thieves. At least socialists like Hugo Chavez pay compensation and leave the factories, oil and gas fields, and power plants standing after they nationalize industries. Through EPA regulations, the Biden administration wants to use a backdoor mechanism to shut down oil and gas fields and power plants. And some of his tax proposals border on thievery as well, although admittedly they're not as extreme as Bernie Sanders' or Elizabeth Warren's.
Remember when Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis told the mayors and city councils in their states that they couldn't institute lockdowns or mask mandates? They were called mass murderers more than once. Now I'm no lockdown lover, but I can kind of see their point, in a figurative sense. But no, the governors weren't going around killing people and burying them in big pits. Anyway, I don't think you'd be coming to the defense of Abbott or DeSantis over the "Mass Murderer" label.
Very powerfully spoken:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuPISYnoBsM
CheckMate1
05-18-23, 22:24
Gentlemen, you're a bit too fixated on word choice and political correctness. I simply believe that, figuratively speaking, Biden and the majority of Congressional Democrats are thieves. At least socialists like Hugo Chavez pay compensation and leave the factories, oil and gas fields, and power plants standing after they nationalize industries. Through EPA regulations, the Biden administration wants to use a backdoor mechanism to shut down oil and gas fields and power plants. And some of his tax proposals border on thievery as well, although admittedly they're not as extreme as Bernie Sanders' or Elizabeth Warren's.
Remember when Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis told the mayors and city councils in their states that they couldn't institute lockdowns or mask mandates? They were called mass murderers more than once. Now I'm no lockdown lover, but I can kind of see their point, in a figurative sense. But no, the governors weren't going around killing people and burying them in big pits. Anyway, I don't think you'd be coming to the defense of Abbott or DeSantis over the "Mass Murderer" label.They are the governors of their states, within their rights to govern the way they want. So, no, I would not call them that. People can argue whether that's poor judgement or not, but that's the extend of the discord.
I think a way to get rid of corruption, or potential of, is to create a new amendment that states:
1. President's term in office is immunized, and statute of limitations of all crimes, with the exception of murder, shall begin at the end of the president's term. If convicted, all former presidential perks will be rescinded and disqualify from all future public post. This will provide the disincentive of doing something corrupt while in office. It does beg the question of "is anyone above the law?" However, it clears the wishy washy way of how the DOJ interpret their own standing on not to prosecute a sitting president.
2. Supreme Court Justices. Can not accept any gift from anyone.
3. (I think this is the biggest issue) Member of Congress / Senate; President; Supreme Court Justices shall have all assets managed in a blind trust or be published to the public. All trades would be reveal in real time by the brokerage firms.
They are the governors of their states, within their rights to govern the way they want. So, no, I would not call them that. People can argue whether that's poor judgement or not, but that's the extend of the discord.
I think a way to get rid of corruption, or potential of, is to create a new amendment that states:
1. President's term in office is immunized, and statute of limitations of all crimes, with the exception of murder, shall begin at the end of the president's term. If convicted, all former presidential perks will be rescinded and disqualify from all future public post. This will provide the disincentive of doing something corrupt while in office. It does beg the question of "is anyone above the law?" However, it clears the wishy washy way of how the DOJ interpret their own standing on not to prosecute a sitting president.
2. Supreme Court Justices. Can not accept any gift from anyone.
3. (I think this is the biggest issue) Member of Congress / Senate; President; Supreme Court Justices shall have all assets managed in a blind trust or be published to the public. All trades would be reveal in real time by the brokerage firms.I can't argue with that. I don't know whether the idea to publish all trades in real time is a Checkmate original, but if so kudos. That's a great idea.
I'm not sure whether or not I agree with "1". Here in the United States of America, we haven't ever sent an ex President to jail. That's part of what separates us from banana republics. We shouldn't even have to think about this. But Trump may have crossed the line after the 2020 election.
CheckMate1
05-19-23, 00:39
I can't argue with that. I don't know whether the idea to publish all trades in real time is a Checkmate original, but if so kudos. That's a great idea.
I'm not sure whether or not I agree with "1". Here in the United States of America, we haven't ever sent an ex President to jail. That's part of what separates us from banana republics. We shouldn't even have to think about this. But Trump may have crossed the line after the 2020 election.People use "banana republic" as a crutch to say that a President can't possibly commit crimes. ALL human are capable of committing crimes.
People use "banana republic" as a crutch to say that a President can't possibly commit crimes. ALL human are capable of committing crimes.All Americans DO commit crimes. Harvey Silverglate, the attorney, board member of the ACLU, and former Harvard Law school professor who wrote "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent", says we commit an average of three crimes a day. We incarcerate more people per capita than any other country in the world. The Republicans want to put the Democratic Politicians in jail, and the Democrats want to put the Republican Politicians in jail. Democrats want to incarcerate white businessmen, and Republicans want to jail young black men.
A friend who's an attorney, a Democrat, and more partisan than Tooms believes the most likely reason Trump will go to jail will be because of the classified records violations. Well, say we throw him in the slammer for that. Then what do we do with Joe Biden and Mike Pence? They undoubtedly violated classified records laws too.
You put Trump in front of a jury in Washington, D.C. and there's a pretty good chance he'll be convicted even if the prosecution has a weak case. Ditto for Biden in Amarillo, Texas.
I believe you need a damn good reason to put an ex-president in jail. And like I said, there may be one related to Trump's post 2020 election shenanigans. As to confidential records and Stormy Daniels, that's just nuts. If Trump gets convicted on those charges then yeah, it's a sign we're becoming a banana republic. And yes, maybe the Donald contributed as much to that as anyone. Remember he tried to get the Justice Department to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Since I'm the founder of the Free Markets Church of Tiny, I'll quote a couple of relevant Biblical passages here,
He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
Well, I say bull shit to that. Somebody just needs to say enough is enough and stop trying to put the other side in jail.
John Clayton
05-19-23, 06:27
... Then what do we do with Joe Biden and Mike Pence? They undoubtedly violated classified records laws too....Pence and Biden found the documents themselves, reported them, returned them. Trump stole them, lied about them, hid them, instructed his attorneys to lie, obstructed the investigation, lied more and undoubtedly gave them to Putin.
Pence and Biden found the documents themselves, reported them, returned them. Trump stole them, lied about them, hid them, instructed his attorneys to lie, obstructed the investigation, lied more and undoubtedly gave them to Putin.Yes. One would think Tiny's very smart, sensibly and justifiably partisan Dem attorney friend would have set aside 30 seconds of his busy day to explain that colossal difference between the Biden / Pence case and the Trump case. Maybe he has just given up trying to explain every important and significant detail about everything for his Repub / Bothsider / Neithersider friends. I know the feeling.
Pence and Biden found the documents themselves, reported them, returned them. Trump stole them, lied about them, hid them, instructed his attorneys to lie, obstructed the investigation, lied more and undoubtedly gave them to Putin.Biden's working for the Chinese and Trump's working for the Russians. Damn it, we're fucked.
https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-stoked-outrage-over-184955929.html
The story had all the hallmarks of fueling the maximum amount of right-wing outrage. With migrants being bused into New York City amid an immigration surge at the southern border, upstate New York hotels had supposedly kicked out homeless veterans in order to make room for the influx of asylum seekers.
After right-wing tabloid The New York Post published the sensational report last Friday, Fox News and Newsmax ran wild with it, devoting dozens of segments (and countless online articles) to the indignation of "people who served our country and need a little boost" getting displaced by "illegals," all while "these hotels are selling their soul for a check. ".
Turns out, however, the whole story was made up.
The whole saga kicked off when the Post reported that 20 "struggling homeless veterans" were booted from hotels so their rooms could be given to incoming migrants. According to Yerik Israel Toney Foundation, the nonprofit group that works on temporarily housing the vets, the ex-military members had been told by the New York hotels that they needed to vacate and move elsewhere.
"One of the vets called me on Sunday,' YIT Foundation CEO Sharon Toney-Finch told the Post last week. "he told me he had to leave because the hotel said the extended stay is not available. Then I got another call. We didn't waste any time. '.
She added: "That's when we started on Monday to organize when and where to move them all. I am glad you called me today. Last night, I was crying. ".
According to Toney-Finch at the time, 15 of the veterans had been kicked out of the Crossroads Hotel in Newburgh, a community 60 minutes north of New York City. An additional five vets were reportedly removed from two other hotels in a nearby town. She claimed that all 20 of the vets were rebooked into another hotel in Hudson Valley. The area has recently experienced an influx of migrants as New York City Mayor Eric Adams has begun busing asylum seekers to other counties that may have additional space.
GOP State Assemblyman Brian Maher initially backed Toney-Finch's story, saying that "shining a light on this is important because we need to make sure these hotels know how important it is to respect the service of our veterans before they kick {them} out of hotels to make room. " Toney-Finch, meanwhile, added that the hotels were doing this for money since NYC was paying more for migrant accommodations than her group was offering the establishments.
Naturally, this story was absolute catnip for the right-wing media industrial complex. Fox News and its sister channel Fox Business began covering it immediately after the Post report dropped, frequently featuring prominent Republicans—including Maher—expressing their outrage over Democrats putting the needs of "illegal immigrants" over homeless vets. Newsmax followed suit shortly after.
"It's an embarrassment, a slap in the face to veterans, who are cast aside to allow for asylum seekers to come here," Maher told Fox & Friends First this week. "At the end of the day, you have combat veterans who are homeless and told to get out of their hotel, we have tried to let them know we appreciate them. We're embarrassed by what happened, but we have their backs. ".
The rhetoric coming from conservative pundits, however, was even more inflammatory.
During Monday's broadcast of Fox News midday panel show Outnumbered, for instance, Fox News contributor Lisa Marie Boothe said that this was "intentional" from President Joe Biden because "he is a globalist. " Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner added that Biden "doesn't mean it" whenever he says "God bless the troops" after a speech.
And while House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) called it "shameful" and GOP presidential hopeful Nikki Haley said this was "liberal insanity at work," other MAGA commentators went even further. "Fuck Democrats & their bullshit policies," Donald Trump Jr. Tweeted, sharing the original Post story.
However, earlier this week, local media began poking holes in the story. After Maher had provided a credit card receipt from Toney-Finch supposedly showing payment for the rooms at the Crossroads Hotel, The Mid-Hudson News reported that the hotel had no record of the transaction. Additionally, a graphics expert examined the receipt and said it appeared to be altered.
The manager of the hotel also told Mid-Hudson News that no veterans were ever at the hotel, let alone kicked out of Crossroads. No other guests had been displaced either, as the hotel had not been booked to capacity despite housing a group of migrants.
Eventually, Maher ended up denouncing the story as fake and emotionally told the Times-Union he was "devastated and disheartened" after finding out from Toney-Finch that she had made the whole thing up.
After doubt began to spread about the veracity of Toney-Finch's tale, Maher said he asked her to meet him at a local bank to get financial statements that would prove her organization paid for the veterans' rooms at the hotels. After she no-showed, he claimed he told her that he had "no choice but to report this" after she "alluded to the fact that, 'Maybe it's not exactly how I said it was. '.
In a separate conversation with the New York Post, which has since added an editor's note to its original bombshell story that kicked off this outrage cycle, Maher added that Toney-Finch said "I had to help the veterans," when he confronted her on peddling a hoax.
The story got even wilder on Friday, however, when Mid-Hudson News further reported that Toney-Finch had recruited a group of homeless men from a nearby shelter to pretend they were the military veterans that had been displaced by migrants.
"On Thursday night he met with a group of seven men at a homeless shelter," the report stated. "The men said that on Wednesday, two people came into the shelter saying they had work and needed 15 men between the ages of 40 and 60, to take a trip to meet with an elected official for a discussion on homelessness. They were each promised $200 along with food and alcohol. They were familiar with one of the recruiters, Diana, claiming she had previously stayed at the shelter. ".
YIT Foundation did not respond to The Daily Beast's request for comment.
While the New York Post has reported that the story is false and added editor's notes to other articles, Fox News has yet to address the emerging hoax on its airwaves. In fact, on Thursday night, the network was still hosting local Republicans to rage about the fake controversy. Yvette Aguiar, the town supervisor of Riverhead, told Fox News host Will Cain that the “really disturbing” issue with the Crossroads Hotel “set me off on this journey” to declare a state of emergency regarding migrants..
Fox News has not responded to a request for comment on whether they will address this story on air.
Not only has Newsmax not reported that Toney-Finch lied about homeless vets being displaced, but the network had run at least three news segments claiming "homeless US veterans have been removed from housing to make room for migrants" on Friday. Newsmax also did not respond to a request for comment.
https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-stoked-outrage-over-184955929.html
The story had all the hallmarks of fueling the maximum amount of right-wing outrage. With migrants being bused into New York City amid an immigration surge at the southern border, upstate New York hotels had supposedly kicked out homeless veterans in order to make room for the influx of asylum seekers.
After right-wing tabloid The New York Post published the sensational report last Friday, Fox News and Newsmax ran wild with it, devoting dozens of segments (and countless online articles) to the indignation of "people who served our country and need a little boost" getting displaced by "illegals," all while "these hotels are selling their soul for a check. ".
Turns out, however, the whole story was made up.
The whole saga kicked off when the Post reported that 20 "struggling homeless veterans" were booted from hotels so their rooms could be given to incoming migrants. According to Yerik Israel Toney Foundation, the nonprofit group that works on temporarily housing the vets, the ex-military members had been told by the New York hotels that they needed to vacate and move elsewhere.
"One of the vets called me on Sunday,' YIT Foundation CEO Sharon Toney-Finch told the Post last week. "he told me he had to leave because the hotel said the extended stay is not available. Then I got another call. We didn't waste any time. '.
She added: "That's when we started on Monday to organize when and where to move them all. I am glad you called me today. Last night, I was crying. ".
According to Toney-Finch at the time, 15 of the veterans had been kicked out of the Crossroads Hotel in Newburgh, a community 60 minutes north of New York City. An additional five vets were reportedly removed from two other hotels in a nearby town. She claimed that all 20 of the vets were rebooked into another hotel in Hudson Valley. The area has recently experienced an influx of migrants as New York City Mayor Eric Adams has begun busing asylum seekers to other counties that may have additional space.
GOP State Assemblyman Brian Maher initially backed Toney-Finch's story, saying that "shining a light on this is important because we need to make sure these hotels know how important it is to respect the service of our veterans before they kick {them} out of hotels to make room. " Toney-Finch, meanwhile, added that the hotels were doing this for money since NYC was paying more for migrant accommodations than her group was offering the establishments.
Naturally, this story was absolute catnip for the right-wing media industrial complex. Fox News and its sister channel Fox Business began covering it immediately after the Post report dropped, frequently featuring prominent Republicansincluding Maherexpressing their outrage over Democrats putting the needs of "illegal immigrants" over homeless vets. Newsmax followed suit shortly after.
"It's an embarrassment, a slap in the face to veterans, who are cast aside to allow for asylum seekers to come here," Maher told Fox & Friends First this week. "At the end of the day, you have combat veterans who are homeless and told to get out of their hotel, we have tried to let them know we appreciate them. We're embarrassed by what happened, but we have their backs. ".
The rhetoric coming from conservative pundits, however, was even more inflammatory.
During Monday's broadcast of Fox News midday panel show Outnumbered, for instance, Fox News contributor Lisa Marie Boothe said that this was "intentional" from President Joe Biden because "he is a globalist. " Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner added that Biden "doesn't mean it" whenever he says "God bless the troops" after a speech.
And while House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) called it "shameful" and GOP presidential hopeful Nikki Haley said this was "liberal insanity at work," other MAGA commentators went even further. "Fuck Democrats & their bullshit policies," Donald Trump Jr. Tweeted, sharing the original Post story.
However, earlier this week, local media began poking holes in the story. After Maher had provided a credit card receipt from Toney-Finch supposedly showing payment for the rooms at the Crossroads Hotel, The Mid-Hudson News reported that the hotel had no record of the transaction. Additionally, a graphics expert examined the receipt and said it appeared to be altered.
The manager of the hotel also told Mid-Hudson News that no veterans were ever at the hotel, let alone kicked out of Crossroads. No other guests had been displaced either, as the hotel had not been booked to capacity despite housing a group of migrants.
Eventually, Maher ended up denouncing the story as fake and emotionally told the Times-Union he was "devastated and disheartened" after finding out from Toney-Finch that she had made the whole thing up.
After doubt began to spread about the veracity of Toney-Finch's tale, Maher said he asked her to meet him at a local bank to get financial statements that would prove her organization paid for the veterans' rooms at the hotels. After she no-showed, he claimed he told her that he had "no choice but to report this" after she "alluded to the fact that, 'Maybe it's not exactly how I said it was. '.
In a separate conversation with the New York Post, which has since added an editor's note to its original bombshell story that kicked off this outrage cycle, Maher added that Toney-Finch said "I had to help the veterans," when he confronted her on peddling a hoax.
The story got even wilder on Friday, however, when Mid-Hudson News further reported that Toney-Finch had recruited a group of homeless men from a nearby shelter to pretend they were the military veterans that had been displaced by migrants.
"On Thursday night he met with a group of seven men at a homeless shelter," the report stated. "The men said that on Wednesday, two people came into the shelter saying they had work and needed 15 men between the ages of 40 and 60, to take a trip to meet with an elected official for a discussion on homelessness. They were each promised $200 along with food and alcohol. They were familiar with one of the recruiters, Diana, claiming she had previously stayed at the shelter. ".
YIT Foundation did not respond to The Daily Beast's request for comment.
While the New York Post has reported that the story is false and added editor's notes to other articles, Fox News has yet to address the emerging hoax on its airwaves. In fact, on Thursday night, the network was still hosting local Republicans to rage about the fake controversy. Yvette Aguiar, the town supervisor of Riverhead, told Fox News host Will Cain that the really disturbing issue with the Crossroads Hotel set me off on this journey to declare a state of emergency regarding migrants..
Fox News has not responded to a request for comment on whether they will address this story on air.
Not only has Newsmax not reported that Toney-Finch lied about homeless vets being displaced, but the network had run at least three news segments claiming "homeless US veterans have been removed from housing to make room for migrants" on Friday. Newsmax also did not respond to a request for comment.Well hooray for the New York Post! I see from the link to the original article that the New York Post tried to check the story by contacting The Crossroads Hotel, Super 8 Hotel, and hotel where the vets allegedly were staying after they moved, but none commented prior to when the article was published. When questions arose as to the veracity of Sharon Toney-Finch, the New York Post reported the article was false.
Compare to the mainstream, left-of-center media, which are mostly silent about or distorting John Durham's report. Take for example the allegation that Trump had two prostitutes urinate on a hotel bed in the Presidential Suite of the Ritz Carlton in Moscow. The same bed that President Obama slept in. Allegedly this was filmed by Russian intelligence, and used to get Trump to do Russia's bidding.
Well, according to Durham, the likely source of this story was Clinton crony Charles Dolan!
So how many of the left-of-center newspapers and television channels have retracted their stories about "Peegate?" Wouldn't you think that the people over at MSNBC, unlike the Fox New pundits in your story, be jumping through hoops to say they'd been had? Hell no. Of course not. The only Democratic-Party-loving publication I can find that's apologizing is the Washington Post.
Democrats are every bit as guilty of spreading bull shit propaganda as Republicans.
Well hooray for the New York Post! I see from the link to the original article that the New York Post tried to check the story by contacting The Crossroads Hotel, Super 8 Hotel, and hotel where the vets allegedly were staying after they moved, but none commented prior to when the article was published. When questions arose as to the veracity of Sharon Toney-Finch, the New York Post reported the article was false.
Compare to the mainstream, left-of-center media, which are mostly silent about or distorting John Durham's report. Take for example the allegation that Trump had two prostitutes urinate on a hotel bed in the Presidential Suite of the Ritz Carlton in Moscow. The same bed that President Obama slept in. Allegedly this was filmed by Russian intelligence, and used to get Trump to do Russia's bidding.
Well, according to Durham, the likely source of this story was Clinton crony Charles Dolan!
So how many of the left-of-center newspapers and television channels have retracted their stories about "Peegate?" Wouldn't you think that the people over at MSNBC, unlike the Fox New pundits in your story, be jumping through hoops to say they'd been had? Hell no. Of course not. The only Democratic-Party-loving publication I can find that's apologizing is the Washington Post.
Democrats are every bit as guilty of spreading bull shit propaganda as Republicans.When and by whom did MSNBC devote so much as 10 minutes to whether or not Trump hired anyone to pee on anything? Particularly without stressing it was only an allegation? I must have missed that show.
Besides, it has always been obvious that Repubs only love Trump even more for boasting about sexually assaulting women, being found liable for it, paying "horse face" porn actresses $100,000+ to keep it to themselves, laying the foundation for, creating and developing Trump's Pandemic and virtually all the death, economic destruction, massive jobs destruction and inflation that followed, inciting cop-killing mobs of America-hating insurrectionists to violently overthrow American democracy and so on.
Why would any media outlet need to apologize to Trump for helping him shore up and solidify a clear popular advantage for him with Repub voters vs all the other potential Repub candidates with a little story about hookers he might have hired to urinate on him or whatever?
Trump should be thanking any and all media outlets that ran with that one.
Well hooray for the New York Post! I see from the link to the original article that the New York Post tried to check the story by contacting The Crossroads Hotel, Super 8 Hotel, and hotel where the vets allegedly were staying after they moved, but none commented prior to when the article was published. When questions arose as to the veracity of Sharon Toney-Finch, the New York Post reported the article was false.
Compare to the mainstream, left-of-center media, which are mostly silent about or distorting John Durham's report. Take for example the allegation that Trump had two prostitutes urinate on a hotel bed in the Presidential Suite of the Ritz Carlton in Moscow. The same bed that President Obama slept in. Allegedly this was filmed by Russian intelligence, and used to get Trump to do Russia's bidding.
Well, according to Durham, the likely source of this story was Clinton crony Charles Dolan!
So how many of the left-of-center newspapers and television channels have retracted their stories about "Peegate?" Wouldn't you think that the people over at MSNBC, unlike the Fox New pundits in your story, be jumping through hoops to say they'd been had? Hell no. Of course not. The only Democratic-Party-loving publication I can find that's apologizing is the Washington Post.
Democrats are every bit as guilty of spreading bull shit propaganda as Republicans.What did the Durham Report that was recently released actually uncover that hadn't been reported earlier? https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf The answer to that question is absolutely nothing. And how many convictions came out of Durham's work? None. As a comparison, what came out of the Mueller Report? 34 indictments and 8 folks either pled guilty or were convicted of felonies.
Since folks love to keep score, that's 8 guilty because of Mueller and 0 guilty because of Durham.
When and by whom did MSNBC devote so much as 10 minutes to whether or not Trump hired anyone to pee on anything? Particularly without stressing it was only an allegation? I must have missed that show.I totally believe the peeing story for 2 reasons.
1. It sounds totally like Trump. Everything we know about him indicates that it was totally within his character to ask a hooker to pee on the "Obama's" bed.
2, It would've been impossible to make this up. Just think about it: Can you imagine that Igor Danchenko just woke up one morning and came up with this brilliant, deliberate lie?
The claim came from Igor Danchenko, a Russia analyst who gathered leads about possible Trump-Russia links for what turned out to be Democratic-funded opposition research. In an interview, Mr. Danchenko described hearing rumors from two sources about a possible sex tape involving Mr. Trump and the Ritz-Carlton, then obtaining more nebulous information from two hotel employees he took as corroborative.
Acknowledging that the material was too thin to amount to proof and saying that he himself remained skeptical, Mr. Danchenko defended the integrity of his work.
He said he was assigned simply to gather raw intelligence for his employer, Christopher Steele, and passed along claims that raised a potential red flag. He noted that he was not responsible for how Mr. Steele portrayed that information in the dossier, nor for making it public.
Even raw intelligence from credible sources, I take it with a grain of salt, Mr. Danchenko said. Who knows, what if its not particularly accurate? Is it just a rumor or is there more to it?https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html
Mark my words: one day we will see that tape, LOL.
I totally believe the peeing story for 2 reasons.
1. It sounds totally like Trump. Everything we know about him indicates that it was totally within his character to ask a hooker to pee on the "Obama's" bed.
2, It would've been impossible to make this up. Just think about it: Can you imagine that Igor Danchenko just woke up one morning and came up with this brilliant, deliberate lie?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/us/politics/igor-danchenko-steele-dossier.html
Mark my words: one day we will see that tape, LOL.You were lied to. Danchenko got the story from Charles Dolan, Clinton family crony. Trump never stayed in the Ritz Carlton Presidential Suite, which is where Obama stayed when he was in Moscow. See pages 140 to 148 of Durham's report:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf
When and by whom did MSNBC devote so much as 10 minutes to whether or not Trump hired anyone to pee on anything? Particularly without stressing it was only an allegation? I must have missed that show.https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-story-appears-change-details-moscow-trip-msna1094726
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/one-trumps-key-russia-claims-starts-unravel-msna1093851
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/here-s-why-comey-memos-hurt-trump-more-help-him-n867741?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2018-03-12-msna1078246
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2017-12-08-msna1048041
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/hardball/2018-04-20-msna1093621
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/the-last-word/2018-04-12-msna1090256
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/comey-book-trump-wanted-prostitute-story-proven-false-1209855555959
Here MSNBC admits the story came from "PR-Executive 1", not Danchenko, but conveniently omits that PR-Executive 1 is Clinton crony Charles Dolan.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/analyst-who-worked-steele-dossier-arrested-part-trump-era-doj-n1283197?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
There's lots more but I'm tired of copying and pasting.
Why would any media outlet need to apologize to Trump for helping him shore up and solidify a clear popular advantage for him with Repub voters vs all the other potential Repub candidates with a little story about hookers he might have hired to urinate on him or whatever?
So you're saying media outlets should promote lies about Trump because he's a bad hombre? The ends justify the means? That was the modus operandi of Machiavelli and Stalin. Or maybe you mean that paying hookers to piss on beds that your political opponents slept in is a great way to appeal to voters? But that would be ridiculous.
What did the Durham Report that was recently released actually uncover that hadn't been reported earlier? https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf The answer to that question is absolutely nothing. And how many convictions came out of Durham's work? None. As a comparison, what came out of the Mueller Report? 34 indictments and 8 folks either pled guilty or were convicted of felonies.
Since folks love to keep score, that's 8 guilty because of Mueller and 0 guilty because of Durham.So what were those 8 people convicted of? Answer: Two on tax charges. A couple on failing to register correctly as lobbyists. And the rest for lying. That's not counting the ridiculous charge against Cohen for an illegal campaign contribution, because he channeled money from Trump to Stormy Daniels.
And how many of them pleaded guilty, so they wouldn't be bankrupted or suffer financial hardship from trying to defend themselves? Well, I think as many as eight.
This is a great example of Democrats' superiority when it comes to fucking over the opposite side. See bold print below.
The Republicans want to put the Democratic Politicians in jail, and the Democrats want to put the Republican Politicians in jail. Democrats want to incarcerate white businessmen, and Republicans want to jail young black men.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-story-appears-change-details-moscow-trip-msna1094726
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/one-trumps-key-russia-claims-starts-unravel-msna1093851
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/here-s-why-comey-memos-hurt-trump-more-help-him-n867741?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2018-03-12-msna1078246
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2017-12-08-msna1048041
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/hardball/2018-04-20-msna1093621
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/the-last-word/2018-04-12-msna1090256
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/comey-book-trump-wanted-prostitute-story-proven-false-1209855555959.Yeah, but you didn't get tired of quoting the supposedly damning assertions by Maddow or anyone else on MSNBC that did not clearly qualify any all of of this, especially what you refer to as "Peegate", as unproven allegations, even at least one time where Maddow drew the allegation into question on Trump's behalf, right?
Because you did not include any.
Maddow, in one of your first links supporting my position on it:
Now on the subject of the aforementioned alleged golden showers, I just -- I just leave my body, I`ll be back in a minute. David Corn and Michael Isikoff`s new book actually I think knocks down a few pegs the odds that that particular thing ever really happened.Did Trump send her a Thank You note for that extraordinary show of support for him and apologize to her for anything negative he ever said about her?
You do realize those links are primarily reporting what was actually happening at the time, particularly with regard to what Trump's fellow Repub liar and huge 2016 election victory asset Comey was stating, right?
MarquisdeSade1
05-24-23, 09:55
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2023/05/23/nolte-59-voters-agree-media-truly-enemy-people/
You were lied to. Danchenko got the story from Charles Dolan, Clinton family crony. Trump never stayed in the Ritz Carlton Presidential Suite, which is where Obama stayed when he was in Moscow. See pages 140 to 148 of Durham's report:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdfDid you read the full report? I won't lie to you. I'm not going to invest my valuable time into reading a 316-pages opus, which, I believe, was simply a politically-motivated attempt to discredit the FBI investigation (or rather investigations) and Mueller's report.
But I did read the section pertaining to the above-mentioned sex scandal (starting page 144). What I have found there contradicts your statement.
When interviewed by the Office, Dolan's recollection about taking a tour ofthe Presidential suite at the Ritz Carlton was inconsistent and his recollection vacillated over the course of several interviews. Dolan stated, in sum, that it was possible that he (Dolan) told Danchenko about the Presidential Suite and Trump, but he had no specific recollection of doing so. Dolan was adamant that he never told Danchenko about any salacious sexual activity that occurred in the suite.You might say Dolan could've lied, and you'd be right -- he could have. But that would mean opening himself to criminal prosecution, which, again, has been done before, no arguments there. However, your assurances ("You were lied to" and "Danchenko got the story from Charles Dolan, Clinton family crony. ") are way too bold considering you have no evidence to back them up.
That said, if I missed something, please point me to the right passage.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2023/05/23/nolte-59-voters-agree-media-truly-enemy-people/
1* Do you trust the political news you are getting?
2* Does news media coverage of politics generally tend to favor Democrats or Republicans? Or is political coverage in the news media mostly neutral and balanced?
3* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: The media are truly the enemy of the people?Nevermind asking them what is the usual source of the "political news" they are getting. Fux News? Breitbart?
Or even what they consider "political news" in the first place. "The winner of the 2020 presidential election is Joe Biden", "Today we examine the difference between a 2022 Red Tsunami and a 2022 Pink Tinkle"? Yeah, for sure if they consider accurate reports on the state of the economy over the past 100 years to be "political news", their impression would definitely be that those reports favor Democrats. Unavoidably.
I wonder what the response would have been to, "Do you believe in demons and ghosts"?
CheckMate1
05-25-23, 19:23
Nevermind asking them what is the usual source of the "political news" they are getting. Fux News? Breitbart?
Or even what they consider "political news" in the first place. "The winner of the 2020 presidential election is Joe Biden", "Today we examine the difference between a 2022 Red Tsunami and a 2022 Pink Tinkle"? Yeah, for sure if they consider accurate reports on the state of the economy over the past 100 years to be "political news", their impression would definitely be that those reports favor Democrats. Unavoidably.
I wonder what the response would have been to, "Do you believe in demons and ghosts"?STATISTICS: Every statistic can be bent to represent some positive aspects of your position.
Ex1: 9 out of 10 doctors say that smoking cause cancer. Reported: Not every doctor agrees with smoking as a cause for cancer.
EX2: Some scientists disagree with the idea that human contribute to climate change.
Instead of reading headlines and running with them, ask how many agrees and how many disagrees; then ask if a poll consists of 100 scientists, is this a good enough number to have a consensus?
POLLS: Only poll that matters is total number of votes.
People like to fill the void between elections with this shit. Tell people to vote, not how. And then when everyone voted, tabulate and present the results. We are 18 months away from the next national election. Let me give you a guarantee, things will change between now and election day. Book it!
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2023/05/23/nolte-59-voters-agree-media-truly-enemy-people/The respondents were certainly right about media coverage favoring Democrats. From your link,
"Does news media coverage of politics generally tend to favor Democrats or Republicans?" Only 20 percent said Republicans, while 52 percent accurately said Democrats. Even 39 percent of Democrats said the news media favor Democrats. Conversely, only 21 percent of Democrats said the media favored Republicans. "
From a Ballotpedia fact check, 96% of of donations to either Clinton or Trump between January, 2015 and August, 2016 went to Clinton,
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journalist_donations_go_to_Democrats
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2023/05/23/nolte-59-voters-agree-media-truly-enemy-people/Do you know who else said that the press is the enemy of the people? Hitler did. Stalin called all of his enemies "enemies of the people". So did Mao. So did Hoxha of Albania. So did the one-term, twice-impeached, convicted-of-sexual-assault former guy.
Did you read the full report? I won't lie to you. I'm not going to invest my valuable time into reading a 316-pages opus, which, I believe, was simply a politically-motivated attempt to discredit the FBI investigation (or rather investigations) and Mueller's report.
But I did read the section pertaining to the above-mentioned sex scandal (starting page 144). What I have found there contradicts your statement.
You might say Dolan could've lied, and you'd be right -- he could have. But that would mean opening himself to criminal prosecution, which, again, has been done before, no arguments there. However, your assurances ("You were lied to" and "Danchenko got the story from Charles Dolan, Clinton family crony. ") are way too bold considering you have no evidence to back them up.
That said, if I missed something, please point me to the right passage.
OK, granted, my earlier characterization, "the likely source of this story was Clinton crony Charles Dolan," is more accurate. You're a smart guy. As to this one controversy though, "Peegate", you look either marginally more informed or marginally less naive than the tens of millions of Americans who believe Donald Trump won the 2020 election.
If you're going to call the Durham Report a Republican Party hit piece, you should be able tell us why the Mueller Report was not a Democratic Party hit piece, in a more substantive way than Tooms did. Convicting people for lying, failing to register as foreign lobbyists, tax evasion, and giving your attorney money to keep an affair quiet won't cut it.
OK, here's the Cliff Notes version, which I've mostly copied and pasted. You really need to read the sections about Danchenko and Dolan in the report to get a good flavor for what happened. See bold text in particular for Dolan's involvement. Add to what follows that Trump never slept in the presidential suite at the Ritz Carlton.
From 2005 through 2010, Igor Danchenko worked as an analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington, District of Columbia.
In approximately 2010, Brookings Fellow-I introduced Danchenko to Christopher Steele. Steele retained Danchenko as a contractor for his London-based firm, Orbis Business Intelligence.
As discussed in more detail below, from January 2017 through October 2020, and as part of its efforts to determine the truth or falsity of specific information in the Steele Reports, the FBI conducted multiple interviews of Danchenko regarding, among other things, the allegations that he provided to Steele that ultimately formed the core of the Steele Reports. During these extensive interviews, Danchenko was unable to provide the FBI with corroborating evidence for any of the substantive allegations contained in the Steele Reports. In fact, Danchenko claimed that the Ritz Carlton allegations he provided to Steele were nothing more than "rumor and speculation," and that most of the information he gathered for Steele was the product of casual conversation with people in his social circle, including those parts ofthe Steele Reports used in the Page FISA applications.
Danchenko Employer-! Executive-!, an ethnic Russian, described Danchenko as someone who was "boastful ... having low credibility, and a person who liked to embellish his purported contacts with the Kremlin."
Banking and other records also show that from January of 2016 through June 2021, Danchenko received over $436,000 in wire transfers from European businesses, including from Orbis and other entities affiliated with Orbis. These money transfers were in addition to the money that Orbis sent through Danchenko Employer-I to fund Danchenko's salary. (Remember Orbis is Steele's company. Orbis was channeling part of its payments to Danchenko through Employer-I in a scheme to allow Danchenko to obtain a U.S. visa.)
Danchenko was a known entity to the FBI in December 2016 when he was identified as Steele's primary sub-source. As publicly reported, Danchenko was the subject of an FBI counterespionage investigation from 2009 to 2011. 719 In late 2008, while employed by the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., Danchenko engaged two fellow employees ("Brookings Researcher- I" and "Brookings Researcher-2") at a happy hour about whether one of the employees might be willing or able in the future to provide classified information in exchange for money.
According to Brookings Researcher- I, Danchenko believed that he (Brookings Researcher-I) might also enter the Obama administration with the foreign policy advisor and have access to classified information. During this exchange, Danchenko informed Brookings Researcher- I that he (Danchenko) had access to people who would be willing to pay money for classified inforrnation.
Based on the information provided by Brookings Researcher-I, the FBI's Baltimore Field Office initiated a preliminary espionage investigation into Danchenko. 728 Two Baltimore Field
Office Agents led the investigation into Danchenko ("Baltimore Case Agent- I" and "Baltimore Case Agent-2"). Brian Auten, who was at the time an Intelligence Analyst (IA) as opposed to a
Supervisory IA, provided Headquarters analytical support to the investigation. The FBI converted its investigation of Danchenko into a "full investigation" after learning that Danchenko (i) had been identified as an associate oftwo other FBI espionage subjects, and (ii) had previous contact with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers. 729 In
particular, the FBI learned that in September 2006, Danchenko informed one Russian intelligence officer that he had an interest in entering the Russian diplomatic service. Four
days later, the intelligence officer contacted Danchenko and informed him that they could meet that day to work "on the documents and then think about future plans.'' In October 2006,
Danchenko contacted the intelligence officer "so the documents can be placed in (the followingday's) diplomatic mail pouch
The person described in the following was a classmate of Danchenko's at Georgetown who interned with an intelligence agency:
On one occasion, Danchenko inquired about the person's knowledge of a specific Russian military matter. That same person stated, in sum, that Danchenko informed her that he served in the Russian army and worked with rockets, but at the time worked on "special" matters. Danchenko also told this person that his Russian passport listed him as GRU (the Russian military intelligence service) because of his language skills. Based on these encounters, the individual believed that Danchenko was working for a Russian intelligence service.
Up next, Danchenko becomes a paid informant for the FBI!
Danchenko was interviewed by the FBI in January 2017 following his identification in December 2016 as Steele's primary sub-source. FBI materials reviewed by the Office revealed
that the primary purpose for the FBI's initial engagement with Danchenko in January 2017 was to recruit him as a paid CHS (confidential human source). If this recruitment was successful, the FBI planned to mine Danchenko for information that was corroborative of the damaging allegations about Presidentelect Trump in the Steele Reports.
The FBI granted him immunity, with the idea of having Danchenko identify his sources and provide evidence to corroborate the Steele Reports.
However....Danchenko was not able to provide any corroborative evidence related to any substantive allegation contained in the Steele Reports - and critically- was unable to corroborate any of the FBI's assertions contained in the Carter Page FISA applications.
So what does the FBI do, despite it's knowledge of the preceding, and its knowledge that Danchenko allegedly was working for Russian intelligence? They engage Danchenko as a paid informant! They pay him $220,000 over a 3 and a half year period.
Now, about Charles Dolan,
When interviewed by the FBI in June 2017, Danchenko failed to disclose the role a U.S. based individual named Charles Dolan played in the reporting Danchenko provided for inclusion
in the Steele Reports. In particular, Danchenko denied that Dolan provided any specific information contained in the Steele Reports. However, Dolan acknowledged to the Office that
he provided information to Danchenko related to Paul Manafort's firing as Trump campaign manager.Dolan further ad mitted to the Office that this allegation, which appears in Steele
Report 2016/105, was fabricated.
Charles Dolan is a public relations professional who in 2016 was employed by a Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm called kglobal. In addition to his work as a
public relations professional, Dolan had previously served as (i) Executive Director of the Democratic Governors Association, (ii) Virginia Chairman of former President C!inton' s 1992
and 1996 presidential campaigns, and (iii) an advisor to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. Moreover, beginning in 1997, President Clinton appointed Dolan to two four-year
terms on the State Department's U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
Just when you think this story can't get more bizarre, Dolan was a hired gun for Russia. He was gathering intelligence and passing it back to the Russian government.
In April 2016, Dolan asked Danchenko to assist Dolan and U.S. Person- I with the YPO (Opportunities in Russia) conference, which Danchenko agreed to do. Dolan believed that Danchenko's language skills and his supposed contacts in the Russian government would be of assistance to the conference. Dolan subsequently asked and received permission from U.S. Person-I to enlist Danchenko to assist with logistics, provide translation services, and present on various relevant topics at the YPO Conference. In preparation for the YPO Conference, Dolan and U.S. Person-I planned to travel to Moscow in June 2016 to view the Ritz Carlton and other potential sites for the conference (the "June Planning Trip"). At the same time, Danchenko informed Dolan that he (Danchenko) would be present in Moscow in June on other business.
The report goes on to document that Steele almost certainly received certain information, indirectly, that only could have originated with Dolan.
Dolan says in a message to an acquaintance,
On Monday night I fly to Moscow and will meet with a Russian guy (Danchenko) who is working with me on a couple of projects. He also works for a group of former MI 6 guys in London who do intelligence for businesses. Send me your questions and I'll pass them on to Igor. He owes me as his Visa is being held up and I am having a word with the Ambassador.
Danchenko (who was present in Moscow at the same time as Dolan, in June, 2016), did not stay at the Ritz Carlton during the June Planning Trip - a fact that was
confirmed by hotel records.
While in Moscow, Dolan and U.S. Person-I participated in, among other things, (i) a meeting with the German-national general manager ofthe Ritz Carlton, and at least one female
hotel staff member to discuss the logistics of the YPO Conference, (ii) a lunch with the general manager and three hotel staff members who assisted in the preparations for the YPO conference,
and (iii) a tour of the hotel. As discussed in detail below, the general manager and other hotel staff members would later appear in the Steele Reports.
According to
Dolan, Danchenko was not present for any events at the Ritz Carlton during the June Planning Trip
On June 15, 2016, Dolan emailed an acquaintance from Moscow: "I'm in Russia making plans to be adopted in the event this mad man (Trump) gets e!ected."
So, Dolan and Danchenko are in Moscow at the same time and are talking. Dolan's staying at the Ritz Carlton and talking to hotel staff and probably passing on info to Danchenko, who's working for Steele, who's preparing a hit piece for Hillary Clinton to use against Donald Trump. A few days later, Steele issues one of his reports. It alleges,
According to Source D (Danchenko), wheres/he had been present, TRUMP's (perverted) conduct in Moscow included hiring the presidential suite ofthe Ritz Carlton,
where he knew President and Mrs OBAMA (whom he hated) had stayed on one oftheir official trips to Russia, and defiling the bed where they had slept by
employing a number of prostitutes to perform 'golden showers' ( urination) shows in front of him. The hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones
and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to.
The Ritz Carlton episode involving TRUMP reported above was confirmed by Source E, a senior (western) member of staff at the hotel, who said thats/he and
several of the staff were aware of it at the time and subsequently. S/he believed it had happened in 2013. Source E provided an introduction for a company ethnic
Russian operative to Source F, a female staffer at the hotel when TRUMP had stayed there, who also confirmed the story.
Certain ofthe information in the June 20, 20 l 6 Steele Report reflected facts that Dolan learned during the June Planning Trip to Moscow. For example, while at the Ritz Carlton, Dolan
(1) received a tour ofthe hotel and (according to Dolan) possibly the Presidential Suite, and (2) met with the senior Westem member of staff - in context the general manager - and other staff
ofthe Ritz Carlton. As noted, Danchenko did not stay at the Ritz Carlton in June 2016, but had lunch with Dolan during the June Planning Trip at some other location.
Here's the part that has people convinced Dolan was the source. Please note the next to last sentence in the next paragraph, in particular,
Notably, when interviewed by the Office, U.S. Person- I recalled he and Dolan took a tour of the Presidential Suite. Following his initial interview with the Office, Dolan called
U.S. Person-I and U.S. Person-I confirmed that he (U.S. Person-I) and Dolan had in fact taken a tour ofthe Presidential Suite. During that tour, a hotel staff member told the participants that
Trump had previously been a guest in the Presidential Suite. According to U.S. Person-I, the staff member informed them that Donald Trump had stayed in the Suite, but did not mention any
sexual or salacious activity. When interviewed by the Office, Dolan's recollection about taking a tour ofthe Presidential suite at the Ritz Carlton was inconsistent and his recollection
vacillated over the course of several interviews. Dolan stated, in sum, that it was possible that he (Dolan) told Danchenko about the Presidential Suite and Trump, but he had no specific
recollection of doing so. Dolan was adamant that he never told Danchenko about any salacious sexual activity that occurred in the suite.
The Office also interviewed the then-general Manager of the Ritz-Carlton Moscow. The general manager, a German citizen who does not speak Russian, was described in the Steele
Report as a "senior (western) member of staff at the hotel and identified as "Source E." The general manager did not recognize the photograph of Danchenko he was shown by the Office.
He also denied having knowledge ofthe Ritz-Carlton allegations concerning Trump at any time prior to their being reported in the media. 856 As such, the general manager adamantly denied
discussing such allegations with, or hearing them from, Danchenko, or anyone else. Further, the Office obtained records from the Ritz Carlton Moscow that reveal that Trump was a guest at
the hotel in 2013, but did not stay in the Presidential Suite then or at any other time.
When interviewed by the FBI in January 2017, Danchenko claimed that he had sourced this information, in part, while staying at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow during the June Planning
Trip. While Danchenko initially told the FBI that he had been a guest at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow during the June Planning Trip, in a later interview, he acknowledged that he had visited,
but not stayed at, the hotel during that June Planning Trip. (See how his story changed.) Danchenko also claimed that he inquired about the Ritz-Carlton allegations with hotel staff who did not deny their validity. Finally, Danchenko told the FBI that he reported the names of these hotel staff members to Christopher Steele. In his September 2017 interview, Steele also told the FBI that "Source E"
and "Source F" were employees at the Ritz Carlton Moscow with whom his primary sub-source
(Danchenko) personally met.
The Office found the general manager's statement that he never met with Danchenko to be credible, especially in light of his well-spoken, thoughtful demeanor, and his confidence in his
recollections. Based on the above analysis, the only person who met with both Danchenko and the Ritz Carlton general manager (and the other managers) during the June Planning Trip was Dolan.
In light of these facts, there appears to be a real likelihood that Dolan was the actual source of much of the Ritz Carlton and Pavlov information contained in the Steele Reports.
About a meeting Dolan had the following month, in July, 2016, in Cyprus,
During the July 2016 meetings in Cyprus, Dolan gave Galkina an autobiography of Clinton, which he signed and inscribed with the handwritten message, "To my good friend Olga, A Great Democrat"
On July 22, 2016, Dolan sent an email to Galkina and informed her that he would be attending a reception for Hillary Clinton. Shortly thereafter, Galkina responded: "Tell her
please she (Clinton)has a big fan in Cyprus. Can I please ask you to sign for me her (anything)." In August 2016, Galkina sent a message to a Russia-based associate describing
Dolan as an "advisor" to Hillary Clinton. Galkina further commented regarding what might happen if Clinton were to win the U.S. presidential election, stating in Russian, "When Dolan
takes me off to the State Department to handle issues of the former USSR, then we'll see who is looking good and who is not."
Galkina made the same assertion to another person, and in a message sent the day before the November, 2020 election, wrote Dolan that she hopes Hillary and all her supporters have a great Victory day.
The report goes on to document instances, unrelated to Peegate, where Dolan is undoubtedly, directly or indirectly, one of Steele's sources. They're mostly related to Manafort.
The respondents were certainly right about media coverage favoring Democrats. From your link,
"Does news media coverage of politics generally tend to favor Democrats or Republicans?" Only 20 percent said Republicans, while 52 percent accurately said Democrats. Even 39 percent of Democrats said the news media favor Democrats. Conversely, only 21 percent of Democrats said the media favored Republicans. "
From a Ballotpedia fact check, 96% of of donations to either Clinton or Trump between January, 2015 and August, 2016 went to Clinton,
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journalist_donations_go_to_DemocratsSorry, I meant to write 96% of donations to either Clinton or Trump from journalists between January, 2015 and August, 2016 went to Clinton.
The respondents were certainly right about media coverage favoring Democrats. From your link,
"Does news media coverage of politics generally tend to favor Democrats or Republicans?" Only 20 percent said Republicans, while 52 percent accurately said Democrats. Even 39 percent of Democrats said the news media favor Democrats. Conversely, only 21 percent of Democrats said the media favored Republicans. "
From a Ballotpedia fact check, 96% of of donations to either Clinton or Trump between January, 2015 and August, 2016 went to Clinton,
https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journalist_donations_go_to_DemocratsIt is also plausible that 97% of donations from people who don't know anything about anything and couldn't even discern the difference between a Great Repub Recession / Massive Jobs Destruction and a Great Dem Expansion / Historic Jobs Creation went to Trump in 2016 and in 2020 as well as to every Repub since Hoover.
Sorry, I meant to write 96% of donations to either Clinton or Trump from journalists between January, 2015 and August, 2016 went to Clinton.LOL. Who are the numbskull journalists in that 4% whose job it is to actually follow, research, observe, know and report the mechanics of a complex national economy, national security, etc and the current as well as historical results of such yet still give donations to Repubs anyway? And to Trump of all Repub grifters and clowns!
I mean, it is understandable that they spin headlines and stories to lift Repub policy results to at least look vaguely within a "Bothsider / Neithersider" shot of keeping the horse race neck in neck to the finish. Their business model requires it.
But with their family, friends and neighbors' jobs, home values, household wealth and security on the line re those Repub donations?
I guess it takes all kinds. LOL.
LOL. Who are the numbskull journalists in that 4% whose job it is to actually follow, research, observe, know and report the mechanics of a complex national economy, national security, etc and the current as well as historical results of such yet still give donations to Repubs anyway? And to Trump of all Repub grifters and clowns!
I mean, it is understandable that they spin headlines and stories to lift Repub policy results to at least look vaguely within a "Bothsider / Neithersider" shot of keeping the horse race neck in neck to the finish. Their business model requires it.
But with their family, friends and neighbors' jobs, home values, household wealth and security on the line re those Repub donations?
I guess it takes all kinds. LOL.I actually donated to Hillary's campaign in 2016. I wish she'd won. Republicans would have done much better in the 2020 election if Hillary had been president. People vote based on the state of the economy, and the economy was going to suck regardless of who was president during the COVID pandemic. Also the Republican Party cannot do well in elections as long as Trump is its figurehead.
With more Republicans in Congress, there would have been no American Rescue Plan, which kickstarted inflation. And which when combined with other legislation, all passed by a Democrat President and Congress, will result in 5 trillion in additional unfunded spending. It's the bankrupting of America.
Hillary might just have turned out like Bill Clinton in his second term, that is, willing to work with Republicans for the good of all Americans, instead of being willing to work with far left progressives like Elizabeth Warren for the benefit of no one except special interests, like renewable energy companies, chip manufacturers and contractors. That's what Biden's doing. Remember that the last time we balanced the budget was under Bill Clinton and a Republican House.
Haven't been on this thread for months as common sense tells you that you can't argue with stupidity. It doesn't take much research to see how Biden has destroyed the USA. It doesn't take research to see how Biden has destroyed the economy and driven inflation to 40 year highs. It doesn't take research to see how knumbskulls still support open and dangerous borders, crime ridden cities, woke politics. Large corporations like Target and Budweiser have learned the hard way how wokeness can piss off loyal hard working customers. Stupid liberal democrats still support the destruction of America and still votes for socialists communist ways in their cities making them the most dangerous places to live. Nordstrom closing their stores in downtown SF because unsafe for employees to go to work. Watch all the stupid people get conned again in our state by offering reparations to blacks. These communist leaders know they won't ever pay that but they will dangle it out to the stupid that will believe and vote them in again. 88% of the people in the USA think the USA is headed in the wrong direction. Poverty at an all time high. Homelessness at an all time high, Crime at an all time high. Inflation at an all time high. Drugs entering our country at an all time high. Illegals invading the USA at an all time high. You need intelligence to see this not closing your eyes and pretending it isn't happening. You would have to be a fool to disagree but like I said previously there are some communist brainwashed fools here that will dispute the truth.
LOL. Who are the numbskull journalists in that 4% whose job it is to actually follow, research, observe, know and report the mechanics of a complex national economy, national security, etc and the current as well as historical results of such yet still give donations to Repubs anyway? And to Trump of all Repub grifters and clowns!
I mean, it is understandable that they spin headlines and stories to lift Repub policy results to at least look vaguely within a "Bothsider / Neithersider" shot of keeping the horse race neck in neck to the finish. Their business model requires it.
But with their family, friends and neighbors' jobs, home values, household wealth and security on the line re those Repub donations?
I guess it takes all kinds. LOL.
I actually donated to Hillary's campaign in 2016. I wish she'd won. Republicans would have done much better in the 2020 election if Hillary had been president. People vote based on the state of the economy, and the economy was going to suck regardless of who was president during the COVID pandemic. Also the Republican Party cannot do well in elections as long as Trump is its figurehead.
With more Republicans in Congress, there would have been no American Rescue Plan, which kickstarted inflation. And which when combined with other legislation, all passed by a Democrat President and Congress, will result in 5 trillion in additional unfunded spending. It's the bankrupting of America.
Hillary might just have turned out like Bill Clinton in his second term, that is, willing to work with Republicans for the good of all Americans, instead of being willing to work with far left progressives like Elizabeth Warren for the benefit of no one except special interests, like renewable energy companies, chip manufacturers and contractors. That's what Biden's doing. Remember that the last time we balanced the budget was under Bill Clinton and a Republican House.The proper characterization is "Trump's Pandemic".
No way in hell would a President Hillary Clinton have been so stupid, foolish, beholden to and worried about making China's Xi the least bit uncomfortable during a losing "trade negotiation" that she would have defunded and removed the Pandemic Prevention and Response agents from China whose very job it was to monitor such potential developments in a known "bad actor" country, to alert the world of emerging coronavirus cases and more 5 months before those first cases emerged when only a 2-3 month heads up would have been plenty of time to avert and avoid all of the problems that caused, the worldwide economic collapse, the millions of deaths, the millions upon millions of job losses, the school and business closures, the need for an American Rescue Plan to recover us and the rest of the planet from still another Great Repub Depression / Recession in the first place, any and all resulting inflation, Fed Funds Rate increases, all of it.
And certainly not against all expert dire warnings not to do something so dangerous and stupid no matter how flattering it was to the ego of his losing "trade negotiation" victor Xi, as Trump did.
And then to lie about it, mock and denigrate the known mitigating measures, including any need for anyone to bother inventing a vaccine for what he'd wrought throughout all of critical Trump's Pandemic development year 2020? LOL. Seriously, nether Hillary Clinton nor any other Dem would have done that.
But Trump did it. And all evidence supports the idea that virtually any and all Repubs would have done exactly what Trump did. Happily so. Word is defunding vaccine study and development for future coronavirus challenges is in the Repub demands to stop them from defaulting on their debts and close down the USA government again! Just as Nude Grinbitch and his Repubs did twice under Clinton in order to try but failed to crash the historic economic expansion, jobs creation and producing a budget surplus that Clinton and his Dem Congress set in legislative motion without a single Repub vote for it in 1993.
LOL. That is just silly fantasizing of a move and outcome under a Hillary Clinton presidency that a clear majority of 2016 voters knew quite well would never have happened under her stewardship.
Thought some of you might like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-JovAbHqDc
There is an interesting proposal here for affirmative action, but based on family income / parenthood etc, not on race.
When you can do something? This is why I advocate for lowering centres of power to the local level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQN17Niu9TM
Haven't been on this thread for months as common sense tells you that you can't argue with stupidity. It doesn't take much research to see how Biden has destroyed the USA. It doesn't take research to see how Biden has destroyed the economy and driven inflation to 40 year highs. It doesn't take research to see how knumbskulls still support open and dangerous borders, crime ridden cities, woke politics. Large corporations like Target and Budweiser have learned the hard way how wokeness can piss off loyal hard working customers. Stupid liberal democrats still support the destruction of America and still votes for socialists communist ways in their cities making them the most dangerous places to live. Nordstrom closing their stores in downtown SF because unsafe for employees to go to work. Watch all the stupid people get conned again in our state by offering reparations to blacks. These communist leaders know they won't ever pay that but they will dangle it out to the stupid that will believe and vote them in again. 88% of the people in the USA think the USA is headed in the wrong direction. Poverty at an all time high. Homelessness at an all time high, Crime at an all time high. Inflation at an all time high. Drugs entering our country at an all time high. Illegals invading the USA at an all time high. You need intelligence to see this not closing your eyes and pretending it isn't happening. You would have to be a fool to disagree but like I said previously there are some communist brainwashed fools here that will dispute the truth.. For managing to squeeze one "socialist" and three "communists" in a short yet gloriously incoherent post. Good job!
The proper characterization is "Trump's Pandemic".
No way in hell would a President Hillary Clinton have been so stupid, foolish, beholden to and worried about making China's Xi the least bit uncomfortable during a losing "trade negotiation" that she would have defunded and removed the Pandemic Prevention and Response agents from China whose very job it was to monitor such potential developments in a known "bad actor" country, to alert the world of emerging coronavirus cases and more 5 months before those first cases emerged when only a 2-3 month heads up would have been plenty of time to avert and avoid all of the problems that caused, the worldwide economic collapse, the millions of deaths, the millions upon millions of job losses, the school and business closures, the need for an American Rescue Plan to recover us and the rest of the planet from still another Great Repub Depression / Recession in the first place, any and all resulting inflation, Fed Funds Rate increases, all of it.
And certainly not against all expert dire warnings not to do something so dangerous and stupid no matter how flattering it was to the ego of his losing "trade negotiation" victor Xi, as Trump did.
And then to lie about it, mock and denigrate the known mitigating measures, including any need for anyone to bother inventing a vaccine for what he'd wrought throughout all of critical Trump's Pandemic development year 2020? LOL. Seriously, nether Hillary Clinton nor any other Dem would have done that.
But Trump did it. And all evidence supports the idea that virtually any and all Repubs would have done exactly what Trump did. Happily so. Word is defunding vaccine study and development for future coronavirus challenges is in the Repub demands to stop them from defaulting on their debts and close down the USA government again! Just as Nude Grinbitch and his Repubs did twice under Clinton in order to try but failed to crash the historic economic expansion, jobs creation and producing a budget surplus that Clinton and his Dem Congress set in legislative motion without a single Repub vote for it in 1993.
LOL. That is just silly fantasizing of a move and outcome under a Hillary Clinton presidency that a clear majority of 2016 voters knew quite well would never have happened under her stewardship.I started to read your post, "No way in hell would a President Hillary Clinton have been so stupid, foolish, beholden to and worried about making China's Xi the least bit uncomfortable during a losing "trade negotiation. " I thought for once Tooms and I are on the same page. He's going to criticize Trump's trade wars. His poorly thought out tariffs on China, and on steel and other imports from other countries. But no.
Your post makes no sense. China was dead set on hiding the pandemic from its own people, let alone the USA, the WHO, and the rest of the world. The budget for the CDC remained stable and the budget for the NIH increased during the Trump administration -- see the chart here. The numbers are adjusted for inflation.
https://www.cato.org/blog/coronavirus-nih/cdc-funding
Most likely any cuts by the CDC in Beijing were determined internally, not by Trump political operatives.
Yes, as a result of a bad decision by neocon warmonger John Bolton, there were cuts at the NSC related to pandemic preparedness. But would they have made any difference given the Chinese government's secrecy? Very, very doubtful.
Another consideration is the infectiousness of COVID 19, the Ro value. It was much more infectious than MERS, SARS and even the flu. Even with much more foreknowledge, it would have been hard to prevent the pandemic.
Please point to links from unbiased sources that show a majority of Republicans are trying to defund vaccine studies.
I agree that Trump should not have mocked social distancing or masks. On the other hand, it's ridiculous to say he didn't support a vaccine. Not only is Operation Warp Speed lauded by Fauci, Redfield and many other public health experts, but Trump was more willing to push the vaccines through the FDA than most. Admittedly this was partly because he wanted the vaccines out before the 2020 election. But the end result was that many American lives, and lives of people around the world, were saved. A president Clinton or Biden might just have allowed the FDA to proceed at its normal snail's pace.
Yes the USA suffered more than most developed countries during the pandemic. The primary culprits were normal Americans, who weren't going to social distance, wear masks, or get vaccinated. Now more of those people may be Republicans, and you might not like it, put there's not much you or politicians can do about it, short of moving. It's a free country. And there were economic downsides to responding like, say, Thailand.
BTW, the USA arguably was better prepared for a pandemic at the end of the George W. Bush administration than it was at the end of Obama's. Bush was a Republican.
When you can do something? This is why I advocate for lowering centres of power to the local level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQN17Niu9TMThere are probably more good things than bad that Minnesota did, that are described in the video. I agree with you about delegating power to the local level, but don't see how the video advocates it. Those actions are being taken at the state level. To the extent though that they're being done in St. Paul (capitol of Minnesota) instead of Washington, D.C., I agree.
Haven't been on this thread for months as common sense tells you that you can't argue with stupidity. It doesn't take much research to see how Biden has destroyed the USA. It doesn't take research to see how Biden has destroyed the economy and driven inflation to 40 year highs. It doesn't take research to see how knumbskulls still support open and dangerous borders, crime ridden cities, woke politics. Large corporations like Target and Budweiser have learned the hard way how wokeness can piss off loyal hard working customers. Stupid liberal democrats still support the destruction of America and still votes for socialists communist ways in their cities making them the most dangerous places to live. Nordstrom closing their stores in downtown SF because unsafe for employees to go to work. Watch all the stupid people get conned again in our state by offering reparations to blacks. These communist leaders know they won't ever pay that but they will dangle it out to the stupid that will believe and vote them in again. 88% of the people in the USA think the USA is headed in the wrong direction. Poverty at an all time high. Homelessness at an all time high, Crime at an all time high. Inflation at an all time high. Drugs entering our country at an all time high. Illegals invading the USA at an all time high. You need intelligence to see this not closing your eyes and pretending it isn't happening. You would have to be a fool to disagree but like I said previously there are some communist brainwashed fools here that will dispute the truth.Tooms is smart. He's just so blinded by partisanship that he doesn't realize the Biden Big Government agenda over the long term would take us where France is now. We'd be about 30% poorer than we would be without it.
As to the rest, I’d be pissed off too if I lived in California instead of Texas. Or actually I would have moved by now.
. For managing to squeeze one "socialist" and three "communists" in a short yet gloriously incoherent post. Good job!Just sticking to the facts. Supporters of Biden socialistic and communist policies should be proud to be called socialists and communists. Why aren't you?
Just sticking to the facts. Supporters of Biden socialistic and communist policies should be proud to be called socialists and communists. Why aren't you?You have absolutely no idea about what socialism and communism really are. You're just repeating the drivel you read in your "hot sheets".
That makes you a parrot. Parrots, you know, may sound like they understand what they're blabbering, but they do not. It's all about air vibration and mimicking.
I started to read your post, "No way in hell would a President Hillary Clinton have been so stupid, foolish, beholden to and worried about making China's Xi the least bit uncomfortable during a losing "trade negotiation. " I thought for once Tooms and I are on the same page. He's going to criticize Trump's trade wars. His poorly thought out tariffs on China, and on steel and other imports from other countries. But no.
Your post makes no sense. China was dead set on hiding the pandemic from its own people, let alone the USA, the WHO, and the rest of the world. The budget for the CDC remained stable and the budget for the NIH increased during the Trump administration -- see the chart here. The numbers are adjusted for inflation.
https://www.cato.org/blog/coronavirus-nih/cdc-funding
Most likely any cuts by the CDC in Beijing were determined internally, not by Trump political operatives.
Yes, as a result of a bad decision by neocon warmonger John Bolton, there were cuts at the NSC related to pandemic preparedness. But would they have made any difference given the Chinese government's secrecy? Very, very doubtful.
Another consideration is the infectiousness of COVID 19, the Ro value. It was much more infectious than MERS, SARS and even the flu. Even with much more foreknowledge, it would have been hard to prevent the pandemic.
Please point to links from unbiased sources that show a majority of Republicans are trying to defund vaccine studies.
I agree that Trump should not have mocked social distancing or masks. On the other hand, it's ridiculous to say he didn't support a vaccine. Not only is Operation Warp Speed lauded by Fauci, Redfield and many other public health experts, but Trump was more willing to push the vaccines through the FDA than most. Admittedly this was partly because he wanted the vaccines out before the 2020 election. But the end result was that many American lives, and lives of people around the world, were saved. A president Clinton or Biden might just have allowed the FDA to proceed at its normal snail's pace.
Yes the USA suffered more than most developed countries during the pandemic. The primary culprits were normal Americans, who weren't going to social distance, wear masks, or get vaccinated. Now more of those people may be Republicans, and you might not like it, put there's not much you or politicians can do about it, short of moving. It's a free country. And there were economic downsides to responding like, say, Thailand.
BTW, the USA arguably was better prepared for a pandemic at the end of the George W. Bush administration than it was at the end of Obama's. Bush was a Republican.Not just an unbiased source, but a demonstrably pro Repub source, The New York Times, as evidenced even here by their crediting the rapid vaccine approval programs developed under Obama to Trump! LOL. Yeah, Trump, the guy who spent most of critical Trump's Pandemic Development year 2020 telling the world his pandemic virus was disappearing, going away without a vaccine, was always only a Dem hoax anyway so there is certainly no reason for anyone to bother wasting the time, money and effort to invent a vaccine for it.
You know, the vaccine he was so ashamed to finally admit was needed after all that he and Melania got their life-saving shots in near total secrecy and he only dared to mention it to the lamebrain mob he tried so long and hard to successfully convince otherwise whenever he felt like getting roundly booed by them at his rallies. LOL.
White House Pushes to Save Key Covid Programs in Debt Ceiling Talks.
The Biden administration has prioritized preserving a $5 billion vaccine development program in discussions with House Republicans on clawing back unspent Covid-19 funds.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/us/politics/biden-debt-ceiling-covid.html
Some White House officials view the vaccine development program, called Project NextGen, as the most important Covid measure to protect in the debt ceiling talks. It is loosely modeled on the Trump administrations vaccine development program, known as Operation Warp Speed, which marshaled a series of effective shots to Americans in record time.So you do take Trump to task for developing Trump's Pandemic by mocking the known mitigation measures but put your head in the sand over how he clearly laid the foundation for any significant potential pandemic emerging from China, who you appear to agree was known to be a "bad actor" on admitting leaks, flubs and infections in these matters, when he defunded and removed the very agents whose job it was monitor and report the earliest emergence of cases 5 months before those first cases emerged when only a 2-3 month heads up would have been plenty of time for responsible actors in the world to Flatten The Curve of infections and required hospitalizations so as to delay the broader spread until vaccines were invented, tested, up, running and available around the world. In other words, averting the worldwide catastrophic damage done by Trump's Pandemic.
Really, you don't need me to again, again and again here post the links to the reports connecting those two huge dots from Trump removing those agents in July 2019 to Trump explaining that a mere 2 month heads up would have averted the whole damn thing, do you?
I assure you if Obama, Biden or a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton had done such a thing in July 2019, five months before the first cases emerged in China, The New York Times would be repeating it and quoting every Repub on the planet also repeating it, daily, and ten times more all through every election cycle since July, 2019.
Tooms is smart. He's just so blinded by partisanship that he doesn't realize the Biden Big Government agenda over the long term would take us where France is now. We'd be about 30% poorer than we would be without it.
As to the rest, Id be pissed off too if I lived in California instead of Texas. Or actually I would have moved by now.Tiny, Great Repub Depression / Recession and Great Repub Jobs Destruction-producing Repubs have been warning us about the grave dangers of Great Dem Recovery, Great Dem Economic Expansions and Historic Dem Jobs Creation due to the "Big Government" intervention always required to pull us out of those Repub disasters since at least late 1932.
At some point presumably when MAGAs judged America to have been "great."
Now, really, just how long is the "long term" when this horrible outcome is supposed to happen? Something at least a bit more horrible that is than the Great Repub Depression, Eisenhower's Triple Repub Recession / Atrocious Jobs Creation record, Reagan's Great Repub Recession, GWB's Great Repub Recession that left us unprepared to effectively deal with damn near any emergency and with the economy crashing down around our ears on all fronts in January, 2009 who needs a pandemic to do it, and Trump's Great Repub Massive Jobs Destruction By The Millions Upon Millions?
Thank god I had California rental property to see me through that last one without so much as a glitch in my fucking and getting sucked by adorable Thai sweeties in their 20's routine in my hard work and FDR, Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden Stewardship-facilitated comfy and secure retirement.
We're talking in circles. However, I am compelled to respond to one of your points.
Not just an unbiased source, but a demonstrably pro Repub source, The New York TimesHaha! You literally had me laughing out loud with that one. The New York Times has endorsed the Democratic candidate for the presidency in every election since 1960. That's 60 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times#text=Since%20 its%20 founding%20 in%201851,for%20 Joe%20 Biden%20 in%202020.
White House Pushes to Save Key Covid Programs in Debt Ceiling Talks.
The Biden administration has prioritized preserving a $5 billion vaccine development program in discussions with House Republicans on clawing back unspent Covid-19 funds.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/us/politics/biden-debt-ceiling-covid.htmlI read that article several days ago. You may recall I subscribed to the NYT so I could read your links. There's no statement in the article that Republicans are specifically trying to cut the vaccine development program, only that Republicans are trying to claw back unspent funds from COVID-19 legislation. That's a good idea. The national debt is out of control, thanks in no small part to $5 trillion in unfunded spending legislated by Democrats when they controlled the Presidency, House and Senate in 2021 and 2022.
Linking the Republican's attempted claw back to the vaccine program is Biden Administration propaganda.
I believe the $5 billion or whatever for Project NextGen would be well spent by the way. Given our experience with COVID-19, SARS and MERS, not to mention the common cold, we need a universal coronavirus vaccine. We don't want another coronavirus pandemic killing millions of people. And then there's the effect on the economy and the national debt. Bipartisan and later Democratic Party COVID stimulus and pandemic relief is a large part of the reason federal debt held by the public rose from 17.3 trillion to 24.7 trillion in three short years.
We're talking in circles. However, I am compelled to respond to one of your points.
Haha! You literally had me laughing out loud with that one. The New York Times has endorsed the Democratic candidate for the presidency in every election since 1960. That's 60 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times#text=Since%20 its%20 founding%20 in%201851,for%20 Joe%20 Biden%20 in%202020.
I read that article several days ago. You may recall I subscribed to the NYT so I could read your links. There's no statement in the article that Republicans are specifically trying to cut the vaccine development program, only that Republicans are trying to claw back unspent funds from COVID-19 legislation. That's a good idea. The national debt is out of control, thanks in no small part to $5 trillion in unfunded spending legislated by Democrats when they controlled the Presidency, House and Senate in 2021 and 2022..Endorsement Enhorsement. The NYT editors don't want to look like complete imbicles by endorsing a Repub. So what. Llke most MSM they spend the entire election cycle goofing "Democrats in Disarray"! "Trump and the Repubs Should Campaign On That Weird Perception We in MSM Promote That Repubs Are Better at Handling the Economy Than Dems"! "Hillary Can't Be Trusted"! "Biden failed to Accomplish Everything Libs Wanted"! "Repubs Just Know How To Speak 'American'" and all that crap.
No matter how you spin it and what Bizarro World math you use, cutting $5 Billion from funds earmarked for future coronavirus vaccine research and development, a drop in the ocean relative to the massive deficit spending Trump and his Repubs racked up with virtually zero to show for it, is Repub cowtowing to lunatic anti-vaxxers in their base. And if they get their way as Trump got his way when he pulled out the Pandemic Prevention and Response agents from China in 2019, no doubt sooner rather than later expect the same Million+ American Deaths, Economic Disaster, Closures, Millions Upon Millions of Jobs Wiped Out Followed by the Inevitable Inflation During the Recovery that Trump produced.
Otherwise known as Repub USA Economic and National Security Nirvana.
No matter how you spin it and what Bizarro World math you use, cutting $5 Billion from funds earmarked for future coronavirus vaccine research and development, a drop in the ocean relative to the massive deficit spending Biden and his Dems racked up in 2021 and 2022 with virtually zero to show for itWith the slight change I made to your wording, highlighted in bold print, I agree 100%! Five billion dollars is only 1/10th of 1% of the $5 trillion in unfunded spending in bills passed by Democrats when they controlled the Presidency, House and Senate in 2021 and 2022. And the world needs a universal coronavirus vaccine.
Please note that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives in 2020, and budget bills originate in the House. However I will not hang the responsibility for the 2020 deficit entirely on Nancy. We had a pandemic and the people needed help. Also Trump and Senate Republicans had their say in legislation as well. On the other hand, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP) passed in 2021, when we'd already recovered from the 2020 recession, mainly served to ignite inflation in the USA before other countries. The $1.9 Trillion ARP contributed mightily to our $2.8 trillion (12.5% of GDP!) deficit in 2021. It was passed without a single Republican vote.
The rest of your post sounds a bit like a Rachel Maddow or Lawrence O'Donnell monologue.
Just sticking to the facts. Supporters of Biden socialistic and communist policies should be proud to be called socialists and communists. Why aren't you?So that everybody is on the same page, why don't you do the following:
1. Post your definitions of both "socialism" and "communism".
2. Post all of the actual policies implemented by localities (counties, states, etc) in the USA that correspond to your definitions.
As a matter of comparison, here's the definition of both terms as found in the Oxford Leaner's Dictionary:
Socialism - "a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country's wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries".
Another definition of both terms found in Merriam Webster:
Socialism - (1) any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; (2) a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; be: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Communism - a: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; be: a theory advocating elimination of private property.
With the slight change I made to your wording, highlighted in bold print, I agree 100%! Five billion dollars is only 1/10th of 1% of the $5 trillion in unfunded spending in bills passed by Democrats when they controlled the Presidency, House and Senate in 2021 and 2022. And the world needs a universal coronavirus vaccine.
Please note that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives in 2020, and budget bills originate in the House. However I will not hang the responsibility for the 2020 deficit entirely on Nancy. We had a pandemic and the people needed help. Also Trump and Senate Republicans had their say in legislation as well. On the other hand, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (ARP) passed in 2021, when we'd already recovered from the 2020 recession, mainly served to ignite inflation in the USA before other countries. The $1.9 Trillion ARP contributed mightily to our $2.8 trillion (12.5% of GDP!) deficit in 2021. It was passed without a single Republican vote.
The rest of your post sounds a bit like a Rachel Maddow or Lawrence O'Donnell monologue.If only we hadn't been hit with that totally unexpected, unwarned about, inexplicaple, unpreventable, no better response possible, mystical, magical, out of nowhere Trump's Pandemic in 2020 after Dear Leader had done everything a good leader and steward of our economy and national security could ever be expected to do in 2018,2019 and all through 2020 to prepare, prevent and respond to it so those Evil Dems wouldn't have needed to so much as give a passing thought to America spending a dime to clean up that historically colossal mess, right?
Lololol.
Go ahead, change the word "Trump's" to "Biden's" or even "Pelosi's", "Maddow's" or "O'Donnell's" if it makes you feel warm and cozy inside to do so. LOL.
Go ahead, change the word "Biden's" to "Trump's" or even "Hawley's", "Carlson's" or "Ingraham's" if it makes you feel warm and cozy inside to do so. LOL.Damn that felt good!
Damn that felt good!I see the House Repubs are screaming Bloody Mass Murder to be allowed to once again cut funding and render totally MIA any and all Pandemic Prevention, Response and now VACCINE duties for the very next inevitable potential Trump's / Repub's Pandemic with, god willing in the prayers of every Repub, all the same millions of deaths, worldwide economic and supply-chain collapse, the massive jobs destruction, the business and school closures, the overwhelmed hospitals and, naturally, as much recovery-related Inflation as is mathmatically possible.
They loved the last one so much they just can't wait to bless the world with another one ASAP!
As of this moment, Biden has managed to keep the Repubs from cutting that funding and producing those same Repub Trump Presidency results. But they are desperately pulling all the stops to give us Trump's Pandemic, The Sequel and the sooner the better for them.
We will know if the Repubs get their way on that and any other typical and classic Repub Economic Disaster they can swing in the fullness of time.
I see the House Repubs are screaming Bloody Mass Murder to be allowed to once again cut funding and render totally MIA any and all Pandemic Prevention, Response and now VACCINE duties for the very next inevitable potential Trump's / Repub's Pandemic with, god willing in the prayers of every Repub, all the same millions of deaths, worldwide economic and supply-chain collapse, the massive jobs destruction, the business and school closures, the overwhelmed hospitals and, naturally, as much recovery-related Inflation as is mathmatically possible.
They loved the last one so much they just can't wait to bless the world with another one ASAP!
As of this moment, Biden has managed to keep the Repubs from cutting that funding and producing those same Repub Trump Presidency results. But they are desperately pulling all the stops to give us Trump's Pandemic, The Sequel and the sooner the better for them.
We will know if the Repubs get their way on that and any other typical and classic Repub Economic Disaster they can swing in the fullness of time.Links please? I'm reading that the $5 billion in funding to develop next-generation coronavirus vaccines and treatments will be left untouched. And I don't see anything that mentions it was a point of contention, other than the White House propaganda in the NYT piece you linked to.
Again, I'm a big believer in pandemic prevention and preparation. So you might just be able to dig up some dirt on Republicans and pandemic preparedness that I'd relate to.
BTW I don't "belove" any politicians except Gary Johnson. And he's an ex-politician. Oh yeah, I belove Ronald Reagan too. But he's dead.
So that everybody is on the same page, why don't you do the following:
1. Post your definitions of both "socialism" and "communism".
2. Post all of the actual policies implemented by localities (counties, states, etc) in the USA that correspond to your definitions.
As a matter of comparison, here's the definition of both terms as found in the Oxford Leaner's Dictionary:
Socialism - "a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country's wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries".
Another definition of both terms found in Merriam Webster:
Socialism - (1) any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; (2) a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; be: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
Communism - a: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed; be: a theory advocating elimination of private property.Thank you for clarifying Biden's policies. Yes your definitions of communism and socialism describe Biden policy to try to make Americans lives as good as Venezuela, Iran, Russia. At least you finally agree with me that Biden policy is socialism and communism. Thank you.
Links please? I'm reading that the $5 billion in funding to develop next-generation coronavirus vaccines and treatments will be left untouched. And I don't see anything that mentions it was a point of contention, other than the White House propaganda in the NYT piece you linked to.
Again, I'm a big believer in pandemic prevention and preparation. So you might just be able to dig up some dirt on Republicans and pandemic preparedness that I'd relate to.
BTW I don't "belove" any politicians except Gary Johnson. And he's an ex-politician.Then clearly you are reading and hearing the same links I have seen and heard for exactly what I said about Biden managing to keep it in his deal.
But you have not seen or read anything about your Repubs crying Bloody Mass Murder in opposition the whole DEAL, which, naturally, would include the $5 Billion for vaccine study and development?
Well, that is True Blind Love for ya'.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-gop-hardliners-trash-debt-limit-bill-party-leaders-try-shore-vot-rcna86687
Even GOP Senators are getting in on the trashing:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/gop-senators-trash-debt-limit-deal
Oh, and here is pro-Repub, Dem-hating, more stuttering, more stammering, more awkward senior moment pauses and less coherent communicator than Joe Biden, Elon Musk's business disaster Twitter' chiming in on it:
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1663035449474965504
Then clearly you are reading and hearing the same links I have seen and heard for exactly what I said about Biden managing to keep it in his deal.
But you have not seen or read anything about your Repubs crying Bloody Mass Murder in opposition the whole DEAL, which, naturally, would include the $5 Billion for vaccine study and development?
Well, that is True Blind Love for ya'.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-gop-hardliners-trash-debt-limit-bill-party-leaders-try-shore-vot-rcna86687
Even GOP Senators are getting in on the trashing:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/gop-senators-trash-debt-limit-deal
Oh, and here is pro-Repub, Dem-hating, more stuttering, more stammering, more awkward senior moment pauses and less coherent communicator than Joe Biden, Elon Musk's business disaster Twitter' chiming in on it:
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1663035449474965504I'm not seeing anywhere in those links where the $5 billion for coronavirus vaccines is a point of contention.
I saw two estimates in the New York Times of the savings over 10 years from the proposed bill. One was around 650 billion and the second around 850 billion. During 2021 and 2022, when Democrats controlled the presidency, House and Senate, they passed legislation with additional spending of $5 trillion, mainly the inflation igniting American Rescue Plan, the ridiculously-named Inflation Reduction Plan, and the pork laden Infrastructure and chips bills. Essentially they took 6 steps towards a nightmarish hell, towards the bankrupting of America through an eternally expanding national debt. And then the Republicans made them take one step back from that hell with the debt ceiling legislation.
Or at least that's what they hope to do. From your link Progressive Democrats are privately raising bloody hell because people 50 to 55 without children at home will have to work or attend job training to collect food stamps. They're also upset that the Biden Administration will have to follow through on its earlier commitment to Democrat Joe Manchin to allow a clean-burning-natural-gas pipeline to be built from Virginia to West Virginia. And that the Biden administration will have to stop preventing construction of facilities and infrastructure for renewable and conventional energy.
I just don't understand those progressives. If they want to go back to the horse and buggy in California and New York, let them. But don't impose your values on the rest of us.
I'm not seeing anywhere in those links where the $5 billion for coronavirus vaccines is a point of contention.
I saw two estimates in the New York Times of the savings over 10 years from the proposed bill. One was around 650 billion and the second around 850 billion. During 2021 and 2022, when Democrats controlled the presidency, House and Senate, they passed legislation with additional spending of $5 trillion, mainly the inflation igniting American Rescue Plan, the ridiculously-named Inflation Reduction Plan, and the pork laden Infrastructure and chips bills. Essentially they took 6 steps towards a nightmarish hell, towards the bankrupting of America through an eternally expanding national debt. And then the Republicans made them take one step back from that hell with the debt ceiling legislation.
Or at least that's what they hope to do. From your link Progressive Democrats are privately raising bloody hell because people 50 to 55 without children at home will have to work or attend job training to collect food stamps. They're also upset that the Biden Administration will have to follow through on its earlier commitment to Democrat Joe Manchin to allow a clean-burning-natural-gas pipeline to be built from Virginia to West Virginia. And that the Biden administration will have to stop preventing construction of facilities and infrastructure for renewable and conventional energy.
I just don't understand those progressives. If they want to go back to the horse and buggy in California and New York, let them. But don't impose your values on the rest of us.Which bite of a Repub-characterized "turd sandwich" is the sticking point for not eating it? If they are screetching about objecting to all of the deal, everything is a sticking point.
Additionally, the undisputed absolute Leader of the Repub Party is on record ordering all Repubs in Congress to default, unless:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/05/11/trump-says-gop-should-let-debt-default-happen-if-democrats-dont-agree-to-spending-cuts/
Commenting on the battle over raising of the debt ceiling at CNNs Town Hall event, Trump directly addressed Republican lawmakers in Congress and told them if Democrats dont give you massive cuts, youre going to have to do a default.Did the Dems give them "massive cuts" in that deal?
All indications by CBO and others is that "winning" Repub demand will cost more money, not cut anything much less make "massive" cuts, and puts more Americans on the food stamp program. No surprise:
Changes to food aid in debt bill would cost money, far from savings Republicans envisioned.
An estimate from the Congressional Budget Office says that while the new work requirements in SNAP would save money, the added benefits pushed by Democrats would cost more and add almost 80,000 people to the rolls in an average month.
https://www.pressherald.com/2023/05/31/changes-to-food-aid-in-debt-bill-would-cost-money-far-from-savings-republicans-envisioned/
Maybe that is what the Progressive Dems were trying to prevent th Repubs from doing.
In addition to once again working brilliantly and masterfully to (likely) rescue America and the rest of the world from still another typical Horrific Repub Economic Collapse, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Joe Biden was WAY ahead of the curve on when and how to bring important supply-chains and jobs back to America, particularly with regard to his Pro Repub Numbskulls-bewildering Inflation Reduction Act:
Firms are bringing production home thanks to war, China's slowdown and TikTok
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/reshoring-more-domestic-manufacturing-due-to-supply-chain-disruption.html?__source=androidappshare
It turns out Trump's passionate and determined deep throat blowing of Xi, Kim and Putin while sneakily helping them to overthrow Democracy at home and around the world in favor of Socialism and Communism wasn't the way to MAGA after all. LOL. Not that there is one iota of evidence that was ever Trump's or any Repub's goal anyway, of course.
In addition to once again working brilliantly and masterfully to (likely) rescue America and the rest of the world from still another typical Horrific Repub Economic Collapse, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Joe Biden was WAY ahead of the curve on when and how to bring important supply-chains and jobs back to America, particularly with regard to his Pro Repub Numbskulls-bewildering Inflation Reduction Act:
Firms are bringing production home thanks to war, China's slowdown and TikTok
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/reshoring-more-domestic-manufacturing-due-to-supply-chain-disruption.html?__source=androidappshare
It turns out Trump's passionate and determined deep throat blowing of Xi, Kim and Putin while sneakily helping them to overthrow Democracy at home and around the world in favor of Socialism and Communism wasn't the way to MAGA after all. LOL. Not that there is one iota of evidence that was ever Trump's or any Repub's goal anyway, of course.Thanks Joe for being the worst president in history for economic growth and business. I just returned from the Wealth Management conference in Atlanta and consensus of the biggest financial companies in the USA is that the market and business has had the slowest growth since the great depression in the 1030,s. Dow hit an all time high of 36,000 three to four months after Biden took office basically from the strong economic policies of the Trump administration. It took Biden destructive policies about 3 months from his taking office to send the market into a tailspin. Basically Dow is down 12% under Biden policies making his economy the worst in 75 years. Usually in bad years investors and retirees see their portfolios increase at least 4% per year and many people live off that fixed income. 401 K values have been devastated. General consensus from the conference is just weather the storm. We still have 18 months of the worst presidency in history and our industry is like every other industry in the USA now. Suffering from Biden stupidity and incompetence. Yes thanks Joe for ruining the lives of millions of Americans.
Which bite of a Repub-characterized "turd sandwich" is the sticking point for not eating it? If they are screetching about objecting to all of the deal, everything is a sticking point.Please be more coherent.
Additionally, the undisputed absolute Leader of the Repub Party is on record ordering all Repubs in Congress to default, unless:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/05/11/trump-says-gop-should-let-debt-default-happen-if-democrats-dont-agree-to-spending-cuts/Well, he's your guy. Trump is the Democrat's best friend. He's given you three elections, although the Republicans did manage to eke out a small majority in the House in 2022. Democrats gave tens of millions to support the Trumpiest of the pro Trump candidates in 2022.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/07/democrats-spend-millions-on-republican-primaries/
And they'll probably spend tens or hundreds of millions supporting Trump in the 2024 primaries.
And why not? Trump used to be a card carrying member of the Democratic Party. He proposed a Bernie Sanders style wealth tax. He said he had no problem with partial birth abortion. And as recently as 2017, he wanted to raise taxes on better off Americans. Gary Cohn, a Democrat and his chief economic advisor, had to talk him out of it. "Mr. President, you can't raise taxes. You're a Republican."
Did the Dems give them "massive cuts" in that deal?
All indications by CBO and others is that "winning" Repub demand will cost more money, not cut anything much less make "massive" cuts, The best unbiased estimate we have at present for the savings from the debt ceiling bill is from the Congressional Budget Office, and it's 1.5 trillion:
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2023-05/hr3746_Letter_McCarthy.pdf
That's 6.3% of GDP. Hey, every trillion helps.
and puts more Americans on the food stamp program. No surprise:
Changes to food aid in debt bill would cost money, far from savings Republicans envisioned.
An estimate from the Congressional Budget Office says that while the new work requirements in SNAP would save money, the added benefits pushed by Democrats would cost more and add almost 80,000 people to the rolls in an average month.
https://www.pressherald.com/2023/05/31/changes-to-food-aid-in-debt-bill-would-cost-money-far-from-savings-republicans-envisioned/
Maybe that is what the Progressive Dems were trying to prevent th Repubs from doing.You're better than that Tooms. Yes, it would be better if aid for the poor were funded, administered and controlled at the state and local level. But given what we're stuck with, I don't see why you begrudge eliminating the work requirement for food stamps for the homeless and veterans. Many or most of the homeless are mentally ill. It's difficult for them to hold down jobs. Should we let them starve? And veterans were willing to and often did put their lives on the line for America. They deserve good treatment. I don't see Republican Congressmen begrudging that provision for the veterans. As to the homeless, those that are voting mainly with their districts and states in mind might not favor ending work requirements for the homeless. That's because homelessness is mostly a blue city and blue state problem. And while I would disagree with those Republican Congressmen, maybe they have a point. San Francisco could take some of the money it's using to tell the homeless where to get drugs and spend it on food aid for example.
https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2023/05/08/the-whole-story-with-anderson-cooper-explores-what-happened-to-san-francisco-with-cnns-sara-sidner-on-sunday-may-14-at-8pm-et-pt/
In addition to once again working brilliantly and masterfully to (likely) rescue America and the rest of the world from still another typical Horrific Repub Economic Collapse, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Joe Biden was WAY ahead of the curve on when and how to bring important supply-chains and jobs back to America, particularly with regard to his Pro Repub Numbskulls-bewildering Inflation Reduction Act:
Firms are bringing production home thanks to war, China's slowdown and TikTok
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/reshoring-more-domestic-manufacturing-due-to-supply-chain-disruption.html?__source=androidappshareThe most important measure to bring jobs and factories and investments back to America was the Republicans' 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), specifically, the restructuring of corporate taxation. The corporate tax rate was cut, so that America went from having the highest corporate rate in the developed world to the middle of the pack. The GILTI tax on foreign income realized by American corporations and provisions to encourage repatriation of cash from overseas were perhaps just as important. The trade deficit in goods and services decreased from 46.8 billion / month from January, 2018 when the corporate rate cut took effect to 40.5 billion / month when COVID kicked off. Similarly, the labor force participation rate increased from 62.7% in January, 2018 to 63.3% in February, 2020.
Thanks to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the Biden Administration was not able to raise the corporate rate. So, while the trade balance and labor force participation rate haven't rebounded to pro COVID levels, they are still improving from pandemic levels.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOPGSTB
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
As to Biden's brilliant moves, what a joke. Trump's biggest fuck up was trying to steal an election. His second biggest fuck up was his trade wars, including huge tariffs on Chinese products which were borne by USA Consumers in the form of higher prices. They did nothing to move production to the USA. Instead more clothing and cheap electronics consumed in the USA are made in southeast and south Asia and Central America. Big deal. Now when Biden came to power did he remove those tariffs? No he didn't. He's just as bad as Trump. And Trump at least tried to develop a relationship with Xi. Biden, taking lessons he learned from Obama, has treated him with sanctimony and moral arrogance. Biden's going to drag us into a new cold war.
And the green subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act, which a recent Wall Street Journal Article claimed would cost $1. 1 trillion, were corporate welfare. That is pork, crony capitalism at its finest.
It turns out Trump's passionate and determined deep throat blowing of Xi, Kim and Putin while sneakily helping them to overthrow Democracy at home and around the world in favor of Socialism and Communism wasn't the way to MAGA after all. LOL. Not that there is one iota of evidence that was ever Trump's or any Repub's goal anyway, of course.Well, imposing massive tariffs on China and doing his dead level best to prevent the Nordstream 2 pipeline don't exactly sound like deep throating Xi and Putin. Would there be a war in Ukraine right now if Trump were president? As to Kim, Trump probably scared the shit out of him. Kim might have figured Trump was just crazy enough to push the nuclear button and wipe him and North Korea off the Plant. Donald Trump, crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
Please be more coherent.
Well, he's your guy. Trump is the Democrat's best friend. He's given you three elections, although the Republicans did manage to eke out a small majority in the House in 2022. Democrats gave tens of millions to support the Trumpiest of the pro Trump candidates in 2022.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/07/democrats-spend-millions-on-republican-primaries/
And they'll probably spend tens or hundreds of millions supporting Trump in the 2024 primaries.
And why not? Trump used to be a card carrying member of the Democratic Party. He proposed a Bernie Sanders style wealth tax. He said he had no problem with partial birth abortion. And as recently as 2017, he wanted to raise taxes on better off Americans. Gary Cohn, a Democrat and his chief economic advisor, had to talk him out of it. "Mr. President, you can't raise taxes. You're a Republican."Since you must have averted your eyes and plugged your ears to the most vocal Repub opposition to the entire deal and, yep, that would include opposing the retention of $5 billion for vaccine research and development to help avert another Repub Trump's Pandemic from spreading unabated ASAP, a simple Google Search for "turd sandwich" might have cleared up your confusion about that.
From some of Repub House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's most valued and highly-regarded Repub House members:
'Turd Sandwich: MAGA Members of Congress Hate on Debt Deal.
"This is NOT a win for the American people!" Rep. Lauren.
MAY 28, 2023
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/maga-congress-debt-ceiling-deal-1234743550/
Oh, Reagan "used to be a Democrat" too. Then his show biz career tanked, he decided to enter politics and he knew from decades of observation that Lazy, Know Nothing, Do Nothing slackers can join the Repub Party, never be expected to produce anything other than Great Repub Depressions / Recessions and Massive Job Losses, none of the historic recoveries, expansions and gains yet still get praised for "handling the economy better than Dems" by Mainstream Media.
The same as Trump did.
Now, where do you see me begrudging the elimination of the work requirement for anyone?
The most important measure to bring jobs and factories and investments back to America was the Republicans' 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), specifically, the restructuring of corporate taxation. The corporate tax rate was cut, so that America went from having the highest corporate rate in the developed world to the middle of the pack. The GILTI tax on foreign income realized by American corporations and provisions to encourage repatriation of cash from overseas were perhaps just as important. The trade deficit in goods and services decreased from 46.8 billion / month from January, 2018 when the corporate rate cut took effect to 40.5 billion / month when COVID kicked off. Similarly, the labor force participation rate increased from 62.7% in January, 2018 to 63.3% in February, 2020.
Thanks to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the Biden Administration was not able to raise the corporate rate. So, while the trade balance and labor force participation rate haven't rebounded to pro COVID levels, they are still improving from pandemic levels.LOL. That claim has been debunked many times over, even by the beneficiaries of those tax cuts!
Searching for supply-side effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
July 6, 2021
https://www.brookings.edu/research/searching-for-supply-side-effects-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
The TCJA provision that allowed firms to return overseas profits to the U.S. without paying U.S. tax created a one-time spike in repatriated funds. But rather than boosting investment or wages, it generated a wave of corporate stock repurchases.
Unwilling to accept the growing Winger Love for Larry Summers as a Many-Fleeting Thing, I felt it my romantic duty to post his recent pronouncement about the most conspicuous Repub "win" in the Prevent The Repubs From Crashing Worldwide Economies Again agreement:
Former Treasury Secretary Summers Criticizes IRS Provisions In Debt Ceiling Agreement.
Summers opposes IRS funding cuts in debt ceiling deal, warns of future deficits and tax cheats' advantage.
May 31, 2023
https://www.zenger.news/2023/05/31/former-treasury-secretary-summers-criticizes-irs-provisions-in-debt-ceiling-agreement/
"The rescinding of #IRS funding will raise future deficits by more than $100 billion and risks a compliance crisis and privileges rich tax cheats. I desperately hope it will not set a precedent, Summers said.
....
The economist is not the only person to sound critical of the IRS provisions. Harvard professor and noted economist Jason Furman had stated that the funding reduction is particularly galling especially since it will increase the deficit. It should not be repeated ever again, he said in his tweet.
LOL. That claim has been debunked many times over, even by the beneficiaries of those tax cuts!
Searching for supply-side effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
July 6, 2021
https://www.brookings.edu/research/searching-for-supply-side-effects-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/What do investors do with cash they receive from buybacks and dividends? They reinvest the money. In the process our economy becomes more efficient. Cash flow realized from buggy manufacturers was recycled into automobile manufacturing for example.
As to the Brookings article, they were absolutely right: "By only analyzing results through 2019, we focused only on short-term effects, which may be a poor guide to the longer run. Short-term growth dynamics typically are dominated by changes in aggregate demand while long-term growth stems from changes in supply. Both experts and advocates emphasize that the supply-side process may take a significant amount of time to take full effect. ".
You don't close down an operation in Ireland for example and move it to Austin the year after a tax cut.
And indeed if you look at investing cash flows, which include capex but not investments in working capital, that's what has happened. Here are cash flows from investments (negative because you're spending money) per share for the S&P 500 going back to 2017, the year before the TCJA took effect.
2017 -141.34.
2018 -138.90.
2019 -181.10.
2020 -214.82.
2021 -221.41.
2022 -226.86.
Investments by the S&P 500 companies have increased by 60% since the TCJA took effect! Not including investments in working capital.
And corporate profits resulting from this additional investment in America are kicking in too. In fact, tax receipts on corporate income were the third highest in history in 2022!
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX
Now those numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, but just eyeballing the graph, it looks to me like your claim that the TCJA will reduce the amount the federal government steals by 2. 5 trillion over 10 years is bogus. Total federal receipts as a % of GDP also are up, to the fourth highest level in history in 2022. All under a tax regime last modified by the TCJA.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
Unwilling to accept the growing Winger Love for Larry Summers as a Many-Fleeting Thing, I felt it my romantic duty to post his recent pronouncement about the most conspicuous Repub "win" in the Prevent The Repubs From Crashing Worldwide Economies Again agreement:
Former Treasury Secretary Summers Criticizes IRS Provisions In Debt Ceiling Agreement.
Summers opposes IRS funding cuts in debt ceiling deal, warns of future deficits and tax cheats' advantage.
May 31, 2023
https://www.zenger.news/2023/05/31/former-treasury-secretary-summers-criticizes-irs-provisions-in-debt-ceiling-agreement/Well, he is a Democrat, which means he instinctively wants to fuck over the entrepreneurs, businessmen and investors who drive growth in America. The Democrats legislated $80 billion in additional funding for the IRS, and now as a result of the debt ceiling agreement will have to back off of $20 billion of that.
Since you must have averted your eyes and plugged your ears to the most vocal Repub opposition to the entire deal and, yep, that would include opposing the retention of $5 billion for vaccine research and development to help avert another Repub Trump's Pandemic from spreading unabated ASAP, a simple Google Search for "turd sandwich" might have cleared up your confusion about that.
From some of Repub House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's most valued and highly-regarded Repub House members:
'Turd Sandwich: MAGA Members of Congress Hate on Debt Deal.
"This is NOT a win for the American people!" Rep. Lauren.
MAY 28, 2023
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/maga-congress-debt-ceiling-deal-1234743550/When did you become an admirer of Lauren Boebert? I'd bang her, but she's dumb as shit.
The most important measure to bring jobs and factories and investments back to America was the Republicans' 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), specifically, the restructuring of corporate taxation. The corporate tax rate was cut, so that America went from having the highest corporate rate in the developed world to the middle of the pack. The GILTI tax on foreign income realized by American corporations and provisions to encourage repatriation of cash from overseas were perhaps just as important. The trade deficit in goods and services decreased from 46.8 billion / month from January, 2018 when the corporate rate cut took effect to 40.5 billion / month when COVID kicked off. Similarly, the labor force participation rate increased from 62.7% in January, 2018 to 63.3% in February, 2020.
Thanks to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the Biden Administration was not able to raise the corporate rate. So, while the trade balance and labor force participation rate haven't rebounded to pro COVID levels, they are still improving from pandemic levels.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOPGSTB
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
As to Biden's brilliant moves, what a joke. Trump's biggest fuck up was trying to steal an election. His second biggest fuck up was his trade wars, including huge tariffs on Chinese products which were borne by USA Consumers in the form of higher prices. They did nothing to move production to the USA. Instead more clothing and cheap electronics consumed in the USA are made in southeast and south Asia and Central America. Big deal. Now when Biden came to power did he remove those tariffs? No he didn't. He's just as bad as Trump. And Trump at least tried to develop a relationship with Xi. Biden, taking lessons he learned from Obama, has treated him with sanctimony and moral arrogance. Biden's going to drag us into a new cold war.
And the green subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act, which a recent Wall Street Journal Article claimed would cost $1. 1 trillion, were corporate welfare. That is pork, crony capitalism at its finest.
Well, imposing massive tariffs on China and doing his dead level best to prevent the Nordstream 2 pipeline don't exactly sound like deep throating Xi and Putin. Would there be a war in Ukraine right now if Trump were president? As to Kim, Trump probably scared the shit out of him. Kim might have figured Trump was just crazy enough to push the nuclear button and wipe him and North Korea off the Plant. Donald Trump, crazy? Or crazy like a fox?So true. Great posts. The facts don't lie. Biden's incompetence will not only extend the recession he put us in but also will get us into a war. China and Russia are licking their chops with the weakest American president in history. Only a fool would dispute this. And one probably will.
What do investors do with cash they receive from buybacks and dividends? They reinvest the money. In the process our economy becomes more efficient. Cash flow realized from buggy manufacturers was recycled into automobile manufacturing for example.
As to the Brookings article, they were absolutely right: "By only analyzing results through 2019, we focused only on short-term effects, which may be a poor guide to the longer run. Short-term growth dynamics typically are dominated by changes in aggregate demand while long-term growth stems from changes in supply. Both experts and advocates emphasize that the supply-side process may take a significant amount of time to take full effect. ".
You don't close down an operation in Ireland for example and move it to Austin the year after a tax cut.
And indeed if you look at investing cash flows, which include capex but not investments in working capital, that's what has happened. Here are cash flows from investments (negative because you're spending money) per share for the S&P 500 going back to 2017, the year before the TCJA took effect.
2017 -141.34.
2018 -138.90.
2019 -181.10.
2020 -214.82.
2021 -221.41.
2022 -226.86.
Investments by the S&P 500 companies have increased by 60% since the TCJA took effect! Not including investments in working capital.
And corporate profits resulting from this additional investment in America are kicking in too. In fact, tax receipts on corporate income were the third highest in history in 2022!
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX
Now those numbers aren't adjusted for inflation, but just eyeballing the graph, it looks to me like your claim that the TCJA will reduce the amount the federal government steals by 2. 5 trillion over 10 years is bogus. Total federal receipts as a % of GDP also are up, to the fourth highest level in history in 2022. All under a tax regime last modified by the TCJA.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188SWell, apparently expanding the economy and creating more jobs with them than without them is NOT what investors did with their windfall profits from Repub tax cuts in the late 1920's, the 1980's, 2001-2008 and 2018-2020.
Far, far, far from it.
Now, Dem tax policy / cuts and economic policy produce quite a different result. Because they are focused on the right people to grow the economy and create jobs at the right time; under FDR, JFK / LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden, for example.
I sure as hell would rather have been starting up a business venture or looking for a good job at the beginning of any Dem administration of the past 100 years than any Repub administration of the past 100 years.
Unless my business venture was setting up soup kitchens or selling apples on the street, that is.
Thanks Joe for being the worst president in history for economic growth and business. The last 2 years the market and business has had the slowest growth since the great depression. Dow hit an all time high of 36,000 three to four months after Biden took office basically from the strong economic policies of the Trump administration. It took Biden destructive policies about 3 months from his taking office to send the market into a tailspin. Basically Dow is down 10% under Biden policies making his economy the worst in 75 years. We still have 18 months of the worst presidency in history and every industry in the USA suffers from stupid regulations and policies from the progressive left idiots along with Biden stupidity and incompetence. Yes thanks Joe for ruining the lives of millions of Americans.
So true. Great posts. The facts don't lie. Biden's incompetence will not only extend the recession he put us in but also will get us into a war. China and Russia are licking their chops with the weakest American president in history. Only a fool would dispute this. And one probably will.Yes, absolutely as true as that Recession Biden put us in indeed.
Lolololol.
Payrolls rose 339,000 in May, much better than expected in resilient labor market
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/02/jobs-report-may-2023-.html?__source=androidappshare
Dude, we're still waiting for those Great Dem Recessions under Clinton and Obama that never happened but all those pro Repub Economic Gurus and Repub Congressmen assured us they would. LOL.
Oh. Maybe you mean the mild recession Trump's Fed Chairman appointee is struggling mightily to artificially induce because there are way too many jobs being created in Biden's economy than there are applicants to accept them. The same economic "problem" we had under Carter.
For sure, that will never be an economic "problem" that job hunters, entrepreneurs, businessmen and investors will ever have to face under Repub stewardship and policies. No, under Repub stewardship and policies the economic problems are typically who the hell will buy anything from cupcakes to gasoline when jobs are being wiped out by the millions, businesses are closing in droves and Great Depressions or Great Recessions or at least serial Recessions and crap jobs creation are the norm.
Thanks Joe for being the worst president in history for economic growth and business. The last 2 years the market and business has had the slowest growth since the great depression. Dow hit an all time high of 36,000 three to four months after Biden took office basically from the strong economic policies of the Trump administration. It took Biden destructive policies about 3 months from his taking office to send the market into a tailspin. Basically Dow is down 10% under Biden policies making his economy the worst in 75 years. We still have 18 months of the worst presidency in history and every industry in the USA suffers from stupid regulations and policies from the progressive left idiots along with Biden stupidity and incompetence. Yes thanks Joe for ruining the lives of millions of Americans.You do know the stock market is not "the economy", right? LOL. What am I asking. Of course you don't know that.
Uh. The S&P 500 Index closed at its all-time high of 4793 on December 29,2021. It is currently down at a typical "Correction" level, about 10%. It has never been in a "tail spin" under Biden as it did under Trump. At worst, it closed 3-4 percentage points lower than within a normal Correction range for a few days.
It has traded within that Correction range for about 17 months, similar to its behavior under Obama in 2015 and 2016, for about the same number of months and for the same reason; When the economy has begun to show reliable signs of recovery from the horrific Crashes experienced under the previous Repub stewardship, the Fed dithers in fits and starts over how much and how fast to appropriately raise the Fed Funds Rate. And that dithering can and has gone on for 15-18 months at a time.
Wall Street is ALWAYS spooked about what to do whenever the Fed says ANYTHING about raising rates, lowering rates, leaving rates alone, good news about rates, bad news about rates, any statement or utterance by the Fed even vaguely alluding to rates by so much as 25 basis points is enough to drive brave stock market investors under their beds and shaking like frightened kittens.
That is all that's been happening with the broad stock market for the past 17 months.
Here is one for Elvis who refuses to believe USA has never done anything wrong since Iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVIZVa1rlGY&t=804s
New research showing much worse death toll by USA in Cambodia. Kissinger is a mass murderer. Never convicted, lives with impunity, reparations never paid nor offered. Absolutely disgusting isn't it Elvis?
Lasts for 17 minutes.
You do know the stock market is not "the economy", right? LOL. What am I asking. Of course you don't know that.
Uh. The S&P 500 Index closed at its all-time high of 4793 on December 29,2021. It is currently down at a typical "Correction" level, about 10%. It has never been in a "tail spin" under Biden as it did under Trump. At worst, it closed 3-4 percentage points lower than within a normal Correction range for a few days.
It has traded within that Correction range for about 17 months, similar to its behavior under Obama in 2015 and 2016, for about the same number of months and for the same reason; When the economy has begun to show reliable signs of recovery from the horrific Crashes experienced under the previous Repub stewardship, the Fed dithers in fits and starts over how much and how fast to appropriately raise the Fed Funds Rate. And that dithering can and has gone on for 15-18 months at a time.
Wall Street is ALWAYS spooked about what to do whenever the Fed says ANYTHING about raising rates, lowering rates, leaving rates alone, good news about rates, bad news about rates, any statement or utterance by the Fed even vaguely alluding to rates by so much as 25 basis points is enough to drive brave stock market investors under their beds and shaking like frightened kittens.
That is all that's been happening with the broad stock market for the past 17 months.History proves that when the economy is bad or in a recession the market is stagnant. When the economy is booming like it was pre pandemic under Trump presidency it soars. Dow was at 19,804. 72 when Trump took office and was over 30,000 when he left office for over a 50% gain in 4 years. Quite an achievement with China trying to kill our economy by starting the virus. Trump policies actually drove the market to 36,000 3 months after his presidency ended before Biden executive orders took effect and killed the economy. Which is doubling in 4 years. Biden on the other hand in 2 1/2 years has managed to drive the markets down 10% and creating highest inflation ever and putting millions into poverty. I am in the financial wealth planning and I talk to investors daily. Obviously you are not a savvy investor or you would gladly go back to Trump economy. And yes Wall Street is always spooked by what the feds do and Biden's historical inflation is causing the feds to do radical things. If you remember under Trump president inflation was under control and feds lowered rates. Like it or not corporations and Americans did better under the Trump presidency. Now they are just trying to hold on until we are done with the worst presidency in the history of the USA.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6b/a6/0f/6ba60fc2d49a42c61bf6f7cd8f5227e3.jpg
"A machine like this is required to move 500 tons of earth / ore which will be.
Refined into one lithium car battery. It burns 900-1000 gallons of fuel in a 12-hour shift.
Lithium is refined from ore using sulfuric acid. The proposed lithium mine at Thacker Pass, Nevada is estimated to require up to 75 semi-loads of sulfuric acid a day. ! The acid does not turn into unicorn food as AOC believes.
Refining lithium has created several EPA SUPERFUND SITES. IT IS VERY.
TOXIC TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
A battery in an electric car, let's say an average Tesla, is made of:
25 pounds of lithium.
60 pounds of nickel.
44 pounds of manganese.
30 pounds of cobalt.
200 pounds of copper.
And.
400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic, etc. Averaging 750-1,000 pounds of minerals, that had to be mined and processed.
Into a battery that merely stores electricity. Electricity which is generated by.
Oil, gas, coal, or water (and a tiny fraction of wind and solar).
That is the truth, about the lie, of "green" energy.
There's nothing green about the "Green New Deal".
You people better learn how to vote or this nonsense will continue to flow down on top of you from the throne of government upon of which you put these people.
Stop drinking the Green New Deal's sulfuric acid Kool-Aid. !
Dr. Phillip A. Fields.
University of South Alabama.
Mobile, Alabama.
So true. Great posts. Thanks Cali Guy. If you ever get tired of the Nanny State and high taxes in the Peoples Republic of California, we'd welcome you with open harms here in God's Country, also known as the Texas panhandle.
I'd weigh in on Tooms' recent posts but I've already addressed those issues at least three times. Tooms lives in a univariate world. That means he thinks economic growth and recessions are a function of only one variable, the party of the President. He doesn't consider technology, globalization, demographic changes like population growth, changes in productivity, the business cycle, Fed policy, events like the pandemic, what's happening in other countries, the make up of Congress, etc. If something like a pandemic comes along, then it's the Republican president's fault. Biden's American Rescue Plan played no part in igniting inflation here instead of other countries. Instead, it was all the Fed chiefs fault. And that's Trump's fault too, even though Jerome Powell was appointed to the Federal Reserve by Obama, and re-appointed Fed chief by Biden.
Anyway, yes, if Biden and like minded Democrats maintain control for the long term, we will suffer. Democrats like to spend money and they like big federal government. When you kick out petrostates and countries with less than a million people, the most prosperous developed countries in the world have lowest government revenues and expenditures as a % of GDP. That is, the developed countries that leave more money in the private sector, in the hands of the people and businesses, do better. If Biden as President and Bernie Sanders as Senate Budget Committee Chairman were in charge of the economy for the long term, our GDP per capita would be much lower than what it would be under Republican leadership. Now, Tooms probably realizes that, as to Sanders anyway. His response has been that Sanders isn't a Democrat, haha.
Thanks Cali Guy. If you ever get tired of the Nanny State and high taxes in the Peoples Republic of California, we'd welcome you with open harms here in God's Country, also known as the Texas panhandle.
I'd weigh in on Tooms' recent posts but I've already addressed those issues at least three times. Tooms lives in a univariate world. That means he thinks economic growth and recessions are a function of only one variable, the party of the President. He doesn't consider technology, globalization, demographic changes like population growth, changes in productivity, the business cycle, Fed policy, events like the pandemic, what's happening in other countries, the make up of Congress, etc. If something like a pandemic comes along, then it's the Republican president's fault. Biden's American Rescue Plan played no part in igniting inflation here instead of other countries. Instead, it was all the Fed chiefs fault. And that's Trump's fault too, even though Jerome Powell was appointed to the Federal Reserve by Obama, and re-appointed Fed chief by Biden..San Diego is still one of the better cities in CA as the area I live in is about 50/50 democrats and republicans. But I will retire in Texas or possible Wyoming and get out of this CA mess in about 7 years. Of course our area still has some of the progressive socialists like Bernie and Tooms. Being with a major wealth management company that is in every state I have to be pretty neutral on politics and I rarely discuss politics with the liberals but I can say that all my clients benefited greatly from the Trump presidency. Majority of my clients bought into energy oil stocks on my recommendations when Biden went to war on domestic oil and it has minimized their losses from Biden incompetence. Many Californians on fixed income are really struggling though with the high costs. Biden inflation is even worse here with Newsome policies.
Thanks Cali Guy. If you ever get tired of the Nanny State and high taxes in the Peoples Republic of California, we'd welcome you with open harms here in God's Country, also known as the Texas panhandle.
I'd weigh in on Tooms' recent posts but I've already addressed those issues at least three times. Tooms lives in a univariate world. That means he thinks economic growth and recessions are a function of only one variable, the party of the President. He doesn't consider technology, globalization, demographic changes like population growth, changes in productivity, the business cycle, Fed policy, events like the pandemic, what's happening in other countries, the make up of Congress, etc. If something like a pandemic comes along, then it's the Republican president's fault. Biden's American Rescue Plan played no part in igniting inflation here instead of other countries. Instead, it was all the Fed chiefs fault. And that's Trump's fault too, even though Jerome Powell was appointed to the Federal Reserve by Obama, and re-appointed Fed chief by Biden..Lolol. Yeah, that is the magical, mystical aspect of it, right?
You hang onto that idea that Trump's Pandemic just "came along" out of nowhere and maybe dummies who aren't paying attention will, you know, not vote for the one Party that can and has prevented those horrific results from magically, mystically materializing.
So the Pandemic, the Great Depression, Eisenhower's three Recessions and crap jobs creation, the S&L Crisis, Reagan's Great Recession, the Financial Crisis, Bush's Great Recession, Trump's $2. 5 Trillion in deficit spending to create fewer jobs with it than without it, his Great Jobs Destruction and Worldwide Economic / Supply-Chain Collapes, etc, etc, all just "came along."
It is only a wild coincidence that none of those things "come along" under Dem economic stewardship. And an even wilder coincidence that all of the notable boomtimes and historic jobs gains in decades and decades and decades happen under Dem stewardship and none under Repub stewardship.
Those great results just "come along" in magical, mystical ways too, don't they?
Poor Repubs. So unlucky.
History proves that when the economy is bad or in a recession the market is stagnant. When the economy is booming like it was pre pandemic under Trump presidency it soars. Dow was at 19,804. 72 when Trump took office and was over 30,000 when he left office for over a 50% gain in 4 years. Quite an achievement with China trying to kill our economy by starting the virus. Trump policies actually drove the market to 36,000 3 months after his presidency ended before Biden executive orders took effect and killed the economy. Which is doubling in 4 years. Biden on the other hand in 2 1/2 years has managed to drive the markets down 10% and creating highest inflation ever and putting millions into poverty. I am in the financial wealth planning and I talk to investors daily. Obviously you are not a savvy investor or you would gladly go back to Trump economy. And yes Wall Street is always spooked by what the feds do and Biden's historical inflation is causing the feds to do radical things. If you remember under Trump president inflation was under control and feds lowered rates. Like it or not corporations and Americans did better under the Trump presidency. Now they are just trying to hold on until we are done with the worst presidency in the history of the USA.You are in "financial wealth planning" and you actually say stuff publicly, I mean loud enough for potential clients to hear, like "The Fed lowers rates when the economy is roaring along and raises them when the economy is doing poorly"?
And stuff like, "That historic Relief Rally in the market immediately after Biden kicked him out of office was a sure sign of how great everyone thought Trump's policies were"?
And stuff like, "$2.5 Trillion added to the deficit in Trump's one and only economic legislation passed in 4 years in exchange for not even 1 percentage point gain in GDP Growth and about a Million fewer jobs created with it than without it was a brilliant, good deal for America"?
Seriously? You actually do that and still squeak out a living?
I am impressed.
Lolol. Yeah, that is the magical, mystical aspect of it, right?
You hang onto that idea that Trump's Pandemic just "came along" out of nowhere and maybe dummies who aren't paying attention will, you know, not vote for the one Party that can and has prevented those horrific results from magically, mystically materializing.
So the Pandemic, the Great Depression, Eisenhower's three Recessions and crap jobs creation, the S&L Crisis, Reagan's Great Recession, the Financial Crisis, Bush's Great Recession, Trump's $2. 5 Trillion in deficit spending to create fewer jobs with it than without it, his Great Jobs Destruction and Worldwide Economic / Supply-Chain Collapes, etc, etc, all just "came along."
It is only a wild coincidence that none of those things "come along" under Dem economic stewardship. And an even wilder coincidence that all of the notable boomtimes and historic jobs gains in decades and decades and decades happen under Dem stewardship and none under Repub stewardship.
Those great results just "come along" in magical, mystical ways too, don't they?
Poor Repubs. So unlucky.Most people are smart enough to know the pandemic came out of Biden buddy China. Even the democrats admit it. But obviously the communists are still protecting China. Biden spending of 7 trillion pretty much makes Trumps 2. 5 trillion look small.
You are in "financial wealth planning" and you actually say stuff publicly, I mean loud enough for potential clients to hear, like "The Fed lowers rates when the economy is roaring along and raises them when the economy is doing poorly"?
And stuff like, "That historic Relief Rally in the market immediately after Biden kicked him out of office was a sure sign of how great everyone thought Trump's policies were"?
And stuff like, "$2.5 Trillion added to the deficit in Trump's one and only economic legislation passed in 4 years in exchange for not even 1 percentage point gain in GDP Growth and about a Million fewer jobs created with it than without it was a brilliant, good deal for America"?
Seriously? You actually do that and still squeak out a living?
I am impressed.You don't have a clue do you? How do you continue making up this shit?
San Diego is still one of the better cities in CA as the area I live in is about 50/50 democrats and republicans. But I will retire in Texas or possible Wyoming and get out of this CA mess in about 7 years. Of course our area still has some of the progressive socialists like Bernie and Tooms. Being with a major wealth management company that is in every state I have to be pretty neutral on politics and I rarely discuss politics with the liberals but I can say that all my clients benefited greatly from the Trump presidency. Majority of my clients bought into energy oil stocks on my recommendations when Biden went to war on domestic oil and it has minimized their losses from Biden incompetence. Many Californians on fixed income are really struggling though with the high costs. Biden inflation is even worse here with Newsome policies.Ahhhh, the West. Where men are men. And the sheep are scared.
Ahhhh, the West. Where men are men. And the sheep are scared.Don't be silly PVMonger. Thanks to globalization we don't need sheep anymore! We've got Mexican hookers in border towns from Matamoros to Tijuana! Asian Massage Parlors in every town over 5,000 population! And Cuban strippers in every gentlemen's club!
And besides, our Colombian brethren taught us that burros are far preferable to sheep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VKWLC87Uzw
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/6b/a6/0f/6ba60fc2d49a42c61bf6f7cd8f5227e3.jpg
"A machine like this is required to move 500 tons of earth / ore which will be.
Refined into one lithium car battery. It burns 900-1000 gallons of fuel in a 12-hour shift.
Lithium is refined from ore using sulfuric acid. The proposed lithium mine at Thacker Pass, Nevada is estimated to require up to 75 semi-loads of sulfuric acid a day. ! The acid does not turn into unicorn food as AOC believes.
Refining lithium has created several EPA SUPERFUND SITES. IT IS VERY.
TOXIC TO THE ENVIRONMENT.
A battery in an electric car, let's say an average Tesla, is made of:
25 pounds of lithium.
60 pounds of nickel.
44 pounds of manganese.
30 pounds of cobalt.
200 pounds of copper.
And.
400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic, etc. Averaging 750-1,000 pounds of minerals, that had to be mined and processed.
Into a battery that merely stores electricity. Electricity which is generated by.
Oil, gas, coal, or water (and a tiny fraction of wind and solar).
That is the truth, about the lie, of "green" energy.
There's nothing green about the "Green New Deal".
You people better learn how to vote or this nonsense will continue to flow down on top of you from the throne of government upon of which you put these people.
Stop drinking the Green New Deal's sulfuric acid Kool-Aid. !
Dr. Phillip A. Fields.
University of South Alabama.
Mobile, Alabama.The Wall Street Journal had a good article on this today, about Toyota and EV's.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-toyota-for-its-electric-vehicle-heresy-akio-toyoda-hybrids-ev-climate-change-b5f67d6c?mod=opinion_major_pos1
Here's an excerpt.
A Toyota memo to auto dealers in April explained the challenges to full electrification. For instance, "most public chargers can take anywhere from 8-30 hours to charge. To meet the federal (zero-emissions vehicle) sales targets, 1. 2 M public chargers are needed by 2030. That amounts to approximately 400 new chargers per day. " The USA Isn't close to meeting that goal.
Toyota also noted that "more than 300 new lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite mines are needed to meet the expected battery demand by 2035," and they could take decades to develop. The amount of raw materials in one long-range battery electric vehicle could instead be used to make 6 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or 90 hybrid electric vehicles.
And heres an even more striking statistic: The overall carbon reduction of those 90 hybrids over their lifetimes is 37 times as much as a single battery electric vehicle. These inconvenient truths undermine the climate religion and government mandates.
End of excerpt
Volvo did a study where they looked at the number of months you'd need to drive one of their EV models for the carbon footprint of the EV not to exceed the carbon footprint of a conventional internal combustion auto. It was about 70 months, assuming you don't have to replace the batteries. Replace the batteries and it's longer than 70 months.
Anyway, I think Toyota is saying their hybrids have a smaller carbon footprint than the EV's! This would depend a lot of the source of the power used to charge the EV's though. If it's hydropower in Washington state, the EV's footprint would be a lot lower than if it's coal in West Virginia for example.
It sounds like the greenies are promoting policies that will actually increase carbon emissions, by insisting on EV's over hybrids!
Where have we seen this before? Well, I'd point out Biden's proposal to boost the maximum capital gains tax to 40.8%. That would be in a state with no income tax. In California you'd be looking at 54.1%. The Congressional Budget Office has traditionally assumed 28% is the revenue-maximizing capital gains rate. You raise the rate too high and people just don't sell assets, so they don't have to pay the tax. So you end up raising less revenues for the government with the higher tax!
This is all part of the Progressive Democrats "cut off your nose to spite your face" master plan.
Pandemic came from China
Most people are smart enough to know the pandemic came out of Biden buddy China. Even the democrats admit it. But obviously the communists are still protecting China. Biden spending of 7 trillion pretty much makes Trumps 2. 5 trillion look small.All indications are the virus originated in China, very likely in the labs from which Trump defunded and removed all of the monitors whose actual job it was to alert the responsible authorities to such earliest emerging cases in order to prevent, say it with me, a Pandemic..
Trump did that contrary to all expert warnings not to do something so stupid and dangerous because his doing so was laying the basic groundwork for allowing, say it with me, a Pandemic to develop.
Trump did that at least 5 months before those first cases emerged in China when even he knew that a mere 2-3 month heads up about that would have been plenty of time to have avoided "all these problems", otherwise known as, say it with me, a Pandemic..
It seems you know about as much about the difference between a virus and a Pandemic as the difference between a Great Recession, Massive Jobs Destruction and Skyrocketing Unemployment Rates and a mild recession artificially induced by the Fed in order to cool down an overheated economy, more jobs created in 2 1/2 years than in any other President's 4 year term and an unemployment rate still well into Full Employment below 4%.
You might want to steer clear of any career in finance or science.
You don't have a clue do you? How do you continue making up this shit?LOL. That "shit" was your position and what you were arguing for. Did you read your own post? You know, the one I quoted and merely reiterated as ordinary assertions?
ChuchoLoco
06-06-23, 02:15
The Wall Street Journal had a good article on this today, about Toyota and EV's.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-toyota-for-its-electric-vehicle-heresy-akio-toyoda-hybrids-ev-climate-change-b5f67d6c?mod=opinion_major_pos1
Here's an excerpt.
A Toyota memo to auto dealers in April explained the challenges to full electrification. For instance, "most public chargers can take anywhere from 8-30 hours to charge. To meet the federal (zero-emissions vehicle) sales targets, 1. 2 M public chargers are needed by 2030. That amounts to approximately 400 new chargers per day. " The USA Isn't close to meeting that goal.
Toyota also noted that "more than 300 new lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite mines are needed to meet the expected battery demand by 2035," and they could take decades to develop. The amount of raw materials in one long-range battery electric vehicle could instead be used to make 6 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or 90 hybrid electric vehicles.
And heres an even more striking statistic: The overall carbon reduction of those 90 hybrids over their lifetimes is 37 times as much as a single battery electric vehicle. These inconvenient truths undermine the climate religion and government mandates.
End of excerpt
Volvo did a study where they looked at the number of months you'd need to drive one of their EV models for the carbon footprint of the EV not to exceed the carbon footprint of a conventional internal combustion auto. It was about 70 months, assuming you don't have to replace the batteries. Replace the batteries and it's longer than 70 months.
Anyway, I think Toyota is saying their hybrids have a smaller carbon footprint than the EV's! This would depend a lot of the source of the power used to charge the EV's though. If it's hydropower in Washington state, the EV's footprint would be a lot lower than if it's coal in West Virginia for example.
It sounds like the greenies are promoting policies that will actually increase carbon emissions, by insisting on EV's over hybrids!
Where have we seen this before? Well, I'd point out Biden's proposal to boost the maximum capital gains tax to 40.8%. That would be in a state with no income tax. In California you'd be looking at 54.1%. The Congressional Budget Office has traditionally assumed 28% is the revenue-maximizing capital gains rate. You raise the rate too high and people just don't sell assets, so they don't have to pay the tax. So you end up raising less revenues for the government with the higher tax!
This is all part of the Progressive Democrats "cut off your nose to spite your face" master plan.Lithium extraction and everything involved with making batteries is only one thing wrong with this fantasy of electric cars. How can people be so fooled and stupid not to realize. But please remember, it's now the the's who are stupid but Reagan and Bush overturned Jimmy's order of having all vehicles get 40 mpg by I forget what year but it is well in the past now. Had we spent the time, brain power and money to comply we wouldn't need electric vehicles or even consider them today. They are ALL FOOLS. And we would not need to drill in the Gulf of Mexico or have the pipeline or need to fight wars for oil. Nobody paid attention to Joey giving away the leases to drill in the Gulf. If anyone was a Seinfeld fan, he reminds me of the role that Loyd Bridges played as the grandfather who still thought he was a tough guy.
No place to run or hide from the madness of both parties.
I laugh when I even think about the charging aspect. Had an argument with a guy here a while ago and he thought that some new short time charging would be invented. How's that for a fairy tale? Charge a car as fast as you can pump gas. It too funny. Maybe the Easter Bunny will come up with something.
All I know is that I pay gains on my portfolio even though its value has gone down! Why are there no working people in Congress? They are all lawyersor millionaires or both. They don't have a clue about reality.
Ahhhh, the West. Where men are men. And the sheep are scared.I had several friends move to Wyoming to get out of this devastated state. No state income tax and they can start taking their huge gains from the Trump presidency and screw California out of the tax. Seems to be the pattern for about 200,000 people who left California the last couple of years to live In Republican states. Less taxes. Less crime. Less wokeness. It seems like the smart thing to do.
The Wall Street Journal had a good article on this today, about Toyota and EV's.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/targeting-toyota-for-its-electric-vehicle-heresy-akio-toyoda-hybrids-ev-climate-change-b5f67d6c?mod=opinion_major_pos1
Here's an excerpt.
A Toyota memo to auto dealers in April explained the challenges to full electrification. For instance, "most public chargers can take anywhere from 8-30 hours to charge. To meet the federal (zero-emissions vehicle) sales targets, 1. 2 M public chargers are needed by 2030. That amounts to approximately 400 new chargers per day. " The USA Isn't close to meeting that goal.
Toyota also noted that "more than 300 new lithium, cobalt, nickel and graphite mines are needed to meet the expected battery demand by 2035," and they could take decades to develop. The amount of raw materials in one long-range battery electric vehicle could instead be used to make 6 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or 90 hybrid electric vehicles.
And heres an even more striking statistic: The overall carbon reduction of those 90 hybrids over their lifetimes is 37 times as much as a single battery electric vehicle. These inconvenient truths undermine the climate religion and government mandates.
End of excerpt
Volvo did a study where they looked at the number of months you'd need to drive one of their EV models for the carbon footprint of the EV not to exceed the carbon footprint of a conventional internal combustion auto. It was about 70 months, assuming you don't have to replace the batteries. Replace the batteries and it's longer than 70 months.
Anyway, I think Toyota is saying their hybrids have a smaller carbon footprint than the EV's! This would depend a lot of the source of the power used to charge the EV's though. If it's hydropower in Washington state, the EV's footprint would be a lot lower than if it's coal in West Virginia for example.
It sounds like the greenies are promoting policies that will actually increase carbon emissions, by insisting on EV's over hybrids!
Where have we seen this before? Well, I'd point out Biden's proposal to boost the maximum capital gains tax to 40.8%. That would be in a state with no income tax. In California you'd be looking at 54.1%. The Congressional Budget Office has traditionally assumed 28% is the revenue-maximizing capital gains rate. You raise the rate too high and people just don't sell assets, so they don't have to pay the tax. So you end up raising less revenues for the government with the higher tax!
This is all part of the Progressive Democrats "cut off your nose to spite your face" master plan.The carbon footprint to make one lithium battery for Tesla is 10 times more than what a SUV would produce in its lifetime. Really green!
No place to run or hide from the madness of both parties.
That's the reality of voters continuining to maintain the status quo by voting along traditional 2 party lines.
The People's Party:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgZtspUIxk4
You know it makes sense.
I had several friends move to Wyoming to get out of this devastated state. No state income tax and they can start taking their huge gains from the Trump presidency and screw California out of the tax. Seems to be the pattern for about 200,000 people who left California the last couple of years to live In Republican states. Less taxes. Less crime. Less wokeness. It seems like the smart thing to do.They must have been heavily invested in Pfizer, Moderna, payday loan shops, gun manufacturers and liquor sales.
All indications are the virus originated in China, very likely in the labs from which Trump defunded and removed all of the monitors whose actual job it was to alert the responsible authorities to such earliest emerging cases in order to prevent, say it with me, a Pandemic..
Trump did that contrary to all expert warnings not to do something so stupid and dangerous because his doing so was laying the basic groundwork for allowing, say it with me, a Pandemic to develop.
Trump did that at least 5 months before those first cases emerged in China when even he knew that a mere 2-3 month heads up about that would have been plenty of time to have avoided "all these problems", otherwise known as, say it with me, a Pandemic..
It seems you know about as much about the difference between a virus and a Pandemic as the difference between a Great Recession, Massive Jobs Destruction and Skyrocketing Unemployment Rates and a mild recession artificially induced by the Fed in order to cool down an overheated economy, more jobs created in 2 1/2 years than in any other President's 4 year term and an unemployment rate still well into Full Employment below 4%.
You might want to steer clear of any career in finance or science.I feel sorry for you. You were so blinded by your hate for Trump that you did not take advantage of the economic boom of his presidency. The smart people all bought into Trump economy and made millions. You on the other hand falsely ran it down and made nothing. Now the people that made millions are just making money on dividends and interest as Biden recession has stagnated the markets. You can preach all day how bad Trump economy was while we spend our millions. Good for you!
They must have been heavily invested in Pfizer, Moderna, payday loan shops, gun manufacturers and liquor sales.Every sector in the markets boomed under Trump presidency. Yes we were dumb enough to believe in Trump economy and made millions. You on the other hand were smarter than most and stayed out of the Trump booming markets. And you made nothing.
History proves that when the economy is bad or in a recession the market is stagnant. When the economy is booming like it was pre pandemic under Trump presidency it soars. Dow was at 19,804. 72 when Trump took office and was over 30,000 when he left office for over a 50% gain in 4 years. Quite an achievement with China trying to kill our economy by starting the virus. Trump policies actually drove the market to 36,000 3 months after his presidency ended before Biden executive orders took effect and killed the economy. Which is doubling in 4 years. Biden on the other hand in 2 1/2 years has managed to drive the markets down 10% and creating highest inflation ever and putting millions into poverty. I am in the financial wealth planning and I talk to investors daily. Obviously you are not a savvy investor or you would gladly go back to Trump economy. And yes Wall Street is always spooked by what the feds do and Biden's historical inflation is causing the feds to do radical things. If you remember under Trump president inflation was under control and feds lowered rates. Like it or not corporations and Americans did better under the Trump presidency. Now they are just trying to hold on until we are done with the worst presidency in the history of the USA.While financial media and some pundits like to cite the Dow because with just 30 stocks in that Index there is always some showbiz dramatic volatility to sweat over and report, savy investors know Wall Srreet's go-to Index to measure the condition of the broad USA Stock Market is the S&P 500 Index. It is simply a far more accurate and representative measure of the broad USA Stock Market.
Actually, it has always been a mystery to me why pro Trump wingers who claim to know something about the stock market even bother to cite starting points, ending points and that the numbers in the Dow show, glory of glory, during Trump's tenure as so-called president the Dow produced "over a 50% gain in four years"!
Really?
Guys, let me help you out with a tremendous favor for your cherry-picked Repub Trump talking point that you have been missing all this time: during Trump's so-called presidency, Wall Street's much preferred measure, the S&P 500 Index gained almost 70%! LOL. Yep. It has always been right there under your supposedly savy investor noses. LOL.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/
Now, bear in mind a few Fun Facts about that and others' records.
1. The reason the USA Stock Market did that well under Trump while even his pre Trump's Pandemic jobs creation and GDP growth were crap relative to the Trillions he charged American tax payers to get there is because his one and only economic / tax legislation did not produce notable jobs creation or economic expansion results. No, as expected and predicted by the Dems who did not vote for it, that money was spent buying back company stocks and skyrocketing corporate and CEO pay:
Did Trumps tax cuts boost hiring? Most companies say no
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no
Instead companies put much of the money toward stock buybacks rather than investments. Buybacks hit a record $1 trillion in 2018, a nearly 50 percent increase from the year before.So, sorry farmers, the welfare checks Trump sent you was pretty much all of it for you. And sorry, job hunters, Trump's one and only legislative accomplishment was about flooding the stock market with hot windfall profits, not creating jobs.
Oh well.
Back to more S&P 500 Index Fun Facts:
2. The average annual gain in the USA Stock Market as measured by Wall Street's go-to preferred Index, see historical data table link above, for the most recent presidential tenures is:
GHW Bush, +13%.
Bill Clinton, +26.25%.
GW Bush, -10%.
Barack Obama, +22.75%.
Donald Trump, +17.3%.
3. As of this writing, the gain during Joe Biden's tenure at a bit less than 2 1/2 years in office is about +11%.
However, that is in the midst of all the lingering horrific worldwide economic, supply-chain and inflation fallout from Trump's policy of defunding and removing the Pandemic Prevention and Response Teams from known bad actor in these matters China at the worst possible time and then spending a critical year lying and doing everything a so-called world leader could do to create and develop a devastating Pandemic.
4. To further put the above number into perspective, after just a bit less than 2 years in office, on December 24,2018, Trump's gain in that Index was only 3. 5%. Yep, after almost 2 full years in office and with none of the Trump's Pandemic historically damaging headwinds working against him.
And that was a full year after his one and only economic / tax policy legislation was signed and passed.
They must have been heavily invested in Pfizer, Moderna...Thank goodness for Operation Warp Speed! And for President Trump ramming the vaccines through the FDA in record time!
Hundreds of thousands of lives were being saved in the USA with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, while you were still waiting for a puny ass SinoVac shot in Thailand.
Thank goodness for Operation Warp Speed! And for President Trump ramming the vaccines through the FDA in record time!
Hundreds of thousands of lives were being saved in the USA with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, while you were still waiting for a puny ass SinoVac shot in Thailand.If only Trump had not defunded and removed all the agents whose very job it was to monitor and report the earliest cases to responsible parties who could then close off and quarantine just the area in China where it was still only an epidemic at most and not a Pandemic.
That one Flatten The Curve move would have slowed down further spread of the virus outside of that area and given the medical authorities months of a head start to implement Obama's Rapid Vaccine program in order to sensibly and by the book create, test, distribute and administer vaccines in America and everywhere else in the world so that by the time it ultimately and inevitably did arrive in America and other countries, virtually no deaths, no overwhelming hospitalizations, no closures, no supply-chain collapses, no massive jobs destruction and no worldwide economic devastation would have happened anywhere at all in the first place other than that particular area of China.
Wouldn't that have been a far better outcome? Yes, the Obama Administration certainly thought so. That's why they set up that Rapid Vaccine program and produced the Pandemic Response protocol manual that they gave and tried to explain to Trump but all evidence is nobody in the Trump administration bothered to read it.
Obama team left pandemic playbook for Trump administration, officials confirm.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-team-left-pandemic-playbook-for-trump-administration-officials-confirm
How Trump Gutted Obamas Pandemic-Preparedness Systems.
Former officials: Trumps reshuffling of positions and departments, focus on business solutions, downgrading of science, left the country dangerously unprepared for an unprecedented pandemic.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/trump-obama-coronavirus-pandemic-response
A andemic plan was in place. Trump abandoned it and science in the face of Covid-19.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/17/the-art-of-the-pandemic-how-donald-trump-walked-the-u-s-into-the-covid-19-era/
'They didn't run the plays': Ex-officials say Trump administration didn't use pandemic 'playbooks'.
Trump criticized a "system we inherited," but ex-officials say plans existed.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/run-plays-officials-trump-administration-pandemic-playbooks/story?id=71999769
Oh, my free shots here were 2 Astra-Zenicas. I did pay about $100 USD for a couple of Moderna shots paced out perfectly and recently got a free Moderna booster shot.
Thank goodness for Operation Warp Speed! And for President Trump ramming the vaccines through the FDA in record time!
Hundreds of thousands of lives were being saved in the USA with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, while you were still waiting for a puny ass SinoVac shot in Thailand.In reality, hundreds of thousands of "blue lives" in the USA were saved with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Repubs were dying by the boatload while taking ivermectin, drinking bleach martinis and / or inserting lightbulbs up their rectums.
While financial media and some pundits like to cite the Dow because with just 30 stocks in that Index there is always some showbiz dramatic volatility to sweat over and report, savy investors know Wall Srreet's go-to Index to measure the condition of the broad USA Stock Market is the S&P 500 Index. It is simply a far more accurate and representative measure of the broad USA Stock Market.
Actually, it has always been a mystery to me why pro Trump wingers who claim to know something about the stock market even bother to cite starting points, ending points and that the numbers in the Dow show, glory of glory, during Trump's tenure as so-called president the Dow produced "over a 50% gain in four years"!
Really?
Guys, let me help you out with a tremendous favor for your cherry-picked Repub Trump talking point that you have been missing all this time: during Trump's so-called presidency, Wall Street's much preferred measure, the S&P 500 Index gained almost 70%! LOL. Yep. It has always been right there under your supposedly savy investor noses. LOL.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/
Now, bear in mind a few Fun Facts about that and others' records.
1. The reason the USA Stock Market did that well under Trump while even his pre Trump's Pandemic jobs creation and GDP growth were crap relative to the Trillions he charged American tax payers to get there is because his one and only economic / tax legislation did not produce notable jobs creation or economic expansion results. No, as expected and predicted by the Dems who did not vote for it, that money was spent buying back company stocks and skyrocketing corporate and CEO pay:
Did Trumps tax cuts boost hiring? Most companies say no
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no
So, sorry farmers, the welfare checks Trump sent you was pretty much all of it for you. And sorry, job hunters, Trump's one and only legislative accomplishment was about flooding the stock market with hot windfall profits, not creating jobs.
Oh well.
Back to more S&P 500 Index Fun Facts:
2. The average annual gain in the USA Stock Market as measured by Wall Street's go-to preferred Index, see historical data table link above, for the most recent presidential tenures is:
GHW Bush, +13%.
Bill Clinton, +26.25%.
GW Bush, -10%.
Barack Obama, +22.75%.
Donald Trump, +17.3%.
3. As of this writing, the gain during Joe Biden's tenure at a bit less than 2 1/2 years in office is about +11%.
However, that is in the midst of all the lingering horrific worldwide economic, supply-chain and inflation fallout from Trump's policy of defunding and removing the Pandemic Prevention and Response Teams from known bad actor in these matters China at the worst possible time and then spending a critical year lying and doing everything a so-called world leader could do to create and develop a devastating Pandemic.
4. To further put the above number into perspective, after just a bit less than 2 years in office, on December 24,2018, Trump's gain in that Index was only 3. 5%. Yep, after almost 2 full years in office and with none of the Trump's Pandemic historically damaging headwinds working against him.
And that was a full year after his one and only economic / tax policy legislation was signed and passed.That's mostly coincidental. Trying to tie stock market performance, like GDP growth, to the party of the president doesn't make sense.
I will concede that the invasion of Iraq spearheaded by George W. Bush wasn't good in the long run for our economy or stock markets.
The numbers in your table are wrong. Here are the per annum gains in the S&P 500 Index during each presidency. Bush was handicapped by a recession that he had little to do with. Trump similarly was hurt by a pandemic that he could not have prevented, contrary to your belief. And Obama was helped by taking the reins at the bottom of a recession.
GHW Bush, 11%/ year.
Bill Clinton, 15%/ year.
GW Bush, -6%/ year.
Barack Obama, 14%/ year.
Donald Trump, 14%/ year.
Donald Trump, +17.3%.
You should be kissing the ground that Trump walks on, because of the Republican's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Lowering the average state + federal corporate tax rate from 41% to 27% increases after tax earnings by 24%. If you assume the earnings (P / E) multiple stocks are valued at remains the same, then your mutual funds are worth 24% more.
BTW, in 2022, with the lower rates, government receipts from the corporate income tax were the third highest in history.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FCTAX
Donald Trump, 14%/ year.
Donald Trump, +17.3%.Sorry, 14%/ year is the correct per annum growth growth rate in the S&P 500 during Trump's term. Not to say that means anything. Correlations between the party of the president and S&P 500 performance are mostly spurious.
In reality, hundreds of thousands of "blue lives" in the USA were saved with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Repubs were dying by the boatload while taking ivermectin, drinking bleach martinis and / or inserting lightbulbs up their rectums.Yes, hundreds of thousands of blue lives were saved! Well PVMonger, like I said, Trump is the Democrat's best friend. Just look at the Republicans' performance in the 2018,2020 and 2022 elections. Trump almost singlehandedly caused Republicans to lose the Senate in 2020 and 2022.
Oh, my free shots here were 2 Astra-Zenicas. I did pay about $100 USD for a couple of Moderna shots paced out perfectly and recently got a free Moderna booster shot.Astra Zeneca was a lot less effective and more likely to cause serious side effects than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
Believe it or not Tooms, I like you, in a cyber kind of way. One piece of advice. You may wish to consult with your physician and take a look at CDC guidelines before you get additional boosters. They make or may not make sense based on your age and pre-existing conditions. There are three papers out recently that indicate boosters may actually increase the probability a person will be infected with COVID. I tend to believe they do still offer good protection against severe disease caused by the latest Omicron variants. But if COVID's largely under control, like it is now, it may not make sense to get additional bivalent boosters. I believe the CDC's recommendation though is to go ahead and get the first bivalent booster if you haven't already gotten it. If you got the Moderna vaccine in the USA in the last 7 or 8 months, it would be bivalent (effective against Omicron). I'm not sure about Thailand. Here's a summary of what's going on.
https://www.icpcovid.com/en/news/7-may-2023-episode-332-critical-evaluation-covid-vaccine-effectiveness-during-successive
That's mostly coincidental. Trying to tie stock market performance, like GDP growth, to the party of the president doesn't make sense.
I will concede that the invasion of Iraq spearheaded by George W. Bush wasn't good in the long run for our economy or stock markets.
The numbers in your table are wrong. Here are the per annum gains in the S&P 500 Index during each presidency. Bush was handicapped by a recession that he had little to do with. Trump similarly was hurt by a pandemic that he could not have prevented, contrary to your belief. And Obama was helped by taking the reins at the bottom of a recession.You're going to have to show me where the starting point and ending point in the S&P 500 for each president cited, January 20 the year they took office, January 19 as I recall for Obama, to January 20 the year the next president took office for the total gain during their tenure, then divided by the number of years each was in office for the Average Annual Gain, is wrong while yours is right.
And based on what source?
Here is my source:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/
GHW Bush, 286 to 433 = 52% gain, divided by 4 = 13%.
Bill Clinton, 433 to 1342 = 210% gain, divided by 8 = 26.25%.
GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain", divided by 8 = -10%.
Barack Obama, 805 to 2271 = 182% gain, divided by 8 = 22.75%.
Donald Trump, 2271 to 3851 = 69.5% gain, divided by 4 = 17.3%.
Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.
Sure, it is always possible that I misread or mistyped a number here and there. So where did I get it "wrong" and where did you get different numbers?
Oh, of course, GW Bush's stewardship had nothing to do with his Great Repub Recession despite his strict instructions to his Office of Thrift Supervision to really get in there to dig up any and all Liar Loans being floated and make sure all those Repub-beloved Banking Regulations are followed to the letter.
And Trump's Pandemic just "came along" under Trump despite his tireless efforts to make sure any and all early coronavirus infection cases were identified and reported ASAP so, you know, we could get that 2-3 month jump on the forcefully endorsed mitigation efforts and prevent such a devastating Pandemic from taking shape.
Yeah. Yeah. That's the ticket. As everyone knows, those poor poor Repubs are just magically and mystically unlucky.
While financial media and some pundits like to cite the Dow because with just 30 stocks in that Index there is always some showbiz dramatic volatility to sweat over and report, savy investors know Wall Srreet's go-to Index to measure the condition of the broad USA Stock Market is the S&P 500 Index. It is simply a far more accurate and representative measure of the broad USA Stock Market.
Actually, it has always been a mystery to me why pro Trump wingers who claim to know something about the stock market even bother to cite starting points, ending points and that the numbers in the Dow show, glory of glory, during Trump's tenure as so-called president the Dow produced "over a 50% gain in four years"!
Really?
Guys, let me help you out with a tremendous favor for your cherry-picked Repub Trump talking point that you have been missing all this time: during Trump's so-called presidency, Wall Street's much preferred measure, the S&P 500 Index gained almost 70%! LOL. Yep. It has always been right there under your supposedly savy investor noses. LOL.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/
Now, bear in mind a few Fun Facts about that and others' records.
1. The reason the USA Stock Market did that well under Trump while even his pre Trump's Pandemic jobs creation and GDP growth were crap relative to the Trillions he charged American tax payers to get there is because his one and only economic / tax legislation did not produce notable jobs creation or economic expansion results. No, as expected and predicted by the Dems who did not vote for it, that money was spent buying back company stocks and skyrocketing corporate and CEO pay:
Did Trumps tax cuts boost hiring? Most companies say no
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/did-trumps-tax-cuts-boost-hiring-most-companies-say-no
So, sorry farmers, the welfare checks Trump sent you was pretty much all of it for you. And sorry, job hunters, Trump's one and only legislative accomplishment was about flooding the stock market with hot windfall profits, not creating jobs.
Oh well.
Back to more S&P 500 Index Fun Facts:
2. The average annual gain in the USA Stock Market as measured by Wall Street's go-to preferred Index, see historical data table link above, for the most recent presidential tenures is:
GHW Bush, +13%.
Bill Clinton, +26.25%.
GW Bush, -10%.
Barack Obama, +22.75%.
Donald Trump, +17.3%.
3. As of this writing, the gain during Joe Biden's tenure at a bit less than 2 1/2 years in office is about +11%.
However, that is in the midst of all the lingering horrific worldwide economic, supply-chain and inflation fallout from Trump's policy of defunding and removing the Pandemic Prevention and Response Teams from known bad actor in these matters China at the worst possible time and then spending a critical year lying and doing everything a so-called world leader could do to create and develop a devastating Pandemic.
4. To further put the above number into perspective, after just a bit less than 2 years in office, on December 24,2018, Trump's gain in that Index was only 3. 5%. Yep, after almost 2 full years in office and with none of the Trump's Pandemic historically damaging headwinds working against him.
And that was a full year after his one and only economic / tax policy legislation was signed and passed.Here is another Fun Fact about the S&P 500 Index:
5. It ought to be mentioned at least in passing that the S&P 500 Index gained a whopping 14.3%, almost as much as a year of Trump's Average Annual Gain in the broad USA Stock Market just in those 2 months and 3 weeks from election day, November 3, 2020 to Biden's inauguration day on January 20,2021 in one of the greatest post-election Relief Rallies in history on the defeat of Trump and thwarting his bid for "Four More Years"!
Which makes total sense. Wall Street knew very well the hot money windfall profits for CEO and corporate stock buybacks, to skyrocket CEO pay and not do much at all to create jobs or expand the economy, as provided in Trump's one and only economic / tax policy legislation, had pretty much shot its wad by 2020 anyway.
And now it was time for a Dem to do all the right things in the right way at the right time to clean up the colossal mess of the economy produced by classic horrific economic stewardship. As usual. They were justifiably thrilled to buy buy buy as soon as it was obvious Trump's shit storm of a so-called presidency was mercifully out and a responsible adult Dem was in.
Astra Zeneca was a lot less effective and more likely to cause serious side effects than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.
Believe it or not Tooms, I like you, in a cyber kind of way. One piece of advice. You may wish to consult with your physician and take a look at CDC guidelines before you get additional boosters. They make or may not make sense based on your age and pre-existing conditions. There are three papers out recently that indicate boosters may actually increase the probability a person will be infected with COVID. I tend to believe they do still offer good protection against severe disease caused by the latest Omicron variants. But if COVID's largely under control, like it is now, it may not make sense to get additional bivalent boosters. I believe the CDC's recommendation though is to go ahead and get the first bivalent booster if you haven't already gotten it. If you got the Moderna vaccine in the USA in the last 7 or 8 months, it would be bivalent (effective against Omicron). I'm not sure about Thailand. Here's a summary of what's going on.
https://www.icpcovid.com/en/news/7-may-2023-episode-332-critical-evaluation-covid-vaccine-effectiveness-during-successiveThanks for your concern but I had zero negative reaction to any of the shots I've taken. I took the Astra-Zenicas because they were the first acceptable ones imo available here. Then I took the Modernas when they were available here because I had already pre-paid for them before I got the call from one of the best hospitals here to come on in for the free Astra-Zenica shots.
I did get the recent Moderna shot more than a year after my previous shots only because it was adapted for the lastest known variants and would not have bothered to get it otherwise.
Every sector in the markets boomed under Trump presidency. Yes we were dumb enough to believe in Trump economy and made millions. You on the other hand were smarter than most and stayed out of the Trump booming markets. And you made nothing.I was fully invested in the stock market all through the Trump years; 80-90% of my equity holdings in a very low cost, beautifully diversified Total Stock Market Index Fund and 10-20% in a very low cost Global Equity Fund.
Dollar for dollar I made far less money in the stock market under GW Bush and Trump than under Clinton and Obama, as the historical data and prices table for that broad market measure shows for all to see.
Except for one thing; I accurately identified the top of the market for one of GW Bush's Bear Market Crashes, acted on it to get out of the market and into a safe haven Money Market Fund for the duration of the decline. Then I accurately identified the exact day of the bottom in the market, acted on that to buy right back into it and made a shitload on those two near perfectly timed sell and buy moves.
As the historical data shows, anyone who simply had money in the broad market without making sharp moves in and out at opportune times since at least the late 1980's or so would have done poorly under the Repub presidents relative to doing very well under the Dem presidents.
I would say that is probably true going all the way back 100 years or so. But I have not put pen to paper on it going back 100 years to give exact numbers on it.
And, yeah, I include Biden in that assessment. Had a Repub been in office since 2021, all historic precedence and evidence is he / she would have proposed and done just about everything imaginable wrong to have turned Trump's Bear Market decline into a deep and prolonged market and economic Crash we would still be struggling to recover from with little or no light on the horizon.
LOL. Just imagine how fucked up the Trump's Pandemic vaccine distribution and administration would have been if Trump or any other Repub had been presiding over it since January 2021. Lolol.
You're going to have to show me where the starting point and ending point in the S&P 500 for each president cited, January 20 the year they took office, January 19 as I recall for Obama, to January 20 the year the next president took office for the total gain during their tenure, then divided by the number of years each was in office for the Average Annual Gain, is wrong while yours is right.
And based on what source?
Here is my source:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/
GHW Bush, 286 to 433 = 52% gain, divided by 4 = 13%.
Bill Clinton, 433 to 1342 = 210% gain, divided by 8 = 26.25%.
GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain", divided by 8 = -10%.
Barack Obama, 805 to 2271 = 182% gain, divided by 8 = 22.75%.
Donald Trump, 2271 to 3851 = 69.5% gain, divided by 4 = 17.3%.
Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.
Sure, it is always possible that I misread or mistyped a number here and there. So where did I get it "wrong" and where did you get different numbers?
Damn it Tooms, after fellow board members read this exchange, they're going to think neither one of us has a life. Or at least that's what they'll think about me. Your "real world" life is amply illustrated in the Bangkok threads.
We're actually using exactly the same numbers except for the number at the end of the Trump administration. I was using 3841.
Here's the formula for per annum growth,
Per annum growth = (e ^ ((ln(Pf)-ln(Pi))/t)-1
where e = exponential constant = 2.718
^ = "raised to the power of"
ln = natural logarithm
Pf = S&P price at end of period
Pi = S&P price at beginning of period
t = time in years between beginning and end
Unless you do this calculation all the time like I do, it may take some time to calculate or set up in a spreadsheet. But the per annum rates are easy to check. Take George H. W. Bush as an example. The index grew from 286 to 433. I calculated 11% per year:
286 x 1.11 x 1.11 x 1.11 x 1.11 = 434
That is, at 11% per annum growth, the index would be 286 x 1.11 = 317.5 at the end of year 1. Then at 317.5 x 1.11 = 352.43 at the end of year 2, etc.
Oh, of course, GW Bush's stewardship had nothing to do with his Great Repub Recession despite his strict instructions to his Office of Thrift Supervision to really get in there to dig up any and all Liar Loans being floated and make sure all those Repub-beloved Banking Regulations are followed to the letter.
Why is Bush any more responsible for the 2008 recession, and consequent fall in the S&P 500, than Bill Clinton or Barney Frank? Yeah, if Bush and his Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and regulators they appointed were omniscient, maybe a recession would have been avoided. But it's unlikely Democrats would have done better. Most of the blame should go to the banks and other financial institutions, and people who thought they could buy $500,000 houses with $50,000 annual income and no money down. And the Fed which probably should have more aggressively cut rates early on. But Bush was a bit player.
And Trump's Pandemic just "came along" under Trump despite his tireless efforts to make sure any and all early coronavirus infection cases were identified and reported ASAP so, you know, we could get that 2-3 month jump on the forcefully endorsed mitigation efforts and prevent such a devastating Pandemic from taking shape.
I believe, as you know, that is pretty wild. Trump could not have prevented a pandemic.
Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.The correct percentage for Biden is 4.6%/year BTW, using your beginning and end numbers. I can see why Cali Guy is not impressed.
Here is another Fun Fact about the S&P 500 Index:
5. It ought to be mentioned at least in passing that the S&P 500 Index gained a whopping 14.3%, almost as much as a year of Trump's Average Annual Gain in the broad USA Stock Market just in those 2 months and 3 weeks from election day, November 3, 2020 to Biden's inauguration day on January 20,2021 in one of the greatest post-election Relief Rallies in history on the defeat of Trump and thwarting his bid for "Four More Years"!
Which makes total sense. Wall Street knew very well the hot money windfall profits for CEO and corporate stock buybacks, to skyrocket CEO pay and not do much at all to create jobs or expand the economy, as provided in Trump's one and only economic / tax policy legislation, had pretty much shot its wad by 2020 anyway.
And now it was time for a Dem to do all the right things in the right way at the right time to clean up the colossal mess of the economy produced by classic horrific economic stewardship. As usual. They were justifiably thrilled to buy buy buy as soon as it was obvious Trump's shit storm of a so-called presidency was mercifully out and a responsible adult Dem was in.That's not the way you should look at it. The results of the election were known late on November 3. The change from November 3 to November 4 was 2.2%. That's a very good one day move. It wouldn't surprise me if part of that was indeed due to a seemingly clear Biden victory. (Little did we know).
As to performance between the election and the inauguration, I'd chalk it up to good economic numbers. GDP was growing at a healthy clip and inflation was subdued. That's an ideal situation as far as the market is concerned. It correlates with higher corporate earnings and low interest rates. Of course, Biden and the Democrats screwed that up, the inflation part, with the stimulus provided in the American Rescue Plan in March, 2021.
Thanks for your concern but I had zero negative reaction to any of the shots I've taken. I took the Astra-Zenicas because they were the first acceptable ones imo available here. Then I took the Modernas when they were available here because I had already pre-paid for them before I got the call from one of the best hospitals here to come on in for the free Astra-Zenica shots.
I did get the recent Moderna shot more than a year after my previous shots only because it was adapted for the lastest known variants and would not have bothered to get it otherwise.Good deal, it sounds like you're right on schedule with what the CDC would recommend. I got the bivalent booster back in October and might be looking at getting another about now if not for what I've been reading.
Damn it Tooms, after fellow board members read this exchange, they're going to think neither one of us has a life. Or at least that's what they'll think about me. Your "real world" life is amply illustrated in the Bangkok threads.
We're actually using exactly the same numbers except for the number at the end of the Trump administration. I was using 3841.
Here's the formula for per annum growth,.I wasn't talking about or citing "Per Annum Growth."
I was talking about and citing Average Annual Gain for their time in office since two of the Repubs in question were only in office for four years and not eight.
Your Per Annum Growth calculations might have mattered to someone who put a dollar in an S&P 500 Index Fund on January 20,1989 and neither added to it nor subtracted from it until today. If you know of such a person.
But even that would not have changed the overall gains in the Index per each presidential tenure, would it? You can play with bizarro world math and views of it all you want after that.
What about adjusting for inflation in each and every month since January 20,1989 for that originally invested dollar? That ought to keep you busy for a while. Who knows, maybe GW Bush will come out as the All Time Champion Stock Market Gainer if you did that!
That's not the way you should look at it. The results of the election were known late on November 3. The change from November 3 to November 4 was 2.2%. That's a very good one day move. It wouldn't surprise me if part of that was indeed due to a seemingly clear Biden victory. (Little did we know).
As to performance between the election and the inauguration, I'd chalk it up to good economic numbers. GDP was growing at a healthy clip and inflation was subdued. That's an ideal situation as far as the market is concerned. It correlates with higher corporate earnings and low interest rates. Of course, Biden and the Democrats screwed that up, the inflation part, with the stimulus provided in the American Rescue Plan in March, 2021.Oh really? What about investors who were busy in January 2021, forgot all about the date of the inauguration and didn't happen to make any buying or selling until the day after? Or made their move the day before so they could watch every minute of it on TV without phoning their broker?
That one day either way might screw up your entire calculation and could very well move W to the top of the Stock Market Championships and sink Bill Clinton to the bottom.
BTW, why limit your calculations to "Per Annum" Growth when you might get a whole new set of conclusions with a "Per Administration" Growth calculation?
We can see you are itching to penalize the far superior gains by Obama and likely other Dems for taking over from Repubs during typical deep Repub declines and elevating the results for Repubs since they never take over from Dems in the midst of economic disaster as though there is some non math-related Law of Anti Gravity for the stock market that it must zoom back up nicely and regularly within weeks or months after it hits an unknowable bottom no matter who is in the White House proposing and enacting their recovery plans. Nevermind the Herbert Hoover lesson on that, of course.
So why not apply your formulas to factor in Growth from full presidential administration to administration rather than merely from "Annum" to "Annum"?
Sorry, 14%/ year is the correct per annum growth growth rate in the S&P 500 during Trump's term. Not to say that means anything. Correlations between the party of the president and S&P 500 performance are mostly spurious.Me:
GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain", divided by 8 = -10%.I see I mistakenly divided W's total tenure "gain" of -40% by only 4 when he blessed us with 8 years of sterling classic Repub stewardship.
Therefore, his Average Annual "Gain" in the Index was -5%, not -10% as I had posted.
Still, that won't zoom him to the top of the Presidential Stock Market Gain Championships and plunge Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to the bottom unless someone comes up with a twisted pretzel formula to show how one kindly Repub investor meant and tried to buy $20 Trillion in stocks in the second week of January 2009 but fell asleep, didn't make that purchase and then forgot all about it later. So many sad and negative variables working against those poor unlucky Repub presidents.
Let's wait to see if some determined pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersider tries to pull that one off.
Dang Tooms, not only are you cherry picking time periods, you're also re-inventing mathematics and financial analysis. No financial analyst would quibble with my presentation of the numbers. Nor would anyone with a background in math sufficient to understand exponential growth and decline. They would have a problem with what you're doing, and find your calculation of the per year return during the Biden and George W Bush administrations, well... I'm searching for the right word and can't think of one that's not insulting. You’re turning even math into a partisan exercise.
Why would I be "itching to penalize the far superior gains by Obama and likely other Dems" when I believe a correlation between the party of the president and the S&P 500 is spurious?
Dang Tooms, not only are you cherry picking time periods, you're also re-inventing mathematics and financial analysis. No financial analyst would quibble with my presentation of the numbers. Nor would anyone with a background in math sufficient to understand exponential growth and decline. They would have a problem with what you're doing, and find your calculation of the per year return during the Biden and George W Bush administrations, well... I'm searching for the right word and can't think of one that's not insulting. Youre turning even math into a partisan exercise.
Why would I be "itching to penalize the far superior gains by Obama and likely other Dems" when I believe a correlation between the party of the president and the S&P 500 is spurious?Then you can't even agree that the gains per presidential tenure based on the January 19/20 starting and ending closes in the S&P 500 Index are as follows, right?
GHW Bush, 286 to 433 = 52% gain.
Bill Clinton, 433 to 1342 = 210% gain.
GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain".
Barack Obama, 805 to 2271 = 182% gain.
Donald Trump, 2271 to 3851 = 69.5% gain.
Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.And neither would any financial analyst or anyone with a background in math sufficient to understand exponential growth and decline because, after all, none of those starting numbers were determined relative to its exponential growth or decline from the prior year.
Oh, and the prior year's result also needs to be calculated based on its growth or decline relative to the year before that, right?
And on and on.
They would…find your calculation of the per year return during the Biden and George W Bush administrations, well... I'm searching for the right word and can't think of one that's not insulting. You’re turning even math into a partisan exercise.
To be clearer, you consciously or subconsciously made grade school math errors that favor Democrats.
To be clearer, you consciously or subconsciously made grade school math errors that favor Democrats.You mean like being the first one here to finally point out to the desperate Repub Trumpsters that they ought to abandon their love affair with the Dow and citing Trump's "over 50% gain" in that Index when the S&P 500 Index is far more accurate and representative of the broad stock market, preferred on Wall Street and, oh look, their boy's gains by that measure is dramatically better than in the Dow to boot?
Why didn't you point that out to them after all these years?
Ok. Here is a breakdown of the stock market performance results during every presidency going back to McKinley:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock-market-performed-under-president-220026422.html
Warning: the numbers are different from mine because they used the Dow as the measure instead of the S&P 500 Index and that is because the Dow is an Index that goes back that far. The S&P 500 Index does not.
Well, the financial folks at Yahoo! Finance must not know math any better than I do because they calculated each president's performance exactly the same way I did; by simply calculating the percent of gain or loss from the closing number on a president's first day in office until the last day in office with no regard whatsoever for how that first year "Grew exponentially" relative to the year before it, the one before that and so on. Just the raw closing numbers. I'm guessing every financial analysis site does it that way.
However, they do a disservice to the reader in that they don't provide a simple mention of what that stated gain or loss was on Average Per Year to achieve that overall gain or loss as I did. You know, to indicate at a glance how each president's performance result compared to the others on a per year basis.
Unfortunately, without that reasonable courtesy highlighted, the casual reader might be misled into concluding a president whose performance result was, say, 80% gain was a better steward of that aspect of the economy than one whose performance result was 60% even though the former was in office 8 years and the latter was in office only 2 years.
As a hypothetical example.
They should have made it more easily accessible for the casual reader to make that comparison without dividing by a president's years in office by breaking it down to the Average Annual Gain / Loss for them already, as I did.
Wouldn't you agree?
They should have made it more easily accessible for the casual reader to make that comparison without dividing by a president's years in office by breaking it down to the Average Annual Gain / Loss for them already, as I did.
Wouldn't you agree?No, of course not. If an S&P 500 Index fund or any other fund calculated per annum gains the way you do, the SEC would be on their ass in a flash. Joel Anderson, who wrote the article in Yahoo Finance, has an educational background in film. He's not necessarily better at math than you are. But he'd probably calculate annual returns the same way I do. And if he didn't, his editor would catch it and make him do it.
Here's an illustration. Say you have a closed end fund (or stock index) that had a value of 100 thirty years ago. It grows to have a value of 3100 today. What's the annual growth? The correct answer is 12.12%. That's a very respectable return. Here's what you get using your method:
(3100 - 100)/100 = 3000% gain, divided by 30 = 100% per year.
That's misleading. And in fact ridiculous. You invest $100,000 at 100% per year and you'd have 107 trillion dollars in 30 years.
GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain", divided by 8 = -10%...
Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.
To be clearer, you consciously or subconsciously made grade school math errors that favor Democrats.You picked up your mistake for Bush before I posted. I didn't know it, because your posts are moderated. So kudos for that.
Why didn't you divide the 11.2% gain, calculated using Tooms' Math, by the 2. 37 years which have elapsed since Biden became president? You're smart, you know better. The only thing I can figure is that your partisanship led you to consciously or unconsciously do that.
The combination of "Tooms' Math", the mistakes for Bush and Biden, and the fact that any correlation between the party of the President and S&P 500 returns should be spurious or close to it made it hard to take your earlier posts seriously.
No, of course not. If an S&P 500 Index fund or any other fund calculated per annum gains the way you do, the SEC would be on their ass in a flash. Joel Anderson, who wrote the article in Yahoo Finance, has an educational background in film. He's not necessarily better at math than you are. But he'd probably calculate annual returns the same way I do. And if he didn't, his editor would catch it and make him do it.
Here's an illustration. Say you have a closed end fund (or stock index) that had a value of 100 thirty years ago. It grows to have a value of 3100 today. What's the annual growth? The correct answer is 12.12%. That's a very respectable return. Here's what you get using your method:
(3100 - 100)/100 = 3000% gain, divided by 30 = 100% per year.
That's misleading. And in fact ridiculous. You invest $100,000 at 100% per year and you'd have 107 trillion dollars in 30 years.I wasn't citing the Per Annum Growth or Decline Rate. In fact, not even Annual Growth.
When a Dem president's economy creates, say, 10,000,000 jobs in 2 years while a Repub's economy had produced, say, 3,000,000 jobs in four years the general way most people on the planet and even financial analysts would see and state that is we are creating an Annual Average Gain of 5,000,000 jobs per year under the Dem. But I am sure you would be rankled that everyone is making grade school math errors apparently just to favor the Dem because we ought to be calculating those job gains on a Per Annum Growth or Decline Rate basis.
I don't see any financial analysts on any site getting fired for simply flat out dividing a total sum by a number of years, months or even weeks in order to make it easier for the casual reader to compare results from one president to another when the years, months or even weeks for each president are not the same.
You picked up your mistake for Bush before I posted. I didn't know it, because your posts are moderated. So kudos for that.
Why didn't you divide the 11.2% gain, calculated using Tooms' Math, by the 2. 37 years which have elapsed since Biden became president? You're smart, you know better. The only thing I can figure is that your partisanship led you to consciously or unconsciously do that.
The combination of "Tooms' Math", the mistakes for Bush and Biden, and the fact that any correlation between the party of the President and S&P 500 returns should be spurious or close to it made it hard to take your earlier posts seriously.Because I was not interested in dividing something so obviously small by 2. 37. LOL. That was no more necessary in order to compare the past few presidents' stock market performance than your "Per Annum Growth or Decline Rate" formula.
My god, Tiny, are you sure 2. 37 is the exact correct number to use for January 20,2021 to June 9 2023? I mean, precisely by the week, day and hour? What if it turns out to be closer to 2. 38!? And is that starting fairly at 12 Noon on January 20,2021? 2. 335? Or maybe you should have started counting on January 21,2021. Not to mention how far off your calculation would be if you factored in that the time for me in Thailand is 14 hours ahead of PST in USA! LOL.
Now, as long as you were so concerned about arriving at an absolute mathmatically exact Average Annual Gain for the 11.2% through as I recall Wednesday Thai time that I freely acknowledged for Biden, where is your absolutely exact Average Annual Gain calculation for the 3. 5% total gain that Trump logged in from 12 Noon on January 20,2017 to 4 pm EST in USA on December 24,2018? Too much Trump / Repub Partisanship to motivate you to do it? That is a conspicuous omission there, Tiny.
You know, the one that I also mentioned but did not feel a need to bother dividing by whatever the number would need to be in order to show Trump's Average Annual Gain by then. LOL. And that is even though I am betting that result is lower than Biden's was on either December 24,2022 or today.
I don't see any financial analysts on any site getting fired for simply flat out dividing a total sum by a number of years, months or even weeks in order to make it easier for the casual reader to compare results from one president to another when the years, months or even weeks for each president are not the same.No knowledgeable, honest person does that with stock indices Tooms, because it's deceitful. I have seen similar things done by promoters touting investment products. I'm not saying you're deceitful BTW, you just don't know any better. And if we got into an argument over real estate you'd undoubtedly kick my ass.
And no, you won't see any good financial analyst presenting "the average annual gain in the USA Stock Market" during presidential terms the way you did.
Because I was not interested in dividing something so obviously small by 2. 37. LOL. That was no more necessary in order to compare the past few presidents' stock market performance than your "Per Annum Growth or Decline Rate" formula.I'm really surprised you don't fess up. Again, you're smart, but apparently so blinded by partisanship that you actually believe that. You cherry picked the period, leaving off for example the Carter and Reagan presidencies. Then when the S&P 500 annual return during one of the Democratic President's terms was a measly mid single digit number, you conveniently decided to quote the total change over 2. 37 years, instead of the annual change. That makes "0" sense. And you should realize that.
My god, Tiny, are you sure 2. 37 is the exact correct number to use for January 20,2021 to June 9 2023? I mean, precisely by the week, day and hour? What if it turns out to be closer to 2. 38!? And is that starting fairly at 12 Noon on January 20,2021? 2. 335? Or maybe you should have started counting on January 21,2021. Not to mention how far off your calculation would be if you factored in that the time for me in Thailand is 14 hours ahead of PST in USA! LOL.
Now, as long as you were so concerned about arriving at an absolute mathmatically exact Average Annual Gain for the 11.2% through as I recall Wednesday Thai time that I freely acknowledged for Biden, where is your absolutely exact Average Annual Gain calculation for the 3. 5% total gain that Trump logged in from 12 Noon on January 20,2017 to 4 pm EST in USA on December 24,2018? Too much Trump / Repub Partisanship to motivate you to do it? That is a conspicuous omission there, Tiny.
You know, the one that I also mentioned but did not feel a need to bother dividing by whatever the number would need to be in order to show Trump's Average Annual Gain by then. LOL. And that is even though I am betting that result is lower than Biden's was on either December 24,2022 or today.My goodness Tooms, are you sure 11.2% is the exact correct number to use for January 20,2021 to June 9 2023? I mean, precisely by the week, day and hour? What if it turns out to be closer to 11.1? And is that starting fairly at 12 Noon on January 20,2021? 11.015? Or maybe you should have started counting on January 21,2021. Not to mention how far off your calculation would be if you factored in that the time for someone in Timbuktu at 7 hours before the time in God's Country aka Texas in the USA! LOL.
BTW, where is your absolutely exact Average Annual Gain calculation for the 23.4% total loss that Biden logged in from 12 Noon on January 1, 2022 to 4 pm EST in USA on June 16,2022. Too much Biden / Dem Partisanship to motivate you to do it? That is a conspicuous omission there, Tooms.
Seriously, you quoted the gain to three significant digits, I quoted the time period to three significant digits. Big deal.
I'm really surprised you don't fess up. Again, you're smart, but apparently so blinded by partisanship that you actually believe that. You cherry picked the period, leaving off for example the Carter and Reagan presidencies. Then when the S&P 500 annual return during one of the Democratic President's terms was a measly mid single digit number, you conveniently decided to quote the total change over 2. 37 years, instead of the annual change. That makes "0" sense. And you should realize that.I posted a link that cited the stock market performance for every president going all the way back to McKinley, as measured by the Dow because the S&P 500 Index did not go back that far.
Did you?
If you are not familiar with the historical timeline on that, I assure you Reagan's and Carter's results are cited in that link that I provided but you did not. Oh, also Coolidge's, Hoover's, FDR's, the presidents who served less than 4 years like JFK and Ford and all the others. Sorry I can't provide a link to compare Harrison's and Lincoln's stock market performance to all the others.
I was the one, the only one here, to finally clue in the desperate Repub Trumpsters that now the superior measure for the broad USA Stock Market is the S&P 500 Index, not the Dow and, hey look, guys, your twice Impeached, 37 Federal Crime-Indicted, Mass Murdering, one term Presidency, House and Senate-losing hero, Donald Trump, actually presided over a dramatically higher gain by that measure than by your silly Dow.
Did you?
I even generously rounded up his performance results on that Index to "70%" in my initial citing of his overall 4 year gain when it is actually closer to 69.5%.
I cited both Biden's current "a bit less than 2 1/2 year gain" as it was at the time of my writing. I did not bother to divide that one by your unproven mathmatical figure of 2. 37 to provide the Average Annual Gain breakdown for a president who had not even completed 2 1/2 years of his first term because I really did not see the value in providing that at a glance comparison courtesy when I suspect even the Repubs here can figure out an 11.2% gain in just over 2 years is going to be about 5% or less per year. You seemed to believe otherwise. Well, you're the expert on that. So you decided doing the math and showing your work was indeed necessary for the Repubs here.
However, I ALSO didn't bother to break down Trump's approximate 2 year gain of only 3. 5% in order to cite his Average Annual Gain and for the same reason I didn't bother to do it for Biden's. I would call that further evidence of my lack of partisanship based solely on Party rather than overwhelmingly on results.
By stark contrast, you chose to break down Biden's 11.2% gain at the approximate 2 year point to cite its Average Annual Gain but mysteriously and conspicuously left Trump's 3. 5% gain at roughly the same point in his presidency untouched. And that gain occurred with none of the Trump's Pandemic Mass Murders, Worldwide Economic / Supply-Chain Destruction, Hyper-Inflation-Triggering headwinds going against it while Biden's 11.2% has had all of that going against it.
Why did you do that, Tiny? Why did you treat those Repub vs Dem results so differently on such a, to you, critical factor after I treated them exactly the same?
My goodness Tooms, are you sure 11.2% is the exact correct number to use for January 20,2021 to June 9 2023? I mean, precisely by the week, day and hour? What if it turns out to be closer to 11.1? And is that starting fairly at 12 Noon on January 20,2021? 11.015? Or maybe you should have started counting on January 21,2021. Not to mention how far off your calculation would be if you factored in that the time for someone in Timbuktu at 7 hours before the time in God's Country aka Texas in the USA! LOL.
BTW, where is your absolutely exact Average Annual Gain calculation for the 23.4% total loss that Biden logged in from 12 Noon on January 1, 2022 to 4 pm EST in USA on June 16,2022. Too much Biden / Dem Partisanship to motivate you to do it? That is a conspicuous omission there, Tooms.
Seriously, you quoted the gain to three significant digits, I quoted the time period to three significant digits. Big deal.Exactly. Your and my lampooning of the need for an absolutely mathmatically accurate to the 100th of a decimal on what I and many other "analysts" provide merely in order to make it easier for the casual reader to see at a glance how a 2-4 year presidency's results compare to the 8 year presidencies vs your Per Annum Growth / Decline Rate equation for each year of each presidency presumably going back to George Washington including Jefferson Davis makes my case quite nicely. Thank you.
No knowledgeable, honest person does that with stock indices Tooms, because it's deceitful. I have seen similar things done by promoters touting investment products. I'm not saying you're deceitful BTW, you just don't know any better. And if we got into an argument over real estate you'd undoubtedly kick my ass.
And no, you won't see any good financial analyst presenting "the average annual gain in the USA Stock Market" during presidential terms the way you did. Then the financial analysts over at Kiplinger Investing must be bad, ignorant, dishonest and deceitful because their breakdown for each year of the past several presidencies showed Trump's per year Market performance to be 13.7% while you overstated it at 14%.
Maybe they're just using a different E=MC equation than you use. But it is also a suspicious sign that your pro Repub partisanship has leaked into your Tiny Math.
Meanwhile, at least a couple of results out of 5 from my way of simply breaking it down by the number of years in office to provide an at a glance per year comparison are pretty darn close to what Kiplinger arrived at from their calculations, within a fraction of a percentage point or by two ultimately irrelevant percentage points. You know, the kind of difference you suggested about tracking it from the day after election day instead of on election day and all that:
https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/602714/best-and-worst-presidents-according-to-the-stock-market
GEORGE H. W. Bush.
Market performance: 11.0% per year.
GEORGE W. Bush.
Market performance: -5. 6% per year.
DONALD TRUMP.
Market performance: 13.7% per year.However, I will point out that my way of simply breaking it down by their number of years in office for the sake of Dem apples to Repub apples comparison and nothing to do with producing a tedious Per Annum Growth / Decline Rate result overstated the Annual results of all of those 5 full term presidents, Dem and Repub alike. BFD. Hardly a sign of partisanship. And in neither my nor Kiplinger's nor I suspect your calculation was the order and pattern of the full term Dem results surpassing those of the full term Repubs altered, correct?
I posted a link that cited the stock market performance for every president going all the way back to McKinley, as measured by the Dow because the S&P 500 Index did not go back that far.
Did you?
If you are not familiar with the historical timeline on that, I assure you Reagan's and Carter's results are cited in that link that I provided but you did not. Oh, also Coolidge's, Hoover's, FDR's, the presidents who served less than 4 years like JFK and Ford and all the others. Sorry I can't provide a link to compare Harrison's and Lincoln's stock market performance to all the others.
I was the one, the only one here, to finally clue in the desperate Repub Trumpsters that now the superior measure for the broad USA Stock Market is the S&P 500 Index, not the Dow and, hey look, guys, your twice Impeached, 37 Federal Crime-Indicted, Mass Murdering, one term Presidency, House and Senate-losing hero, Donald Trump, actually presided over a dramatically higher gain by that measure than by your silly Dow.
Did you?
I even generously rounded up his performance results on that Index to "70%" in my initial citing of his overall 4 year gain when it is actually closer to 69.5%.
I cited both Biden's current "a bit less than 2 1/2 year gain" as it was at the time of my writing. I did not bother to divide that one by your unproven mathmatical figure of 2. 37 to provide the Average Annual Gain breakdown for a president who had not even completed 2 1/2 years of his first term because I really did not see the value in providing that at a glance comparison courtesy when I suspect even the Repubs here can figure out an 11.2% gain in just over 2 years is going to be about 5% or less per year. You seemed to believe otherwise. Well, you're the expert on that. So you decided doing the math and showing your work was indeed necessary for the Repubs here.
However, I ALSO didn't bother to break down Trump's approximate 2 year gain of only 3. 5% in order to cite his Average Annual Gain and for the same reason I didn't bother to do it for Biden's. I would call that further evidence of my lack of partisanship based solely on Party rather than overwhelmingly on results.
By stark contrast, you chose to break down Biden's 11.2% gain at the approximate 2 year point to cite its Average Annual Gain but mysteriously and conspicuously left Trump's 3. 5% gain at roughly the same point in his presidency untouched. And that gain occurred with none of the Trump's Pandemic Mass Murders, Worldwide Economic / Supply-Chain Destruction, Hyper-Inflation-Triggering headwinds going against it while Biden's 11.2% has had all of that going against it.
Why did you do that, Tiny? Why did you treat those Repub vs Dem results so differently on such a, to you, critical factor after I treated them exactly the same?
Exactly. Your and my lampooning of the need for an absolutely mathmatically accurate to the 100th of a decimal on what I and many other "analysts" provide merely in order to make it easier for the casual reader to see at a glance how a 2-4 year presidency's results compare to the 8 year presidencies vs your Per Annum Growth / Decline Rate equation for each year of each presidency presumably going back to George Washington including Jefferson Davis makes my case quite nicely. Thank you.Congratulations Tooms! You may not understand the math, but you’ve proved there's a spurious correlation between the party of the president and S & P 500 performance between January 20,1989 and January 20,2021. Now, I have a new mission for you. Please show that the earth is the center of the universe and the stars and planets rotate around it. And please show that the Democratic Party is the reason one of those stars or planets hasn't crashed into earth.
Good luck!
Then the financial analysts over at Kiplinger Investing must be bad, ignorant, dishonest and deceitful because their breakdown for each year of the past several presidencies showed Trump's per year Market performance to be 13.7% while you overstated it at 14%.
Maybe they're just using a different E=MC equation than you use. But it is also a suspicious sign that your pro Repub partisanship has leaked into your Tiny Math.
Meanwhile, at least a couple of results out of 5 from my way of simply breaking it down by the number of years in office to provide an at a glance per year comparison are pretty darn close to what Kiplinger arrived at from their calculations, within a fraction of a percentage point or by two ultimately irrelevant percentage points. You know, the kind of difference you suggested about tracking it from the day after election day instead of on election day and all that:
https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/602714/best-and-worst-presidents-according-to-the-stock-market
However, I will point out that my way of simply breaking it down by their number of years in office for the sake of Dem apples to Repub apples comparison and nothing to do with producing a tedious Per Annum Growth / Decline Rate result overstated the Annual results of all of those 5 full term presidents, Dem and Repub alike. BFD. Hardly a sign of partisanship. And in neither my nor Kiplinger's nor I suspect your calculation was the order and pattern of the full term Dem results surpassing those of the full term Repubs altered, correct?Come on Tooms. You could make be making hay with Trump's indictment instead of trying to argue math with someone who's a much better mathematician than you.
First, Kiplinger's number's are all within 0. 4% of my numbers, for every president on your list except Biden. That is, for George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barrack Obama, and Donald Trump. Biden's is significantly different because we didn't use the same end date. You were complaining about me carrying a date to three significant digits earlier. Well, if you just carry the percentages to two significant figures, Kiplinger's and my numbers are the same. Your numbers on the other hand are way off from Kiplinger's, because your method of calculation is bogus.
Furthermore, my numbers are right. I'll repeat our posts below, which show starting and ending values for the indices. You conveniently picked Trump instead of, say, George W. Bush, because Trump's a Republican and Kiplinger's number is slightly lower than mine.
Anyway, 2271 x 1. 14 x 1. 14 x 1. 14 x 1. 14 = 3835.
For Kiplinger, it's 2271 x 1. 137 x 1. 137 x 1. 137 x 1. 137 = 3795.
You'll note below I was using 3841 for the ending value. Your 3851 was actually the correct number. Kiplingers number is a little low, but not off by much. You and I are both using January 20 for start and end dates. They may be doing something slightly different.
And yes, when you just look at George H. W. Bush through Donald Trump, like what you did originally, then the Democratic terms look better. That's why I congratulated you on identifying a spurious correlation. You add say Biden, Reagan and Carter and the Republicans may look better. I don't know and I don't care because trying to a prove spurious correlation (correlation which isn't causal) is a stupid exercise.
Your math exaggerates the performance more during the Democratic presidencies because both served 8 years, while two of the three Republicans served just one term. I'm not going to try to explain why because this is like trying to teach calculus to 7th grader who believes math is some kind of political propaganda.
GHW Bush, 286 to 433 = 52% gain, divided by 4 = 13%.
Bill Clinton, 433 to 1342 = 210% gain, divided by 8 = 26.25%.
GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain", divided by 8 = -10%.
Barack Obama, 805 to 2271 = 182% gain, divided by 8 = 22.75%.
Donald Trump, 2271 to 3851 = 69.5% gain, divided by 4 = 17.3%.
Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.
The numbers in your table are wrong. Here are the per annum gains in the S&P 500 Index during each presidency. Bush was handicapped by a recession that he had little to do with. Trump similarly was hurt by a pandemic that he could not have prevented, contrary to your belief. And Obama was helped by taking the reins at the bottom of a recession.
GHW Bush, 11%/ year. (Kiplinger: 11%/year)
Bill Clinton, 15%/ year. (Kiplinger: 15.2%/year)
GW Bush, -6%/ year. (Kiplinger: -5.6%/year)
Barack Obama, 14%/ year. (Kiplinger: 13.8%/year)
Donald Trump, 14%/ year. (Kiplinger: 13.7%/year
We're actually using exactly the same numbers except for the number at the end of the Trump administration. I was using 3841.
Come on Tooms. You could make be making hay with Trump's indictment instead of trying to argue math with someone who's a much better mathematician than you.
First, Kiplinger's number's are all within 0. 4% of my numbers, for every president on your list except Biden. That is, for George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barrack Obama, and Donald Trump. Biden's is significantly different because we didn't use the same end date. You were complaining about me carrying a date to three significant digits earlier. Well, if you just carry the percentages to two significant figures, Kiplinger's and my numbers are the same. Your numbers on the other hand are way off from Kiplinger's, because your method of calculation is bogus.
Furthermore, my numbers are right. I'll repeat our posts below, which show starting and ending values for the indices. You conveniently picked Trump instead of, say, George W. Bush, because Trump's a Republican and Kiplinger's number is slightly lower than mine.
Anyway, 2271 x 1. 14 x 1. 14 x 1. 14 x 1. 14 = 3835.
For Kiplinger, it's 2271 x 1. 137 x 1. 137 x 1. 137 x 1. 137 = 3795.
You'll note below I was using 3841 for the ending value. Your 3851 was actually the correct number. My number is closer to the truth than Kiplinger's, but only slightly closer.
And yes, when you just look at George H. W. Bush through Donald Trump, like what you did originally, then the Democratic terms look better. That's why I congratulated you on identifying a spurious correlation. You add say Biden, Reagan and Carter and the Republicans may look better. I don't know and I don't care because trying to a prove spurious correlation (correlation which isn't causal) is a stupid exercise.
Your math exaggerates the performance more during the Democratic presidencies because both served 8 years, while two of the three Republicans served just one term. I'm not going to try to explain why because this is like trying to teach calculus to 7th grader who believes math is some kind of political propaganda.The "spurious" relationship between superior economic and stock market performance under Dem presidents vs Repub presidents goes back about as far as any financial analyst can go. That has been documented, calculated and proven mathmatically so often and by so many financial analysts and publications I really didn't think I needed to go back any further than 2-3 Dems and Repubs this time. Even a 7th grader could look it up and know it within minutes. Pretty much the same reason I did not feel the need to break it down to precisely how much Per Annum Growth or Decline a dollar invested on January 20,1989 would experience until today, 0. 36 or 0. 37 or perhaps 0. 38 of the way into 2023:
Who is better for the Stock Market: Democrats or Republicans?
Arthur Stein Financial, LLC | Sep 9, 2012
https://www.arthursteinfinancial.com/blog/who-better-stock-market-democrats-or-republicans
J.P. Morgans June, 2012 Guide to the Markets report detailed the affect on stock market returns of political control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives from 1940 to 2008.
The results are surprising.
According to the report, the stock market performed best when the President was a Democrat. The weakest returns occurred with Republican Presidents.Democratic presidents are better for the stock market and economy than Republicans, one study shows
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-election-democratic-republican-presidents-better-performance-economy-gdp-2020-8-1029528932
Contrary to popular belief, the stock market and economy have performed better under Democratic presidents than it has under Republican presidents, according to data going back to 1946.
Liberum, a UK-based investment bank, pointed to historical stock market returns and annual GDP growth to make the case that a Republican president's drive to cut taxes and reduce government spending often leads to lower economic expansion and stock market returns than when a Democratic president is in office.
Since 1947, the S&P 500 has posted a total annual return of 10.8% under Democratic presidents, versus 5.6% under Republican presidents.
And if you exclude the Great Recession and COVID-19 pandemic, both of which happened under a Republican president, the data still points to stronger returns for Democratic presidents versus Republican presidents.How did that utterly mathmatically inaccurate "popular belief" come about?
Why, from the tireless efforts by pro Repub Mainstream Media and pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersiders to spread such nonsense, of course.
Actually Kiplinger's and my numbers are the same, except I rounded to the closest percent. Since you were criticizing me for using 2.37 years instead of 2.4 years it’s going to be interesting to see how you’ll try to show my rounding is partisan.
Oops, I guess you already did.
Come on Tooms. You could make be making hay with Trump's indictment instead of trying to argue math with someone who's a much better mathematician than you.
Because Repub criminality, even Anti-American criminality and Un-Constitutional criminalty is totally irrelevant to whether or not he or another Repub gets into the White House to produce their classic Great Repub Economic Disasters and Massive Job Losses.
All 74 Million numbskulls who voted for Trump in 2020 would enthusiastically do so again in 2024 even if he was sitting in a prison cell locked to leg irons. If anything, a higher percentage of Repubs would do so than in 2020.
The only chance that some Repub numbskulls might stop voting for Repubs instead of Dems is for their eyes to be opened to the historically mathmatically proven fact that a Repub in the White House is really shitty for their wallets, contrary to what pro Repub Mainstream Media and pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersiders try time and again to con them into mistakenly believing.
Trump being proven to be an America-hating, High National Security Risk Felon many times over won't do it. It might even improve his standing with Repub voters.
"Now that my favorite president, Donald Trump, is facing a 37-count indictment from the feds, I join with my brothers and sisters in MAGA, and with all sensible Republicans, in saying this: I'm not sure I want to live in a country where a former president can wave around classified documents he's not supposed to have and say, "This is secret information. Look at this," and then be held accountable for his actions.
I mean, what kind of country have we become? One in which federal prosecutors can take "evidence" before a "grand jury," and that grand jury can "vote to indict" a former president for 37 alleged "crimes"? Look at all the other people out there in America, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, who HAVEN'T been indicted for crimes on the flimsy excuse that there is no "evidence" they did crimes. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR!
Or as Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn tweeted: "Where are the investigations against the Clintons and the Bidens? What about fairness? Two tiers of justice at work. "
TWO TIERS! One tier in which President Trump keeps getting indicted via both state and federal justice systems and another in which the people I don't like keep getting not indicted via all the things Fox News tells me they did wrong.
It's like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I've done and refuse to look up the definition of "banana republic. "
And of course, you know who's behind this travesty of justice, right? It's so-called President Biden, who is both frail and senile and also a laser-sharp master at conducting witch hunts.
Sure, they'll tell you the indictment came via a special counsel investigation, and that the federal special counsel statute keeps such investigations walled off from political influence. But that's complete nonsense, unless we're talking about special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr while Trump was president and tasked with investigating the NEFARIOUS LEFT-WING CRIMES committed in the Trump-Russia probe. Durham was above reproach, and the fact that the New York Times reported he "charged no high-level F. Be. I. Or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either" is something I will ignore.
Current special counsel Jack Smith, on the other hand — he's bad news. I know this because Trump has said repeatedly that Smith's investigation is a witch hunt, and I've never known Trump to lie about anything.
Keep in mind, in 2016, Trump said: "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law. ".
So after he said that, you expect me to believe he didn't protect classified information? Just because, according to the indictment, there's a recording of him holding a classified document in his office at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and saying to two staff members and an interviewer: "See, as president I could have declassified it. . Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret. ".
You call that "damning evidence," I call it, "What about Hunter Biden's laptop?
Now I can already hear all the libs out there whining and saying that if it was Biden or Hillary or Hunter getting indicted, I wouldn't be saying a word about two-tiers of justice or the weaponization of the department of justice or anything like that.
Well, those whiners would be right, but the difference is I believe Biden and Hillary and Hunter are all guilty and should be locked up for life, whereas with Trump, I believe he is great and innocent and the best president America has ever known.
It's like this: If Hillary got indicted for murder, I would say, "Yes, she is absolutely a murderer. Lock her up. ".
But if in some outrageous scenario President Trump was indicted for murder just because he told a bunch of people that he did a murder, I would say: "How dare you charge this man with murder when others in the USA have not been charged with murder! There are clearly two tiers of justice, one in which my favorite president, who said he murdered someone, is charged with murder and one in which people who haven't murdered are not charged with murder!
And that, my liberal friends, makes perfect sense to me and my MAGA companions. So watch out. The Trump Train's a comin'. "
https://news.yahoo.com/dont-want-live-country-where-080013662.html
The "spurious" relationship between superior economic and stock market performance under Dem presidents vs Repub presidents goes back about as far as any financial analyst can go. That has been documented, calculated and proven mathmatically so often and by so many financial analysts and publications I really didn't think I needed to go back any further than 2-3 Dems and Repubs this time. Even a 7th grader could look it up and know it within minutes. Pretty much the same reason I did not feel the need to break it down to precisely how much Per Annum Growth or Decline a dollar invested on January 20,1989 would experience until today, 0. 36 or 0. 37 or perhaps 0. 38 of the way into 2023:
Who is better for the Stock Market: Democrats or Republicans?
Arthur Stein Financial, LLC | Sep 9, 2012
https://www.arthursteinfinancial.com/blog/who-better-stock-market-democrats-or-republicans
Democratic presidents are better for the stock market and economy than Republicans, one study shows
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market-election-democratic-republican-presidents-better-performance-economy-gdp-2020-8-1029528932
How did that utterly mathmatically inaccurate "popular belief" come about?
Why, from the tireless efforts by pro Repub Mainstream Media and pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersiders to spread such nonsense, of course.Well, yeah, a spurious relationship between a Republican controlled House of Representatives and favorable stock market performance goes back a long way too. It's not causal either, although I do give some credence to the belief that a Democratic President and Republican House has historically been the best for America. Budget bills originate in the House. When one party controls the House, Senate and Presidency, it goes crazy with spending. We saw that recently in 2021 and 2022. And this year the Republican House, with a Democratic President, was able to claw back $1. 5 trillion of the $5 trillion+ in unfunded spending passed by the Democrats the previous two years. And no reasonable person would question the clawbacks, in their totality.
Your view that the party of the president is one of the main determinants of stock market performance is incredibly simplistic.
This is from the CNBC link below.
Sam Stovall, CFRA chief investment strategist, looked at how the market has performed under six political scenarios: a White House and Congress all under the same party, a White House with a split Congress, and a White House and Congress hailing from two different parties. Stovall included election data going back to 1945.
Of all the possible combinations, stocks appear to perform best when a Democrat is in the White House and the Congress is split. The second highest returns happen when a Democrat is president and Republicans control the Congress.
But ultimately, Stovall said, investors should be wary of reading too much into these numbers.
"It's a good example of how you can have data tell whatever story you want," he said. "If you want to favor the Democrats, talk about the presidency. If you want to favor the Republicans, talk about House control. ".
Bob French, director of investment analysis at McLean Asset Management, agrees. "We can go in and slice and dice the data however we want and most of the time come up with whatever answer we want. ".
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/are-republicans-or-democrats-better-for-the-stock-market.html
Because Repub criminality, even Anti-American criminality and Un-Constitutional criminalty is totally irrelevant to whether or not he or another Repub gets into the White House to produce their classic Great Repub Economic Disasters and Massive Job Losses.
All 74 Million numbskulls who voted for Trump in 2020 would enthusiastically do so again in 2024 even if he was sitting in a prison cell locked to leg irons. If anything, a higher percentage of Repubs would do so than in 2020.
The only chance that some Repub numbskulls might stop voting for Repubs instead of Dems is for their eyes to be opened to the historically mathmatically proven fact that a Repub in the White House is really shitty for their wallets, contrary to what pro Repub Mainstream Media and pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersiders try time and again to con them into mistakenly believing.
Trump being proven to be an America-hating, High National Security Risk Felon many times over won't do it. It might even improve his standing with Repub voters.How can Trump be more popular among Republicans than people like Tim Scott, Chris Christie and Chris Sununu, good prospective candidates for president who wouldn't divide the country? Why is it that Trump currently has a slight edge over Biden in the average of nationwide polls?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html
Well, part of the reason is that many Americans are sick and tired of the arrogance and sanctimony of Democratic leaders like Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. They don't like being called stupid, deplorables and dregs of society. By supporting Trump, they're giving a big FU to Democratic politicians, as well as the so called "RINOS. " And Trump gave a big FU to the DOJ and FBI, when he didn't turn over confidential documents and lied to them. I'm going to be surprised if they don't nail him. You don't tell the Man to get fucked and get away with it, even if you're an ex-president. But ironically this may increase Trump's popularity among the faithful.
The belief that members of the opposing party are criminals, anti-American and idiots, which you express above, is emblematic of why we're so divided. It's a sad state we're in.
"Now that my favorite president, Donald Trump, is facing a 37-count indictment from the feds, I join with my brothers and sisters in MAGA, and with all sensible Republicans, in saying this: I'm not sure I want to live in a country where a former president can wave around classified documents he's not supposed to have and say, "This is secret information. Look at this," and then be held accountable for his actions.
I mean, what kind of country have we become? One in which federal prosecutors can take "evidence" before a "grand jury," and that grand jury can "vote to indict" a former president for 37 alleged "crimes"? Look at all the other people out there in America, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, who HAVEN'T been indicted for crimes on the flimsy excuse that there is no "evidence" they did crimes. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR!
Or as Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn tweeted: "Where are the investigations against the Clintons and the Bidens? What about fairness? Two tiers of justice at work. "
TWO TIERS! One tier in which President Trump keeps getting indicted via both state and federal justice systems and another in which the people I don't like keep getting not indicted via all the things Fox News tells me they did wrong.
It's like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I've done and refuse to look up the definition of "banana republic. "
And of course, you know who's behind this travesty of justice, right? It's so-called President Biden, who is both frail and senile and also a laser-sharp master at conducting witch hunts.
Sure, they'll tell you the indictment came via a special counsel investigation, and that the federal special counsel statute keeps such investigations walled off from political influence. But that's complete nonsense, unless we're talking about special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr while Trump was president and tasked with investigating the NEFARIOUS LEFT-WING CRIMES committed in the Trump-Russia probe. Durham was above reproach, and the fact that the New York Times reported he "charged no high-level F. Be. I. Or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either" is something I will ignore.
Current special counsel Jack Smith, on the other hand he's bad news. I know this because Trump has said repeatedly that Smith's investigation is a witch hunt, and I've never known Trump to lie about anything.
Keep in mind, in 2016, Trump said: "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law. ".
So after he said that, you expect me to believe he didn't protect classified information? Just because, according to the indictment, there's a recording of him holding a classified document in his office at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and saying to two staff members and an interviewer: "See, as president I could have declassified it. . Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret. ".
You call that "damning evidence," I call it, "What about Hunter Biden's laptop?
Now I can already hear all the libs out there whining and saying that if it was Biden or Hillary or Hunter getting indicted, I wouldn't be saying a word about two-tiers of justice or the weaponization of the department of justice or anything like that.
Well, those whiners would be right, but the difference is I believe Biden and Hillary and Hunter are all guilty and should be locked up for life, whereas with Trump, I believe he is great and innocent and the best president America has ever known.
It's like this: If Hillary got indicted for murder, I would say, "Yes, she is absolutely a murderer. Lock her up. ".
But if in some outrageous scenario President Trump was indicted for murder just because he told a bunch of people that he did a murder, I would say: "How dare you charge this man with murder when others in the USA have not been charged with murder! There are clearly two tiers of justice, one in which my favorite president, who said he murdered someone, is charged with murder and one in which people who haven't murdered are not charged with murder!
And that, my liberal friends, makes perfect sense to me and my MAGA companions. So watch out. The Trump Train's a comin'. "
https://news.yahoo.com/dont-want-live-country-where-080013662.htmlIt's going to be interesting to see if some prominent Republicans change their view after they read the indictment. It changed mine. Hillary's mistakes potentially were far more damaging to national security than Trump's. But Trump for some crazy reason appears to have intentionally misled the DOJ and FBI, and lied to them.
Here's a link to the indictment, if you're interested.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0.pdf
And this is why I believe Hillary's oversights were potentially more damaging.
The personal email account Hillary Clinton used for business purposes during her tenure as secretary of state was almost certainly hacked by countries like Russia or Iran, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense under Bush and Obama) said Thursday.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/600728/did-russia-read-hillary-clintons-emails-robert-gates-says-odds-are-pretty-high
Michael Hayden, former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
Clinton repeatedly claimed that she did not send or receive any information that was marked classified in her personal emails. Thats false. FBI Director James Comey said more than 2,000 emails contained classified information and some of them bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/
I don't think Hillary Clinton deserved to be prosecuted though. Trump, probably, assuming he doesn't end up in jail. All that's my Libertarian side speaking. Maybe home incarceration with an ankle bracelet would be the best punishment for Trump -- enough time to keep him out of the 2024 primaries, so that hopefully a Republican who can beat Biden will be nominated. I might vote for that if I were on a jury.
The Biden and Clinton cases (also the Pence case) are not the same as Trump's. It's the facts that are controlling, and I predict that Trump is going to be convicted for being the shifty idiot that he is. He did it to himself, and now he's going to pay a price. Twice impeached, liable in a rape case, indicted in a hush money case, and now this. And an indictment in Georgia for election interference coming. What a moron and the worst President ever. Lady Justice shall prevail!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/11/clinton-biden-classified-documents-trump-indictment/
Elvis 2008
06-12-23, 04:16
It's going to be interesting to see if some prominent Republicans change their view after they read the indictment. It changed mine.Tiny, I would vote to indict but the big one is the lead. Here is a link from a NY Post article:
Trump apparently made the admission during a meeting with a group that included his communications aide Margo Martin and were helping to write an autobiography of Mark Meadows, Trump's last White House chief of staff.
The autobiography later recounted that during the meeting, Trump talked about "a four-page report typed up by Mark Milley himself.
It contained the general's own plan to attack Iran, deploying massive numbers of troops, something he urged President Trump to do more than once during his presidency. " (Sources who spoke with CNN disputed that Milley authored the report.).
Trump expressed frustration that Milley refused to take responsibility for the attack plan and added that if he could release the document, it would undermine Milley's account he gave in a July 2021 article in The New Yorker.
In that telling, Milley pushed back against plans by Trump to strike Iran after the 2020 election, telling him at one point: "If you do this, you're going to have a fking war. ".
End of link.
And this is the alarmist article from General Miley, https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/youre-gonna-have-a-fucking-war-mark-milleys-fight-to-stop-trump-from-striking-iran.
We will see what happens Tiny but my preliminary take is this general is a lying war mongering POS who is hiding behind the top secret classification system so he has not outted as a liar. This is exactly the kind of bullshit CYA swamp shit that I want made public. If a journalist would have gotten his hands on this document and published it a la the Pentagon Papers, he would win a Pulitzer.
And my take as of now is this general is a way bigger threat to our way of life than Trump is. The government will try to limit the extent of the conversation but I do not think this judge who was appointed by Trump is going to place strict limits on testimony.
Best of all if Trump wins in 2024, then the first thing he will do is declassify this document so is it really that big of a deal? I am not buying now that it is, but we will see. Given Russiagate, Ukrainegate, the bullshit about 1-6, and the intelligence agents and Hunter Biden's laptop being classic Russian disinformation, this sure looks a lot more like the swamp protecting its own than a threat to our nation.
It seems to me we have a disgusting swamp full of liars desperate to keep Trump out of office so he cannot expose them, but we will see.
Well, yeah, a spurious relationship between a Republican controlled House of Representatives and favorable stock market performance goes back a long way too. It's not causal either, although I do give some credence to the belief that a Democratic President and Republican House has historically been the best for America. Budget bills originate in the House. When one party controls the House, Senate and Presidency, it goes crazy with spending. We saw that recently in 2021 and 2022. And this year the Republican House, with a Democratic President, was able to claw back $1. 5 trillion of the $5 trillion+ in unfunded spending passed by the Democrats the previous two years. And no reasonable person would question the clawbacks, in their totality.
Your view that the party of the president is one of the main determinants of stock market performance is incredibly simplistic.
This is from the CNBC link below.
Sam Stovall, CFRA chief investment strategist, looked at how the market has performed under six political scenarios: a White House and Congress all under the same party, a White House with a split Congress, and a White House and Congress hailing from two different parties. Stovall included election data going back to 1945.
Of all the possible combinations, stocks appear to perform best when a Democrat is in the White House and the Congress is split. The second highest returns happen when a Democrat is president and Republicans control the Congress.
But ultimately, Stovall said, investors should be wary of reading too much into these numbers.
"It's a good example of how you can have data tell whatever story you want," he said. "If you want to favor the Democrats, talk about the presidency. If you want to favor the Republicans, talk about House control. ".
Bob French, director of investment analysis at McLean Asset Management, agrees. "We can go in and slice and dice the data however we want and most of the time come up with whatever answer we want. ".
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/are-republicans-or-democrats-better-for-the-stock-market.htmlI have repeatedly agreed that the relationship between Repub presidents and every Great Depression, Great Recession and Massive Jobs Destruction and none of the Great Recoveries, Great Economic Expansions and Historic Jobs Creation since the late 1920's is "spurious", "a wild coincidence" and "bad luck for Repubs ".
The same as the next Great Depression, Great Recession and Massive Jobs Destruction that happens under a Repub and not a Dem.
And the one after that.
And the one after that.
And the one after that.
And so on.
"Now that my favorite president, Donald Trump, is facing a 37-count indictment from the feds, I join with my brothers and sisters in MAGA, and with all sensible Republicans, in saying this: I'm not sure I want to live in a country where a former president can wave around classified documents he's not supposed to have and say, "This is secret information. Look at this," and then be held accountable for his actions.
I mean, what kind of country have we become? One in which federal prosecutors can take "evidence" before a "grand jury," and that grand jury can "vote to indict" a former president for 37 alleged "crimes"? Look at all the other people out there in America, including Democrats like Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, who HAVEN'T been indicted for crimes on the flimsy excuse that there is no "evidence" they did crimes. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR!
Or as Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn tweeted: "Where are the investigations against the Clintons and the Bidens? What about fairness? Two tiers of justice at work. "
TWO TIERS! One tier in which President Trump keeps getting indicted via both state and federal justice systems and another in which the people I don't like keep getting not indicted via all the things Fox News tells me they did wrong.
It's like America has become a banana republic, as long as you do as I've done and refuse to look up the definition of "banana republic. "
And of course, you know who's behind this travesty of justice, right? It's so-called President Biden, who is both frail and senile and also a laser-sharp master at conducting witch hunts.
Sure, they'll tell you the indictment came via a special counsel investigation, and that the federal special counsel statute keeps such investigations walled off from political influence. But that's complete nonsense, unless we're talking about special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr while Trump was president and tasked with investigating the NEFARIOUS LEFT-WING CRIMES committed in the Trump-Russia probe. Durham was above reproach, and the fact that the New York Times reported he "charged no high-level F. Be. I. Or intelligence official with a crime and acknowledged in a footnote that Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign did nothing prosecutable, either" is something I will ignore.
Current special counsel Jack Smith, on the other hand he's bad news. I know this because Trump has said repeatedly that Smith's investigation is a witch hunt, and I've never known Trump to lie about anything.
Keep in mind, in 2016, Trump said: "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law. ".
So after he said that, you expect me to believe he didn't protect classified information? Just because, according to the indictment, there's a recording of him holding a classified document in his office at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and saying to two staff members and an interviewer: "See, as president I could have declassified it. . Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret. ".
You call that "damning evidence," I call it, "What about Hunter Biden's laptop?
Now I can already hear all the libs out there whining and saying that if it was Biden or Hillary or Hunter getting indicted, I wouldn't be saying a word about two-tiers of justice or the weaponization of the department of justice or anything like that.
Well, those whiners would be right, but the difference is I believe Biden and Hillary and Hunter are all guilty and should be locked up for life, whereas with Trump, I believe he is great and innocent and the best president America has ever known.
It's like this: If Hillary got indicted for murder, I would say, "Yes, she is absolutely a murderer. Lock her up. ".
But if in some outrageous scenario President Trump was indicted for murder just because he told a bunch of people that he did a murder, I would say: "How dare you charge this man with murder when others in the USA have not been charged with murder! There are clearly two tiers of justice, one in which my favorite president, who said he murdered someone, is charged with murder and one in which people who haven't murdered are not charged with murder!
And that, my liberal friends, makes perfect sense to me and my MAGA companions. So watch out. The Trump Train's a comin'. "
https://news.yahoo.com/dont-want-live-country-where-080013662.htmlNo joke and no exaggeration, that mirrors the stated sentiment of every 2016 and 2020 Trump voter I know personally. And I know several.
Frankly, I am surprised wingers have not yet floated what I might call the "See? Trump was not indicted for wearing his wife's panties!" deflection response to this as they have continued to float with their "Russiagate! See? Mueller did not charge Trump with collusion!" deflection response to the Mueller Report.
Uh-huh. That would be because, like the issue of collusion regarding the Mueller investigation, Trump wearing his wife's panties might be embarrassing for him, but it is not illegal and the prosecutors and Grand Jury here were not even looking for it.
But there is still time for wingers to come up with something like that.
How can Trump be more popular among Republicans than people like Tim Scott, Chris Christie and Chris Sununu, good prospective candidates for president who wouldn't divide the country? Why is it that Trump currently has a slight edge over Biden in the average of nationwide polls?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html
Well, part of the reason is that many Americans are sick and tired of the arrogance and sanctimony of Democratic leaders like Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. They don't like being called stupid, deplorables and dregs of society. By supporting Trump, they're giving a big FU to Democratic politicians, as well as the so called "RINOS. " And Trump gave a big FU to the DOJ and FBI, when he didn't turn over confidential documents and lied to them. I'm going to be surprised if they don't nail him. You don't tell the Man to get fucked and get away with it, even if you're an ex-president. But ironically this may increase Trump's popularity among the faithful.
The belief that members of the opposing party are criminals, anti-American and idiots, which you express above, is emblematic of why we're so divided. It's a sad state we're in.Here is a link for a Polling Service that is a bit less Winger-Leaning than RealClearPolitics:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
Since that one shows results more favorable to Biden, they make it unnecessarily difficut to find the pertinent polls on that default link. So you might get to them easier by following a Google Search for "538 polls 2024 presidenial election. ".
Anyway, Biden either beats or ties Trump in 6 out of 8 of the most recent head-to-head match ups since late May. Biden also beats or ties DeSantis in 6 out of 7 of those head-to-head recent polls in that same timeframe. This Polling Service apparently does not do a running consensus on that question and I did not bother to do the math to see if Biden beats Trump and / or DeSantis by 1. 8 points as Trump does over Biden so far in that Winger-Leaning RCP consensus. If you do the math on it, please let us know what the results are since late May.
It's going to be interesting to see if some prominent Republicans change their view after they read the indictment. It changed mine. Hillary's mistakes potentially were far more damaging to national security than Trump's. But Trump for some crazy reason appears to have intentionally misled the DOJ and FBI, and lied to them.
Here's a link to the indictment, if you're interested.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0.pdf
And this is why I believe Hillary's oversights were potentially more damaging.
The personal email account Hillary Clinton used for business purposes during her tenure as secretary of state was almost certainly hacked by countries like Russia or Iran, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense under Bush and Obama) said Thursday.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/600728/did-russia-read-hillary-clintons-emails-robert-gates-says-odds-are-pretty-high
Michael Hayden, former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
Clinton repeatedly claimed that she did not send or receive any information that was marked classified in her personal emails. Thats false. FBI Director James Comey said more than 2,000 emails contained classified information and some of them bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/
I don't think Hillary Clinton deserved to be prosecuted though. Trump, probably, assuming he doesn't end up in jail. All that's my Libertarian side speaking. Maybe home incarceration with an ankle bracelet would be the best punishment for Trump -- enough time to keep him out of the 2024 primaries, so that hopefully a Republican who can beat Biden will be nominated. I might vote for that if I were on a jury.So the conclusion by some experts was that, despite there being no evidence of Clinton's server being hacked, it "probably" was.
How would that make her intention and effort for security "potentially more damaging" than restricting the emails to the State Department's server, which, along with the Pentagon's server, show an abundance of evidence that it was absolutely and most certainly hacked at a historic level?
Pentagon, State Department among agencies hacked: report.
12/15/20
https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/530357-pentagon-state-department-among-agencies-hacked-report/
Trump tried to use Barr to weaponize the government against his enemies (and has has the gall to accuse others of doing the same). The nerve to call somebody "Desanctimonious". Well listen to Barr now!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bill-barr-trumps-indictment-very-damning-even-half-true
How can Trump be more popular among Republicans than people like Tim Scott, Chris Christie and Chris Sununu, good prospective candidates for president who wouldn't divide the country? Why is it that Trump currently has a slight edge over Biden in the average of nationwide polls?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html
Well, part of the reason is that many Americans are sick and tired of the arrogance and sanctimony of Democratic leaders like Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. They don't like being called stupid, deplorables and dregs of society. By supporting Trump, they're giving a big FU to Democratic politicians, as well as the so called "RINOS. " And Trump gave a big FU to the DOJ and FBI, when he didn't turn over confidential documents and lied to them. I'm going to be surprised if they don't nail him. You don't tell the Man to get fucked and get away with it, even if you're an ex-president. But ironically this may increase Trump's popularity among the faithful.
The belief that members of the opposing party are criminals, anti-American and idiots, which you express above, is emblematic of why we're so divided. It's a sad state we're in.The dude had to pay a $25 Million fraud case settlement heading into the 2016 election. His record of scams and cons was easily assessible long before anyone voted for him to be the Leader of the Free World.
Do a Google Search on anything related to Trump, fraud cases, criminal convictions of his business associates, election officials, administration advisors, etc. Word it damn near any way you want. There are too many for me to cite and I don't shy away from citing anything at any time.
Yep, the people who still voted for that pathetically obvious corrupt con man and clown for that job easily qualify as the America-hating Idiots of All Time.
It's going to be interesting to see if some prominent Republicans change their view after they read the indictment. It changed mine. Hillary's mistakes potentially were far more damaging to national security than Trump's. But Trump for some crazy reason appears to have intentionally misled the DOJ and FBI, and lied to them.
Here's a link to the indictment, if you're interested.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0.pdf
And this is why I believe Hillary's oversights were potentially more damaging.
The personal email account Hillary Clinton used for business purposes during her tenure as secretary of state was almost certainly hacked by countries like Russia or Iran, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense under Bush and Obama) said Thursday.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/600728/did-russia-read-hillary-clintons-emails-robert-gates-says-odds-are-pretty-high
Michael Hayden, former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
Clinton repeatedly claimed that she did not send or receive any information that was marked classified in her personal emails. Thats false. FBI Director James Comey said more than 2,000 emails contained classified information and some of them bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-handling-of-classified-information/
I don't think Hillary Clinton deserved to be prosecuted though. Trump, probably, assuming he doesn't end up in jail. All that's my Libertarian side speaking. Maybe home incarceration with an ankle bracelet would be the best punishment for Trump -- enough time to keep him out of the 2024 primaries, so that hopefully a Republican who can beat Biden will be nominated. I might vote for that if I were on a jury.Well, at this point, every prominent Republican has had the opportunity to read the DOJ charging document. It has changed none of their minds. At least as to what they say publicly. The simple facts are they they are probably scared of the OTTIASAFG's base or they are scared of OTTIASAFG himself. Privately, all of them probably want the OTTIASAFG to simply go away.
While Hillary's email server thing was disturbing, especially since she should have known better, the fact that the OTTIASAFG stored classified documents in public areas of a club is unforgiveable. Especially since many of those documents contained nuclear secrets of the US and other countries and descriptions of the weaknesses of the American military. The documents that contained nuclear secrets can not be declassified unilaterally by a president. Foreign government agents have been arrested trying to gain entry into Mar-A-Lardo. I don't recall any agents ever trying to gain access to Hillary's home. Furthermore, the Secret Service, by their own admission, had no clue that the documents were stored in publicly assessible places. Like a ballroom and a bathroom and a shower.
The documents that contained nuclear secrets can not be declassified unilaterally by a president.They certainly can't be declassified just by thinking about it. What an incredibly stupid thing to say! Beyond ignorant to just plain dumb! And there are people who want this guy to be President (again). My God (slapping forehead in disbelief)! Well, he's not going to be because the guy is unelectable in a general election contest. Let us not forget that Trump has never won the popular vote, and if he gets the GOP nomination he will lose by an even larger margin than he did the last time. Instead of picking up voters, it will just get worse and worse and worse for him until all he has left is his "basket of deplorables", which won't be enough to win. Independents gave him a chance the first time. And he blew it! Big time. If the GOP is insane enough to make this proven loser their candidate yet again in 2024, it's going to be another loss! You read it right here. His best bet is that somebody else gets the GOP nomination and wins the presidency, and then in a cowardly act pardons Trump of all of his transgressions. Now look at this toad:
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6312698126112
Tiny, I would vote to indict but the big one is the lead. Here is a link from a NY Post article:
Trump apparently made the admission during a meeting with a group that included his communications aide Margo Martin and were helping to write an autobiography of Mark Meadows, Trump's last White House chief of staff.
The autobiography later recounted that during the meeting, Trump talked about "a four-page report typed up by Mark Milley himself.
It contained the general's own plan to attack Iran, deploying massive numbers of troops, something he urged President Trump to do more than once during his presidency. " (Sources who spoke with CNN disputed that Milley authored the report.).
Trump expressed frustration that Milley refused to take responsibility for the attack plan and added that if he could release the document, it would undermine Milley's account he gave in a July 2021 article in The New Yorker.
In that telling, Milley pushed back against plans by Trump to strike Iran after the 2020 election, telling him at one point: "If you do this, you're going to have a fking war. ".
End of link.
And this is the alarmist article from General Miley, https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/youre-gonna-have-a-fucking-war-mark-milleys-fight-to-stop-trump-from-striking-iran.
We will see what happens Tiny but my preliminary take is this general is a lying war mongering POS who is hiding behind the top secret classification system so he has not outted as a liar. This is exactly the kind of bullshit CYA swamp shit that I want made public. If a journalist would have gotten his hands on this document and published it a la the Pentagon Papers, he would win a Pulitzer.
And my take as of now is this general is a way bigger threat to our way of life than Trump is. The government will try to limit the extent of the conversation but I do not think this judge who was appointed by Trump is going to place strict limits on testimony.
Best of all if Trump wins in 2024, then the first thing he will do is declassify this document so is it really that big of a deal? I am not buying now that it is, but we will see. Given Russiagate, Ukrainegate, the bullshit about 1-6, and the intelligence agents and Hunter Biden's laptop being classic Russian disinformation, this sure looks a lot more like the swamp protecting its own than a threat to our nation.
It seems to me we have a disgusting swamp full of liars desperate to keep Trump out of office so he cannot expose them, but we will see.Hey Elvis,
I read a really good article about this not too long ago but don't remember where. Anyway apparently Bolton and another hawk in the White House were really pushing Trump to strike out at Iran, in a way that would have killed Iranians. This would have been a completely disproportionate response to what the Iranians did, shooting down a drone. Instinctively, Trump didn't want to do it. And while he initially looked to be letting Bolton have his way, after ruminating on it, he decided not to proceed. I believe he actually made the decision and it was relayed to the commanders before planes were in the air. I don't remember what role if any Milley played but do remember some of the people in the pentagon, who had actually fought in wars, thought Bolton's plans were nuts. Bolton, a neocon, apparently didn't learn anything from our experience in Iraq.
Now I don't know if it was Trump's intention from the start that the situation play out the way it did. But in hindsight, it looks brilliant. He didn't escalate the situation with the Iranians. He did probably scare the shit out of them. Like Kim Jong Un, they were probably thinking, incorrectly, that Trump's bat shit crazy enough to bomb them.
I did in general like Trump's foreign policy. I thought he did a better job than most would have done. Trying to establish personal relationships with people like Putin, Ji and Kim was a good idea. There might not be a war between Russia and Ukraine right now if Trump were president. My complaints would be that he should have given more respect to some of our allies, like the Australian Prime Minister, and his trade wars were poorly thought out and hurt us more than China. And he probably should at times have given more credence to the experts advice, the people in the State Department and CIA for example.
He didn't get us into any new wars, and he had us on a path to get out of Afghanistan. Those are the big things.
While Hillary's email server thing was disturbing, especially since she should have known better, the fact that the OTTIASAFG stored classified documents in public areas of a club is unforgiveable. Especially since many of those documents contained nuclear secrets of the US and other countries and descriptions of the weaknesses of the American military. The documents that contained nuclear secrets can not be declassified unilaterally by a president. Foreign government agents have been arrested trying to gain entry into Mar-A-Lardo. I don't recall any agents ever trying to gain access to Hillary's home. Furthermore, the Secret Service, by their own admission, had no clue that the documents were stored in publicly assessible places. Like a ballroom and a bathroom and a shower.Picture it PVMonger. You're attending an event at Mar A Largo. You need to take a dump so you go to the bathroom. You could take a crap and read some top secret document about Kim Jong Un! How cool would that be!
Here is a link for a Polling Service that is a bit less Winger-Leaning than RealClearPolitics:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
Since that one shows results more favorable to Biden, they make it unnecessarily difficut to find the pertinent polls on that default link. So you might get to them easier by following a Google Search for "538 polls 2024 presidenial election. ".
Anyway, Biden either beats or ties Trump in 6 out of 8 of the most recent head-to-head match ups since late May. Biden also beats or ties DeSantis in 6 out of 7 of those head-to-head recent polls in that same timeframe. This Polling Service apparently does not do a running consensus on that question and I did not bother to do the math to see if Biden beats Trump and / or DeSantis by 1. 8 points as Trump does over Biden so far in that Winger-Leaning RCP consensus. If you do the math on it, please let us know what the results are since late May.It's pretty close. CNN this morning was saying Biden / Trump polling indicates it's a dead heat right now. My argument is that close to half of America is fed up enough with the political class and the federal government to support Trump.
Despite the polls, I don't think Trump can win a general election in 2024. Democrats and many independents are mad as hell, so they're going to turn out to vote in larger numbers than the polls would indicate. And he's lost people like me (I'll vote for the Libertarian if Trump's the candidate) who would be happy to vote for someone like Tim Scott or Chris Christie in the general election. Actually he lost me before 2016. I've done business with a couple of narcissists created in the Trump mold. I'll never do that again, and I'm damn sure not going to vote for one of them or Trump for president.
Thanks for the info on RCP. Googling the issue, I do see they did start accepting funding from right of center donors. I have no idea if that affected the particular pollsters they include in their tables. Historically, from what I saw following the site, Republicans outperformed their "averages of polls" up until 2022. I attributed this to Republicans being more likely to actually go to the polls and vote than Democrats. But that changed in 2022, and RCP's poll averages, I believe along with 538 and Nate Silver, overstated the Republicans chances. I attributed that to what I described above, Democrats being more fired up to go out and actually vote, because of Trump's post-election shenanigans.
It would be interesting to compare the polls that 538 and RCP follow to see if there's a difference, but I'm too lazy to do it. I do believe that 538 and Silver, like RCP, overstated the Democrat's chances until 2022. That is, Republicans did better than what the polls predicted. Here's an example. In 2020, the RCP average indicated Biden was ahead by 7.2% in the polls, but he "only" won the popular vote by 4.5%:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
Picture it PVMonger. You're attending an event at Mar A Largo. You need to take a dump so you go to the bathroom. You could take a crap and read some top secret document about Kim Jong Un! How cool would that be!The word on the street is that the OTTIASAFG charged to use the bathroom where classified documents were stored. I recall hearing $50 K.
Well, at this point, every prominent Republican has had the opportunity to read the DOJ charging document. It has changed none of their minds. At least as to what they say publicly. The simple facts are they they are probably scared of the OTTIASAFG's base or they are scared of OTTIASAFG himself. Privately, all of them probably want the OTTIASAFG to simply go away.
While Hillary's email server thing was disturbing, especially since she should have known better, the fact that the OTTIASAFG stored classified documents in public areas of a club is unforgiveable. Especially since many of those documents contained nuclear secrets of the US and other countries and descriptions of the weaknesses of the American military. The documents that contained nuclear secrets can not be declassified unilaterally by a president. Foreign government agents have been arrested trying to gain entry into Mar-A-Lardo. I don't recall any agents ever trying to gain access to Hillary's home. Furthermore, the Secret Service, by their own admission, had no clue that the documents were stored in publicly assessible places. Like a ballroom and a bathroom and a shower.The most damning assessment of Hillary's server was it was "probably" hacked with no real evidence that it was. She was wise to have set up one of her own considering it had been since forever the State Department and Pentagon systems had been upgraded. Similar to the Repubs' current resistance to funding and upgrading the IRS computer systems.
Meanwhile, the State Department and Pentagon servers were proven to have been hacked at historic levels. And Trump got busy playing hide and seek with the Fed's repeated requests for him to return those classified documents on nuclear and military capabilities of our allies so he could provide them for casual reading to the Anti-American dictators and their entourage he invited to his money-strapped resorts, Mar-a-Lago or wherever he needed paying tenants.
On the list of America's Biggest and Worst National Security Risks of just those three options with 1 being the Biggest and Worst, classified document info went:
1. Within arm's distance of Donald Trump anywhere at anytime.
2. The State Department and Pentagon servers.
And in a far, far distant 3rd place:
3. Hillary Clinton's server.
The most damning assessment of Hillary's server was it was "probably" hacked with no real evidence that it was. She was wise to have set up one of her own considering it had been since forever the State Department and Pentagon systems had been upgraded. Similar to the Repubs' current resistance to funding and upgrading the IRS computer systems.
Meanwhile, the State Department and Pentagon servers were proven to have been hacked at historic levels. And Trump got busy playing hide and seek with the Fed's repeated requests for him to return those classified documents on nuclear and military capabilities of our allies so he could provide them for casual reading to the Anti-American dictators and their entourage he invited to his money-strapped resorts, Mar-a-Lago or wherever he needed paying tenants.
On the list of America's Biggest and Worst National Security Risks of just those three options with 1 being the Biggest and Worst, classified document info went:
1. Within arm's distance of Donald Trump anywhere at anytime.
2. The State Department and Pentagon servers.
And in a far, far distant 3rd place:
3. Hillary Clinton's server.
LOL. Well then, it's good that Trump had those 200 some odd documents in the bathroom and the storeroom at Mar a Lago. Once the NARA gets hold of them, they'll scan the info and disseminate it to Wikileaks and goodness knows who else.
Hillary displayed an incredible amount of hubris, equal to Trump's, in storing Emails on her personal server. According to Comey, 2,000 contained classified information and some of them indicated the presence of classified information. WTF are they doing passing Email messages back and forth with sensitive information potentially useful to our enemies, regardless of which server they're on?
Comey also said that "given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved", it would have been unlikely for the FBI (or anyone else) to find direct evidence of her server being hacked. We know there were multiple attempts by Russians and other "actors" to hack her server. True, we don't know if they were successful. But 200 documents laying around Trump's storeroom and office aren't nearly as big a risk to national security as 2,000 on the Secretary of State's personal server.
The idea that Hillary was brilliant to keep all that confidential information on her server instead of the State Department's which would be a more obvious target doesn't wash, unless of course you have your view that everything related to Democrats is golden and everything Republican is mierda.
Again, I don't believe Hillary deserves to be prosecuted. The only reason Trump may IMHO is because he was hiding documents from and made false statements to the DOJ. And yeah, Trump's stupidity is about 10X Hillary's, because not only did he fuck up with the confidential records, but he also thumbed his nose at The Man (e.g., the deep state, FBI, DOJ). Like I said, you don't do that, even if you are an ex-president.
Warning: This post contains sarcasm. I'm just including that so you gentlemen don't waste time writing long essays, like you did when I posted about the hundreds of thousands of young American men who died in foreign wars during the reigns of bloodthirsty Democratic presidents.
Hillary displayed an incredible amount of hubris, equal to Trump's, in storing Emails on her personal server.This is just irrelevant false equivocation, whataboutism, and deflection that has nothing to do with what Trump is charged with, while there remains no evidence that Clinton's servers were ever hacked. Stick to the subject.
Comey is also an unethical slimeball who corruptly dropped a big nothing burger bomb a week before election day and before Clinton had time to respond. There's a real chance this facilitated voter suppression, decided the outcome of the election, and served us up the unending Trump nightmare. Someone got to him. I'd question any testimony from him that isn't corroborated elsewhere.
Elvis 2008
06-13-23, 19:27
Despite the polls, I don't think Trump can win a general election in 2024. Democrats and many independents are mad as hell, so they're going to turn out to vote in larger numbers than the polls would indicate. And he's lost people like me (I'll vote for the Libertarian if Trump's the candidate) who would be happy to vote for someone like Tim Scott or Chris Christie in the general election. Actually he lost me before 2016. I've done business with a couple of narcissists created in the Trump mold. I'll never do that again, and I'm damn sure not going to vote for one of them or Trump for president. I agree that Trump is a narcissist, Tiny, but do you think Biden and Kamala Harris are not?
The shame of it all is the guys who really were not all about themselves like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were made out to be kooks.
Elvis 2008
06-13-23, 19:40
LOL. Well then, it's good that Trump had those 200 some odd documents in the bathroom and the storeroom at Mar a Lago. Once the NARA gets hold of them, they'll scan the info and disseminate it to Wikileaks and goodness knows who else.
Hillary displayed an incredible amount of hubris, equal to Trump's, in storing Emails on her personal server. According to Comey, 2,000 contained classified information and some of them indicated the presence of classified information. WTF are they doing passing Email messages back and forth with sensitive information potentially useful to our enemies, regardless of which server they're on?
Comey also said that "given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved", it would have been unlikely for the FBI (or anyone else) to find direct evidence of her server being hacked. We know there were multiple attempts by Russians and other "actors" to hack her server. True, we don't know if they were successful. But 200 documents laying around Trump's storeroom and office aren't nearly as big a risk to national security as 2,000 on the Secretary of State's personal server.Tiny, laws are not made to be subject to moral relativism. If you are speeding, you are speeding. Either you prosecute speeding or you don't. Don't buy into it. The DOJ knew Russiagate was bullshit back in 2016 and let it stew. Why? Because they do not like Trump.
You either prosecute Trump, Hiliary, Pence, and Biden, or you prosecute none of them. The moral relativism is just bullshit that excuses what is really going on. Indicting Trump is an attempt by the DOJ once again to rig an election. Period.
The DOJ has sat on the Hunter Biden laptop for years. Why? They want Biden to win. They will also sit on the Joe Biden $5 million bribe for the same reason.
There was outrage when Karl Rove tried to rig elections with the DOJ, and there should have been.
That is what the Democrats do not seem to get. They think it is wrong what Rove did but it is great what the DOJ is doing now. For me, it is not less about voting for Trump. It is more about voting against the DOJ rigging an election.
...The idea that Hillary was brilliant to keep all that confidential information on her server instead of the State Department's which would be a more obvious target doesn't wash, unless of course you have your view that everything related to Democrats is golden and everything Republican is mierda.
I didn't say she was brilliant to have done it. I said she was wise to have done it. Her doing so provided a much higher level of National Security than what was available at the State Department or the Pentagon. Obviously.
What was she supposed to have said or testified to for her reason for setting up her own, much more secure server than the one the State Department was still saddled with? "Hey, everybody! I set up my own server because anybody and everybody can hack into those antiquated ones at the State Department and Pentagon! Aren't I wonderful"?
I am sure the Repubs who interrogated her about it over however many hearings would have loved for her to spill the beans and tip off every enemy of America to that National Security weakness. But Hillary cared more about our National Security than to do that and instead just quietly set up a system far more secure than anything used before or since.
Tiny, laws are not made to be subject to moral relativism. If you are speeding, you are speeding. Either you prosecute speeding or you don't. Don't buy into it. The DOJ knew Russiagate was bullshit back in 2016 and let it stew. Why? Because they do not like Trump.
You either prosecute Trump, Hiliary, Pence, and Biden, or you prosecute none of them. The moral relativism is just bullshit that excuses what is really going on. Indicting Trump is an attempt by the DOJ once again to rig an election. Period.
The DOJ has sat on the Hunter Biden laptop for years. Why? They want Biden to win. They will also sit on the Joe Biden $5 million bribe for the same reason.
There was outrage when Karl Rove tried to rig elections with the DOJ, and there should have been.
That is what the Democrats do not seem to get. They think it is wrong what Rove did but it is great what the DOJ is doing now. For me, it is not less about voting for Trump. It is more about voting against the DOJ rigging an election.When so much an an iota of evidence emerges that Hillary, Pence and Biden lied repeatedly to the Feds about what landed in their personal possession, dodged and refused to cooperate in their return for 18 months, bragging and boasting about how they can take and keep anything they want, I would support a prosecution of them equal to that of Trump, who did all of those things.
But there isn't any.
Comey is also an unethical slimeball who corruptly dropped a big nothing burger bomb a week before election day and before Clinton had time to respond. There's a real chance this facilitated voter suppression, decided the outcome of the election, and served us up the unending Trump nightmare. Someone got to him. I'd question any testimony from him that isn't corroborated elsewhere.
I didn't say she was brilliant to have done it. I said she was wise to have done it. Her doing so provided a much higher level of National Security than what was available at the State Department or the Pentagon. Obviously.
What was she supposed to have said or testified to for her reason for setting up her own, much more secure server than the one the State Department was still saddled with? "Hey, everybody! I set up my own server because anybody and everybody can hack into those antiquated ones at the State Department and Pentagon! Aren't I wonderful"?
I am sure the Repubs who interrogated her about it over however many hearings would have loved for her to spill the beans and tip off every enemy of America to that National Security weakness. But Hillary cared more about our National Security than to do that and instead just quietly set up a system far more secure than anything used before or since.Thanks for the comedic relief Gentlemen! You hate Comey every bit as much as the Republicans Paulie. And I can picture it now Tooms, every Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and CIA head should set up his own server in his basement, to protect our country from incompetence of Federal Employees encharged with cybersecurity. Or why stop at just them? We could house classified information on thousands of servers owned by politicians and government employees! That would work out well.
Tiny, laws are not made to be subject to moral relativism. If you are speeding, you are speeding. Either you prosecute speeding or you don't. Don't buy into it. The DOJ knew Russiagate was bullshit back in 2016 and let it stew. Why? Because they do not like Trump.
You either prosecute Trump, Hiliary, Pence, and Biden, or you prosecute none of them. The moral relativism is just bullshit that excuses what is really going on. Indicting Trump is an attempt by the DOJ once again to rig an election. Period.
The DOJ has sat on the Hunter Biden laptop for years. Why? They want Biden to win. They will also sit on the Joe Biden $5 million bribe for the same reason.
There was outrage when Karl Rove tried to rig elections with the DOJ, and there should have been.
That is what the Democrats do not seem to get. They think it is wrong what Rove did but it is great what the DOJ is doing now. For me, it is not less about voting for Trump. It is more about voting against the DOJ rigging an election.I'm a Libertarian Elvis. I don't like prosecuting or putting people in jail unless they really deserve it.
Trump is guilty of stupidity. Like I said, you don't fuck with the deep state even if you are an ex president. In our system, when you hide documents from and make false statements to the Feds, and they find out about it, they will fuck you over. That's what Trump did, that Hillary, Pence and Biden did not.
Now if you're president, that's a different story. What are the chances Hunter will go to jail while Joe's president? Yeah, the IRS may end up charging him a ton for penalties and interest, but he'll be able to make that up by selling a couple of paintings to some foreigners looking to curry favor with the Biden family. He'll probably spend the money on crack and high priced hookers before he ever writes a check to the IRS though. He really needs some tutoring from the brain trust on internationalsexguide. You could teach him a thing or two about not losing his ass paying big bucks for sugar babies for example.
Elvis 2008
06-14-23, 05:45
When so much an an iota of evidence emerges that Hillary, Pence and Biden lied repeatedly to the Feds about what landed in their personal possession, dodged and refused to cooperate in their return for 18 months, bragging and boasting about how they can take and keep anything they want, I would support a prosecution of them equal to that of Trump, who did all of those things.If you broke the law, you broke the law. Period. Spare us with the nonsense about how you didn't know you were speeding, just keeping up with traffic, and somebody else who was speeding was way worse than you. That is what you are doing.
It's not that Trump was worse than the others. They all broke the law, and you are just making excuses. You and the DOJ just do not like Trump, and that is why you want to see him and no one else prosecuted.
I agree that Trump is a narcissist, Tiny, but do you think Biden and Kamala Harris are not?
The shame of it all is the guys who really were not all about themselves like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were made out to be kooks.I don't like any of them Elvis. They're all narcissists. But admittedly when I go by a television in a public place and see Trump talking, I don't shoot him the rod, like I do for Joe and Kamala. Joe and Kamala want to take jobs away from my friends and family and take my money. Fuck them. They're not well liked in this part of Texas.
I like Ron Paul, a lot, although he's got some squirrely ideas about the Federal Reserve. And I do believe in some kind of a social safety net. On the other hand I hate Sanders more than any of them.
I do rate Sanders above Hitler and Stalin though.
Elvis 2008
06-14-23, 05:56
Hey Elvis,
I did in general like Trump's foreign policy. I thought he did a better job than most would have done. Trying to establish personal relationships with people like Putin, Ji and Kim was a good idea. There might not be a war between Russia and Ukraine right now if Trump were president. My complaints would be that he should have given more respect to some of our allies, like the Australian Prime Minister, and his trade wars were poorly thought out and hurt us more than China. And he probably should at times have given more credence to the experts advice, the people in the State Department and CIA for example.
He didn't get us into any new wars, and he had us on a path to get out of Afghanistan. Those are the big things.It is funny that Tucker Carlson is now on Twitter, and he is only doing what I thought was the best part of his show, the monologue.
Our Democratic douche friends roll their eyes at TC but in his latest show, he actually addressed how Trump really is different than other candidates because he is anti-war and really had a little venom for Trump and tons more for Republicans in general.
I thought this show was hit best yet on Twitter. Check it out https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson.
If you broke the law, you broke the law. Period. Spare us with the nonsense about how you didn't know you were speeding, just keeping up with traffic, and somebody else who was speeding was way worse than you. That is what you are doing.
It's not that Trump was worse than the others. They all broke the law, and you are just making excuses. You and the DOJ just do not like Trump, and that is why you want to see him and no one else prosecuted.Nope. Here's the way to look at it: If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient.
Beijing4987
06-14-23, 16:46
Fat Nixon should have given James Comey the Medal of Freedom for getting him elected. . in "general" Flynn is a clown.
Where he goes, they all go together".
John Clayton
06-14-23, 18:14
It ...Trump really is different than other candidates because he is anti-war ...Trump is not antiwar, simply anti any war where Putin is on the other side. It has been clear since 2016 that Trump is under direct control of the Kremlin.
Elvis 2008
06-14-23, 18:25
Nope. Here's the way to look at it: If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient.Typical Democratic douche. There is an allegation, indictment, and conviction of guilt. We are at the allegation / indictment stage not guilt. I find it hilarious that you are already declaring Trump guilty before he even has a defense.
And the other reason I call you douches is because you have no problem with the timing of the indictment and when the trial occurs. You are so dumb that you think this tactic of indicting your political opponent before an election will just be limited to Trump.
Elvis 2008
06-14-23, 18:26
Trump is not antiwar, simply anti any war where Putin is on the other side. It has been clear since 2016 that Trump is under direct control of the Kremlin.You are about as right about this as you were about the Covid vaccines. Still think Covid was not a lab leak JC? Hmmmm.
Maybe one of these days you will actually be right about something. You are in the running for king Democratic douche.
Elvis 2008
06-14-23, 18:32
I like Ron Paul, a lot, although he's got some squirrely ideas about the Federal Reserve. And I do believe in some kind of a social safety net. On the other hand I hate Sanders more than any of them.
I do rate Sanders above Hitler and Stalin though.I am not talking about the policies of Sanders, Tiny but his character. Yes, some of his policies are insane and would lead us off a cliff. Others of them are not as kooky as you might think, but my point was I do not believe Sanders is a narcissist unlike so many others.
Trump is not antiwar, simply anti any war where Putin is on the other side. It has been clear since 2016 that Trump is under direct control of the Kremlin.Then why did Trump push all NATO members hard to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defense? And why did Trump place sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline which made it difficult for Gazprom to complete the project? Sanctions which Biden promptly waived upon becoming president?
Do you think Trump would have done that if Putin really had "Kompromat" on him? For example, do you think Putin was using a videotape of Trump directing two hookers to urinate in Obama's bed to blackmail him?
Nope. Here's the way to look at it: If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient.Well would you consider them guilty PVMonger? And to make it more interesting, would you incarcerate him or her for a period of years?
It is funny that Tucker Carlson is now on Twitter, and he is only doing what I thought was the best part of his show, the monologue.
Our Democratic douche friends roll their eyes at TC but in his latest show, he actually addressed how Trump really is different than other candidates because he is anti-war and really had a little venom for Trump and tons more for Republicans in general.
I thought this show was hit best yet on Twitter. Check it out https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson.Elvis, Yes, I agree 100% about the Iraq war. Some of the rest of it, I'm not so sure. Why did Trump put people like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo in the White House and the Department of Defense in the first place? I also don't buy that Mike Pence was Machiavellian. He was doing the best he could. Like you and me, he liked many of Trump's policies, and was just doing his best to cope with a very difficult boss.
Trump kind of dug his own grave at Mar a Lago. You and I wouldn't put him in jail. Or at least I don't think I would, not having heard all the evidence the jury will hear. But this is the way the Department of Justice operates. Trump didn't do much to change that while he was in office. He in fact was pushing the DOJ to prosecute Hillary Clinton for a while.
Well would you consider them guilty PVMonger? And to make it more interesting, would you incarcerate him or her for a period of years?Well, PVMonger can answer for himself, but I would put in prison Jesus H. Christ if he committed just a small fraction of the offences ALLEGEDLY committed by Trump. Of course, his crimes go above and beyond hijacking classified material. He tried to dismantle our democracy for fuck's sake.
But let's stick to the current indictment.
Has it even occurred to you that there might've been a more menacing reason behind the grab of the classified material? Have you really never thought about why this man -- contrary to all diplomatic protocols -- went to meetings with Putin without an interpreter?
Be honest. The question never even occurred to you?
If you broke the law, you broke the law. Period. Spare us with the nonsense about how you didn't know you were speeding, just keeping up with traffic, and somebody else who was speeding was way worse than you. That is what you are doing.
It's not that Trump was worse than the others. They all broke the law, and you are just making excuses. You and the DOJ just do not like Trump, and that is why you want to see him and no one else prosecuted.No, that isn't I am doing. I don't think any of Trump's indictments are for merely "having" classified documents in his possession, as could easily be the case, inadvertently, with any of the people you named. They are for "willfully retaining" them in the face of repeated requests by the Feds for them to be returned. Flaunting subpoenas for them. For a year and a half. They eventually had to enter his hotel / house to conduct a search for them, whereupon they even found some in his desk drawer. The under oath testimony to the Grand Jury and perhaps recorded evidence has him asking his lawyers to remove them and join him in committing obstruction of justice.
There is zero comparison to what Hillary, Pence and Biden did or could have been charged with by any standard in the letter or spirit of the law.
Well would you consider them guilty PVMonger? And to make it more interesting, would you incarcerate him or her for a period of years?If Trump's "Marjorie Taylor Gteene" of the judiciary that got selected to preside over his case doesn't allow every imaginable defense delay into infinity or doesn't steer at least one stealth slavish Dear Leader Cultist on the jury or until some future Repub so-called potus dismisses the case at 12:01 pm on some horrible future January 20 etc and actually brings the gavel down at the conclusion of a guilty verdict trial sometime over the next several years, I suspect the sentence she imposes will be no more than probation or maybe ordering him to skip 1 golf date on a weekday of his choosing.
Meanwhile, she was probably chanting "Lock her up" without evidence, an indictment, trial or a verdict right along with Team Trump throughout 2016.
Well, PVMonger can answer for himself, but I would put in prison Jesus H. Christ if he committed just a small fraction of the offences ALLEGEDLY committed by Trump. Of course, his crimes go above and beyond hijacking classified material. He tried to dismantle our democracy for fuck's sake.
But let's stick to the current indictment.
Has it even occurred to you that there might've been a more menacing reason behind the grab of the classified material? Have you really never thought about why this man -- contrary to all diplomatic protocols -- went to meetings with Putin without an interpreter?
Be honest. The question never even occurred to you?
You didn't exactly answer the question I intended to pose, which was would you put them in jail for the confidential documents. You provided a much broader answer. I'm no lawyer, but would suspect the alternate sets of electors and pressure on people like Raffensperger, Pence and Rusty Bowers are much more problematic than the confidential documents at Mar a Lago.
Do I think Trump grabbed the documents to give to Russia? No. I believe it's some combination of the following,
1. He was too lazy to go through the boxes and pull out confidential documents, to turn over to the DOJ. And also documents of whatsoever nature that would reflect badly on him or provide evidence for a prosecution totally unrelated to his record keeping. If you read the indictment you'll see he gave a nonverbal cue to his attorney to pluck out any problematic documents instead of turning them over to the DOJ. He theoretically could have delegated the work. But what if there were potentially incriminating documents, for example related to his post election shenanigans, in the boxes?
2. He's a narcissist and doesn't believe the rules apply to him. Most likely he's gotten away with this kind of behavior during his business career and it hadn't previously come back to haunt him.
3. He thought it would be nice to have the mementos. Or to show them off.
4. He believes some of the documents have value, and would like to sell them someday or pass them onto his grandkids. Or put them in a Donald Trump theme park somewhere near Orlando.
As to your allegation, it's unlikely in my opinion that he was a Russian plant. He's actually a Democratic Party plant, the Democrat's best friend. He almost singlehandedly lost the last three elections for the Republicans, although they did manage to eke out a small majority in the House in 2022. He was a card carrying member of the Democratic Party, at which time he favored a Bernie Sanders wealth tax, had no problem with partial birth abortion, and contributed generously to some Democratic candidates' campaigns.
Trump notoriously does not like having people take notes. He also doesn't write emails or send texts. So I'm not sure his behavior with Putin was that out of the ordinary. I do believe he was trying to build a rapport and trust with Putin and thought not having his interpreter around might help. He's not the best example, but Nixon was known to do this. And there are many instances when a USA president took a private walk in the rose garden or wherever with another foreign leader. I think this approach, relationship building, is a great idea. Obama, Hillary Clinton and Biden were too sanctimonious and morally arrogant to do the same thing with people like Putin, Ji and Kim.
And yes, if you believe scum sucking neocon John Bolton, Trump asked Ji to help him in his election. If you believe that, then you should also believe it's very possible Trump asked Putin for help in the 2020 election and so didn't want a U.S. interpreter around. I do believe Trump, like Biden, puts his own interests above the country's.
Regardless, in my opinion Trump did not go easy on Russia, as evidenced by his pressure on NATO members to spend more on defense, and his sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
Then why did Trump push all NATO members hard to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defense? And why did Trump place sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline which made it difficult for Gazprom to complete the project? Sanctions which Biden promptly waived upon becoming president?
Do you think Trump would have done that if Putin really had "Kompromat" on him? For example, do you think Putin was using a videotape of Trump directing two hookers to urinate in Obama's bed to blackmail him?You mean this classic Repub move to, among other things, step in front of a trend to take credit for what had already been done by the Dem before him?
FACT CHECK: Trump's Claims On NATO Spending
July 11, 2018
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/628137185/fact-check-trumps-claims-on-nato-spending
The Claim:
Trump sought to take credit in Brussels for NATO allies spending more:
"This year, since our last meeting, commitments have been made for over $40 billion more money spent by other countries."
Exaggeration:
NATO reported on July 10 that spending by European members increased from last fiscal year to the current fiscal year by about $35 billion.
The increased spending predates Trump.And this showy bit of phony, empty political theater that accomplished nothing on behalf of America or our allies but managed, mysteriously, to still embolden and strenthened Russia's leverage in Europe?
Trump Imposes Sanctions To Stop Nord Stream 2 But Its Too late
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/12/21/trump-imposes-sanctions-to-stop-nord-stream-2--but-its-too-late/
Donald Trump last night signed into law sanctions from the U.S. Congress against companies involved in constructing a new gas pipeline between Russia and Germany. But analysts say the Trump administration dithered too long for these sanctions to stop the projects completion.
The sanctions, part of an overall defence bill, will allow the U.S. to deny visas and block the property of individuals and companies financing the project. The U.S. says the $11 billion Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russian oil giant Gazprom, which follows the route of the existing Nord Stream 1 pipeline under the Baltic Sea, would make the European Union even more dependent on Russian gas than it already is. It has been joined in these objections by Poland and other Eastern European countries. The bill describes the pipeline as a tool of coercion.
However the main countries involved in the pipelines construction, Russia and Germany, suspect the U.S. is using energy security concerns as a smokescreen for its own economic interests. Sitting on a glut of gas supply from the shale gas boom, the U.S. is eager to export the surplus to Europe on tankers in the form of liquified natural gas (LNG). It is believed the pipeline would dampen EU demand and make it less economically interesting to build the expensive LNG port terminals necessary to import American gas.
The European Union has identified overdependence on Russian gas as a security threat, with the country currently supplying about 40% of the EUs gas. Official approval of the pipeline at EU level has been blocked at EU level, but there is ongoing litigation over whether the EU could even block the pipeline if it wanted to. Energy sourcing is a national competence in the EU.
Though the pipeline project remains controversial and unpopular in Europe, Trumps attacks have only seemed to cause European leaders to rally around the project. The issue came to a head at a NATO summit in Brussels last year, where Trump attacked Germany for accepting the pipeline, while at the same time casting doubt on whether the U.S. would defend the country if it was attacked by Russia.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has condemned the U.S. sanctions, with her foreign minister Heiko Maas saying the sanctions amounted to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe".
European energy policy is being decided in Europe, not in the US, he said.
An EU spokesperson told the AFP news agency that it opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business.
Too late
Opposition to the pipeline has been bipartisan in America, with both Republicans and Democrats saying it would have security implications for Europe. The fear is that Moscow can threaten Brussels with shutting off the taps unless the EU does what it says. They also believe the pipeline is an effort to bypass Ukraine, the country through which most Russian gas to the EU now flows. Eliminating this route would reduce Ukraines political leverage in its ongoing conflict with Russia.
But aside from the NATO summit outburst, the Trump administration has shown limited interest in Congresss objection to the pipeline over the past three years. In the mean time, construction has progressed at breakneck speed.
Already last year it was clear that the pipeline was probably unstoppable unless the U.S. took immediate action, which it did not. Since then, Denmark has given the last approval needed for the project. The company constructing Nord Stream 2 says it is now 83% finished, with 2,042 kilometers (1,270 miles) already laid at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. They say the last section through Danish territorial waters, approved after a long delay in October, can be constructed in just five weeks
The pipeline is expected to start pumping gas midway through next year.
Administration officials have told U.S. news outlets off the record that they know the sanctions are too late to stop Nord Stream 2, but adopting the sanctions now is intended as a shot across the bow to stop future projects. The sanctions also target Turkstream, a pipeline bringing gas from Russia to Turkey. However the move will also be too late to stop that pipeline.
The Trump administrations delay in taking meaningful action against Nord Stream has caused immense frustration in the U.S. Congress. However, observers say even the limited U.S. interference that did occur prompted a backlash in Europe that was not helpful to the cause of those against the pipeline an unlikely grouping of environmentalists, Atlanticists and Eastern European nationalists.
The Trump administration now has 60 days to identify companies and individuals providing services on the pipeline. Those targeted by the sanctions would then have 30 days to wind down their operations. Allseas, a Swiss-Dutch offshore energy company laying pipes for the project, said in a statement today it will proceed, consistent with the legislations wind down provision, and expect guidance comprising of the necessary regulatory, technical and environmental clarifications from the relevant U.S. authority.
While this could pose difficulties for the project in its final months, by the time the list-drafting process is complete, construction of the pipeline is expected to have been completed. By that point one of the only companies left to target may be Gazprom, which is already the subject of U.S. and EU sanctions.
Though the economic impact of the sanctions may be minimal, the political implications could be severe. The move has caused a further rift between the EU and U.S., at a time when European trust in the American government is already at an unprecedented low.
Typical Democratic douche. There is an allegation, indictment, and conviction of guilt. We are at the allegation / indictment stage not guilt. I find it hilarious that you are already declaring Trump guilty before he even has a defense.
And the other reason I call you douches is because you have no problem with the timing of the indictment and when the trial occurs. You are so dumb that you think this tactic of indicting your political opponent before an election will just be limited to Trump.You are reading far too much into my question and attributing to me things I did not say. I used the word consider in my question, which was "If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient. ".
Everybody in the US has an opinion on whether or not the OTTIASAFG is guilty or innocent of some or all of the charges. The problem, though, is that most Republicans say that the OTTIASAFG is innocent of the charges but if Obama or Biden had been accused of doing the same thing, they would be guilty. Most Democrats consider the OTTIASAFG to be guilty of some or all of the charges but if Biden or Obama or any other Democrat was accused of doing the same thing as the OTTIASAFG, Obama or Biden would also be guilty.
Now, before you go off on one of your world-class rants, the case against the OTTIASAFG and Biden and Pence are absolutely not the same. The OTTIASAFG willfully retained documents after he was asked to return them.
Here's a timeline of the OTTIASAFG's documents case. In May of 2021, NARA started to request that the OTTIASAFG turn over all missing presidential records. Eight months later, in January of 2022, the OTTIASAFG returned 15 boxes of records and NARA found classified documents in 14 of the 15 boxes. In March, 2022, the FBI opened up a criminal investigation and in May, 2022, a grand jury issued a subpoena requiring the OTTIASAFG to return all classified material in his possession. In June, 2022, the FBI goes to Mar-A-Lardo and retrieves 38 more classified documents as well as a letter from the OTTIASAFG's attorneys that said they did a diligent search and that there were no more documents. The FBI asked to look in the boxes in the storage room and were denied. In late June, the tRUMP Organization received a subpoena for Mar-A-Lardo security tapes. In August, after reviewing the tapes and finding that boxes were moved out of the storage room, the FBI applied for a search warrant and executed a search of Mar-A-Lardo. Lo and behold, they found more classified documents. The OTTOASAFG had over 300 classified documents in his possession when all was said and done. The OTTIASAFG, from January 20th, 2020 (when he left the White House) until August of 2022 (two-and-a-half-years), stalled and obstructed the government every step of the way. This is the willful retention part. In addition, during a meeting in Bedminster, NJ, the OTTIASAFG intimated that a document that he was waving around contained classified information and the people in the room did not have the required security clearances to view that information.
As to Biden, his lawyers / aides found some classified documents in Biden's old Penn Biden Center offices in November, 2022. Biden told them to contact NARA immediately and turn the documents over to the government. In December, a Biden lawyer found some additional documents in Biden's home. Biden had about a dozen classified documents when all was said and done and he cooperated with the government every step of the way.
Pence's document thingy was even less than Biden's.
But, coming full circle, I will ask you the same question that I posed earlier. "If Biden or Obama or Hillary had done the things that the OTTIASAFG is charged with, would you consider them to be guilty? A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient. ".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.