Did Trump Really Try To Implement a Coup?
Trump has apparently run out of moves to delay his first CRIMINAL trial. Jury selection is set to begin on Monday and Trump will be required to sit their every day the trial in in session for the next few months having his criminality exposed to the world.
Does anyone doubt he will blow up in court and seal his fate with the jury? This mentally ill man is incapable of holding it together for very long before spouting off about "Blood Baths" filled with racial animus.
As a result, a few more irrational MAGA types will finally be shocked out of their zombie-like state and return to the real world.Maybe a few more brainwashed MAGA will have been appalled enough by Trump's now stated desire to put the whole of America at risk by telling MAGA Republicans to "Kill FISA" that they will return to the real world and leave the MAGA cult. Should MAGA listen to him, they will have turned off the only source for signals intelligence that gives us a window into what enemies like Putin, Hamas, Iran, and China are thinking and how they plan to attack the United States.
The man is truly out of his mind and to vote for him is about as irrational and anti-American as one can get.Hey Credence, Willow, Valeant, Kathryn, I have been trying to come up with an analogy that Trump supporters might understand to describe the unreal world Lying Trump has gotten them to believe in; so much so that they falsely PROJECT every bad thing about Trump onto Biden and the Democrats. It goes something like this.
Image that Trump tells his flock (remember, he likens himself to Jesus which his flock believes to be true) that the Christians of old had it right - the Earth IS at the center of the Universe and that there is no object (the Moon) that orbits around the Earth. I have no doubt that many of them will take this up as gospel like they once did.
But rational people point out that the Moon is real and it is that white thing we see in the sky frequently at night. No, they respond, you are making that up because Trump says it doesn't exist. Further, it is the radical, leftist media that is spreading the lie that the earth is not at the center of the universe.
But what about that white orb in the night sky we ask. What white orb, they reply, that is simply a figment of your imagination.
That is how absurd some of the arguments put forth on this and other forums seem to me to be. Do you agree?
The good news is that it is that while it is very rare that a non-Trump supporter becomes a Trump supporter, the reverse is not true. Hundreds or more of Trump supporters a day finally break out of the cult and see the real world for the first time in eight years.Well, he just doesn't tell them once. He bombards them with his claims repeatedly. I think the better analogy would be the movie Arlington Road. Trump is playing the role of Tim Robbins and working his prey up into a frenzy based on fear, so much so that they decide to act without thinking and end up attacking their own government.
The analogy rings true to me. MAGA supporters know that he lies, they see his abysmal character, they understand that his values are far from Christian and that virtually nothing the man does is worthy of emulation but they just don't care. He speaks to their fears, stokes those irrational fears to the point of having convinced them only he can solve those "issues". MAGA must accept such an abhorrent man because in exchange they believe they'll receive their idyllic society where white men run the show, women are back in the kitchen instead of the workplace , lgbtq folks are back in the closet, Christian nationalism reigns and all minorities "know their place".
According to a Hill survey I just took, 76% of respondents think it is likely Trump will be convicted on some or all of the Hush money charges.
In the same survey people reported:
Never Graduated HS (likely Trump voter) - 3%
Graduated HS or GED (likely Trump voter) - 15%
Some College, no degree (skews toward Trump) - 27%
Associates Degree - 11%
Bachelor's Degree (likely Biden voter) - 22%
Post Graduate Degree (likely Biden voter) - 22%
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 … al-begins/There is talk that the next strategy is to have his crime reduced to a misdemeanor, of no more significance than a speeding ticket?
What do you think about that probability? Again it gets Trump off of the hook.Yeah, I saw the talk of that last night too. It's going to be pretty hard to convince people that Trump's signatures on the checks to reimburse Cohen for the exact amount he paid to Stormy Daniels was not business fraud.
The issue for Trump avoiding a felony will be that Bragg has two avenues - campaign finance and tax fraud since running them through the business also had tax implications."The former president is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, which on their own are considered misdemeanours. But those charges are elevated to Class E felony crimes if they’re attached to a wider criminal scheme, which in Mr Trump’s case could include alleged violations of state and federal election laws."
I guess the goal of prosecutors is to link Trump's falsifying business records to a greater intent that rises to the levels of felony. I believe that this is what Trump's attorneys are trying to do, delink and get their client off with just a slap on the wrist,
I think it is a distinct possibility. The misdemeanor records fraud is a lessor included offense. There is very solid proof for that and where the penalties are less severe it is still a criminal conviction. A parking ticket is not.
Trump's mental decline of full display again Thursday night as he calls Letitia James, Letitia Jones.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cognitive-de … 35536.htmlLie or just confused?
There's been some scrutiny over President Biden's recent claim in a speech, where he stated he was the first in his family to attend college. This declaration emerged during a speech in Wisconsin, focusing on student loan initiatives. Biden recounted, "I, like many in this audience, was the first in my family to go to college, watching my dad struggle to support me through it."
However, keen-eyed observers, including digital strategist and conservative figure Greg Price, highlighted inconsistencies in Biden's narrative. Price shared a clip from a speech two years prior, where Biden proudly mentioned his grandfather's college football background, seemingly contradicting his recent assertion of being the family's inaugural college attendee.
Price's post flagged Biden's statement as untrue, emphasizing prior instances where Biden lauded his grandfather's athletic achievements. He juxtaposed Biden's recent speech with a clip from October 2022, where Biden expressed pride in his grandfather's football prowess, suggesting a discrepancy in Biden's claims about his family's educational history.
Source with video side by side of Joe once again being untruthful or confused, who knows?
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status … gical-liarNot sure what you mean. Do you feel Biden was confused or lying when he made the statement he was the only one in his family to go to college? Or are you saying both?
You can worry about a sniveling little embellishing of his life story while totally ignoring the tens of thousands of whoppers (many of them dangerous) that Lying Trump has told. That seems very disingenuous to me. Doesn't it to you?
What I focus more on are important things like Biden finding a way of cancelling another $7.4 billion in student debt or Trump threatening to use the DOJ to get revenge on his enemies.Sounds like this guy is living in a fantasy world. Spending $7.4 billion of taxpayer money on student loans? That's just asking for trouble, especially with the risk of inflation going up. Biden seems to have a knack for creating problems where there don't need to be any. And mark my words, this move will likely blow up in his face, benefiting the Republicans in the end. A little short-term pain for long-term gain isn't such a bad trade-off in my book. He keeps making these bad decisions, and I'm here for it. And to top it off, he's done this too.
The US finalizes higher fees for oil and gas companies on federal lands - The oil companies will make sure that gas goes sky high. Thank you oil companies - Thank you, Joe.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy … 024-04-12/
here are some of Joe's whoopers
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/l … =joe-biden
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … aggerated/
https://nypost.com/2023/09/18/president … ible-liar/
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/49 … joe-biden/
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/49 … joe-biden/
https://www.heritage.org/life/commentar … rtion-lies
https://oversight.house.gov/blog/joe-bi … s-schemes/
https://www.dailynews.com/2023/02/01/pr … m-of-lies/
I think this the most disgusting lie he may have ever told. He lied about his first wife, an daughters death.
"It is true that at least twice, Biden has publicly stated or alleged that the driver tractor-trailer who hit his wife's station wagon had been drinking. During a speech he gave at the University of Delaware a week after the 9/11 terror attacks, for example, Biden said:
To the loved ones of the victims, there is nothing really we can say to erase this tragedy. And, those of you who think it's presumptuous of me to say that ... in a different circumstance, I got one of those phone calls ... I got a phone call saying, "Your wife's dead; your daughter's dead." And I've only said that three times in public before. But, I say it here because it's so important for you to understand. I got one of those phone calls. It was an errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and hit a tractor-trailer, hit my children and my wife and killed them."
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden … nk-driver/" Biden seems to have a knack for creating problems where there don't need to be any. " - OH, you mean like when Trump gave away billions in tax cuts to the rich, both people and companies, and drove the debt up tremendously for taxpayers to fund without the promised economic or job growth? Do you mean like that?
Many Americans have benefited from Trump''s tax cuts. And hopefully, they will be left in place. Before COVID hit, Trump had the economy in great shape Even in his last year while he handled the pandemic our inflation rate was according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, and inflation was recorded at just 1.4% in January 2021... Trump had employment at record low numbers (until COVID). He also had broken records on job creation.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/trump … 20-update/Records on job creation? Are you serious with that claim? His job creation was less than Obama's.
And that snapshot from the time right up until Covid really doesn't paint the whole picture, now does it. Give us the one from 2021. That will tell us the entirety of Trump's term. Own all four years of his term. Don't try and gaslight us with only part of the picture.And it was less than Biden's, but I think the point was to show that Trump's tax cut worked - which if failed to do.
"Records on job creation? Are you serious with that claim?" Could you provide a source to disprove the "Job's" number on the chart?
I provided a credible source regarding Trump's presidency, refraining from comparing him to any other past president. Do you feel this fact checker was incorrect?
However, I intend shortly to assess his performance in comparison to the Biden administration, especially in matters concerning the many areas from the chart I offered, given the upcoming election. It's crucial to evaluate Trump's job performance as well as Biden's as November nears.
Sources on Trump's economy
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/is … nomy-jobs/Great, just be sure to include all four years of Trump's term. Both will have pros and cons, that's for sure.
Actually, you can probably just use the first three years and Trump will still come up short on most measures and about even on the rest.
For example:
Jobs: Biden wins
UE Rate: Even
Job Openings: Biden Wins
Real Weekly Earnings: Biden wins if you start after the effects of the pandemic are gone.
Economic Growth Rate: Biden Wins
S&P 500: Biden Wins
Median Household Income: Not enough data
And so it goes.I want to clarify that I don't plan to attribute issues beyond Trump's control to him during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it's worth acknowledging that he managed to keep inflation relatively low and provided some financial assistance to citizens during this challenging time. There are certainly both positives and negatives to consider, and I maintain an ongoing list of them. Right now, my primary concerns revolve around the economy, foreign affairs, and immigration. But above all, I find that Biden's ideologies don't align with my own in any respect.
So, you plan to go after just the issues that worry the right and ignore any that would be weaker ones for Trump. Pretty much on brand for the MAGA cult. Might as well save your comparisons, we all know it'll just be your latest hitjob on Biden that we'll spend five seconds debunking.
I'm a bit lost on your direction. We were talking about loan forgiveness. As far as I've seen, Trump hasn't shied away from any issues. He's pretty vocal about his views, maybe even a bit too much sometimes... LOL! So, I'm not quite sure which specific issues you're referring to.
Neither are we.
I guess you failed to read what I posted earlier that it would have been impossible for inflation to happen during Trump's term. So falsely saying he "limited" is simply spin.
Had Trump won a second term, I am sure you would be silent on the rampant inflation that would have inevitably happened.And Biden is doing well on the economy, as well as he can on foreign affairs and immigration in face of determined Republican resistance to solve either. Remember, they had a bi-partisan immigration plan that Democrats hated yet your hero shot it down.
So, from where I sit, my pro-America president is doing or trying to do the things you want while your anti-America former president (in addition to leading an insurrection) is doing what he can to make sure your vision doesn't happen.
You can believe in your fantasy world if you want, nobody is saying you can't, it is important to understand the TRUTH. Relative to Trump's (and Bush's) tax cut, it failed to what Trump promised
"First, tax cuts enacted in the last 25 years — namely, the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President Bush, most of which were made permanent in 2012, and those enacted in 2017 under President Trump —gave windfall tax cuts to households in the top 1 percent and large corporations, exacerbating income and wealth inequality. These tax cuts cost significant federal revenue, adding to the federal debt and limiting our ability to invest in policies that broaden opportunity and contribute to shared prosperity."
Testimony before the Senate Budget committee
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-t … -course-is
Everybody is not better off from the recent tax cuts, which have only served to increase the federal budget deficit—now $779 billion for FY 2018 according to new data released by the Treasury Department. To be sure, the middle class gets help temporarily, but over the longer run, the middle class will be worse off.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the- … t-to-them/
"In the spring of 2019, many taxpayers were surprised to find that they had to pay more taxes than in the previous year. Others received significantly lower refund checks from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), even though their financial circumstances hadn't changed.
How did this happen? Changes related to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—which took effect on January 1, 2018—may have played a role. Signed into law by President Donald Trump, the legislation was the largest overhaul of the tax code in three decades."
https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trum … explained/
THREE MYTHS
1. "The TCJA paid for itself. It almost certainly didn’t, which means tax savings for individuals and businesses were mostly financed by additional federal borrowing. "
2. "The tax cuts boosted growth. You sure won’t find evidence of this in any conventional economic data."
3. "The tax cuts boosted employment. Job growth was strong during Trump’s presidency, but again, there’s no evidence the tax cuts had any effect on jobs at all. "
You presented a bunch of numbers hoping to imply that Trump's tax cut worked. Unfortunately, you left it devoid of any context so you provided no linkage between those numbers and the tax cut.
Your comment about inflation simply shows a lack of understanding of how inflation comes to be. Given the circumstances, it would have been impossible for inflation to occur in Trump's term. It could and would ONLY come once demand picked up and supply didn't (do to the impact on supply chains by the pandemic). That could ONLY happen in Biden's term and, as predicted, it did.
The timing of economics is why Republicans can lie and lie and lie about Biden having caused the inflation when, IN FACT, the pandemic did.I think this link Ways and Means Committee is a very good source in regards to Trump's tax cuts very trusted source in my view.
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/trump-ta … ll-review/It is actually a terrible source given how biased and partisan the authors are. It is like linking to Lying Fox news.
Let's consider your example and determine if they were dangerous Whoppers similar to Trump's The coronavirus would weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” lie which probably caused people who believed him to die. That is what I mean by a whopper.
1. "Biden has used this figure before, but it’s inaccurate because it uses a hypothetical calculation and doesn’t refer to the current tax code." - who did that hurt? Not even a whopper and was just inaccurate.
2. This link is by a Biden-hating media outlet and was mostly about something else. Where they did mention so-called lies, it was debatable whether they were or not, especially given the negative spin rather than unbiased reporting.
3. Another Biden-hating source using a Biden-hating writer to just made claims and didn't even bother to back them up. All the so-called lies he references were of the caliber of this famous, but irrelevant Trump lie, "my father was born in New Jersey". WHOPPERS they were not.
4. The Hill source is about embellishments and not dangerous whoppers of lies such as Trump's "if I lose, there will be a Bloodbath". Now, he is probably trying to make that a self-fulling prophesy.
The first four were not whoppers and may have even been lies themselves. I won't waste my time on the rest.It is time for an Economics 101 lesson, I think.
1. When the government borrowed money (or used taxes) to fund the student loans, THAT was the time the taxpayers became involved. As Valeant pointed out, that is history.
2. Loan repayment is used to bring down the national debt and not repay the "taxpayer" because we don't know how much of the loan was funded by the taxpayer.
3. Forgiving student loan payments DOES NOT increase the national debt. It just doesn't reduce it.
4. Forgiving student loan payments IS NOT inflationary unless the increased demand that results can not be met by increased supply.
5. Forgiving student loan payments IS good for the economy in that it frees up money that increases demand which increases GDP.
I hope that makes more sense that the ridiculous information Lying Fox news gave you."No definitive evidence exists to prove or rule out whether the other driver had been drinking, and belief that drinking had contributed to the crash was reportedly prevalent among the local community and not something Biden simply made up on his own."
"To be honest, those of us in fire-rescue here in Delaware assumed that Mr. Dunn had been drinking, based on comments made by police officers at the scene. And in the Delaware fire service, rumors travel from station to station like wildfire."
"Either way, we didn't turn up any instances of Biden's having publicly raised the issue in the last 13 years, and Biden has since apologized to Dunn's daughter, while his spokesman declared that Biden now "fully accepts the Dunn family's word that these rumors were false"
Biden called [Dunn's daughter Pam Hamill], she told me. "He apologized for hurting my family in any way," she said. "So we accepted that -- and kind of end of story from there." She sounded tired, and tired of talking about this.
"Maybe [Biden] was merely passing along rumors he had heard from investigators and others. A now-dead emergency worker who was on the scene that day suggested as much ..."
Poor judgment in placing belief in a rumor? How many of us are guilty of that? Considering all of the facts around the incident at the time, I don't find it all that sinister.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden … nk-driver/
A simgle lie from biden, is as damgerous as 1,000 lies from Trump.
It is that kind of flawed thinking that gets us in so much trouble. You just said jay-walking is as bad as murder.
That is ridiculous, extent and frequency is always a consideration in evaluating anything. Is this how people in Nigeria think?
And you 'think' biden don't frequently lie? And in America, like else where, all politicians are given to lying to some 'extend'. Have you read biden's late wife meeting untimely death when a truck hit her station wagon? And they're others. Does he tell the truth? And his college education as the first in his family? Is it true? Seriously, a single lie is bad.
Yes, all politicians lie to a certain extent but as Esoteric explained there is a difference between Trump and "most politicians". In my lifetime, I have never seen a man going for the top job with over 90 criminal charges and 4 indictments. That is lying exponentially.
There was a time not so long ago where the very appearance of impropriety at this level would be instantly disqualifying. So to compare Biden with Trump is like comparing a mole hill to Mt. Everest.Let alone that some on here are trying to equate the falsehood of being the first in college to the falsehoods about fraud in an American election.
That shows you there is something terribly wrong with the judgement of anyone who votes for Lying Trump.
In any discussion thread or here, I'm against comparing Trump with biden. Each individual is inique. Trump's more than 90 criminal charges plus indictments so are unipud to him alone. But you will never agree with me that some phonies or imaginary. I'm waiting till November...to note how it all ends.
"But you will never agree with me that some phonies or imaginary. " - ??
Thank you, and sorry for the missing word 'are'. Now you can read the state clearly as:
Thank you, and sorry for the missing word 'are'. Now you can read the statement clearly as: 'Some...are phonies or imaginary'.
Thank you. It frustrates me when I drop words or more often letters.
I assume you are referring to the charges. As high profile as this case is, I seriously doubt that Bragg fabricated anything. Normally that happens with DAs/police wanting to convict poor, normally black or brown men.
I want finish with "in the South" because that occurs all over where racism is prevalent.Thank you...and yea, certain lawyers in Black Democrate States will do just that against Trump. The Police and and like-mind inclusive...the civil society, White against White. Throughout this and related discussions, I held the benefit of the doubt in all the charges before indictments, because factors of inhuman treatment exists therein. The Dems want Trump to rest in prison? Let's wait till November. And if Trump, presently leading in the polls, don't become president again, all is well that ends well.
"certain lawyers in Black Democrate States will do just that against Trump. " - even IF there were such a thing as a "Black Democrat State" you would have no proof of that.
It is all law-abiding citizens that want Trump to rest in prison, not just Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans and Independents who feel the same way.
Since we are privy to much of the evidence against Trump, it is very evident to the open mind that he is guilty. A jury will have to confirm that, of course, but the evidence is solid.
I am more worried about the very dangerous lies by Trump which risk peoples lives rather than these embellishment's, which is common to all politicians as you pointed out, you seem obsessed with.
Why aren't you worried about dangerous lies?What 'dangerous lies'? I say all lies are bad.
Some lies are "white lies" said to protect someone else's feelings.
Some lies are "embellishments" to puff up one's own image or to make a point - this would be Biden.
Some lies are "bad lies" meant to hurt others
Some lies are "dangerous lies" which can lead to harm of others. Trump frequently deals in these lies.These classes of lies benefit no one in the real sense of the word. They're all 'dangerous'. No matter which angle you explain them, left, right, or center. Yea, have you notice that these lies you listed factor into the story of tellimg a lie in the Christian Bible? Genesis 3. So the first 'white lie' ever told brimgs death to mankind. What's perjury in a Court of Law? It's telling a lie, and it's not acceptable. But earn the lier a fine, or inprisonmemt, or both. This is how the Dem want Trump to be treated, and I'm now womdering if this thread is now an imaginary discourse? Election come...November calls.
Murder is worst. A jay walker can carelessly murder him/her -self while crossing a road. So both acts are bad.
Since both acts are bad, should they be punished equally?
No, but accordingly to the law each offender broken.
So, you do agree that there are varying degrees of "badness" that should be treated differently.
Yes, accordingly to how the law stated each offence, and the punishment specifically.
OK, then. Wouldn't that imply that the jury should put different weights on lies that Cohen admitted to depending on their context?
And therefore can you equate an embellishment lie from Biden (that all politicians do) with the "Covid will go away by April" lie told by Lying Trump that endangered the lives of people who believed him. Do you see the vast shades of gray between the two lies and give Trump's like much more weight and seriousness than Biden's?
You don't go to prison for jaywalking, but murder? Stop trying to equate two concepts that are totally different.
Yea the ideas are differing. But each is an offence in the eyes of the law. Is it a fact that one goes to prison for murder? Is it not normally death by hanging? A lenient Judge(s) can commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment, or 5 years in prison. Seriously, many countries jay walking laws do not carry prison terms. And so if a person repeatly breach that law, he'll be remand in prison custurdy pending trial. Critically, offenders have been held in prison in Nigeria, for weeks pending trial.
Spending money? Forgiving debt is not spending anything. It's allowing people to save their money instead of paying off money that was already given out on their educations years earlier.
Tell that to the people that are going to pay those debts off - the taxpayers. Explain that they are saving what they have earned, not giving it to someone else to pay off a poorly conceived debt.
No one else is going to pay off those debts, they are gone. We've had this conversation before and you continue to fail to understand that the money was spent years ago. Instead of bringing in future revenue, it is being forgiven. No one is spending a dime to forgive these debts, no matter how confused you are about what is happening.
Who are those people you are referring to? You won't pay a dime in new taxes and I won't pay a dime either.
Or maybe I can put it this way, maybe it is the same people who had to pay of the tremendous increase in national debt due to Trump's failed tax cut which only really benefited the rich."Who are those people you are referring to? You won't pay a dime in new taxes and I won't pay a dime either."
In reality that does not matter in any respect. The point is that ever we pay in taxes, whether our taxes are increased or decreased -- our tax dollar pays for everything along with the money we borrow from other Nations.Sorry, it matters in every respect.
I noticed you have ignored the fact that Trump cost the taxpayer $1.9 TRILLION with is failed tax cut.
Can you please address that?Please offer a source that Trump cost the taxpayer $1.9 TRILLION with his failed tax cut. I am aware that this was predicted. However, it did not occur. Unless I missed something. Need a source for this comment.
Due to COVID, tax revenue was indeed impacted over the past two years the country suffered under COVID. I for one am not willing to recognize that tax revenue was down and In my view due to COVIDThe Headline Donald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) That It’ll Weigh Down the Economy for Years
The “King of Debt” promised to reduce the national debt — then his tax cuts made it surge.
The "King of Debt" was Lying Trump's nickname for himself.
"One of President Donald Trump’s lesser known but profoundly damaging legacies will be the explosive rise in the national debt that occurred on his watch. The financial burden that he’s inflicted on our government will wreak havoc for decades, saddling our kids and grandkids with debt.
The national debt has risen by almost $7.8 trillion during Trump’s time in office. That’s nearly twice as much as what Americans owe on student loans, car loans, credit cards and every other type of debt other than mortgages, combined, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. "
Followed by: "The growth in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the third-biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy, of any U.S. presidential administration, according to a calculation by a leading Washington budget maven, Eugene Steuerle, co-founder of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "
AND
"The CBO estimated in 2018 that the tax cut would increase deficits by about $1.9 trillion over 11 years."
Easy to find: https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump
The funds weren't simply handed out; they were borrowed, with an agreement to repay. The notion of "saving their money" while others foot the bill to erase their loans appears rather skewed. Shouldn't the principle of repaying loans be upheld? Is it fair for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of loans that others willingly took on? I can't understand your logic.
Should we the taxpayers have a say regarding paying off college loans? I don't want my tax dollar paying off any one's college loans.Yes, when borrowed, the funds that were given to pay for tuition were paid to colleges. The bill was footed years ago. And there are plenty of examples where the government excuses loan debt to help those in the country. I can't understand your logic that this is a new premise.
And we the taxpayers do have a say regarding paying off college loans, it's called an election. And in 2020, those standing against this lost by 7 million votes.That is a good point. Student debt relief was one of Biden's main promises that helped him win.
It appears that you're suggesting that when the government paid the college upon issuing the loan, taxpayers essentially footed the bill long ago. However, the contractual obligation of a student loan binds the borrower to repay the borrowed funds, which were essentially covered by taxpayers' money. Therefore, the moment the college received payment, taxpayers were already at a disadvantage, as there was an expectation when the loan was made, and the colleges paid that the funds would be of repaid, and the loan contract honored.
The implication seems to be that taxpayers were at a loss the moment the college received payment, indicating a flawed perspective on the situation. The funds disbursed to the college originated from taxpayers no matter when they were disbursed, and if these loans are forgiven, we forfeit not only the principal but also the accrued interest. Ultimately, taxpayers bear the burden of these loans, regardless of when they were initiated. In my view, your analogy lacks coherence.
Forgiving these loans would result in a loss of revenue that would otherwise contribute to our financial resources, potentially alleviating our debt burden. Instead of adding to our liabilities by canceling out these loans, the funds and interest from repayments could have bolstered our coffers, chipping away at our debt over time.
If the government whimsically decides to pay off student loans, disregarding the contractual obligation for students to repay them, I would vehemently advocate for an end to the student loan system altogether. It becomes a farce when loans are not honored as per the contractual terms, undermining the credibility and purpose of such agreements.
Key student loan debt statistics
Americans own $1.77 trillion in federal and private student loan debt as of the second quarter of 2023. That’s up 1.25% from the second quarter of 2022. $128.77 billion of that total through March 31, 2023, is private student loan debt.
Students and parents borrowed an estimated $94.7 billion in the 2021-22 academic year. 46% of this was federal unsubsidized loans, 16% was federal subsidized loans, 13% was Grad PLUS loans, 13% was private or other nonfederal loans and 11% was Parent PLUS loans.
It would stand to reason that Students and parents who borrowed an estimated $94.7 billion in 2021-22 would also look for these loans to be paid. I certainly would...
54% of the class of 2021 bachelor’s degree recipients who graduated from four-year public and private nonprofit colleges had student loan debt. They left school with an average of $29,100 in federal and private student loan debt. Those who graduated from private nonprofits had $33,000 in debt, while those from public colleges had $27,400 in debt. Private school graduates were slightly more likely to leave school with debt than public school graduates — 55% versus 53%.
45.3 million borrowers have federal student debt as of the second quarter of fiscal year 2022. That’s down slightly from 45.4 million in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021.
0.63% of student loans are 90 days or more delinquent as of the second quarter of 2023. That’s down from 4.55% in the second quarter of 2022 and 10.75% in the first quarter of 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.lendingtree.com/student/stu … of%202023.
So, will the borrowers"Therefore, the moment the college received payment, taxpayers were already at a disadvantage," - Appears to be a non-sequitur with the rest of the sentence. It would only be a "disadvantage" if the "expectation" was that the loan would not be repaid - which was not the case.
Also, it is always to the taxpayer's "advantage" to fund education because having an educated public is beneficial to society has a whole. Except on a very selfish level, I can't think of any reason why we wouldn't want society to be more educated.Maybe it's time for Biden to focus on public schools if he's genuinely interested in education. It's concerning how many children graduate with inadequate education. There seems to be a misunderstanding about canceling student loans and its impact on government revenue. It's not just about the initial loan amount; taxpayers also lose out on the interest these loans would have generated.
To illustrate, consider if a friend pays off your home loan, and then you decide not to repay the friend. Who loses out? Ultimately, it's the friend who trusted you to repay the loan. Similarly, in the case of student loans, it's the taxpayers who foot the bill when loans are forgiven. And we the taxpayers would benefit from any interest from these outstanding loans that Biden is paying off.Aren't most of those with inadequate education coming from Red states who telling DOE to take a hike?
There are 13 blue states, 3 purple state, and 4 Red states with HS in the top 20.
There are 4 blue states, 1 purple state, and 15 Red states with HS in the Bottom 20.
Sounds to me that Biden is doing just fine where states will listen to him. Wouldn't it be better if you go after those Red state governors rather than Biden?
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-h … p%2025%25.
To your illustration - your friend is not the US gov't. The dynamics are entirely different.
"Forgiving these loans would result in a loss of revenue that would otherwise contribute to our financial resources, potentially alleviating our debt burden." - YET the REAL economic benefits of forgiving the student debt which will add to our financial resources in a higher GDP and higher tax revenue far outweigh the negative impact it THEORETICALLY paying down the debt.
Do you remember this level of uproar when Trump chose to use billions of 'taxpayer funds,' or what we on the left call government funds, to bailout farmers?
Trump's efforts have helped farmers with his trade agreements. You do realize these agreements came into play, and about a year later COVID hit. The farmers are now reaping the benefits. So a bailout, in my view was positive. Also positive due to our farmers are growing more of the food we eat... In my view we need farmers to feed our Nation. This Trump promise is sitting on my Pros list. He saved the farming industry.
https://www.fb.org/market-intel/2023-us … 2022-gains
"The value of U.S. agricultural exports, not adjusting for inflation, peaked in fiscal year 2022 before declining in 2023. Total exports were valued at $178.7 billion in 2023, a $17 billion decrease from 2022. Four categories typically accounted for about 90 percent of total agricultural exports. These categories include grains and feeds; oilseeds and products; animals (e.g. livestock and poultry), meats, and products; and horticultural products. Although the decrease in export value in 2023 came from a wide breadth of commodities, grains and animal exports were the source of much of the reduction—particularly from lower export values of corn, wheat, sorghum, and beef. Global commodity prices receding from the highs of 2022, were one of the main drivers of the broad decrease in export values." https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ … rtId=58344
Embed this chart
Not sure your chart really helps your case. Net farm incomes were way down in 2019 and 2020, with large bailouts needed to make up the difference.. Since Biden took office, incomes are up and the percent of government payments has been reduced.
It was Trump's trade policies that Bankrupted the farmers in the first place, or did you forget that. The ONLY reason he dumped tons of money on them because of the blowback he was getting from having done that to the farmers.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … -trade-warYour article was from 2019, not pertinent currently.
I provided up-to-date information on the positive effects of Trump's bailout and trade export deals on farmers. Without his support, the farming industry would have faltered. We are paying a huge increase already for our food --- I Can't imagine how high food prices would have soured without Trump's problem-solving... I would truly think Farmers are calling him a friend. As my charts indicate, Trump's trade deals for farmers have worked out well, as the charts indicate.
It's essential to consider the full scope of his actions before forming an opinion.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/iowa-f … 024-01-11/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … -war-fearsThe farming industry was doing quite well, until his disastrous tariffs caused Chinese backlash that ruined their export markets and facilitated the need for the bailouts that the right did not complain about. You often talk about created problems - well, the drop in farming income was a direct result of one of Trump's own making.
Let me rephrase what Valeant just said: "The farming industry was doing quite well, until TRUMP'S disastrous tariffs" Then the farm bankruptcies increased 24%. That is all on TRUMP.
OF COURSE it was from 2019! It was about Trump's 2019 bailout for goodness sakes.
The point WASN'T the impact of Trump's bailout of the farmers. The POINT IS that Trump was FORCED to do that because of his own incompetence. It amazes me you can't see that.
Trump did not "problem solve", he CAUSED the problem in the FIRST PLACE.
While "It's essential to consider the full scope of his actions before forming an opinion." good advice, so is "looking behind the curtain to totally understand what caused the need in the first place."
While there are predictions and theories suggesting that forgiving student debt could have positive economic outcomes, it's essential to acknowledge the uncertainty surrounding these claims. We simply can't know for sure how individuals who have their college loans forgiven will choose to allocate their newfound funds or how these decisions will ultimately impact the economy.
Without concrete evidence or historical precedent to draw from, it's challenging to definitively state that forgiving student debt will unquestionably lead to economic benefits. While there are arguments in favor of the potential positive effects, it's equally plausible that the outcomes could differ from what's predicted.
Given this uncertainty, it's prudent to approach the idea of forgiving student debt with caution and a recognition of the unknowns. While it's important to explore potential solutions to address student loan burdens and promote economic growth, it's also crucial to conduct a thorough analysis and consider a range of factors before implementing significant policy changes. Ultimately, while the idea of forgiving student debt may seem promising, it remains speculative until proven otherwise.
In my view, this newfound money will aid in sending inflation in the wrong direction --- all due to Biden's poor decision-making could once again cause a problem he will ignore."While there are predictions and theories suggesting that forgiving student debt could have positive economic outcomes, it's essential to acknowledge the uncertainty surrounding these claims." - Yes, that is true but practical economics and common sense make that outcome virtually certain.
Can you explain, in economic terms, how having extra money in your pocket drives inflation when the supply chain is now in good shape?Injecting extra money into an economy can lead to inflation due to the principle of supply and demand. When there's an influx of money circulating in the economy, consumers have more purchasing power. This increased demand for goods and services can outstrip the supply, leading to higher prices for those goods and services.
Even if the supply chain is operating efficiently, increased demand fueled by additional money can still drive up prices. This is because producers may raise prices in response to higher demand, or because they need to cover increased production costs due to higher demand for raw materials or labor. Additionally, if consumers anticipate that prices will rise in the future, they may be willing to pay more now, further exacerbating inflationary pressures.
In essence, pouring extra money into an economy can stimulate spending and demand, which can push up prices regardless of the state of the supply chain.
The supply chain is better, but not recovered.Interesting, you must be trained in economic analysis like I am.
Can you explain why in almost all instances where money was poured into the economy, inflation DID NOT follow?
For example, the first Covid relief, the second Covid relief, the third Covid relief, Trump's bailout of the farmers, or all of the Fed stimulus from 2010 to 2020. In NONE of those instances was their a significant increase in inflation that lasted more than a couple of months.
IF FACT, it is rare that injecting more money into the economy unless it is large when compared to the economy (which the student loans being forgiven aren't).
In fact, please find me even ONE instance to prove you right in the last say 90 years where the economy is stable and not over heated like it is today.First I will offer another example of the Federal Government injecting a large amount of money into the economy in the 1970s, which caused great problems to the economy, particularly in response to the oil crisis.
In the early 1970s, OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) imposed an oil embargo, causing a significant increase in oil prices worldwide. This led to a period of stagflation, where inflation and unemployment rose simultaneously, which was unusual as they typically move in opposite directions.
To combat the economic challenges, the Federal Government pursued expansionary fiscal policies, such as increasing government spending and reducing taxes. Additionally, the Federal Reserve accommodated these policies by expanding the money supply.
However, the combination of increased government spending and easy monetary policy contributed to inflationary pressures. Prices for goods and services rose sharply during this period, driven in part by the influx of money into the economy. This example illustrates how injecting a large amount of money into the economy, combined with other factors, can lead to inflation.
Our economy was good, and inflation was low when Trump bailed out the farmer.
The funds that were allocated to farmers during the Trump administration were part of a program called the Market Facilitation Program (MFP). This program was initiated to provide financial assistance to farmers who were negatively impacted by retaliatory tariffs imposed by other countries in response to tariffs imposed by the United States.
The funds provided through the MFP were primarily aimed at helping farmers offset the losses they incurred due to reduced exports and lower prices for their products resulting from the trade disputes. The program offered direct payments to farmers based on their production levels and the tariffs imposed on the agricultural products they produced.
The funds were intended to support farmers in various ways, such as covering operating costs, purchasing new equipment, paying off debts, or investing in their farms' infrastructure. The goal was to stabilize farm incomes and mitigate the adverse effects of the trade disputes on the agricultural sector.
I considered this a brilliant move on Trump's part, and as I have shown in the charts in my other comment his problem-solving was good, and the farmers are doing well... And supporting Trump. Trump is a problem solver, this is one thing I appreciate about him.Do you consider it a brilliant move on Trump's part for causing a 24% rise in farm bankruptcy?
Now, to your 1970s example.
You had some of the facts but not close to all the facts. But, to keep it simple here are the main factors in the inflationary spiral of that period.
1. It started with the oil embargo which cut oil supplies which drove up the price of oil and its byproducts. That led to broader inflation as the price of goods that use oil rose and was passed on to consumers. This is what happened in 2021 except it wasn't oil, it was the whole supply chain that collapsed on Trump's watch
2. Next there was the food shocks caused by major droughts in the US and crop failures. This was exacerbated by the quadrupling of oil prices at the same time. Further, geopolitical tensions constrained access to food worldwide.
3. The third factor was the ending of Nixon's wage and price controls. The analysis by the NBER determined that the energy and food shocks were not enough to drive the inflation seen in between 1974 and 1983. They go into a lot of detail explaining why Nixon's actions pushed the economy over the edge.
You notice what is missing from their analysis? Fiscal and Monetary policies and the infusion of dollars into the economy.
Excepts from the NBER:
'The dramatic acceleration of inflation between 1972 and 1974 can
be traced mainly to three "shocks": rising food prices, rising energy
prices, and the end of the Nixon wage-price controls program. Each of
these can be conceptualized as requiring rapid adjustments of some
relative prices.
Therefore,
The state of demand thus had precious little to do with either the
acceleration or the deceleration of inflation between 1972 and 1976. This
is not to say that aggregate demand management was irrelevant to
inflation, but only that it effects were minor compared to the supply
shocks.
And
"Despite the cacophony of complaints about "ruinous" budget deficits
and "excessive" monetary growth, the headline-grabbing double-digit
inflations of 1974 and 1979-80 were mainly of the special-factor variety. Only a minor fraction of each inflationary acceleration can be attributed to changes in the baseline rate; the rest came from supply shocks from the food and energy sectors, from mortgage interest rates, and from the end of price controls—a whole host of special one-shot factors.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapt … c11462.pdf
I say again and again and again, No matter how you want to spin it to make Trump look good or Biden look bad, The inflation experienced in 2021 - 2023 was due to the crippling of the supply chain caused by the pandemic. Trump only impacted that at the margins and Biden had nothing to do with it The inflation we experienced was going to happen not matter who the president was.
Please find another example, this one failed.There are many, and I do not intend to write a book, my first example was a very good example... Our Government has a long history of over spending and the results caused inflation.
The Vietnam War: During the 1966s and early 1970s, the United States government significantly increased spending to fund the Vietnam War. This led to a substantial expansion of the money supply, contributing to inflation during that period. https://inflationdata.com/articles/infl … 1960-1969/
The Great Society: In the 1960s, President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society initiatives aimed to eliminate poverty and racial injustice through various social programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and increased spending on education and urban development. The expansion of government spending during this time contributed to inflationary pressures.
The New Deal: In response to the Great Depression in the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs involved massive government spending on public works projects, social welfare programs, and agricultural subsidies. While these programs helped stimulate economic recovery, they also contributed to inflationary pressures.
The Housing Boom and Subprime Mortgage Crisis: In the early to mid-2000s, the federal government encouraged homeownership through policies such as the relaxation of lending standards and the promotion of subprime mortgages. This led to a housing boom and a subsequent bubble, fueled by excessive lending and spending, which eventually burst and contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.
Military Spending during the Cold War: Throughout the Cold War era, the United States engaged in significant military spending to deter the Soviet Union and its allies. This increased government spending on defense contributed to inflationary pressures during various periods of the Cold War.
In each of these examples, the injection of money into the economy through government spending contributed to inflationary pressures, either by directly increasing the money supply or by stimulating demand beyond the capacity of the economy to produce goods and services, leading to price increases.
I am in no way willing to debate what history has provided. Historically it is well documented pouring too much into the economy can cause inflation.
Perhaps you need to give some examples where pouring a large amount of money into the economy did not cause inflation.Sorry, according to the NBER, your first example was way off the mark - they clearly state that fiscal and monetary policy had little if any impact on inflation.
Now, your second example, the 1960s, is much closer. Further, it bears some similarities with 2021 vis-a-vis Fed action. While the 2021 inflation was totally dependent on pandemic caused disruptions to the supply chain, the 1960s inflation did have excessive gov't spending as a factor.
You are right, Vietnam and the Great Society dumped a lot of money into the economy, but that wasn't ultimately what caused the inflation they experienced. According to the link below, the Fed takes full responsibility for that.
This is where the similarity comes in - the Fed decided, wrongly, that the inflation they were seeing in 1966 and 1967 was "transitory", remember that word? As a result, they took exactly the wrong actions; actions which led to the inflation that was experienced.
There conclusion was that had they not failed, America wouldn't have seen the 5% inflation your chart shows. So, again, it was the Fed making wrong decisions that caused the inflation and not the spending.
A statement by Fed chair Martin as he retired from the job.
"By 1969, Martin – realizing he had made a mistake in easing policies, first in 1967 and again (after a partial reversal) in 1968 – re-applied the anti-inflationary brakes. Shortly before his record-breaking 19-year chairmanship ended in January 1970, he told the other Fed governors he had failed. At his White House farewell party, Martin apologized for his legacy. ‘I wish I could turn the bank over to Arthur Burns [appointed as his successor by Richard Nixon, who took office in January 1969] as I would have liked…. But we are in very deep trouble. We are in the wildest inflation since the Civil War.’"
https://www.omfif.org/2021/11/look-at-1 … took-hold/
Historically it is NOT WELL documented pouring too much into the economy can cause inflation. Just the opposite is true.Even your New Deal fails. The New Deal occurred between 1933 and 1936. Yet from 1934 to 1940 inflation remained very low or negative save for 5 months in 1934 when it increased to about 5% and 7 months in 1937 when it stayed at around 4%.
After that, WW II drove inflation.Certainly, providing examples where injecting significant funds into the economy did not result in inflation would bolster your argument. By illustrating instances where such measures were implemented without adverse inflationary effects, you could strengthen your stance. Conversely, I offered several examples supporting my perspective, highlighting how government overspending can indeed lead to inflation. This recognition of the potential consequences of excessive government expenditure underscores the importance of fiscal responsibility in economic policymaking.
Biden's decision to implement significant spending measures comes amidst a fragile economic backdrop exacerbated by various factors stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic-induced disruptions, including widespread job losses, supply chain bottlenecks, and decreased consumer spending, have rendered the economy particularly vulnerable. Some economists did feel his overspending caused a very severe inflation, that could have been avoided. I am aware some economists felt different differently.
In my view, a strategy involving reduced spending or more carefully planned expenditures could have potentially mitigated inflationary pressures or resulted in lower inflation rates."Certainly, providing examples where injecting significant funds into the economy did not result in inflation would bolster your argument." - I don't really need to, do I? You are the one making the claim that excess gov't spending drives inflation. All I am doing is say "prove it".
You have yet to come up with one example where inflation increased PRIMARILY because of the gov't injecting trillions of dollars into the economy. There seems to always be a more direct reason.
What I did find were these papers on gov't spending and inflation:
"Little to No Effect on Inflation
Across the board, we found almost no effect of government spending on inflation. For example, in our benchmark specification, we found that a 10 percent increase in government spending led to an 8 basis point decline in inflation. Moreover, the effect is not statistically different from zero.
Does our finding, by itself, imply that countercyclical government spending is ineffective at boosting output? Not necessarily. Our paper simply demonstrates that the inflation channel of government spending is not an empirically important way that this spending might affect the economy."
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo … -inflation
"The United States is experiencing higher rates of inflation than other advanced economies. In this Economic Letter we argue that, among other reasons explored by the literature, the sizable fiscal [u]support measures aimed at counteracting the economic collapse due to the COVID-19 pandemic could explain about 3 percentage points of the recent rise in inflation. However, without these spending measures, the economy might have tipped into outright deflation and slower economic growth, the consequences of which would have been harder to manage."
In other words, the cash infusions contributed only a small portion (at best ) of the inflation we experienced and likely prevented a depression (it is sad to know that some conservatives would have preferred the depression.)
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insi … countries/
"Conclusion
The degree of overheating risk posed by the American Rescue Plan of 2021 depends critically on the level of economic slack. The closer the economy is to its capacity, the more likely the fiscal package will lead to economic activity surpassing capacity and thus fuel inflationary pressures. While measures of slack such as the unemployment rate suggest the economy is far from a full recovery, measures of labor demand such as the vacancy rate show the economy may already be in a heated state. We use a measure of slack that takes into account both of these metrics, the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio.
Our analysis suggests that the ARP is projected to cause a transitory increase in the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio, which translates into a core inflation rate that is about 0.3 percentage point higher per year through 2022. The impact of the ARP on inflation rests on the transitory nature of the fiscal spending increase, but also on the stability of longer-run inflation expectations."
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insi … -to-1960s/
Note that I have not said that spending has zero impact on inflation, just a minimal impact. It would seem corporate greed had more to do with driving inflation so high and keeping it around 3.5% now.I provided multiple examples. Take your pick, and you'll observe how excessive government spending propelled our economy to new heights. You haven't presented any counterarguments to explain why my examples didn't result in inflation post-spending. The causes of inflation remain uncertain, with economists merely speculating. Personally, I believe that the rapid injection of substantial funds into the economy, as seen in the instances I mentioned, directly contributed to inflation. From my perspective, it's evident that Biden's actions have fueled the inflationary pressures we've endured for more than three years now.
"Take your pick, and you'll observe how excessive government spending propelled our economy" - PLEASE don't move the goal post. [u]Your assertion is that excessive government spending propels high inflation[/i]and NOT "propelled our economy." as you tried to substitute here.
Show me where any of your examples identified gov't injection of funds into the economy was the primary cause of any inflation that might have followed.
It is a simple request.The causes of inflation are NOT uncertain. Instead, they are well understood (minus a couple of exceptions).
Inflation is principally caused for one of two reasons: 1) demand outstripping supply and 2) production costs increasing faster than productivity increases can keep up with. Period, end of story for the fundamental causes of inflation.
Once, however, inflation is on the rise, then a third cause enters the picture - "Expectation", meaning people "expect" prices to rise so they buy early which increases demand which increases prices.
https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resour … ation.html
Nowhere in those three reasons is gov't spending. I hope that has become obvious now.
That is not to say excessive gov't spending doesn't play a part because sometimes it does, but only an ancillary role.
Now, having said all that, I used to believe us you do, that large money inputs into the economy is a principal driver of inflation. But since you made me do deeper research, I discovered my initial preconceived notion was wrong and now I understand the truth of the matter.
Valeant: You are making a valiant effort to correct misinformation. "Do not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap rewards if we do not lose heart."
I thought I would write a little script. It's about a trial that is about to start and the main witness was found guilty of lying to Congress. The defendant is going to use that fact to totally discredit his testimony. The prosecutor will try to rehabilitate the witness during direct examination.
BRAGG: "Mr. Cohen, have you ever been convicted of lying?"
COHEN: "Yes, I have. I was convicted of lying to Congress"
BRAGG: "Mr. Cohen, would please give the jury the details of that conviction?"'
COHEN: "Yes, I told Congress that I had spoken to Mr. Trump, the defendant, three times about a business arrangement with the Russians. If fact, the total was ten. Consequently, I was charged with a single count of lying to Congress by a DOJ special prosecutor"
BRAGG: "Is that the only time you have been convicted of lying?"
COHEN: "Yes, it is."
BRAGG: "Why did you tell that lie?"
COHEN: "In order to protect by boss at the time, the defendant, Donald J. Trump."
BRAGG: "Were you convicted of falsifying anything else?"
COHEN: "Yes, I was convicted of making a false statement to a federally insured bank"
BRAGG: "Did you actually tell a lie in making that false statement?"
COHEN: "No, I did not. What I did was failed to share that I had a $14 million line of credit when applying for a mortgage."
BRAGG: "So, to summarize: You lied to Congress by saying you had spoken to the defendant only three times about business arrangements in Russia and you failed to disclose debt on a mortgage application. Is that correct?"
COHEN: "Yes."
BRAGG: "What else did you plead guilty to at the same time as those charges?"
COHEN: "I pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion and two counts of making payments to two women in violation of election laws."
BRAGG: "Who were those payments made to and for what purpose?"
COHEN: "One was to Stormy Daniels and the other to Karen McDougal. They were made to keep them from going public about affairs each had with the defendant, Donald J. Trump, in order to influence the outcome of the 2016 election."
BRAGG: "Who, if anybody, asked you to make those payments?"
COHEN: "The defendant, Donald J. Trump."
BRAGG: "Did you make those payments out of the goodness of your heart or did you expect repayment?"
COHEN: "Trump promised to and did repay all the money I spent to buy the silence of Daniels and McDougal."https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/1 … l-00152122 NEW YORK — By his own admission, he has lied in court. He has lied to the media. And he has pleaded guilty to lying to Congress.
Are you one of those who thinks jay-walking is as bad as murder? This makes it sound like it.
When the jury understands what the "lie" was, how unimportant it was, and that it was brought by a Trump special prosecutor, I suspect they will discount it. I know I would.Trump has lied to the media for decades - so what is your point?
You seem to get it now - 'Forgiving these loans would result in a loss of revenue that would otherwise contribute to our financial resources...'
No one is paying a dime. What is being foregone is future revenue. And it's done all the time for many Americans. That Biden is choosing to expand the programs to let more Americans save and invest in things such as homes or retirement will help millions of middle class citizens. Would have liked to have seen some of that applied to trade schools and more blue-collar workers."What is being foregone is future revenue" Revenue that would have been earned on funds taxpayers put out. You have no idea where persons whose loans are forgiven will send their newfound money. It would seem you feel you might know how this money might be spent. "Would have liked to have seen some of that applied to trade schools and more blue-collar workers."
So, you're putting your trust in this guy? From where I stand, it's all talk, just a bunch of nonsense. In my opinion, he's the least capable, feeble, and unintelligent president we've ever seen. But hey, that's just my take on it.So, you do understand that it's revenue. And no, I don't know where the money goes, but I understand that some of it will go back into the economy. Maybe some goes into savings for homes, cars, or investments. I also understand that some of the 'taypayer funds' came from these very borrowers.
And if it goes into savings, then that will allow more borrowing to buy more things and increase demand that will increase GDP (maybe if I write it enough times, it will get through, lol.)
I didn't think about the students funding their own loans - good point.
That is right, you have no idea either. But studies (and common sense) show that MOST people use it to buy things which increases demand which increases GDP. If you were poorish, would you do differently?
I assume your last statement is referring to Trump, who fits the bill like a glove.
For a little humor . . . just read a meme at Facebook.
Anytime you see the word "inflation" in the news, replace it with "record-breaking corporate profits."
Trusim?I thought of commenting, but I noticed this thread to be two years old. A new thread could be created, perhaps. What do you think, Tim?
Hello Venkat!
I can see how that perception may seem true with a thread two years old. My post you replied to was a little off humor to a dialogue that was occurring on the topic - inflation.
A little background. This thread has been continuous since its inception with near daily postings from participants. My Esoteric the creator posts updates for dialogue almost daily. In the last 24 hours there has been over twenty replies/posts.
Is it so? Sorry, I couldn't realize this fact. Just now, I notice that there are 4794 posts on this thread. A wonderful progress.
I can catch your point that behind every point of rise in the inflation index, there could be lots of profits made by a certain group of people or some corporate body.FINALLY!!!! LYING TRUMP is one large step closer to being held accountable for his obvious criminal activity.
He is sitting in the defendants seat of his first of four CRIMINAL trials, thank God.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … index.html'real' Donald Trump is a human being. May God help him. Even the thief on the cross beside Jesus receive help.
Courtesy Warner Brothers Animation "High Diving Hare" 1949
Let's see you get out of this one. This time you're a divin
It looks like MAGA is getting tired of all the LYING TRUMP DRAMA. Thin crowds outside the courthouse.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/1 … k-00152339ESO? Why, you take an unfair tangent view. The last paragraph of the link says it all. The Pro-Trump crowd is small, so is the Trump crowd even small(er). Yet, the story goes on to conclude the lose of interest in the Trump case from both crowds.
Because Trump expects HUGE crowds and lied that this one was "Very Big" when it was a shadow of previous protests for Trump.
Okay. But I don't get it here. Where, or when did he claim the protestants was mountainous?
I think it was when he went out on a lunch break or maybe when he left for the day.
Eso, you're addicted to referencing CNN or the like. Now specify and reference the venue, and thanks.
I reference CNN because it is a good, relatively unbiased, reliable and honest outlet that is easy to read.
To LYING TRUMP and some of his MAGA supporters, mayhem, gore, and dismemberments are "beautiful"
Trump recently said at a rally in Pennsylvania that "Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was," Trump said during a Saturday rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, in what was his first campaign event in the battleground state. "It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country," he continued."
To this, a Civil War historian replied: "Writing on X, formerly Twitter, T.J. Stiles said the former president's take on the Battle of Gettysburg, which was fought between July 1-3, 1863, and killed an estimated 51,000 people, was "inarticulate" and "reductive."Once again you have been saved from a long, fact-filled, quote-filled analysis of the obstruction charge against ex-officer Fischer the SC heard yesterday. When I hit submit, the computer decided it wanted me to sign back in.
Anyway, the bottom line was that it appears the gov't picked the weakest of the sections in the Statute to charge the insurrectionists under of obstruction. In reading the statute it seems to me that just about any other section would have been better given the context of the statute.
Every other section had two parts to it, all dealing with impeding an official proceeding. There was an intimidation component of someone who had a job to do in the proceeding. Sometimes that could be Pence and other times the congresspeople themselves.
The other component was document related, which in this case would be the official certifications that the insurrectionists were attempting to prevent from either being given to Pence or brought to the floor.
Why the gov't chose door 2, the "otherwise impede an official proceeding" clause is a mystery to me.
In any case, I bet they lose this fight and will have to refile using one or more of the more appropriate sections or bring what should have been brought originally, insurrection/sedition.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/politics … index.htmlTrump's stock DJT has almost lost all of the value it gained when it went public. This has cost, on paper at least, Trump and MAGA who invested in the stock, hundreds of millions of dollars - another failed Trump business venture.
The stock has lost a whopping 70% of it value in the last few days.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/investin … index.htmlWhy was the company created? Was it to make money for Trump or to give a social media voice to him?
I strongly suspect that one of the primary reasons was to give a social media voice to Trump. It has done so, and is thus a success. You don't get to define what "success" is for a company you didn't build, didn't invest in and have no stake at all in. Not even if your definition "proves" Trump always fails at business.Why did Trump take it public if not to make billions of dollars?
The fact is they wanted a cash infusion infusion through the merger. I don't know what shape TS was in prior to making the decision to merge so many months ago, but it is not in good financial condition right now."Why did Trump take it public if not to make billions of dollars?"
To grow using other people's resources (money). That's why every company that goes public does so.
April 17, 2024 -- POLITICS
Trump Media shares rise more than over 13% in early trading after days of declines the day is young -- https://www.barrons.com/market-data/sto … let_topbar
I find your comment very funny for lack of a better word. It amazes me how you feel you are invested in the stock.Like the book title says, Everything Trump Touches Dies. It was a good read.
In 2016, he defeated the Democratic candidate (The Queen of the Democrats). His victory resonated deeply, touching the lives of many across the nation. To millions of Americans, he has emerged as a genuine hero. He continues to have most likely half the Nation ready to vote him back into the White House. You may want to think of that. He is truely loved by millions.
Hopefully, Biden is loved by more than Trump in the final analysis.
I am fully aware of your feelings about Trump, and your thoughts that he should not be our next president --- Do you feel Biden is suitable to be the president for 4 more? We have beaten the dead horse. So, Do you feel Biden is suitable to be the president for 4 more? Yes or no.
My put is 1) CLEARLY, Lying Trump is not suitable for four more years and 2) given the overall great job Biden has done and is doing, it is a no-brainer he deserves another 4 years. He has had demonstrably one of the more successful first terms of most presidents.
There is a reason which those "millions" of people obviously miss why unbiased experts rate Trump at the bottom or near the bottom of ALL presidents.
I think he will as I would hope more people want an honest competent person in the White House rather than an authoritarian, sexual predator who is a pathetic serial liar, that tried to overturn a free a fair election - meaning Trump, of course.
If there are millions of people who want THAT for president, then I have to believe there is something seriously wrong with their judgement.
Millions Loved Hitler. Millions love Putin. Maybe you want to think about that. I do not want a Hitler or Putin as president. Do you?
Point of fact: Secretary Clinton received three million more votes than Trump.
Thank you, that is the facts of it.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than President-elect Donald Trump, giving her the largest popular vote margin of any losing presidential candidate.
Certified results in all 50 states and the District of Columbia show Clinton winning nearly 65,844,610 million votes — 48 percent __ to Trump’s 62,979,636 million votes __ 46 percent — according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
Clinton is the fifth presidential candidate in American history to win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. Democrat Al Gore, the only other presidential candidate this century to come up short in the Electoral College but claim a popular vote victory, received 540,000 more votes than President George W. Bush.
The vote total discrepancy between Democratic nominee Clinton and Trump has fueled arguments by some Democrats that the election process is undemocratic and an intense lobbying push to convince electors to cast their votes against Trump. https://apnews.com/article/2c7a5afc1382 … 74e10ff4e7
Trump finished with 304 votes and Clinton had 227.
Hear what Russia is saying about their friend in Congress, MTG, and her championing their causes.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 … digvid.cnnThis says it all about Trump voters regarding 1) how misinformed they are about President Biden and 2) how brainwashed they are by his rhetoric.
Before I go there, let me state some TRUTHS.
1) It is DEMONSTRABLY False that Biden is working to destroy democracy. It is, however, DEMONSTRABLY True that Lying Trump is doing just that. Those that say that about Biden are irrational partisan Biden-haters.
2) It is DEMONSTRABLY False that Biden's policies have hurt America or Americans in any significant, long-term way. The opposite, of course, is True of Trump. Now, that is not to say that some actions by Biden caused some problems, but they pale by comparison to all the good he has done. That is just a FACT that Biden-haters refuse to admit.
3) It is DEMONSTRABLY True, according to ALL THE EXPERTS, that Biden is a better president that Trump ever thought of being.
OK, to my story. I watched an interview with some people from the most Trumpian county in the country; it exists in Texas. That county had the distinction of having the highest percent of its voters vote for Trump. In fact it was SO bad for Democrats that in 2016, only 20 people voted for Clinton. It got worse in 2020 - only 17 people in the WHOLE county voted for Biden!
Anyway, this one couple, farmers, was interviewed and asked about Trump. They love him of course, which is fine of course (to each his own). But when asked if they thought he was "fit to be President", they both gave an emphatic NO! But then immediately said they are going to vote for him anyway. (????)
The next man was interviewed and asked the same question. He also said that Trump was both incompetent AND "unfit to be President". Yet, he said the same thing as the couple, he will vote for Trump anyway. The difference is, he gave a reason. And that reason is he believes Biden is worse, much worse. The problem is, he, like others who make the same claims, can't back his beliefs up with facts and truth. He has been brainwashed, in the way I have described before, by Trump's rhetoric to believe anything he hears Trump or his surrogates like admitted Lying Fox News.
I just don't understand how could any person of sound mind could 1) actually believe Biden is worse than Trump and/or 2) it is better to have a man as President who briefly succeeded in overthrowing an election and wanting to turn us into a Russia look-a-like.Seems they's a technical glitch at Hubpages, at the moment. What is positively being said about biden, holds alternates in Trump. And what is beimg paint negatively or written about Trump holds water in biden. In any argurment, they're two schools of thoughts, left or right. Thd center that want the left and right to fused have no mind, and are idiots.
Thanks for calling me an idiot and that I have no mind. You are very gracious.
I was going to let it go but I like your answer much better.
Tsmog, are you a center? I don't ever think you are, in all the forums I'm leveraging. You're a knowledgeable person. I don't specific name you. It was my opinion. Where in the forums you're in the center? That baffle me.
"Before I go there, let me state some TRUTHS."
Could you kindly provide evidence supporting all the points you've made? I'm curious because it seems like quite a definitive statement. Maybe it would be more accurate to frame your assertions as personal perspectives rather than absolute truths. After all, distinguishing between facts and opinions is crucial.Even I think those are just opinions. Some I agree with, some are very debatable.
Valeant - are you saying that Biden is working to destroy democracy is "debatable"?
Are you saying Biden's policies have hurt America and Americans in any long-term significant way? I allowed a caveat that not ALL policies were benign but that in the larger scheme of things that pale by comparison to the good he has done.
Are you saying that the experts don't say Biden is doing a better job than Trump did? You say that is debatable?You made a lot of absolute claims in that post that could, in no way, be reality. I'll give you the two I took exception with...
For example: 'It is DEMONSTRABLY True, according to ALL THE EXPERTS, that Biden is a better president that Trump ever thought of being.'
All of the experts? Seriously? Just because you put it in capital letters, doesn't make it a truth. Nor when you backtrack and ask me 'if the experts' say it.
And one easy example of Biden's policies hurting in the long-term is the amount he's adding to the national debt. Instead of trying to balance a budget, he'll likely end up adding between $5-7 trillion more.Well, let's put it this way, show me one EXPERT who says Trump is better than Biden. I have already presented on several occasions the opinions of the experts I could find and they are unanimous in ranking Biden much higher than Trump.
The debt, really? Unless the national debt far outpaces our national income, it is not a SERIOUS problem, although it is a problem.
My proof? We have a national debt for how long now? Please point to one time when the size of the debt as a percent of GDP ever caused an economic problem. I can recall one time when we almost talked our way into a problem in the 1980s,
But if you tick off the various economic crises since 1950, not one was a result of a high national debt. Trump holds the record of debt to GDP in 2020 at 126%. What problem did that cause in the middle of the pandemic.
Biden has managed to reduce that percentage by 6% points to 120% during his term. How is that a significant problem?If you are relying on experts to compare Trump's term to Biden's, then I would question the qualifications since Biden's term has not concluded and any comparison is premature. You're comparing three years to four which is one of those false equivalencies we often complain about.
And yes, the debt. The debt is already a serious problem, with the interest on that debt taking up larger chunks of the yearly budget. You asked if a Biden policy would have long-term effects, and this one clearly does. Any comparison to Trump is irrelevant to the spending done under the Biden administration because that spending is still a long-term issue.What exsperts? I have not found any articles about "experts" rating Biden as of yet concerning his time in office concerning approval or job performance. I don't think experts would add him until he leaves office.
One could assume polls would give some opinion on what citizens feel about presidential approval.
Trump -- https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po … ald-trump/
Biden -- https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po … joe-biden/
It well appears in the past few weeks Trump has gained in citizen's approval ratings
BTW, I don't use capitalization to yell. There are several on here who don't read, or simply ignore, words that are written. I capitalize to make sure they can't miss the important parts of my comments.
I would like to expand on the idea of a balanced budget. It has happened only once in modern American history. It resulted from a deal made between Gingrich and Clinton (one outcome of which was major contributor to the Great Bush Recession of 2008), a tax increase on the wealthy, and one of the longest periods of sustained growth in American history until Obama.
You probably don't need this history, but others might:
* From 1992 until 2001, budget outlays increased every year from $1,382 billion to $1,863 billion. The point is, the Clinton - Gingrich deal did not cut federal outlays. The avg outlay growth during the Bush years was 5.8% per year. During the period that the Clinton - Gingrich deal affected, the annual growth was 3.9%. So, consequently their agreement did seem to help.
What did increase a lot was receipts. Two forces account for this: 1) the tax increase on the wealthy and sustained economic growth. In the two periods (less 2001 which was a recession) had growths of 4.1% and 10%, respectively.
To me, that is the way to get to a balanced budget.
I agree, 'debatable' is the key term here. In discussions, much of what is debated often boils down to differing views. When attempting to present factual information, it's essential to provide sources. I believe that sometimes, ECO becomes overly enthusiastic and presents claims as if they are indisputable facts.
I have provided all sorts of evidence previously. Go back and look at that. Better yet, start viewing news outlets that don't lie to you like Lying Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN.
Yes, those are quite definitive statements (none are opinion and if you had looked at previous proofs, you would know that) because to anyone who is not MAGA, they are known truths, known facts.No, you have not offered factual sources, you very rarely do. What you offer are opinion pieces that as a rule have no sources concerning quotes. It is unfair to make accusations in the form of stating a person said something you can't source a quote.
POLICIES Lying Trump Promises to do if elected:
* ENDANGER AMERICANS: “We will shift massive portions of federal law enforcement to immigration enforcement — including parts of the DEA, ATF, FBI, and DHS,” (He made similar promises in 2016 and 2020; he broke those promises.)
It is a given that native-born Americans cause the higher percentage of crime when compared to immigrants trying to cross the border, Trumps plan will strip the nation of its law enforcement protection. But, that is music to the ears of native-born criminals and MAGA.
Alternatively, in order to keep American citizens protected from other American citizen Trump will have to cause a massive increase in our federal deficit (again) and a noticeable increase in our nation debt to fund the new law enforcement he would have to hire to keep our native-born crime rate in check.
Why not just focus on those who actually cause the crime? I don't know, because it doesn't speak to his base maybe?Source please, please give quotes from Trump, not CNN OP. There are many YouTube that present Trump's rallies. He well lays out his agenda.
You see what I mean, you don't even believe what Trump says anymore. Those were quotes!!
I requested direct quotes from Trump, not interpretations from an author. Despite my efforts, I haven't been able to locate any of the statements you've posted. I didn't contest your claims, merely asked for source evidence. Considering the potential impact of such statements, I expected them to be widely reported by various media outlets. However, my search yielded no verifiable quotes.
Rather than addressing my inquiry, you resorted to unnecessary insults. Such behavior is uncalled for. Let's maintain a civil discourse by providing substantiated evidence. If you want to share a viewpoint make mention it's your view. Otherwise, it merely appears to be an unsupported tirade. No need to resort to nonsensical personal attacks.
"I have provided all sorts of evidence previously. Go back and look at that. Better yet, start viewing news outlets that don't lie to you like Lying Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN." ECO
Please source these hyperbloic statements --
DRUG CARTELS
"The former president has also made waging “war” on drug cartels a priority for his second term. If elected, Trump said in his November 2022 campaign announcement that he would ask Congress to ensure that drug smugglers and human traffickers can receive the death penalty for their “heinous acts.”
Trump also vowed to “take down” drug cartels by imposing naval embargos on cartels, cutting off cartels’ access to global financial systems and using special forces within the Department of Defense to damage the cartels’ leadership."
Here is the thing - he promised that in 2016 and again in 2020. He failed then so why would a Trump voter expect him to succeed this time around?
Also, there is this:
* America already has polices to cut off cartels from the global financial systems.
* Trump promises to start wars with the foreign nations he sends our special forces into to "damage the cartels' leadership"
* Navel embargos are directed at nation states that have ports. Is he threatening to blockade all of Mexico's ports? If not that, is he going to all our navel assets off our coast to interdict any vessel they run across?"
POLICIES LYING TRUMP promises to enact if elected again.
DRUG CARTELS
"The former president has also made waging “war” on drug cartels a priority for his second term. If elected, Trump said in his November 2022 campaign announcement that he would ask Congress to ensure that drug smugglers and human traffickers can receive the death penalty for their “heinous acts.”
Trump also vowed to “take down” drug cartels by imposing naval embargos on cartels, cutting off cartels’ access to global financial systems and using special forces within the Department of Defense to damage the cartels’ leadership."
Here is the thing - he promised that in 2016 and again in 2020. He failed then so why would a Trump voter expect him to succeed this time around?
Also, there is this:
* America already has polices to cut off cartels from the global financial systems.
* Trump promises to start wars with the foreign nations he sends our special forces into to "damage the cartels' leadership"
* Navel embargos are directed at nation states that have ports. Is he threatening to blockade all of Mexico's ports? If not that, is he going to put all our navel assets off our coast to interdict any vessel they run across?POLICIES LYING TRUMP promises to enact if elected again.
DRUG CARTELS
"The former president has also made waging “war” on drug cartels a priority for his second term. If elected, Trump said in his November 2022 campaign announcement that he would ask Congress to ensure that drug smugglers and human traffickers can receive the death penalty for their “heinous acts.”
Trump also vowed to “take down” drug cartels by imposing naval embargos on cartels, cutting off cartels’ access to global financial systems and using special forces within the Department of Defense to damage the cartels’ leadership."
Here is the thing - he promised that in 2016 and again in 2020. He failed then so why would a Trump voter expect him to succeed this time around?
Also, there is this:
* America already has polices to cut off cartels from the global financial systems.
* Trump promises to start wars with the foreign nations he sends our special forces into to "damage the cartels' leadership"
* Navel embargos are directed at nation states that have ports. Is he threatening to blockade all of Mexico's ports? If not that, is he going to all our navel assets off our coast to interdict any vessel they run across?My wife and I saw Civil War yesterday evening. We enjoyed it very much and the acting was fabulous.
For those who don't know, it is based on the fictional premise that the dictatorial President is serving his third term (not unlike what Trump "thinks" he is probably doing sense he didn't lose in 2020, lol). The presumption is that we had a fractured society like we have today. The fictional part, of course, is that it actually did come unglued and broke into four warring factions:
The Loyalist States: AK, HI, NV, AZ, NM, CO, and the rest of the mid-West and eastern seaboard.
The New People's Army, which didn't seem to play a role in the movie: WA, OR and east to include Michigan.
The The Florida Alliance, which did get an honorable mention: OK, TN, AR, MS, LA, AL, GA, and FL.
And then there is the most unlikely alliance of all - The Western Alliance consisting of California and, lol, TX.
The Western Alliance seemed to be the ones doing most of the fighting, but that wasn't what the movie was about. What the movie did was follow four (briefly six) journalists from somewhere in the Northeast, say Philadelphia just to have a starting point. Their goal is to get a quote from the President (who vaguely resembles Trump, many probably won't see it).
The story then is following these journalists and photojournalist as they make their way to D.C. They can't go directly there for safety reasons so they take a circuitous route through Pittsburg, West Virginia, Virginia, and then D.C. Along the way they encounter several challenging situations which they work their way through and revealing their backstories while doing it. One such episode is when they run into one of the militias (think Proud Boys) that are terrorizing the land. They ultimately arrive in Charlottesville, WV to join the Western Forces as they march on D.C. I'll leave description there other than to say the journalists make it to the White House and get their quote.
The cinematography was marvelous - and very gory in many places; if you have a weak stomach, I don't recommend seeing it. But what is does do is present a very realistic, unglorified view of what war looks, sounds, and feels like.
In any case, they do a great job of keeping politics out of it and just focuses on the characters. I recommend seeing it.Yes I have the proof you so desperately need right here:
When You're Hypnotized by MAGA Subversion!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPk8DY3Cq5QSo, what did the first day of Lying Trump's Criminal Trial establish?
That Pecker, Cohen, and Trump schemed, in broad terms, to "capture and kill" Stormy Daniels story of Trump's infidelity in order to help him become president.
"The scheme, the prosecutor said, was three-pronged: AMI would publish flattering stories about Trump, publish hit stories on Trump’s political opponents and kill negative stories that could harm Trump’s campaign. The “catch and kill” practice was at the “core” of the conspiracy, Colangelo told the jury."
On its face, this is not illegal. What the prosecutors will try to prove is that the money that was paid to Daniels for her silence was done with the intent of improving Trump's chances of winning the 2016 election. Because this was hidden and not reported, it became illegal election interference, a crime in New York.
Hopefully for the prosecution, Cohen will tell the same story.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/22/politics … index.html"That Pecker, Cohen, and Trump schemed, in broad terms, to "capture and kill" Stormy Daniels story of Trump's infidelity in order to help him become president."
Was did leaked out of the courtroom? I have not heard that Pecker confirmed that Trump "schemed" to kill the story or even that he knew about it. Do you have a source to prove that statement?
This quote -- ""The scheme, the prosecutor said, was three-pronged: AMI would publish flattering stories about Trump, publish hit stories on Trump’s political opponents and kill negative stories that could harm Trump’s campaign. The “catch and kill” practice was at the “core” of the conspiracy, Colangelo told the jury."
Wow, I think his context was carefully thought out -- he does not in any way claim that Trump did anything he mentions. Seems odd, not to accuse Trump of being part of the scheme.
What the prosecutors would ultimately have to prove first is that Trump even knew about the plan to pay hush money to anyone... Did he know money was paid to Daniels for her silence? I would think a lot rides on what Trump knew, were his actions legal, and whether he agreed to pay Daniels or he found out she was paid after the fact. No one can prove the intent. I guess the Supreme Court will rule on his rights to hide
the issue to prevent hurting his family. I am sure they will also look at the fact that the statutes of limitation had run out, and the DOJ looked at the case and declined to charge. Paying hush money is legal... and protecting someone's family is empathetic.So much for Lying Trump not getting involved with his company's paperwork and signing checks.
Pecker - David Pecker is testifying that he saw Trump review and sign invoices and checks.
He described sitting in Trump's office when Trump's assistant Rhona Graff walked in and gave him invoices and checks to sign.
"I noticed that he reviewed the invoice and looked at the check and he would sign them," Pecker testified.
Caught Trump in yet another major lie.I don't expect too much in the way of comments as I discuss the course of the Criminal Trial of Lying Trump, but I'll push on anyway.
Today, Pecker clearly and concretely established that he was part of a sleazy conspiracy to use a popular newspaper to clandestinely to influence voters to either vote for Trump or not vote for his opponent.
This behavior, of course, is not uncommon in politics; nor is it illegal. But the degree of sophistication of this deception is unusual for modern politics. It immediately brought to mind the battle between Adams and Jefferson around 1800, where both sides made what Pecker, Cohen, and Trump did seem petty by comparison.
In any case, it isn't the fact that they did it, it was the cover up to hide what they did What the prosecution did today was proof there was a conspiracy between Trump and others whose sole purpose was to improve his chances of winning the 2016 election.
They also established that Trump was willing to pay to have embarrassing stories about kept from the public and his opponents. That said as well, this is not illegal either.
What makes it illegal is falsifying business records to cover up the payments. Now, we are up to a misdemeanor in NY.
The last step for the prosecutors is to prove that the purpose of falsifying the records was to cover up another crime, in this case NY campaign finance violations. If they can do that, then we have a felony.
So far so good. Cohen, I think is a former Trump lawyer, who advise Trump to say 'not I'. If Trump is highly in 'infidelity', its probably Stormy Daniels is higher. This is what the majority of Democrates, refuse to note. But beat Trump, black and blue on the head. And then, the 'catch and kill' technique...'the money that was paid to Daniels for her silence'...was not being noted by the Dem, or is ignored in toto. All that was the talk was the outcome or court case, the money Trump, had to pay Stormy D, putting Trump, in a bad light than ever.
I don't think Daniels is married, and even if she was, so what if she stepped out on her husband more than Trump stepped out on his wiveS.
In any case, that isn't what Trump's crime is. His crime is trying to corruptly keep it secret from the voters.
Colangelo: "That Pecker, Cohen, and Trump schemed, in broad terms, to "capture and kill" Stormy Daniels story of Trump's infidelity in order to help him become president."
"The scheme, the prosecutor said, was three-pronged: AMI would publish flattering stories about Trump, publish hit stories on Trump’s political opponents and kill negative stories that could harm Trump’s campaign. The “catch and kill” practice was at the “core” of the conspiracy, Colangelo told the jury."
Sharlee: 'Wow, I think his context was carefully thought out -- he does not in any way claim that Trump did anything he mentions. Seems odd, not to accuse Trump of being part of the scheme.'
He already established in the opening line that all three participated in the scheme. That he expands on the scheme a little later on does not exclude Trump in any way.
Just the latest example of the blinders we see from MAGA when it comes to their cult leader.Here is what MAGA people need to understand.. Nobody is above the law, not even Trump. What was his motive and what was the harm that was caused by his actions? That's all that has to be answered in order to make sense out of all his courtroom drama.
His motive was to keep his immoral behavior under wraps, so that it would not taint his election campaign. The harm was the hush money payments undermined the integrity of the electoral process and the public’s right to know about Trump's immoral behavior.If they understood Lying Trump wasn't above the law, they probably wouldn't be MAGA.
"Prosecutor Chris Conroy captured the quintessential Donald Trump in a single sentence at the ex-president’s hush money trial on Tuesday.
“He knows what he’s not allowed to do, and he does it anyway.”
Conroy was referring to Trump’s incessant testing of a gag order protecting witnesses, court staff and the jury. But there’s rarely been a better description of the presumptive GOP nominee’s entire approach to business and politics – or the way he’s promised to behave if voters send him back to the White House."
And somehow, for some reason, Lying Trump supporters find that laudable. The rest of us can only shake our heads in pity at how far they have fallen.Another state goes after Trump (well almost) and his closest advisors for election interference.
Arizona handed down indictments for Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and
Boris Epshteyn an attorney and advisor to Trump, among others plus all of Arizona's fake electors. Trump was unindicted coconspirator #1.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/politics … index.htmlIn Pennsylvania, Biden pulls 93% of the primary vote. Trump only 83%, with Nikki Haley, who has been out of the race for six weeks getting 155,000 votes. Ouch.
"Four years ago, the prospect of a competitive Presidential primary led to some relatively strong voter registration reports for Pennsylvania’s Democratic Party. Yet as 2020 progressed that contested primary never came, and the summer and fall registration reports were far more encouraging for the Pennsylvania GOP. Nevertheless, Biden was ultimately able to win back the Keystone State in November.
So Pennsylvania Democrats can take just a bit of solace in the fact that these latest voter registration trends can only tell us so much about future election results.
But that doesn’t mean we just should ignore the overwhelming nature of these numbers. Since I first started tracking voter registrations trends in Pennsylvania, Republicans have generally eaten into Democrats’ historic advantage. This is the first time I can recall, however, that the GOP posted gains in all 67 counties throughout the commonwealth.
Furthermore, the comparison to the last Presidential cycle is particularly stark. Back during the COVID-delayed voter registration deadline in May 2020, the Democratic advantage was D+803,427. Today it stands at 397,241. In that time 122,639 more voters have joined the rolls, yet Dems have lost 195,867 registrants as the Republicans gained 210,319. All the while, independent voters who chose either no affiliation or some other party rose 108,187."
Please read on --- Very interesting
https://penncapital-star.com/voting/ana … -election/And yet, even with the advantages you say republicans have added, Trump gets just 790,477 votes compared to 2020 when he pulled in 1,053,616. And Biden was able to get 941,516 in this same primary election. Trump would need every Haley voter just to get to Biden's total, and every exit poll has stated that 20% of Haley voters are not going for Trump and half of those plan to cross over to Biden.
Please keep in mind that this assessment focuses primarily on the current situation. While I hesitate to make predictions, it seems likely that Nikki's votes, along with those of many independents, may tend to favor Trump. Republicans generally don't align with Biden due to their aversion to government involvement in their lives, war support, and increased spending. Joe's positions seem to contradict traditional Republican values. Joe shot himself in the foot at every turn. Face it the typical Republicans don't share any of the liberal BS Joe dishes up.
The election will be telling."While I hesitate to make predictions, it seems likely that Nikki's votes, along with those of many independents, may tend to favor Trump."
He has repeatedly called Haley a bird brain. That's sort of really pis*es women off. He has done nothing to win over her voters. I think about it this way, it takes a very motivated voter to go out and vote in a primary in which their candidate dropped out months ago. That motivation? To cast a vote against Trump. It's a real statement.
an early March survey by Emerson College found that 63 percent of Haley backers preferred President Joe Biden over Trump in a general election matchup, compared to 27 percent who preferred Trump.
Her voters were never going to vote for Trump. In November, some will stay home but I think most will go for Biden. Independents are repulsed by Trump's lack of character and divisiveness. Haley appealed to Independent voters on both of those measures.
Has anyone checked on some of the farther right guys tonight since news of the Gateway Pundit declaring bankruptcy for spreading slanderous falsehoods during the 2020 election? A notable few guys that post here have to just be absolutely crushed.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Reading that is the only good thing that inspired me to look further with today's early morning skim of what is what.
Glad to see it. Liars and defamers like Gateway Pundit need to be put out of business or at least held accountable. Fortunately, bankruptcy generally cannot discharge debts such as those arising from defamation lawsuits.
I wonder if they lied on their bankruptcy petition by claiming only a million dollars in assets. Is this a guy with a computer sitting at home with the intent of hurting people?
Fact check: Trump falsely claims police turned away ‘thousands’ from Manhattan courthouse and that supporters ‘can’t get near’
Does anyone want to hazard a guess when Lying Trump will surpass 100,000 lies since 2015? He must be well over 20,000 by now, many of them major lies and at least hundreds intended to hurt people or get people hurt..
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/politics … index.htmlHe tries so hard to activate his people.
Remember his warnings of death and destruction if he was ever indicted? How many indictments ago was that? He wants big protests at his trials, but every time he's been let down. Poor guy.
He want chaos.
Maybe one of this days...
Spent a few hours listening to the Supreme Court arguments about immunity for the DC case.
Barrett cornered Trump's attorney to concede that at least three of the counts related to personal conduct and not official conduct. He tried to argue that calling Arizona to open a legislative session to talk about voter fraud was in his official acts.
Roberts seemed inclined to send the case back to the appellate court to narrow their views of what is prosecutable. But he was also skeptical that immunity for presidential acts, when done with criminality, should be immune. He gave the example of appointing ambassadors, but taking bribes while doing so. He didn't like the idea that exempting criminality while conduct this official act, when bribery was involved was acceptable.
Jackson was completely skeptical about why a president could not faithfully execute the laws during their term. Her concern was that to give immunity would invite more criminality.
Her exchange: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaAiHhZ-yWw
Alito seemed open to immunity, but wasn't leaning one way or the other.
Gorsuch gave an example to the prosecution about whether a president, with intent to obstruct congress to prevent civil rights legislation from passage with a 'mostly' peaceful protest, should be prosecuted. The prosecutor eventually got to the yes.Jackson also suggested letting Chutkan start her trial in a limited way.
Related Discussions
- 24
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 9 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
- 89
Paul Manafort Indictment Not For Collusion
by ga anderson 6 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
- 43
Is THIS One of the Examples of Trump Obstruction of Justice"?
by Scott Belford 19 months ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
- 19
Manafort to Cooperate with Mueller
by J Conn 5 years ago
If he's going to cooperate, that would assume that there's something of value to the investigation in there. Should be interesting to see what he shares.
- 16
The Trump Dossier revisited.
by Randy Godwin 6 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...
- 19
Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates, jailed
by Don W 4 years ago
Rick Gates, the former Trump campaign aid, has been sentenced to 45 days in prison, 3 years probation and 300 hours of community service. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/poli … index.htmlOf the 4 people investigated by the FBI, this brings the total that have been jailed to 3.Paul...