The Impeachment of Donald Trump!
Valeant, for starters, Russia in not a hostile nation. Secondly, the matter of who hacked or otherwise compromised the DNC server could of course be easily settled, had the DNC refused to allow the FBI to conduct a forensic examination--and had the server not disappeared into the ozone. I think you should reserve judgement until you have some evidence.
You are an idiot. Seventeen United States intelligence services, Congress, and half of the Mueller Report have all settled the matter that Russia hacked the DNC and attacked the 2016 election to assist Trump in becoming president. The evidence is ample - get an education please and stop making stupid comments.
You got to remember, Valeant, Blue, like Trump is on Russia's side. Her comments prove it.
I knew Blue works for the Russians!!! What do you think the all out attack on the 2016 election was and what they are now doing to sway the 2020 election. Do not be so totally naive not to think that Russia isn't at cyberwar with America. Trump is just too dumb, or accepting, to know it. It think it is the latter which is why I think he is a traitor.
Your ignorance is astounding, Blue. If it weren't so dangerous, it would be funny.
1. Rarely does the FBI physically take servers to do forensics. They make a mirror image of what is in the server and do analysis on that - which is exactly what they did.
2. The DNC so-called "server" is not a single device, It is a suite of devices all hooked together, sometimes known as a server farm. I had exactly that with the program I managed for the Air Force and I have the same set-up with my own company.
3. So NO, the "server" didn't disappear into the ozone.
FACTS MATTER, Blue, I really wish you would use them.
Valeant, it would also be of interest if you would elaborate on how Russia is hostile to the US.
I almost never agree with Valeant, BUT the fact that Russia tried to influence our election for president ALONE makes them hostile to the United States.
Here is a good article on it from the Heritage Foundation.
"Russia’s military and political antagonism toward the United States continues unabated, and its efforts to undermine U.S. institutions and the NATO alliance are serious and troubling. Russia uses its energy position in Europe along with espionage, cyberattacks, and information warfare to exploit vulnerabilities and seeks to drive wedges into the transatlantic alliance and undermine people’s faith in government and societal institutions."
https://www.heritage.org/military-stren … sts/russiaBlue: Putin wants to gain back as much territory as he can from the days of the Soviet Union. In that regard, he is not only hostile to the U.S. but also certain countries in Europe.
He wants the Ukraine back under Russian control, but right now the Ukraine is more closely allied with Europe than Russia. Therefore, he is waging war in the Ukraine to get it back under his control.
And it is in our security interest to not allow that to happen. So Putin is hostile to not only the U.S., but those countries that are part of NATO. It seems to me, Trump wanting to drop out of NATO is counter-productive to our security, but it is what Putin wants.
Trump got his tit caught in the wringer by being in the middle of this and wanting to use if for for his own personal gain to give him the edge for re-election.
I don't think he and the Guilianni team realized what they were getting into and the ramifications of their efforts to get the election edge. Now they and the senate are going to have to operate above the law to get out the mess they created. The sad part is they will do it because of their re-election.Would it not also make common sense Putin would strongly disapprove of Trump when it was Trump that increased aid to the Ukrain but also has sold them weapons as well as our Javelin system? I have used an article written when the Trump Ad decided to help Ukraine. He took it up almost immediately after coming into office.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/23/us-offi … raine.htmlI am not sure Trump actually increased aid, I think Congress did that. What Trump did do, one of very few good things, is approve lethal aid for Ukraine.
However, for every one thing he did to piss Putin off, he did 10 things to make him smile. You know, like agree with him that Russia didn't attack America's election or turning over Syria to him.Actually it was Obama that more or less handed Syria over to Russia. You need to brush up on Obama's foreign policies.
It was Trump that bombed Syria twice when they crossed Obama's "red line"... Yes, when Syria/Russia used inappropriate weapons of mass destruction it was Trump that stepped up. he did not consult Congress he saw the seriousness and mass loss of life and stepped up as a president should do.
Obama did nothing, nothing but ask Congress if he should do something?
He, as I have said on many occasions, flew under the radar. He just did not have what it takes to be a president. I must remind you, over 500 thousand civilians died in Syria, men, women, and children on Obama's time, over two million civilians became refugees. Bringing up Obama and Russia was a poor thought on your part. It is one part of his history that will forever be looked on as his lack of caring when people were being slaughtered.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/29/ob … ory-works/
Actually, since Trump took office the aid has increased greatly the first year of Trump's term, giving Ukraine $446 million. In 2018, that slipped to $350 million. In Obamas 8 years 2.1 in aid. Obama was unwilling to supply them with weapons to defend themselves. And you think Trump favors making Putin smile?
Maybe just time to start giving credit where its due. You can dislike the man, but his deeds speak loudly to some that are watching.I am sorry, Shar, but didn't Obama actually send our troops INTO Syria???? Wasn't it Trump who abandoned our allies to die by pulling mostly out of Syria and now Russians control our former bases??? Get Real - FACTS MATTER!
Actually, Obama got Russia to help the West strip Assad of all his chemical weapons. Then the Russians let them get them back while Trump was in office.
"nothing but ask Congress" - Did you really say that?? No wonder you support Trump being dictator and see nothing wrong from totally boycotting Congresses request for witness' and documents.
As I said, it was Congress who increased aid, not Trump.
You betcha Trump is making Putin smile, they are cheering in Moscow because they got Trump elected.
I will give Trump credit WHEN and IF he deserves it. For example, I give him credit for finally backing prison reform and he did something just recently that was good, I can't remember what it was, but I remember thinking "finally, he did something right for a change."
BUT "To be clear, he’s done mostly bad ones. He’s more personally corrupt than Chester A. Arthur, more surrounded by criminals than Ulysses S. Grant, and more shamelessly duplicitous than Richard Nixon."Obama did send troops... Facts do matter, so do numbers...
"President Obama has authorized a small number (50 troops) of U.S. special operations forces to deploy to northern Syria, according to a senior administration official.
10/30/15 --The group of fewer than 50 troops will “help coordinate local ground forces and coalition efforts” to fight Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) forces, the official said. "
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/2586 … s-to-syria
He then just before leaving office send 250 more troops (to little to late...)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide … SKCN0XL0ZE
In March of 2017 shortly after taking office Trump sent in an additional 400 troops to Syria. And changed the rules of engagement.
"The Pentagon has authorized the deployment of 400 additional troops to Syria in the ongoing fight against the Islamic State militant group. "
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump … oops-syria
You need to research the totality of a story, and just the byline. As I said you should take time and really look into Obama's foreign policies. He always flew under the radar.Unlike Trump, Obama followed what the generals recommended (with one exception). By the time Obama left office, there were about 500 combat troops, there were many more support troops, as it turns out when Trump changed how we count troops.
What Trump did do, that Obama didn't and, I think, should have, was change the rules of engagement and let American troops become more aggressive on the battlefield.
Obama wanted to do in Syria what a few special operators did in Afghanistan. by leveraging their expertise with Allied air power and joining local forces to route the Taliban.
By the time Obama left office, Iraq, which had been almost totally been overrun, was effectively cleared of the Taliban (bet you had forgotten that). He was also making great gains in Syria.
You also forget that the real fighters on the ground in Syria were our forgotten allies the Kurds. They were the ones, with the help of our special operators in Syria did most of the damage to ISIS.
So yes, I do research the totality of the story.Ones Trump got in office he sent troops in to clean out ISIS, he untied the military's hands, and let them win a war against ISIS. We were in Syria to aid the Kurds to wipe out ISIS we did that. Time to come home... This was one of Trump's promises to win the war on ISIS and come home... Some American's are willing to pull out after a war, not stay in a country and maintain peace. Look to the UN and NATO to do that.
You may not like how Trump conducts foreign policy, but I do. As do many that voted for that foreign agenda. I can't argue this point. We all have a vote in 2020. With all the investigation, all the screaming about literally anything Trump does, I predict he will win due to o most Americans realize just how much better the Country has become under his agenda, and his ability to problem-solve.
He is a strong president and has one of the best job performances I have witnessed in my lifetime.
In regards to Obama's foreign policy record, his decisions in regards to Syria speak for themselves. 500 thousand dead. I was never so ashamed of America turning our backs on genocide. You can make all the excuses you want to, But when you peak from behind that blindfold, there will still be 500 thousand dead... This would not have happened under Trump.We might as well come home, Trump has already signed the Kurds death sentence and turned over Syria (minus the oil fields) to Russia. I am sure that as soon as Putin asks for them, TraitorTrump will turn those over to Putin as well.
BTW, what foreign policy does ImpeachedTrump have. The only long-term one I can see is Love America's Enemies and Hate America's Friends.
Thank God, in less than a year America will have elected a real president (Biden, I hope, but even Sanders will do) and kicked this corrupt demagogue of the gutter where he belongs. (Actually, I bet he even lands in jail come 2022.)
Trump is probably the best con man the world has EVER known because who else has conned 63 million otherwise intelligent people."BTW, what foreign policy does ImpeachedTrump have"
Ever hear of ISIS? LOL
The stated aims of the foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration include a focus on security, by fighting terrorists abroad and strengthening border defenses and immigration controls; an expansion of the U.S. military; an "America First" approach to trade; and diplomacy whereby "old enemies become friends".
H has beefed up our military that was declining. He has brought down the number of illegals that were for many years pouring across the borders, and he has Iran on the ropes. And all this in three years. He had South and North Korea on speaking terms. Not to forget he has armed the Ukrain... There actually is lots more, but not about to waste time. You tend to ignore what you just don't want to believe. Not sure how you could have not been aware of these accomplishments?
Actually he has not been impeached if Nancy does not hand it over to the Senate.
"Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment? Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?
The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.
But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment, as contemplated by the Constitution, does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.
If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all."
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … -democrats
"Not so fast!
A Harvard law professor who was a pro-impeachment witness called by Democrats now says that President Trump might not technically be impeached if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declines to send the articles to the Senate."
https://nypost.com/2019/12/20/trump-may … professor/
I say Trump will not have to move for 4 more years. Just like I said the last election.
Because of your obviously short memory, you forget that Obama had effectively "won the war", if that is possible. Under Obama's leadership, and before Trump got on the scene, Iraq was freed from ISIS control. Also, while Obama was president, and before Trump got on the scene, ISIS was on the run in Syria. Why don't you want to give credit where credit is due. Oh yeah, because they are Democrats, I suppose.
What Trump did was increase the pressure by giving, as you said, American troops a more active role, which I think Obama should have done, but didn't. Nevertheless, he was very successful.
Trump almost finished rolling them up, even falsely telling the world they were 100% defeated when they were not (twice). (Why did he say that?!) His administration was forced to correct the record on that.
Then, at the precipitous of victory, Trump quits the battlefield to allow ISIS to grow again. At the same time, he turned the battlefield over to our enemies, the Russians. Why did we do THAT?
Trump is certainly not a strong president, hell, he is not even a weak president - he is no president at all.
As to not allowing Assad, his friend apparently, to commit genocide on his own people, I seriously doubt he would have done anything. Are you suggesting he should have pulled a Bush and invaded Syria with a few divisions of American troops?
Yes, Obama did send troops... And facts do matter, so do numbers.
"President Obama has authorized a small number (50 troops) of U.S. special operations forces to deploy to northern Syria, according to a senior administration official.
10/30/15 --The group of fewer than 50 troops will “help coordinate local ground forces and coalition efforts” to fight Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) forces, the official said. "
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/2586 … s-to-syria
He then just before leaving office send 250 more troops (to little to late...)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide … SKCN0XL0ZE
In March of 2017 shortly after taking office Trump sent in an additional 400 troops to Syria. And changed the rules of engagement. Which quickly solved the ISIS problem.
"The Pentagon has authorized the deployment of 400 additional troops to Syria in the ongoing fight against the Islamic State militant group. "
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump … oops-syria
You need to research the totality of a story, and just the byline. As I said you should take time and really look into Obama's foreign policies. He always flew under the radar.
"He wants the Ukraine back under Russian control, but right now the Ukraine is more closely allied with Europe than Russia. Therefore, he is waging war in the Ukraine to get it back under his control.
{And it is in our security interest to not allow that to happen. So Putin is hostile to not only the U.S., but those countries that are part of NATO. It seems to me, Trump wanting to drop out of NATO is counter-productive to our security, but it is what Putin wants."
Mike, wow...you are spot on.
I will say the reason that Crimea is now under the control of Russia is because obama did not stand up to them. He sent the Ukrainians food and blankets, but no offensive weapons. When Russia started massing forces on the Ukraine/Crimea border, President Donald Trump sent tank missiles, anti aircraft weapons, the latest artillery and more. Russia blinked and backed down. They knew Ukraine couldn't fight a two front war successfully.
You would be surprised how the Ukrainians view our situation.
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago
0Ya know....
It is a given that both sides will play politics with every issue, no matter how serious. War, impeachment....it doesn't matter how grave, politics will be part of the equation no matter what.
The important question is simply this: Who is defending what is right, and who is defending what is wrong? In this case, it is the Democrats who are defending our country against a president who has abused his power and obstructed justice. One can argue about whether it is impeachable, but the facts are not in dispute. If they were, the GOP would be chomping at the bit to have Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, and Giuliani testify and clear their president. They are, instead, enabling a president who has ignored every subpoena without proper justification.
I hope, if Trump gets away with this, that you are okay with future presidents doing the same, because that is exactly what will happen.If a future Democrat president makes a similar phone call to the leader of a foreign country, I will not be upset about it.
I will accept their use of Executive privilege as something that has been used by presidents for decades.
If Republicans do something as pathetic and despicable as the Democrats are doing now, I will leave the party. Just like there are Democrats right now leaving the Democrat party over this impeachment."If a future Democrat president makes a similar phone call to the leader of a foreign country, I will not be upset about it.
Fine, Mike....
But let's make sure that if withholding congressional appropriated funds is involved, the President informs Congress why the funds are being withheld as soon as possible. If Trump had done that perhaps he would not have found himself in so much trouble.One correction, funds were not withheld. They were delayed.
This happened under the obama administration when they withheld funds because of Israel allegedly having settlements on the west bank. Delaying funds as a quid pro quo was done often during the obama administration. Just like what they did with the Ukraine.There's still several million which haven't been released, Mike. Still no reason why to date.
And it wasn't "just like what they did in the Ukraine," either. What political favor did Joe demand which wasn't US policy approved by the US and EU?Delaying = Withholding
Delaying already appropriated funds which had been cleared by DoD AND HIM without approval of Congress is ILLEGAL.
EVERY suggestion you make that a previous president withheld funds was ALWAYS done in the name of national security. Trump, on the other hand, was trying to help himself and hurt America (and Ukraine) in the process.
Besides, you don't care because you have already shown yourself to be amoral."EVERY suggestion you make that a previous president withheld funds was ALWAYS done in the name of national security."
What a load of crap! You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. I don't think your elevator goes all the way to the top. Fund are withheld by the United States ALL the time, from Mexico to India and more. Nobody makes a big deal of it.
No, delaying and withholding are NOT synonyms.
Delay - make (someone or something) late or slow.
Withhold - refuse to give (something that is due to or is desired by another).
I hope your obvious limited comprehension of the English language enables you to see the difference. If not, your posts make sense.
"you have already shown yourself to be amoral"
I believe your statements have proven you are a low IQ individual with an inferior command of the English language.
I suppose the biggest problem you have is that I probably use too many words that just plain confuse you.
Sorry about that."What a load of crap! You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. " - YOU ARE projecting again Mike.
Just tell me what words confuse you the most and I'll try and put them in a way someone with your English skills can comprehend. Is English your second language? It would explain a lot.
"If a future Democrat president makes a similar phone call to the leader of a foreign country, I will not be upset about it." - AND THEREIN lies the problem isn't it - amorality.
Peoplepower:
Nobody wants the Ukraine. It is a basket case--and would be a huge liability to Russia. Nor is there the slightest evidence that Putin wishes to regain control of Eastern Europe. Pure nonsense.
The conflict in Ukraine is occurring because the eastern part of Ukraine is heavily population with ethnic Russians who do not want to be ruled by Ukraine. I am not sure any of us knows for sure to what degree Russia has offered support of this region (I'm not sure whether Russia is "waging war" in eastern Ukraine, though he is offering some support), although it is probably politically necessary for him to support the ethnic Russians in Ukraine who are under attack. (The proper was to resolve this issue would be to allow those eastern portions of Ukraine who wish to secede to vote on this.) Most if not all aggression in eastern Ukraine has been the Ukrainian government attacking Donetsk. The actions of eastern Ukrainian ethnic Russians have been almost entirely (if not entirely) defensive.
NATO's purpose in seeking to embrace Ukraine is to make it possible for NATO to place missiles, troops, tanks, bombers, and a full range of other threats of military aggression directly on Russia's border.
Russia's wish to prevent such an outcome is not an act of aggression but a defensive measure against NATO aggression. For example, if Russia or China were seeking to place large hostile military forces and missile emplacements on our border with Mexico or Canada, we would no doubt consider this a threat of aggression and a threat to our national security. Analogously, were such a situation to transpire, any claims by Russia or China that WE were the aggressor in opposing such moves would be laughable.
Russia has not been a threat to US interests since the collapse of the USSR in the early 90s. The attempt to raise the specter of a Russian threat is MIC propaganda, the better to encourage the filling of the MIC trough to more overflowing than it already is.
NATO has been a useless money-sink since the collapse of the USSR. If Europe feared Russia, they would spend a few bucks here and there on their own military defense. They know that all Russia really wants to do is sell them gas--and they also know that they'd really, really like to buy it. Such is the stuff of excellent international relations: We would like to buy your stuff that you would like to sell."am not sure any of us knows for sure to what degree Russia has offered support of this region (I'm not sure whether Russia is "waging war" in eastern Ukraine, though he is offering some support), although it is probably politically necessary for him to support the ethnic Russians in Ukraine who are under attack. (The proper was to resolve this issue would be to allow those eastern portions of Ukraine who wish to secede to vote on this."
You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the situation in Ukraine. My relatives are from there, speak the language and go there. Are you a Russian? Are you a Vinsky? If you are a Russian, you will know what I just asked you.Looks like Readmikenow is just a pseudonym for Blueheron and both are Russian apologists or agents.
My Esoteric, you said:
"I knew Blue works for the Russians!!! What do you think the all out attack on the 2016 election was and what they are now doing to sway the 2020 election."
There was no attack on the 2016 elections by the Russians--or none of any significance. Many nations also meddled in the US election, some to a much greater extent.
In terms of cyberwarfare, the chief threat to the US is China.
The FBI was never allowed to do a forensic examination of the DNC servers. There has been no such forensic examination. Nor have the servers ever been made available for such an examination."There was no attack on the 2016 elections by the Russians--or none of any significance. " - NO WONDER you are Trump supplicant if you actually believe that. Either that or you are paid by the Internet Security Agency.
How can you make such a flat-out Lie?? Have you know shame?
My Esoteric, the DNC's filing in relations to its servers states, “As a result of the persistence of the Russian state-sponsored infiltration, in order to remove the unauthorized users from its network, the DNC was required to decommission more than 140 servers, remove and reinstall all software, including the operating systems, for more than 180 computers, and rebuild at least 11 servers.” In other words, the evidence was presumably destroyed, in contradiction of 18 U.S.C. 1519, which states, “Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” So we have the destruction of evidence.
The DNC is alleged in federal court that crimes were committed on its servers, but they never let the FBI investigate and they deleted the operating systems on all the affected computers, totaling 180, decommissioned 140 servers and “rebuilt” 11 servers.
Your claims that the Russians were involved has no basis in fact and also underlines the DNC's destruction of evidence, which is illegal.But, but...what about those fake news stories from the Russians, on social media? The ones that convinced millions of deplorables that would have voted Clinton, but changed their vote to Trump? Don't we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Russians handed Trump the election this way?
Blue has gone to the dark-side. Only a Russian agent could say such absurdities they know no one will believe. That is the only thing that makes sense.
She makes Ken and WIlderness seem like they are on our side.
My inability to discount reality and consequences precludes me from that.Oh, come on Ken, you discount reality with almost every post.
Enjoy the day in the sun that you have, there is a storm brewing and it will be a bitter one come November 2020.
I honestly find it sad, that instead of moving forward, and looking to a brighter future, all the Democrats have done is look back, focus on the past, and put their backing behind what is old and corrupt (Biden).
I can only hope it will lead to great turnover, with new voices and a new direction taking control of the Democrats after the disaster that arrives on their doorstep next election.
Blue: You wrote this:
Peoplepower:
Nobody wants the Ukraine. It is a basket case--and would be a huge liability to Russia. Nor is there the slightest evidence that Putin wishes to regain control of Eastern Europe. Pure nonsense.
The conflict in Ukraine is occurring because the eastern part of Ukraine is heavily population with ethnic Russians who do not want to be ruled by Ukraine. I am not sure any of us knows for sure to what degree Russia has offered support of this region (I'm not sure whether Russia is "waging war" in eastern Ukraine, though he is offering some support), although it is probably politically necessary for him to support the ethnic Russians in Ukraine who are under attack. (The proper was to resolve this issue would be to allow those eastern portions of Ukraine who wish to secede to vote on this.) Most if not all aggression in eastern Ukraine has been the Ukrainian government attacking Donetsk. The actions of eastern Ukrainian ethnic Russians have been almost entirely (if not entirely) defensive.
NATO's purpose in seeking to embrace Ukraine is to make it possible for NATO to place missiles, troops, tanks, bombers, and a full range of other threats of military aggression directly on Russia's border.
Russia's wish to prevent such an outcome is not an act of aggression but a defensive measure against NATO aggression. For example, if Russia or China were seeking to place large hostile military forces and missile emplacements on our border with Mexico or Canada, we would no doubt consider this a threat of aggression and a threat to our national security. Analogously, were such a situation to transpire, any claims by Russia or China that WE were the aggressor in opposing such moves would be laughable.
Russia has not been a threat to US interests since the collapse of the USSR in the early 90s. The attempt to raise the specter of a Russian threat is MIC propaganda, the better to encourage the filling of the MIC trough to more overflowing than it already is.
NATO has been a useless money-sink since the collapse of the USSR. If Europe feared Russia, they would spend a few bucks here and there on their own military defense. They know that all Russia really wants to do is sell them gas--and they also know that they'd really, really like to buy it. Such is the stuff of excellent international relations: We would like to buy your stuff that you would like to sell.
Blue: From your comments, it sounds like you are a Russian sympathizer. Where do you get your information? It is a proven fact Russia has hacked our cyber systems. They have taken over our airbases in Syria. They support Al Assad and his genocide efforts on his own people, including the Kurds (thanks to Trump).
Why are we giving 400 million to Ukraine to purchase Javelin anti-tank weapons? Who are they going to use them against, if it not the Russians? You say all they want to do is sell gas to those who want to buy it. They could sell it to Assad for his barrel bombs and for gassing his own people.
What is MIC propaganda? I googled it and could not come up with anything relative to our conversation.
Peoplepower, you said:
"From your comments, it sounds like you are a Russian sympathizer."
There is no reason to be sympathetic or unsympathetic to Russia. Russia was a shambles after the collapse of the old Soviet Union, and economic basket case whose national assets were systematically looted by thugs for a decade or two. They have had their hands full in rebuilding, both economically and socially, from a catastrophic debacle. To give Putin credit, he has been instrumental in Russia's achieving a pretty respectable level of recovery. Russia is still far too weak, militarily, to consider wars of aggression, nor are they much interested in squandering much-needed resources on military adventures. Russia basically wants to be left alone to grow its economy and prosper.
The MIC likes to characterize Russia as a threat to the US or to US interests; they would like to re-animate the Cold War to justify immense military expenditures.
Another issue that's involved is the wish to prevent Russia from supplying gas to Europe.35% of Europe's natural gas consumption is provided by Russia. There are many who oppose the construction of Russia's Norstream natural gas pipeline, which circumvents the rather more direct transport route of NG across Ukraine, by going under the Baltic Sea to Germany. European dependency on Russian NG
"Where do you get your information? It is a proven fact Russia has hacked our cyber systems."I guess I'll have to continue here, as I seem to have inadvertently hit the post button before I was done.
European dependency of Russian NG tends to make both parties friendly to each other due to mutual benefit. I have read in some places that there are US interests who would like to sell far more costly US NG to Europe. So they too have reason to demonize Russia.Blue: You didn't answer my question about the MIC. It is a Moscow based construction organization?
Peoplepower, to continue, you asked,
"Where do you get your information? It is a proven fact Russia has hacked our cyber systems."
While specific links or examples would be welcome in the case of so broad a claim, pretty much every country conducts cyberwarfare against every other country. By far the most dangerous cyberwarfare threat to the US is China, rather than Russia--but they all do it, just as we do likewise. As proof that a country is a credible threat to the US, this is roughly equivalent to saying, "But they are SPYING on us! They have SPIES!" Shit, everybody has spies.
I can't help but mention that, as far as HIllary's server is concerned, all the fuss about the Russian's supposedly hacking it and making its contents public always kind of tickled me. Since Hillary was running a manifestly insecure server, it seems likely that every nation in the world had access to it, along with quite a number of computer-savvy teenagers and, in short, every other amateur hacker in the universe. If the Russians HADN'T hacked Hillary's server, they would have been the only ones.
"They have taken over our airbases in Syria."
The US presence in Syria was illegal. The Russian presence there is legal, as they were invited.
"They support Al Assad and his genocide efforts on his own people, including the Kurds (thanks to Trump). "
The gas attack has been been quite thoroughly proved to be fake. You know, rather like the bazillion other faked incidents (Gulf of Tonkin comes to mind) that have been orchestrated to win popular support for a war.
As for the Kurds, sometimes you get on the wrong side of shit and you get hosed. The Kurds are not our responsibility.There will never be a time when the US can withdraw from the ME without the loss of its airbases, and without some factions being hurt.
You are arguing for US involvement in ME wars to continue forever.Peoplepower:
Re your question about MIC propaganda:
I guess you missed Eisenhower's warning about the Military-Industrial Complex.
Totally understandable--if you're 12.
Do you suppose that any powerful interest group does NOT seek to propagandize the public? The MIC has endless resources to do so.Blue: Of course I understand the Military-Industrial Complex. I'm 81 years old. I have just not heard it expressed that way. I'm well aware of the MIC and how it is used to bring in money to defense contractors and their lobbyists. Just look at what Dick Chaney did with Halliburton during the wars in the ME. So you are saying that Russia is not a threat to the U.S. and it's allies?
Now Nancy is considering not sending the articles of Impeachment to the Senate until there is an agreement on a fair trial for the articles. This means documents and witnesses. Once again Nancy shows why she deserves to be Speaker of the House.
This may piss Trump off.
What's her problem? Pretty sure it will be just as "fair" as the House was! No Democrat allowed to call witnesses, much of it behind closed doors with no Democrat allowed, etc.
What could be "fairer" than that!?'Behind closed doors with...(no member of the opposite party allowed)...
The rest of us here will try and determine if that was just a blatant lie or you showing your lack of education.
The Democrats have hung themselves... fools adrift on a ship with no sail and no oars. They have no control of where the ship goes from here.
I won't argue it, I am confident that today is the high mark for the Democrats, they have been able to control the show and the narrative... until now.
But its all good, the Democratic Party needs a clean out, it needs to be rid of the likes of Biden and Clinton (and many more who have been there way too long), and this is how the Party gets new leadership and new direction... I trust that the voters will show their disfavor for all this stupidity when it is all said and done.
I expect that loyal Democrats will be quite upset when they see that Trump is not removed, not harmed by this impeachment in any way. And that this accomplished nothing more than stirring up support for Trump.Ken: I see this the other way. Pelosi can hold off on sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate until she gets what she wants from McConnell. He has said he will not be impartial and will be in lock step with whatever Trump and his legal team wants to do.
Pelosi now controls when and how the process will proceed as far as her interface with the senate goes. She could hold off and Trump will not be removed from office. He is not going to be removed from office anyway, so what is the hurry?
Knowing Trump, his defiant behavior and given enough time, the chances of him committing further violations is pretty good. Those violations can just be added to his further impeachment.
There is no time limit for her to interface with the senate. The GOP was always saying that she should slow down the process. So now is the time to do that. Without her submitting the articles, the senate is dead in the water.Well, I guess for you, and Esoteric, this is all a witty game of gotcha being played... a duel of political wits... oh boy, so juicy and entertaining... if you are into that type of thing.
And for those Democrats that have been seeing red for 3 years now, I don't think (in their delusional or uninformed states of mind) they are expecting a big nothing-burger out of this... but that's all the Democrats have.
But maybe there is some deeper plot here... maybe they are hoping they win back the Senate in 2020, and then if Trump is re-elected they can push it through then.
Its why I don't pay it much attention... because for Pelosi and the rest of the criminals in Congress this is just a power struggle, a battle that has nothing to do with making things better for the American people.
Its about power, control, and putting more money into their pockets.
I can only hope it blows up on them in epic fashion, and costs them more than they can imagine, all that power and control being stripped from them. The American people rising up in a wave like they did in 2010 and washing all that are up for re-election out of office.
Another ridiculous statement showing you have zero understanding of the Democratic party. Since McGahn is currently on the losing end of his holdout to testify to Congress, calling Bolton could also be an option. And Trump's financial records keep moving closer and closer to Congress due to the fraud case in New York.
I trust the voters too, much like I trusted them in the mid-term election to give the House to the Democrats to hold Trump accountable to our laws. They are doing exactly what they GOP failed to do for two years as Trump ran roughshod over what's left of that spineless party of sycophants.
Even if Trump is ultimately not removed, it will put on full display that the GOP has put party over country and there will be a second blue wave in 2020 as a check to this lawless, morally bankrupt man who just finished mocking the dead husband of a Michigan Congresswoman at his latest rally.It is a high mark for America after the low mark with the Russian-helped election of #ImpeachedTrump!! A corrupt President is forever called out and will go down in history has the worst president in American history. The only one that is still trying and almost succeeding in becoming America's first king.
Maybe America can get back to electing its own president rather than having a foreign government do it for us."I expect that loyal Democrats will be quite upset when they see that Trump is not removed, not harmed by this impeachment in any way. And that this accomplished nothing more than stirring up support for Trump."
I can only speak for myself, but I am pleased the Democrats did their duty and did the right thing. None of us (that I know) expect Trump's toadies to do anything except what they always do: lick Trump's @$$.
Interesting that you think all of Congress is corrupt yet the GOP is all too eager to do Trump's bidding, no matter what he says or does. Seems odd that they would support the guy who is trying to get rid of them.I am also proud of the Democrats for standing up for the Constitution which presciently included a way to get rid of a rogue president. Speaker Pelosi exercised that provision properly.
Maybe she can hang on to them long enough to force DoNothingMitch to vote on the hundreds of pieces of legislation she has sent over to him that he is sitting on.
DoNothingDemocrats my ass. MoscowMitch takes that title.
The main difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals don't recognize hype when they see it, and have apparently never been taught to do critical analysis of anything and actually don't seem to know what it is.
Liberals watch Peloton infomercials and drool at the mouth over the bike, the nice digs, and the cute outfit and hairdo on the attractive young lady. Then they engage in a twitter storm about the political correctness of it all. Then they put a Peloton on th the charge card, if at all possible.
Conservatives, meanwhile, are looking a Peloton's financial statement and thinking, "These people have a hella shrewd advertising and promotional department. I would invest in them if I could keep from throwing up."
The difference here is that the first group has the mentality of a child, and the second group has the mentality of an adult. There is no shame in being a child, but there is shame in remaining a child forever.Peoplepower, you asked, "So you are saying that Russia is not a threat to the U.S. and it's allies?"
No, it is not. Russia has not been a threat to the US since the collapse of the former Soviet Union in the early nineties. Russia has some interests that are opposed to the interests of the US in some areas--as do many other nations.
All nations are continuously seeking advantage against each other in matters of trade, control of resources (such as oil), which very often includes the control of other people's resources and infrastructure, as in the ME where the control of oil and oil pipelines has been quite the bone of contention. China is lately seeking to gain control of the resources of large areas of Africa. Such is the world.
These very ordinary (if sometimes unpalatable) political/economic realities do not NECESSARILY amount to acts of aggression or acts of war. They are normally resolved through political, diplomatic, and financial/economic bargaining. Russia has not engaged in ANY acts of aggression or warlike behavior or policies towards the US. (Um.... Russias defense of ethnic Russians in Donesk hardly qualifies as aggression against the US.)
Other nations that pose a far greater threat to US interests than Russia would be both China and Mexico.
China has engaged cyber attacks, industrial espionage, theft of intellectual property, currency manipulation, inundating the US with drugs, and quite a bit of overt sabre-rattling against the US.
Mexico--a failed narco-state on our southern border--has inundated the US with illegal drugs, infiltrated US cities and even the US countryside with drug gangs, through whom it has visited a firestorm of crime and violece on our cities. It has sent tens of millions of invaders across our borders. It has also provided the gateway through which hordes of invaders from other nations (think Africa) enter the US.
Now, if you are looking for a nation that has committed palpable physical aggression against US territory, including acts of war, you would be talking about Mexico.
Has Russia physically invaded the US? Has it perpetrated violence against US citizens? Has it sent tons of fentanyl into the US? Have Russian nationals or ethnic Russians in the US engaged in gang warfare in US cities? Have ethnic Russians in the US taken over large areas of our cities (as is the case with Muslims) and demanded self-rule under Sharia Law? Have there been instances in which ethnic Russians in the US have decided to shoot up our military bases? Have ethnic Russians set up terrorist cells within the US?Pretty Panther, you said:
"Then you, too, will find it perfectly acceptable for a future president to claim blanket executive privilege to ignore all subpoenas in a future investigation."
Any president may ignore subpoenas from the legislative branch of government, pending judicial review. That's the way it works when you have, under the Constitution, three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial--none subject to the others.Randy Godwin, you said:
"Now Nancy is considering not sending the articles of Impeachment to the Senate until there is an agreement on a fair trial for the articles. This means documents and witnesses."
Conservatives are drooling at the mouth awaiting such a development!
We are, however, not optimistic that a full trial conducted according to the standards of due process will ever occur--where both sides are allowed to testify, call witnesses, and present evidence, and in which the standards practices of disclosure are observed.
I don't personally believe that the Senate will allow any such thing. The reason is that such a proceeding would reveal that most members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have been engaged in a staggering level of grift and theft on a worldwide scale--that dwarfs the Bidens' adventures in Ukraine.Pretty Panther: I agree with you. What good is it going to do to have a senate trial when McConnell has already stated he is not going to be impartial and he will work with the White House agenda.
Trump has been officially impeached by the house. There is no need to go to the senate where it would just be GOP political drama and an exercise in futility. Trump and company have used extraordinary tactics by not honoring their subpoenas. Its time for the house to use extraordinary tactics as well.
"Sometimes, to do nothing is to do everything, grasshopper."...from KungFu, the TV show.
Here's a bit more on the supposed Russian hacking:
"BILL BINNEY: I basically have always been saying that all of this Russian hack never happened, but we have some more evidence coming out recently.
"We haven’t published it yet, but what we have seen is that there are at least five items that we’ve found that were produced by Guccifer 2.0 back on June 15th, where they had the Russian fingerprints in them, suggesting the Russians made the hack. Well, we found the same five items published by Wikileaks in the Podesta emails. Those items do not have the Russian fingerprints, which directly implies that Guccifer 2.0 was inserting these into the files to make it look like the Russians did this hack.
"Taking that into account with all the other evidence we have; like the download speeds from Guccifer 2.0 were too fast, and they couldn’t be managed by the web; and that the files he was putting together and saying that he actually hacked, the two files he said he had were really one file, and he was playing with the data; moving it to two different files to claim two hacks. Taking that into account with the fabrication of the Russian fingerprints, it leads us back to inferring that in fact the marble framework out of the Vault 7 compromise of CIA hacking routines was a possible user in this case.
"In other words, it looked like the CIA did this, and that it was a matter of the CIA making it look like the Russians were doing the hack. So, when you look at that and also look at the DNC emails that were published by Wikileaks that have this FAT-file format in them, all 35,813 of these emails have rounded off times to the nearest even second. That’s a FAT-file format property; that argues that those files were, in fact, downloaded to a thumb drive or CD-rom and physically transported before Wikileaks posted them.
"Which again argues that it wasn’t a hack.
"So, all of the evidence we’re finding is clearly evidence that the Russians were not in fact hacking; it was probably our own people....
"Also, I put all of this into a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case.
"I did that because all of the attack on him was predicated on him being connected with this Russian hack which was false to being with. All the evidence we’re accumulating clearly says and implies, the US government — namely the FBI, CIA, the DOJ, and of course State Department — all these people involved in this hack, bought a dossier and all of the information going forward to the FISA court.
"All of them knew that this was a fake from the very beginning, because this Guccifer 2.0 character was fabricating it. They were using him plus the Internet Research Agency [IRA] as “supposed trolls of the Russian government”. Well, when they sent their lawyers over to challenge that in a court of law, the government failed to prove they had any connection with the Russian government. They basically were chastised by the judge for fabricating a charge against this company. So, if you take the IRA and the trolls away from that argument, and Guccifer 2.0, then the entire Mueller report is a provable fabrication; because it’s based on Guccifer 2.0 and the IRA. Then the entire Rosenstein indictment is also a fabrication and a fake and a fraud for the same reasons. The judges seem to be involved in trying to keep this information out of the public domain."
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/for … d-evidenceMy Esoteric:
Your dementia is showing. You continue to repeat proven falsehoods. You said:
'There was no attack on the 2016 elections by the Russians--or none of any significance. " - NO WONDER you are Trump supplicant if you actually believe that. Either that or you are paid by the Internet Security Agency. How can you make such a flat-out Lie?? Have you know shame?"
The Mueller report (remember that?) showed no significant Russian interference in the 2016 elections--after a three-year search. Mueller indicted two Russians unconnected with the Russia government. If I remember right, one was a private individual or group of private individuals, and the other was a private corporation (Concord).
These indictments were a pure PR scheme. Mueller issued them only because he felt certain that he would never face the defendants in court and have to submit to discovery (as in reveal the actual evidence) or present a viable court case.
To Mueller's utter horror, one of the defendants actually did respond to the summons and appear in court and, the prosecution, finding themselves with their pants down, has been trying to weasel out of presenting a court case ever since.
As William Binney observed in my above quote, "They basically were chastised by the judge for fabricating a charge against this company."
My previous post quotes Binney's exposure of the "Russian interference" hoax at length, but I will re-post the link.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/for … d-evidenceBlueheron: I looked at your hub page and you don't have any articles about Russia or even politics. But thank you for posting the Zerohedge link. I did the research and here is what I found about Zerohedge. It is run by Tyler Durden, but that is his pseudonym. His real name is Daniel Ivandjiiski.
Daniel Ivandjiiski is a Bulgarian born, U.S.–based, former investment banker and capital markets trader, and currently financial blogger, who founded the website Zero Hedge in January 2009, and remains its main publisher and editor. Wikipedia
Born: November 8, 1978 (age 41 years), Sofia, Bulgaria
Education: The American College of Sofia
Parents: Krassimir Ivandjiiski
Known for: Founder of Zero Hedge
Other name: Tyler Durden (on Zero Hedge)
This is just an excerpt from wikipedia. Below is the wikipedia link. You should read the entire wikipedia piece. I thought you were a Russian agent, but now I see you are just quoting biased information from a known Russian sympathizer's site. Read the manifesto on the Zerohedge site. The contributors are all anonymous.
"Over time Zero Hedge expanded into non-financial analysis,advocating what CNN Business called an anti-establishment and conspiratorial worldview, and which has been associated with alt-right views and a pro-Russian bias."
Here is the link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_HedgeJesus!! In what world do you live in Blue? You just said "The Mueller report (remember that?) showed no significant Russian interference in the 2016 elections--after a three-year search." That is a flat out LIE. Read the damn report. Listen to what Mueller testified to. You are simply not credible anymore and need to be ignored.
If the Democrats would like to remove Trump, they might--if they enjoyed the support of the American people--seek to defeat him in the 2020 presidential election.
In this they have two apparently insurmountable difficulties. One is that their policies are directly opposed to the interests of the American people--and most Americans know this, except for those numbered among that economically burdensome, parasitic, and tyrannical class made up of civil servants (one of whom, I see, is My Esoteric).
The Democrat platform basically consists of:
1. Continual increase in the size and power of government,
2. Continually increasing taxation to support bloated government,
3. Continual erosion of individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution,
4, Open borders that result in overwhelmingly burdensome costs to the taxpayer, erode middle class incomes, and import drugs, drug cartels, and violence,
5. The export of middle class jobs to China and Mexico,
6. The continuation of endless wars in the ME,
7. The further expansion of economically disastrous health care policies,
8. The further expansion of the economically (and academically) disastrous public education policies
and
9. The further destruction of the US manufacturing base, and the proposed further impoverishment of the American people through the promotion of Global Warming--with the ultimate expected outcome being the implementation of Agenda 21.
I'm pretty sure I left out many other important policies. Well, one other is the Democrat's hope that the federal government will bail out insolvent Democrat-controlled cities (along with their insolvent public-sector pension plans). The Dems are also probably slavering over the continued bailouts of Wall Street and the rest of the financial sector--and eagerly awaiting yet another enormous bank bail-out as was enacted under Obama.
Unfortunately, the Democrats know that the American people are not much in favor of any of the above. Well, except for the beneficiaries of said policies, which would include most of those on the government payroll in some form or manner.Oh! I forgot the other insurmountable difficulty.
The Democrats can't seem to field a single presidential candidate with any significant public appeal.- Onusonusposted 5 years ago0
Joe now has something in common with Hillary.
https://tatersgonnatate.com/biden-boys- … lCl9iIDyF0 Readmikenow,
I thank you for offering what I assume is the ethnic Ukrainian view of the situation in Donetsk and the repatriation of Crimea. (Crimea is another region with a heavy majority of ethnic Russians who voted to rejoin Russia.)
While I think Russia would indeed welcome a Russia-friendly Ukrainian regime (like the one that existed prior to the Maidan coup), I think that is the extent of his ambitions alone those lines. By which I mean that Putin has no interest in annexing Ukraine and making it part of Russia. Ukraine's social and economic problems, and its political divisions, would be an immense and very costly liability.Blue,
You need to get in touch with reality. You didn't answer the question if you are or are not a Vinsky. I wish you would respond to that question.
Crimea was NOT repatriated, it was unlawfully annexed. Russia doesn't want a "Russian Friendly" Ukraine, they want to control and dominate Ukraine, like they did for decades.
If Putin had no interest in taking over Ukraine, why have so many Russian soldiers been used in the fight against Ukraine? Hundreds have been captured by Ukraine. It is, as it always has been, a huge provider of food and a strategic location for Russians. Putin would love nothing more than to take control of Ukraine.
When Russians were massing troops in Crimea, the only thing that prevented Ukraine from fighting a two front war was President Donald Trump giving Ukraine offensive weapons. State of the art offensive weapons. I'm sure Russia realized they would have suffered serious casualties if they would have invaded.
The people in Ukraine, especially where my relatives are from, would fight to the last person to keep a free Ukraine. The loathing of the Russians is deep and goes back a long time.
As the people in my grandfather's village say "I'd rather die a free wolf than live as a Russian pet."I told you Blue is a Russian agent.
I like the Russian Pet part, reminds me of TraitorTrump.
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago0
Why a bipartisan impeachment is a dog and pony show that will waste millions of taxpayer dollars.
You need to add Pence is impeached and the speaker of the house becomes president.
Pence has his own problems with Ukraine.Evangelicals are slowly coming to their senses.
The "Christianity Today", founded by Evangelical Billy Graham, (James' hero), said THIS:
"But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral."
James, of course, is going to argue that it was a moral thing to do.TraitorTrump's Economy - Steel plants closing and workers laid off
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/20/business … index.htmlWas it intentional to imply that steel plants all over the country are closing their doors ("Steel plants closing in Trump's economy) or was that just a slip? Certainly one company closing one 80 year old facility in order to keep with their goal of reducing CO2 emissions is not the doom you're implying here.
Did I say that? In any case, others have close or are in trouble as well.
Peoplepower:
The article I cited, "Former NSA Tech Chief Says Mueller Report Was Based On CIA-Fabricated 'Evidence'," was not written by Tyler Durden.
ZeroHedge is primarily a news aggregator, although one or more "Tylers" do occasionally contribute.
If you wish to dispute the veracity of an article based on its authorship, you should perhaps first figure out who the author is--which in this case is Eric Zuesse, via the Duran. Here is the link to the original article: https://theduran.com/former-nsa-tech-ch … -evidence/
Perhaps you can give us a run-down on the actual author.
The article, by the way, consisted almost entirely of direct quotes from William Binney. Perhaps you would like to dispute whether William Binney actually made such statements.
You seem to have a problem with the presentation of objective facts, including--if I may say so--objective reality, which you attempt to represent as an objection to sources. Apparently your bias against objective reality is also adversely affecting your reading comprehension.Blue: Eric Zuesse is a contributing editor to The Russia Insider News. Here is the link to his articles.
https://russia-insider.com/en/eric_zuesse
Thank you again for posting the link, this time about The Duran. Perhaps, you should thoroughly check your sources before accusing me of being against objective reality and my lack of reading comprehension skills. I was a technical writer in my previous life and learned how to do research and analysis of complex digital systems. Here is what Media Fact Check says about The Duran:
History
Founded in 2016, The Duran is a strongly right leaning news and opinion website with ties to Russian state media. Based in Cyprus, the editor of the website is Alexander Mercouris, who in 2012 was disbarred as an attorney in London. According to the Telegraph, he then went on to become a “pro-Russian commentator on world affairs for Russian TV news outlets and websites.”
The Duran’s director is Peter Lavelle, who is host of RT’s (Russian state news outlet) political debate program CrossTalk.
In 2018, the right leaning Weekly Standard accused The Duran of peddling Russian “Fake News.”
The website does not provide an about page, mission statement, funding or obvious ownership information.
Funded by / Ownership
The Duran is owned by the Cyprus based DRN Media PLC. Moscow native Alex Christoforou is the President and Chairman of DRN Media PLC. Funding for The Duran comes from Paypal and Patreon donations, as well as advertising.
Analysis / Bias
In review, The Duran publishes news and opinions with a conservative and pro-Russian perspective, such as this: Roger Stone Shines New Light on Russia-Gate Hoax. This story is copied and pasted directly from the pro-Russian Strategic Culture Foundation. In general, all articles involving Russia are positively slanted such as these: Russia Grinds Out Wins In Europe and Trump boxed in on Iran, as Putin holds key to prevent war in Persian Gulf (Video). Many articles are poorly sourced to Russian Propaganda outlets such as RT and Sputnik.
When covering the USA, the Duran demonstrates a conservative bias with frequent articles denigrating the left such as this: Rudy Giuliani DESTROYS Hillary Clinton, “America’s Number One Crime Family” (Video) and this story promoting a conspiracy theory, NXIVM Sex-Cult Prosecutors Have Evidence Of Illegal Clinton Campaign Contributions For “Political Influence”. This latter story is copied and pasted from the right wing conspiracy website Zerohedge.
In general, The Duran routinely publishes pro-Russian propaganda and promotes right wing conspiracies through the use of poorly sourced, plagiarized news articles.
Overall, we rate The Duran a Questionable source based on far right wing bias, promotion of Russian propaganda and right wing conspiracies, a lack of transparency, use of poor sources and plagiarism. (D. Van Zandt 11/30/2016) Updated (5/23/2019)
Source: https://theduran.com/
This is about William Binney from Wikipedia, the link of which is at the end of this reply.:
Russian Interference in the 2016 election
Binney claims the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election is false, and that the Democratic National Committee e-mails were leaked by an insider instead. He has appeared on Fox News at least ten times between September 2016 and November 2017 to promote this theory. Binney said that the "intelligence community wasn't being honest here". He has been a frequent guest on RT and Fox News and has been frequently cited on Breitbart News. In November 2017 it was reported that a month earlier, Binney had met with CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the behest of President Trump.
In July 2018, Duncan Campbell published an opinion piece supporting the point of view that Binney had been persuaded by a pro-Kremlin disinformant that the theft of the DNC emails was an inside job, and not the work of Russian agents (contrary to the findings of the US intelligence community). The disinformation agent manipulated metadata in the files released by Guccifer 2.0 (whom the US intelligence community identifies as a Russian military intelligence operation) to prove that the documents came from a computer in the Eastern United States, not Russia. Binney subsequently appeared multiple times on Fox News to advocate for his inside job theory. Binney later rejected that the manipulated documents were valid and concluded that they did not support the inside job theory.
Binney has said he voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election, calling Hillary Clinton a "war monger".
Here is the link to Binney:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(intelligence_official)Blue knows all of this because she is part of them.
Well, I can level an accusation against you that can't be beat, as far as defining one as the lowest of the low--and that, unlike yours, happens to be true by your own admission.
You are a career civil servant and (evidently from the description) government contractor: a parasite, despised by all decent and honest people, a liar and and thief by profession. You've lived your life sponging off of productive working people. Your income has come from money stolen from the people at the point of a gun.This is your TraitorTrump speaking:
"President Donald Trump once stated explicitly that he believes that it was Ukraine -- not Russia -- that meddled in the 2016 election because Russian President Vladimir Putin "told me,"Now we know where RussianBlue is coming from ANARCHY. No gov't at all.
In one fell swoop, Blue has just pissed on all of armed forces, of which I was one, all of the people who make gov't work (and her life livable), all of the people the gov't hires (of which I am not one directly) to build our defense weapons, among many other things.
YOU are not an American.
I believe I have mentioned more than once that I have seldom met a liberal who was not, in some way or another, on the government payroll.
Yang is killing it in the Dem Debate. MATH --We can move forward
I think Yang, Klobuchar, and Steyer have done very well.
Biden, Sander, Warren doing fine as well as Buttigieg - until a few moments ago. He got clobbered by Klobuchar.Steyer surprised me also and agree about Klochubar. Buttigieg couldn't win in Mike Pence's Indiana as he said he did. He can win in South Bend, which is so far up north people joke and say it isn't even part of Indiana. I sincerely hope Yang can get a bump and become a serious contender at least enough to influence the others.
Just saw an Iowa focus group this morning - 9 said Klobuchar won and one said Sander. Of the nine, I think 4 said Klobuchar - Biden and 1 said Klobuchar - Warren
Its frustrating to watch when you know the DNC will not give him, nor any other outsider with fresh ideas a legit chance. They will continue to ignore him as they have, while giving Biden all the air time and support they can.
I was hoping for an actual choice for all Americans between people looking forward.... perhaps Yang even.
Instead we will have a corrupt establishment front-man in Biden who is already into his first stages of senility.
My feelings are summed up in a WSJ opine from today, consider these thoughts:
House Democrats voted Wednesday evening to impeach Donald Trump but, media high-fives aside, what have they accomplished? They have failed to persuade the country; they have set a new, low standard for impeaching a President; Mr. Trump will be acquitted in the Senate; and Democrats may have helped Mr. Trump win re-election. Congratulations to The Resistance.
The impeachment press will deride the GOP as either afraid of Donald Trump or moral sellouts. But note that even the 20 GOP Members who are retiring from the House and not running for another office voted against impeachment. GOP Members like Peter King (N.Y.), Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.) and Will Hurd (Texas) have been unafraid to break with party leaders or Presidents in the past.
The problem isn’t GOP consciences, it’s the weak and dishonest Democratic case for impeachment. One issue is the unfair House process. Democrats refused GOP witness requests in the Intelligence Committee, denied the GOP a hearing day in the Judiciary Committee, and rushed the impeachment debate and vote. They claim impeachment is a serious, solemn moment but then sprinted to judgment.
On the substance, Democrats have taken an episode of Mr. Trump’s reckless foreign-policy judgment and distorted it into broad claims of bribery and extortion. The evidence of weakness is that their own articles of impeachment include no allegations of specific crimes.
Democrats are impeaching Mr. Trump not for Ukraine, but because they believe he is simply unfit to be President. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff has been explicit in justifying impeachment to prevent Mr. Trump from being able to “cheat in one more election” in 2020—a pre-emptive impeachment.
Where is that in the Constitution?
Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, is demanding to hear from witnesses like John Bolton whom the House refused to subpoena. Mr. Schumer wants to feed the impeachment maelstrom as well as prevent Republicans from calling Hunter or Joe Biden. The GOP is under no obligation to play along and, based on the House evidence, Senators are justified in voting to acquit without hearing anyone.
As for the politics, Mr. Trump is now likely to be the first impeached President to run for re-election. Democrats clearly hope the Scarlet “I” will work against him, but Mr. Trump will tout the partisan vote as illegitimate and his Senate acquittal as vindication. He will also argue that Democrats and the media never accepted his 2016 victory and tried to overrule the verdict of voters. He will be right.So why doesn't he let Bolton and others exonerate him in the Senate trial, Ken? Easy peasy....
My Esoteric, you said:
"Now we know where RussianBlue is coming from ANARCHY. No gov't at all."
No, actually I didn't say that at all. Nor am I opposed to a strong military defending our country. I favor of limiting the scope of the federal government to it's original Constitutional roles: national defense, enforcement of the laws that secure our liberty, and protect our persons and property. This would reduce the size of the federal government by about 99%, thus removing the immense tax burden under which the American people are laboring.
Judging from your bio, I would imagine your own government pension is in the low six figures--paid for by working Americans, many of whom can barely make ends meet.
Among US working people "government parasite" is pretty much one word.I won't repeat the crap you wrote, but your meaning was very clear as it is with this trope.
My Esoteric, you said, ""President Donald Trump once stated explicitly that he believes that it was Ukraine -- not Russia -- that meddled in the 2016 election because Russian President Vladimir Putin "told me."
Actually it was Ukrainian law enforcement officials who told him. Kostiantyn Kulyk, deputy head of the Prosecutor General’s International Legal Cooperation Department, has stated that he, along with other senior law enforcement officials, have tried since last year to get visas from the U.S. Embassy “in Kiev to deliver their evidence to Washington.”
Kulyk told Solomon, “We were supposed to share this information during a working trip to the United States. However, the (U.S.) ambassador blocked us from obtaining a visa. She didn’t explicitly deny our visa, but also didn’t give it to us.” The US ambassador blocking visas for Ukrainian officials wishing to testify about Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election was Yovanovitch.
Kulyk further stated that, Ukrainian businessmen “authorized payments for lobbying efforts directed at the U.S. government. In addition, these payments were made from funds that were acquired during the money-laundering operation. We have information that a U.S. company was involved in these payments.”
Kulyk said the company is tied to one or more prominent Democrats, Ukrainian officials insist.
Trump may also have gotten a heads-up from Rudy Giuliani.Blue: After I exposed Zero Hedge and The Duran, you still insists on posting articles from a pro Russian website. Here is the link to what you just posted.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04- … dence-dems
Further, here is the link from the source, The Hill and it is posted in the Opinion Section of the Hill by one of its contributors: JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/07/19 07:30 AM EDT 2,541THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
135,606
Here is that link, except you left out almost half of the article. Here is the disclaimer at the end.
"If Ukrainian prosecutors can augment their allegations with real evidence, there could be a true case of collusion worth investigating." This was posted on 04/07/19.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house … -democrats
Why do you continue to post pro-Russian bias as fact without checking the veracity (your word) of your articles?
Maybe you really are a Russian agent who uses working with herbs and making soap as a cover?Actually it was Putin who told Trump - unless you are calling Trump a liar. Further, no one can believe anything you put out because it is so often a lie.
Nancy Pelosi is attempting to overthrow our democratic process. The House is one part of the legislative branch.
She is attempting to dictate to the executive branch, she is attempting to control the full legislative branch and has ensured they have not included the judicial branch.
Talk about abuse of power.They issued legal subpoenas. How about if Trump has issue with following the law pertaining to those, he takes them to the court instead of simply making the false claim that he need not follow them? Subpoenas are legal, if Trump has a legal reason not to follow them, shouldn't he be the one to make his case to the judicial?
Would you deny this president the same executive privileges used by other presidents? Just because Pelosi thinks she is a queen doesn't make her one.
Donnie never asserted Executive Privilege. He simply refused to comply with any requests from the House.
Is that an "I know that already?" Or "I didn't know that and don't care anyway?"
Glad to entertain you!
You are as silly and bad as Ken, Read, and Blue.
You are as duped as Randy, black and blue.
You can't be "duped" by facts and truth. They are on Randy, Pretty, People, and my side. You have NONE on your side.
All you have is hate for America.
A fair view of the situation.
The House Leader is attempting to dictate to the Senate how it will conduct its business, she shut out the Minority of the House from fully participating, she demanded of the Executive Office, and she refused use of the Judicial Branch.
Anyone who is denying this is in denial of the facts that played out publicly for America to watch.
Not only did they make a mockery of their own processes and precedence in their quest for Impeachment, the House Democrats with their slight majority, are now attempting to dictate to all other branches or shut them out of the process.Or as it is being viewed...
She is pausing to collect more evidence as many have openly stated they are not convinced of his guilt despite it being plainly obvious.
She conducted an inquiry (investigation) to try and address what Trump did, and not allow the Minority to perpetuate the obvious smear attempt of Biden or violate the law by revealing the whistelblower identity. As for use of the Judicial, there is plenty of precedent on the books (the last three times have each ruled for Congress to receive documents requested) already and the last time it went to the Judicial, it took four years to resolve.
Trying to apply precedent to a situation that did not have a special counsel as the last two did is just a false equivalency. But you go ahead and try and convince yourself that these are the same if it helps you let a criminal go free by thinking they are exactly similar scenarios. The rest of us are able to note why precedent does not apply here for that one huge difference."She is pausing to collect more evidence as many have openly stated they are not convinced of his guilt despite it being plainly obvious."
I must honestly admit to a bit of political burn-out Valeant, (I even forgot to watch the last debate). but I haven't heard this about her looking for new evidence because of somes' lack of conviction. Where did that come from?
"Trying to apply precedent to a situation that did not have a special counsel as the last two did is just a false equivalency. "
Well, I don't want to follow the "false equivalency" characterization, but I do agree that the previous two impeachment examples are not fair comparisons to this one. To that point, I even started a topic about the Republican cries of the inequity of their participation in the Democrats' investigative process.
GAYou missed a very good debate. I purposefully skipped the one before that, however.
I was very impressed with Sen. Amy Klobuchar; Biden had his best performance by far. With the smaller stage, all had more time to explain themselves and, for the most part, used it well. There was one dust-up between Warren and Buttigieg over campaign funding - each gave as good as they got over a stupid issue. Klobuchar scored points on defusing that fight while punching Buttigieg in the jaw pretty hard once.
Only Sander did poorly - he had a one-trick pony as an argument; millionaires and billionaires are the root of all evil.
Other than Sanders, I liked them all.I did go to youtube and watched the first 2 hours, (so far). I agree about Sanders and would add almost the same thought about Warren.
I also liked Klobuchar but was disappointed when Mayor Pete supported the Reparations question.
GA
I think Valeant may be conflating a couple things. Pelosi's stated reason for delaying "waiting for the McConnell to get his act together and hold a fair trial"
Simultaneously, Pelosi and the Committee chairmen have said they are going to continue their investigations into Trump as the court challenges play out.
"She is pausing to collect more evidence as many have openly stated they are not convinced of his guilt despite it being plainly obvious."
"Pausing"? Collect more evidence? Please tell me this was meant to be sarcastic? One does not accuse someone of a crime and then look for not only evidence but additional crimes.
This impeachment should have never seen the light of day until factual proof could be presented. All the circumstantial second-hand evidence does not prove anything.
This impeachment has not followed precedent, and most likely will just go up in all the smoke that supported it.
There is already talk that if this Nancy does not send it to the Senate this scam impeachment id null and void.
"A Harvard law professor who was a pro-impeachment witness called by Democrats now says that President Trump might not technically be impeached if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declines to send the articles to the Senate."
https://nypost.com/2019/12/20/trump-may … professor/Sharlee: Impeachment doesn't have to be a crime in the sense of a civil criminal offense. If a trial is held, it will not be for a criminal offense. The purpose of the trial is to either remove the President from office or acquit him.
However, the stigma of impeachment by the house will hang around Trump's neck for ever. That in itself will affect Trump's self image which is more important to him than just about anything else. He will go down in history as the 3rd president to be impeached, even if only by the house.I offer up my analysis of Trump's six-page screed.
https://hubpages.com/politics/Dissectin … nald-TrumpAnd only the 2nd elected president.
And only the 1st on impeachable charges for an elected president.
(Andrew Johnson wasn't elected although the charges were quite impeachable)I am sure you had a look at the link in regards to it is very possible according to several Constitutional scholars a well as Allan Dershowitz that if the articles are not given to the Senate for their consideration, the impeachment is null and void.
I m aware of how a president is impeached, the process. I must say this one is nothing like the other two. Congress is making it up as they go, very revealing shows that they were in no respect prepared, and had no real charges or evidence to prove what they did finally charge the president with.
In my opinion, they look foolish, chasing their tails. They are an embarrassment to the Country.
"A Harvard law professor who was a pro-impeachment witness called by Democrats now says that President Trump might not technically be impeached if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declines to send the articles to the Senate."
https://nypost.com/2019/12/20/trump-may … professor/
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic … -democrats
"This impeachment should have never seen the light of day until factual proof could be presented. All the circumstantial second-hand evidence does not prove anything." - Please don't be myopic or disingenuous.
You know as well as I there was plenty of 1st hand evidence. In fact, most of the evidence, even what you call 2nd hand was admissible in court.
BUT since this was not a trial, all of the evidence was admissible.
The House is effectively a Grand Jury. The only thing that needed to be developed was probable cause that Trump violated his oath of office. The Democrats did that in spades.
You sound like Trump with "there is already talk", lol. Exactly who is doing the talking?? "There is talk" you are a boy. That holds as much credibility as your "talk".
I looked at your source and then the full article from Feldman. Indeed he says what the Post says he said. If you are a strict constructionist (I an not but Conservatives are) of the Constitution, then he is clearly wrong.
According to Article I, Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
To a strict constructionist, that should mean once the House votes for impeachment, the person is impeached. PERIOD.
Now Feldman argues an "interpretive" point of view )one that conservatives like you reject) that the framers meant for impeachment to be a process and that if the process isn't completed, then there was no impeachment.
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
The Senate shall have the {b]sole Power to try all Impeachments[/b[. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article II, Section 2 provides:
[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Article II, Section 4 provides:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.[3]
Now Feldman points out that "Putting these three different provisions together yields the conclusion that the only way to remove the president while he is in office is if the House impeaches him and the Senate tries and convicts him."
The implication of that last statement is that if the Senate does not convict, then the president wasn't impeached either. But his wording gets him in trouble. He says "If the House impeaches him ..." to me that sounds like a done deal.
He seems to base his whole argument on "But the framers’ definition of impeachment assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote." But he doesn't present information to back that up. Possibly in his vast readings on this subject he has found something to substantiate that assumption. The problem, of course, is he doesn't offer it up.
Without that, then I think I have reasonable doubt as to whether he is correct.
In any case, it is a mute, but interesting, point because Pelosi will, sooner or later, send the articles over to the Senate. The only reason I could see her not doing it is if it were 1) likely Trump would be reelected AND 2) it would be likely there would be massive take over of the Senate by the Democrats. BUT, since neither will happen, she might as well embarrass MoscowMitch as much as possible before moving on to the very unfair trial."You sound like Trump with "there is already talk", lol. Exactly who is doing the talking?? "There is talk" you are a boy. That holds as much credibility as your "talk".
Who is doing the talking? - The professor congress pulled in to testify on the merit of the Constitution.
Talk? I had not picked up on any such talk that I am thought of as a boy? It seems you have some severe social problems even to make such an off the wall comment. This comment certainly has made me aware that you have some sort of problem? If it pleases you to think I am a boy, have at it...Can you all believe this??? She doesn't even understand an analogy. I give up.
peoplepower73, I can discern no particular point to your ramblings, nor any counter-argument to any of my points.
You guys are hilarious continuing to play the Russia card, which has been known to be without substance for many months now. (Though those of who were actually paying attention have known it for over three years.)
Name-calling appears to be all you've got--so, hey, run with that. You sound like a teenage girl.Blue: What I did is called investigative reporting. I exposed Zerohedge and The Duran as being pro-Russian news outlets and John Solomon's article as just on oped piece.
You have no counter-argument because you have no recourse. If you did, you could refute what I posted as false. As far as sounding like a teenage girl, I think you missed the mark. I'm an 81 year old man with more wisdom in my little finger than you and Trump have in your whole bodies.
This just in:
https://youtu.be/fJLW-Kzawe4You really give them too much credit for having wisdom.
Did the GOP Tax Scam work as promised? (Something else of ImpeachedTrump to lie about)
JOBS - Grade F: In the four years prior to the passage of the GOP tax law, the economy added an average of 213,000 jobs each month YET in the nearly two years since the law passed, average job creation has actually declined by an average of 11,000 per month.
WAGES - Grade F: Trump and the GOP promised the tax cuts would result in an annual wage increase of $4,000 per household. YET after accounting for inflation, wages for regular workers rose only slightly, from 1% to just under 1.4% per year. That difference — even if it were fully attributable to the tax cuts — amounts to less than $400 for a full-time worker. So much for your $4,000 raise.
LOWERING Taxes on the Rich will increase the GDP -- Grade D: In the four years prior to the give-away to the rich, GDP growth averaged 2.4% annually. In the two year since the tax cut, GDP growth has averaged only 2.5% annually.
CORPORATIONS Will Invest their Tax Savings - Grade F: In the four years prior to the tax cut, private investment increased]/b] 3.3% annually. In the two years after the tax cut, private investment [b]declined by 2.5%.
THE GOP TAX SCAM IS A FAILURE."Them"? Do you ever give a thought to how your recent days' comments portray the validity of what you have to say?
Your recent comments sound like the guy being dragged away screaming, "Don't you see . . . don't you see, it's not me it's them!"
Come on buddy, get a grip. You had a case but now your own comments are destroying it. It seems that you have reached the point where anyone that doesn't agree with you is one of "them."
Can't you see the irony of that?
GA"Them", GA, are Ken, Live, Mike, and Blue - all purveyors of lies, false narratives, misinformation, deflection and little truth.
You may accept that as reasonable discussion, I do not and they need to be called out on it. I obviously leave you out as well as Wilderness because you don't stoop to their level of delusion and Wilderness, while he does sometimes, other times he actually makes sense.I need to amend "you don't stoop to their level of delusion" since you don't stoop to any level. Your's is simply much more skeptical than mine, but I think we agree on the same set of facts.
Careful there bud, you might be surprised at the levels I might stoop to. ;-)
GA
I get it Scott - the exasperation you must feel. I should have left it alone, but I had a weak moment of low tolerance. Sorry.
GANo problem. I have a weakness and I had it tattooed on my left arm (don't take any symbolism in that); it is the zodiac sign of Libra - balance and justice. Further, I was born on Oct 5th, cementing the strong Libra connection.
I have lived my whole life searching for justice, truth, and fair play in this world. And when I run into such unreasoned, obstinate garbage as "them" present I find a overwhelming need to call it out for what it is.
As to the Russian thing, given that Mueller documented so well the techniques the Russians used to infiltrate our social media and political process, I do not discount the possibility that some of the Them actually are Russian agents.I feel your pain. What has bothered me the most from the very beginning is that people would consider this lying POS an acceptable person to.lead our great country. I am scared for our country, not so much because of Trump, but because of the people who support him no matter what he says or does. I would not let a man like him in my home or near my family. I wouldn't let him alone with my dog.
I cannot fathom any same person thinking he is fit to lead us.Hey Scott: My Birthday is October 15th, that makes me a Libra as well. No wonder we see many issues the same way.
I'm a Libra as well... makes me wonder how I can find the perspectives of you both so wrong.
Ah well, keep pushing your increasingly delusional perspectives, and keep buying the lies the D.C. Dems are pushing... the more you rant about it, the more aggressive the insults and attacks become, the more you are helping Trump get re-elected.
As discussed in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPmG2VYArc4You must be terribly conflicted then because no rational Libra would be so unfair and unbalanced as your comments make you appear to be.
Newly Released eMails from DoD show that OMB 1) ordered a hold on military assistance "within 90 minutes" after the July 25th call (which means the order came down earlier than that) and 2) told DoD to keep it a secret.
"The budget office dismissed linking the hold of the aid to the call, noting it was announced at a mid-July interagency meeting.
"It's reckless to tie the hold of funds to the phone call," Rachel Semmel, a spokeswoman for OMB, said in a statement to the New York Times."
YET
"While an OMB official notified 'other agencies of the freeze on July 18, it is notable that the first official action to withhold Pentagon aid' came the same day as Trump's call with Zelenskyy."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/politics … index.htmlSaying Trump will be re-elected when the 2018 midterms had record turnout that gave the Democrats control of the House, followed by them doing exactly what they were voted there to do - hold Trump accountable - while the GOP continues to kowtow to his ugly whims, which is exactly what cost them so many seats in 2018, is certainly a prime example of pushing a delusional perspective.
Ken: I didn't watch the whole 24 minutes of the video, but sadly, I think you are right. I'm beginning to understand the human nature aspect of all of this. It can be seen even in this forum. The more we try to prove the other side wrong, the more they dig in and try to prove their side right.
Trump exemplify this with his rallies. There is a reason he only holds his rallies in those states that will give him the electoral college votes. It can be seen that the people in his rallies believe he is being victimized by the those who don't support him. It's all very tribal and he knows how to play the chief of the tribe. Albeit, he is disgusting, they love it and him as well.
It would be very difficult for any of the dem candidates to go into to those states and campaign against Trump. His people would just dig in harder. As I and others have said in earlier replies, he has successfully brainwashed those people.Yet they must, that is one of the reasons, besides the Russians, that Hillary lost. Bill suggested strongly she campaign in Trump country while Mook said no - Mook won and she lost.
One reason to keep plugging away here is others read these posts. While I know changing "Them's" mind is nigh impossible, exposing the others to the truth may.
Therefore, every time Ken, Live, Read, Shar, or Wilderness lie then they must be opposed by the truth. Just as an oft-repeated lie will become fact, so will oft-repeated Truth.I would return the favor, calling you out for every lie, except I like my keyboard and don't want to wear it out correction your statements.
And which of my statements are lies? Or are you just randomly typing letters.
Eso, you have given out probably more opinions couched as fact than anyone else in the forums. You can find them if you're honest with yourself. You could even start with some of the assumptions about what I like or promote. Or you could start with the statement that Hillary lost because of the Russians: "Yet they must, that is one of the reasons, besides the Russians, that Hillary lost." - that might be true (extremely doubtful) but if it is neither you nor anyone else can show it that way but there it is. Being stated as factual in an effort to get gullible people to believe it - a lie in my book.
Actually, if you had an open mind, you would see clearly that the likelihood of the Russians being successful is high. I will lay them out for others to consider, since I know you won't:
1. I think we can all agree the Clinton campaign did a terrible job and put Trump within striking distance.
2. Comey pushed it a little further by inappropriately and improperly telling Congress she was still under investigation without having all of the facts first.
3. According to Mueller, the Russians conducted (and still are) a massive and effective interference campaign designed to stop Clinton and put Trump in office.
4. According to Mueller, they specifically targeted WI, PA, MI, and MN with the help of polling data supplied by Paul Manafort
5. In addition, we now know from the Stone trial and the Mueller report that the Wikileaks attack on Clinton was orchestrated by the Russians with Trump and his administration being kept in the loop.
6. Trump won WI, PA, and MI by extremely small vote totals, less than 30,000 in each state. This is less than .04% of the vote total,
7. Normal advertising has a much better success rate than that.
8. Therefore it is highly likely that the Russians were at least as effective as American advertising.
Bottom line, there is a high probability the Russians pushed Trump over the top.You could add to the list the timing of releases by the Russians to coincide with negative stories being released about Trump to downplay them.
The case that Russian interference did affect 2016: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 … -for-trumpFrom the article -
"Politicians may be too timid to explore the subject, but a new book from, of all places, Oxford University Press promises to be incendiary. “Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President—What We Don’t, Can’t, and Do Know,” by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communications at the University of Pennsylvania, dares to ask—and even attempts to answer—whether Russian meddling had a decisive impact in 2016. Jamieson offers a forensic analysis of the available evidence and concludes that Russia very likely delivered Trump’s victory."
I am confused, the article says the book was coming out in time to effect the "midterm"; Amazon said its release date is Mar 2020. I ordered it anyway.
It might be "high" (although I would challenge you to produce a statistical analysis showing that rather than a list of disjointed opinions), but that isn't what you continue to claim. You simply flat out declare that Russia won the election for Trump. No if's and's or but's: Russian won the election. And that is, with our current knowledge, a flat out lie.
And you flat out keep lying about it with "You simply flat out declare that Russia won the election for Trump. " - TRY reading all of what I wrote.
Your "book" is obviously penned by Trump, Dan. And we all know how honest he is....or maybe you are one of the exceptions?
That's entirely true about the tribal aspect of it, many voters are just that, tribal.
But for those of us who are not, which I am one, we see it for what it is far better.
We have a bunch of corrupt politicians and D.C. insiders trying to oust the President. First they tried it over false/fabricated Russian Conspiracy, and now they are trying it because Trump had the audacity to try and have the criminal activities of the former VP investigated.
Trump is a loud mouthed disrespectful lout, this is true. Trump may even be a corrupt businessman.
But Trump didn't make his billions selling out the American people, or America's national interests as it appears the likes of Biden and Clinton have done.
And so here is the major stumbling block to anyone who is NOT beholden to one Party. They look at this farce of an Impeachment, which is similar to the farce of an investigation into Trump's Russian conspiracy, and they conclude Trump is right, they are on a "witch hunt" and the MSM are a bunch of liars.
For two years CNN preached and promised to America that Trump was a Russian puppet, but he isn't. And for months they have said he is guilty of high treason and bribery, but he isn't.
Meanwhile they ignore all the wrongdoing of Biden, Clinton, and the whole cabal of politicians that have made themselves into millionaires and billionaires in the decades that they have been in D.C.
I would say that the Democratic Party was able to rely on "tribalism" for many years (decades even) long after the Party stopped giving a damn about the needs and wants of the working/middle class.
I think the sham Russian Conspiracy, and this sham Impeachment only proves Trump right, and opens the eyes of even more voters to what is going on... how can an average person take this nonsense seriously, job growth is strong, wages are improving, and no new wars have been created. When it comes to what matters, whats not to like?
Its a shame, it really is, I don't think Trump would have won a 2nd term if the Democrats had put up a decent candidate (that is not Biden) with some forward thinking ideas that wasn't a part of the 'establishment' and they had just left Trump alone, the last thing to do was put on a sham Impeachment hearing with no evidence and no bi-partisan support.Trump isn't a Putin puppet? You could have fooled me.
1. Putin tells Trump that he didn't interfere with our elections and Trump traitorously tells the world he believes Putin rather than our own intelligence,
2. Putin tells Trump the Ukrainians were responsible and Trump says he believes Putin
3. Putin is trying to take over the rest of of Ukraine and Trump tries to help him and himself by withholding aid
4. Trump turns over Syria to the Russians.
Need I go on???1. And of course the wise thing to do as world leader is to call another world leader a liar in public... thankfully you are not leader of anything.
2. Whatever.
3. Whatever.
4. Syria was always an ally of Russia, Russia has always had a presence in Syria, it is a key port-of-call for them. Trump didn't turn over anything to Russia, he disengaged America from a conflict America helped create with its aid to extremist rebels which in turn helped bring the Islamic State's Caliphate into existence (that and our incompetent actions in Iraq during the first half of the Obama administration).
Your grip on facts and the true history of events is dubious at best.1.and 2. Mueller told the WORLD no American colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. Fact
3. Trump has given more aid and armed Ukraine to defend itself against Russia. HE sold them Javelins! My god wakes up to the fact Trump has aided thUkrains to fight back. Obama did zip!
4. this is just ridiculous. Obama let Russia get a foothold in Syria. Trump was there to defeat ISIS and did so. War overtime to come home. This is what's called a foreign policy with purpose. A beginning an end.
You need not go on... You need to look at facts and stop repeating the same old fallacies."1.and 2. Mueller told the WORLD no American colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. Fact" - And that is a LIE (because you know that is not what Mueller said)!
What Mueller told the WORLD was that he could not establish enough evidence to indict anybody on criminal conspiracy. He offered multiple examples of what we call corruption.
FIRST, debunking Trump's LIE about who has given more aid to Ukraine, America or Europe: Europe has given 2/3rds of the aid Ukraine has received since Russia invaded the Crimea in 2014. Why do you keep supporting such a blatant liar?? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 178935002/
SECOND, Trump used this LIE as justification for illegally withholding aid to Ukraine.
THIRD, "Republicans are defending him in the impeachment inquiry by saying he gave more military aid than his predecessor, but it came only after the reluctant president was convinced it would be good for U.S. business." Trump wanted to know if Ukraine could "pay us back"; so it is really not aid at all.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/tr … k-missile/
FOURTH, so much for blankets and pillows. "By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles."
FIFTH, Aid to Ukraine
Bush - $1.1 B
Obama - $2.2 B
Trump - $1.2 B
https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/money-to-ukraine
Ah, I see we have another war monger with Shar since she obviously wanted Obama to go to war with Russia over Crimea. Apparently, she doesn't even want Europe's help since she doesn't mention they had any dog in the fight.
It was Obama who set ISIS on the road to defeating ISIS (FACTS MATTER). Trump almost finished the job before quitting and turning Syria over to his good friend Putin.
I would say it is YOU, Shar, that need to look at the facts.1. Putin tells Trump that he didn't interfere with our elections and Trump traitorously tells the world he believes Putin rather than our own intelligence,
And you have proof that Trump "believes Putin"?' No, you don't you know hat you have been fed vis media.
Bush - $1.1 B
Obama - $2.2 B
Trump - $1.2 B
Please let me remind you the sums you see for Bush and Obama are what they gave in 8 YEARS...
Trump has provided not only weapons but an increase in aid funds... 1.2 so far in two aid packages. Just do a bit of math, you will see Trump is well on his way to provide an increase over the next 5 years he will be in office. Math matters, let me remind you both presidents gave little aid to Ukraine. You can believe whatever you please, but use just a bit of common sense.
And Obama had no control over ISIS... Zero. Trump in two years demolished the terrorist group. And yes I realize Obama would never of gone in or given the Ukrain weapons, he just supported once again genocide. Just a weak do-nothing president, with a gift of giving a decent speech. Trump just does not turn his back on people that are literally defenseless. And you choose to defend his foreign policies? One word --- pitiful.
I see you continue to feel you can speak for others. here on HP? "Ah, I see we have another war monger with Shar "
Not sure one should be considered a warmonger due to wanting to step in and help defenseless human beings? It would appear we have different morals, as well as a different thought process. You approved of turning our backs on the Syrian people when they begged for help to stop the civilian killings?
Not sure all would stand behind your opinions, not sure at all?"And Obama had no control over ISIS... Zero. Trump in two years demolished the terrorist group." - AND THAT is a flat out LIE!!!!!
"Please let me remind you the sums you see for Bush and Obama are what they gave in 8 YEARS..." - Yes, I am well of aware of that. I am also aware that Trump doesn't want to give aid to Ukraine unless they pay it back, he says. So, to expect that Trump will double the amount in the next 5 years to equal Obama is not likely.
"let me remind you both presidents gave little aid to Ukraine. " - AND LET me remind you, Obama gave $1.2 Billion in two years, 2015 and 2016 (Trump has taken three years to disburse the money he and ONLY because he got caught). He gave most of the remaining $1 billion in 2014 after Russia invaded.
So try telling the Truth.
Hey, I can only draw conclusions from what you write. It is an easy step from your criticism of "Obama 'letting' Putin invade Crimea" to you supporting Obama starting a war with Putin to stop him.
And with your "You approved of turning our backs on the Syrian people when they begged for help to stop the civilian killings? " you are again suggesting that Obama invade Syria to stop Assad. It is any reason that I think you are a war-monger.
Am I wrong in that assessment? Did you have a way to stop Putin and Assad short of war??? (BTW, I was with Clinton in supporting no-fly zones in Syria was well as a more aggressive stance.)Please read the link you posted in regards to who gave what to Ukrain...
"During President George W. Bush’s eight years in office, from 2001 through 2008, the U.S. government provided about $1.1 billion to Ukraine, government figures reveal."
"Congress almost doubled the amount of aid provided to Ukraine during President Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House, supplying $2.1 billion."
"And with your "You approved of turning our backs on the Syrian people when they begged for help to stop the civilian killings? " you are again suggesting that Obama invade Syria to stop Assad. It is any reason that I think you are a war-monger. "
As I see it Obama could have done the same thing Trump did.. Bomb the airbases. It certainly stopped the Asad from using Chemical weapons.
Obama did nothing, zip."Obama did nothing, zip" - PLEASE put your glasses on or take Provogen to improve your memory.
Obama got the Russians to get Assad to turn in all the chemical weapons we knew of.
As to "reading my source". That was confusing since I did and reported the content which you then repeated itReally? That del was as flawed as all Pbama's foreign deals...
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation … rt/522549/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/19/to … pons-plan/From your source:
"That agreement went a long way toward achieving its goal, namely through the removal from Syria of 1,300 metric tons of weapons-grade chemicals—including ingredients for the nerve agents sarin and VX—as well as the destruction of chemical munitions, labs, and mixing equipment. Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry hailed the deal as a major victory in the battle to rid the world of especially horrible weapons of mass destruction that even the worst combatants of World War II had refrained from using on the battlefield. " -
SOMEHOW IN your mind, that equals nothing.
Should Obama have not backed off attacking, I suspect as futilely as Trump's attack was, Syria when they crossed the red line? I think he should have, but that is the autocrat in me. What did he do instead of escalating the fight in Syria and starting a brand new committment of American power - he went to Congress as most people think he should have. Now I know that Trump, and apparently you, have no need for Congress, but the rest of us do.
And what did the Republicans do? The Republicans said don't attack Syria. So, he didn't, he obeyed Congress like Trump doesn't.
From https://www.theatlantic.com/internation … is/561887/
This is YOUR Republicans at work - "On Wednesday, a week after the chemical weapons attack, a large group of Republican members of Congress wrote Obama a letter that threatened him bluntly: “Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution"
AND
"This was followed by a letter from the Speaker of the House, John Boehner. “Even as the United States grapples with the alarming scale of the human suffering,” it read, “we are immediately confronted with contemplating the potential scenarios our response might trigger or accelerate. These considerations include the Assad regime potentially losing command and control of its stock of chemical weapons or terrorist organizations—especially those tied to al-Qaeda—gaining greater control of and maintaining territory.” - Boehner also focused on the need for congressional authorization
AND
"Obama called a couple of foreign leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Your decision was right (to go to Congress), Netanyahu said, and history will be kinder than public opinion."
AND
"Senator Mitch McConnell, who would end up criticizing Obama for not launching a strike, refused to offer his support. “Real profiles in courage,” Obama said to us afterward."
On another note - the author of that piece had this to say. "I felt waves of anxiety, anticipating how I might be hauled before Congress if things went terribly wrong after a military intervention. "
If Trump is let of the hook by his Trumplicans, he no longer needs to fear being "hauled before Congress" he can simply say no and point to Trump's impeachment as to justification for ignoring Congress.From your source:
"That agreement went a long way toward achieving its goal, namely through the removal from Syria of 1,300 metric tons of weapons-grade chemicals—including ingredients for the nerve agents sarin and VX—as well as the destruction of chemical munitions, labs, and mixing equipment. Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry hailed the deal as a major victory in the battle to rid the world of especially horrible weapons of mass destruction that even the worst combatants of World War II had refrained from using on the battlefield. " -
SOMEHOW IN your mind, that equals nothing.
Should Obama have not backed off attacking, I suspect as futilely as Trump's attack was, Syria when they crossed the red line? I think he should have, but that is the autocrat in me. What did he do instead of escalating the fight in Syria and starting a brand new committment of American power - [u[he went to Congress as most people think he should have.[/u]
An interesting Factoid -
Trump's Deficit is now as high as Obama's was in 2012 and Bush's was in 2008. While Obama's deficit was on a steep DECLINE Trump's and Bush's are(were) on a steep INCLINE. Why is that?He has to pay for all the liberal giveaways Obama signed for!
Nope, it was that GOP Tax Scam and the conservative give-a-way to the rich that failed to deliver.
- Lower Business Investment
- Higher Trade Deficits
- The Manufacturing Industry is Contracting
- The Increase in Manufacturing Jobs stopped a year ago.
- The Coal Industry is still Failing
- Economic Growth Has Not Changed from Obama levels
- As Planned, Corporate Tax Revenues Fell 31%
- As Not Planned, Tax Revenues Fell as a share of the economy
- In Real Terms (taking inflation into account) the Stock Market is performing at the top of the channel established by Obama's 8 years in office.
- While continuing to increase the first two years of the Trump administration, the number of Job Openings has flattened out.
- In the last several months, the number of firings as almost equaled the number of hires.
- Only 14% (22% for Republicans) of Americans thought their Taxes went Down - contrary to Trump's promise.
- The Promised $4,000 per year increase in wages for the average American never happened.
- Forbes says "The data leave no doubt that the supply-side tax cuts were wasteful."
- Whatever wage gains that may have happened, economists, according to CNBC, said cannot be tracked the tax cut.
- The annual insured rate has skyrocketed
- Total auto sales have flattened and may be decreasing
- Consumer Confidence [u]seems[/b] to have peaked. We will know in a few months.
- Consumer Sentiment flattened out with the election of Trump
- Food Stamp use continued to decline under Trump - but has ticked up the last two months. More time is needed to determine if people are feeling the pain.
- Employment Participation Rate continues to grow.
- Finally, the Deficit/GDP ratio is rapidly increasing. It is higher than anytime since 1960, other the period from 2008 to 2012 while entering into and recovering from the conservative Great Recession.
YEP, Trump is a miracle worker alright!
- OH!, I forgot, q 24% increase in farm bankruptcies.
- Trump's one bright spot so far is unemployment continued on the downward path set by Obama and has remained at historic lows.Nope, it was that GOP Tax Scam and the conservative give-a-way to the rich that failed to deliver.
Yep, for sure. The tax scam that gave nearly everyone in the country something. Guess we're all rich, right? Or would that only be the half of the country that does not participate in funding the needs of the federal government?
"Only 14% (22% for Republicans) of Americans thought their Taxes went Down - contrary to Trump's promise."
What are you really saying here? That Republicans are smart enough to recognize a bigger paycheck while Democrats are too stupid to do so? Because, regardless of what stupid people thought, nearly everyone in the country saw their federal taxes fall.
"Consumer Sentiment flattened out with the election of Trump"
Sure it did. A fine talking point for liberals...if they aren't concerned about truth. We both know people are very happy with what they are seeing economy and job wise.
"Trump's one bright spot so far is unemployment continued on the downward path set by Obama and has remained at historic lows."
LOL You guys are so funny! For sure, Obama set the path for historic highs in employment and historic lows in unemployment. The exodus of private jobs, and the growing use of foreign labor during Obama's years of apology accomplished that, didn't it?Wilderness: The unemployment rate does not give a true picture of those unemployed, but all presidents use that metric. A more realistic metric is the Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor Force Participation Rate which is currently at 63.2%. That means out of the entire labor force of those who are not working and/or who haven't had a job in the last four weeks, but want to work is at 36.8%.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer … t-rate.asp
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000Wilderness proves he can't read again.
"Yep, for sure. The tax scam that gave nearly everyone in the country something. " - THEN WHY do only 14% of Americans (and only 10% of independents) agree with you? Maybe 86% of Americans don't know what is on their tax return. OR, Could it be you are wrong?
How do you know their taxes fell? Is it because Trump told you so? Mine didn't. My massage therapist's didn't either (I do her taxes).
Even though most Americans are happy with the current state of the economy, they don't give the GOP Tax Scam credit for it. They are just pissed off 95% of it went to the very rich.
The Consumer Sentiment Index report doesn't lie, it just reports what it finds.
Since I can't paste my chart, I'll just give you my source:
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta … confidence
Boy you sure have a problem with the truth don't you Wilderness. NO, Obama did not "set the path" for historic highs in unemployment; Bush 2 did that. Also, Reagan did worse, as did Hoover before him, and several other presidents in the 1800s.
What so-called "exodus" of private jobs are you talking about? Once you figure that out, provide numbers (I know you won't, you never do). But, on the off-chance you do want to deal in facts, produce comparable numbers for Clinton, GH Bush, Obama, and Trump.
Nice, deflect. Not sure why you have changed the subject to once again an Obama failure? He did some positive things during his time in the WH. But his foreign policies or his budget were just not on that list.
In regards to the Trump budget, I would prefer to see what Trump does in his remaining time in office in regards to the amount of deficit he may accumulate. And what the cash was used for. Hopefully not a failed healthcare plan. I believe in spending Tax dollars to make needed improvements, and funds needed to solve problems.
Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74% increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.
Obama takes the prize... So far anyway...What the cash from the GOPTaxScam was used for is already known. It went into the pockets of the rich and stock owners. Very little was seen by Joe Public.
It seems you conservatives have totally forgotten about the conservative Great 2018 Recession. You know, that almost Depression which Obama's policies averted. Why do you keep forgetting that? Does it contradict your false narrative?
I am glad you believe in spending Tax dollars to make needed improvements (which is what Obama did), I do to. BUT, that is not what Trump is doing. What is he spending some of it on? Welfare for the farmers he has bankrupt.I probably need to correct your numbers.
At the end of Q3, 2019, the total public debt stood at $22,719,402 M in current dollars.
At the end of Q1, 2017, which can fairly be attributed to Obama, the total public debt stood at $19,846,420 M in current dollars
At the end of Q1, 2009, the total public debt stood at $11,126,941 M - a 78% increase, which supports your 74%
At the end of Q1, 2001, the total public debt stood at $5,773,740 M - Bush had a 92% increase (compared that to Obama's 78% why don't you?)
To keep things simple, if you divide by the appropriated number of years to get an "average" annual increase you get:
Trump - 5.6% per year (and getting worse since Trump's deficit is soaring and does not include any impacts from recessions.)
Obama - 9.5% per year (includes impact of automatic payments triggered by Bush's recession - context I know you don't like thinking about)
Bush - 11.5% per year (includes impact of automatic payments triggered by Bush's recession)
For Reference Clinton's annual increase (which doesn't include a major recession either) was 4.6% per year. Why is Trump doing so much worse than Clinton?Sharlee: With Obama, it was over an eight year period. With Trump, it is over a three year period...big difference. Trump will continue to give big moneyed interest and corporations big tax cuts, because he believes in trickle down economics. The problem is that money doesn't trickle down, it goes sideways to tax sheltered entities, like the Cayman Islands..
In fact, it "trickles up" from the poor to the rich. It is a zero-sum game in the short-term, If the rich get more, then the poor have less. Because the rich have the power, they make the poor pay for their lifestyle through low wages for most of America, unfair tax breaks for the rich, and, in many cases, outright graft from people like Trump.
Esoteric, you have stated the problem quite eloquently, don't you see this as a structural deficit in American life and the reality behind the way the economy actually works upon close observation?
We are never going to move beyond this scenario if we have politics and politicians unwilling to recognize and challenge it.Back to Impeachment of Trump
Sen Lisa Murkowski, along with other Republican's and Trumplicans, said the House's job was incomplete because they didn't wait to until the Supreme Court tell Trump what they have told all other Presidents before him, give Congress what it asked for.
My question is why can't the House go to the impeachment Court, the Senate for resolution??
1. The subpoenas were lawful as established dozens of rulings from courts up and down the line.
2. Since Trump ignored a lawful order, by definition he broke the law. By doing so, he obstructed Congress from carrying out its Constitutional duties.
3. The House has two choices: 1) appeal to a regular court trying to force Trump to stop breaking the law or 2) impeach him on Obstruction of Congress and let the Senate resolve the question by trial.
Since the House chose the latter course, the Senate can do one of two things.
Tell America that a president DOES NOT have the authority to obstruct Congress ever again
or
Tell America that any president, from Trump onward, has Senate approval to not comply with a single thing Congress asks for every again.
Trumplicans want the latter outcome because they think presidents ought to be kings.
The rest of us want the former outcome because we believe in a balanced government with meaningful checks and balances.
The choice is simple - Do you want America as our founders envisioned it OR an autocracy.
"Sharlee: With Obama, it was over an eight year period. With Trump, it is over a three year period...big difference."
Yes, I pointed that out? Not sure what rump's bottom line will be? Not sure how you could be?
"Trump will continue to give big moneyed interest and corporations big tax cuts, because he believes in trickle down economics. "
So far so good... Again not sure what more tax cuts will bring or if there will be any further tax cuts Again No sure how smart it is to predict a longshot?
It will be interesting to see what Trump does in his next term. Now that is a prediction I feel confident in making.
Decline? What year did Obama's money spending slow or decline?
"Percentage-wise, Obama has added 68% of the national debt since he took office. His predecessor, George W. Bush increased it by 105% in 2-terms (2001 – 2009), primarily due to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Bush added only US$6.103 trillion in national debt. Bill Clinton increased the national debt by merely 36.7% during his 2-terms from 1993 to 2001."
In other words, the first 43 presidents, including the “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” Bush, had accumulated a combined US$11.909 trillion national debt, only to skyrocket by 67% by Obama to US$19.887 trillion. With 10 more months to go before the fiscal budget ends on September 30, it could easily breach the US$20 trillion mark.
If calculated based on a presidential term which starts and ends on January 20th, Barack Hussein Obama has almost doubled the national debt – US$19.887 trillion as of December 23, 2016, as compared to US$10.626 trillion on January 20, 2009, during his inauguration day. But there’s something else which is quite puzzling.The Deficit started getting smaller in 2010, to answer your question.
I think you just restated what has been already said. Obama increased the debt by 78% and Bush increased it by 92%.
Your meme left off a few years, why? But to fill in the gap:
2017 - $20,494,794 M
2018 - $21,974,096 M
2019 Q3 - $22,917,402 M
So you can uncolor the last Obama one and make the last Trump one yellow. THAT is a fair presentation rather than your skewed one.You would blame Trump for the deficit and the national debt as of 12-23-16? As well as the next year, with a budget set before Trump was elected?
Sounds pretty convenient, even for you.Please provide the quote where I said that, Wilderness. If you can't, please tell the truth.
Can you uncolor this ugly fact? This just says it all.
"In other words, the first 43 presidents, including the “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” Bush, had accumulated a combined US$11.909 trillion national debt, only to skyrocket by 67% by Obama to US$19.887 trillion. With 10 more months to go before the fiscal budget ends on September 30, it could easily breach the US$20 trillion mark."
Plus - Trump inherited national debt as 12-23-16 As well as the following year Due to a set (Obman administration) budget. That was in place before President Trump was elected...
As I aid, it would be wise to wait and see what Trump in the next five years. He may well work on our growing debt. he certainly is solving many other long-time problems.Fortunately for America, Trump won't have a chance to continue using his wrecking ball and continue to add a trillion dollars a year to the debt.
Unfortunately, it will probably take three years before the next president can start shrinking the deficit again. The first thing they will need to do is reverse the giveaway to the very rich and corporations (who took the money they got and put it in their shareholder's pockets or the pockets of CEOs and senior executive staff.}Please provide me my quote where I said "Can you uncolor this ugly fact?" Once you find you can't - Please tell the truth.
I used the sentence, my words not yours... I proposed to you... Just to point out the final facts or in this case, National debt is what matters. I was pointing out the sad fact 43 presidents had accumulated a combined US$11.909 trillion and Obama accurate Approx 9 trillion on his own.
These numbers should shock you, and certainly not provoke you to compare them what Trump has accumulated thus far or presume what Trump's final debt will be.
Please let me remind you, it was you that deflected to this subject. We were discussing Obama's foreign policies? Not sure why you brought up something I am very sure Obama would like to keep under a carpet.
Bottom line Obama was handed a mess, one should not ignore that fact. Is it fair to judge Trump on the National debt as of yet? Plus, he may be spending money that is well benefiting the country. One has to play the waiting game to be fair to see what our cash was spent for, and are we satisfied with the expenditures or left with failed projects..."Plus, he may be spending money that is well benefiting the country." - SHOW me what he is spending money on that wasn't being spent already?
Why is Trump's rate of increase in debt more than Obama's was in the last four years of his term. Obama had slowed down the increase after saving America from a depression. Trump is accelerating the increase again.I found this breakdown of spending published on Dec 24, 2019, Appears 60% of budget will be spent on SS and medicare. Wonder how we could ver afford Medicare for all< we can't even pay for growing demands?
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal- … wn-3305789We can't afford Medicare for All, that is why I and most Democrats and Independents don't support it.
Do you support SS and Medicare?
Makes sense, although granted, there are those Libras who successfully fight the impulse to be fair and balanced and to seek the truth. Are you an INTP as well? (Meyers-Briggs)
As weWell, the NT makes sense. I just didn't see you as an Extrovert. but it is hard to tell from just the comments. Me, in public, I am a fire-walled Introvert.
Scott: I don't see myself as an extrovert either, but people who know me think I am. I don't even see myself as a leader, but somehow, most of the time, I end up in leadership positions.
According to my wife, I scored as an SOB.
GAI find GA to be very un-SOB-like, but then I don't live with him. lol
Ha ha..that deserves one of your ^5's. My wife would say the same I'm sure.
We can only hope they never get the chance to compare notes hard sun. Then we would both be screwed. ;-)
Just for safety, I try to always close out my HP tab so she can't just click and read when I leave the room.
GA
peoplepower, I see that you too are a former government employee (presumably retired after double-dipping in the private sector for awhile), and a "consultant"--which I suspect means you were usually, if not always, in the pay of some branch of government for your consulting services.
Blue: I worked for both defense contractors and private non-government concerns...so what? You give me too much credit. I never double dipped.
However, I still don't know what you did other than work with herbs and make soap while being a pro-Russian Trump supporter.
Trump is impeached but what happens next? If I am right only a miracle can impeach Trump. But I wonder if it will affect his chances in 2020 election.
We don't know what even dumber moves Trump will make before the election, emge. It's been almost a daily scandal of some sort since he took office in 2016. He's too arrogant to stop acting like a low class con man to this point, so stay tuned.
Trump is already impeached. I think you meant "only a miracle can convict Trump". Since McConnell wants to break his oath of office and conduct an unfair trial, he will probably get away with it.
As soon as he does, the Constitution as we know it is dead. America is dead.And now there is this SICKO move by #ImpeachedTrump.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/us/ice-r … index.html
I agree, but one needs common sense, good math skills to come to that conclusion.
I think it will affect his chances in 2020, he is a shoe-in and will walk away with even more electoral votes.
No, they just plot mass shootings and march with neo-Nazis.
Someday, O will actually learn what fact checking is all about. Until then, he will remain the biggest idiot at this site.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/democ … ters-list/Snopes is a left leaning pathetic excuse for a fact checker. It takes very little effort to research that yes they all supported the Democrat platform, and they all were violent left wing killers.
Why should Pelosi submit articles of impeachment to the senate, when McConnell won't even honor her subpoenas for witnesses? If I were her, I would hold off until the witnesses that were subpoenaed come forward.
Otherwise, the whole trial is nothing but a dog and pony show and an exercise in futility. Trump has already been impeached by the house and everybody knows what the outcome is going to be without any witnesses in the senate. It's a waste of tax payers money.There you go, that is the truth of it, it WAS nothing more than a dog and pony show and a waste of the taxpayers money.
Nancy, bless her shriveled little heart, controls the House, not the Senate.
Nancy can break all the rules, precedence, and procedures she wants in the House, but when it comes to what the Senate chooses to do, she has no say in it, and McConnell would be a fool to allow her any say or have any influence in anything the Senate chooses to do.
Just like Nancy refused to wait on the Courts, and refused to let the Republicans call witnesses, and refused to hold off on Impeachment despite no real proof on which to Impeach.
O: You can't even recognize a poor job of digital editing when you see it or hear it. The interviewer didn't even ask a question. She just made a statement about how fast the process has been. Then the video jumped to Pelosi saying it has been 22 months.
And you bought into that propaganda hook, line, and sinker that Fox and Tucker Carlson use all the time. It's about as lame as your dumb ass memes.
Nice try but that dog don't hunt. You have proven to me you will fall for anything that fits your agenda, whether it is made up or not. That's also one of the techniques that Trump uses to brainwash his people. It's not an overthrow of an elected president, it's an overthrow of your brain.Poor little Joey is confused again. But he claims he's not a Trump supporter. Of course, he may simply be as honest as Little Donnie.
She has admitted at least three times that she's been trying to impeach the president from the beginning.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion … -1-2-yearsO: She said it has been two and a half years since the start of the Mueller investigation, not that amount of time trying to impeach Trump. If you watched the real news, Pelosi did not want to impeach Trump at all, even though her people did.
It wasn't until the Ukraine phone call that she got on board. The Federal Papers News is run by a right wing extremist who has been involved in all kind of scandals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_DomenechLOL And you don't think the Mueller "investigation" was an effort to impeach Trump? With half the Democrats in the House demanding just that?
What planet did you say you grew up on? Pelosi did not want to carry out a vote, but she wanted VERY much to impeach Trump, and for years has made every effort to find a politically safe method of doing so."Nasty Nancy," as your role model called her today, is so much smarter than Trump, and she'll prove it over the next few weeks.
The newly released emails today puts another nail in Little Donnie's coffin.Now tell me why Republicans wanted to impeach TraitorTrump?
- It was a Trump appointed Trumpican Sessions (let's call them by their real name) who recused himself
- It was a Republican (a real one) who Trump fired that started the Mueller probe
- It was a Trump appointed Republican who appointed Mueller
- It was a Republican who conducted the investigation.
Funny, I don't see the word Democrat anywhere.
You see PeoplePower, Wilderness only reads what he wants to read (or maybe his mind blacks out the words he disagrees with and he doesn't even see them). So let me repeat part of them:
Speaker Pelosi only came on board for impeaching Trump once he tried to get Zelenskyy to illegally investigate a political opponent for Trump's personal benefit.
Yeah, yeah, She didn't say that, and if she did that's not what she meant, and if it was then you misunderstood. Spin, spin, spin...
Chill out Joey, you certainly don't want to get all worked up about someone who's challenging a person you claim not to support.
That is why I scroll past anything 'O' publishes.
https://www.thestarpress.com/story/opin … 628991001/
"Taken altogether, it is a simple fact that our federal government is currently engaged in deeper economic stimulus than we saw in the first year of the Obama Presidency. That was in the midst of the darkest days of the Great Recession. Whatever good we can note about our recent economic performance has to be calibrated against those facts.."
This is written by a conservative business professor. It may be wise to at least read it with some level of open mindedness. Happy Holidays.Interesting, and correct, way to put it, for sure.
Got a link to the bribes, Joey? I mean from a reputable source and not meme library..
Anyone know how many times the stock market has hit a new record high since Chef Pelosi served up an impeachment nothingburger?
The stock market is a good indicator of consumer confidence. Healthy Stock trading allows businesses to raise capital. Capital to pay off their debt, hire more workers, hopefully, pass on some of the benefits to their employees. IT also gives businesses the opportunity to launch new products, expand operations. With businesses doing better and consumer confidence on the rise it also opens up opportunities for more small businesses. to thrive.
I think we should just enjoy the upswing, and not attribute it to the impeachment. Just my view, but I think it's all due to jobs and consumer confidence. Lots of money being spent and invested.No, the stock market is NOT a good indicator of consumer confidence. The Consumer Confidence Index is a good indicator of consumer confidence.
In normal times, the stock market is a forward looking measure of how investors think corporate America will perform a few years out. That is not the same as consumer confidence.
Right now, investors are betting-on-the-come that Trump and China will come off the precipice of disaster that Trump put us on. They are hoping Trump will have to back down and return things back to the way it was before he started the war.
Unfortunately for our farmers, that won't happen. Permanent damage has been done to their ability to sell their products outside of the US as China has found other suppliers who will fight to keep the business that Trump gave them.
BTW, when taking inflation into account, the stock market is doing no better than the channel established by Obama. If Trump were doing a better than average job, then the market should be around 30,000. In fact, Trump only did better than Obama in Jun 2018, Sep 2018, and Dec 2019. The rest of the time he has been at or below the trend set by Obama.
What you say about "healthy stock" might be true, but it isn't today. Other than a slight uptick right after the GOPTaxScam passed, business investment in new activities has been declining. Why?
Also, since Trump started his trade war, the trade deficit has gotten much worse by his standards. Why?
The one bright spot is consumer spending has been steady. But with Trump's Tariffs driving up prices, who knows how long that will continue.
Consumer Confidence is NOT on the rise. Since June 2018, it has fallen from 100.9 (Trump's high point) to 100.1 Dec 5, 2019. Why?
Consumer Sentiment reached its high in Oct 2017 at 100.7 and is not down to 96.8. Why?
Now, to be fair, when Obama took office, CS was 56.3 but peaked at 98.6 when he left office.
For comparison, Clinton's average CS was around 105; while Bush's was around 90.
Your "capital to pay off their debt" caught my attention. Turns out corporate debt is at historic highs and growing. Currently, it is at around $10 Trillion or 1/2 the national debt. Experts are worried.
Do you know what they are really spending their money on? Stock Buy-backs to benefit the stockholders and higher executive wages.
That is your vaunted corporate America at work.You sound like a true liberal, desperately trying to kill off a robust economy in a forlorn effort to prevent another 4 years of Trump in the White House.
If you, and the rest of those doing the same thing, ARE successful in killing consumer confidence with a pack of lies and facts spun out of recognition you will go down with the rest of us. The only difference is that you will know you did your part to harm some 300 million people, and possibly billions of it takes the rest of the world with you as happened in the last recession.Did you vote for Dubya, Dan? If so, do you take any responsibility for the last recession? I seriously doubt it.
What does this have to do with crying for destruction of our economy? Can you elucidate some, please?
Wilderness: You call it a pack of lies spun out of recognition. What do you call the fact that Trump has lied/mislead over 15,413 times In 1,055 days?
When and if their is a next recession, Trump will have no one to blame but himself. But he will shift the blame to others, just like you did in your reply and his supporters will believe him.
That is the scary part of the whole Trump con job that he has successfully been able to pull of in spite of all his lies. A president who has lied as much as he has should not be allowed to stay in office, but he has numbed the brains of not only his supporters, but of his non-supporters as well.
He has left a wake of catastrophes behind him with the obstruction of justice, the abuse of power, and obstruction of congress. No matter where he goes and what he does it is always for his only personal gain, but in so doing, he creates chaos and scandal as a result of his actions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … -database/"When and if their is a next recession, Trump will have no one to blame but himself."
See, I disagree with this. The radical liberal faction in the country appears, to me, to be trying their best to convince the people that a recession is around the corner (prior, of course, to the election) and everyone needs to pull in their horns and prepare for it.
Of course, if everyone does that the economy will falter, whereupon the left will begin screaming "See! I told you so! Trump caused this!"...when, in fact, it is the left with their phony predictions and doom saying that is at the root. What is truly bothersome is that they don't care how many people they hurt or how badly as long as they get their way.
No, the scariest thing is not what Trump says or even does. It is that so many liberals take the exact same road with gross exaggerations and outright lies, then scream about Trumps lies while ignoring that they are doing the same thing. There is actually very little difference between the exaggerations of Trump and those of his political opponents - it is sad to see the people now taking up the politicians tools of spin and lie. Indeed, your own final paragraph is just such speech - a grossly exaggerated and spun tale of doom that just isn't there. "Catastrophes". "Chaos". "Scandal". Even the crimes listed are but spin and tales - do you honestly think Trump will be convicted in the Senate of "obstruction of congress", or will the idiotic charges brought by the House simply fade away?Friday Dow hits new high. Yet again.
Nasdaq 9000
Nancy Impeachment NothingBurger
Halftime
Amazingly despite liberal financial expertise in predicting these matters, coincidentally while their party sits on the bench.We say this same type of optimism twice before 1929 and 2007. What is the "bubble" this time? That Trump and China will return things back to where they were before Trump started his trade war.
If they don't, the bubble WILL burst. You have seen signs of that each time Trump threw a monkey-wrench into his talks with China - the market fell dramatically which made Trump back-off whatever stupid thing he did that caused the drop in the first place.
The FACTS are;
- Because of Trump's Trade War, manufacturing in America has been contracting since Aug 2019.
- Because of Trump's Trade War, the number of jobs available has flattened out since Jan 2019.
- Because of Trump's Trade War, the number of manufacturing jobs has leveled off since Feb 2019
- Because of Trump's Trade War, total auto sales has been in a slow decline since Feb 2018
- Because of Trump's Trade War, the number of farm bankruptcies have increased 24% and the rest of the agricultural industry is surviving only because of the welfare payments Trump is handing out.
- In inflation-adjusted dollars, Trump is doing only marginally better than Trump in the stock market. This was mainly driven by 1) the promise of the tax give-away to corporate America, 2) the stock buy-back those corporations used their new found wealth on, and 3) the promise that Trump will fix the trade war he started.Now that's a tremendous idea! Put things back the way they were, keep exporting our jobs and buying Chinese crap on credit! Keep the welfare rolls up, because there are no jobs to work at!
You want to talk of an economic "bubble"? Well the "bubble" this time was the exporting of our jobs and manufacturing capabilities to China (and others) and then living off of credit to buy the things we no long make and can't afford to buy because the jobs are gone. There's an unsustainable "bubble" for you - the very one you're saying we need to balloon and make larger.
But hey, if it can be used somehow to claim Trump's policies don't work (whether it makes sense or not), it's all good, right?It would really be nice that 1) you knew what you were talking about and 2) you stop making things up. Where did I talk about an "economic" bubble? You created that out of thin air.
As to your "exporting" jobs fable. If that were true, then the number of jobs available and number of hires would have declined during the Obama years and earlier wouldn't they? Well provide me the statistics to back your false claim up or stop saying it.
As to your "exporting" manufacturing capabilities fable. Why aren't they staying here? Are you against free trade? Sounds like it.
Should we stop China's theft of our national security and trade secrets? Of course we should. But a trade war is the wrong way to do it.
As to your "living off of credit" - I have no idea what you are talking about.
"because there are no jobs to work at!" - BOY Wilderness, this proves you live in an alternate reality. We have had more jobs available than can be filled since March 2015!!"Where did I talk about an "economic" bubble? You created that out of thin air."
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/345 … ost4111977
"We say this same type of optimism twice before 1929 and 2007. What is the "bubble" this time? That Trump and China will return things back to where they were before Trump started his trade war.
If they don't, the bubble WILL burst. You have seen signs of that each time Trump threw a monkey-wrench into his talks with China - the market fell dramatically which made Trump back-off whatever stupid thing he did that caused the drop in the first place."
"As to your "exporting" jobs fable. If that were true, then the number of jobs available and number of hires would have declined during the Obama years and earlier wouldn't they?"
Really? You don't understand how we can export 50 jobs, make 55 new ones and have employment go up by 5?
"Why aren't they staying here?"
Is it possible that you don't understand how a company, after paying extreme taxes and dealing with massive unneeded regulations, can find itself on the losing end of a competition with a foreign company paying 1/10 the labor cost?
"But a trade war is the wrong way to do it."
I haven't seen any suggestions, from you or anyone else, on just how to do that. Want to give it a try?
"As to your "living off of credit" - I have no idea what you are talking about."
It means we're spending more than we're taking in. It means the national debt is growing.
""because there are no jobs to work at!" - BOY Wilderness, this proves you live in an alternate reality. We have had more jobs available than can be filled since March 2015!!"
Sure are - ain't Trump's programs wonderful? But there won't be if we "put things back the way they were", as you declare we need to do. Again, from the same post noted above: "That Trump and China will return things back to where they were before Trump started his trade war. If they don't, the bubble WILL burst." Continue buying from China, continue exporting our jobs to China, continue borrowing to buy Chinese goods in other words...that's not a good method of maintaining the tremendous, record number of jobs Trump has produced.And your statistics that we create 55 jobs and export 50 are???? Until you can provide some, it would appear you are just making things up again.
Again, where did I talk about an economic bubble??? To help you out, I am talking about expectations (hope) that Trump hasn't screwed the pouch with his Trade War with the world. Investors keep hoping he will fix his mess. Each time it looks like he is failing, the market tumbles. Each time he provides a glimmer of hope, the market stupidly goes up.
The national debt is growing? No shit! So what is new? Except for Clinton, the national debt has always been growing.
Trade wars ALWAYS lose - there has NEVER been a successful trade war, not even close. We should have elected Clinton, maybe she would have come up with something. Whatever that might have been, it couldn't be worse than a trade war. Doing what we were doing was better than a trade war, at least we wouldn't have screwed the farmers like Trump did.
Your argument about jobs makes it seem like you want the horse and buggy back. Times change and we have to change with the times to keep ahead. It sounds like you want to drive our standard of living down so that America can compete with cheaper labor elsewhere.
Problem is, you can't have your cake and eat it to (which I have never understood, but you know what I mean).
Putting things back where they were means stop bankrupting our agricultural industry and stop taxing Americans for buying products made overseas."Each time it looks like he is failing, the market tumbles."
Like most everything else here, let it tumble. My IRA, all in the market, has increased by just under 20% since Jan. 1: I'll take that kind of tumble every time.
"Times change and we have to change with the times to keep ahead."
But I don't want to "keep ahead"...not when it means jumping off the cliff.
"Putting things back where they were means stop bankrupting our agricultural industry and stop taxing Americans for buying products made overseas."
I understand that. What you don't want to mention, though, is that it also means no jobs, a wider wealth gap and more welfare. As it chains people to politicians (primarily Democrats) for their survival instead of making it possible to provide for themselves you may find that advantageous. I do not.And your IRA fell 5.7% in 2018.
And how does it mean " is that it also means no jobs, a wider wealth gap and more welfare." since:
1) Job openings exceeded hires beginning in Feb 2015
2) The Gini Index for Household Incomes skyrocketed under Reagan from .43 to .46.
2.1) It then it stayed constant Clinton at .46 (dropping to .45 in 1995),
2.2) Under Bush it bounced around a bit but settled at .47
2.3) Under Obama, it rose to .48 at the recession (meaning the recession hurt the less wealthy more than it did the wealthy. The opposite is true in most recessions) and stabilized there.
2.4) Under Trump, it stayed at .48 in 2017 and rose to .49 in 2019
3) As measured by food stamps, welfare has been decreasing since Jan 2014 until Jun 2019. It has increased in July and August 2019
This is how you use statistics and facts to debunk your false claims.
Do you consider things "Jumping off a cliff"?
1) Passage of the 13th Amendment
2) Passage of the 14th Amendment
3) Passage of the 15th Amendment
4) Passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
5) Passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act
6) Establishment of public schools
7) Establishment of the EPA
8) Trust-busting monopolies
9) Regulating the railroads
10) Establishment of the National Parks system
And the list goes on. I suppose, had you been alive at each of these events, you would have opposed everyone of them.
"And your statistics that we create 55 jobs and export 50 are???? Until you can provide some, it would appear you are just making things up again."
An example of how we can build jobs while also outsourcing. But I'm sure you understood that - even a liberal should understand that we did not create only 55 jobs during the recession recovery and that we did not outsource only 50. Of course, if the goal is something other than understanding I guess the complaint makes sense.
"...there has NEVER been a successful trade war, not even close."
Never has the stock market been so high. Must be bad, right? Never have we had such low unemployment - must not be possible, right? Never had anyone sat at a table with Kim; we must never do so, right?
Trump is doing things all the time that have never been done...and coming out with successful results. Perhaps having a businessman at the helm will change that "rule" as well. Certainly if it convinces China to quit stealing from us it will have been worth it.
"Your argument about jobs makes it seem like you want the horse and buggy back."
No, you're the one wanting to "go back", not I. I'm happy with the economic progress we're making. I like have jobs in the country and better paying jobs with fewer welfare recipients. You're the one wanting to back up, apparently because you don't like it when Trump's programs work.
Yep - stop the tariffs, so it remains cheaper to buy overseas, and the jobs stay there instead of here. Good liberal thinking - it benefits everybody but the US! That's been the liberal mantra for some time now - support the world at our cost - so I guess there's nothing new in hearing it. But it does very plainly indicate just where the liberal concerns are, and it isn't within our borders. It isn't with our own people, and it isn't with the needs of our own country.
Please do some research on the subject. From a good source.
https://www.bls.gov/ces/publications/hi … 1-2019.pdfThat, and other gov't sources, is where I do get most of my information.
Do you disagree with ANY of my assessments? Did you even look??
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Presi … he-Numbers (My sources are included and I will be doing my next update in two weeks.)
"The radical liberal faction in the country appears, to me, to be trying their best to convince the people that a recession is around the corner (prior, of course, to the election) and everyone needs to pull in their horns and prepare for it." - OH, YOU MEAN like the radical Right did to Obama for eight-years. Look where that got them other than electing a pathologically lying despot for the sole purpose of destroying America.
Tell me, exactly what are liberals lying about when discussing Trump??
- Are you saying that non-Trumplicans saying Trump committed an impeachable offense with his interactions with Zelenskyy is a lie?
- Are you saying that there is a high likelihood that it was Russian interference that got Trump elected after Clinton and Comey set the stage for it is a lie?
- Are you saying that non-Trumplicans who point out that Trump is a pathological liar are lying?
- Are you saying that the multitude of mental health care professionals who say Trump is dangerously mentally ill and unfit for office are lying?
- Are you saying the many real Republicans who are coming out saying Trump is unfit for office are lying?
- Are you saying that when non-Trumplicans point out that Trump is a Bully; a Misogynist; a Racist or at least a Racist enabler; an Homophobe; an Islamaphobe; etc are lying?
- When non-Trumplicans say Trump has made America and himself a laughingstock of the world, are they lying?
- When non-Trumplicans complain that Trump's policies led directly to separating thousands of kids from their parents, are we lying?
- When non-Trumplicans say that Trump threw our Kurdish allies under the bus to die at the hands of Turks and, at the same time, turned over our Syrian bases to the Russians, are we lying?
- When I say there is credible evidence that Trump is a traitor, am I lying?
- Did you really say that EACH (or any) of Trump's opponents have issued the massive volume of lies that Trump has. If so, you are lying. The truth is that the quantity of Trump's lies and false statements are orders of magnitude more than the combined total issued by his opponents.
Is this what you are saying we are lying about, or is there something else?
Of course I don't think Trump will be convicted in the Senate. McConnell and Graham and other Trumplicans have rigged the trial.Wilderness: I said if and when there is a recession, not that there is going to be a recession. Trump's lies, miss-information and gross exaggerations are intentional and are used to manipulate and divide the populous for his own political gain .
What you are calling my lies and exaggerations are my opinions that are evidence of how I feel about someone who is not qualified to be president. Obviously, they don't affect you as you have already been manipulated by Trump.
The charges in the house will never fade away, because he has officially been impeached by the house. He will wear it as a scarlet letter for the rest of his life. Anyone like Trump who is so concerned about his image will be affected by such a charge.
Prove to me Trump has not been involved in scandals. Prove to me that he has not created chaos while in office. Prove to me he has not created catastrophes while in office. These are not gross exaggerations, they are observable facts.You and others have consistently given long lists of exaggerations and lies that point to a severe upcoming depression. Done intentionally and used to manipulate and divide the populous for political gain.
Well now, HAS he been impeached? Without delivery of those articles to the Senate it seems that nothing at all has been done. Just a lot of idiots posturing themselves in the House, with no perceptible outcome.
You make the claims - YOU prove that Trump has created "chaos" (as defined by me). YOU prove that he has created "catastrophes" (again, by my definition). Once that has been done you might be able to claim "observable fact", but until then it is nothing but rhetoric without any factual basis.Wilderness: We said recession, not depression. There is a difference.
A recession is the contraction phase of the business cycle. ... A common rule of thumb for recessions is two quarters of negative GDP growth. A depression is a prolonged period of economic recession marked by a significant decline in income and employment. There is no widely accepted definition of depressions.
Yes, Trump has been official impeached by the house. It doesn't matter about the Senate and the articles of impeachment. He will be acquitted anyway. Even though the Senate takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, McConnell said he was going to be in lockstep with whatever Trump wants. Why would Pelosi want to submit the articles under those conditions?
So you think having extra marital affairs and having his lawyer go to jail for the cover-up payment is not a scandal? By my definition it is. So you think having his cabinet members and staff members quit because they can't deal with his chaotic style and lack of leadership skills is not chaotic? By my definition it is. Do you think separating over 1,500 children from their parents whom they will never see each other again is not a catastrophe? By my definition it is.
All of these conditions are all observable facts, it's just you and his supporters either don't care or you look the other way because you and they are in denial of what Trump is really about.
Further, he is creating chaos right now by not honoring his subpoenas for him and his first hand witnesses for the trial. He is obstructing congress. If the first hand witness were allowed to come to the trial and testify under oath, this charade would be over at the snap of a finger. It's scandalous, creates chaos, and it is a catastrophe that he doesn't allow his people to testify...Your turn.If Trump has been impeached, and the articles of that impeachment are well known (and they are), then how is it that the Senate cannot hold a trial?
"By my definition it is."
That was kind of the point. Everything he does, everything he says, is a "scandal" to you and the rest of those that hate the man.
"So you think having his cabinet members and staff members quit because they can't deal with his chaotic style and lack of leadership skills is not chaotic?"
If they quit their job that is their fault. Not Trump's. Which, again, was the point.
"Do you think separating over 1,500 children from their parents whom they will never see each other again is not a catastrophe?"
You may define "catastrophe" as separating children from their parents when those parents are incarcerated for violating the law. You can even try and blame Trump for following the law. But it isn't a catastrophe for illegal aliens any more than it is for the thousands of American children that undergo that particular trial every year, and it certainly is not Trump's fault for following the laws set up by Congress. You know, it's kind of comical, but I've asked a dozen times if you (general "you" when complaining about these kids, not peoplepower) if they would grant Trump the authority to enforce ONLY laws he agreed with and refuse to enforce those he did not. I have yet to get a positive answer, but he is still somehow required to NOT enforce the laws the speaker doesn't like.
No chaos by not "honoring" subpoenas...except in the minds of Democrats desperately creating the farce of impeachment. Business goes on as usual. You call it scandalous, chaotic and catastrophic - I call it funny beyond belief that any reasonable person would think he would consider anything BUT requesting people not participate in that political farce. Not "doesn't allow", for he did not hold a gun to their head and there is no law saying they will be punished if they do - that particular phrasing is just another lie from the left.Wilderness: When it comes to immigration, Trump is following the Zero Tolerance policy that he and Jeff Sessions created. You think that children being held in caged in pens under inhumane conditions is not a catastrophe?
If Trump is innocent and his first hand witnesses can support his innocents, why doesn't he come forward and let his people testify to his and their innocents.
Don't give me this crap that they don't because it is a political farce. If it is a farce, wouldn't it be better for them to testify and expose the farce to make the house and the democrats look bad?
You and I both know that an impeachment does not necessarily have to do with criminal law. That's why he is impart being impeached for obstruction of congress.
The problem is that we have ended up with a guilty con man as the highest authority in the land who wants to act as a defiant king. That is exactly why he is being impeached. That is exactly what the framers of the constitution feared." You think that children being held in caged in pens under inhumane conditions is not a catastrophe?" - HE HAS been clear he does not.
Wilderness: Let's talk Trump conspiracy theory and open-ended investigations.
There is no Obama born in Kenya.
There is no Obama phone tapping.
There is no voter fraud.
There is no deep state. That was made up by Steve Bannon and Sean Hannity
There is no fake news, except for Fox News, Alt right outlets, and Russian news posing as American News sites.
There is no enemy of the people news casts. That is Trump's way of dividing and manipulating the people. He is the enemy of the truth.
There is no Biden corruption in the Ukraine.
There is no Crowd Strike server in the Ukraine. There is one in San Jose California that is owned by a Russian who was born here.
There is no FBI conspiracy against Trump
There was no hurricane in Alabama
There is no China Hoax about global warming and climate change.
There is no impeachment hoax. It is real.
There is no QAnon left-wing satanic people out to get Trump
All of these are right out of the Trump play book to distract, distort, and deflect from the truth about Trump and company and their actions.
His latest play on chaos is pardoning Chief Petty Officer Gallagher the Navy Seal who was tried for war crimes. Trump is a simpleton who saw a great opportunity to pardon a seal without knowing he was screwing with the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is drilled into every recruits mind.
He messed with the chain of command and even fired The Secretary of the Navy. He set a precedent where others can be pardoned for war crimes. But in Trump's simple mind he did it because it makes him look good for re-election. He can boast that he pardoned a great military fighter who was wrongly tried for war crimes.
He knows nothing about the military even though his parents sent him to military school because he was an unruly teenager who was constantly causing problems. Even as president, you don't mess with the UCMJ and fire the secretary of the Navy because he criticized your actions...Chaos my friend.Wilderness: I would appreciate a list of all the great things Trump has done for the country and that he should be congratulated for. Please enlighten me.
Trump actually has solved some longtime problems, as well as created many wonderful opportunities for American's. I guess it's debatable for some. But I am very satisfied with Trump's job performance. Some of his policies have benefited me greatly, I do realize that the benefits I now enjoy may not apply to some. However, I am very grateful for the positive effects Trump's policies have had on my life.
The Secure Act is one that I appreciate... And is on it's way to being passed with bipartisan cooperation.
The Secure Act includes provisions that would make it easier for small businesses to band together to offer 401(k) plans and eliminate the maximum contribution age on traditional individual retirement accounts (it’s currently 70½).
A provision that would have allowed money from tax-advantaged 529 education savings plans to be used for home-schooling expenses
Almost 4 million jobs created since the election.
More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
We have created more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since my election.
Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than THREE DECADES.
Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.
Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.
Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.
Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
Under my Administration, veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.
Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans. We are committed to VOCATIONAL education.
95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future—the highest ever.
Retail sales surged last month, up another 6 percent over last year.
Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
As a result of our tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
Helped win U.S. bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.
Helped win U.S.-Mexico-Canada’s united bid for 2026 World Cup.
Opened ANWR and approved Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.
Record number of regulations eliminated.
Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions.
Obamacare individual mandate penalty GONE.
My Administration is providing more affordable healthcare options for Americans through association health plans and short-term duration plans.
Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.
We reformed the Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.
Signed Right-To-Try legislation.
Secured $6 billion in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic.
We have reduced high-dose opioid prescriptions by 16 percent during my first year in office.
Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
Increased our coal exports by 60 percent; U.S. oil production recently reached an all-time high.
The United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord.
Cancelled the illegal, anti-coal, so-called Clean Power Plan.
Secured record $700 billion in military funding; $716 billion next year.
NATO allies are spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016.
The process has begun to make the Space Force the 6th branch of the Armed Forces.
Confirmed more circuit court judges than any other new administration.
Confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Withdrew from the horrible, one-sided Iran Deal.
Moved U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
Protecting Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court.
Issued Executive Order to keep open Guantanamo Bay.
Concluded a historic U.S.-Mexico Trade Deal to replace NAFTA. And negotiations with Canada are underway as we speak.
Reached a breakthrough agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports.
Imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum to protect our national security.
Imposed tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and their chronically abusive trade practices.
Net exports are on track to increase by $59 billion this year.
Improved vetting and screening for refugees, and switched focus to overseas resettlement.
We have begun BUILDING THE WALL. Republicans want STRONG BORDERS and NO CRIME. Democrats want OPEN BORDERS which equals MASSIVE CRIME.I have never said that Trump can't do something right and good on occasion. But, when you net out the good and the bad, it ends up being a huge negative for America.
- Some of the damage is permanent like the loss of market share to our farmers.
- Vocational Education - (yes, the commitment was made, no follow through yet)
- Optimistic Manufacturers - (True once, but now manufacturing is a quarter long contraction!)
- Retail sales improving - (yes they are)
- Biggest tax cut in history - (A lie as to biggest. 99% of benefits went to the rich)
- Lowest marginal tax rate for small business - (That remains to be seen; I will find out this year)
- Opened ANWR and Keystone - (judges shut them down)
- Record number of regulations eliminated - (more than likely a bad thing for the environment)
- ACA mandate penalty gone - (and increased insurance rates as a result)
- More affordable healthcare options - (poorer healthcare as a result)
- Drug prices frozen or lowered - (Drug prices are on the rise)
- Right-to-Try legislation - (Good)
- New Opioid Funding - (Also good)
- VA - (Did good things there to)
- Coal exports increased - (yes they did, but not from anything Trump did)
- Net natural gas export record - (yes, this happened under his watch. It took several years for production to come on-line, however)
- Withdrew from Paris Climate Accord - (Made America a pariah nation in doing so while helping guarantee climate change can't be stopped.)
- Allowed coal to start polluting the atmosphere again - (speaks for itself)
- Increased Military funding - (along with increased domestic funding)
- Got NATO members to pay more - (a good thing but the alienation of our allies was too high a price)
- New Space Force - (been wanting that since about 2000 from my work in the Air Force)
- Put more radical conservatives on the bench - (driving America back to the 1880s civil rights-wise.)
- Kept Guantanamo Bay open - (speaks to the bad character of Trump)
- Concluded NAFTA 2.0 - (was DOA until the Democrats fixed it so that unions would agree to it)
- Trump started a tariff war - (an unmitigated disaster)
- Net Exports on Track - (a LIE, the trade deficit has gotten much worse)
- Improved vetting - (did he really?)
- Building the Wall - (It is on hold again and will never, thank god, get built.)
- Democrats want open borders - (another Trump lie)
- Some of the damage is very long-term like regaining the trust of the world.
- Some of the damage is medium-term like the general hit to American agriculture.
- Some of the damage is short-term like the crisis at the border; that inhumanity can be stopped within the first few days of Biden's presidency (OK, I am optimistic it will be him).
- SECURE Act is a good thing
- The Robo-Call Act he signed today is good.
- Number of Jobs Created by Obama by Year:
-- 2009: LOSS - 3.7 M
-- 2010: GAIN - 0.8 M
-- 2011: GAIN - 2.3 M
-- 2012: GAIN - 1.7 M
-- 2013: GAIN - 1.8 M
-- 2014: GAIN - 3.0 M
-- 2015: GAIN - 2.4 M
-- 2016: GAIN - 1.5 M
-- 2017: GAIN - 1.9 M T
-- 2018: GAIN: - 2.9 M T
-- 2019: GAIN: - 1.6 M T est
So tell me again how much better Trump is than Obama.
- More Americans employed - (what a silly thing to say when there isn't a recession)
- Manufacturing jobs grew by 400,000 - fastest rate in 30 years. - (True on the number but a LIE on the rate. From 2011 - 2015, Obama's rate equal or exceeded Trumps both for the whole period and for each year in that period except 2013 and 2015.
- Quarterly GDP was 4.2% - (not sure which quarter is being referred to but Trump has not had any quarter at 4.2%, his best is 3.5%)
- His unemployment level claims - (most are probably true, given the good economic head start that Obama gave him)
- Median Household income - (Yep, that is true to, just as it was at the end of Obama's term. It would be a bad thing if wages hadn't kept growing. Whose rate of growth is better you might ask? Obama's.)
- Food Stamps - (yes, they continued their downward trend - until August, when it began creeping up again in June)
-I have become tired of comparing Trump and Obama. It has become so repetitive. And my opinion of Obama means little in the long run. We all had one vote in 2016, I choose Trump, I had many reasons. He has lived up to what I had hoped he would. I will be once again voting for him in 2020.
His job performance, in my opinion, is outstanding. I have mentioned how I have benefited in several ways during the past few years, as has my family in various ways. Under Obama, I found my funds were stagnant, and I was frustrated with his lack of leadership. To me it was obvious he was not presidential material. So, no need to compare the two with me. I just see no comparison.
Besides, I think it best to let the historians write Obama's as well as Trump's history.Yet you keep comparing Trump with Obama, so how can you be getting tired of it (other than being shown wrong all of the time).
You put out there trying to prove how much better TraitorTrump is than anybody else when, in most instances, that is a false impression. I prove it is false, so you get tired of it. Give me a break.
I keep showing how is job performance isn't outstanding (which requires a comparison with something) and that you need to start using critical thinking and reassess your opinion.
Your funds were stagnant under Obama?? Since the market under Obama has outperformed that under Trump on a percentage basis, I don't see how that is possible, unless you had a poor funds manager during the Obama years.
The historians are already ranking Obama and Trump. Some have Trump last, others have him next to last (based on his performance to-date). All have Obama in the top half (between 8th and 18th out of 44), depending on who is doing the ranking).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica … ted_States
Do I think Obama is number 1? Not even close, he made too many what I view as mistakes (being to fearful of aggressive action is one). I also thought he waited too long to get forceful with Congress in pushing through ACA. Had he acted more quickly, we might have had immigration reform done.
But what Obama never did, that Trump does on a regular basis, is embarrass the nation and weaken our stature in the eyes of the world. He kept his promises while Trump breaks them. It may not matter to you that the world no longer trusts anything our president says but it does those who really care about America.
President Biden (yes, I am projecting) may prove to be the most trustworthy president of all time but it won't help much. Why? Because the world knows that America is capable of electing a destructive demagogue like Trump again who will break, without good reason, any promise that Biden might have made or that Congress signed off on.
THAT is the permanent damage to America that Trump has caused - America is no longer trustworthy.LOL The only thing you've "proved" is that those that hate Trump will do almost anything to spin facts until they're unrecognizable and promote lies as truth. As long as Trump can be demonized the truth of statements is irrelevant, right?
It is you that frequently deflects off subject, most often bringing Obama into any given conversation, it seems to be an obsession with you? In regards to your prediction, that has Biden winning the 2020 election, You once again will wear egg on your face. Perhaps you should work on the talking point "who or what country helped Trump win". You are truly suffering from TDS.
Sorry Shar, if you insist on saying false things about Trump's accomplishments, I will continue to prove them false.
If you say signing the SECURE Act, I will agree with no comparison.
If you say Trump has the best economy ever, I will point point out that is False, and show you why.
Oh, BTW, this so-called TDS thing is just something made up by the Right to explain away why everybody keeps pointing out all the bad things Trump does. The Right can't point to any good things because there are so few of them.
Hell, what else can you do to defend yourself against vast majority who know Trump is a crook. If I were in your shoes, I would come up with something fake like that myself.My list is complete and factual. I am in no way have you proven anything on the list I provide to be untrue. Please choose just one example from the list that you find not to be factual. Please, just one. I am not up for getting tied up with any more than one exsample...
Sharlee: I have accepted your challenge of not only finding one example, but the entire list with sources for each of the accomplishments. You may choose to just read one example, as you requested.
It is 15 pages long, but makes for very interesting reading for everybody. In my days as a technical writer and instructor, these type of statements from the White House were called "Weasel Wording." In most cases, they are half truths, as this attachment points out.
I understand that you are going to vote for Trump no matter what people say because you and other Trump supporters have a lot invested in your decisions to vote for him, but by the same token, we as Anti-Trumpers have a lot invested in why we shouldn't vote for him.
https://terlinguatradewinds.files.wordp … bunked.pdf
Happy New Year."Claim: Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
Truth: "It’s true that in the 20 months since Trump’s election, the economy
has generated 3.9 million jobs. In the 20 months before his election, however, employers added 4.3 million jobs."
This is rather a simplistic analogy? Certainly, it was employers that did the hiring. However, they did the hiring due to Trump putting in place a great hiring climate. This kind of od reasoning could be used on any given president. Was Obama responsible for his job record or better yet was he responsible for saving the auto industry or was that the taxpayers whose cash was part of what was used? Was Obama responsible for taking out Osama Bin Laden or was it the person that pulled the trigger?
Does the entire list give these odd analogies? I went through the first page and they all give bazaar analogies of Trump's accomplishments.
I found the person that put the article together sort of did the same thing WAPO does with their analogies on what they consider Trump lies.
Do you respect this form of logic? If so, I guess it would apply to each and every president we have ever had, not just Trump.
Obviously, Shar, you didn't read my response your piece of propaganda. I will start with two and then copy and paste my whole response.
Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than THREE DECADES. - FALSE
Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent. - FALSE
OK, Here we go. Between this, assuming you bother to read it, and what PeoplePower wrote, you should get the idea that what generally says and does is, most often False and Bad.
I have never said that Trump can't do something right and good on occasion. But, when you net out the good and the bad, it ends up being a huge negative for America.
- Some of the damage is permanent like the loss of market share to our farmers.
- Vocational Education - (yes, the commitment was made, no follow through yet)
- Optimistic Manufacturers - (True once, but now manufacturing is a quarter long contraction!)
- Retail sales improving - (yes they are)
- Biggest tax cut in history - (A lie as to biggest. 99% of benefits went to the rich)
- Lowest marginal tax rate for small business - (That remains to be seen; I will find out this year)
- Opened ANWR and Keystone - (judges shut them down)
- Record number of regulations eliminated - (more than likely a bad thing for the environment)
- ACA mandate penalty gone - (and increased insurance rates as a result)
- More affordable healthcare options - (poorer healthcare as a result)
- Drug prices frozen or lowered - (Drug prices are on the rise)
- Right-to-Try legislation - (Good)
- New Opioid Funding - (Also good)
- VA - (Did good things there to)
- Coal exports increased - (yes they did, but not from anything Trump did)
- Net natural gas export record - (yes, this happened under his watch. It took several years for production to come on-line, however)
- Withdrew from Paris Climate Accord - (Made America a pariah nation in doing so while helping guarantee climate change can't be stopped.)
- Allowed coal to start polluting the atmosphere again - (speaks for itself)
- Increased Military funding - (along with increased domestic funding)
- Got NATO members to pay more - (a good thing but the alienation of our allies was too high a price)
- New Space Force - (been wanting that since about 2000 from my work in the Air Force)
- Put more radical conservatives on the bench - (driving America back to the 1880s civil rights-wise.)
- Kept Guantanamo Bay open - (speaks to the bad character of Trump)
- Concluded NAFTA 2.0 - (was DOA until the Democrats fixed it so that unions would agree to it)
- Trump started a tariff war - (an unmitigated disaster)
- Net Exports on Track - (a LIE, the trade deficit has gotten much worse)
- Improved vetting - (did he really?)
- Building the Wall - (It is on hold again and will never, thank god, get built.)
- Democrats want open borders - (another Trump lie)
- Some of the damage is very long-term like regaining the trust of the world.
- Some of the damage is medium-term like the general hit to American agriculture.
- Some of the damage is short-term like the crisis at the border; that inhumanity can be stopped within the first few days of Biden's presidency (OK, I am optimistic it will be him).
- SECURE Act is a good thing
- The Robo-Call Act he signed today is good.
- Number of Jobs Created by Obama by Year:
-- 2009: LOSS - 3.7 M
-- 2010: GAIN - 0.8 M
-- 2011: GAIN - 2.3 M
-- 2012: GAIN - 1.7 M
-- 2013: GAIN - 1.8 M
-- 2014: GAIN - 3.0 M
-- 2015: GAIN - 2.4 M
-- 2016: GAIN - 1.5 M
-- 2017: GAIN - 1.9 M T
-- 2018: GAIN: - 2.9 M T
-- 2019: GAIN: - 1.6 M T est
So tell me again how much better Trump is than Obama.
- More Americans employed - (what a silly thing to say when there isn't a recession)
- Manufacturing jobs grew by 400,000 - fastest rate in 30 years. - (True on the number but a LIE on the rate. From 2011 - 2015, Obama's rate equal or exceeded Trumps both for the whole period and for each year in that period except 2013 and 2015.
- Quarterly GDP was 4.2% - (not sure which quarter is being referred to but Trump has not had any quarter at 4.2%, his best is 3.5%)
- His unemployment level claims - (most are probably true, given the good economic head start that Obama gave him)
- Median Household income - (Yep, that is true to, just as it was at the end of Obama's term. It would be a bad thing if wages hadn't kept growing. Whose rate of growth is better you might ask? Obama's.)
- Food Stamps - (yes, they continued their downward trend - until August, when it began creeping up again in June)No resources... I just can't waste my time on your fantasy thought process. Sorry. Most of what you have sited is old, the economy changes monthly. And once again you are hell-bent on comparing Obama to Trump. I have told you I see no real comparison. Trump's economy is superior to Obama's as well as many other presidents.
"My list is complete and factual. " And yet we keep providing you with proof many of what you listed are false.
Sharlee: Could you please provide the source for all this information about Trump's accomplishments.
And you feel the White House would print untrue information?
Does a bear poop in the woods? Does Trump Lie everyday?
News Flash: Information Trump tried to hid in an email proves Trump was told it was illegal to withhold Ukrainian aid yet, CrookedTrump did it anyway.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/politics … index.htmlHis accomplishments are catching up to what you claim are lies. LOL
I am claiming that a GDP of 4.2% for one quarter is a flat out lie. How is he "catching up" to that. He will be lucky to ever see 3% again.
How is Trump going to "catch up" to lying about his being the best economy in history. It will never be.
I could go on with many more examples.
It is well known from the Congressional inquiry that the order was from Trump? Not sure you followed the progression of the inquiry or listened to the witnesses?
This is old news... And it is well known it was Trump that held up the funds. Your article is linked to a lengthy article that works in Trump's favor showing he asked for information on many things Ukraine. This certainly works to prove he was concerned over handing over the aid. And yes it shows some in his cabinet were concerned about the hold.
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/excl … -concerns/So he broke the law. End of story. It is illegal to hold up congressionally approved funds without the permission of Congress, Shar.
It was new news. What was new about it?
1. That Trump is tied directly to withholding the aid. Lot's of very strong testimony circumstantial evidence points to it but Duffy makes the direct link.
2. That Trump was well aware that the hold was illegal because the DoD Comptroller told Duffy that and there is no way that Duffy would not have told Trump. I suspect that Pompeo, Bolton, and Estes told him the same thing that same night.
You keep claiming Trump is a smart guy, How would he not know what he was doing was illegal?
What is SO hard for you to understand, Shar, that Trump broke the law in two respects:
1. Trump illegally asked Zelenskyy to investigate a political opponent in return for a White House visit and aid.
2. Trump illegally broke the Impoundment Control Act by withholding the aid without Congressional approval.
Both crimes are impeachable Abuses of Power.
I offered several other resources tp PP, but I must admit I have given up on putting too much effort into any replies to MY ESOTERIC. Seems futile.
It is indeed futile to offer unbelievable proof of what many of us already know. You can't trust anything coming from the Oval office.
I would find it hard to disprove even one thing on the list? Do you see what you're doing? You're just denying to deny? I can understand why you don't want to believe the lengthy accomplishment list, but each item listed is factual. It appears whoever made he list worded it very carefully.
I and PeoplePower had no problem disproving many things on your list.
Try posting something that is truthful, Shar.
If you stick to things like the SECURE Act or the Robocall law, you will find me on your side.
But if you continue to post False things like Trump had a 4.2% quarterly GDP or that Trump's economy is the best in history, I will challenge you every time.
https://patriotdetroit.com/content/all/ … se-keeping
https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-admini … lishments/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … -has-done/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash … se-keeping
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic … 42047.html
https://www.ffcoalition.com/president-d … hievement/
These are a few sites I have found information on Trump's accomplishments.
I have formed my opinion in regard to his job performance keeping a daily look at his Facebook. His daily itinerary is as a rule provided on his facebook. He is very transparent about his daily schedule. I find it refreshing to be able to monitor what our president is doing from day today. Much of his accomplishments are not reported. They slip through the media cracks.
You need not point out that the resources I sited are conservative sites. I am a conservative and have come to trust these sites due to comparing their reports with what I have picked up on Trump's facebook. I also find Reuters a good source to determine what the president is up to.
Except:
There was Obama phone tapping.
There is voter fraud, from illegal aliens to the dead casting votes.
"Deep state" - there are hands behind the political parties, dictating what they do. Call it "deep state", call it "corporatism", call it "rich people"; call it whatever you will, our politicians do not make their own decisions.
There is "fake news", whether spun facts or outright lies. Whether a barrage of small things or a few large lies, there IS fake news.
There MAY be Biden corruption in the Ukraine: your statement that there is not, without ever looking into it, is ludicrous and simply far left rhetoric without facts again.
The impeachment was a farce (not a hoax, which is something different). It is nothing beyond a political ploy to put a Democrat in the White House.
Statements like "Trump is a simpleton" indicate nothing but lack of intelligence in the speaker, for Trump, whatever his moral failings, is not a stupid man. Not a "simpleton" at all - such statements are a lie, plain and simple, and no different than what is so whined about by liberals concerning Trump.
The rest of the rant is much the same - just spun facts; conclusions drawn without reason or logic from events and words that are usually completely irrelevant.And we did take over the airports during the Revolution!
Wilderness: Please prove any of those things that you stated are not conspiracy theory, other than just your own opinion. If you can't then they are conspiracy theory until proven otherwise.
Trump is a simpleton. He will do and say whatever is convenient and in his best interest for that moment in time. It doesn't matter if it is lying, exaggerating, or misinforming. It is all done to make himself look good in the eyes of his beholders in that moment in time without any fear of consequences for himself or others who are party to his charade.
Mexico will pay for the wall.
China is paying us 32 billion for the tariffs
He knows more than any other person about windmills. He is an expert on windmills.
His tax cuts are the greatest in 50 years.
He is a stable genius
The phone call was perfect
He suddenly has amnesia when questioned about people he knows very well who might incriminate him. He suddenly doesn't know who they are, even though there are videos and photos of him being with them.
I have to go, but these are just a few of his simplistic actions and statements that he doesn't care about the consequences.Boy, Wilderness can make things up with the best of them (as I have said many times before)
"There was Obama phone tapping." - Horowitz debunked that lie
"There is voter fraud, from illegal aliens to the dead casting votes.." - Another lie. Even Trump's handpicked person, Kobach, to prove it - FAILED.
"Deep state" - there are hands behind the political parties, dictating what they do. " - Simply a conspiracy theory by desperate people.
"There is "fake news", " - AGREED, it is called Fox Opinion, Brietbart and other far-right media outlets
"There MAY be Biden corruption in the Ukraine:" - Yes, that is possible - as possible as Trump's father was born in Germany.
"The impeachment was a farce" - So now you are calling our Constitution a farce??
"Trump is a simpleton" - I agree this is not true. But what is true is that Trump is dangerously mentally ill
Still waiting on evidence of your false statement that we are (or had been) loosing 50 jobs for every 55 created. Since you provided none, we all know now you are making it up
With that comment, you learn many things.
1) Wilderness can't read or only understands words positive about Trump (otherwise he would know there is plenty of evidence of Trump's guilt)
2) He has myopic vision because he implies Trump can do no wrong even though Trump creates a scandal almost every day he is in office
3) Wilderness doesn't believe in the rule of law (otherwise he would know that disobeying a subpoena is prima facia evidence of breaking the law)
4) Wilderness cares little about the suffering of innocents
Until Trump told Sessions to change the policy and incarcerate asylum seekers (most of who broke no law, btw) and their children, it was rare that children were separated from parents. When they were, it was because the parents or guardians actually did commit a felony upon entering the country. Trump did this horrendous and unconscionable (for normal people) for the sole purpose to dissuade people from seeking asylum which goes against EVERYTHING this nation has ever stood for.
Actually what Wilderness has to prove is that the evidence out their showing Trump is guilty of crimes is false. If he can't prove it is false, therefore it must be true which means Trump is guilty.
Right. If there was any evidence of a crime you would have a point. But the evidence is all in your imagination and I can't change that, now can I?
As I said earlier, the only things you see are positive things about Trump. You are one of those who would excuse his actions even if he did shoot someone in cold-blood on 5th Ave without provocation.
If you say so, although I have yet to excuse a single negative action. He's made mistakes and he's taken actions that I disagree with and have said so openly.
You one the other hand have convicted him of everything under the sun but have yet to provide a single bit of evidence for any of it. You've also gone on to convict anyone that isn't on your "HATE TRUMP" bandwagon, coming up with some of the most ridiculous and stupid statements possible ("You are one of those who would excuse his actions even if he did shoot someone in cold-blood on 5th Ave without provocation."). You have yet to offer congratulations for any of Trump's successes, writing them all off to someone else, ignoring them completely or even giving credit to someone else. Yet another form of a lie, then, by pretending nothing good has come of his presidency."You have yet to offer congratulations for any of Trump's successes," - I KEEP ASKING what successes that weren't a continuation of the previous administrations work.
ALL YOU guys keep coming up with are the GOPTaxScam that only helped the rich.
Now you can add the NAFTA remake that Pelosi had to fix so that Unions would buy into it for the first time ever.
Another you might offer is the Crime bill - that was good.
I remember liking him sending warships to North Korea.
Although there may be some unintended consequences, his latest EO to stop antisemitism was a good thing.
But the vast majority of Trump actions are despicable.
BTW, he speaks of liberals as a bad thing. The fact is, liberalism is what America was founded on. Conservatism is what our founding fathers were trying to get away from.
It is liberalism that has moved our society forward. It is conservatism that keeps trying to 1) hold us back or 2) return us to a former, less liberal time.
I am trying to SAVE a good economy from Trump's Trade War. If it hadn't been so solid when the Russians elected him, he would have driven it into recession by now.
The bottom line --- Obama poured our own tax dollars in to stimulate the market. He did nothing more than that.
Trump poured jobs into our economy and gave tax incentives, cut all Oamas stifling regulations. He built a solid stock market, with money from Big business, and consumer confidence.And your problem with that IS? Pouring tax dollars to stimulate the economy during a recession is what is supposed to be done!!
Trump poured Less jobs into our economy than Obama did during the same span of time. It was Obama who built a "solid stock market, with money from Big business, and consumer confidence."
Trump rode on Obama's coattails. Maybe this, from conservative Fortune, will change your mind.
https://fortune.com/2019/11/01/trump-ob … q-economy/
Its headline is "The S&P 500 Is at an All Time High—But Markets Still Performed Far Better Under Obama Than Trump"
When are you going to come out from under Trump's spell?"And your problem with that IS? Pouring tax dollars to stimulate the economy during a recession is what is supposed to be done!! "
Yes as anyone that was president at the time would have done. I was making a point one must consider the circumstances that caused the problem in the market and the circumstances of how a president propped it up, and another president built the market up do to a good economy and consumer confidence. Obama did was he had to, Trump followed a plan. he cut taxes and stifling regulations, which in turn created jobs like this country has not seen in 50 years. Businesses hired, wages are on the rise. Consumers are investing and spending.
"Trump poured Less jobs into our economy than Obama did during the same span of time. It was Obama who built a "solid stock market, with money from Big business, and consumer confidence."
This is just not substantiated when one considers the circumstances of our growing stock market. Obama did not build a stock market he just poured our tax dollars into it. Trump had Big Business build the market...
In regards to Jobs --- "President Trump created 4.7 million jobs in his first two years. That's a 3.1 percent increase over the 152.2 million people working at the end of Obama's term." So far... Can't imagine what his numbers will be in the next 5 years.
https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation … nt-3863218Did you even read your own source??? It gives Obama a Special Mention and almost ignores Trump.
Here is another conservative source
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones … 865d238caa
Headline - Trump Is Falling Almost 1 Million Jobs Short Vs. Obama
Since you obviously didn't read my source with the headline "The S&P 500 Is at an All Time High—But Markets Still Performed Far Better Under Obama Than Trump"
I will give it to you again.
https://fortune.com/2019/11/01/trump-ob … q-economy/"Did you even read your own source??? It gives Obama a Special Mention and almost ignores Trump."
It gives little mention to Trump, due to his term is not up, and his second term has not started. I had hoped to offer a good article that would indicate Obama's job creation compared to Trump's. Please consider Trump has well surpassed Obama's job creation considering his time in office.
"President Trump created 4.7 million jobs in his first two years. That's a 3.1 percent increase over the 152.2 million people working at the end of Obama's term. "
"President Obama created 8.9 million jobs ( in 8 years) by the end of December 2016, a 6.2 percent increase. There were 152.3 million people employed at the end of his term. That's compared to 143.4 million working at the end of the Bush administration."
First two years... Very important to consider the article gives values that show Trump surpassing Obama by 3.1 percent comparing to Obamas 8 years in office.Plus, Trump inherited a growing economy, whereas Obama inherited a recession created by a Republican POTUS. Seems like the Dems always inherit a mess from the Right to clean up.
Of course you left out that Obama actually increased jobs by 11+% after Bush's damage was complete.
And there is still this:
Here is another conservative source
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones … 865d238caa
Headline - Trump Is Falling Almost 1 Million Jobs Short Vs. ObamaU.S. Unemployment Rate Falls to 50-Year Low
Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly Employment Situation Report, which shows robust employment growth in September. Job gains are particularly noteworthy considering that the United States is in the midst of the longest economic recovery in its history. The Trump Administration’s pro-growth agenda provides job creators with the framework they need to expand their businesses and offer more opportunities for workers. Since the President’s election, the economy has added over 6.4 million jobs—more than the population of Maryland. Steady job growth in combination with sustained year-over-year wage increases are not only positive signs for the economy: They also improve workers’ quality of life and incentivize previously left-behind Americans to join the labor force.
The household survey finds that the unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent in September, marking the 19th consecutive month at or below 4 percent unemployment. The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since May 1969—over 50 years ago. All Americans are benefiting from the labor market’s continued improvement. The lowest unemployment rates on record were matched or set in September 2019 for African Americans, Hispanics, and people with disabilities.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/u-s … -year-low/Sharlee: Here is the real, unadulterated November Employment Situation Report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's without the White House B.S. It's 40 pages long, but all you have to do is read the first few pages and then compare them with the White Houses report.
See this is why it is so important to go to the source. What you have posted sounds like it comes straight from Trump's mouth.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Hitler brought Germany's economy back to life as well. Should we draw any inferences from that?I don't see your point, Phoe.
Good point, and their economy was in the toilet, unlike the good economy Obama left Trump.
Phoenix: How many out of work coal miners, steel workers, auto workers, and poverty stricken people who do not have the proper skill set to find jobs are invested in the stock market?
My point is there are many technical jobs that are available, but are not being filled, because the government is not cross-training people into those fields. That's what Trump should be doing, not boasting about the stock market hitting new highs. Thirty percent of the work force is not working.And do you know how many American's don't give a damn because they are not invested in it? Over 50%. Also, Trump is doing no better than Obama would have if the trend Obama set had continued. Why? Because inflation ate up the increase.
The only thing I will grant Trump is that his stock market is at the high end of the channel set by Obama.
Trump is impeached. He will be forever known as the:
- first elected president to be impeached for impeachable crimes.
- second elected president to be impeached for whatever reason.
- third president to ever be impeached.
A Nancy NothinBurger impeachment. Thats the reality. All we are really left with is a question. Trump or the hildabeast. A NASDAQ over 9,000 or a neverending list of suspicious suicides. Its not rocket science.
As I said - Trump is impeached. He will be forever known as the:
- first elected president to be impeached for impeachable crimes.
- second elected president to be impeached for whatever reason.
- third president to ever be impeached.
Also, it is no coincidence that hate crimes are up since Trump started spouting his hate speech.No shit! A few days after Trump was elected I heard a redneck say, "Now we can say n****r again."
Of course, in my neck of the woods the vile word never diminished much before he was electedSame for me. I finally was able to get those racist family members to stop being such assholes.
The two latest polls out have 47% and 51% of Americans want Trump removed.
Economist/YouGov (whose participants lean a tiny bit Right) was 47% Remove - 44% Keep
Morning Consult (neutral) was 51% Remove - 42% Keep
A few days earlier Fox (the polls are neutral) was at 50% Impeach - 46% Keep
To be fair some in between polls had 45% Impeach - 48% Keep (CNN) and 45% Impeach - 51% Keep (Quinnipiac)
Of course CNN is such a left-leaning Fake News outlet, their results must be wrong.
For comparison, Republicans wanted to impeach Obama from early on; about 35% agreed.
As hard as Republicans tried to impeach and convict Bill Clinton, those that favored it never exceeded 35%
Before Nixon resigned, 58% wanted him removed. Back then, when Republicans cared about more about America, 31% wanted Nixon removed. Today, for worse crimes, only 7% of Trumplicans want Trump removed.
Democrats are perpetual doom and gloomers. Coincidentally when theyre out of office. That you can bank on.
We don't have to worry about any financial bubble bursting because the world is going to spontaneously combust, long before that. Little Debbie or Little Gretel w/e, says so.
Nancy Pelosi Impeachment Nothing Burger. Sad!I would say the same about Republicans from 2009 - 2016.
I am sorry, who, besides you, said anything about a "financial" bubble bursting? So your statement is nonsensical.O: Climate Change = Chinese Hoax = Trump.
Worlds oceans getting warmer+ Co2 at an all time high = polar ice caps melting, draughts, severe storms, hurricanes, wipe out islands and sea boards = affecting economies + habitat in populated areas.
Your crummy meme is just one example that has probably been edited.By using the TinEye website, I found the earliest record of the first photo in the pair above. The original photo was taken in 2008 and can be seen at https://www.flickr.com/photos/45403979@N00/2864827296
It's obvious that the people are wearing modern clothing, especially in the color version of the photograph.
Also by using TinEye, I found that the second photo was published on someone's travel blog in 2012. It can be seen by scrolling down at https://northchinasait2012.travellerspo … ve/032012/Ha, good investigating. It's amazing the lengths that people will go to in order to prove a false point. Some people really care nothing about the truth though.
So you are proving what we all know already - 'O' Lies.
At least this one has a cute bit of irony.
GATrue.
Donald Trump has blamed the US constitution for the problems he has encountered during his first 100 days in office.
In an interview with Fox News to mark the milestone, the Republican called the system of checks and balances on power “archaic”.
“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”And that is truly what Trumplicans believe - checks and balances are a bad thing for America.
That brush is so broad I bet it takes two hands to use it. By the way, I heard a rumor that 'they' have officially elevated "Trumplican" to the cuteness level of 'Sheeple'. Kudos.
GAMakes perfect sense, Gus. As in, "It was a perfect phone call."
I am happy to hear "Trumplican" is catching on. I have been using it on Twitter as well :-)
Yep, I remember that too. But that's a politician's, (or partisan's), life: nothing can be a good thing if it is not a good thing for you or your cause.
GA
Related Discussions
- 175
What Democrats Have Taught Me About Losing an Election
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
- 639
Impeaching Donald Trump - Again
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
- 137
Re-instateing 'real' Donald Trump as President Again
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 3 years ago
The American nation is on the boil! It's law enacting body or Legislation is likewise on the boil on impeaching biden. Both Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris are target to be impeached as not to compromise the Presidency! So Biden, Kamala, and...
- 66
Here’s why the Senate needs to convict Donald Trump.
by jeff61b 4 years ago
We know there are political extremists on both sides who can be encouraged to do dangerous and violent things, but until now, every president, whether Republican or Democrat, has been careful in their rhetoric to avoid inciting the extremists in their party to commit violence.But Donald Trump...
- 172
Never Have I Seen A President Seek So To Dived And Spread Hate
by Sharlee 14 months ago
Here once again Biden stands at a podium swings around his hands, and rants, seeking and appoint blame on American citizens, ultimately Republican citizens. Without cause, without proof of the motive of why or what possessed this nut job that attacked Paul Pelosi. Although in front of only a...
- 105
Biden Impeachment Inquiry - The Logical Next Step
by Sharlee 15 months ago
I'd love to hear your perspective on this current political matter. It's worth noting that the topic doesn't revolve around Trump, but it's intriguing because President Biden is seeking re-election for another four years in office."Fox News Digital has confirmed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,...