President Trump Will Win Re-Election
The November jobs numbers came out and are very strong.
There is a simple historical fact at play here: Presidents get credit when the economy is strong and blame when it is weak. As much as conservatives may hate it, many saw Obama succeeding in this way and that's why he won a second term. The economy was doing well, certainly better than it had been under the previous administration.
Further, our society values the cutthroat businessman. You get ahead in business by being a bastard and shoving other people out of the way. This is precisely President Trump's personality. "I am willing to do whatever it takes to make the economy strong."
If the economy remains strong a year from now, he will win a second term.I'm hoping that the percentage of people that aren't sharing in the economic benefits makes the difference at the voting booth. The class division in the US is striking and, at least from what I'm seeing, more people are fed up with it than at anytime in my adult life.
Where you place the blame for this increased "class division" Eastward?
I won't leave that as an open question, I will say that I view such sentiment to be the change in our economic system where money works instead of people.
It used to be that folks worked to improve their station in life, but now that our economy has changed from industrial and manufacturing to financial and service, I think the "class" mobility has become dependent on money working instead of folks working.
Savings accounts might be one barometer. In the past those with a little extra money used savings accounts to grow their wealth, but now, with savings accounts paying slightly above the negative that is no longer an option.
We are and have been in recent years, in a changing dichotomy. I don't think out populace has caught on to that yet. So what one may see as class division, another might see as irreversible progression. Our question is how do we avoid joining those left by the wayside.
GAI agree with a lot of what you've said here, GA. Though birth-class is the biggest determinant of success, I think that in America's past, there was more social mobility. In the days of US manufacturing, one could buckle down, work a full-time job plus a part-time job to start to start to see the next rung on the ladder. Now, with the costs of education, rent, etc. skyrocketing along with the number of low-paying, gig economy jobs, that seems a lot less likely. I would need to further verify it, but I read that about half of Americans make under $16 per hour. Considering the cost of living in the U.S., that means holding at least a few jobs to live in very meager conditions. Then there's the issue of healthcare in a gig economy...
I'd also agree that the populace really hasn't caught on to the depth of these issues yet. I still see U.S.-based articles talking about bringing back jobs from China while I read China-based articles about widespread job losses due to automation in the manufacturing sector. We will need to adapt to a world that depends much less on our old concepts of equating employment and class mobility.
Of course we want to avoid joining those being left by the wayside, but we also need to consider the stability of our nation when too many people are being left by the wayside (especially with politicians refusing to acknowledge the reality of the situation).This is really interesting guys, both points. I think GA's position supports a lot of different solutions, but it is much more clear from my POV, that GA would be a bit more conservative since some kind of government solution to what he perceives as the problem can only be a hand-out and it really wouldn't work. There needs to be some kind of wholesale re-education and re-training.
GA seems to be saying (and Eastward), and what has been shown to be true, is that "working" Americans are increasingly finding themselves in low-paying work that isn't a living wage and that saving isn't cutting it.
All very interesting - a topic for an entire forum to be sureIt is certainly a complex topic, very important to the core of our nation. I found the article I was referring to and will use that as the start of a new thread!
In today's world one has to learn how to use "money" and "debt" wisely.
Money is no longer real, it hasn't been for a long while, but it took a while for debt and leverage to reach the 'common man' to have the ability to use.
Today with LLCs, and even personal debt one can build an empire with almost nothing. But one has to have the experience, intelligence and know-how to do so... and that isn't what will be taught to you in school.
It still takes hard work, a lot of work, and a lot of willingness to shift with the changing times and economic winds, but many people who have little are becoming millionaires because they understand how things work today and are taking advantage of it.
You don't get ahead in today's world working a 9 to 5 job, you might survive doing that, but you won't elevate your economic status (if that stuff matters to you) by doing so.
I don't think it has ever been easier for someone to get ahead in this world, to make themselves into a multi-millionaire if they are willing to work at it. But they need to be damned smart and dedicated... and most are not.Mining bit coin would be one example, no?
When I was working for others as a young man, back then I felt the freedom.
Lucky I began being an entrepreneur early on. Today I feel sorry for most of the working stiffs and the fact they don't like their jobs. It is most devastating waste of time that I can imagine into a persons life. .
Can never assume people will do the right thing, or even the most sensible thing, so it's a distinct possibility. I think Biden has the only realistic chance of beating Trump (so does Trump, which is why he went to all the trouble of pressuring the Ukraine into investigating his son) but it depends on whether the The Left can get behind Biden as the sensible candidate who won't scare away the centre rights and purples, or if they will dilute the voting block by voting idealistically rather than pragmatically. The demographic of the left vote means idealistic voting is more likely than pragmatic voting, which could be a problem.
Don, why wouldn't the most sensible thing be to vote for the person who appears to be improving your financial position and that of the country?
It appears to me that we liberals are trying to predict the future and that's a tough sell. Oh, if we don't get rid of Trump, bad things are going to happen. I believe that.
However, the practical person may be saying - look at the economy and my personal situation. It's better. I'm voting for the guy I perceive made it better, even if I don't like him because business is cutthroat and he's what we need."...why wouldn't the most sensible thing be to vote for the person who appears to be improving your financial position and that of the country?"
Because it is only appearance, and because extra money right now at the expense of long term social and economic stability, is a false economy. Those extra dollars (or more accurately the policies that lead to these perceived short-term gains) will have a political, social and economic cost. And the people voting for the guy they perceive as having given them those gains (not the billionaires or the millionaires, but the ordinary working and middle class people) are most likely the ones who will pay that future cost, because they will not be insulated from the long term social and economic effects of those policies, unlike the corporate donor class, which Trump himself is a part of.A job rather than welfare is only "appearance"? Food on the table is only "appearance"? I highly doubt that you would be able to convince the person that finally found work that the "long term social stability" is more important, even if they were convinced that only the Democratic party could deliver that. Or that they will pay the price for the economic effects of their job.
As you point out, you're not talking about the billionaires of the country, but the working stiff that finally found a decent paying job after a decade of stagnation. I just don't see that person blaming Trump for the future failure of society and the economy even if it does happen as Democrats are predicting.
On the other hand if he does follow economic news, and sees that month after month unemployment is down, employment is up, wages are up, country wide spending is up, businesses are coming back into the country and they are personally benefiting from all that, my money is on them not believing the doomsayers predicting that Trump's policies are going to put them back into the gutter. So far we have only those doomsayers, all demonizing Trump, predicting that doom; everything people see is rosy.There's the problem. Everyone loves an endtime prophesy. Without religion they turn to politics to get their fix.
The only true God is the Government because non-believers have no say in how things are going down.
The are parts of Religions that do have end of the earth parties, I won't be drinking their Kolaid and I predict many more generation to come. All I want is less suffering and more happiness in the world.
The only way to separate Religion, politiscains and military in bed together.
Is with a crowbar.
OMG! It's not just me!
"Because it is only appearance, and because extra money right now at the expense of long term social and economic stability, is a false economy."
Damn it Don, you have to stop being so rational. How am I supposed to argue with that?
But, back to seriousness. I think you make an excellent point. The dollar shouldn't be the arbiter of what is the right thing to do.
GAWe have come to social and economic instability because of a quarter century of Congress & Presidents that have aided in the flow of jobs to foreign nations, they created a hostile environment for businesses with taxation, regulation, changing the definition of fulltime employment, etc.
The bulk of our trillions of debt is because they have allowed for unending conflict, spreading our military involvement from one nation to another, we have toppled or occupied half the Middle East.
For a quarter century they have ignored an open border problem, a million or more immigrants a year flowing into our country. All these issues and more were created before Trump came along... in large part it is why we have Trump as president today.
Since Trump took office in January 2017, the economy has added 6.2 million jobs in 33 months.
This during the phase where he fought Canada, Mexico, China, Germany, etc. to rewrite trade agreements to make them more favorable to America, so that 'Made in America' could actually compete here in America.
An example of how his fight against China in particular hurt growth for the short term:
"Kent International, of Parsippany, New Jersey, imports most of its bikes from China but makes about 260,000 a year at its factory in Manning, South Carolina. Most of its parts, however, are also made in China and those have been hit by a 25% tariff, raising the company’s costs by 16%. The pricier bikes also have reduced sales by 5% to 7%, says company CEO Arnold Kamler."
But when America goes back to making those parts here in America (and this will take time), the end result will be millions more jobs for Americans and those parts being cheaper than from China, now that China's products face a tariff.
If his trade deals and hard fought stance with China start seeing results, more small companies will spring up in America... companies will begin making bike parts, and car parts, and phone components here in America again, and job growth will continue.
With job growth comes rising wages, all this in turn makes it far easier to maintain 'social and economic stability'.
This of course is NOT what the big international corporations want, nor is it what China wants, but for the first time in a quarter century we have a President that has made an effort to put America's needs first.
No wonder he is despised by so many.
Talk about revisionist history... this quote exemplifies it.
The economy was still stagnant during the 2011 run up to the election, unemployment was bad, housing was bad, the stock market was bad...
Every indicator said we were in the midst of a recession that was dragging on for what seemed forever... GDP was around 1%... and Obama's decisions to shut down NASA programs and ramp up Regulations (among other early and costly decisions in his first term) put hundreds of thousands of Americans in fields not related to construction (which was decimated by the recession) or retail out of work at the worst time.
BUT - Obama was able to successfully lay the blame for the economic quagmire we were in at that time, at the feet of Bush. The MSM pushed that message 24x7... the message was Obama kept it from becoming much worse, and we were still in a recession because of Bush putting us there.
IN ADDITION - Romney was a solid option, but less than ideal, with his willingness to take a firm stand on abortion, his caught on tape quote of the 47%, and other missteps, he really was in no position to usurp a popular incumbent.
IN ADDITION - That was also the last election the MSM will have a major impact in an election. So long as people have twitter & facebook & youtube & bitchute & gab, etc. etc. to gather information and opinions from, they won't be concerned about the opinions of Cable News & Papers. Americans think they lie, they are biased, and they tune it out.
I have been saying this for years now.
If the economy is good, then the actions of Congress will only add to his popularity... this is the man that ran on "Draining the Swamp" he calls the politicians in Congress "Crooks and Thieves". So if the ever unpopular Congress continues its attacks on Trump, it will only make him more popular come 2020.
HOWEVER - I don't expect the economy to be doing well next November, China has poured Trillions into American stocks, with the intent of causing a Crash prior to the election. They will also invest billions into supporting whatever Democrat wins the nomination, to defeat Trump. They already have control of Biden, currently that is the horse they are backing.
We will see how effective China is at toppling the economy, they will have the help of billionaires like Soros and Steyer and Bloomberg... it will be interesting to see how well they orchestrate the Nation's economic downfall.At this point, I think Trump is a shoe-in... And you know what, if the Dem's had not chosen to go down crazy street he may not have been. They needed to offer up a good agenda instead of an impeachment. And by now they should know what the people want. because Trump provided that agenda and brought much of his agenda to fruition. It seems so simple? Baffles me why the Dems have not realized it?
During the Obama years, the Republicans just played the obstruction game and ended up in the White House, so your line of thinking doesn't ring true. It really depends on the candidate the Dems put forth. If it's same old, same old white, male, political hack, I don't see how they win.
Yes, they still have time to put a worthy candidate up to beat Trump. Will they? It seems they make mistake after mistake.
I see your point in regards to the fact the republicans were obstructionists. However, the Dems are not just obstructing things getting done, they are trying to impeach a president that is popular. It appears to many this is a ploy to cancel out their vote and oust a duly elected president.
It's just my opinion, the Dems should have worked on finding a good candidate with an attractive logical agenda. Right now the candidate's agendas make little sense to hardworking people. And the majority of our citizens are just that hard-working... I would not think it should be so hard to find such a candidate?The line of reasoning that he is popular and that the Dems are trying to cancel an election would make complete sense if he were popular and if he had not consistently abused his power and thumbed his nose at the Constitution and the law.
"Reasoning" implies the use of reason. One cannot use reason and conclude Trump is popular with the American people.
Not unless one is convinced Fox News is anything other than an entertainment outlet.
Statements like that are easily perceived as bullying, by saying only unreasonable people think he is popular. Many reasonable people conclude he is popular. He certainly fills more seats at a rally than those hoping to oppose him do.
I would think any on the left might have figured out by now that insults don't win people over to their way of thinking. You seem intelligent. How do you perceive that tactic to be working for you?No, I'll not let this stand.
Crowd size at rallies is not a measure of overall popularity with the American people. It is not logical or reasonable to conclude it is. Stating a fact is not bullying. It is time we stop.pretending that false statements are true, that fantasy is reason, that emotion is rationality.
Sorry, but there is no reasonable or logical way to conclude that crowd size at rallies is an indicator of popularity with the American people and stating that fact is certainly not bullying.What a bunch of malarkey... can't believe you wasted the time to type such bunk.
Obama could fill a stadium... he was popular.
Trump can pack a stadium... he IS popular.
Biden couldn't pack a High School... good luck with that lunatic as your nominee. No wonder they are impeaching Trump, its the only chance they have and they know it.How do you define "popularity"? For presidents, it is typically done with favorability ratings, or is there some other measure you are using? Rally size is a good indicator of enthusiasm. Trump fans are certainly enthusiasric. However, Trump is not popular with the American people as a whole.
http://pollingreport.com/trump_fav.htm
I think, in the current climate, you may find yourself to be wrong.
I'll grant you that filling a stadium, in and of itself, would not say much. But, the media tried to herd the public into a belief Trump had a snowball's chance of winning. He won. The media has consistently painted Trump in the worst light possible, and he is still standing.
Time will tell, but I don't trust the media to tell the truth about Trump's popularity. I don't have much more faith in the polls.I have a feeling you would be citing the polls if they were favorable to Trump. As it is, they are the best available measure of popularity and they show Trump to be quite unpopular.
I hope you concede that stating the truth is not bullying. We should stop pretending it is acceptable to spout "alternative facts."
He is very popular all things considered, that being an onslaught of negative press, including fabrications and outright lies against him, that more than 40% of Americans still approve of him despite constant negative coverage is pretty amazing... it shows almost half the country is smart enough to know their MSM News is full'o'crap and not worth listening to.
It is my opinion that Trump is popular. I am not sure he has abused his power or offended our constitution? I will await the results of the Senate trial. I think it will be a suitable forum to present both sides.
I must admit this impeachment process has become a must at this point. However, so far I am convinced that any impeachable crimes have been committed. I look forward to the trial, for the fact I hope to see this all put to rest. Time to move on. We are facing another election, and we need to concentrate on that.
Let me repeat --- "It's just my opinion, the Dems should have worked on finding a good candidate with an attractive logical agenda. Right now the candidate's agendas make little sense to hardworking people. And the majority of our citizens are just that hard-working... "
I had hoped to get your opinion on my above thoughts. Does it serve us to be at odds? I have a clear picture of your true opinion in regards to the president. I had hoped to move on to the subject of where the Dems should go from here? Was it wise to push an impeachment so close to an election?
After all, the subject of this thread is "President Trump Will Win Re-Election"... My comment was my opinion on the subject matter. I was making a point as to why he most likely will.Can you guarantee Trump won't continue to ask for foreign powers assistance in investigating his political opponents?
Of course you can't, but to wait until an election is meddled with before you do something about it is paramount to doing nothing.Let me repeat --- I must admit this impeachment process has become a must at this point. However, so far I am convinced that any impeachable crimes have been committed. I look forward to the trial, for the fact I hope to see this all put to rest. Time to move on. We are facing another election, and we need to concentrate on that.
I have never at any point believed Trump worked with Russia to win the election. The Mueller report proved that he did not. And my common sense tells me Trump did nothing. with Ukraine to promote his candidacy. Let me remind you his call was made per protocol, with 12 people on the call. This would seem a very odd way to commit a crime...
This circus has just made me realize there are many in our country that have little common sense and are willing to believe just about anything without factual proof.The Mueller report did not prove Trump didn't collude with Russia, it just didn't prove he did. The same obstruction of documents and witnesses by the WH affected that report as well.
How can you say Trump hasn't obstructed congress when he's done exactly that, and even brags about it on TV? What oversight does congress have if he stonewalls all witnesses and documents? Answer this query if any of them is to be addressed.Seems safe to say that if Mueller, after two years, thousands of man hours of effort and all the resources of the United States, could not prove collusion then it didn't happen. One could always say that without a time machine we can never know that anything didn't happen - perhaps aliens landed in the Amazon jungle for 10 minutes in 2016 and cast a spell over half of American voters. But for most of us that kind of effort, with zero results, is pretty convincing. You Trump haters will, of course, continue to point out that the negative remains unproven.
Well Dan, you seem to believe all of the evidence Mueller needed was provided to him by the WH during the investigation. The truth is that Trump again obstructed the investigation re McGhan, Jr., Ivanka and others especially about the Trump Tower meeting and the Moscow deal.
If the WH had allowed McGhan and the others to answer questions no doubt we would've found out even more. And Trump was too chicken to sit down and answer questions in person. Still,according to Mueller, he was misleading even in some of his written answers.
Yes, you have an open and honest guy as your role model during all of the investigations into his wrongdoing. Ever wonder why he's so reluctant to be exonerated if he's done nothing wrong? Of course you don't!
You Obama haters just can't see the forest for the trees.Randy, no one mentioned Obama. But now that you have. He was well known for using his executive privilege. In fact, it is very common for a president to do so. Trump has the same privilege.
"Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all invoked executive privilege in response to congressional investigations. "
"On June 20, 2012, President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege in order to withhold certain Department of Justice documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious controversy ahead of a United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of ..."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … r-ff-docs/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN1S80P1
Bill Clinton took the PRIZE for using Ex -privilege...
1995 – asserted during Senate Whitewater investigation over notes kept by White House counsel
1996 – asserted before a congressional committee during Travelgate investigation
Settlement reached
1996 – asserted before the congressional committee over a FBI-DEA drug enforcement memo
1996 – asserted before congressional committee over Haiti/political assassinations documents
1997 – asserted during grand jury investigation involving communications with White House
counsel and private counsel for Hillary Clinton
1997 – asserted during grand jury investigation into Sec. of Agriculture
1997 – directed Chief of Staff to claim privilege during Web Hubbell grand jury investigation
1998 – asserted in Lewinsky matter
1998 – asserted by Director of Oval Office Operations in Lewinsky matter
1998 – asserted by White House aide Sidney Blumenthal in Lewinsky matter
1998 – asserted by White House counsel Cheryl Mills in Lewinsky matter
1998 – asserted by White House counsel Lanny Breuer in Lewinsky matter
1998 – asserted by adviser Bruce Lindsey in Lewinsky matter
1999 – White House counsel claimed privilege in response to subpoenas by congressional
committee investigating Armed Forces of National Liberation clemencyHe is the first POTUS to totally stonewall an impeachment proceeding, Shar. The others you mentioned were eventually settled between the executive office and Congress.
Answer me this Shar, if Congress cannot exert their constitutional authority to have oversight over any POTUS then who can? If a criminal can say, "I don't believe this is a fair process." then can he escape going to trial and being convicted? If not, then apparently you believe Trump is better than the common man and is above the law.Absolutely when they say they are going impeach before he is even sworn in. When they are saying now if he wins in 2020 they will impeach again... you don't encourage stupidity or insanity, you shut it down.
Congress is not the law, it makes law, and the House doesn't have authority over the President.Are you saying the House has no authority to oversee Trump's actions, Ken? Then who does?
Who is in charge of checks and balances according to the constitution, Shar. Hint: It isn't the SCOTUS.
Randy, Congress certainly is responsible for checks and balances and has the power to impeach. We were discussing executive privilege, Trump's right to denies persons from his cabinet to testify to Congress. As my last comment indicated the Supreme Court would be the only one to override his privilege. I certainly never claimed the Congress did not have the right to checks and balances over the president?
The Supreme court would be the only one that could rule on President executive privilege. They protect it well, as they should.
Please consider our conversation see your comment below.
I was responding to your comment that spoke of Congressional oversight I was simply making the point Trump was not obstructing Congress, he was using his executive privilege. In reality, he is not obstructing Congress, he is protecting his conversations with cabinet members. Which is his privilege? The Supreme Court would be the only ones to override his privilege. I certainly comprehended the conversation and answered appropriately. To answer your original question in a perhaps a more streamlined fashion.
Your original comment ---"How can you say Trump hasn't obstructed congress when he's done exactly that, and even brags about it on TV? What oversight does congress have if he stonewalls all witnesses and documents? Answer this query if any of them is to be addressed."
Your question --- "What oversight does congress have if he stonewalls all witnesses and documents?"
NONE, due to executive privilege.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilegeSo we have an out of control dictator who cannot be removed no matter what he does before the next election. Somehow I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind, Shar.
Or we have an out of control House that cares far more about an election than the country.
Guess it's all in how you spin it, isn't it?
I don't think its about an election wilderness.
Millions of jobs created with more on the way, wages rising for the first time in 30 years, no new wars started... of course they want to impeach him, who wouldn't! He's good for America! They can't have that.Just curious. America was on the verge of financial collapse when Obana was elected Why didn't "they" put the nail on the coffin right then?
And maybe you could identify who "they" are.It makes such sense. What does not make sense is why the Dem party has become such a mess. Does it seem as if they are running toward a moving train?
I suppose, if you care nothing for the Constitution.
Randy, the country is doing well. I have not witnessed any form of dictator behavior? If you are referring to him not cooperating with the Congress impeachment requests, he has not skirted the Constitution? The president would be removed if there were any facts to support the charges. The evidence is not sufficient, most second hand and opinions.
I offered my opinion that I would prefer a trial, this would ensure that both sides are heard. I think the American people are so divided on impeachment, we need some kind of closure. Unfortunately, it well appears the Senate will not take it to trial and just vote not to impeach. Which will leave the citizens very angry.We're not actually divided on impeachment so much as to the value, or harm, from Trump. Impeachment is only the tool being used to remove him from the next election. It will be interesting to see if the political shenanigans backfire - if he is re-elected by an even bigger margin.
Of course he will win re-election. Putin will ensure it.
Come on... Why would Putin want Trump to win? he armed the Ukrain, plus but heavy sanctions on Russia. Please don't come back with Congress had to put pressure on him to do so. Because that was just the first of many rounds of sanctions, he slapped them with. If Putin would help anyone it will be whatever candidate the Dems prop up and send into war with Trump.
Of course he will; after all, Putin and Trump are colluding, for the second time, on fixing the election.
Right!
You are correct, his campaign got massive Russian help, as proven by the various investigations.
And he will win along with extra help from Moscow Mitch and Trump's "party first" supporters.And yet there isn't one shred of evidence proving the Russian "interference" had any effect at all. Lots of opinions from people sore at the result, but no evidence.
The evidence is right before our very eyes in the form of GOP elected officials, Trump appointees, and Trump supporters touting Russian-generated conspiracy theories as though they are legitimate.
The propaganda machine has succeeded in convincing a hefty percentage of the population that our own intelligence agencies can't be trusted.Yeah but, as Dan will tell you, they all hate Trump. This silly accusation has been used multiple times today in the Impeachment hearing. I don't take these people seriously and no one else should either. It's all they have between them and being associated with an arrogant criminal.
They sound like six year olds crying to.mama. "You put me in time out cuz you're mean. Waaaahhh."
Nice to see someone on the left opening their eyes and accepting how they sound. Now, what can the left do to grow up and act like reasonable and intelligent adults?
How naive.
Why else would Russia spend an enormous effort in giving Trump the election?
For the same reason that rich people spend more than a billion dollars on presidential election advertising. Because it works.Just heard the anti-impeachment ads are flooding facebook and no other space is available.
Money talks and truth walks....Scott,
You're a highly intelligent guy, not extreme in your political beliefs, perhaps not what I would define as moderate, but definitely rational.
That's why I don't get your buy-in for the whole Russian Collusion deal, unless its one of those subconscious matters where you keep the blinders on without realizing it.
I see that in GA's positions sometimes, too much CNN, which is far from moderate or unbiased.
You can dislike Trump, think he's incompetent, think he's un-presidential without pushing the Russian foolishness.
Do me a favor, give this short video a watch, it gives a fair and accurate assessment of where, who and how the entire issue arose and became what it became.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQVG47E5XMEKen, I truly appreciate the civil comment, especially because we have bumped heads pretty hard in the past.
I don't believe a video from the libertarian Hoover Institute is on point when its theme is the "Russian collusion hoax".
I acknowledge there is no proof of collusion between Trump personally and the Russians. There is plenty of evidence from credible sources of Russian involvement in our elections in favor of Trump and with some cooperation of Trump aides. It should make conservatives outraged.
I don't understand how any conservative can approve of Russian interference in our country, any more than they can approve of Trump bankrupting us with out of control spending and tax cuts.Well let me tackle the Russian involvement.
If what it consisted of, was exposing DNC & Clinton emails, referencing other potential illegal or at least unsavory financial interactions and bringing them into public awareness... I am actually thankful that happened.
If they created a false narrative, bought votes, changed votes, or things more egregious, then that is a cause for concern and efforts need to be made to ensure it doesn't occur again.
But how impactful was it, seems to be unclear. How much of it was just exposing Clinton's 'crimes and misdemeanors ' seems to be undeterminable. And one of the very reasons for that is the effort by the DNC, Clintons, etc. to cover up any and all wrongdoing.
This is the problem seem to have, there is no way of meeting in the middle... I am not willing to become supportive of the claims about how much Russia influenced the election, when the other side is refusing to accept that Clinton is very corrupt guilty of a great many crimes.
Its seems the sides are dealing with separate realities on a great many topics. Illegal immigration is a big one, their ability to vote in elections is another, one side says they don't vote... the other says millions do. As an example.
I am glad the current crop of presidential hopefuls is admitting to what the real platform of the Democrat Party stands for. At least now, in the current debates, they are discussing things they truly want to do... open borders, universal healthcare, removing the 2nd amendment (or creating laws which counter it).
Let there be a real difference in what the parties stand for... the real reason why we have Trump has nothing to do with the Russians in my opinion, it has everything to do with a political system that had become corrupt and unresponsive (dismissive) to the wants and needs of the American people. With very corrupt politicians and administrators at its core.
Of course an assumption will always trump (no pun intended) reason when a conclusion is already made.
Assuming their efforts were successful hardly means they were. Particularly with the known and acknowledged bias from those making the assumptions.
" It will be interesting to see if the political shenanigans backfire - if he is re-elected by an even bigger margin."
I can only go by my circle of family and friends. Soe Rep, some Dems. As of now Rep sticking with Trump, and becoming more dug in with their opinions. Dem's sick of their party moving too far left, and doing Zero. Plus, like what Trump has accomplished, still not liking him...LOL
I think he wins by a bigger margin.
No, the country is not doing well. It's a house of cards.
Trump is starting to spend money and drive up debt to record levels to avoid a recession.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-ru … 2019-12-11
I don't know how any conservative or Republican can think bankrupting the country is a good thing.And how long have Dem supporters been saying we are headed for a recession? You guys really have to start coming up with some new stuff. Today he announced China is well on the way to a deal, and phase one has been agreed upon. Hey, perhaps Dems could say Obama did this too?
He entered with $10.6 trillion in total debt and left with the country owing $19.9 trillion. That's an average tab of $1.16 trillion a year. Under President Donald Trump, the debt also has climbed. The $2.06 trillion increase works out to about $991 billion a year, or slightly less than the pace Obama had set.
Please note, "The president doesn't have much control over the debt added during his first year in office. Its budget was already set by the previous president.I believe that's his 18th announcement about "a deal".
Of course debt went up under Obama. He inherited the worst recession in U.S. history.
Debt skyrockets when tax revenue is plunging. It's not supposed to skyrocket when the economy is growing.
Also, I guess you didn't read the article. This is Trump's debt from his massive billionaire tax cut.
But then, you haven't offered a response as to why Trump is resisting the subpoenas? If he has nothing to hide, then why not abie by the subpoenas as both Nixon and Clinton did?
I can only give an opinion on your question. If I were in Trump's shoes, I would not let anyone of my WH staff or Cabinet testify at this point. Consider all the leaks to the media that were untrue, and spread like wildfires... Why would he cooperate with such an untraditional impeachment process?
It would seem many are more than willing to lie and spread those lies. No, I would await a trial, and then hear from all sides. He claimed he would call the witnesses from his cabinet if it ever went to trial.
I feel after watching the proceedings, he played it right in fighting the subpoenas. He can call these very persons and have them questioned fairly or not at all if the Senate hears the Congress allegations and just chooses to vote without calling even one witness.But Trump agreed to cooperate if the House held a vote approving the process.
So he lied through his teeth. Yet it's bad when "many are more than willing to lie" about Trump's abuse of power?
Including his own staff, by the way.I know he said he would cooperate if it went to a Senate trial? However, we both know Good Old Mitch will most likely have a look at the articles of impeachment and just choose to vote on them without a trial.
I hope it goes to the trial phase with Cheif Justice Roberts at the helm. We the people need all of this clarified once and for all. I hope to see factual evidence, and that's all that can be brought forward in a trial. Plus, I trust Roberts will take care that the Constitution is considered to the letter.
Suuure.
"Congress conducts the investigation. Trump could try as you put it stonewalling. However, this certainly would show him as uncooperative, and obstructing justice. Which could be added to the impeachment complaint.""However, this certainly would show him as uncooperative, and obstructing justice. Which could be added to the impeachment complaint."
One of the articles was obstruction of Congress. I would think hey would have charged him with obstruction of justice if they felt they had evidence of it? I would think they would charge him with anything they could at this point? Although I have no argument with your theory, watching how unusually this is all being done.
He at this point has the power to refuse almost anything by using executive privilege as he has done. The only court that could force him to cooperate would be the Supreme Court. The Congress has the right to ask this of the Supreme Court. They have not...
From the beginning of the threat of impeachment, Trump made it clear he was not going to cooperate unless he has a trial. where he could call witnesses, and have WH as well as his personal attorneys.
Mitch will try hard not call any witnesses as he doesn't want Bolton to speak under oath about the Ukraine Trump/Rudy "drug deal" as Bolton put it.
And then there's Perry, Pomeo, and Mulvahey who would be questioned under oath as well. You can bet your last dollar Mitch won't try to get either witnesses or documents the House wanted either.
But everyone will be watching...Randy, I totally agree. This has been my reasoning for saying the impeachment was a waste of time and money. It was headed just where it will end up. The Senate having a look at the Dems case, not calling anyone, and taking a vote.
This is poor politicking at it's best that cost the taxpayers cash. I just can't figure why the Dems took this route? They ginned up Trump's base, like never before. They should have used the time to find a great candidate that could have used all of the incidences they feel Trump pulled. Now they will have a failed impeachment, and have given Trump ammunition to use in his rallies.It was their duty to impeach Trump, Shar. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution despite the resistance they are facing from the Right. This is too serious to simply let it slide because Trump is acting as if he's above the law. Do you believe he is?
Well they've convinced you that their BS fabricated charges are real.
Thankfully most of America sees their elitist DC sham for what it is.So you're speaking for "most of America" now, Ken? I didn't hear anything about your being chosen as spokesman for most of America. Oh I get it, you're Trumping it. Good one , Ken!
I don't feel he stepped on the Consitution. or broke the law. I feel he used bad judgment in the way he handled the request to Zelinski. He should have had Barr handle the request. He had the right to ask for an investigation but should have gone about it using protocol. As I said, I feel we need a trial at this point and will be disappointed if there is none. To many accusations on both sides, the Biden accusations, the impeachment articles. We need a clear explanation of what went on.
My common sense tells me this impeachment is illegitimate, a political stunt.
"He is the first POTUS to totally stonewall an impeachment proceeding, Shar. The others you mentioned were eventually settled between the executive office and Congress."
The two others in my time committed crimes... Big difference,--- One again common sense
The Supreme court would be the only one that could rule on President executive privilege. They protect it well.
"1. The Supreme Court and executive privilege
As the 2014 CRS study explained, “the Supreme Court has never addressed executive privilege in the face of a congressional demand for information.” Instead, the case in which the court first recognized such a privilege—Nixon—arose from a subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski as part of his investigation into the Watergate break-in. But the court’s 8-0 ruling in Nixon nevertheless provides three important benchmarks for executive privilege vis-à-vis Congress today.
First, emphasizing “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties,” the Nixon court traced executive privilege not to the common law, but to Article II of the Constitution. As Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “[w]hatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art[icle] II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties.” In other words, “the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has… constitutional underpinnings,” meaning that the privilege cannot be abrogated by statute. Indeed, even though President Richard Nixon ultimately lost before the court, this part of the court’s decision was a significant (and, given the result, unnecessary) win for the presidency.
Second, the Nixon court rejected the president’s claim that such a privilege is absolute, emphasizing that “the impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art[icle] III.” Instead, the court held that the executive privilege protected by Article II is a qualified privilege, and concluded that “it is necessary to resolve [the] competing interests” between executive privilege and the role of the courts “in a manner that preserves the essential functions of each branch.”
Third, Nixon held that the president’s interest in the confidentiality of his own communications, as memorialized in the tapes sought by the subpoena, was outweighed by “our historic commitment to the rule of law.” In Nixon, specifically, “when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.” And as the court would explain three years later in another case involving Nixon, the privilege recognized in the earlier 1974 Nixon ruling “is limited to communications ‘in performance of (a President’s) responsibilities … of his office,’ and made ‘in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.’”
I truly believe in protecting the privacy of the president. I don't think a president is above the law, but I do believe the impeachment trial is the only way to prove the crime. As both sides at that point will be called, and at that point, the Dems will most likely go to the Supreme Court with a list of witnesses that Trump up to now has stopped from testifying. It will be up to the SC to make the decision on overriding executive privilege.
The Constitution gives the Senate the right not to pursue the impeachment trial, and just choose not to take it up. That's a possibility with Mitch McConnell at the helm. I watched an interview with Alan Dershowitz and he brought this possibility up. I got me to do a bit of research.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate- … hment-case
In my opinion, at this point, the American people need and are entitled to a trial. All these investigations and conspiracies need to end. They are not serving anything but to keep hate brewing.The SCOTUS won't get a chance to rule on Trump's stalling before the next election, Shar. There isn't time and you didn't mention this.
Again, who has oversight over the Executive branch according to the Constitution? Why is no one from Trump's camp answering this query? You do know why as you're avoiding the question as well, Shar.
So what remedy does the House have other than subpoenaing witnesses and documents Trump has refused to provide? Does it even concern you as to why he's refusing to exonerate himself if he claims he's innocent? Apparently you haven't thought this through.I am impressed with your patience. "The big difference is Trump didn't commit a crime like the other presidents." [Paraphrasing]
smhI've taught reading comprehension to children before, so this isn't completely hopeless, Sandy. Not completely...but a challenge none the less.
I have something for you to read Randy...
4 more years of Trump.
As much as I dislike listening to Trump, these fools (Schiff, Pelosi, etc.) make him seem rational and even tempered in comparison to their mind numbing stupidity.
Between this ongoing show of incompetence and ignorance, and the DNC shunning the decent candidates (Gabbard, Yang, Warren) for their establishment stooge (Biden) they are going to lose the next election in a wave for the Republicans like nothing this country has seen in our lifetimes.
The blowback is going to be monumental.Ken, I feel bad for you if you look at Trump as anything but a con man. That you don't see him as such makes you an enabler of his gross behavior. You and others here enable him to smear veterans who've shed blood for our country and risked their lives being envoys in other countries.
When he slanders witnesses during a hearing, or those who have the temerity to go against his will to testify against him, you are also part and parcel of why he is doing so.
Be proud and fess up to it, Ken.Sure Randy, and the likes of Clinton and Biden are in politics just to help the people and better the world.
"No American colluded with the Russians" Mueller report... Just a fact, odd you still have not been able to accept the outcome of his report. You might want to consider reading it in full. It is boring, and you can pick it up online or as I did a hardcopy on Amazon.
"It just didn't prove he did. " In America, you don't charge someone with a crime, and then look for that crime... It well appears you have adopted a very unfair false belief.
He was well within his rights to protect his cabinet using his privilege.to do so. CNN very rarely get their facts checked.
"(Reuters) - Like numerous U.S. presidents before him, Donald Trump could cite the legal doctrine of “executive privilege” to try to block congressional investigators from getting access to certain documents and witnesses they are seeking."
I suggest you read the complete article.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN1S80P1Shar,
I think the frustrating this is not only do those on the left lack any understanding of history, they also lack an understanding of the importance of Executive Privilege.
Presidents engage in a lot of sensitive discussions with people around the world. If it were not for Executive Privilege, foreign leaders and others would not feel free to discuss things with a president.And you don't have any understanding of the constituition, Mike. I'll ask you the same query as Shar, Mike.
Who--according to the Constitution--has the sole power of oversight over the Executive Office?
And what does the Constitution say about using EP to cover up a crime?I agree completely. I feel the president's executive privilege must be upheld. It very much upsets me to see many in our society don't understand executive privilege and the importance of it.
Where the hell are we headed?
Trump won't win. No I have to say. Trump doesn't want to win, Trump wants to retire. And surely he will find an excuse. Probably health issues or family...
The reason why I say this is because Trump already got what he wanted. Tax cuts and profitable personal business deals. And he is tired.
Trumps base (and I'm not talking about red necks but about the wealthy 1%) has the tax breaks and the coming crisis they wanted. So they want the next president as a more stable person to restore the foreign relationships Trump professionally killed off.
Foreign relationship under Trump is the worst ever. And as business is global (Trump is anti globalisation remember, America first) the base is not happy to continue with Trump.
The 1% prefer the republican party but they are not political. If a better guy comes along, like Biden, a conservative Democrat, then they will support him.
I don't like Biden but I think in the end the powers that be will support him more then Trump. And the US will end up with an old fashioned politician who will do business as usual...I just don't think America can have a President Biden. History says it's a bad idea.
Why? Which part of the US history are you referring to?
Well, it's strictly an opinion based on my knowledge of American history, but my intuition about it says that Americans are looking for change and that confidence in Congress and career politicians is at an all-time low and we need somebody on the left who will shake things up. I think a Biden presidency will just shift conservatives even further right.
ah. Yes. well Biden is not my choice either, I would definitely vote more progressive if I lived in the USA. But I think the powers that be would like to have a conservative president.
Democratic headquarters chose Clinton above Sanders in the last election with dramatic consequences.
The question is how strong is the influence of the 1% (Murdoch,Koch brothers, Zuckerberg etc.) on the next elections. They oppose a progressive America. Question is how strong is the desire to change. As it's evident that something needs to change drastically.Giving the nomination to Biden would pan out as disastrous as when McCain tapped Palin as his running mate.
I hope with all the BS trump has done since he was elected, along with the fact that he is up against impeachment, people will be smart enough not to vote him into a second term. He should have never been elected in the first place. That and a good chunk of our allies hate him, and a lot of people in other countries think he is a big joke. The only people that approve of what he is doing are avid republicans and the rich.
The job market is strong because of Obama. Not Trump. Since his trade war with China, more factories are closing or laying off then ever. While factories in china, and China's economy is booming. Due to all the US companies that have moved there.Don't know where you're getting your "facts", but what I hear is that China is in deep doodoo because of that trade war, while we're seeing more business coming back to the US; it's hard to see where setting tariffs on imported goods causes mainland factories to quit operating.
Some factories import parts from China, Dan. Perhaps even many of them for all I know.
He made the wealthy richer, all he has to do is lie about most everything else.
Homelessness is booming, I am so sad for most Americans who are a couple of paychecks from this.While I agree, you could make that argument against every President before him.
Trump tells the world he has single handedly made his economy the best in the history of America. Just his lying skills are the best in the history of Presidents.
My time as a young adult homelessness was unheard of. Today, North America there millions of homeless living in vehicles, couch surfing, shelters, on the streets and dozens of other methods to survive and only getting worst faster.
Anyone I knew in the 70s did not take longer then a couple of days to get a job. Today very few jobs are secured jobs and job hunting is like, forever for many people. Many have to take a couple of part-time jobs with no benefits.
The number one problem is unaffordable housing. I've design a tiny house with a self sustainable community that the Canadian government approves this spring. I will be manufacturing these houses that solves 90% of the housing problem. It's taken 15 years of pioneering and it's been more illegal than weed, which I also help make legal.Its called globalism and open borders.
You don't ship 20 million jobs over to China and expect things to improve for the American worker.
You don't pass NAFTA and allow GM & Ford to open factories in Canada and China and expect those Union workers to still have jobs.
You don't let in over a million illegal immigrants every year for over 25 years and expect them all to have homes and good paying jobs... while at the same time you are shutting down factories and shipping those jobs to foreign lands.
The reason why this country is starting to look like a 3rd world nation is because IT IS BECOMING THAT.
That's what occurs when your politicians sell you out. That's what happens when you allow NAFTA to be signed, and China to be a 'favored nation' for 50 years, and allow tens of millions to flow into your country unchecked.
China is now the 'great nation' and we are the one in 'decline' … and Trump is the only 'politician' in 30 years to stand up and point it out... and point out who is to blame. Its no wonder he is being impeached.Here's what I think you are missing, Ken (or I'm sure you know it, you're just choosing to politicize it the way you are).
All those move you outlined are because the American consumer demands cheap crap. They want cheap cars, clothing, toys, electronics...
We're in a constant battle between cheap goods and a living wage for American workers. Cheap goods are winning. How are politicians going to get re-elected if they increase jobs but also increase inflation?
In a nutshell, people want cheap goods more than they want good jobs for other people. So those moves you blame on traitorous politicians are all at the behest of the voters.No. Politicians don't pass trade agreements, or allow 'favored nation' status because Americans want "cheap crap".
Americans want jobs. Those trade agreements, and other changes allowing companies to exodus America not only without feeling pain for it, but often incentivized them leaving with tax dollars to do so. That was not what was best for America or our economy.I think you're wrong. Americans was cheap goods first and jobs second. Politicians want to keep inflation as low as possible and they can do that by keeping goods cheap. That is the first, most important thing. If jobs are created but inflation is skyrocketing, then the jobs may not matter.
Further, a large percentage of adult Americans are employed. Improving the unemployment rate is good, but it helps a limited number of people. Keeping inflation low helps everyone (though obviously who cares if you're unemployed).
Also, allowing companies to lower their costs by manufacturing overseas allows those companies to increase their profits while keeping the price to the consumer low. That translates to higher stock prices and more profit. If, as you say, wealth is not production, but valuation (I'm paraphrasing), then this is the logical way of things.
A lot of what I'm saying explains why China has been so successful. They produce goods that Americans want more cheaply than they can be produced in America.No jobs... no $$$, doesn't matter how cheap things are when you are broke.
Ken, c'mon now. I know you understand this.
Lower prices = more sales = more profits = more production = more jobs (both overseas and through brokers like retail outlets, logistics, shipping, management; etc.) = higher stock price.
Higher prices = fewer sales = less profit = less production = fewer jobs = lower stock price.
I'm pretty sure that's the calculus ALL politicians have been using, Democrats and Republicans. And generally, if you go back to the 80's, it's been working pretty well. The economy has been quite robust overall since then.I understand the last 30 years just fine.
Less jobs meant stagnant wages, less taxes, higher national debt, compounded by more people on government supports.
The corporations made out like bandits, the people have been screwed.
And now that China's wages are rising, they have a surging middle class, those low prices for Chinese imports can no longer be maintained, so the prices for goods from China go up.
Therefore it becomes advantageous to go back to 'Made in America' not only because it is easier to be more competitive with products from China that are becoming more expensive.
It also it puts Americans back to work, which increases the amount of money available to be spent on goods, creates more taxable income, increases wages as competition grows for employees, improves the overall economy.
This is a MUST DO for our nation right now, to rebuild its industrial and technological manufacturing ability not just to put people back to work and improve living conditions, but because China has become the dominant economic force in the world, with the intent to supplant America on the global stage and turn America into a vassal state beholden to it.
That is not to say we cannot share the wealth and economic ties with our neighbors (Mexico and Canada), we should want our neighbors to 'share the wealth' and be tied to our fortunes economically, if not, they too will fall under the influence of China and that in turn will hasten our own economic demise.
Even corporations are beginning to realize the folly of the last 30 years in regards to China, as China shuts them out of their marketplace, steals their secrets, and controls their future in China, having the ability to confiscate factory and funds at any time.We agree on a lot of this, but hindsight is 20/20.
We agree that moving forward, China is not and has never been a good trading partner and we need to rectify that. So we agree on that.
What I don't like is rewriting history. Inflation was a major concern at the end of the 1970s. Lowering the cost of goods lowers inflation and produces more jobs by increasing the needs of infrastructure outside of production.
I also agree that we have been allowing the corporations to dictate national economic policy.
However, what I am mainly saying is that lower prices produces economic benefits that help politicians get re-elected and inflation does not. If we are going to transition from "made in China" to "made in America", inflation is almost assuredly going to be a result of that and Americans will not like it and whoever is in office will pay the price.Sure, good economic conditions, be they jobs, low cost for food and gas, etc. help get politicians re-elected.
And poor economic conditions, be they loss of jobs, or higher costs, or both, get politicians removed.
Unfortunately I doubt many of those long tenured politicians in DC stayed around for the benefit of the people, the hundreds of millions of dollars that flowed into their accounts is most likely the primary reason they made a lifelong career out of it.I'm sure that's partially true. There are many corrupt politicians.
But inflation is the death of a political career, so even an honest politician is going to try to avoid policies that increase inflation. People, politicians and non-politicians alike, generally do what's in their self-interest.
I think what politicians have found in the last 20 to 30 years is that globalism both decreases inflation and increases jobs, which is why both Democrats and Republicans have promoted such. This sudden wave of protectionism is new.
This hits immigration policy as well. Although Democrats promote a lax immigration policy, so do many businesses and so have Republicans for many, many years because it provides cheap labor, which turns into cheap goods.
Americans like cheap strawberries. They like cheap hotel rooms. This is why immigrants seem to pick a lot of strawberries and clean a lot of hotel rooms - among other reasons, but that's a big one."I think what politicians have found in the last 20 to 30 years is that globalism both decreases inflation and increases jobs..."
While it is apparent that globalism decreases inflation (as labor costs and subsequent prices drop when jobs are outsourced to third world countries), how do you figure that outsourcing those same jobs to other countries increases the job market? Or high immigration numbers makes more jobs? It's true that more immigrants means more food to sell, and more cheap, imported products to sell, but I don't see that as increasing the job market beyond the jobs those same immigrants work.
Wilderness, I completely agree that on its surface, what I said about globalism increasing jobs doesn't make sense. However, I think the distribution infrastructure has increased massively on many things and that while certain things have been outsourced for labor, parts are manufactured here. The economy has basically been chugging along for some time.
Perhaps what we are seeing is a transition from a manual labor economy to a tech economy. It seems to me that Trump has been harping about manual labor mostly (like coal). A lot of these jobs are going away and never coming back and to suggest to coal workers that there jobs are around but that Dems simply took them away is disingenuous. The same for other jobs in that category.
It's my perception that we're also shifting radically into a service economy whose jobs are not high-paying. This is neither a conservative or a liberal issue or fault. It's just what's happening. So I would question just what types of jobs are being created.
Anyway, the above analysis is probably over-simplified, but it points to the nature of this argument. I think we're making a mistake if we politicize this. Ken and I actually agree on quite a bit. What he's saying about American jobs is very important. Americans just have to realize what it will mean to bring all these jobs back to America.I would very highly disagree with the idea that parts are manufactured here. Almost all auto parts, for instance, are manufactured overseas, even if the car is assembled here. Fact is that our manufacturing base, whether simple assembly lines or actual casting and molding, are but a shadow of what we once had; it has all gone overseas.
Manual to tech: my daughter-in-law made the same comment about we're becoming more "information" based. Until she was directed to train Koreans to do her job because they were opening a new office in Korea and her job was ending. Whether "tech" or "manual", everything is leaving our shores for cheaper labor. (She worked for a bookkeeping service, doing the books for non-profit organizations, and even that was leaving for cheaper labor.)
I would agree that we're becoming more service economy, but do not necessarily agree that it is mostly low paying. Sure, the lawn mowing and such is, but have you hired a plumber or electrician to fix something lately? A mechanic for your car? A lawyer to do your taxes or write a will for you?
Beyond that, I'm of the opinion that we're becoming a nation of specialists, refusing to take care of our own basic, simple needs and hiring it done instead. And the reason for that is because we're earning enough to pay someone to do these simple things and don't want to do it ourselves. That does not point towards falling incomes or standard of living.
I think it may be a question of specifically what kind of jobs are being outsourced. It's not white collar, but blue collar jobs.
Would you say that's accurate?I wouldn't. My daughter, an accountant for a firm specializing in doing books for non-profit organizations, was directed to train Koreans for her job as a new office in Korea was being opened. As we move further into the computer age, jobs are being lost to overseas labor that can "tele-work" from anywhere. The proliferation of overseas call centers is another example. It isn't huge yet, like blue collar, but it's growing.
She no longer works there.
And presumably they did so to decrease their wages and increase their profits, which makes their shareholders happy.
I appreciate Ken's point about the importance of growing jobs in America, but it's going to be hard with all the facets of our economy seemingly working against it.
Homelessness is booming in democratic strongholds.
I'm richer, although I'm not rich. First good Christmas we are going to have in years.
Your hate doesn't change facts. The economy is stronger.If Trump can just stay focused on the economy and talk only about the economy, there's almost no way he can lose. People vote with their wallet.
Especially since the democratic party is only offering up socialist ideas thus far.
1) Trump will not be able to talk only about the economy. He has no mental discipline.
2) Some people vote with their wallets; some vote with their conscience. If the election were held today, Trump would lose. A lot can happen between now and election day, though.If the election were held today, "Trump would lose".
That's the kind of rallying call from liberals that keeps other liberals from voting and is the kind of predictive stuff that drives me crazy. And, I don't believe it.
Trump has an incredibly strong economic case and that motivates independents, who will probably decide the election.Eh, I am merely dealing in the current reality. I am not interested in playing games. As always, I encourage everyone to vote. I doubt that my post on this forum will discourage a single person. My opinion is not that consequential.
I'm using the royal "we". CNN does this all the time to encourage their viewers. They say: "look, we're winning!" when they're not.
I deal in reality. Current polling shows Trump underwater in states he carried in 2016. He barely won the electoral college, so any loss of voters is critical to his ability to win.
CNN is merely reporting the current polling. It could change and they will surely report that when/if it does.
Quick, turn around and close that door!
GA :-0
Yeah, that "hate" BS didn't go over too well with Nancy, did it? I understand her anger as that identical accusation is used often by your ilk when they can't respond any other way.
Holy cow Randy! Did you really say that? Exactly what "ilk" is it that you are saying promotes hate? If these forums, (and the MSM Media), could be judged as a microcosm of the Democratic Left, then I certainly wouldn't say it is the Republican Right that is promoting hate.
GAI say it because I've been accused of hating Trump by several right wing posters on these forums, Gus. I feel sorry for anyone who believes he/she is above the law. This doesn't equate to hate, no matter who is claiming it.
I also feel sorry for those who think Trump is an honest person. Doubly so.You wouldn't say standing behind a lying, hateful bully who conducts false smear campaigns against virtually anyone who disagrees with him, including those who sacrifice their lives for America, is promoting hate?
Well, I'll be damned.
Ah, my ilk. Pelosi acted deranged, imo. I suppose she would classify as your ilk, if we use your standard.
Pelosi acted "deranged?" Her one-time behavior couldn't come close to Trump's everyday tantrums. But I'm sure you would refuse to agree that he is deranged. In your world, women aren't allowed to defend themselves. Repugs are certainly women-haters. In fact, women turn on each other, like the Republican witch that ran for president. What was her name, Carly something? See, she's dropped out of sight, out of mind already.
This is the most bizarre post I've seen in a while. I'm a woman and, to be honest, I also find your post insulting and an attempt to bully. I don't have to agree with your position to expect not being insulted.
I would love for Pelosi to present a believable position. I'm sick of faux outrage. I'm tired of bs explanations for this circus.
Trump, personally, appears to be an ass. I've said that on many occasions. I don't have to like the man to respect the office. I don't have to like the man to dispassionately evaluate the outcome of his policies.
You want to goose step to the completely unbelievable and false narrative of the political left, feel free.
As a woman who believes I have the right, the intelligence, and the full facts as presented by both sides I can only shake me head at those who refuse to think for themselves. I get it. You're probably one of those women who wait for men to tell then what to think. I say what I think and am more comfortable changing men's minds than regurgitating what I found in them.I think we call that selling your soul. No matter how egregious a person's behavior, it's okay if the economy is doing well.
To me, it seems increasingly clear that Trump was also involved in the Jeffrey Epstein sex ring. I mean, Prince Andrew appears to have been and Trump denies knowing Prince Andrew, yet appears in pictures with him.
It proves nothing - pictures - but it's the kind of behavior of somebody who is guilty.
Still, Trump could have had sex with hundreds of underaged girls and still people would support him.Isn't that an illustration of Bill Clinton's second term? He did some pretty bad things with women. He still got elected to a second term. He was even impeached. The economy was too good. That is real history.
On this, we agree. Liberals overlooked a lot of crap from Clinton because the economy was good.
LtoL, what is not believable about an abuse of power position? It's been proven clearly.
The thing that Trump supports and other conservatives do not seem to realize is that if we set the precedent that this is how Presidents can behave, then it is simply a matter of time before a Democrat does the same thing. If conservatives really think they've already seen Trump's Democratic equivalent, they are truly deranged. Whatever and whoever that is, it is going to be ugly.Are you blind or totally brainwashed? I hear that happens to people who join a cult... I can only imagine this is where those who so adamantly support the likes of Pelosi are at, brainwashed believers.
First nothing has been proven by these Congressional sideshows. Other than their intent to Impeach Trump no matter what, because they know his investigations into them are going to be very damning.
Second, past Presidents have done far worse... VP Biden has done far worse, he out and out threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid if they didn't fire the lead prosecutor investigating Barisma.
His son went to work on Barisma's board for $50k a month, Joe got a $900k fee for being an 'adviser', and who knows what went on under the table.
I hate to tell you, we have Trump BECAUSE of the rampant abuse of position that has been ongoing in D.C. for decades now.... like Uranium One, a $145 million bribery scandal involving Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.
You really need to wake up.Seems to me you may have been brainwashed.
Let's parse your statement a bit:
"VP Biden has done far worse."
According to your argument, Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid if the Ukrainians didn't fire the lead prosecutor investigating Burisma.
So, according to your argument, Biden did this because the prosecutor was going after Biden or was going to find something on Biden. Do I have that right? Biden specifically was going to withhold that money because the Ukraine was on the verge of exposing him.
Except there's not a shred of evidence that's true. And you're conveniently leaving out that Biden wasn't even remotely acting by himself. Most of the international community wanted that prosecutor gone because of precisely the opposite of your argument - he wasn't investigating corruption at all because he was corrupt. So, that particular argument is garbage.
Trump is more than capable of requesting and getting an investigation in the Bidens if he wants one, but he instead decided to ask a foreign power to do it. He's continuously promoting the lie that the Ukrainians interfered in our last election.
This is the Republican playbook - repeat a lie until it becomes the truth.I learned another significant fact this morning from the impeachment hearing. Rudy Giuliani knew there was nothing to the accusation against Biden in the Ukraine and admitted such, but kept pushing nonetheless.
I'm pleased you consider Nancy of my ilk. LTL, like you're pleased you're exactly like Trump.
LOL. We were performing a mental exercise of using your reasoning. I don't mind pretending to be a contortionist.
I don't know what was more fascinating, watching her teeth pop in and out of her mouth as she talked, or watching her stumble through that monologue of misinformation.
I agree. It's getting old all the way around. I say stop the hypocrisy. Stop the grousing over losing an election.
Everyone in Washington needs to get back to the business of doing the will of the people and stop playing politics.As usual, you pretend Trump has done nothing to elicit the negative response he gets.
Pat for the course.
And I agree with your last sentence. Tell Mitch.If many (such as yourself) would wipe the chip from your shoulder we could all stand together and tell them all to get back to work.
I've never said Trump doesn't bring negativity his way. But, I didn't support impeachment for Bill Clinton (whom I despised) even though there were verifiable actions on his part which were illegal. Why would I support impeachment of a President that we don't yet have verifiable evidence of wrongdoing? We are at a rumor and innuendo point.
Give me solid evidence and we'll stand together. Until that time the left look like bullies attempting to justify their behavior with faux outrage.All who have testified under oath about Trump's motives have stated his actions were meant to damage a political rival to gain advantage in the election.
Perhaps if Trump and his minions would respond to subpoenas the way Clinton and Nixon did you would get the "solid evidence" you seek. Since Trump is obstructing justice, which is itself an impeachable offense, that will not happen. Me, I'll believe career diplomats and intelligence professionals testifying under oath over Trump's incoherent ramblings and Twitter feed.
I'm sure there is a reason Trump doesn't want Bolton, Pompeo, and Mulvaney to testify under oath. If he is innocent, they could clear this right up, couldn't they?That would be an American dream to stand together shoulder to shoulder with millionaire and billionaire's.
Kitty go back to sleep and continue the dream, at least there you can have some joy.Alright. You started it. Why don't you try and wake up and use any brain cells you might possess.
What you seem to be suggesting is that only the outcome matters. How we get there is irrelevant. I partially agree in the sense that I don't believe one can argue with the outcome of Trump's policies at present (though they are the same deregulation policies of Bush that drove the economy into the ditch), so that is the basis for this forum.
The economy is doing well and that's very important to a lot of people and will get him re-elected.
And if the economy starts going the other way, conservatives will blame liberals and vice versa.
Kitty
Maybe hate is your favorite word. I've told noone I hate them in my adult life. I return your gift of hate back to you as a Christmas present.Trump brought back Christmass for Corporation-ism reasons. He is a legendary hero in his own mind. That's a fact.
Democracy my eye. Not even 3 million votes ahead counts for democracy.You don't have to use the word hate to loudly proclaim to any within earshot that you hate.
I don't want your hate. You'll have to pretend to pass it off to someone else.I'm in part an anarchist, why would I hate any Politician. I just don't care much for them all. They are just jokes in my comedy act as a freak show reporter. Let as_hole be as_hole. I'll desire and focus on love and work, and why bother to live a lie.
You keep driving this hate word at me. I am incapable of hate or being against anyone. Being not for someone or disagreeing, is not same as hate or against. Don't want to be part of the problem, because I love solutions.
So please Stop It!!!
It took me a wail to train my daughter out of the hate word. Its extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward others; I have no enemies to hate. I might have a slight bigotry towards extremely stupid and bully people, but they are humans too. Some might be cold blooded reptiles, but I love all animals too.
Personally, I'm surprised how little Trump has made me care about the value of my stocks and investments. I'm much more concerned about the country doing something, anything, that is sustainable. He is all-in for the wealthiest Americans, if those of us with some stocks, etc. get some benefits, fine. There are far too many people being left behind though and I think we'd be foolish to not expect dire consequences.
Considering how the left has acted for the last few years I do wonder how the right would act if a Democrat takes the White House?
Same as they did last time.
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." - - Mitch McConnellOne guy who didn't push secret impeachment hearings and call him an imposter.
You'll have to do better than that.Lol, did Obama do something to warrant an impeachment inquiry? I must have missed that. And that one guy denied a president who was elected by the people twice his Supreme Court nominee. And the GOP conducted seven Benghazi investigations over several years.
You can pretend the GOP is more cooperative than the Democrats but the record shows otherwise.
Both parties engage in partisan politics,but none of that changes the fact that Trump earned his impeachment proceedings with his own behavior.Given that the only requirement for an impeachment is that political rivals are upset, it is apparent that Obama did a great deal to warrant it.
Before you deny that, bear in mind that a great deal has been made of the fact that no crime need be committed: all that is necessary is a dislike of policies or person by political opponents.As long as you hold the position that Trump has done zero to warrant an impeachment inquiry, there is no sense in discussing the matter with you.
One can disagree about whether his conduct rises to the level of removal from office, but facts are facts and Trump has obstructed justice, abused his power, and more.
If you want future presidents, including those whose policies you abhor, to be able to conduct themselves in the manner that Trump has, then that's on you. I personally don't want future presidents to think this behavior results in no consequences.How odd that I didn't even come close to mentioning Trump's impeachment or reasons for it and yet you claim that I maintain he did nothing to warrant an inquiry. Is there a reason you made that declaration rather than replying to what was actually written? Is there a reason that you can't leave Trump out of your rants and stick to the subject?
(In case you've forgotten, your question was "Lol, did Obama do something to warrant an impeachment inquiry?" and my entire reply was in answer to that question. Nothing at all about Trump. The closest I came to Trump was if you expand my answer about Obama to include Trump, whereupon the answer was "Democrats didn't need anything to warrant an inquiry. Which is a far, far cry from declaring nothing he did warranted it.)Well, let's see, when you say things like this: ".... all that is necessary is a dislike of policies or person by political opponents."
That is patently ridiculous and so stupid as to not even warrant a courteous response, but I'll attempt to give you one anyway. I have yet to see an impeachment inquiry that arose from nothing more than dislike. That is your personal interpretation, not borne out by any previous or current actions, and is based solely on your desire to make the current inquiry seem trivial.If it is "patently ridiculous and stupid" then you need to read how "high crimes and misdemeanors" has no definition as well as listen to the experts that were called in to give the lawyers of Congress their opinions. There have been a plethora of expert opinions lately, that all say the same thing - there need be no crime committed. Simply something the politicians don't like, which is what I said. A dislike of either the person or their policies.
Whatever. I find this line of thinking to be your typical nitpicky nonsense that you turn to when you have nothing else.
Except, as I said repeatedly, that "nitpickyness" had exactly zero to do with Trump. It has everything to do with the constitutional requirements for impeachment, and comes from many expert testimonies.
Now, you may not like it, you may even refuse to accept it, feeling that your opinion is superior to every lawyer in the country, but that still does not make anything I said to be about Trump. That comes straight from, and only from you; a refusal to accept that anything I might say is not an automatic defense of Trump. (As a matter of fact I can't recall ever defending him; only attacking false "conclusions" of wrongdoing that arose from muddy, illogical reasoning.)
Obama sure did things worthy of being impeached. Take your pick. Here are are ten of his best scandals. All of them MUCH worse than anything the Democrats are accusing President Donald Trump of doing.
"The scandals of the Obama-Biden administration have been well-documented, but also well-covered-up by the media. They refused to give the scandals of the Obama-Biden administration the coverage they deserved when they happened, and they refused to challenge Obama when he repeatedly made claims of having a scandal-free administration and they certainly aren't going to challenge Biden echoing those same claims. I will, however, because unfortunately, too many people believe the myth of the scandal-free presidency of Barack Obama. So, here are just ten scandals of the Obama-Administration that Sleepy Joe is apparently proud of."
https://pjmedia.com/trending/biden-clai … e-are-ten/Facts are facts Randy, these things occurred and they are FAR worse than anything President Donald Trump is accused of doing.
Here's some more.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/ … -scandals/How about a link from a non-conservative opinion site, Mike?
Come on, Randy! You know there were lots of scandals. He should've been impeached!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YFej3mjsis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrTf6CaTTc0&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVsUa-lQ2WYYou would dare post this link to a site that proves that the Trump administration is as rotten as stuff at the bottom of an outhouse? This is nothing but unsupported allegations, and much of it is exactly what Trump is doing as supported by evidence.
"The Obama administration’s attorney general, Eric Holder, left office while being held in contempt of Congress for inhibiting the investigation of other Obama administration scandals."
So it is all right with you Repugs that:
Trump is inhibiting the investigation of Trump administration scandals, and
Ivanka is using a private email server for whatever reasons her little heart desires. Her father said it was different when she did it.
I could go on, but I think that's 'nuff said.And Trump talked to Sondland on an unsecure phone in Ukraine where Russia monitors the cellphone calls. Like father, like daughter, Miz.
It's alot more peaceful being an anarchist.
Than comparing Presidents evils.All one has to do to counter the economic claims to is:
1,) show how the $7.2 billion in tariffs is being passed down to the middle class.
2.) show how those tariffs have decimated the agricultural sector.
3.) show how the stock market has grown at the same rate as the last Democrat.
4.) show how job growth, while strong in November, has been weaker under Trump as a whole.
5.) show the trend lines of the unemployment rate dropping.
6.) include the increased deficit Trump has implemented to achieve the same economy we had prior to him.
Related Discussions
- 92
Kamala Harris will win 2024 Election
by Ken Burgess 9 hours ago
Prior to the Debate... and then Assassination attempt... and then Biden stepping down...My evaluation of how things were trending weeks ago led me to believe that (fair election or not) the Democrats were going to win the election... as I have often noted on here before:Women make up 52% or more of...
- 37
How is President Trump Destroying America?
by Ralph Schwartz 4 years ago
Every day another news story hits the cycle about how President Trump is doing terrible damage to America and hurting the American citizens. The Economy is better than it's been in 50 years, unemployment is low, the Stock Market high, and the number of drone strikes & military...
- 121
Will Joe Biden Debate President Trump Before the Upcoming Election?
by savvydating 4 years ago
Will Biden's Party choose to keep him out of the debates rather than have him go through the rigors of elucidating his public policy proposals, etc., in a formal debate against Trump, in lieu of recent polls in which up to 55% of Democrat voters believe Joe Biden may be in the early stages of...
- 378
The 2024 Presidential Election
by Scott Belford 40 minutes ago
I am sure many are going to disagree, but I predict Vice President Kamala Harris will win - by a lot!That is a feeling, not backed up by polling. The polling leans toward he winning - by a little as well as flipping the House and a slim chance of keeping the Senate.
- 8
The Significanc of Ex-president Trump Electoral Campaghs
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 3 weeks ago
Ex-president Donald Trump campaign for the White House is generating signicance.So far will he win the general election votes? Will he win the Electoral College votes also?What do you think? Comments? All are welcome.
- 12
What steps are being taken today to avoid a hacked 2018 and 2020 election?
by ptosis 6 years ago
What steps are being taken today to avoid a hacked 2018 and 2020 election?DJT WH has done next to nothing to prevent, future election hacking like the kind that occurred during 2016 presidential campaign. Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., and ranking member Claire...