Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: faberryman on September 28, 2019, 10:38:02 am

Title: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on September 28, 2019, 10:38:02 am
You may have Boris and Brexit, but we now have impeachment hearings this side of the pond to keep us entertained. And who knew you would get a different take on it depending on which papers you read and which news you watch.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on September 28, 2019, 10:41:57 am
They're not only going to be entertaining, they're going to hand the House back to the Republicans next year.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 01:54:00 pm
Moderator, please move this thread to the "A Touch of Humor" one.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Ivo_B on September 28, 2019, 01:57:44 pm
So Biden and or his Son are / is doing business in l’Ukraine?

What’s wrong with you US guys? Some decades ago a person only mentioning the ussr would be hung as commie.

Now even Biden is dealing with them.

There are no certainties anymore...

At least your potus didn’t loose focus.  8)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 28, 2019, 02:29:57 pm
So Biden and or his Son are / is doing business in l’Ukraine?

What’s wrong with you US guys? Some decades ago a person only mentioning the ussr would be hung as commie.

Now even Biden is dealing with them.

There are no certainties anymore...

At least your potus didn’t loose focus.  8)
Problem is Democrat Joe Biden was Vice President at the time.  He put the squeeze on the Ukraine government to stop criminal investigations of his son Hunter Biden who was finagling there to make money.  The VP Biden squeeze is what may be illegal which ironically is what the Democrats are accusing Trump of doing asking Ukraine to start up the investigation again.  It's a small world. What goes around comes around. :)

In any case, there are more commies and socialists and leftists here in the USA then there any more in Russia.   The world is going topsy turvy. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 02:33:47 pm
... In any case, there are more commies and socialists and leftists here in the USA then there any more in Russia.   The world is going topsy turvy. 

How true! And sad. This coming from a guy who thought he safely escaped them by coming here.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 02:35:49 pm
Wanna see how it worked for the Bidens?

https://www.facebook.com/liberalprivilegeusa/videos/667744380375147/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODA5NTEzMjc5MjIyMw/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 28, 2019, 02:42:40 pm
How true! And sad. This coming from a guy who thought he safely escaped them by coming here.

More irony.  You see, the socialist dream was always here too.  It's just that because of the way WWII turned out what with the Red scare and the Iron Curtain and the USSR, Americans were afraid.  As a kid, I'd practice hiding under the desk at school in case there was a nuclear attack.   No one wanted to be on the side of anything that smacked of communism or socialism.  So they couldn't gain a foothold. 

So the collapse of the Soviet Union was both a blessing and a curse.  A blessing by freeing up those people held hostage behind the Curtain and ending the Cold War and M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction.  The curse of course being that now people have forgotten 30 years later just how much a menace socialism can be confirming Santayana's warning about people who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  Unfortunately, America has forgotten. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 28, 2019, 02:47:10 pm
Wanna see how it worked for the Bidens?

https://www.facebook.com/liberalprivilegeusa/videos/667744380375147/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODA5NTEzMjc5MjIyMw/
Beck is a nice guy but no one watches him.  Biden will continue to be protected by the leftist press.  Unless they decide to throw him under the bus for Pocahontas. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 03:11:01 pm
Beck is a nice guy but no one watches him...

Especially our leftie friends here. They'll immediately go ad hominem, without watching a very illustrative timeline of events and players.

As a reminder, I spent eight years working in Moscow on behalf of several American companies, sometimes with Russian government agencies, often with Russian companies, and this (what Glen Beck illustrated) is exactly how business is conducted and influence peddled in Russia. Ukraine is more or less the same.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 28, 2019, 03:20:50 pm
Meanwhile the liberal press, CNN, has Cuomo protecting Biden as I said.   Look at 1:57 and watch how then Cuomo excuses Biden for doing what Trump apparently did.   https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/28/cuomo-closing-argument-trump-biden-comparison-ukraine-cpt-vpx.cnn

Of course CNN has more clout than Beck.  Just add the other liberal, usual suspects like the NY Times and Washington Post, and Biden's home free. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on September 28, 2019, 05:28:06 pm
You may have Boris and Brexit, but we now have impeachment hearings this side of the pond to keep us entertained. And who knew you would get a different take on it depending on which papers you read and which news you watch.
and what fora your read...!
It came to me as a surprise :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 05:35:38 pm
and what fora your read...!
It came to me as a surprise :)

One doesn’t read “fora” but “forums.”
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 28, 2019, 06:52:03 pm
One reads both:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forum

One can visit fora (in Rome), but can’t read them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Ivo_B on September 29, 2019, 04:40:50 am
One doesn’t read “fora” but “forums.”

Wow. More Ad Hominem is difficult!
 :o
 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on September 29, 2019, 07:09:06 am
Sure, as one can equally well visit one forum (in Rome), but cannot read it.

https://grammarist.com/usage/fora-forums/

Any more distractions from the topic?

Well at least something interesting in this Coffee Corner  ;)

BTW Does somebody know why Marylin Monroe should be THAT important at all? I know, OT...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 08:06:13 am
Wanna see how it worked for the Bidens?

https://www.facebook.com/liberalprivilegeusa/videos/667744380375147/UzpfSTc2NjU5NzIyMjoxMDE1ODA5NTEzMjc5MjIyMw/


No can do: they want me to join facebook, which I shall not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 08:35:26 am
Well at least something interesting in this Coffee Corner  ;)

BTW Does somebody know why Marylin Monroe should be THAT important at all? I know, OT...


Simple: she began her rise to fame as a calendar model and then exploited the dumb blonde ethic to its maximum. She did it very well indeed, but only in a very American way. Perhaps it was an exclusively American concept. Since Hollywood ruled the screens outwith maybe France and Italy, both of which countries produced their own hot favourites but with a decidedly smaller distribution muscle, Marilyn reigned as queen.

Then, through ber connection to various members of the Kennedy family, she moved beyond Hollywood into a different world, one that, and this is very important, many of us believe led to her death - or possible murder. That shock ending to her life is the movie star equivalent to the grassy knoll. On another level, her connection via Arthur M. to the intellectual arts world created the interest for many in the conflict or, should that be, perverse attraction between glamour and mental brilliance, and the reasons why so many people who thought about that may have found the situation irresistible to their ponderings.

Dying at their peak has never done stars any harm. But what was her peak? Her last movie, The Misfits saw her late for work, distressed, drugged and in what looks, in hindsight, to have been highly visible terminal decline. As with Elvis, why was nobody willing to be strong, and help?

She died a lonely death shrouded in mystery, and it continues for us, the public, to this day, though I am quite certain that some people still alive today know the truth.

Death was key to longevity. She died, beautiful in the Hollywood idiom; BB did not, and went on to age and deteriorate from goddess to old woman. To my tastes, in the 50s, BB was queen of them all. But then, I am half Italian - the more dominant half for sure - and allegiances often follow blood, and after all, France and Italy are not that far apart. Ask the Corsicans!

P.S. Both Marilyn and BB are far more interesting people to think about and try to understand than the obvious Trump! Thanks for the prandial diversion!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on September 29, 2019, 09:18:42 am
Problem is Democrat Joe Biden was Vice President at the time.  He put the squeeze on the Ukraine government to stop criminal investigations of his son Hunter Biden who was finagling there to make money.  The VP Biden squeeze is what may be illegal which ironically is what the Democrats are accusing Trump of doing asking Ukraine to start up the investigation again.  It's a small world. What goes around comes around. :)


This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:

"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."

But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 09:43:11 am
This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:

"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."

But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!

I like that; it would fit nicely with reference to gun worshipers of any political leaning. I mean, every day in the city jungle exposes us to attack from panther, lion, rattler, elephant, crocodile and head-hunter. We need protection. Anyway, present dangers aside, supper depends on us shooting something to give to the wife to skin and to cook for supper in order to fuel and to satisfy us hungry men of action.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on September 29, 2019, 09:47:12 am
...a quote from the Washington Post:

If you're depending on the Washington Post for facts, Peter, you're in serious trouble.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on September 29, 2019, 09:57:27 am
If you're depending on the Washington Post for facts, Peter, you're in serious trouble.
I suppose you get your alternate facts from Fox News, Breitbart, and InfoWars.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 10:19:13 am

No can do: they want me to join facebook, which I shall not.

Just join the 21st century, Rob 😉
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 10:30:29 am
This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:

"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."

But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!

You quote a statement by the WP as facts!?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 29, 2019, 10:31:32 am
This notion that Biden pressured Ukraine to not investigate his son is hogwash. For example, a quote from the Washington Post:

"No evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the Bidens has surfaced. Giuliani’s primary allegation — that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to quash a probe into the former minister and Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky — is not substantiated and has been widely disputed by former U.S. officials and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists."

But hey, we don't need no stinking facts--we're Republicans!


Interesting that the anti-Trump, anti-Republican Washington Post and others for 2 1/2 years pushed the crime that Trump colluded with the Russians without having any evidence.  In fact, after two years of investigation, Mueller  cleared Trump, his family and everyone else in America.  But now, you're so quick to accept the Washington Post's theory that Democrat Biden's son, who they support, did not do the crime.  Even though VP Joe Biden admitted publicly that he pressured the Ukrainian government to shut down the investigation. 


Wouldn't it be fair to investigate VP Biden to see if there was collusion on his part with a foreign government?  Or do we just prosecute people we don;t like?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on September 29, 2019, 10:53:20 am
You quote a statement by the WT as facts!?

What's  the WT?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 11:45:48 am
What's  the WT?

Sorry, WP (Washington Post). Corrected.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on September 29, 2019, 11:55:33 am
Kelleyanne Conway hit the nail on the head yesterday when she said something like: "Biden didn't mean what he said, but Trump meant what he didn't say."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on September 29, 2019, 12:50:07 pm

Simple:
...
...

Thank you for the very clear and interesting explanation   :D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 12:53:00 pm
... BTW, if you want to add a new topic on Biden and his son's dealings, please feel free to start a new thread. Let's stay on topic in this one.

That IS the same topic.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on September 29, 2019, 01:20:01 pm
Biden is not being impeached, and he is not called Donald Trump.
It is really pretty simple. Trump asked the president of a foreign country to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general to dig up dirt on a political rival. You can argue about whether there was a quid pro quo for military aid, but a quid pro quo is not necessary. The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 29, 2019, 01:33:02 pm
It is really pretty simple. Trump asked the president of a foreign country to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general to dig up dirt on a political rival. You can argue about whether there was a quid pro quo for military aid, but a quid pro quo is not necessary. The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.
Then Biden who used his office as Vice President and asked Ukraine to drop the investigation of his son is also guilty of abhorrent behavior.  But not impeachable.  We should use elections to remove presidents.

On the other hand, you know that Biden's competition including Harris, Warren, Sanders,  and the other Democrat candidates are thinking how they can stick it to Biden without being attacked. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 01:37:13 pm
... The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.

How about not just ask, but pay for and use it? As in the Steele-dossier case, ordered and paid by DNC and ultimately approved by Hillary?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 29, 2019, 01:37:57 pm
Biden is not being impeached, and he is not called Donald Trump.
Get serious Bart,  The argument for Trump's impeachment has to do with Biden's and his son and what they did which may have been illegal, certainly Biden did what Trump apparently did.  Talk to the Ukrainians.  But if Biden's son did what he seems to have done, asking another country to investigate is not against the law or unusual.  Of course, there's the political issue which is serious.  But you can;t isolate one issue from the other.  Well, you can if you hate Trump and don;t want to hurt the Democrat in the process.  That's the nub of the problem, isn't it.   How to bury Trump without hurting Biden?  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 29, 2019, 01:39:21 pm
How about not just ask, but pay for and use it? As in the Steele-dossier case, ordered and paid by DNC and ultimately approved by Hillary?

Maybe they're all guilty.  Clinton, Biden and Trump.   They should share the same jail cell.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 01:41:23 pm
... How to bury Trump without hurting Biden?  :)

Or as the chorus of Dem candidates clamors: "How to bury Trump AND hurt Biden" ;) Certainly looks like a trump card (pardon the pun) for the Jihad Squad.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 01:49:55 pm
Just join the 21st century, Rob 😉


Not that version of it, thanks!

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 01:57:01 pm
Thank you for the very clear and interesting explanation   :D


Thank you too; writing made me realise some things that I hadn't really thought much about before.

:-)

https://www.magnumphotos.com/arts-culture/eve-arnold-marilyn-monroe-an-appreciation/

I'd just add that this less-than-perfect style of public relations photography is far more interesting, personal and emotionally evocative - at least to me - than the current sort of material we see from those sessions controlled by PR people and the likes, where the best we get is the "best" that the retouchers can produce: waxworks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 02:28:00 pm
Wrong thread.

We should combine this thread with previous Russian Conspiracy threads into a single one: "Failed Democrats' Attempts at Soft Coup d'Etat."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 29, 2019, 02:32:16 pm
I like it more when you are on the attack, Slobodan, than when playing the apologist.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on September 29, 2019, 05:06:42 pm
We should combine this thread with previous Russian Conspiracy threads into a single one: "Failed Democrats' Attempts at Soft Coup d'Etat."

And maybe there is also a link to Marilyn Monroe's death.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 29, 2019, 05:16:37 pm
And maybe there is also a link to Marilyn Monroe....

That would be a thread titled: "Democrat's Successful Attempt at Coup de Bra (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coup%20de%20bra)." ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 30, 2019, 05:05:40 am
That would be a thread titled: "Democrat's Successful Attempt at Coup de Bra (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coup%20de%20bra)." ;)

Slobodan, you have too much spare time on your hands; get a hobby!

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 30, 2019, 10:04:54 am
Slobodan, you have too much spare time on your hands; get a hobby!

My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 30, 2019, 10:13:15 am
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/30/impeachment-or-cia-coup/

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 30, 2019, 10:55:48 am
My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.
Give it away.  No, not the equipment, the prints.  Pick your best.  Blow them up and frame them beautifully.  Then give them to friends and family as gifts.  Portraits of family especially, but landscapes too.  They'll love you for it.  Then every time you're over their house there will be your work hanging in their homes being appreciated every day by the people you admire and love.  What can be better than that?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 30, 2019, 11:05:50 am
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/30/impeachment-or-cia-coup/


A political coup d'etat.  The deep state at work trying to destroy a presidency to advance themselves.  First the phoney "collusion".  Now the phone call. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 11:19:53 am
It is really pretty simple. Trump asked the president of a foreign country to work with his personal attorney and the attorney general to dig up dirt on a political rival. You can argue about whether there was a quid pro quo for military aid, but a quid pro quo is not necessary. The ask, by itself, constitutes abhorrent behavior.

Although this may be true, it does not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  If you disagree, please state the criminal code which he violated. 

Anyway, Newt Gingrich had an interesting discussion on this whole thing last wee.  Essentially he stated that Pelosi can either risk looking stupid and talke about impeachment, or risk looking scary and talk about the policies the candidates are pushing (open borders, completely getting rid of private healthcare, giving free healthcare to illegal aliens, the green new deal, etc.). 

Looking stupid is probably the better path.  Those policies are sure to loose them elections. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 11:21:28 am
Then Biden who used his office as Vice President and asked Ukraine to drop the investigation of his son is also guilty of abhorrent behavior.  But not impeachable.  We should use elections to remove presidents.

On the other hand, you know that Biden's competition including Harris, Warren, Sanders,  and the other Democrat candidates are thinking how they can stick it to Biden without being attacked.

Most of the canidates have already come out and said they would not allow their child to work for a foreign company.  Not sure how you prevent this though, since, they presumably, would be over 18 and can do what they want. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 30, 2019, 11:30:44 am
Most of the canidates have already come out and said they would not allow their child to work for a foreign company.  Not sure how you prevent this though, since, they presumably, would be over 18 and can do what they want. 

You recuse yourself then.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 11:34:42 am
I think Bill Maher put this whole thing best.  At the end of the day, 40% will be on either side and it is the 20% in the middle you need to convince.  Will they be more worried about what Trump said on a phone call or more worried about their phone bill and whether congress has done anything to help? 

Since politicians cant walk and chew gum at the same time, this whole "impeachment thing" (no vote has been held yet, so it is not really an inquiry) will ensure nothing gets done, just like the last two years.  And it is directly the Dems' fault.

I strongly believe that this will go nowhere and those 20% swing voters will be more annoyed at the Dems then Trump for not doing anything.  So, those Dems in vulnerable districts will get voted out and the house will go back to the Republicans. 

Additionally, this all but ruins Bidens chances at winning, which mean Warren will get it, and then Romney's late 2016 prediction will come true.  That being that the Dems response to Trump winning will be to vote for someone so far to the left in 2020, like Warren, she will be un-relatable to the majority of the country and Trump will win a 2nd term. 

Pelosi deep down probably knows this to be true and the longer she can keep Warren's policies out of the news cycle the better.  But it will probably be a failing strategy; eventually people are going to start looking at the policies, especially in the swing states.  No body is really going to care about a phone call. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on September 30, 2019, 12:36:58 pm
No body is really going to care about a phone call.

Because, hey. "It's nothing personal.  It's just business."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on September 30, 2019, 12:53:44 pm
Although this may be true, it does not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  If you disagree, please state the criminal code which he violated. 

Anyway, Newt Gingrich had an interesting discussion on this whole thing last wee.  Essentially he stated that Pelosi can either risk looking stupid and talke about impeachment, or risk looking scary and talk about the policies the candidates are pushing (open borders, completely getting rid of private healthcare, giving free healthcare to illegal aliens, the green new deal, etc.). 

Looking stupid is probably the better path.  Those policies are sure to loose them elections. 
The whole thing about impeachment is that the Dems want to keep the discussion going until the election.  They really don't care about actually impeaching him.   Then they will make Trump the issue for the campaign not their policies. That worked well for them in 2018. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on September 30, 2019, 12:54:56 pm

Since politicians cant walk and chew gum at the same time, this whole "impeachment thing" (no vote has been held yet, so it is not really an inquiry) will ensure nothing gets done, just like the last two years.  And it is directly the Dems' fault.


Well, Trump played a part too, I'd say.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 02:04:24 pm
Well, Trump played a part too, I'd say.  :)

But at least he has gotten stuff done.  The economy is doing very well, someone has finally taken China to task, the judiciary is completely changed, new tax policy (which contrary to Liberals has helped every one, including myself), etc. 

The only thing the Dems have done policy wise is colossally screw up and capitulated to the Senate with the border bill because they refused to address the issue until the last minute.  If they had taken it for what it was when it started, they probably would have gotten something out of it.  A total loss for them and a win/win for the Republicans. 

So yes, the Dems have squandered their time.  Even Governor Cuomo agrees this impeachment will be a waste of time and a distraction. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on September 30, 2019, 02:26:05 pm
You recuse yourself then.

Actually I mis-quoted, they said they would not allow their VP's children from working at a major foreign company. 

Oh what a lovely out that statement gets them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on September 30, 2019, 02:57:38 pm
My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.

I hope you are joking.

You do photography extremely well; don't betray your talent. Or at the very least, decide on the body and single lens you find give you most joy and keep them.

There is always tomorow. Photography has saved my sanity these past (almost) eleven years.

I have seldom been more serious than in my writing of this.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on September 30, 2019, 03:20:07 pm
I'm with Rob on this one, Slobodan. You're a damn good photographer. That has nothing to do with the throngs of people who are snapping away with their cellphones. When I hear somebody say something like this I always flash on the Impressionist exhibition in Paris in 1874, and the vast quantity of artworks in the Salon, few if any of which anyone could identify today, while the Impressionists banished to Nadar's studio brought on a whole new world of art. The quantity of crap out there has absolutely nothing to do with your own talent. I'm also with Rob when he says that photography has saved his sanity. It's saved mine too, if I ever had such a thing. Leaving my mountains for good was a shock, but I can keep on shooting, and that makes life worthwhile. Get your ass out there and make some photographs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on September 30, 2019, 04:13:16 pm
Three House Committees today subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani to produce Ukraine related documents. This follows up a subpoena to Mike Pompeo on Friday. Speaking of Mike Pompeo, it turns out he was on the call between Trump and the President of Ukraine.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 30, 2019, 10:38:52 pm
And now something totally unrelated:

Golfing in the Hamptons with Devon Archer, who served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Hunter.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 01, 2019, 03:45:58 am
My club is bigger than your club.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 01, 2019, 07:36:04 am
And now something totally unrelated:

Golfing in the Hamptons with Devon Archer, who served on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Hunter.

If it’s what you say, I love it!

PS - don’t give up photography.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: josh.reichmann on October 01, 2019, 09:48:55 am
I hope you are joking.

You do photography extremely well; don't betray your talent. Or at the very least, decide on the body and single lens you find give you most joy and keep them.

There is always tomorow. Photography has saved my sanity these past (almost) eleven years.

I have seldom been more serious than in my writing of this.

Rob

I effectively “quit music” and sold my gear over a few years (including a 1969 telecaster) when Pro Tools (the virtual studio program) became common on every aspiring musician’s Mac. It “got worse” when this evolved into the application Garage Band which actually comes with every new Mac. It has plug ins which replicate Fender twins, Gibson’s, broken amps, stage and stadium rigs, every and any old 1920’s mic and most rare and common stock guitar peddle to amp configurations. Stuff one spends decades toying with or never accessing without this new tool.

You can now sequence beats and lift and sample your own work or others and make “music” in hours or less using your voice (turning your voice into any instrument etc) and a dinky keyboard which would have been an inaccessible process for everyone and for %99 of musicians an impossible mission of gear sourcing, until about a decade ago.

 You can obviously promote and make your own videos with similar online tools now.

You know what? People still use professional studios. Still need video directors and producers. I just went to a professional studio with my non virtual gear in hand.

People also still hire PR, and they still press vinyl . All of these are resurgent because easy access and the ability to tinker for curious people or dilettantes does not a serious musician make, and art is clearly the subtle membrane separating the joy of “can” with the questing for “why?”.

But as I said, my years feeling uniquely qualified and proud of my personal gear and the sound I got for live performing and for in-studio were altered in the face of ubiquitous new tool access. I got dismayed.

It has taken me 10 years to start on a new album. Studios are better than ever and all that the plug in online sound revolution did was accentuate the ability for a studio to cater to a musician’s needs, by mixing the new tools with the old.

It’s turning out through the insta / phone revolution that most people (even with an eye) put little time into deepening process and most Landscape photography observably differs (despite filters) from a snap by a tourist to a person on the hunt with a proper camera.

Old tools, like an actual amp, with a guitar which has been “broken in”, with a real spring reverb laid across the room, the right room, the time spent on song writing, the right band mates or engineer, and the awareness of sound as a flowing properly outside of the computer, moving through the electricity in the air - is an entirely undefeatable endeavour.

So it is with photography. No one can replicate the hours spent, the tactile relationship to a camera made to be brought to the eye, the meaning behind the activity which emboldens beyond quick fix satisfaction.

Don’t give up.

You’ll come back anyways. If it truly called you to begin with.

It keeps happening for me with music, photography, teaching meditation (in the face of the mindfulness trend), visual art- after seeing what is popular.

 I quit every year, multiple times a year, wonder why, become exhausted, I become cynical... something calls it all back.  I do it because deep down I have to

I try and remember that.

(Oh, and the impeachment seems a confused flailing plan if desirable for many)

🥂
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 11:09:19 am
...Old tools, like an actual amp, with a guitar which has been “broken in”, with a real spring reverb laid across the room, the right room, the time spent on song writing, the right band mates or engineer, and the awareness of sound as a flowing properly outside of the computer, moving through the electricity in the air - is an entirely undefeatable endeavour.

So it is with photography. No one can replicate the hours spent, the tactile relationship to a camera made to be brought to the eye, the meaning behind the activity which emboldens beyond quick fix satisfaction...


When I want to slow down and contemplate my navel, I grab my film equipment, tripod and hand held light meter.  If I take three shots in that day, it's a lot.  I get peaceful, one with nature, and myself. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 01, 2019, 12:10:19 pm
Let's try to stay on topic folks. Navel gazing about why you are a photographer deserves its own thread.

On impeachment, Special Envoy Volker, who resigned on Friday, and acted as a go-between between Giuliani and President Zelensky's aide, is set to be deposed on Thursday. Pompeo is crying he and his underlings need more time to prepare for depositions and produce documents than the October 4th deadline Schiff et al. has given them. After all, Schiff gave Giuliani until the 15th to produce his documents. Meanwhile, Trump is desperately trying to find out the identity of the whistleblower, whose anonymity is protected under federal whistleblower law.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 12:16:20 pm
Of seemingly little importance to the Trump apologists here is the fact that the Trump administration deemed it necessary hide the call record.

The only thing worse than hiding is being caught hiding.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 01, 2019, 12:23:35 pm
Of seemingly little importance to the Trump apologists here is the fact that the Trump administration deemed it necessary hide the call record...

It should have stayed hidden (classified). Making it public is doing more damage to the US foreign policy than hundred phone calls like that. There is a reason things are classified.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 01, 2019, 12:39:28 pm
It's amazing how serious this situation is and yet, Pelosi let her house leave on a two week recess.  You would think impeachment and treason and a "betrayal of his oath of office," as Pelosi put it, would warrant immediate action and forgoing of any vacations.  But I guess everyone, even Democrats, need a little away time from work to blow off steam.   

Anyway, until there is an actual vote on the floor that gets enough ya's to pass (maybe 4th time will be charm since, you know, they voted 3 times before and failed), this is all theatre.  But I really doubt a vote will ever happen that actually gets enough votes.  Pelosi will surely see any floored impeachment inquiry gets just enough votes to please the progressives but never actually passes.  Why? 

An interesting aspect about parliamentary procedure is that only the majority party has subpoena power, allowing them to control the conversation ... unless there is a formal impeachment investigation.  Then the minority party can start making subpoenas and forcing their side of the story.  Not a great idea when still half the country is against impeachment and a sizable portion are still undecided. 

As I said before, at the end of the day, this will go nowhere, yet again, except that Biden's campaign is ruined and Liberals will have the exceptionally difficult task of convincing swing states to back the far left wing policies of Warren.  Good luck with that! 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 12:45:21 pm
It should have stayed hidden (classified). Making it public is doing more damage to the US foreign policy than hundred phone calls like that. There is a reason things are classified.

Why?  Trump himself termed the call "perfect".  Why hide perfection?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 01:56:20 pm
Why?  Trump himself termed the call "perfect".  Why hide perfection?
Presidential phone calls with foreign leaders are classified as a regular procedure. Trump declassified it and released it immediately to clear up the matter. Yet you criticize him.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 01, 2019, 02:22:11 pm
Presidential phone calls with foreign leaders are classified as a regular procedure. Trump declassified it and released it immediately to clear up the matter. Yet you criticize him.
It did not exactly clear things up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 03:34:22 pm
It did not exactly clear things up.

The call was buried at a deeper level, on a higher-security server than "normal" presidential phone calls.

You didn't answer the question: "Why?"

And he released a redacted voice-to-text version. Apparently the call wasn't audio recorded.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 04:34:24 pm
The call was buried at a deeper level, on a higher-security server than "normal" presidential phone calls.

You didn't answer the question: "Why?"

And he released a redacted voice-to-text version. Apparently the call wasn't audio recorded.
This is starting to sound like the collusion controversy that lasted 2 1/2 years.    Meanwhile no one is discussing the real issues of the country. It's all politics.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 01, 2019, 05:00:10 pm
This is starting to sound like the collusion controversy that lasted 2 1/2 years.    Meanwhile no one is discussing the real issues of the country. It's all politics.

Although I do not normally like to reference Fox News, since I find it too partisan like MSNBC, there is an interesting take on this by a former Democratic DC operative.  Before going on to give his take, one thing we all need to remember is that many house Dems are in primary challenges with far left wing progressives who are foaming at the mouth over impeachment, and no one wants to become a victim of the next AOC.  This is a big part of the reason so many Dems are backing impeachment. 

So, according to the article, Pelosi has timed this so that the impeachment inquiry will be active throughout the primaries, leaving those in progressive districts safe.  But, more then likely, this will blow over just afterwards so that those in moderate or Trump districts will be able to campaign on policy. 

Of course, the writer does point out the flaw that this will probably destroy Joe Biden and the Dems will be stuck with defending and selling ultra-progressive policies of Warren.  He predicts that Warren will probably out perform HRC in NY and CA, but is questionable whether she would ever appeal to swing state voters. 

I personally feel Warren would loose NY, especially if you take into account De Blasio's failed time in office and the pushing away of Amazon.  Additionally, I just cant see what those Dems in moderate districts could possibly run on policy wise since they have accomplished nothing to sell. 

Anyway, this is just a one ring circus at this point.  If an official impeachment investigation passes the house floor and the house Republicans get subpoena power, that is when Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus comes out of retirement. 

Biden may survive this current situation, but an official investigation will bring never ending subpoenas of Hunter Biden and associates to the hill.  I just cant imagine anyone else but Biden giving Trump a run for his money in the swing states. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 05:30:06 pm
Although I do not normally like to reference Fox News, since I find it too partisan like MSNBC, there is an interesting take on this by a former Democratic DC operative.  Before going on to give his take, one thing we all need to remember is that many house Dems are in primary challenges with far left wing progressives who are foaming at the mouth over impeachment, and no one wants to become a victim of the next AOC.  This is a big part of the reason so many Dems are backing impeachment. 

So, according to the article, Pelosi has timed this so that the impeachment inquiry will be active throughout the primaries, leaving those in progressive districts safe.  But, more then likely, this will blow over just afterwards so that those in moderate or Trump districts will be able to campaign on policy. 

Of course, the writer does point out the flaw that this will probably destroy Joe Biden and the Dems will be stuck with defending and selling ultra-progressive policies of Warren.  He predicts that Warren will probably out perform HRC in NY and CA, but is questionable whether she would ever appeal to swing state voters. 

I personally feel Warren would loose NY, especially if you take into account De Blasio's failed time in office and the pushing away of Amazon.  Additionally, I just cant see what those Dems in moderate districts could possibly run on policy wise since they have accomplished nothing to sell. 

Anyway, this is just a one ring circus at this point.  If an official impeachment investigation passes the house floor and the house Republicans get subpoena power, that is when Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus comes out of retirement. 

Biden may survive this current situation, but an official investigation will bring never ending subpoenas of Hunter Biden and associates to the hill.  I just cant imagine anyone else but Biden giving Trump a run for his money in the swing states. 

If Biden starts dropping in the polls, you could see Hillary jump in again to pick up the "moderate" banner.  Blacks especially in the South in the early nomination process like the Clintons.  They don;t identify with Indian Princess Warren who tried to fake her minority status. Also, she's too professorial for middle American whites.  She's got a strange tick the way her body moves like someone who can;t dance who's trying to do the lindy hop.

NY and CA will never vote for Trump even if he promised them lifetime greens fee passes to all his golf courses.  I agree about the impeachment.  It's just to keep the investigation going to keep on hurting Trump because they want to make the election about Trump.  The Dems haven't done anything important since he was elected except to try to impeach him.  We use to wait for elections to get rid of presidents we didn't like.  What the Dems forget is what goes around comes around.  One day they'll be a Democrat president and a Republican House.  So the wheel will turn.  On the other hand, this may just be the Dems chance to get even for the 1990's Bill Clinton impeachment, another stupid waste of time that hurt the country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 01, 2019, 05:42:22 pm
I thought this was an interesting article about telephone security https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194). I am kind of surprised to hear that the President didn't already have the best that money can buy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 07:52:52 pm
This is starting to sound like the collusion controversy that lasted 2 1/2 years.    Meanwhile no one is discussing the real issues of the country. It's all politics.

So, it's not important what he appears to have done?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 01, 2019, 08:23:21 pm
I thought this was an interesting article about telephone security https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/white-house-trump-leaks-code-015194). I am kind of surprised to hear that the President didn't already have the best that money can buy.

I have some familiarity with the types of national secrets stored on the "system" referred to in this Politico account, although not the particular White House server, itself, and the report about a recent access-control "upgrade" during the Trump Administration doesn't ring true: any connection always should have been logged to identify the specific individual, the particular information, and the type of access.  I've read several stories today that attempt to explain how information of this kind is restricted and they all contain what appear to me to be errors.  I suspect these are the result of people in the government (who really shouldn't be discussing this stuff except with appropriate executive branch agencies and the two congressional intelligence committees) trying to be discreet to avoid revealing sensitive information to reporters, who in turn aren't equipped to understand what their sources are telling them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 08:36:06 pm
So, it's not important what he appears to have done?
The "appearance" that Trump colluded with the Russians was a setup by Democrats and people who hate Trump.  So we wasted 2 1/2 years down the rabbit hole chasing our tails for no reason.  Sure, it helped Democrats win the House.  But it didn't help the country.  So now we'll chase our tails for another year or so until  the next election.  It might help the Democrats win more power, what this whole thing is all about anyway.  But it also won't help the country.  The whole thing just sucked all the oxygen out of the room.  We can't discuss anything else that's really important. 

Surprisingly, despite the attacks and not much happening in Washington, Trump somehow manages to keep things going: NK, China, trade, taxes, deregulation, immigration, the wall, etc.  He learned in business how his personal power can get things done and has applied that as president during his stay in Washington.  Once he's out of office, and people can relax and think more calmly , there will be a real analysis of what he's singularly accomplished that people just didn't have the time to notice while he was doing it.  The fact he can do these things while under the pressure he's under makes it twice as amazing. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 08:50:55 pm
I have some familiarity with the types of national secrets stored on the "system" referred to in this Politico account, although not the particular White House server, itself, and the report about a recent access-control "upgrade" during the Trump Administration doesn't ring true: any connection always should have been logged to identify the specific individual, the particular information, and the type of access.  I've read several stories today that attempt to explain how information of this kind is restricted and they all contain what appear to me to be errors.  I suspect these are the result of people in the government (who really shouldn't be discussing this stuff except with appropriate executive branch agencies and the two congressional intelligence committees) trying to be discreet to avoid revealing sensitive information to reporters, who in turn aren't equipped to understand what their sources are telling them.
Chris, You dangled some sweet fruit in front of us.  Then pulled it away.  Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 08:54:53 pm
The "appearance" that Trump colluded with the Russians was a setup by Democrats and people who hate Trump.

Nice deflection.  I didn't ask about Russia, I asked about Ukraine.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 08:57:28 pm
Nice deflection.  I didn't ask about Russia, I asked about Ukraine.
Well of course,  Russian collusion didn't work.  Obstruction fizzled out.  So now you'll try Ukraine.   What's after that? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 01, 2019, 09:11:17 pm
So, it's not important what he appears to have done?

What he did was neither a high crime nor misdemeanor.  If you feel otherwise, please provide the criminal code he violated. 

Dont worry though, you will be able to vote against him in 2020, which is how it is suppose to work. 

This is like the boy who cried wolf.  Nobody but bleeding hearts really care.  Show me an actual crime and you have my attention, not some supposed quid pro quo Schiff literally had to make up because the actual text did not support it. 

What people really care about are stories like this: South Jersey officials firing back after accused child rapist released before deportation proceedings (https://6abc.com/accused-child-rapist-on-the-run-after-being-released-from-nj-jail/5583071/).  When voters go to the polls next year, these are the stories that will be on peoples' minds.  Not some phone call Trump made with a foreign leader that had no actual criminal activity in it.  All politics is local! 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 01, 2019, 10:00:52 pm
What he did was neither a high crime nor misdemeanor. 

I suggested nothing. I asked Alan if what he (Trump) appeared to have done was important.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 01, 2019, 10:23:07 pm
I suggested nothing. I asked Alan if what he (Trump) appeared to have done was important.
Well I want to know if beating your wife is important?   :-\
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Ivo_B on October 02, 2019, 12:11:17 am
Well of course,  Russian collusion didn't work.  Obstruction fizzled out.  So now you'll try Ukraine.   What's after that?

A juicy #MeToo complaint!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 02, 2019, 08:55:14 am
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.

I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.

Rob

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 02, 2019, 09:07:25 am

I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.


Conservative doesn't mean what it used to. Neither does progressive. Human society has obviously evolved into mixed economies because the extremes don't work. If they worked, we'd be living in them. We should be tweaking things, trying to make like better. But we don't do that, it's too boring maybe.

So we have left-wing loonies lost in their "safe space" fantasy world instead of worrying about the loss of middle-calls income in the last generation, something they could actually do something about. And we have "right-wing" crazies who think they have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies while decrying "religious" head scarves in other cultures. It's 24/7 wall-to-wall bullsh*t now.

People who are lost vote for strong men thinking that the strong men are on their side, but strong men are only ever on their own side.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: degrub on October 02, 2019, 09:21:05 am
....as it ever was and ever will be...as humanity marches to it doom.  :o
Mordor and the White Tower....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 02, 2019, 09:39:36 am
C'mon you guys. According to history we've been through worse crap than this. General craziness, like the climate, goes in cycles. All we really can do is wait it out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 02, 2019, 09:42:05 am
Conservative doesn't mean what it used to. Neither does progressive. Human society has obviously evolved into mixed economies because the extremes don't work. If they worked, we'd be living in them. We should be tweaking things, trying to make like better. But we don't do that, it's too boring maybe.

So we have left-wing loonies lost in their "safe space" fantasy world instead of worrying about the loss of middle-calls income in the last generation, something they could actually do something about. And we have "right-wing" crazies who think they have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies while decrying "religious" head scarves in other cultures. It's 24/7 wall-to-wall bullsh*t now.

People who are lost vote for strong men thinking that the strong men are on their side, but strong men are only ever on their own side.

I agree with you that there are strong men on all sides who would have government and them impose their beliefs on us.  Which is why you need a strong and respected Constitution that limits governmental power.  Unfortunately, people are lazy, ignorant, and greedy and think "their" guy won;t be a tyrant.  One day they wake up and they're living in Venezuela.  Or worse. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 02, 2019, 09:47:37 am
I agree with you that there are strong men on all sides who would have government and them impose their beliefs on us.  Which is why you need a strong and respected Constitution that limits governmental power.  Unfortunately, people are lazy, ignorant, and greedy and think "their" guy won;t be a tyrant.  One day they wake up and they're living in Venezuela.  Or worse.
Oh, the irony.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 02, 2019, 09:52:46 am
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.

I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.

Rob

The problem here is that the Dems need to elect someone who is not batshit crazy. 

Trump vs Biden is very much up in the air.  I am not liking the role Giuliani played in this whole thing; he is Trump's personal lawyer and should not be involved with state affairs.  So, who knows in that election whom I would vote for. 

However with Warren, there is no way I would ever vote for her.  Her policies' would be disastrous.  I am also not a believer in 3rd party candidates since they never stand a chance.  I would enthusiastically vote against Warren with little to no concern for what her opponent did. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 02, 2019, 10:37:58 am
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.

Yes, indeed: the three significant policy initiatives of the Trump Administration that are genuinely Trumpian—more restrictive border controls, protectionist tariffs on imports, and an isolationist approach to foreign relations—are more closely aligned with national Democratic than Republican doctrine.  (The fourth major policy initiative, an income tax reduction skewed to provide most of its benefit to businesses and wealthy individuals in order to encourage capital formation, is consistent with the views of traditional Republicans.  However, it was the product of negotiation between Paul Ryan, then the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives,* and the anti-tax "Freedom Coalition" faction of his party; based on his claims that it was intended to benefit the middle class, it's not clear whether Trump ever actually understood the new tax provisions.)

But with respect to impeachment, I suspect what will determine whether Trump is removed from office will be the political calculation of the Republican members of the House of Representatives, which would vote whether to bring Trump to trial, and the Senate, where the trial would be conducted.**  I wouldn't be surprised if a considerable number of the Republicans in both chambers would prefer to be running with someone other than Trump as their presidential candidate next year, but they're also leery of offending the Trump "base," which contains a high proportion of non-traditional Republican voters.  The latter are highly motivated, and capable of threatening the careers of incumbent Republicans who they consider anti-Trump by challenging them in the intraparty state "primary" elections that will be held in the spring.

Timing will be important to these on-the-fence Republican members of Congress.  If the votes in the House of Representatives (impeachment) and Senate (conviction) come after the primary election season, and if the evidence against Trump appears convincing, the persuadable Republicans may feel that removing him and selecting a different presidential candidate would both improve their own chances of being re-elected and of holding the White House for another four-year term.  Especially if the Democrats appear on the way to selecting a presidential candidate from the left wing of their party, for example Senator Elizabeth Warren, a traditional Republican like Mitt Romney, senator from Utah and a former presidential candidate, would be able to run from the center and possibly secure a larger proportion of the critical suburban vote than Trump.

―――
*In the United States, the speaker of the House of Representatives is a party leader, not a neutral presiding officer of the chamber.

**The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has enough votes to impeach Trump, assuming not too many of its members dissent.  But the participation of a significant number of Republican representatives would no doubt increase the probability of conviction in the Senate.  A two-thirds supermajority would be needed to remove Trump from office, which would require Republican votes.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 02, 2019, 11:01:29 am
The use of impeachment to get rid of presidents we don't like is terrible for governance.  That's what elections are for. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 02, 2019, 11:11:52 am
It could prove interesting to discover the proportion of Republican voter that, whilst faithful to party, come what may, actually disapproves of Trump, the man. And by extension, whether loyalty to party extends even to times when that party goes against the particular voter's own beliefs.

I had always been an arch Tory, but now, I could never vote for them again unless they became something quite different to the vicious, blindly rabid tail - tail? not even a tail, but a tiny inner cancer - that is currently wagging the entire dog.

Rob

Hi Rob, It gets pretty complicated: As a person, I think Trump stinks. But I have to consider what he's done and against whom he's running. Trump made promises during the election and followed through on all of them, or at least tried. That fact is almost unique in political history. In spite of the left-wing propaganda put out by our captive "press," the results have been very favorable, especially for the middle class and "people of color." The "press" never will admit that, but statistics make clear it's true. The other complication is the array of people running against him in the coming election. They all seem obviously insane, except for "lunch-bucket" Joe Biden, who turns out to be nothing more than a befuddled liar. Seems a nice guy, but the crap he's done with son Hunter in Ukraine makes it clear he's also a crook.

So, whaddya do? I know what I'll do: I'll vote for the guy who stinks, but honestly tries to improve things. He's got way too big a mouth, and I think he's wrong about a lot of stuff, especially his tariffs, but. . . what the hell? I've gotta look at the alternatives. Seems to me most of life is like that. Wish it were simpler, but it just ain't.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 02, 2019, 12:51:26 pm
Oh, the irony.

Wasted.

The <insert usual suspects here> think that irony is something to do with laundry.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 02, 2019, 12:53:20 pm
Well I want to know if beating your wife is important?   :-\

Another (but not-so-nice) deflection. In fact, quite a telling response.
You really, really don't want to answer that question, do you, Alan?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 02, 2019, 05:17:40 pm
Another (but not-so-nice) deflection. In fact, quite a telling response.
You really, really don't want to answer that question, do you, Alan?
Well, there was no intent to insult.  I was trying to make a point about the old saw in trials that you can;t ask a double question assuming the answer to the first is true.  The opposing counseling would object to the judge.  You assumed what Trump did was wrong than asked if I thought it was important.  That's like asking the witness when he stopped beating his wife assuming without proving he was beating her in the first place.  Maybe my analogy was too deep.  Sorry. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: degrub on October 02, 2019, 07:34:01 pm
Hi Rob, It gets pretty complicated: As a person, I think Trump stinks. But I have to consider what he's done and against whom he's running. Trump made promises during the election and followed through on all of them, or at least tried. That fact is almost unique in political history. In spite of the left-wing propaganda put out by our captive "press," the results have been very favorable, especially for the middle class and "people of color." The "press" never will admit that, but statistics make clear it's true. The other complication is the array of people running against him in the coming election. They all seem obviously insane, except for "lunch-bucket" Joe Biden, who turns out to be nothing more than a befuddled liar. Seems a nice guy, but the crap he's done with son Hunter in Ukraine makes it clear he's also a crook.

So, whaddya do? I know what I'll do: I'll vote for the guy who stinks, but honestly tries to improve things. He's got way too big a mouth, and I think he's wrong about a lot of stuff, especially his tariffs, but. . . what the hell? I've gotta look at the alternatives. Seems to me most of life is like that. Wish it were simpler, but it just ain't.

He reminds me of a Teddy Roosevelt, but a very impolite version.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 03, 2019, 01:00:23 am
Bloomberg reports that the stock market has barely moved the last two years under Trump.

Quote
Trump loves touting equity gains more than his predecessors, who were usually wary of taking credit for unpredictable returns largely out of anyone’s control. And while the president’s record remains a solid one by historical standards, with the S&P 500 up almost 43% including dividends since his election victory, on a price basis it’s the same return he could’ve claimed in January 2018. Amid uneven economic data and a two-year trade war, the market hasn’t budged since.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-02/the-donald-trump-stock-market-hasn-t-budged-for-almost-two-years
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 03, 2019, 01:46:30 am
My hobby, passion even, is at a stage where nobody cares anymore. When everyone is a photographer, nobody is. I started listing all my gear on eBay.

Slobodan, the other photographers are not quite as good as you.

(http://www.postfun.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/money-with-camera-28652-79518.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bulbe on October 03, 2019, 02:50:30 am
There will be no impeachment, it is natural, this was utter nonsense from the very beginning.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 06:57:22 am
Bart, I'm sure your "media" is telling you this crap, but as the Duke said: "If you believe that, you will believe anything. Check the statistics. Ignore the opinions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 06:59:29 am
Bart, I'm sure your "media" is telling you this crap, but as the Duke said: "If you believe that, you will believe anything. Check the statistics. Ignore the opinions.

I hear there are even people dumb enough to believe what they see on Fox.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 07:46:19 am
Trump's approval has jumped to a 2019 high as a result of the impeachment kabuki performance, and millions are rolling in to finance his campaign.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 07:49:19 am
Trump's approval has jumped to a 2019 high as a result of the impeachment kabuki performance, and millions are rolling in to finance his campaign.

Thanks for bringing attention back to the real issue. For a moment we were in danger of thinking it was about the president breaking the law :-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 08:36:05 am
I'm sure you were "in danger" of thinking that, Jeremy. As usual, The media on both sides of the Atlantic are going out of their way to make everyone believe Trump's breaking the law, and as Barnum pointed out, "There's s sucker born every minute." So far, we've seen a lot of bad judgement on Trump's part, but nobody's been able to come up with an actual law he's broken. Every time they come up with what they think is a law he's broken, it turns out that "law" was broken by Obama over and over, and it turns out it isn't a "law" at all.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 09:10:24 am

.... nothing ....

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 09:19:59 am
Now that's what I like to see. The throwing of hands in the air, widely spaced.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 10:03:54 am
. . .the country is in many ways worse off than before he took office.

Bart, I was in a hurry this morning, so I went back over your outburst a second time. Give me some examples of these "many ways." You're putting forth opinions without support. With the charts, at least you were attempting to support your opinions. Of course the charts were based on biased guesses and BS, but at least it was an attempt.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 10:17:08 am
I hear there are even people dumb enough to believe what they see on Fox.
Actually, I watch what you watch - MSNBC and CNN.  Then I figure the truth is everything opposite what they say.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 03, 2019, 10:21:38 am
Actually, I watch what you watch - MSNBC and CNN.  Then I figure the truth is everything opposite what they say.  :)
Based on what?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 10:28:52 am
Based on what?
That they hate Trump and provide biased one-sided news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 10:42:02 am
Hi Russ,

From my perspective, most of what Trump has done is undo what the previous administration has done. Hardly constructive, and the country is in many ways worse off than before he took office. The international standing of the USA is at a record low, if it were not for those who go against the government's intentions. The only remaining friends (buyers of defense equipment) are folks like Mohammad bin Salman, and they try to let the USA do his dirty work with Iran, and Kim Jong-un, another dictator.

In fact, it's still the Steve Bannon playbook of destroying the cohesion of the nation on many levels, and then take over control. Divide and conquer. But Trump is unfit for that latter part of the strategy. Trump only cares about Trump, the rest is collateral damage to him, which he couldn't care less about. The economy was already picking up during Obama, and despite Trump's policies has not collapsed yet (at the expense of the national deficit). Now he's looking for a Tradewar with Europe (who will return the favor).

...

Cheers,
Bart
Trump has:
1. Destroyed ISIS territory and made what's left a rump organization helping the whole world including you guys in Europe.  I haven;t heard any thank you's.
2. Challenged China with trade war to get them to stop stealing intellectual property from us and you.  If we get get them to stop, you will gain a lot of advantages as we do as they'll stop stealing your stuff too.  You're welcome.  By the way, as usual it's America who's taking the economic hit mainly with tariffs while you guys sit back and let us do all the dirty work.
3. He sat down with Kim and stopped them  from testing ICBMs and nuclear weapons.  Not a bad start.  So there's still peace on the Korean peninsula.  What have you guys done there to keep the peace?
4. Spearheaded new tax regulation that have increase capital investment and helped the American economy.
5.  Created the lowest unemployment rate ever for minorities,  The best in 70 years for everyone else.
6.  Stock market at the highest ever.
7. Re-vamped NAFTA trade for better deals for America with Canada and Mexico.  Europe is next.  Of course, you might not like what he does.  But he's our president protecting us, not you.  I'm sure you understand.  Well, maybe you don't.  After Obama, everyone in the world thought our presidents worked for them. 
8. Challenged China territory grab in the South China Sea to keep the world free from their heavy hand.  Lately British, Australian and other navies have joined in to help out.  That's appreciated.  After all, it's your ocean as well.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 10:53:17 am
"5.  Created the lowest unemployment rate ever for minorities,  The best in 70 years for everyone else"

(https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:bba1835ca6914355bacb45e51ebc2659/800.jpeg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:03:30 am
"5.  Created the lowest unemployment rate ever for minorities,  The best in 70 years for everyone else"

(https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:bba1835ca6914355bacb45e51ebc2659/800.jpeg)
Presidents get credit or blame for what's going on during their term.  In any case, all economists give Trump credit for a good economy although many don't like his trade policies.  By the way, you only flagged item 5.  Thanks for  agreeing with all the others that he did a great job on.  That's appreciated. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 11:06:38 am
Presidents get credit or blame for what's going on during their term.  In any case, all economists give Trump credit for a good economy although many don't like his trade policies.  By the way, you only flagged item 5.  Thanks for  agreeing with all the others that he did a great job on.  That's appreciated.

That's "Alan logic" in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:17:27 am
Have they?
Yes, Democrat leaders have called for Trump to be put in solitary confinement.

"Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters over her recent twitter attack on Donald Trump. In a tweet on Tuesday, Waters said impeachment wasn't enough for the president, adding: "He needs to be imprisoned and put in solitary confinement."
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/10/03/anderson-cooper-presses-maxine-waters-on-controversial-trump-tweet/23825879/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:18:35 am
That's "Alan logic" in a nutshell.
You only objected with #5.  So the others are true unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 03, 2019, 11:29:27 am
You only objected with #5.  So the others are true unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.

Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 03, 2019, 11:49:18 am
You only objected with #5.  So the others are true unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.
Jeremy did not object to no5 -
It was the facts that were in conflict with your so called "facts based on what you see and hear"

have it your way:
So the others are also untrue unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 03, 2019, 11:51:06 am
One could easily refute each and every one of the <insert usual suspects here> claims, but, as we've seen over and over, they'd either ignore the refutations or dispute them with deflections and whataboutisms.  Distract, delay, deny.

In other words, a waste of keystrokes.  Just like this post. :(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:51:27 am
Jeremy did not object to no5 -
It was the facts that were in conflict with your so called "facts based on what you see and hear"

have it your way:
So the others are also untrue unless you don't agree.  I'm listening.
Huh? ???
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 11:53:18 am
One could easily refute each and every one of the <insert usual suspects here> claims, but, as we've seen over and over, they'd either ignore the refutations or dispute them with deflections and whataboutisms.  Distract, delay, deny.

In other words, a waste of keystrokes.  Just like this post. :(
You're either too lazy to respond or can't come up with the proof to prove me wrong. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 11:55:12 am
Outburst? If you don't like me using charts, I'll have to use words.

- Denying climate change instead of adapting to it or, heaven forbid, preparing for the consequences.
- Dismantling of the EPA, and thus creating health risks for American citizens.
- Destroying the current and future markets for, e.g. Soybean, producers. Brasil thanks you for developing a new market for them, China.
- Europe pulled out of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) due to an untrustworthy partner, i.e. the USA.
- Creating distrust between intelligence partners, e.g. Europe has become more careful about what to share, since it may well end up being shared with the wrong countries, which is a risk for assets.
- Trust issues between NATO partners due to the president's underestimation of Putin's gameplan.
And more things that are not the main topic of this thread, e.g. healthcare.

On topic, what is your opinion on:

5 potential offenses in the phone-transcript
1. The president 'threatening'  to misuse congressionally appropriated (military) funds,
2. extortion from a foreign head of state, of
3. a foreign intervention into the US political and electoral process,
4. through the mechanism of the gross violation of the civil liberties of 2 US citizens,
5. extorting the dishing of dirt on a political opponent


Attempted hiding of information to frustrate the work of house members (to ensure that the Constitution is respected).
Threatening the life of whistleblowers, by labeling them as spies (that can face the death penalty), could be added.

Cheers,
Bart

Bert, please, this is all inference.  He did not, once, during the phone call bring up the military funds let along threaten to with hold or misuse them.  Trump asked Ukraine to help with an investigation his AG Bill Barr was conducting and to look into the  Bidens' actions, which on the surface do not appear innocent.  (And the whole no evidence has not been found is a horrible argument since no investigation has yet to be conducted.  This excuse would not have worked with Trump on Russia.)  On top of that, by treaty, Ukraine is suppose to help us with investigation, just like they did with the Russian investigation the Dems were so willing to receive help on. 

How is investigating someone a violation of civil liberties?  Please explain. 

Last, I get it, asking a foreign leader to drudge up dirt on a political opponent does not sound good, for either Trump in this situation or for the Dems with the Russian Collusion.  But, politics is a blood sport and if it was good for the Dems, then it should be good for Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 03, 2019, 11:58:10 am
You're either too lazy to respond or can't come up with the proof to prove me wrong.
Actually, they just don't want to waste their time going down a rabbit hole with you. And you still have not said whether you think Trump asking Ukraine President Zelensky to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son was wrong. So, according to your logic, we can deem as admitted that you do think it was wrong.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 12:02:24 pm
In the beginning of this whole thing, I was kind of interested in seeing what was going on. 

Then the transcript was released and I read it over.  Not one example of a quid pro quo or extortion. 

So a couple of days ago, I was thinking well, maybe there is still other things here worth looking at. 

Then last night it comes out that Schiff's staff had direct contact with the whistleblower a few days before the complaint was submitted (and rejected I might add since he had no first hand knowledge of the phone call) after Schiff repeatably denied he or his staff had contacts with the whistleblower. 

Last week, when some Republicans made the claim that the report was too well written, in favor of the Dems, to have been only written by the CIA operative without help from the opposition, I was thinking this is crazy talk.  Now I have to give this claim a high level of credence. 

This is looking more and more like a political theatre by the Dems, especially with Pelosi not even making it official and holding a vote. 

Another interesting thing I heard today, impeachment is like a run away train once it starts.  There is no controlling it or stopping it.  Pelosi wants to keep this hyper-focused and on the Dems terms, but then again AOC and Schumer want to use everything and the kitchen sink, and the Republicans want to start talking about the Bidens, maybe even HRC will come up again. 

This thing is going to spiral out of control, especially with no actual criminal violation, and come back around to crush those who started the whole mess, the Dems. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 12:03:34 pm
Bert, please, this is all inference.  He did not, once, during the phone call bring up the military funds let along threaten to with hold or misuse them.  Trump asked Ukraine to help with an investigation his AG Bill Barr was conducting and to look into the  Bidens' actions, which on the surface do not appear innocent.  (And the whole no evidence has not been found is a horrible argument since no investigation has yet to be conducted.  This excuse would not have worked with Trump on Russia.)  On top of that, by treaty, Ukraine is suppose to help us with investigation, just like they did with the Russian investigation the Dems were so willing to receive help on. 

How is investigating someone a violation of civil liberties?  Please explain. 

Last, I get it, asking a foreign leader to drudge up dirt on a political opponent does not sound good, for either Trump in this situation or for the Dems with the Russian Collusion.  But, politics is a blood sport and if it was good for the Dems, then it should be good for Trump. 



You mean like when Hillary paid $10 million dollars to get a British spy to collude with Russian spies to develop the phoney dossier to smear Trump with dirt and be used to start a phoney investigation for two years by Mueller?  At least with the Bidens, they appear to have been involved in something shady.  But certainly worthy of an investigation. In any case, the Democratic congressional leadership wil twist this with the anti-Trump press into something worse.  Politics is dirty.  And the press is against Trump.  They've always been against Republicans and conservatism..
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 12:06:49 pm
In the beginning of this whole thing, I was kind of interested in seeing what was going on. 

Then the transcript was released and I read it over.  Not one example of a quid pro quo or extortion. 

So a couple of days ago, I was thinking well, maybe there is still other things here worth looking at. 

Then last night it comes out that Schiff's staff had direct contact with the whistleblower a few days before the complaint was submitted (and rejected I might add since he had no first hand knowledge of the phone call) after Schiff repeatably denied he or his staff had contacts with the whistleblower. 

Last week, when some Republicans made the claim that the report was too well written, in favor of the Dems, to have been only written by the CIA operative without help from the opposition, I was thinking this is crazy talk.  Now I have to give this claim a high level of credence. 

This is looking more and more like a political theatre by the Dems, especially with Pelosi not even making it official and holding a vote. 

I just wonder if independents are getting the Democrat gameplan to attack TRump.  You can always find things to twist into what you want.  If the independents don't get it, Trump is toast in the election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 03, 2019, 12:10:33 pm
You're either too lazy to respond or can't come up with the proof to prove me wrong.

It's not a question of being lazy, Alan.  It's a question of stopping beating one's head against a brick wall.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 12:12:45 pm
Actually, they just don't want to waste their time going down a rabbit hole with you. And you still have not said whether you think Trump asking Ukraine President Zelensky to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son was wrong. So, according to your logic, we can deem as admitted that you do think it was wrong.
See my response #136 re-printed below.  Of course, it's sleazy.  Politics is sleazy.  Hillary was sleazy.  The Dems are sleazy.  Trump is sleazy. They're all sleazy.  How do they all sleep at night? 

#136:
You mean like when Hillary paid $10 million dollars to get a British spy to collude with Russian spies to develop the phoney dossier to smear Trump with dirt and be used to start a phoney investigation for two years by Mueller?  At least with the Bidens, they appear to have been involved in something shady.  But certainly worthy of an investigation. In any case, the Democratic congressional leadership wil twist this with the anti-Trump press into something worse.  Politics is dirty.  And the press is against Trump.  They've always been against Republicans and conservatism..
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 12:15:01 pm
It's not a question of being lazy, Alan. It's a question of stopping beating one's head against a brick wall.
Since when has that stopped us all from posting?  All these pages and we still got another 13 months to the next election.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 03, 2019, 12:54:29 pm
Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

If you are unable to write something constructive, or at the very least sensible, rather than resorting to abuse, it would be better if you were to remain silent.

Yes, that is a warning to you - and to everyone else.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 01:09:54 pm
Slobodan, the other photographers are not quite as good as you.

(http://www.postfun.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/money-with-camera-28652-79518.jpg)

That looks like the Nikon I lost a while back. Do you think he'd take a couple of bananas and return it to me?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 03, 2019, 03:16:27 pm
Outburst? If you don't like me using charts, I'll have to use words.

- Denying climate change instead of adapting to it or, heaven forbid, preparing for the consequences.
- Dismantling of the EPA, and thus creating health risks for American citizens.
- Destroying the current and future markets for, e.g. Soybean, producers. Brasil thanks you for developing a new market for them, China.
- Europe pulled out of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) due to an untrustworthy partner, i.e. the USA.
- Creating distrust between intelligence partners, e.g. Europe has become more careful about what to share, since it may well end up being shared with the wrong countries, which is a risk for assets.
- Trust issues between NATO partners due to the president's underestimation of Putin's gameplan.
And more things that are not the main topic of this thread, e.g. healthcare.

On topic, what is your opinion on:

5 potential offenses in the phone-transcript
1. The president 'threatening'  to misuse congressionally appropriated (military) funds,
2. extortion from a foreign head of state, of
3. a foreign intervention into the US political and electoral process,
4. through the mechanism of the gross violation of the civil liberties of 2 US citizens,
5. extorting the dishing of dirt on a political opponent

Attempted hiding of information to frustrate the work of house members (to ensure that the Constitution is respected).
Threatening the life of whistleblowers, by labeling them as spies (that can face the death penalty), could be added.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, I don’t really have time for this, but let’s look at some of your arguments. Then I’m outta here.

- Denying climate change instead of adapting to it or, heaven forbid, preparing for the consequences.

You’re begging the question. You start with the baked-in assumption that climate change is damaging and driven by human activity. That’s nothing more than your personal opinion, absorbed from the crap you’re seeing in your news media. Climate has been changing throughout geologic history. There are plenty of “climate experts” who disagree with the assumptions you’re swallowing.

- Dismantling of the EPA, and thus creating health risks for American citizens.

Begging the question again. You always seem to start with a baked-in assumption. If you’re going to accept that this creates health risks for people, you’re going to have to prove it with some actual data. The statistics I see don’t agree with that assumption at all. We’ve been all over this subject elsewhere. In the U.S., you can walk into any hospital’s emergency room and be taken care of. Taken care of right now, I might add.

- Destroying the current and future markets for, e.g. Soybean, producers. Brasil thanks you for developing a new market for them, China.

I happen to agree with you on this one. I don’t like Trump’s tariffs. I think he’s making a mistake. On the other hand, not all the evidence is in. I’ll wait to see what happens.
 
- Europe pulled out of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) due to an untrustworthy partner, i.e. the USA.

The TTIP negotiations were launched in 2013 and ended without conclusion at the end of 2016. Trump wasn’t president until 2017.

- Creating distrust between intelligence partners, e.g. Europe has become more careful about what to share, since it may well end up being shared with the wrong countries, which is a risk for assets.

Yes. I don’t like this either. I also recall one of the main reasons for that: Hillary was using an unsecure server in a bathroom for top secret, limited access material. Had I done that while I was in the Air Force I’d have spent the rest of my life in jail.
 
- Trust issues between NATO partners due to the president's underestimation of Putin's gameplan.

Are these the “partners” that won’t come up with enough money to support their agreements on defense forces? Germany comes to mind.

As far as the “phone transcript” is concerned, have you read it? The 5 “offenses” you list are all bullshit pushed by the raging, red-eyed, Trump-hating “media.” They’re not in the transcript. And, as far as your assessment of what the House is doing, you’re making me ROTFL. What the House is attempting is called a “coup.” The Democrats have been trying to find ways to do this from the day Trump took office. There have been several coup attempts, beginning with Stormy Daniels and culminating in the limp tool of Mueller. They want to impeach him because they hate him, and “Hillary should have won.” But I’m glad they’re doing this. Trump’s approval rating has jumped up since they started, and millions of dollars for his coming campaign are flowing in. The whole thing is going to blow up in their faces, just as the Mueller thing did. Keep watching.

Cheers, yourself.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 03, 2019, 03:49:58 pm
Of course, it's sleazy.  Politics is sleazy.  Hillary was sleazy.  The Dems are sleazy.  Trump is sleazy. They're all sleazy.

So do you fall in the sleazy but not an impeachable offense category?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 04:12:01 pm
So do you fall in the sleazy but not an impeachable offense category?

I would say this is about right. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 03, 2019, 04:51:35 pm
I would say this is about right.

Bear in mind that "high crimes and misdemeanors" isn't another way of saying "breaking the law," rather it's used historically (at least by some of the founders) as a catch-all term for malfeasance or incompetence in office.   This is clear from reading contemporary (18th century) arguments on the issue, specifically as they pertain to the adoption of the Constitution.  Here (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-the-founders-thought-about-impeachment-and-the-president) is a short, but decent summary on what the language meant to various authors of the actual language.

Considering that, I'd argue that Trump has been rolling up impeachable acts from the start by naming his utterly unqualified and conflicted kids (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/06/ivanka-trump-gets-initial-approval-from-china-for-16-trademarks.html) to manage important government business, and by refusing to properly study (https://time.com/5518947/donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-national-security/) information critical to governance. 

This latest thing?  The President is using governmental leverage to attempt to harm a political opponent.(And no, Obama didn't do the same thing) (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-11-20/gop-surrenders-cherished-irs-scandal-at-last). That's wholly unethical, and easily meets the intended bar of being unfit for office, like so much else that Trump does.  And let's not forget that he's not under indictment already for obstruction because, essentially, the AG said "it's not illegal when the President does it."

The really sad thing here is that I see so many people admitting as much, but qualifying with, "...but I agree what he claims he does, so I'll just put up with his total lack of competence."  I voted for Obama in '08 - it was a tight call for me, and were it not for the joke of a (R) VP candidate and the rising tide of far right backbenchers running down ballot, McCain could have had my vote.  In '12 I did not vote for Obama - he didn't carry through on his promises to deal with some issues that I think are central to the fabric of our nation - the PATRIOT Act, a variety of stupid "war on terror" nonsense. 

If only some of my friends on the right could look inside themselves and understand that admitting you're wrong is ok, and "deregulation" is a pretty sorry reason to suffer the fool that resides in the white house, now that we have years of evidence to that effect.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 06:08:39 pm


If only some of my friends on the right could look inside themselves and understand that admitting you're wrong is ok, and "deregulation" is a pretty sorry reason to suffer the fool that resides in the white house, now that we have years of evidence to that effect.

There is no way, regardless of what might come of this, that Warren would ever have my vote.  Her policies, all of them, are lunacy. 

And all this is doing is ensuring Biden is ruined and Warren gets on the ticket. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 03, 2019, 09:03:34 pm
There is no way, regardless of what might come of this, that Warren would ever have my vote.  Her policies, all of them, are lunacy.

Not all of them, but she's certainly not my preferred candidate.   Then again, she's clearly more suited to the office than Donald Trump, not that that's saying much. 

And all this is doing is ensuring Biden is ruined and Warren gets on the ticket.

Yeah - I think you're right about this.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 03, 2019, 09:40:02 pm
Not all of them, but she's certainly not my preferred candidate.   Then again, she's clearly more suited to the office than Donald Trump, not that that's saying much. 

Yeah - I think you're right about this.

Nope! 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 03, 2019, 10:30:09 pm
I still think that Trump was the whistleblower to get rid of Biden.  On the other hand, it could have been Dems on the left who wanted to get rid of both Biden and Trump and found a very left whistleblower to file the papers.    Another reason why the guy or gal should be known.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 03, 2019, 10:51:51 pm
Nope!

I mean, it's not really debatable.   You may not like her policy proposals, and you may love the proposals that are coming out of the Republican party right now, but there's no logical way to argue that Donald Trump is more capable or suited to making critical decisions that impact 365 million people, even if you don't like the answers she comes up with.  He's demonstrably ignorant and shows no inclination to learn, because he thinks he knows it all already.  He's driven by emotional reactions to slights real and imagined, and he's making not even a pretense of being a leader for the entirety of the nation.  He has few policy positions that show any understanding of the range of complexity that such things require, and he surrounds himself with ideologues and yes-men who show loyalty to Trump over loyalty to America. He's incompetent, petty, stupid, and arrogant, and that's a horrible, horrible combination for the most important position, literally, in the world.     

And balanced against this, Warren wants to advocate for a $15 minimum wage and heath care of all?  She also wants to get rid of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, and a host of other things that are imminently reasonable (In addition to the policy positions she has that are absolutely unreasonable like the wholesale wiping out of student debt and using the government to break up companies she deems dangerous),  BUT... 1) You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have an equal number of nonsense policy positions, AND, 2) That's what Congress is for - to pass laws. They should stop abrogating that duty to the executive and then we wouldn't have to worry about our elected executive doing outrageously stupid stuff (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/).  (Just read that, and if that paints a picture of fitness for office, I don't know what else to tell you.)




Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 03, 2019, 10:57:02 pm
I still think that Trump was the whistleblower to get rid of Biden.  On the other hand, it could have been Dems on the left who wanted to get rid of both Biden and Trump and found a very left whistleblower to file the papers.    Another reason why the guy or gal should be known.

Huh?  May I remind you that the *Trump-appointed IG* found the report credible and relevant.  I know the narrative today is that the whistleblower is some far-left mole that conspired with Adam Schiff to fabricate the entirety of the story, but frankly that's absurd.  The actual facts of the matter seem to be that the whistleblower came to the relevant congressional committee with the report, and the staffer told them, correctly, to take it to the IG.  (You can distinguish this from the WRONG way to do it by looking at what the Trump team did when the Russians came to them with alleged info on Trump.  in THAT case they eagerly took the meeting and then lied about it, while never informing the FBI as is proper)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 12:03:13 am
Huh?  May I remind you that the *Trump-appointed IG* found the report credible and relevant.  I know the narrative today is that the whistleblower is some far-left mole that conspired with Adam Schiff to fabricate the entirety of the story, but frankly that's absurd.  The actual facts of the matter seem to be that the whistleblower came to the relevant congressional committee with the report, and the staffer told them, correctly, to take it to the IG.  (You can distinguish this from the WRONG way to do it by looking at what the Trump team did when the Russians came to them with alleged info on Trump.  in THAT case they eagerly took the meeting and then lied about it, while never informing the FBI as is proper)

James, I was being ironic.  I was trying to make the point that Trump couldn't have done a better job of destroying Biden, his biggest competitor if he wins the nomination, if he was the whistleblower himself.  Now Trump is doubling down asking China to investigate the Bidens calling them crooks.  Warren must be smiling.  The House is putting away Biden for her by trying to impeach Trump because he's calling the Bidens crooks and asking for investigations.     Of course, Trump is doing this for political reasons.  But the press won;t be able to defend Biden too much longer by ignoring in the media what happened in Ukraine and now China.  With Sanders sick with heart problems, the left vote will go increasingly to Warren.  She'll take the lead and Biden will soon be asking for immunity from prosecution.  Then Trump will ask for an investigation of Warren for lying about her heritage.  Minorities will be pissed at her for doing that trying to steal their heritage.  They won't vote for her.  Maybe Hillary will get back into the race. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 12:05:10 am
Here's the article on CHina.

Trump Publicly Urges China to Investigate the Bidens
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-china-bidens.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-china-bidens.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 12:44:11 am
I mean, it's not really debatable.   You may not like her policy proposals, and you may love the proposals that are coming out of the Republican party right now, but there's no logical way to argue that Donald Trump is more capable or suited to making critical decisions that impact 365 million people, even if you don't like the answers she comes up with.  He's demonstrably ignorant and shows no inclination to learn, because he thinks he knows it all already.  He's driven by emotional reactions to slights real and imagined, and he's making not even a pretense of being a leader for the entirety of the nation.  He has few policy positions that show any understanding of the range of complexity that such things require, and he surrounds himself with ideologues and yes-men who show loyalty to Trump over loyalty to America. He's incompetent, petty, stupid, and arrogant, and that's a horrible, horrible combination for the most important position, literally, in the world.     

And balanced against this, Warren wants to advocate for a $15 minimum wage and heath care of all?  She also wants to get rid of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, and a host of other things that are imminently reasonable (In addition to the policy positions she has that are absolutely unreasonable like the wholesale wiping out of student debt and using the government to break up companies she deems dangerous),  BUT... 1) You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have an equal number of nonsense policy positions, AND, 2) That's what Congress is for - to pass laws. They should stop abrogating that duty to the executive and then we wouldn't have to worry about our elected executive doing outrageously stupid stuff (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/).  (Just read that, and if that paints a picture of fitness for office, I don't know what else to tell you.)





Trump wants to expand Medicare.  What's Warren offering?  That doesn't seem so stupid.  Seems fit for office to me. 


"Targeting 'Medicare For All' Proposals, Trump Lays Out His Vision For Medicare"
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/03/766816709/targeting-medicare-for-all-proposals-trump-lays-out-his-vision-for-medicare (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/10/03/766816709/targeting-medicare-for-all-proposals-trump-lays-out-his-vision-for-medicare)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 04, 2019, 04:14:42 am
But isn't a person in authority supposed to act for all, and not pick sides?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 04, 2019, 06:05:41 am
But isn't a person in authority supposed to act for all, and not pick sides?

Don't be silly: the person in authority has but one single, sacred duty: to ensure re-election next time.

Unless that person is BoJo, of course, where the responsibility is to do the above while creating the biggest social mess and upheaval this side of war. And no, it's no egalitarian fantasy that is being proposed: quite the opposite.

And that's my take on both matters.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 04, 2019, 09:45:23 am
Anybody reading about the "impeachment" blowing up in the Democrats' faces, or do your "news media" ignore that kind of news?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 04, 2019, 09:57:38 am
I mean, it's not really debatable.   You may not like her policy proposals, and you may love the proposals that are coming out of the Republican party right now, but there's no logical way to argue that Donald Trump is more capable or suited to making critical decisions that impact 365 million people, even if you don't like the answers she comes up with.  He's demonstrably ignorant and shows no inclination to learn, because he thinks he knows it all already.  He's driven by emotional reactions to slights real and imagined, and he's making not even a pretense of being a leader for the entirety of the nation.  He has few policy positions that show any understanding of the range of complexity that such things require, and he surrounds himself with ideologues and yes-men who show loyalty to Trump over loyalty to America. He's incompetent, petty, stupid, and arrogant, and that's a horrible, horrible combination for the most important position, literally, in the world.     

And balanced against this, Warren wants to advocate for a $15 minimum wage and heath care of all?  She also wants to get rid of mandatory minimums for non-violent offenders, and a host of other things that are imminently reasonable (In addition to the policy positions she has that are absolutely unreasonable like the wholesale wiping out of student debt and using the government to break up companies she deems dangerous),  BUT... 1) You can't tell me that Trump doesn't have an equal number of nonsense policy positions, AND, 2) That's what Congress is for - to pass laws. They should stop abrogating that duty to the executive and then we wouldn't have to worry about our elected executive doing outrageously stupid stuff (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/).  (Just read that, and if that paints a picture of fitness for office, I don't know what else to tell you.)

You have to look at the whole package, which means you need to consider Warren's policies.  The policies she has been selling 24/7 at her rallies are beyond nuts, including the $15 minimum wage btw.  (Yes, that is nuts, it would be a total shock to the economy, would only increase automation at a much higher rate and keep young people from getting their first job.  No teenager is worth $15 a hour.) 

In a Trump vs. Warren race, there is nothing you could say to convince me to vote for Warren.  She has already ruined herself due to the super far left ideas she is pushing, and I would bet the majority of those in the swing states would agree. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 04, 2019, 02:28:46 pm
You have to look at the whole package, which means you need to consider Warren's policies.  The policies she has been selling 24/7 at her rallies are beyond nuts, including the $15 minimum wage btw.  (Yes, that is nuts, it would be a total shock to the economy, would only increase automation at a much higher rate and keep young people from getting their first job.  No teenager is worth $15 a hour.) 

In a Trump vs. Warren race, there is nothing you could say to convince me to vote for Warren.  She has already ruined herself due to the super far left ideas she is pushing, and I would bet the majority of those in the swing states would agree.


Looks like a lot of assumptions there; do you really believe that automation, to the max affordable and possible, is being hampered out of some desire to keep paying employees a salary? You have to be kidding. Business is about getting the most out for the least in; with a qualifier: artists and also shamateur photographers who have an ability to live on air and ego. Instead of cheap photos and paintings, they should conspire to market that ability to thrive on nothing. They would clean up big time, not a couple of cents on the dollar.

Regarding teenagers and their worth not topping fifteen bucks an hour: you are badly out of touch: consider influencers and sports people and musos. And they are just the media-visible ones, and don't include those working their way through college and mowing lawns and washing cars. I won't mention the red light "workers" and drugs mules etc. etc. all of whom are worth a great deal more. The child labour market is supposed to be officially dead; many teens can do the same job as older people whose only attribute is an older passport number.

In fact, your position reads like something my grandparents might have espoused in the 50s.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 03:55:23 pm
Wages should be determined between employers and employees, not the government.  Setting wage levels is like the government setting minimum or maximum costs for products.  Product pricing create black markets.  Minimum wages just eliminate jobs at the lower end for the very people who need jobs.  So instead of helping, it hurts them.  It encourages illegal immigration where low paying jobs go to foreigners who actually earn less than the minimum wage eliminating jobs for low level citizens.  The rest of us just pay through taxes for medical, schools, and other care for families of illegals.  Then we build walls, create safe cities for illegals,  and fight about immigration.  Government should mind its business and go fight a war.  That would be less destructive.  :o
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 04:29:39 pm
Trump demands vote on impeachment investigation by whole Congress before he'll release documents to their subpoenas which he claims are not legal until the House votes.  This will pressure both Democrats and Republican congressmen  to vote where they are creating problems for themselves.  Pelosi is stuck between a rock and a hard spot.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767205170/trump-demands-full-house-vote-on-impeachment-before-complying-with-lawmakers
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 04, 2019, 04:41:54 pm
Trump demands vote on impeachment investigation by whole Congress before he'll release documents to their subpoenas which he claims are not legal until the House votes.  This will pressure both Democrats and Republican congressmen  to vote where they are creating problems for themselves.  Pelosi is stuck between a rock and a hard spot.
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/767205170/trump-demands-full-house-vote-on-impeachment-before-complying-with-lawmakers

This assumes that what Trump "claims" is true.  If I had a dollar etc. etc.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 04, 2019, 04:42:00 pm
Wages should be determined between employers and employees, not the government.  Setting wage levels is like the government setting minimum or maximum costs for products.  Product pricing create black markets.  Minimum wages just eliminate jobs at the lower end for the very people who need jobs.  So instead of helping, it hurts them.  It encourages illegal immigration where low paying jobs go to foreigners who actually earn less than the minimum wage eliminating jobs for low level citizens.  The rest of us just pay through taxes for medical, schools, and other care for families of illegals.  Then we build walls, create safe cities for illegals,  and fight about immigration.  Government should mind its business and go fight a war.  That would be less destructive.  :o

Don't see what this has to do with impeachment. Should employers and employees be allowed to come to a work for food agreement? Maybe indentured servitude?  Would you allow unions?  Where and how would you draw the line at the type of employment contract that is allowed?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 04, 2019, 04:48:44 pm
Don't see what this has to do with impeachment.

Nothing. It is a deflection. Right out of the Trump playbook. It is insidious.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 04:49:47 pm
Don't see what this has to do with impeachment. Should employers and employees be allowed to come to a work for food agreement? Maybe indentured servitude?  Would you allow unions?  Where and how would you draw the line at the type of employment contract that is allowed?
There are plenty of rules that protect employees and unions.  But the government should not get involved with setting wage levels for the reasons I mentioned above.  I'm the only person I know who is an indentured servant - in my home.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 04:52:23 pm
Nothing. It is a deflection. Right out of the Trump playbook. It is insidious.
Trump is fighting back.  You don't really think he'll just roll over do you? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 04, 2019, 04:54:37 pm
Trump is fighting back.  You don't really think he'll just roll over do you?
Is that what you are doing? Fighting back? By deflecting the discussion to other topics?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 04, 2019, 04:57:33 pm
I was responding to other posts about wages.  Go complain to them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 04, 2019, 09:40:31 pm

Looks like a lot of assumptions there; do you really believe that automation, to the max affordable and possible, is being hampered out of some desire to keep paying employees a salary? You have to be kidding. Business is about getting the most out for the least in; with a qualifier: artists and also shamateur photographers who have an ability to live on air and ego. Instead of cheap photos and paintings, they should conspire to market that ability to thrive on nothing. They would clean up big time, not a couple of cents on the dollar.

Regarding teenagers and their worth not topping fifteen bucks an hour: you are badly out of touch: consider influencers and sports people and musos. And they are just the media-visible ones, and don't include those working their way through college and mowing lawns and washing cars. I won't mention the red light "workers" and drugs mules etc. etc. all of whom are worth a great deal more. The child labour market is supposed to be officially dead; many teens can do the same job as older people whose only attribute is an older passport number.

In fact, your position reads like something my grandparents might have espoused in the 50s.

:-)

Rob, with current wages, automation and using robots/machines are too expensive.  It is cheaper to use labor, which is why it has not taken off yet.  However, if wages were suddenly and artificially raised to $15 an hour, automating jobs with machines becomes cheaper that using labor.  So business will start to use machines instead of people for many more jobs. 

Insofar as you teenager example, you are siting very exceptional and unique kids, by far not the norm.  A normal teenager who is more concerned with partying and chasing girls, or guys, around and who has no skills yet is not worth $15 an hour.  No employer would hire a kid for that much. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 05, 2019, 04:06:53 am
Rob, with current wages, automation and using robots/machines are too expensive.  It is cheaper to use labor, which is why it has not taken off yet.  However, if wages were suddenly and artificially raised to $15 an hour, automating jobs with machines becomes cheaper that using labor.  So business will start to use machines instead of people for many more jobs. 

Insofar as you teenager example, you are siting very exceptional and unique kids, by far not the norm.  A normal teenager who is more concerned with partying and chasing girls, or guys, around and who has no skills yet is not worth $15 an hour.  No employer would hire a kid for that much.

Automation has taken off; look at car factories, for one example. They used to be full of human drones, but now there are mainly robots and skilled workers tending robots. A few months ago I watched a fascinating programme about the making of BMW's Mini. Mostly robotic poduction, extreme accuracy and, get this: being the product it is, BMW still manages to market them way above the comparative value level of what the things are. Automation has brought them huge benefits in profitability. And mobility: as the company never ceases to warn the ardent Brexiteers.

Regarding the teenagers: yes, of couse the ones I quoted are notable exceptions; it was a response to your blanket assertion that none was worth that sum.

My daughter is a teacher in Scotland. One of her problems is finding a convincing reply to those unwilling students kept in school by law and age, who ask her why they are being held captive, being taught a lot of irrelevant stuff whilst their mate is out there as a plumber or electrician and making a thousand quid a week, which is close to double what a fully qualified, highly educated school teacher normally makes...

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 05, 2019, 07:31:49 am
Automation has taken off; look at car factories, for one example. They used to be full of human drones, but now there are mainly robots and skilled workers tending robots. A few months ago I watched a fascinating programme about the making of BMW's Mini. Mostly robotic poduction, extreme accuracy and, get this: being the product it is, BMW still manages to market them way above the comparative value level of what the things are. Automation has brought them huge benefits in profitability. And mobility: as the company never ceases to warn the ardent Brexiteers.

Regarding the teenagers: yes, of couse the ones I quoted are notable exceptions; it was a response to your blanket assertion that none was worth that sum.

My daughter is a teacher in Scotland. One of her problems is finding a convincing reply to those unwilling students kept in school by law and age, who ask her why they are being held captive, being taught a lot of irrelevant stuff whilst their mate is out there as a plumber or electrician and making a thousand quid a week, which is close to double what a fully qualified, highly educated school teacher normally makes...

Rob

For manufacturing, yes automation has taken off, but it could be more so.  In retail and service, it has not yet, but that will change if the wages up. 

Insofar as your plumber and electrician examples, for years we have been teaching all kids like they should college bound and put our noses up at craft-mans.  So there is a shortage of these people, which means they can charge a decent amount.  Supply and demand. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 05, 2019, 07:39:15 am
That's why in my country we use a progressive scale, 'Minimum Youth Wage' starting at the age of 15 to 21, and 'Minimum Wage' for ages 21 and more it's at a fixed level.

BTW, Letting people earn a living wage can also boost the economy. That's more likely to happen than with giving tax-breaks to the super rich. Afterall how many additional meals can that upper 1 % buy...?

But, we're engaged in topic drift.

Cheers,
Bart

First, interesting idea on the progressive scale.  Over here I would not hold my breath in getting something like this passed though.  With our current political status, it appears to all or nothing nowadays. 

2nd, lets not forget the super rich typically have their capital invested in the economy some how.  The idea that most are like Scrooge McDuck hoarding all of their money in a giant vault is false.  Not to mention, well designed tax breaks do help normal people too.  Even though the left in my country will never admit it, the Trump tax cuts helped everyone.  For example, he gave a 20% discount on the taxable income for all pass through businesses (those business where the money passes directly to the owner without using payroll), and nearly all small businesses are pass through.  Only C corporations have no pass through process.  It was a nice break for me when I did my taxes. 

Even my brother, who is a self-employed left wing political consultant, got a nice break, although he would never admit it publicly. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on October 05, 2019, 12:39:38 pm
That's why in my country we use a progressive scale, 'Minimum Youth Wage' starting at the age of 15 to 21, and 'Minimum Wage' for ages 21 and more it's at a fixed level.

Ah, the socialist ideal! Control the masses, including how much to pay a teenager. Guess why we moved from the Netherlands to the US?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 05, 2019, 01:25:01 pm
More thread drift. Is everyone ADD?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 05, 2019, 03:07:16 pm
It's not "thread drift" at all, Fab. Who do you think has been trying to mount a coup against Trump since the day the election returns were in? Answer: the whole wild socialist lineup. They couldn't even stand "lunch bucket" Joe Biden, even though he kowtowed to the far left in order to stay in the race. These people want exactly what Bart's describing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 03:19:09 pm
The thread isn't drifting talking about socialist drift for the country.  The key candidate, Democrat Elizabeth Warren, suggests major takeover by government.  The attacks on Trump are  an attempt to eliminate his pro-business, anti socialism re-election.  Installing a major socialist like Warren will have permanent economic effects on America and the world.  Hate to say it, but I'd rather have Hillary Clinton.

Frans is right about minimum wage however you structure it.  It's government getting involved in deciding what best for business and people.  A terrible idea.  Picking winners and losers is a losing proposition for the country - any country.  In any case, minimum wage, as Joe described, will drive business more to automation eliminating jobs at the lower end for poorer people and teens.  Of course there will be more jobs for manufacturing computers (in China?) and of course there will be higher paying jobs for technicians and installers.  Have you been in McDonald's lately.  There's only one person taking orders when there were more before.  They pick up the orders with computer ordering screens where customers tap in their orders and pay with their credit cards.  There's no human taking your order.  More low income jobs lost.  I see it in other fast food places.  Pretty soon the government will limit salaries for high paying jobs and then middle income jobs too.  Central planning is next; takeover of business afterwards.  That's what Sanders and a bunch of the other candidates want.  Then you lose your liberty.  The economy suffers.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 03:49:16 pm
Trumps approval rating up since the Ukraine issue started.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464072-trumps-approval-ticks-to-up-to-highest-level-since-december (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/464072-trumps-approval-ticks-to-up-to-highest-level-since-december)

People are OK with him investigating those crooks the Bidens.  That's why he was elected.  To clean up the swamp.

"To really be mad at Trump for asking foreign leaders to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden or Hillary Clinton, the voters need to believe that Clinton and the Bidens aren’t inherently corrupt. They must also believe that just about all the rules and established groups within American government, especially the intelligence community, deserve unquestioned respect.

Here’s a newsflash: a very large number of Americans don’t have that trust and respect, and they’re generally OK with Trump being the junkyard dog who digs it all out.

This is Donald Trump’s brand."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/heres-why-trumps-poll-numbers-are-defying-the-impeachment-mess.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/04/heres-why-trumps-poll-numbers-are-defying-the-impeachment-mess.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 05, 2019, 05:21:35 pm
Have you been in McDonald's lately.  There's only one person taking orders when there were more before.  They pick up the orders with computer ordering screens where customers tap in their orders and pay with their credit cards.  There's no human taking your order.  More low income jobs lost.
I don't frequent fast food joints, so I guess I am out of the loop. I guess Egg McMuffins make themselves nowadays.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 05, 2019, 05:51:58 pm
I don't frequent fast food joints, so I guess I am out of the loop. I guess Egg McMuffins make themselves nowadays.

Here in Mallorca, the difficulty is hanging on to cooks. They come and go, and the same with waiters; some actually do return to places they abandoned and seem to be taken back with open arms, and all of this despite high youth unemployment. A lot really is work-shy. And again, it comes down to talent and also the ability to get along with and survive the nerve tantrums of owners with so much riding on the last meal a customer enjoys - or not.

Free lunches are rare, either side of the kitchen doors.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 05, 2019, 07:34:38 pm
So you can pay someone who is 21+ years old a wage befitting a 15 year old?
The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour (€6.6/hour). Twenty-nine states have higher minimum wages.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 05, 2019, 09:07:34 pm
It's not "thread drift" at all, Fab. Who do you think has been trying to mount a coup against Trump since the day the election returns were in? Answer: the whole wild socialist lineup. They couldn't even stand "lunch bucket" Joe Biden, even though he kowtowed to the far left in order to stay in the race. These people want exactly what Bart's describing.

Who needs a coup when Trump himself is demonstrating this clearly his unfitness for the job?

Aren’t you concerned that your candidate doesn’t understand that he is violating the same constitution he uses all the time to justify mass shootings?

How blind do you need to be to see where this is taking you?

Your very concerns about how far left things could go if the Democrats won should be ample proof that Joe Biden is the main adversary of Trump and that it is both illegal and unethical to try to use foreign influences to dig dirt on your main opponent?

Is democracy still important for you?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 05, 2019, 09:25:57 pm
Stockholm syndrome.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 10:21:36 pm
Who needs a coup when Trump himself is demonstrating this clearly his unfitness for the job?

Aren’t you concerned that your candidate doesn’t understand that he is violating the same constitution he uses all the time to justify mass shootings?

How blind do you need to be to see where this is taking you?

Your very concerns about how far left things could go if the Democrats won should be ample proof that Joe Biden is the main adversary of Trump and that it is both illegal and unethical to try to use foreign influences to dig dirt on your main opponent?

Is democracy still important for you?

Cheers,
Bernard

It seems you only want to draw the line on Trump.  Yet you apparently approve that Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to stop a foreign investigation of criminal activity related to his son Hunter Biden's work in the Ukraine.  Isn't what Biden did criminal?  Shouldn't that be investigated? Or do you think only Trump should be investigated for collusion with the Russians in 2016 based on a dossier prepared by British and Russian spies who were paid $10 million dollars by Trump's presidential opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton?  Just where do you draw the lines? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 10:36:56 pm
I don't frequent fast food joints, so I guess I am out of the loop. I guess Egg McMuffins make themselves nowadays.
I said there are less order takers not less cooks or preparers.  On the other hand, it's possible fast food restaurants are using more automation to prepare the food as well.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 05, 2019, 11:27:19 pm
Impeaching Trump may be the only way to beat him.

U.S. Sees 50-Year Low Unemployment Rate
"“Thanks to our pro-American agenda, the economy is booming, wages are rising and poverty is plummeting,” said President Trump. “3.5 percent — people didn’t think they were going to see that."[/size]
https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/ (https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 12:58:04 am
There was a discussion about American antique muscle cars either here in this or another recent thread.  Forget which.  Anyway, our community had an antique and late model muscle car show here in New Jersey in my community today.  We do it once a year.  Thought you'd be interested in seeing some hot cars.  Mainly American cars but there was a Triumph or MG and a Spitfire owned by some Scottish lad there with a thick accent and kilts.  He's in there too. You can tune into the video up to 4K bandwidth or smaller.  Hit full screen for better view. Good muscle car music with it from The Beach Boys.  So turn up the volume. Here's the Youtube link. About 4 minutes run time.  Enjoy.
https://youtu.be/MogdCeRNqBM (https://youtu.be/MogdCeRNqBM)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 06, 2019, 01:08:06 am
Alan, there is thread called Cars Again in the Coffee Corner. It might be better to move your Antique Cars post there.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 01:10:44 am
Thanks Les.  Just posted there. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 03:28:41 am
It seems you only want to draw the line on Trump.  Yet you apparently approve that Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to stop a foreign investigation of criminal activity related to his son Hunter Biden's work in the Ukraine.  Isn't what Biden did criminal?  Shouldn't that be investigated? Or do you think only Trump should be investigated for collusion with the Russians in 2016 based on a dossier prepared by British and Russian spies who were paid $10 million dollars by Trump's presidential opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton?  Just where do you draw the lines?

Both of them should be fired if proof is made of their culpability.

Trump confessed of his crime so that part is already clear.

You are the one making this a political story by trying to find equal guilt on the Democrat side. The only relevant story here is Trump, the president of the US, clearly violating the constitution.

With or without quid pro quo btw. That corruption would only be an aggravating factor.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 03:31:20 am
Impeaching Trump may be the only way to beat him.

U.S. Sees 50-Year Low Unemployment Rate
"“Thanks to our pro-American agenda, the economy is booming, wages are rising and poverty is plummeting,” said President Trump. “3.5 percent — people didn’t think they were going to see that."[/size]
https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/ (https://www.oann.com/u-s-sees-50-year-low-unemployment-rate/)

Impreaching Trump is mostly about preventing him from doing more damage in the coming year, such as violating the constitution again.

His defeat in the next elections is 99% sure regardless.

Only hard core Republicans think otherwise and the extent to which your daydreaming departs from reality is becoming increasingly grotesque.

The question you should ask yourself now is what Trump would have to do for you to stop blindly support him. Would he have to start to send muslims to camps? Would that cross the line or would still support him then? If less is needed then what is the line?

Will you say you didn’t know like Trump is implicitly saying he didn’t know requesting help from a foreign leader to dig dirt on a political opponent is a violation of the constitution? Only do we all know you are way smarter and do know as we speak.

No need to answer me, this is between you and your conscience.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 06, 2019, 06:08:51 am
Yet you apparently approve that Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to stop a foreign investigation of criminal activity related to his son Hunter Biden's work in the Ukraine.  I

Evidence please.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 06, 2019, 07:52:02 am
Okay Bart, "evidence please." I realize that's what your screaming, off the wall, terminally biased sources of opinion say, but they have no more actual evidence of it than Mueller had in his more than two year coup attempt. This one isn't even gonna taxi fast, much less get off the ground.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 07:58:04 am
Okay Bart, "evidence please." I realize that's what your screaming, off the wall, terminally biased sources of opinion say, but they have no more actual evidence of it than Mueller had in his more than two year coup attempt. This one isn't even gonna taxi fast, much less get off the ground.

Russ,

Trump has admitted in public having requested a foreign leader help to dig dirt on a political rival. This is unconstitutional.

There is no need to prove anything else.

The quid pro quo, another word for corruption, did obviously happen but isn’t needed to impeach Trump.

Even Fox TV couldn’t deny this truth... so this isn’t liberal media plotting a coup, it is the truth being impossible to bend this time because there is a clear constitution and clear facts violating it.

When you use illegal means to attempt to eliminate a political rival, democracy is at risk and I am totally puzzled that you consider Trump’s actions to be aligned with the GOP’s values. I don’t think you would be fine with Trump ordering Biden to be executed by a killer. Well what he attempted to do is just as illegal and as unethical.

If I were you I would think about the relationship between values and the means needed to enforce them. When you compromise too much ethically on the means, you end up becoming the unethical means you use to reach what you believe to be a higher end. So how far are you willing to go to win?

Even if you have given up on ethics, think about what your example means to your grand children.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 06, 2019, 09:41:05 am
It's a no brainer all right, Bart, but not the kind of no brainer you and Snopes think it is. Snopes? Snopes has been declaring conservative points and comments in satire that even starts with a notice it's satire as being "wrong." It's not a source I'd use to try to "prove" anything. There's no question Trump asked Ukraine to look into the illegal acts of Biden and his crooked son. The only question is whether or not the President of the United States has the right -- even the duty -- to ask for something like that. Were he not President or a Senator or Representative or a member of law enforcement, it might be a crime, as Hillalry's and the DNC's payoff to generate the fake dirt that got Mueller going clearly was.

That's enough. This whole thing just gets sillier and sillier. Yes, the press hates Trump, and they're making that very clear, but so what? Doesn't "prove" a damned thing. Well, I guess what it does prove from what I see here is the old Barnum principle: "There's a sucker born every minute.

I'm outta here.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 06, 2019, 09:45:01 am
It's a no brainer all right, Bart, but not the kind of no brainer you and Snopes think it is.

So go ahead - provide the evidence.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:10:47 am
Both of them should be fired if proof is made of their culpability.

Trump confessed of his crime so that part is already clear.

You are the one making this a political story by trying to find equal guilt on the Democrat side. The only relevant story here is Trump, the president of the US, clearly violating the constitution.

With or without quid pro quo btw. That corruption would only be an aggravating factor.

Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, you're conflicting.  The only way the prove Biden is culpable is to re-open the investigation in Ukraine.  Maybe have an investigation in the US too.  That requires the US president to request the Ukraine President to investigate.  It's the only way to get to the bottom of what the Bidens did.  If Trump doesn't ask, it won't happen. 


If the press was honest, and not anti-Trump, they would be calling for an investigation of the Bidens.  But they're protecting them.  Look at all the accusations against Trump for his foreign business dealings.  Why isn't the press as demanding and make similar accusation and demands for investigation of the Bidens?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:13:37 am
PS>  With Biden also running for President, Biden's malfeasance and violating the constitution or not is part of the story. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 06, 2019, 10:23:57 am
The only way the prove Biden is culpable is to re-open the investigation in Ukraine.

The new Ukraine prosecutor has said he is going to audit the previous investigation which found no wrongdoing. Of course, that won't be enough for the Trumpers. They will just dream up another conspiracy theory. Maybe the Clinton server is in a pizza parlor basement in Ukraine. Besides, Trump's call with Zelinsky was all Rick Perry's fault. Apparently, Trump can't make his own decisions on who to call. Meanwhile, White House staffers are "genuinely horrified" with Trump's calls to foreign leaders. That's why they are all on a secret server. And North Korea has called off nuclear talks with Trump. How is that trade deal with China working out? So many wins.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 10:25:35 am
Bernard, you're conflicting.  The only way the prove Biden is culpable is to re-open the investigation in Ukraine.  Maybe have an investigation in the US too.  That requires the US president to request the Ukraine President to investigate.  It's the only way to get to the bottom of what the Bidens did.  If Trump doesn't ask, it won't happen. 

If the press was honest, and not anti-Trump, they would be calling for an investigation of the Bidens.  But they're protecting them.  Look at all the accusations against Trump for his foreign business dealings.  Why isn't the press as demanding and make similar accusation and demands for investigation of the Bidens?

Alan,

With all due respect, you are not making sense.

There is zero need to connect the violation of the constitution Trump committed to anything else. It stands by itself.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:54:38 am
Alan,

With all due respect, you are not making sense.

There is zero need to connect the violation of the constitution Trump committed to anything else. It stands by itself.

Cheers,
Bernard

No it doesn't.  We should get to the bottom if Biden used his position as VP to help his son in a criminal investigation.  After all, Biden is running for president in 2020 too.   Only Trump could call for the investigation in the Ukraine. Don;t you want to know if Biden is a crook?   Or do you only want to go after Trump?  The point is if Biden did wrong, the president is responsible for calling for an investigation and the only person capable of asking for it.    If he happens to get political benefit, well, what alternative would there be?  Let Biden get away with breaking the law as VP? 

In any case, when the dust settles, Biden will be done as the Democrat candidate because of Ukraine and Trump will still be president, probably facing Pocahontas.  Then Trump will call for an investigation of Warren for lying on her application claiming she's a minority to make it easier to get legal license and jobs at Harvard and advance her political career. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 06, 2019, 11:26:31 am
Then Trump will call for an investigation of Warren for lying on her application claiming she's a minority to make it easier to get legal license...
You get your license to practice law by passing the bar exam, not checking a box on an application form.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 06, 2019, 01:19:03 pm
Pocahontas.

Tired of the racism, Alan.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 06, 2019, 01:58:34 pm
Tired of the racism, Alan.

What racism? It's a derogatory term, certainly, but it's unclear how it can be said to be racist.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 02:42:28 pm
Tired of the racism, Alan.
Typical liberal response calling someone a racist that calls attention to truth through parody.   It is Warren who lied about her heritage, taking minority status to advance herself.  She was the one who apologized to the Indian Nation,  the Cherokees,  for slanting them and stealing their identity.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 06, 2019, 03:08:57 pm
Typical liberal response calling someone a racist that calls attention to truth through parody.
So using derogatory ethnic terms is parody? Who is laughing at the "comic effect" of doing so?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 06, 2019, 04:55:56 pm
So there you have it, kids: the place you get to when your head honcho deserts diplomacy for the insane pleasures of tweeting like an demented bird.

And to think Slobodan advised me to get with it, be modern and join effbook, which to me, lives in the same cage.

Where is Slobodan today; haven't noticed a post yet.

:-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 06, 2019, 05:02:06 pm
Where is Slobodan today; haven't noticed a post yet.

He occasionally takes a few days off. Unless, like a lot of Republicans, he is ducking for cover and avoiding commenting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 06:27:19 pm
No it doesn't.  We should get to the bottom if Biden used his position as VP to help his son in a criminal investigation.  After all, Biden is running for president in 2020 too.   Only Trump could call for the investigation in the Ukraine. Don;t you want to know if Biden is a crook?   Or do you only want to go after Trump?  The point is if Biden did wrong, the president is responsible for calling for an investigation and the only person capable of asking for it.    If he happens to get political benefit, well, what alternative would there be?  Let Biden get away with breaking the law as VP? 

In any case, when the dust settles, Biden will be done as the Democrat candidate because of Ukraine and Trump will still be president, probably facing Pocahontas.  Then Trump will call for an investigation of Warren for lying on her application claiming she's a minority to make it easier to get legal license and jobs at Harvard and advance her political career.

By the standard you are defending, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.

Everybody but you thinks this is crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 06, 2019, 06:52:37 pm
Only Trump could call for the investigation in the Ukraine. Don;t you want to know if Biden is a crook? . . .  The point is if Biden did wrong, the president is responsible for calling for an investigation and the only person capable of asking for it.

There are established international channels for governments of one country to request that governments of another country provide investigative assistance in criminal prosecutions.

When the U.S. Justice Department requires foreign assistance for one of its investigations, it asks the corresponding agency of the other government to help—typically with the U.S. State Department and the foreign ministry of the second government serving, at least initially, as intermediaries.

Federal criminal investigations are undertaken under the authority of the U.S. attorneys, who are political appointees, by members of their career professional staffs.

A president might be informed that such an investigation had been requested if the target was a high-profile figure like a former vice president, but should never initiate a criminal investigation.  Trump's claim that he had an "obligation" and "duty" to make the request to his Ukrainian counterpart was a transparent fabrication.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 07:06:26 pm
So using derogatory ethnic terms is parody? Who is laughing at the "comic effect" of doing so?
Pocahontas is not a derogatory ethnic term. It's a female Indian name.  It's the same as calling her Maria if she had impersonated a Latina..   And I'm not telling a joke.  This is to remind everyone that she's a phoney and a fraud.   

What I find interesting is that you haven't said anything negative about what she did.  So you approve of people impersonating minorities to advance themselves? Don't think that smacks of racism? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 07:14:44 pm
By the standard you are defending, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.

Everybody but you thinks this is crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard


That's what makes horse races. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 07:19:11 pm
...and forums.  Can you imagine if everyone thought the same here?  We'd be bored and the forum would die. 

PS.  I'm not quite sure what your example means in this case.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 08:02:33 pm
...and forums.  Can you imagine if everyone thought the same here?  We'd be bored and the forum would die. 

PS.  I'm not quite sure what your example means in this case.

Alan,

You are saying that it was excusable for Trump to violate the constitution to investigate a possible violation of the constitution by Biden years ago.

By the same standard, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.

And again, I have not seen anybody else but you come forward and tell us this is sound thinking. This is just not "not sound", it's plain crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 06, 2019, 08:05:58 pm
Where is Slobodan today; haven't noticed a post yet.

Far be it from me to cast aspersions on a fellow poster to this forum, but is it possible he has slunk away furtively to engage in ... photography?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 06, 2019, 08:17:44 pm
Far be it from me to case aspersions on a fellow poster to this forum, but is it possible he has slunk away furtively to engage in ... photography?

Hopefully, he is taking pictures of architecture, not nature.
At the Big Cypress National Preserve they just caught a second 18ft python.

(https://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/content.assets.pressassociation.io/2019/10/06181446/b522a66e-623c-49b0-b9c8-9b79121c978d.jpg?width=600&s=ie-955328)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 06, 2019, 08:22:49 pm
At the Big Cypress National Preserve they just caught a second 18ft python.

Hmmm.  Perhaps a future resident of el señor Loco's moat?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 08:46:29 pm
Alan,

You are saying that it was excusable for Trump to violate the constitution to investigate a possible violation of the constitution by Biden years ago.

By the same standard, it would be excusable to kill someone to proof that he is a murderer.

And again, I have not seen anybody else but you come forward and tell us this is sound thinking. This is just not "not sound", it's plain crazy.

Cheers,
Bernard

Politicians do all kinds of things for political reasons.  That's why we call them politicians.  But if the constitution allows a president to enforce the law and prosecute a potential violator of it, then it's constitutional.  He may get a political benefit from it coincidentally.  But he's doing his job.  Otherwise, how would an Administration ever prosecute a political "enemy".  It will always be said that he's doing it for political reasons.  If someone may have committed a crime, shouldn't he be investigated for it? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 09:08:48 pm
Politicians do all kinds of things for political reasons.  That's why we call them politicians.  But if the constitution allows a president to enforce the law and prosecute a potential violator of it, then it's constitutional.  He may get a political benefit from it coincidentally.  But he's doing his job.  Otherwise, how would an Administration ever prosecute a political "enemy".  It will always be said that he's doing it for political reasons.  If someone may have committed a crime, shouldn't he be investigated for it?

Alan,

Repeating the same non sense again and again won't magically make it better.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 09:10:30 pm
Alan,

Repeating the same non sense again and again won't magically make it better.

Cheers,
Bernard

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 09:25:35 pm
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree, but it doesn't make you any more right.

This agreement on disagreement in in no way an agreement that this is a matter of opinion.

This is just constituion vs facts.

There is nothing to discuss really about whether Trump's behaviour will result in Impeachement.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 06, 2019, 09:35:37 pm
Hopefully, he is taking pictures of architecture, not nature.
At the Big Cypress National Preserve they just caught a second 18ft python.

(https://www.irishexaminer.com/remote/content.assets.pressassociation.io/2019/10/06181446/b522a66e-623c-49b0-b9c8-9b79121c978d.jpg?width=600&s=ie-955328)

Hopefully; I always enjoyed is work. 

I, though, was stuck building it today; I always liked the flemish bond (nothing to do with Flanders for some reason).  I cant explain to you how sore my wrists are right now (but a Cohiba Maduro is helping out), and I'm still not finished.  I have whole new respect for brick layers!

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 09:41:44 pm
We can agree to disagree, but it doesn't make you any more right.

This agreement on disagreement in in no way an agreement that this is a matter of opinion.

This is just constituion vs facts.

There is nothing to discuss really about whether Trump's behaviour will result in Impeachement.

Cheers,
Bernard

Of course, when Obama used his administration to go after Trump, nobody flinched.  Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In any case, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.  By pressing this issue, the whole world now considers Joe Biden as being involved in a coverup for his son. The more the Democrats shoot at TRump, the more they'll hit Biden.   He'll soon be out of the nomination parade.  And Trump will still be president.  Clever move on the Democratic part.  While tut-tutting in public, Warren is laughing herself silly in private. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 06, 2019, 09:54:05 pm
Of course, when Obama used his administration to go after Trump, nobody flinched.  Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The problem you have is that your premise is wrong, but you keep stating it like a fact.  Theres no evidence that either Biden did anything illegal. There’s no justification for an investigation, and multiple sources confirm this.  Just because Trump keeps babbling on about “Corrupt Bidens” doesn’t make it any more true than the other 30 things Trump makes up / lies about daily. He’s a liar, Alan.   A blatant, stupid, ignorant liar and it’s not like you have to dig deep to figure that out.

The laughable thing about it is that Trump has the unmitigated gall to talk about Biden’s son while his own kids sit in positions of power and control that they have zero business being in, while at the same time maintaining their own outside business interests.

The pathetic thing is that Trumpers seem utterly oblivious to it.  His entire administration is one giant conflict of interest and y’all brush it off like Donald Trump is the paragon of integrity.  It’s totally flippin’ absurd.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 10:00:06 pm
In any case, the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.  By pressing this issue, the whole world now considers Joe Biden as being involved in a coverup for his son. The more the Democrats shoot at TRump, the more they'll hit Biden.   He'll soon be out of the nomination parade.  And Trump will still be president.  Clever move on the Democratic part.  While tut-tutting in public, Warren is laughing herself silly in private. :)

- The whole world knows full well that whatever Biden did  or didn't do has nothing to do with the impreachment of Trump,
- The whole world knows full well that if Biden had broken the law, the Republicans would have uncovered this when he was Vice-President. And this is demonstrated in a totally clear way by how hard they are trying now,
- The whole world knows full well that a large majority of honest working people in the US are tired of the corrupt Trump administration. They have to play by the rules every day and are trying hard to teach their kids that they have to play by the rules, only to find out that their President doesn't.

Although I may not agree with some of their positions, I used to respect many of the values of the GOP. And it really saddens me to see so many of the Republican politicans having to compromise this badly with the basic of ethics in a desperate, and pathetic, attempt to save their political ass.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:11:50 pm
(1)- The whole world knows full well that whatever Biden did  or didn't do has nothing to do with the impreachment of Trump,
(2)- The whole world knows full well that if Biden had broken the law, the Republicans would have uncovered this when he was Vice-President. And this is demonstrated in a totally clear way by how hard they are trying now,
(3)- The whole world knows full well that a large majority of honest working people in the US are tired of the corrupt Trump administration. They have to play by the rules every day and are trying hard to teach their kids that they have to play by the rules, only to find out that their President doesn't.

Although I may not agree with some of their positions, I used to respect many of the values of the GOP. And it really saddens me to see so many of the Republican politicans having to compromise this badly with the basic of ethics in a desperate, and pathetic, attempt to save their political ass.

Cheers,
Bernard

(1) Sure It does.  They're both running for president in 2020.
(2) When Biden "broke the law", he was VP.  No one cares about VP's.  As one VP once said, the job isn;t worth a bucket of "spit". In any case, the President at that time wa Obama, a Democrat.  He was his running mate.  DOn;t you think Obama wanted the whole Ukraine investigation to disappear as well?
(3) People are tired of corruption.  That's why they hired Trump -to clean out the swamp.  They figure it takes one to know one.  Now Biden appears to be corrupt.  That he didn't play by the rules when it came to his son finagling in the Ukraine. Now that I mentioned it, Warren is another corrupt individual.  She lied about her heritage to gain personal advantages.  So was Hillary who used her position many people say as Secretary of State to shake down foreign leaders to contribute millions to the Clinton Foundation. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on October 06, 2019, 10:19:16 pm
So you can pay someone who is 21+ years old a wage befitting a 15 year old?

Ever hear of the concept of a free market? What an employer and employee agree between themselves should be a voluntary, private contract and the government shouldn't have any involvement.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:23:05 pm
Ever hear of the concept of a free market? What an employer and employee agree between themselves should be a voluntary, private contract and the government shouldn't have any involvement.
Many people want to be treated like children by Big Daddy government who will take care of them.  But Big Daddy has curfews and other requirements that don't give you the freedom to live your own life.  Some people don;t mind.  They like being treated like children.  They think they're safer. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 10:48:08 pm
(1) Sure It does.  They're both running for president in 2020.

No it doesn't. The proven violation of the constitution performed by Trump remains a violation, regardless of the reason why he violated it.

(2) When Biden "broke the law", he was VP.  No one cares about VP's.  As one VP once said, the job isn;t worth a bucket of "spit". In any case, the President at that time wa Obama, a Democrat.  He was his running mate.  DOn;t you think Obama wanted the whole Ukraine investigation to disappear as well?

That's not even close to being true. If the Republicans had had legitimate bullets against Biden when he was VP, they would have used them to hurt Obama. This is 100% sure. You know it as well as I do.

(3) People are tired of corruption.  That's why they hired Trump -to clean out the swamp.  They figure it takes one to know one.  Now Biden appears to be corrupt.  That he didn't play by the rules when it came to his son finagling in the Ukraine. Now that I mentioned it, Warren is another corrupt individual.  She lied about her heritage to gain personal advantages.  So was Hillary who used her position many people say as Secretary of State to shake down foreign leaders to contribute millions to the Clinton Foundation. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And it should be very clear by now that the expectations Trump raised about clearing the swamp were pure lies. Never has an administration been as swampy as Trump's own. Starting with Trump himself and extending to his family.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 10:56:22 pm
Well, Bernard, I guess you'll be voting against Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 06, 2019, 10:58:51 pm
Well, Bernard, I guess you'll be voting against Trump.

I don't think that Trump will be a candidate.

I believe that the Republican Senate will understand that the credibilty of the GOP is more important than Trump.

They will stop supporting him based on the additional evidence that are starting to emerge.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 06, 2019, 11:00:32 pm
I don't think that Trump will be a candidate.

Cheers,
Bernard

Then you'll be voting for someone else.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 07, 2019, 01:17:03 am
What racism? It's a derogatory term, certainly, but it's unclear how it can be said to be racist.

Jeremy

Just as calling an Indian "Gunga Din" is racist, or shopping at a "Paki shop". is racist  However, I realise that someone who takes his lead from Rod Liddle is unlkely to see a problem.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 07, 2019, 04:01:38 am
Even a 'free' market has rules and regulations. Unless one lives in a banana republic *).

*) In economics, a banana republic is a country with an economy of state capitalism, by which economic model the country is operated as a private commercial enterprise for the exclusive profit of the ruling class. Such exploitation is enabled by collusion between the state and favored economic monopolies, in which the profit, derived from the private exploitation of public lands, is private property, while the debts incurred thereby are the financial responsibility of the public treasury.

That's the sort of muddle-minded socialism that has ruined the chimney-sweeping trade :-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 08:44:02 am
Proof, or just innuendo and libel?
So was the collusion charge against Trump accusing him of treason. Yet the Democrats spent 2 1/2 years trying to impeach the victim of a phony charge.   Using the secret services of the last administration to spy on his campaign and people and to start a phony investigation.  Yet, you have no problem with that.  No apologies.  No I'm sorries.  Now when the situation is reversed, and Biden, who admitted to shutting down the Ukraine investigation of his son as VP, the new administration asks for an investigation to see if there was wrong doing, you again want to impeach Trump.  It seems there's a double standard and a lot of hypocrisy going around. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 09:19:00 am
Just as calling an Indian "Gunga Din" is racist, or shopping at a "Paki shop". is racist  However, I realise that someone who takes his lead from Rod Liddle is unlkely to see a problem.
Being an American, I'm not familiar with your interpretation.  But there was an American movie by that name made before I was born that I thought made this individual into a hero.   I remember seing it in the fifties and that how I remember him portrayed.   I just looked Ginga Din up in Google.  I got this interpretation.  How is that racist?  It seems calling someone by his name is a complement.  Of course, they may be other interpretations Americans aren't familiar with.  So if there are, let me know what they are. 

"Whenever I tell someone ‘You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!’ it’s a compliment.  It will always be a compliment because it is referring to Din, an Indian Bhishti of unexpected character and bravery.  So, the next time someone refers to you using this phrase, thank them for the compliment and their insight."
https://www.theleadermaker.com/youre-a-better-man-than-i-am-gunga-din/ (https://www.theleadermaker.com/youre-a-better-man-than-i-am-gunga-din/)



In any case, Pocohontas, unlike Gunga DIn, was a very important person in her own right. 


"Pocahontas was a Native American woman born around 1595. She was the daughter of the powerful Chief Powhatan, the ruler of the Powhatan tribal nation, which at its strongest included around 30 Algonquian communities located in the Tidewater region of Virginia.....Pocahontas became known by the colonists as an important Powhatan emissary. She occasionally brought the hungry settlers food and helped successfully negotiate the release of Powhatan prisoners in 1608. ....She married an American leader....While in captivity, Pocahontas lived in the settlement of Henricus under the care of a minister named Alexander Whitaker where she learned about Christianity, English culture and how to speak English. Pocahontas converted to Christianity, was baptized and given the name “Rebecca.”....(She moved to England with her husband)In London, Pocahontas was revered as a princess and referred to as “Lady Rebecca Wolfe.” She attended plays and balls and was even presented to the royal family..."


So calling someone Pocahontas seems to me an honor certainly one that shouldn't even be bestowed on Elizabeth Warren.  She doesn't have the qualities of Pocahontas. Certainly, I wouldn;t refer to Warren as a princess and call her Lady Rebecca Wolfe as Pocahontas was called. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 09:19:39 am
Pocahontas history:
https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/pocahontas
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 07, 2019, 09:48:43 am
That's the sort of muddle-minded socialism that has ruined the chimney-sweeping trade :-)


No, not in the least: the job has morphed. The single time we had it done here in Spain, the work was done by builders; quite a digital sort of performance. They took a couple of plastic bags and filled them with stones, tied that to the end of a rope, and proceeded to go up to the roof from whence they pushed the bag down the stainless steel pipe that runs from the back of our stove, through the cement outer stack, right up to the skies; yanked said plastic bags up and down a few times, and after filling the wood burner with hard, burned cinders, declared the job done...

Not a small boy was either trapped, bruised, cajoled, bribed or otherwise harmed during the entire cleansing process. We have come a long way.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 10:25:30 am
So you admit it is just innuendo and libel on your part.
 


FYI, the Biden case has been investigated earlier and nothing illegal was found. The replacement of a Ukranian prosecutor was an international cooperative effort.

Trump, on the other hand, did violate the constitution by soliciting foreign interference in the election process by (now) multiple countries, admitted to doing it, and more proof of other violations is surfacing as a result.
No, not innuendo.  Biden admitted to shutting down the investigation when he was VP.  Trump did not violate the constitution as he is charged as president with enforcing laws.  Only he could ask a foreign president to help in a potential criminal case.  That's his job.  Or he can ask the Attorney General or his ambassador to speak to the foreign leader.  Even Rudy.  In any case, if he gets side political benefit, well that's the way it is.  His acting under his authority as president makes it legal and constitutional. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 07, 2019, 10:33:45 am
His acting under his authority as president makes it legal and constitutional.

L'état, c'est lui?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 10:49:53 am
L'état, c'est lui?
Please.  Trump isn't a king.  The authority I was referring to is his constitutionally.  He's charged with making deals with foreign leaders under the advice and consent of the Senate.  Enforcing law of the US are part of his responsibility.  So asking a foreign leader to intervene in a potential criminal case affecting American law is within that authority.  Of course, I recognize there are political implications.  No more so than when Obama was involved when he authorized surveillance of Trump's people during the election.  We all understand what happened in both cases that there are political ramifications.  But let's not be simple yokels.  Let's not have double standards that gives one side the legal right to do stuff but not the other.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 07, 2019, 12:55:00 pm
Just as calling an Indian "Gunga Din" is racist, or shopping at a "Paki shop". is racist  However, I realise that someone who takes his lead from Rod Liddle is unlkely to see a problem.

But Warren, despite having no, or no significant, native American ancestry, has claimed that she does; that's why Trump uses the term, which is mocking but cannot be racist. Calling you "Gunga Din" or a "Paki" would be foolish, but not racist (assuming your race is as your photograph suggests). The use of the term is yet another example of its misappropriation in order to claim moral high ground and suppress argument.

I fail to see the relevance of your reference to Rod Liddle. Doubtless it makes sense, to you at least.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 07, 2019, 01:03:39 pm
Completely unfit to serve.  Yes, this is 100% real and no, it's not a parody account.  This is the President of the United States of America, and shameful can't begin to describe it.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 07, 2019, 01:31:23 pm
Calling you "Gunga Din" or a "Paki" would be foolish, but not racist (assuming your race is as your photograph suggests).

Obviously it would, since it would suggest that being (say) a Pakistani is somehow a negative characteristic. Likewise if I called someone a Jew, regardless of their race.

Quote
I fail to see the relevance of your reference to Rod Liddle. Doubtless it makes sense, to you at least.

Perhaps it was someone else who wrote:
Rod Liddle, a political commentator in the UK, generally spells with word with multiple "a"s, aptly mimicking the usual pronunciation of those who resort to it.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 07, 2019, 02:03:45 pm
Trump has:
1. Destroyed ISIS territory and made what's left a rump organization

Well, that didn't last long, did it?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 07, 2019, 02:18:09 pm
Again, I find myself at odds with others over the definitions - for they are many - of racism.

Paki, to me, is always an abbreviation of Pakistani, in exactly the same way as Rob is of Robert. There is simply no more to it than that.

However, if I may slip into the mindset of those who think otherwise, for a moment: in that frame of reference, then, the assumption has to have been made that Paki or Pakistani is a form of insult because either is, somehow, a definition of belonging to an inferior breed of human being, something not purely English, or whatever one prefers to choose as standard of reference of measure of what constitutes a worthy human being.

Frankly, it is simply silly to make such an assumption - I trust - and so to avoid that, one has to accept that Paki and/or Pakistani are nothing more or less than the names by which we recognize people from a particular country.

Rob aka Robert.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 02:30:28 pm
Completely unfit to serve.  Yes, this is 100% real and no, it's not a parody account.  This is the President of the United States of America, and shameful can't begin to describe it.



I don;t like walking away from allies who fought with us on the battlefield.  But, Americans have had it with the Middle East.  We been fighting their for decades even before 9-11.  Didn't we save Kuwait in the first Middle East War in 1991?  We walked out on the Kurds then too, as I recall and many died by the hand of Saddam.  If China invades Taiwan, should we fight there?  How about South Korea?  Japan?  What about Eastern Europe against Russia? (not that I think they'll attack).   Should we stay in Afghanistan after waring there for 18 years?  When is enough, enough?  I've been pretty much of a warmonger over the years.  But even I'm getting tired of it.  Let them sort out their differences among themselves.  We tend to mess it up anyway when we stay involved.  Let's hope Trump is right and Turkey isn't going to walk over them.  I hope not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 07, 2019, 02:59:15 pm
Let's hope Trump is right and Turkey isn't going to walk over them.  I hope not.
Turkey is going to annihilate the Kurds. They have said so. Why else would they be invading northern Syria?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 03:00:33 pm
Turkey is going to annihilate the Kurds. They have said so. Why else would they be invading northern Syria?

Maybe you should send your son to help them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 07, 2019, 06:11:04 pm
No, not innuendo.  Biden admitted to shutting down the investigation when he was VP. 

No, he did not.

Your continuous attempts to rewrite history to match your delusions strangely reminds me about the way Trump turns facts into something they are not. Otherwise called fake news.

Trump did not violate the constitution as he is charged as president with enforcing laws.  Only he could ask a foreign president to help in a potential criminal case.  That's his job.  Or he can ask the Attorney General or his ambassador to speak to the foreign leader.  Even Rudy.  In any case, if he gets side political benefit, well that's the way it is.  His acting under his authority as president makes it legal and constitutional.

Absolutely not.

It has been said again and again that there procedures between states to request legitimate help on such matters.

It was clearly not Trump's job and what he did is against the law as a violation of the constitution.

Again, you repeating the same misinformation again and again won't make them true.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 07, 2019, 06:29:55 pm
Your continuous attempts to rewrite history to match your delusions strangely reminds me about the way Trump turns facts into something they are not.

Interesting point.  Confining this comment solely to Trump's elected supporters in the Congress — obviously, what participants in social media forums say is irrelevant to the impeachment inquiry — it appears to me that as Trump becomes increasingly fearful regarding his future, his public statements are becoming correspondingly bizarre (admittedly, that's a high bar) and therefore, synchronously, so are those of his supporters.  I can't quite figure out if the latter are expressing their anxieties or simply mimicking his own.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 07, 2019, 06:39:09 pm
Interesting point.  Confining this comment solely to Trump's elected supporters in the Congress — obviously, what participants in social media forums say is irrelevant to the impeachment inquiry — it appears to me that as Trump becomes increasingly fearful regarding his future, his public statements are becoming correspondingly bizarre (admittedly, that's a high bar) and therefore, synchronously, so are those of his supporters.  I can't quite figure out if the latter are expressing their own anxieties or simply mimicking his own.

Well, at the end of the day, and, not saying I 100% agree here, this is all a moot point if Warrens gets on the ticket.  She would be Trump's best re-election asset, and considering how Biden is handling this, it is almost a certainty at this point. 

I would be willing to bet the next debate will destroy Biden.  I cant see his fellow front runners ignoring this and not indirectly, at the very least, attacking him. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 07, 2019, 09:56:56 pm

 
[/size]
Well, at the end of the day, and, not saying I 100% agree here, this is all a moot point if Warrens gets on the ticket.  She would be Trump's best re-election asset, and considering how Biden is handling this, it is almost a certainty at this point. 


I would be willing to bet the next debate will destroy Biden.  I cant see his fellow front runners ignoring this and not indirectly, at the very least, attacking him. 
[/size]


Biden's Democrat opponents have plenty to attack him on.


""In December of 2013, Joe Biden flies to Beijing, China on Air Force Two. On the plane with him is his son, Hunter Biden," Schweizer stated. "Frankly, he gets criticized on the trip for going soft on Beijing. What we now know is that ten days after they returned from that trip, Hunter Biden's small investment firm announced a $1.5 billion private equity deal with the Chinese government."

"In February 2014, the Yanukovich government falls, the Russians move into Crimea, there is a crisis situation. Joe Biden becomes the point person on the Western response in Ukraine," Schweizer continued. "Literally two months after that event, Hunter Biden and Devin Archer are appointed to the board of directors of Burisma, which is a notoriously corrupt energy company."

"The problem is," he said. "Just like in China, in the case of Ukraine, he has no background that would warrant him getting this position. He has no background in energy policy, and he certainly has no background and Ukraine.""
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/04/schweizer_bidens_son_cashed_in_on_vp_being_point_man_for_obama_in_ukraine_and_china.html


If people call Trump corrupt because of his business dealings, they better have clean hands themselves if they intend to run for office.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 08, 2019, 03:53:53 am

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/04/schweizer_bidens_son_cashed_in_on_vp_being_point_man_for_obama_in_ukraine_and_china.html

If people call Trump corrupt because of his business dealings, they better have clean hands themselves if they intend to run for office.

If people quote news organisations to call people corrupt, they better have clean hands themselves if they want to be taken seriously.

https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/07/secret-far-right-site-linked-to-realclearpolitics/

More than anyone really wants to know about the Biden family:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 10:22:15 am
If people quote news organisations to call people corrupt, they better have clean hands themselves if they want to be taken seriously.

https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/07/secret-far-right-site-linked-to-realclearpolitics/

More than anyone really wants to know about the Biden family:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign


The liberal press really doesn;t want Biden as president.  They prefer someone more radical and left like Warren.  So they won't protect him like they did Obama.  The more Democrats go after Trump regarding the Biden-Ukraine issue, the worse it will be for Biden. Not Trump.  Pure irony.  Frankly, Biden's toast.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 10:24:56 am
The more Democrats go after Trump regarding the Biden-Ukraine issue, the worse it will be for Biden. Not Trump.  Pure irony.  Frankly, Biden's toast.
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 10:26:42 am
Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
What sounds like wishful thinking?  That the press wants someone like Warren not Biden?  Or that Biden is toast?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 08, 2019, 10:33:52 am
What sounds like wishful thinking?  That the press wants someone like Warren not Biden?  Or that Biden is toast?

Why the deflection to Biden in a thread about what Trump may have done wrong? Biden isn't in office anywhere at the moment, Trump is. Even if Biden was found to be in bed with the mob and the drug cartels combined, would Trump's methods be acceptable, that's the question, isn't it? Who cares about Biden. If he's toast, he's toast, just another has-been politician, plenty of those to go round. You seem to be awfully concerned about him.

Is there anything that Trump would dobe that would meet with your disapproval, I'm just curious. Given your stated problems with those old terrible royal family ruling elites, I would have thought that you'd be a little displeased at Trump hiring only members of his family for jobs for which they don't seem obviously prepared. Should they have jobs in the administration just because they're related to the guy? And related to that, I'm surprised you're not more concerned with the unusually high turnover in senior personnel, isn't that a red flag to you? Not to mention that many top jobs remained unfilled, probably because no one with experience or knowledge wants to work for him. Doesn't this worry you? Why doesn't it?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 10:41:48 am
Don't expect consistency from Alan. It is like the 40% of Republicans who deny Trump even mentioned Biden's name in the phone call, and the other 60% claiming that he did but there is nothing wrong with Trump asking Zelinsky to dig up dirt on Biden. It's tough to maintain a consistent message when Trump keeps undermining it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 10:47:57 am
Trump got cold feet this morning and ordered Ambassador to the EU Sondlund not to testify. If the Zellinksy call was "perfect", what's the problem?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 10:49:07 am
Why the deflection to Biden in a thread about what Trump may have done wrong? Biden isn't in office anywhere at the moment, Trump is. Even if Biden was found to be in bed with the mob and the drug cartels combined, would Trump's methods be acceptable, that's the question, isn't it? Who cares about Biden. If he's toast, he's toast, just another has-been politician, plenty of those to go round. You seem to be awfully concerned about him.

Is there anything that Trump would be that would meet with your disapproval, I'm just curious. Given your stated problems with those old terrible royal family ruling elites, I would have thought that you'd be a little displeased at Trump hiring only members of his family for jobs for which they don't seem obviously prepared. Should they have jobs in the administration just because they're related to the guy? And related to that, I'm surprised you're not more concerned with the unusually high turnover in senior personnel, isn't that a red flag to you? Not to mention that many top jobs remained unfilled, probably because no one with experience or knowledge wants to work for him. Doesn't this worry you? Why doesn't it?
Trump does a lot of things I don't like.  But at the end of the day, when you vote, you have a choice between two people. Warren and Sanders are too liberal, practically Marxists.  Biden's toast because of his own incompetence.  Warren is also a fraud who got ahead in life using a false claim of minority status.  That's pretty despicable. So no one's hands are clean.  The country is doing pretty well under Trump.  Socialists will just screw it up worse.  So you hold your nose when you vote.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 10:51:28 am
What sounds like wishful thinking?  That the press wants someone like Warren not Biden?  Or that Biden is toast?
No, that, as you stated, Biden will be worse off that Trump because of the impeachment inquiry. It's lunacy that you could believe that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 08, 2019, 10:52:24 am
  So you hold your nose when you vote.

Of course, but you're not voting you're discussing (*) on a forum.  Your vote will still count the same if you say here that Trump is a lying fool. But you're always just tooting his horn no matter how dumb it is.

(* not really - just mouthing slogans, but you get the idea)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 11:38:07 am
Trump does a lot of things I don't like.  But at the end of the day, when you vote, you have a choice between two people... The country is doing pretty well under Trump.  Socialists will just screw it up worse.  So you hold your nose when you vote.
Apparently, given your defense of Trump, you are not really holding your nose. You are cheering him on, even in the face of the most despicable behavior.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:47:47 am
What I don;t understand is why you foreigners are so obsessed with Trump.  I mean I look at Boris Johnson, and go , "meh", seems a little weird and I wonder of he knows what he's doing.  But I don't obsess about him like my neighbors wife.  You don;t live here.  You don't pay taxes here?  You don't have to send your son off to American wars.  You don't vote here.  Just what is it that drives you to think about this guy all the time? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:51:04 am
...to hate him so much?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 08, 2019, 11:51:14 am
you foreigners

Let me guess - "go back where you came from".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 11:53:10 am
What I don;t understand is why you foreigners are so obsessed with Trump.  I mean I look at Boris Johnson, and go , "meh", seems a little weird and I wonder of he knows what he's doing.  But I don't obsess about him like my neighbors wife.  You don;t live here.  You don't pay taxes here?  You don't have to send your son off to American wars.  You don't vote here.  Just what is it that drives you to think about this guy all the time?
It is an international forum and the topic of the thread is Trump. What you see as obsession is really just staying on topic. Of course, given your unwavering support of Trump, you would see it as obsession. I'm sure if someone started a thread on Boris Johnson, you would see more posts about Boris Johnson.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:53:20 am
Let me guess - "go back where you came from".
Thanks for making my point.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:56:08 am
It is an international forum and the topic of the thread is Trump. What you see as obsession is really just staying on topic. I'm sure if someone started a thread on Boris Johnson, you would see more posts about Boris Johnson.
The Brexit thread says a lot about Johnson.  And I've contributed a lot there.  But I don't obsess about Johnson.  I don't hate him.  He's your problem, not mine. You guys obsess about Trump.  Hate him so much.  I'm curious.  Why is that? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 08, 2019, 12:12:46 pm
Maybe because Trump is a president like no other.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 08, 2019, 12:25:39 pm
Warren and Sanders are too liberal, practically Marxists.

It is very difficult to take your statements seriously.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 12:33:28 pm
Maybe because Trump is a president like no other.

He does suck all the oxygen out of the room.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 12:41:10 pm
It is very difficult to take your statements seriously.
Why is that?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 01:36:38 pm
Warren and Sanders are too liberal, practically Marxists.   

It is very difficult to take your statements seriously.

Why is that?

Because your statements are hyperbolic in the extreme. I'd wager you haven't read The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 04:37:10 pm
Because your statements are hyperbolic in the extreme. I'd wager you haven't read The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.
No I haven't.  But Sanders did.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 08, 2019, 05:03:58 pm
Because your statements are hyperbolic in the extreme. I'd wager you haven't read The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.

The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital or 50 Shades Of Gray. All equally off-putting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 08, 2019, 05:44:23 pm
The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital or 50 Shades Of Gray. All equally off-putting.

Years ago, I made a video adaptation of that last one: https://vimeo.com/46547105 (https://vimeo.com/46547105). Let me apologize in advance.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 08, 2019, 06:24:27 pm
The Brexit thread says a lot about Johnson.  And I've contributed a lot there.  But I don't obsess about Johnson.  I don't hate him.  He's your problem, not mine. You guys obsess about Trump.  Hate him so much.  I'm curious.  Why is that?

Another attempt to turn him into a victim while he is the perpetrator.

Do I hate Trump? No.
Do I dislike him? Yes.

Why so?
- because I think that he is taking the world in the wrong direction in terms of philosophy. Although I believe that state should really promote equality of opportunities for all and help those in the need, I am also a firm believer in the power of free enterprise and open trade - be it under the control of the state to avoid the market becoming unbalanced if some entities become too powerful, be it biased towards sustainability. And Trump has been the worst offender against free trade for tens of years. Way worse than what you keep calling "socialist European countries"
- because I believe that debt is the worse kind of dependance, and his tax policy - focusing on reducing tax for the richest - is create debt, and the Reagan years have demonstrated clearly that this doesn't result in a more dynamic economy, it only result in the super rich getting hyper rich
- because, although I believe that private life should stay private, I believe that leaders should fare reasonably well in terms of moral authority, and Trump has been known to violate his word, participate in unfair business practices,... he is the most immoral guy in power in a democratic country in tens of years
- because I think that he is fundamentally racist (which is crazy when you understand what America is) and profoundly disrespects woman in any capacity except that of sex toy
- because of his retard positions about global warming that goes against the good will of a large majority of Americans who understand the reality of the threat
- because I believe that he is a true danger to the stability of the world
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people with a deep understanding of philosophy and the nature of the world, which goes far being "the art of the deal". The "art of the deal" probably accounts for less than 0.01% of what I expect a president of the US to know,
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years
- because the kind of lowest common denominator approach he is making so common lowers the level of civilization, not just in the US, but worldwide
- because there is a truth and his constant lying just sucks
- because he is a threat to democracy because he is demonstrating on a daily basis his non respect for the law and the constitution of the US. How do you expect kids to behave when the boss is a crook?
- and, above all, because I like a certain idea of America that rhymes with excellence and progress... and that he is just the opposite of that

If you think that foreigners shouldn't comment on Trump, then make sure that the US becomes a small country with no international influence. Trump may get you that though...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 08, 2019, 07:09:28 pm
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years

So, are we to infer from this that you think Trump might be exaggerating when he says he is a "stable genius" who exhibits "great and unmatched wisdom?"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 08, 2019, 07:24:30 pm
So, are we to infer from this that you think Trump might be exaggerating when he says he is a "stable genius" who exhibits "great and unmatched wisdom?"

He is indeed unmatched, but the "stable genius" should be modified to "unstable genie out of the bottle".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 08, 2019, 07:50:29 pm
So, are we to infer from this that you think Trump might be exaggerating when he says he is a "stable genius" who exhibits "great and unmatched wisdom?"

Somewhat.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 08:29:43 pm
Another attempt to turn him into a victim while he is the perpetrator.

Do I hate Trump? No.
Do I dislike him? Yes.

Why so?
- because I think that he is taking the world in the wrong direction in terms of philosophy. Although I believe that state should really promote equality of opportunities for all and help those in the need, I am also a firm believer in the power of free enterprise and open trade - be it under the control of the state to avoid the market becoming unbalanced if some entities become too powerful, be it biased towards sustainability. And Trump has been the worst offender against free trade for tens of years. Way worse than what you keep calling "socialist European countries"
- because I believe that debt is the worse kind of dependance, and his tax policy - focusing on reducing tax for the richest - is create debt, and the Reagan years have demonstrated clearly that this doesn't result in a more dynamic economy, it only result in the super rich getting hyper rich
- because, although I believe that private life should stay private, I believe that leaders should fare reasonably well in terms of moral authority, and Trump has been known to violate his word, participate in unfair business practices,... he is the most immoral guy in power in a democratic country in tens of years
- because I think that he is fundamentally racist (which is crazy when you understand what America is) and profoundly disrespects woman in any capacity except that of sex toy
- because of his retard positions about global warming that goes against the good will of a large majority of Americans who understand the reality of the threat
- because I believe that he is a true danger to the stability of the world
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people with a deep understanding of philosophy and the nature of the world, which goes far being "the art of the deal". The "art of the deal" probably accounts for less than 0.01% of what I expect a president of the US to know,
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years
- because the kind of lowest common denominator approach he is making so common lowers the level of civilization, not just in the US, but worldwide
- because there is a truth and his constant lying just sucks
- because he is a threat to democracy because he is demonstrating on a daily basis his non respect for the law and the constitution of the US. How do you expect kids to behave when the boss is a crook?
- and, above all, because I like a certain idea of America that rhymes with excellence and progress... and that he is just the opposite of that

If you think that foreigners shouldn't comment on Trump, then make sure that the US becomes a small country with no international influence. Trump may get you that though...

Cheers,
Bernard
I appreciate you taking the time to tell us what you think.  But often what you see is only in the eye of the beholder as others see other things, often very differently. 


Sure he curses and played around in private life.  A lot of men do especially those with influence and money.  Many presidents have been adulterers in the White House. However, there's not a hint of that with Trump.  He seems to be a very stable, influential, and a good family man.  His children seem that way as well.  He's not a racist and he only seems prejudicial to those that are not loyal to him or betray him.  People who call him anti-Semitic are acting bizarre. His daughter is a converted Jew and his son-in-law is an Orthodox Jew.    He neither drinks, drugs, or smokes and never has. 


Yes, he's tough in business and I had personal experience with him in business and have seen that.  I wouldn't do business with him because he squeezes a lot.  Most NYC real estate developers are exactly like him.  Nothing unusual.  But, we need tough presidents.  Being feckless does not serve the country well as some of our former presidents have acted.  You as a foreigner may not like it because your country may wind up on the short end of the stick.  But, it helps my country.  That's what we need in a president.  He's keeping us out of war and trying to move America from playing policeman to the world.  Many Americans agree with that philosophy.  You're just going to have to defend yourself more and not depend on Americae largesse and military protection the way you use too.  That means you have to spend more of your own money for defence.  We're tapped out over here. 


He uses presidential power and the perks of the oval office like most presidents have.  That doesn;t make it undemocratic or unconstitutional.  Like every president, he's checked by Congress and the courts.  I'm not aware of any court decision he didn't obey.  The idea that he should follow a "philosophy of the world", whatever that means, seems like pie-in-the-sky.  His job is to protect America and keep its greatness and wealth going, just what an American president is suppose to do.   He works for us, not you.  He's not a philosopher not do I want one in the oval office.  I would think your leaders try to do the same for your country and I respect them for it as well. 


His tariffs are a response to tariffs from your side.  If you want to increase trade and stop any harmful effect from tariffs, you should eliminate your own.  They were there before ours and higher than ours.  You live in a glass house.  Don;t throw stones.  Tariffs on China are deserved as well as they have huge tariffs on us as well as their stealing our intellectual property, and yours, may I add. If Trump is successful with his tariffs, your country and the whole world stand to gain when China stops their corrupt trade practices.  We're fighting a economic war with them to have them stop.  That's hurting us more than you.   Be patient and support  us.   You'll gain if we win.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 08, 2019, 09:31:03 pm
Fantasyland.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 10:18:06 pm
The liberal press really doesn;t want Biden as president.  They prefer someone more radical and left like Warren.  So they won't protect him like they did Obama.  The more Democrats go after Trump regarding the Biden-Ukraine issue, the worse it will be for Biden. Not Trump.  Pure irony.  Frankly, Biden's toast.
Biden drops to second after Warren.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 08, 2019, 10:49:48 pm
Biden drops to second after Warren.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020

That’s because Biden keeps saying stupid stuff, making errors and basically looking like he can’t handle the job.   Some people (Democrats apparently) care about that kind of thing, oddly enough.  Can you really imagine a Biden / Trump debate?  It would be utterly incoherent.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:17:35 pm
That’s because Biden keeps saying stupid stuff, making errors and basically looking like he can’t handle the job.   Some people (Democrats apparently) care about that kind of thing, oddly enough.  Can you really imagine a Biden / Trump debate?  It would be utterly incoherent.
Don't you think Ukraine has something to do with it too?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 08, 2019, 11:37:29 pm
"In the White House's letter to congressional Democrats, President Donald Trump's lawyers say the President and his administration won't cooperate in an ongoing impeachment inquiry, arguing the proceedings amount to an illegitimate effort to overturn the 2016 election results."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/wh-letter-to-pelosi/index.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 09, 2019, 01:15:00 am
Another attempt to turn him into a victim while he is the perpetrator.

Do I hate Trump? No.
Do I dislike him? Yes.

Why so?
- because I think that he is taking the world in the wrong direction in terms of philosophy. Although I believe that state should really promote equality of opportunities for all and help those in the need, I am also a firm believer in the power of free enterprise and open trade - be it under the control of the state to avoid the market becoming unbalanced if some entities become too powerful, be it biased towards sustainability. And Trump has been the worst offender against free trade for tens of years. Way worse than what you keep calling "socialist European countries"
- because I believe that debt is the worse kind of dependance, and his tax policy - focusing on reducing tax for the richest - is create debt, and the Reagan years have demonstrated clearly that this doesn't result in a more dynamic economy, it only result in the super rich getting hyper rich
- because, although I believe that private life should stay private, I believe that leaders should fare reasonably well in terms of moral authority, and Trump has been known to violate his word, participate in unfair business practices,... he is the most immoral guy in power in a democratic country in tens of years
- because I think that he is fundamentally racist (which is crazy when you understand what America is) and profoundly disrespects woman in any capacity except that of sex toy
- because of his retard positions about global warming that goes against the good will of a large majority of Americans who understand the reality of the threat
- because I believe that he is a true danger to the stability of the world
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people with a deep understanding of philosophy and the nature of the world, which goes far being "the art of the deal". The "art of the deal" probably accounts for less than 0.01% of what I expect a president of the US to know,
- because I believe that positions of power should be occupied by people who have solved reasonably well the basic psychologic issues most of us manage to deal with during our teenage years
- because the kind of lowest common denominator approach he is making so common lowers the level of civilization, not just in the US, but worldwide
- because there is a truth and his constant lying just sucks
- because he is a threat to democracy because he is demonstrating on a daily basis his non respect for the law and the constitution of the US. How do you expect kids to behave when the boss is a crook?
- and, above all, because I like a certain idea of America that rhymes with excellence and progress... and that he is just the opposite of that

If you think that foreigners shouldn't comment on Trump, then make sure that the US becomes a small country with no international influence. Trump may get you that though...

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes, but apart from that he's a great guy :-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 09, 2019, 03:06:03 am
Obviously it would, since it would suggest that being (say) a Pakistani is somehow a negative characteristic. Likewise if I called someone a Jew, regardless of their race.

Interesting introduction, which confirms a previously-held suspicion.

Perhaps it was someone else who wrote:
Rod Liddle, a political commentator in the UK, generally spells with word with multiple "a"s, aptly mimicking the usual pronunciation of those who resort to it.

Oh, I read all sorts of things, from the Spectator each week to the Guardian each morning. I find not isolating myself in the bubble of those who agree with me is a Good Thing; it's what makes me the broadly-informed, well-rounded individual that I am. It doesn't mean I "follow" anyone, whether left- or right-wing (and Liddle was a member of your much-loved Labour party until he left because of its antisemitism).

Jeremy

(edited to make quotations clear)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 09, 2019, 03:38:53 am
Interesting introduction, which confirms a previously-held suspicion.

Perhaps it was someone else who wrote:
Rod Liddle, a political commentator in the UK, generally spells with word with multiple "a"s, aptly mimicking the usual pronunciation of those who resort to it.


Oh, I read all sorts of things, from the Spectator each week to the Guardian each morning. I find not isolating myself in the bubble of those who agree with me is a Good Thing; it's what makes me the broadly-informed, well-rounded individual that I am. It doesn't mean I "follow" anyone, whether left- or right-wing (and Liddle was a member of your much-loved Labour party until he left because of its antisemitism).

Jeremy

Where shall we begin - with your famous mind-reading skills, or your comical presumption to tell me something I don't know about Rod Liddle (hint: I was at school with Rod Liddle) ?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 09, 2019, 07:53:34 am
Yes, but apart from that he's a great guy :-)

You can find good in just about anybody. Some people are making it real hard to find those bits though.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 10:33:47 am
Biden drops to second after Warren.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905274/elizabeth-warren-frontrunner-democratic-nomination-2020

I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election. 

She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution.  I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead  ???). 

What have I missed? 

Universal Child Care for one, but I cant seem to find the overall cost for that program. 

But who knows, maybe she wont be on the ticket.  She just got caught in two new lies.  Apparently she voluntarily left her job when she was a teacher, which is well documented and she admitted to in interviews from 10 years ago, instead of the current claim that she was fired because she was pregnant.  Also, her mother's temperament about her going to college was not as bad as she made out, albeit this revelation is due to her highly inconsistent accounts from today and in previous decades. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 09, 2019, 10:37:27 am
I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election. 

She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution.  I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead  ???). 

What have I missed?
Debt financed trillion dollar tax cut for the rich by the Republicans?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 09, 2019, 10:41:42 am
I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election. 

She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution.  I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead  ???). 

What have I missed? 

Universal Child Care for one, but I cant seem to find the overall cost for that program.

It's cute how people are suddenly concerned with unreasonable spending again now that it's time to potentially elect a Democrat.  Oddly enough, I heard a lot of these concerns in 2008-2016 too.   Since then it's been relatively quiet.  Quite odd, isn't it? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 10:44:29 am
Debt financed trillion dollar tax cut for the rich by the Republicans?

I am by no means rich, and I got a nice tax cut from that plan.  Getting a 20% discount on our taxable income certainly brought us down a tax bracket and saved a few thousand.  Also, lets not forget that Trump wanted to increase taxes on those earning their sole income from investments and hedge funds, which I agree with, but the Republicans refused to pass it.  I was quite disappointed with this, but I put the disappointment where it makes sense, with the congress not the executive. 

Last, Warren's plan would sky rocket the debt a lot faster then Trump's. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 10:53:27 am
It's cute how people are suddenly concerned with unreasonable spending again now that it's time to potentially elect a Democrat.  Oddly enough, I heard a lot of these concerns in 2008-2016 too.   Since then it's been relatively quiet.  Quite odd, isn't it?

I do agree with this; I find it unsettling that the Republican spend money just like the Dems do, albeit in different areas. 

But lets look at this with some perspective.  The Republicans love spending money on defense and if you look at all four military sectors plus outside spending, this is about $7T over tens years, which is the time period of the above figures. 

Warrens total so far is $135T over ten years, in additional spending, or about 19 times higher.  If you took out the Green New Deal, her proposal would still cost 6 times more then what the Republicans like to spend on defense. 

Any way you look at it, her proposals would require an obscene amount of capital. 

Right now the race is between Trump and some fantasy Dem that the general electorate has no concept of since no candidate has yet emerged as the clear front runner.  So all of the current polling rest on this fantasy candidate running against Trump.  At some point in time though, a clear front runner will emerge and the reality of who is running will hit the general electorate.  If that candidate is Warren, when that reality hits, all of these extremely expensive policy proposals will be front and center in people's minds.  I just cant see it being a winning message.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 09, 2019, 01:09:17 pm
I am by no means rich, and I got a nice tax cut from that plan.  Getting a 20% discount on our taxable income certainly brought us down a tax bracket and saved a few thousand.
I am glad you got something out of it. Kind of like a credit card cash advance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 01:38:03 pm
I am glad you got something out of it. Kind of like a credit card cash advance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/08/first-time-history-us-billionaires-paid-lower-tax-rate-than-working-class-last-year/

Thank you for addressing my first point while completely ignoring my point that I was for increasing taxes on hedge funds, as was the president, but congress had a different idea.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 02:00:58 pm
Debt financed trillion dollar tax cut for the rich by the Republicans?
Tax cuts are not expenditures.  Most liberals don;t understand that the government does not own or earn the tax money they collect.   The money never belonged to them.  So tax cuts are just leaving more money earned with those who earned the money in the first place.    Tax cut dollars belong to the taxpayer to begin with.

That's different than expenditures which is money spent from the earnings of the taxpayer.   So when Warren or others call for "free" this and "free" that, what they're really saying is we intend to have the government take more money that you earned and give it to others through income redistribution, the hallmark of Socialism, Communism and Marxism.   The program and cost for them that she intends to carry out would make the Russian Revolution look like nickel and dime stuff.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 02:16:26 pm
It's cute how people are suddenly concerned with unreasonable spending again now that it's time to potentially elect a Democrat.  Oddly enough, I heard a lot of these concerns in 2008-2016 too.   Since then it's been relatively quiet.  Quite odd, isn't it? 
Both Republicans and Democrats have been buying the vote from the public by giving away more things than we can afford. So we have trillion dollar deficits and $22 trillion in debt.  We borrow from the Chinese and print up the rest. Of course, the blame ultimately lies with us because we refuse to give up any "free" stuff.  Of course, the huge new freebies the Democrat candidates for presidency plan to implement would make a Marxist blush. The amounts could fill the Pacific Ocean's  Mariana Trench.  So sure.  It's being discussed and should be.  Frankly, people should also ask why Trump is adding on so much debt.  He's not much better.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 09, 2019, 03:06:31 pm
Tax cuts are not expenditures.  Most liberals don;t understand that the government does not own or earn the tax money they collect.   The money never belonged to them.  So tax cuts are just leaving more money earned with those who earned the money in the first place.    Tax cut dollars belong to the taxpayer to begin with.

That's different than expenditures which is money spent from the earnings of the taxpayer.   So when Warren or others call for "free" this and "free" that, what they're really saying is we intend to have the government take more money that you earned and give it to others through income redistribution, the hallmark of Socialism, Communism and Marxism.   The program and cost for them that she intends to carry out would make the Russian Revolution look like nickel and dime stuff.

More third-rate ideological tripe. Taxes are how we pay for the common expenditures that we incur. There's nothing philosophical about it. You live in a society, you have joint responsibilities, you pay for them, that's all she wrote. All discussions about whether taxes are right or wrong are utter b*llshit. The real conversation is in deciding what you want to pay for collectively. Once you know that, you divvy up the costs. And anyway, when you pay taxes the money doesn't disappear into a black hole.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 03:13:26 pm
I feel like the real fantasy land is that Warren can actually win in a general election. 

She just released a statement vowing $1T for areas hit by industrial pollution.  I mean whats another trillion, right?, after $93T for the Green New Deal, $30T for Medicare-For-All, $6T to $14T for slavery and Native American repatriations, another $1.25T for wipe out college debt and give free college to anyone who wants to go (and to think my college debt is almost completely paid off; will I be able to get cold hard cash instead  ??? ). 

What have I missed? 

Universal Child Care for one, but I cant seem to find the overall cost for that program. 

But who knows, maybe she wont be on the ticket.  She just got caught in two new lies.  Apparently she voluntarily left her job when she was a teacher, which is well documented and she admitted to in interviews from 10 years ago, instead of the current claim that she was fired because she was pregnant. Also, her mother's temperament about her going to college was not as bad as she made out, albeit this revelation is due to her highly inconsistent accounts from today and in previous decades. 


Of course, she's being protected by the liberal anti-Trump press, all the major media.  They're ignoring that part of the story for the most part amplifying how she got "fired" for being pregnant which is her lying again and the press swearing to it and playing up thi untruth for her benefit.  Here's her original statement she said years ago about the issue.   Nothing about getting fired.  She lied just as she lied about her Indian heritage. 


"[M]y first year post-graduation I worked in a public school system with the children with disabilities. I did that for a year, and then that summer I didn't have the education courses, so I was on an "emergency certificate," it was called. I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, "I don't think this is going to work out for me." I was pregnant with my first baby, so I had a baby and stayed home for a couple of years, and I was really casting about, thinking, "What am I going to do?""[/font][/size]
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/liberal-media-ignore-elizabeth-warrens-lie-about-pregnancy-related-firing (https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/liberal-media-ignore-elizabeth-warrens-lie-about-pregnancy-related-firing)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 03:16:57 pm
Where's Hillary when we need her?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 03:24:40 pm
More third-rate ideological tripe. Taxes are how we pay for the common expenditures that we incur. There's nothing philosophical about it. You live in a society, you have joint responsibilities, you pay for them, that's all she wrote. All discussions about whether taxes are right or wrong are utter b*llshit. The real conversation is in deciding what you want to pay for collectively. Once you know that, you divvy up the costs. And anyway, when you pay taxes the money doesn't disappear into a black hole.

I was making the point that tax cuts are not expenditures as the poster had implied.  He was wrong. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 09, 2019, 03:27:44 pm
I was making the point that tax cuts are not expenditures as the poster had implied.  He was wrong.

I didn't say tax cuts were expenditures. I said they were debt financed, meaning the government is borrowing money to make the tax cuts possible. Otherwise, Congress would have had to cut expenditures an equivalent amount, and Congress certainly isn't interested in that. I hope that you, like Joe, were the beneficiary of the tax cuts. Most Americans got little or nothing from them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 04:06:49 pm
I didn't say taxes were expenditures. I said they were debt financed, meaning we are borrowing the money to make the tax cuts possible. Otherwise, we would have had to cut expenditures an equivalent amount, and Congress certainly isn't interested in that.
Lower taxes are not debt financed.  Expenditures are debt financed.  We are borrowing to make the expenditures possible. Of course, if tax collection is less than spending, we have to borrow or print.  But it's spending that decides how much taxes you need.  The government pays interest on the deficit and debt, money spent.  Not on the tax money not collected.  Unless we get spending under control, we're in trouble.  There's not enough tax money available that won't hurt the economy with the programs the Democrats are proposing.  The Republicans are better, but not by much.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 09, 2019, 04:18:25 pm
Lower taxes are not debt financed.  Expenditures are debt financed.  We are borrowing to make the expenditures possible. Of course, if tax collection is less than spending, we have to borrow or print.  But it's spending that decides how much taxes you need.  The government pays interest on the deficit and debt, money spent.  Not on the tax money not collected.  Unless we get spending under control, we're in trouble.  There's not enough tax money available that won't hurt the economy with the programs the Democrats are proposing.  The Republicans are better, but not by much.
Expenditures are not debt financed. The difference between taxes collected and expenditures made are debt financed. When expenditures stay the same or are increased, lower taxes mean increased debt. It is a direct correlation. Tax collections are replaced by debt. The more taxes are cut, the more debt increases. Such deficit financing gave us two quarters of modest economic growth. Economists have referred to it as a "sugar high". Hardly worth the price of increasing the debt.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 04:28:09 pm
Expenditures are not debt financed. The difference between taxes collected and expenditures made are debt financed. When expenditures stay the same or are increased, lower taxes mean increased debt. It is a direct correlation. Such deficit financing gave us two quarters of modest economic growth. Economists have referred to it as a "sugar high". Hardly worth the price of increasing the debt.

Yes, expenditures beyond tax collection is debt financed.  I said that: "Of course, if tax collection is less than spending, we have to borrow or print."  But it's expenditures that drive taxes and debt.  I agree with you that it's a sugar high.  It's like getting a new credit card.  It feels great until the end of the month when you get the statement.  :o


Deficit financing gets you growth.  But it's phoney.  Then when you start to pay it back, it hurts the economy.  The interest payment alone kill the budget.  It's just kicking the can down the road.  It's the same as credit card debt.  Pay now or pay later. It costs more later. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 09, 2019, 05:55:17 pm
Anyone interested in a factual analysis about the impact of the rate/distribution of taxes as a function of revenue on the economy and unbalanced accumulation of wealth should read Thomas Pickety.

Hint, he is a strong inspiration for Warren and Sanders.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 06:19:12 pm
Anyone interested in a factual analysis about the impact of the rate/distribution of taxes as a function of revenue on the economy and unbalanced accumulation of wealth should read Thomas Pickety.

Hint, he is a strong inspiration for Warren and Sanders.

Cheers,
Bernard

I never heard of Piketty until now.  So I read up on him.  Piketty, born in France,  is a leftist who believes in the global redistribution of wealth to eliminate income inequality.  I'm not shocked if Sanders and Warren are inspired by him.  While he points out income inequality, he doesn;t seem to get to why it is bad.  In America, regardless of the difference, the poor have never been so rich.  So if the system is helping people out of poverty, at least in America (much of his research is in France), he doesn;t explain why income distribution is not good as it is. 


Of course, the socialists and Marxists are excited by his desire to have the government grab people's money and spread it around.  Also, his parents were Trotskyists but supposedly gave that up before he was borne.  I'm suspicious considering his philosophy.  He also says he was turned off to Socialism when he visited the Soviet Union and favors capitalism.  Again I'm suspicious.  If Sanders thinks highly of him, I suspect he's like him too.  If it quacks like a duck, walk like a duck, ...well you know the rest. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: degrub on October 09, 2019, 07:40:49 pm
Tax cuts are not expenditures.  Most liberals don;t understand that the government does not own or earn the tax money they collect.   The money never belonged to them.  So tax cuts are just leaving more money earned with those who earned the money in the first place.    Tax cut dollars belong to the taxpayer to begin with.

Yeah, that’s fine. But when you have to finance that cut by borrowing......
Good old supply side economics. Not.
Only thing that has done is increase the debt for the grandkids....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 09, 2019, 07:46:23 pm
Anyone interested in a factual analysis about the impact of the rate/distribution of taxes as a function of revenue on the economy and unbalanced accumulation of wealth should read Thomas Pickety.

Hint, he is a strong inspiration for Warren and Sanders.

Cheers,
Bernard

It's been pointed out by more then just a hand full that Pinkety cherry picked his evidence for his theories. 

On top of that, those whom always rail against income inequality tend to never remove the outliners in the data (those at the very very top who make up .01% but significantly skew the means) and do not give age the proper weight when looking at income distributions.

For example, the differences in income between the average American and the average Hispanic American is pretty substantial, but the average age of Hispanic Americans is significantly lower, which plays a large role but is hugely ignored by progressives.  There are other aspects as well that greatly effect income inequality that are largely ignored. 

Not to mention, those whom follow his theories tend to support that life is a zero sum gain, meaning that wealth is limited and in order for one person to become wealthy, he/she must take wealth from someone else.  There is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of evidence that wealth is created (out of nothing sometimes), leading to near limitless amount of potential. 

Now this is not to say that excessive income inequality is a good thing; it certainly will cause extreme instability but I do not think we are there yet.  This over emphasis by Millennials and Gen Zs on income inequality is very likely due to the excessive college debt they hold that was brought onto them by the false premise that in order to be successful one needed to go to college.  This in course increased college admissions (demand) faster then supply could increase and, combined with easy to get loans, increased the prices significantly, increasing debt.  Last, and unfortunately, there is only a finite percentage of jobs in the real world that require college degrees, leaving many with jobs that pay too little to pay off the debt and whom have no real skills to work in areas that pay well but require different skill sets then what one would learn in a traditional college. 

Those in the trades are actually doing well, but the stigma of being a tradesman is still prevalent and many trades people are looked down upon by college educated individuals, which I find rather disheartening. 

(If you ever do any work in construction, you will find out that the building science that goes into construction is far more complicated that what it is given credit for.  I recently had a fairly in depth conversation with a client about insulating baring masonry walls and how you need to adjust methods after taking into account masonry materials and zone location.) 

But anyway, getting back to the whole income inequality issue, maybe we are approaching the edge of the cliff.  I was listening to Chris Hedges today talk about the USA in the age of Trump.  Now he is a progressive liberal whom (I think) leans more socialist then capitalist and is an obvious Trump hater, so I will certainly not agree with everything he says.  But he did make a good point that the Democrats, influenced most recently by the Clintons, abandoned the working class, and this lack of support for the working class is what is causing such a huge upheaval in the country.  I tend to agree with this.  Even Jordan Peterson, whom I am more in line with, agrees that excessive income inequality will cause eventual economic failure. 

Hedges also is of the theory that the next bubble to burst will be the college debt crisis, and solutions will be limited since we already used every (progressive) solution in our arsenal in the last recession.  I cant argue against either of these; when/if that bubble bursts, it appears like we will be giving the right wing austerity a try and get to actually test it out. 

My solutions will, it seems, be very different then yours though, at any stretch. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 09:00:47 pm
...
For example, the differences in income between the average American and the average Hispanic American is pretty substantial, but the average age of Hispanic Americans is significantly lower, which plays a large role but is hugely ignored by progressives.  There are other aspects as well that greatly effect income inequality that are largely ignored. 

Not to mention, those whom follow his theories tend to support that life is a zero sum gain, meaning that wealth is limited and in order for one person to become wealthy, he/she must take wealth from someone else.  There is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of evidence that wealth is created (out of nothing sometimes), leading to near limitless amount of potential. 

Now this is not to say that excessive income inequality is a good thing; it certainly will cause extreme instability but I do not think we are there yet...

WE're not a banana republic where 5% of the population is rich and the other 95% is poor.  We have a huge middle class where people do pretty well.  Even poorer people aren't poor by poor standards in other parts of the world.  I also agree with you that it isn't a zero sum game.A rising tide does lift all boats.  The "poor" are doing much better with more employment and more pay while there are very rich people at the same time.  They're not in opposition.  Rather if the rich are doing well, so is the rest of the country.  The country is stable today. 

I'd rather not call it income inequality in any case.  Wealth inequality fits better.  Most rich money comes from investments that create jobs and provide wealth for many people.  Sure, Elon Musk is a billionaire.  But look at all the jobs he created with his entrepreneurial enterprise.  And he's helping the climate.  :)  There are thousands of his people employed making good money.  My wife and I visited Thomas Edison house and plant in West Orange, New Jersey last weekend and two weeks ago.  This guy worked 20 hours a day.  He never slept; always working on his inventions and business .  He was a millionaire at a very young age,  Meanwhile he employed 10,000 people.  Who would deny his wealth?  Certainly his employees wouldn't. 

This whole inequality argument is a spiritual malady.  It goes to the heart of the commandment that requires us not to covet our neighbor's property because that leads to theft, another thing we're suppose to avoid.  Of course, the government is used to do the redistribution for us.  But all this eats at the heart of a society and leads to conflicts among its citizens, each side claiming the high ground demanding more for its side.  And it's all not necessary since it isn't a zero sum game.  The better people do, the better there's more to go around.  At least in America.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 09, 2019, 11:23:57 pm
It's been pointed out by more then just a hand full that Pinkety cherry picked his evidence for his theories. 

On top of that, those whom always rail against income inequality tend to never remove the outliners in the data (those at the very very top who make up .01% but significantly skew the means) and do not give age the proper weight when looking at income distributions.

For example, the differences in income between the average American and the average Hispanic American is pretty substantial, but the average age of Hispanic Americans is significantly lower, which plays a large role but is hugely ignored by progressives.  There are other aspects as well that greatly effect income inequality that are largely ignored. 

Not to mention, those whom follow his theories tend to support that life is a zero sum gain, meaning that wealth is limited and in order for one person to become wealthy, he/she must take wealth from someone else.  There is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of evidence that wealth is created (out of nothing sometimes), leading to near limitless amount of potential. 

Now this is not to say that excessive income inequality is a good thing; it certainly will cause extreme instability but I do not think we are there yet.  This over emphasis by Millennials and Gen Zs on income inequality is very likely due to the excessive college debt they hold that was brought onto them by the false premise that in order to be successful one needed to go to college.  This in course increased college admissions (demand) faster then supply could increase and, combined with easy to get loans, increased the prices significantly, increasing debt.  Last, and unfortunately, there is only a finite percentage of jobs in the real world that require college degrees, leaving many with jobs that pay too little to pay off the debt and whom have no real skills to work in areas that pay well but require different skill sets then what one would learn in a traditional college. 

Those in the trades are actually doing well, but the stigma of being a tradesman is still prevalent and many trades people are looked down upon by college educated individuals, which I find rather disheartening. 

(If you ever do any work in construction, you will find out that the building science that goes into construction is far more complicated that what it is given credit for.  I recently had a fairly in depth conversation with a client about insulating baring masonry walls and how you need to adjust methods after taking into account masonry materials and zone location.) 

But anyway, getting back to the whole income inequality issue, maybe we are approaching the edge of the cliff.  I was listening to Chris Hedges today talk about the USA in the age of Trump.  Now he is a progressive liberal whom (I think) leans more socialist then capitalist and is an obvious Trump hater, so I will certainly not agree with everything he says.  But he did make a good point that the Democrats, influenced most recently by the Clintons, abandoned the working class, and this lack of support for the working class is what is causing such a huge upheaval in the country.  I tend to agree with this.  Even Jordan Peterson, whom I am more in line with, agrees that excessive income inequality will cause eventual economic failure. 

Hedges also is of the theory that the next bubble to burst will be the college debt crisis, and solutions will be limited since we already used every (progressive) solution in our arsenal in the last recession.  I cant argue against either of these; when/if that bubble bursts, it appears like we will be giving the right wing austerity a try and get to actually test it out. 

My solutions will, it seems, be very different then yours though, at any stretch.

His new book solves many of the shortcomings of the previous one.

Inequality of income and, more than that, of family capital through inheritance is obviously a major obstacle against equality of chances in a fair society.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 09, 2019, 11:42:57 pm
His new book solves many of the shortcomings of the previous one.

Inequality of income and, more than that, of family capital through inheritance is obviously a major obstacle against equality of chances in a fair society.

Cheers,
Bernard

Most of the major entrepreneurial businesses including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft,and so many others happened in America mostly started by normal people who were not rich.  Jeff Bezos who started Amazon and is now the richest man in the world, had very humble beginnings.  His parents divorced when he was four and he worked for McDonalds hamburger store as a short-order cook.   These businesses  didn't happen in Europe which because of it's socialist and other practices regular people can;t do these things.  Your so-called equality of income doesn;t seem to help you too much there. 

I think I'll wait for his third book.  His second is just more of the same nonsense.  Unfortunately, we have Sanders and Warren getting inspiration from him.  Good grief.
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0235.gif) (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/[url=http://www.mysmiley.net)](http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0235.gif) (http://www.mysmiley.net)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 12:47:08 am
Most of the major entrepreneurial businesses including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft,and so many others happened in America mostly started by normal people who were not rich.  Jeff Bezos who started Amazon and is now the richest man in the world, had very humble beginnings.  His parents divorced when he was four and he worked for McDonalds hamburger store as a short-order cook.   These businesses  didn't happen in Europe which because of it's socialist and other practices regular people can;t do these things.  Your so-called equality of income doesn;t seem to help you too much there. 

It is still much easier to start a company in USA than in most European countries (correspondingly, not only to start them but also to dissolve them). The red tape and accounting hurdles are much worse in Europe than in USA or Canada. Although, now there are several small software or photography companies based in various European countries with excellent and innovative products.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 10, 2019, 05:31:30 am
It is still much easier to start a company in USA than in most European countries (correspondingly, not only to start them but also to dissolve them). The red tape and accounting hurdles are much worse in Europe than in USA or Canada. Although, now there are several small software or photography companies based in various European countries with excellent and innovative products.

Sorry, guys, that's not a good thing, neither is it quite accurate.

I started my thing in Scotland with only six hundred quid.

Red tape? Back in '66 there existed a concept known as purchase tax. In order to get an exemption certificate, which permitted the purchase of such things as film without high levels of tax, you were interviewed and depending on the result of that chat, allowed or denied such a certificate. One of the questions I was asked was how much film was I going to be using in the coming year. How the hell did I know? I didn't even know if I could stay afloat for more than six months! I told them the truth, that I didn't know. I guess they thought poor schmuck, he'll be on the dole in a few weeks, let him have his permit. That said, they did make regular checks to the studio where I had to account for every single roll of film that I bought from the wholesalers, and where it was used. After a couple of years the visits stopped.

That was not really unnecessary red tape: that was to make sure I was not using a business as a cover for buying film tax-free at wholesale and selling it off in a little black market venture without paying the tax that should have been applied.

It was easy because I was only doing photography. And that was a mistake, in my opinion. I don't think anyone should be allowed to start a business without having first to prove their competence in the field in which they intend to operate. Only photography; but what about the wedding, memories of which you could ruin forever with dud snaps? No amount of business insurance brings that couple that day back one more time.

I would go so far as to suggest that this:

"It is still much easier to start a company in USA than in most European countries (correspondingly, not only to start them but also to dissolve them)."

is actually a very bad thing for everyone other than the shark.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 10, 2019, 05:57:37 am
Most of the major entrepreneurial businesses including Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft,and so many others happened in America mostly started by normal people who were not rich.  Jeff Bezos who started Amazon and is now the richest man in the world, had very humble beginnings.  His parents divorced when he was four and he worked for McDonalds hamburger store as a short-order cook.   These businesses  didn't happen in Europe which because of it's socialist and other practices regular people can;t do these things.  Your so-called equality of income doesn;t seem to help you too much there. 

Yes, indeed. I agree that Europe needs to lower the barriers to entrepreneurship... but this is a totally different topic.

Pickety has never said that it's impossible to be successful without rich parent. He is saying that it is so much tougher that most people not only don't manage to be successful, they don't manage to live a decent life.

I would personally not be deterred the least bit in my entrepreneurship if I were told that my assets can't go above 30 million US$.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 06:02:46 am
Rob, I don't know about UK, but based on my own experience, the cost and procedures to start a company (solo proprietorship or corporation) were much lower and easier in Canada than in Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia. OTOH, I was told that starting and operating a business in Poland is much easier than in the surrounding states.

In Canada, it's relatively easy to start a business. You need to apply for a business number (in person or by mail), open a bank account, and print business cards. To dissolve it, you close the bank account and submit the outstanding tax return(s). The cost to register a basic unincorporated company is under $100, and a corporation can be formed for $500-$1000.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 10, 2019, 07:27:52 am
His new book solves many of the shortcomings of the previous one.

Inequality of income and, more than that, of family capital through inheritance is obviously a major obstacle against equality of chances in a fair society.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ever hear the phrase, "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations?”

Fact is most wealthy people are wealthy of their own creation, and most inherited wealth is squandered by those who inherited it.  Additionally, since wealth is created, not stolen, I see very little reason why inheritance is an obstacle against equality of opportunity.  It isn't! 

What's an obsticle?  Setting up a system where the only way to advance in society is when you suck up to the ruling elite, like every other system besides capitalism.  This study has actually be done, and they found the closer a system is to capitialism, the easier it is for the average person to advance.  The closer it is to a socialist system (or feudal system) the more likely the only way to advance was through cronyism.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 10, 2019, 07:36:26 am
But anyway, getting back to impeaching Trump and the whole Ukraine thing, it just seems that Joe Biden cant get a break here. 

Here is a recent NY Times article, "What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal — And That’s the Problem." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/what-hunter-biden-did-was-legal-and-thats-the-problem.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 07:46:13 am
So Trump's moves to deregulate and lower business taxes and those of wealthy people,  helps American business and its economy  and makes America more competitive in the world.  It's entrepreneurial system it's second to none.   Sanders and Warren would destroy it as would Picketty.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 10, 2019, 07:48:21 am
USA!!! USA!!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 07:53:37 am
So Trump's moves to deregulate and lower business taxes and those of wealthy people,  helps American business and its economy  and makes America more competitive in the world.  It's entrepreneurial system it's second to none.   Sanders and Warren would destroy it as would Picketty.

I don't think anybody could inflict as much damage as Trump - to USA and worldwide.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 08:07:10 am
But anyway, getting back to impeaching Trump and the whole Ukraine thing, it just seems that Joe Biden cant get a break here. 

Here is a recent NY Times article, "What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal — And That’s the Problem." (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/what-hunter-biden-did-was-legal-and-thats-the-problem.html)
The Times wants Warren as president not Biden.  He's toast.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 10, 2019, 08:41:58 am
So Trump's moves to deregulate and lower business taxes and those of wealthy people,  helps American business and its economy  and makes America more competitive in the world.  It's entrepreneurial system it's second to none.   Sanders and Warren would destroy it as would Picketty.

Are you seriously suggesting that American enterprise has been held back in the last 20-30 years? What planet do you wake up on every day?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 10, 2019, 08:58:34 am
Are you seriously suggesting that American enterprise has been held back in the last 20-30 years? What planet do you wake up on every day?

A world where Bill Gates had no help from his parents, I suppose. I wonder what colour the sky is ?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 09:50:19 am
Are you seriously suggesting that American enterprise has been held back in the last 20-30 years? What planet do you wake up on every day?
Yes.  America was held back. There was less investment in America by Americans as well as foreigners due to our high corporate income tax.  It was higher the most other countries in the world.  Since Trump changed tax legislation with Congress, corporate taxes are now lower and there's more investment in America business.
https://taxfoundation.org/lower-us-corporate-income-tax-rate-competitive/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 09:55:41 am
A world where Bill Gates had no help from his parents, I suppose. I wonder what colour the sky is ?
Well, many kids unfortunately don't have parents to rear them or even know who their father is.  Maybe we should take everyone's parents away to even it up.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 10, 2019, 10:12:16 am
A world where Bill Gates had no help from his parents, I suppose. I wonder what colour the sky is ?

For every Bill Gates, there is one Steve Jobs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 10, 2019, 10:28:17 am
The two goons Rudy Guiliani was working with on the Ukraine deal were arrested at Dulles airport today trying to flee the country. They are being indicted for making illegal campaign contributions to Trump and to an unnamed Congressman for the purpose of facilitating the removal of then US Ambassador to Ukraine Yovanovitch. She will be testifying before the House Intelligence Committee tomorrow unless the State Department orders her not to testify as they did with EU Ambassador Sondlund on Monday.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/giulianis-ukraine-henchmen-lev-parnas-and-igor-fruman-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charge
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 11:04:08 am
For every Bill Gates, there is one Steve Jobs.
Bill Gates did have well-to-do parents.  But a lot of people do and don't become captains of industry.  Look at Paris Hilton. :)

Gates was also a genius getting a 1590 out of 1600 on the SAT's.  I guess the 10 missing points were do to a hanging chad. :)  But he worked his butt off.  I don;t know Jobs background.  But being a Lebanese did not hold him back in America.  America welcomes all comers who want to do well.  South African born American Elon Musk of Tesla fame is certainly welcome here.  He too had a rough childhood and made well coming through Canada as well.   Larry Page and Sergey Brin (originally from Russia) of Google fame had supportive parents but not rich.  I think being rich is overplayed.  Having a supportive family is better and much more important.  You also have to have the personality to be in your own business.  As mentioned earlier by Joe, children of rich people often just spend all the money and have little interest in their family's business.  In the end, all money eventually has to be spent into the economy which benefits everyone including the poor as they now have jobs.  You can't eat currency.  It's only of value to you when you spend it.  That provides jobs for others and taxes to the government.  They also give a lot to charity opening up hospital wings etc.  Look what Bill Gates is doing with his wealth.  They can't take it with them. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 10, 2019, 11:15:24 am
For an alternative to the cheerleading, this is a start:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/phone-state-private-sector-products-investment-innovation

https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 11:33:43 am
For an alternative to the cheerleading, this is a start:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/phone-state-private-sector-products-investment-innovation

https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app
What're the articles about and what's your point?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 10, 2019, 11:36:40 am
What're the articles about and what's your point?

For a man who became an expert on the work of Thomas Piketty overnight I don't think a couple of magazine articles will tax you greatly?  But, in short, they are about the contribution of government money (you know - taxes) to entrepreneurs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 12:00:24 pm
For a man who became an expert on the work of Thomas Piketty overnight I don't think a couple of magazine articles will tax you greatly?  But, in short, they are about the contribution of government money (you know - taxes) to entrepreneurs.
I did read it.  But didn;t want to comment because I didn't know what point you were trying to make.  Also, the rules here are you're suppose give a summary when you post a link to an article.  It's also a courtesy to other forum members because people don't always have time to read everything that's linked here.  Also, it would be helpful to let us know why you think the article is important to read so we may object or support your point. 

Yes, a lot of government money is used for research and development of products because government buys a lot of stuff.  What's your point?   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 10, 2019, 12:08:21 pm
Meanwhile, back to the original topic, this from Fox News:

Just over half of voters want President Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a Fox News Poll released Wednesday.

A new high of 51 percent wants Trump impeached and removed from office, another 4 percent want him impeached but not removed, and 40 percent oppose impeachment altogether. In July, 42 percent favored impeachment and removal, while 5 percent said impeach but don’t remove him, and 45 percent opposed impeachment.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-record-support-for-trump-impeachment
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 10, 2019, 12:32:55 pm
USA!!! USA!!!!

Jeremy, I have told you before. If you can't contribute something useful, don't contribute anything at all.

For an alternative to the cheerleading, this is a start:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/12/phone-state-private-sector-products-investment-innovation
https://hbr.org/2013/03/taxpayers-helped-apple-but-app

And I also made it plain quite a while ago that if you post external links, you must indicate why you are posting them and what of interest or relevance lies at the other end.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 10, 2019, 01:59:43 pm
I did read it.  But didn;t want to comment because I didn't know what point you were trying to make.
If you read the the articles, the point he was trying to make is obvious.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 10, 2019, 03:46:44 pm
If you read the the articles, the point he was trying to make is obvious.
I don't agree with his point.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 11, 2019, 08:55:45 am
Rob, I don't know about UK, but based on my own experience, the cost and procedures to start a company (solo proprietorship or corporation) were much lower and easier in Canada than in Netherlands, Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia. OTOH, I was told that starting and operating a business in Poland is much easier than in the surrounding states.

In Canada, it's relatively easy to start a business. You need to apply for a business number (in person or by mail), open a bank account, and print business cards. To dissolve it, you close the bank account and submit the outstanding tax return(s). The cost to register a basic unincorporated company is under $100, and a corporation can be formed for $500-$1000.
I'm staying out of the political discussions but I'll just add my experience.  When I retired from my day job in pharma, I set up a consulting practice.  You can get a business ID from IRS for free and I only had to file papers with the State of Maryland for my Limited Liability Corporation (LLC).  IIRC that cost $200 or so.  I had to file a yearly corporate tax statement with the State that outlined equipment and supply purchases and depreciation and disposal of equipment.  that took all of ten minutes to do.  I did not have to file separate tax returns for the LLC, it all went into the personal tax filing for both the US and Maryland.  Everything was pretty easy and expenses on a yearly basis, minimal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 11, 2019, 09:05:20 am
I don't agree with his point.  :)

That doesn't work - I'm surprised(*) Jeremy hasn't pulled you up for contributing nothing useful :-) 

But really - it's not enough to say "I don't agree" without presenting some counter argument. Likewise it's not enough to say you don't agree with Piketty or Marx or whoever on the basis of your one-inch thoughts not coinciding with a precis of their work that you read on a cereal box somewhere.

(*) Not really
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 11, 2019, 09:12:48 am
I don't agree with his point.  :)
I do not know how you can disagree with his point when you said you did not know what his point was.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 11, 2019, 09:36:28 am
I'm staying out of the political discussions but I'll just add my experience.  When I retired from my day job in pharma, I set up a consulting practice.  You can get a business ID from IRS for free and I only had to file papers with the State of Maryland for my Limited Liability Corporation (LLC).  IIRC that cost $200 or so.  I had to file a yearly corporate tax statement with the State that outlined equipment and supply purchases and depreciation and disposal of equipment.  that took all of ten minutes to do.  I did not have to file separate tax returns for the LLC, it all went into the personal tax filing for both the US and Maryland.  Everything was pretty easy and expenses on a yearly basis, minimal.

It should be pointed out that although the LLC status is a federal status, it is up to the states on how one can and how it will cost to register as one.  In PA, like in Maryland, it is very easy.  I think I paid a one time $125 filing fee.  Also, since I run my LLC like a sole proprietor, it is operated like a pass through business with no need for payroll (for myself) or the need to pay corporate taxes. 

Other states make it harder and more expensive. 

Last, unless you are operating your LLC like a corporation and/or maintain separate bank accounts where you only us the business bank account, and any credit cards, for business purchases only, your business's separation from your person would be easy to argue against in court of you were sued.   So, if you opened an LLC to keep your business assets separate from your personal assets, for liability reasons, make sure you do not use your business account to cover personal expenses. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 11, 2019, 02:38:38 pm

Last, unless you are operating your LLC like a corporation and/or maintain separate bank accounts where you only us the business bank account, and any credit cards, for business purchases only, your business's separation from your person would be easy to argue against in court of you were sued.   So, if you opened an LLC to keep your business assets separate from your personal assets, for liability reasons, make sure you do not use your business account to cover personal expenses.
quite right.  That's exactly what I did and it worked fine for about five years when most of my clients went their own way.  At that point, I was happy to just go into retirement and let the LLC fade into obscurity.  I still get occasional press calls because of the pharma experience but that doesn't pay very much!!! ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 11, 2019, 03:35:30 pm
For a man who became an expert on the work of Thomas Piketty overnight I don't think a couple of magazine articles will tax you greatly?  But, in short, they are about the contribution of government money (you know - taxes) to entrepreneurs.
Well, I wouldn't want the administrator to make you or me sit in the corner for not making a point. We might actually have to sit together and discuss things in a friendly way. :) 

So my point is that these articles are just more excuses why we should redistribute wealth.  After all, the writers say, if government made these companies, then their wealth belongs to the people who funded the government.  Just more Marxist and Socialist nonsense.  Regardless of what the government did or didn't do, it's private investment capital that's taking the risk.  The investors using their personal savings are the ones who stand to lose if the company doesn't work out.  Remember, there are competitors that they have to go against as well. There are no guarantees they're going to make money.   Why would I invest in a new company if the government is just going to take it's profits?  It's bad enough they hit me with capital gains taxes.  But these writers really want to take it all. Also, it's not like a company has a blank slate.  Look at the companies that went bust after Obama gave $800 million to them.  By the way, it was Obama who made the point that it was the government that made companies and rich people.  Of course, he's a Marxist so would say something like that.  Even companies like Lockheed who make probably all their money from government being in the defense industry are taking risks.  Many defense companies have gone out of business and the investors were hurt.  The capital gains taxes (around 15% now) that the government takes is more than enough "compensation" for any assistance that someone thinks the government gave them.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 11, 2019, 04:00:18 pm
  Regardless of what the government did or didn't do, it's private investment capital that's taking the risk. 

You can't have been reading properly - it was the governmnet that took the risk in funding the startups' technology.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 11, 2019, 05:51:43 pm
quite right.  That's exactly what I did and it worked fine for about five years when most of my clients went their own way.  At that point, I was happy to just go into retirement and let the LLC fade into obscurity.  I still get occasional press calls because of the pharma experience but that doesn't pay very much!!! ;D

I am sure you knew that, but thought it would be good to point it out for others. 

And it is, somewhat, reassuring to know press rates suck in other lines of work beside just photography. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 11, 2019, 05:57:25 pm
Ah, yes, the granola thread.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 11, 2019, 06:12:42 pm
You can't have been reading properly - it was the governmnet that took the risk in funding the startups' technology.
I don't know anything about startups. No one ever helped me when I started my business.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 12, 2019, 09:10:12 am
I don't know anything about startups. No one ever helped me when I started my business.
I think Jeremy was speaking about all the government funded research (DARPA, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Heath, Department of Agriculture) that many tech startups took advantage of.  Certainly in my area of expertise, key discoveries by federally funded university researchers led to the creation of the biotechnology industry and the development of a lot of novel pharmaceuticals.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 13, 2019, 11:35:55 am
I think Jeremy was speaking about all the government funded research (DARPA, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Heath, Department of Agriculture) that many tech startups took advantage of.  Certainly in my area of expertise, key discoveries by federally funded university researchers led to the creation of the biotechnology industry and the development of a lot of novel pharmaceuticals.

From the first paragraph of the HBR article I linked to:

"Many of the revolutionary technologies that make the iPhone and other products and services “smart” were funded by the U.S. government. Take, for instance, the Internet, GPS, touchscreen display, as well as the latest voice-activated personal assistant, Siri. And Apple did not just benefit from government-funded research activities. It also received its early stage finance from the U.S. government’s Small Business Investment Company program. Venture capitalists entered only after government funding had gotten the company to the critical proof of concept."

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 13, 2019, 12:42:29 pm
"I'm from the government and we're here to help"  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 13, 2019, 01:27:51 pm
That's what also Trump said:

Quote
“I want to add that I’m here to help you folks do well, and you’re doing well right now,” he said to a room that included Apple CEO Tim Cook, Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos and Alphabet CEO Larry Page.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/12/14/donald-trump-to-techs-leaders-im-on-your-side/#57877aec591f
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 13, 2019, 07:40:18 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwP76fNWYAAYW45.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 13, 2019, 07:46:04 pm
Latest from Willie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssVO5qnyQss
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 13, 2019, 10:34:35 pm
From the first paragraph of the HBR article I linked to:

"Many of the revolutionary technologies that make the iPhone and other products and services “smart” were funded by the U.S. government. Take, for instance, the Internet, GPS, touchscreen display, as well as the latest voice-activated personal assistant, Siri. And Apple did not just benefit from government-funded research activities. It also received its early stage finance from the U.S. government’s Small Business Investment Company program. Venture capitalists entered only after government funding had gotten the company to the critical proof of concept."


It's true that the government also buys things from companies.  So you could argue that a highway contractor who got a job from the Feds to re-pave US Route 66 and got his business started that way was government funded.  But what really happened is the company was privately funded and got work from the government.  The investors were still taking a risk with their investments.  There's no guarantee that the company would survive in a competitive business world.   

But I don't know what you're suggesting in any case. Should government seize the company after it becomes successful?  The thing to remember is that when the company starts making profits, they'll be taxed by the government so it will get some of its success in the end.  So will the public because they will use those government taxes for public use.  Employees of those companies also pay taxes to the Feds as do the stockholders with dividends and when they sell their stock pay capital gains tax.  If the Feds were to seize the companie for itself, you wind up like Cuba or the USSR. 

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 14, 2019, 01:29:29 am
But I don't know what you're suggesting in any case.

That Apple et al should pay their taxes.

Quote
If the Feds were to seize the companie for itself, you wind up like Cuba or the USSR.

Unlikely. You haven't got the music.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 14, 2019, 01:40:57 am
That Apple et al should pay their taxes.

Unlikely. You haven't got the music.
We got jazz, swing, country and rock n roll. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 17, 2019, 03:51:38 pm
Senate leader Republican Mitch McConnell calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bluff about impeachment and Pelosi blinks.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/17/20919037/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-timeline-donald-trump
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 17, 2019, 04:27:13 pm
Senate leader Republican Mitch McConnell calls House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bluff about impeachment and Pelosi blinks.
https://www.vox.com/2019/10/17/20919037/nancy-pelosi-mitch-mcconnell-impeachment-timeline-donald-trump
How did McConnell call Pelosi’s bluff and how did she blink?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 17, 2019, 07:47:41 pm
Oh look.  Corruption (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-has-awarded-next-years-g-7-summit-of-world-leaders-to-his-miami-area-resort-the-white-house-said/2019/10/17/221b32d6-ef52-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html).  But hey, look over there.  Hunter Biden. HUNTER BIDEN!

 ::). This alone is impeachable. And illegal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 17, 2019, 08:06:30 pm
Oh look.  Corruption (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-has-awarded-next-years-g-7-summit-of-world-leaders-to-his-miami-area-resort-the-white-house-said/2019/10/17/221b32d6-ef52-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html).  But hey, look over there.  Hunter Biden. HUNTER BIDEN!

 ::). This alone is impeachable. And illegal.

Good luck with this one; I guess sometimes you just need to see what sticks. 

Personally I dont see how this rises to the level of gifts, especially if Trump is sponsoring the summit and not making any money.  (I have no idea if this is the case; I could only read the headline and not the full article.)  And if the property did take in revenue for this event, it would be money paid for services provided, which is not exactly a gift.  He would need to make a profit beyond what is normal. 

Anyway, personally you may be able to get him on the Emoluments Clause with the democrats.  Putting Warren on the ticket would be the best gift of his career. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 17, 2019, 09:02:17 pm
Good luck with this one; I guess sometimes you just need to see what sticks. 

Personally I dont see how this rises to the level of gifts, especially if Trump is sponsoring the summit and not making any money.  (I have no idea if this is the case; I could only read the headline and not the full article.)  And if the property did take in revenue for this event, it would be money paid for services provided, which is not exactly a gift.  He would need to make a profit beyond what is normal. 


Really?  You don't see the complete and total self-dealing and conflict of interest here?   Listen.  If we come back and find that Donald Trump, in his generosity and magnanimity donated the rooms, the space, and the catering then that's great.  I find that... doubtful.

Then there's the issue of a complete and utter lack of self-awareness this shows, but that's par for the course for a man who wants to build government policy around investigating a rival's son, but happily steers business to one of his own kids directly using the office, and places his other kids in positions where they're so conflicted that a blind man could see it.   

If you're ok with that, I don't know what to tell you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 17, 2019, 09:18:07 pm
Really?  You don't see the complete and total self-dealing and conflict of interest here?   Listen.  If we come back and find that Donald Trump, in his generosity and magnanimity donated the rooms, the space, and the catering then that's great.  I find that... doubtful.

Then there's the issue of a complete and utter lack of self-awareness this shows, but that's par for the course for a man who wants to build government policy around investigating a rival's son, but happily steers business to one of his own kids directly using the office, and places his other kids in positions where they're so conflicted that a blind man could see it.   

If you're ok with that, I don't know what to tell you.

I'll give you that.  It is a head scratcher that he decided to do this considering all of the other things going on.  Seems he likes to invite criticism. 

But anyway, getting back to the point.  The Republicans in the Senate will never convict Trump, unless something more damning comes out, and it is looking more and more that the Dems in the house don't even have the numbers to actually pass a formal vote.  They tried three times before and failed to pass it, so I doubt a fourth time will be the charm. 

So, the whole premise of this impeachment thingie is tainting Trump for the election, which would certainly work if the Democratic candidates were not crazy.  But they have totally gone off the cliff, tripping over each other to prove how woke they are, and it appears the craziest one of them all will be on the ticket.  Not to mention Warren is a known lier and has been caught this week three times. 

Last, the economy is doing great.  Just read that in the last two years average middle class household income increased by $5000.  In the 8 years under Obama, it only increased $1000. 

So, unless the economy tanks by next November, or one of the moderate Dems gets the ticket, Trump will easily win re-election, especially if Warren is on the ticket. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 17, 2019, 09:58:37 pm
I'll give you that.  It is a head scratcher that he decided to do this considering all of the other things going on.  Seems he likes to invite criticism. 

But anyway, getting back to the point.  The Republicans in the Senate will never convict Trump, unless something more damning comes out, and it is looking more and more that the Dems in the house don't even have the numbers to actually pass a formal vote.  They tried three times before and failed to pass it, so I doubt a fourth time will be the charm. 

So, the whole premise of this impeachment thingie is tainting Trump for the election, which would certainly work if the Democratic candidates were not crazy.  But they have totally gone off the cliff, tripping over each other to prove how woke they are, and it appears the craziest one of them all will be on the ticket.  Not to mention Warren is a known lier and has been caught this week three times. 

Last, the economy is doing great.  Just read that in the last two years average middle class household income increased by $5000.  In the 8 years under Obama, it only increased $1000. 

So, unless the economy tanks by next November, or one of the moderate Dems gets the ticket, Trump will easily win re-election, especially if Warren is on the ticket.

Yeah - I hear you.  We're having two different discussions in a sense.  On one hand, there's the philosophical argument about whether Donald Trump is fit for the presidency.  I believe that the available evidence, ranging from the constant questionable decisions, to the self-dealing, to the nepotism, to the unwillingness to properly learn about things that impact every American's (and to be honest, much of the rest of the world's) life, to the abuse of power and seeming inability to actually run the government correctly, (and the various criminal/civil violations contained in these actions) make him unfit.  It's my belief that he should be impeached and removed on that basis - it's our duty to do so.  It's NOT about policy disagreements - that, as they say, are what elections are for.  Its about incompetence.  High crimes and misdemeanors in the parlance of the founders, or wanton breach of fiduciary duty in the language of today.

After that, who knows.  You may be (in fact I think you probably are) correct about the results of a Warren nomination, though I'm not at all convinced that her ideas are any wackier than some of the stuff I hear from the right.  There will be the sexists that won't vote for her because she's "shrill" and the know-nothings who won't vote for her because she's not "someone I can have a beer with" and total fools who won't vote for her because she's a "liar" even though every third word out of Trump's mouth is a lie, and so on and so on.

I'm not sure anymore, however, that the two things are relevant to one another.  For a long time I was on the side of impeachment being a bad political move for Democrats with an eye toward 2020.  But the more we find out, the more I'm convinced that a Republican administration with some sort of competence and compassion (even if I disagree with their philosophies) is a fair trade to make so long as the incompetent in office now is removed.   (And that's a nasty position to have to take, considering Mike Pence is pretty much a horror show himself.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 17, 2019, 10:43:12 pm
Both the Post and the Times are reporting the G7 contract will be worth millions to Doral County Club -- the G7 attracts thousands of people, who will not all stay at Doral, but many of whom will use Doral services. It's absolutely unbelievable. Another question that occurs to me is whether, in the end, Trump can issue a formal pardon of himself for any crimes committed as President, because I think this may be an actual indictable crime, even if he can't be indicted until after he leaves office.

A more pressing question for the G7 people will be whether they're able to hear anything at the conference, since Doral is more or less at the end of the runways of Miami International Airport. 8-)

 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on October 18, 2019, 01:41:44 am

Politics is the new religion.

(https://faceswaponline.com/wp-content/uploads/JesusTrump-4ca0e9f8e03afb119f024eec2aaba1d2.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 18, 2019, 07:35:16 am
Yeah - I hear you.  We're having two different discussions in a sense.  On one hand, there's the philosophical argument about whether Donald Trump is fit for the presidency.  I believe that the available evidence, ranging from the constant questionable decisions, to the self-dealing, to the nepotism, to the unwillingness to properly learn about things that impact every American's (and to be honest, much of the rest of the world's) life, to the abuse of power and seeming inability to actually run the government correctly, (and the various criminal/civil violations contained in these actions) make him unfit.  It's my belief that he should be impeached and removed on that basis - it's our duty to do so.  It's NOT about policy disagreements - that, as they say, are what elections are for.  Its about incompetence.  High crimes and misdemeanors in the parlance of the founders, or wanton breach of fiduciary duty in the language of today.

After that, who knows.  You may be (in fact I think you probably are) correct about the results of a Warren nomination, though I'm not at all convinced that her ideas are any wackier than some of the stuff I hear from the right.  There will be the sexists that won't vote for her because she's "shrill" and the know-nothings who won't vote for her because she's not "someone I can have a beer with" and total fools who won't vote for her because she's a "liar" even though every third word out of Trump's mouth is a lie, and so on and so on.

I'm not sure anymore, however, that the two things are relevant to one another.  For a long time I was on the side of impeachment being a bad political move for Democrats with an eye toward 2020.  But the more we find out, the more I'm convinced that a Republican administration with some sort of competence and compassion (even if I disagree with their philosophies) is a fair trade to make so long as the incompetent in office now is removed.   (And that's a nasty position to have to take, considering Mike Pence is pretty much a horror show himself.)

I wont disagree with you there, both far left and far right ideas are typically not very sound.  But Trump is pretty much a centrist and Warren is super far left.  It will be an easy choice for most of the country. 

Just saw another interesting poll, all demographics for pretty much every grouping (race, sex, religion, political affiliation), with the exception of progressives, at least 2/3s thinks the economy is doing very well.  So Warrens continued attack on the economy is a disconnect with typical Americans, and not only that, she is asking people to chance their new found economic success by adopting many extreme socialist policies. 

Even with a downturn, I still cant see the average American getting behind these policies. 

If she gets the ticket, start thinking about 2024, because it will be an easy win for Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 18, 2019, 03:47:38 pm
Both the Post and the Times are reporting the G7 contract will be worth millions to Doral County Club -- the G7 attracts thousands of people, who will not all stay at Doral, but many of whom will use Doral services. It's absolutely unbelievable. Another question that occurs to me is whether, in the end, Trump can issue a formal pardon of himself for any crimes committed as President, because I think this may be an actual indictable crime, even if he can't be indicted until after he leaves office.

A more pressing question for the G7 people will be whether they're able to hear anything at the conference, since Doral is more or less at the end of the runways of Miami International Airport. 8-)

 
They can use my house. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 18, 2019, 03:55:19 pm
They can use my house.

It's really disturbing that a segment of Americans - you among them - thinks this kind of thing is a joke.  It tells me that you don't care if the president breaks laws and has no ethics as long as you get the result you desire, and that's screwed up.  And actually, even that's not quite right, because getting rid of the human garbage pile sitting in the Oval Office would still get conservatives Pence - a better conservative anyway.  So it's not even your principles - it's *Trump* that people support, and that says a lot about them - nothing good, I might add.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 18, 2019, 04:09:08 pm
I was in the group that thought Impeachment was a bad idea and should not happen as the election in 2020 is drawing close.  What has been uncovered in the past two weeks has changed my mind as it also has Speaker Pelosi who gave the go ahead for the inquiry.  That the President has been using 'his' lawyer, Mr. Guiliani, to be the point on all of the Ukraine stuff is quite disturbing and several witnesses have already identified this.  The Pentagon is now offering witnesses up which cannot be good for the President.  If the President is so innocent, why are they taking such pains to prevent anyone from testifying??

The President is also under investigation on a number of fronts for possible financial fraud related to various Trump businesses prior to his taking office.  He has filed statements to banks that do not reconcile with property tax assessments and a host of other stuff that is now being untangled. 

Former Senator Jeff Flake said that there would likely be 20 Republican votes in the Senate for Impeachment if there was a secret ballot.  I suspect that's just the baseline number.  One needs only look at the polling of some of the Republican Senators who are up for reelection next year, including McConnell.  They are all quickly tanking.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 18, 2019, 04:11:58 pm
Former Senator Jeff Flake said that there would likely be 20 Republican votes in the Senate for Impeachment if there was a secret ballot.
Actually, he said 35.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: texshooter on October 18, 2019, 05:29:27 pm


Did Trump ask a foreign power to help his re-election campaign?

Or,

Did Trump ask a foreign power to look into potential corruption. 

One of these two motives is a matter of record. But the other will need a mind reader to prove.

(https://kingdomecon.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/carnac.jpg?w=567&h=346)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 18, 2019, 08:08:04 pm
It's really disturbing that a segment of Americans - you among them - thinks this kind of thing is a joke.  It tells me that you don't care if the president breaks laws and has no ethics as long as you get the result you desire, and that's screwed up.  And actually, even that's not quite right, because getting rid of the human garbage pile sitting in the Oval Office would still get conservatives Pence - a better conservative anyway.  So it's not even your principles - it's *Trump* that people support, and that says a lot about them - nothing good, I might add.
Puleese.  Trump was a billionaire made before he got into politics.  This nickel and dime accusation is just silly.  Why don't you accuse Joe Biden who used his position as Vice President to get his son a $600,000 job with a Ukrainian corporation and thousands more with a $1.5 billion China corporation, with products he has never done business with.  How about Hillary CLinton who used her position as Secretary of State and got foreign countries to "donate" $100's of millions to her and  the former President and her husband Bill Clinton's foundation whee they skimmed off the top and are now worth $100 million personally.  How about the half million speaking engagements they made paid by foreign corporations and countries to gain political access.  Meanwhile TRump's $400,000 salary as president he donates to charity.  And any profit from Doral will likewise be donated to charity or paid to the IRS.   Calling the president of the US a "human garbage pile"  says more about you than Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 18, 2019, 10:08:45 pm
Hillary Clinton goes off the rails calling fellow Democrat and presidential candidate Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a "stooge" of the Russians.  Gabbard responds calling Hillary "...the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long..."

Thanks you Tulsi for reminding us why we voted for Trump. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-russia.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 19, 2019, 11:23:38 am
A sad summary of just the past week in Trumpland https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393).

As others have said the constant attention is a pain to put up with, but, geez, how do you not pay attention to this runaway train.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 12:18:29 pm
A sad summary of just the past week in Trumpland https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/19/trump-white-house-staff-051393).

As others have said the constant attention is a pain to put up with, but, geez, how do you not pay attention to this runaway train.
The democrats don;t seem to be doing much better.  Hillary is calling fellow democrats Russian stooges.  And the three leaders of the presidential nomination hit parade seem to be having identify problems of their own.  Biden seems to have sold his VP office for monetary gain for his family, Warren changed her race to gain career advancing benefits, and Bernie is a card-carrying, anti-Capitalist Bolshevik.  The Three Amigos.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 19, 2019, 01:11:42 pm
The democrats don;t seem to be doing much better.  Hillary is calling fellow democrats Russian stooges.  And the three leaders of the presidential nomination hit parade seem to be having identify problems of their own.  Biden seems to have sold his VP office for monetary gain for his family, Warren changed her race to gain career advancing benefits, and Bernie is a card-carrying, anti-Capitalist Bolshevik.  The Three Amigos.  :)

The Democrats are not in power, how could they be doing better?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 01:14:09 pm
Puleese, he's been a fraud all his life. How one cannot see through that facade, boggles the mind.

More proof keeps surfacing, which also explains why he doesn't reveal his Tax returns:
Fraud Of Donald Trump's Self-Made Persona Exposed In Father's Financials
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9f2YAKIJg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9f2YAKIJg)

But this won't distract from the topic at hand, the impeachment inquiry.
Bart, Forbes estimated his wealth at $3.5 billion before he became president.  I just checked and see Forbes new estimate is $3.1 billion.   Wikipedia says Forbes said $6.1 and Bloomberg $5.8 billion.  But what's a billion here or  there?    He's not a poor man in any case.  Does he hype his worth,  Of course.  Does he hype everything else.  Well, of course.  He's a salesman if you haven't noticed.  That's his business to sell the Trump name.  That';s how he makes a lot of his money.  Most of  the buildings that bear his name are not owned by him.  They are owned by others who have paid Trump a fee to use his name.  So the more the Trump name is in the press, the more valuable it becomes. 

Also, you want to have it both ways.  On the one hand you say he's using the presidency to unfairly get people to stay at his hotels in Washington or at his Doral Golf CLub in FLorida or in Scotland and make money off his presidency.  Then you claim his worth is a farce.   How many The van der Wolf Hotel's are in Washington or anywhere else for that matter?  You can't claim he's rich and poor at the same time. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump#targetText=In%202016%2C%20Forbes%20estimated%20Trump's,billion%2C%20and%20Bloomberg%20%243%20billion. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of_Donald_Trump#targetText=In%202016%2C%20Forbes%20estimated%20Trump's,billion%2C%20and%20Bloomberg%20%243%20billion.)
https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/?list=billionaires#292ecae447bd (https://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/?list=billionaires#292ecae447bd)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 01:18:48 pm
The Democrats are not in power, how could they be doing better?
All four are power players in American politics.   Hillary owned the Democrats recently.  She still has enormous power when and if she gives her support to one candidate or another.  Biden was VP under Obama and the other two, Sanders and Warren are two of only 100 current US Senators.  That's power!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 01:21:32 pm
Also, you want to have it both ways.  On the one hand you say he's using the presidency to unfairly get people to stay at his hotels in Washington or at his Doral Golf CLub in FLorida or in Scotland and make money off his presidency.  Then you claim his worth is a farce.   How many The van der Wolf Hotel's are in Washington or anywhere else for that matter?  You can't claim he's rich and poor at the same time.
Another red herring. No one has said he is poor, just not a rich as he says he is. You call him a salesman; I call him a liar. And there is nothing inconsistent in saying that he is not as rich as he says he is and also saying that he is steering business his way in an unethical manner, whether or not you think his activities are in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 01:28:34 pm
All four are power players in American politics.   Hillary owned the Democrats recently.  She still has enormous power when and if she gives her support to one candidate or another.
I don't think anyone listens to what Hilary Clinton has to say. She's a has been.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 01:33:03 pm
Another red herring. No one has said he is poor, just not a rich as he says he is. And there is nothing inconsistent in saying that and also saying that he is steering business his way in an unethical manner, whether or not you think his activities are in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
Americans don't care whether he's worth $1 billion or 3 billion.  The democrats have spent three years trying to find something to impeach Trump and complaining about things of Trump that the American people, except Trump hating Democrats, don;t care about.  If travelers want to stay in one of his nice hotels like you or I might, then God bless them.  Who cares?  People are more concerned about their health, taxes, and wars in the Middle East.  And Democrats aren't paying attention other than to look for faults in Trump who everyone including Trump supporters agree has loads of them.  He's like a bull in a China shop.  And the three leading Democrat nomination contenders for president meanwhile have enough of their own faults to talk about.    Meanwhile, democrats and Congress in general are not doing their jobs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 01:36:05 pm
I don't think anyone listens to what Hilary Clinton has to say. She's a has been.
You're very mistaken.  If Warren wins the nomination, she's going to need both the Clintons for support to get the Black vote. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 01:37:03 pm
You're very mistaken.  If Warren wins the nomination, she's going to need both the Clintons for support to get the Black vote.
You don't strike me as an expert on the black vote. Blacks are going to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of who it is. The only question is how many turn out. I don't think the Clintons endorsing the Democratic candidate, which they surely will, will make the slightest difference in that regard.  The election will be close enough that it will turn on how many idiots vote for the third party candidates instead of the Democrat, just as in 2016. The second choice of the people that voted for Jill Stein was not Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 02:33:43 pm
You don't strike me as an expert on the black vote. Blacks are going to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrat candidate regardless of who it is. The only question is how many turn out. I don't think the Clintons endorsing the Democratic candidate, which they surely will, will make the slightest difference in that regard.  The election will be close enough that it will turn on how many idiots vote for the third party candidates instead of the Democrat, just as in 2016. The second choice of the people that voted for Jill Stein was not Trump.
So if the Clintons campaign hard and get more Blacks to turn out for the Democrat, all the third party candidate votes won't matter.  I wouldn't apply for a campaign advisor job if I were you. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 02:40:34 pm
So if the Clintons campaign hard and get more Blacks to turn out for the Democrat, all the third party candidate votes won't matter.  I wouldn't apply for a campaign advisor job if I were you.
If, If, If. I don't think the Clintons will campaign hard for the Democratic candidate. Endorse - yes; campaign hard - no. They have lost all currency.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 03:05:09 pm
The more Democrat impeachment Congressmen investigate Trump and Ukraine, the more they hurt their own candidate Joe Biden.   So now,  a career State Dept official tells Congress he warned the Obama Administration that Biden's dealing with Ukraine while his son gets a job there seems like a conflict of interest.  Biden's advisors ignored the advice.  Warren must be rolling on the floor laughing. Meanwhile, it makes Trump look like he was doing his job asking Ukraine to start the investigation again and at the same time getting rid of Biden as his main adversary for 2020, a double win.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/18/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 03:20:26 pm
The more Democrat impeachment Congressmen investigate Trump and Ukraine, the more they hurt their own candidate Joe Biden.   So now,  a career State Dept official tells Congress he warned the Obama Administration that Biden's dealing with Ukraine while his son gets a job there seems like a conflict of interest.  Biden's advisors ignored the advice.  Warren must be rolling on the floor laughing. Meanwhile, it makes Trump look like he was doing his job asking Ukraine to start the investigation again and at the same time getting rid of Biden as his main adversary for 2020, a double win.
Can you describe this conflict of interest? Factually, Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of a Ukrainian company while his father was Vice President. Do you have something more than that? Or just Giuliani's conspiracy theories? Meanwhile, Trump has chosen his own Doral Golf Course and Resort as the site of the next G7 summit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 19, 2019, 03:25:58 pm
Hillary Clinton goes off the rails calling fellow Democrat and presidential candidate Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a "stooge" of the Russians.

Actually, it is quite plausible that Russian intelligence operatives would be using the social media resources they control to whip up populast support for Congresswoman Gabbard—or any other would-be candidate, Republican or Democrat, with isolationist views.  Vladimir Putin is an equal-opportunity disrupter.  "Stooge" sounds like overreach, however; it implies Gabbard is knowingly exploiting whatever Russian support she may be receiving.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 19, 2019, 03:43:28 pm
Can you describe this conflict of interest? Factually, Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of a Ukrainian compan while his father was Vice President. Do you have something more than that?

Technically, for there to have been a conflict of interest, it would have been necessary for Biden-père to have had a personal financial stake in the income that Biden-fils was receiving in Ukraine.  What the State Department officer reportedly argued was that Hunter Biden’s position "could look like a conflict of interest," and that it would complicate U.S. government efforts to encourage the Ukrainian government to deal with corruption.  There was clearly no crime and perhaps no violation of federal ethics rules, but he certainly was justified in raising the issue.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 04:08:27 pm
Can you describe this conflict of interest? Factually, Hunter Biden sat on the Board of Directors of a Ukrainian company while his father was Vice President. Do you have something more than that? Or just Giuliani's conspiracy theories? Meanwhile, Trump has chosen his own Doral Golf Course and Resort as the site of the next G7 summit.
I didn't call it a conflict of interest.  It was the linked article where a chief Department of State official in the Obama administration called it that.  The official warned the administration and Biden officials of the problem.  They chose to do nothing about it.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 04:12:39 pm
Technically, for there to have been a conflict of interest, it would have been necessary for Biden-père to have had a personal financial stake in the income that Biden-fils was receiving in Ukraine.  What the State Department officer reportedly argued was that Hunter Biden’s position "could look like a conflict of interest," and that it would complicate U.S. government efforts to encourage the Ukrainian government to deal with corruption.  There was clearly no crime and perhaps no violation of federal ethics rules, but he certainly was justified in raising the issue.
But Biden can't complain about Trump's kids conflicts either.  So suddenly, Trump and Biden look the same.  The appearance is what counts in both cases.  So it weakens Democrat's position in the upcoming election that Trump is corrupt when Biden did the same thing as VP.  Of course, Biden is now toast.  And the Democrats are burying him deeper every time they raise an impeachment claim regarding Ukraine.  It's poetic justice.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 19, 2019, 04:21:13 pm
But Biden can't complain about Trump's kids conflicts either.

I didn't know he was.

Quote
So suddenly, Trump and Biden look the same.

No they don't.

Quote
The appearance is what counts in both cases.  So it weakens Democrat's position in the upcoming election that Trump is corrupt when Biden did the same thing as VP.

How is Biden corrupt? What is it that Biden did that was the same as Trump?

Quote
Of course, Biden is now toast.  And the Democrats are burying him deeper every time they raise an impeachment claim regarding Ukraine.

Not really.

Quote
It's poetic justice.  :)

Only in la-la land. The primary concerns about Biden are his age and mental fitness, and perhaps he is not progressive enough. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 19, 2019, 04:37:51 pm
The appearance is what counts in both cases.  So it weakens Democrat's position in the upcoming election that Trump is corrupt

Trump never divested himself from his business interests by placing them in a blind trust, and some of them (for example, the hotel in the Old Post Office Building in Washington and several of the resort properties) clearly are profiting from his being in public office.  That is an actual conflict of interest, not the appearance of a conflict.

I actually see some logic in Trump's decision not to divest.  Given the sprawling nature of his family business and the fact that it involves the ownership or brand-management of many real estate properties, placing all the assets under the control of independent trustees would have been complicated and, unless the trustees sold off the real estate, an ineffective way to insulate him from continuing to personally profit from the patronage of the properties by individuals or groups seeking favorable treatment from his Administration.  But that in no way alters the reality that he has a conflict of interest.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 19, 2019, 07:27:18 pm
Taking the MAGA slogan one step further, Dr. Caroline Trapp, DNP, ANP-BC, CDE, FAANP, DipACLM, the director of diabetes education & care at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine advocates fiber rich diet and says:
Let's Make America Go Again
at the end of this video
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/highlights-from-the-2020-dietary-guidelines-hearing/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 08:43:55 pm
I didn't know he was.

No they don't.

How is Biden corrupt? What is it that Biden did that was the same as Trump?

Not really.

Only in la-la land. The primary concerns about Biden are his age and mental fitness, and perhaps he is not progressive enough. 



He's smart enough to get his kid a good job.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 08:55:38 pm
Trump never divested himself from his business interests by placing them in a blind trust, and some of them (for example, the hotel in the Old Post Office Building in Washington and several of the resort properties) clearly are profiting from his being in public office.  That is an actual conflict of interest, not the appearance of a conflict.

I actually see some logic in Trump's decision not to divest.  Given the sprawling nature of his family business and the fact that it involves the ownership or brand-management of many real estate properties, placing all the assets under the control of independent trustees would have been complicated and, unless the trustees sold off the real estate, an ineffective way to insulate him from continuing to personally profit from the patronage of the properties by individuals or groups seeking favorable treatment from his Administration.  But that in no way alters the reality that he has a conflict of interest.

You're right there is an appearance of conflict of interest.  But what should the country do with rich people who own properties and biusinesses around the world who want to be president?  Should they be forced to sell everything they own? It would be a fire sale and they'd never be able to do it without going bankrupt.  No president is asked to give up his livelihood.  It would be unfair to do that to any American.  Even if you force him to sell if he becomes president, he will be accused of selling things for higher then they're worth as people pay more looking for favors from him.  So there are really no simple answers. 

Also, if harsh rules were placed on presidents, they would eliminate very smart and capable businessmen who could be fine presidents.  Experienced people who know how to manage and get things done, a valuable asset in a president.  We would eliminate some of the best people for the job.  We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Now Trump has done some insulation.  He's not handling day-to-day operations.  That's what billionaire Mayor Bloomberg did in NYC when he was mayor.  It's not a perfect arrangement.  But it's legal for the president and mayor.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 09:15:11 pm
Taking the MAGA slogan one step further, Dr. Caroline Trapp, DNP, ANP-BC, CDE, FAANP, DipACLM, the director of diabetes education & care at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine advocates fiber rich diet and says:
Let's Make America Go Again
at the end of this video
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/highlights-from-the-2020-dietary-guidelines-hearing/
Funny, I just read you post and saw the video after getting back from eating a delicious New York Strip in a restaurant out by the Jersey Shore.  Delish!.  They screwed it up at first by plopping down a wad of cheese butter that I had to immediately sweep off.  The problem with the video and the meeting is that you can see why the general public is so mixed up and confused about what to eat.  Even the experts argue and make their claims of what's good and what's bad.  How does the average guy separate the wheat from the chaff, no pun intended? :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 19, 2019, 09:36:23 pm
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (AOC) endorsement of Sanders signals the death knell for him.  Her  support will be the evil eye to end his candidacy quicker than another heart attack.  Warren can;t believe her good fortune this week what with Biden having to swear he never talks with his son, at least not during a 12 hour flight to China,  and still isn't sure where the Ukraine is anyway, if only someone would just point it out to him on a map.  Now, Warren ends the week with AOC supporting Sanders.  No one's been so lucky since The Lone Ranger met Tonto. 
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/19/771596733/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-bernie-sanders-heart-attack-was-a-gut-check-moment
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 20, 2019, 12:04:26 am
Funny, I just read you post and saw the video after getting back from eating a delicious New York Strip in a restaurant out by the Jersey Shore.  Delish!.  They screwed it up at first by plopping down a wad of cheese butter that I had to immediately sweep off.  The problem with the video and the meeting is that you can see why the general public is so mixed up and confused about what to eat.  Even the experts argue and make their claims of what's good and what's bad.  How does the average guy separate the wheat from the chaff, no pun intended? :)

In my view, that video presented enough evidence about the evils of meat and dairy, but I agree that the information floating around the meat and plant-based food is pretty confusing. And most doctors and nutritionists who should help the consumers, are from the old school and don't have a clue about the findings of new health studies. To answer your question how to separate the wheat from the chaff, one has to be interested in finding the facts, read a lot and be skeptical of "experts" who are financed by the meat and dairy industries.  BTW, the probability of getting Alzheimer is substantially greater for meat eaters than for vegans. Same for quite a few other diseases.

Good source of health information is at https://nutritionfacts.org
Click on Video Library, and then on All videos
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 12:24:33 am
In my view, that video presented enough evidence about the evils of meat and dairy, but I agree that the information floating around the meat and plant-based food is pretty confusing. And most doctors and nutritionists who should help the consumers, are from the old school and don't have a clue about the findings of new health studies. To answer your question how to separate the wheat from the chaff, one has to be interested in finding the facts, read a lot and be skeptical of "experts" who are financed by the meat and dairy industries.  BTW, the probability of getting Alzheimer is substantially greater for meat eaters than for vegans. Same for quite a few other diseases.

Good source of health information is at https://nutritionfacts.org
Click on Video Library, and then on All videos


You know, as I get older, I'm finding there are benefits to forgetfulness.  You don't remember why you were angry so you don't hold onto resentments.  That might even help you live longer, although you might not remember what you did during all that extra time.  Tradeoffs.  Tradeoffs.

All kidding aside, I'm a meat eater.  I won;t stop completely as long as I;m still eating with my mouth.  But I try to limit the amount and fat content.  NY Strip and Sirloin are the lowest, so it's good that I like them the most.  Oh.  I did have my greens with my steak tonight although I added French fries a worse no-no per my doctors and nutritionists. The carbs are the worse.  Especially when they're fried.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 20, 2019, 12:38:07 am
All kidding aside, I'm a meat eater.  I won;t stop completely as long as I;m still eating with my mouth.  But I try to limit the amount and fat content.  NY Strip and Sirloin are the lowest, so it's good that I like them the most.  Oh.  I did have my greens with my steak tonight although I added French fries a worse no-no per my doctors and nutritionists. The carbs are the worse.  Especially when they're fried.

There can be more than 50 shades of food, some with more meat than others. I applaud you on reducing your meat intake. And your doctor is right about the danger of French fries. Better to switch to boiled potatoes or even to sweet potatoes.

But back to Trump. He has not ruined just the situation in Middle East, but also the health of the entire football team by ordering 300 hamburgers, pizzas, and french fries for them.

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-mcdonalds-fast-food-white-house-clemson-tigers-156653
 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 01:08:06 am
There can be more than 50 shades of food, some with more meat than others. I applaud you on reducing your meat intake. And your doctor is right about the danger of French fries. Better to switch to boiled potatoes or even to sweet potatoes.

But back to Trump. He has not ruined just the situation in Middle East, but also the health of the entire football team by ordering 300 hamburgers, pizzas, and french fries for them.

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-mcdonalds-fast-food-white-house-clemson-tigers-156653 (https://inews.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-mcdonalds-fast-food-white-house-clemson-tigers-156653)
 
You see, he isn't all bad.  :)  And the players must have loved him for it.  Notice the big guy in the second picture.  He has the happy smirk on his face and not one, but two hamburgers on his plate.  And if you haven't noticed in the first picture, Trump even bought load a salad dishes on the big tray on the right.  It looks like no one took any though.  Well, maybe the managers are on a diet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 01:09:22 am
Wait, there are two big trays of salads.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 20, 2019, 01:35:31 am

He's smart enough to get his kid a good job.  :)

That doesn't require smart - even Trump has done it!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 07:15:12 am
That doesn't require smart - even Trump has done it!
Trump's kids work for the Trump Organization, a private firm, long before Donald got into politics.  They've been learning the trade being tutored by their father since they were children. That's a lot different than a politician like VP Biden using his office to pressure foreign countries to arrange high paying job for his kid in a field they know nothing about.  Maybe he can get me a job in the oil industry too.  After all, I know how to pump gas.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 20, 2019, 08:04:27 am
. A
Trump's kids work for the Trump Organization, a private firm, long before Donald got into politics.  They've been learning the trade being tutored by their father since they were children. That's a lot different than a politician like VP Biden using his office to pressure foreign countries to arrange high paying job for his kid in a field they know nothing about.  Maybe he can get me a job in the oil industry too.  After all, I know how to pump gas.  :)

You're totally delusional. Since daddy became President Trump's family have made millions off the back of his position. A readable account is found here: https://www.gq.com/story/trump-kids-profit-presidency (I know you won't read it, but newbies may stumble onto this thread and not understand that the house rules are that you make up stuff to defend the Orange One at any cost).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 08:32:25 am
You're totally delusional. Since daddy became President Trump's family have made millions off the back of his position. A readable account is found here: https://www.gq.com/story/trump-kids-profit-presidency (I know you won't read it, but newbies may stumble onto this thread and not understand that the house rules are that you make up stuff to defend the Orange One at any cost).
I read it.  So you also approve of Hunter Biden getting a job off the back of his father, Vice President Biden?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 10:17:28 am
Trump not having G7 at his Doral Florida Golf Resort.  It would be in June, 2020, too close to the election and not look good. One less thing to be impeach about. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-g7/trump-abandons-plan-to-host-2020-g7-meeting-at-his-florida-golf-resort-idUSKBN1WZ01E
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 20, 2019, 12:00:44 pm
Trump not having G7 at his Doral Florida Golf Resort.  It would be in June, 2020, too close to the election and not look good. One less thing to be impeach about. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-g7/trump-abandons-plan-to-host-2020-g7-meeting-at-his-florida-golf-resort-idUSKBN1WZ01E

You spelled “indict” wrong.  The fact that’s he proposed it is just another reason to kick his butt out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 20, 2019, 12:18:43 pm
You spelled “indict” wrong.  The fact that’s he proposed it is just another reason to kick his butt out.

I'm waiting for the headline, "Trump Burps in Oval Office, Dems Insists It's Reason for Impeachment." 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 20, 2019, 01:49:39 pm
Puleese.  Trump was a billionaire made before he got into politics. 
Trump's business practices have been well documented and he has used the tax and LLC laws to protect him in multiple bankruptcies.  He also got a nice loan from his father to help after one of the casinos went bust.  Lots of stuff is continuing to emerge and ProPublica, one of the best set of investigative journalists around, is on the case.  Their latest report shows some significant discrepancies in tax filings which may put him at risk of financial fraud.  https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies  Before you get your dander up and calling them a tool of the left, ProPublica is independently funded and cooperate with numerous news organizations.  In this current example, the hard numbers cannot be easily argued away.  either he misreported on his property tax or he lied to the lender in the loan documents.  For someone who maintains a legion of attorneys and accountants, this should not happen.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 20, 2019, 02:38:41 pm
Trump not having G7 at his Doral Florida Golf Resort.  It would be in June, 2020, too close to the election and not look good.
Mulvaney reported that the clueless Trump was surprised by the pushback. Not sure why he was surprised. Everyone has been saying it was a terrible idea from the time he first floated it, which was months ago. I am surprised he backed off rather than doubled down. Very uncharacteristic of him. I doubt it had anything to do with a moral compass.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 03:09:33 pm
I'm waiting for the headline, "Trump Burps in Oval Office, Dems Insists It's Reason for Impeachment." 
F*L*A*S*H - "Trump Impeached for Bad Breath.  Wife Leaves Him  and Checks Into DC Hotel." 

"No president of mine can smell like that," complained Melania Trump on the way out of the White House.  "I warned him to stop eating those cheap hamburgers."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 03:30:44 pm
Trump's business practices have been well documented and he has used the tax and LLC laws to protect him in multiple bankruptcies.  He also got a nice loan from his father to help after one of the casinos went bust.  Lots of stuff is continuing to emerge and ProPublica, one of the best set of investigative journalists around, is on the case.  Their latest report shows some significant discrepancies in tax filings which may put him at risk of financial fraud.  https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies (https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-inc-podcast-never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies)  Before you get your dander up and calling them a tool of the left, ProPublica is independently funded and cooperate with numerous news organizations.  In this current example, the hard numbers cannot be easily argued away.  either he misreported on his property tax or he lied to the lender in the loan documents.  For someone who maintains a legion of attorneys and accountants, this should not happen.
Trump's worth $3.5 billion give or take.  What are you worth?  To argue that he used the tax laws to help him financially is just silly.  Do you write off your mortgage interest payments?  Or do you pay taxes that would have been legally deferred?  Who would hire an accountant who would tell them to pay taxes they don't have to pay?  There are no such accountants.  They'd be unemployed standing on a food line hoping to get something to eat.  Give me a break. 


Trump's been writing off his real estate property for years.    The IRS looks at things like that to see if they're reasonable valuations.  If he commited fraud they would have indicted him a long time ago. The IRS is always auditing him, not like me and you. Charging him with fraud based on rumor and politics is like you charging him with colluding with the Russians.  You guys don't give up. 


Of course, all these charges are made with the intent of going into the election hoping the public sees Trump as a crook.  After all the Democrats have nothing else to run on.  It might work.  On the other hand, the public might think, "You know, these charges have been all a lot of bunk.  It's all political nonsense.  The democrats haven't done a damn thing in 4 years to help this country and have spent all that time trying to bring down the President.  Let's put Trump in there for another 4 years.  It looks like he needs more time to clean up the swamp. "
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 20, 2019, 03:32:57 pm
Let's put Trump in there for another 4 years.  It looks like he needs more time to clean up the swamp. " [/i]
Could you expand on just how he has been draining the swamp?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 20, 2019, 04:59:29 pm
Trump's worth $3.5 billion give or take.  What are you worth?  To argue that he used the tax laws to help him financially is just silly.  Do you write off your mortgage interest payments?  Or do you pay taxes that would have been legally deferred?  Who would hire an accountant who would tell them to pay taxes they don't have to pay?  There are no such accountants.  They'd be unemployed standing on a food line hoping to get something to eat.  Give me a break. 
I'm worth enough to not have to go to work as a greeter at a big box store.  I have been a co-owner of an apartment building in California and am familiar with real estate depreciation and taxation.  I have taken advantage of all the deductions made available to me. 


Quote
Trump's been writing off his real estate property for years.    The IRS looks at things like that to see if they're reasonable valuations.  If he commited fraud they would have indicted him a long time ago. The IRS is always auditing him, not like me and you. Charging him with fraud based on rumor and politics is like you charging him with colluding with the Russians.  You guys don't give up. 
IRS audits do not cover financial fraud that is the topic of the story I linked to.  had you read the article you would have seen copies of two financial documents that are publicly available that contradict each other and 'may' cause him some problems.  I'm not charging him with fraud, I only said that these are problematic.  I would not be surprised if there are more in this category.  there have been condo developments where the Trump kids said were already sold out and that was totally wrong; in one case less than 1/4 of the units were sold despite what Ivanka said. 

Show me one quote of mine where I accused the President of colluding with the Russians (don't waste your time trying to find one as I've never said this).

Quote
Of course, all these charges are made with the intent of going into the election hoping the public sees Trump as a crook.  After all the Democrats have nothing else to run on.  It might work.  On the other hand, the public might think, "You know, these charges have been all a lot of bunk.  It's all political nonsense.  The democrats haven't done a damn thing in 4 years to help this country and have spent all that time trying to bring down the President. 
The Republicans were in power for the first two years of President Trump's term so it is not fair to say that the Democrats have not done anything.  Since the beginning of this year the Democrats have had control over the House and have passed numerous pieces of legislation which are lying dormant in the Senate as Majority Leader McConnell refuses to bring them up for a vote.  The fault here is not with the Democrats who would like to do some infrastructure and health care legislation only to see things evaporate into the Senate ether. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 07:11:14 pm
I'm worth enough to not have to go to work as a greeter at a big box store.  I have been a co-owner of an apartment building in California and am familiar with real estate depreciation and taxation.  I have taken advantage of all the deductions made available to me. 

IRS audits do not cover financial fraud that is the topic of the story I linked to.  had you read the article you would have seen copies of two financial documents that are publicly available that contradict each other and 'may' cause him some problems.  I'm not charging him with fraud, I only said that these are problematic.  I would not be surprised if there are more in this category.  there have been condo developments where the Trump kids said were already sold out and that was totally wrong; in one case less than 1/4 of the units were sold despite what Ivanka said. 

Show me one quote of mine where I accused the President of colluding with the Russians (don't waste your time trying to find one as I've never said this).
The Republicans were in power for the first two years of President Trump's term so it is not fair to say that the Democrats have not done anything.  Since the beginning of this year the Democrats have had control over the House and have passed numerous pieces of legislation which are lying dormant in the Senate as Majority Leader McConnell refuses to bring them up for a vote.  The fault here is not with the Democrats who would like to do some infrastructure and health care legislation only to see things evaporate into the Senate ether. 
Your post confirmed my point.  Democrats have spent three years and counting looking under every stone to see if they can find some dirt.  Collusion with the Russians, Obstruction, paying off hookers and girlfriends.  And now you say that although you're "not accusing him of fraud", you think there are some "problematic" documents that "may" be a smoking gun to IRS fraud.  Meanwhile the IRS has never charged him with fraud even though he's audited all the time for 40-50 years he's been in the real estate and other businesses.  But somehow, this time, you know you got the goods.  And then you tell me that Democrats would spend their time doing the people's business but it's the Republicans that are stopping them.  Give me a break. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 07:18:00 pm
Could you expand on just how he has been draining the swamp?
If he wasn't defending himself all the time against phony impeachment charges, he would have had more time to "shoot" swamp rats.  That's why he's earned another 4 years.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 20, 2019, 07:22:39 pm
If he wasn't defending himself all the time against phony impeachment charges, he would have had more time to "shoot" swamp rats.  That's why he's earned another 4 years.  :)
So he hasn't done anything to drain the swamp, but it is someone else's fault.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 20, 2019, 07:47:20 pm
So he hasn't done anything to drain the swamp, but it is someone else's fault.
I think he's given up on getting rid of them.  So he just bypasses them and makes his own decisions.  If he listened to all the neocon yakkers and warmongering generals, they'd have us in a war with Turkey, Russia and Syria. But that's for the other thread.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 21, 2019, 03:35:05 am
If he wasn't defending himself all the time against phony impeachment charges, he would have had more time to "shoot" swamp rats.  That's why he's earned another 4 years.  :)

Alan - in the interests of saving time, could you please just provide a list of those ways (if any) in which you consider Trump to be less than completely perfect?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 06:50:17 am
Alan - in the interests of saving time, could you please just provide a list of those ways (if any) in which you consider Trump to be less than completely perfect?

Thanks.
He should learn to keep his big mouth shut.  Hmmm. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 21, 2019, 06:56:08 am
From day one this president talked lies.
He could not even be honest about the amount of people that came to his inauguration:

"Before Spicer’s briefing room tirade on Saturday, Trump had told an audience at CIA headquarters that he had given his inauguration address to a “massive field of people … packed”, he estimated, with between 1 million and 1.5 million people.
To his eye, Trump said, the crowd stretched “the 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument” – but a television network he didn’t name had broadcast a shot of “an empty field” and put the crowd at 250,000.

His spokesman Spicer even stated: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period.”

There was enough evidence to prove that wrong, but that was all fakenews...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 07:31:38 am
From day one this president talked lies.
He could not even be honest about the amount of people that came to his inauguration:

"Before Spicer’s briefing room tirade on Saturday, Trump had told an audience at CIA headquarters that he had given his inauguration address to a “massive field of people … packed”, he estimated, with between 1 million and 1.5 million people.
To his eye, Trump said, the crowd stretched “the 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument” – but a television network he didn’t name had broadcast a shot of “an empty field” and put the crowd at 250,000.

His spokesman Spicer even stated: “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period.”

There was enough evidence to prove that wrong, but that was all fakenews...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-photos-edited)





"When you move into a Trump property, you're in the finest residence in the world.  Everything is the platinum class, impeccable.  The highest quality materials and world-class workmanship defines every corner of your residence.  Nothing is left without the most consideration of any designer in the world. Our interior decorators are the best, bar none. There's no other property that excels like a Trump property."

He's always been a salesman.  He's been selling his name for 40 years in case you missed it.  The question is does he keep his word regarding his campaign promises?  I think he has, a least for the most part. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 21, 2019, 07:50:46 am
He's always been a salesman liar. 

FTFY
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 08:00:53 am
FTFY
Do you know when a politician is lying?  Their lips are moving.

So you believe Biden that he knew nothing about his son's dealings with the Ukrainian and Chinese corporations?  So you believe Warren when she says she never intended to use her claim of being an American Indian to advance her career? So you believe Hillary Clinton when she she says she had no ulterior motives for having a private server and secret emails nor did she ever use her office as Secretary of State to gain financially?  So you believe Obama that he never authorized the IRS to be tough on his political opponents taxes or that he knew nothing about the investigation his FBI was doing of the Trump campaign? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 21, 2019, 08:12:21 am
Do you know when a politician is lying?  Their lips are moving.

So you believe Biden that he knew nothing about his son's dealings with the Ukrainian and Chinese corporations?  So you believe Warren when she says she never intended to use her claim of being an American Indian to advance her career? So you believe Hillary Clinton when she she says she had no ulterior motives for having a private server and secret emails nor did she ever use her office as Secretary of State to gain financially?  So you believe Obama that he never authorized the IRS to be tough on his political opponents taxes or that he knew nothing about the investigation his FBI was doing of the Trump campaign?
If Biden or Hillary states 1+ 1 = 3    They get the same bad reaction from the outside world as if trump would say it.
Trump however, will be the only one to stick to it and call 1+1 =2   'fake news'.
He would even add it was a brilliant idea.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 12:06:00 pm
If Biden or Hillary states 1+ 1 = 3    They get the same bad reaction from the outside world as if trump would say it.
Trump however, will be the only one to stick to it and call 1+1 =2   'fake news'.
He would even add it was a brillant idea.

Biden and Hillary called accusations against her as false.  Biden said he flew 12 hours with his son to China and never discussed business with him once.  Hillary said her illegal servers made her more efficient as Secretary of State and they were never used for classified information.  Nor she said did she use them to communicate private business discussing with foreign leaders and other people looking to contributing millions to her Clinton Initiative foundation to buy influence with the American government.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 12:07:06 pm
It is true though that they never said that 1 + 1 =2 "fake news".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 21, 2019, 01:22:37 pm
So Trump has reversed course again and has now decided to keep some troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, which of course begs the question for whom and from whom. I don't think the US imports any oil from Syria. So much for bringing the boys home and letting the ME fight it out among themselves. Mendacity.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 21, 2019, 01:55:31 pm
Your post confirmed my point.  Democrats have spent three years and counting looking under every stone to see if they can find some dirt.  Collusion with the Russians, Obstruction, paying off hookers and girlfriends.  And now you say that although you're "not accusing him of fraud", you think there are some "problematic" documents that "may" be a smoking gun to IRS fraud.  Meanwhile the IRS has never charged him with fraud even though he's audited all the time for 40-50 years he's been in the real estate and other businesses.  But somehow, this time, you know you got the goods.  And then you tell me that Democrats would spend their time doing the people's business but it's the Republicans that are stopping them.  Give me a break.
The IRS budget has been cut way back over the past eight years.  We have only President Trump's word that his taxes are under audit; the IRS never discloses whose tax returns are under audit.  Given the President's lack of veracity, there is no guarantee that he is telling the truth.  He made an empty promise about releasing his tax returns because he didn't believe he would win the nomination much less the presidency.  Once he accomplished both wins, that promise of transparency disappeared.  Do you deny that this took place?  Also, you have no idea how often he was audited and by which tax authorities and neither do I.

IRS fraud is not what either I or the ProPublica piece was talking about.  It was property tax declarations and loan applications.  These are public documents and there is a clear discrepancy. 

Anyone can be investigated for malfeasance and this happens all the time.  Look at how much investigation was done about President Clinton and his wife during his administration.  Do you think those investigations (along with the countless investigations of Secretary of State Clinton) were not warranted.  You cannot have it both ways.  Either everyone is fair game or nobody is.

Your final comment is just silly.  The House has done a lot of legislative work that is just sitting on Senator McConnell's desk.  He is not even making an attempt to have the Senate pass something and see if there is some common ground.  The Senate could easily not vote to finalize something if a compromise could not be reached.  I think President Trump has held a couple of 'infrastructure weeks' and nothing has happened.  I don't know what your roads and bridges are like in NJ, but ours down here need a lot of work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 02:32:35 pm
So Trump has reversed course again and has now decided to keep some troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, which of course begs the question for whom and from whom. I don't think the US imports any oil from Syria. So much for bringing the boys home and letting the ME fight it out among themselves. Mendacity.
I agree, Frank.  First thing I thought.  Why are we there protecting oil?  Whose oil is it anyway?  I think some of the oil is in Iraq.  But who cares?  Let the Iraqi army protect it. If it's on Syrian lands, maybe it belongs to the Syrians in the first place and the Kurds are stealing it.  So we're complicit in their theft.   In any case, we're supposed to be policeman protecting oil?  It's nuts!  Frankly, it's just an excuse to keep troops there; an attempt to cool off the criticism of Trump because he pulled out.

Frankly, I smell "mission creep" like what happened in Vietnam.  It started there under President Kennedy with just having a few military advisors to help the South Vietnamese army ward off the Communist North.  Then with President Johnson, the Gulf of Tonkin, a phony conflict, and next thing we had 500,000 troops there, with 58,000 dead.  Just on our side.  If the Turks and Kurds go at it after the 5 day "pause", we could get drawn in.  People will say to Trump - you have to help.  Then we'll be sucked into another war, that Trump is trying to avoid.  He should have stuck to his guns and stayed out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 02:48:20 pm
The IRS budget has been cut way back over the past eight years.  We have only President Trump's word that his taxes are under audit; the IRS never discloses whose tax returns are under audit.  Given the President's lack of veracity, there is no guarantee that he is telling the truth.  He made an empty promise about releasing his tax returns because he didn't believe he would win the nomination much less the presidency.  Once he accomplished both wins, that promise of transparency disappeared.  Do you deny that this took place?  Also, you have no idea how often he was audited and by which tax authorities and neither do I.

IRS fraud is not what either I or the ProPublica piece was talking about.  It was property tax declarations and loan applications.  These are public documents and there is a clear discrepancy. 

Anyone can be investigated for malfeasance and this happens all the time.  Look at how much investigation was done about President Clinton and his wife during his administration.  Do you think those investigations (along with the countless investigations of Secretary of State Clinton) were not warranted.  You cannot have it both ways.  Either everyone is fair game or nobody is.

Your final comment is just silly.  The House has done a lot of legislative work that is just sitting on Senator McConnell's desk.  He is not even making an attempt to have the Senate pass something and see if there is some common ground.  The Senate could easily not vote to finalize something if a compromise could not be reached.  I think President Trump has held a couple of 'infrastructure weeks' and nothing has happened.  I don't know what your roads and bridges are like in NJ, but ours down here need a lot of work.
So because the IRS budget has been cut, we are to assume that Trump has commited tax fraud.  Never mind that only effect the non-rich because the IRS mainly goes after rich people and companies.  They still audit the Trumps because they have so much money.  But meanwhile, there has not been one charge of tax fraud or insurance fraud for over-valuations of real estate in his entire life from the IRS. Remember that banks and insurance companies are the ones that eventually have to deal with any bankruptcies.  So if TRump did something illegal, they'd be pissed. They'd be holding the bag as the property value would not cover the their payments to creditors.

The problem is the democrats have been looking for something, anything, to impeach.  It's a wild goose chase.  They  look under every rock and cranny until they hope they can find something to use against him even if there really isn't anything there, like the Russian collusion charge.  That's not how we operate in America.  We don;t do this to presidents or anyone else.  But of course we realize it's all politics.  Clinton got somewhat the same treatment.  But that was wrong too.  And I said it was wrong then.  Hiding marital infidelity, even lying about it under oath(added), is not treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. Vote him out of office. That's way proper way to do it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 21, 2019, 03:17:48 pm
Interesting piece from a forthcoming book, about Trump's first Pentagon briefing, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 03:38:49 pm
Interesting piece from a forthcoming book, about Trump's first Pentagon briefing, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/21/inside-trumps-first-pentagon-briefing-229865).
The read shows the president as his own man with a plan.  He became president wanting to stop foreign wars and get our allies to pay more for their defense and to straighten out trade imbalances caused by unfair trade practices.  Mattis was still in the Neocon camp where America would remain as the guarantor of international peace using our muscle to get our way.  Mattis is stuck in the past.  Americans elected the president not Mattis.  It was Trump's policy promises that got him elected.  Americans had enough of old ways of doing things; Mattis's ways of doing things.   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 21, 2019, 03:42:38 pm
I agree, Frank.  First thing I thought.  Why are we there protecting oil?  Whose oil is it anyway?  I think some of the oil is in Iraq.  But who cares?  Let the Iraqi army protect it. If it's on Syrian lands, maybe it belongs to the Syrians in the first place and the Kurds are stealing it.  So we're complicit in their theft.   In any case, we're supposed to be policeman protecting oil?  It's nuts!  Frankly, it's just an excuse to keep troops there; an attempt to cool off the criticism of Trump because he pulled out.
The point is Trump can't make up his mind. The mission changes from day to day. So yesterday he was bringing the boys home as a rationale for letting Turkey invade Syria. What's the rationale today?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 21, 2019, 03:48:41 pm
The read shows the president as his own man with a plan.  He became president wanting to stop foreign wars and get our allies to pay more for their defense and to straighten out trade imbalances caused by unfair trade practices.  Mattis was still in the Neocon camp where America would remain as the guarantor of international peace using our muscle to get our way.  Mattis is stuck in the past.  Americans elected the president not Mattis.  It was Trump's policy promises that got him elected.  Americans had enough of old ways of doing things; Mattis's ways of doing things.   

I can't remember, did Trump ever get his military parade?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 21, 2019, 04:06:34 pm
The read shows the president as his own man with a plan. 

Poor planner, I'd say.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 21, 2019, 04:08:11 pm
I can't remember, did Trump ever get his military parade?
I think he had two "Sherman" tanks on the National Mall on the Fourth of July.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 04:28:56 pm
The point is Trump can't make up his mind. The mission changes from day to day. So yesterday he was bringing the boys home as a rationale for letting Turkey invade Syria. What's the rationale today?
He wants to get re-elected and protect himself from impeachment.  So he's going along with Republican complaints about his original decision.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 21, 2019, 09:26:58 pm
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"

Quote
Nobel-prize winning economist Robert Shiller believes a recession may be years away due to a bullish Trump effect in the market.

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html

Impeach that! ;)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 11:33:17 pm
Trump calls Hillary Clinton, "Sick."  Just think, we could have Hillary to kick around for 4 years. 

President Donald Trump on Monday defended Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton’s accusation that the Democratic congresswoman’s presidential campaign is being bolstered by the Russian government.

“She’s accusing everyone of being a Russian agent,” Trump told reporters of his 2016 general election opponent.

“These people are sick. There’s something wrong with them,” he said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/21/trump-gabbard-clinton-russian-agent-053294 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/21/trump-gabbard-clinton-russian-agent-053294)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 21, 2019, 11:39:11 pm
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html

Impeach that! ;)


I hope you're right.  But I don;t know.  What if he loses in 2020?  Also, the Fed is pumping fake money into the economy again to keep it afloat.  I'm afraid it's going to end badly.  If a socialist wins, the printing presses will be run on overtime. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 22, 2019, 03:38:02 am
So Trump has reversed course again and has now decided to keep some troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, which of course begs the question for whom and from whom. I don't think the US imports any oil from Syria. So much for bringing the boys home and letting the ME fight it out among themselves. Mendacity.

It's to protect them from ISIS - you know, the guys he destroyed a while ago.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 22, 2019, 08:57:17 am
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html

Impeach that! ;)
Well, just one year ago the same oracle you site said that stocks were in for a tough time:  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/nobel-prize-winner-shiller-sees-bad-times-in-the-stock-market-ahead.html

Flip a coin to see which is correct.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 09:23:25 am
Actually, the same expert predicted just this summer bad times for stocks. Listen to Cramer!
https://www.investopedia.com/news/stock-market-about-turn-ugly-investors-shiller/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 09:27:33 am
The problem is the democrats have been looking for something, anything, to impeach. It's a wild goose chase.  They  look under every rock and cranny until they hope they can find something to use against him even if there really isn't anything there, like the Russian collusion charge. 

That's very true. You can't fire him because of incompetency, so they have to find other ways to get rid of him. Same as with Al Capone.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 11:47:41 am
That's very true. You can't fire him because of incompetency, so they have to find other ways to get rid of him. Same as with Al Capone.
Impeachment talk started  even before the inauguration.  They (Democrats and connected Republicans)  just couldn't accept that Hillary lost and this outsider won. Especially because everyone though Hillary was a shoe-in.  The analogy to Capone is a little unfair, don't you think? ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 22, 2019, 01:29:18 pm
The analogy to Capone is a little unfair, don't you think? ;)

Yes, I've no reason to believe that Capone was a racist.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 02:44:45 pm
Impeachment talk started  even before the inauguration.  They (Democrats and connected Republicans)  just couldn't accept that Hillary lost and this outsider won. Especially because everyone though Hillary was a shoe-in.  The analogy to Capone is a little unfair, don't you think? ;)

You are absolutely right, Alan. Al Capone's mansion in Miami pales in comparison to Mar A Lago.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 03:07:23 pm
Yes, I've no reason to believe that Capone was a racist.
Well, Capone executed people who caused him trouble, something that Trump hasn't been accused of.  Yet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 22, 2019, 03:09:41 pm
Well, Capone executed people who caused him trouble, something that Trump hasn't been accused of.  Yet.

I doubt he did it personally, so the comparison is still not looking good for Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 03:11:12 pm
You are absolutely right, Alan. Al Capone's mansion in Miami pales in comparison to Mar A Lago.
Well, Trump's taste is of a higher standard although I think his Trump's gold powered Tower residence is a little tacky for my taste. :)
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump%27s+gold+power+apartment&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS746US746&sxsrf=ACYBGNRIse2SYDiWP2VNvmVFGK_U41sAaQ:1571771370377&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=EQXfpXjfb9HYrM%253A%252CSYC2X2BE8Y5vFM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSK2ufXFD3TYHTtA9j2iJYdSMGxTA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB0cvRyLDlAhUqTd8KHelWCEQQ9QEwAnoECAkQDA#imgrc=-Fon_FYxZgDulM (https://www.google.com/search?q=trump%27s+gold+power+apartment&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS746US746&sxsrf=ACYBGNRIse2SYDiWP2VNvmVFGK_U41sAaQ:1571771370377&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=EQXfpXjfb9HYrM%253A%252CSYC2X2BE8Y5vFM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSK2ufXFD3TYHTtA9j2iJYdSMGxTA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiB0cvRyLDlAhUqTd8KHelWCEQQ9QEwAnoECAkQDA#imgrc=-Fon_FYxZgDulM).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 22, 2019, 03:12:39 pm
"Robert Shiller: Recession likely years away due to bullish Trump effect"

https://www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/20/shiller-recession-likely-years-away-due-to-bullish-trump-effect.html

Impeach that! ;)

Is one economist enough for a consensus?  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 22, 2019, 03:22:57 pm
Well, Trump's taste is of a higher standard although I think his Trump's gold powered Tower residence is a little tacky for my taste. :)
Everything associated with Trump is tacky.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 03:27:27 pm
Everything associated with Trump is tacky.

Except Melania and Air Force One.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 22, 2019, 03:30:39 pm
Except Melania and Air Force One.
Having a trophy wife is tacky. Air Force One just looks dated.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 22, 2019, 03:36:39 pm
Having a trophy wife is tacky. Air Force One just looks dated.
Yeah, Air Force One looks older.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 03:54:58 pm
Yeah, Air Force One looks older.
Well, he can't keep Air Force One when he leaves office.  It won't fit in his cell.

Wait, did I say that?   Couldn;t resist. ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 22, 2019, 04:12:00 pm
Having a trophy wife is tacky...

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 22, 2019, 04:24:00 pm
Having a trophy wife is tacky. Air Force One just looks dated.

It all depends on who won the prize first: if it's you, then that ¡s perfectly okay. Problems arise when more names get engraved on the side.

Life is unfair.

AF1 is an insult to the ozone layer.

;-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 22, 2019, 05:10:52 pm
With Taylor's testimony today things are getting worse for the Prez.  I think it's looking more and more like a resignation before the end of the year; I don't think he wants to go through impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 05:19:24 pm
With Taylor's testimony today things are getting worse for the Prez.  I think it's looking more and more like a resignation before the end of the year; I don't think he wants to go through impeachment.
You've been claiming that for three years.  Are you sure this time?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 22, 2019, 05:39:02 pm
With Taylor's testimony today things are getting worse for the Prez.  I think it's looking more and more like a resignation before the end of the year; I don't think he wants to go through impeachment.

I don't think you've been paying attention. Nothing is too low for this guy. If he beat conviction by a single vote in the Senate, he'd claim complete vindication. And I'm not sure they can get enough Republicans to vote for conviction, though they might come close. The problem the Republicans face is that Pence, who'd be the presumptive nominee if he assumes the presidency later in this year or earlier in the next, has all the charisma of a barrel of hair. I think for Republicans, Trump would run stronger.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 06:48:08 pm
I don't think you've been paying attention. Nothing is too low for this guy. If he beat conviction by a single vote in the Senate, he'd claim complete vindication. And I'm not sure they can get enough Republicans to vote for conviction, though they might come close. The problem the Republicans face is that Pence, who'd be the presumptive nominee if he assumes the presidency later in this year or earlier in the next, has all the charisma of a barrel of hair. I think for Republicans, Trump would run stronger.

That's an interesting conversation.  Just how strong would Pence be in an election?  Pence seems like a squeaky clean kind of guy.  He looks like a president, speaks like a president, coherently and with authority.  He comes from middle America (Indiana) and would attract middle American votes from the swing states.  If the Democrat nominate is a left winger, he could attract a lot of votes in other states that might not vote for Trump.  Who knows how it would turn out?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 22, 2019, 07:16:27 pm
I doubt he did it personally, so the comparison is still not looking good for Trump.

Capone made his bones as a hit man for the mob in his younger days.  When he was a boss, yes, he did not do it personally, but before that, he had no qualms with executing someone. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 07:18:34 pm
Capone made his bones as a hit man for the mob in his younger days.  When he was a boss, yes, he did not do it personally, but before that, he had no qualms with executing someone. 
Fugetaboutit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 22, 2019, 07:25:28 pm
That's an interesting conversation.  Just how strong would Pence be in an election?  Pence seems like a squeaky clean kind of guy.  He looks like a president, speaks like a president, coherently and with authority.  He comes from middle America (Indiana) and would attract middle American votes from the swing states.  If the Democrat nominate is a left winger, he could attract a lot of votes in other states that might not vote for Trump.  Who knows how it would turn out?

It is really a question of voter turnout with this election.  Fact is, although many may not like Trump, he draws a big crowd and large support from those that do support him.  Another fact is that many just don't like the current Dems.  Warren's policies and the recent CNN LGBT town hall turned off a lot of voters, more then those on the Left want to admit, that would be shoe ins for the Dems, so there is very low enthusiasm there. 

Last, and this something that I realized today, the WOKE and Trans movement is an ideological pure all or nothing crowd.  They refuse compromise, and any movement that does this is doomed for failure and will bring down all politicians that support it as well.  This is the main reason why prohibition failed; the teetotalers refused to compromise.  If they did, we would probably live in a country with only wine and light beer. 

In the past election, many were still too scarred to rail against the obvious parts of these movements that were flawed.  Now though, both comedians and female athletes (and their upset fathers and mothers watching them get trounced by biological boys) are starting to openly critique both movements.  6 to 9 months, the damn will break wide open, just in time for the election.  Given the recent mess created in CT, I would not be surprised if that state turns red. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 07:31:08 pm
It is really a question of voter turnout with this election.  Fact is, although many may not like Trump, he draws a big crowd and large support from those that do support him.  Another fact is that many just don't like the current Dems.  Warren's policies and the recent CNN LGBT town hall turned off a lot of voters, more then those on the Left want to admit, that would be shoe ins for the Dems, so there is very low enthusiasm there. 

Last, and this something that I realized today, the WOKE and Trans movement is an ideological pure all or nothing crowd.  They refuse compromise, and any movement that does this is doomed for failure and will bring down all politicians that support it as well.  This is the main reason why prohibition failed; the teetotalers refused to compromise.  If they did, we would probably live in a country with only wine and light beer. 

In the past election, many were still too scarred to rail against the obvious parts of these movements that were flawed.  Now though, both comedians and female athletes (and their upset fathers and mothers watching them loose to biological boys) are starting to openly critique both movements.  6 to 9 months, the damn will break wide open, just in time for the election.  Given the recent mess created in CT, I would not be surprised if that state turns red. 

A lot of the left wing stuff will disappear during the general election.  Right now, everyone is trying to win the nomination.  Whoever wins will shift back into the middle.  People have short memories.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 22, 2019, 07:35:18 pm
A lot of the left wing stuff will disappear during the general election.  Right now, everyone is trying to win the nomination.  Whoever wins will shift back into the middle.  People have short memories.

I don't know how Warren goes back to the middle.  She already ruined herself. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 08:09:15 pm
I don't know how Warren goes back to the middle.  She already ruined herself. 
She'll be protected by the media.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 22, 2019, 08:22:00 pm
She'll be protected by the media.

I think the media is falling apart right now though. 

I used to watch and read CNN all of the time, but just cant anymore.  My wife initially criticized me for getting my news elsewhere, but eventually she stop as well.  I think her newfound opinion on the CNN, which she held onto for a long time, just proves the point. 

I have been listening to a lot of podcast recently, and people are more and more getting their news from these sources.  On one such podcast, a credentialed journalist made the point that the mass media is realizing this and trying to correct for it by being over the top, which in turn makes it worse. 

I listened to a two hour interview with Peter Theil, a rather interesting person, and he made a similar point.  Essentially he said news for the longest time was a monopoly (I would argue an oligopoly), and that is the reason they were so successfully.  Monopolies are good so long as you dont become too fat and bureaucratic, becuase then a new technology and company can come and wipe you out.  This is essentially what happened to news.  They developed a false reality of why they were doing so well, blaming it on good reporting, when in fact it was because they were local monopolies.  Then the Internet came along and blew that to hell, and since they became lazy, were lost. 

Interesting enough, Theil made another interesting point on government organizations I tend to agree with.  He stated that all large organizations, no matter how well they work, will eventually become too bureaucratic to function.  In the private sector, the way this is fixed is by a better newer company coming along and putting the older one out of business.  In government though, there is no fix to the problem.  It just gets more and more inefficient and never gets replaced, and this is the problem with most government agencies today.  They worked well when they were created 60+ years ago, but have become ossified by bureaucracy and people just refuse to accept it.  They look at the past reality of these institutions instead realizing the current reality and allowing for the whole thing to be nixed and replaced with something else.  No politician wants to just fire everyone and start over, which is exactly what happens in the private sector. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 09:12:15 pm
Joe, Unfortunately, it's not just the main media but most of the cable media is biased left as well.   Most people just read headlines.  And a lot of the main stations, CBS, ABC, NBC, are democrat left.  So that's all they hear.  If Trump gets impeached and boring Pence becomes president, no one will watch the news at all.  They'll all lose half their customers, many will go broke, and they'll rue the day they got rid of him.  Bull-in-the-CHina-shop Trump suck all the oxygen out of the room.  Constantly.  Cable and people can;t get enough off it.  Look at our forums.  Page after page after page.  But actually, I think Pence will be good for the public who will appreciate some quiet, a pause.  There's too much commotion with Trump and people will like a break and see Pence as the guy to give it to them.  Steady, quiet, polite, thoughtful, mature, experienced.  No angst.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 09:13:46 pm
Totally opposite Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: degrub on October 22, 2019, 10:04:36 pm
Pence is so conservative, be careful what you wish for....
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 10:29:03 pm
Pence is so conservative, be careful what you wish for....
So why do they want to impeach Trump?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 22, 2019, 11:56:43 pm
Congrats to my Canadian friends having re-elected Justin Trudeau.  Please, I no longer wish to hear how Trump only got 46% of the popular vote.  How do you run Canada when only 1/3 of the people voted for you?  33.1%! Also, no more complaints about the American electoral system.

"Not only was Trudeau's Liberal Party forced by voters to accept a demotion to a minority government -- grabbing just 157 of 338 seats in the House of Commons -- but about two-thirds of the country voted against him. His party's share of the popular vote clocked in at just 33.1 % -- less than the 34.4% earned by the rival the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Andrew Scheer."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 23, 2019, 12:33:47 am
Congrats to my Canadian friends having re-elected Justin Trudeau.  Please, I no longer wish to hear how Trump only got 46% of the popular vote.  How do you run Canada when only 1/3 of the people voted for you? 33.1%! Also, no more complaints about the American electoral system.

"Not only was Trudeau's Liberal Party forced by voters to accept a demotion to a minority government -- grabbing just 157 of 338 seats in the House of Commons -- but about two-thirds of the country voted against him. His party's share of the popular vote clocked in at just 33.1 % -- less than the 34.4% earned by the rival the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Andrew Scheer."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/opinions/canada-election-bociurkiw/index.html)

No problem. Canada just announced Cannabis 2.0, a legalization of cannabis derivatives, including cheery beverages, new types of cookies and all kinds of creams. Happy Years Ahead!   
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 23, 2019, 01:15:46 am
Capone made his bones as a hit man for the mob in his younger days.  When he was a boss, yes, he did not do it personally, but before that, he had no qualms with executing someone.

Too bad he didn't have drones and an air force, eh?  Could have avoided getting his little hands dirty altogether.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 23, 2019, 08:26:51 am
I think the media is falling apart right now though. 

I used to watch and read CNN all of the time, but just cant anymore.  My wife initially criticized me for getting my news elsewhere, but eventually she stop as well.  I think her newfound opinion on the CNN, which she held onto for a long time, just proves the point. 

I have been listening to a lot of podcast recently, and people are more and more getting their news from these sources.  On one such podcast, a credentialed journalist made the point that the mass media is realizing this and trying to correct for it by being over the top, which in turn makes it worse. 
I don't watch a lot of TV news and when I do, I try to sample both FOX and MSNBC both of which are good for some laughs.  Since I walk an hour each morning, I listen to lots of podcasts, some of which are news related.  With the ubiquitous of the Internet, there are lots of alternative news outlets.  The Washington Post does a poor job of local news coverage these days but we have a very good local outlet Bethesda Beat that delivers a daily email with links to all current stories that are of interest to me.

ProPublica is home to the best investigative journalists outside the mainstream and they collaborate with a number of mainstream news organizations.  While they are doing a lot of work on Trump finances, they are also investigating state and local corruption in both Red and Blue areas.   As always, one has to recognize the bias of any news organization and sample a variety of sources.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 08:43:26 am
Too bad he didn't have drones and an air force, eh?  Could have avoided getting his little hands dirty altogether.

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 08:58:12 am
Don't know why you want to portrait yourself as unnecessarily more dim than you actually are...

Personal attack  >:(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 09:04:56 am
Damn, and this is in the NY Times! 

Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/democratic-candidates-2020.html)

And it looks like Hillary may jump back in for a 2020 run.  It is mud slinging time.  Personally I think she is done.  Maybe before Farrow book came out, she had a chance.  However now that it is evident that Hillary also tried to squash the Weinstein story, I cant see her surviving the Me2 people. 

Personally, I would like to see Michael R. Bloomberg enter the race. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 09:33:05 am
I'm not sure how the nomination process is done in the Democratic Party, but is it possible for an outsider to enter the group that is already running for the candidacy for a while? That would put those having had to already spend money at a disadvantage.

Personally, and from a distance, I'm not overly impressed by the line-up. It doesn't look like the best candidate to beat the probable Republican nominee is being selected.

Cheers,
Bart

There are deadlines on a state by state basis for putting in your application to get on the primary ballot.  We are about 3 months away from the deadline for CA and TX, so right now, anyone can still enter the race. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 23, 2019, 11:14:55 am
Damn, and this is in the NY Times! 

Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/democratic-candidates-2020.html)

And it looks like Hillary may jump back in for a 2020 run.  It is mud slinging time.  Personally I think she is done.  Maybe before Farrow book came out, she had a chance.  However now that it is evident that Hillary also tried to squash the Weinstein story, I cant see her surviving the Me2 people. 

Personally, I would like to see Michael R. Bloomberg enter the race.
There is no surprise here!  Lots of us who are reliable Democratic voters are uncomfortable with the three front runners for various reasons.  I made my first contribution of the year to a Dem running and it was not anyone of those.  Former Senator and Secretary of State Clinton should just fade away like an old soldier.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:18:11 am
Don't know why you want to portrait yourself as unnecessarily more dim than you actually are, but let's explain.

In a multi-party election system, in the case of Canada 5 parties, there is a chance that a multi-party coalition government will have to be formed. These parties will not participate unless a fair share of their specific policies find their way to the day-to-day governing and future legislation. In this way, they can create a coalition government that represents more than 50% of the population, AKA democracy.
Your insult wasn;t required Bart.  You're better than that.

The point is non-Americans like yourself and others from Canada laugh at the America presidential electoral system.  How could Hillary who received 48% of the popular vote lose the election to Trump who received less votes at 46%.  That's not a democracy.  When we explain our electoral system, foreigners argue that it should be the popular vote that counts.  Well, there in Canada, Trudeau got 33.1% and his opponent got a higher popular vote at 34.1%.  But Trudeau's opponent doesn't become  the leader, just like Clinton.  There are other rules and processes that affect the selection.  Well, those aren't "democratic" either  at least not based on popular vote.  The parties have to work behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms to make special deals to select the PM.  Doesn;t sound democratic to me.  At least with our electors, almost all are required to follow what their state's popular vote was. 

Think about it.  69.1% of Canadians voted against Trudeau.  Only 54% of American voted against Trump.  Sounds like America is more "democratic" the Canada and other Parliamentary systems. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:23:31 am
There is no surprise here!  Lots of us who are reliable Democratic voters are uncomfortable with the three front runners for various reasons.  I made my first contribution of the year to a Dem running and it was not anyone of those.  Former Senator and Secretary of State Clinton should just fade away like an old soldier.
Why do you think she attacked Gabbard? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 11:42:29 am
An observation, followed by an explanation, in case the observation is wrong..

Ok. Reported to the moderator.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:51:28 am
Ok. Reported to the moderator.
Slobodan, I appreciate your concern. Let me deal with Bart directly.  I'm not interested in raising the issue to the moderator.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 11:54:06 am

The point is non-Americans like yourself and others from Canada laugh at the America presidential electoral system.  How could Hillary who received 48% of the popular vote lose the election to Trump who received less votes at 46%.  That's not a democracy.  When we explain our electoral system, foreigners argue that it should be the popular vote that counts.  Well, there in Canada, Trudeau got 33.1% and his opponent got a higher popular vote at 34.1%.  But Trudeau's opponent doesn't become  the leader, just like Clinton.  There are other rules and processes that affect the selection.  Well, those aren't "democratic" either  at least not based on popular vote.  The parties have to work behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms to make special deals to select the PM.  Doesn;t sound democratic to me.  At least with our electors, almost all are required to follow what their state's popular vote was. 

Think about it.  69.1% of Canadians voted against Trudeau.  Only 54% of American voted against Trump.  Sounds like America is more "democratic" the Canada and other Parliamentary systems.

No one laughed, they simply expressed reservations about the process. We're allowed to do that.

As to the outcomes in a multi-party system, that was explained above. Did you not read it? If you did, why repeat the same question. In any case, no one ever claimed that we non-Americans get it exactly correct either, so I don't understand the point of even bringing it up. It is not necessary to take everything personally.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:54:41 am
 Finally, a democrat giving the truth why so many people voted for Trump.

Gabbard, the democrat from Hawaii running for democratic nomination for president says:
'Hillary, your foreign policy was a disaster for our country and the world,' the 38-year-old military combat veteran who served in the Iraq War said.

'It’s resulted in the deaths and injuries of so many of my brothers and sisters in uniform. It’s devastated entire countries, millions of lives lost, refugee crises, our enemy al-Qaeda/ISIS strengthened,' she added.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7603427/Tulsi-Gabbard-continues-rip-Hillary-Clinton-saying-Step-throne.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7603427/Tulsi-Gabbard-continues-rip-Hillary-Clinton-saying-Step-throne.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 11:58:43 am
No one laughed, they simply expressed reservations about the process. We're allowed to do that.

As to the outcomes in a multi-party system, that was explained above. Did you not read it? If you did, why repeat the same question. In any case, no one ever claimed that we non-Americans get it exactly correct either, so I don't understand the point of even bringing it up. It is not necessary to take everything personally.
The Point is one shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.  I want to remind people in countries with parliamentary systems that your processes aren't exactly "democratic" either.  The only reason we heard from them, is because they're upset that Hillary didn't win because of the electoral system.  It was about Hillary, and who won, not the system that concerned them.  The argument about popular vote was just a ploy.  Their systems may be more undemocratic than America's. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 12:07:10 pm
The point is non-Americans like yourself and others from Canada laugh at the America presidential electoral system.  How could Hillary who received 48% of the popular vote lose the election to Trump who received less votes at 46%.  That's not a democracy.  When we explain our electoral system, foreigners argue that it should be the popular vote that counts.  Well, there in Canada, Trudeau got 33.1% and his opponent got a higher popular vote at 34.1%.  But Trudeau's opponent doesn't become  the leader, just like Clinton.  There are other rules and processes that affect the selection.  Well, those aren't "democratic" either  at least not based on popular vote.  The parties have to work behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms to make special deals to select the PM.  Doesn;t sound democratic to me.  At least with our electors, almost all are required to follow what their state's popular vote was. 

Clicked Send too soon, didn't complete my thought.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is not a President and does not have the executive powers that the US President has. Besides that, we now have a minority government, that is, his party does not have a numerical majority in Parliament. This constrains what he can do, because he needs to pass legislation that meets with the approval of people not in his party. Many people believe, and I won't argue against it, that minority governments can produce good legislation because of that. Also, in a parliamentary system, if the governing party loses a vote of non-confidence, they can be thrown out and an election immediately called. So the day to day workings of the government is different than in  the US, and it's very difficult to make general comparisons of the type of "this one is more democratic than that one." 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 12:12:40 pm
It should be noted that the US has independent candidates as well, not only in presidential, but also in congressional elections. It also has a multi-party system. It is just that the other parties can not get enough popular support at present. The most notable independent congressional member is Bernie Sanders.

"Since 1877, there have been 113 third-party U.S. Representatives"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 12:17:04 pm
The Point is one shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.  I want to remind people in countries with parliamentary systems that your processes aren't exactly "democratic" either.  The only reason we heard from them, is because they're upset that Hillary didn't win because of the electoral system.  It was about Hillary, and who won, not the system that concerned them.  The argument about popular vote was just a ploy.  Their systems may be more undemocratic than America's.

No one is throwing stones, stop making everything personal. And why are you still talking about Hilary? The election was 3 years ago, the discussion has moved on. Hilary and Obama are not in any elected office, they are history. That particular battle in the culture wars is over.

Inadequacies in systems are pointed out, that's what discussions are for.

In any case, I partly agree with you. I can understand not liking the Electoral College system, but fighting gerrymandering and voter suppression might be a better use of people's time, complaining about the Electoral College is probably not fruitful. It may be ok as part of a discussion of constitutional amendments maybe, but there are more immediate ways to insure fairer elections.

Not to mention election funding reform. Allowing unlimited funding is a threat to your republic, many people feel. Would your "founding fathers" have been ok with what you have now, do you think?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 12:20:41 pm
It should be noted that the US has independent candidates as well, not only in presidential, but also in congressional elections. It also has a multi-party system. It is just that the other parties can not get enough popular support at present. The most notable independent congressional member is Bernie Sanders.

"Since 1877, there have been 113 third-party U.S. Representatives"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

Although third-parties are not ruled out, they exist mostly in theory, it seems to me. The two main parties have sown things up very well, haven't they. But I don't know enough about the history to know why that's happened, but lots of people around the world find it very odd.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 12:24:37 pm
Although third-parties are not ruled out, they exist mostly in theory, it seems to me. The two main parties have sown things up very well, haven't they. But I don't know enough about the history to know why that's happened, but lots of people around the world find it very odd.

The electoral college, plain and simple.  Since it is a winner takes all in the state vote, third party candidates typically never stand a chance at even winning some electoral votes.  So from a party forming perspective, why bother trying to create a third parties if you know you will never have any national influence in the executive branch.  This is exactly why Bernie is running as a Dem, even though he is not really one. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 12:42:24 pm
Political positions of Donald Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

Not sure what this has anything to do with my explanation on our two party system. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 01:04:15 pm
Was hoping to get an explanation. Could the frequent switching of sides have to do with influence on candidate selection...

It shall be noted that Trump had never been a candidate for anything political until 2016 elections. Thus his frequent switching has nothing to do with his own candidacy. He, and many others, switch party affiliation for a different reason - voting. Depending on state legislation, one may or may not vote in a party primary unless officially affiliated with the party. In some states you can, in others you can not. For instance, in Illinois, I was able to participate in a primary voting without declaring my affiliation. When I moved to Florida, however, if I want to vote in primaries, I would have to choose sides first. In presidential and congressional elections, however, that doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 01:45:04 pm
New York State, where Trump is a resident and votes,  requires registration to a particular party to vote in that party's nomination process. That probably accounts for his changes from time to time.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 01:47:14 pm
It shall be noted that Trump had never been a candidate for anything political until 2016 elections. Thus his frequent switching has nothing to do with his own candidacy. He, and many others, switch party affiliation for a different reason - voting. Depending on state legislation, one may or may not vote in a party primary unless officially affiliated with the party. In some states you can, in others you can not. For instance, in Illinois, I was able to participate in a primary voting without declaring my affiliation. When I moved to Florida, however, if I want to vote in primaries, I would have to choose sides first. In presidential and congressional elections, however, that doesn't matter.

What is the reason for requiring affiliation in the places where it is required?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 23, 2019, 01:51:57 pm
What is the reason for requiring affiliation in the places where it is required?

There is a fear, which I think is unfounded, that voters of the opposite party will vote in your primary to ensure the most radical/worse candidate gets on the ticket.  This would certainly increase the chances of the other party winning.  However, I cant really see this being something that would actually happen. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 23, 2019, 01:54:23 pm
What is the reason for requiring affiliation in the places where it is required?

One possibility, I assume, is to prevent, say, a Democrat coming to a Republican primary and vote for a candidate they think they could beat easier in the general election. Just guessing.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 23, 2019, 02:02:24 pm
Slobodan is correct about people switching parties to vote in primaries. In an open primary, you may vote for whichever party candidate you wish (but you can only vote for one person.) In other words, you may vote in the Republican primary or the Democratic primary, but not both. In states with open primaries, occasionally you'll have campaign situations in which, say, the Democratic candidate has a lock on the election, but the Republican race is close, between a moderate and a very conservative candidate -- in which case, Democratic voters may be encouraged to vote in the Republican primary, in hopes of electing the more moderate candidate, so no matter what happens in the final election, the conservative will be shut out. In a closed primary, you have to register in advance, often well in advance, to vote in a primary. Some states don't have primaries. The Trump campaign is trying to eliminate primaries in states where he controls the local party, but might lose a primary. (e.g. Arizona.)

About our electoral college. It has its disadvantages -- a candidate can win without a plurality of the vote, as Trump did. In some cases, neither Presidential candidate wins a *majority* of the vote, because third parties do soak up a few percentage points. Gore would have won the election in 2000, rather than Bush, if a relatively strong third party candidate (Ralph Nader) hadn't soaked up quite a few normally Democratic votes in Florida. One reason to continue the electoral party is to assure that all of the US in covered by the candidates. There are vast swaths of America that would never see a candidate if not for the electoral college --- why campaign anywhere between the Mississippi and the coastal ranges when the distances are large and the population is sparse? Better to focus on the coasts, where your buck buys much more head count. But that interior area, when included in the electoral college, can move elections, as it did with Trump.

Parliamentary systems have some advantages over our executive system, but they may also develop really crippling disadvantages, as is evident in the current situation in Israel, where very minor parties can demand, and get, pay-offs to their small minority positions. In Israel, it's been basically the extremely conservative religious parties that have kept Netanyahu in power, even though a large majority of Israelis, including most of Netanyahu's larger-party allies, strongly disagree with the demands of the religious parties. But, if you want the power, you have to pay them off. That mostly happens in narrowly balanced parliaments -- as Britain is finding out now, trying to deal with Northern Ireland on the Brexit issue.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 02:03:58 pm
Why would you want to take a competitor's advice?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 23, 2019, 02:04:34 pm
Don't know why you want to portrait yourself as unnecessarily more dim than you actually are, but let's explain.

I have made it perfectly clear that gratuitous personal abuse will not be tolerated, Bart. That sentence is unacceptable, subsequent "explanation" or no. Don't do it again.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 23, 2019, 02:57:03 pm
I have made it perfectly clear that gratuitous personal abuse will not be tolerated, Bart. That sentence is unacceptable, subsequent "explanation" or no. Don't do it again.

Jeremy

That's fine Jeremy.

To avoid offending anyone, I've started removing my LuLa contributions. Let's see how that affects the signal to noise ratio.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 23, 2019, 03:13:01 pm
The electoral college, plain and simple.  Since it is a winner takes all in the state vote, third party candidates typically never stand a chance at even winning some electoral votes.  So from a party forming perspective, why bother trying to create a third parties if you know you will never have any national influence in the executive branch.  This is exactly why Bernie is running as a Dem, even though he is not really one.
Didn't Ralph Nader have a major impact on the executive branch in 2000?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: brandon on October 23, 2019, 03:37:27 pm
That's fine Jeremy.

To avoid offending anyone, I've started removing my LuLa contributions. Let's see how that affects the signal to noise ratio.

Cheers,
Bart

Please dont Bart! Yours are the main reason to visit the site!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 03:48:07 pm
Third party candidate Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton beat the first Bush president in 1992.  Third party candidates have often been spoilers but they've never won as far as I know.  The reason we don't have two main parties is because the electoral system requires a 50%+ majority of votes unlike a parliamentary system.  That encourages people to join up into single parties so you can amass enough votes to get your candidate over the 50% mark.  States follow the same rationale although they might split their electors. But only a couple of the 50 states do that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 04:18:57 pm
How do you get on the electoral roll in the US? Is it possible to be eligible but then denied the vote because you haven't fulfilled some other obligation, e.g., sign up for something, register somewhere, etc.?  Does your presence on one electoral roll, say federal, mean that you are automatically enrolled for state elections, or municipal elections?

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 04:39:59 pm
How do you get on the electoral roll in the US? Is it possible to be eligible but then denied the vote because you haven't fulfilled some other obligation, e.g., sign up for something, register somewhere, etc.?  Does your presence on one electoral roll, say federal, mean that you are automatically enrolled for state elections, or municipal elections?


Every state has their own rules because each state is sovereign.  My wife an I just voted by mail for mayor, sheriff, school officials,  and other local officials who have their hand in the till.  :), a procedure allowed in the State of New Jersey.  Enrollment is by state, not Federally.  There are no federal enrollments. Since all federal officials except the President represent only the whole state in the case of senators or a particular election district in the states for Representative for Congress.  You can't vote for officials in other states.  You can only vote where you live and are registered to vote.  You can only register in one state at a time.  It;'s illegal to vote in two states.
Some small populated state have only one congressman.  But each State has two senators.  Also, a person votes for electors in their state who then place the vote for the president.  So you see, all the votes for federal officials come through the state.  There's no need for Federal enrollment. As far as I know, once you register to vote, you're covered for all elections, federal, state, and local
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 04:41:19 pm
Just to clarify, having your hand in the till is a procedure not allowed.  It's voting by mail that's allowed.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 23, 2019, 05:38:24 pm
Every state has their own rules because each state is sovereign.

One small but significant correction for those who may not be thoroughly familiar with the U.S. federal system.  The states are not sovereign (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty); they relinquished their sovereignty in 1788, when they ratified the constitution.  They retain "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, . . . or [reserved] to the people." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment)

The states do have rather more autonomy than the states in most (maybe all) other federated countries, in part because the federal government was originally a creation of the states.  There is no tradition of top-down political authority in the United States: after the English colonies became independent of the Crown, they were effectively separate countries.  (That didn't last long.  Five years after declaring their independence, the states adopted a confederation plan that—in some respects, at least—might be analogized to the European Union.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 05:49:15 pm
This may be picky and even tortured logic, Chris, and I understand your point.  But they're sovereign in all areas where they haven't relinquished their sovereignty in the enumerated powers given to the Federal government.  States rights is certainly a big issue.  It was the reason for the Civil War.  It's still a big issue as recently ruled by the SCOTUS when they refused to interfere in gerrymandering leaving each "sovereign" state to figure it out. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 23, 2019, 05:53:40 pm
But they're sovereign in all areas where they haven't relinquished their sovereignty in the enumerated powers given to the Federal government.

Nope.  Sovereignty is absolute.  If it isn't absolute, it isn't sovereignty.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 06:00:32 pm
Nope.  Sovereignty is absolute.  If it isn't absolute, it isn't sovereignty.
I submit to your definition.  :)  Just to clarify the original question though, within states' non-absolute authority, they each determine the rules for their state how their residents vote as long as their rules do not violate the Constitution of the United States.  I hope I got it right this time. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 06:02:43 pm
Nope.  Sovereignty is absolute.  If it isn't absolute, it isn't sovereignty.
You know, that's what my wife keeps telling me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 23, 2019, 06:38:56 pm
Just to clarify the original question though, within states' non-absolute authority, they each determine the rules for their state how their residents vote as long as their rules do not violate the Constitution of the United States.  I hope I got it right this time. :)

Afraid not: the states' voting regimes must also conform to the requirements of federal statutes—for example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (https://www.justice.gov/crt/history-federal-voting-rights-laws).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 23, 2019, 07:58:20 pm
How do you get on the electoral roll in the US? Is it possible to be eligible but then denied the vote because you haven't fulfilled some other obligation, e.g., sign up for something, register somewhere, etc.?  Does your presence on one electoral roll, say federal, mean that you are automatically enrolled for state elections, or municipal elections?

To answer the question, the lowest administrative voting level in the US is usually a city (town, township) or, occasionally, a county if there is no substantial city in that county. You would sign up to vote with your town or county. Usually (and in my experience, virtually always) when you sign up to vote at the lowest level, you're also signing up to vote at every level, up to and including federal elections. In the case of the fifty states, the states are the highest level of voting *bureaucracy.* The federal government makes some of the rules governing voting rights, but does not administer voting per se,* although the federal courts may get involved, and have gotten involved in the past, all the way to the Supreme Court, as in the Bush-Gore struggle in Florida in 2000.

In many places, however, you can register to vote even as late as election day. Registration deadlines are set by the state. In some places, there are onerous registration requirements designed to keep minorities off the voting rolls. Those rules are set by each state. The federal government bans discrimination by race, religion, etc., but some of the states, governed by bigots, have found myriad ways to get around the requirement. For example, a few states have had a rule that when you register, you must be checked for outstanding warrants -- and further, the registration deadline may be quite some time before the election. Minorities in those areas maybe be much poorer and less educated than the majority (and so have a higher percentage of such things as warrants for failure to provide child support.) They may be frightened by such requirements and shy away from registering, or, living in isolated rural areas, may not realize what the deadline for registration is.
.
There are some even lower levels of voting than a town or county, for example, special tax districts, school districts, etc. But to vote in those elections, you'd usually sign up at the town or county level. The precinct in which you vote would be included in that lower level special tax district or school district, and other people voting that same day, in other precincts outside that special tax district, would not see that special tax district or school board election on their ballot.

*Washington DC is not a state. The District of Columbia is a federal estate, administered by the federal government, through an elected city government. DC has neither federal Senators or Representatives, but residents can vote for President, and the district gets as many electoral college votes as the least populous US state. Puerto Ricans are American citizens, but cannot vote for President and have not senators or representatives.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 23, 2019, 09:20:11 pm
Thanks all.

What sounds the most odd to me (from Canada) is the concept of primaries and public voting in them, whether party affiliation is required or not. There is no equivalent to that here. Political parties decide internally who they choose to stand for office in each riding (district is the nearest equiv to you, I believe) with no input from the public. The selection of who stands for office has no connection with voter eligibility, either formal or informal.

Getting on the electoral roll here is a bureaucratic process, completely separate from politics, not unlike getting a driver's license or applying for old age pension, and is supervised by a federal government department set up for the purpose, called Elections Canada. I have never heard of a political party trying to interfere in its workings. If it ever happened, it would be a career-ending move by the politician who tried and put the party to which he/she belonged in deep sh*t. It may even be a criminal offence, but I don't really know about that. Maybe some other readers know more about that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 10:30:10 pm
Afraid not: the states' voting regimes must also conform to the requirements of federal statutes—for example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (https://www.justice.gov/crt/history-federal-voting-rights-laws).
Not trying to be picky.  But if Congress is passing laws, they're operating under the constitution.  So states are ultimately abiding by the constitution. 

Curious.  What powers granted in the constitution give Congress the right to legislate regulation of state election laws?  Especially in light of the recent decision that gerrymandering control is not part of the constitution to be regulated by the federal government.  Separately, if the constitution grants Congress the right to regulate voting rights, wouldn't they have the authority to ultimately regulate common voting procedures across the board for all 50 states?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 23, 2019, 10:43:12 pm
Thanks all.

What sounds the most odd to me (from Canada) is the concept of primaries and public voting in them, whether party affiliation is required or not. There is no equivalent to that here. Political parties decide internally who they choose to stand for office in each riding (district is the nearest equiv to you, I believe) with no input from the public. The selection of who stands for office has no connection with voter eligibility, either formal or informal.

Getting on the electoral roll here is a bureaucratic process, completely separate from politics, not unlike getting a driver's license or applying for old age pension, and is supervised by a federal government department set up for the purpose, called Elections Canada. I have never heard of a political party trying to interfere in its workings. If it ever happened, it would be a career-ending move by the politician who tried and put the party to which he/she belonged in deep sh*t. It may even be a criminal offence, but I don't really know about that. Maybe some other readers know more about that.

America used to have that as well.  It was basically well-connected insiders in back rooms, dark and smoky, making insider deals with each other splitting up the spoils of political victory.  Very undemocratic.  It still goes on to a certain extent.  However, opening the windows to let in fresh air  made it more democratic.  One of the problems the Democratic party had in 2016 is superdelegates.  These are people who have clout like party insiders, high positioned elected Democrats like GOvernors and senators.  They had the ability to vote who they wanted to vote for.  They were not restricted by votes from the public.  They made up a large portion of the people who selected Hillary. The Clintons had "locked" up these votes prior to the start of the nomination process.  That's why Trump was calling the whole process as being corrupt.  Sanders was screwed from day one.  He was competing with one hand tied behind his back.  Poor guy never had a chance.  It would be impossible for him to overcome these "set aside" votes.  Afterwards, everyone lambasted the Democratic party as being Undemocratic.  The irony of it. The Republican party doesn;t have superdelegates as far as I'm aware.

Because of the complaints, the Democrat party changed their procedures.  I believe they still have superdelegates.  But they can't be used unless the first round of voting for the nominee does not get a majority.  Then they can go back to their shifty ways.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 24, 2019, 03:20:09 am
Please dont Bart! Yours are the main reason to visit the site!

Bart is far and away the most constructive and informative contributor to this (sub-)forum, and it's no wonder that he (very rarely) loses patience with those who are less honest. If he were to be driven away because he expresses that impatience in a straightforward way without flowery language or snide insinuation, that would be the forum's loss.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 24, 2019, 05:00:33 am
+1
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: rabanito on October 24, 2019, 05:24:54 am
+1
I couldn't care less about these discussions on that person Trump or whatever.
Letting it happen was the mistake of the moderator IMHO in the first place. A "whim".
But it is very bad again IMHO when a contributor that many of us appreciate thinks of moving
It's OUR loss..

I  agree with jeremyrh
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 24, 2019, 07:09:42 am
Bart is far and away the most constructive and informative contributor to this (sub-)forum, and it's no wonder that he (very rarely) loses patience with those who are less honest. If he were to be driven away because he expresses that impatience in a straightforward way without flowery language or snide insinuation, that would be the forum's loss.

I agree that it is a loss. The use of the word "dim" was problematic, but is no worse than other examples that were not commented or acted on. But forum moderation is not an exact science.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: stamper on October 24, 2019, 07:20:04 am
Quite a few members have " called" Alan out without being rebuked. Some of his comments are provocative therefore he has brought it upon himself? ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 07:22:20 am
Bart is far and away the most constructive and informative contributor to this (sub-)forum, and it's no wonder that he (very rarely) loses patience with those who are less honest. If he were to be driven away because he expresses that impatience in a straightforward way without flowery language or snide insinuation, that would be the forum's loss.
Jeremy,  Your nonchalance is not appreciated. Bart personally attacked me and deliberately called me stupid and was called out for it.    I have done the same myself a couple of times in the heat of battle and was called out for it as well. I took my medicine and tried to correct my ways and then moved on.   No one is forcing him out, certainly not me or the moderator. It's his call.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 07:31:57 am
Quite a few members have " called" Alan out without being rebuked. Some of his comments are provocative therefore he has brought it upon himself? ::)
If you can't read my posts because they're provocative, whatever that means,  and the only response you can come up with is to call me names,  you ought to stop reading my posts.   I wouldn't want to upset you and ruin your day.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 08:19:38 am

Because of the complaints, the Democrat party changed their procedures.  I believe they still have superdelegates.  But they can't be used unless the first round of voting for the nominee does not get a majority.  Then they can go back to their shifty ways.  :)
Let's also not forget the current attempts by three states to eliminate Republican party primary voting even though there are three announced candidates running against President Trump.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 08:26:04 am
To answer the question, the lowest administrative voting level in the US is usually a city (town, township) or, occasionally, a county if there is no substantial city in that county. You would sign up to vote with your town or county. Usually (and in my experience, virtually always) when you sign up to vote at the lowest level, you're also signing up to vote at every level, up to and including federal elections.

Congress also passed a law making it easier to register to vote back in 1993 with the passage of the National Voter Registration Act.  this was done on the elections clause of the Constitution.

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators."

 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: stamper on October 24, 2019, 08:30:35 am
If you can't read my posts because they're provocative, whatever that means,  and the only response you can come up with is to call me names,  you ought to stop reading my posts.   I wouldn't want to upset you and ruin your day.

I haven't called you names. Re read my post. I said that some of your posts are provocative. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 08:42:23 am
Let's also not forget the current attempts by three states to eliminate Republican party primary voting even though there are three announced candidates running against President Trump.  Nor show if they learned their lesson.
That's also not right.   But let's face it,  the superdelegate situation with Hillary and Bernie was a major embarrassment to the Democrat party. Not sure if they learned their lesson.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 08:46:19 am
I haven't called you names. Re read my post. I said that some of your posts are provocative. 
I've said enough on this matter and have moved on.   If anything I've said may have offended you,  I apologize. Thank you.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 24, 2019, 09:07:17 am
Thank you to those who have expressed their appreciation for my contributions.

So far I've been busy removing about a hundred of my posts from this and a few other threads, which took some time. It would take much more time to delete the other, approx. 9000 contributions. I have not (yet) removed myself from LuLa, but I do have a growing reluctance to contribute to making some of the Lula forum threads more informative.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I thought the thread was about Impeaching Donald Trump, but I'm probably wrong about that as well.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 09:10:19 am
Thank you to those who have expressed their appreciation for my contributions.

So far I've been busy removing about a hundred of my posts from this and a few other threads, which took some time. It would take much more time to delete the other, approx. 9000 contributions. I have not (yet) removed myself from LuLa, but I do have a growing reluctance to contribute to making some of the Lula forum threads more informative.

Cheers,
Bart
To paraphrase the Washington Post's logo:  Democracy and truth die in darkness
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 24, 2019, 09:14:20 am
To paraphrase the Washington Post's logo:  Democracy and truth die in darkness

Glad you avoided the word "dim". ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 09:18:34 am
Where have I heard that word used before? 😀
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 09:23:03 am
Glad you avoided the word "dim". ;)
I only use the word 'dim' as it applies to light bulbs.  this is why I have been installing LED bulbs and light strips.  They provide nice illumination though I'm not sure they are the best for viewing photographs.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 11:09:48 am
Well it seems more and more the Dems have put themselves between a rock and hard place.  They can either vote to impeach or not, both of which are a loose loose. 

Lets take a look at voting for impeachment.  In the beginning of this, the main focus was on whether or not Trump withheld aid for investigations on Biden.  This would be especially bad if it were true, however, after the release of the transcript and the fact the Ukrainians were not aware of aid being withheld, this theory fell apart.  Now the goal posts have shift and Biden is not even being talked about, even though Pelosi promised this would be a very focused investigation, to whether or not the Trump administration engaged in any kind of quid pro quo at all.  First, countries do not work together out of the goodness of their hearts, but for some kind of benefit, or a quid pro quo, which is the point Mulvaney made, albeit in a clumsy fashion.  So in this case, Trump asked for the Ukrainians to continue investigating 2016 election interference, and Trump considered withholding the aid to try and get it done.  The problem here is two fold, first the Dems did the same thing to Ukraine in previous investigations.  They required Ukraine to work with them in investigating 2016 election interference at the expense of withholding aid.  Not only does this imply that the Dems feel investigating 2016 election interference is important, but that they are willing to use the same tactic that they are vilifying Trump for.  And second, since the Ukrainians were not aware of aid being withheld, this is still not a real quid pro quo. 

All things considered at this point, the case is very weak and would not pass if it made it to the Senate.  This would only help Trump. 

Second option is to not hold a vote and let the impeachment slowly fade away.  Although this "may" help those Dems in weak districts, this still hurts the Dems overall.  Not bringing a vote will certainly demoralize the progressive base and could effect voter turnout.  On top of that, this whole process will end being another Mueller Report bust, further eroding public confidence of the House.  This combined with lack of reasonable legislation getting passed will be a plus for the Republicans and Trump.  It may not be as much of a plus as an actual vote, but still a plus. 

Unless some bomb shell comes along that proves Trump engaged in a quid pro quo outside of the normal operations of diplomacy, such as only being concerned with Joe Biden, this whole thing will blow up in the Dems faces.  One analogy I read recently was comparing buying some aspirin from a local pharmacy vs. buying some heroin from a drug dealer.  Both are quid pro quos, but one is legal and the other is not.  For all intents and purposes, it seeming more and more Trump engaged in the former, but the Dems are desperately trying to make it look like the latter. 

As an aside, does anyone know if the new MacBooks have issues with the space bar?  I keep on accidentally typing double spaces, and it getting to be quite annoying. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 24, 2019, 11:19:08 am
So far I've been busy removing about a hundred of my posts from this and a few other threads, which took some time.

If I had considered any of those hundred posts to have been offensive, I'd have let you know; and no doubt if anyone else had so considered them, they would have let either you or me know. I didn't, and as far as I am aware, they haven't.

You may stay or leave, of course; but to depart after one reprimand would appear, to me at least, overly sensitive.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 24, 2019, 11:24:30 am
Besides that, we'll miss your charts if you go away, Bart. Stick around.  ;D ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 11:59:21 am
I only use the word 'dim' as it applies to light bulbs.  this is why I have been installing LED bulbs and light strips.  They provide nice illumination though I'm not sure they are the best for viewing photographs.
LED lights come in different Kelvins.  I use 2800 for normal home use as they have a warm rosy look.   5000 are a bright white like noontime sun and o.jare better for photos except they make everyone look like they need to go ro the beach and get a suntan.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 12:08:06 pm
It'll be dimmer around here. Plus who will I spar with?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 12:12:54 pm
Joe that's interesting.   I wasn't aware the Obama administration was doing the same thing as Trump was trying to do.   Using American aid to push them to investigate corruption in their country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 12:57:59 pm
Well it seems more and more the Dems have put themselves between a rock and hard place.  They can either vote to impeach or not, both of which are a loose loose. 
they can release all the transcripts and then vote to censure the President for specific reasons.  While falling short of an Impeachment vote, it does offer another avenue after the investigation is completed.

None of us know what has been happening behind closed doors and until we do it is difficult to make any prediction.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 01:00:32 pm
they can release all the transcripts and then vote to censure the President for specific reasons.  While falling short of an Impeachment vote, it does offer another avenue after the investigation is completed.

None of us know what has been happening behind closed doors and until we do it is difficult to make any prediction.
True, and interesting point on the censuring of the President.  However, I am not sure if this would be politically viable since the Dems voted against censuring Schiff who did make stuff up during a congressional hearing and have repeatably lied. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 01:03:47 pm
LED lights come in different Kelvins.  I use 2800 for normal home use as they have a warm rosy look.   5000 are a bright white like noontime sun and o.jare better for photos except they make everyone look like they need to go ro the beach and get a suntan.
I had to replace the fluorescent fixtures in the family room where my work station is located as they were old and the ballast on both sets needed replacing.  there were several different color temps offered and I bought the daylight version (6200 I think)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 01:07:01 pm
I had to replace the fluorescent fixtures in the family room where my work station is located as they were old and the ballast on both sets needed replacing.  there were several different color temps offered and I bought the daylight version (6200 I think)

The real issue, regardless of color temp, is that all LEDs have a discontinuous light spectrum, just like all fluorescents.  Also, for most LEDs, they emit a lower amount of the spectrum then fluorescents.  This greatly effects color, especially in photography; LEDs are the bane of my work.  For viewing prints under, I dont know if it would matter as much. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 01:10:05 pm
The real issue, regardless of color temp, is that all LEDs have a discontinuous light spectrum, just like all fluorescents.  Also, for most LEDs, they emit a lower amount of the spectrum then fluorescents.  This greatly effects color, especially in photography; LEDs are the bane of my work.  For viewing prints under, I dont know if it would matter as much.
When I'm doing critical photo editing, I turn off the lights so that my monitor is not affected.  I have a separate Spectraview calibration for the lower light level.  Lights are much brighter than the fluorescents they replaced which was jarring when they were first installed.  I'm used to them now. 8)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 01:37:46 pm
they can release all the transcripts and then vote to censure the President for specific reasons.  While falling short of an Impeachment vote, it does offer another avenue after the investigation is completed.

None of us know what has been happening behind closed doors and until we do it is difficult to make any prediction.
It's like those secret trials the Soviets used to do. Find the people guilty then let you know the evidence they found.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 01:53:30 pm
It's like those secret trials the Soviets used to do. Find the people guilty then let you know the evidence they found.
I honestly don't know how you can say this.  What is happening right now is no different from the Benghazi investigation of Secretary Clinton.  Trey Gowdy argued that closed hearings were the best approach to getting reliable testimony.  He is a Republican and former prosecutor.  The Democrats have already said that this will move into a public venue with release of the transcripts.  Arguing over procedure or making over the top statements such as the above doesn't to the Republicans any good.  As with yesterday's intrusion of a secure hearing room, it makes them look petty and foolish.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 24, 2019, 02:17:13 pm
I honestly don't know how you can say this.  What is happening right now is no different from the Benghazi investigation of Secretary Clinton.  Trey Gowdy argued that closed hearings were the best approach to getting reliable testimony.  He is a Republican and former prosecutor.  The Democrats have already said that this will move into a public venue with release of the transcripts.  Arguing over procedure or making over the top statements such as the above doesn't to the Republicans any good.  As with yesterday's intrusion of a secure hearing room, it makes them look petty and foolish.

I don't think it makes all Republicans look petty and foolish, but those Tea Party guys are basically idiots and they do much damage to the Republican Party, which is a shame. We really do need a strong two party system, IMHO. I think Joe is way off base with his predictions of damage to the Democrats by the current investigation. Eventually, I think two things will damage Trump almost irrecoverably: the disaster in Syria and the extortion in the Ukraine. There was apparently nothing illegal about his decision in Syria, but the PR is so terrible that I think it turned lots of people against him, who might have otherwise stuck with him, even if holding their noses. Even the military is getting restive, as you see in comments from retired military people, including his former secretary of defense. The Ukraine deal was typical thuggish Trump strong-arming, and that could get him impeached. I still doubt that he'd be convicted in the Senate, no matter what he did.

One thing we don't know about is what's going to happen when the appeals court orders the IRS to give his eight years of tax returns to the Manhattan prosecutor. Manhattan, of course, leans Democratic (I joke) and Trump has a long and ugly history of cheating on his taxes. It's interesting that they asked for eight years of tax returns -- going back before he was President, and when he might not have been seriously thinking of running, and therefore might have felt freer to cheat. If he did that, I would expect state indictments about the most delicate time for Trump in the election process. Say, about next October, close enough to the election to to do serious damage, not far enough away for him to mount an effective defense.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 24, 2019, 02:28:04 pm
In a nutshell ...

U.S. diplomat testifies Trump tied Ukraine aid to politically motivated probes
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower/u-s-diplomat-testifies-trump-tied-ukraine-aid-to-politically-motivated-probes-idUSKBN1X10BC
Quote
The comments by William Taylor, a career diplomat and former Army officer who serves as the charge d’affaires in the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, were in a copy of his statement to lawmakers posted online by U.S. media.

Taylor’s statement to the three Democratic-led House of Representatives committees leading an impeachment inquiry against the Republican president marked a pivotal development in the political drama unfolding in Washington that threatens Trump’s presidency even as he pursues re-election.

It ran counter to Trump’s contention that there was no quid pro quo - a Latin phrase meaning a favor for a favor - related to the $391 million in security assistance approved by the U.S. Congress to help combat Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine that Trump had withheld.

“It was the most damning testimony,” Democratic Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz told Reuters.

In closed-door testimony, Taylor said he was told by Gordon Sondland, the U.S. envoy to the European Union, that Trump had linked release of the aid to public declarations by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that he would investigate Trump’s domestic political rival Joe Biden, and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a debunked conspiracy theory about the 2016 election.

Zelenskiy agreed to the request. The aid was later released
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 02:35:38 pm
I honestly don't know how you can say this.  What is happening right now is no different from the Benghazi investigation of Secretary Clinton.  Trey Gowdy argued that closed hearings were the best approach to getting reliable testimony.  He is a Republican and former prosecutor.  The Democrats have already said that this will move into a public venue with release of the transcripts.  Arguing over procedure or making over the top statements such as the above doesn't to the Republicans any good.  As with yesterday's intrusion of a secure hearing room, it makes them look petty and foolish.
No one cares about Benghazi and certainly no one ever heard of Trey Gowdy. What people care about is that the president of the United States is being indicted in a secret Hearing in a soundproof room being run by Democrats where Republicans aren't allowed to defend him. Of course if you read CNN or MSNBC, everything seems like it's on the up-and-up. But Independents hopefully will look at how this is being done and draw their conclusions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 24, 2019, 02:46:58 pm
Quote
In closed-door testimony, Taylor said he was told by...

So damning ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 02:47:45 pm
I don't think it makes all Republicans look petty and foolish, but those Tea Party guys are basically idiots and they do much damage to the Republican Party, which is a shame. We really do need a strong two party system, IMHO. I think Joe is way off base with his predictions of damage to the Democrats by the current investigation. Eventually, I think two things will damage Trump almost irrecoverably: the disaster in Syria and the extortion in the Ukraine. There was apparently nothing illegal about his decision in Syria, but the PR is so terrible that I think it turned lots of people against him, who might have otherwise stuck with him, even if holding their noses. Even the military is getting restive, as you see in comments from retired military people, including his former secretary of defense. The Ukraine deal was typical thuggish Trump strong-arming, and that could get him impeached. I still doubt that he'd be convicted in the Senate, no matter what he did.

One thing we don't know about is what's going to happen when the appeals court orders the IRS to give his eight years of tax returns to the Manhattan prosecutor. Manhattan, of course, leans Democratic (I joke) and Trump has a long and ugly history of cheating on his taxes. It's interesting that they asked for eight years of tax returns -- going back before he was President, and when he might not have been seriously thinking of running, and therefore might have felt freer to cheat. If he did that, I would expect state indictments about the most delicate time for Trump in the election process. Say, about next October, close enough to the election to to do serious damage, not far enough away for him to mount an effective defense.
Who you been listening to? MSNBC and CNN? Trump has never been charged with tax fraud. That's a very severe charge that isn't true. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 24, 2019, 02:59:41 pm
No one cares about Benghazi and certainly no one ever heard of Trey Gowdy. What people care about is that the president of the United States is being indicted in a secret Hearing in a soundproof room being run by Democrats where Republicans aren't allowed to defend him. Of course if you read CNN or MSNBC, everything seems like it's on the up-and-up. But Independents hopefully will look at how this is being done and draw their conclusions.
As with a couple of other posters here, you are going to soon enter my 'no-read' zone.  Your statement about Congressman Gowdy is just silly given his prominence in past inquiries.  Gowdy led the House appointed committee that investigated Secretary Clinton and was also seriously considered as a lawyer to help President Trump negotiate the current impeachment difficulties.  If you so desire you can read more about Gowdy and how the President's crew botched the attempt to hire him:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html  The President is not being indicted in a secret hearing in a soundproof room.  The three Congressional Committees are collecting evidence the same way a Grand Jury does.  Indictment only takes place with an impeachment vote and the trial is the conducted with the Senate sitting as the jury.  this is all pretty much Civics 101. 

Your statement about independents is important and Nate Silver's poll aggregation shows public opinion for impeachment climbing by 14 points over the past month getting close to the 50% point:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/  Of course you are free to disbelieve data as you see fit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 05:21:01 pm
As with a couple of other posters here, you are going to soon enter my 'no-read' zone.  Your statement about Congressman Gowdy is just silly given his prominence in past inquiries.  Gowdy led the House appointed committee that investigated Secretary Clinton and was also seriously considered as a lawyer to help President Trump negotiate the current impeachment difficulties.  If you so desire you can read more about Gowdy and how the President's crew botched the attempt to hire him:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html  The President is not being indicted in a secret hearing in a soundproof room.  The three Congressional Committees are collecting evidence the same way a Grand Jury does.  Indictment only takes place with an impeachment vote and the trial is the conducted with the Senate sitting as the jury.  this is all pretty much Civics 101. 

Your statement about independents is important and Nate Silver's poll aggregation shows public opinion for impeachment climbing by 14 points over the past month getting close to the 50% point:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/  Of course you are free to disbelieve data as you see fit.

Yes, but if you look at party break down, the numbers show that overall it is Dems wanting impeachment.  Very very few republicans do and less then half of independents.  On top of that, the NYT polled swing states and those numbers don't look good for impeachment there, and it is the in swing states where you win. 

"When you strike the king, you better kill him."  If the Dems can't get a conviction at this point, they are in serious trouble, especially considering the current Democratic field. 

Like I said before, unless clear evidence comes out, the Dems best course of action is to drop this impeachment inquiry and get actual bills passed so the vulnerable Dems have something to run on.  Maybe, if they do this, they will actually retain the house. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 24, 2019, 05:24:33 pm
Like I said before, unless clear evidence comes out, the Dems best course of action is to drop this impeachment inquiry and get actual bills passed so the vulnerable Dems have something to run on.  Maybe, if they do this, they will actually retain the house.
How can House Democrats get bills passed if McConnell won't bring them to the Senate floor?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 06:15:37 pm
How can House Democrats get bills passed if McConnell won't bring them to the Senate floor?

This crazy idea called bi-partisanship. 

Maybe the moderate Dems ignore the progressives and work with the moderate Republicans to create bills the Senate would actually consider. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 24, 2019, 06:33:22 pm
This crazy idea called bi-partisanship. 

Maybe the moderate Dems ignore the progressives and work with the moderate Republicans to create bills the Senate would actually consider.

You don't understand how it works, Joe. Mitch McConnell alone decides which bills get voted on. Not the Republican moderates.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 06:38:29 pm
You don't understand how it works, Joe. Mitch McConnell alone decides which bills get voted on. Not the Republican moderates.

Oh, I know. 

But think about it, a bi-partisanship bill with string support on both sides coming out of the house, McConnell would be forced to bring it to the floor. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 24, 2019, 06:45:03 pm
But think about it, a bi-partisanship bill with string support on both sides coming out of the house, McConnell would be forced to bring it to the floor.
Oh, the hypothetical bill that appeals to both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, assuming there actually are any.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 24, 2019, 06:58:11 pm
Oh, the hypothetical bill that appeals to both moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, assuming there actually are any.

LOL, there are a lot of Dems in Trump districts. 

By the way, why did Prohibition fail?  No compromises.  You want anything to last, compromise is the name of the game, albeit I'll admit many is both parties have forgotten this. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 10:25:06 pm
You don't understand how it works, Joe. Mitch McConnell alone decides which bills get voted on. Not the Republican moderates.
Democrat Speaker Pelosi is holding up bills in the House that the Democrats control.  Congressional gridlock.  Just what the people are complaining about.  The Dems would rather discuss impeachment and spend all their time on that while the people's business gets ignored.  Impeachment talk has been going on since around June of 2015, 7 months before Trump was even sworn into office.  The only piece of important legislation that got passed was the Republican tax cut and jobs bill.  And that required the House to be Republican before its switched hands to the Dems in 2018 because every Democrat voted against it in both the Senate and the House. 

...doing the People's business.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 10:36:43 pm
As with a couple of other posters here, you are going to soon enter my 'no-read' zone.  Your statement about Congressman Gowdy is just silly given his prominence in past inquiries.  Gowdy led the House appointed committee that investigated Secretary Clinton and was also seriously considered as a lawyer to help President Trump negotiate the current impeachment difficulties.  If you so desire you can read more about Gowdy and how the President's crew botched the attempt to hire him:  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/trey-gowdy-trump-impeachment.html  The President is not being indicted in a secret hearing in a soundproof room.  The three Congressional Committees are collecting evidence the same way a Grand Jury does.  Indictment only takes place with an impeachment vote and the trial is the conducted with the Senate sitting as the jury.  this is all pretty much Civics 101. 

Your statement about independents is important and Nate Silver's poll aggregation shows public opinion for impeachment climbing by 14 points over the past month getting close to the 50% point:  https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/  Of course you are free to disbelieve data as you see fit.
Oh please.  The only people who heard of Trey Gowdy, a Republican ex-congressman from some state in the US, not sure which,  are me, you, his wife and mother.   Maybe 1 person in a thousand could pick him out of a police lineup.  He would be better off robbing banks.  He'd never get caught.  No one would remember his face.   In any case, impeaching the president is not like indicting a bank robber in a Grand Jury.  We're talking about the president of the US.  The process should be open so people don't feel it's all a political witch hunt, a star chamber.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/820/star-chamber
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 24, 2019, 10:47:08 pm
The screw turns.  What goes around comes around.

U.S. Justice Dept. review of origins of Russia probe now a criminal investigation
Barr appointed Connecticut State Attorney John Durham to lead the review of whether U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies acted properly when they examined possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, which ultimately led to the Mueller investigation.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=post2;board=33 (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=post2;board=33)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 25, 2019, 02:47:38 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACJFDczhGfk&t=203s

This is getting even more hilarious everyday... 12 of the republicans who protested against the Congress secrets hearing's lack of transparency... were part of the 47 Republicans attending the hearing!!! :)

And the rules they are calling unconstitutional were proposed by a Republican senator 3 years ago...

Really good stuff!


Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 07:43:54 am
Democrat Speaker Pelosi is holding up bills in the House that the Democrats control.  Congressional gridlock.  Just what the people are complaining about.  The Dems would rather discuss impeachment and spend all their time on that while the people's business gets ignored.  Impeachment talk has been going on since around June of 2015, 7 months before Trump was even sworn into office.  The only piece of important legislation that got passed was the Republican tax cut and jobs bill.  And that required the House to be Republican before its switched hands to the Dems in 2018 because every Democrat voted against it in both the Senate and the House. 

...doing the People's business.
What legislation is Speaker Pelosi holding up?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:44:40 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACJFDczhGfk&t=203s

This is getting even more hilarious everyday... 12 of the republicans who protested against the Congress secrets hearing's lack of transparency... were part of the 47 Republicans attending the hearing!!! :)

And the rules they are calling unconstitutional were proposed by a Republican senator 3 years ago...

Really good stuff!


Cheers,
Bernard

The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:47:58 am
What legislation is Speaker Pelosi holding up?
For one, the new North American Trade Deal with Canada and Mexico.  She'll never agree to have it signed off before the election as it may make Trump look good.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 25, 2019, 09:02:40 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
We have a problem of reliable sources of news that everybody ( Left +right) acknowledges.
let try this source...  is this a source of news everybody can live with as being most probably true?

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-error-filled-cabinet-meeting/




Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 25, 2019, 09:32:14 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?

Why not? It's more accurate than Fox.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 10:00:03 am
Why not? It's more accurate than Fox.
I never found Colbert funny.  He should change his profession and get a job with CNN or MSNBC.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 10:19:39 am
We have a problem of reliable sources of news that everybody ( Left +right) acknowledges.
let try this source...  is this a source of news everybody can live with as being most probably true?

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/trumps-error-filled-cabinet-meeting/





No.  I just checked their main page and 7 or 8 of 9 reviews picked out negative things about Trump.  That alone tells me they're biased.    They couldn't find anything the Democrats are saying that are false?  How about Pelosi or Schiff who never lived a day when they didn't lie. 
https://www.factcheck.org/the-factcheck-wire/

In any case, you have to look at multiple sources to weed out the truth.  And often you still can't.  If you're not in America, you probably will get 100% of news that's anti-Trump because the outlets that provide that news and bylines like the NY TImes and the Washington Post both hate Trump.  I found Reuters more balanced.  They were suggested to me by Bart, and he was right on the one, mainly.  :)    So all the news you read is biased against Trump and all have a strong liberal, left wing slant.  Period. You really don;t know what's going on in America.  Most Americans don't either because most people here too read or see only biased news.  A free press is suppose to serve the people, not the leaders.  Unfortunately, media has decided to take sides politically.  That's not exactly new.  But it's gotten really bad and the public really doesn;t know what going on.  So read everything with a grain of salt and be smarter than everyone else. Be critical.  Don;t just believe because some source, regardless of supposed credentials, tells you they know the "truth".  They have biases too.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 25, 2019, 10:36:46 am
No.  I just checked their main page and 7 or 8 of 9 reviews picked out negative things about Trump.  That alone tells me they're biased.    They couldn't find anything the Democrats are saying that are false?  How about Pelosi or Schiff who never lived a day when they didn't lie. 
https://www.factcheck.org/the-factcheck-wire/

In any case, you have to look at multiple sources to weed out the truth.  And often you still can't.  If you're not in America, you probably will get 100% of news that's anti-Trump because the outlets that provide that news and bylines like the NY TImes and the Washington Post both hate Trump.  I found Reuters more balanced.  They were suggested to me by Bart, and he was right on the one, mainly.  :)    So all the news you read is biased against Trump and all have a strong liberal, left wing slant.  Period. You really don;t know what's going on in America.  Most Americans don't either because most people here too read or see only biased news.  A free press is suppose to serve the people, not the leaders.  Unfortunately, media has decided to take sides politically.  That's not exactly new.  But it's gotten really bad and the public really doesn;t know what going on.  So read everything with a grain of salt and be smarter than everyone else. Be critical.  Don;t just believe because some source, regardless of supposed credentials, tells you they know the "truth".  They have biases too.

You seem to forget that mr Trump is the president of the US.
Of course is everything what he says of such importance that it is checked.
Problem is, that a lot of his statements are simply not true; hence the attention. It is not anti Trump. He gets the attention he askes for as being President and producing false statements...all the time.
Anyway- if you don't like the reality just hide you head in the sand; you are the perfect Trump supporter, Alan, whatever he does, so be it.
There are some good thing to tell about Trump the way i see it: He did not start any foolish war yet; as did Bush JR. He started a discussion about the role of China in the world.
(this is my personal view and no fact...)
...



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 11:01:11 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?

It reliably makes me laugh.  And nowadays, that's a good thing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 11:14:48 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?

It used to be a comedy show. It has turned more into a reality news show. Reality has become surreal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 11:28:35 am
For one, the new North American Trade Deal with Canada and Mexico.  She'll never agree to have it signed off before the election as it may make Trump look good.
That must be the FOX news meme.  Negotiations are nearing conclusion to stop the outsourcing of US jobs that took place under the old NAFTA and of course this is one of President Trump's major goals as well.  he campaigned on this quite vociferously.  There is also a major give away to my former industry that needs to be dealt with.  Congress serves to advise and consent on treaties.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 11:31:51 am
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?
No, I get my news from John Oliver's 'Last Week Tonight' show.  It's highly reliable and without it I would not understand the conspiracy surrounding Jeffery Epstein's strange 'suicide.'
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 11:55:34 am
You seem to forget that mr Trump is the president of the US.
Of course is everything what he says of such importance that it is checked.
Problem is, that a lot of his statements are simply not true; hence the attention. It is not anti Trump. He gets the attention he askes for as being President and producing false statements...all the time.
Anyway- if you don't like the reality just hide you head in the sand; you are the perfect Trump supporter, Alan, whatever he does, so be it.
There are some good thing to tell about Trump the way i see it: He did not start any foolish war yet; as did Bush JR. He started a discussion about the role of China in the world.
(this is my personal view and no fact...)
...




But news is biased if it's only checked on one side even assuming the checker is truthfully reporting the truth.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 11:58:47 am
That must be the FOX news meme.  Negotiations are nearing conclusion to stop the outsourcing of US jobs that took place under the old NAFTA and of course this is one of President Trump's major goals as well.  he campaigned on this quite vociferously.  There is also a major give away to my former industry that needs to be dealt with.  Congress serves to advise and consent on treaties.
You asked what they haven't done.  Well, they're sitting on it and wont do anything.  YOu don;t really think that Democrat Speaker Pelosi is going to approve a Trump trade deal before the election, do you.   How long has it been since Trump approved the new trade pact?  What are the Dems waiting for?  Hell will freeze over first. Les and the rest of Canada want to know!! :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 12:04:26 pm
PS  When are you guys going to stop assuming I base everything I say on what Fox says?  Do you think I spend all my time watching that stuff.  Actually I watch CNN and MSNBC more to find out what the "enemy" thinks. :) Do I accuse you of saying everything from what you heard from CNN or MSNBC?  It's just a typical left way of trying to make people look stupid and uniformed.  You should know me by now that I'm far from stupid or uninformed and don;t need Fox to to learn things and draw my own conclusions about things. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 12:05:43 pm
You really don;t know what's going on in America.  Most Americans don't either because most people here too read or see only biased news.  A free press is suppose to serve the people, not the leaders.  Unfortunately, media has decided to take sides politically.  That's not exactly new.  But it's gotten really bad and the public really doesn;t know what going on.  So read everything with a grain of salt and be smarter than everyone else. Be critical.  Don;t just believe because some source, regardless of supposed credentials, tells you they know the "truth".  They have biases too.
You act as if Fox News doesn't exist. They are constantly tooting Trump's horn.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 01:36:54 pm
One thing I really don't get is why all those who have been asked to testify either in writing or by subpoena are refusing to do so.  If President Trump is innocent, wouldn't he welcome these folks going on the record.  I just see that two more subpoenas were issued for OMB personnel.  It would also be interesting to hear from the President's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani.  I think when the House moves to the public part of the inquiry all of this is going to reflect very poorly on the President.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 01:39:44 pm
PS  When are you guys going to stop assuming I base everything I say on what Fox says?  Do you think I spend all my time watching that stuff.  Actually I watch CNN and MSNBC more to find out what the "enemy" thinks. :) Do I accuse you of saying everything from what you heard from CNN or MSNBC?  It's just a typical left way of trying to make people look stupid and uniformed.  You should know me by now that I'm far from stupid or uninformed and don;t need Fox to to learn things and draw my own conclusions about things.
And yet you always toe the Fox News line. And refer to CNN and MSNBC as the enemy.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 25, 2019, 02:12:38 pm
One thing I really don't get is why all those who have been asked to testify either in writing or by subpoena are refusing to do so.  If President Trump is innocent, wouldn't he welcome these folks going on the record.  I just see that two more subpoenas were issued for OMB personnel.  It would also be interesting to hear from the President's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani.  I think when the House moves to the public part of the inquiry all of this is going to reflect very poorly on the President.

When the opposition has been trying to get you before you even were sworn in and is now selectively leaking testimony to support their narrative, why fuel the fire? 

This whole thing is going to come down to Guillani.  Was Trump investigating Ukraine to get information to use against his rivals in the 2020 election, or was he continuing to investigate the 2016 election interference in an attempt to clear his name of any wrong doing since many in the media still think he was guilty of something. 

Personally, it is looking like the latter and that Guillani was getting bad information from nefarious actors, which he was relaying to the White House. 

For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues.  What the hell happened to him? 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 02:17:31 pm
For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues.  What the hell happened to him?
He fell within Trump's orbit.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 03:20:43 pm
For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues.  What the hell happened to him?
that was two wives and a lot of alimony ago.  Once he left office he took any job that was willing to pay big money.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 03:30:40 pm
You act as if Fox News doesn't exist. They are constantly tooting Trump's horn.
Do non-Americans actually watch Fox?  It must be very few people.  Most of the news people get from here are bylines in your regular press.  So that press is regurgitating American liberal press from the NY TImes or Washington Post or one of the major broadcast TV stations, ABC, NBC or CBS.  I doubt if 1% watch Fox. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 03:32:40 pm
Do I accuse you of saying everything from what you heard from CNN or MSNBC?


No.  You accuse us of saying everything we heard from "Mainstream Media".  ie, everybody else except Fox, Breitbart and a few outlier blogs prone to clickbait.

Quote

It's just a typical left way of trying to make people look stupid and uniformed.


We certainly don't quote MSM to "make people look stupid and uninformed".  We quote them because they're the vast majority.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 03:32:59 pm
One thing I really don't get is why all those who have been asked to testify either in writing or by subpoena are refusing to do so.  If President Trump is innocent, wouldn't he welcome these folks going on the record.  I just see that two more subpoenas were issued for OMB personnel.  It would also be interesting to hear from the President's lawyer, Rudy Guiliani.  I think when the House moves to the public part of the inquiry all of this is going to reflect very poorly on the President.
Would you testify in a Soviet trial?  This is a Star Chamber investigation where the judges and jury are out to get a conviction no matter what.  No lawyer would let their client testify under such circumstances unless they were forced too. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 03:37:10 pm
When the opposition has been trying to get you before you even were sworn in and is now selectively leaking testimony to support their narrative, why fuel the fire? 

This whole thing is going to come down to Guillani.  Was Trump investigating Ukraine to get information to use against his rivals in the 2020 election, or was he continuing to investigate the 2016 election interference is an attempt to clear his name of any wrong doing since many in the media still think he was guilty of something. 

Personally, it is looking like the latter and that Guillani was getting bad information from nefarious actors, which he was relaying to the White House. 

For what it is worth, the more I hear from Guillani, the more I wonder how he took down the mob and ran NYC with little issues.  What the hell happened to him? 
He had major issues with NYC.  He was always under fire from minorities especially for his policing policies.  Of course it brought down the crime rate a lot so he got credit for that.  9-11 gave him big approval to for his action then, calmness, etc. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 03:39:35 pm
When the opposition has been trying to get you before you even were sworn in and is now selectively leaking testimony to support their narrative, why fuel the fire? 

What fire?

If what he says is true, ("no collusion, no quid pro pro", etc.) you'd think Trump would want to encourage everyone in his orbit to testify to that truth.  In other words pour cold water on the fire. 
Instead, by forbidding testimony, he's fanning the fire and applying accelerant.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 03:43:27 pm
Laying all this on Giuliani, ain't gonna work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 04:26:20 pm
Would you testify in a Soviet trial?  This is a Star Chamber investigation where the judges and jury are out to get a conviction no matter what.  No lawyer would let their client testify under such circumstances unless they were forced too.
I take this to mean that you would ignore a Grand Jury summons if one was presented to you and you felt that was a closed session.  I honestly don't know how you can make such statements.  Grand Juries do not try or judge people!!!!  This joint committee is not trying the President or anyone else.  that is the responsibility of the Senate (read the Constitution!).  All that is happening right now is evidence is being gathered.

Subpoena's are meant to mean something.  If we can just choose to ignore them when we see fit, the nation is no longer under the rule of law.  Eventually these claims of immunity and executive privilege will be decided by the courts and not you, the President, or any of his enablers.  I always hate to get repetitious, but there is nothing wrong with the way the House is proceeding.  they are using rules passed when the Republicans were in power and John Boehner was Speaker.  Do you think that what they did was wrong when they used the EXACT same approach to probe what happened in Benghazi.  You also cannot draw any parallels with either the Nixon or Clinton investigations because they had special counsels that did all the grunt work up front.

As I and others have pointed out, Republicans serve on this investigative committee and have the right to question witnesses.  In the end it will come down to how the public process of reviewing these statements and those of public witnesses that are called. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 04:36:51 pm
Aren't there a significant number of Republicans present inside the SCIF?  Also taking part in that "secret trial"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 04:40:53 pm
Aren't there a significant number of Republicans present inside the SCIF?  Also taking part in that "secret trial"?
I think the count is 47 Republicans from each of the three relevant Committees. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 25, 2019, 05:00:30 pm
The Late Show Comedy with Stephen Colbert is your source of news?

That’s not the point and you know it.

The easy to check fact is that:
1.12 of the Republicabs senators who were protesting against the lack of transparency of hearings they call unconstitutional... were part of these hearings, which is simply crazy
2. The very format and proceedings of these hearings was defined by Republicans 4 years ago... which is even crazier.

It’s as if the passengers of a plane working at Boeing were attacking the airline for using planes made by... Boeing... and for taking off without them although themselves decided to exit the plane before take off.

Even in Belgium, often called the country of surrealism, we’be never gotten close to such absolute non sense Alan.

There is an objective truth and you not liking it isn’t sufficient to make it untrue. Nor is the fact that this truth has been aired by a TV program you don’t like.

The reality is that Republicans themselves are realizing how bad the position of Trump is, the obvious unconstitutional nature of his actions (even without quid pro quo, double so with quid pro quo, whther it’s about Biden or not) and they are taking mire and more desperate course of action.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 05:22:29 pm
... The easy to check fact is that:
1.12 of the Republicabs senators who were protesting against the lack of transparency of hearings they call unconstitutional... were part of these hearings, which is simply crazy
2. The very format and proceedings of these hearings was defined by Republicans 4 years ago... which is even crazier...

Can you provide a link to those claims, please?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 25, 2019, 05:32:12 pm
Can you provide a link to those claims, please?

Do the work Slobodan. You aren’t afraid of the truth are you?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 25, 2019, 05:32:32 pm
Can be a record deficit a valid reason for impeachment?

Quote
The U.S. Treasury on Friday said that the federal deficit for fiscal 2019 was $984 billion. The gap between revenues and spending was the widest it’s been in seven years as expenditures on defense, Medicare and interest payments on the national debt ballooned the shortfall.

The government said corporate tax revenues totaled $230 billion, up 12%, thanks to a rebound in the second half of the year. Individual tax revenues rose 2% to $1.7 trillion. Receipts totaled $3.4 trillion, up 4% through September, while federal spending rose 8%, to $4.4 trillion. The U.S. government also collected nearly $71 billion in customs duties, or tariffs, a 70% increase compared to the year-ago period.

Annual deficits have nearly doubled under President Donald Trump’s tenure notwithstanding an unemployment rate at multidecade lows and better earnings figures. Deficits usually shrink during times of economic growth as higher incomes and Wall Street profits buoy Treasury coffers, while automatic spending on items like food stamps decline. Two big bipartisan spending bills, combined with the administration’s landmark tax cuts, however, have defied the typical trends and instead aggravated deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects the trillion-dollar deficit could come as soon as fiscal 2020.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/federal-deficit-increases-26percent-to-984-billion-for-fiscal-2019.html

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 05:43:35 pm
I take this to mean that you would ignore a Grand Jury summons if one was presented to you and you felt that was a closed session.  I honestly don't know how you can make such statements.  Grand Juries do not try or judge people!!!!  This joint committee is not trying the President or anyone else.  that is the responsibility of the Senate (read the Constitution!).  All that is happening right now is evidence is being gathered.

Subpoena's are meant to mean something.  If we can just choose to ignore them when we see fit, the nation is no longer under the rule of law.  Eventually these claims of immunity and executive privilege will be decided by the courts and not you, the President, or any of his enablers.  I always hate to get repetitious, but there is nothing wrong with the way the House is proceeding.  they are using rules passed when the Republicans were in power and John Boehner was Speaker.  Do you think that what they did was wrong when they used the EXACT same approach to probe what happened in Benghazi.  You also cannot draw any parallels with either the Nixon or Clinton investigations because they had special counsels that did all the grunt work up front.

As I and others have pointed out, Republicans serve on this investigative committee and have the right to question witnesses.  In the end it will come down to how the public process of reviewing these statements and those of public witnesses that are called. 
This is a palace coup being run by the Democrats.  Schiff is acting like a Commisar. The government isn't like a grand jury.  The Constitution respects equal powers between the Congress and the Executive. The Executive may resist subpoenas and in this case especially when the Democrats only aim is to destroy the President to gain power for the Democrats.  To argue something else is going on is just bias on your part.    If the executive witnesses wrongfully resisting subpoenas, the Federal courts will decide who's right.  That's how it works.  Of course you disagree because you want to impeach the President come hell or high water. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 05:56:24 pm
To argue something else is going on is just bias on your part.
Or bias on your part.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 25, 2019, 06:02:44 pm
Do non-Americans actually watch Fox?  It must be very few people.  Most of the news people get from here are bylines in your regular press.  So that press is regurgitating American liberal press from the NY TImes or Washington Post or one of the major broadcast TV stations, ABC, NBC or CBS.  I doubt if 1% watch Fox.

"Regurgitating?" Please. The NY Times is perhaps the most respected newspaper in the world, with accurate and in-depth reporting every day. The Post is not far behind. Yes, their editorial opinions are liberal, but their news reporting is accurate. When they make an error, it is reported as a "correction" very soon.

Lord, what fun to be a conservative, where anything you WANT to be true just becomes true in you mind. No thinking, no smarts, no research.
 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on October 25, 2019, 06:04:13 pm
Can be a record deficit a valid reason for impeachment?

No.

The delegates to the 18th-Century U.S. consitutional convention (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/convention-and-ratification) rejected a proposal that "maladminstration"—what currently might be referred to as "incompetence" or "defective judgment"—be included as one of the grounds for impeachment.  They substituted the common law term "high crimes and misdemeanors," which might best be summarized as "abuse of power" or, in the American constitutional context, "behavior inconsistent with the defendant's oath of office."

Also, it's not clear whether President Trump ever actually understood the content of the tax law he signed at the end of 2017, which was enacted by the then Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate—reportedly without personal involvement on his part.  (Tax law is complicated; Trump doesn't seem to have much patience for dealing with complexity.)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 25, 2019, 06:07:39 pm
I doubt if 1% watch Fox.
I think I have see statements to the effect that Fox News has been the most watched cable news program for the past 17 years.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 06:17:27 pm
[...]
Lord, what fun to be a conservative, where anything you WANT to be true just becomes true in you mind. No thinking, no smarts, no research.

I heard the following comment in one of the many news programs, that seems to illustrate that:
"People weren't voting in their own economic interest. They were voting to try and keep the country the way they hoped it would be. They really wanted to bring us back to the 1980s or something."

The 2020 elections may be different in the sense that a large number of voters (the Millenials) will vote for the first time in their lives, so they are not necessarily so conservative. The turnout of the voters can be decisive.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 06:24:08 pm
Do the work Slobodan. You aren’t afraid of the truth are you?

Bernard, I said "please." The reason I asked you to provide the links is so that you and I are reading the same source.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 25, 2019, 06:26:16 pm
Can be a record deficit a valid reason for impeachment?


Only "liberal" deficits are bad.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 06:26:38 pm
Can you provide a link to those claims, please?
Main link about Republican statements on closed hearings is here (you won't like this one):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/

There are 47 Republicans on the joint committees that are taking testimony during the closed sessions.  12 of them were in the group that stormed the meeting room (I know that Congressmen Jordan and Meadows are on the joint committee but don't know the other names.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 06:28:53 pm
... The NY Times is perhaps the most respected newspaper in the world, with accurate and in-depth reporting every day. The Post is not far behind...

They are bat-shit crazy liberals, respected by... liberals. Otherwise, they are just a more foxy (pardon the pun) propaganda outlet.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 06:30:18 pm
I think I have see statements to the effect that Fox News has been the most watched cable news program for the past 17 years.

Have you noticed that Alan was referring to non-Americans (i.e., audience abroad)?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 06:34:51 pm
Main link about Republican statements on closed hearings is here (you won't like this one):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/

There are 47 Republicans on the joint committees that are taking testimony during the closed sessions.  12 of them were in the group that stormed the meeting room (I know that Congressmen Jordan and Meadows are on the joint committee but don't know the other names.

Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 07:57:59 pm
Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?
there are too many stories out there.  I couldn't remember where I saw the number but will look at a couple of other places other than the WaPo or NYT.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:26:43 pm
Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?
Slobodan's right, nothing in there except more reporting that shows Democrat Schiff running it like he's an Inquisitor in a Star Chamber trial.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 08:28:04 pm
Main link about Republican statements on closed hearings is here (you won't like this one):  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/22/then-now-how-republicans-downplay-subpoenas-when-they-target-trump/

And here's another (similar) take on that:

Cuomo to Graham: Impeachment hasn't changed ... you have
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I69ASeEv8kc

Hipocricy of republicans rules ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 08:31:07 pm
Have you noticed that Alan was referring to non-Americans (i.e., audience abroad)?

Of course, we (non-US citizens) are not stupid.

And no, I'm not going to report you to the LuLa Moderator for the insult ...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:37:03 pm
Or bias on your part.
Moi? Never happen.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 08:39:05 pm
Which raises question I wanted to ask. How many people here have changed their minds about what should happen?  Only the Yes people have to post.  It'll be easier to count.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 08:42:31 pm
Which raises question I wanted to ask. How many people here have changed their minds about what should happen?  Only the Yes people have to post.  It'll be easier to count.  :)

Yes, the more information that has emerged, the stronger my initial disgust has become.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 08:45:34 pm
Thanks for the link, but I couldn't' find anything about 47/12 Republicans there? Maybe I was reading too fast?

Here is one of the links:  https://www.axios.com/house-republicans-scif-impeachment-inquiry-67cf94d5-b2be-4420-ab4c-0582eb1369ef.html   Note that they state that not all of them were in the group that were in the group that entered the hearing room.  However, all did sign the protest press release.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 25, 2019, 08:48:14 pm
And here's another (similar) take on that:

Cuomo to Graham: Impeachment hasn't changed ... you have
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I69ASeEv8kc

Hipocricy of republicans rules ...
Interesting that both Senator Graham and Alan Klein use the term 'star chamber inquiry.'
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 25, 2019, 09:03:15 pm
Interesting that both Senator Graham and Alan Klein use the term 'star chamber inquiry.'

I don't know why, but "Invasion of the body snatchers (https://youtu.be/wTP_SdjD5ms?t=109)" comes to mind ...  ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 25, 2019, 09:16:55 pm
Which raises question I wanted to ask. How many people here have changed their minds about what should happen?  Only the Yes people have to post.  It'll be easier to count.  :)

I should spend less time on this forum section and more time shooting.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 09:33:59 pm
I should spend less time on this forum section and more time shooting.

When are you snowbirds coming down here? Let’s do some shooting together. And I don’t mean  the breeze 😊

P.S. Bart cordially invited too
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 25, 2019, 09:44:58 pm
Slobodan,

please, give us a possible list of shooting locations and ideas in the warm winter land.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 09:56:52 pm
Interesting that both Senator Graham and Alan Klein use the term 'star chamber inquiry.'
Wow.  That's interesting because I never heard anyone including Graham mention it.  It just came to me.  It must have a Star Chamber feel.  Anyone who's lived through Soviet broadcasted trials knows what I'm talking about. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 09:58:10 pm
I should spend less time on this forum section and more time shooting.
Exactly my point for the "poll".  All this time wasted when we could be shooting.  Talk about priorities.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 10:02:23 pm
When are you snowbirds coming down here? Let’s do some shooting together. And I don’t mean  the breeze 😊

P.S. Bart cordially invited too
A bunch of my friends here in New Jersey in my 55+ community have already hightailed it to the Gold Coast of Florida (chad country) for the next few months as "snow birds"avoiding the upcoming harsh winter.  For them, climate change can't come fast enough. Of course my wife and I are the ones suffering because we stay here in cold New Jersey braving the snow.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 25, 2019, 11:09:12 pm
"Regurgitating?" Please. The NY Times is perhaps the most respected newspaper in the world, with accurate and in-depth reporting every day. The Post is not far behind. Yes, their editorial opinions are liberal, but their news reporting is accurate. When they make an error, it is reported as a "correction" very soon.

Lord, what fun to be a conservative, where anything you WANT to be true just becomes true in you mind. No thinking, no smarts, no research.

Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias.  So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.

They all can’t be wrong.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 25, 2019, 11:25:21 pm
... The TRUTH has a liberal bias...

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 25, 2019, 11:32:18 pm
Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias.  So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.

They all can’t be wrong.
Wow.  Just, wow. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 26, 2019, 12:45:49 am
Dunno why that should be a "wow, just wow".  When you have most of the western media and educational systems on one side and Fox news and Breitbart on the other, it pretty well explains itself.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 01:03:55 am
Dunno why that should be a "wow, just wow".  When you have most of the western media and educational systems on one side and Fox news and Breitbart on the other, it pretty well explains itself.
Surveys have shown that 93% of journalists are Democrats.  Liberals are attracted to the "arts", education, journalism, etc more than conservatives.  You tend to write and produce things along your belief system.  It's not a mystery or conspiracy.  But that doesn't make their belief systems truth any more than it does for conservatives.  It's just how we're wired. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 26, 2019, 05:58:21 am
Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias.  So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.

They all can’t be wrong.


Don't know about 'the Truth', but facts are facts, and the NYT does score high in that regard (see attached).

Quote
... highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources ...

The NYT's only bias is in subject selection and wording. Not sure though, whether they can currently do very different subject selection if it involves important news that forces itself upon the world stage.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 08:11:57 am
The NY Times fails not on fact but on presentation.  That's makes its reporting more Liberal, anti-Trump, and Democrat favoring news.  I gave an example in another thread.  I've copied it here. If you click on the date link, you can see the complete post in the original thread.

...  It's like bias in the N Y Times.  A negative story about TRump is put on page one above the paper's fold.  A good story is buried on pg 47.  Of course the Times will claim both stories were printed. 

Of course how headlines and photo captions are written can change the entire meaning and effect. "Trump Pulls Out of Syria Abandoning the Kurds Without American Protection".  Or, "Trump Pulls American Troops Out of Syria Ending Further US Deaths Defending the Kurds". Both tell the truth. But which one makes you feel better about Trump?  Worse?  The meanings are different.  It's all in the interpretation.  It can stir hearts and opinions in different directions.  This is what Fake News is all about.  Not about lies.  About false imaging.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 08:24:08 am
Surveys have shown that 93% of journalists are Democrats. 
I'm curious how they arrive at this number.  I don't think journalists routinely say what their party affiliation is.  Obviously one can 'infer' this but is that the same as having a documented statement?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 26, 2019, 08:39:33 am
I'm curious how they arrive at this number.

Some folks live in a fact free bubble.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 26, 2019, 08:41:46 am
The NY Times fails not on fact but on presentation.  That's makes its reporting more Liberal, anti-Trump, and Democrat favoring news.  I gave an example in another thread.  I've copied it here. If you click on the date link, you can see the complete post in the original thread.

So Trump is often just plain wrong about facts, but you blame the NY Times for presenting facts with a biased view.

Also the Kurds were not so much protected by the US soldiers. It were the Kurds that did the fighting against ISIS on the ground and the US helped with material and weapons.
They have prevented US casualties. the protection the US army forces were providing to the Kurds was just there presence... They just had to stay put - no fighting needed.

And as said before ; Democrats and Republicans were against pulling out of Syria as was the US defence staff...   Only Trump, Erdogan, Poetin, Assad and Alan Klein thought it was a brilliant idea.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 08:53:42 am
I'm curious how they arrive at this number.  I don't think journalists routinely say what their party affiliation is.  Obviously one can 'infer' this but is that the same as having a documented statement?
What just surprised me when I googled it, was how many financial journalists are left leaning.  No wonder Socialism is getting a good name.

"When you add it up, 58.47% admit to being left of center. Along with that, another 37.12% claim to be "moderate."

What about the mythic "conservative" financial journalist? In fact, a mere 0.46% of financial journalists called themselves "very conservative," while just 3.94% said they were "somewhat conservative." That's a whopping 4.4% of the total that lean right-of-center.

That's a ratio of 13 "liberals" for every one "conservative."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/)


For "regular journalists", it seems only 7% claim being a Republican.  The 93% balance are not Democrats as I said.  To clarify it seem that's 28% or 4x Republicans are Democrats, the rest claiming "independent".   The big issue is what are the political leanings of the journalists at the NY Times and Washington Post, two anti-Trump, liberal, Democrat leaning newspapers.    Institutional bias also is big.   These papers are also centered in big cities like NY that are overwhelming liberal and Democrat.  These big papers where political leanings of journalists really count because of their power and range of readers around the world who get news from them directly or through bylines.  These few journalists have enormous power.   What conservative, Republican newspapers are there that people can easily identify?  Journalism at the three major networks, ABC NBC and CBS are left leaning as well.  For ever Fox you got these three, plus MSNBC CNN etc.  I doubt if our overseas friends here every watch Fox. 


Here's an interesting article how journalists missed the Trump win. 
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bubble-real-journalism-jobs-east-coast-215048)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 09:01:05 am
So Trump is often just plain wrong about facts, but you blame the NY Times for presenting facts with a biased view.

Also the Kurds were not so much protected by the US soldiers. It were the Kurds that did the fighting against ISIS on the ground and the US helped with material and weapons.
They have prevented US casualties. the protection the US army forces were providing to the Kurds was just there presence... They just had to stay put - no fighting needed.

And as said before ; Democrats and Republicans were against pulling out of Syria as was the US defence staff...   Only Trump, Erdogan, Poetin, Assad and Alan Klein thought it was a brilliant idea.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  I wasn't taking a position on the Kurdish situation.   I was illustrating how two different but truthful headlines can create different feelings about a story.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 09:15:05 am
What just surprised me when I googled it, was how many financial journalists are left leaning.  No wonder Socialism is getting a good name.

"When you add it up, 58.47% admit to being left of center. Along with that, another 37.12% claim to be "moderate."

What about the mythic "conservative" financial journalist? In fact, a mere 0.46% of financial journalists called themselves "very conservative," while just 3.94% said they were "somewhat conservative." That's a whopping 4.4% of the total that lean right-of-center.

That's a ratio of 13 "liberals" for every one "conservative."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/)

This is why you need to drill down and go to the original manuscript to examine the methodology.  The researchers got a response rate of only 10% to their survey.  They also used the questionable tactic of offering a donation to charity for completed surveys.  80% of the respondents fall into the somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal spectrum but this is self reported so we really don't know what it means.  This is typical of a lot of social science research, small data set and ill-defined responses.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 09:31:58 am
This is why you need to drill down and go to the original manuscript to examine the methodology.  The researchers got a response rate of only 10% to their survey.  They also used the questionable tactic of offering a donation to charity for completed surveys.  80% of the respondents fall into the somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal spectrum but this is self reported so we really don't know what it means.  This is typical of a lot of social science research, small data set and ill-defined responses.

Well, here's a survey I did of the NY Times and Washington Post.  I looked at various articles on-line where they have readers' responses on Trump related articles.  90-95%  of the reader's responses are Trump negative.  Because the Times moderates the responses, they could be vitriolic but never nasty.  More high-brow, often intellectual and well-written.  The Washington Post however, does not moderate.  Their responses are vile and bile and can get really nasty.  I'm surprised the editors even allow that to happen.  They make our disputes here seem kind and friendly by comparison.   Jeremy does a good job keeping the lid on it.  The readers reflect the leanings of the two papers:  Democrat, liberal, anti-Trump.  You see the slant in the articles.  Check it out yourself.  You'll see what I mean.

The remaining 5% who read these articles and post responses, people like me, are just checking in on the enemy.  :)

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 26, 2019, 09:59:40 am
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 10:22:28 am
Well, here's a survey I did of the NY Times and Washington Post.  I looked at various articles on-line where they have readers' responses on Trump related articles.  90-95%  of the reader's responses are Trump negative.  Because the Times moderates the responses, they could be vitriolic but never nasty.  More high-brow, often intellectual and well-written.  The Washington Post however, does not moderate.  Their responses are vile and bile and can get really nasty.  I'm surprised the editors even allow that to happen.
You are quite correct about the WaPo comments section and that's the reason I almost never read them.  The NY Times comment policy is the best approach.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 10:24:52 am
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.
It was written by Brett Stephens who is one of their op-ed writers.  He's a well known conservative.  The Washington Post has a far greater and more diverse set of Conservative op-ed writers, some of whom are strong supporters of the President (Marc Thiessen & Hugh Hewitt).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 26, 2019, 10:42:00 am
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.

Perhaps. However, I read NYT and WaPo (mostly titles, because of the paywall) from aggregation sites (Apple News, Microsoft News, Google News, etc.) and the selection of articles from NYT and WaPo there is mostly liberal.

Then there is a possibility of paying only a lip service to diversity and objectivity. Similar to when, years ago, Sean Hannity had a Democratic counterpart on the show, so weak and ineffective that he only amplified Sean.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 11:28:55 am
Then there is a possibility of paying only a lip service to diversity and objectivity. Similar to when, years ago, Sean Hannity had a Democratic counterpart on the show, so weak and ineffective that he only amplified Sean.
I'm old enough to remember when 60 minutes had James J. Kilpatrick (Conservative) and Shana Alexander (Liberal) on at the end of each show in a point - counterpoint discussion.  I think the alternated who went first.  I always felt that these types of discussions were useful and some of the cable news outlets did this in the early years but it's largely disappeared.  Too bad.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 26, 2019, 11:48:42 am
Our "racist" president in action:

Quote
... received the Bipartisan Justice Award from the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center for his efforts to pass the First Step Act, which grants early release to thousands of nonviolent offenders who are currently serving time in federal prisons.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:34:00 pm
Alan, check out today’s NYT op-Ed piece entitled “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Lose Your Vote”.
Then, please, report back to us on the unrelenting bias of the NYT.
I'm referring to the news section where they are biased.  They can do and say what they want in the editorial op-ed section.  That is the opinion-editorial section. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:38:52 pm
 
It was written by Brett Stephens who is one of their op-ed writers.  He's a well known conservative.  The Washington Post has a far greater and more diverse set of Conservative op-ed writers, some of whom are strong supporters of the President (Marc Thiessen & Hugh Hewitt).
That doesn't matter.  Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news.  It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 26, 2019, 12:41:40 pm
That doesn't matter.  Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news.  It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.
Whose reality?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:44:18 pm
Our "racist" president in action:


In the Times, they'll bury it on pg 47.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:46:39 pm
Whose reality?
If you want to believe everything that the NY Times says, go right ahead. I'm not stopping you.  I find myself more discerning. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 26, 2019, 12:48:55 pm
I find myself more discerning.
Of course you do. No surprise there.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 12:56:50 pm
Of course you do. No surprise there.
OK.  I'm more skeptical. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 01:36:35 pm
OK.  I'm more skeptical. :)
I trust this extends to the many statements from President Trump/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 03:03:15 pm
I'm referring to the news section where they are biased. 
Here is a very good story the discusses in an even handed manner tariffs and the impact on the steel industry:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-a-kentucky-mill-shutters-steelworkers-see-the-limits-of-trumps-intervention/2019/10/25/a27d3bb2-f02f-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html   I don't see much bias here and as an investor who once owned stock in one of the steel companies mentioned, think that it gives a good assessment of what has gone wrong.  Domestic growth in industrial production has not been high enough to save jobs and some of the companies are in financial risk.  President Trump announced that the there would be some short term pain but the tariffs would right things.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 03:21:00 pm
What am I to learn from one story?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 26, 2019, 03:31:56 pm
What am I to learn from one story?
Read it and find out.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 05:16:57 pm
Read it and find out.
Why would reading it change my mind about the Washington Post? Ir doesn't change their overall biases.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 26, 2019, 06:35:32 pm
Surveys have shown that 93% of journalists are Democrats.  Liberals are attracted to the "arts", education, journalism, etc more than conservatives.  You tend to write and produce things along your belief system.  It's not a mystery or conspiracy.  But that doesn't make their belief systems truth any more than it does for conservatives.  It's just how we're wired.

This whole discussion about media bias isn’t relevant to the Trump impreachement for 2 obvious reasons:
1. Trump, his team and the various testimonies have clearly admitted to committing the deeds for which he is proposed for impreachement. The media coverage has nothing to do with it,

2. Trumps policies and actions are not at all aligned with the core values of Republicans. If he were to do the exact same things as a Democrat he would be killed by conservative media as being the most anti American president ever. Which means that the pro Trump bias isn’t about ideas or beliefs, it is only about politics. Based on ideas or beliefs or facts 100% of the press should be anti Trump. The fact that he is still getting some support from some media is the obvious proof of their bias resulting not from ideology, but simply from the fact that they would support a Republican associated president no matter what he does just because he is a Republican. They would continue to support him if he [edited] did whatever crazy thing.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 07:48:33 pm
This whole discussion about media bias isn’t relevant to the Trump impreachement for 2 obvious reasons:
1. Trump, his team and the various testimonies have clearly admitted to committing the deeds for which he is proposed for impreachement. The media coverage has nothing to do with it,

2. Trumps policies and actions are not at all aligned with the core values of Republicans. If he were to do the exact same things as a Democrat he would be killed by conservative media as being the most anti American president ever. Which means that the pro Trump bias isn’t about ideas or beliefs, it is only about politics. Based on ideas or beliefs or facts 100% of the press should be anti Trump. The fact that he is still getting some support from some media is the obvious proof of their bias resulting not from ideology, but simply from the fact that they would support a Republican associated president no matter what he does just because he is a Republican. They would continue to support him if he sent arabs to gas chambers.

Cheers,
Bernard

So you think it's OK to claim that supporters of Trump like me would support him if he acted like a Nazi who wanted to send Arabs to gas chambers?   Never mind the slur on me or him. That kind of off-hand hyperbolic attack just cheapens and diminishes the lives of millions of people who were actually killed in gas chambers.  The rest of your post isn't worthy of a response from me.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on October 26, 2019, 08:26:05 pm
They would continue to support him if he sent arabs to gas chambers.

Bravo! You have reached a new, despicable low!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 26, 2019, 08:46:00 pm
...arabs...

Arabs in lower case!? You racist you!   ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 26, 2019, 08:54:29 pm
That doesn't matter.  Everyone knows these are opinion pieces, not news.  It's the news section where the NY Times fails by being biased. It's here that the world gets an impression about things that are different than reality.

Wrong.  The item was in the Op-Ed section.  Few here have read it, obviously.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 26, 2019, 10:43:49 pm
Wrong.  The item was in the Op-Ed section.  Few here have read it, obviously.
Peter, I don;t understand your post.  My complaint is that there's bias in the news section where straight reporting should be the standard.  What any newspaper does in their opinion-editorial section (op-ed) , is, well, opinion and editorial.  So having a conservative or liberal viewpoint there does not matter when measuring a newspaper's bias and slant.  Everyone understands that section is not the straight reporting of news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 27, 2019, 05:53:09 am
Bravo! You have reached a new, despicable low!

The example was indeed exaggerated and I apologize.

The real, and totally valid question, is how far would Trump have to go to lose support from its base. So far I haven’t seen any hint that there is a limit.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 27, 2019, 05:54:51 am
So you think it's OK to claim that supporters of Trump like me would support him if he acted like a Nazi who wanted to send Arabs to gas chambers?   Never mind the slur on me or him. That kind of off-hand hyperbolic attack just cheapens and diminishes the lives of millions of people who were actually killed in gas chambers.  The rest of your post isn't worthy of a response from me.

I apologize for the overblown example.

I am not surprised that you haven’t much to answer about the rest of the post.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 08:43:24 am
... The real, and totally valid question, is how far would Trump have to go to lose support from its base...

His base has not seen him doing anything wrong so far.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 09:11:02 am
Of course the NYT and others have a liberal bias.  So do the colleges and universities. The TRUTH has a liberal bias.

They all can’t be wrong.

Of course our Pravda and Izvestia and others have a Soviet bias. So do our colleges and universities. Our writers are writing Soviet prose, and our artists are painting in Soviet style. The TRUTH (PRAVDA) has a Soviet bias.

They all can’t be wrong.

Leonid Brezhnev
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 09:31:25 am
I apologize for the overblown example.

I am not surprised that you haven’t much to answer about the rest of the post.

Cheers,
Bernard

I appreciate the apology Bernard.  We all get hyperbolic from time to time.  I know I have.

Quote
This whole discussion about media bias isn’t relevant to the Trump impreachement for 2 obvious reasons:
1. Trump, his team and the various testimonies have clearly admitted to committing the deeds for which he is proposed for impreachement. The media coverage has nothing to do with it,

2. Trumps policies and actions are not at all aligned with the core values of Republicans. If he were to do the exact same things as a Democrat he would be killed by conservative media as being the most anti American president ever. Which means that the pro Trump bias isn’t about ideas or beliefs, it is only about politics. Based on ideas or beliefs or facts 100% of the press should be anti Trump. The fact that he is still getting some support from some media is the obvious proof of their bias resulting not from ideology, but simply from the fact that they would support a Republican associated president no matter what he does just because he is a Republican. They would continue to support him ...

Cheers,
Bernard
1. First off, what he did was not illegal. Demanding a foreign country do things for us when we give them money is standard quid pro quo. You have a right to ask a drunk on the street who you just gave $5 to spend it on food and not a drink.  Well, the president was asking for Ukraine to clean up it's corruption, the same as Obama demanded they do.  He also asked to check on Biden who may have illegally used his position to violate US as well as Ukrainian law helping his son get a job and escape criminal investigation, all part of the corruption going on in the Ukraine.  Of course there's a side benefit that Biden is a political foe.  However, how is that different than Democrat congressman investigating Trump for the last three years for potential criminal activity knowing that they would benefit if it turns out Trump commiting a crime?  If Trump isn't above the law, neither is Vice President Biden.  If Democrats can get a side benefit politically from an legal investigation, why can't the Republicans?  None of it is illegal.  It's just politics. 


2. I'm glad you brought this up.  Trump is actually a liberal in many of his beliefs.  Being a New Yorker helps.  He never got excited about race issues, gays, and issues like that.  He's worked with these people all his life.   He's a cosmopolitan who lives and works and helped build the largest liberal, Democrat city in the USA, bar none. Remember, he won the election convincing traditional, blue-collar Democrats to vote for him.  They felt he was one of them. Many Republicans actually find he's too liberal for them, certainly not a VP Pence.  Republican newspapers still support him because his policies are still miles ahead conservatively of liberals like Warren and AOC.  Unfortunately, these newspapers and media, except for Fox, don't have the same power to influence as do the rest of the liberal, Democrat media.  So the latter set the tone and spin of the news.  It's very frustrating for Republicans to realize the press is almost never on their side.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 10:05:08 am
How will this affect a possible impeachment?  His re-election?

"Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead," Trump said at the White House, calling the ISIS leader's removal "the top national security priority of my administration."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2019, 10:52:40 am
How will this affect a possible impeachment?  His re-election?

"Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead," Trump said at the White House, calling the ISIS leader's removal "the top national security priority of my administration."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/27/politics/isis-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-operation-donald-trump/index.html)
It will have the same significance and importance as the assassination of Bin Laden did by the Navy Seal team when Obama was President.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 27, 2019, 11:07:32 am
Here's an interesting reporting technique, essentially staking out the Trump hotel (Wash) electronically anyway, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/25/trump-hotel-sale-washington-dc-229880 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/25/trump-hotel-sale-washington-dc-229880).

Modern political discourse in action. If the hotel does sell, then it magically falls off the radar, nothing to see here! Hilarious to watch.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 27, 2019, 11:08:13 am
Of course our Pravda and Izvestia and others have a Soviet bias. So do our colleges and universities. Our writers are writing Soviet prose, and our artists are painting in Soviet style. The TRUTH (PRAVDA) has a Soviet bias.

They all can’t be wrong.

Leonid Brezhnev

I love reverse-Godwin. :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 01:17:26 pm
It will have the same significance and importance as the assassination of Bin Laden did by the Navy Seal team when Obama was President.
Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 01:33:04 pm
It will have the same significance and importance as the assassination of Bin Laden did by the Navy Seal team when Obama was President.
Just a clarification.  al Baghdadi was not assassinated.  He refused to surrender to American forces and committed suicide killing three children along with himself.   That shows something about his character. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 02:09:37 pm
Need-to-know basis. Feel the burn!

 ;D ;D ;D



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 02:31:28 pm
Need-to-know basis. Feel the burn!

 ;D ;D ;D







Shows what he thinks about her impeachment threats.  He deliberately keeps challenger her.  Bring it on. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 02:38:31 pm
Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?

How was the Trump involved in this operation?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 02:55:12 pm
How was the Trump involved in this operation?
Like Obama and Bin Laden, presidents make the decision and give the orders.  They get credit for successful operations and blame for the unsuccessful ones.  After all, the President is the Commander-in Chief.  If this came out bad, everyone would be chastising him.  How many Nazis did Churchill personally kill during WWII?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 03:58:21 pm
More info about about the raid on Baghdadi.

Quote
U.S. intelligence officials were able to “scope out” his exact location two weeks ago, while Trump himself became aware of the planned raid three days ago.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-baghdadi-raid-timeline/timeline-anatomy-of-a-raid-how-the-united-states-took-out-baghdadi-idUSKBN1X60P8?il=0
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 27, 2019, 04:03:10 pm
Like Obama and Bin Laden, presidents make the decision and give the orders.  They get credit for successful operations and blame for the unsuccessful ones.  After all, the President is the Commander-in Chief.  If this came out bad, everyone would be chastising him.  How many Nazis did Churchill personally kill during WWII?

I'm pretty sure Trump himself would have been there for the kill, except the bone spurs on his feet probably would have made that impossible.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 04:13:32 pm
Trump, the murderer of religious scholars.

How our dear free press reported the news and some totally unrelated and unwarranted twitter obituaries:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 27, 2019, 05:21:59 pm
Trump, the murderer of religious scholars.

How our dear free press reported the news and some totally unrelated and unwarranted twitter obituaries:

That was the second of three edits, FWIW.  All three were radically different in tone, as well.  It was weird...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 27, 2019, 05:52:30 pm
That was the second of three edits, FWIW.  All three were radically different in tone, as well.  It was weird...

It is bewildering to say the least!  The fact that you would write a nonchalant, almost woeful, headline about such an infamous person is simply crass. 

I also look at it as another great example of Trump-derangement-syndrome and how the mainstream media goes out of it was to belittle anything Trump does, even at the expense of coming off as obtuse.  And people wonder why Trump canceled the WP from the White House. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 27, 2019, 06:06:55 pm
It is bewildering to say the least!  The fact that you would write a nonchalant, almost woeful, headline about such an infamous person is simply crass. 

I also look at it as another great example of Trump-derangement-syndrome and how the mainstream media goes out of it was to belittle anything Trump does, even at the expense of coming off as obtuse.  And people wonder why Trump canceled the WP from the White House.

Are you aware of what the first headline was?  Or the third?  Doesn't really fit with your theory.  As an aside, it's disturbing to see a self-professed moderate/libertarian starting to parrot the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense.  The "mainstream media" is perceived as "anti-Trump" because Trump is a ginormous fool.  As I believe I said here before, if a purveyor of sh*t sandwiches is in a kerfluffel because Italian restaurants continually get better reviews, it's not because the media is biased against poo.

All you have to do is look at media that was reliably conservative (Dallas Morning News) or previously non-committal (USA Today), and then look how they treat Trump.  It's not because they hate conservatives, it's because Donald Trump is unfit to serve in intellect, temperament, and judgment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 06:11:27 pm
... the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense...

If it is nonsense, how do you explain the WaPo headline? Just as "weird"?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 27, 2019, 06:17:23 pm
If it is nonsense, how do you explain the WaPo headline? Just as "weird"?

Well, it IS weird.  But I don't it has anything to do with Trump, honestly.   The first headline was something like, "Master Terrorist Killed blah blah blah..." The second was the completely bizarre "Islamic Scholar" nonsense, and the last was something more or less factual as I recall.

My opinion?  The first was overly dramatic, and whoever revised it over-reacted in a really odd way.   If anything it strikes me more as something some would consider "PC pandering" than any sort of reflection on Trump. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2019, 06:44:08 pm
Would you give Trump the credit he deserves?
Neither Trump nor Obama deserve any credit other than saying yes to the assassination(s).  The military and intelligence did 98% of the work.  I never gave Obama any credit for bin Laden and I won't give Trump any credit for this.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 27, 2019, 06:51:15 pm
Well, it IS weird.  But I don't it has anything to do with Trump, honestly.   
What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen.  He offered some phony excuses about leaking information ignoring that Congresswoman Pelosi served on the House Intelligence Committee for 20 years and was never accused of leaking sensitive information.

EDIT:  Obama notified the leaders of both Congressional parties and the relevant intelligence committee chairs prior to the bin Laden assassination
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 07:00:46 pm
What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen...

Given the current political climate of lynching the president at all and any costs, it is not inconceivable that Pelosi, other Democrats, or their staff would leak the info just to make Trump look bad. You think I am exaggerating? Rumor has it that Reagan asked the Iranians to free the hostages not during Carter's reign, but when he comes to power. Literally twenty minutes after Reagan's inauguration speech, the hostages were freed. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 27, 2019, 07:10:23 pm
Are you aware of what the first headline was?  Or the third?  Doesn't really fit with your theory.  As an aside, it's disturbing to see a self-professed moderate/libertarian starting to parrot the "mainstream media is out to get Trump" nonsense.  The "mainstream media" is perceived as "anti-Trump" because Trump is a ginormous fool.  As I believe I said here before, if a purveyor of sh*t sandwiches is in a kerfluffel because Italian restaurants continually get better reviews, it's not because the media is biased against poo.

All you have to do is look at media that was reliably conservative (Dallas Morning News) or previously non-committal (USA Today), and then look how they treat Trump.  It's not because they hate conservatives, it's because Donald Trump is unfit to serve in intellect, temperament, and judgment.
f

Well, if you are so enlightened, please tell use the first and third headline. 

Perhaps the WP has an incredibly obtuse editor out of touch with the current reality of things.  Or perhaps the first headline was a little too positive for Trump, just like with the NYT's headline months ago, so a change was done, but oops, that went a little too far and a 2nd change was needed. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 27, 2019, 07:10:35 pm
Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 27, 2019, 07:15:02 pm
Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?

It is either the editor was beyond incompetent, or it was a nefarious action.

Take your pick.  Right now, I give it a 50/50, although I would assume with the former the editor would eventually be reprimanded in some fashion. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 07:17:17 pm
Why is everything a conspiracy with you guys?

If you read the Wikipedia article, you'd find at the very beginning this:

Quote
Nevertheless, several individuals—most notably former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr,[4] former naval intelligence officer and U.S. National Security Council member Gary Sick, and former Reagan/Bush campaign staffer and White House analyst Barbara Honegger—have stood by the allegation.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 07:20:08 pm
Quote
Perhaps the WP has an incredibly obtuse editor out of touch with the current reality of things.  Or perhaps the first headline was a little too positive for Trump, just like with the NYT's headline months ago, so a change was done, but oops, that went a little too far and a 2nd change was needed.

It is either political correctness taken to obscenity.  Or a misplaced anti Trump refusal to give even a modicum of credit. Typical Washington Post bias - fake news.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 27, 2019, 07:21:15 pm
What is weird and does have to do with President Trump is that he did not notify House Speaker Pelosi about what was going to happen.  He offered some phony excuses about leaking information ignoring that Congresswoman Pelosi served on the House Intelligence Committee for 20 years and was never accused of leaking sensitive information.

EDIT:  Obama notified the leaders of both Congressional parties and the relevant intelligence committee chairs prior to the bin Laden assassination

Come on now.  The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in.  On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in.  Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House. 

"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 07:26:07 pm
Come on now.  The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in.  On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in.  Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House. 

"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
Years ago,  Democrat and Republican political fights used to end at American shores. No longer.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 07:43:00 pm
Given the current political climate of lynching the president at all and any costs, it is not inconceivable that Pelosi, other Democrats, or thier staff would leak the info just to make Trump look bad. You think I am exaggerating? Rumor has it that Reagan asked the Iranians to free the hostages not during Carter's reign, but when he comes to power. Literally twenty minutes after Reagan's inauguration speech, the hostages were freed. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
It's not Pelosi who would leak.  But Schiff, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, who would and has.  He is the natural recipient of news like this. Yet there he is leaking all the time like a sieve in his attempt to impeach Trump and make him look bad at any cost to the country.  No offense to the legal profession.  But I've met lawyers and I've met lawyers.  And this guy is the sleaziest.  He'd sell out his mother for an advantage. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Frans Waterlander on October 27, 2019, 07:43:41 pm
The example was indeed exaggerated and I apologize.

The real, and totally valid question, is how far would Trump have to go to lose support from its base. So far I haven’t seen any hint that there is a limit.

So, a non-apology.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 07:46:05 pm
Frans, let's be generous.  I read it as a sincere apology. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 07:50:27 pm
Neither Trump nor Obama deserve any credit other than saying yes to the assassination(s).  The military and intelligence did 98% of the work.  I never gave Obama any credit for bin Laden and I won't give Trump any credit for this.

Well said. And 2% presidential credit for "yes, do it" is overly generous.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 07:52:09 pm
Well said. And 2% presidential credit for "yes, do it" is overly generous.

And yet, Carter lost election because of it. So, you may or may not give credit, but the importance of success or failure (in case of Carter) is huge,
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 07:56:17 pm
And yet, Carter lost election because of it. So, you may or may not give credit, but the importance of success or failure (in case of Carter) is huge,

Well, in that case maybe the intelligence analysis and risk assessment by the military advisers were to blame.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 08:02:38 pm
And yet, Carter lost election because of it. So, you may or may not give credit, but the importance of success or failure (in case of Carter) is huge,
For those not familiar with Slobodan's reference, here's an article about the disastrous rescue attempt President Carter did to get out American embassy hostages being held in Iran.  8 American servicemen died in the operation, 6 helicopters and 1 transport plane were lost, and the rescue was a complete failure.  Carter said this was the reason he lost his bid for re-election. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw#Casualties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw#Casualties)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 27, 2019, 08:04:56 pm
Well, in that case maybe the intelligence analysis and risk assessment by the military advisers were to blame.

Perhaps, but it was he who lost the next election because of it. After all, he gave the order to abort the mission.

While Americans in general tend to give a disproportionate credit or blame to personalities, be it Saddam, Slobodan, or a CEO,  2% is way too low. After all, CEOs, leaders, presidents, etc. set the tone, provide direction, select personnel, etc. In that sense, Obama did deserve a decent amount of credit. As Bush deserves a decent amount of blame for dismantling a CIA unit in charge of pursuing Bin Laden (decision that may or may not have had a direct impact on 9/11). In other words, give Trump credit when credit is due.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 08:07:25 pm
Well, in that case maybe the intelligence analysis and risk assessment by the military advisers were to blame.
Unlike Obama who blamed Bush for 7 years, Americans hold their leaders responsible.  That's the way of the world.  Democrat President Truman had a plaque on his desk in the Oval Office of the White House:  "The Buck Stops Here"
(https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intel/2012/10/16/16-truman.w700.h467.jpg)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 27, 2019, 08:14:33 pm
The intelligence team does the research, military experts work out the worst and best scenarios, and the president rolls the dice.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 08:17:38 pm
Perhaps, but it was he who lost the next election because of it. After all, he gave the order to abort the mission.

While Americans in general tend to give a disproportionate credit or blame to personalities, be it Saddam, Slobodan, or a CEO,  2% is way too low. After all, CEOs, leaders, presidents, etc. set the tone, provide direction, select personnel, etc. In that sense, Obama did deserve a decent amount of credit. As Bush deserves a decent amount of blame for dismantling a CIA unit in charge of pursuing Bin Laden (decision that may or may not have had a direct impact on 9/11). In other words, give Trump credit when credit is due.
As an officer aboard a nuclear submarine, who served in the US Navy for 7 years, Carter was very familiar with the stern belief that captains of ships are ultimately the ones responsible for what happens on their ship.  The Navy does not like finger pointing and passing the buck. Interestingly, the USS Jimmy Carter is the only US submarine names after a living president, something Carter must be very proud of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 27, 2019, 08:20:04 pm
In other words, give Trump credit when credit is due.

Okay, the Kurds did a fantastic job. They tracked down the target 4-5 weeks ago in area that was inaccessible to the USA forces.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 09:21:44 pm
Okay, the Kurds did a fantastic job. They tracked down the target 4-5 weeks ago in area that was inaccessible to the USA forces.
And then they needed American forces to finish the job.  So that's why we partnered with them to kill ISIS.  But we never promised to build them a homeland and war with Turkey our and your NATO partner. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 27, 2019, 10:07:14 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 27, 2019, 10:46:12 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
John, because of politics, you can't rate acting presidents.  Obviously, because Democrats oppose him,  you immediately have half the population saying he's bad.  A stupid and meaningless statistic. You have to wait at least twenty years, preferably longer after they're out of office and they're dead and buried when no one cares about them any longer.  In any case, what does rating a president have to do with impeachment.  If you don;t like him, don't vote for him in 2020. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 28, 2019, 01:36:00 am
1. First off, what he did was not illegal. Demanding a foreign country do things for us when we give them money is standard quid pro quo. You have a right to ask a drunk on the street who you just gave $5 to spend it on food and not a drink.  Well, the president was asking for Ukraine to clean up it's corruption, the same as Obama demanded they do.  He also asked to check on Biden who may have illegally used his position to violate US as well as Ukrainian law helping his son get a job and escape criminal investigation, all part of the corruption going on in the Ukraine.  Of course there's a side benefit that Biden is a political foe.  However, how is that different than Democrat congressman investigating Trump for the last three years for potential criminal activity knowing that they would benefit if it turns out Trump commiting a crime?  If Trump isn't above the law, neither is Vice President Biden.  If Democrats can get a side benefit politically from an legal investigation, why can't the Republicans?  None of it is illegal.  It's just politics. 

It's illegal at 2 levels:
1. Asking a foreign leader for help against a political opponent is illegal even without a quid Pro quo. It's easy to understand why, this is a threat to democracy. Think about how any former President of the US would have been treated had they done the same thing (and you can be 100% it would known had they done it),
2. Quid Pro Quos are illegal too, even if the White House says they do it all the time, it doesn't make it any more legal just like drunks driving drunk every day aren't any more allowed to do so. It just makes it profoundly illegal.

2. I'm glad you brought this up.  Trump is actually a liberal in many of his beliefs.  Being a New Yorker helps.  He never got excited about race issues, gays, and issues like that.  He's worked with these people all his life.   He's a cosmopolitan who lives and works and helped build the largest liberal, Democrat city in the USA, bar none. Remember, he won the election convincing traditional, blue-collar Democrats to vote for him.  They felt he was one of them. Many Republicans actually find he's too liberal for them, certainly not a VP Pence.  Republican newspapers still support him because his policies are still miles ahead conservatively of liberals like Warren and AOC.  Unfortunately, these newspapers and media, except for Fox, don't have the same power to influence as do the rest of the liberal, Democrat media.  So the latter set the tone and spin of the news.  It's very frustrating for Republicans to realize the press is almost never on their side.

As mentioned, this isn't about how the press depicts Trump's actions, it's about how illegal they are.

Besides, I keep wondering how far Trump would have to go for you and other to drop your apparently unconditional support.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 01:44:54 am
Bernard,

1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 28, 2019, 03:21:07 am
Bernard,

1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).

If there was a Quid pro quo with Biden, it will be just as illegal as the one Trump committed. Why would it not be? It isn't because you look at this as a political topic that it's one, or that people thinking Trump should be impreached do.

Why on earth would Republicans be looking for a quid Pro quo involving Biden if it were a legal practice though...

I hope you see the crazy inconsistency between claiming simultaneously that a Quid Pro Quo isn't illegal and saying "look, the other camp did it too"... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on October 28, 2019, 04:14:43 am
Bernard,

1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).

The difference is that Trump benefited personally whereas Biden did not.

But you knew that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 28, 2019, 05:26:20 am
Bernard,

1) it remains to be seen if anything illegal happened.

What's not illegal about soliciting a foreign state to interfere with the US elections?

Quote
2) how was Biden’s quid pro quo legal? He asked for a prosecutor to be fired (quid) in order to release money (quo).

That's a different subject, and an off-topic diversion attempt. But by all means, investigate it. If it was illegal, and Congress was not informed, then Trump's quid pro quo was also illegal.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 07:19:37 am
What's not illegal about soliciting a foreign state to interfere with the US elections?


Ask Hillary. 

In all seriousness, it is either Trump asked them to help with his re-election OR Trump asked them to investigate the 2016 election interference, which the Dems already shown is okay to do along with holding back aid to get them to do so since they did the same exact thing to the same exact country during the same exact term. 

All evidence is pointing to the latter being what happened.  If there is a smoking gun that proves the former, by all means vote for impeachment, but as of right now there is not any. 

Furthermore, this whole conversation is ignoring the fact that the Senate, with the current evidence, will not convict and that either Warren or Biden will get the ticket, both of which guarantee Trump's re-election.  Warren because she is too far left and will never get the swing states (and even some blue ones IMHO), and Biden because his campaign has no enthusiasm and cant even raise any money. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2019, 07:54:45 am
Come on now.  The Dems are currently holding secret hearings and selectively leaking what supports their narrative to the public, not to mention the two year Muller probe that was put into motion before Trump was even sworn in.  On top of that, officials in the White House have been leaking information to the press since Trump was first sworn in.  Last, in the coming weeks a book is being released supposedly written by a (coward who lacks his convictions too quit) senior official in the White House. 

"It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you."
Why do you try to conflate all kinds of different things?  The impeachment inquiry is just as secret as the Kenneth Starr investigation of Clinton and the special prosecutor's investigation of Nixon.  What is wrong with that?  Both of those reports ended up being released and discussed by Congress during subsequent deliberations.  The impeachment inquiry will travel down the same path.  Do you have any special knowledge of who is leaking what?  How do you know it is not a Republican(s) that is doing the leaking?  The Muller investigation was designed to examine specific questions about Russian influence on the 2016 election.  do you think this was not a good thing?  Do you favor foreign involvement in US elections?  As for the 'anonymous' book that may be coming out, who cares?  One of the most famous articles on foreign policy was published anonymously back in 1947 about the Soviet pressure on free institutions in the West and what should be done to 'contain' it.  the author of that piece was George Kennan, a famous diplomat and civil servant (maybe he was even the first member of the 'deep state').

As to your final quote, Thomas Pynchon said this with much more insight in his Proverbs for Paranoids (always useful to read and re-read 'Gravity's Rainbow' to understand how the world works).  My favorite of the five is, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."  This is of course our President's strategy and maybe a good one for him but not the American public.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 08:01:31 am
Why do you try to conflate all kinds of different things?  The impeachment inquiry is just as secret as the Kenneth Starr investigation of Clinton and the special prosecutor's investigation of Nixon.  What is wrong with that?  Both of those reports ended up being released and discussed by Congress during subsequent deliberations.  The impeachment inquiry will travel down the same path.  Do you have any special knowledge of who is leaking what?  How do you know it is not a Republican(s) that is doing the leaking?  The Muller investigation was designed to examine specific questions about Russian influence on the 2016 election.  do you think this was not a good thing?  Do you favor foreign involvement in US elections?  As for the 'anonymous' book that may be coming out, who cares?  One of the most famous articles on foreign policy was published anonymously back in 1947 about the Soviet pressure on free institutions in the West and what should be done to 'contain' it.  the author of that piece was George Kennan, a famous diplomat and civil servant (maybe he was even the first member of the 'deep state').

As to your final quote, Thomas Pynchon said this with much more insight in his Proverbs for Paranoids (always useful to read and re-read 'Gravity's Rainbow' to understand how the world works).  My favorite of the five is, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."  This is of course our President's strategy and maybe a good one for him but not the American public.

The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents.  It is happening in Congress and in the White House.  Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 28, 2019, 09:23:33 am
The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents.  It is happening in Congress and in the White House.  Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid.

If it's true that there are more leaks now than with previous administrations, it may be interesting to ask why. Is it to do with Trump or is it simply because online media is more pervasive now so there are more opportunities. In some small part though, doesn't Trump sort of invite it since he seems to conduct so much of his policy making on Twitter.

Anyway, isn't he supposed to be such a clever CEO/businessman media-savvy entrepreneur? He had GOP majorities in both houses to begin with but his administration seemed confused right out the gate. And we still hear people complain about how the media is against him. Well, boo-hoo, is my response. Grow a pair and act like a President, I say. Am I really supposed t believe that the "fake news" New York Times has more power that POTUS, that's a reach, isn't it?

And I am also confused about the complaints about secret investigations. Investigations are always conducted in secret, it's the trials that are public. What's wrong with that, seems like a good arrangement to me. Can you imagine televised police interrogations on cable? Those criticisms are a phoney distraction, nothing more.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 28, 2019, 09:33:26 am
And then they needed American forces to finish the job.  So that's why we partnered with them to kill ISIS.

And betrayed them with a free Turkish massacre and displacement of 160,000 citizens.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 09:39:35 am
Ask Hillary. 

In all seriousness, it is either Trump asked them to help with his re-election OR Trump asked them to investigate the 2016 election interference, which the Dems already shown is okay to do along with holding back aid to get them to do so since they did the same exact thing to the same exact country during the same exact term. 

All evidence is pointing to the latter being what happened.  If there is a smoking gun that proves the former, by all means vote for impeachment, but as of right now there is not any. 

Furthermore, this whole conversation is ignoring the fact that the Senate, with the current evidence, will not convict and that either Warren or Biden will get the ticket, both of which guarantee Trump's re-election.  Warren because she is too far left and will never get the swing states (and even some blue ones IMHO), and Biden because his campaign has no enthusiasm and cant even raise any money. 
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime.  The president may get a political benefit from it.  But what's the alternative?  Let the American get away with the crime?  Both things can happen simultaneous.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 09:44:14 am
If there was a Quid pro quo with Biden, it will be just as illegal as the one Trump committed. Why would it not be? It isn't because you look at this as a political topic that it's one, or that people thinking Trump should be impreached do.

Why on earth would Republicans be looking for a quid Pro quo involving Biden if it were a legal practice though...

I hope you see the crazy inconsistency between claiming simultaneously that a Quid Pro Quo isn't illegal and saying "look, the other camp did it too"... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

Holding back American aid to get the recipient country to investigate an American who may have committed a crime is not illegal. 

Let me tell you a little secret.  It's exactly why America gives aid.  So we can control foreign countries.  Duh. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 28, 2019, 09:46:31 am
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime.  The president may get a political benefit from it.  But what's the alternative?  Let the American get away with the crime?  Both things can happen simultaneous.

You and Joe are incorrect.  This explains it in detail.   (https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-dealing-ukraine-core-impeachment-inquiry). See the pull quote below for the directly relevant part. Perhaps Chris Kern could comment further...


Quote
Even if Trump and Giuliani sincerely believe that Trump was wronged in the 2016 election or that his opponents are criminals, this does not make their 2019 desire for vindication, revenge or political advantage into a public, rather than private, interest. If they think Americans have committed crimes, they could have brought those allegations to the public institutions that investigate such allegations, which must follow certain rules—including in an international investigation. Trump and Giuliani did not do that. What they therefore must prove, against the prima facie evidence of bad, private intent, is that they really believed—even falsely—that working on these 2016 allegations would help clean up Ukrainian politics in 2019.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 10:04:05 am
You and Joe are incorrect.  This explains it in detail.   (https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-dealing-ukraine-core-impeachment-inquiry). See the pull quote below for the directly relevant part. Perhaps Chris Kern could comment further...


The article you referenced is practically a lawyer's brief.  It's like complicated papers they submit to a court in a trial.  You can't even explain it.  So you now need to call on another lawyer, Chris, to explain the first lawyer's explanation as to why the president did something illegal, then it's about politics, not the law.  Should we get another lawyer to write a brief as to what Trump did was legal?  You know that's what happens in a trial.  Both sides get to present their case.

The case is very simple. If Trump used aid to try to force Ukraine to investigate Biden and corruption in general, then it's legal.  If he used it only for political advantage, then it would be illegal.  Even if it was illegal, then  the question becomes does it rise to the level our "Treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors" to make it an impeachable offense or is it just political hijinks typical in American politics.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 28, 2019, 10:05:54 am
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's a reason to believe the American commited a crime.

Q: What reason? That Giuliani was already conspiring with people linked to Russian Oligarchs to create/fabricate dirt?
Trump's son didn't even work at Burisma when the corrupt prosecutor was ousted after combined international pressure agianst corruption.
Instead, a less corrupt prosecutor was put in place.

Q: Then why hide the transcript of the call on a different server with more restricted access than all other call transcripts?

Q: Why the many concerned staffers who knew that when Trump went off-script it caused legal issues?

A: Because they thought/knew it was illegal.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2019, 10:49:35 am
The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents.  It is happening in Congress and in the White House.  Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid.
Does hard data exist for this statement?  there are probably many more leaks coming out of the White House than Congress.  Virtually all Congressional activity is open to the public other than Intelligence Committee work.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 28, 2019, 10:53:31 am
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime.  The president may get a political benefit from it.  But what's the alternative?  Let the American get away with the crime?  Both things can happen simultaneous.
...and to extrapolate in a fair manner, it is perfectly legal for Congress to investigate the President if they believe he committed a '...high crime or misdemeanor..' 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 11:01:00 am
...and to extrapolate in a fair manner, it is perfectly legal for Congress to investigate the President if they believe he committed a '...high crime or misdemeanor..' 
Yes, but the public can also see that as just political as they did with the Clinton impeachment.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 11:04:27 am
And betrayed them with a free Turkish massacre and displacement of 160,000 citizens.


We didn't betray them.  You Europeans betrayed them after WWI. A hundred years ago and have done nothing to help them ever since. At least we saved them from ISIS.  What did you do?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 28, 2019, 12:00:52 pm
We didn't betray them.  You Europeans betrayed them after WWI. A hundred years ago and have done nothing to help them ever since. At least we saved them from ISIS.  What did you do?

As one of the coalition members we supplied air support with an F-16s squadron in Syria and Irak, and financial and material support ("non-Lethal Assistence") to 22 select Rebel groups. We're just a small country (17 million people), but we do what we can do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War).

Today, the first of 46 ordered F35 Lightning II jets arrives in the Netherlands after lots of delays due to technical issues. Pilots have been trained, and we manufacture parts for the F35. This allows us to keepcontributing our bit in NATO, as long as it's a coalition. Let's hope it was the right choice, instead of e.g. a Swedish alternative.
https://www.f35.com/global/participation/netherlands
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on October 28, 2019, 12:05:48 pm
+1  It's perfectly legal for a president to ask another leader to investigate if there's reason to believe the American commited a crime.  The president may get a political benefit from it.  But what's the alternative?  Let the American get away with the crime?  Both things can happen simultaneous.

What crime are you talking about?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 28, 2019, 12:46:24 pm
The point is, leaking is taking place in many different places, much more then with previous Presidents.  It is happening in Congress and in the White House.  Trump has every right to be concerned about things leaking to the Press and screwing up missions, like this raid.

You do know that the first leak about the raid came from Trump, when he tweeted that something big was coming? It was after the raid, but before they'd confirmed the identity of the dead man, and when it was presumably still secret?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 12:56:43 pm
As one of the coalition members we supplied air support with an F-16s squadron in Syria and Irak, and financial and material support ("non-Lethal Assistence") to 22 select Rebel groups. We're just a small country (17 million people), but we do what we can do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War).

Today, the first of 46 ordered F35 Lightning II jets arrives in the Netherlands after lots of delays due to technical issues. Pilots have been trained, and we manufacture parts for the F35. This allows us to keepcontributing our bit in NATO, as long as it's a coalition. Let's hope it was the right choice, instead of e.g. a Swedish alternative.
https://www.f35.com/global/participation/netherlands
ISIS was a threat to Europe.   They committed acts of terror there so you were also fighting for yourselves as were the Kurds and the US fighting for themselves.   So it wasn't an act of charity.  But your effort there is appreciated. But how can the Netherlands and America,  both NATO countries,  go against another NATO country Turkey.   We're supposed to be helping Turkey against Kurdish terrorists wanting to take Turkish lands this themselves.   Wouldn't you want us to support the Dutch in such a situation? After all,  Turkey has supported us for decades.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 12:59:08 pm
You're getting caught up in American politics trying to make a Republican president look bad for the elections coming up.   It has nothing to do with the Kurds
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 28, 2019, 01:24:47 pm
You're getting caught up in American politics trying to make a Republican president look bad for the elections coming up.   It has nothing to do with the Kurds

This must be an awfully important photo forum if you think that a few contributors can affect a US election.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 28, 2019, 01:56:04 pm
This must be an awfully important photo forum if you think that a few contributors can affect a US election.

It's mainly Dutch and Canadians meddling in US elections.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 02:44:32 pm
Stop meddling.
😀
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on October 28, 2019, 02:46:57 pm
It's mainly Dutch and Canadians meddling in US elections.

Oh no, maybe the US will push up the tariffs on tulip bulbs and maple syrup if we don't stop!

Personally speaking, I couldn't care less if they impeach him or not. It risks making him a martyr, as improbable as that sounds. It's not as if they need to keep the pressure on to induce bizarre behaviour on Trump's part, he's more than happy to oblige all on his own. I see that today he's attacking officials in Chicago for some reason or other. It's a sure sign that politics is screwed up these days because at first blush it should be easy to find someone reasonable to win against him, but the internecine fight among the Democrats seems to be as poisoned as anything else. Why should that be?

It's ironic to listen to these "debates" as if dire consequences will emerge if one side or another is picked. We have all the food and shelter we need, there is always ample money to conduct wars, maintain weapons systems, etc., always plenty of cash for that. There's money to give Amazon tax breaks and pay off Big Corn, but a rise in the minium wage will cripple the country. Is it possible to sound more stupid. I think these "battles" are taking place at the level of symbolism, not reality. Trump is no Nazi, the Democrats are not Stalins buying up land to build the new Gulag. The rhetoric is largely moronic and utterly without meaning. Meanwhile, Amazon pays no taxes and the infrastructure rusts. The coal miners won't get their jobs back, there is no need to retract regulations, we were all doing fine with them in place. It's mostly all smoke.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 03:05:44 pm
If it's true that there are more leaks now than with previous administrations, it may be interesting to ask why. Is it to do with Trump or is it simply because online media is more pervasive now so there are more opportunities. In some small part though, doesn't Trump sort of invite it since he seems to conduct so much of his policy making on Twitter.

Anyway, isn't he supposed to be such a clever CEO/businessman media-savvy entrepreneur? He had GOP majorities in both houses to begin with but his administration seemed confused right out the gate. And we still hear people complain about how the media is against him. Well, boo-hoo, is my response. Grow a pair and act like a President, I say. Am I really supposed t believe that the "fake news" New York Times has more power that POTUS, that's a reach, isn't it?

And I am also confused about the complaints about secret investigations. Investigations are always conducted in secret, it's the trials that are public. What's wrong with that, seems like a good arrangement to me. Can you imagine televised police interrogations on cable? Those criticisms are a phoney distraction, nothing more.

What's not clever about keeping the Dems in the dark?   ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 03:10:12 pm
Q: What reason? That Giuliani was already conspiring with people linked to Russian Oligarchs to create/fabricate dirt?
Trump's son didn't even work at Burisma when the corrupt prosecutor was ousted after combined international pressure agianst corruption.
Instead, a less corrupt prosecutor was put in place.

Q: Then why hide the transcript of the call on a different server with more restricted access than all other call transcripts?

Q: Why the many concerned staffers who knew that when Trump went off-script it caused legal issues?

A: Because they thought/knew it was illegal.

Since day one, the White House staff has been leaking information.  So, in response Trump has been putting certain things in a more secure server to avoid leaks.  This has been reported on and the conversation was not the first item stored in this fashion, nor was it only one of a few. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 28, 2019, 03:12:02 pm
You do know that the first leak about the raid came from Trump, when he tweeted that something big was coming? It was after the raid, but before they'd confirmed the identity of the dead man, and when it was presumably still secret?

What?  ???

Leaking after the raid was over and a success does not compromise the mission or lead to soldiers being killed.  It's leaks beforehand that do. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 03:24:06 pm
... as if dire consequences will emerge if one side or another is picked...

Venezuela didn't reach the dire stage it is in currently the day after the election of a socialist. It took years. Soviet Union lasted 70+ years, etc.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on October 28, 2019, 03:25:51 pm
Since day one, the White House staff has been leaking information.  So, in response Trump has been putting certain things in a more secure server to avoid leaks.  This has been reported on and the conversation was not the first item stored in this fashion, nor was it only one of a few.

Aw come on, man... you’re spinning as hard as Alan now.  This is like when a cheating husband gets busted and then starts whining about how the REAL breach of trust is that his wife was looking at his texts. 

The reason why previously buttoned up civil servants are doing this is because Donald Trump does dangerous, uninformed, ill-advised things.  Period. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on October 28, 2019, 03:29:40 pm
It's a wonderful thing that The Coffee Corner has a "Mark Read" button.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 03:30:27 pm
... The reason why previously buttoned up civil servants are doing this is because Donald Trump does dangerous, uninformed, ill-advised things.  Period. 

Or the commies have finally succeeded in their long march through the institutions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 28, 2019, 03:32:12 pm
Venezuela didn't reach the dire stage it is in currently the day after the election of a socialist. It took years. Soviet Union lasted 70+ years, etc.

How would you describe the domestic political stance of Russia today?

It might even be seen as the ultimate success story of present-and future-day capitalism/globalism where more and more is controlled by fewer and fewer. In the end, it boils down to much the same thing it always has: the magnates and the proles.

If there's a difference, today the gloves are off and they no longer give a shit if the rest of us see through the smoke and around the mirrors: we stopped counting a while ago.

I guess they learned from the Romans, with the difference that as we have almost run out of lions and Christians, they gave us baseball, cricket and football to occupy our feeble minds. Cycling has started to be an alternative distraction from the realities over which we lost control, so put your money - what's left at the end of the week or whatever - into bicycles; they have another couple of decades for growth.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 03:34:40 pm
How would you describe the political stance of Russia today?... In the end, it boils down to much the same thing it always has...

A simple question: where would you rather live? In the present day Russia, or in the Soviet one?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 28, 2019, 03:41:39 pm
A simple question: where would you rather live? In the present day Russia, or in the Soviet one?


Does a Russian edition of Vogue really make that much difference?

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 28, 2019, 05:04:10 pm
A simple question: where would you rather live? In the present day Russia, or in the Soviet one?

Pointless question. Just because you prefer A over B does not mean A is OK.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 05:19:48 pm
You do know that the first leak about the raid came from Trump, when he tweeted that something big was coming? It was after the raid, but before they'd confirmed the identity of the dead man, and when it was presumably still secret?
The president does not and cannot leak information-classified or not. He controls it as President.  As such he determines classification and when to declassify information.  If he feels that certain "secrets' would be better off declassified so the public can know, that's perfectly acceptable.  He does not need anyone else's authority.  He is the authority.  Presidents do that all the time.  The problem is when others leak information that could influence policy.  It's not their prerogative to make those determinations.  People go to jail for leaking classified information. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 28, 2019, 05:44:51 pm
Oh no, maybe the US will push up the tariffs on tulip bulbs and maple syrup if we don't stop!

Personally speaking, I couldn't care less if they impeach him or not. It risks making him a martyr, as improbable as that sounds. It's not as if they need to keep the pressure on to induce bizarre behaviour on Trump's part, he's more than happy to oblige all on his own. I see that today he's attacking officials in Chicago for some reason or other. It's a sure sign that politics is screwed up these days because at first blush it should be easy to find someone reasonable to win against him, but the internecine fight among the Democrats seems to be as poisoned as anything else. Why should that be?

It's ironic to listen to these "debates" as if dire consequences will emerge if one side or another is picked. We have all the food and shelter we need, there is always ample money to conduct wars, maintain weapons systems, etc., always plenty of cash for that. There's money to give Amazon tax breaks and pay off Big Corn, but a rise in the minium wage will cripple the country. Is it possible to sound more stupid. I think these "battles" are taking place at the level of symbolism, not reality. Trump is no Nazi, the Democrats are not Stalins buying up land to build the new Gulag. The rhetoric is largely moronic and utterly without meaning. Meanwhile, Amazon pays no taxes and the infrastructure rusts. The coal miners won't get their jobs back, there is no need to retract regulations, we were all doing fine with them in place. It's mostly all smoke.

I agree with all of that except the bolded part. He's not a capital "N" Nazi, but he certainly fits the mold a Mussolini-type fascist -- the whole great man thing, the belief in conspiracies against the great leader, the taste for dictatorial regimes, the attacks on a legitimately-elected Congress, the encouraging of violence against opponents. It's really all there. Before I go further, I'd like to say that I really have no problems with a conservative President, which Trump isn't. When Reagan was President, I went about my business and didn't worry too much about politics. I was exactly the same way during the Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama administrations -- they were all very different, but they seemed to be taking care of the nation's business in their own particular ways. Trump seems intent on tearing down the country, and that was right out in the open with his first Svengali, Steve Bannon, who is quite explicitly a fascist.

"Darkness is good: Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing." -- Steve Bannon.

(Bannon had more to say in Michael Wolff's anti-Trump books, and though the books are distinctly anti-Trump, Bannon hasn't denied the quotes.)

From the Wiki:
In his 2019 book Siege, Wolff wrote, “Trump was vulnerable because for 40 years he had run what increasingly seemed to resemble a semi-criminal enterprise,” then quoted Bannon as saying, “I think we can drop the 'semi' part.” Wolff wrote that Bannon predicted investigations into Trump's finances would be his political downfall, quoting Bannon as saying "This is where it isn't a witch hunt – even for the hard core, this is where he turns into just a crooked business guy, and one worth $50 million instead of $10 billion. Not the billionaire he said he was, just another scumbag.")

Not a Nazi with a capital N, but certainly a fascist, although in my heart of hearts, I don't think Trump is smart enough to know what fascism is. He doesn't have a theory, he just does it.


Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 28, 2019, 05:46:55 pm
It's a wonderful thing that The Coffee Corner has a "Mark Read" button.

Ain't that the truth. Sadly for me...

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 06:34:54 pm
Pointless question. Just because you prefer A over B does not mean A is OK.

Except when your alternative is B.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 06:39:56 pm
... He's not a capital "N" Nazi, but he certainly fits the mold a Mussolini-type fascist...

...Trump seems intent on tearing down the country...

My, my... TDS in full display.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: kers on October 28, 2019, 06:40:41 pm
Pointless question. Just because you prefer A over B does not mean A is OK.

Except when your alternative is B.

not even then
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 08:31:54 pm
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 09:05:38 pm
Trump, The Leaker-in-Chief, just leaked the identity of the key agent participating in the raid:

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 09:22:24 pm
My men's club visited Mcguire Air Force Base here in New Jersey a few months ago.  Beside airmen giving us a tour of the C17 and base fire brigade company, they ran us threw their dog training area explaining all the procedures they use.  We then got a demo of how dogs bring down "villains".  Of course most of those would be drug people here in the states. But of course, overseas, the dogs are used for other things.  They don't know a drug pusher from a terrorist or care.  They seem to enjoy biting people in general and aren't particular about which one.  :) 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 28, 2019, 09:26:42 pm
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?

We don't have enough information how the mission unfolded and what was Trump's involvement. But as shown in another Coffee Corner thread (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132453.msg1136419#msg1136419), NYT and Times Of Israel stated that the operation was successful despite Trump, not thanks to him. And that's very positive.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 28, 2019, 09:29:59 pm
My men's club visited Mcguire Air Force Base here in New Jersey a few months ago.  Beside airmen giving us a tour of the C17 and base fire brigade company, they ran us threw their dog training area explaining all the procedures they use.  We then got a demo of how dogs bring down "villains".  Of course most of those would be drug people here in the states. But of course, overseas, the dogs are used for other things.  They don't know a drug pusher from a terrorist or care.  They seem to enjoy biting people in general and aren't particular about which one.  :)

Nice dog, but it seems slightly overweight. Same as Baghdadi.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 09:35:03 pm
We don't have enough information how the mission unfolded and what was Trump's involvement. But as shown in another Coffee Corner thread (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=132453.msg1136419#msg1136419), NYT and Times Of Israel stated that the operation was successful despite Trump, not thanks to him. And that's very positive.
That's just another hit on Trump, Les.  Obama did nothing more than Trump but got high praises for weeks about his "courage" on ordering the raid which eliminated Bin Laden.  Had it failed, Obama would have been blasted as Democrat President Carter was when his raid to rescue American hostages in Iran failed.  He lost his re-election bid because of it.  So would have Trump been lambasted if he had failed.  Yet you read and mimic the anti-Trump press and refuse to give him any credit. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 28, 2019, 09:42:38 pm
I didn't think it was Obama's achievement. Main thing I remember from that mission is that Hillary Clinton couldn't control herself in the war room.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 11:11:34 pm
To fight off another recession, I see the Federal Reserve Bank is lowering interest rates twice and will again for the third time before the end of the month. Meanwhile, they're again printing $60 billion a month to support bonds and debt.  At the top of the 2008 crisis they were printing $85 billion a month.  So we're back into Qualitative Easing, printing cash.  Our debt is massive; so is our deficit.  So despite the fact the economy looks so good, the Fed thinks otherwise.  If it pops, or should I say when, impeachment will be a secondary concern.  Trump will never get re-elected because a pop this time will make 2008 look like child's play.  And the whole world will be impacted as well. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on October 28, 2019, 11:19:23 pm
My, my... TDS in full display.

[Trump Derangement Syndrome -- I had to look it up.]

I won't argue that; I even agree with it. I covered politics as a reporter for quite a long time, for major metro newspapers; and I majored in American Studies in college, which was a combination of American history, political science and literature. I served in the Army, as did my father and both of my uncles (in World War II.) I love this country. It's the greatest country that's ever been. I loathe Trump, I really do. He's the most destructive influence we've ever seen in this nation. He is immoral, ignorant, personally vicious, suffers from a severe mental disorder, and refuses even the basic sort of education necessary to run this country. He is doing great damage to it, and encouraging the very worst of it -- racism, white nationalism, political corruption on an unprecedented scale.

For me, he's also quite an interesting case study. That's why I say he's a fascist -- because it fits. If instead of a wise-ass reply to this, go out to wiki or some other source, and see what fascism means, and understand that it was quite a popular political position in Europe, part of South America, and Japan, for quite a long time. And then look what it led to. In every case.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 28, 2019, 11:38:01 pm
[Trump Derangement Syndrome -- I had to look it up.]

I won't argue that; I even agree with it. I covered politics as a reporter for quite a long time, for major metro newspapers; and I majored in American Studies in college, which was a combination of American history, political science and literature. I served in the Army, as did my father and both of my uncles (in World War II.) I love this country. It's the greatest country that's ever been. I loathe Trump, I really do. He's the most destructive influence we've ever seen in this nation. He is immoral, ignorant, personally vicious, suffers from a severe mental disorder, and refuses even the basic sort of education necessary to run this country. He is doing great damage to it, and encouraging the very worst of it -- racism, white nationalism, political corruption on an unprecedented scale.

For me, he's also quite an interesting case study. That's why I say he's a fascist -- because it fits. If instead of a wise-ass reply to this, go out to wiki or some other source, and see what fascism means, and understand that it was quite a popular political position in Europe, part of South America, and Japan, for quite a long time. And then look what it led to. In every case.
John to compare Trump to let's say Spanish Fascism under Franco is a bridge too far.  Trump is a loudmouth, true.  A bull in a china shop.  All right. Course, rough.  OK.  But, his bark is louder than his bite.  The Constitution and federal courts control all presidents including this one.  Franco made war on his people and was a dictator who killed his countrymen.  To compare Trump to that is, well, TDS.   You're just being hyperbolic like all the other anti-Trump people here. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 28, 2019, 11:58:07 pm
... If instead of a wise-ass reply to this, go out to wiki or some other source, and see what fascism means...

You think I need Wikipedia to know what fascism is? Or any other subject under discussion here?

Since you stated your credentials, I will state mine. My father was in a fascist concentration camp. My people fought fascism. I lived, worked, or visited 38 countries. I lived in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and the USA. I speak five languages. I am a trained economist and hold an MBA degree from the #1 business school in the world (Booth). I worked for four major US multinationals, here and abroad. I think I can discuss politics and fascism without resorting to Wikipedia. I see no fascism here. I see no racism in his actions or words, or in the broader environment, for that matter. I see no damage to the country, just perhaps someone's sensitive feelings hurt, causing a TDS. The only real threat to this country is the slow, steady advance of socialism. The only thing I might agree with you is his personality (short of "severe mental disorder"). He is a New Yorker. Spoiled, jerkish billionaire. Enough said. But people knew it well before voting for him. People did not vote for his charming personality, but for his policy proposals.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 29, 2019, 12:20:54 am
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?

Yes. I am not sure what Trump had to do with it (nor what Obama had to do with Bin Laden btw), but the special forces who were able to take him down must certainly be praised.

Now, the whole thing is complicated by the fact that al Baghdadi is an indirect, but obvious, consequence of previous GOP action in the region though. Had Irak not been attacked on false premises spread by Bush and the Republican falcons, IS would never have reached the level of influence that created the need to take down al Baghdadi.

Do we congratulate our kids when they fix the mess they created? Probably, but certainly not as much as Trump congratulated himself during his 50 mins speech.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 29, 2019, 08:06:28 am
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?
LOL, as if he had much to do with this other than giving the go ahead.  Reports coming out yesterday pointed out that his military withdrawal forced them to accelerate the timetable.  Shouldn't the military and intelligence groups be praised much more than the President?  I found it curious that in his praise of those who had ancillary roles, the Syrian Kurds who provided most of the key intelligence were listed last.  Of course this also had to be the 'greatest' assassination of a terrorist even though the Caliphate never posed any threat to the US unlike bin Laden's group who murdered several thousand Americans.  Good that the President got in yet another dig at Obama for not doing more against Gaghdadi!! 

President Trump is the greatest; at least that's what his press secretary, Stephanie Grisham said the other day referring to "...the genius of our great president..."  I guess this must be true and I salute you Mr. President for your genius in taking down the evil leader of the Caliphate for without you this would all not be possible.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 29, 2019, 08:14:35 am
I speak five languages. I am a trained economist and hold an MBA degree from the #1 business school in the world (Booth).
According to whose metric?  A quick Google search shows a variety of rankings with several #1 business schools both in the the US and abroad.  There are lots of people who graduate from #1 colleges/universities and that means very little.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 29, 2019, 09:24:09 am
According to whose metric?  A quick Google search shows..

This:
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 29, 2019, 10:19:22 am
This:
Yes, you can validate anything on the Internet.  The US News rating is from 2018.  US News now has it tied for 3rd behind Wharton and Stanford.  In the end it really doesn't matter at all what the ratings mean, it is what the graduate does with the degree that matters.  In the good old days when I was growing up we didn't have college/university rankings; perhaps we were better off.  We always told our daughters that they could go to what ever school they wanted.  They chose wisely and have fulfilling careers helping at risk children.  That's what it's all about.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 29, 2019, 10:46:40 am
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:

https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-uncovers-evidence-hero-dog-sniffed-butts?fbclid=IwAR0zucm3faFUyDOJdT555E4TvtapxxHvbwl8o5s0lqoB_JyFvYlF7drd5ss

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 29, 2019, 11:03:35 am
Doesn't anyone who opposes Trump here have anything positive to say about him regarding al Baghdadi?  What would you want him to do that you would actually praise him?  Would your fingers fall off your hand if you typed something positive about him?

Trump had nothing to do with al-Baghdadi except perhaps for okaying the mission--just like Obama/bin Ladin. But Obama never took any credit while here's the Bone Spur Boy prancing around patting himself on the back. And Trump's moronic decision to pull US troops out and leave the Kurds hanging by their testicles came very close to scuttling the entire al-Baghdadi mission. And Trump has been spouting classified information about the mission to the press. And military sources involved in the operation say that some of Trump's statements about the operation are false.

You want me to praise Trump? Have him resign. It will finally be something good for the country.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 29, 2019, 11:08:43 am
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:

https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-uncovers-evidence-hero-dog-sniffed-butts?fbclid=IwAR0zucm3faFUyDOJdT555E4TvtapxxHvbwl8o5s0lqoB_JyFvYlF7drd5ss

That's great.  Love this, "He was always sniffing any butt he could find. Cats, dogs, humans, you name it. He didn't have a preference. He identified as pansniffual."

Pansniffual   ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 29, 2019, 11:10:19 am
Trump had nothing to do with al-Baghdadi except perhaps for okaying the mission--just like Obama/bin Ladin. But Obama never took any credit while here's the Bone Spur Boy prancing around patting himself on the back. And Trump's moronic decision to pull US troops out and leave the Kurds hanging by their testicles came very close to scuttling the entire al-Baghdadi mission. And Trump has been spouting classified information about the mission to the press. And military sources involved in the operation say that some of Trump's statements about the operation are false.

You want me to praise Trump? Have him resign. It will finally be something good for the country.

What?  ???

I seem to remember Obama touting this on his re-election campaign, "Osama is dead and Detroit is alive," along with other variants said plenty of times in 2012. 

Insofar as the Kurds, there is no way that we could meddle with the Kurds, Turkey, Syria and Russia without pissing someone off to the point of making a new enemy. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 29, 2019, 11:14:31 am
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:

https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-uncovers-evidence-hero-dog-sniffed-butts?fbclid=IwAR0zucm3faFUyDOJdT555E4TvtapxxHvbwl8o5s0lqoB_JyFvYlF7drd5ss

Must have been part of AI Deep sniffing training. NVIDIA did something similar recently, but with animal faces. 

Quote
A team of NVIDIA researchers has defined new AI techniques that give computers enough smarts to see a picture of one animal and recreate its expression and pose on the face of any other creature. The work is powered in part by generative adversarial networks (GANs), an emerging AI technique that pits one neural network against another.

Before this work, network models for image translation had to be trained using many images of the target animal. Now, one picture of Rover does the trick, in part thanks to a training function that includes many different image translation tasks the team adds to the GAN process.

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2019/10/27/ai-gans-pets-ganimals/
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Klein on October 29, 2019, 02:35:23 pm
I think we beat this to death.  I'm signing off to get on with life.  Carry on.  :)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on October 29, 2019, 03:33:36 pm
What?  ???

I seem to remember Obama touting this on his re-election campaign, "Osama is dead and Detroit is alive," along with other variants said plenty of times in 2012. 


Obama saying "Osama is dead" is a simple, undeniable fact. He did not take personal credit for it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 29, 2019, 03:54:57 pm
Turns out, Trump was, once again, totally wrong. Once again, betting on the wrong horse (errr... dog). Not such a hero, after all:

Amazing. I'd never heard of that site before, and my attention has been drawn to two links in 24 hours.

(This (https://babylonbee.com/news/motorcycle-that-identifies-as-bicycle-sets-world-cycling-record?fbclid=IwAR0CnN19DAs5PgvN7BQ7Z6BhxbNGTiim8zdYDg1vT_LhOwYX1rb6Lz7jLDU) is the other.)

Jeremy
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 29, 2019, 05:46:21 pm
Obama saying "Osama is dead" is a simple, undeniable fact. He did not take personal credit for it.

Are you kidding me.  He made it part of his re-election campaign; that is taking credit for it. 

He may not have been as boisterous, but Obama did take credit for it. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 29, 2019, 05:53:21 pm
Amazing. I'd never heard of that site before, and my attention has been drawn to two links in 24 hours.

(This (https://babylonbee.com/news/motorcycle-that-identifies-as-bicycle-sets-world-cycling-record?fbclid=IwAR0CnN19DAs5PgvN7BQ7Z6BhxbNGTiim8zdYDg1vT_LhOwYX1rb6Lz7jLDU) is the other.)

Jeremy

Another great satire sure to rile up emotions, although, consider a recent story, it should have been in London. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 29, 2019, 09:50:45 pm
Amazing. I'd never heard of that site before, and my attention has been drawn to two links in 24 hours.

It's a website know for Satire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babylon_Bee
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 29, 2019, 10:59:20 pm
It's a website known for Satire...

Nooooo... and all this time I thought...  :-[
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 29, 2019, 11:04:33 pm
Happens every time. The discussion starts with a serious statement and ends with a joke.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 29, 2019, 11:20:36 pm
Happens every time. The discussion starts with a serious statement and ends with a joke.

Especially when you try to treat a joke (impeachment) as a serious statement ;)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on October 30, 2019, 12:03:12 am
Especially when you try to treat a joke (impeachment) as a serious statement ;)

Good punchline!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 30, 2019, 05:59:57 am
Especially when you try to treat a joke (impeachment) as a serious statement ;)

How is the impeachment a joke?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 30, 2019, 07:46:16 am
Well Tom Brokaw, on MSNBC none the less, said, “The big difference is … they still don’t have what you call 'the goods' on this president in terms of breaking the law and being an impeachable target for them."  It's important to remember that (a) aid was not withheld and (b) the investigation was not implemented.  Even if you think Trump's words were concerning helping him in the 2020 election, he did not follow through with it. 

But anyway, I think the below "political article" sums up the points I have been making about the current field of Dems. 

RNC Raising Money To Help Democrats Televise Five Debates A Week (https://babylonbee.com/news/republican-national-committee-raising-money-to-help-democrats-televise-5-live-debates-a-week)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 30, 2019, 10:10:58 am
It's time for Noah Mk 2.

All of them, politicians of all persuasions (they have none), the European ones too, should be barred from boarding and left to swim and then sink to the bottom. Quite who might replace them when the waters subside, I have no idea; perhaps we could start electing pigs - no, wait, been there, done that.

Medacity is the new religion.

;-(
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 30, 2019, 10:32:23 am
Well Tom Brokaw, on MSNBC none the less, said, “The big difference is … they still don’t have what you call 'the goods' on this president in terms of breaking the law and being an impeachable target for them."  It's important to remember that (a) aid was not withheld and (b) the investigation was not implemented.  Even if you think Trump's words were concerning helping him in the 2020 election, he did not follow through with it.

I think that's not correct, or even relevant. He did solicit for a foreign nation to influence the national elections. That's the ground for impeachment, and from the looks of it there is enough first-hand evidence to prove that. It was only made worse by the attempted cover-up, and the going outside of the official diplomatic channels (making it more difficult for Congress to do its duty) doesn't help either. Then the coercion of witnesses to not testify raised more suspicion, what (else) are they trying to hide.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 30, 2019, 10:41:11 am
I think that's not correct, or even relevant. He did solicit for a foreign nation to influence the national elections. That's the ground for impeachment, and from the looks of it there is enough first-hand evidence to prove that. It was only made worse by the attempted cover-up, and the going outside of the official diplomatic channels (making it more difficult for Congress to do its duty) doesn't help either. Then the coercion of witnesses to not testify raised more suspicion, what (else) are they trying to hide.

Cheers,
Bart

All of these can be explained by other possible actions and motives.  Sorry Bart, but there is no clear cut evidence.  They don't have the goods.  I am half expecting the vote to fail on Thursday; as of this morning, at least one Dem in the house is saying he will most like vote against the resolution. 

In other news though, it really getting bad for the dog!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2019, 10:45:22 am
... In other news though, it really getting bad for the dog!

 ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 30, 2019, 11:40:19 am
All of these can be explained by other possible actions and motives.  Sorry Bart, but there is no clear cut evidence.  They don't have the goods.  I am half expecting the vote to fail on Thursday; as of this morning, at least one Dem in the house is saying he will most like vote against the resolution. 
Speaker Pelosi will not bring a vote to the floor that she will lose.  I don't know how you can say there is no clear cut evidence.  We have already seen several credible witnesses come before the inquiry panel that lay out the problem.  In addition, the President only released an edited transcript of the phone call and put the actual phone call in a lock box. There is also the significant matter regarding the role of Giuliani, who may or may not have been delegated with carrying out the President's foreign policy and other goals in the Ukraine. The bigger problem for the President is obstruction of justice which will likely be one of the Impeachment articles 'if' they bring a charge to forward to the Senate. 

There are going to be some difficult votes to take by both sides though I think more will be of consequence in the Senate if there is an Impeachment vote.  The Republicans who seem only to be attacking this on procedural grounds and not trying to seek the truth are leading the US to a dangerous place.  Many of them have argued in the past that the executive branch has grown in power and much of this results from poor Congressional oversight.  Now that we have some Congressional oversight, the Republicans are lining up to argue against the process.  I've done my share of Congressional testimony during my working career and it's never very pleasant (I got severely upbraided by Senator Boxer on an environmental issue that we were actually the 'good guys').  The Senate can ultimately vote not to impeach but they ought to welcome oversight.  the only Senate committee that is doing a passable job is the Intelligence Committee that is chaired by Senator Burr with Senator Warner as the ranking member.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 30, 2019, 12:02:00 pm
;D


Something else I'm not clear about: if Wardog was sent in to catch the target, and then target self-exploded (we are not yet sure if from indignation, chemicals or nothing more exciting than Delhi Belly), one has to ask: is Wardog still joyously alive, barking mad, or in that big kennel in the sky? If he is to appear on tv to win awards, one assumes he is alive and well, or otherwise his ròle in the play would have been censored to prevent the various animal lobbies from protesting in front of the Casa Blanca.

That said, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that a stand-in could be employed: as Rembrandt famously said, they do all look the same in a certain light.

Rob
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 30, 2019, 12:21:17 pm
Speaker Pelosi will not bring a vote to the floor that she will lose.  I don't know how you can say there is no clear cut evidence.  We have already seen several credible witnesses come before the inquiry panel that lay out the problem.  In addition, the President only released an edited transcript of the phone call and put the actual phone call in a lock box. There is also the significant matter regarding the role of Giuliani, who may or may not have been delegated with carrying out the President's foreign policy and other goals in the Ukraine. The bigger problem for the President is obstruction of justice which will likely be one of the Impeachment articles 'if' they bring a charge to forward to the Senate. 

There are going to be some difficult votes to take by both sides though I think more will be of consequence in the Senate if there is an Impeachment vote.  The Republicans who seem only to be attacking this on procedural grounds and not trying to seek the truth are leading the US to a dangerous place.  Many of them have argued in the past that the executive branch has grown in power and much of this results from poor Congressional oversight.  Now that we have some Congressional oversight, the Republicans are lining up to argue against the process.  I've done my share of Congressional testimony during my working career and it's never very pleasant (I got severely upbraided by Senator Boxer on an environmental issue that we were actually the 'good guys').  The Senate can ultimately vote not to impeach but they ought to welcome oversight.  the only Senate committee that is doing a passable job is the Intelligence Committee that is chaired by Senator Burr with Senator Warner as the ranking member.

I disagree.  Regardless though on who is right, it's really not going to matter. 

As someone else is found of saying, all the Dems had to do was not go crazy but they went totally crazy.  Warren's policies are so far to the left, I don't think this impeachment process is really going to matter. 

The only hope is that Biden wins, but I dont see that being great either since there is no enthusiasm and he cant seem to raise any money. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2019, 01:02:43 pm
... s Wardog still joyously alive, barking mad, or in that big kennel in the sky?...

Apparently, the dog was injured in the blast, but survived and is ok now.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on October 30, 2019, 01:16:41 pm
I disagree.  Regardless though on who is right, it's really not going to matter. 
Neither of us can vote on this matter until next November.  We will have to see how it all plays out when the evidence is made public and how the House decides to proceed.  All else is mere conjecture. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on October 30, 2019, 01:17:32 pm
Apparently, the dog was injured in the blast, but survived and is ok now.

Seems unlikely, if he was close to the bombvest blast...
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 30, 2019, 02:28:07 pm
Man, things are getting really tough for Dems when Barack Hussein Obama has to step in and bitch-slap them

;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on October 31, 2019, 12:46:34 am
Oh no... it seems that the transcript of the Ukraine conversation was not word for word after all...

This is very surprising since Trump said at least 4 times in public that absolutely nothing had been left out...

Why would he lie on this?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on October 31, 2019, 06:43:30 am
Oh no... it seems that the transcript of the Ukraine conversation was not word for word after all...

This is very surprising since Trump said at least 4 times in public that absolutely nothing had been left out...

Why would he lie on this?

Cheers,
Bernard

He didn't Bernard; it's an example of the new freedom: elastic reality.

It travels really well: utterly changed the concept of British politics, and how a statement - made verbally and also writ large on advertising buses on one day, recorded on video for all time, nevertheless doesn't mean a thing when it is admitted to as being a "mistake" immediately after it wins a referendum, a "mistake" whose consequences have wasted almost three years of Parliamentary time, split families and is going to screw the country in the longer run.

Far from helping the NHS to the tune of 350 million pounds a week, more and more UK doctors are seeing the colour of their future and voting with their pretty feet.

Trump and his like are stoking the fires of a revolution, much as is happening in other parts of the world. It will get a lot worse than it is now, mild, half-hearted little spats on a website.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on October 31, 2019, 11:28:59 am
it's an example of the new freedom: elastic reality.... It will get a lot worse than it is now...

Truth Decay
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 31, 2019, 12:12:45 pm
Truth Decay

Only simple minds believe in simple truths.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 31, 2019, 01:22:41 pm
Simple minds like Occam’s?

Occam's Razor is not a simple truth, or whole truth. It is a good starting point in search for truth. Simple answers are sometimes sufficient, sometimes, or more correctly, oftentimes, not.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on October 31, 2019, 04:54:59 pm
I'm not going to lie, I am really questioning the authenticity of this image.  I really hope the NYTs and the Washington Post gets on this story. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 01, 2019, 08:31:09 am
Only simple minds believe in simple truths.

You don’t think that Trumps lies on purpose?

Or you do not think it’s problematic for the president of the US to lie on purpose?

Exactly, what degree of respect do you have for the Presidential function?

Perhaps the difference btwn Trump supporters and opponents lies in the respect or lack of respect of institutions such as the role of President or the Constitution?

Because the Republicans who voted against the impreachement procedure today have done nothing but show incredible disrespect for the Constitution they have swore to protect. I guess you are fine with that?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 09:40:27 am
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Rob C on November 01, 2019, 11:24:15 am
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.

Slobodan, is that a practical demonstration of the theory that two negatives make a positive?

Were my wife around I'd ask her instead, as she was much better at maths than I.

;-)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 01, 2019, 12:55:29 pm
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.

Russian investigation a failure? Where do you get your news, the Nancy and Sluggo show? It provided tons of evidence for illegal collusion, but for reasons I do not understand Mueller concluded it was not enough to indict a sitting president. Some 1,000 prosecuting attorneys signed a statement (or some such) to the effect that they saw enough evidence in the report for an indictment.

It must be nice to be a conservative. If you want something to be true, just declare it true and - poof - there ya go. No need to think or investigate.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 01, 2019, 01:04:51 pm

... If you want something to be true, just declare it true and - poof - there ya go. No need to think or investigate.

Yup. "Alternative Facts".
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 01, 2019, 01:08:28 pm
Russian investigation a failure? Where do you get your news, the Nancy and Sluggo show? It provided tons of evidence for illegal collusion, but for reasons I do not understand Mueller concluded it was not enough to indict a sitting president.

The reason was that a sitting President cannot be indicted. When he is not the President anymore, he can still be indicted. Several of his helpers are already in Jail.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 03:00:19 pm
You guys!

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 01, 2019, 03:38:36 pm
Meanwhile...

R:  "This is a total sham!!! These hearings are SECRET and REPUBLICANS ARE SHUT OUT!!!"
(note: totally not true.  Republicans are in the hearings, which are using the rules set forth by a Republican speaker and a Republican House, but I digress..)

D:  Hey buddy... these are your rules, but ok.. let's vote on open hearings.

R:  I vote NO!  BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!
(ok, I made that last part up - but gee whiz.)

 ::)
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 01, 2019, 04:48:23 pm
Russian investigation a failure? . . .  It provided tons of evidence for illegal collusion, but for reasons I do not understand Mueller concluded it was not enough to indict a sitting president.

Actually, Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report (https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf) concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that then-candidate Trump or any member of his campaign staff participated in a criminal conspiracy with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

The report documented multiple potential instances of obstruction of justice by President Trump involving attempts to interfere with the government's investigation of the hostile Russian operations.  However, based on a longstanding Department of Justice policy, by which Mueller considered himself bound, he declined to make "a traditional prosecutorial judgment" regarding them:

Quote
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the  President’s conduct.  The  evidence we obtained  about  the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.  At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.  Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.  Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

After Trump leaves office, or is removed by the impeachment process, he could be charged with any federal crimes he committed during his tenure.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 01, 2019, 05:28:46 pm
Meanwhile...

R:  "This is a total sham!!! These hearings are SECRET and REPUBLICANS ARE SHUT OUT!!!"
(note: totally not true.  Republicans are in the hearings, which are using the rules set forth by a Republican speaker and a Republican House, but I digress..)

D:  Hey buddy... these are your rules, but ok.. let's vote on open hearings.


There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: James Clark on November 01, 2019, 06:16:44 pm
There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.

Yep.  That's (one reason) why their little dog and pony show is total nonsense. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 01, 2019, 06:30:55 pm
There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.

At this point truth and common sense have become totally unrelated to the behaviour of republicans.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 01, 2019, 06:32:33 pm
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.

I am at a loss why a smart person like you is comfortable looking himself in the mirror and feel that this bunch of lies is aligned with who you are and the values you stand for.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 07:05:14 pm
I am at a loss...

That is because you totally misjudged the situation. Which shouldn't be surprising, given the distance you are observing.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 07:12:56 pm
... After Trump leaves office, or is removed by the impeachment process, he could be charged with any federal crimes he committed during his tenure.

Again, there are NONE. Were there at least a single one, Dems would pounce on it for impeachment. The fact that Mueller couldn't indict a sitting president doesn't mean that Congress could not start impeachment. The fact that he couldn't exonerate him either is a simple formal logic: you can not prove a negative (in this case, absence of proof).

But hey, keep drinking that Russian vodka. Or even better, switch to a Ukrainian one.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 07:22:58 pm
There are 40+ republicans on the three committees that are conducting the impeachment investigations.

Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 01, 2019, 07:24:25 pm
At this point truth and common sense have become totally unrelated to the behaviour of republicans.

Which (whose) truth and which (whose) common sense? You state that as if you (collective you) are the holder of absolute truth and common sense.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: RSL on November 01, 2019, 07:41:20 pm
Here's a prediction for you guys: The Democrat impeachment circus will lead to (1) The Republicans retaking the House next year. (2) The Republicans hanging on to the Senate next year, and (3) The reelection of Trump next year. Keep your eyes peeled and your ear to the ground. (Can't think of any more clichés at the moment.) Stay alert.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: John Camp on November 01, 2019, 08:20:08 pm
Bernard, if there is any “disrespect” for the Constitution, it comes from Democrats, who have been desperately trying to overturn election results by a slow-motion coup d’etat, clutching at the straws, and making mountains out of molehills. As if they haven’t learned anything from the spectacular failure that the Russian Connection was, they are now going for the Ukrainian one. The result will be the same: Trump 2020.

It's not in any sense a coup.

A coup d'état (/ˌkuː deɪˈtɑː/ ( listen); French: [ku deta]), also known by its German name putsch (/pʊtʃ/), or simply as a coup, is the overthrow of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.

An impeachment and trial is clearly and specifically Constitutional and legal. You might not like it, but it's not a coup.

What I really don't understand about Trump supporters -- and specifically you Slobodan -- is your acceptance of a guy like Trump. I assume you're pretty conservative. Trump isn't. Neither are his politics. I mean, as an economist do you think the signature Trump achievement so far, his tax cut, which has led to a near trillion dollar deficit at a time of increasing tax collections was a good idea? Or are you one of those people who believe the deficits don't matter? People say, "I don't like Trump, but I support his policies." Which policies? The trade war with China that's devastated our farm economy? The encouragement of such things as coal mining, at a time when we know if does great damage to the environment AND is already uneconomic, given the rise of fracking and natural gas? I personally don't disagree that socialism is a threat we need to deal with (see Soviet Communism, Mao, Pol Pot -- it's generally been as bad or worse than fascism, when it's leaders get cornered) but you don't deal with it by supporting a fascist like Trump. But the thing that worries me more than anything is the fact that Trump is deranged. He suffers from known mental illnesses called delusional disorder of the grandiose type and from narcissism. As I made clear in an earlier post, I can live with a conservative president, or, for that matter, a liberal President. I have a hard time with a crazy one, who makes decisions like the one he made on Syria, apparently without consulting virtually any military leaders.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: JoeKitchen on November 01, 2019, 09:58:12 pm
Here's a prediction for you guys: The Democrat impeachment circus will lead to (1) The Republicans retaking the House next year. (2) The Republicans hanging on to the Senate next year, and (3) The reelection of Trump next year. Keep your eyes peeled and your ear to the ground. (Can't think of any more clichés at the moment.) Stay alert.

And Warren on the ticket pretty much seals the deal. 

$51T healthcare plan, and she claims taxes on the middle class wont go up.   ::)

Oops, excuse me, it's actually $52T. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 02, 2019, 12:29:38 am
At this point truth and common sense have become totally unrelated to the behaviour of republicans.

Cheers,
Bernard


You're apparently not even an American.  Why even respond?  And, do you really think what your media spoon feeds you is the truth?  Myself I don't give a rat's ass what the politics are in Canada or UK.  Have no idea what they are in Japan.  I leave it up to their citizens to decide what they want.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 02, 2019, 01:38:04 am
Let me Google that for you...

How did you miss what I said:

Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 04:15:15 am
You're apparently not even an American.  Why even respond?  And, do you really think what your media spoon feeds you is the truth?  Myself I don't give a rat's ass what the politics are in Canada or UK.  Have no idea what they are in Japan.  I leave it up to their citizens to decide what they want.

Fine, I’ll stop to care about US politics the day US stops to attempt to influence the politics of Japan, Europe and the Middle East and the US$ ceases to control the price of oil and most other core utilities.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 04:21:40 am
That is because you totally misjudged the situation. Which shouldn't be surprising, given the distance you are observing.

Have you even considered the possibility that you may be misjudging the situation completely?

Which wouldn’t be surprising if you are limiting your information sources or casting unfounded judgements about those you are ruling out, in the way I suspect you do.

Because any way you look at it, Trump has been violating the constitution.

And you have not provided any sensible explanation showing that he didn’t. You have just kept whining about a conspiracy from liberals without showing any interest whatsoever for the facts at hand, starting from the own admissions of Trump.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 04:32:19 am
Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong.

How can you participate to this thread without having checked yourself the most basic aspects about Trump’s impreachement proceedings?

You have just demonstrated without any possible doubt that your opinion is not based on the facts, just on pre-conceived view that democrats are bring unfair to Trump.

Please do yourself a favor and look into this seriously, just look at the facts and make up your opinion based on them.

What’s to be feared?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on November 02, 2019, 05:20:56 am
What’s to be feared?

That there is life outside the bubble?
Or that people are going to take someone seriously, instead of assuming that that person is trolling?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 02, 2019, 09:51:40 am
... Because any way you look at it, Trump has been violating the constitution.

And you have not provided any sensible explanation showing that he didn’t...

There is this little annoying thing called presumption of innocence, i.e., it is your job to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, not his job or mine. Two years of investigations, with media screeching about his guilt 24/7, with everything and a kitchen sink thrown at him, and... nothing. No proof.

Now we are at the beginning of the circus #2, Ukraine. Good luck with that.

And again, a negative is impossible to prove. It is a basic formal logic. So, no one can “prove” that he didn’t violate the constitution.

Since you are in Japan, it would behoove you to watch Akira Kurosawa’s movie Rashomon. It would teach you a lot about complexities of truth and justice, and that a story may have a number of different views and interpretations.

Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 02, 2019, 10:31:42 am
What I really don't understand about Trump supporters -- and specifically you Slobodan -- is your acceptance of a guy like Trump. I assume you're pretty conservative. Trump isn't. Neither are his politics. I mean, as an economist do you think the signature Trump achievement so far, his tax cut, which has led to a near trillion dollar deficit at a time of increasing tax collections was a good idea? Or are you one of those people who believe the deficits don't matter? People say, "I don't like Trump, but I support his policies." Which policies? The trade war with China that's devastated our farm economy? The encouragement of such things as coal mining, at a time when we know if does great damage to the environment AND is already uneconomic, given the rise of fracking and natural gas? I personally don't disagree that socialism is a threat we need to deal with (see Soviet Communism, Mao, Pol Pot -- it's generally been as bad or worse than fascism, when it's leaders get cornered) but you don't deal with it by supporting a fascist like Trump. But the thing that worries me more than anything is the fact that Trump is deranged. He suffers from known mental illnesses called delusional disorder of the grandiose type and from narcissism. As I made clear in an earlier post, I can live with a conservative president, or, for that matter, a liberal President. I have a hard time with a crazy one, who makes decisions like the one he made on Syria, apparently without consulting virtually any military leaders.

I don't think it's about policy, it's culture war. These are not policy discussions. Trump doesn't represent nor discuss policy. He doesn't act from ideology or philosophy. People like him because they think he's sticking it "the man". Trouble is "the man" is whoever you choose him to be.

Trump gets away with a lot because people inherently know he's a low-rent jerk and so they don't expect decency from him. That lack of decency is mistaken for rebellion because people can't tell the difference any more. Can you imagine the outrage if Warren or Biden or AOC threw paper towels at people on the Jersey shores after hurricane Sandy's granddaughter knocks them on their ass again.

People can convince themselves of anything. The coal miners won't get their jobs back and the manufacturing industries (which are doing fine btw, it's only unskilled factory workers who suffered) won't be hiring the unskilled to carry boxes around any more. But they think that Trump has solved these problems because the distance between high-level policy and low-level effects on people's daily lives is so great that nobody can see the link in the first place. It serves the purpose of many to convince people to not look beyond their fingertips for analysis and understanding. Achieving in depth understanding of anything is hard work, it requires thought, evidence gathering and study. We may no longer have the infrastructure to do that.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 02, 2019, 10:58:19 am
... it's culture war...

You bet it is.

You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...

And then you wonder people like a jerk who has the tenacity to stand in your way.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 02, 2019, 11:15:37 am
Fine, I’ll stop to care about US politics the day US stops to attempt to influence the politics of Japan, Europe and the Middle East and the US$ ceases to control the price of oil and most other core utilities.



The market controls the price of oil.  All countries try to influence others to some degree, but as an individual I basically don't care.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: jeremyrh on November 02, 2019, 12:16:17 pm

The market controls the price of oil. 

In a simplistic way, yes, but the supply of oil is controlled by states to a large extent and the demand is rather inflexible.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Robert Roaldi on November 02, 2019, 01:15:32 pm

You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...


WTF are you talking about?
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 02, 2019, 01:29:35 pm
WTF are you talking about?
Some people are adaptable; others, not so much.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 02, 2019, 02:01:58 pm
Achieving in depth understanding of anything is hard work, it requires thought, evidence gathering and study. We may no longer have the infrastructure to do that.

Precisely.  It has been destroyed by toxic disinformation.  Hence the comment "Truth Decay"
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: LesPalenik on November 02, 2019, 02:26:14 pm
Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on Today at 10:58:19 am

You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...

               WTF are you talking about?

He is talking about the same things as our Jordan Peterson. Sometimes, the bleeding hearts cause more damage than the jerks. Of course, with good intentions.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Peter McLennan on November 02, 2019, 03:03:16 pm
You bet it is.

You want to abolish the first and second amendment (and some others along the way). You want open borders. You want to send people to jail for using the “wrong” pronoun for freaks. You want to send people to jail for using terms like “illegal alien” and “bitch.” You want people losing their jobs for a joke from decades ago. You wage a culture war on everything: on whites, on men, on Christmas, on Columbus, on Christians, on comedy, on humor, on sex, on families, on having children, on meat, on airplanes...

And then you wonder people like a jerk who has the tenacity to stand in your way.

Reductio ad absurdum


With accent on the "absurdum" part.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: PeterAit on November 02, 2019, 03:22:38 pm
WTF are you talking about?

I wondered the same thing. I have rarely seen such a collection of straw men.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 02, 2019, 03:41:42 pm
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/339392/beto-orourke-pushes-tech-platforms-to-ban-hate-sp.html

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/04/new-york-citys-war-on-free-speech/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/massachusetts-leftists-want-to-throw-you-in-jail-for-saying-bitch



Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:00:06 pm
I would impeach the President for wasting a colossal amount of money on a border fence that apparently is easily breached:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/smugglers-are-sawing-through-new-sections-of-trumps-border-wall/2019/11/01/25bf8ce0-fa72-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

Quick trip to Home Depot or Lowes gets you all the needed equipment for a couple of hundred dollars.  I will admit that it is indeed a beautiful fence!!!!
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:02:13 pm

The market controls the price of oil.  All countries try to influence others to some degree, but as an individual I basically don't care.


Kent in SD
Maybe you are not old enough to have lived through the oil boycotts in the 1970s.  It proves that your statement is false and I can tell you as an individual I had to care as there were long gas lines to get one's care refueled.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:06:20 pm
Can somebody provide evidence for that? I didn't dig deep into that, but the only "proof" I saw is that those Republicans are members of those committees. That fact might or may not mean that they are actually participating in those impeachment hearings. And if they are, then they are protesting the closed nature of the hearings in which, procedurally, they are not allowed to issue their own subpoenas or question witnesses. Again, I admit that I did not dig deep into the issue, so I welcome if someone proves me wrong.
What you say is totally irrelevant.  It makes no difference as the respective members had the 'right' to attend every meeting and question witnesses.  If they chose not to do so the fault is on them.  the only true thing you state above relates to the power to issue their own subpoenas but that's because the Republicans took this power away from the minority when they were  in power.  Dems did not have this power during the Benghazi hearings which were also closed to members not on the relevant committee.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:10:32 pm

People can convince themselves of anything. The coal miners won't get their jobs back and the manufacturing industries (which are doing fine btw, it's only unskilled factory workers who suffered) won't be hiring the unskilled to carry boxes around any more. But they think that Trump has solved these problems because the distance between high-level policy and low-level effects on people's daily lives is so great that nobody can see the link in the first place. It serves the purpose of many to convince people to not look beyond their fingertips for analysis and understanding. Achieving in depth understanding of anything is hard work, it requires thought, evidence gathering and study. We may no longer have the infrastructure to do that.
Latest data points out that in some regions of the country manufacturing is slowing down, particularly for industries in export driven businesses.  Were it not for financial services and health care industries things would be a lot worse.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:12:28 pm
What I really don't understand about Trump supporters -- and specifically you Slobodan -- is your acceptance of a guy like Trump. I assume you're pretty conservative. Trump isn't. Neither are his politics. I mean, as an economist do you think the signature Trump achievement so far, his tax cut, which has led to a near trillion dollar deficit at a time of increasing tax collections was a good idea? Or are you one of those people who believe the deficits don't matter? People say, "I don't like Trump, but I support his policies." Which policies? The trade war with China that's devastated our farm economy? The encouragement of such things as coal mining, at a time when we know if does great damage to the environment AND is already uneconomic, given the rise of fracking and natural gas? I personally don't disagree that socialism is a threat we need to deal with (see Soviet Communism, Mao, Pol Pot -- it's generally been as bad or worse than fascism, when it's leaders get cornered) but you don't deal with it by supporting a fascist like Trump. But the thing that worries me more than anything is the fact that Trump is deranged. He suffers from known mental illnesses called delusional disorder of the grandiose type and from narcissism. As I made clear in an earlier post, I can live with a conservative president, or, for that matter, a liberal President. I have a hard time with a crazy one, who makes decisions like the one he made on Syria, apparently without consulting virtually any military leaders.
It will be interesting to see if these questions elicit any serious responses from US posters on this forum. 
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Chris Kern on November 02, 2019, 04:15:38 pm
I will admit that it is indeed a beautiful fence!!!!

Very expensive, however.  We're fortunate that México agreed to pay for it.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: faberryman on November 02, 2019, 04:24:42 pm
Very expensive, however.  We're fortunate that México agreed to pay for it.

Then there are the repairs to the wall. No word on who is paying for those.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/smugglers-usd100-hardware-store-power-tools-saw-holes-in-trumps-usd10-billion-wall.html
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on November 02, 2019, 04:51:10 pm
Here is one of the best explanations of the impeachment process:  https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article230483449.html

For my good friends to the right of center who may not want to read the whole thing, here is the money quote:

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” the politician said. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”

this was spoken back in 1999 by, wait for it...................................................................Lindsey Graham, now the senior Senator from South Carolina speaking about President Clinton.
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 05:27:28 pm
There is this little annoying thing called presumption of innocence, i.e., it is your job to prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, not his job or mine. Two years of investigations, with media screeching about his guilt 24/7, with everything and a kitchen sink thrown at him, and... nothing. No proof.

Now we are at the beginning of the circus #2, Ukraine. Good luck with that.

And again, a negative is impossible to prove. It is a basic formal logic. So, no one can “prove” that he didn’t violate the constitution.

You’ve answered the wrong post Slobodan. The most important one was the one where I highlighted the fact that you have not bothered to look at the clear facts about this case.

How can you know what Trump did or didn’t do without having done your job as a citizen to collect the facts?

To help you here, there is no comparison to the Muller report (even though it was far from exonerating Trump of any wrong doing), this time Trump himself confessed on TV his violation of the constitution. All you need to do is listen to him and read the constitution.

When supporting Trump blindly this way, you are clearly building the ground for any possible violation of the constitution to go unpunished. Don’t come whining if a President walks over the second amendment some day, you as an individual will have contributed significantly to the creation of the conditions that will make this possible.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: Two23 on November 02, 2019, 05:31:30 pm
Maybe you are not old enough to have lived through the oil boycotts in the 1970s.  It proves that your statement is false and I can tell you as an individual I had to care as there were long gas lines to get one's care refueled.


Yes, I was in college.  I note you had to go all the way back about 45 years to find anything even close to an example.  At that time there were many fewer producers, and eventually the market did correct the problem.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: Impeaching Donald Trump
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 02, 2019, 05:42:24 pm
Yes, I was in college.  I note you had to go all the way back about 45 years to find anything even close to an example.  At that time there were many fewer producers, and eventually the market did correct the problem.

My point was different though.

My point was that, until recently, the US$ was recognized universally as the currency in which oil was traded.

How is this providing a huge advantage to the US on the international scene?

Through the fact that the US can print US$ pretty much for free without any measurable downside.

But this is just one example of the huge influence the US has over various parts of the world.

This should explain quite clearly one of the reasons why many informed non US citizens appear to care more about Trump than the millions of his supporters who appear to blindly believe whetever lie they are being fed with. Talk about the great freedom... ;)

But I gave a list of 10+ more reasons a few pages ago that I could summarize in “I respect too much positions of high governance to accept them being owned by people without the historical understanding, culture and mental abilities”.

Finally, I have a young child and I am trying to teach her about right and wrong. I would also prefer the world she will be evolving in not to be infected more by the level of mediocrity Trump’s approach has started to spread everywhere. A mediocrity best summarized by “instead of working hard to change the world, I’ll just lie about the fact it’s already the way I want it to be”. No, that doesn’t work. And it’s not fair to the millions of people suffering in America and elsewhere. It has nothing to do with the American dream I love, it’s just the opposite.

So I still don’t understand why so many smart people here prefer to go against their own values to support Trump out of fear that a socialist may come in office if they don’t. This really is a severe misjudgment of the terrible impact Trump is having on this world.

Cheers,
Bernard