Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 23rd May 2019, 01:27
  #18321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,515
Yup, she understands alienating independents comes at her party’s peril.
West Coast is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 04:50
  #18322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
"There is no reason on earth why Congress should be granted the right to Trump's tax returns, other than .... "

The thing is, though, that Congress has been granted the right to Trump's tax returns; it is right there in the use of "shall," rather than "shall, for good cause," for instance.

What Trump is arguing is something like what we see those amusing Sovereign Citizens arguing in videos of traffic stops, that they have been asked to show their ID for no good reason so that they do not have to and are not going to. (There's always a certain amount of back-and-forth then between cop or cops and Sov Cit, followed often by smashing of glass and indignant cries of "You can't do this to me! Let me go!" even as the Sov Cit is there face-down on the pavement being put in handcuffs. It makes for good viewing if you like seeing that sort of thing.)

If you want to argue privacy then by the same logic, what business does the IRS itself have in prying into your financial affairs? Yet the law says you must tell them all sorts of things, right down to where and when you have traveled in the past year. Why? Well, never mind "Why?" It is the law ... and another part of the law states that Congress can see that same information. It's about like that other law that says a cop can stop you and ask you for your ID, and even detain you until you furnish it.

It is not as though there has been a wave of arrests of grannies out shopping without any ID, what would amount to abuse of that law, although I'm sure the some cops do go too far. In the same way, sure there have been abuses of tax laws, In fact, this is one of the things that got Nixon in trouble, using the IRS against his "enemies," or at least trying to: an abuse of power.

On the other hand, it is a mere allegation that the Obama administration was behind IRS targeting of conservative organizations claiming 501(c) tax benefits. This, "It was the prior administration which started using the IRS as a tool for going after people and groups with whom they had a political difference," is just more over-heated, Trump-partisan fantasy, just another fever dream. For one thing, it's clear that such abuse started, at least, with Nixon, as proven by a Congressional investigation and in part by Nixon's resignation.

What we are seeing here is just more special pleading by Trump and his toadies. Trump's basic premise is that he personally is doing the best job as President of any President ever in the entire history of the USA so that it is very, very wrong to go looking for answers to what in the hell he had been up to there with Putin and his Russians, for example. We have got conflicting answers, even provable lies, from Trump about that and many other things, so that Congress wants to see what he had to say on his tax returns.

Yes, this is a Democrat-controlled House that is asking the tough questions; when it was under Republican control we saw near-complete abdication of their role as investigators of Trump's probable misbehavior. To go back to the cop analogy, this is like someone of some importance being pulled over for weaving all over the road and either being let off or else jugged for drunk driving, depending on who pulls him over. Trump has been all over the road, when for one group of lawmen, the Republican congressmen, that turned out to be just "Donald being Donald," someone above the law. Now it's a different group who can make that decision, so that it's time for the Donald to roll down the window and show us his papers, just for starters.

Trump can complain all he likes, dragging things out as long as possible. (In this case his lawyers have a week to file an appeal against this decision that went against him. That will buy him another month or so before a decision comes down from the next higher court. If he appeals that decision then the next stop will be the Supreme Court, I think.)

Isn't it odd to see Trump fighting so hard now to prevent the release of tax information he had promised us then that he would be happy to show us? Why didn't he tell us then how wrong it is to expect him to do that, instead of saying that he was fine with that?

Calling asking for the legally mandated release of Trump's tax information the "depths of depravity" is striking rhetoric, OB. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is looking a bit frazzled these days so that you might want to ask about replacing her. Can you do "received pronunciation"? That would make a nice change from the cornpone accent the Arkansas Lard Biscuit uses. We might need to hear the same old lies but in cut-glass English; you could be a modern version of Lord Haw-Haw.
chuks is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 04:55
  #18323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,011
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
There is no reason on earth why Congress should be granted the right to Trump's tax returns, other than to pore through them looking for something to use in an impeachment proceeding. We already have a group charged with reviewing and enforcing the tax regulations of the USA: the IRS.

It was the prior administration which started using the IRS as a tool for going after people and groups with whom they had a political difference.

I hope Trump continues to deny Congressional witch-hunt committees this access, as a person's tax information is and should always be considered a confidential matter, between the taxpayer and the IRS. Evidently there is nothing in those returns which has provoked the ire of the IRS, or we would have seen the Agency prosecuting him.
The fact that the IRS has not prosecuted Trump only means that he didn't commit tax crimes (that they know of). It doesn't mean that he has not committed other crimes, only that those fall outside the jurisdiction of the IRS. The IRS doesn't care if you earn money as a mob hit-man - just so long as you accurately report that money as income. H*ll, you can deduct your bullets as business expenses - so long as you have receipts . But your tax returns might be used as evidence in a murder case, nonetheless.

I'm actually a bit surprised that Congress can request Federal tax returns, but that is the law (and has been for 95 years). Trump, Mnuchin, et al v. U.S. House of Representatives may be a landmark case - it's one of those areas where the precedents have gone both ways. Historic times.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 08:46
  #18324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 65
Posts: 59
I note that trump is always talking about his troubles in the past tense, as if they were over, never happened, didn't do it, trying to give them a kick back into the shadows,
while everything is actively swirling around him and more debris is added to the whirlwind every day.
Playing for time can be exhausting and slim on results.
meadowrun is online now  
Old 23rd May 2019, 10:15
  #18325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
If the next higher federal courts rule against Sir Donald is it a certainty that it would go to the Supreme Court? Does this court not choose which cases it hears? Would they even take these up?

America's enemies must wonder when Trump announces he will not better the infrastructure of the United States unless the Democrats cease tormenting him with investigations into his criminality. Does he not wish to get things accomplished?
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:15
  #18326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 42
I think El Trumpino's solution to the aging infrastructure problem will be simple - build a wall at each end of the major bridge crossings and tunnels to prevent expensive crossing by undesirable US taxpayers.

....Or maybe impose tariffs (i.e. tolls).
structor is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 12:51
  #18327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
There is a heirarchy ....

I am not quite sure of the progression, but cases make their way higher and higher in the States, through higher and higher courts. (It's actually difficult to keep straight which case, in which court, we are referring to here; I think that Trump has 14 different cases going right now, everything from Summer Zervos suing him personally for defamation to these cases about whether or not Trump's people do have to respect subpoenas from Congress.)

Sometimes a case starts in some local court and ends up before the Supreme Court, to result in a really important decision. We now enjoy our "Miranda Rights" because of a case that started with a low-grade criminal, Ernesto Miranda. He was grilled by the cops for two hours without access to the counsel he was entitled to, and without being advised of his right to remain silent. Then he was tried and convicted in the Maricopa, Arizona, Superior Court, in part on the basis of this faulty interrogation. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction because of that, which led to the way that the cops now have to "Mirandize" you once you are under arrest, usually reading you your "Miranda Rights" off a little card:

"You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions or make any statements. Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?"

Miranda's conviction was overturned and he was set free. It was pretty clear that he really had been guilty of kidnapping and rape, but that faulty interrogation ruined the state's case against him. About 14 years later he was stabbed to death in a bar brawl, when that was the end of Ernesto Miranda.

(You have to watch your step; a cop can use what you tell him up to the point of your formal arrest, without any need for you to have been read your rights. "Do you have any idea why I stopped you?" for instance might lead to you incriminating yourself by saying that you might have been speeding, but that statement would have been given of your own free will prior to your formal arrest and interrogation. "Do not talk to the cops!" is the basic idea, aside from giving very basic information such as your name and address, about all that is required, along with handing over your license and proof of insurance.

The case getting the most attention right now is one where the House subpoenaed an accounting firm named Mazars USA, asking them to hand over some data to do with Trump's finances. A Federal District Court ruled against Trump, saying that the firm had to comply with the subpoena, when his lawyers said that they would appeal next to a Federal District Court of Appeals. (The joke there is that one of three possible judges who would hear that appeal is Merrick Garland, the guy who was screwed out of a seat on the Supreme Court by the Republican-led Senate; he heads this next court.) I assume that this next court will agree to hear the case; sometimes cases are rejected, letting the lower court's decision stand. Good luck appealing your parking ticket to the Supreme Court.

From this Federal District Court of Appeals I think that the last stop is the US Supreme Court. Since this is a case of major import it will probably get expedited handling, as it just did in the Federal District Court.

Trump seems to want to "play out the clock," hoping that these various cases all do not get finally settled before he runs for re-election in November of next year. That way he can keep on with his nonsense claims and predictions that everything has been, and will in future be, settled in his complete favor, showing that this is nothing more that a "WITCH HUNT!" perpetrated by "angry Democrats." It is difficult to think that all 14 cases can be stalled until November 2020, when losing one or more might lead to a sort of cascade effect against Trump, more and more Republicans turning on him to join calls for his impeachment as that one just did.
chuks is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 16:23
  #18328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,011
The Supreme Court accepts a case by granting a writ of certiorari to an appeal. That requires only 4 votes out of 9 (unlike a final ruling).

It may even include approval from Justices expected to come down on opposite sides of a question - if they think it is an important question that needs to be answered definitively one way or the other. Which may apply in the case of tax privacy vs. Congressional duty to investigate - all nine Justices may want to hear that case, even if the final decision is a 5-4 split.

If the Court rejects an appeal (refuses certiorari), that means that at least 5 justices are willing to let the lower-court ruling stand as correct - a majority decision by default.

I expect Trump's various lawsuits will result in a mixed bag - some rejected, some accepted but not decided in his favor, and the tax-privacy case being an open question.

It is far from guaranteed that a Justice will decide for or against Trump just based on apparent political leanings - a "liberal" justice may be just as concerned about revealing private tax returns as a conservative, and a conservative justice may be just as concerned about an imbalance in power between the branches of government as a liberal one. And above all they won't give a flying banana for "public opinion" - that's the realm of the legislative branch.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 18:38
  #18329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
I did not realize Donald has that many court cases going. It seems he did indeed learn well from his mentor Roy Cohn. The problem with that strategy however, is that the U.S. Congress is not the same as a NYC contractor that he wishes to stiff. They will work it through the courts, so it seems, and will not be forced out by not being able to pay for the lawyers to argue the case.

Whatever way you look at it, this seems to be quite a heavy load of legal cases that Trump is fighting at any one time.

I was thinking about what keeps my interest piqued in him and his administration. I concluded that it is not so much him, in all his dishonest and prevaricating slime, but rather the edifice that others in politics keep up around him. and at the moment this is being played out, writ large, in the U.S.. Others will lie and dissemble on his behalf to no end--even when the situation is just patently false such as the crowd size during his inauguration. The man is obviously sickly consumed by the man who preceded him in the Oval Office and rages and blusters.

I first started watching how fawning humans will be when one Anthony Blair took up the PM slot. Yet he was a paragon of virtue compared to Trump and one could at least argue that he was trying to steer the country one way or another no matter how unctuous he was in his deportment. Bush 2 had his sycophants of course and even Obama. But this is beyond all proportion.

Think if we did this in our own lives. We would lose friends at a minimum and probably our jobs, family, and much else. There would be Nathans who would at least warn us that we are doing wrong. Yet with Trump he has an intellectually enfeebled army that walks behind him scooping up the verbal effluvium that he has spewed forth. The soldiers in this army then try to change this waste product as if they were alchemists, into something understandable.

Thus my continued interest--why do others sell their souls for a man? Is power really that much of a draw? Eternal questions I guess.
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 04:14
  #18330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Trump is really extraordinary when it comes to lawsuits. He has been involved in about 3,500 of them, including about 2,000 as the plaintiff. He seems to take this as the normal way to do business, using and flouting the law.

As you point out, Fred, Trump's present troubles involve much more than just failing to pay some little guy, some contractor he had stiffed. (This new hotel of his just a few blocks from the White House? Same stories, about unpaid bills totaling around $5 million.) A lot of these cases involve very serious stuff, such as trying to stymie investigations into what Trump has been up to with Russia.

Even cases that seem somewhat trivial, such as Trump operating a hotel that has a lot of foreign guests, and Trump slagging off some pretty young thing who had been in a beauty contest, who claims he groped her ... these are consequential when they involve the President of the United States of America. We have a lot of home-grown nihilists (most of whom could not even define that term given three tries) who like to say that well, all politicians are rotten and democracy is a rigged game so that we need Trump to overturn the established order. Ask them what is supposed to come next and that seems to be just "More Trump!" Like "More cow-bell!"

It's like when you want to go fishing, so that you go down the garden to dig up a block of soil. Now the lowly worms are on top! It doesn't end well for them, having things overturned, but the worms do end up on top, for a little while.

I keep thinking about that "I love the poorly educated!" statement Trump made. How in the world could even the poorly educated have taken that as other than a warning? If Trump truly loved them then he would want to see them become educated, because a certain amount of learning is necessary to life in a modern democracy, to fitting in and playing a useful role, or at least to understanding what is going on around you. A grifter loves a sucker, but only because he can use the poor slob, and that is the sort of love Trump was speaking of. He's a guy who only loves himself, basically, and even there what he loves is a fake persona he has crafted out of ... stuff.

To invent a horde of brown-skinned invaders and a wall to keep them all out, and then sell that to his followers, too ignorant to see how that is mostly nonsense ... Trump has made that work, up to a point. Can he keep it working, this con, for long enough to stay in office, though? If the Republicans had not lost control of the House he might have got much further with that one, but now it seems as if reality has got a grip on him, and it's not going to let go.

Give Trump a podium and a baying crowd, one not too particular about strict, objective truth and adherence to law, and he's happy. What comes of that? He doesn't care, and his crowd doesn't much care either. It's just a game and one he likes to make up new rules for. (That is sort of like the way he plays golf, come to think of it; he cheats.) His latest new rule, though, that Congress can not combine legislation with investigation ... why should Congress go along with that one, to create some sort of imperial presidency?

If Congress want anything from Trump then first they have to stop investigating what he's been up to. That is what Trump just said, when you sort through that word salad to get to whatever sense is in it.

This guy whose signature appears on checks ultimately meant to pay off a porn star for her silence just led off with the claim that he does not do cover-ups, as everyone knows! The craziest part of that is that Trump seems to believe that of himself. I guess he needs to believe that, but nobody with his head on straight should go along with him; his signature is right there on checks that were part of a cover-up. Trump has nothing to stand on when he wants to pitch a hissy fit about having been defamed by the claim that he does cover-ups; we know he does them! He likes to think that he doesn't, claim that he doesn't, but there is his big, black, scrawled signature on those checks.

Donald, you are a cheap grifter, and a clumsy one at that, but Congress can work with grifters; there are more than a few in its ranks. Stop with the fake indignation and get back to whatever passes for you as work. Congress is not going to stop investigating you, to just take your word for it that you play it straight, so how long do you really think this latest ploy, high moral indignation from a lowlife, is going to work?

Last edited by chuks; 24th May 2019 at 04:28.
chuks is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 04:52
  #18331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,011
Thus my continued interest--why do others sell their souls for a man? Is power really that much of a draw? Eternal questions I guess.
"Souls" may well be the operative word.

In the spring of 2016, as the GOP primaries had eliminated his brother Jeb and the others, and left Sen. Cruz and Donald Trump as the remaining choices, George W. Bush mused to friends that he wondered if he would be the last Republican President ever elected.

Demographics are not on the GOP's side - there is a large swath of rural counties losing population right through the middle of the Red states. And while that doesn't have much effect on the Senate (a state gets 2 Senators even if it only has 2 people), it is troublesome for House representation (which is apportioned state-by-state based on Census figures) and really scary for a nationwide Presidential election (even with the cooling saucer of the Electoral College). Never forget Clinton won the votes of the people by 3 million. On top of that, younger voters (those for the next 40 years) trend somewhat urban, liberal, "global," feminist, and tolerant.

Even the gerrymandering and minority-voter suppression of the GOP in a few states was barely holding its own.

Thus Trump's victory was a breath of fresh oxygen on the dying coals of the Reagan revolution - a "Great White Hope" that maybe something could still be salvaged. At least long enough to pack the courts with conservative judges and disassemble some of what Obama achieved.

And especially among the conservative Christians, often concentrated in those declining counties, who saw any chance of overturning Roe v. Wade (abortion rights) and other court cases slipping away. They did sell their souls and moral authority for a man who embodied the antithesis of Jesus' teachings - because Trump was and is willing to help them on certain issues that might go to the courts. They are the most unrepentant core of Trump's support (one can note that Trumps' spokeswoman Sarah Sanders is the daughter of conservative Evangelical minister, broadcaster and politician Mike Huckabee - one of those Trump beat in the 2016 GOP primaries).

Now, it is also true that Trump actually went over the top by flipping the Democrats' "Blue Wall" of northern industrial states - Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (Ohio is always a toss-up state). By a small margin, and due to various factors. Including that Clinton was not Obama, and something of a corporatist neoliberal - like her husband, a member of the center-right pro-business Democratic Leadership Council (RIP). And failed to campaign effectively there. Those states showed some trend back toward Democratic in 2018, so that support was somewhat marginal.

At any rate, Trump is a gift to Republicans and conservatives, even those who disagree with him on this or that (or many this-es or thats, as our colleagues here profess). He found a way to win them another shot at power. And thus they will join him and coddle him and protect him and steer him and do their best to prevent him self-destructing. He is the perfect "Anti-Clinton," not just in defeating Hillary, but in breaking the flow of Obama-ism, in the same way that Bill Clinton punched a hole in their dreams of a Tausendjähriges-Reich of Reaganism.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 06:25
  #18332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
Demographics are not on the GOP's side - there is a large swath of rural counties losing population right through the middle of the Red states. And while that doesn't have much effect on the Senate (a state gets 2 Senators even if it only has 2 people), it is troublesome for House representation (which is apportioned state-by-state based on Census figures) and really scary for a nationwide Presidential election (even with the cooling saucer of the Electoral College). Never forget Clinton won the votes of the people by 3 million. On top of that, younger voters (those for the next 40 years) trend somewhat urban, liberal, "global," feminist, and tolerant.
Did you just copy and paste that blurb from some outraged Californian? You seem to forget that the "demographics" were predicted last time to result in a massive Clinton victory. Well, lo and behold it didn't work out that way, did it? Trump won 2600 counties, Clinton about 500, tearing up that old claim that his support was just in those backward places where CNN doesn't reach.

But lets address reality, not 40 years from now: 2020. The Democrats are about to tell the American people that "well, we had a Socialist. And a black woman with round heels. And a wimpy black guy from Joisy who imagines himself Greek. And a gay guy. And a pretend Indian. And an Irish guy pretending to be Mexican. Plus another dozen or more just anonymous sorts who can't quite get the press's attention. So we will offer you a creepy old groper white guy who hasn't done anything notable, but he has big teeth, and he needs to get elected soon because he is even more decrepit than Pelosi."

And then Creepy Joe is going to have to go out on the campaign and tell that undecided voter "Here's what I'll do when you elect me:
I'll take back your tax break.
I'll make sure we regulate your job out of existence.
I'll open up the border to anyone who wants to come in, and bill you for their care.
I'll move away from supporting the democratic countries in the Middle East and devote our effort to the terror types. Perhaps with more cash payments at midnight.
I'll take cash from those who are the color of the slave owners of 150 years ago and hand it over to those that are the color of the slaves of 150 years ago. That should settle race issues once and for all.
I'll pay off all the school and credit debts of the young, paid of course by those who still work.
I'll get rid of all mention of the great figures of American history who might have behaved in ways contrary to today's politically correct values. (I'll start by renaming Yale University.)
I'll make sure that anyone who prefers to think of themselves as a girl despite their dangly bits can go into any toilet they wish."

Let me know how that agenda is going to play out in the voting booth.

Demographics? Hell, common sense is all any voter needs.
obgraham is online now  
Old 24th May 2019, 10:28
  #18333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Common sense needed ....

Man, OB, what are you on? I want some! No more of your cracked thinking presented by the Voice of Reason; now you have gone into full-voiced, Trumpian rant mode. I could not have done better myself.

What you are saying, braying at the top of your screechy voice, really, OB, is that there shall be no viable Democratic candidate who possibly can beat the Donald? You think that yer man is going to come out of all this present trouble Scott Free, without a scratch? He only squeaked out a rather narrow win last time, just before a lot more of his skeletons fell out of his closet. (Sure, there were plenty there already, but I guess that unless you were not one of the "poorly educated" and totally sold on his brand of BS then you might have missed them. By now, though, they are hard to miss, quite the pile of bones.)

If the Democrats were clever I think that they would use Biden as a sort of stalking horse. Let him get the Donald all riled up so that he goes much more mad in public, but then slide in someone younger with fewer obvious liabilities than Biden. Anyone who copies off Neil Kinnock's test paper is just not ready for a starring role, I think. Biden was good fun as Obama's loyal, somewhat goofy VP, but that is about it, I think.

I like that "black woman with round heels" slur, by the way. That was a clear triple, combining casual racism and sexism with puritanism, although you have lost me on who, exactly, that is. Heck, we all know that the blacks are always at it like rabbits, worse than Mexicans that way, so why you should think that "with round heels" singles just one out is a complete puzzle to me. Who is it? Give us a name! Also, this woman, has she had as many men as Donald Trump has had strumpets? I doubt it, but even if so, why should that be a problem to you, given that you seem to be quite accepting of Trump, this man who sometimes seems to want to hang his tiny pecker out the window to shag whatever he sees passing by?

Biden is creepy? Well, yeah, I guess so, but where would you put him on the scale of that sort of thing? Trump gets a 10, but Biden ... maybe a 6 or a 7? On the other hand, if he's also a 10, where is your problem with that coming from, given the way that you accept Trump?

chuks is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 10:49
  #18334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 65
Posts: 59
I have a hope that by next year the good folks down south of here have a collective epiphany and re-calibrate.



There, that's better.
What was that?
meadowrun is online now  
Old 24th May 2019, 13:22
  #18335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,011
Trump won 2600 counties, Clinton about 500
OB - you have a medieval land fetish. "Blood and Soil." A county with 134 people in it (Loving County, TX) is worth exactly the same as an apartment house with 134 people in it (say, Houston, TX). Do try to advance beyond the 12th century.

Alaska: 633000 square miles, 19 "Boroughs" (counties), 3 electoral votes.
Rhode Island: 1212 square miles, 5 counties, 4 electoral votes.

As apportioned by the rules laid down in the Constitution. You do believe in the Constitution, don't you?

As to your list of the candidates - "a creepy old groper white guy who hasn't done anything notable, but he has the face of a frog" Funny, I didn't realize Trump was running as a Democrat this time.

As to your list of Democratic issues - mostly your own fevered distortions and lies, the rest possibly negatives to those 134 people in Loving County (and that may be a libel on them.)

I begin to see why you live (or have lived) in eastern Washington - makes it so convenient to go over to Idaho and worship at the former compound of the Aryan Brotherhood.

Meanwhile, Trump will be running on:
- "The economy is Great - because I just hyped it with $1.5 Trillion in new debt. But I'm GREAT at debt. We won't actually have to pay it off - just ask Deutsche Bank!"
- "I'm YUGE at Foreign Policy - looking confused and changing my mind every two weeks just keeps our enemies confused. Our allies? We don't need no stinkin' allies! Except Vlad - gotta keep Vlad happy!"
- "I'm doing deals with the democracies of the Middle East (like Saudi Arabia) and not those that support terror (like Saudi Arabia). I get a warm - glow - from touching MBM's balls. Of course, I'll encourage a regional boycott against one of the places that provide us with military bases - if that place won't give dear little Jared a loan. They weren't 'nice' to me."
- "Student Debt? Just sue the Universities for fraud. It worked with Trump University. Lawsuits are wonderful things - except when the judge is a Mexican born and bred in the USA."
- "Civil War? Just a case of poor negotiation. Because Lincoln was such a politically-correct snowflakey liberal. Gotta have slavery - just gotta have it (just ask my unpaid contractors). There were good people on both sides, on both sides."
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 15:34
  #18336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
I knew you guys would rise to the occasion, and you never let me down.

Carry on with your plans to avoid substantive commentary in favor of that old Clintonesque approach of insulting opposing voters. Calling them (and me) deplorable,or assuming they are all redneck troglodytes is the very reason why your side did not prevail last time. There are millions of "undecided" voters who the Dems are quite happy to shag off.

Enjoy your time in opposition. But sooner or later the electorate will want to know "what are your plans if you gain power?"

And your answer will be "creepy Joe"!
obgraham is online now  
Old 24th May 2019, 16:14
  #18337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,153
But sooner or later the electorate will want to know "what are your plans if you gain power?"
After being over two years in power, many of the electorate are wondering what the 'extremely stable genius' plans have been and will be should he win another four years. Central planning by the 'extremely stable genius' won't work just as it didn't in Russia. With the new face on the twenty dollar bill being push out until 2028, is the 'extremely stable genius' going to write an executive order for a third term or is it that his Treasury Secretary is very poor at multi-tasking?
Turbine D is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 17:02
  #18338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
When you guys stop making stuff up:
going to write an executive order for a third term
And start outlining your plans for the future, perhaps you can imagine an election victory. No sign of that so far.
obgraham is online now  
Old 24th May 2019, 20:17
  #18339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,153
And start outlining your plans for the future, perhaps you can imagine an election victory.
OB, You seem quite confused today. To give you up-to-date news of the situation, The 'extremely stable genius' is running against TBD (to be determined) opposition. Funny you employed the 'that old Clintonesque approach of insulting opposing voters' line. It is one of the top methodologies the 'extremely stable genius' uses, unless you love him and that even has limits, no guarantee of duration.

It will be interesting to see how the 'extremely stable genius' digs himself out of his steel and aluminum tariff situation with Mexico and Canada. If the 'extremely stable genius' eliminates these tariffs as he wants to do, the price of steel will drop like a rock screwing those old but still around major US steel producers that he cajoled into opening abandoned plants and investing their money to do so. As soon as this happens, the Chinese will jump back into the business 25% added tariff or not to get rid of their surplus metals.

Meanwhile, the 'extremely stable genius' attempts to placate the US farmers who he screwed by his ill thought out tariffs thereby pumping more US taxpayer money in a second round of pay backs to cover the wounds he created. Somehow he has to win back the US corn farmers he royally screwed in the first round of pay backs, corn farmers got nothing. The US soybean farmers lost their market to the Brazil farmers and it is doubtful the market will ever return to the US farmers. In the interim, the Chinese are working hard in Africa to lock up cobalt from the Congo by investing in Congo's infrastructure among other creative Chinese world initiatives.

But, the 'extremely stable genius' worked overtime to get $62 million of US taxpayer money that was supposed to help US farmers funneled from the US Department of Agriculture to a meatpacking company owned by two corrupt Brazilian brothers that have confessed to hundreds of bribes in Brazil They have been in and out of jail as the investigation continues. As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together...

And you are looking for a TBD plan? Better look for an 'extremely stable genius' plan because he doesn't have one, just a bully pulpit in the WH.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 24th May 2019, 22:35
  #18340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
None of that prattle, Turbine, explains how the Democrats plan to win the 2020 election, which is what this particular exchange is about. Will Sleepy Joe rally the nation? Or will it be the "vice"-Presidential candidate from Bendover Michigan?
obgraham is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.