• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The US Presidency 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
QV said:
It's interesting to see how those who dislike Trump seem to give a complete pass to the very serious and probably criminal abuses by key figures in the FBI and US intelligence apparatus.
 

Probably criminal?  Is that a thing?  Who gets to decide?  Certainly the investigation conducted by the Attorney General's office didn't seem to think there was any criminality.  Is criminality in the eye of the beholder?

I also reject whataboutism as anything other than a schoolyard tactic.

Is this all ok because you dislike the target of those abuses?  I wonder, would it be ok if those same abuses were perpetrated against you or someone you know or like?  If you don't think there was any significant wrong doing by now, will you change your mind if the Durham investigation results in indictments? 
 

What abuses?  Not proven, but I see what you are spinning there. 

It's ok to dislike Trump, really it is.  But you can't deny under Trump the US appears to be stronger,

Yes, I can.  Stronger how?  More enamoured of dictators and like-minded demagogues?  More in league with other dictatorships?  I will gran you that.  More respected?  Stronger "sticky power"? More relied on to abide my the terms of existing treaties?  More likely to stand by Allies such as the SDF?  Not so much.

NATO is contributing more, China is being checked.. etc.

More to what? Checked how?

Compare Trump's handling of the Ukraine with Obama's.

OK.  One worked with Allies to remove an ineffective corruption investigator, and the other tried to bully an ally into corruption. Did I get it right?

Compare Trump's handling of Russia with Obama's.

You are kidding, right?

 
milnews.ca said:
You're sure he didn't mean reading this?
main-qimg-ad7586a9651880dd460479187e88ca2c

Space force will take care of that little guy.



560.jpg


 
QV said:
It's interesting to see how those who dislike Trump seem to give a complete pass to the very serious and probably criminal abuses by key figures in the FBI and US intelligence apparatus. 

Is this all ok because you dislike the target of those abuses?  I wonder, would it be ok if those same abuses were perpetrated against you or someone you know or like?  If you don't think there was any significant wrong doing by now, will you change your mind if the Durham investigation results in indictments?       

It's ok to dislike Trump, really it is.  But you can't deny under Trump the US appears to be stronger, NATO is contributing more, China is being checked.. etc.  Compare Trump's handling of the Ukraine with Obama's.  Compare Trump's handling of Russia with Obama's.  If you can get beyond CNN, you might be surprised.  His actual successes and this impeachment fiasco are going to propel Trump to a big win in 2020.  He has a record to run on now.  Considering the immense amount of constant negative media coverage, his polling numbers are better than Obama's were at the same time in his presidency.  This must scare the crap out of the media/dem elites.   

Let me start off by answering this by saying that of the people on this site who are critics of Trump that none of us are "leftists". There are no leftists on this forum that I've seen. We're basically centrists and right leaning. You'll note that the same people here who "dislike" Trump also dislike Trudeau basically for the same reasons: lack of a moral footing, inexperience, and taking extremist positions (albeit Trump right, Trudeau left)

Do we care about FBI and intelligence criminal abuses? Of course we do. But while a very few individuals in those communities might have mistepped, there is no deep state conspiracy or widespread criminality at play such as Trump and his surrogates are espousing. By fostering this false narrative Trump and the radical right do a massive disservice to tens of thousands of loyal and patriotic Americans.

I thoroughly deny that the "US appears to be stronger". NATO is not contributing more, China is not checked, Trump isn't handling the Ukraine or Russia or Korea. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. The economy isn't better for the average American. It has continued to rise as it did under Obama once the country got over the 2008 financial crisis but the gains have been primarily for the top 1%. The whole trade and tariff thing has been nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Trump's style is to declare that there is a problem about things that are basically functioning okay, then pretends to fix it while basically leaving it unchanged before declaring it a massive victory. Look at NAFTA; and NATO; even Space Force: minor tweaks at best.

I don't disagree with you that Trump could win in 2020 but not because of winning sympathy on impeachment nor that he has a record to run on. The unfortunate situation is that Trump will lie about his record as he has lied about many things but there will still be a substantial group in the electorate who will gobble it up and vote for him anyway. On top of that there is no inspiring Democrat opponent that seems to light a fire within the disparate Democrat base that could tie them all together. (If anyone lost Clinton the last election it was the stay-at-home Bernie supporters who couldn't get over themselves) What is needed is a sold centrist candidate with a controllable leftist running mate. A team that could hold all the Democrats together and yet still pull many uncommitted centrists and even some Republican ones in. I don't see that gelling just yet and does anyone really want to see a Biden/Sanders ticket?

:pop:
 
>Certainly the investigation conducted by the Attorney General's office didn't seem to think there was any criminality.

The IG's investigative lane is limited to identifying possible improprieties and asking for explanations.  People explain.  In the absence of evidence of improper motives, explanations are accepted (eg. "a mistake") and the IG moves on.

"The mind atrophies; the ability to discern what is absurd from what is persuasive falters."

So the community of learned, sober, sensible commentators and the people whose views align with them is reduced to association fallacies?  All these other things; therefore, this?

In other news, the urgency of the impeachment process suddenly became less urgent and now the commentariat is arguing over whether Trump has actually been impeached yet.
 
>But while a very few individuals in those communities might have mistepped, there is no deep state conspiracy or widespread criminality at play such as Trump and his surrogates are espousing.

There lies a statement which illustrates why so many people are talking past each other.

Team Trump's conspiracy theories are outrageous (they represent one direction, almost in an alternate reality).  In another direction, what I often read in articles goes something like this: Trump's claims are absurdly wild; nothing like them has been proven; therefore, nothing untoward happened except maybe some mistakes.  See the problem?  Between tinfoil-hat plots and nothing-happened is a broad range of misbehaviour, and people are weak.  Believing that no-one abuses/abused his position to wrongly attack Trump or Trump's supporters is not believing in Crowdstrike server theories, but it is on the same road - one people should want to get off of.

Assuming there are no bad motives because the IG didn't find any is foolish.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
You are kidding, right?

No I'm not kidding at all.  With respect to criminality, Durham may very well indict as a result of the criminal investigation he is conducting.  It's not over for the players involved here.  You don't understand the role and limitations of the IG if you are hanging on to the IG report as the start and end of how all of this will be dealt with.  Yes, there were many abuses and some appear to be in bad faith.  That is what the Durham investigation will determine, honest mistakes or purposeful omissions that mislead the court.  Not sure why you are so dismissive of this.  It may come as no surprise to you that I'm leaning on the side that believes these players were purposeful in their actions to mislead the court, these "mistakes" are not something seasoned investigators and lawyers, on the most sensitive of files, with multiple review levels, actually make.  And coincidently all "mistakes" had a negative impact on Trump, what are the odds?     

To beat Trump in 2020, all the democrats had to do was not be crazy.  Unfortunately for them, there was significant wrong doing committed before the 2016 election which continued after as well. And it will all come out.   
   
 
FJAG said:
Let me start off by answering this by saying that of the people on this site who are critics of Trump that none of us are "leftists". There are no leftists on this forum that I've seen. We're basically centrists and right leaning. You'll note that the same people here who "dislike" Trump also dislike Trudeau basically for the same reasons: lack of a moral footing, inexperience, and taking extremist positions (albeit Trump right, Trudeau left)

Do we care about FBI and intelligence criminal abuses? Of course we do. But while a very few individuals in those communities might have mistepped, there is no deep state conspiracy or widespread criminality at play such as Trump and his surrogates are espousing. By fostering this false narrative Trump and the radical right do a massive disservice to tens of thousands of loyal and patriotic Americans.

I thoroughly deny that the "US appears to be stronger". NATO is not contributing more, China is not checked, Trump isn't handling the Ukraine or Russia or Korea. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. The economy isn't better for the average American. It has continued to rise as it did under Obama once the country got over the 2008 financial crisis but the gains have been primarily for the top 1%. The whole trade and tariff thing has been nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Trump's style is to declare that there is a problem about things that are basically functioning okay, then pretends to fix it while basically leaving it unchanged before declaring it a massive victory. Look at NAFTA; and NATO; even Space Force: minor tweaks at best.

I don't disagree with you that Trump could win in 2020 but not because of winning sympathy on impeachment nor that he has a record to run on. The unfortunate situation is that Trump will lie about his record as he has lied about many things but there will still be a substantial group in the electorate who will gobble it up and vote for him anyway. On top of that there is no inspiring Democrat opponent that seems to light a fire within the disparate Democrat base that could tie them all together. (If anyone lost Clinton the last election it was the stay-at-home Bernie supporters who couldn't get over themselves) What is needed is a sold centrist candidate with a controllable leftist running mate. A team that could hold all the Democrats together and yet still pull many uncommitted centrists and even some Republican ones in. I don't see that gelling just yet and does anyone really want to see a Biden/Sanders ticket?

:pop:

I don't think there is a massive conspiracy against Trump, but I do believe key individuals in government jobs put their thumb on the scale to influence outcomes.  And I think, hope, people will go to jail for that.  I also believe the media and establishment elite continue to play a big part as well.  The bad players in government were hoping to be rewarded for their efforts by President HRC.  But the unthinkable happened: Trump won.  Those are my feelings on it.  We will only know for certain when the Durham investigation concludes and there are indictments, or not.     
   

 
QV said:
No I'm not kidding at all.  With respect to criminality, Durham may very well indict as a result of the criminal investigation he is conducting.  It's not over for the players involved here.  You don't understand the role and limitations of the IG if you are hanging on to the IG report as the start and end of how all of this will be dealt with.  Yes, there were many abuses and some appear to be in bad faith.  That is what the Durham investigation will determine, honest mistakes or purposeful omissions that mislead the court.  Not sure why you are so dismissive of this.  It may come as no surprise to you that I'm leaning on the side that believes these players were purposeful in their actions to mislead the court, these "mistakes" are not something seasoned investigators and lawyers, on the most sensitive of files, with multiple review levels, actually make.  And coincidently all "mistakes" had a negative impact on Trump, what are the odds?

Not sure I am following but I am not very versed on what those mistakes actually were. 

But, just like some are hanging on the "No bias" and ignoring the "mistakes" others are ignoring the "No bias" and suing the "Mistakes" to make their case that there was bias even though the report says no bias.  Do you accept one part of the report and ignore the other?  Or do you accept the report as a whole?

The no bias finding takes down plenty of conspiracy theories that were out there but that won't stop people looking for more.  It reminds me of anti-vaxers who just change their conspiracy stories when the evidence they cling to is debunked they just move to something else just as ridiculous to hold their view.   

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you about 17 mistakes being serious because to me it shows either flaws in the system or incompetence.  Especially at that level.  But I take the IG's conclusion about bias at face value.

Even if the Durham investigations turn up nothing I am sure Barr will order another investigation into that until he gets the answer he wants.  and people will believe that Durham is in Clinton's pockets or something like that.

 
QV said:
I don't think there is a massive conspiracy against Trump, but I do believe key individuals in government jobs put their thumb on the scale to influence outcomes.  And I think, hope, people will go to jail for that.  I also believe the media and establishment elite continue to play a big part as well.  The bad players in government were hoping to be rewarded for their efforts by President HRC.  But the unthinkable happened: Trump won.  Those are my feelings on it.  We will only know for certain when the Durham investigation concludes and there are indictments, or not.     

This might surprise you but most of us here believe that if Durham finds any evidence of criminality then charges should be laid. Durham seems like a straight shooter with much prosecutorial experience including investigations within government agencies. He's issued indictments but also closed investigations without indictments.

I'd feel more comfortable with the thing if Barr wasn't his boss because I think Barr is a complete toady of Trump's. I also have some concerns with the fact that Durham issued a statement to the effect that "we do not agree with some of the [ Horowitz] report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened." Prosecutors generally do not make such statements during the course of their own investigations and previously Horowitz had asked Durham for any information that he had that might change Horowitz's report's findings but Durham offered none. That does make me wonder whether or not Barr has his thumb on the scale. Time will tell.

:pop:
 
Lets see the AG as do everyone in the Executive branch works for Trump. The IG was limited in scope to people still employed at DOJ. Durham has very broad powers including being able to file criminal charges. Right now he seems to be focused on Brennan.
 
FJAG said:
Let me start off by answering this by saying that of the people on this site who are critics of Trump that none of us are "leftists".

Eisenhower, a Republican, has always been my most admired president. He's the one who wrote on the eve of D-Day, "If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

I wonder what he would have to say if he were alive today?
 
mariomike said:
Eisenhower, a Republican, has always been my most admired presidrighy

Only because you didn't have hundreds of competing left and right  media's trying to dig up past and present  dirt on him and his family 24/7.  And if facts won't do, then innuendo will.

We won't see good solid well rounded  people turn to politics anymore.....why the frig would you put your loved ones through it??
 
I would argue that media left and right dig up dirt on everyone regardless.  I would also argue that political opponents and insiders on the same side provide said dirt to the media.

Some Scheer supporters have stated that the media went after him but his own party provided the final blow to his attempts to stay on as leader.

And let's not forget various public servants and military whistleblowers who have tried to do the right thing but have been vilified, accused of treason etc etc.  Why would anyone want to step forward when they see something wrong?

Sometimes it isn't the media digging dirt.  Many times it's the dirt being flung at them and they run with it.

There may have been a time when there was a collegial respect between the white house and the press corps but that is long gone.  And like it or not, Trump and his acolytes are just as if not more responsible for that.
 
I was misquoted in Reply #931. I did not say "presidrighy". I said, "president". See Reply #930.

Remius said:
There may have been a time when there was a collegial respect between the white house and the press corps but that is long gone.  And like it or not, Trump and his acolytes are just as if not more responsible for that.

The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake).
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/994179864436596736

Negative News = Fake News
Fake News = Negative News




 
Remius said:
Not sure I am following but I am not very versed on what those mistakes actually were. 

But, just like some are hanging on the "No bias" and ignoring the "mistakes" others are ignoring the "No bias" and suing the "Mistakes" to make their case that there was bias even though the report says no bias.  Do you accept one part of the report and ignore the other?  Or do you accept the report as a whole?

The no bias finding takes down plenty of conspiracy theories that were out there but that won't stop people looking for more.  It reminds me of anti-vaxers who just change their conspiracy stories when the evidence they cling to is debunked they just move to something else just as ridiculous to hold their view.   

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you about 17 mistakes being serious because to me it shows either flaws in the system or incompetence.  Especially at that level.  But I take the IG's conclusion about bias at face value.

Even if the Durham investigations turn up nothing I am sure Barr will order another investigation into that until he gets the answer he wants.  and people will believe that Durham is in Clinton's pockets or something like that.

What you misunderstand are the limitations and scope of the IG report.  The IG is an oversight body.  Without getting too long winded, go re-read Brad Sallows posts up thread, he explains it there.  The IG can’t and didn’t rule out bias or criminality.  AG Barr explains this role in the NBC and Fox interviews.  He also explained why Durham chimed in about not agreeing with the IG findings (NBC interview).

As for the 17 “mistakes”, any junior investigator knows you must be forthright and upfront with applications like warrants to surveil.  You have to show the evidence for and against the target.  If you have evidence that goes to exonerating your target and you withhold that from the court, it’s very very bad.  Once is bad, multiple times in the same case could be obstruction of justice, if improper motive is proved.  If you have evidence that goes towards exonerating and you alter it to do the opposite, that’s criminally worse.  Both happened, the withholding happened multiple times, and the altering happened at least once that we know of (IG report). 

AG Barr is on the record stating he will accept Durham’s findings.
 
After two years, Trump's tax cuts have failed Americans
By Michael Linden for CNN Business Perspectives
Updated 2:26 PM ET, Fri December 20, 2019

This month marks the two-year anniversary of President Trump's major legislative accomplishment: his rewrite of the tax code. As we head into the election year, you can bet that taxes and the economy will be topics of debate. President Trump will, no doubt, want voters to give him credit for his tax law, which he promised would lead to more investment, more jobs, higher wages and faster growth.

But none of those promises have been fulfilled. From a purely economic standpoint, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has been an enormous flop.

Let's start with jobs. Has the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created millions of new jobs, as was promised? In a word, no. In the four years prior to the passage of the GOP tax law, the economy added an average of 213,000 jobs each month, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the nearly two years since the law passed, average job creation has actually declined by an average of 11,000 per month.

The White House promised that the tax cuts would result in an annual wage increase of $4,000 per household. Again, not even close. In the two years since the law passed, wage growth, after accounting for inflation, rose only slightly, from 1% to just under 1.4% per year for nonsupervisory workers, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. That difference — even if it were fully attributable to the tax cuts — amounts to less than $400 for a full-time worker. So much for your $4,000 raise.

We have been told, over and over again, that tax cuts for the rich are good for the overall economy. However, there's not much solace to be found in gross domestic product either. In the four years before the law passed, real GDP grew by an annual average rate of about 2.4%, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the nearly two years since, the GDP growth rate has inched only slightly higher to an annual average of 2.5%.

These lackluster results should not, in the end, be very surprising. The claim that a huge tax cut for the wealthy and corporations would trickle down to everyone else was based on an outdated and discredited set of ideas for how the economy works. In that old framework, the way to produce a better economy is to get out of the way of job creators and let the free market do the rest. A tax cut for corporations, then, should have reduced the cost of capital and induced them to invest more, which ultimately is supposed to create jobs and push up wages.

But even that very first step never happened. In the last two years, the growth rate of private direct investment has substantially declined. In the four years before the law passed, private direct investment grew by about 3.3% annually, according to data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. In the two years since the law was enacted, that rate is down to 2.5%.

The idea that tax cuts aimed at corporations and the rich would bestow economic gifts on all of us is flawed. Because that's not how the economy works in real life. Corporations don't make investment decisions based on tax giveaways. And wages don't automatically increase with tax cuts or with productivity improvements.

President Trump's signature legislative accomplishment has turned out to be an expensive failure. He will run on his economic record next year, but he should be careful what he wishes for. Given what a bust his tax cuts have been, voters may not be as inclined to trust his economic stewardship.

:cheers:
 
Kinda hard to make a judgement call on tax cuts without accounting for the negative effects of the simultaneous trade protectionism binge.

Speaking of tax cuts, I guess the reason the vote wasn't held to finish up impeachment was because House Democrats, in their efforts to increase taxes on the wealthy and reduce federal subsidies to states*, were working on legislation to remove the SALT deduction cap.

*If you don't understand the joke, learn who benefits from SALT deductions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top