| There are 34 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
No Granite. She's not fair game. There is such a thing as decency. POTUS gains absolutely nothing by those tweets. Only that his bullying knows no bound.
to answer a gentleman in the previous blog about the current POTUS accomplishment:
1. Record unemployment: Yes true: but he received it at ~4.5% (from a guy who inherited it at 10%) and now it's at ~3.5%. So he reduced it by 1%. Great but some context is needed.
2. Paris accord: pulling us out not exactly a positive thing
3. Tax cuts: there were some baseline benefits but currently the trade deficit is over a trillion dollars, the highest in history. Economists say that's a direct result of the tax cuts.
4. Stock Market: Not sure what Potus Has to do with that. I suppose some policies can affect the market but if you compare the market to that of his predecessor, he's underperforming (the S&P 500, for example, grew 61% under Obama compared to 27% under Trump). Not too shabby but again some context is needed.
5. NATO countries paying more: Since 2014, NATO countries have all agreed to increase their contribution. Not sure I'd give POTUS credit for that one.
6. Tarde with China: THis one of the few areas where I was actually hopeful something could get done. But by any measure, we come out the loser in the so-called deal.
We can do this all day. Where credit is due I'll give it. But all the so-called accomplishments are either inflated or taken out of context. I still believe in factual facts.
|
|
|
If you are a public figure, and you do something political, you become fair game. Period.
|
|
|
Well Gene Shelby get ready for another five years of no accomplishments and prosperity .The US has had a recession almost every ten years. It has been ten years and the economy is soaring. Trickle down economics do work. Maybe one of the homeless guys in skid row will hire you..
|
|
|
“Thats why I became an engineer.” -D51
So do you have the little striped hat and everything?
“I notice you did not refute any of my assertions with cogelnt arguments.” D51
1. I am unfamiliar with the word “cogelnt.” I’m guessing it comes from your vast engineering vocabulary. Get out your glossary. Please post the definition. You might find it somewhere after Caboose and Choo Choo.
2. Why would I spend my time developing a coherent argument for a guy who is so blinded by his bitterness that he only sees information from his predetermined perspective? Since that is a total waste of time and energy...
It’s much more fun to laugh at your arrogant, self-aggrandizing ass.
3. Lastly, you are the one who believes it’s OK to insult, attack and disparage people you don’t like. Maybe it’s OK with you because you don’t know them and will likely never come face to face with them.
The president’s rhetoric is over the top and distasteful at times. But it’s pure comedy to read your attacks, not just on his policies... or his rhetoric... but on his person.
You think he makes the world a worse place. I think you do too. You’re just pissed his ugliness has a platform a billion times bigger than yours. Your thoughts on policies are different than his... but personality wise... you two are the same.
Detroit, you are a small, bitter person. You blame Trump for making you that way... Nope. He just exposed it.
You berate those you disagree with. You insult them, attack their belief system and world view.
So... please continue trying to convince us how smart you are.
You, my sad friend have been exposed... so... carry on as I continue to laugh at your goofy ass. You are not a serious person. You are a joke.
I have a bunch of other blogs for which you can start a part II. I find it flattering. Please continue to follow me.
Detroit51 is Brilliant.
Fuck! No matter how many times I repeat that lie... I can’t bring myself to believe it.
|
|
|
Gene, Thank you for classing-up the left’s arguments.
1. Record unemployment: Yes true: but he received it at ~4.5% (from a guy who inherited it at 10%) and now it's at ~3.5%. So he reduced it by 1%. Great but some context is needed.
You know continuing to reduce that number gets more and more difficult the lower it goes. Going from 10 to 9 is not the same as going from 5 to 4. The last percentage points are the most unemployable people for multiple reasons. So it’s fair to contextualize the context... but fairly contextualize it. Going this low really is quite impressive. That is why it has not been done in over 50 years.
2. Paris accord: pulling us out not exactly a positive thing. Positive or negative here is determined by each person’s hierarchy of values.
3. Tax cuts: there were some baseline benefits but currently the trade deficit is over a trillion dollars, the highest in history. Economists say that's a direct result of the tax cuts.
The current trade deficit is a direct result of the current trade wars... which... seems to be turning in our favor. But time will tell.
4. Stock Market: Not sure what Potus Has to do with that. I suppose some policies can affect the market but if you compare the market to that of his predecessor, he's underperforming (the S&P 500, for example, grew 61% under Obama compared to 27% under Trump). Not too shabby but again some context is needed.
Like unemployment... sustained progress gets more difficult the longer it goes. In 2008, a bazillion dollars was pulled out of the market. As investment fears subsided... that money began to flow back in. President Obama deserves the credit for helping to calm those fears. Since the markets have a normal ebb and flow, expansion and retraction cycles.... this long period of growth gets scary. A retraction is coming. It has to. When? No one knows... but continuing this growth cycle is very impressive.
Warren Buffet believes the market hits 100,000 by 2050 and 1,000,000 by 2120. At the same time he is divesting in expectation of the coming drop.
5. NATO countries paying more: Since 2014, NATO countries have all agreed to increase their contribution. Not sure I'd give POTUS credit for that one.
Here is what POTUS should get credit for. NATO countries have always agreed to pay. But didn’t follow through. And in 14 they agreed to pay more... and again didn’t follow through. What Trump had the balls to say is... “Quit talking and start actually paying.”
6. Tarde with China: THis one of the few areas where I was actually hopeful something could get done. But by any measure, we come out the loser in the so-called deal.
The last few days the news has been hopeful. Let’s see what happens.
|
|
|
Facts and Polls 
GTFO.
I didn't read any of this but the Electorial College has nothing to do with racism.....stupid fucking theory. And if you noticed, only 2 states were represented when announcing impeachment, all from CA and NY.
|
|
|
PS - I love Alerts!
|
|
|
"Nope. He just exposed it."
that's what trump has done with everyone...we really got to see it when he fired comey and lit him up with the tweets...at first, i was thinking why did he do that? comey become unhinged at that point and we got to see what he truly thinks and uncovered his leaking and weasel ways
still waiting on the trudeau view?
|
|
|
We are NOT a democracy, we are a representative constitutional republic. What's the difference?
In a true democracy, the majority can vote for anything they want -- to take away your house, your car, your job, your money, your rights...
In a representative constitutional republic, we elect representatives. They represent us within the confines of said constitution.
This prevents tyranny of the majority. Otherwise, we would be ruled in this country by New York and California (see photo).
Have a nice day.
| Attached Pictures | | Why We Have the Electoral College |  |
|
|
|
|
@jammerman, I am not an economist but most economists would tell you trickle-down economy does not work in the mid to long term. What you get instead is income disparity and wage stagnancy. It’s a proven thing that tax cut for the wealthy does not translate into a proportional GDP growth. However tax cuts for the middle and lower class have a direct positive effect on GDP. Again I’m not an expert but I read the various opinions. The example I like is say you have one million dollars. In one scenario you give it to one person and in another, you give it to 50 people. Inevitably, it will be better for the economy in the second scenario. Not sure if you would agree but, on some level, that make sense to me.
As for being hired by a homeless person on skid row, I am not even sure where you’re going with that so I can’t comment on that.
@ KS. Thanks for providing some further context and every point you made is true in general. Does Trump deserve some credit? Yes he does. He was given a job. He’s supposed to be doing it. Is he a good president? To some, he is “the chosen one”. To most (he lost the popular vote and his approval rating has been consistently in the the low 40’s even in a decent economy), he is not. History will tell I suppose, though I have an inkling that history will not be kind to him, and deservingly so.
“Then again, I could be wrong”.
|
|
|
I’m thinking... depending on the candidate... and the economy... the popular vote isn’t out of reach.
They were separated by about 3 million votes.
Hilary won California by almost 4 million votes. She won New York by almost two million votes.
That means she lost in the popular vote total in the other 48, districts and territories.
To be fair... all 50 states, districts and territories count. So she did win the popular vote... fair and square... but it does present a distorted picture of the election results.
And, I’m not sure... but I heard somewhere the electoral college will still be in place November of 2020.
2020 will be fun to watch.
Whoever wins... I’ll be fine.
I do know this. I know quite a few people who like me did not vote for Trump in 16... but probably will in 20.
|
|
|
Whatever Trump has done anything to earn your vote in 2020 but not in 2016, I’d love to hear about it.
Well, I am hoping there is a lot of buyer’s remorse about him in 2020 and more enthusiasm on the left (historically when the left turns out, it wins). But we’ll have to wait and see.
|
|
|
But bottom line is we all know Trump is lying. You all know he’s hiding things. All this obstruction, you all know he’s lying. Trump loves to prove people wrong. Releasing the “transcript’ because he thinks that would exonerate them is a classic example. All this obstruction, delay, double speak etc is because the man does not have a truthful bone in his body. If there were any exculpatory evidence he would be out there waving it. He lying and you all know it.
Question is why don’t you care?
|
|
|
I think he has a few truthful bones... not many LOL
The reason I don’t care ... is that I don’t care about Ukraine and a phone call. Quid pro quo or not... it went nowhere. Do I think his intent was to force the investigation? Yes. Do I think it was to hurt Biden... yes. Was it JUST to hurt Biden... that is what I don’t know... and it hasn’t been proven... because it can’t be. It’s all just what people think. What people think is not enough. Sorry... you have to have the smoking gun to throw a president out of office. You don’t have it. Your thought is, “He is a corrupt guy. He had to have corrupt motives whether I can prove it or not.
Why do you think the hearings ended with such a silent poof. The hearings didn’t convince anyone of anything. All the opinions are exactly the same. Those who believed he was guilty... still believe he is guilty. Those who didn’t... still don’t. Those who didn’t know or didn’t care ... still don’t know or don’t care. The polls and opinions are EXACTLY where they were a month ago.
All the obstruction? If I were in his shoes... that is exactly what I would do. I would make them force me to provide ANY information for their investigation. Why if I was innocent? Because no matter what they say... the scope would not be limited to the Ukraine phone call issue. It would open a treasure trove of things to pick apart and use to cast aspersions. An Email that mentions something about Venezuela, Poland, China, NATO etc... all becomes leaked fodder for new accusations. That like this... can’t and won’t be proven but can be woven into a negative narrative.
It’s not like anyone in this is trying to play fair. Everyone wants to win.
|
|
|
“ He lying and you all know it.”
* “He’s lying and you all think it.” FIFY
Knowing and thinking are two completely different things. If they could prove it... they would have.
But they haven’t.
You think there aren’t 20 Republican Senators or 50 Republican congressmen that don’t like Trump and would welcome a good reason to vote for impeachment? There are plenty on the right that want to... you just haven’t given them the bullet proof cover.
I think he did it is not enough.
|
|
|
The site is welcome to censor my speech.
Kaiser, you are the one who called me brilliant. i was just accepting but limiting the compliment.
Most of my disparaging comments were directed at groups such as those with belief in a man in the sky. If you knew what " ad hominem" meant you would understand that debating the beliefs of a group is not ad homnem. I can say I hate Nazis. If i say , Hitler has deformed Dick that could be an ad hominem attack. Calling Drumf an orang could be considered ad hominem but criticizing or even making comical fun of a public figure has always been fair game and ptotected speech by the courts. Your ad hominem attacks are against me as a person. I may have attacked your belief in the Orang or his policies but never you personally. I did point out that you're using a fictional criminal as your nickname but that is a statement of fact not an attack.
|
|
|
Uhhhhh I never referred to your “ad hominem” remark... that was someone else.
I referred to your remark about people repeating a lie until people believe it’s true...
Hence ... “Detroit51 is brilliant.” As many times as it has been repeated in these blogs... not a single taker to it being true. Well... not counting you.
By the way... Nobody is censoring you. Mr. Engineer either you are so smart you think the Terms of Service of the site don’t pertain to you or... you don’t understand them.
Nothing you have said is that compelling that people would need to silence you.
You broke the rules which put the site in danger Einstein.
|
|
|
BTW... if you have read all of my comments... you would see I am not a Trump fan, supporter or voter.
I just think the impeachment stuff is overblown political bullshit to achieve an end that failed at the ballot box 3 years ago.
I don’t really care if he gets thrown out of office. I would think it’s wrong... but I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep.
|
|
|
Hmmm no. The hearings did not end with a silent poof. They proved every point the whistleblower made and they ended up with an impeachment of Trump. That is historic. 200 years from now, any time the name Donald Trump will be mentioned, it will also say he was impeached. Every lines Trump’s defenders provided was destroyed by the witnesses. All professionals, all credible. One of them donated 1 million dollars to Trump and he said unequivocally there was quid pro quo.
Every credible legal scholar agree he should be impeached. 750 of the most reputable historians in this country wrote a letter agreeing he should impeached. Judge Napolitano of Fox News, whom Trump called one of the finest and most brilliant legal mind of the country agreed Trump committed impeachable offenses. Ken Star, himself after ambassador Sondland testified, said Trump will be impeached.
But you’re right, Trump supporters still believe him. He did say if he shot someone he would not lose supporters. That should not be surprising they’re sticking with him. But 54% of the country believe he should be impeached and 50% of people believe he should be impeached. That a lot more than just Democrats.
In the end he may even be re-elected. But his legacy will be that he was impeached. He will never get away from that. And by the way, there is still a lot that can happen. At this same point only 36% supported impeachment for Nixon, a lot lower than Trump. So it’s still early. I think even the most ardent defender knows Trump is dirty. Soon or later, it will catch up with him, one way or another.
|
|
|
All the witnesses , the whistleblower and his attorney are Dem activists. Sondland changed his testimony after his wife’s hotels were boycotted and picketed by the lazy Dem Mobs. If that is evidence, expect the next Dem President to be impeached for nothing.I
|
|
|
“Every credible legal scholar agree he should be impeached.”
See Gene... this is where you lose. You over state your position and try to make present it as there is no reasonable counter argument.
There is INCREDIBLY strong legal scholar support against the impeachment argument. Harvard Law Professor and DEMOCRAT Alan Dershowitz is one. He doesn’t like Trump but argues strongly against impeachment.
The truth about the hearings is nothing was proven other than the phone call happened and the the aid was briefly delayed. None of the witnesses were able to testify to Trump’s actual motives. They could only say, “This is what I think was happening.” While at the same time saying, “The President said directly to me, No quid pro quo.”
I know you don’t believe it. (I don’t either lol) But you can’t shouldn’t remove a president because you think he did something wrong.
And Obstruction? Because he exerted executive privilege beyond what Congress likes? There was a remedy for that. But Congress CHOSE not to pursue it.
Checks and Balances are designed to be contentious. They always have been. But the framers made provision for that. When the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch don’t agree... they go to the the Judicial Branch to rule on the issue. They CHOSE not to do that because it wasn’t politically expedient.
So unlike you... I understand the the other side’s argument, I don’t agree with it.
The people on the left are amazed that anyone could disagree with them and think they might be wrong... and need to prove they are right.
|
|
|
And now any side who has the house can impeach an opposing president for no legitimate reason. Congrats!
|
|
|
Sam... I completely understand why they made the CHOICE. It was in the best interest of their goals when all things were considered. This was executed by the timeline that served their overall political needs. That’s one of the reasons we know this isn’t about “The Constitution.” (Which yesterday’s Gallup poll shows 62% believe this impeachment is politically motivated)
This is a political GAME. Both sides are trying to put the other in the position to have to make less than optimum choices for their desired outcome.
Trump has not claimed immunity. He has claimed innocence. He doesn’t claim congress does not have the right to impeach a president. He claims they have no legitimate grounds impeach him.
Again, those who don’t like Trump and want him out tend to play with words and rephrase things he says to fit their desired meaning.
I don’t think you can show me anywhere where he has said he is immune to impeachment by the House or prosecution by the senate.
|
|
|
What's new about this impeachment is they did not apply a high crime or misdemeanor as a prerequisite.
|
|
|
Oversight isn't looking up the President's back side every chance they get. it isn't being able to look at every email, phone call, and meeting.......
Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.
What Congress is now applying as 'oversight' will make the Executive Branch worthless. If you don't like the person or their policies, go ahead and impeach. The Supreme Court will slap down this version of 'oversight' as abusive if the Dems keep this up.
|
|
|
Sam, as you are aware from reading the article, the writer uses the term “Absolute immunity.” Pundits use the term... but the White House has not. The reason is similar to the idea behind the argument over the terms “undocumented immigrants” and “illegal aliens.” Different sides use the term that subtlety strengthens the sound of their position.
I’m not even sure there is a such thing as absolute immunity in a legal sense.
Historically the term has been ”the President exerted executive privilege.” Recently, media has used “absolute immunity” which the White House as NEVER asserted. Again, it’s the other side rephrasing in order to spin the perception to in favor of their argument. it’s perceptive politics.
The executive privilege being challenged here has a long established precedent by presidents of both parties. And what the article is clear about is her (the judge) opinion is that the aid has to appear. What is not included in her ruling is the scope of what the would be required to testify to.
Which is at the heart of the issue. Being required to appear but not be required to answer questions makes the appearance spectacle not evidentiary.
As you know, she is a lower court judge and her ruling is subject to appeal... which is now in process.
|
|
|
We may have been having a semantical disagreement...
Like in the Clinton days, “I did not have sex with that woman.” Then the question became, “What is sex?”
In this case, I believe we seemed to be disagreeing... but with the post above... agreeing.
Absolute is not absolute. It’s only absolute in a particular framework. “with respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the President."
That was my original contention.
There is a long standing precedent that presidential advisors and staff cannot be compelled. If that were not so, the President could not have candid or rhetorical discussions with his staff in fear those conversations would be used against him. As we all can imagine, those conversations are vital to the decision making process.
|
|
|
Greta Thunberg was mentioned by OP. I guess in order to be Carbon PC, she sailed back to Europe on a multi-million dollar carbon fiber yacht. One that likely required more energy to build than just flying commercial.
Don't you dare get in the way of her narrative though!
|
|
|
LOL
Well ... if you're into that kind of info.
|
|
|
TOS? IN age references made on OP original post 
???
#trump2020
|
|
|
^
OP's less than brilliant TOS has been commented on elsewhere in this blog.
Regarding executive privilege?
"There is a long standing precedent that presidential advisors and staff cannot be compelled. If that were not so, the President could not have candid or rhetorical discussions with his staff in fear those conversations would be used against him. As we all can imagine, those conversations are vital to the decision making process."
Whatever you do, don't record that shit! Recall that the Supremes voted 8 to 0 forcing Nixon to release the smoking gun tape which led to the complete collapse of his congressional support and ultimately his resignation prior to impeachment.
Nixon and Haldeman were caught red handed showing clear "intent" to obstruct justice after the break-in. No doubt, left partisans will argue that Trump did the same. However, the transcript that we have so far doesn't show intent. Sondland, the only true witness to the event so far testifying, stated that he assumed "intent" but when he asked specifically the question to Trump, Trump said "no quid pro quo".
If one is to infer intent on Trump, then logically one would have to call Biden's taped conversation an even clearer "quid pro quo". Regardless of the fact that Obama put Joe in charge of Ukraine, it's interesting to note that Biden was very confident that Obama would back his play, "call the President" Biden said. Which would lead one to believe that Obama is the one offering the "quid pro quo" by way of his gopher, Biden. Impeachable?
Personally, I think it's all bullshit, quid pro quos get proffered every day by every politician domestically and internationally. That's what every negotiated treaty is, for fuck sake. Domestically, it's vote for me and you get free healthcare, tax cut, whatever.
Ultimately, after scrabbling around for something to hang their hats on, the D's ended up with 2 weak articles and no bipartisanship. Given that we have less than 11 months to vote, this has been a waste of time and resources. Everybody already knows Trumps a dick, nothing new there. The Dingell comment hitting a new low. Vote early, vote often!
Merry XMAS
|
|
|
“Personally, I think it's all bullshit, quid pro quos get proffered every day by every politician domestically and internationally.” - Balls
Have you heard me say, “I love Balls” ????
Isn’t that the definition of politics? Using all kinds of leverage to move people to do what you want?
And again, just because Trump would have benefitted from a Biden scandal... that doesn’t mean that was THE reason he did it.
“Well, The Ukraine election interference claim had been debunked.” Since when has Trump accepted government investigation results (ours or anyone else’s) as Gospel? Uhhhhh.... NEVER.
He claimed the FBI was corrupt. “You can’t say that! It’s unpatriotic! The FBI is non-partisan and above reproach.” Well... over the last 3 1/2 years we have learned that isn’t exactly the truth.
His opponents say Trump ONLY had selfish motives. OK... prove it? You can’t. You only think it because you think he is horrible corrupt guy. So.. you start with your conclusion... and then you look to support it. To do that you have to ignore or discount any information to the contrary.
That’s a terrible way to make decisions.
|
|
|
Can't wait til we are rid of the human scum aka the GOP. Trump deserves to expire in prison with the rest of this staff, cabinet appointees and the GOP Senate. They have no sense of decency and certainly display no loyalty to the USA.
|
|
|
LOL bootybandit!
So, the Democratic National Party and HRC payed a "foreign national" to write a bogus report, none of which was corroborated by the FBI, other than the public portions. They did so explicitly to affect a national election, with the willing accomplices of the FBI, DOJ, and certain media. Read the whole 478 page IG report at the handy link below if you require the deets. Now, it's up to Durham to figure out who's going to jail from that crew.
In 2016, the Democratic National Party fucked Bernie Sanders in favor of HRC, which ended with Debbie Wasserman Schultz being forced to quit as chair of the DNC. Then she gets a new job from guess who? That's right, HRC!
"On July 28, 2016, Wasserman Schultz resigned from her position after WikiLeaks released a collection of stolen emails indicating that Wasserman Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries.[3][4] She was subsequently appointed honorary chair of the Clinton campaign's "50 state program".[73]"
And, you think the GOP has a lock on disloyalty, dishonesty, and indecency?
Both parties are complete shit, unfortunately, that's the real truth. Apparently, both you lefts and rights need that beat into your brains.
|
| There are 34 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
