Don Potus Corleone

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Most somewhat responsible politicians look at the possible results of an action based on some analysis of available data and choose the best selling outcome, they care enough to try and not be caught in a outright lie.

That's a polite way of describing their sneaky, lying, BS crap.

Trump just doubles down.

Yup. He doesn't hide his crap very well.

What analysis led Trump to announce that Mexico would pay for the wall, he would eliminate the debt, NAFTA2.0 would pay for the wall, illegal immigration costs amounts that vary by day, etc.

As Harry Reid might have put it referring to his BS, "She didn't win, did she?"

I do think there is too much money and aggregated power in politics
HRC also could or would have been investigated, but we don’t typically do investigation of losers for political retribution in this country.
2020 and sealed indictments might somewhat change that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently, we do investigations as political retribution for winners. And I think Mueller could have found plenty of stuff to convict HRC if he went about it with the same vigor and tactics he's using to get Trump.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is it the right thing to do in the Trump case? Is there anything he has done as President comparable to what Hitler or Mussolini did as the political leaders of their countries that outweigh the good he has done with his policies? Or are there rapes and assaults in his personal life that outweigh his contributions?

Failed businesses, extra-marital affairs, typical shady or unethical deals so common to big business and big and little politicians (including the one he ran against for President)--these are the things that outweigh his good? Do you honestly believe that if the FBI had wanted to go after Hillary for anything in her past, or even for her handling of her emails, with the same intensity and vigor as they are doing with Trump, that they couldn't have found things for which to prosecute and convict her (or just about any other powerful, successful person)? If Trump is the standard for bad rather than good or usual, then we might as well bring down the whole Washington and local government establishments. And most other highly successful and powerful people.

You keep pointing out all the good he has done, mind spelling that all out for us dim witted individuals, because I'm pretty certain good and bad all depends on point of view. Seems like a lot of the good he claims he is doing keeps getting overruled in the higher courts, but he is keeping many states AG's busy for sure.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

You keep pointing out all the good he has done, mind spelling that all out for us dim witted individuals, because I'm pretty certain good and bad all depends on point of view. Seems like a lot of the good he claims he is doing keeps getting overruled in the higher courts, but he is keeping many states AG's busy for sure.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...romise-keeping

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...romise-keeping

I tell you what, weed out the carryovers from the growing economy and good growth he inherited and then give me the list.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I tell you what, weed out the carryovers from the growing economy and good growth he inherited and then give me the list.

I tell you what, this carryover talking point bs is speculative and unsubstantiated. And if everything in Trump's first two years is carryover, then how can he be criticized for bad policy? The economy under Obama had a little bump then remained fairly static. It was statistically by some accounts set to get worse. It would be a big stretch to attribute the very dramatic shift upward under Trump to a mere carryover. And I posted a video in another thread that tore the carryover crap to shreds.

You asked for a list. I gave it to you.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...romise-keeping

not sure what policys were passed to amass theses accomplishments

but they sure threw out some obscure stuff

Led two National Prescription Drug Take Back Days in 2017 and 2018, collecting a record number of expired and unneeded prescription drugs each time.

OMG A 2A BAN? on his watch
New rule effectively banning bump stock sales in the United States.

U.S. oil production has achieved its highest level in American history
United States is now the largest crude oil producer in the world.

he did that?

Lifted a 15-year limit on veterans’ access to their educational

benefits only new servicemembers will see any of those changes.

I was told once

If you read enough about it you will find varying accounts

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

not sure what policys were passed to amass theses accomplishments

but they sure threw out some obscure stuff

Led two National Prescription Drug Take Back Days in 2017 and 2018, collecting a record number of expired and unneeded prescription drugs each time.

OMG A 2A BAN? on his watch
New rule effectively banning bump stock sales in the United States.

U.S. oil production has achieved its highest level in American history
United States is now the largest crude oil producer in the world.

he did that?

Lifted a 15-year limit on veterans’ access to their educational

benefits only new servicemembers will see any of those changes.

I was told once

If you read enough about it you will find varying accounts

Yeah, there are varying accounts. This is one of them. You can pick and choose what account suits your purpose.

One account gives Trump credit. And lo and behold, here come the naysayers with another account which, without proof, but loaded with conjecture, says he gets no credit.

The same goes on with every President. The previous administration gets credit for the good stuff, and the current administration gets blamed for the bad.

I was asked for a list. I gave it. You can shove it up your arse for all I care.

[Got Stripers]

The economy is like an ocean going cargo ship, it takes miles not yards to stop or turn it. Trump inherited a robust economy, one that wasn’t going to change quickly due to momentum, yet here we are two years in, about the time that cargo ship could turn and 75% of economists are predicting a recession, the Feds concur and so does the stock market. Who was captain of the ship when this turn started to show evidence, or are we going to not take credit when things go south?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The economy is like an ocean going cargo ship, it takes miles not yards to stop or turn it. Trump inherited a robust economy, one that wasn’t going to change quickly due to momentum, yet here we are two years in, about the time that cargo ship could turn and 75% of economists are predicting a recession, the Feds concur and so does the stock market. Who was captain of the ship when this turn started to show evidence, or are we going to not take credit when things go south?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not exactly true. the 2008 recession happened pretty damn quick. the current correction happened quick.

guys, he inherited a robust economy, and he made it a little better. most business leaders say that the confidence he provides that there’s a businessman in the white house, the regulations he did away with, and the tax cut, all helped.


What are you afraid will happen, if you admit he helped the economy? no one is saying he inherited a mess. But he did things differently from his predecessor, and they pretty much worked. the market is tumbling because of profit taking, the fed, global concerns, the sense that a recession is inevitable, and his tariff war ( the only one of these things he controls).

your total lack of ability to be objective with this guy, is something to behold. it really is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

not exactly true. the 2008 recession happened pretty damn quick. the current correction happened quick.

guys, he inherited a robust economy, and he made it a little better. most business leaders say that the confidence he provides that there’s a businessman in the white house, the regulations he did away with, and the tax cut, all helped.


What are you afraid will happen, if you admit he helped the economy? no one is saying he inherited a mess. But he did things differently from his predecessor, and they pretty much worked. the market is tumbling because of profit taking, the fed, global concerns, the sense that a recession is inevitable, and his tariff war ( the only one of these things he controls).

your total lack of ability to be objective with this guy, is something to behold. it really is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never said he didn’t help somewhat help keep the ship moving forward, but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime, sure the stock market can make corrections quickly, but i wasn’t talking about the market.

While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class, certainly kept things going; his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. If you want to make the case the market is a good barameter of the economy, how is loosing well over an entire years gains anything but negative?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Never said he didn’t help somewhat help keep the ship moving forward, but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime, sure the stock market can make corrections quickly, but i wasn’t talking about the market.

While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class, certainly kept things going; his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. If you want to make the case the market is a good barameter of the economy, how is loosing well over an entire years gains anything but negative?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. "

Maybe. No way of knowing. There are economists who say we're overdue for a recession, and that his pro-growth policies are helping delay that. The corporate tax cut is a big deal, and that was him.

"You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime"

Not on a dime. But not always at the pace of a cargo ship or glacier, either. I'm also not talking just about the market.

"While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class"

Black unemployment lowest EVER. Every move that a POTUS makes to grow the economy in a macro sense, will help the wealthy more, because they have more to invest, therefore they benefit more from growth. Did income inequality not increase when Obama got the economy back on track? How come no one cried about income inequality when Obama was exacerbating it? Can you answer that? I never, not once, heard you guys complain about income inequality from 2009-2016, and for damn sure the market gains increased income inequality. In January 2017, income inequality became a bad thing.

"his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. "

You're all over the place. First you said that the economy only changes slowly, now you're saying that the moves that Trump made this year, are hurting the economy. Also, before you said there was more to the economy than the stock market, now you are focusing on the market correction, when all other economic fundamentals are healthy and robust.

So let's summarize what you are saying:

Trump inherited a healthy economy

there is more to the economy than the stock market performance

he made some moves in 2017, but they probably didn't contribute much to the economic improvement that occurred in 2017. The economic results in 2017 (which were good), aren't a result of trump.

Now in 2018, the stock market is doing poorly, everything else (unemployment and GDP and corporate profits) are favorable. And all of a sudden, (1) all that matters is stock market performance, let's ignore GDP and unemployment, and (2) NOW that "the economy" is doing poorly, and only then, does Trump own the results.

Sounds fair.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. "

Maybe. No way of knowing. There are economists who say we're overdue for a recession, and that his pro-growth policies are helping delay that. The corporate tax cut is a big deal, and that was him.

"You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime"

Not on a dime. But not always at the pace of a cargo ship or glacier, either. I'm also not talking just about the market.

"While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class"

Black unemployment lowest EVER. Every move that a POTUS makes to grow the economy in a macro sense, will help the wealthy more, because they have more to invest, therefore they benefit more from growth. Did income inequality not increase when Obama got the economy back on track? How come no one cried about income inequality when Obama was exacerbating it? Can you answer that? I never, not once, heard you guys complain about income inequality from 2009-2016, and for damn sure the market gains increased income inequality. In January 2017, income inequality became a bad thing.

"his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. "

You're all over the place. First you said that the economy only changes slowly, now you're saying that the moves that Trump made this year, are hurting the economy. Also, before you said there was more to the economy than the stock market, now you are focusing on the market correction, when all other economic fundamentals are healthy and robust.

So let's summarize what you are saying:

Trump inherited a healthy economy

there is more to the economy than the stock market performance

he made some moves in 2017, but they probably didn't contribute much to the economic improvement that occurred in 2017. The economic results in 2017 (which were good), aren't a result of trump.

Now in 2018, the stock market is doing poorly, everything else (unemployment and GDP and corporate profits) are favorable. And all of a sudden, (1) all that matters is stock market performance, let's ignore GDP and unemployment, and (2) NOW that "the economy" is doing poorly, and only then, does Trump own the results.

Sounds fair.

No I'm actually not all over the place, but spin it however you like. Didn't say the stock market dive this year means the economy has turned on a dime, but I'll applaud your attempt to try to put words in my mouth. I don't have the time or desire to spend the time you and others find to type detailed and mind numbing at time responses to insure meaning is crystal clear. It was too nice a day to play golf. What most economists, the Fed's and this year clearly by the stock market fear; is that the economy and run might be coming to an end. But like I said earlier despite your attempt to read it otherwise, is that even that will take time. At the end of his 4 year term, assuming he even makes it, we can debate again how is policies helped or hurt the economy.

[Pete F.]

Trump made the same mistake with tax cuts as Reagan
It cost GW Bush a second term
A more realistic tax cut would have been sustainable and could have been structured to grow the economy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump made the same mistake with tax cuts as Reagan
It cost GW Bush a second term
A more realistic tax cut would have been sustainable and could have been structured to grow the economy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It cost GW Bush a second term"

GW Bush increased taxes when he promised not to. THAT cost him a second term.

"A more realistic tax cut would have been sustainable and could have been structured to grow the economy"

It was too much aimed at businesses, I agree. But isn't it fair to say at this point, that it is growing the economy? GDP growth Is better than it's been in a long time.

[wdmso]

Trump urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to change Senate rules and allow a simple majority to pass the spending bill, rather than 60 votes, a major disruption to Senate protocol known as the "nuclear option."

not sure why such behavior is not seen by Trmp fans as inappropriate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to change Senate rules and allow a simple majority to pass the spending bill, rather than 60 votes, a major disruption to Senate protocol known as the "nuclear option."

not sure why such behavior is not seen by Trmp fans as inappropriate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has always required only 51 percent of the votes to pass a bill in the Senate. The 60 vote Senate rule is to get cloture on debate.

It's not unconstitutional. It's not illegal. It's a Senate self imposed rule that has changed over time. The nuclear option has already been invoked a couple of times, so the Senate rule and custom has already been changed. Appropriateness is in the eyes of the Senators. If 51 go with it, then only 51 votes are needed for cloture. Then the vote can be taken, and if 51 or 50 plus the Vice President vote to pass a bill, it goes to the Pres to be signed.

It becomes a sore spot to the party that is not in power, which will say things like it's inappropriate, even though they have done so in the past.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Trump urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to change Senate rules and allow a simple majority to pass the spending bill, rather than 60 votes, a major disruption to Senate protocol known as the "nuclear option."

not sure why such behavior is not seen by Trmp fans as inappropriate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you know who came
up with the nuclear option, and when? it wasn’t trump. harry reid started it. god almighty. what’s good for the goose...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

do you know who came
up with the nuclear option, and when? it wasn’t trump. harry reid started it. god almighty. what’s good for the goose...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are funny he had the Senate and the House for 2 years

But now since his party lost the house he wants to change the rules I call that a sore loser

Again JIM what Harry Reid did was for judges appoints not legislation and Trump has used that change...
But once again you see them as the same

It's not unconstitutional. It's not illegal. The new conservatives rational when their party behaves unethical or TRUMP

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You guys are funny he had the Senate and the House for 2 years

But now since his party lost the house he wants to change the rules I call that a sore loser

Again JIM what Harry Reid did was for judges appoints not legislation and Trump has used that change...
But once again you see them as the same

It's not unconstitutional. It's not illegal. The new conservatives rational when their party behaves unethical or TRUMP

What Harry Reid did was invoke the so-called nuclear option. Period. The idea that it can only be used for judges, is ridiculous.

Oh, this is only for judges guys. You can't use it for anything else. Really?? Well how did you get to use it for judges? How was that supposedly "appropriate" if the nuclear option for judges changed the Senate rules?

It's an option, or a precedent, which has changed the rules, not a special occasion for the benefit of Harry Reid and his party that must never be used by any other person or party because . . . because Harry and the Democrats are special. Don't you see? This must only be used for judges because Harry said so.

Nah. That's BS.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What Harry Reid did was invoke the so-called nuclear option. Period. The idea that it can only be used for judges, is ridiculous.

Oh, this is only for judges guys. You can't use it for anything else. Really?? Well how did you get to use it for judges? How was that supposedly "appropriate" if the nuclear option for judges changed the Senate rules?

It's an option, or a precedent, which has changed the rules, not a special occasion for the benefit of Harry Reid and his party that must never be used by any other person or party because . . . because Harry and the Democrats are special. Don't you see? This must only be used for judges because Harry said so.

Nah. That's BS.

No the only Bs is you don't have an issue with the POTUS attempting a power grab in the dark of night because he couldn't get it done any other way

Why wait till now to use that nuke when you had 2 years to use it .?? I'd love to hear your answer to that

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I’ve seen no credible evidence that Mueller cares about anything other than finding the truth and none in being on any other team.

Because you choose not to see it. Or are totally in an information bubble where the evidence is not allowed.

There should not have been a special Prosecutor appointed in the first place. There was no evidence of collusion or conspiracy to begin with. These prosecutors are not appointed to look for a crime, but to prosecute an identified crime.

And when phony, illegal means to spy on Americans, such as was the unverified so-called "dossier," are used to get FISA warrants, and that the document was paid for by the competing "team" (and even that was not told to the FISA judge), nor was the leader of that competing team being investigated for obvious, blatant, disregard of policy regarding emails, and who had shown favorable action toward Russia re a uranium deal which opened the spigot for huge donations to her private foundation, those are major warnings that "truth" is not the objective, and that the other "team" was being favored.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Because you choose not to see it. Or are totally in an information bubble where the evidence is not allowed.

There should not have been a special Prosecutor appointed in the first place. There was no evidence of collusion or conspiracy to begin with. These prosecutors are not appointed to look for a crime, but to prosecute an identified crime.

And when phony, illegal means to spy on Americans, such as was the unverified so-called "dossier," are used to get FISA warrants, and that the document was paid for by the competing "team" (and even that was not told to the FISA judge), nor was the leader of that competing team being investigated for obvious, blatant, disregard of policy regarding emails, and who had shown favorable action toward Russia re a uranium deal which opened the spigot for huge donations to her private foundation, those are major warnings that "truth" is not the objective, and that the other "team" was being favored.

Everyone of your claims have been investigated and disproved
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Everyone of your claims have been investigated and disproved
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your wrong.