Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: TigerWuSenior official in Trump administration trashes him in anonymous op-ed
Incoherent rage tweets incoming in 5....4....3....
So there IS a deep state!
Quote: beachbumbabsI have thought that had to be the case from the very beginning - that there are people in that administration who see themselves as patriots controlling a mad dog.
Some people on the inside are reacting to dysfunctional leadership. The dysfunctional leadership hasn't been well-hidden from anyone.
Trump thinks that CNN, The New York Times, and other "phony media outlets" will be "out of business" once he is no longer President because there will be nothing to report on.
Oh, yeah, and he claims his poll numbers are "through the roof." LOL
39.9% as of today. Still less popular at this point in the Presidency than Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower.
Quote: RonCHow exactly do you think we can keep that possibility from ever occurring?
The "ideological makeup" of the court will always be subject to change based on who gets to make the appointments.
Do you think President Booker, President Harris, or whoever else may be elected the next time a Democrat wins will fill any currently conservative "slots" with conservatives? NO. They will appoint people that are more like them in their views...as every President does.
Well, one thing would to pick justices who are within the current idealogical spread, rather than picking someone who is outside the range on either the right or the left.
Everyone knows the court is partisan in everything but name, so maybe stop pretending. Allocate 3 spots for liberals, 3 spots for conservatives, and 3 spots for moderates.
Quote: RonCThey will appoint people that are more like them in their views...as every President does.
Bush nominated Souter, one of the most left leaning Justice when he was replaced by Sotomayor. Only Stevens was considerably further to the left, nominated by Republican president Ford. Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy, the most centrist Justices of my lifetime -- similar to Garland, nominated by Obama. Before that, Obama nominated Kagan after Scalia recommended her. For most presidents and people who value laws in our country, ideology is not what a determines what makes someone worthy of being on the Supreme Court. For most of us, we value how a person thinks far more than what they think. Trump, his supporters, and those who put party ahead of country are the only ones who disagree.
This is a Mad Magazine panel from a 1973 issue
(Except for vice-president vs president) seems like we are repeating history
Quote: TomGBush nominated Souter, one of the most left leaning Justice when he was replaced by Sotomayor. Only Stevens was considerably further to the left, nominated by Republican president Ford. Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy, the most centrist Justices of my lifetime -- similar to Garland, nominated by Obama. Before that, Obama nominated Kagan after Scalia recommended her. For most presidents and people who value laws in our country, ideology is not what a determines what makes someone worthy of being on the Supreme Court. For most of us, we value how a person thinks far more than what they think. Trump, his supporters, and those who put party ahead of country are the only ones who disagree.
Souter was thought to be a conservative...a "home run" for that side...
"Over the course of those three days, Souter revealed himself as a quiet, genial sort who would probably tilt the Court's balance to the right. One of the deans of the conservative movement, columnist James Kilpatrick, rejoiced at the time, “With Souter aboard, it's the conservatives' turn.”"
https://www.gq.com/story/david-souter-supreme-court-robert-draper
Scalia said..."“I have no illusions that your man will nominate someone who shares my orientation. But I hope he sends us someone smart,” Scalia said, according to Axelrod. “Let me put a finer point on it. I hope he sends us Elena Kagan.”"
ON Stevens-- "The Supreme Court career of John Paul Stevens could not have been easily predicted in 1975 when he arrived as a Midwestern Republican with a background in corporate and antitrust law."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-axelrod-scalia-kagan_us_56c0c523e4b0c3c55051c8f1
I'm sorry, but I think that you are wrong in general. Most of the nominees to the Supreme Court are highly qualified lawyers or judges who the President in office believes fits his ideals. Some of the "liberals" certainly weren't appointed as liberals...they changed over the years. Kagan was supported by Scalia because he basically thought she was a good pick from the other side of the aisle.
There is nothing out of the ordinary in a President nominating someone who is aligned more with his views.
I don't see Kavanaugh as radically conservative--he seems like he will make a fine Justice.
Quote: Dalex64Well, one thing would to pick justices who are within the current idealogical spread, rather than picking someone who is outside the range on either the right or the left.
Everyone knows the court is partisan in everything but name, so maybe stop pretending. Allocate 3 spots for liberals, 3 spots for conservatives, and 3 spots for moderates.
Who would decide what type of seat is open and assure that the person appointed "fits" the billet?
What would happen when, as i have noted in a previous post, a justice moves right to left or left to right?
The current system may not make people happy today but it is not like the next Democrat elected to the Presidency will not do her/his best to sway it the other way when making their nominations.
Unless another opening happens, which seems like it would have to be due to a death or very serious illness at this point, chances are the next appointment will be made after the 2020 election. If the Democrats gain control in the Senate, that is almost assured to be the case. We are 26 months from that election. Of course, if Trump is reelected, he will most likely get to appoint at least one more Justice to replace one of the over-80's or a retiring conservative justice. I doubt the folks over 80 now will both be there in 6 years...but, as we all know, people of all ages pass away or get very ill...so any position "could" be in play.
We'll see how much further they take it.
The police on the Hill have their hands fulls.
********
Well, if the reports are true, it did not stop the hearing from convening.
Quote: RonCWho would decide what type of seat is open and assure that the person appointed "fits" the billet?
What would happen when, as i have noted in a previous post, a justice moves right to left or left to right?
The President in selecting the nominee, and Congress in confirming the nominee. If a judge has shifted, the president and congress should be taking the current state of the court into consideration.
Quote:The current system may not make people happy today but it is not like the next Democrat elected to the Presidency will not do her/his best to sway it the other way when making their nominations.
Maybe it is too much to ask to have judges appointed who reflect the ideology of the people rather than the ideology of the party in charge at the time. That's the basis of my rather arbitrary '3/3/3' division for the purposes of discussion only.
I wouldn't expect conservatives to appoint a liberal, if a liberal judge is retiring, but they could at least strive to replace the judge with a moderate rather than a conservative.
Quote:Unless another opening happens, which seems like it would have to be due to a death or very serious illness at this point, chances are the next appointment will be made after the 2020 election. If the Democrats gain control in the Senate, that is almost assured to be the case. We are 26 months from that election. Of course, if Trump is reelected, he will most likely get to appoint at least one more Justice to replace one of the over-80's or a retiring conservative justice. I doubt the folks over 80 now will both be there in 6 years...but, as we all know, people of all ages pass away or get very ill...so any position "could" be in play.
Completely hypothetical, but another thing that could happen is, if the democrats get full control, they can decide to increase the number of justices to 11 and appoint two liberals, to give themselves a 6-5 advantage.
Crazy times.
The White House has a job opening, and this position will be reported directly to the rapist, racist, sexist, liar, coc-artist, SOB Trump.
https://people.com/politics/trump-requested-inauguration-photos-cropped-report/
I guess he forgot to remember that the documents he was specifically talking about had actually been cleared for release.
lol
You don't follow the rules, you get banned
Nobody has a right to be on a website
We see it here. Don't follow the rules, you get suspended or nuked
Its freedom
Freedom of website owners to run their business as they see fit
He continued, "When you hear about this economic miracle that's been going on, when the job numbers come out, monthly job numbers, and suddenly Republicans are saying it's a miracle, I have to kind of remind them, actually, those job numbers are the same as they were in 2015 and 2016."
Preach, President Obama! Thank you!
Obama was actually an outlier, but the Great Recession probably had a lot to do with that.
Quote: RonCCory Booker put on a great act of political theater this morning with his dramatic decision to release documents without proper authority stating that he was prepared to face expulsion. Many Dems joined in.
I guess he forgot to remember that the documents he was specifically talking about had actually been cleared for release.
I thought he read some of the documents out loud in the hearing on Wednesday night while they weren't cleared for release until Thursday morning. And if republicans knew he was grandstanding, Cornyn wouldn't of threatened him with expulsion.
Quote: SteverinosI thought he read some of the documents out loud in the hearing on Wednesday night while they weren't cleared for release until Thursday morning. And if republicans knew he was grandstanding, Cornyn wouldn't of threatened him with expulsion.
From what I saw reported after the silly "Spartacus" moment, there was a fairly calm conversation about the documents with a Republican Senator the night before. The documents were cleared and emails were sent to a group of people saying that. Senator Cornyn reacted to Senator Booker's assertion that he was releasing the documents even if it was against the rules and that he was willing to suffer expulsion. The fact is that the documents were cleared at 4 a.m. or so was out there.
Senator Booker is attempting to raise his profile in order to start running for the White House.
Maybe he is trying to become the Trump of the Democrat Party...
Spartacus, Pocahontas, Weekend at Bernie's...they are starting to line up to face Big Orange in 2020
Quote: RonCMaybe he is trying to become the Trump of the Democrat Party...
LOL, no.
Trump claims to have 100 pictures of Robert Mueller and James Comey hugging and kissing.
Here's another gem from that interview:
THE DAILY CALLER: “Sir, do you think, since Mueller has passed the Sept. 1 deadline now, do you think he’s interfering in the election?” (TigerWu's note: There was no 'deadline.' That was made up conservative media B.S.)
POTUS: “Well, I view it as an illegal investigation. It should’ve never been started. It should’ve never been allowed to start. You know, I’m not the target of this investigation, just in case you don’t realize. But I view it as being illegal for many reasons. Some of which are that, number one there was no crime and number two everybody was conflicted, including Mueller. There were, I mean tremendous conflicts here, you know the conflicts, you’ve heard the conflicts.”
First of all, if Trump is "not the target" of the investigation, then he should have no problem with it continuing.
Secondly, if there "was no crime" committed then multiple people would not have been indicted, charged with crimes, put on trial, and sentenced to jail.
So, he never really explains why the investigation is supposedly illegal.
What a sad, stupid man Trump is.
Quote: rsactuary"By the time I left office, household income was near its all-time high, and the uninsured rate hit an all-time low, poverty rates were falling," Obama said. "I mention this just so when you hear how great the economy is doing right now, let's just remember when this recovery started."
He continued, "When you hear about this economic miracle that's been going on, when the job numbers come out, monthly job numbers, and suddenly Republicans are saying it's a miracle, I have to kind of remind them, actually, those job numbers are the same as they were in 2015 and 2016."
Preach, President Obama! Thank you!
Trump has set economic growth on fire. Here is how he did it
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-trump-has-set-economic-growth-on-fire.html
a excerpt from the above link:
His critics, a group that includes a legion of Wall Street economists, most Democrats and even some in his own Republican Party, don't believe it will last. They figure the current boom will begin petering out as soon as mid-2019 and possibly end in recession in 2020.
But even they acknowledge that the current numbers are a uniquely Trumpian achievement and not owed to policies already set in motion when he took office.
Business confidence is soaring, in part thanks to a softer regulatory environment. Consumer sentiment by one measure is at its highest level in 18 years. Corporate profits, owed in good part to last year's tax cuts, are coming close to setting records.
Each of those accomplishments can be tied either directly to new policies or at least indirectly through a brimming sense of hope from businesses that the White House is back on their side.
Thank you President TRUMP
I repeat a portion in case you missed it:
But even they acknowledge that the current numbers are a uniquely Trumpian achievement and not owed to policies already set in motion when he took office
Quote: Fleaswatter
I repeat a portion in case you missed it:
I repeat a portion in case you missed it:
"His critics, a group that includes a legion of Wall Street economists, most Democrats and even some in his own Republican Party, don't believe it will last. They figure the current boom will begin petering out as soon as mid-2019 and possibly end in recession in 2020."
Ahh, just in time for a Democrat to take office (and all the blame from conservatives) when the recession hits rock-bottom.
Quote: TigerWuAhh, just in time for a Democrat to take office (and all the blame from conservatives) when the recession hits rock-bottom.
Rinse/repeat.
Quote: TigerWuI repeat a portion in case you missed it:
"His critics, a group that includes a legion of Wall Street economists, most Democrats and even some in his own Republican Party, don't believe it will last. They figure the current boom will begin petering out as soon as mid-2019 and possibly end in recession in 2020."
I didn't miss it, I provided it. Unlike those on the left, I have no problem providing information that may cast who I support in a negative light.
But the quote is pure speculation, maybe by the same people who predicted Hillary would win.
If you truly believe the prediction, I strongly recommend that you short-sell any stocks that you may have.
.
Quote: Fleaswatter
His critics, a group that includes a legion of Wall Street economists, most Democrats and even some in his own Republican Party, don't believe it will last.
I repeat a portion in case you missed it:
But even they acknowledge that the current numbers are a uniquely Trumpian achievement and not owed to policies already set in motion when he took office
They’re right. It won’t last. Fill your pockets for as long as it does.
It will end when the dems take over forever in two years, and they fulfill their objective of turning the majority into a herd of domesticated animals dependent on the dem party for their survival.
They will deliberately scuttle the economy with a Value Added Tax, carbon credits, financial transaction tax, and higher income taxes.
Meanwhile, no complaints. North Korea returned our hostages. They’ve stopped testing their missles. A better situation than any time in the past 70 years. Iranian economy deteriorating. Nearly 4 million new jobs created in 20 months. Wage growth is the highest it has been in nine years. Productivity at best pace in three years. Nearly 7 million job surplus. Number of 401K millionaires hitting record highs. This is the effect of deregulation and lower taxes. None the financial engineering stunts used by the previous administration.
I guess the permanent 1 trillion dollar deficits that are returning under Trump is nothing to worry about? The same deficits that were predicted to destroy America? Or the slow down in the housing market? Or that wages aren't keeping up with inflation?
Look, there are some things to celebrate in the US economy right now. Trump deserves some credit. But citing from Fleaswatter's article, how is this all going to play out? "The short answer is the honest answer, nobody knows." Let's not pretend that there aren't some things to be concerned about. Because deficit spending in a booming economy has always worked, right? /sarcasm
Again, nobody knows. What we do know is whatever the heck was posted above about "turning the majority into a heard of domesticated animals" is a bunch of drivel.
Quote: TankoThey’re right. It won’t last. Fill your pockets for as long as it does.
It will end when the dems take over forever in two years, and they fulfill their objective of turning the majority into a herd of domesticated animals dependent on the dem party for their survival.
They will deliberately scuttle the economy with a Value Added Tax, carbon credits, financial transaction tax, and higher income taxes.
Sales taxes are archaic. As someone who implements systems that have to calculate tax worldwide, I can confidently say that meeting reporting and statutory requirements with Sales Tax who sells everywhere in the United States is extremely difficult. There are jurisdictions in Texas with five separate sales taxes, only distinguishable by your Zip+4, that is subject to change every three months. Certain states collect it based on where the worker is rather than where the benefit is. Pennsylvania charges sales taxes for services based on the gross profit of the transaction. Washington State has a business and occupancy tax which is payable by the seller and is not a sales tax. And so on. India used to worst place on earth to calculate taxes but since they implemented an across-the-board VAT is much simpler.
So anyone who complains about implementing a VAT being backwards is just plain wrong.
The US deficit, meanwhile, in a booming economy, is going to be $793 billion. Outlays are up 140 billion so far due to increased spending and the rising cost of servicing the debt due to interest rates. You would be doing great too if you could print your own money and put your spending on a credit card at 3% interest that you could just give to your grandkids. I guess the GOP's definition of conservatism doesn't apply when the they are in charge.
The rich are getting richer because they can hold stock prices that rise when corporations use their tax cut to buy back stocks which pushes up prices. Meanwhile, inflation at 2.9% is outstripping wage growth at 2.7%.
A conservative economic policy should be about eliminating the deficit, keeping inflation in check, while maintaining growth. When did that ideal change?
No complaints? I guess if you like being reckless or don't care what your life will look like in 5-10 years, or if you have don't have kids, sure.
Quote: boymimboSales taxes are archaic. As someone who implements systems that have to calculate tax worldwide, I can confidently say that meeting reporting and statutory requirements with Sales Tax who sells everywhere in the United States is extremely difficult. There are jurisdictions in Texas with five separate sales taxes, only distinguishable by your Zip+4, that is subject to change every three months. Certain states collect it based on where the worker is rather than where the benefit is. Pennsylvania charges sales taxes for services based on the gross profit of the transaction. Washington State has a business and occupancy tax which is payable by the seller and is not a sales tax. And so on. India used to worst place on earth to calculate taxes but since they implemented an across-the-board VAT is much simpler.
We all know that there are better ways of collecting taxes that "could" result in both more fairness and less paperwork. The problem with getting support for this is our distrust of the government, both state and federal. If they would set up one tax and eliminate the one(s) it replaces forever (perhaps by Constitutional Amendment), there is a chance they could get buy-in from more people. What is feared is that they would now have two taxing mechanisms replacing one.
Look at the lotteries--they were supposed to increase funding to education...but in many cases, the funding for education stayed mostly the same and the additional money went to other things. A new thing--often called a "tax on the poor"--produced more money for government to spend/waste.
"In fact, in state after state, where lotteries send millions of dollars to public education, schools are still starved. Why?
Because instead of using the money as additional funding, legislatures have used the lottery money to pay for the education budget and spent the money that would have been used had there been no lottery cash on other things. Public school budgets, as a result, haven’t gotten a boost because of the lottery funding."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/mega-millions-do-lotteries-really-benefit-public-schools/2012/03/30/gIQAbTUNlS_blog.html?utm_term=.2e01533aca7b
Quote: Fleaswatter
But the quote is pure speculation, maybe by the same people who predicted Hillary would win.
And THERE'S the Hillary reference.... You guys have got to let her go. She lost. Get over it.
Quote:If you truly believe the prediction, I strongly recommend that you short-sell any stocks that you may have.
.
No thanks. Time in the market beats timing the market.
Quote: Tanko
It will end when the dems take over forever in two years, and they fulfill their objective of turning the majority into a herd of domesticated animals dependent on the dem party for their survival.
Vs. the GOP, which favors a strong, controlling, fascist government that restricts personal freedoms.
Tomato, tomahto, I guess?
Quote: TigerWuAnd THERE'S the Hillary reference.... You guys have got to let her go. She lost. Get over it.
They think she’s gonna run again in 2020!
Or at least, they pretend to think that so they can keep bringing her up whenever they have nothing else to deflect with...
Quote: ams288They think she’s gonna run again in 2020!
Or at least, they pretend to think that so they can keep bringing her up whenever they have nothing else to deflect with...
By “they” I’m assuming you mean AZDuffman, evenbob, and like 0.01% of other breathing people.
Quote: mcallister3200By “they” I’m assuming you mean AZDuffman, evenbob, and like 0.01% of other breathing people.
Correct.
Quote: TigerWuAnd THERE'S the Hillary reference.... You guys have got to let her go. She lost. Get over it.
Quote: ams288
Or at least, they pretend to think that so they can keep bringing her up whenever they have nothing else to deflect with...
I just have to remind myself now and again how fortunate we are now.
Maybe I should talk about:
Barack Obama–The Con Man Who Won’t Go Away
https://prrooney.com/obama-con-man/
Or maybe Cory T-bone Spartacus Booker or Caramello Harris.
Go Brett Kavanaugh, our next Supreme Court Justice.
Quote: FleaswatterBarack Obama–The Con Man Who Won’t Go Away
https://prrooney.com/obama-con-man/
LOL That guy is a ****ing idiot.
"This guy did his best to bring America to its knees and he almost finished the job. This is why the Deep State is freaking out now–they had us right where they wanted us, but Donald Trump messed up their plans!"
"I believe (and more and more evidence points to this) that much of the “Trump Russia Collusion” witch hunt is merely a smokescreen covering the real collusion...."
You're rotting your brain, Fleaswatter. There are far more reasonable conservative voices out there that aren't lamebrain conspiracy theorists.
It's not that I don't think there is something else, but it's hard to imagine Trump supporters not giving him a pass.
Quote: FleaswatterI just have to remind myself now and again how fortunate we are now.
???
We are all waiting for the next school shooting
How Long till the next one?
How long till the next mass shooting
Quote: terapined???
We are all waiting for the next school shooting
How Long till the next one?
How long till the next mass shooting
So mass shootings have only happened since President Trump took office?
Mass shootings suck and we need to do better at noticing people who could be mass shooters (well, and actually investigating them at least a little), but they have been going on for quote a while under both D's and R's.
You usually make a lot of sense and are one of the left-leaner's worth talking to based on your positions, but I find this statement ridiculous.
People die every day. If that was the sole factor in deciding how fortunate we are, we would always be unfortunate.
Maybe we’ll get lucky in November and things will change...
Quote: Steverinoshttps://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/trump-puerto-rico-death-toll/index.html
Disgraceful.
He cant admit the truth that over 3k died in Puerto Rico due to the Hurricane because of politics
He thinks it makes him look bad so he just lies
WTF
Trump is simply a disgusting human being
Quote: ams288If we had a Congress that was actually interested in fulfilling its constitutional duties, there would have already been investigations and hearings into why 3000 Americans are dead.
Maybe we’ll get lucky in November and things will change...
Trump should have kept silent and the news is about Florence
Instead the news today is why is Trump lying about the 3k Americans that died
Even Foxnews cant go with the lie
Fox News Panel Absolutely Shreds Trump’s ‘Disgusting’ Puerto Rico Response: It ‘Cheapens Us as a Country’
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-panel-absolutely-shreds-trumps-disgusting-puerto-rico-response-it-cheapens-us-as-a-country/
Why estimate? What is wrong with actually counting the deaths?
Quote: FleaswatterThe George Washington study, which was conducted in collaboration with the University of Puerto Rico’s Graduate School of Public Heath, used complex mathematical calculations to ESTIMATE the number of EXCESS deaths that occurred after Hurricane Maria decimated the island.
Why estimate? What is wrong with actually counting the deaths?
How would you propose the people behind the GWU study “count” the deaths?
Seems like you’re calling for a government investigation into the actual death toll. On that we can agree!
Oh, and here’s how they came to that 3,000 figure:
How Puerto Rico's Hurricane Maria death toll of 3,000 was calculated
Seems pretty legit to me!
Quote: ams288How would you propose the people behind the GWU study “count” the deaths?
Seems like you’re calling for a government investigation into the actual death toll. On that we can agree!
Oh, and here’s how they came to that 3,000 figure:
How Puerto Rico's Hurricane Maria death toll of 3,000 was calculated
Seems pretty legit to me!
Hmmm, a quote from your linked article:
He said his team is trying to get funding for another study looking at the main causes of death during Maria, something that could help prevent more deaths in future storms, he said.
"We have to understand how these deaths happened so we can prevent them from happening again," Santos-Burgoa said.
So they didn't even know what caused the deaths or how they happened?
Sounds pretty legit to me.
MAGA!
Quote: FleaswatterQuote: ams288How would you propose the people behind the GWU study “count” the deaths?
Seems like you’re calling for a government investigation into the actual death toll. On that we can agree!
Oh, and here’s how they came to that 3,000 figure:
How Puerto Rico's Hurricane Maria death toll of 3,000 was calculated
Seems pretty legit to me!
Hmmm, a quote from your linked article:
He said his team is trying to get funding for another study looking at the main causes of death during Maria, something that could help prevent more deaths in future storms, he said.
"We have to understand how these deaths happened so we can prevent them from happening again," Santos-Burgoa said.
So they didn't even know what caused the deaths or how they happened?
Sounds pretty legit to me.
Anywhere in the article did it mention that Democrats made up the number to make Trump look bad?
No? Oh.
This man and his behavior is indefensible. It's amazing how far the GOP has debased themselves for him. They used to have ideas. Now the entire party is about loyalty to one man; a man who is a liar, an adulterer, and quite possibly, a criminal.
