I have a serious question for the Trump haters on this board?

[Deranged Rhino]

47 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Everything you have there such as using the IRS to get back at enemies is your opinion.  You have a view of the world, that somehow there is this deep state conspiracy that the former administration used, and you interpret all things to fit your narrative.   They are not fact.  Fact will or will not be ascertained by actual investigation.

 

You are 100% wrong -- the facts say so. But will you be honest enough to admit it? Or do you want to keep proving to the class how uninformed you truly are? 

 

1. Gutting the powers of the IG: 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/obama-administration-stonewalled-inspectors-general/

https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/08/17/hiding-inspector-generals-say-obama-obstructing-justice/

In an unprecedented letter, a majority of the federal government’s inspectors general (IGs) claim that the Obama administration is obstructing their investigations into government mismanagement and corruption.

 

2. Using the IRS to target political enemies: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/07/house-finds-lerner-central-figure-in-tax-exempt-scandal-in-contempt-of-congress/#5aba35e42e36

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2014/01/31/obamas-weaponization-of-government/#7af7ee291b92

Last year, Lois Lerner, the IRS’ former director of Tax Exempt Organizations, publicly acknowledged the political, predatory and punitive actions of the agency that led to the harassment and intimidation of conservative groups.  

 

3. Obama spying on Congress, Media, and US Citizens: 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/barack-obama-spying-journalists-dennis-kucinich-sharyl-attkisson-donald-trump-campaign-transition/

https://theweek.com/articles/464430/why-did-obama-administration-spy-associated-press

The Associated Press on Monday revealed that the Department of Justice had secretly spied on AP reporters, obtaining two months' worth of telephone records in what was most likely an attempt to crack down on internal leaks. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate intelligence committee on Thursday, conceding that the agency employees spied on committee staff and reversing months of furious and public denials.

 

FISC opinion memo: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

 

 

One of us is confusion opinion with fact, but it's not me. 

55 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

From what I can tell on this side of the board, diving into source documents equates to finding sources that back your preconceived opinion.  I on the other hand will wait for actual congressional investigations if and when they take place.

 

Read above. 

 

And only a fool waits for a body with no prosecutorial power to resolve these issues. 

53 minutes ago, GG said:

 

You seem to be taking the position that if there were no criminal indictments, then the action did not take place.

 

Because he's deeply dishonest. 

[oldmanfan]

20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You are 100% wrong -- the facts say so. But will you be honest enough to admit it? Or do you want to keep proving to the class how uninformed you truly are? 

 

1. Gutting the powers of the IG: 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/obama-administration-stonewalled-inspectors-general/

https://www.dailysignal.com/2014/08/17/hiding-inspector-generals-say-obama-obstructing-justice/

In an unprecedented letter, a majority of the federal government’s inspectors general (IGs) claim that the Obama administration is obstructing their investigations into government mismanagement and corruption.

 

2. Using the IRS to target political enemies: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/07/house-finds-lerner-central-figure-in-tax-exempt-scandal-in-contempt-of-congress/#5aba35e42e36

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2014/01/31/obamas-weaponization-of-government/#7af7ee291b92

Last year, Lois Lerner, the IRS’ former director of Tax Exempt Organizations, publicly acknowledged the political, predatory and punitive actions of the agency that led to the harassment and intimidation of conservative groups.  

 

3. Obama spying on Congress, Media, and US Citizens: 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/04/barack-obama-spying-journalists-dennis-kucinich-sharyl-attkisson-donald-trump-campaign-transition/

https://theweek.com/articles/464430/why-did-obama-administration-spy-associated-press

The Associated Press on Monday revealed that the Department of Justice had secretly spied on AP reporters, obtaining two months' worth of telephone records in what was most likely an attempt to crack down on internal leaks. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spying-senate-staffers

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate intelligence committee on Thursday, conceding that the agency employees spied on committee staff and reversing months of furious and public denials.

 

FISC opinion memo: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

 

 

One of us is confusion opinion with fact, but it's not me. 

 

Read above. 

 

And only a fool waits for a body with no prosecutorial power to resolve these issues. 

 

Because he's deeply dishonest. 

I just posted above I was glad to read more about the IRS thing.  To me it is an example of what I want to see,  a part of the executive branch overreaches, the legislative beach through its oversight corrects it. So you can stick your dishonesty stuff.  

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I just posted above I was glad to read more about the IRS thing.  To me it is an example of what I want to see,  a part of the executive branch overreaches, the legislative beach through its oversight corrects it. So you can stick your dishonesty stuff.  

 

You were the one who called it fake, asshat. 

 

(That's called being dishonest -- especially when you don't say, "gee, sorry about that, I was wrong" )

[Bill from NYC]

16 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

“Molesting” is an intentionally incendiary word and, in any event, Joe Biden is not the issue here.  

 

I watched a lot of the Kavanaugh hearings, and I listened to the entirety of them.  I’ve also worked a fair number of sexual assault cases.  I believe his accuser.  

 

***

 

Two additional points.  

 

1.  Someone can fear flying but still take a plane.   The two aren’t mutually exclusive.  

 

2.  Corroboration is of course preferred but not essential in a sexual assault case.  The very nature of the act often does not lend itself to corroboration.  Google the “prompt outcry” rule.  You’ll find that courts are lenient on admitting such evidence (the outcry sometimes is far from what most would consider prompt) because of the shame in disclosing a sexual assault to another person.  

First of all, I dare say that I have as much experience as you in sexual assault cases.

 

Kavanaugh is not all over you tube molesting (yes molesting) women and young girls. Biden is, and; women including at least politician have come forth to complain.

 

It's sad how left wing sheep try to tell others what is or is not the "issue." When one talks of Hillary stealing money and other corrupt deeds, she is not the issue according to the sheep, but she really is. If she wasn't the worst candidate in American presidential history, President Donald J. Trump, YOUR president, might not have won.

 

Now, evidence is all over you tube showing that Biden was engaging in corruption in the Ukraine with his degenerate kid. I would be willing to bet that you are fine with this, as well as his sexual behavior and dementia.

 

Would you want your children to rub Biden's leg hair in a swimming pool?

 

Please.

 

 

[SectionC3]

4 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

First of all, I dare say that I have as much experience as you in sexual assault cases.

 

Kavanaugh is not all over you tube molesting (yes molesting) women and young girls. Biden is, and; women including at least politician have come forth to complain.

 

It's sad how left wing sheep try to tell others what is or is not the "issue." When one talks of Hillary stealing money and other corrupt deeds, she is not the issue according to the sheep, but she really is. If she wasn't the worst candidate in American presidential history, President Donald J. Trump, YOUR president, might not have won.

 

Now, evidence is all over you tube showing that Biden was engaging in corruption in the Ukraine with his degenerate kid. I would be willing to bet that you are fine with this, as well as his sexual behavior and dementia.

 

Would you want your children to rub Biden's leg hair in a swimming pool?

 

Please.

 

 

 

The issue was Kavanaugh.  You pulled a "whataboutism" move and tried to change the subject by bringing Joe Biden into the mix.  That would be the equivalent of me now saying that  everything written in this threat to this point is immaterial because Donald Trump is a self-confessed sexual predator inasmuch as he promotes "grab[bing] 'em by the *****" and (ineffectively, apparently) bangs porn stars while his wife is home with his newborn son, and that your character is suspect because you support such a thing.    

 

[Bill from NYC]

President Trump foolishly talked about grabbing women. I do not condone this.

Don't you think that is different from being on film doing it? Is that what you condone?

[SoCal Deek]

20 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

President Trump foolishly talked about grabbing women. I do not condone this.

Don't you think that is different from being on film doing it? Is that what you condone?

It’s really a waste of breath anymore. Ever since Bill Clinton the politics of personal destruction have ruled the day and dominated the discourse. We have almost no dialogue about programs, platforms, philosophies and direction. It’s way easier to attack: Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas, Romney, Kavanaugh, Trump, Biden and all the others on personal matters to distract the ill informed voting public from the more complex topics. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

18 hours ago, njbuff said:

I didn't expect this type of response to my thread.

 

I wish I was getting paid by each comment.

 

I can't even get this damn quarantine to work in my favor. ?

 

I’m surprised that you’re surprised at the reaction! It was a provocative thread title that cuts to the visceral core of PPP. Since everyone else is airing their various Trump grievances, I will give your original question a shot as well:

 

Hate is too strong of a word. I do not hate Trump. I strongly dislike many of his public policies. If I’m being honest with myself, I would probably forgive many of Trump’s “personality peccadillos” if he believed in the same policies that I do. I may be a far-left social democracy kind of girl, but believe it or not we are on the same page regarding Russiagate and Obamagate. I also do not care about defending Obama’s legacy, even though I voted for him in the past, because with the benefit of hindsight I see him now as a complete fraud.

 

But getting back to why I dislike Trump…it boils down to 3 big-picture classes of public policy issues for me:

 

1. Continuation of America’s post-WW2 interventionist foreign policy: Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2016, which I greatly respected. And as it turns out, I see him as our greatest 21st century president on foreign policy so far, overcoming a very low bar set by Dubya (Iraq, Afghanistan) and Obama (add Syria, Libya). But what I have also seen is only a continued budgetary expansion of the already out-of-control military-industrial complex under Trump’s watch. There has also been no real large-scale reduction of our country’s military presence as the world police. This is probably not financially sustainable for us, especially given the most recent additions to the now $25.5 trillion national debt. Of course, there’s also the deeply troubling ethical quandaries to the Trumpian foreign policy such as dramatically increasing drone strikes in countries like Somalia, enforcing hard sanctions on the Iranian people, undermining Venezuelan sovereignty by propping up Juan Guaido, and supporting the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

 

2. Rebranded supply-side economics from 1980: Trump ran as an economic nationalist in 2016, fighting for all these working-class manufacturing jobs lost to globalism. That was nice, but Trump’s highly touted USMCA is seen by most economists as little more than a slight variation of NAFTA. Trump also has never been one to support labor unions. Then we have all of Trump’s tax cuts to the very rich while wage growth continues to lag behind all the cost of living metrics for a majority of Americans. Then came the collective coronavirus coup de grace: massive corporate socialism without oversight in the first bailout bill, sweeping federal deregulation measures without any clarification of what regulations are considered frivolous and what aren’t (so we can avoid something like a repeat of the causes of the 2008 Great Recession), and grossly insufficient government-mandated protections for the most financially vulnerable Americans (basically, people outside the professional and managerial classes) compared to how most other Western countries responded to COVID-19 (yes, both Reps and Dems in Congress deserve blame here too).

 

Trump now has a historically dire economic situation in his hands, with skyrocketing unemployment numbers and seemingly innumerable small businesses whose goods and services (restaurants, sports, etc.) may not return to normal consumption levels for a long while, if ever. So many Americans need money to spend but don’t have the money anymore to do so. To an amateur economist like myself, it seems to me that these are unusual times where Friedman dogma should be discarded in favor of good old-fashioned Keynesian stimulation for the lower and middle classes. If Trump is interested in a speedy economic recovery, he will need a large majority of Americans to return to their previous economic consumption levels as soon as possible, and this will require some level of government intervention in order to jumpstart an abruptly flatlined economy. But based on everything Trump has said and done to date, as well as based on all the advisors he surrounds himself with, I seriously doubt he will break away from conventional Republican economic wisdom.

 

3. Environmental protections and global warming: see my posts in the global warming thread for a complete description (if anyone is still reading this and cares about my opinions lol…). Basically, I think Trump is far and away the worst president in modern American history (i.e., since Nixon) on this set of issues. I find myself vehemently disapproving of just about everything he does when it comes to the environment.

 

Ok I'm done. Sorry for the long post!!

[BuffaloHokie13]

18 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

No I do not think Obama wanted to be a dictator.  Yes I think Trump does and the evidence of that to me is irrefutable.

 

On the topic of thinking, it is apparent you do not and only continually either parrot you deep state material or insult those who dare to call you out on it.  I think about things and have opinions you may not agree with.  You do not think about things and reflexively try to fit everything into your preconceived agenda.

This is kind of perplexing. What irrefutable evidence do you have that says Trump wants to be a dictator? I find the projection of authoritarian intent on him to be interesting, because I just don't see it bearing fruit in his policies. At all.

[billsfan1959]

18 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

I watched a lot of the Kavanaugh hearings, and I listened to the entirety of them.  I’ve also worked a fair number of sexual assault cases.  I believe his accuser.  

 

If you have any experience with Sexual assault or with witnesses then you should understand the concepts of what makes a witness credible and what makes the information provided by that witness credible. They are intertwined but not the same thing. A "credible witness" can still lie or be mistaken and provide information that is not credible, while a witness with little credibility can provide truthful information that is credible.

 

So, in your experience with witnesses and sexual assault, please tell us:

 

1) What factors did you rely on to reach the conclusion that Ford was a credible witness (if you did)?

2) What factors did you rely on to reach the conclusion that her accusation was credible (which is inherent in your statement that you believed her)?

[KRC]

44 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

I’m surprised that you’re surprised at the reaction! It was a provocative thread title that cuts to the visceral core of PPP. Since everyone else is airing their various Trump grievances, I will give your original question a shot as well:

 

Hate is too strong of a word. I do not hate Trump. I strongly dislike many of his public policies. If I’m being honest with myself, I would probably forgive many of Trump’s “personality peccadillos” if he believed in the same policies that I do. I may be a far-left social democracy kind of girl, but believe it or not we are on the same page regarding Russiagate and Obamagate. I also do not care about defending Obama’s legacy, even though I voted for him in the past, because with the benefit of hindsight I see him now as a complete fraud.

 

But getting back to why I dislike Trump…it boils down to 3 big-picture classes of public policy issues for me:

 

1. Continuation of America’s post-WW2 interventionist foreign policy: Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2016, which I greatly respected. And as it turns out, I see him as our greatest 21st century president on foreign policy so far, overcoming a very low bar set by Dubya (Iraq, Afghanistan) and Obama (add Syria, Libya). But what I have also seen is only a continued budgetary expansion of the already out-of-control military-industrial complex under Trump’s watch. There has also been no real large-scale reduction of our country’s military presence as the world police. This is probably not financially sustainable for us, especially given the most recent additions to the now $25.5 trillion national debt. Of course, there’s also the deeply troubling ethical quandaries to the Trumpian foreign policy such as dramatically increasing drone strikes in countries like Somalia, enforcing hard sanctions on the Iranian people, undermining Venezuelan sovereignty by propping up Juan Guaido, and supporting the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

 

2. Rebranded supply-side economics from 1980: Trump ran as an economic nationalist in 2016, fighting for all these working-class manufacturing jobs lost to globalism. That was nice, but Trump’s highly touted USMCA is seen by most economists as little more than a slight variation of NAFTA. Trump also has never been one to support labor unions. Then we have all of Trump’s tax cuts to the very rich while wage growth continues to lag behind all the cost of living metrics for a majority of Americans. Then came the collective coronavirus coup de grace: massive corporate socialism without oversight in the first bailout bill, sweeping federal deregulation measures without any clarification of what regulations are considered frivolous and what aren’t (so we can avoid something like a repeat of the causes of the 2008 Great Recession), and grossly insufficient government-mandated protections for the most financially vulnerable Americans (basically, people outside the professional and managerial classes) compared to how most other Western countries responded to COVID-19 (yes, both Reps and Dems in Congress deserve blame here too).

 

Trump now has a historically dire economic situation in his hands, with skyrocketing unemployment numbers and seemingly innumerable small businesses whose goods and services (restaurants, sports, etc.) may not return to normal consumption levels for a long while, if ever. So many Americans need money to spend but don’t have the money anymore to do so. To an amateur economist like myself, it seems to me that these are unusual times where Friedman dogma should be discarded in favor of good old-fashioned Keynesian stimulation for the lower and middle classes. If Trump is interested in a speedy economic recovery, he will need a large majority of Americans to return to their previous economic consumption levels as soon as possible, and this will require some level of government intervention in order to jumpstart an abruptly flatlined economy. But based on everything Trump has said and done to date, as well as based on all the advisors he surrounds himself with, I seriously doubt he will break away from conventional Republican economic wisdom.

 

3. Environmental protections and global warming: see my posts in the global warming thread for a complete description (if anyone is still reading this and cares about my opinions lol…). Basically, I think Trump is far and away the worst president in modern American history (i.e., since Nixon) on this set of issues. I find myself vehemently disapproving of just about everything he does when it comes to the environment.

 

Ok I'm done. Sorry for the long post!!

 

While I may disagree with your points to some extent (you may even have moved me toward your POV in some aspects), it is refreshing to see a well-reasoned response from someone on the left. Outside of one or two posters here that are left-leaning, it is usually just garbage which prevents any actual discussion. Thank you.

[BillsFanNC]

41 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

I’m surprised that you’re surprised at the reaction! It was a provocative thread title that cuts to the visceral core of PPP. Since everyone else is airing their various Trump grievances, I will give your original question a shot as well:

 

Hate is too strong of a word. I do not hate Trump. I strongly dislike many of his public policies. If I’m being honest with myself, I would probably forgive many of Trump’s “personality peccadillos” if he believed in the same policies that I do. I may be a far-left social democracy kind of girl, but believe it or not we are on the same page regarding Russiagate and Obamagate. I also do not care about defending Obama’s legacy, even though I voted for him in the past, because with the benefit of hindsight I see him now as a complete fraud.

 

But getting back to why I dislike Trump…it boils down to 3 big-picture classes of public policy issues for me:

 

1. Continuation of America’s post-WW2 interventionist foreign policy: Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2016, which I greatly respected. And as it turns out, I see him as our greatest 21st century president on foreign policy so far, overcoming a very low bar set by Dubya (Iraq, Afghanistan) and Obama (add Syria, Libya). But what I have also seen is only a continued budgetary expansion of the already out-of-control military-industrial complex under Trump’s watch. There has also been no real large-scale reduction of our country’s military presence as the world police. This is probably not financially sustainable for us, especially given the most recent additions to the now $25.5 trillion national debt. Of course, there’s also the deeply troubling ethical quandaries to the Trumpian foreign policy such as dramatically increasing drone strikes in countries like Somalia, enforcing hard sanctions on the Iranian people, undermining Venezuelan sovereignty by propping up Juan Guaido, and supporting the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

 

2. Rebranded supply-side economics from 1980: Trump ran as an economic nationalist in 2016, fighting for all these working-class manufacturing jobs lost to globalism. That was nice, but Trump’s highly touted USMCA is seen by most economists as little more than a slight variation of NAFTA. Trump also has never been one to support labor unions. Then we have all of Trump’s tax cuts to the very rich while wage growth continues to lag behind all the cost of living metrics for a majority of Americans. Then came the collective coronavirus coup de grace: massive corporate socialism without oversight in the first bailout bill, sweeping federal deregulation measures without any clarification of what regulations are considered frivolous and what aren’t (so we can avoid something like a repeat of the causes of the 2008 Great Recession), and grossly insufficient government-mandated protections for the most financially vulnerable Americans (basically, people outside the professional and managerial classes) compared to how most other Western countries responded to COVID-19 (yes, both Reps and Dems in Congress deserve blame here too).

 

Trump now has a historically dire economic situation in his hands, with skyrocketing unemployment numbers and seemingly innumerable small businesses whose goods and services (restaurants, sports, etc.) may not return to normal consumption levels for a long while, if ever. So many Americans need money to spend but don’t have the money anymore to do so. To an amateur economist like myself, it seems to me that these are unusual times where Friedman dogma should be discarded in favor of good old-fashioned Keynesian stimulation for the lower and middle classes. If Trump is interested in a speedy economic recovery, he will need a large majority of Americans to return to their previous economic consumption levels as soon as possible, and this will require some level of government intervention in order to jumpstart an abruptly flatlined economy. But based on everything Trump has said and done to date, as well as based on all the advisors he surrounds himself with, I seriously doubt he will break away from conventional Republican economic wisdom.

 

3. Environmental protections and global warming: see my posts in the global warming thread for a complete description (if anyone is still reading this and cares about my opinions lol…). Basically, I think Trump is far and away the worst president in modern American history (i.e., since Nixon) on this set of issues. I find myself vehemently disapproving of just about everything he does when it comes to the environment.

 

Ok I'm done. Sorry for the long post!!

 

With all of the complaining about this being a right wing dominated board, this is a welcome post by someone on the left who actually articulates how someone in the political arena pushes all the opposite buttons on POLICY.  Political debate on policy issues is supposed to be rough and tumble and contentious, and to a certain degree has always been "it's only bad when the other side does it".  But I have so many people on ignore these days because ALL they can do is #orangemanbad posts about things long proven to be false.

 

 

[Keukasmallies]

On 5/20/2020 at 12:18 PM, billsfan1959 said:

Because I don't like what I'm feeling, the whole world needs to know how I am feeling,  and somebody needs to pay for making me feel this way....

 

 

But what if the someone is a Democrat....  The media won't report it, the big city populations won't accept if they happen to hear about it, and the House of Rep's will committee/investigate it ad infinitum.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

I’m surprised that you’re surprised at the reaction! It was a provocative thread title that cuts to the visceral core of PPP. Since everyone else is airing their various Trump grievances, I will give your original question a shot as well:

 

Hate is too strong of a word. I do not hate Trump. I strongly dislike many of his public policies. If I’m being honest with myself, I would probably forgive many of Trump’s “personality peccadillos” if he believed in the same policies that I do. I may be a far-left social democracy kind of girl, but believe it or not we are on the same page regarding Russiagate and Obamagate. I also do not care about defending Obama’s legacy, even though I voted for him in the past, because with the benefit of hindsight I see him now as a complete fraud. 

Obama was a complete fraud? What does that mean? 

[billsfan1959]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Obama was a complete fraud? What does that mean? 

 

This is one of those rhetorical questions, right?

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

 

 

Trump now has a historically dire economic situation in his hands, with skyrocketing unemployment numbers and seemingly innumerable small businesses whose goods and services (restaurants, sports, etc.) may not return to normal consumption levels for a long while, if ever. So many Americans need money to spend but don’t have the money anymore to do so. To an amateur economist like myself, it seems to me that these are unusual times where Friedman dogma should be discarded in favor of good old-fashioned Keynesian stimulation for the lower and middle classes. If Trump is interested in a speedy economic recovery, he will need a large majority of Americans to return to their previous economic consumption levels as soon as possible, and this will require some level of government intervention in order to jumpstart an abruptly flatlined economy. But based on everything Trump has said and done to date, as well as based on all the advisors he surrounds himself with, I seriously doubt he will break away from conventional Republican economic wisdom.

 

 

How in the world do you reach the conclusion he will win when you say the above? Will an economic miracle suddenly manifest itself to raise the economy without Keynesian measures? 

Just now, billsfan1959 said:

 

This is one of those rhetorical questions, right?

For you it would be. 

 

 

[billsfan1959]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

For you it would be. 

 

I think for anyone sensible it would be....

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I think for anyone sensible it would be....

Obama > Trump 

[billsfan1959]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Obama > Trump 

 

The simplicity of this just struck me as very funny and made me laugh out loud. Well done....

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

I’m surprised that you’re surprised at the reaction! It was a provocative thread title that cuts to the visceral core of PPP. Since everyone else is airing their various Trump grievances, I will give your original question a shot as well:

 

Hate is too strong of a word. I do not hate Trump. I strongly dislike many of his public policies. If I’m being honest with myself, I would probably forgive many of Trump’s “personality peccadillos” if he believed in the same policies that I do. I may be a far-left social democracy kind of girl, but believe it or not we are on the same page regarding Russiagate and Obamagate. I also do not care about defending Obama’s legacy, even though I voted for him in the past, because with the benefit of hindsight I see him now as a complete fraud.

 

But getting back to why I dislike Trump…it boils down to 3 big-picture classes of public policy issues for me:

 

1. Continuation of America’s post-WW2 interventionist foreign policy: Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2016, which I greatly respected. And as it turns out, I see him as our greatest 21st century president on foreign policy so far, overcoming a very low bar set by Dubya (Iraq, Afghanistan) and Obama (add Syria, Libya). But what I have also seen is only a continued budgetary expansion of the already out-of-control military-industrial complex under Trump’s watch. There has also been no real large-scale reduction of our country’s military presence as the world police. This is probably not financially sustainable for us, especially given the most recent additions to the now $25.5 trillion national debt. Of course, there’s also the deeply troubling ethical quandaries to the Trumpian foreign policy such as dramatically increasing drone strikes in countries like Somalia, enforcing hard sanctions on the Iranian people, undermining Venezuelan sovereignty by propping up Juan Guaido, and supporting the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

 

2. Rebranded supply-side economics from 1980: Trump ran as an economic nationalist in 2016, fighting for all these working-class manufacturing jobs lost to globalism. That was nice, but Trump’s highly touted USMCA is seen by most economists as little more than a slight variation of NAFTA. Trump also has never been one to support labor unions. Then we have all of Trump’s tax cuts to the very rich while wage growth continues to lag behind all the cost of living metrics for a majority of Americans. Then came the collective coronavirus coup de grace: massive corporate socialism without oversight in the first bailout bill, sweeping federal deregulation measures without any clarification of what regulations are considered frivolous and what aren’t (so we can avoid something like a repeat of the causes of the 2008 Great Recession), and grossly insufficient government-mandated protections for the most financially vulnerable Americans (basically, people outside the professional and managerial classes) compared to how most other Western countries responded to COVID-19 (yes, both Reps and Dems in Congress deserve blame here too).

 

Trump now has a historically dire economic situation in his hands, with skyrocketing unemployment numbers and seemingly innumerable small businesses whose goods and services (restaurants, sports, etc.) may not return to normal consumption levels for a long while, if ever. So many Americans need money to spend but don’t have the money anymore to do so. To an amateur economist like myself, it seems to me that these are unusual times where Friedman dogma should be discarded in favor of good old-fashioned Keynesian stimulation for the lower and middle classes. If Trump is interested in a speedy economic recovery, he will need a large majority of Americans to return to their previous economic consumption levels as soon as possible, and this will require some level of government intervention in order to jumpstart an abruptly flatlined economy. But based on everything Trump has said and done to date, as well as based on all the advisors he surrounds himself with, I seriously doubt he will break away from conventional Republican economic wisdom.

 

3. Environmental protections and global warming: see my posts in the global warming thread for a complete description (if anyone is still reading this and cares about my opinions lol…). Basically, I think Trump is far and away the worst president in modern American history (i.e., since Nixon) on this set of issues. I find myself vehemently disapproving of just about everything he does when it comes to the environment.

 

Ok I'm done. Sorry for the long post!!

While I do not agree with much of what you wrote, I will echo others in saying that your post was a breath of fresh air in this group.  It is a different side expressed reasonably. If we had more posts like this from "the left side" PPP would be a better place for political discussions.

Note: I used to be a hard core leftie, now I am more of a centrist.
 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[Bill from NYC]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

It’s really a waste of breath anymore. Ever since Bill Clinton the politics of personal destruction have ruled the day and dominated the discourse. We have almost no dialogue about programs, platforms, philosophies and direction. It’s way easier to attack: Bill Clinton, Clarence Thomas, Romney, Kavanaugh, Trump, Biden and all the others on personal matters to distract the ill informed voting public from the more complex topics. 

This is tough to argue with.

That said, dems would fare better if they nominated a candidate who is NOT very ill physically (Hillary) or mentally (Biden).

I think that this too is tough to argue with.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Bill from NYC

[KRC]

1 hour ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Sorry for the long post!!

 

There is a lot to digest here, but I thought I would dig into a couple items...

 

Quote

1. Continuation of America’s post-WW2 interventionist foreign policy: Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform in 2016, which I greatly respected. And as it turns out, I see him as our greatest 21st century president on foreign policy so far, overcoming a very low bar set by Dubya (Iraq, Afghanistan) and Obama (add Syria, Libya). But what I have also seen is only a continued budgetary expansion of the already out-of-control military-industrial complex under Trump’s watch. There has also been no real large-scale reduction of our country’s military presence as the world police. This is probably not financially sustainable for us, especially given the most recent additions to the now $25.5 trillion national debt. Of course, there’s also the deeply troubling ethical quandaries to the Trumpian foreign policy such as dramatically increasing drone strikes in countries like Somalia, enforcing hard sanctions on the Iranian people, undermining Venezuelan sovereignty by propping up Juan Guaido, and supporting the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

 

You make a valid point of not pulling back troops. I think that he truly wants to get out of situations abroad, but is struggling to accomplish it. But, actions are more important than words. I would not specifically equate an expansive budget with interventionalist policies. That would be a separate issue.  The budget is a problem that no politician has been willing to address outside of a few like Rand Paul. I do not like intervening in other countries, especially when it comes to elections. Hell, we can't keep fraud out of our own elections. How are we going to police elections in other countries? We could get into a war of words over whether we are sanctioning Iranian people or the regime (who is pushing the sanctions to the people while keeping themselves fat) and I doubt we would change each other's minds. Whether it is right or not is a different story.

 

 

 

Quote

Trump now has a historically dire economic situation in his hands, with skyrocketing unemployment numbers and seemingly innumerable small businesses whose goods and services (restaurants, sports, etc.) may not return to normal consumption levels for a long while, if ever. So many Americans need money to spend but don’t have the money anymore to do so. To an amateur economist like myself, it seems to me that these are unusual times where Friedman dogma should be discarded in favor of good old-fashioned Keynesian stimulation for the lower and middle classes. If Trump is interested in a speedy economic recovery, he will need a large majority of Americans to return to their previous economic consumption levels as soon as possible, and this will require some level of government intervention in order to jumpstart an abruptly flatlined economy. But based on everything Trump has said and done to date, as well as based on all the advisors he surrounds himself with, I seriously doubt he will break away from conventional Republican economic wisdom.

 

We are not going to agree on this, but you may convince me that some government intervention is necessary. To me, that does not mean massive social programs, giving money to the Kennedy Center, or giving free stuff to illegal immigrants. I think the government intervention necessary would be to responsibly deregulate to allow the private sector to flourish. People complain about evil corporations, but they are the ones that have the biggest impact on employment. You can help them at the same time you are helping small businesses. Combine that with tax cuts and tax incentives and you will see the economy get back to normal without expanding the debt of the American taxpayer. You mentioned the debt previously. That will continue to expand until Congress realizes that the problem is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem. They are unwilling to make the tough decisions. Therefore, we need to stop feeding their problem with new programs and expansive government. Stop continually raising the debt ceiling so that they can continue to spend more money. Everyone has to live within a budget. They are no different.

 

 

 

Quote

3. Environmental protections and global warming: see my posts in the global warming thread for a complete description (if anyone is still reading this and cares about my opinions lol…). Basically, I think Trump is far and away the worst president in modern American history (i.e., since Nixon) on this set of issues. I find myself vehemently disapproving of just about everything he does when it comes to the environment.

 

Based on your posts in the GW thread, we are definitely not going to agree, but I respect your POV. 

[SectionC3]

6 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

While I do not agree with much of what you wrote, I will echo others in saying that your post was a breath of fresh air in this group.  It is a different side expressed reasonably. If we had more posts like this from "the left side" PPP would be a better place for political discussions.

Note: I used to be a hard core leftie, now I am more of a centrist.
 

Please.  Coming from you.  This used to be your conspiracy theory/hoax/right wing echo chamber until a few people who enjoy poking holes in your rubbish showed up. 

[Reality Check]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Please.  Coming from you.  This used to be your conspiracy theory/hoax/right wing echo chamber until a few people who enjoy poking holes in your rubbish showed up. 

...you mad bro?

[Q-baby!]

1 minute ago, Reality Check said:

...you mad bro?

Couldn’t post a meme or a video? 

[billsfan1959]

On 5/21/2020 at 2:44 PM, SectionC3 said:

 

I watched a lot of the Kavanaugh hearings, and I listened to the entirety of them.  I’ve also worked a fair number of sexual assault cases.  I believe his accuser.  

 

Hey, I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, but you never responded to my questions about this statement, so I thought I would ask again:

 

If you have any experience with Sexual assault or with witnesses then you should understand the concepts of what makes a witness credible and what makes the information provided by that witness credible. They are intertwined but not the same thing. A "credible witness" can still lie or be mistaken and provide information that is not credible, while a witness with little credibility can provide truthful information that is credible.

 

So, in your experience with witnesses and sexual assault, please tell us:

 

1) What factors did you rely on to reach the conclusion that Ford was a credible witness (if you did)?

2) What factors did you rely on to reach the conclusion that her accusation was credible (which is inherent in your statement that you believed her)?

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Hey, I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, but you never responded to my questions about this statement, so I thought I would ask again:

 

If you have any experience with Sexual assault or with witnesses then you should understand the concepts of what makes a witness credible and what makes the information provided by that witness credible. They are intertwined but not the same thing. A "credible witness" can still lie or be mistaken and provide information that is not credible, while a witness with little credibility can provide truthful information that is credible.

 

So, in your experience with witnesses and sexual assault, please tell us:

 

1) What factors did you rely on to reach the conclusion that Ford was a credible witness (if you did)?

2) What factors did you rely on to reach the conclusion that her accusation was credible (which is inherent in your statement that you believed her)?

Ford is a liberal?

[SoCal Deek]

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Ford is a liberal?

I always thought they should have asked her whether her glasses were that smudged up in high school? There’s NO WAY she could point out anyone or anything with those glasses! 

[billsfan1959]

34 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Ford is a liberal?

 

Ding, Ding, we have a winner.

 

If he is an attorney, then I am sure he understood the concepts I spoke of and has stood in front of juries hundreds of times arguing about why they should or shouldn't believe any particular witness. So, It should be second nature for him to lay out for us all the reasons he found Ford and her accusations credible. 

 

He loves to throw out his legal experience and now has added his experience in sexual assault cases as a basis for believing Ford's accusations. I would love to hear how his experience in either aided him in reaching his conclusions.

 

He  will never answer because he can't.

 

He believed Ford because he wanted to.

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Ford is a liberal?

But sure about her political affiliation. But I hear that she is short.  You’re familiar with that, right? 

2 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

Ding, Ding, we have a winner.

 

If he is an attorney, then I am sure he understood the concepts I spoke of and has stood in front of juries hundreds of times arguing about why they should or shouldn't believe any particular witness. So, It should be second nature for him to lay out for us all the reasons he found Ford and her accusations credible. 

 

He loves to throw out his legal experience and now has added his experience in sexual assault cases as a basis for believing Ford's accusations. I would love to hear how his experience in either aided him in reaching his conclusions.

 

He  will never answer because he can't.

 

He believed Ford because he wanted to.

Of course I can answer.  I just don’t owe you an answer.  
 

My view of Kavanaugh is an opinion.  I formed it after I watched the accuser speak,  considered the circumstances of her disclosure, watched Kavanaugh speak, and considered the exploits of Bart,  Squiggy, and the crew.  A credibility determination isn’t scientific or algorithmic, as I’m sure you know.  

Edited May 23, 2020 by SectionC3

[billsfan1959]

57 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Of course I can answer.  I just don’t owe you an answer.  
 

My view of Kavanaugh is an opinion.  I formed it after I watched the accuser speak,  considered the circumstances of her disclosure, watched Kavanaugh speak, and considered the exploits of Bart,  Squiggy, and the crew.  A credibility determination isn’t scientific or algorithmic, as I’m sure you know.  

 

No, but it certainly is something much more than "I believe her." Saying you believe her is not the same as saying the accusation was credible. To say it was credible would involve articulating what it was that led you to believe it was credible.

 

You like to tout your legal experience, and you were the one that insinuated your "experience" working on sexual assault cases was also a basis for believing her. You said you watched her speak and considered the circumstances of her disclosure. So, I am just asking you to articulate what specific factors from your experience, watching her testimony, and consideration of the circumstances of her disclosure lead you to find her accusation credible.

[3rdnlng]

11 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

But sure about her political affiliation. But I hear that she is short.  You’re familiar with that, right? 

Of course I can answer.  I just don’t owe you an answer.  
 

My view of Kavanaugh is an opinion.  I formed it after I watched the accuser speak,  considered the circumstances of her disclosure, watched Kavanaugh speak, and considered the exploits of Bart,  Squiggy, and the crew.  A credibility determination isn’t scientific or algorithmic, as I’m sure you know.  

It appears that once again you've made a careless, nonsensical post. I assume that you meant that you were "not sure" rather than "but sure" about her political affiliation. It was well known at the time that she was a flaming liberal. You're either incompetent regarding what her sentiments were/are or you are a liar. I vote for both.

 

BTW, no matter how hard you try to goad me into showing you my dick, that's not me. Go tap your foot on the floor someplace else. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

22 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Obama was a complete fraud? What does that mean? 

 

A fraud with respect to the 3 classes of public policy issues I outlined. Obama initially ran as a wide-eyed optimistic progressive and left office 8 years later as a neoliberal corporatist sell-out. He presented himself as a clear alternative to the neocon, voodoo-economics-loving, climate-change-denying Dubya in 2008. He talked such a good progressive left game that his election victory sparked an entire Tea Party countermovement to stop the scary socialist. He had a Senate Democratic majority for his first 6 years and a Dem House majority for his first 2 years, so I expected him to get more done. Was “complete fraud” a little much? Maybe. But I have fallen head over heels too many times with Democrat politicians, only to get my heart broken over and over again, so apologies for my acerbity. If I stick with the Dems any longer, I will die a political spinster, with no one but my apolitical emotional support companion cats to console me before eventually feeding on my corpse. That is why I’m taking a good long look at that grizzled casanova hunk known as Howie Hawkins.

 

22 hours ago, Tiberius said:

How in the world do you reach the conclusion he will win when you say the above? Will an economic miracle suddenly manifest itself to raise the economy without Keynesian measures?

 

Look more closely at my post in the Democratic 2020 Presidential Primary Thread. I only argued that Trump CAN win, not that he WILL win. I reasoned that the unemployment benefits could potentially buttress the national economy through the November election and thereby mask the underlying crises. Don’t get so worked up over my prognostications. I acknowledge that I’m no better at predicting these things than anyone else here. If the tenuous rent and mortgage payment situation were to blow up and do so earlier than I predict (as early as this summer), I would then agree with you that Trump loses in a landslide.

 

21 hours ago, KRC said:

There is a lot to digest here, but I thought I would dig into a couple items...

 

You make a valid point of not pulling back troops. I think that he truly wants to get out of situations abroad, but is struggling to accomplish it. But, actions are more important than words. I would not specifically equate an expansive budget with interventionalist policies. That would be a separate issue.  The budget is a problem that no politician has been willing to address outside of a few like Rand Paul. I do not like intervening in other countries, especially when it comes to elections. Hell, we can't keep fraud out of our own elections. How are we going to police elections in other countries? We could get into a war of words over whether we are sanctioning Iranian people or the regime (who is pushing the sanctions to the people while keeping themselves fat) and I doubt we would change each other's minds. Whether it is right or not is a different story.

 

We are not going to agree on this, but you may convince me that some government intervention is necessary. To me, that does not mean massive social programs, giving money to the Kennedy Center, or giving free stuff to illegal immigrants. I think the government intervention necessary would be to responsibly deregulate to allow the private sector to flourish. People complain about evil corporations, but they are the ones that have the biggest impact on employment. You can help them at the same time you are helping small businesses. Combine that with tax cuts and tax incentives and you will see the economy get back to normal without expanding the debt of the American taxpayer. You mentioned the debt previously. That will continue to expand until Congress realizes that the problem is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem. They are unwilling to make the tough decisions. Therefore, we need to stop feeding their problem with new programs and expansive government. Stop continually raising the debt ceiling so that they can continue to spend more money. Everyone has to live within a budget. They are no different.

 

Based on your posts in the GW thread, we are definitely not going to agree, but I respect your POV. 

 

I’ll respond in my typical numerical format since I think it’s a bit easier to read:

 

1. MIC and interventionism: you are correct that these are technically separate issues. I usually link the two because interventionist policies are often the justification for requiring such a bloated defense budget.

 

2. Iran: let’s ignore the entirety of the ethical and human rights debate and focus solely on strategy. I suppose we can just contain the Iranian regime indefinitely, but we all ultimately want them to go away for good. We all want the country of Iran to cooperate internationally, to stop thinking about nuclear weapons, and to stop threatening Israel. Should we overthrow them by military force? No, way too costly for us. So then they must be overthrown internally. Should we do so by a CIA-organized coup? Nah, too much messy blowback and we already tried that before. Should we do so by economic sanctions? Maybe, but then the Iranian government can simply redirect all the blame towards the US as the sole reason for the Iranian people’s suffering (as they are doing now). Here’s the thing about the Iranian people: they are not at all brainwashed like the people of North Korea. They are a fairly modern society that is actually fairly well-informed of the world around them. There is the typical Middle Eastern disdain for American imperialism that is omnipresent, but there are also deeper undercurrents of disdain for their own theocratic overlords, especially among the more culturally liberal younger people. I would argue that the conditions for effective internal rebellion are best if the standard of living for Iranians increases by lifting US sanctions. Think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Less time worrying about the basics of food, clothing, and shelter. More time freed up to focus on Rouhani’s autocratic awfulness and on planning well-coordinated strikes and targeted non-violent resistances, as opposed to violent insurrections which historically tend to be much less successful.

 

3. Solutions for this economic crisis: I’m not necessarily against tax cuts right now, but I don’t think they will have nearly the impact that some on the political right are hoping. Tax cuts won’t help the impoverished Americans without jobs. A lot of Americans who still have jobs will probably just save/hoard a lot of the tax savings for a rainier day instead of spending it on goods and services (probably the wisest decision on their part, actually). Tax cuts for the wealthy are probably not going to help the economy much either right now, since excess capital isn’t likely to be diverted into new business enterprises if the anticipated consumer demand is in such bad shape. Same reason why I think deregulatory practices won’t be as impactful at the moment: poor consumer demand for new or expanding businesses. We also don’t need to be worried about the Fed printing money for temporary UBI’s like inflationary mad men. Normally we would, but in this specific crisis we should be more concerned with combating a deflationary freefall due to the sudden widespread collapse in consumer demand. Finally, the national debt is a concern as I mentioned, but a long-term one. A well-behaved modern monetary theorist would tell us to focus on the immediate crisis now and deal with the debt in a couple years.

 

4. Miscellaneous clarifications on my economic philosophy: we probably agree on much of the pork barrel legislation and wasteful government spending that occurs. Most of Pelosi’s coronavirus pork barrel insertions were purely political gambits and completely inappropriate during a time of crisis. I also strive to avoid appending moral labels like “evil” onto entities like corporations (except Amazon…). If you catch me doing so, it’s probably being done to highlight a key point, but feel free to call me out on it. I view big corporations, billionaires, Wall Street, capitalist systems, and the like as I view cars or airplanes: extremely useful and necessary, but also potentially dangerous in certain instances. I see many government institutions in a somewhat analogous way. Finally, I consider myself way more pragmatic than dogmatic. There are certain macroeconomic scenarios where the set of Chicago school economic philosophies are probably more appropriate, and certain scenarios where Keynesian solutions are more helpful. The difference between me and a libertarian here would be that the number of macroeconomic scenarios that call for Keynesian solutions is a lot larger for me than for a libertarian (typically around zero for them).

 

5. Environment/global warming: I have a habit of triggering y’all whenever I arrange the words “deal,” “new,” and “green” in a specific order, don’t I?! Later into the summer, I’ll talk more about this stuff in the GW thread. Minds will be BLOWN AWAY from all the great ideas.

 

Great discussion as always, KRC. Don’t pull punches. Keep me challenged!

[mead107]

I am not looking for an argument, debate, or fight in posting this. So, if you are, simply move on past it...because I will not reply. I simply want to put it out there for you to give some consideration to... However, I personally think it is beyond SPOT ON!

WOW...this is one of the best posts I’ve ever shared. People need to wake up and look at the facts before we as a nation are a thing of the past. GOD BLESS the USA! ??❤️

Tim Allen is credited with writing this...
Here are some interesting points to think about prior to 2020, especially to my friends on the fence, like moderate Democrats, Libertarians and Independents and the never Trump Republicans and those thinking of "walking away" from the Democratic party.

Women are upset at Trump’s naughty words -- they also bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray.

Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.

No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. Did you figure it out yet? But wait... there's more.

Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege.

And just like that, they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.

President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America.

We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.

They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.

60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.

Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated!

Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in.

A socialist is basically a communist who doesn’t have the power to take everything from their citizens at gunpoint ... Yet!

How do you walk 3000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone?

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to ban cars, ban planes, give out universal income and thinks socialism works. She calls Donald Trump crazy.

Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.

I wake up every day and I am grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president of the United States of America.

The same media that told me Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning now tells me Trump’s approval ratings are low.

“The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”— Margaret Thatcher.

Maxine Waters opposes voter ID laws; She thinks that they are racist. You need to have a photo ID to attend her town hall meetings.

“They’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in their way.”
~ President Trump

Read that again.

 

[Big Gun]

24 minutes ago, mead107 said:

I am not looking for an argument, debate, or fight in posting this. So, if you are, simply move on past it...because I will not reply. I simply want to put it out there for you to give some consideration to... However, I personally think it is beyond SPOT ON!

WOW...this is one of the best posts I’ve ever shared. People need to wake up and look at the facts before we as a nation are a thing of the past. GOD BLESS the USA! ??❤️

Tim Allen is credited with writing this...
Here are some interesting points to think about prior to 2020, especially to my friends on the fence, like moderate Democrats, Libertarians and Independents and the never Trump Republicans and those thinking of "walking away" from the Democratic party.

Women are upset at Trump’s naughty words -- they also bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray.

Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.

No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. Did you figure it out yet? But wait... there's more.

Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege.

And just like that, they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.

President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America.

We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.

They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.

60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.

Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated!

Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in.

A socialist is basically a communist who doesn’t have the power to take everything from their citizens at gunpoint ... Yet!

How do you walk 3000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone?

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to ban cars, ban planes, give out universal income and thinks socialism works. She calls Donald Trump crazy.

Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.

I wake up every day and I am grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president of the United States of America.

The same media that told me Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning now tells me Trump’s approval ratings are low.

“The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”— Margaret Thatcher.

Maxine Waters opposes voter ID laws; She thinks that they are racist. You need to have a photo ID to attend her town hall meetings.

“They’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in their way.”
~ President Trump

Read that again.

 

This needs 1000 thumb ups!

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, pop gun said:

This needs 1000 thumb ups!

Is that really true about the cost of the wall versus the Obamacare website? If so, that’s hilarious!

[KRC]

56 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

I’ll respond in my typical numerical format since I think it’s a bit easier to read:

 

1. MIC and interventionism: you are correct that these are technically separate issues. I usually link the two because interventionist policies are often the justification for requiring such a bloated defense budget.

 

Agreed that interventionist policies do justify a larger budget. So do things like updating the equipment used by our military, raising the pay for military (even if it is just cost of living increases), increased costs for supplies, etc. That is why I usually separate them as the latter can have nothing to do with interventionist policies and are strictly related to the costs of having a military. I believe that each are separate arguments and should be debated on their own merits. Reducing the amount of troops abroad (which I support) will reduce costs to have a military, but we also need to ensure that our military has what they need and are paid for the job they are doing. I am guessing we have common ground on the last statement, but I do not want to put words in your mouth. That is just my impression based on your previous postings, but I could be wrong. Another separate debate is on the amount of money that the DoD pays their contractors for work and supplies, but we can save that for another time. There is definite bloat that could be trimmed.

 

 

Quote

2. Iran: let’s ignore the entirety of the ethical and human rights debate and focus solely on strategy. I suppose we can just contain the Iranian regime indefinitely, but we all ultimately want them to go away for good. We all want the country of Iran to cooperate internationally, to stop thinking about nuclear weapons, and to stop threatening Israel. Should we overthrow them by military force? No, way too costly for us. So then they must be overthrown internally. Should we do so by a CIA-organized coup? Nah, too much messy blowback and we already tried that before. Should we do so by economic sanctions? Maybe, but then the Iranian government can simply redirect all the blame towards the US as the sole reason for the Iranian people’s suffering (as they are doing now). Here’s the thing about the Iranian people: they are not at all brainwashed like the people of North Korea. They are a fairly modern society that is actually fairly well-informed of the world around them. There is the typical Middle Eastern disdain for American imperialism that is omnipresent, but there are also deeper undercurrents of disdain for their own theocratic overlords, especially among the more culturally liberal younger people. I would argue that the conditions for effective internal rebellion are best if the standard of living for Iranians increases by lifting US sanctions. Think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Less time worrying about the basics of food, clothing, and shelter. More time freed up to focus on Rouhani’s autocratic awfulness and on planning well-coordinated strikes and targeted non-violent resistances, as opposed to violent insurrections which historically tend to be much less successful.

 

You are correct that we want the current regime to go away. I believe that sanctions are working. Yes, the regime is blaming the US, but the Iranian people are seeing through that façade as you mentioned. I could go on for a while about North Korea (a particular interest of mine for a while), but I will save that for another time. I disagree that the rebellion would happen if we lifted sanctions. I think that the sanctions would prove to be a better environment to foster a rebellion. You can look at Maslow two ways. The first would be the way you are looking at it, meaning that if you satisfy the lower needs on the pyramid, a person will be able to focus on the rebellion as their basic needs have been met. However, you are still moving up the pyramid with more needs to be satisfied. I look at it this way. As long as the regime is taking away the basic needs of the people (whether sanctions are in place or not) the people are still not having their basic needs met. As you move up Maslow's pyramid, there is less motivation to meet needs until you get to the self-actualization stage (the final stage). At that point, motivation increases again. Therefore, I believe that there will be more motivation the lower the people are on the pyramid. 

 

 

Quote

3. Solutions for this economic crisis: I’m not necessarily against tax cuts right now, but I don’t think they will have nearly the impact that some on the political right are hoping. Tax cuts won’t help the impoverished Americans without jobs. A lot of Americans who still have jobs will probably just save/hoard a lot of the tax savings for a rainier day instead of spending it on goods and services (probably the wisest decision on their part, actually). Tax cuts for the wealthy are probably not going to help the economy much either right now, since excess capital isn’t likely to be diverted into new business enterprises if the anticipated consumer demand is in such bad shape. Same reason why I think deregulatory practices won’t be as impactful at the moment: poor consumer demand for new or expanding businesses. We also don’t need to be worried about the Fed printing money for temporary UBI’s like inflationary mad men. Normally we would, but in this specific crisis we should be more concerned with combating a deflationary freefall due to the sudden widespread collapse in consumer demand. Finally, the national debt is a concern as I mentioned, but a long-term one. A well-behaved modern monetary theorist would tell us to focus on the immediate crisis now and deal with the debt in a couple years.

 

I do believe that tax cuts will help those without jobs. They were still working at the beginning of the year and they have to pay Pelosi for the right to give their money to her political pals. Cut taxes so that the people can keep more of their money. As far as corporations and small businesses, they need an influx in cash flow in order to open back up. That is especially true of small businesses who do not have the cash reserves to sustain activities with reduced or no revenue. Once the country opens back up, these businesses will need cash on hand in order to hire people back and pay them while they wait for revenue to start to flow again. I do not think we are too far off on what is needed, just how to accomplish it. Giving more money to the government is not going to get it into the hands of the American people who need it. Let them keep their money and have the government cut their spending on pork so they have the money where it is truly needed (not in the pockets of political donors).

 

 

Quote

4. Miscellaneous clarifications on my economic philosophy: we probably agree on much of the pork barrel legislation and wasteful government spending that occurs. Most of Pelosi’s coronavirus pork barrel insertions were purely political gambits and completely inappropriate during a time of crisis. I also strive to avoid appending moral labels like “evil” onto entities like corporations (except Amazon…). If you catch me doing so, it’s probably being done to highlight a key point, but feel free to call me out on it. I view big corporations, billionaires, Wall Street, capitalist systems, and the like as I view cars or airplanes: extremely useful and necessary, but also potentially dangerous in certain instances. I see many government institutions in a somewhat analogous way. Finally, I consider myself way more pragmatic than dogmatic. There are certain macroeconomic scenarios where the set of Chicago school economic philosophies are probably more appropriate, and certain scenarios where Keynesian solutions are more helpful. The difference between me and a libertarian here would be that the number of macroeconomic scenarios that call for Keynesian solutions is a lot larger for me than for a libertarian (typically around zero for them).

 

Amazon is a large customer of ours, do don't say nasty things about them. ?  You had me up to the end. I am more on the libertarian side where I want to reduce Keynesian solutions to economic problems.

 

 

Quote

5. Environment/global warming: I have a habit of triggering y’all whenever I arrange the words “deal,” “new,” and “green” in a specific order, don’t I?! Later into the summer, I’ll talk more about this stuff in the GW thread. Minds will be BLOWN AWAY from all the great ideas.

 

I look forward to the discussion. I will make sure I am in my safe space first. 

 

 

Quote

Great discussion as always, KRC. Don’t pull punches. Keep me challenged!

 

Will do!!

[3rdnlng]

35 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Is that really true about the cost of the wall versus the Obamacare website? If so, that’s hilarious!

An initial search claims it false but that's just what Snopes says. Snopes is about as reliable as WNY weather. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, mead107 said:

I am not looking for an argument, debate, or fight in posting this. So, if you are, simply move on past it...because I will not reply. I simply want to put it out there for you to give some consideration to... However, I personally think it is beyond SPOT ON!

WOW...this is one of the best posts I’ve ever shared. People need to wake up and look at the facts before we as a nation are a thing of the past. GOD BLESS the USA! ??❤️

Tim Allen is credited with writing this...
Here are some interesting points to think about prior to 2020, especially to my friends on the fence, like moderate Democrats, Libertarians and Independents and the never Trump Republicans and those thinking of "walking away" from the Democratic party.

Women are upset at Trump’s naughty words -- they also bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray.

Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.

No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. Did you figure it out yet? But wait... there's more.

Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege.

And just like that, they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.

President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America.

We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.

They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.

60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.

Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated!

Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in.

A socialist is basically a communist who doesn’t have the power to take everything from their citizens at gunpoint ... Yet!

How do you walk 3000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone?

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to ban cars, ban planes, give out universal income and thinks socialism works. She calls Donald Trump crazy.

Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.

I wake up every day and I am grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president of the United States of America.

The same media that told me Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning now tells me Trump’s approval ratings are low.

“The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”— Margaret Thatcher.

Maxine Waters opposes voter ID laws; She thinks that they are racist. You need to have a photo ID to attend her town hall meetings.

“They’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in their way.”
~ President Trump

Read that again.

 

 

 

...better put on that kevlar vest 24/7 my good friend with this "voice of reason" stuff......there is a segment here that does NOT have the ability to rationally respond versus going into their usual "attack mode" with no substance.....

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Is that really true about the cost of the wall versus the Obamacare website? If so, that’s hilarious!

That was probably written in early 2019 based on the "illegal alien" comment for Pelosi and the State of the Union.

So, what I could find is that by 2014 the Obamacare website had cost $2.1B (bloomberg)
The wall had $1.6B given to it by Congress in 2018.  (er, Congress)

Adding it up to today? My guess is both those numbers are higher.