Draining The Swamp by SHINYGOODGUY

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there.

I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV.

But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole.

***
In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ...

staggering wealth inequality to
massive private debt to
potentially unstable banks to
the loss of the petrodollar to
a failed health care policy to
environmental collapse to
loss of manufacturing to
completely unbalanced trade to
illegal immigrants to
disunited public to
loss of commonsense values to
unemployment to
loss of civil liberties to
(add more here) ...

every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians.

It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point.

At least, that's how I see it.
There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis.
But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest.

Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!!

SGG

I had conjured "Draining the Swamp" translated to "Trump's Greatest Achievements" and "Trump's Greatest Failures" was the opposite.

I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint.

I also think that your absence in this thread during some feverish posting rates contributed to derailing.

SIG's assertion that Party must be evaluated as a whole and not look at select goals and achievements of leaders within the Party is where she loses me, and seems to me to contribute to the Establishment problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2017 1:36 PM

Of course, Trump is the best president ever.

Establishment in terms of government is simply foundations, and tried and true formation of public institutions. As to why I feel it is a sticking point - just from the many times I read the word in responses and comments by various individuals with quote marks.

Plus the response by some in the news talking also using quote marks in their rhetoric - as though established norms within our society are negative enemies of the people at large. Yes, there are those that take advantage of the system and use the masses as so much guinea pigs. But, like in any society, there are good and bad actors.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis.
But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest.

Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there.

I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV.

But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole.

******

In KPO's thread about "The State of Freedom in Russia", he acknowledges that he's completely uninterested in "the state of freedom" in any other nation BESIDES Russia, and that includes the state of freedom in his own nation (Britain) and the state of freedom in the USA.

I asked him what accounted for his laser focus on Russia.

There are a lot of venal answers to that question, but in my view there is only one legitimate answer, only one reason why someone should focus on Russian events and policies, even to the exclusion of events in and policies of your own nation, and that is if you see Russia as such an immediate existential threat that it requires ditching every other concern, to hell with civil liberties, the deficit, and the marketplace! It's "all hands on deck and man battle stations!"

When I look at the threat posed by Russia, I simply don't see the need for that kind of response. The only REAL threat that they pose is de-dollarization (forcing the world off the petrodollar, which has given us an open credit card with the rest of the world since 1973), and even in THAT case, the answer isn't military or political, it should consist of us minding our financial matters better.

In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ...

staggering wealth inequality to
massive private debt to
potentially unstable banks to
the loss of the petrodollar to
a failed health care policy to
environmental collapse to
loss of manufacturing to
completely unbalanced trade to
illegal immigrants to
disunited public to
loss of commonsense values to
unemployment to
loss of civil liberties to
(add more here) ...

every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. Politicians who repeatedly stabbed us in the back, over and over, in favor of endless wars and ever-higher profits and rampant financialization and overconsumption based on debt.

It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point.

At least, that's how I see it.
I had conjured "Draining the Swamp" translated to "Trump's Greatest Achievements" and "Trump's Greatest Failures" was the opposite.

I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint.

I also think that your absence in this thread during some feverish posting rates contributed to derailing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2017 7:31 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Plus the response by some in the news talking also using quote marks in their rhetoric - as though established norms within our society are negative enemies of the people at large.

Here is a court knocking down a Trump-based idea used by his Justice Department in a case: "If excludable aliens were not protected by even the substantive component of constitutional due process, as the government appears to argue, we do not see why the United States government could not torture or summarily execute them. … [W]e do not believe that our Constitution could permit persons living in the United States—whether they can be admitted for permanent residence or not—to be subjected to any government action without limit."

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/the_jus
tice_department_s_radical_new_anti_abortion_stance_echoes_dred_scott.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:11 PM

OONJERAH

George W. Bush comes out of retirement to deliver a veiled rebuke of Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-w-bush-comes-out-of-ret
irement-to-deliver-a-veiled-rebuke-of-trump/2017/10/19/3b7881ea-b4ec-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.4c7b337a92d3

Former president George W. Bush on Thursday delivered a rare political
speech in which he warned of threats to American democracy and a decay
of civic engagement, a message that was interpreted as a rebuke of
President Trump’s divisive leadership style.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...
Well, we elected a man who isn't a politician/statesman, who is seriously
ignorant about governance, & doesn't want to learn. We did it. We elected
him while I'm sure most of us knew he was grossly unqualified for the job.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SHINY, you wrote a number of comments on what you perceive is my attempted "hijacking" of this thread.

Quote:
Before I answer your veiled attempt at "high-jacking" this thread, I want to ask you and your cohort something .... But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand ... Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses.

And BTW neither did I.

I was simply reacting to some posts that had to do with Trump and not with "Draining The Swamp", specifically

Quote:
Forbes ... How to be President : the Art of the Deal ... are the same thing for Trump. Hmmm?

and

Quote:
The 12 most damning Bob Corker quotes about Donald Trump http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/politics/trump-corker-quotes/index.html
(CNN) — Bob Corker went off on Donald Trump Sunday night. For 25 minutes, the Tennessee Republican senator unloaded lots (and lots) of pent-up frustrations to New York Times' reporter Jonathan Martin. ...

which I felt really belonged in a thread about Trump's failings, not about "draining the swamp"

Now, about "draining the swamp". What IS "the swamp", anyway? IMHO it's those who represent a particular industry, rotating in and out of government, industry leadership positions, and lobbying. Those who excessively take into account the wishes of the 0.01% over the rest. Those who keep secrets from people so that they don't have a chance of evaluating the policy options before them, and so directing their representatives in government appropriately. in other words, those who do other than honestly and fairly representing/ working for the people who voted for them. SECOND was heading in that direction by suggesting that Presidents come and go, but the Pentagon (and its interests) always remain.

Quote:
There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. -SHINY

I agree with one statement and disagree with other.

Quote:
I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint.

The reason why I call it "the establishment" is because the parties have "established" power structures. Each has a central committee thru which flows official party support in the form of ad campaigns, vote rigging, strategic planning, "get out the vote" efforts etc. But these official party structures depend on reliable sources of MONEY, and that's why they end up supporting the 0.01%. ("Dirty") Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the party establishment was funded by campaign contributions from Soros, big pharma, intl banks etc, and Hillary was a big contribution-getter.

But don't get me wrong: the RNC is just as corrupt as the DNC, they just represent a different sector of the moneyed class: Koch bros etc.

Quote:
SIG's assertion that Party must be evaluated as a whole and not look at select goals and achievements of leaders within the Party is where she loses me, and seems to me to contribute to the Establishment problem.

See above. The party does its best to engineer which of their candidates make it thru the primaries. Occasionally an actual honest representative makes it thru, but usually because they can garner a lot of small contributions from across the USA and forgo establishment party support.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 20, 2017 2:41 AM

Decidedly so.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
George W. Bush comes out of retirement to deliver a veiled rebuke of Trump
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-w-bush-comes-out-of-ret
irement-to-deliver-a-veiled-rebuke-of-trump/2017/10/19/3b7881ea-b4ec-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.4c7b337a92d3

Former president George W. Bush on Thursday delivered a rare political
speech in which he warned of threats to American democracy and a decay
of civic engagement, a message that was interpreted as a rebuke of
President Trump’s divisive leadership style.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...
Well, we elected a man who isn't a politician/statesman, who is seriously
ignorant about governance, & doesn't want to learn. We did it. We elected
him while I'm sure most of us knew he was grossly unqualified for the job.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 20, 2017 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Decidedly so.

SGG

SGG, have you visited the Bladerunner thread?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 20, 2017 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis.
But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest.

Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!!

SGG
I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint.
Of course, Trump is the best president ever.

Establishment in terms of government is simply foundations, and tried and true formation of public institutions. As to why I feel it is a sticking point - just from the many times I read the word in responses and comments by various individuals with quote marks.

Plus the response by some in the news talking also using quote marks in their rhetoric - as though established norms within our society are negative enemies of the people at large. Yes, there are those that take advantage of the system and use the masses as so much guinea pigs. But, like in any society, there are good and bad actors.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 20, 2017 3:46 AM

Exactly, in terms of what constitutes "the swamp," my point exactly

Quote:
Now, about "draining the swamp". What IS "the swamp", anyway? IMHO it's those who represent a particular industry, rotating in and out of government, industry leadership positions, and lobbying. Those who excessively take into account the wishes of the 0.01% over the rest. Those who keep secrets from people so that they don't have a chance of evaluating the policy options before them, and so directing their representatives in government appropriately. in other words, those who do other than honestly and fairly representing/ working for the people who voted for them. SECOND was heading in that direction by suggesting that Presidents come and go, but the Pentagon (and its interests) always remain.

It is my contention that Trump and his cohort, have managed to create their own "swamp" by doing almost exactly what you describe above:

The representation of a "precious" few and misrepresenting themselves as the will of the people. "Rotating" positions much like a game of 3-Card Monte, the old "shell" game where you have to follow the pea and guess under which cup it is; meanwhile, as you stand in the crowd gawking at the shells being craftily manipulated, a pickpocket is going about the crowd slithering in and out of pockets.

..."who represent a particular industry" or group, or way of thinking; always pointing fingers and asigning blame for the woes of that group or "industry." I see the formation of a new "swamp" one that redirects the flow of information, wealth and power - Fake News, Propaganda, the disoulation of the present power grid and the birth of a new sinister and vile corrupt elite. Yes, I fully understand that there exists a power grid that the masses are manipulated by; but the newness of that "new" power structure does not shield it from complete and utter corruption. You are, in effect, rotating out the old and replacing it with the new power base.

A rose by any other name still smells...to borrow a phrase from the Bard.

It is this irony that compelled me to propose this thread. Imagine that Hillary had won. What would you be saying? Pretty much what you said above:
About the evils of her admministration manipulating the very institutions
you describe above. So what, IYHO, has changed? Apply those very elements to the "new" power grid that is looking to replace the old. Ask the question with each item you accurately depict in your staement.

Start at the top. The president, it doesn't get much more "top" than that. And what has he done? He's replaced the "establishment" with "his" people, has he not? And what, pray tell, have they done to dismantle the "establishment?" They have appointed people that favor "the cause" - to make America Great Again...which we all know means for it to lean a certain way (I attribute that anxious bit of business to the prediction that by 2050, the good ole USA will be more than 50 percent people of color; or what is now known as the minorities - black, Hispanic, Asian, India etc)

That "Wall" should have been built the moment the first Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. It will not work, merely because this land is too big, plus there's the Canadian border and all the ships at sea (how do you think the Chinese get here to our teaming shores?)

My comment was refering to the swapping out of the "establishment" (rather the old establishment) for the "new establishment" which Bannon and company are looking to secure spots for the future of "his people." Plus he wants, along with those like-minded people, to ensure that things get done the "right way." Of course, all this is mere speculation on my part, what the hell do I know.

So, go ahead, ask yourself those very questions, the one that you pose in the quoted statement above:

industry leadership positions - the placing of Trump cohorts in key cabinet positions, as well as key posts throughout the land - education, juidicial, banking, foreign relations, commerce, Big Pharma, etc.

Representatives - Senate and House, let's get those soulless cretins out and replace them with God-fearing old white men

Juidicial - Trump has often talked about replacing Supreme Court justices with "his" guys

There's also the painstakingly careful dismantling of the DOJ and the Circuit Court judges throughout the land

I could go on, but you're not a dumb person; you could see what it is they're doing right? I dare say that I don't think that Trump thought of this on his own. He's just a puppet...the guy could barely read a teleprompter.
This goes to the very tiny percentage of folks carrying on like the Greek Gods of old. High atop Mt. Olympus, carefully plotting and conniving to manipulate man into wars, famine, avarice and downright genocide.

"Hey look, a hurricane. Shall we help? Wait, let's see what happens....after all, they are mere peons. That'll teach 'em to be born on an island. Say, if we wait long enough, we could probably get the land for dirt cheap. Then we can renovate and sell off pieces to those so-called "middle class" - we'll make a fortune. Plus we'll have another corner of the world to ourselves."

(The above is just a dramatization of what I think Greek Gods would sound like in the modern world).

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 20, 2017 4:30 AM

Yes, I have posted there.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 20, 2017 4:42 AM

JSF,

Let me say this; as I tend to fly by the seat of my pants as I write, I formulated an idea and midstream I realized a completely different response that I did not think of when I began writing.

It ocurred to me that the very thing I was protesting against, I was asking others to do. Namely, to post elsewhere becuase I did not agree with their POV or suggestions within their post. It was strange, because it came to me as I was writing (which happens to me on rare ocassions).

So, my philosophy is "live and let live." If someone cares to post something completely off track from the theme of the thread....Let it be! This site was buiilt becuase we believed in an ideal, a universe, if you will, where one could be free from constricting rules and regs contrary to our pioneering roots.

"Go West, young man"

I am all for continuity, but sometimes, especially if the comment is close to that of the thread, you just have to let it be...

Post to your heart's content, post negative, positive, it doesn't matter. It will all come to a middle at some point. Should you wish to divert attention away, go ahead, it doesn't matter. Each of us will get our moment in the sun and feel accomplishment.

So, if you feel a comment is misplaced or misguided, FEEL FREE...it's all good!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis.
But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest.

Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there.

I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV.

But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole.

***

In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ...

staggering wealth inequality to
massive private debt to
potentially unstable banks to
the loss of the petrodollar to
a failed health care policy to
environmental collapse to
loss of manufacturing to
completely unbalanced trade to
illegal immigrants to
disunited public to
loss of commonsense values to
unemployment to
loss of civil liberties to
(add more here) ...

every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians.

It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point.

At least, that's how I see it.
I had conjured "Draining the Swamp" translated to "Trump's Greatest Achievements" and "Trump's Greatest Failures" was the opposite.

I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint.

I also think that your absence in this thread during some feverish posting rates contributed to derailing.

SIG's assertion that Party must be evaluated as a whole and not look at select goals and achievements of leaders within the Party is where she loses me, and seems to me to contribute to the Establishment problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 20, 2017 10:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Now, about "draining the swamp". What IS "the swamp", anyway? IMHO it's those who represent a particular industry, rotating in and out of government, industry leadership positions, and lobbying. Those who excessively take into account the wishes of the 0.01% over the rest. Those who keep secrets from people so that they don't have a chance of evaluating the policy options before them, and so directing their representatives in government appropriately. in other words, those who do other than honestly and fairly representing/ working for the people who voted for them. SECOND was heading in that direction by suggesting that Presidents come and go, but the Pentagon (and its interests) always remain.- SIGNY

Exactly, in terms of what constitutes "the swamp," my point exactly.

It is my contention that Trump and his cohort, have managed to create their own "swamp" by doing almost exactly what you describe above:

The representation of a "precious" few and misrepresenting themselves as the will of the people. "Rotating" positions much like a game of 3-Card Monte, the old "shell" game where you have to follow the pea and guess under which cup it is; meanwhile, as you stand in the crowd gawking at the shells being craftily manipulated, a pickpocket is going about the crowd slithering in and out of pockets. - SHINY

Hell just froze over. Again!

Quote:
..."who represent a particular industry" or group, or way of thinking; always pointing fingers and assigning blame for the woes of that group or "industry." I see the formation of a new "swamp" one that redirects the flow of information, wealth and power - Fake News, Propaganda, the disoulation of the present power grid and the birth of a new sinister and vile corrupt elite. Yes, I fully understand that there exists a power grid that the masses are manipulated by; but the newness of that "new" power structure does not shield it from complete and utter corruption. You are, in effect, rotating out the old and replacing it with the new power base.- SINY

I must have a completely cynical view of politics. Trump brings how own swamp with him. BUT. If you looked carefully at the election process, he had to fight the RNC AS WELL AS THE DNC. "Establishment" Republicans were just as reluctant to allow Trump to the ascendancy as Democrats. Even now, the support that Trump has from the GOP is grudging, and Dems downright hate him: he's a DC outsider, an interloper.

I don't view Trump as an honest, or even competent, politician. But when you bring your own swamp with you, the OLD swampers don't let go of power without a fight.

And what you've been seeing in the press is a huge catfight between the "internationalists" ....

the swamp-creatures who make their money off transnational dealings (who don't have USA interests at heart; they make their $ elsewhere) and those Federal Departments that support them, such as
Banks, hedge-funds, money-laundering banks such Mossack Fonseca, banks of convenience like the Caymans Islands, and other international financial institutions
Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, which depend heavily on the petrodollar
Intellectual property (patent and copyright) companies like the tech sector, big pharma, agribusiness GMOs, and the entertainment/recording sector
Transnational manufacturing and companies like Walmart and Apple who distribute Chinese goods made by Foxconn etc.
The secret security state - the CIA, NSA, and State Department - which have spent several lifetimes advancing and protecting the international interests of the wealthy elite
Most of the corporate media, which is owned mostly by foreigners

... versus Trump.

Quote:
A rose by any other name still smells...to borrow a phrase from the Bard.

It is this irony that compelled me to propose this thread. Imagine that Hillary had won. What would you be saying? Pretty much what you said above:
About the evils of her admministration manipulating the very institutions
you describe above. So what, IYHO, has changed? Apply those very elements to the "new" power grid that is looking to replace the old. Ask the question with each item you accurately depict in your statement.

Start at the top. The president, it doesn't get much more "top" than that. And what has he done? He's replaced the "establishment" with "his" people, has he not?

EDITED TO ADD: NO, he hasn't. Compared to the 100-200 appointments of the Trump administration, there are probably ten thousand "career" commissioned officers, State Dept employees, security state officers and staffers, commissioners etc etc, who were MOSTLY ensconced in the past 30 years, when the goals subtly turned from "America" to creating the international order.

Quote:
And what, pray tell, have they done to dismantle the "establishment?" They have appointed people that favor "the cause" - to make America Great Again...which we all know means for it to lean a certain way (I attribute that anxious bit of business to the prediction that by 2050, the good ole USA will be more than 50 percent people of color; or what is now known as the minorities - black, Hispanic, Asian, India etc)

That "Wall" should have been built the moment the first Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.

Actually, it should have been built by the natives, who - rather than helping the first immigrants, should have started shooting and KEPT ON shooting, and burning the boats that they came on, until there was no one left alive to carry word back about the new found land, and no way to go back even if someone managed to survive.

Everyone talks about how "America" was built on immigration. Well, welcoming the immigrants ... it didn't work out so well for the natives, did it? Massive immigration ... it ALWAYS disrupts the established societies that were there before. So be careful what you wish for.

Quote:
It will not work, merely because this land is too big, plus there's the Canadian border and all the ships at sea (how do you think the Chinese get here to our teaming shores?)

Far easier to protect ports than a long land border. As far as the Canadian border... who the hell would want to illegally immigrate to the USA from Canada?

Quote:
My comment was refering to the swapping out of the "establishment" (rather the old establishment) for the "new establishment" which Bannon and company are looking to secure spots for the future of "his people." Plus he wants, along with those like-minded people, to ensure that things get done the "right way." Of course, all this is mere speculation on my part, what the hell do I know.

So, go ahead, ask yourself those very questions, the one that you pose in the quoted statement above:

industry leadership positions - the placing of Trump cohorts in key cabinet positions, as well as key posts throughout the land - education, juidicial, banking, foreign relations, commerce, Big Pharma, etc.

Representatives - Senate and House, let's get those soulless cretins out and replace them with God-fearing old white men

Juidicial - Trump has often talked about replacing Supreme Court justices with "his" guys

There's also the painstakingly careful dismantling of the DOJ and the Circuit Court judges throughout the land

I could go on, but you're not a dumb person; you could see what it is they're doing right? I dare say that I don't think that Trump thought of this on his own. He's just a puppet...the guy could barely read a teleprompter.
This goes to the very tiny percentage of folks carrying on like the Greek Gods of old. High atop Mt. Olympus, carefully plotting and conniving to manipulate man into wars, famine, avarice and downright genocide.

"Hey look, a hurricane. Shall we help? Wait, let's see what happens....after all, they are mere peons. That'll teach 'em to be born on an island. Say, if we wait long enough, we could probably get the land for dirt cheap. Then we can renovate and sell off pieces to those so-called "middle class" - we'll make a fortune. Plus we'll have another corner of the world to ourselves."

(The above is just a dramatization of what I think Greek Gods would sound like in the modern world).

Well, the former gods on Mt Olympus have managed to kill millions in the mideast. Those brownskinned towelheads ... they're only peons, after all. Those former gods of Mt Olympus, they just managed to get your buy-in of the whole "genocide in the mideast" project because they had a willing press to forward their projects for them. And don't tell me that the Clintons cared for Haitians any more than Trump cares for Puerto Ricans!

Trump represents a DIFFERENT PART pf the elite, one which has not been in power for a long time: American-based companies that pay American taxes.

The few energy giants still based in the USA, such as Exxon, fracking, and coal
Real estate
The few manufacturers still in the USA.
The part of the security state which has not been in power for eight years: the Pentagon (there is a catfight between the Pentagon and the CIA/ NSA/ State Department)

Bringing in a new swamp is a disruptive process that will not go smoothly. Trump is a loose cannon, I've said so many times. And it's extremely unlikely that he will wrest power from the well-established transnational swamp-things (the deep state). But in the meantime, he's put major kinks into their plan to enmesh the USA in trade deals which destroy USA sovereignty, and is fighting the deep state's plan to bring in and exploit illegal immigrants which is destroying the wage base at home.

There are a lot of downsides to Trump, the biggest is personality defect which makes him react to personal attacks and which derails him from accomplishing the important parts of his agenda; and the second biggest is his very limited field of knowledge. Plus, in his fight against the CIA/ State Department/ NSA, he's had to ally himself with the Pentagon. But as a disruptive force against the status quo swamp, he's an EXCELLENT choice, and some of his appointees - Tillerson and Mnuchin (who is a business turnaround expert; he took several failing USA steel companies to success) are even better choices, and I have to give him credit for picking those people.

We STILL have to make America great again ... or at least make it a viable economic unit. Let's focus on the best way to get there.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 20, 2017 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there.

I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV.

But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole.

***

In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ...

staggering wealth inequality to
massive private debt to
potentially unstable banks to
the loss of the petrodollar to
a failed health care policy to
environmental collapse to
loss of manufacturing to
completely unbalanced trade to
illegal immigrants to
disunited public to
loss of commonsense values to
unemployment to
loss of civil liberties to
(add more here) ...

every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians.

It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point.

At least, that's how I see it.
There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis.
But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest.

Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!!

SGG
I had conjured "Draining the Swamp" translated to "Trump's Greatest Achievements" and "Trump's Greatest Failures" was the opposite.

I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint.

I also think that your absence in this thread during some feverish posting rates contributed to derailing.

SIG's assertion that Party must be evaluated as a whole and not look at select goals and achievements of leaders within the Party is where she loses me, and seems to me to contribute to the Establishment problem.
JSF,

Let me say this; as I tend to fly by the seat of my pants as I write, I formulated an idea and midstream I realized a completely different response that I did not think of when I began writing.

It ocurred to me that the very thing I was protesting against, I was asking others to do. Namely, to post elsewhere becuase I did not agree with their POV or suggestions within their post. It was strange, because it came to me as I was writing (which happens to me on rare ocassions).

So, my philosophy is "live and let live." If someone cares to post something completely off track from the theme of the thread....Let it be! This site was buiilt becuase we believed in an ideal, a universe, if you will, where one could be free from constricting rules and regs contrary to our pioneering roots.

"Go West, young man"

I am all for continuity, but sometimes, especially if the comment is close to that of the thread, you just have to let it be...

Post to your heart's content, post negative, positive, it doesn't matter. It will all come to a middle at some point. Should you wish to divert attention away, go ahead, it doesn't matter. Each of us will get our moment in the sun and feel accomplishment.

So, if you feel a comment is misplaced or misguided, FEEL FREE...it's all good!

SGG

I had meant visit in the last few days.

Sorry about this above post. I fell asleep while working it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 21, 2017 6:19 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

But as a disruptive force against the status quo swamp, he's an EXCELLENT choice, and some of his appointees - Tillerson and Mnuchin (who is a business turnaround expert; he took several failing USA steel companies to success) are even better choices, and I have to give him credit for picking those people.

You missed a person: Kevin Hassett, the White House’s chief economist, is highly competent and Hassett/Trump's plan to increase wages by $4,000 to $9,000 per worker per year is certain to make America great once tax reform passes. On further inspection that is not true:

Trump wants a cut in corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 20 percent, which would cost slightly less than $200 billion a year. Trump’s claim, backed up by his phony economist, is that workers would benefit by $600 billion — or 300 percent of the tax cut! That is $4,000 each for 150 million workers. According to Trump’s man, it could be as much as $1,350 billion gain for workers, or $9,000 each, if everything goes well! (No, it can’t. The only estimate that is correct is the $200 billion a year for Trump and his people.) It is fraud on a grand scale by Trump to increase his personal wealth by lowering his taxes. Criminal fraud cases can be pursued even if the fraud is not successful and nobody is actually harmed. For example, Trump might not get this tax law passed, but the way he goes about his work is criminal fraud.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/17/lawrence-summers-trumps
-top-economists-tax-analysis-isnt-just-wrong-its-dishonest/

www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/20/16506256/cea-report-corporate-taxe
s-wages-boost-job-growth

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 21, 2017 7:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You missed a person: Kevin Hassett, the White House’s chief economist,- SECONDHAND

Apparently the only way you can shoehorn ~~your~~ someone else's opinion into the discussion is to put words in my mouth. You've got a major obsession going, don't you?

You might want to get some counseling for that.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 21, 2017 8:54 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Hello, Signym! Are you aware that Trump picked Trump's chief economist? It is also Trump that picked Trump's Secretary of State and Trump's Secretary of Treasury, two that you happen to know the names, but they are no different than his other hundreds of appointees. And Trump's economist and secretaries are doing as Trump would have them do: placing money into Trump's pockets and getting him reelected so that Trump will have 8 years (not just 4) of putting federal money into Trump's pockets. Trump's economist's false promises of an income increase of $9,000 per worker per year is just a scheme to get Trump's business a tax cut. Trump's Treasurer's false promises of a national boom if only the inheritance tax ends is just a different scheme to get Trump's estate into Trump Junior's pockets without paying taxes.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
You missed a person: Kevin Hassett, the White House’s chief economist,- SECONDHAND
Apparently the only way you can shoehorn ~~your~~ someone else's opinion into the discussion is to put words in my mouth. You've got a major obsession going, don't you?

You might want to get some counseling for that.

Tillerson's function is to make sure that Trump's words (which are only for domestic consumption by Trump voters to get him reelected) aren't believed by foreign powers. Trump's mouth starting a war would prevent Trump from being reelected.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 21, 2017 2:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Hello, Signym! Are you aware that Trump picked Trump's chief economist?

Hello SECOND!

Yeah, I knew, but SO WHAT?

What does that have to do with anything I posted? I already acceded to the fact that Trump brings his own swamp to DC. I've already posted that I didn't expect Trump to be an honest, or even competent, politician. I called him a "loose cannon" many times BEFORE the election, and said that his morals were about on-par with Hillary's (whom, you might have noticed, I despise). There is very little that you could post about Trump that would change my opinion of him because my expectations were already pretty low.

So given all that, why would anyone vote for Trump? I've explained my POV already, so I'll just leave you with that thought.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 21, 2017 2:39 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

You’re wishing death and destruction on America, Signym. A loose cannon bumping back and forth in a storm will smash wooden hull ships and crush the crew. And your complete indifference to Trump's economist and his Treasury Secretary, who you praised in a previous post, spreading lies to support a tax change that benefits Trump is very telling about you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Hello, Signym! Are you aware that Trump picked Trump's chief economist?
Hello SECOND!

Yeah, I knew, but SO WHAT?

What does that have to do with anything I posted? I already acceded to the fact that Trump brings his own swamp to DC. I've already posted that I didn't expect Trump to be an honest, or even competent, politician. I called him a "loose cannon" many times BEFORE the election, and said that his morals were about on-par with Hillary's (whom, you might have noticed, I despise). There is very little that you could post about Trump that would change my opinion of him because my expectations were already pretty low.

So given all that, why would anyone vote for Trump? I've explained my POV already, so I'll just leave you with that thought.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You’re wishing death and destruction on America, Signym.

It all depends on how happy you were with the status quo, and how healthy - or dangerous- you thought it was for the USA's future.

Quote:
And your complete indifference to Trump's economist and his Treasury Secretary, who you praised in a previous post, spreading lies to support a tax change that benefits Trump is very telling about you.

I'm not completely indifferent to what Trump is doing.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:18 AM

OONJERAH

A close, personal relative says,
"He certainly deserves to be impeached, but then
a president Mike Pence would be just as bad."

I don't know Pence.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 22, 2017 4:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
A close, personal relative says,
"He certainly deserves to be impeached, but then
a president Mike Pence would be just as bad."

I don't know Pence.

A close, personal relative?

OONJ, does your "close personal relative" understand the grounds for impeachment? Because this person can't possibly know whether or not anyone "deserves" impeachment unless they know the standards against which the office-holder is being judged.

Quote:
The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives an official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office. For example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred.

... In all the articles of impeachment that the House has drawn, no official has been charged with treason. (The closest to a charge of treason was one federal judge who was impeached and convicted for siding with the South and taking a position as a Confederate judge during the Civil War.) Two officials have been charged with bribery. The remaining charges against all the other officials fall under the category of “high crimes and misdemeanors [against the State].”

... The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

... In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

For the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential information.

Only three of the 18 impeachment cases have involved a president — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. It’s important to take a brief look at these three cases to understand how Congress has interpreted “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson was the only senator from a Southern state who stayed loyal to the union during the Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln, seeking to reconcile with the South, tapped Johnson, a Democrat, as his vice-presidential running mate in 1864. When Lincoln was assassinated at the war’s end in 1865, Johnson assumed the presidency. He immediately ran into trouble with the Republican-dominated Congress over Reconstruction of the South. The Radical Republicans supported military rule in the South and voting rights and redistribution of land for blacks. Johnson disagreed and favored a quick return to civilian rule. The two sides grew increasingly farther apart as Congress repeatedly passed Reconstruction legislation, Johnson vetoed it, and Congress overrode his veto. Over Johnson’s veto, Congress passed a Tenure of Office Act, which required Johnson to get permission from Congress before firing any member of the executive branch who had been approved by Congress. Johnson responded by firing the secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, a Radical Republican. His firing violated the Tenure of Office Act. But Johnson believed the act was unconstitutional. The House passed 11 articles of impeachment. Eight involved Johnson’s violations of the Tenure of Office Act. One charged him with sending orders through improper channels. Another accused him of conspiring against Congress, citing a statement he made about Congress not representing all the states. The last summarized the other 10 charges and charged him with failing to enforce the Reconstruction Acts. At the end of the Senate trial, only three charges were brought to a vote. Johnson was saved from conviction on each by one vote.

History has not judged well those who brought the charges against Johnson. The charges are generally seen as politically motivated, based on the extreme disagreement over Reconstruction between Congress and the president.

Richard Nixon
... Nixon may or may not have had advance knowledge of the burglary. He probably feared, however, that its investigation might uncover evidence of political spying and the illegal use of campaign funds on the part of his administration. So he took an active role in obstructing the investigation. He discussed raising hush money for the burglars and enlisted the FBI and CIA in squelching the investigation. In 1974, the House Judiciary committee voted three articles of impeachment. One accused Nixon of obstruction of justice. Another accused him of abuse of power. The third charged him with contempt of Congress for defying the committee’s requests to produce documents. Nixon resigned the presidency before the whole House voted on the articles.

... The same year Yale Law School professor Charles L. Black published a highly influential book, Impeachment: A Handbook. Black agreed that impeachment is a grave step that should be taken most cautiously. Impeaching a president overturns an election. Black’s research led him to the conclusion that a president should be impeached only for “serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government,” or for “such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order.”

Black’s book cited two examples of presidential misconduct that would not merit impeachment: (1) a president brings a female minor across a state line for “immoral purposes” in violation of federal law and (2) a president obstructs justice by helping hide marijuana for a White House intern. Black considered it “preposterous” to impeach a president for these acts. These examples would prove relevant to President Clinton’s impeachment case more than 20 years later.

Bill Clinton
... During his first term, an independent counsel was appointed to investigate Whitewater, an Arkansas land deal involving Clinton that had taken place about 20 years previously. The counsel’s investigation later expanded to include scandals surrounding the firing of White House staff in its travel office, the misuse of FBI files, and an illicit affair that the president had with a White House intern. In 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr issued a report to the House Judiciary Committee. It found 11 possible impeachable offenses, all related to the intern scandal. Based on the independent counsel’s investigation, the House Judiciary Committee voted four articles of impeachment. The first article accused the president of committing perjury before a grand jury convened by the independent counsel. The second charged him with providing “perjurious, false and misleading testimony” in a civil case related to the scandal. The third accused him of obstructing justice to “delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence” of evidence related to the scandal. The fourth charged that he misused and abused his office by deceiving the American public, misleading his cabinet and other employees so that they would mislead the public, asserting executive privilege to hinder the investigation, and refusing to respond to the committee and misleading the committee about the scandal.
MORE AT http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 22, 2017 8:27 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

There are alternative views to Signym’s burn the swamp and then the internationalists will leave America, with Trump’s role as flame-thrower and assassin.
www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/opinion/sunday/democrats-alabama-doug-jones
.html

Some voters pulled the lever twice for Obama, and then voted Trump in part because of anxieties about recent immigration. So are the Democrats trying to dispel the impression that their party favors open borders? No, quite the opposite: As Vox’s Dara Lind pointed out this week, in the Trump era, no less than the Obama era, the Democrats are rejecting enforcement proposals many of them would have championed a decade ago.

A clear majority of Americans, women as well as men, favor banning abortion after 20 weeks. It might behoove liberals to try to imagine voters believe that at least some abortions are tantamount to baby-killing. And I mean really make the imaginative leap: Imagine that whenever a Democratic politician says, “There shouldn’t be any restrictions on the right to choose,” you hear, “I think infanticide should be legal in America.”

Would you vote for a candidate who said that? I submit that you probably would not — and you might not even if his Republican opponent were also terrible in various ways. At the very least you would be weighing evils, and that weighing process — “bigot or infanticide advocate? bigot or infanticide advocate?” — might plausibly induce you to put a bigot in the Senate.

Democrats claiming to be standing alone against Trump’s existential threat to the republic should be willing to move somewhat, to compromise somehow, to bring into the Democratic fold a few of the voters who have lifted the G.O.P. to its largely undeserved political successes.

Instead, the Democrats are still relying on arc-of-history beliefs and long-term demographic trends. But those trends do them no political good if they move left faster than does a leftward-moving country. In 2004 they had an agenda well-suited to the American electorate of 2016; having moved leftward since, they now have an agenda well-suited to the American electorate of 2030.

As much as the country needs a conservatism with some idea of what it’s doing, some theory of the common good, it needs a liberalism that stops marinating in its own self-righteousness long enough to compete effectively for rural, Southern and Midwestern votes.

I see that the Democrats, Saturday, are charging down the self-destructive and self-righteous path: The Democratic National Committee voted Saturday to ban donations from certain corporate political action committees — including those tied to tobacco companies, gun makers and payday lenders — that “conflict” with the party’s platform.

The move is an effort to bridge the gap between committee members who want to ban all (yes, that's correct, all) corporate and lobbyist contributions to the committee, and those who believe the party can’t unilaterally disarm its fundraising efforts as Republicans collect millions of dollars from corporations and lobbyists.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-21/democratic-committee-to-ban
-funds-from-donors-that-conflict

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 22, 2017 10:37 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

original NYTimes article without SECOND's editing

|The Democrats in Their Labyrinth

Ross Douthat OCT. 21, 2017

America has two political parties, but only one of them has a reasonably coherent political vision, a leadership that isn’t under the thumb of an erratic reality television star, and a worldview that implies a policy agenda rather than just a litany of grievances.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, their vision and leaders and agenda also sometimes leave the impression that they never want to win another tossup Senate seat, and that they would prefer Donald Trump be re-elected if the alternative requires wooing Americans who voted for him.

Consider recent developments in the state of Alabama, where the Republican Party has nominated a Senate candidate manifestly unfit for office, a bigot hostile to the rule of law and entranced with authoritarianism.

And who have the Democrats put up against him? An accomplished former prosecutor, the very model of a mainstream Democrat — and a man who told an interviewer after his nomination that he favors legal abortion, without restriction, right up until the baby emerges blue and flailing from the womb.

I know that certain of my readers may not consider this an extreme position, and imagine that people who do consider it extreme are also fitting out their wives with the lovely blue dresses from Hulu’s adaptation of “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
Continue reading the main story

But given that a clear majority of Americans, women as well as men, favor banning abortion after 20 weeks, it might behoove liberals to bracket the Gilead scenario for a moment, and try to imagine what it’s like to believe that at least some abortions are tantamount to baby-killing. And I mean really make the imaginative leap: Imagine that whenever a politician says, “There shouldn’t be any restrictions on the right to choose,” you hear, “I think infanticide should be legal in America.”

Would you vote for a candidate who said that? I submit that you probably would not — and you might not even if his opponent were also terrible in various ways. At the very least you would be weighing evils, and that weighing process — “bigot or infanticide advocate? bigot or infanticide advocate?” — might plausibly induce you to put a bigot in the Senate.

If the Democratic Party intends to be competitive again in the South, a region where many of its own partisans call themselves pro-life, it needs to take the imaginative leap on abortion more often — as it did in recruiting candidates who helped build its last House majority way back in the misty years of 2006-2008.

But maybe Democrats do not want to be competitive in the Bible Belt. No retreat on feticide, no compromise with Gilead! Fair enough. Then presumably they should want to make up ground with more secular voters somewhere else — among all the lapsed Catholics and former Mainline Protestants scattered around the Midwest, for instance.

Some of these voters pulled the lever not once but twice for Barack Obama, and then voted Trump in part because of anxieties about recent immigration. So are the Democrats trying to dispel the impression that their party favors open borders? No, quite the opposite: As Vox’s Dara Lind pointed out this week, in the Trump era, no less than the Obama era, the Democrats are rejecting enforcement proposals many of them would have championed a decade ago — again, not coincidentally, the last period when they had control of Congress. Wooing immigration-wary Midwestern voters, like doing outreach to pro-life moderates in Alabama, is apparently not worth the compromises required.

Now I am a cultural conservative, so naturally issues like abortion and immigration are the places where I would like the Democratic Party to move closer to the center. One could argue instead that Democrats should stick with progressive orthodoxy on social issues and choose Bill-Clintonian economics over single-payer flirtations, to expand their recent gains among the culturally libertarian and fiscally conservative.

But the point is that a party claiming to be standing alone against an existential threat to the republic should be willing to move somewhat, to compromise somehow, to bring a few of the voters who have lifted the G.O.P. to its largely undeserved political successes into the Democratic fold.

Instead, the Democrats are still relying on arc-of-history beliefs and long-term demographic trends. But those trends do them no political good if they move left faster than does a leftward-moving country. In 2004 they had an agenda well-suited to the American electorate of 2016; having moved leftward since, they now have an agenda well-suited to the American electorate of 2030.

If current trends continue the Republicans will nominate a ticket of Roy Moore and Tomi Lahren in 2024 — and the Democrats, secure in their historical destiny, will counter by replacing their platform with a loving commentary on John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

As much as the country needs a conservatism with some idea of what it’s doing, some theory of the common good, it needs a liberalism that stops marinating in its own self-righteousness long enough to compete effectively for rural, Southern and Midwestern votes.

But you can’t always get what you need.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 22, 2017 10:41 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

original Bloomberg article without SECOND's editing

Ban Funds From Donors That ‘Conflict’
By
Jennifer Epstein
Sat 21 Oct 2017 03:06:47 PM PDT

Tobacco, guns, payday lenders among PACs to be shunned
Proposal opposed by those who say Democrats need the money

The Democratic National Committee voted to ban donations from certain corporate political action committees -- including those tied to tobacco companies, gun makers and payday lenders -- that “conflict” with the party’s platform.

DNC members approved the measure on Saturday in a voice vote at their meeting in Las Vegas. The committee’s leadership “will implement it going forward,” said DNC spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa. It’s not legally binding, though, giving the DNC some leeway on how to put it in place.

The move is an effort to bridge the gap between DNC members who want to ban all corporate and lobbyist contributions to the committee, and those who believe the party can’t unilaterally disarm its fund-raising efforts as Republicans rake in millions of dollars from corporate and lobbyist sources.

“The American people are looking to Democrats to promote people-powered politics in this era of resistance, revival, and reform,” reads the measure, authored by California DNC member Christine Pelosi, daughter of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and a long-time advocate for reducing the corporate and lobbyist influence on the party. The DNC, she said, should “walk our talk.”
Screening Donors

As the Democratic nominee in 2008, Barack Obama put in place a complete ban on the DNC accepting donations from lobbyists and corporate PACs. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz ended that policy in early 2016 as the committee determined it needed money from those sources so it would “have the resources and infrastructure in place to bes support whoever emerges as our eventual nominee,” a spokesman said at the time. Hillary Clinton hadn’t yet become the party’s nominee, but it was seen as the approach she favored on corporate money.

Pelosi said she hopes the new ban will be executed by the DNC in the same manner as the previous one, with the DNC’s finance team evaluating contributions as they come in to determine if they originated with appropriate donors.

The resolution also includes language encouraging state Democratic parties and candidates to draw clear lines around the money they will and won’t accept. “It’s just taking two or three steps to make sure there’s internal consistency,” Pelosi said. “You try to do what you can and I think that matters to voters.”

At its February meeting, at which former U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected party chair, the DNC considered a measure that would have been slightly narrower than the Obama ban, barring donations from corporate PACs. “It is not something new. We operated this way for seven years,” Stuart Appelbaum, a New York DNC member who co-sponsored the resolution, said then. The proposal failed after other DNC members argued that the party needed the money.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2017 8:31 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
original NYTimes article without SECOND's editing

|The Democrats in Their Labyrinth

You failed to include the quotes at the each of those original articles saying that 1kiki and Signym's international conspiracy theories are big bags of make-believe shit. Shame on you. It is as if you don't want the people to know.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2017 9:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You failed to include the quotes at the each of those original articles saying that 1kiki and Signym's international conspiracy theories are big bags of make-believe shit. Shame on you. It is as if you don't want the people to know. =SECONDRATE

No such quote appears in my pageview. So SECONDRATE, why don't you BRING THAT QUOTE HERE so that we can ALL see it? Unless, of course, you're lying again.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2017 5:00 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

No such quote appears in my pageview. So SECONDRATE, why don't you BRING THAT QUOTE HERE so that we can ALL see it? Unless, of course, you're lying again.

Signym, you're every bit as smart and attentive to details as Trump. Analyze this for errors that only exist inside your head:
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/23/16522456/trump-bartiromo-tr
anscript

Over the course of the interview, Trump also claims to be working on a major infrastructure bill, a major welfare reform bill, and an unspecified economic development bill of some kind.

Under almost any other past president, that kind of thing would be considered a huge news-making get for an interviewer. But even Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.

On some level, it’s a little bit funny.

Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2017 6:06 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, you admit you lied about articles you linked.

Again.

No surprise there.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2017 7:09 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

This brings me to the problems with the ironically-named 'democratic' party.

If it wants to be a viable alternative, it needs to stop the insane blather about stoopid things, as exemplified by SECOND. It needs to make its case against Trump relevant, vital, and more importantly, provable - unless it wants to look like the party of impotent whiny children.

The OTHER thing it needs to do is make itself a viable majority alternative, and not a party of special-victimhood.

One of the ways it can do that is to make itself the party of economic justice. That means not only promising economic equality - because what the fuck good is equally if it means we're all in the Roman arena equally, fighting for our lives by killing the others - but economic prosperity.

And yet, the ironically-named 'democratic' party and its dingleberry apologists like SECOND can't seem to go there. THEY'RE banking on prejudice. THEY'RE banking on the idea that people will disavow economic opportunity and security for themselves just to spite others.

It's the ironically-named 'democratic' party and its dingleberry apologists who are the racists, who believe that the way to win is to pit one side against the other, and, not coincidentally, benefit the corporations.

HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2017 7:18 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, you admit you lied about articles you linked.

Again.

No surprise there.

I do not admit to lying and are 1kiki and Signym a team now, sitting in adjacent desks? You're either a pair of Russian trolls or a pair of American nuts. 1kiki, you've given up the pretense that you were ever a Bernie supporter, haven't you? Or are you a replacement for the "1kiki" of last year, the one who was so supportive of Democrat Bernie? As Russian trolls, I can admire that you serve your country, earn a living, and write well. If you live in America, well, I still admire that you write well; 1kiki and Signym could give Trump lessons about staying on message and remaining focused:

Trump keeps getting distracted by his desire to tell a name-dropping story about the owner of the New England Patriots. He forgets what is false and misleading about his tax cuts. Indeed, the swamp is in Trump's brain:

BARTIROMO: If the top earners pay 80 percent of the taxes, why are you so afraid to cut taxes on the top earners?

TRUMP: I think this, look, you know, I am very happy with the way I’ve done part of this in my civilian life, all right.

BARTIROMO: Of course. This is not about —

TRUMP: Other people — well, it’s about me representing rich people.

BARTIROMO: Okay.

TRUMP: Representing — being representative of rich people. Very interesting to me Bob Kraft was down. He was very nice. He owns the Patriots. He gave me a Super Bowl ring a month ago. And he —

BARTIROMO: Well, Putin took his —

TRUMP: Which was very nice. That’s right. But he left this beautiful ring, and I immediately give it to the White House and they put it some place, and that’s the way it is.

BARTIROMO: That’s great.

TRUMP: He said to me — he’s a good man. He said to me you have to do us all a favor, give the tax decrease to the middle class, we don’t need it. We don’t need it. We don’t want it. Give it to the middle class. And, I’ve had many people, very wealthy people, tell me the very same thing. I’ve had very few say I want more, I want more.

Then Trump meanders off message and admits that what he’s really backing is a huge tax cut for rich business owners:

TRUMP: So that’s a big factor, but we have so many things that are going to be so great; bringing the corporate tax down maybe is the most important. And we have a lot of most important, but bringing it down from 35 down to 20 percent, that’s a massive — that’s the biggest that we’ve ever done.

BARTIROMO: It’s a big deal in the corporate rate for sure.

TRUMP: That’s a big deal for companies; that’s a big deal for investment. I think one of the other ones is expensing, you know when you write something off in one year as opposed to, you know, over many years, I think that’s going to be tremendous.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/23/16522456/trump-bartiromo-tr
anscript

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2017 9:29 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
... and are 1kiki and Signym a team now, sitting in adjacent desks?

more trolling

Quote:
You're either a pair of Russian trolls

more trolling

Quote:
or a pair of American nuts.

more trolling

Quote:
1kiki, you've given up the pretense that you were ever a Bernie supporter, haven't you?

more trolling

I've always been a self-avowed never Hillary supporter, I voted as a never Hillary supporter, and since Hillary lost, my never Hillary side won.

And your repeated attempts to claim otherwise are just ... more trolling.

Troll.

HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2017 9:36 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Meanwhile, SLOPPY-SECONDS' attempt to deflect from the utter failure of the ironically-named 'democratic' party to be a genuine majority alternative, and his inability to actually address my post are noted.

It's obvious SLOPPY-SECONDS is a troll.

HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No such quote appears in my pageview. So SECONDRATE, why don't you BRING THAT QUOTE HERE so that we can ALL see it? Unless, of course, you're lying again.
Signym, you're every bit as smart and attentive to details as Trump. Analyze this for errors that only exist inside your head:
www.vox.com/policy-and-pol
itics/2017/10/23/16522456/trump-bartiromo-transcript

Over the course of the interview, Trump also claims to be working on a major infrastructure bill, a major welfare reform bill, and an unspecified economic development bill of some kind.

Under almost any other past president, that kind of thing would be considered a huge news-making get for an interviewer. But even Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.

On some level, it’s a little bit funny.

Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

I don't quite get how you derailed so much to avoid a simple and coherent answer to a reasonable question - or even repeated question, yet at the same time go on a rant which might be tangential at best.
Are you off your meds?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:34 AM

Edited for readability:

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, you admit you lied about articles you linked.

Again.

No surprise there.
I do not admit to lying and are 1kiki and Signym a team now, sitting in adjacent desks? You're either a pair of Russian trolls or a pair of American nuts. 1kiki, you've given up the pretense that you were ever a Bernie supporter, haven't you? Or are you a replacement for the "1kiki" of last year, the one who was so supportive of Democrat Bernie? As Russian trolls, I can admire that you serve your country, earn a living, and write well. If you live in America, well, I still admire that you write well; 1kiki and Signym could give Trump lessons about staying on message and remaining focused:

Trump keeps getting distracted by his desire to tell a name-dropping story about the owner of the New England Patriots. He forgets what is false and misleading about his tax cuts. Indeed, the swamp is in Trump's brain:

BARTIROMO: If the top earners pay 80 percent of the taxes, why are you so afraid to cut taxes on the top earners?

TRUMP: I think this, look, you know, I am very happy with the way I’ve done part of this in my civilian life, all right.

BARTIROMO: Of course. This is not about —

TRUMP: Other people — well, it’s about me representing rich people.

BARTIROMO: Okay.

TRUMP: Representing — being representative of rich people. Very interesting to me Bob Kraft was down. He was very nice. He owns the Patriots. He gave me a Super Bowl ring a month ago. And he —

BARTIROMO: Well, Putin took his —

TRUMP: Which was very nice. That’s right. But he left this beautiful ring, and I immediately give it to the White House and they put it some place, and that’s the way it is.

BARTIROMO: That’s great.

TRUMP: He said to me — he’s a good man. He said to me you have to do us all a favor, give the tax decrease to the middle class, we don’t need it. We don’t need it. We don’t want it. Give it to the middle class. And, I’ve had many people, very wealthy people, tell me the very same thing. I’ve had very few say I want more, I want more.

Then Trump meanders off message and admits that what he’s really backing is a huge tax cut for rich business owners:

TRUMP: So that’s a big factor, but we have so many things that are going to be so great; bringing the corporate tax down maybe is the most important. And we have a lot of most important, but bringing it down from 35 down to 20 percent, that’s a massive — that’s the biggest that we’ve ever done.

BARTIROMO: It’s a big deal in the corporate rate for sure.

TRUMP: That’s a big deal for companies; that’s a big deal for investment. I think one of the other ones is expensing, you know when you write something off in one year as opposed to, you know, over many years, I think that’s going to be tremendous.

www.vox.com/policy-and-poli
tics/2017/10/23/16522456/trump-bartiromo-transcript

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:58 AM

I'm going to need time to unpack this......whatever you call it, response.
But I felt the need to comment, however briefly, on a few things...

And what exactly does this mean:

Quote:
Hell just froze over. Again!

Quote:
I don't view Trump as an honest, or even competent, politician.

I agree except, I think Trump is the worst of politicians. At least the parts he plays at.

Quote:
But when you bring your own swamp with you, the OLD swampers don't let go of power without a fight.

I agree. Hell now will freeze over.

Quote:
Establishment" Republicans were just as reluctant to allow Trump to the ascendancy as Democrats. Even now, the support that Trump has from the GOP is grudging, and Dems downright hate him: he's a DC outsider, an interloper.

An interloper he is, an outsider he's not. Interloper because nobody wanted him; for good reason...He's an idiot. He's made money in business, but he's a destroyer. He uses the system to "steal" his millions through chicanery and intimidation. It's a whole new ballgame when it comes to politics; of which he knows little, but he has pursued the presidency and has played the game (poorly, but he's played). He even said so himself; while addressing the US Coast Guard Academy recently - "No politician has been treated worse"
in regards to the media attention(May 17, 2017).

More to come....I gotta go!

End of Part 1

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 7:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm going to need time to unpack this......whatever you call it, response.
But I felt the need to comment, however briefly, on a few things...

And what exactly does this mean:
Quote:
Hell just froze over. Again!

It means that you agreed with me, and I agreed with you, again. For a second time. That doesn't happen very often!

Quote:
I don't view Trump as an honest, or even competent, politician.- SIGNY

I agree except, I think Trump is the worst of politicians. At least the parts he plays at. - SHINY

So, you prefer politicians say all the usual soothing things and who convince you that it's for you own good as they jam you with a stick? 'Cause I agree, Trump sucks at that part!

Quote:
But when you bring your own swamp with you, the OLD swampers don't let go of power without a fight.- SIGNY

I agree. Hell now will freeze over.- SHINY

Again!

Quote:
Establishment" Republicans were just as reluctant to allow Trump to the ascendancy as Democrats. Even now, the support that Trump has from the GOP is grudging, and Dems downright hate him: he's a DC outsider, an interloper. - SIGNY

An interloper he is, an outsider he's not. Interloper because nobody wanted him; for good reason...He's an idiot. He's made money in business, but he's a destroyer. He uses the system to "steal" his millions through chicanery and intimidation. It's a whole new ballgame when it comes to politics; of which he knows little, but he has pursued the presidency and has played the game (poorly, but he's played). He even said so himself; while addressing the US Coast Guard Academy recently - "No politician has been treated worse" in regards to the media attention(May 17, 2017).- SHINY

You're saying so many things in the comment, each one needs to be addressed independently.

Quote:
... nobody wanted him; for good reason...He's an idiot.

The swamp didn't want Trump because he's an idiot?
Baloney.
Trump could be a blithering idiot, like brain-burned GWB or pre-dementia Reagan, but ONLY if Trump didn't mind having someone's hand up his ass turning him into a sock-puppet ... like Cheney did to Bush II, and Bush I did to Reagan. If Trump allowed himself to be the human skin of the swamp, the swamp wouldn't mind HOW stupid he was! In fact, really stupid Presidents are more conveniently manipulated. IDIOCY is not the problem.

Quote:
He uses the system to "steal" his millions through chicanery and intimidation.

Unlike the Clintons, who apparently used every office they ever had to enrich themselves, leaving an unlikely trail of dead bodies behind them; finally using the State Department and the Clinton Foundation in a pay-to-play scheme whereby the Clintons stole BILLIONS from their "charity"?

Quote:
It's a whole new ballgame when it comes to politics; of which he knows little

Therefore, he's an outsider' you just said so yourself. Which do you prefer, SHINY: the person who smoothly convinces you that it's for your own good, as you get butt-fucked? Or the person who doesn't know how to whisper sweet nothings in your ear?

Quote:
"No politician has been treated worse" in regards to the media attention

This is probably true, but being treated badly by the press is not a reflection of ANY person's moral character, since the press is a duplicitous lying sack of corporate interest. The fact that the Press printed so many lies about Trump .... which btw is slowly coming to light .... tells me more about the press than about Trump. One thing it tell me is that one should NEVER trust the press!

In all of your comments so far, you quite obviously have not hit on the ones that I consider to be the most concerning.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 8:47 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

And your repeated attempts to claim otherwise are just ... more trolling.

Troll.

Today's Dilbert Comic covered this situation: http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-10-24
That stupid online troll is insulting me again on social media! I keep defending myself, but instead of agreeing with me, he keeps calling me “defensive” and “pathetic”.
Maybe you could stop engaging with him?
I’m not a quitter!

The creator of Dilbert did endorse Trump over Hillary
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsemen
t-from-clinton-to

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:40 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I don't quite get how you derailed so much to avoid a simple and coherent answer to a reasonable question - or even repeated question, yet at the same time go on a rant which might be tangential at best.
Are you off your meds?

Do you remember Trump's campaign? What American lacks, as Trump himself used to say on the campaign trail, is a reasonable distribution of economic resources, world-class infrastructure, affordable health care, and affordable child care. Investing resources in creating the things Trump said he would create, rather than in kowtowing to the transnational financial elites he said he was fighting, would improve middle-class people’s lives in a direct and tangible way.

But rather than craft policies to do any of that, Trumpism is proving to be an enormous bait-and-switch whose strategy for boosting the economy is to recapitulate George W. Bush’s agenda of cutting taxes for the rich and hoping for the best.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 3:08 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Do you remember Obama's campaigns? How he was going to revive the middle class, make government transparent, change the way DC was run, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, close Gitmo, restrict warrantless wiretaps, stop the government-to-lobbyist revolving door, etc? And then, in an orgy of deflection and blame-shifting, attempt to blame Hillary's loss on "Russia"? (Does everyone at this point realize how ridiculous that concept is? If you think that Trump is intemperate in his foreign policy, just imagine how short-sighted the deep-state Democrats were when they decided that could thwart Trump's envisioned detente with Russia and taint him with the Russian bogeyman, poisoning relations with Russia for the foreseeable future, all for a short-sighted political gain.)

I bring this up, not to excuse Trump but to remind you that BOTH party candidates make promises that they don't keep. For as awful as you keep saying Trump is, Obama has done some really horrible things to the average American. He was a smooth talker, so I'm not sure the full understanding of how he (and the DNC) have betrayed the average American will ever catch up with reality, but instead of your complete one-sided bitching and griping, why don't you take a realistic look at both parties and insist on something better?

Just remember, SECOND, if there was a swamp in DC, Obama was part of it. And so was Hillary.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:02 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I bring this up, not to excuse Trump but to remind you that BOTH party candidates make promises that they don't keep. . . . why don't you take a realistic look at both parties and insist on something better?

Just remember, SECOND, if there was a swamp in DC, Obama was part of it. And so was Hillary.

You remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their complaints about government. Their faith is the wicked die in Armageddon and God shall rule perfectly forever after. That is why I quit them. I don't want perfect or even pretty good. Trump is enough if he'd make his old income tax returns public knowledge, as he promised many, many times. Just that information would keep him within the boundary of reasonable behavior. And placing his businesses into an actual blind trust, instead of his make-believe trust, would go even further. Another promise not kept, and unlike Obama, Trump has no possible way to blame Congress for Trump not keeping those promises.

Today, Dilbert has a comment on what Signym and second are doing:
http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-10-25
Watch me win this debate on twitter by providing facts and logic. Now we wait for everyone in the world to change their minds.
How’s the first minute going?
What is wrong with these monsters!

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their complaints about government. Their faith is the wicked die in Armageddon and God shall rule perfectly forever after. That is why I quit them.

huh? I'm telling you to get off your fat arse and be something other than a swamp-defender and virtue-signaller. I'm sure not advocating that you leave this to Jehovah. What the hell are you smoking?

Quote:
I don't want perfect or even pretty good. Trump is enough if he'd make his old income tax returns public knowledge, as he promised many, many times. Just that information would keep him within the boundary of reasonable behavior. And placing his businesses into an actual blind trust, instead of his make-believe trust, would go even further. Another promise not kept, and unlike Obama, Trump has no possible way to blame Congress for Trump not keeping those promises.

Judging by the amount and triviality of the criticism that you've heaped on Trump on this board, NONE of that would satisfy you!

You seem to think that just because I criticize Obama, Hillary, and the DNC shills who're running the deep state's shit-show that I'm defending Trump. I'm not.

You also seem to think that if I criticize your (deep state) criticism of Trump, I'm defending Trump. I'm not. But clearly you still don't recognize how enmeshed the deep state - the swamp, if you will- is with the DNC, and the DNC is with the deep state.

Why do you still think the Dems are going to rescue you?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2017 7:55 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Judging by the amount and triviality of the criticism that you've heaped on Trump on this board, NONE of that would satisfy you! . . . clearly you still don't recognize how enmeshed the deep state - the swamp, if you will- is with the DNC, and the DNC is with the dee . . .

I'll keep it really simple for you. I'll give you a non-trivial criticism of Trump. And in this particular case, Democrats want the opposite of what Trump wants. Out of necessity, the Republicans are cleverly yet falsely claiming that their tax cut will go to higher wages for workers.

The core of the Trump tax plan, to the extent we know what’s in it, is a huge cut in corporate taxes — about $2 trillion over the next 10 years, according to TPC’s best estimates. The administration would like you to believe that all of that tax cut will be passed on to higher wages, but this is overwhelmingly unlikely, especially in the short to medium run. In fact, the bulk of that tax cut will almost surely accrue to stockholders.

Unlike the situation in previous tax reforms, we now live in a world where investment holdings are diversified across countries. Specifically, around 35 percent of U.S. equity is owned by foreign residents. So of that $2 trillion windfall, $700 billion goes to foreigners. Make non-US investors great again!

It is Trump’s $700 Billion Foreign Aid Program. Trump can’t say that he only cares about global welfare, not U.S. parochial issues — not under an administration that has adopted America First as its slogan.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/trumps-700-billion-foreig
n-aid-program/

To repeat: 35% of US equity is foreign owned, therefore 700 billion dollars of the 2 trillion dollar Trump tax windfall goes to foreigners. The 1,300 billion dollars of the tax cut which is staying in America will NOT raise wages, despite what Trump says, but will instead increase the wealth of the rich. That is a substantive criticism of Trump and you can't blame the Democrats for what Trump intends to do because the Democrats are opposed.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Here's a non-trivial criticism of Obama:

As banks were failing, he force-fed somewhere in the realm of $13+ trillion (that's with a "T") on them, refusing to allow "too big to fail" banks to fail. He signed onto the very first bail-in agreement with the Bank of England, which allows systemically important (international) banks to touch your account to make themselves whole, then signed on to the expanded version of "bail in" during the G20 meeting in Australia.

He refused to prosecute bankers who write fraudulent loans or sold fraudulent investment products based on subprime loans https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wal
l-street-prosecutions-obama https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wall-streets-
bankers-stayed-out-of-jail/399368/ and arm-twisted the States Attorney General (including Kamala Harris [watch out for that snake] an up-and-coming Dem who sold her soul for political gain)

During his reign, at least 85% (if not more) of the "recovery" went to the top 1%. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/upshot/gains-from-economic-recovery
-still-limited-to-top-one-percent.html I have not found a totalized value for that gain in wealth disparity except that it is acknowledged to be in the $trillions (that's with a "T"). If I decide to pursue this research further I'll to let you know.

Do you REALLY think Saint Obama did anything for the average American? I refer you once again to the chart which shows the increasing wealth disparity to continue along the same trajectory under Obama as under GWB. I predict that the trajectory will be unchanged under Trump, too.

Yanno what your problem is, SECOND? Among other things, you focus on "feelings" and "motivations" like someone who's taken just a few too many psychology classes, leaving you incapable of analyzing anything with numbers attached, like financialism and economics.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:21 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Signym, if you want to bring down the wealth of the top 1%, then your ideal Trump would be raising taxes on the 1%. But he's not. He seeks to lower them. What Trump is doing is the opposite of what any Democrat would do.

Signym, if you want to improve the health of the bottom 99%, then your ideal Trump would have an ideal Trumpcare plan. But he doesn't have a plan. What Trump is doing is the opposite of what any Democrat would do.

And a final generalized complaint about Trump doing what no Democrat would do. (I chose the wall only as an example; choose a better project closer to your heart):

Signym, if you want the Texas/Mexico wall built, then your ideal Trump would not have deliberately alienated Senators Flake and Corker. Flake and Corker will be in office until January 2019. That’s an eternity in politics. There could be more Republican Senators who haven't announced their antipathy to Trump because they are not resigning. Remember, Republicans only have a two-seat majority in the Senate. Your ideal Trump needs their votes in 2017 and 2018 to build that wall. If you don't care about the wall, there must be a few other things Signym might want passed that can't pass because Trump is too good at making the wrong kind of enemies.

Good luck, Signym, with your hopes for Trump.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SECOND, you STILL don't get it, do you?

I fully acknowledge that Trump is doing some things that are horrible for the middle class. There is nothing you can tell me that would change my view of Trump. I KNOW he's bringing his swamp with him. I KNOW that he represents a segment of the elite- what I call the "national" capitalists. In fact, I will tell you .... since you're into "motivations" and "feelings" ... that like many wealthy, he probably doesn't see any difference between what benefits him and what benefits America because ... well, hell, he and people like him ARE America. L'etat. cest moi. I suspect that he truly believes in trickle-down; that once capitalists like him (national ones) are allowed a bigger piece of the pie, then the economy will blossom and everyone's boat will be lifted. Yes, I think that Trump is self-referencing and fatuous enough to actually believe that. I also thought he would be a loose cannon. And morally, I thought that he and Hillary were about on-par, altho I did give Trump a slight edge. I think I said most of this even BEFORE the election. I even said that there was no way in hell that Trump could revive the economy.

And knowing all this, I still thought Hillary was a worse choice. And looking into the future from now, I still say that the Dems would stab Americans in the back ....again ... just as badly or worse, but in a different way. Because they HAVE stabbed Americans in the back already.

So, what were you going to say about Trump that was going to change my mind?

Stop recycling your old arguments ad nauseam. Give it your best shot, hon, because so far you haven't touched me.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2017 12:24 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

I'll hit you with one more for the day: Trump made a big show of saving jobs at Carrier in Indiana. He hasn't done that again. There are thousands of factories he could show up at to save jobs from being exported. But he hasn't done it because that's work, the work is not fun for Trump, and he never meant what he said about saving factory jobs in the first place. It was all about creating a show for Trump's amusement. Trump didn't do another Carrier because V.P. Pence, ex-governor of Indiana, did all the real work for Trump. Since Pence didn't have a second Indiana factory ready to save, Trump never saved another.

I was under the impression that factory jobs was an important part of Trump's appeal to Signym. Sorry if I remember that wrong about you, but Trump is demonstrating that his enthusiasm for creating factory jobs is no greater than Obama's was and Hillary's would have been. As far as jobs, Trump has let the country fly on automatic pilot, following the last compass heading from when Obama was the pilot.
www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/business/economy/jobs-report-unemployment.h
tml

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, you STILL don't get it, do you?

I fully acknowledge that Trump is doing some things that are horrible for the middle class. There is nothing you can tell me that would change my view of Trump. I KNOW he's bringing his swamp with him. I KNOW that he represents a segment of the elite- what I call the "national" capitalists. In fact, I will tell you .... since you're into "motivations" and "feelings" ... that like many wealthy, he probably doesn't see any difference between what benefits him and what benefits America because ... well, hell, he and people like him ARE America. L'etat. cest moi. I suspect that he truly believes in trickle-down; that once capitalists like him (national ones) are allowed a bigger piece of the pie, then the economy will blossom and everyone's boat will be lifted. Yes, I think that Trump is self-referencing and fatuous enough to actually believe that. I also thought he would be a loose cannon. And morally, I thought that he and Hillary were about on-par, altho I did give Trump a slight edge. I think I said most of this even BEFORE the election. I even said that there was no way in hell that Trump could revive the economy.

And knowing all this, I still thought Hillary was a worse choice. And looking into the future from now, I still say that the Dems would stab Americans in the back ....again ... just as badly or worse, but in a different way. Because they HAVE stabbed Americans in the back already.

So, what were you going to say about Trump that was going to change my mind?

Stop recycling your old arguments ad nauseam. Give it your best shot, hon, because so far you haven't touched me.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2017 1:35 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Trump shows his brilliance in this quote about Chinese President Xi Jinping: "He’s a powerful man. I happen to think he’s a very good person. Now with that being said, he represents China, I represent the USA, so, you know, there’s going to always be conflict. But we have a very good relationship. People say we have the best relationship of any president-president, because he’s called president also.

Now some people might call him the king of China. But he’s called president. But we have a very good relationship and that’s a positive thing. And it would be good to have that relationship with Russia and other countries, too."

Trump is unpopular around the world. That makes it difficult for democratically elected leaders to engage in the same level of Trump flattery as the dictators in China and Russia, which may have given Trump a poor impression of the various prime ministers of Europe and the Commonwealth.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16552362/lou-dobbs-trump-tr
anscript

Replacement-level Republicanism, minus competence

The truly striking thing about Trump, nine months in, is not the awe-inspiring scale of accomplishments that Dobbs claims to see.

It’s that after an extraordinarily contentious primary season in which Trump put forward many profoundly heterodox policy ideas, we have a president in the White House whose strongest performance comes when giving a decent rendition of Chamber of Commerce talking points on one aspect of a corporate income tax cut.

There’s no actual plan here to cut prescription drug prices. There isn’t even any talk any more of “terrific” health insurance programs that will “cover everyone.” Trump’s not pretending any more than he’s going to raise taxes on the rich, he’s not talking about $1 trillion infrastructure investments, and he’s certainly not burning the midnight oil coming up with a Trumpian policy agenda.

He’s just kind of bopping along with more vulgarity and corruption and less discipline and policy knowledge than a normal president.

Meanwhile, a Republican Party that’s no longer really divided on policy is tearing itself apart between a faction that can see the plain reality in front of them and a majority group that, like Dobbs, insists on pretending that their party’s unpopular and not-very-able leader is in fact a leader of world-historical proportions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump shows his brilliance in this quote about Chinese President Xi Jinping: "He’s a powerful man. I happen to think he’s a very good person. Now with that being said, he represents China, I represent the USA, so, you know, there’s going to always be conflict. But we have a very good relationship. People say we have the best relationship of any president-president, because he’s called president also.

Now some people might call him the king of China. But he’s called president. But we have a very good relationship and that’s a positive thing. And it would be good to have that relationship with Russia and other countries, too."

Trump is unpopular around the world. That makes it difficult for democratically elected leaders to engage in the same level of Trump flattery as the dictators in China and Russia, which may have given Trump a poor impression of the various prime ministers of Europe and the Commonwealth.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16552362/lou-dobbs-trump-tr
anscript

Replacement-level Republicanism, minus competence

The truly striking thing about Trump, nine months in, is not the awe-inspiring scale of accomplishments that Dobbs claims to see.

It’s that after an extraordinarily contentious primary season in which Trump put forward many profoundly heterodox policy ideas, we have a president in the White House whose strongest performance comes when giving a decent rendition of Chamber of Commerce talking points on one aspect of a corporate income tax cut.

There’s no actual plan here to cut prescription drug prices. There isn’t even any talk any more of “terrific” health insurance programs that will “cover everyone.” Trump’s not pretending any more than he’s going to raise taxes on the rich, he’s not talking about $1 trillion infrastructure investments, and he’s certainly not burning the midnight oil coming up with a Trumpian policy agenda.

He’s just kind of bopping along with more vulgarity and corruption and less discipline and policy knowledge than a normal president.

Meanwhile, a Republican Party that’s no longer really divided on policy is tearing itself apart between a faction that can see the plain reality in front of them and a majority group that, like Dobbs, insists on pretending that their party’s unpopular and not-very-able leader is in fact a leader of world-historical proportions.

Trump might seem to be bumbling around, but those who voted for him seem to be happier with him than they would have been with Hilliary. The far lesser of 2 evils, Trump is not even the same league of evil as her.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:31 PM