|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
But there are very easy quotes to find about the "spooks" holding back documents from Nixon. From government officials in the administration.
Google Interestingly, the 4th hit is Roger Stone talking about the issue in a recent book. The fact of the matter is that the agencies holding documents from even the President of the United States is a real issue. And it is an issue among those in the Trump circle. At least Stone and Trump. Stone was just the subject of a documentary Roger and Me. Dedicated to Wayne Barrett.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Did Trump get campaign donations from defense contractors?
This would be a worthy discussion instead of this Russian conspiracy bull crap. Saudi Arabia spends $87 billion a year on its aggressor I mean "defense " budget. Iran spends $14 billion a year. This is a county that is full of royal family parasites that loot the middle eastern people, murder its own citizens, and with one of the worst overall human rights records in the world. A nation that bombs some of its neighbors (like Yemen where 10,000 civilians have been murdered by Saudi bombardment ), and arms and mans rebel groups against some others ( like Syria and Iraq ). Sickening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
March 27 New York Times reported these military budgets.
Per year in billions U. K. $55Russia $66 France $51 India $51 Japan $41 Saudi Arabia $87 China $215 Saudi Arabia just got a contract to buy $350 billion more in weapons from the United States military industry over 10 years. This raw weapons purchase is over half per year of the entire Russian budget. Raw ADDITIONAL weapons purchase, that is. But Russia is just so dangerous to the peace of the Middle East. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
The biggest issue is whether General Flynn was a "Turkish agent" really.
But that runs counter to the Russian agent craze that has swept the military industrial complex propaganda machine. Meanwhile, Gary Cohn, Trump's chief economic adviser, said this about the $110 billion in immediate sales of American arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia :
quote: Trump said this :
quote: $350 billion over the next ten years and $110 billion right now on military sales in the name of defense against, get this, Iran. The military industry wins again. The people of the world loose. The military industry funds paid mouthpieces, often ex military officers, to the tune of billions of $$$ a year, in sounding alarms at inadequate military spending, or so the propaganda goes. General Wesley Clark has been talking alot about how we need to spend so much more to keep up with Russian and Chinese technology. Another mythology we have to suffer. "gap" "gap" "gap " Talk about the God of the "gaps".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
On the "election collusion" stuff, I guess I should refer you to the Friday, June 9, 2017 New York Post article, TIME's MAJOR STORY BLUNDER by Bob Fredericks.
A Thursday June 8 Tweet by Dean Baquet said that the Comey "it was not true" answer to the committee would cause the NYT to "report back with more information as soon as we can " on this Paul Manafort related issue.
quote: There has been no posting here at EVC on the issue, so I will offer this above for those who are interested in following the developments. The Feb 14 headline was TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD REPEATED CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. I appreciate the New York Times and am thrilled to see that they are adding 100 more journalists to a paper that has much cheaper online subscriptions than the (also outstanding ) too expensive Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post has reasonable prices too. The Guardian is free but has seen its once $50 billion (or so I remember ) endowment drain down so low that it might not last long. Sad. Very sad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
Paul Sperry wrote a Sunday June 25, 2017 New York Post article about Fusion GPS, a company that describes itself :
quote: Also an article Dems warn own party rez-Russia flap a loser By Mary Kay Linge
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
When I said "he relishes that investigation" ,I feel that all current commentary is in total complete agreement now.
Right, Left, center. CNN just fired 3 reporters over the Russian conspiracy theories. Trump was given a major gift when the Democratic party and intelligence agencies went after him based on hopes for Russian collusion evidence being plausible and certain meeting being solidly convincing as evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: He said he would keep the deal during the campaign, and it distinguished him from all other candidates (except perhaps Rand Paul) Trump did , however, boast that he would use his clever cunning toughness to use every last line of the deal to make life like hell on Iran as the nation struggled to fulfill its end of the bargain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
quote: It was commonly said that Nader cost Gore the New Hampshire Electoral College votes in 2000 because Bush won by 7000 votes while Nader got 22,000. But the best national exit polls showed that 25% of Nader voters would have voted for Bush, and 38% for Gore. (however, there was a good exit poll which showed that 47% of Nader voters would have supported Gore while 24% would have went for Bush) The claim that Nader cost Bush New Hampshire was based on pure ignorance. Then there was Florida. Nader got around 97,000 votes there (something like 1.7%) and Bush only won by 537 votes. It would seem that Gore would have won by 12,00 to 22,000 votes had Nader not been in the race. But the Libertarian candidate (Harry Brown), Constitution Party candidate (Howard Phillips) and Reform candidate (Pat Buchanan) took a much higher percentage of Bush voters than Nader took Gore voters, and they almost got as many votes as Nader when combined. Nader pointed out that political scientists have determined that a straight (year 2000) Bush verse Gore race in Florida would have resulted in Bush winning still. The recount would have been the decisive factor yet again. Stein might have cost Hillary Michigan, but not the national race. And there wouldn't have been a real difference in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and especially Ohio (it always amazed me how people could claim Nader cost Gore Ohio when Bush won 50% to 46% in that state, and Nader only got about 3%, so it will amaze me that Trumps 51% to 42% Ohio 2016 win was "because of that evil Jill Stein").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I lived in Texas in 2010, and wanted to roll my New York license over to Texas.
(Houston) I had my NY drivers license and Social Security card but lost my birth certificate (lost some paperwork somehow). (Had my own zerox that I made but it did no good) I could not get a license roll over the entire time I was there. Could not vote in the 2010 elections (I left before they came up anyway). New York requires the same documentation (though I can't remember it I ever needed it to keep my old license going, but newer New Yorkers need a birth certificate and S.S. card to convert their out of state license or I.D. into a New York one.) And I mean New York, New York (Manhattan). Interestingly, I saw the (down town) Houston congresswomen Sheila Jackson Lee tell the C-SPAN audience that her mother couldn't vote because her Birth Certificate can't be gotten EVER because the place that holds the records either burnt down long ago or something just isn't to be found in any government record building. (I lived in downtown Houston too when I was there but I wasn't born there) I lived in the downtown area of Houston too. When you are away from your birth place, it is very hard to get your documents, but it was amazing to see that the mother of the congresswomen couldn't even get her documents in her home town.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
I have been linking to the IMF wage projections. (but the links become out of date and useless as time passes)
This Brexit thread has worthless links. (They were for 2016 and 2020 incomes) EvC Forum: Brexit - Should they stay or should they go? The most updated figures will have things a bit higher than $65,000 for 2020 (Here are the most up to date IMF projections for 2018 and 2022) List of Countries by Projected GDP per capita Source International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook (April - 2018)Date 06 May 2018 Countries by Projected GDP per capita 2021 - StatisticsTimes.com NOW MY POINT. Anyway, an economy that grows 3.0% instead 2.5% will see average incomes roughly $1,200 higher per person after 4 years. The difference between $71,000 and $72,000 or $66,000 and $67,000. Clearly the difference won't matter too much. So what will matter? I would say one answer is the "economic system" but there are other answers. Social programs are one answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined:
|
I even got a big liberal Democrat (friend), who HATES Trump, to sort of come around to my arguments.
He found an online video of Trump (1989?) saying that he could pretend to be a racist and get lots of idiot rednecks to support him. I remember talking about Trump possibly being President way back in the late 80s and early 90s. (mostly because he was so big of a business man). Trump is on record supporting "open borders" as recently as 2013 and it seemed to be somewhat secretive. This was AFTER his Birther support (around 2010-12, which everybody, on BOTH the right and left, at the time of his Birther "birth", saw as some thinly veiled bone thrown to a needed anti-immigrant populist group of Republicans that he was somehow trying to get on the good side of). HOWEVER I do think that Trump genuinely dislikes lots of left-leaning people personally. He very well might find very many of them to have disgusting character traits. (Perhaps because even white liberals have always only been about 27% supportive of increasing yearly immigration yet constantly attack others as "racist"? I don't know but he does seem to really dislike the left though it might be tough to figure out. I feel he considers everybody savages and that he needs to tear everything apart. But he seems to find many Average Joe conservative types to be not as dislikable as he might - secretly - dislike their anti-immigration views)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
On the Democrats.
quote: "Workers" (meaning unions or not?) have a history of only wanting rights for themselves. Historically, there have been lots of liberals who don't want blacks protected. It took quite a while to get unions to see blacks as equals to whites. To this day,union members (not just whites, but blacks too) talk endlessly about immigrants and foreigners somehow needing to be KEPT POOR because the "other's" increased wealth and rights will somehow take away from the worthy one. I dont know too much about these jokers the Democrats just elected (they got 2 seats in southern Florida from what would have been pro immigration Republican areas), but we shall see if they genuinely believe in the rights of "others". I remain skeptical. One clue will be if Democrats start to support guest worker's programs (which means increasing the number alloted by many hundreds of thousands and making it much easier for foreigners to get approved). Another clue will be whether Democrats open up and tell the truth about the worlds Communist partys being the driving force for civil rights and ALL workers rights (remember, the French Socialist party didn't support rights for the various colony's workers, ONLY French workers) as the Communist party was the only American party, in 1919, calling for civil rights. The even bigger clue will be whether American unions stop their phony-baloney "concern" for foreigners "labor rights" just so they can stop cold trade deals. They need to prove they are concerned by supporting guest worker programs, and admit they do not and have not cared about foreign workers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
2016 (or 2015?) UNIVISION DEBATE
Sanders said "I think I can agree to that", then Hillary Clinton said "yes". That question was asked in the light of the Trump campaign (plus the Central American child migration crisis of 2013- present). Now, Democrats say Trump is evil for putting children migrants behind bars. HOLD FUTURE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS AND THE DEMOCRATIC RANK-AND-FILE TO A CONSISTENT STANDARD. Nothing less than the highest standard for children migrants is acceptable. (Be advised that the only new thing under Trump is PARENTS AND CHILDREN BEING SEPARATED. The detention of children is standard fare. Hillary Clinton supported the detention of children back in the 2013-2014 period, just after she left her Secretary of State job. To his credit, Sanders spoke, on the floor of the Senate, in opposition of the detentions. He was somewhat consistent from 2013 to 2016.) Today's Democrats say that the issue of children being put behind bars is extreme but will they be consistent when there is a Democratic administration? MY FEAR: Democrats (during a future Democratic administration) will say, "We opposed the 'excesses' of the Trump administration, which especially included the separation of migrant children from their parents BUT WE CANNOT ALLOW EVERY CHILD IN THE WORLD TO IMMIGRATE TO THIS COUNTRY". MY HOPE: Democratic administrations (and the Democratic party as a whole) will admit that they fired severe attacks on Trump for stopping child-migrants at the border (and irrespective of the separate issue of separating a few thousand parents from children), and the accordant policy of the post-Trump Democratic party will be to honor the spirit, of the Trump-era opposition-party position, that the party of Thomas Jefferson presented then. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member (Idle past 738 days) Posts: 2236 Joined: |
The issue is about giving the undocumented/illegal immigrants the right to avoid deportation and to stay.
(children seem to be the group Democrats show willingness to defend to various degrees) ( The right to NOT be walled off by a border check is another issue. Democrats are on the record calling walls "racist", and we all know walls are just a symbol of borders) Here is the Univision transcript. Transcript: Univision News Democratic Debate on March 9, 2016 | Noticias Univision Poltica | Univision This March 2016 Univision debate was in the shadow of Hillary Clinton's 2014 comments (the quotes are easy to find) supporting swift deportation of children.
quote: Back to the March 9, 2016 debate Sanders said he would not deport children. (Hillary largely agreed)
quote: But where are we now? We are at a situation where illegal immigrants are being protected in "sanctuary cities". Put "Obama deported Children" into google and see lots of mainstream media articles enlightening the evidence of large numbers of deportations and comparisons to Trump. Google
quote: Democrats will be in power again, and we will see if "walls are racist" (or "The Wall is racist") will be matched with sincerity in policymaking. Walls are just a symbol of borders. Will Democrats seriously challenge borders? Is a fence less racist than a wall (Google: "wall verses a fence")? Then, will Democrats backtrack on the rights of children?(will there be "open borders" of sorts for children?)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024