Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2918 of 4573 (855172)
06-17-2019 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2913 by JonF
06-16-2019 8:12 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
JonF writes:
About a month later. Why is that important?
Maybe I should have quoted the exact portion of your Message 2910 that I was replying to:'
quote:
......If Republicans ever did [the Steele dossier] to the Democrats, there would be all hell to pay. It would be a scandal like no other!
Trump is, of course, ignorant of the fact that a good part of the dossier was paid for by the conservative Washington Free Beacon.
Steele wasn't employed by Fusion GPS until after the Beacon ceased engaging their services. The Beacon didn't fund any of the Steele dossier.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2913 by JonF, posted 06-16-2019 8:12 PM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2919 of 4573 (855175)
06-17-2019 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 2914 by marc9000
06-16-2019 8:40 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
marc9000 writes:
So then to answer the Stephanopoulos question properly, Trump should have said, (when asked if he would accept dirt on a political opponent from a foreign entity) "hey, I'd PAY for dirt on a political opponent from a foreign entity", and that would have made all the Democrats happy? No negative reporting on him if he'd said that?
If a foreign entity called Trump and offered him dirt on a political opponent (which was Stephanopoulos's question), and he accepted (which was Trump's answer), then that's unethical and illegal. If in addition Trump also offered to pay them for it, that's even worse.
Trump also has this confusion that the nature of the information is a factor. He later modified his answer and said he'd look at the information and if it was bad then he might call the FBI. It doesn't matter if the information was good or bad (what does that even mean?). Accepting information from a foreign entity is illegal.
Certainly there are many nuances. If a political candidate runs into a Russian embassy official at a state dinner and the official says, "You might want to look into the finances of so-and-so," the candidate should probably steer the conversation to other topics and the FBI should probably be notified, though one could probably argue whether this is serious enough to notify the FBI.
But if Russians contact you and offer you dirt on a political opponent and you replied, "I love it!" and took the meeting and didn't notify the FBI then you're behaving unethically and possibly criminally. If you meet with a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence and provide them polling data so that they could potentially use (and likely did use) to inform their social media misinformation efforts, then you're again behaving unethically and possibly criminally.
For you what seems to matter most is who did it rather than what was done. Unethical and criminal behavior should be condemned no matter who does it. I was one of the first to insist that Al Franken should resign after information about his sexually questionable conduct became public, so I'm on record as not letting my like/dislike for a person influence me. You're on record as defending those you like no matter what they've done. In fact, you seem incapable of seeing any wrongdoing by someone you like. You could use a little objectivity.
marc9000 writes:
But he couldn't prove them. So case closed.
Until Congress acts. Yes, the voters are watching, and the majority of them don't like what they see Trump and the Trumpettes doing.
Do you think that's why CNN's ratings have dropped 26% so far this year? And Fox's have risen at least 11%?
You're judging truth/falsity based upon TV channel ratings? Shouldn't you be judging the evidence on its merits?
I expect Fox News ratings to continue strong as long as they continue selling tall tales, conspiracy theories and white supremacy. Compared to all that drama, straight news is boring.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2914 by marc9000, posted 06-16-2019 8:40 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2921 by JonF, posted 06-17-2019 11:19 AM Percy has replied
 Message 2924 by marc9000, posted 06-17-2019 7:35 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2920 of 4573 (855178)
06-17-2019 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2915 by marc9000
06-16-2019 8:43 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
marc9000 writes:
Hillary Clinton's campaign had no "foreign dealings" that anyone has ever reported.
You have defeated me!! I'm not going to play your dishonest little bait games.
I'm again going to suggest that you should focus on facts. If you have factual information about "foreign dealings" of the Clinton campaign then you should describe it. Factual information generally comes from news stories and programs. On Fox News that would be Shepard Smith (3 PM), not entertainment programs like Fox & Friends, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Jeanine Pirro.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2915 by marc9000, posted 06-16-2019 8:43 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2925 by marc9000, posted 06-17-2019 7:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2922 of 4573 (855189)
06-17-2019 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2921 by JonF
06-17-2019 11:19 AM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
JonF writes:
Accepting information from a foreign entity is illegal.
Marc's gonna rightly jump on that.
You've pulled out the last sentence of a couple paragraphs clearly about Trump's answer to Stephanopoulos's question about whether he'd accept offers of foreign help in his campaign. The first paragraph setting of the context begins, "If a foreign entity called Trump and offered him dirt on a political opponent (which was Stephanopoulos's question)..." The context seems pretty clear.
So if Marc does jump on that sentence then I think he's jumping out of context. If even in context I wasn't sufficiently clear then I'll rephrase: "Accepting donations of information from a foreign entity is illegal."
Contracting a foreign agent to provide information of value in the future for agreed-upon market value compensation is definitely legal. Even if (as in Hillary's case) there's a third party who holds the contract and decides to hire a foreign agent to collect the information.
Agreed, and I've made a parallel argument, that it's impossible to investigate a candidate's dealings with foreign entities without involving foreigners, so of course it's legitimate. The Clinton campaign didn't end up using anything from the Steele dossier, but had Steele uncovered clear evidence that Trump representatives were working on a Trump Tower deal in Moscow while Trump was denying any Russia dealings at home, the Clinton campaign would undoubtedly have used it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2921 by JonF, posted 06-17-2019 11:19 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2923 by JonF, posted 06-17-2019 12:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2928 of 4573 (855279)
06-18-2019 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 2924 by marc9000
06-17-2019 7:35 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
marc9000 writes:
Trump didn't say "he'd accept", he only said he'd listen, and I think there's a difference.
There's no difference. Once you say "I'm listening" you've stated that you're accepting the information provided. Once you've heard the information you can't unhear it. The acceptance of information from foreign agents creates vulnerabilities in the form of blackmail and extortion, and the agents will have hidden agendas.
It's a new day in America when a president says he'd respond to something by "listening" to it, and gets wildly attacked by the press.
If the press criticism was wrong then why was Trump also criticized by Republicans, some of them prominent like Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kennedy (R-LA), and why did Trump later change his answer to say that of course he'd notify the FBI?
In addition to losing freedom of speech, it looks like freedom to listen could also be coming under attack.
But Trump has changed his answer, and you're still arguing for the original answer that Trump now won't admit to providing, now claiming that he always said he'd notify the FBI, despite being recorded saying listening to foreign agents was fine. After claiming for over two years that there was no collusion in 2016 his original answer was thick with irony as he described how he'd be willing to collude with a foreign agent.
He's still learning, understandably, about the intensity of the hate against him, and how he needs to be on his guard more in quickly answering loaded questions.
Because of Trump's proclivity for giving voice to what he believes or wants to be true or what he wants people to believe to be true rather than to what is actually true, in this case what the law actually says (campaign laws and conspiracy laws), every question to Trump is a loaded question or a trap question. For people who don't lie they're just simple questions. Remember those polls that he told Stephanopoulos didn't exist? He just fired people for leaking information about those non-existent polls. Trump lies constantly, so every question is fraught with danger for him because the real world is full of facts that don't lie. Trump is the first person in American political history to give truth to the old joke, "If his lips are moving he's lying."
Agreed, but it makes one wonder how many dinners Hillary attended when she was Secretary of State, and how many suggestions she had to look into things from heads of socialist and communist nations, who agree with her on many things. How many times she called the FBI about it, and how diligently the news media focused on it.
You continue to have trouble distinguishing between a government official and a candidate for office. The Secretary of State is not an elected position, and Hillary Clinton was not running for office while she was Secretary of State, resigning in 2013 well before the 2016 election.
It seems to be taken as a given that Russia preferred Trump to be president over Hillary. I've never seen it made very clear, just why a socialist / communist nation like Russia would favor a free market capitalist like Trump over a socialist, big government advocate like Hillary.
That Russia greatly preferred Trump over Clinton has been proven and verified nine ways from Sunday. Mueller indicted a great many Russians for their illegal election interference efforts on Trump's behalf. Russia support for Trump and whatever they have on him that we don't know about might explain Trump's obsequious behavior toward Putin.
Unless they have a "D" behind their name. All the sensationalism, all the wasted time, all the confusion created by the phony Steele dossier wasn't condemned by the mainstream media to anywhere near the frenzy that two words from Trump; "I'd listen" did.
I think you're just repeating dubious conservative media chatter about the Steele dossier. It wasn't a factor in the FBI's decision to investigate the Trump campaign for possible conspiracy activity. One of it's most significant allegations is undeniably true, that Russian agents engaged in efforts to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign (the email dumps, Pizzagate, etc). Another of its significant allegations has a great deal of supporting evidence, that Trump campaign operatives conspired with Russian agents to interfere in the 2016 election on Trump's behalf, and while the evidence was not sufficient for Mueller to indict, it is likely more than enough to begin an impeachment inquiry. The other allegations have not been verified, and one was dismissed by the Mueller report.
I was one of the first to insist that Al Franken should resign after information about his sexually questionable conduct became public, so I'm on record as not letting my like/dislike for a person influence me.
"On record"? What record is that?
Right here at EvC. Start at Message 123 of the Senator Al Franken? thread and read forward.
I voted against Mitch McConnell in his last election.
Why? He's doing everything Trump could ask, and you love Trump. If the House happens to vote articles of impeachment then McConnell will probably refuse to consider those articles in the Senate, meaning there wouldn't even be a trial. Anyway, please vote against him again.
Have you ever had anything good to say about Trump at all?
I grew up in the New York metropolitan area where Trump was a known scumbag real estate developer from the early 1970's on. If you name some things he's done that you think are good I'll let you know what I think.
I expect Fox News ratings to continue strong as long as they continue selling tall tales, conspiracy theories and white supremacy. Compared to all that drama, straight news is boring.
Straight news from CNN, white supremacy from Fox News? Okay, not much to discuss there.
Tucker Carlson is responsible for the majority of the white supremacy talk on Fox News. Though as he'll tell you, you have to understand that making the point that this is a white country and all the other such points are not white supremacy talk.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add a missing quote/unquote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2924 by marc9000, posted 06-17-2019 7:35 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2929 by DrJones*, posted 06-18-2019 3:50 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2937 by marc9000, posted 06-22-2019 10:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2938 of 4573 (855802)
06-23-2019 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2935 by marc9000
06-22-2019 8:44 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
marc9000 writes:
Here's your evidence, you and Percy have been doing quite a dance to show a huge difference between what Hillary did, and Trump saying he would possibly do, if he was offered information. The following is from this link, that you showed in your Message 2901. Very straightforward, very hard to twist and distort;
quote:
The FEC chair: “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”
Why do you think this is difficult to "twist and distort"? You're twisting and distorting it with ease and alacrity right now.
I quoted the full text of the FEC chair's comments in Message 2898 over a week ago where she spoke of the illegality of accepting foreign help. This refers to things that Trump did, such as meeting with Russians at Trump Tower about dirt on Hillary Clinton, and Trump campaign chair Manafort handing internal Trump polling data to a Russian with ties to Russian intelligence to be used in their social media misinformation campaign. It refers to Trump stating that he would listen to help offered by foreigners, then decide on his own whether it was good or bad before deciding whether to inform the FBI. There is, of course, no good or bad when it comes to such information. It's all illegal.
It does not refer to the Clinton or Trump campaigns hiring opposition research firms who would obviously have to talk to foreigners in order to do their job, for instance, the Clinton firm talking to Russians and the Trump firm talking to Libyans (think Benghazi).
quote:
It has been determined since the 2016 election that the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the infamous Steele dossier that relied on intelligence from the Russian government.
Evidence?
Didn't think so.
That quote came from this news source. That's my evidence. Do you have evidence that it's false?
What is true is that the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump, and they in turn hired Daniel Steele to carry out Russian-related research. Steele was not informed who was funding the research, though it seems likely he would have assumed it was the Clinton campaign.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2935 by marc9000, posted 06-22-2019 8:44 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2973 by marc9000, posted 06-30-2019 5:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 2948 of 4573 (855852)
06-24-2019 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2936 by marc9000
06-22-2019 9:11 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
marc9000 writes:
You really can't learn that it is illegal for a campaign to accept a donation form a foreign entity. In those instances she was not a campaign.
I don't see any distinguishable difference in what Hillary's intentions could have been as Secretary of State as she was weighing her options in running for the presidency after Obama was through, versus Trump's intentions for possible re-election during the second year of his presidency.
You can't tell the difference between donations to a campaign and donations to a charity? Really? Does it truly have to be explained that donations to legitimate charities do not flow to the people running them? The Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charity still in operation. The Trump Foundation was forced to shut its doors when it was discovered that the Trumps were using it as a personal piggy bank.
quote:
The Senate panel called the overall assessment a “sound intelligence product,” saying evidence presented by the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency supported their collective conclusion that the Russian government had “developed a clear preference for Trump” over his opponent in the race, Hillary Clinton. Where the agencies disagreed, the Senate panel found those differences were “reasonable.”
So what are some details of this "sound intelligence product"? That Russia believes in an unarmed citizenry, and Hillary and the Democrats also believe in and unarmed citizenry?
This has absolutely nothing to do with Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but addressing it anyway:
  • Russia only allows hunting and sports firearms, and does not allow automatic weapons. During the 2010's Russia experienced 107 deaths in mass shootings. During the same period in the US there were 260 deaths in mass shootings.
  • Neither Hillary Clinton nor the Democrats advocate an unarmed citizenry. They advocate improved gun control laws, including improved backgrounds checks, registration, licensing and training.
That Russia believes in heavy government involvement in business, that Hillary and the Democrats also believe in heavy government involvement in business?
You have it backwards. It is the Republicans who get in bed with big business and vote them massive benefits from the public troughs. Democrats believe businesses should not be the beneficiaries of government largesse and that regulation should serve to rein in unrestrained capitalism with it's exploitation of workers and the environment.
There is so much similarity in Russian communism and U.S. Democrat socialism,...
Russians and Republicans believe government should be run for the benefit of business and government. Democrats believe government is for making people's lives better, which means a healthy business environment for full employment, a social safety net so that no one suffers for lack of food or shelter, and regulation to rein in capitalist tendencies toward monopolies, abuse of the environment, exploitation of the workforce, etc.
...when compared with Russian communism versus Trump's beliefs in smaller government involvement with business,...
Trump, the head of government, still owns his business, the Trump Organization, and is deeply involved. His nepotistic son, a member of the administration, supposedly works with Eric to run the business. Many of the Trump "friends" he calls on his cell at night are wealthy businessmen. David Pecker, a wealthy businessman who runs the National Enquirer among other publications, was involved in a "catch and kill" scheme with Trump to buy unfavorable stories about Trump and never publish them. So much for Trump believing in reduced involvement with business.
Trump's belief in and armed citizenry etc.
This is about the only thing you've said so far that is true, though it still has nothing to do anything JonF said. You're just running down your list of complaints. "Oh, somebody said something about something, time for me to enumerate a bunch of things that aren't true again."
Is that why he favors smaller government, an armed citizenry, fewer regulations, lower taxes?
Trump favors a smaller government that is impotent at holding back corporate malfeasance.
Trump favors an armed citizenry because he mistakenly believes that the answer to gun deaths is more guns.
Trump favors fewer regulations so that businesses can have fewer expenses while they pollute our water and air, and they can run up huge debts that eventually become too great and force government bailouts.
Trump favors lower taxes on businesses and the rich paid for by the government in the form of much higher deficits, nearly a trillion dollars in additional debt since the Trump tax cuts went into effect. This is another reason why Trump is not a conservative, since conservatives believe in low deficits or even balanced budgets. They also believe in free trade, not rampant and impulsively imposed tariffs.
For which they are ridiculously unsuited. I see you have no comment on the polls I posted, including one from Fox.
Those polls are laughable, I don't care where they come from. I'd bet they don't take the Electoral College into consideration at all.
First Trump claims his internal polls showing him way behind in many battleground states don't exist, then he fires four pollsters for leaking information about these non-existent polls.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2936 by marc9000, posted 06-22-2019 9:11 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2950 by JonF, posted 06-24-2019 10:11 AM Percy has replied
 Message 2954 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2019 10:32 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2974 by marc9000, posted 06-30-2019 5:46 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2949 of 4573 (855856)
06-24-2019 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2937 by marc9000
06-22-2019 10:03 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
marc9000 writes:
There's no difference. Once you say "I'm listening" you've stated that you're accepting the information provided. Once you've heard the information you can't unhear it. The acceptance of information from foreign agents creates vulnerabilities in the form of blackmail and extortion, and the agents will have hidden agendas.
If that were true, then there would have to be laws prohibiting a lot of former cabinet members, including Secretaries of State, from ever running for the presidency. Maybe if Mike Pompeo decides to run in 2024, the Democrats will work to get that done.
You are terribly confused. Any foreign assistance Mike Pompeo accepts for a future presidential run would be illegal, whether they occurred while he's Secretary of State or serving in any other role, including private citizen. He of course will exchange much information with foreigners in his role as Secretary of State, and as long as it isn't about helping him run for president it's fine.
If the press criticism was wrong then why was Trump also criticized by Republicans, some of them prominent like Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kennedy (R-LA), and why did Trump later change his answer to say that of course he'd notify the FBI?
He didn't "change" his answer, he only expounded on it. There have always been ~business as usual~ Republicans who enjoy playing "moderate" when Trump says some things.
Trump allies calling Trump out when he declares he will break the law isn't "playing moderate." It's daring to tell the truth when Trump is so far out of line that to do anything else would be politically worse than crossing Trump.
Trump isn't focused on only doing things that please Republicans.
Trump isn't focused on anything but pleasing himself. He's neither a Republican nor a conservative.
That's what a lot of voters like about him, myself included.
You like that Trump is just out for himself? Why? One of the great ironies of the Trump phenomena is that his policies treat his supporters worse than anyone else. This is finally beginning to dawn on some people, farmers suffering due to Trump tariffs, for example.
Every single president in recent history is always accused of lying.
Trump isn't just accused of lying, he's been shown to be lying or misleading 10,800 times so far according to the Washington Post.
The big difference today is all the lies that the supposed free press, the ones who are supposed to give unbiased information, are filling the airwaves with. People are getting wise to them - mainly because of the constant stream of lies for the past 2+ years that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election, something that the Mueller report disproved.
If you find a lie or misrepresentation in the Washington Post database that you think they got wrong, you let us know. My most memorable Trump lie is when he said he had no knowledge of the Cohen payoffs to purchase silence about his affairs, then was caught on tape talking about them, and then watched as his court jester Rudy Giuliani said on TV that of course Trump knew about the payoffs.
The big problem that Trump is creating is that little of what he says can be trusted. Whether domestically or internationally, if it's information then it is often viewed suspiciously, and if it's declarations of what he'll do, such as deporting millions of immigrants or attacking Iran, then people just wait until he changes his mind, because they know it's coming.
You continue to have trouble distinguishing between a government official and a candidate for office. The Secretary of State is not an elected position, and Hillary Clinton was not running for office while she was Secretary of State, resigning in 2013 well before the 2016 election.
Do you think there was a chance that she had a run for president in mind for her future?
Of course Hillary Clinton had presidential aspirations. That was no secret.
Trump is in the second year of his presidency. Is the second year of a presidency now defined as a "campaign"?
Trump filed his papers for the 2020 election the day after his inauguration. He's been holding campaign rallies all across the country ever since he took office. He never stopped running.
That Russia greatly preferred Trump over Clinton has been proven and verified nine ways from Sunday.
Lay it on me, you could start by explaining how Russian society benefits from a Trump presidency more than it would a socialist Democrat presidency. Does Russia want a second amendment now? More free markets?
That Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign was an unambiguous conclusion of The Mueller Report:
quote:
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
...
...the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,...
The CIA and FBI reached similar conclusions and have said so publicly. Where have you been?
Don't get me wrong, I know this has all been carefully dreamed up.
And you know this how? You seem to "know" a great many things that are not true.
But I suspect it's only really intended to amuse Trump haters, I don't know that it would hold up to some common sense questioning.
I think we'll call you a truth hater.
I grew up in the New York metropolitan area where Trump was a known scumbag real estate developer from the early 1970's on. If you name some things he's done that you think are good I'll let you know what I think.
How about a 3.2 GDP, lowest unemployment in 50 years, 500K new manufacturing jobs?
The economy began growing way back in 2010. Obama managed to maintain a growing economy for 6 years. Trump took that growing economy and gave it a massive and very stimulative tax cut, so of course the economy began growing slightly faster, plus there are all the regulations about the environment that businesses don't have to follow anymore, leaving a legacy of dirtier air and water for our children, and all the bank reserve requirements that are lower now, leaving us vulnerable to another financial crash like the one in 2008.
Now I know the early talking point is that all this is due to the actions of Barrack what-magic-wand-do-you-have Obama, but after 2 + years, it's getting a little bit old.
Since when does the truth ever get old? Again, the economy began growing under Obama back in 2010. Here's a graph. You can see the downturn from the financial crash in 2009, and after that GDP was positive year after year, including the Trump years:
What the future holds may be analogous to when Trump took his father's money and bankrupted it several times. Right now he's taken a growing US economy and if he keeps on as he is he could well bankrupt it (i.e., recession). Trump has already given us the largest budget deficits in history.
Getting taxes and regulations off the back of risk takers and job creators is what makes good economic things happen, everyone knows that, though some still stubbornly refuse to admit it.
I think everyone agrees the government should maintain a healthy business environment. But we used to have stronger regulations for protecting our environment, preventing monopolies, encouraging fair business practices, and maintaining financial stability. Trump's cutting back of those regulations while at the same time politicizing the Fed is not a good thing.
A "scumbag"? You have an unchangeable personal hatred?
I wasn't expressing any personal feelings toward Trump. I was merely describing him. He's a scumbag real estate developer from New York City who lied and cheated and exploited and discriminated, sort of the definition of a scumbag.
He's 73 now, you can't accept that maybe he's learned from a few actions of his past, and just might have a desire to do what's best for the country where his children and grandchildren live?
Trump's actions indicate he does not care about the country. His family effectively lives in a different country, insulated and isolated from the problems everyone else has to deal with, from salaries too low to afford the rents near where they work, to decaying infrastructure, to poor water quality, to poor air quality, to rising sea levels, to changing and more unpredictable and more violent climatic events.
He's recently done charitable things and admirable private things that go completely unreported by the press.
And yet you somehow know about these completely unreported "admirable private things." What are they, pray tell, and how did you find out about them?
Carlson is a very small part of Fox News, and I agree, his talk isn't white supremacy...
Uh, we don't agree. Tucker Carlson talks white supremacy all the time.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar cleanup.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2937 by marc9000, posted 06-22-2019 10:03 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2951 by JonF, posted 06-24-2019 10:14 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2956 by marc9000, posted 06-24-2019 8:10 PM Percy has replied
 Message 2975 by marc9000, posted 06-30-2019 6:27 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2952 of 4573 (855863)
06-24-2019 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2950 by JonF
06-24-2019 10:11 AM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
Okay. And I agree with your earlier statement that receiving assistance and/or conspiring about campaigns with foreigners even while not engaged in a campaign may possibly be illegal. Certainly it's unethical. I raised the same point when Marc mentioned Pompeo.
I agree about Marc jumping around. He has pet talking points that he raises whenever the mood strikes him, without regard to what anyone actually said.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2950 by JonF, posted 06-24-2019 10:11 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2976 by marc9000, posted 06-30-2019 6:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2964 of 4573 (856003)
06-25-2019 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2956 by marc9000
06-24-2019 8:10 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
JonF has already answered your question about why Russia interfered in support of a Trump presidency, but regardless of their motivation there is no doubt they did it.
By the way, Forbidden is a conservative conspiracy-nonsense website and is in no way affiliated with ABC News, business or otherwise.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2956 by marc9000, posted 06-24-2019 8:10 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2965 by JonF, posted 06-25-2019 4:45 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 2980 by marc9000, posted 06-30-2019 7:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2966 of 4573 (856069)
06-26-2019 7:53 AM


The Latest Trump Screwups
It's hard to keep up with everything in Trump-land, but this opinion piece from the Washington Post provides a pretty good summary of recent events (Trump demands subservience and gets incompetence):
quote:
The Trump administration, if you haven’t noticed, is undergoing one of its frequent paroxysms of incompetence.
On the border, the administration holds hundreds of migrant children in deplorable conditions: filthy, frightened and hungry. The president ordered and then called off a massive immigration raid, and, in the middle of the chaos, the administration’s top border security official resigned Tuesday.
Overseas, the administration is stumbling toward war with Iran, ordering and then canceling an attack. Iran on Tuesday said the White House is “afflicted by mental retardation,” and Trump responded by threatening Iran with “obliteration.”
Here in Washington, Trump just appointed a new press secretary for the third time and a White House communications director for the seventh time. He refuses to say whether he has confidence in his FBI director, his third, and he’s publicly feuding with the Federal Reserve chairman he appointed over whether Trump can fire him. Meantime, Trump is defying a Trump-appointed watchdog who called for the firing of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway for illegal political activities, and he’s brushing off the latest credible accusation of sexual misconduct by saying the accuser is “not my type.” And Trump’s protocol chief is quitting on the eve of the Group of 20 summit, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday, amid allegations that he carried a whip in the office.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 2970 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-26-2019 11:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2967 of 4573 (856072)
06-26-2019 8:38 AM


Kellyanne Conway and the Hatch Act
Kellyanne Conway has been charged with Hatch Act violations, Here is the letter and the investigative report from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel about Kellyanne Conway's violation of the Hatch act, which prohibits partisan political activity on the part of civilian federal employees while carrying out their official duties. It is long and detailed, but it is worth reading at least the first few pages to see just how egregious Conway's violations are.
Anyone who's seen Conway interviewed is already familiar with her partisan never-take-a-breath attack-dog style, but whatever one's style, it violates the Hatch Act if it's politically partisan. Some excerpts, first from the letter:
quote:
Since at least February 1, 2019, Ms. Conway has repeatedly violated the Hatch Act during her official media appearances by making statements directed at the success or your reelection campaign or at the failure of candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination for President. In doing so she has used her official authority to advocate for or against declared candidates for partisan political office. OSZ has given Ms. Conway multiple opportunities to come into compliance with the Hatch Act. Ms. Conway has ignored OSC's requests. To make matters worse, Ms. Conway is a repeat offender, whose violations detailed in the attached report are similar to those identified and referred to you in OSC's March 6, 2018 report. As with the prior case, OSC also offered Ms. Conway an opportunity to respond to this report. In both instances, however, she declined to do so.
...
Therefore, OSC respectfully requests that Ms. Conway be held to the same standards as all other federal employees, and, as such, you find removal from federal service to be the appropriate disciplinary action.
Now a couple brief quotes from the report itself:
quote:
In a May 29, 2019 interview, Ms. Kellyanne Conway, Counselor to the President, reportedly scoffed at her responsibilities under the Hatch Act and ridiculed its enforcement by asserting, “Let me know when the jail sentence starts.” Her defiant attitude is inimical to the law, and her continued pattern of misconduct is unacceptable. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) calls on President Donald J. Trump to remove Ms. Conway from her federal position immediately.
...
Ms. Conway’s advocacy against the Democratic candidates and open endorsement of the President’s reelection effort during both official media appearances and on her Twitter account constitute prohibited political activity under the Hatch Act. Accordingly, she repeatedly continues to violate the law.
--Percy

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2987 of 4573 (856486)
07-01-2019 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2975 by marc9000
06-30-2019 6:27 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
This is a reply to Message 2973, Message 2974 and Message 2975.

Replying to Message 2973:
marc9000 writes:
Your link in message 2898 is to a Washington Post pay site that I can't access.
If you enter [msg=2898] then it will be rendered as Message 2898 instead of just the plaintext "message 2898."
Everyone gets 20 free Washington Post articles a month. If you're reading more than 20 a month maybe you should start paying for it. July's here and your count has been reset to 0, so just try again.
But it looks to me like you're saying that "it's all illegal", that is, no foreign help period, when it comes to campaigns. Just like the summary statement that I quoted from the FEC chair. If there's something in your link that is a "yes, BUT", then I have to ask you to c/p it here.
It isn't a "yes, but..." Here's the first paragraph from the Washington Post article that makes clear she wasn't talking about help from someone who happened to be a foreigner but about help originating with a foreign *government*. Click on the article, you can read it now. You could also have changed browsers and read it that way. They keep the article count in a cookie, and a different browser wouldn't have set the cookie.
quote:
Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub released a statement Thursday making clear that candidates for public office may not receive help from a foreign government, in what appeared to be a warning to President Trump, who said he would consider taking information about an opponent from another country.
And here's the complete statement from FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub that I quoted in Message 2898 and that what you've written makes it seem as if you didn't read it:
quote:
Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about "foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence." They knew that when foreign governments seek to influence American politics, it is always to advance their own interests, not America's. Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of a federal investigation. Any political campaign that receives an offer of a prohibited donation from a foreign source should report that offer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Moving on:
So Clinton ~indirectly~ gets foreign sourced dirt on a political opponent - indirectly because she hired a U.S. firm to do it, and that's okay, but if she'd have directly done it herself, that would have been illegal?
No, it wouldn't be illegal no matter which person actually conducted the opposition research.
So in answer to the Stephanopoulos question, if Trump would have said "I'd hire a U.S. research firm to listen to the information offered to me, and let them relay it to me," that would have been okay?
No, it would not have been okay. Accepting campaign help from a foreign government is illegal. Involving intermediaries doesn't change that.

Replying to Message 2974:
You can't tell the difference between donations to a campaign and donations to a charity? Really?
You accept the Clinton foundation as being squeaky clean with no suspicions of corruption and fraud?
Do you have evidence of corruption and fraud? The thing I find objectionable about the Clinton Foundation is probably the same thing as everyone else, the potential for a conflict of interest.
Does it truly have to be explained that donations to legitimate charities do not flow to the people running them? The Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charity still in operation.
Would you like for me to load you up with links on just how legitimate it is?
You mean links to your right-wing conspiracy websites? No thanks. Any actual information you have is fine.
The Trump Foundation was forced to shut its doors when it was discovered that the Trumps were using it as a personal piggy bank.
Need links to the Clinton's piggy bank use of the Clinton Foundation?
Again, as long as you're linking to legitimate information and not to your right-wing conspiracy websites then that would be fine, though the existence of such information would be surprising given that the Clinton Foundation is still operating and not under any investigation while the Trump Foundation got shut down. Check out Clinton Foundation Controversies and see if anything you find there bothers you.
If that were true, they could end all the mistrust of themselves by announcing that if they can get one more round of background checks, registration, licensing and training, THEN THEY'D STOP with more calls for gun control in the future. It could be in the form of a new Constitutional amendment. "No more calls for gun control". But they'll never do that. Because they advocate incrementalism .
Of course improvements in gun control will be incremental. Improvements in most things are incremental. Just as we want better and better pollution controls, car safety, water standards, etc., we also want better and better gun control that will gradually reduce our high gun death rate.
You have it backwards. It is the Republicans who get in bed with big business and vote them massive benefits from the public troughs. Democrats believe businesses should not be the beneficiaries of government largesse and that regulation should serve to rein in unrestrained capitalism with its exploitation of workers and the environment.
It's true that that happens. But the question is, will it get better, or worse, with a bigger government?
Do you think that preventing monopolies and worker exploitation and environmental abuse and so forth are worth paying for? And isn't government the right entity do be responsible for such things?
The rest of your message is just standard liberal talking points,...
I'm not a liberal. I think that government should stay out of people's lives but that keeping the country healthy, wealthy and wise (think college) should be the responsibility of government. The top 1% control 40% of the country's wealth, and that's not right. Wealth disparity is worse today than in the days of the robber barons.
Trump favors lower taxes on businesses and the rich paid for by the government in the form of much higher deficits, nearly a trillion dollars in additional debt since the Trump tax cuts went into effect.
The national debt went up nearly $9 trillion under Obama, almost double what it was, I don't think trying something just a little different is completely uncalled for.
You're switching topics from the annual deficit to the national debt, but that's okay. Here's a projection of the national debt that includes the Trump tax cuts. Looks just as bad as the Obama years. Traditionally Republicans are for lower deficits and lowering the national debt:

Replying to Message 2975:
You like that Trump is just out for himself? Why?
That's only your statement, anyone can be accused of only being out for himself.
Trump puts his own interests ahead of the country's. That's why he hasn't released his income taxes, why he didn't put his businesses into a blind trust, why he has a conflict of interest between his businesses and running the country, why everyone who works for him has to sign an NDA binding them to secrecy not just during his time in office but in perpetuity, why he won't let anyone in his administration testify before Congress, why Hope Hicks didn't answer a single question before Congress about the period during which she worked in the White House, why his advisors are the rich friends he chats with at night on his unsecure cell phone, why the tax cuts were mostly for the rich and for corporations, and on and on.
One of the great ironies of the Trump phenomena is that his policies treat his supporters worse than anyone else. This is finally beginning to dawn on some people, farmers suffering due to Trump tariffs, for example.
Temporary hardships on farmers, yes that's about the only example you've got. There are countless examples of workers all through the economy who are benefitting from what he's done. I'm sure one of them, that's the reason I have so little time to play here.
Everyone is hurt by the higher prices caused by Trump tariffs. People are losing health insurance due to Trump's efforts to kill Obamacare. Trump opposes efforts to raise the minimum wage. Workplace health protections are being rolled back. Banking regulations put in place to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial collapse are being relaxed. Pollution regulations are being loosened. He cut back funding of our national parks, and is downsizing some national parks to make more land available for commercial exploitation. He ignores climate change. He cut back on heating assistance for low-income families. He's hurt farming (and raised prices for consumers) by making migrant labor less available through his immigration policies. He's weakened gun laws. He's made it more difficult to pay back student debt. He's implemented cutbacks in education. He's split up families by deporting non-citizen parents who have citizen children. He's anti-LBGTQ, anti-black, anti-Muslem, anti-women. He's hurt all of America by making us less safe by weakening our ties to allies and cozying up to dictators who provide him photo ops but no useful agreements.
Trump has been shown to be lying or misleading 10,800 times so far according to the Washington Post. If you think there's any errors in that Washington Post database then you let us know.
Wow, he'll then have a major monkey off his back if he wins a second term, won't he? No more campaign, he'll be able to listen to foreign governments all he wants without fear of criticism from the news media.
You remain confused. It isn't a crime to listen to foreign governments in the normal course of running the country. What's illegal is accepting campaign help from foreign governments.
The economy began growing way back in 2010. Obama managed to maintain a growing economy for 6 years.
The economy soured late in the Bush administration, and early in the Obama administration largely because of one thing, high oil prices,...
Are you daft? The 2008 financial collapse was due to abuse of mortgage securities. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the brief spike in oil prices that occurred after the collapse. From the Wikipedia article on the 2008 financial crisis:
quote:
It began in 2007 with a crisis in the subprime mortgage market in the United States, and developed into a full-blown international banking crisis with the collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008. Excessive risk-taking by banks such as Lehman Brothers helped to magnify the financial impact globally.
Continuing with the rest of your paragraph:
...something practically out of the control of anyone in the U.S. including the president. It began growing in 2010 IN SPITE of Obama, not because of him. He did nothing to incentivize job creation and risk taking, with the possible exception of not completely lowering the boom on business with as crippling of environmental regulations as most of his Democrat allies wanted.
The responsibility for the 2008 financial collapse lies upon Clinton and a Republican Congress that repealed Glass-Steagle, relaxing banking reserve requirements and leaving them unable to withstand (without government intervention provided while Obama was president) the financial stresses introduced by the subprime mortgage crisis.
I wasn't expressing any personal feelings toward Trump. I was merely describing him. He's a scumbag real estate developer from New York City who lied and cheated and exploited and discriminated, sort of the definition of a scumbag.
You really don't think people can change over a period of decades?
Of course people can change, so let's see if Trump has changed. Back in the 70's Trump was a venal, vengeful, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, narcissistic liar, and today Trump is still a venal, vengeful, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, narcissistic liar. No, he hasn't changed.
I think Trump is proving that he has different motives and goals in mind than he did 30 years ago.
What makes you say that?
During the election and at the beginning of his presidency, there was a lot of mistrust of just what Trump was going to do, among many conservatives. Prominent ones, like Mark Levin, or Glenn Beck, and countless voters. Levin and Beck are Trump backers now, and I've seen a change of heart from many of my social media friends. He's proven to be much more than just an arrogant reality tv guy.
Support from conspiracy theorists like Levin and Beck is a negative.
Trump's actions indicate he does not care about the country. His family effectively lives in a different country, insulated and isolated from the problems everyone else has to deal with, from salaries too low to afford the rents near where they work, to decaying infrastructure, to poor water quality, to poor air quality, to rising sea levels, to changing and more unpredictable and more violent climatic events.
Yes, things Obama came up a little short on.
How so?
But we saw in the debate a few nights ago what the Democrats all agreed they do to get these problems solved, they'd give free health care to illegal immigrants!
So what's your answer? Let illegal immigrants who have no money suffer or even die? You know what this guy was going to do had he made it safely into our country:
He was going to take a job raking lawns or hauling stones or working on farms, jobs that most Americans don't want. And he'd do it for his little girl to give her a better life than she would have had back home in El Salvador. Who knows what she might have accomplished here?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2975 by marc9000, posted 06-30-2019 6:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2988 of 4573 (856487)
07-01-2019 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2976 by marc9000
06-30-2019 6:31 PM


Re: Trump's Embrace of Foreign Interference Draws FEC Response
marc9000 writes:
I agree about Marc jumping around.
If you'll forgive me for jumping around, I'll forgive you for answering my messages to JonF, as if you are him.
If you'd like to have a private conversation then please use the private messaging facility. See Messaging link at top of page.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2976 by marc9000, posted 06-30-2019 6:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3049 of 4573 (858059)
07-15-2019 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3044 by JonF
07-14-2019 4:50 PM


Re: They really are addressing only the terminally bewildered
In honor of the new feature, here are our illustrious leader's recent racist tweets (do a hard reload, there's new JavaScript code that you need. Hit Control-Reload in Chrome, I'm not sure about the other browsers):

--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add comment about reload.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3044 by JonF, posted 07-14-2019 4:50 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3050 by Chiroptera, posted 07-15-2019 1:45 PM Percy has replied
 Message 3056 by Percy, posted 07-16-2019 10:24 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024