Senate GOP Weighs New Impeachment Defense of Trump: Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Happened, But No ‘Corrupt Intent’

  
Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  491 comments

Senate GOP Weighs New Impeachment Defense of Trump: Ukraine Quid Pro Quo Happened, But No ‘Corrupt Intent’
acknowledging that the White House did try to force a quid pro quo on Ukraine, but that it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment because Trump did so without “corrupt intent.”

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Senate Republicans are reportedly mulling a new impeachment defense — one that would break with the claims of its own defendant, President  Donald Trump —  by acknowledging that the White House did try to force a quid pro quo on Ukraine, but that it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment because Trump did so without “corrupt intent.”

According to a  Washington Post  report , Republican senators like  Ted Cruz  and  John Kennedy  discussed at a recent closed-door lunch consolidating around an argument that aligns very closely with the testimony of to Trump NSC official  Tim Morrison . On Thursday, Morrison corroborated pervious testimony of White House officials who linked the release of military aid to the launching investigations into Democrats by Ukraine, but he also claimed that he felt that the action wasn’t illegal.


“Inside the lunch, Sen.  Ted Cruz  (R-Tex.), who ran against Trump in 2016, said a quid pro quo is not illegal unless there is ‘corrupt intent,'” the  Post  reports.



“To me, this entire issue is gonna come down to, why did the president ask for an investigation,” Louisiana Republican Sen. Kennedy, told the  Post . “To me, it all turns on intent, motive. … Did the president have a culpable state of mind? … Based on the evidence that I see, that I’ve been allowed to see, the president does not have a culpable state of mind.”


This latest possible turn in messaging from the president’s party highlights the difficult position the House Democrats’ impeachment hearings have put Republicans in. After Trump and other Congressional Republicans rallied around a “no quid pro quo” defense when the July 25 call summary was released, subsequent impeachment testimony by Trump White House officials has repeatedly undermined that claim.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

This lame defense is based on the contention that Trump is too stupid to have known what he was doing. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
This lame defense is based on the contention that Trump is too stupid to have known what he was doing. 

Ah! I see now. It is the Hillary defense!

 
 
 
PJ
1.2  PJ  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

The genius didn't know what he was doing?  jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
1.3  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

Everything Trump has ever done in his life has been corrupt. His daddy taught him.

And then his daddy shipped him off to military school where he was a bully. 

He remains a bully. He is fat and ugly. He is stupid and ignorant.

If I had an incurable fatal disease I would ………………………………………...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one week ago
This lame defense is based on the contention that Trump is too stupid to have known what he was doing.

Wow, an honest defense from the Republicans?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one week ago

Well, he is too stupid to know, but it is no excuse.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.5.1  WallyW  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.5    one week ago
afb110519dAPR20191105034522.jpg
 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.2  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @1.5.1    one week ago

Wally, you do understand that Ukraine was never investigating Hunter Biden.....don't you???

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.2    one week ago

Faux 'news' has stories all over the place about this investigation that never happened and the tRump trolls believe it like gospel.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.4  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.2    one week ago
Wally, you do understand that Ukraine was never investigating Hunter Biden.....don't you???

Were they investigating Burisma Holdings Ltd, before "Vice President" Joe Biden did his proudly announced "Prid Quo Pro" ?

Seems...once the investigation was "Mob Like" discontinued.....Little "Sleepy Joe" got involved and sat on the "Board of Burisma Holdings Ltd." (He Admitted he knew nothing about what he was supposed to do). Nothing like getting rid of an investigation on a "Corrupt" company, so Little "Sleepy Joe" can make 10's of thousands a month....huh.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.5  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.4    one week ago
Were they investigating Burisma Holdings Ltd, before "Vice President" Joe Biden did his proudly announced "Prid Quo Pro" ?

AND back before they ever hired Hunter Biden?  Yes.

Nothing like getting rid of an investigation on a "Corrupt" company, so Little "Sleepy Joe" can make 10's of thousands a month....huh.

History is your friend, if you'd bother looking it up. 

After getting the Ukraine prosecutor fired, the replacement reopened the Burisma investigation that the fired prosecutor refused to look into.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.6  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.5    one week ago

Isn't it great that "Sleepy Joe" got rid of any investigation into Burisma Holdings Ltd, by using "Prid Quo Pro", and then his "Sleepy I don't know anything about Energy Son" was able to step in and be on the board of Burisma Holdings Ltd, so he can make 10's of thousands of dollars every month, for "Knowing Nothing" about the business ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.7  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.6    one week ago
Isn't it great that "Sleepy Joe" got rid of any investigation into Burisma Holdings Ltd, by using "Prid Quo Pro"

You mean an investigation that wasn't being investigated?  I hope you have a good chiropractor, the amount of twisting you are doing is going to throw something out.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.8  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.7    one week ago
You mean an investigation that wasn't being investigated?

So "Sleepy Smurf" was doing his "Prid Quo Pro" thingy over "Nothing" ?

 I hope you have a good chiropractor, the amount of twisting you are doing is going to throw something out.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.9  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.8    one week ago
So "Sleepy Smurf" was doing his "Prid Quo Pro" thingy over "Nothing" ?

Why do you ignore everything that has been written about this???

Biden's Quid Pro Quo was BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION!  His actions were supported by multiple countries, not for personal reasons.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.10  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.9    one week ago

If you've been paying attention at all these days ….. Anything "Quid Pro Quo".... is just BAD and worth getting rid of "THE" person !

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.11  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.10    one week ago
If you've been paying attention at all these days ….. Anything "Quid Pro Quo".... is just BAD and worth getting rid of "THE" person !

Ahhh, another worthless opinion...

 
 
 
CB
1.5.12  CB   replied to  It Is ME @1.5.10    one week ago

LInk please!

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.13  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.11    one week ago
Ahhh, another worthless opinion..

Great response ! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

Sooooo…."Quid Pro Quo" ISN'T really a Bad thing ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.14  It Is ME  replied to  CB @1.5.12    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.15  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.11    one week ago
Ahhh, another worthless opinion...

In whose "Wonderful" mind ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.16  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.14    6 days ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.17  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.13    6 days ago
Sooooo…."Quid Pro Quo" ISN'T really a Bad thing ?

"Quid Pro Quo" is a THING a tool, nothing more.  How it is used is what determines if it is good or bad.  You know, like guns.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.18  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.17    6 days ago
How it is used is what determines if it is good or bad.

And whom is it that "Determines that ?

The  coup d'état folks ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.19  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.16    6 days ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.20  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.18    6 days ago
And whom is it that "Determines that ?

Dude, you can't be that ignorant of American legal processes, I can only assume you are just trying to distract and deflect from the facts of the matter.

The "law" determines if it is utilized in a legal or illegal manner.  Again, just like guns.

Can you shoot a gun at a target?  Yes, that is legal.

Can you shoot a gun at a random person?  No, that would be illegal.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.21  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.20    6 days ago
The "law" determines if it is utilized in a legal or illegal manner.

Recycled from comment 1.5.20  Ozzwald...…. "Dude, you can't be that ignorant."

The "Law" determines nothing on utilization. A person or persons do. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

So again.…" Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law" ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.22  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.21    6 days ago
The "Law" determines nothing on utilization. A person or persons do.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.23  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.22    6 days ago

Maybe expanding a bit more would help you in looking better ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

The "Law" lives, breaths and takes folks to court ? jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.24  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.23    6 days ago
The "Law" lives, breaths and takes folks to court ?

You just keep digging, maybe you'll find your way to a country that'll make sense to you.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.25  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.24    6 days ago

1.5.20  Ozzwald   - The "law" determines if it is utilized in a legal or illegal manner.

Maybe this will help ?

Only YOU - can determine how to utilize a Law.

utilize - [ˈyo͞odlˌīz]

VERB
make practical and effective use of.

The "Law" can't do that by itself. jrSmiley_27_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.26  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.25    6 days ago
Only YOU - can determine how to utilize a Law.

So now you are claiming that laws are optional?  That it is YOUR choice whether they apply to you or not? 

giphy.gif

"But your honor, I know that I pointed a gun at that man, and took all his money, but I chose NOT TO UTILIZE that armed robbery law at that time!"

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.27  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.26    5 days ago
So now you are claiming that laws are optional? 

I did ?

Where ?

Using your silly little gun thingy argument:

Do Guns shoot people, or do people USE guns to shoot people.

Just like:

Do the "Laws" convict people, or do people USE the "Law" to convict people.

Sooooo ..… Again I'll ask ……. "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.28  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.27    5 days ago
Using your silly little gun thingy argument:

You say that, then bring out an argument that has nothing to do with what I said.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.29  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.28    5 days ago
has nothing to do with what I said.

It sure did ! jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

Again I'll ask ……. "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.30  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.29    5 days ago
Again I'll ask ……. "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"

<sigh> You just don't understand how American law works.<sigh>

Okay, in your twisted version of justice, currently no one is determining if Trump broke the law, DOJ does not allow indictments of a sitting President, so no court of law at this time.  When he is no longer President, that will be different, I believe he is up for various crimes in the state of New York.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.31  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.30    5 days ago
currently no one is determining if Trump broke the law

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

So Schiff and his committee are just giving us "Enjoyment" by putting on a simple "Circus" ?

Trying to save yourself with ZERO ?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.32  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.31    5 days ago
So Schiff and his committee are just giving us "Enjoyment" by putting on a simple "Circus" ?

Okay, so in your mind, House committees are now courts of law??  Impeachment is a political action, not a judicial one.

You do understand the difference, don't you???

source.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.33  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.32    5 days ago
Okay, so in your mind, House committees are now courts of law??

Can they get the President of the United States (Commander and chief of this country) Impeached and out of office ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.34  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.33    5 days ago
Can they get the President of the United States (Commander and chief of this country) Impeached and out of office ?

Moving the goalpost???  You keep saying...

Again I'll ask …….  "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law"

Now that you have been shown the fallacy of your claim, you are trying to backtrack and change the claim that you have been repeating over and over?  

1keawu.jpg

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.35  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.34    5 days ago
Moving the goalpost??? 

Question remains the same:

 "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law" ?

 
 
 
cjcold
1.5.36  cjcold  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.10    5 days ago

Yep. Time for Trump to be in prison.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.37  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.35    4 days ago
Question remains the same:  "Whom (person and/or persons)" is it determining Trump broke some "Law" ?

And the answer remains the same.  There is no criminal trial, so no one is determining if Trump has broken the law.....yet.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.38  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @1.5.37    4 days ago
And the answer remains the same.  There is no criminal trial, so no one is determining if Trump has broken the law.....yet.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Were you in the "Matrix".

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.5.39  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.38    2 days ago

Were you in the "Matrix".

Were you in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest"?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    2 weeks ago

Uhmmm.....

Interesting theory.  I seem to remember that being used before by a Director of the FBI.  He laid out a prima fascia case against a certain individual and then noted he would not recommend prosecution as there was 'no intent'.

So, there is precedent for that concept.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1  It Is ME  replied to  XDm9mm @2    2 weeks ago
He laid out a prima fascia case against a certain individual and then noted he would not recommend prosecution as there was 'no intent'.

You'll have to actually define "No Intent" a bazillion Times. Maybe the "Left" will get what that means then ? jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2    2 weeks ago
So, there is precedent for that concept.

If your relying on the Comey decision for that precedent, you've got nothing.

The contents of the US code MATTERS.

The US code cited by Comey REQUIRES proof of intent. 

Proof of intent is NOT required in 52 USC 30121(2).

No precedent there. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.2    2 weeks ago
The US code cited by Comey REQUIRES proof of intent. 

Really?  In what code does one need to prove intent?   Please provide the statute you are referring to that REQUIRES proof of intent.

 
 
 
Dulay
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.2.2    one week ago
If your relying on the Comey decision for that precedent, you've got nothing.

The contents of the US code MATTERS.

The US code cited by Comey REQUIRES proof of intent. 

Proof of intent is NOT required in 52 USC 30121(2).

No precedent there. 

Well lordy, lordy, you stepped on it yet again.

YOU claimed that Comey cited a US Code.  When in point of fact he did not.  To support that, here is the entire text of his statment from none other than the FBI.GOV web site.

As you peruse this document, please show us all SPECIFICALLY where Comey cited any US Code.  Anything you delve into within the confines of your imagination are immediately discounted.

Washington, D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
July 5, 2016

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

 
 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.3    one week ago

Hmmmm.

No code cited by Comey.

I suppose it was just a lie that he did, eh?

Remember when we were told time after time that "I received nor sent any information that was classified in my emails"?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.6  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.4    one week ago

What does the following paragraph describe XD? 

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

The statute I cited DOES require proof of intent, does it not XD?

Really?  In what code does one need to prove intent?   Please provide the statute you are referring to that REQUIRES proof of intent.

Yep, that's exactly what you asked for, isn't it XD? 

You also neglected to READ the IG report in which the statute in cited. But hey, stick with your limited bibliography.

I'm glad that my comment motivated you to actually reviewed a factual document. Keep at it and you may catch up eventually. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.2.6    one week ago
What does the following paragraph describe XD? 

Who is speaking of description other than YOU?

The statute I cited DOES require proof of intent, does it not XD?

Twist and spin as you usually do.  As a REMINDER here are YOUR specific words:

The US code cited by Comey REQUIRES proof of intent. 

YOU made a claim that YOU cannot support with FACTS.  

So, as usual you try to spin your way out of what YOU said by saying something else.  Everyone here knows that's your stock in trade Dulay.  Everyone knows you never support YOUR statements yet always demand others support theirs.

So, once again, play your games with the gullible you play with.  We're too smart to degrade ourselves.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.8  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.7    one week ago
So, as usual you try to spin your way out of what YOU said by saying something else. 

Yet I'm NOT saying something else XD. READ the statute and READ what Comey said. They MATCH. 

You're inability to connect two GIANT dots is on you. 

BTFW, I cited the IG report which cites the statutes that Comey said that he reviewed during the email investigation.  

Here is a link to that report:

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf

You'll have to do your OWN review of that report to find the multiple times that statute is cited. My hand holding can only go so far to inject facts into your head. 

Everyone here knows that's your stock in trade Dulay.  Everyone knows you never support YOUR statements yet always demand others support theirs.

Since when do you speak for EVERYONE here XD? I find it ironic that to pretend that you DO you have to make shit up. 

As you well know, I could refute your supercilious hypocritical bullshit by posting multiple links to questions I have asked YOU, some within the last week or so, that you bailed on. I'll take the high road and refrain from answering your petty comment tit for tat. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.9  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.2.2    one week ago
knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents 

Please provide the details of when Hillary brought the documents back prior to the investigation?

 
 
 
 
dennis smith
2.2.11  dennis smith  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.7    one week ago

XDm9mm - More typical BS from the left. Calling it what it is completely baffles them.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.12  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.2.10    one week ago

Wikipedia, that's all you got. hahaha

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.13  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.12    one week ago
Wikipedia, that's all you got. hahaha

It provides 'the details of when Hillary brought the documents back prior to the investigation' which is EXACTLY what you asked for, is it not? 

You and your fellow travelers like to pretend that you don't get the links to the information you demand yet when you do you whine. Bad form. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.13    one week ago
provides 'the details of when Hillary brought the documents back prior to the investigation

No it doesn't.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.14    one week ago

Yes it does. READ MORE CAREFULLY. 

 
 
 
CB
2.2.16  CB   replied to  Dulay @2.2.13    one week ago

Don't you just 'love' people who rise to argue in defense of what's indefensible? Whata piece of work republicans are. They think we will just bend to the 'stupe' they put out. It will be a cold month in Hell before I let them push denial as fact!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.17  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @2.2.10    one week ago

Wikipedia? Seriously? You know you can go on that page with an account and open it and edit it to say whatever you want?

This is why Wikipedia is not an accepted source for anything. Total fail!

256

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @2.2.15    one week ago

No, you read more carefully. You've been bamboozled. 

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.19  katrix  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.17    one week ago
This is why Wikipedia is not an accepted source for anything. Total fail!

Talk about obtuse - you do know that some Wiki pages have very good citations, don't you?  Wiki can be a great, valid source - or a crappy source.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.20  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  katrix @2.2.19    one week ago

I'm very aware of it, I've been editing Wikipedia for a decade and have a stellar reputation with citations thank you very much.

you do know that some Wiki pages have very good citations

Key word, Some....LOL Epic Fail..try again!

Try to use Wiki citations in your Doctoral Thesis and let us know what happens. 

Wikipedia has one of the biggest fake citation and disinformation issues on the internet. That is just a fact. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.21  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.17    one week ago

Everyone knows Alex Jones knows more than wikipedia does jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.22  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.21    one week ago

Have you googled to see if you have a wiki page? I can enter one for you if you want one. I've been doing it for years. It will stick.

 
 
 
CB
2.2.23  CB   replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.20    one week ago

Wikipedia is good as a starter source, it must be backed up with another or other reliable sources. Of course, this is a discussion forum - not a classroom, my friend. There are no requirements to comment here, beyond the TOS and COC and personal integrity.

Besides that Wikipedia does make efforts to 'call out' utter BS and disputable crap on its pages. How successful they are is a whole other matter for a different day!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.24  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  CB @2.2.23    one week ago

The best is when the media uses a prep sheet with Wiki information and the interviewee easily dismisses the misinformation.

Happens all the time. Why? Wiki is simply not reliable.

For years a certain celebrity was asked about dating their friend. It was well cited but everyone knew it was garbage and a prank but the media never got it. Even the regular editors knew but know one would dare interfere in the epic prank. It was just too good.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.25  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.22    one week ago

ask me if i care

 
 
 
CB
2.2.26  CB   replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.24    one week ago

You may remember that it took schools a period of time to catch up to Wikipedia too and to demand further references from college students. All that being said, Wikipedia is quoted because it is a quicky look at  topics of interest. Further (deeper) research can come from it, at least, for places and institutions requiring valid sources.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.27  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.25    one week ago

You obsess daily about me. Don't try to hide your brofacination John. It's obvious.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.28  katrix  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.20    one week ago
Try to use Wiki citations in your Doctoral Thesis and let us know what happens. 

I'm pretty sure NT isn't a PhD site.

And I would venture to say that Wikipedia is a hell of a lot more accurate than InfoWars.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.29  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.27    one week ago

Newstalkers doesnt need a king of fake news. Not in 2019- 2020. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.30  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  katrix @2.2.28    one week ago
And I would venture to say that Wikipedia is a hell of a lot more accurate than InfoWars.

Infinitely. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.31  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.29    one week ago

You cannot be dethroned.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.32  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  katrix @2.2.28    one week ago
And I would venture to say that Wikipedia is a hell of a lot more accurate than InfoWars.

Yeah things no one said or alleged. LOL

Wiki is a trove of edit pranks, it's just a fact. So sorry to bust your bubble with reality.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.33  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.2.13    one week ago
In May 2016, the Department's Office of the Inspector General Steve A. Linick released an 83-page report about the State Department's email practices. [54] [55] [56] The Inspector General was unable to find evidence that Clinton had ever sought approval from the State Department staff for her use of a private email server, determining that if Clinton had sought approval, Department staff would have declined her setup because of the "security risks in doing so." [54] Aside from security risks, the report stated that "she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act." [57] Each of these findings contradicted what Clinton and her aides had been saying up to that point. [58] [59] [60] The report also stated that Clinton and her senior aides declined to speak with the investigators, while the previous four Secretaries of State did so. [54]

Keep drinking the Cool-Aid.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.34  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.17    one week ago

Oh a source critique from the one who posts infowars videos of performance artists. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.35  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.33    one week ago

Wait! Did you just QUOTE the source that you whined about? 

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

Nope, Merlot or single malt. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.36  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.27    one week ago

Yet here YOU are making personal comments about John. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.37  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.20    one week ago
I'm very aware of it, I've been editing Wikipedia for a decade and have a stellar reputation with citations thank you very much.

This is why Wikipedia is not an accepted source for anything. Total fail!

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.38  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.2.35    one week ago
 Did you just QUOTE the source 

Yes and  I didn't have to edit it to say what I wanted. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.39  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.38    one week ago
Yes and  I didn't have to edit it to say what I wanted.  

Since you obviously used the link that I posted, exactly what are you claiming that I edited?

Oh and BTW, how's the reading coming along? Would you like to discuss Federalist 65? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.40  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.2.39    6 days ago
exactly what are you claiming that I edited

I never said you edited anything, keep up will you.  As for Federalist 65 won't be reading, no need.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.42  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.40    6 days ago
I never said you edited anything, keep up will you.  

Then WTF were you inferring with your comment? 

As for Federalist 65 won't be reading, no need.

Right goose, why should you give a shit what Hamilton had to say about what the founders felt were Impeachable offenses. Just stick with echo chamber sources and the gaslighting going on here to bolster the cognitive dissonance. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.43  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.2.42    5 days ago
 I didn't have to edit it

Please explain how "I" somehow means YOU.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.44  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.43    5 days ago

Then WTF were you inferring with your comment? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.2.45  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @2.2.44    5 days ago

Why don't you read all the comments and see if you can figure it out.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.46  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @2.2.45    5 days ago
Why don't you read all the comments and see if you can figure it out.

Why don't you support your own comment rather than deflecting. 

 WTF were you inferring with your comment? 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3  r.t..b...    2 weeks ago

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1  It Is ME  replied to  r.t..b... @3    2 weeks ago
Ignorantia juris non excusat.

Adam Schiff parody again ?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @3    2 weeks ago
Ignorantia juris non excusat.

It sure as hell worked for Hillary!!

 
 
 
MrFrost
4  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

1) The call was perfect and beautiful.

2) The call was perfect and beautiful and Biden may have been brought up in the conversation.

3) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden.

4) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden but there was no quid pro quo.

5) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there may have bee a quid pro quo but it's not an impeachable crime.

What next?

6) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there was a quid pro quo and it's a crime but only on the 7th Thursday of each month when standing on one foot.

7) My impeachment was best, biggest and most beautiful in the history of the entire universe because, I think, I know more about impeachment than anyone.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.1  r.t..b...  replied to  MrFrost @4    2 weeks ago
What next?

The apologists continue with the apoplectic deflections in their ill-fated and more spurious by-the-minute attempts to attack the process...while willfully ignoring the substance. 

"Nowadays men lead lives of noisy desperation."  ~James Thurber

 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.1  WallyW  replied to  r.t..b... @4.1    2 weeks ago

There is no substance to the allegations....not impeachable.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

There is no substance to the allegations....not impeachable.

Sure wally, impeaching a president for lying about a blowjob is much more valid than impeaching a president for using extortion of a foreign country to win a US election. [eye roll]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2  Ozzwald  replied to  MrFrost @4    one week ago
1) The call was perfect and beautiful.

2) The call was perfect and beautiful and Biden may have been brought up in the conversation.

3) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden.

4) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden but there was no quid pro quo.

5) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there may have bee a quid pro quo but it's not an impeachable crime.

What next?

6) The call was perfect and beautiful and we did bring up Biden and there was a quid pro quo and it's a crime but only on the 7th Thursday of each month when standing on one foot.

7) My impeachment was best, biggest and most beautiful in the history of the entire universe because, I think, I know more about impeachment than anyone.  

8) But Obama....

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    one week ago

9) But  Clinton . . . . 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    one week ago
9) But  Clinton . . . . 

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif    jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    one week ago

But James Madison....

But Lincoln....

As long as we are blaming, lets do it. ;)

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.2.4  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2    one week ago

Let's talk about Biden. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.4    one week ago
Let's talk about Biden. 

Deflection!  With cleavage........

giphy.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.5    one week ago

Linda Carter was hot as hell.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.6    one week ago

Linda Carter was hot as hell.

Off topic, but OHHHHH YEAHHHHHH!!!

 
 
 
CB
4.2.8  CB   replied to  MrFrost @4.2.6    one week ago

Let me guess, my friend MrFrost. In a word: BOOBIES!!! (Smile.)

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.2.9  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.5    one week ago

I know it's a bad subject, but it is what this whole exercise is about.  You see Trump didn't hire some goon to make shit up, the Biden story is true and he did it all on his own.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.10  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.7    one week ago

She is still beautiful.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.11  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.9    one week ago
You see Trump didn't hire some goon to make shit up, the Biden story is true and he did it all on his own.

Which Biden story?  The real one, or the made up tin foil hat loony bin right wingbat story?

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.12  MrFrost  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.9    one week ago
the Biden story is true

No, it really isn't. There is literally no proof of any wrongdoing AT ALL. Just another conspiracy theory thrown out there by trump. No different than him claiming windmills cause cancer. 

Biden was acting as a representative of the USA with international support in getting the prosecutor fired because said prosecutor refused to prosecute cases of corruption. Trump, on the other hand was acting in his own best interests to get help with his campaign. Nothing that would benefit the country. Now you can ignore all the other things that are wrong here but the fact that trump would use aid from another country for help winning a US election is likely one of the most unpatriotic things a president could do. Trump is always screaming about how patriotic he, American first, etc...but wants help from the Ukraine to win an election? 

Trump is a traitorous bottom feeding POS that could not care less about the USA, he is in this for himself. But Biden is the bad guy? You have got to be fucking kidding me. 

Oh yea, Hunter worked for a private company and was paid handsomely for it. If making money in a foreign country is illegal, all of trump's kids belong in prison. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.13  MrFrost  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.10    one week ago

She is still beautiful.

Saw a picture of her about a year ago, yea, she still looks damn good. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.2.14  gooseisgone  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.12    5 days ago
There is literally no proof of any wrongdoing

Other than Joe admitting he with held a billion dollars of the tax payers money for Ukrainian until he fired the prosecutor, then his son goes on Television and admits he wouldn't have gotten the jobs that he did if his last name wasn't Biden. His son was paid millions because his name was Biden, nothing to see here move along.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.15  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.14    5 days ago

Your unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo are proof of nothing. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.16  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.15    5 days ago
Your unsubstantiated allegations

Unsubstantiated? Two allegations were listed. Both have been publicly substantiated for some time.

1. Joe admitting he with held a billion dollars of the tax payers money for Ukrainian until he fired the prosecutor
and this:
2. his son goes on Television and admits he wouldn't have gotten the jobs that he did if his last name wasn't Biden

HUNTER BIDEN ADMITS: ONLY GOT THESE POSITIONS BECAUSE MY DAD WAS VP

ABC News followed up: “If your last name wasn’t Biden, do you think you would have been asked to be on the board of Burisma?”  “I don’t know, I don’t know, probably not,” Biden admitted.

Two allegations. Substantiated. And now prepare for the spin, deflect, and deny in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . 

***

On a related note, just thought I'd acknowledge this creepy line from Hunter. Even better, there's a woman interviewing him:

“What I don’t have to do is sit here and open my kimono as to how it relates to how much money I make … or didn’t, but it’s all been reported.”

Open my kimono? Eewww. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.16    5 days ago
Both have been publicly substantiated for some time.

Biden wasn't talking about 1 Billion in 'tax payers money'. 

Biden was in Ukraine to solidify the US offer by the State Dept. of 1 Billion in LOAN GUARANTEES, which don't cost the US taxpayer a fucking dime unless and until Ukraine would default on those loans [which they did NOT]. We do the same for many countries we support, including Israel. 

The statement about Hunter Biden was undeniably innuendo. 

Next. 

 
 
 
CB
4.2.18  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @4.2.14    5 days ago

Actually, you deliberately misinterpreted Hunter Biden. What Biden said (paraphrased), 'I am sure I have gotten a lot of things because my last name is Biden.' The implication being that it is a given that one name, ;power, influence, and association, carries 'heft' and opens all kinds of doors in this world.

It's like asking a poor person, would they rather digs for roots and turnips as a living or get born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Which is better?

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.19  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.17    5 days ago
And now prepare for the spin

And here we are:

Biden wasn't talking about 1 Billion in 'tax payers money'.

What do you think supports a loan guarantee? The Tooth Fairy? Good intentions?

which don't cost the US taxpayer a fucking dime unless and until Ukraine would default on those loans

Ahh! So we are talking about tax payer money. Thank you very much.

The statement about Hunter Biden was undeniably innuendo.

Undeniably even? It's clear you don't know what that means.

No, he actually said what Goose said he said. I'm not surprised you will deny the truth over and over and over and over and over again. Exactly as I predicted.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.19    4 days ago
Ahh! So we are talking about tax payer money. Thank you very much.

Gee Tacos!, over my years here earth, I had a co-signer on my first apartment lease [under 18] and co-signed many a loan [loan guarantee] for family and friends. Neither scenario cost one dime to either party.

In FACT, the whole concept of loan guarantees is that the co-signer is vouching for the other party and that they will NOT have to step in and cover the loan. It's not like the US put 1 billion aside for Ukraine, just in case. So just stop.

Undeniably even? It's clear you don't know what that means. No, he actually said what Goose said he said.

Innuendo. It's clear that you are desperate to try to deny that goose's comment did in fact make an allusion to something nefarious about Hunter Biden without citing an iota of evidence. 

I'm not surprised you will deny the truth over and over and over and over and over again. Exactly as I predicted.

I'm not surprised that you continue to make obtuse arguments. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.20    4 days ago
the whole concept of loan guarantees is that the co-signer is vouching for the other party

Not really. You make it sound like it's some kind of character review. Like someone is saying you're a good person. That's not what's happening. A loan guarantee means someone else is risking their money. When our government makes a loan guarantee, they aren't saying "Ukraine is good people." They are saying that the American taxpayers are committing their money.

Ultimately, it will be the American taxpayer who will be financially responsible. Ukraine can save us from that by making its payments, but if they fail - and they very well could - it's the American taxpayer on the hook. We have no control over whether or not Ukraine will make it's payments. That's up to them.

The fact that loan guarantees often work out just fine does not mean that Biden wasn't making promises with our money.

without citing an iota of evidence

Do you know what "iota" means? Do you know what "evidence" means? Do you remember when you were supplied with evidence supporting his comments? Because - as expected, and as per frickin' usual - you have ignored that evidence. It's amazing the pain of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause aneurysms in you.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.21    4 days ago
The fact that loan guarantees often work out just fine does not mean that Biden wasn't making promises with our money.

Why are you trying to pretend that Biden was acting unilaterally? How effective do you think that US loan guarantees would be if the IMF and the World Bank continued to refuse Ukraine loans to begin with? At the time, the EU was unwilling, for the most part, to invest in Ukraine because of the stalled Anti-corruption reforms. All of that is HISTORICAL FACT that can't be divorced from Biden's actions as VP at the time. Actions he took BTFW, for the benefit of BOTH Ukraine and the US. 

 Do you remember when you were supplied with evidence supporting his comments?

Which are evidence of NOTHING. 

Because - as expected, and as per frickin' usual - you have ignored that evidence.

I ignored the evidence of NOTHING. 

It's amazing the pain of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause aneurysms in you.

You obviously lack the understanding of the concept of cognitive dissonance. Go read this:

https://thenewstalkers.com/tig/group_discuss/7215/self-deception?g=69

Hope it helps.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.23  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.22    4 days ago
Why are you trying to pretend that Biden was acting unilaterally?

, he asked, changing the subject and hoping no one would notice.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

It's the Clinton defense. Sure he did something wrong (in Clinton's case, illegal) and it's not good, but it's not worthy of impeachment and removal.  Once the Democrats  lowered the standards for Presidential conduct to make Presidential perjury acceptable  it's human nature that the lower standard  becomes the new normal. Republicans aren't going to hold Trump to a higher standard than Democrats did Clinton.  Wrong, but not impeachable/removable will work for Republicans just like it did for Democrats.

Get lost in the weeds all you want, but this is how its going to play out.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one week ago
Republicans aren't going to hold Trump to a higher standard than Democrats did Clinton.  Wrong, but not impeachable/removable will work for Republicans just like it did for Democrats.

When was Hillary President again? Oh, that's right, she's never been President and she certainly paid a price for the "wrong" things conservatives think she did with her server. So how is not impeaching a President who does wrong things in any way similar? How is anyone trying to hold Trump to a higher standard? He has no standards, and his fellow Republicans certainly aren't trying to hold him to even the standard most would hold for their 5 year old children. I guess some have so little moral fortitude that they allow their opponents to determine their own personal moral standards, "if Clinton committed a crime and got away with it, then by God our guy is going to do ten times as many crimes! Mwahahahaha!".

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1    one week ago
When was Hillary President again?

Uh, never. Which is why he probably used the word "HE".

Sure he did something wrong (in Clinton's case, illegal) and it's not good, but it's not worthy of impeachment and removal.  Once the Democrats  lowered the standards for Presidential conduct to make Presidential perjury acce
 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    one week ago
Which is why he probably used the word "HE".

Bill Clinton was impeached. What he said was comparing it to "wrong, but not impeachable/removable" "just like it did for Democrats". So if we are comparing to Bill Clinton then impeachment is fitting, just like Republicans impeached him over lying about a blow job.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    one week ago
Bill Clinton was impeached. What he said was comparing it to "wrong, but not impeachable/removable" "just like it did for Democrats". So if we are comparing to Bill Clinton then impeachment is fitting, just like Republicans impeached him over lying about a blow job.

Which is probably why he added that word "and" between impeachable and removable.

It's the Clinton defense. Sure he did something wrong (in Clinton's case, illegal) and it's not good, but it's not worthy of impeachment and removal.

And:

Wrong, but not impeachable/removable will work for Republicans just like it did for Democrats.
 
 
 
dennis smith
5.1.4  dennis smith  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1    one week ago

Hillary thought she was running a popularity contest instead of electoral vote contest. By doing that she proved she was not presidential material and was soundly defeated. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1    one week ago

If impeachment involved a dem, the repubs would be all in favor for it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    one week ago

A blow job by a POTUS was wrong, but Trump can butt f the entire country and his R lackeys are fine with it.

 
 
 
PJ
6  PJ    2 weeks ago

What I struggle with and find so difficult is how so many have put their party before the country.  It's difficult to justify these ridiculous excuses that only weaken the country.  More and more patriots are refusing to work for the country while those who already have taken oaths are leaving service in key Agencies and Departments because the GOP and Trump's base have allowed them to be attacked and lives ruined all for the sake of protecting Donald Trump.  I am just so damn sad over this whole situation.  I never imagined so many would not care about right and wrong.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1  MUVA  replied to  PJ @6    2 weeks ago
What I struggle with and find so difficult is how so many have put their party before the country.

I agree some on the left should stop it all this to get power so they can give shit away to there lazy supporters un American.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.2  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @6    2 weeks ago
What I struggle with and find so difficult is how so many have put their party before the country. 

Yeah I know, right?  I also wish those Democrats would get off their asses and pass the USMCA, which all three countries want, and even unions here in the states endorse.  I wish they would be as concerned with securing our borders as they are with securing the borders of other countries.  I wish they would applaud the great employment/unemployment numbers instead of denigrating them.  I wish they would applaud the factories and jobs being made available without the use of a magic wand.  I wish they would applaud the ability of working Americans to enjoy more of the wages they work for instead of having the money extorted from them through taxes before they even get it themselves.  Yes, there are many things I wish Democrats would do to put America first before their party, but they're simply to engrossed in their abject hatred of Donald Trump who won the election Hillary Clinton was in line to win.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.3  r.t..b...  replied to  PJ @6    2 weeks ago
I am just so damn sad over this whole situation.

And sadder still, the barely contained glee expressed in defending the indefensible. 

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.1  PJ  replied to  r.t..b... @6.3    2 weeks ago

The GOP used to be champions of our military but they have throw that away by allowing members and Trump's base to attack and smear our patriots.  Service men and women will not stand for having their own attacked by those who would protect a man who bought his way out of serving his own country.  Any service person who would cheer what is happening has forgotten the oath they took. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.2  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @6.3    2 weeks ago
And sadder still

Is the left refusing to acknowledge the good that has been happening in this country and for the American people thanks to the efforts of Donald Trump and the Republicans all the while the Democrats are doing nothing but trying to remove the man elected to the office of the President of the United States, an effort that essentially started the day the man was sworn in, and indicated even before he had the chance to take the Oath of Office.

What's truly sad is the unabated, abject hatred of Donald Trump that is the all consuming commonality of a good number of the left.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.3.3  r.t..b...  replied to  PJ @6.3.1    2 weeks ago
The GOP used to be champions of our military

The traditional 'law and order' party excuses the law-breaker-in-chief and celebrates the chaos he has wrought. The party will never be the same. 

 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.4  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.2    2 weeks ago

What good?  Tax breaks for the rich...crapping breaks for the rest of us...demonize anyone who goes against Crooked donnie, even members of the military...that's good?  

Dividing the country even further...

Fine people that are white supremacists

Giving praise to dictators....that's good?

Acting like a loud mouth buffoon,...that's good?

Not once every acting presidential...that's good?

Making money off of us when that's against the rules

Not paying his bills to how many cities he had his shitty rallies

I can go on and on

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.5  PJ  replied to  r.t..b... @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

Yes, and that's another reason why I'm struggling with what is happening.  The country needs a strong republican party but it's been gutted by fanatics and fringe voters (I can't even bring myself to call them Americans).

 
 
 
pat wilson
6.3.6  pat wilson  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.2    2 weeks ago
the good that has been happening in this country

You mean the deregulation that will give us foul air and filthy water, you mean the tax cuts that went to the wealthy and corporations that hoard their money, you mean the appointment of unqualified judges, you mean the debasing of patriotic, lifelong military and law enforcement professionals ??? Is that the "good" you're referring to ???

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.7  PJ  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.6    2 weeks ago

It's definitely a weird and warped definition of "good"......... or should I say great.  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

At first I was appalled and disgusted how anyone could vote for this man.  Then I became angry when I realized what type of person could support this man and his policies.  Now I'm just sad at what they've done to the country. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.8  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @6.3.4    2 weeks ago
What good?  Tax breaks for the rich...crapping breaks for the rest of us...demonize anyone who goes against Crooked donnie, even members of the military...that's good?  

I really hate to break your bubble, but the more you make the more you pay in taxes.....  even when taking into account the tax cuts Trump and the Republicans got through.

Dividing the country even further...

No, it's the Democrats that are succeeding in getting that accomplished.   President Trump has been doing all he can to unite America.  

Fine people that are white supremacists

Oh, still hung up on that Charlottesville thing?  Are you admitting that there were NO GOOD people among the counter protesters?

Giving praise to dictators....that's good?

Like it or not, it's easier to deal with someone you say nice things about.  At least Trump has opened dialog with dictators.

Acting like a loud mouth buffoon,...that's good?

That's all in the eye of the beholder.  Simply because he's calling the Democrats and media out does not make it bad.

Not once every acting presidential...that's good?

"Acting" presidential.  Exactly what does "ACTING" presidential look like?  He's BEING presidential in that he's more concerned about AMERICA than he is about his international legacy as some of his predecessors were.

Making money off of us when that's against the rules

Making money how exactly?  Not taking a salary?   Businesses he has essentially divorced himself from doing business with the government?  What's illegal?

Not paying his bills to how many cities he had his shitty rallies

When those 'bills' are extortion, no...  also, municipalities have a responsibility to provide security for a sitting President....  even the hard left hate President Trump municipalities.

I can go on and on

Then keep on going, and going, and going and don't look back when you do.

Tata....

 
 
 
WallyW
6.3.9  WallyW  replied to  PJ @6.3.5    2 weeks ago
(I can't even bring myself to call them Americans).

Unless they believe exactly like you.  jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
pat wilson
6.3.10  pat wilson  replied to  PJ @6.3.7    2 weeks ago

It will take several generations to recover from this nightmare.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.11  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.8    2 weeks ago

Excuse after excuse on behalf of Crooked donnie that's all the right has

Acting presidential...having manners, following etiquette, following protocol...having decorum

Crooked donnie has NEVER displayed any of the above.

 
 
 
WallyW
6.3.12  WallyW  replied to  PJ @6.3.1    2 weeks ago

Does alll that apply to Michael Flynn?

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.3.13  It Is ME  replied to  lady in black @6.3.11    2 weeks ago
Excuse after excuse on behalf of Crooked donnie that's all the right has

And President Trump has hurt YOU ......How !

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.14  XDm9mm  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.6    2 weeks ago
You mean the deregulation that will give us foul air and filthy water,

No, the deregulation that will provide us jobs and a vibrant economy.   The air I breath is fine and the water I drink is also good, albeit I do need to condition it myself as it is "hard" even from a municipal system.

you mean the tax cuts that went to the wealthy and corporations that hoard their money,

I enjoy my tax cuts, and I'm not what anyone would consider "wealthy".  (Ok..  maybe a few people would.) and as to what anyone, whether an individual or company does with THEIR property, in this case money, is in point of fact, none of your business.   If you feel otherwise, please feel free to empty your savings and checking accounts and redistribute that to whoever you want.  Just don't ask everyone else to do the same.   I'm quite generous already.

you mean the appointment of unqualified judges,

Would you care to name them?   And of course you can indicate EXACTLY WHY you believe they're unqualified?   As far as I know, the judicial appointments made thus far are of people that have been judges in other courts or well established and respected legal professionals essentially being promoted to a seat on a federal bench.

you mean the debasing of patriotic, lifelong military and law enforcement professionals ???

I never heard President Trump say anything like "The police acted stupidly".  Do you have a reference you can provide?   As to the military, President Trump is allowing the military to do what the military is trained to do.  

Is that the "good" you're referring to ???

Yeah, that's the good I'm referring to.   Can you validate where and how I'm wrong?   

 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.15  lady in black  replied to  It Is ME @6.3.13    2 weeks ago

He has hurt the entire country

 
 
 
WallyW
6.3.16  WallyW  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.10    2 weeks ago

Oh give it a break! jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
6.3.17  WallyW  replied to  lady in black @6.3.15    2 weeks ago

You exaggerate.

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.18  PJ  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.10    2 weeks ago

Yes.  The only good that has come out of this is that we now know who the enemy is. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.19  XDm9mm  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.10    2 weeks ago
It will take several generations to recover from this nightmare.

Don't despair.   President Trump and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to return America to it's position of greatness and global envy.  They're working diligently to undo the damage caused by someone who wanted to "fundamentally transform" America.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.20  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @6.3.11    2 weeks ago
Acting presidential...having manners, following etiquette, following protocol...having decorum

Do you mean like going on global apology tours denigrating America for the good it had done?  Acting like that?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.21  Jack_TX  replied to  lady in black @6.3.4    2 weeks ago
What good?  Tax breaks for the rich...crapping breaks for the rest of us...demonize anyone who goes against Crooked donnie, even members of the military...that's good?  

I realize this is inconvenient for liberals, but we now have more jobs than we have people to fill them.  People are working, paying bills, raising kids, saving, and prospering.  

Our tax code is now competitive enough to keep companies here instead of driving them overseas.  

Rich people still pay most of the taxes, even after Trump's cut.  This doesn't matter to moonbat leftists, who simply hate the very idea that some people have money and see nothing wrong with eliminating them.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.22  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @6.3.18    2 weeks ago
Yes.  The only good that has come out of this is that we now know who the enemy is. 

Yes you do.

As Pogo would say, and the Democrats and left promote:

"We have met the enemy and he is us."
 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.23  lady in black  replied to  WallyW @6.3.17    2 weeks ago

You are blind to the truth

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.24  Jack_TX  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.14    2 weeks ago
I enjoy my tax cuts, and I'm not what anyone would consider "wealthy". 

Of course you are.

Sixty percent of Americans don't have $1000 saved up.  To them, anybody with $25k in the bank is "wealthy".

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.25  Jack_TX  replied to  lady in black @6.3.15    2 weeks ago
He has hurt the entire country

He has made almost no difference in my life whatsoever, other than my investments are up some.

I have a family to support, tuition to pay, and employees whose families depend on my business.  Getting all emotional about him because he's an asshole who tweets like an idiot is a luxury people with responsibilities can't afford.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.26  lady in black  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.21    2 weeks ago
Rich people still pay most of the taxes, even after Trump's cut.  This doesn't matter to moonbat leftists, who simply hate the very idea that some people have money and see nothing wrong with eliminating them.

Blah, blah, blah, more moonbat rightists bs.

I am an average middle class working person who's fucking wonderful, marvelous, stupendous "tax cut" doesn't even fill my gas tank once a month. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.27  XDm9mm  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.24    2 weeks ago
Sixty percent of Americans don't have $1000 saved up.  To them, anybody with $25k in the bank is "wealthy".

Ruh roh....    Then I'm among the wealthiest people in the world much less just America!!  //S//

Seriously, I can understand that to a point.  But quite often it's their own life choice that dictate that problem.  I remember well when I lived beyond my means and the harsh truth that decision created for ME.   I got out of that and made sure I never went back.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3.28  Dulay  replied to  WallyW @6.3.12    2 weeks ago
Does alll that apply to Michael Flynn?

No, none of it applies to those that commit a federal crime. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.29  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @6.3.26    2 weeks ago

Gee, you sound unhappy that you are being asked to pay your fair share!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.30  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @6.3.26    2 weeks ago
Blah, blah, blah, more moonbat rightists bs.

Well to that all I can say is read it and weep:

The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. That means about 892,000 Americans are stuck with paying 39 percent of all federal taxes.

The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.

About 1.7 million Americans, less than 1 percent of our population, pay 70.6 percent of federal income taxes. Is that fair, or do you think they should pay more?

By the way, earning $500,000 a year doesn’t make one rich. It’s not even yacht money.

But the fairness question goes further. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes.

Thirty-seven million tax filers have no tax obligation at all. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 45.5 percent of households will not pay federal income tax this year.

The source, while admittedly is about two years old, the percentages have remained pretty constant.

Source:  https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/10/18/rich-pay-fair-share-numbers/

So, you were speaking of "moonbat rightists BS"?  [ Deleted ]

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.31  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.25    2 weeks ago

Several contradictions in the posts.

First posting that people are saving then posting that 60% of people have no savings...

Posting that things are just great but not so great that people even have a luxury to worry about what trump is doing...

Twice as many companies paying zero taxes under Trump tax plan

Trump’s Push to Bring Back Jobs to U.S. Shows Limited Results

YOU PAID TAXES. THESE CORPORATIONS DIDN’T.

 
 
 
pat wilson
6.3.32  pat wilson  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.19    2 weeks ago

Cute.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.33  Jack_TX  replied to  lady in black @6.3.26    2 weeks ago
Blah, blah, blah,

In other words "you can't argue with actual math".

I am an average middle class working person who's fucking wonderful, marvelous, stupendous "tax cut" doesn't even fill my gas tank once a month. 

So how, exactly, are you worse off by that?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.34  Jack_TX  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.27    2 weeks ago
But quite often it's their own life choice that dictate that problem. 

Of course it is.  That doesn't mean they acknowledge it.

They don't let that fact interfere with their wealth envy, either.

 
 
 
pat wilson
6.3.35  pat wilson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.21    2 weeks ago
but we now have more jobs than we have people to fill them.
At living wages ?
 People are working, paying bills, raising kids, saving, and prospering.  
People are working two or more jobs to pay the bills and the kids they raise are coming home from college to live with mom and dad 'cause they can't get a job that pays a living wage. Savings ? The average savings account is under $5000. That's one health issue away from zero savings. Prospering ? Who ?

 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.36  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.30    2 weeks ago

Removed for context

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.37  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.31    2 weeks ago
Several contradictions in the posts. First posting that people are saving then posting that 60% of people have no savings...

Responsible people are saving.

Posting that things are just great but not so great that people even have a luxury to worry about what trump is doing...

Things are great.  That doesn't mean you take your eye off the ball, especially when other people are counting on you.  The difference between now and 10 years ago is that all the hard work is actually paying off.

As the saying goes, "you make hay while the sun shines".

Twice as many companies paying zero taxes under Trump tax plan

Companies have stopped leaving the US. 

Trump’s Push to Bring Back Jobs to U.S. Shows Limited Results

The push to keep more of them from leaving is another matter.

YOU PAID TAXES. THESE CORPORATIONS DIDN’T.

The US treasury collects $300b/yr in corporate income tax.  They're paying. 

 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.38  lady in black  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.33    2 weeks ago

Love to see you live on one income, I am a widow, I'm financially okay (investments, life insurance, 401ks...I could retire tomorrow but chose not to as I'm only 57) but when my "tax break" doesn't amount to a hill of beans, then yes, I will complain when the 1% reaps all the benefits and the rewards but still pay their employees shit wages and keep most of their "TAX BREAK" money for themselves.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.39  Jack_TX  replied to  lady in black @6.3.36    2 weeks ago

removed for context

 
 
 
pat wilson
6.3.40  pat wilson  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.14    2 weeks ago
No, the deregulation that will provide us jobs and a vibrant economy.   The air I breath is fine and the water I drink is also good, albeit I do need to condition it myself as it is "hard" even from a municipal system.

Tell that to your lungs and kidneys. The trump administration is actually suing the state of California because the states emissions standards are HIGHER than the current EPA's.

I enjoy my tax cuts,

Good for you.

as to what anyone, whether an individual or company does with THEIR property, in this case money, is in point of fact, none of your business.

Actually it is my business and yours and everyone else's. Tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy, remember ? If the wealthy sit on their cash and corporations only spend it to buy back stock shares then it's not doing what it was supposed to do, you know, how the republicans sold it to the Americans citizens.

Would you care to name them? 

  • Six judicial nominees rated “not qualified” in two years
  • Past four presidents had only four total in same time frame

More of Donald Trump’s judicial picks have received “not qualified” ratings from the American Bar Association than did those nominated by his four most-recent predecessors in the first two years of their presidencies, Bloomberg Law research shows.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-picks-more-not-qualified-judges-1

I never heard President Trump say anything like "The police acted stupidly".  Do you have a reference you can provide? 

Everything he has said about John McCain for starters. And Robert Mueller.

In July 2016, Trump took aim at retired four-star General John Allen. "You know who he is? He's a failed general. He was the general fighting ISIS. I would say he hasn't done so well, right?" Trump said, according to Politico.

In October 2017, Trump forgot the name of slain US army Sgt. La David Johnson, while he was on the phone with his widow.

In April 2018, Trump called James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, "a lying machine."

And don't forget General James Mattis,

Trump was turning on him publicly; two months earlier, he had speculated that Mattis might be a Democrat and said, in reference to NATO, “I think I know more about it than he does.” (Mattis, as a Marine general, once served as the supreme allied commander in charge of NATO transformation.)

Does ANY of that compare to Obama saying 'the police acted stupidly" (which they did) ?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.41  Jack_TX  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.35    2 weeks ago
People are working two or more jobs to pay the bills and the kids they raise are coming home from college to live with mom and dad 'cause they can't get a job that pays a living wage. Savings ? The average savings account is under $5000. That's one health issue away from zero savings. Prospering ? Who ?

The US added 700,000 new millionaires in 2017, and a similar number in 2018.  More than 10% of American households now have net worth over $1million.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/10/22/the-number-of-millionaires-has-boomedheres-where-your-net-worth-ranks-compared-to-others/#5d1356ce576f

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.42  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.3.31    2 weeks ago
Several contradictions in the posts. First posting that people are saving then posting that 60% of people have no savings...

Indicating that people are saving in  taxes paid while noting that many have no SAVINGS are two distinctly different things.

Posting that things are just great but not so great that people even have a luxury to worry about what trump is doing...

Things are appreciably better than they had been and are getting better.  And Trump is doing everything he can to make sure that all the boats rise with the improvements.

Twice as many companies paying zero taxes under Trump tax plan

Twice as many companies taking advantage of the ability to invest and grow the company using immediate write-offs as opposed to slowly depreciating purchases.   The more they can write off the better they do, the better they do, the more people they can hire, the more people they can hire, the more tax revenue the government receives.  See how that works?

Trump’s Push to Bring Back Jobs to U.S. Shows Limited Results

Limited results is much better than:

“When somebody says like the person you just mentioned who I’m not going to advertise for, that he’s going to bring all these jobs back. Well how exectly are you going to do that? What are you going to do? There’s uh-uh no answer to it. He just says. “I’m going to negotiate a better deal.” Well how? How exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he doesn’t have an answer. Source:  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/flashback-obama-says-manufacturing-jobs-arent-coming-back-trump-sets-record-highest-number-new-manufacturing-jobs-month-ever/

One can only surmise that President Trump found that magic wand that Obama spoke about.

YOU PAID TAXES. THESE CORPORATIONS DIDN’T.

Predicated on the TAX LAWS as written by CONGRESS, there are some companies that can LEGALLY avoid taxes.  That doesn't mean all taxes, but some.

I'll go one step further

There are people like myself that PAID taxes and there are millions that actually got more back than they paid.  Hows that for fair?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.43  Jack_TX  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.40    2 weeks ago
If the wealthy sit on their cash

Riiiiiiight.

It's all under their very large mattresses.

It's definitely not in banks, bonds, money market accounts, or other investments being loaned out to help businesses grow, people buy houses and cars, or the US Govt finance its spending.

No. Definitely in the mattress.  Or maybe large mason jars buried in their yards somewhere.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.44  Jack_TX  replied to  lady in black @6.3.38    2 weeks ago
Love to see you live on one income,

Been doing that since 1997, supporting my wife and two children.

I am a widow, I'm financially okay (investments, life insurance, 401ks...I could retire tomorrow but chose not to as I'm only 57) but when my "tax break" doesn't amount to a hill of beans, then yes, I will complain when the 1% reaps all the benefits and the rewards but still pay their employees shit wages and keep most of their "TAX BREAK" money for themselves.

How much tax break were you expecting? 

How do you complain about the people who pay the vast majority of the taxes getting a break and not complain about the 48% of people who don't pay a dime?  Many, many of those don't even pay social security.

 
 
 
pat wilson
6.3.45  pat wilson  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.43    2 weeks ago

Ever hear of off-shore accounts ? That cash is not invested in the US and it's not taxed.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.46  Jack_TX  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.42    2 weeks ago
Indicating that people are saving in  taxes paid

Let me clarify, so we're all on the same page.

I wasn't referring to taxes.  I was referring to the percent of income Americans save.

In 2016, the US personal savings rate was 6.5%.  It's currently 8.1%.  That's a 25% increase.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.47  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.37    2 weeks ago
The difference between now and 10 years ago is that all the hard work is actually paying off

At least you admit things started getting better under Obama.

So responsible people are saving? I would say it is only people that can.

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers .

The No. 1 reason you’re still broke even if you received a pay raise last year

Real wages effectively declined in 2018, according to figures released this month from the PayScale Index, a formula from the Seattle-based salary comparison site. PayScale said the median wage increases, when adjusted for inflation, were only 1.1% since last year and 1% over the past year. “However, the modest uptick in nominal wages failed to bring real wages out of the red for the year,” it said. In fact, when adjusted for cost of living increases, real wages actually declined 1.3% since the end of 2017, PayScale said in a report this month.

Stagnating salaries: Real US wages are essentially back at 1974 levels, Pew reports

So corporations are paying yet paying a lot less.

So where does the federal government's revenue come from? Individual taxpayers like you provide most of it. Income taxes contribute $1.822 trillion, over half of the total. Another third, $1.295 trillion, comes from your  payroll taxes . This includes $949 billion for  Social Security , $289 billion for Medicare, and $46 billion for unemployment insurance. 

Corporate taxes  add $256 billion, only 7%.  The Tax Cut and Jobs Act  cut taxes for corporations much more than it did for individuals. In 2015, corporations paid 11% and income taxpayers paid 47%.

Link

No matter how one cuts it, there is no whirlwind of corps flooding into the states.

By most accounts things are stagnant for most US workers with most of any benefit going to the top tier.

And now we have the FED dropping interest rates.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.48  XDm9mm  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.40    2 weeks ago
Tell that to your lungs and kidneys. The trump administration is actually suing the state of California because the states emissions standards are HIGHER than the current EPA's.

Yes, they are suing California.  And rightly so.  California was provided with a 'carve out' for regulations to deal with their own problems.  However, they have ABUSED that power and with their pie in the sky bullshit regulations have created state regulations that are defacto national regulations since auto manufacturers can't make cars for the rest of the country unless they meet the bullshit California wants.

I enjoy my tax cuts, Good for you.

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Actually it is my business and yours and everyone else's. Tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy, remember ? If the wealthy sit on their cash and corporations only spend it to buy back stock shares then it's not doing what it was supposed to do, you know, how the republicans sold it to the Americans citizens.

Wow...  an understanding of the market and economy would be helpful.   Tax cuts make it possible for people like myself to buy additional rental properties, and hire people to help maintain those properties.  And if I decide to invest and/or bank some of that cash, it is quite bluntly NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  Period, end of story.  You might THINK my finances are in some way open to your inspection and approval, but you are GROSSLY mistaken.

  • Six judicial nominees rated “not qualified” in two years
  • Past four presidents had only four total in same time frame
More of Donald Trump’s judicial picks have received “not qualified” ratings from the American Bar Association than did those nominated by his four most-recent predecessors in the first two years of their presidencies, Bloomberg Law research shows. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-picks-more-not-qualified-judges-1

More is what exactly?  So you're simply acknowledging that other Presidents have done the same?  THANKS!!!!!!

In July 2016, Trump took aim at retired four-star General John Allen. "You know who he is? He's a failed general. He was the general fighting ISIS. I would say he hasn't done so well, right?" Trump said, according to Politico.

Well considering that ISIS was gaining ground I would have to agree.  However, that was less the fault of General Allen than it was of the CIC at the time.

In October 2017, Trump forgot the name of slain US army Sgt. La David Johnson, while he was on the phone with his widow.

People have memory lapses and slips of the tongue.  Does someone mentioning the 57 states come to mind?

In April 2018, Trump called James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, "a lying machine."

He was being kind.   And just recently, it was that same James Clapper that claimed he was only following orders.  uhmmmm...  

And don't forget General James Mattis, Trump was turning on him publicly; two months earlier, he had speculated that Mattis might be a Democrat and said, in reference to NATO, “I think I know more about it than he does.” (Mattis, as a Marine general, once served as the supreme allied commander in charge of NATO transformation.)

James Mattis is a General who did great things.  Apparently they had a personality conflict.   That does not make Mattis walk on water however.

As to the military, President Trump is allowing the military to do what the military is trained to do.  

Does ANY of that compare to Obama saying 'the police acted stupidly" (which they did) ?

Trump applauds the military and law enforcement communities at every opportunity.  Which is diametrically opposed to what Obama and his merry band of henchmen in the DOJ did.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.49  lady in black  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.44    2 weeks ago

Donald Trump’s signature legislative achievement was the corporate-tax cut he signed in 2017. Republicans said it would grow the economy by   up to 6 percent , stimulate business investment, and pay for itself.

None of those promises have come to pass. GDP growth has declined to less than 2 percent according to the latest report, released yesterday. Business investment has now declined for two straight quarters, dragging down economic growth. And the federal deficit exceeds $1 trillion.

These shortcomings alone might be enough to embolden Democrats to fight Trump on economic grounds just one year from a crucial 2020 election. But they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

Trump swept into office pledging to restore the U.S. economy to the good old days of brawny work and global swagger. He had a vision of the United States where the exports would be bigger, the trade deals would be better, and “forgotten” Americans working in declining sectors like coal mining would be restored to their rightful place at the center of the economy. This bold strategy hinged on   the theory   that trade wars were “good, and easy to win.”

None of those promises have come to pass, either. Let’s go through them one by one. The U.S. manufacturing sector is practically in a recession. The ISM index, a key measure of that industry’s health, registered   its lowest number   in 10 years. Real exports of goods and services have declined in the past year, after peaking in 2018. Mining jobs have declined in the past 12 months, too. Finally, hovering in the background behind declining investment, sputtering manufacturing, and wilting exports is the trade war with China, which has proved neither “good” nor “easy” for American businesses.

All of this might make it sound as if the U.S. economy is a disaster. It’s not. As I wrote  earlier this month, we are in the midst of the longest labor-market recovery in American history, and the stock market has set new all-time highs almost every year this decade.

So how do we reconcile these two facts: The promises of the Republican tax plan have failed as spectacularly as Trump’s grand vision of a New American Mercantilism, and the U.S. economy as a whole is actually doing fine for now?

The answer, basically, is that while the Trump can’t deliver, the American consumer continues to chug along. Consumer spending, which was the one bright spot in yesterday’s GDP report, beat forecasts by rising nearly 3 percent. Unemployment is at a 60-year low, and wage growth has accelerated for the poorest workers. (Ironically, these positive trends have been buoyed by large federal deficits, which break   another Trump campaign promise .)

While the president has tried to engineer a return to the economy of the 1950s, based on manufacturing and trade surpluses, the country is racing inexorably toward a very different economy, dominated by both high-tech firms and low-tech services. Since 2018, service-sector jobs (at hospitals and restaurants and software companies) have grown five times faster than those from the “goods-producing” economy (in construction, manufacturing, and mining). There is a cliché that Millennials prefer   experiences over things . You could say the same about the U.S. economy, which is devoting more and more spending to health care, education, and consulting.

This isn’t necessarily a good thing. We could use more things in this country—particularly things that people can live in, otherwise known as apartments and houses. Private and public investment in fixed capital like real estate has   declined tremendously   as a share of GDP in the past 60 years. This fact has contributed to a housing shortage, particularly on the coasts, which has made homeownership nearly impossible for the middle class near America’s richest cities.

Some debates about Trump seem split between those who consider him infallible and those who consider him dangerously all-powerful. When it comes to the economy, he is rather obviously neither—both too stuck in the past to help the economy and too weak to destroy it.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.50  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.3.47    2 weeks ago
At least you admit things started getting better under Obama.

Of course it got better during the tenure of Obama.  Hell he had trillions of dollars in stimulus money for all those "shovel ready jobs that weren't so shovel ready", he had the FED pumping 85 billion a MONTH into the economy to further stimulate it PLUS he had near zero percent interest rates for almost his entire term in office.  President Trump had NONE of that.  The FED was raising interest rates, they were not pumping 85 BILLION a month into the system and there was no trillions of stimulus spending coming out of congress.

Even someone that never ran as much as a lemonade stand couldn't lose with the financial push he was getting.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.51  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.50    2 weeks ago

And now the Fed is lowering rates once again.

As far as people getting a refund, saying that people do not pay any taxes is not entirely true. What is payed in FICA is not returned or touched.

The main reason people get money back is because of EIC. Which IMO is stupid, it basically gives people cash just for having kids.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.3.52  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.48    2 weeks ago
Yes, they are suing California.  And rightly so.  California was provided with a 'carve out' for regulations to deal with their own problems.  However, they have ABUSED that power and with their pie in the sky bullshit regulations have created state regulations that are defacto national regulations since auto manufacturers can't make cars for the rest of the country unless they meet the bullshit California wants.

Absolutely wrong. Air pollution is everyone's problem.

There are two standards for emissions in the USA, Federal and California. 13 states other than California

require the California standard which currently is only marginally more strict than the federal limits.  

Known as "Section 177" states, those 13 are: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Arizona adopted California's standards in 2008, but the state repealed them as soon as Governor Jan Brewer took office in January 2012. https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109217_which-states-follow-californias-emission-and-zero-emission-vehicle-rules

The real fight is about what fuel mileage limits will be imposed after 2025

and since the 13 states represent 1/3 of all vehicle purchases, they and the auto industry will resist changing the status quo

for what appears to be purely political reasons

and any court case will not be settled until long after this Administration has sailed off into history.

https://www.dmv.org/articles/epa-emissions-standards-revision

 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.53  lady in black  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.44    2 weeks ago

More than I did get, but I'm just a lowly peon not the 1% who is reaping billions in tax breaks and hoarding it while 1 trillion was added to the deficit, but forgive me, I forgot that deficits don't matter when republicans are in charge.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.54  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.3.51    2 weeks ago
And now the Fed is lowering rates once again.

In response to a global slowdown.  It's not that difficult to understand.  However, many other countries are back to the zero or near zero rates of the prior meltdown.   At least we have some wiggle room.

As far as people getting a refund, saying that people do not pay any taxes is not entirely true. What is payed in FICA is not returned or touched.

Federal INCOME TAXES.......  big difference.   And what is paid into FICA is most certainly returned....  I'm getting the maximum amount allowed every month.

The main reason people get money back is because of EIC. Which IMO is stupid, it basically gives people cash just for having kids.

Earned income credits are different than the child credits.

The Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC or EIC, is a benefit for working people with low to moderate income. To qualify, you must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if you do not owe any tax or are not required to file. EITC reduces the amount of tax you owe and may give you a refund.

Source:  https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit

Child Tax Credit

Beginning with Tax Year 2018, you may able to claim the Child Tax Credit if you have a qualifying child under the age of 17 and meet other qualifications. The maximum amount per qualifying child is $2,000. Up to $1,400 of the credit can be refundable for each qualifying child as the Additional Child Tax Credit. A refundable tax credit may give you a refund even if you don’t owe any tax.

Source:  https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/child-tax-credit-and-credit-for-other-dependents-at-a-glance

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.55  XDm9mm  replied to  Split Personality @6.3.52    2 weeks ago
Absolutely wrong. Air pollution is everyone's problem.

There are two standards for emissions in the USA, Federal and California. 13 states other than California

require the California standard which currently is only marginally more strict than the federal limits.  

Of course pollution is every ones concern.  But do the people of Montana have the same problems as California?  Hardly.

And are you trying to say that manufacturers build two different vehicles?  One for the California+13 market and another for the remainder 36 states?   

The real fight is about what fuel mileage limits will be imposed after 2025

and since the 13 states represent 1/3 of all vehicle purchases, they and the auto industry will resist changing the status quo

for what appears to be purely political reasons

and any court case will not be settled until long after this Administration has sailed off into history.

Why do we need to worry about that?  Per the looney left, the world only has eleven years remaining anyway.  

Seriously, while their intentions are good, their timelines are totally irrational.   Without a violent radical change in not just manufacturing but the life styles of millions of people will need to be entirely changed to satisfy their insanity.  Do the 2/3's need to change everything they do to placate the other 1/3?

I would suggest California would be better off dealing with the untreated sewage that the tens of thousands of homeless are spilling into the waterways and ocean than worrying about what those of in in Texas drive.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.56  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.54    2 weeks ago

From your link,

And, you must either meet additional rules for workers without a qualifying child or have a child that meets all the qualifying child rules for you.

FICA is not returned in a tax refund.

What you are getting is benefits after the fact. You paid in all your working life, now retired you get  said benefits..

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.57  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.3.56    2 weeks ago
FICA is not returned in a tax refund. What you are getting is benefits after the fact. You paid in all your working life, now retired you get  said benefits..

I never said nor implied it was.

But the fact remains that I AM getting everything I and my employers (even when that was me as a business owner) had paid into the system.  In point of fact, over the coming future years, I will likely receive more than I and my employers paid in.  Ergo, one of the major problems with the system.  When it was originally established, the dark little secret they didn't divulge was that the vast majority of people would die just prior to or shortly after benefits were payable and all excess funds would essentially be confiscated by the government since the only investment vehicle SSA had was government bonds.  And not having to pay those back would be wonderful.

Now I'm trying to determine exactly how the possibility of returning to work (a former employer is recruiting me back) might affect that.  My 'salary' income will again push me above the maximum amount that's taxable, plus I need to figure out how to take the mandatory minimums from my 401k/IRA retirement accounts while once again contributing the maximum allowed by law.  

I know many would be envious of having such 'problems' to deal with, but it's a bit of a PITA and while my accountant and tax attorney are good, they're also having to do some research themselves as they can't answer them since they haven't run into the situation before.  Plus I asked my tax attorney a question that he has no idea about.  Years back, I had read an article that those, like myself, that return to work after full retirement age and are collecting social security benefits are eligible to not have to pay FICA taxes on "X" amount of those earnings.  My questions were;  Do I get a refund of those overpaid FICA taxes or is my employer able to not deduct those taxes until the threshold has been met?  And, will I potentially receive a larger monthly benefit as my current benefit is the maximum allowed at the time I applied and I don't know if the maximum increased after that? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.3.58  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.55    2 weeks ago
And are you trying to say that manufacturers build two different vehicles?  One for the California+13 market and another for the remainder 36 states? 

Yes they have since the 1963 Clean Air Act.   The differences are fewer and fewer each year as computerization makes programing the emissions possible without different O2 sensors and Catalytic convertors, etc.

We have been over this before when Vic took the same stance only to find out his own vehicles were CA emissions cars as mandated by his state.

Do you think California air pollution stays in California? C'mon, you know better than that.

Seriously, while their intentions are good, their timelines are totally irrational.   

Totally agree, that's why they are suggestions that will likely never become legislation.  It's part of the process.

Without a violent radical change in not just manufacturing but the life styles of millions of people will need to be entirely changed to satisfy their insanity. 

Again, stop with the "sky is falling argument", there will be zero radical change to manufacturing autos. 

Lifestyle changes happen every decade, can you remember what you were like 50 years ago. 

Would that kid recognize you as you are today?

 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.59  XDm9mm  replied to  Split Personality @6.3.58    2 weeks ago
Would that kid recognize you as you are today?

 Yeah he would.  A lot older, heavier and a still full head of hair, albeit long and grey, but still the same guy.

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.3.60  Heartland American  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.55    2 weeks ago

As a Californian, I agree with you.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.3.61  Heartland American  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.8    2 weeks ago

So very well said.  I stand with and identify myself with all you wrote in your post.  👍👏

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.3.62  Heartland American  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.14    2 weeks ago

You are not wrong in any way, shape, or form.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.3.63  Heartland American  replied to  WallyW @6.3.17    2 weeks ago

To say the least.  You’d think we were about to become a Middle East like theocracy or something...

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.3.64  Heartland American  replied to  PJ @6.3.18    2 weeks ago

I stand proud as an enemy of secular progressives. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.3.65  Heartland American  replied to  lady in black @6.3.23    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.3.66  Heartland American  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.24    2 weeks ago

I’m wealthy!  Let’s celebrate!  Not really.  Many Americans have savings for retirement, other life goals, rainy day funds, etc. and we are anything but rich.  We did get pay raises, a bonus, and benefit from the Trump tax cuts.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.3.67  Heartland American  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.30    2 weeks ago

Great response and post in its entirety.  A big 👍.  

 
 
 
lady in black
6.3.68  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @6.3.65    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.69  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.57    2 weeks ago

Good questions. The only thing I know is even with SS, people still pay into Medicare.

A couple of years ago my mother got a SS pay raise. At the same time it increased on what they took out for Medicare, so basically ended up with the same amount.

I thought it didn't matter what you made after retirement, that what one took at full retirement would remain the same. Don't know though.

 
 
 
pat wilson
6.3.70  pat wilson  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.14    2 weeks ago

I already did.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3.71  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.19    2 weeks ago

Wow, that is an uninformed and delusional comment. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.72  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @6.3.71    2 weeks ago
Wow, that is an uninformed and delusional comment. 

Only in YOUR opinion.

Oh, Where is your answer for this asked above?

The US code cited by Comey REQUIRES proof of intent. 
Really?  In what code does one need to prove intent?   Please provide the statute you are referring to that REQUIRES proof of intent.

You DID claim that the code cited by Comey REQUIRES proof of intent didn't you?   Those WERE the words you typed were they not?  Now cite the code and provide a link.  You CAN do that, can't you?  Can't you?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.3.73  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @6.3.51    2 weeks ago

Actually it’s one of the more efficient tax credits out there frankly but I don’t expect anybody on the left understand any of the tax policies of this government

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.74  Ender  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.3.73    2 weeks ago

Now it sounds like you are trying to have it both ways.

Complain about the bottom tiers not paying their fair share then say the thing that puts them into that category is one of the best things...

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.75  PJ  replied to  Ender @6.3.74    2 weeks ago

That's pretty much their approach to everything.  Bitch about it when it benefits minorities but applaud it when it helps rich whites. 

It's a very old formula that this President and the gop leaders have resurrected and their base has embraced. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.3.76  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @6.3.74    2 weeks ago

I may go back and check that is pretty sure that I said you wouldn’t understand it

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.77  Ender  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.3.76    2 weeks ago

Let's just say I damn sure wouldn't take your explanation very seriously.

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.3.78  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @6.3.71    2 weeks ago

Then the comment I’m responding to is likewise. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3.79  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @6.3.78    2 weeks ago

Thanks for your 'I'm rubber you're glue' reply. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3.80  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.72    2 weeks ago
Only in YOUR opinion.

Which is much more informed than the one I replied to. 

Can't you?

Absolutely: 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.3.81  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @6.3.77    2 weeks ago

Of course not why would you take the opinion of an expert when you can listen to some bullshit from left-wing fuck wads

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.82  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @6.3.80    one week ago
Only in YOUR opinion.
Which is much more informed than the one I replied to. 

No THAT'S hysterical.  Thanks for the morning laugh.  It was especially good considering the laugh was AT you and not with you.

Can't you?

Absolutely: 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

You might want to check my post above, 2.2.3, which totally refutes and debunks YOUR pathetic attempt at deflection.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.3.83  MUVA  replied to  PJ @6.3.75    one week ago

I'm black and enjoying my tax cut both personally and the corporate tax cut as well so are my siblings see all minorities don't need white liberals to help us.  

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.84  PJ  replied to  MUVA @6.3.83    one week ago

Well if memory serves me, technical you're not all black so the white in you is helping the black in you. 

I sure wish the black in you would rise up and see that the white in you has brainwashed you to think Trump gives two fucks about you. 

Also, I guarantee your business is listed as a small business and probably a woman owned business.  So you're taking advantage of programs that were in put in place by those horrible nasty democrats. 

I bet they're not nasty enough for you to pass on that helping hand.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.85  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @6.3.84    one week ago
Well if memory serves me, technical you're not all black so the white in you is helping the black in you. 

I'm sure you said the same thing about Obama, right?  //S//

Also, I guarantee your business is listed as a small business and probably a woman owned business.

Now you claim you can guarantee something you have absolutely no knowledge of?  Is that similar to your belief that President Trump has committed crimes?  It must be, as you have no knowledge of that either.

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.86  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.85    one week ago

giphy.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.87  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.3.69    one week ago
Good questions. The only thing I know is even with SS, people still pay into Medicare.

GM Ender.   Yeah Medicare deductions are from the well that they believe is bottomless and never ending.  (Honestly, it's such a small amount, it never bothered me.)

A couple of years ago my mother got a SS pay raise. At the same time it increased on what they took out for Medicare, so basically ended up with the same amount.

That's another little secret they don't want to talk about.  Similar to when Social Security was originally started.  While they 'might' give you an increase in the monthly benefit amount, the flip side of that coin is the medicare deduction from that benefit is generally almost the very same amount.  So they give it with the right and take it with the left.

I thought it didn't matter what you made after retirement, that what one took at full retirement would remain the same. Don't know though.

While they can't decrease the monthly benefit amount, with the exception of any medicare deduction, I believe they can go back and recalculate the monthly benefit amount if one continues to work and essentially maxes out the annual FICA "contribution", which can be used in that revised calculation.    Of course, even if that is possible and is accomplished in my situation, I doubt it would have any major impact anyway.  Every year I've worked, even going back to my part time work while in high School (with the exception of '69-'71, courtesy of the US Army), I've maxed out FICA contributions every year.  I always enjoyed when that happened as it was like getting a raise every year, generally sometime around April or May.  In later years that raise came later when the maximum "taxable" amount increased, but I always got that "raise" regardless.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.88  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @6.3.86    one week ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
6.3.89  MUVA  replied to  PJ @6.3.84    one week ago

We are listened as small business because we are a small business and no I'm the CEO.The business I run was started in 1936 by Italian immigrants.I actually didn't say democrats are nasty one of my very best friends is a democrat but doesn't remessable the leftist Garbage some spew.I suggest you read my post again with the knowledge I just gave you. 

 
 
 
MUVA
6.3.90  MUVA  replied to  PJ @6.3.86    one week ago

256

I'm as dark as Obama but much cooler I could actually dunk at one time.

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.91  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.85    one week ago
 
 
 
MUVA
6.3.92  MUVA  replied to  PJ @6.3.84    one week ago

I didn't make a personal comment towards you why the hostility?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.93  XDm9mm  replied to  PJ @6.3.91    one week ago
For the record - I was right.

Congratulations.  Miracles do happen every once in a while.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.3.94  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @6.3.92    one week ago
I didn't make a personal comment towards you why the hostility?

[Deleted]

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.95  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.94    one week ago

[Removed

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.96  PJ  replied to  MUVA @6.3.92    one week ago

It's not personal.  You brought up white peeps keeping the black man down and I simply outlined that you may want to look within because it appears you are your own worst enemy.

I was actually trying to be funny.  I have a dry wit that doesn't seem to go over well here. 

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.97  PJ  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.94    one week ago

[Deleted.  Further meta on this thread will result in points toward suspension.]

 
 
 
MUVA
6.3.98  MUVA  replied to  PJ @6.3.96    one week ago

Again read what I wrote .I didn't say white people what I actually said was I said I don't need white liberals as they are the only people that think black people are too stupid to make it without them.What do you mean by my own worst enemy?My father was a electrical engineer and a Naval officer and served  35 years then ran Atlantic research on board ship inspection division he did all before the mid 90'S didn't get help from anyone.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.99  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @6.3.98    one week ago
Again read what I wrote 

Why would they be bothered to do THAT when it is far easier to TELL you what you wrote despite the words being as plain as the nose on their face?

You know it is far easier to argue what words you put into other people's mouths than what they actually say.

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.100  PJ  replied to  MUVA @6.3.98    one week ago

I can't keep up with your style of dialogue.  Have a good day.

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.101  PJ  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.99    one week ago

giphy.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.102  Texan1211  replied to  PJ @6.3.101    one week ago

LMMFAO!

I expected nothing more, and was not disappointed!

I AM a little surprised that you didn't claim I stated something I didn't, however.

Maybe there is hope for improvement!

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3.103  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.82    one week ago
You might want to check my post above, 2.2.3, which totally refutes and debunks YOUR pathetic attempt at deflection.

All your 2.2.3 post does is illustrate your limited knowledge about the issue.

Well done.

You might want to check out my 2.2.8 post and READ the IG report. You're desperate to be informed about Comey's reference to a law that requires proving intent right XD? 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.3.104  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  pat wilson @6.3.10    one week ago
It will take several generations to recover from this nightmare.

this is nothing compared to what is coming...

the lefts whole house of cards is fixing to fall down

it should be good fun :)

 
 
 
CB
6.3.105  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.3.104    one week ago

Is your steed tired yet? How about giving it a rest.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.3.106  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @6.3.105    one week ago
Is your steed tired yet?

not a chance

How about giving it a rest.

no need but thanks for your concern  :)

 
 
 
CB
6.3.107  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.3.106    one week ago
this is nothing compared to what is coming...

Go on. Please elaborate on "what is coming. . . . " The suspense is 'killing' us! (See what I did there?)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.3.108  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  CB @6.3.107    one week ago

first ya want me to give it a rest and now ya want me to elaborate?  

newsflash:   I don't take requests

cheers :)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.109  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.47    one week ago
At least you admit things started getting better under Obama.

Have always said so.  The numbers are clear.

So responsible people are saving? I would say it is only people that can. For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

"Real wages" mean wages relative to cost of living.  So there is money to save now just as there was 40 years ago.

No matter how one cuts it, there is no whirlwind of corps flooding into the states.

Nor is there a whirlwind of corporations leaving.  But new corporations are being formed here. 

By most accounts things are stagnant for most US workers with most of any benefit going to the top tier.

Wages are stagnant for stagnant workers.  People who improve their skills improve their prospects.

And now we have the FED dropping interest rates.

The Fed raises or lowers rates as they see the need to help manage the economy.  A good economy = more competition for talent = better pay for workers.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.110  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.51    one week ago
As far as people getting a refund, saying that people do not pay any taxes is not entirely true. What is payed in FICA is not returned or touched.

Lots of people get more "refund" than they ever paid in both income tax and FICA combined.  So yes, it is returned.

The main reason people get money back is because of EIC. Which IMO is stupid, it basically gives people cash just for having kids.

EIC is different than the child credit.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.111  CB   replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.3.108    one week ago

Typical.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.112  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @6.3.90    one week ago
'but much cooler'

NEVER

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.113  Tessylo  replied to  PJ @6.3.100    one week ago

Coherence would be nice.  

 
 
 
PJ
6.3.114  PJ  replied to  Texan1211 @6.3.102    one week ago

Oh man!  I hate when I'm predictable.....  I'll have to step up my game.

ps  There is no hope if you think I will EVER be a trump supporter.  That will never happen.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.3.115  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @6.3.4    one week ago

You are the voice of reason and facts, all of which fall on Trumper deaf ears.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.116  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.109    one week ago

If people have the same monetary power as they had 40/50 years ago, that is not an improvement. It is a fact that the wage divide in this country has gotten worse. Wages for the top tier have exploded while lower wages have remained flat.

The only thing you are saying is basically ignore that. The old pull themselves up by the bootstraps meme all the while brushing aside reality.

Worse, business investment has slowed more recently. The most recent data show that private nonresidential investment actually declined in the second quarter of 2019, contributing to an overall slowdown in growth. Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell pointed to the “continued softness” expected in business investment and declining output in manufacturing sector as reasons for the Fed’s recent rate cut. Measures of the investments that companies are planning have also declined . As analysts at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center wrote recently, “This slowdown in business purchases of plant and equipment contrasts sharply with President Trump’s rosy forecast of a long-term investment boom that would lead to annual wage increases of $4,000 or more.” Moreover, investment in housing has declined every quarter since the passage of the tax legislation.

Instead of substantially increasing investment, the windfall businesses received largely went to paying off wealthy investors. One analysis of Fortune 500 companies found that just 20 percent of increased cashflow in 2018 was spent on increasing capital expenditures or research and development. The remaining 80 percent of cashflow went to investors through buybacks, dividends, or other asset planning adjustments. The vast majority of corporate stocks are held by the wealthy, including foreign investors , and thus they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the windfall corporate tax cuts.

Link

Trickle down has never worked as advertised.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.117  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.110    one week ago

It is still what it was originally based on. Having a qualifying child.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.3.118  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @6.3.4    one week ago

It is no secret that he has stiffed city after city for the cost of his rallys.  Any city that still allows them there without cash up front deserves to get stiffed.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.119  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.116    one week ago
If people have the same monetary power as they had 40/50 years ago, that is not an improvement.

I did not say it was.  I said there was money available to save 40 years ago, and there is money available to save today.  

It is a fact that the wage divide in this country has gotten worse. Wages for the top tier have exploded while lower wages have remained flat.

The wage and wealth divide mirrors the knowledge divide.   

The only thing you are saying is basically ignore that. The old pull themselves up by the bootstraps meme all the while brushing aside reality.

I'm saying that any person in their 20s today should retire a multi-millionaire, and if they don't they have only themselves to blame.  You don't need to make a lot of money to accumulate a lot of money.

Trickle down has never worked as advertised.

It's working right now.  Barack Obama was the top trickle down president of the last 50 years.   People imagine it was Reagan, but that's because they listen to what people say instead of watch what they do.  Reagan was a classic spend and tax guy.  

But under Obama, trillions of dollars went to banks, bankers, and bailouts of assorted other rich guys.  10 years later, we're above full employment and seeing wages rise.  

The factor people don't acknowledge when talking about "trickle down" is that the ever-widening gap in worker capabilities.  Unskilled labor is under pressure with ever lower demand.  Skilled labor, both blue and white collar, is in very high demand, and those people can command high pay.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.120  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.117    one week ago
It is still what it was originally based on. Having a qualifying child.

You can certainly get it with no children.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.121  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.119    one week ago

When the top 10% have most of the wealth, that is a large discrepancy. It is nowhere near as easy as you make it out to be.

512

In 2018, the richest 10% held 70% of total household wealth, up from 60% in 1989. The share funneled to the top 1%’  jumped to 32% last year from 23% in 1989.

"The increase in the wealth share of the top 10% came at the expense of households in the 50th to 90th percentiles of the wealth distribution," the paper said.

Their share dropped to 29% from over the same period. The bottom 50% saw essentially zero net gains in wealth over those 30 years, driving their already meager share of total wealth down to just 1% from 4%.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/pedrodacosta/2019/05/29/americas-humungous-wealth-gap-is-widening-further/#2ed957f942ee

In my opinion, it should have never been called trickle down as what it does is flow up.

Saying people don't have any wealth just because they are dumb, well let's just say it mirrors a deplorable comment.

It is a proven fact the the wealthiest among us are hoarding most of the capitol.

As far as Obama, I didn't like a lot of what he had done yet at least we had regulations put on banks and lenders that they are now repealing.

Edit: Where we are seeing wages rise, is like I have shown, the top tier of workers.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.122  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.120    one week ago

Usually only with a live in dependent that is disabled or elderly. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.3.123  1stwarrior  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.3.118    one week ago

Also the  Federal Election Commission  said for travel on behalf of a campaign, "The reimbursement for that travel is the responsibility of the committee on whose behalf the travel occurs."   The responsibility is not on the President.

So we can Verify, yes taxpayers do have to pay when President Trump endorses republican candidates at rallies.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/verify-do-taxpayers-pay-when-presidents-attend-rallies/65-584456401

 
 
 
CB
6.3.124  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.50    one week ago

OH WHINE! WHINE! WHINE!

Okay! Trump can have a recession so he can get some 'stuff' from Congress!

This is absurd logic. Right? Who in his or her right mind would find fault with a leader who did what he did to help his nation (and the world) out of recession?!  Someone with a 'financial push' do you mean the forces which causes the 2008 recession in the first place.

I demand that you get your facts straight here and now. This kind of nonsense for hatred of a man—exactly what is it about former President Obama that to this still causes you more gripe and worry, than 'whew' and peace?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.125  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.121    one week ago
When the top 10% have most of the wealth, that is a large discrepancy.

The problem is not how much they have.  It's how little the others have.

It is nowhere near as easy as you make it out to be.

Take it from the voice of experience.  It's not easy.  It is simple.  There is a giant difference.

It takes discipline, which most Americans wouldn't recognize if it wore a jersey with its name on the back. 

You have to be willing to do without stuff in exchange for security and wealth later.   You have to be willing to develop a plan, and you have to be willing to stick to it, even when you don't want to.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.126  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.121    one week ago
Saying people don't have any wealth just because they are dumb, well let's just say it mirrors a deplorable comment.

I didn't say that, so I do hope you're not projecting it.

Wealth is very much a function of age for most families.  Young people almost never have any wealth, because they haven't had time to accumulate it.  They also have drains on their budgets...like kids.

By the time people are in their 50s, they are reaping what they have sown with regard to financial decisions. 

It is a proven fact the the wealthiest among us are hoarding most of the capitol.

You do realize it's damn near impossible to hoard money.  It's certainly impossible to hoard that much money.  Billionaires do NOT bury copious amounts of cash in the ground.  They have it in banks, bonds, stocks, real estate, and other investments.  It's being lent out, used for capital expansion, public works, or most commonly government spending. They are always looking for places to invest where they can get a better return than their money market account is going to produce.

Edit: Where we are seeing wages rise, is like I have shown, the top tier of workers.

3.4% increase in 2018.  Still more in 2019.  Hell...schoolteachers in Dallas start out at over $50k now.  Times are good for the overwhelming majority of Americans.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.127  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.122    one week ago
Usually only with a live in dependent that is disabled or elderly. 

You can get it if you work and you're poor.

https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/do-i-qualify-for-earned-income-tax-credit-eitc

Who is Eligible

If you do not claim a child that qualifies you for EITC, you are eligible for EITC for those without a qualifying child if:
  • You ( and   your spouse if you file a joint return) meet all the   EITC basic rules   AND
  • You ( and   your spouse if you file a joint return) cannot be claimed as a dependent or qualifying child on anyone else's return, AND
  • You ( or   your spouse if you file a joint return) are at least age 25 but under age 65 years old at the end of the tax year, usually Dec. 31.
 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.128  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.124    one week ago
Who in his or her right mind would find fault with a leader who did what he did to help his nation (and the world) out of recession?!

Most of which started under GWB.  Do you defend him the same way?

  Someone with a 'financial push' do you mean the forces which causes the 2008 recession in the first place.

Those forces being the Clinton-era repeal of Glass-Steagall.

exactly what is it about former President Obama 

Me personally....I have a lot of respect for Barack Obama.  He was a reasonably good president.  As was Bill Clinton.  As was GWB.  Time will tell about Trump. 

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.129  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.125    one week ago

I think another problem is home ownership. I thought I read an article that said it was down. I did read one about millennials waiting longer.

That use to be a plan back in the day. Either have your house paid off and live in it or sell it and live off the money from the sale.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.130  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.126    one week ago

What else would you call someone having so much of a shitload of something that they are stashing it all over the place.

Yes hoarding is relevant as the 1% have most of it.

We have people being paid just enough to stop them from revolting. 

I do not think being paid 50k a year is a whirlwind.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.131  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.127    one week ago

My point remains. It is supposed to be an anti-poverty tool.

Bullshit. The only thing it does is let some people get a check and splurge on a new tv.

It in no way lifts people up. It is almost counterproductive in my view. It takes away money from actual programs that could help people.

Plus we have to listen to the rightwing constantly excuse the top tier (poor them) just by saying the lesser don't pay.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.132  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.129    one week ago
I think another problem is home ownership. I thought I read an article that said it was down. I did read one about millennials waiting longer.

Millennials are generally waiting longer to do everything. 

That use to be a plan back in the day. Either have your house paid off and live in it or sell it and live off the money from the sale.

Somewhat.  People almost never pay off their house.  But they build up equity that they roll from one to the next, which helps reduce their home costs over time.  That frees up more money for them to save and invest.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.133  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.130    one week ago
What else would you call someone having so much of a shitload of something that they are stashing it all over the place.

Do you understand what happens to money in a bank?  Do you understand how bonds work?

Yes hoarding is relevant as the 1% have most of it.

OK...how about if they loaned out some of that money to build new schools?  Or new roads?  Or for young families to buy houses?  Because that's how municipal bonds and mortgage backed securities work.

We have people being paid just enough to stop them from revolting. 

We also have people improving their skills and their incomes every day.

I do not think being paid 50k a year is a whirlwind.

For a 22 year old?  You realize that's $100k + for a young couple.

My daughter is a teacher.  She bought her first house at 23.  She has a 6 figure net worth already at 25.  All on $53k/yr.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.134  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.131    one week ago
My point remains. It is supposed to be an anti-poverty tool.

Giving poor people free cash is the most direct anti-poverty tool.

Bullshit. The only thing it does is let some people get a check and splurge on a new tv.

So you agree wealth has a lot to do with decisions.

It in no way lifts people up. It is almost counterproductive in my view. It takes away money from actual programs that could help people.

Very few government programs help people.  Politicians lack the fortitude to design the programs correctly.

Plus we have to listen to the rightwing constantly excuse the top tier (poor them) just by saying the lesser don't pay.

Personally, I think everybody should have to pay something in income tax and all of their FICA. 

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.135  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.133    one week ago

Imo most money is an illusion. Beside the point though...Haha

Let's just say our new school is from taxpayer funded bonds.

What you are proving to me is that the super wealthy run everything. Have the rules to benefit themselves.

I know teachers. Have some in the family, one of them was the principal of a high school. There are teachers today that need help with supplies for their classrooms. A lot of them buy supplies themselves.

A very under rated profession that should be rewarded.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.136  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.134    one week ago
Personally, I think everybody should have to pay something in income tax and all of their FICA

That was kinda my point. Walk the walk...so to speak.

 
 
 
Ender
6.3.137  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.134    one week ago
Giving poor people free cash is the most direct anti-poverty tool

It actually does little to nothing to advance anyone.

A raise would....

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3.138  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @6.3.123    one week ago

Rallies aren't travel. 

 
 
 
CB
6.3.139  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.3.118    one week ago

And, the Republican Party does not see anything wrong with the Financier-in-Chief of America being a dead-beat creditor. Republican Party Guilty As Charged.

Giving cities an "evening out" on the town is not enough.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.140  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.119    one week ago
But under Obama, trillions of dollars went to banks, bankers, and bailouts of assorted other rich guys.  10 years later, we're above full employment and seeing wages rise.  

Unbelievable. You see no correlation between the democratic president pulling this nation out of the smoke and fire zone, into the resting spot for further success and republican tax form hider who is so scared of bragging about his own taxes before his 'adoring' fans that he is willing to waste more time, energy, personal wealth in lawyer cost, and a drive to the Supreme Court!

Tell me, how come Donald Trump who says he is so suchy-much, who stuffs his fat mouth in everybody's else business, is shaking in his boots about the 'big reveal' of his tax returns?

You're being manipulated. What's worse and important is you seem to like it.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.3.141  dennis smith  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.2    one week ago

Party over country has been the Dems motto since the very day Trump defeated Hillary.

Sadly the dems have continued the same for 3 years and now people have no confidence in dems. The dems continue to rely on polls, spin and deflection which primes the pump for another 4 years of Trump.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.3.142  dennis smith  replied to  XDm9mm @6.3.8    one week ago

Thanks for putting things from Lady in Black in proper perspective.

Some have been trump haters from his 1st day in office proving they put party before country with their hatred.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3.143  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  dennis smith @6.3.142    one week ago
Some have been trump haters from his 1st day in office proving they put party before country with their hatred.

Trump has been an accused sexual predator and unmitigated moron since before his 1st day even running for office. Recognizing that fact had nothing to do with party affiliation, at least it didn't before he became the conservative Republicans chosen nominee. After that, most Republicans threw their morals, ethics and standards in the fire as they were now required to defend the indefensible. That's truly putting party before country.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.144  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.140    one week ago
Unbelievable. You see no correlation between the democratic president pulling this nation out of the smoke and fire zone, into the resting spot for further success and republican tax form hider who is so scared of bragging about his own taxes before his 'adoring' fans that he is willing to waste more time, energy, personal wealth in lawyer cost, and a drive to the Supreme Court!

What IS believable is that you have let your emotions run off with you again, presuming things that are incorrect.  Your explosion happened so quickly you can't even manage the correct words.

The correlation in question is the link between hyper-partisanship and brainlessness.  The coefficient is nearly 1.0.

Tell me, how come Donald Trump who says he is so suchy-much, who stuffs his fat mouth in everybody's else business, is shaking in his boots about the 'big reveal' of his tax returns?

Thirty years from now, nobody will remember his Tweets or his caustic remarks.  They will remember his policies, which will be old enough then to be assessed objectively.

You're being manipulated.

"Manipulated" out of emotion and into objectivity.  Riiiiiiight.  Or I'm just too old to fall for the shiny object of the moment.

What's worse and important is you seem to like it.

I quite like not being hysterical.  I recommend it.  Non- hysteria is definitely the way to go, IMO.  You should definitely give it a try.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.145  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.135    one week ago
Let's just say our new school is from taxpayer funded bonds. What you are proving to me is that the super wealthy run everything. Have the rules to benefit themselves.

A bond is a debt instrument.  The school district sells the bonds to raise money for current projects, and then repays them over time.  Investors buy the bonds, and then the taxpayers repay them over the term of the bond.

So the "hoarded" money is really actively at work paying electricians and cement workers and plumbers and truck drivers and everybody else needed to build the school.

I know teachers. Have some in the family, one of them was the principal of a high school. There are teachers today that need help with supplies for their classrooms. A lot of them buy supplies themselves. A very under rated profession that should be rewarded.

I was a teacher, have dozens of friends who still are, and of course my daughter teaches.  What teachers don't realize (because most have never been outside the classroom) is that most of what they buy they could easily have for free if they knew whom to ask.  

The local State Farm agent would gleefully donate 3000 pencils.  They'll all say State Farm, but so what?  The local credit union would gladly donate paper or folders or notebooks or whatever.  My company has donated furniture, printers, and other equipment.  We're getting ready to refurnish some of our offices, and we'll be donating three desks to local teachers.  But most teachers don't know where to ask.

 
 
 
WallyW
6.3.146  WallyW  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.3.118    one week ago
It is no secret that he has stiffed city after city for the cost of his rallys. 
Lie!

 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.3.148  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.144    one week ago
Thirty years from now, nobody will remember his Tweets or his caustic remarks.  They will remember his policies, which will be old enough then to be assessed objectively.

You pretty much have it exactly backward. Presidents are more remembered historically for their character and what mood they imparted to the country during their time in office than for their policies. Few average people can even remember what Eisenhower's policies were, but he is well thought of as a president because he was a calm steady influence who presided over a peacetime period. 

There isn't a chance in hell that Trump will have a favorable reputation in history. His 15,000 lies have already cemented the verdict history will lay on him. 

Most of Trump's policies are at the whim of future presidents. Trump has done it all through executive orders which are subject to reversal by the next president not named Trump. 

The bottom line on Trump? His time will be seen as incredibly divisive, fueled in great part by his demagoguery and dishonesty. And there is nothing he can do about it. 

 
 
 
CB
6.3.149  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.144    one week ago
The correlation in question is the link between hyper-partisanship and brainlessness. 

Well, hyper-Obama critic that is some mad spin you did there. Question: Did the 'Great' recession all but end during the Obama Administration or not? (No buts allows.)

 
 
 
CB
6.3.150  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.144    one week ago
Thirty years from now, nobody will remember his Tweets or his caustic remarks.  They will remember his policies, which will be old enough then to be assessed objectively.

You got thirty years left? (Don't answer that.) What policies? Pissing off the world? Jacking everybody and everything up? Passing blame for his stupid overreactions to being ignard, a liar, a cheat, and the ruination of people and states of being.

You may want to be a cast in the image or stand in the shadow of this megalomaniac, you may bathe in his recess pool of selfish 'genes,' and you may need steering in how to lie and cheat society and get away with it, but history thirty years from now will look upon this evil man as an example of a presidency and man running amok through a world of 'china shops.'

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.3.151  It Is ME  replied to  CB @6.3.149    one week ago
 
 
 
CB
6.3.152  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.144    one week ago
"Manipulated" out of emotion and into objectivity.  Riiiiiiight.  Or I'm just too old to fall for the shiny object of the moment. What's worse and important is you seem to like it. I quite like not being hysterical.  I recommend it.  Non- hysteria is definitely the way to go, IMO.  You should definitely give it a try.

You can pretend you're being objective in your imagination all you want. Is Donald Trump a liar (where is your 'day one' border wall)? Where is you '100 day' border wall)? Where is your "who going to pay for it-Mexico border wall"?

You're trading in emotion for a liar in cheat and that is all you have got to tell your kids about President Donald Trump - the 'glorified human ass' that criticized everybody and everything that would not kiss his ass or bow and scrape,  or lay prostrate as he steamed-rolled over them. We know which is you - and we know which am I.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.153  CB   replied to  It Is ME @6.3.151    one week ago

Without delving into your link at all, one question:  Who was president during 2009?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.3.154  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.127    one week ago

What is the income to fit in the "poor" category?  I ask because I might be there.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.155  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.3.137    one week ago
It actually does little to nothing to advance anyone.

That is true of almost all government social programs.

A raise would....

It depends on the size of the raise, doesn't it?

In any case, additional current dollars do not translate to wealth unless people make good decisions about what they do with those dollars.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.156  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.148    one week ago
You pretty much have it exactly backward. Presidents are more remembered historically for their character and what mood they imparted to the country during their time in office than for their policies.

I've seen you defend LBJ on this very forum.  Until 2016, he was the biggest asshole in American presidential history.   Are you somehow exempt from your own declaration?

Few average people can even remember what Eisenhower's policies were, but he is well thought of as a president because he was a calm steady influence who presided over a peacetime period. 

Construction of the interstate highway system, outrageous taxes trying to pay off the debts from WWII.  No, I think most educated people are familiar with Ike's policies.

There isn't a chance in hell that Trump will have a favorable reputation in history. His 15,000 lies have already cemented the verdict history will lay on him.

Americans are infamous for our poor memories.  Our culture is such that the masses are slaves to every new shiny object that enters the frame.  Nobody will remember shit about Trump 30 years from now unless he's impeached....in which case that's all people will remember.

Most of Trump's policies are at the whim of future presidents. Trump has done it all through executive orders which are subject to reversal by the next president not named Trump.

True, but so were many of Obama's.  Many of Trump's EOs are simply recisions of Obama EOs. 

The bottom line on Trump? His time will be seen as incredibly divisive, fueled in great part by his demagoguery and dishonesty. And there is nothing he can do about it. 

You're describing LBJ to a T.  Is that your impression of his presidency?  I doubt it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.157  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.149    one week ago
Well, hyper-Obama critic that is some mad spin you did there. Question: Did the 'Great' recession all but end during the Obama Administration or not? (No buts allows.)

Why do you imagine me to be an Obama critic?  Are you paying attention at all?  What part of "I have a lot of respect for Barack Obama" did you fail to comprehend? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.158  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.150    one week ago
You got thirty years left? (Don't answer that.)

Probably.  The Good Lord willing.

What policies?

Now see THIS is a good point.  Finally.  I knew you could do it.  I would argue Trump doesn't have a signature piece of legislation the way Obama or Reagan did.  Had he planned ahead better (I realize that was always unlikely) he would have pushed through a very large infrastructure bill when he had the House and Senate supporting him.

So I think his "signature policy" has yet to be done.  Which is why I think we'll have to wait and see how he's remembered.

Pissing off the world? Jacking everybody and everything up? Passing blame for his stupid overreactions to being ignard, a liar, a cheat, and the ruination of people and states of being.

I'm not sure how to break it to you that there are tens of millions of Americans who are not controlled by our emotions.  In our world, known as "reality", the economy is very robust, we are beyond full employment, businesses and investments are thriving.  The half of us that actually pay taxes are doing very well.

You may want to be a cast in the image or stand in the shadow of this megalomaniac, you may bathe in his recess pool of selfish 'genes,' and you may need steering in how to lie and cheat society and get away with it, but history thirty years from now will look upon this evil man as an example of a presidency and man running amok through a world of 'china shops.'

My, what glorious melodrama your emotions provide you.  For me, I don't give a shit what he says.  I care about what he does, and what he doesn't do.  He has avoided derailing the American economy and has arguably helped it a bit. 

Your "feelings" about him are under your control exclusively and are therefore your problem.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.159  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.152    one week ago
You can pretend you're being objective in your imagination all you want.

I'm a damn sight closer than you are, and I'm not blindly irrational.

Is Donald Trump a liar (where is your 'day one' border wall)?

Of course he's a liar.  Why would I care?

Where is you '100 day' border wall)? Where is your "who going to pay for it-Mexico border wall"?

You act as though I expected these things.  I didn't.  I'm smart enough to know when somebody is promising something they absolutely cannot deliver and I adjust my expectations accordingly.   BernieBots should try it sometime. 

You're trading in emotion for a liar in cheat and that is all you have got to tell your kids about President Donald Trump - the 'glorified human ass' that criticized everybody and everything that would not kiss his ass or bow and scrape,  or lay prostrate as he steamed-rolled over them. We know which is you - and we know which am I.

I don't trade in emotion.  That's your thing. I am not controlled by my "feelings".

I've made a little money during the Trump presidency, and he hasn't interfered with it.  I've learned not to expect much beyond that.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.160  Jack_TX  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.3.154    one week ago
What is the income to fit in the "poor" category?  I ask because I might be there.

Depends on your individual situation.  The guidelines are here:

https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/earned-income-tax-credit/eitc-income-limits-maximum-credit-amounts

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.3.161  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.159    one week ago
Of course he's a liar.  Why would I care?

It's just bizarre that you could so blithely say you don't care if the president is a serial liar. Something went wrong somewhere in this country. Whether it is people like you or people like those who disagree with you is what I guess remains to be seen. 

Donald Trump could never be happy if he wasnt the constant center of national attention. He's kind of sick like that. He is a malignant naricissist. So we should all approve of and accept the Donald Trump show for 8 years because he oversaw a marginally better economy than we had the previous years following the crash? 

I never thought I would live to see the day when people actually approve of the concept of having a true asshole leading America.  This country can fall, there is nothing to prevent it and it has happened to every empire in history.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.162  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.161    one week ago
It's just bizarre that you could so blithely say you don't care if the president is a serial liar.

Bizarre to you.  I'm a grown up, with bills to pay and a family to support.  I live in reality.  Twisting my knickers over a guy whose been lying his ass off since 1970 is not a luxury I can afford.

Something went wrong somewhere in this country.

Ya think??

Whether it is people like you or people like those who disagree with you is what I guess remains to be seen. 

It will never be agreed upon.  People who are "feelings first" will never understand people like me, and people like me will never give a shit about whether they understand us or not.

Donald Trump could never be happy if he wasnt the constant center of national attention.

I cannot tell you how little his happiness means to me.  It would need to be measured at the sub atomic level.

He's kind of sick like that. He is a malignant naricissist.

Sure.  Has been for decades.

So we should all approve of and accept the Donald Trump show for 8 years because he oversaw a marginally better economy than we had the previous years following the crash?

Look...you do you.  I'm not going to tell you what you should approve or accept, although I realize you have no intention of extending me the same courtesy.  Your feelings are entirely, completely, 100% under your control.  How you choose to spend that energy is up to you.  Personally, I learned a long time ago to concentrate on the things I can control.  Trump is not one of those.

I never thought I would live to see the day when people actually approve of the concept of having a true asshole leading America.

You're young.  You remember Obama and maybe a little bit of GWB.  Both were outstanding men of unimpeachable character.  I remember Nixon.  My mother knew LBJ personally.  We've had our share of complete assholes in the WH.  We've had our share of pathological liars, crooks, perverts and bastards.  Clinton was certainly no angel.  Andrew Jackson was a genocidal maniac.  Most US presidents were white supremacists.  It's not been pretty.  

  This country can fall, there is nothing to prevent it and it has happened to every empire in history.  

This country WILL fall.  Count on it.  Nothing lasts forever.  

Ever been to Paris?  Seen the spoils of Napoleon's conquests?  Then seen footage of German tanks rolling down the Champs d' Elysse?  It happens, and it will happen to us eventually.  But it will take a shitload more than Trump to bring it about.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.163  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.156    one week ago
Nobody will remember shit about Trump 30 years from now unless he's impeached....in which case that's all people will remember.

People with tell their children, nieces and nephews about the "biggest asshole since 2016," Donald J. Trump. CB spits.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.164  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.156    one week ago
The bottom line on Trump? His time will be seen as incredibly divisive, fueled in great part by his demagoguery and dishonesty. And there is nothing he can do about it.  You're describing LBJ to a T. 

I guess that depends on where your 'seats' sat there, Jack_TX.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.165  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.157    one week ago
"I have a lot of respect for Barack Obama"

Well why didn't ya say so earlier! C'mon in here. Get yourself a 'cold tall one' and let's get your favorite song on!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.3.166  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.162    one week ago

1. I'm not young. 

2. You are convinced that if Hillary Clinton were president you would have fallen to the depths of despair financially,  something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. 

3. Your comments are so odd I am not interested in them . 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.167  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.165    one week ago
Well why didn't ya say so earlier! C'mon in here. Get yourself a 'cold tall one' and let's get your favorite song on!

I did say it earlier.  Directly to you. @6.3.128

You just weren't listening.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.168  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.164    one week ago
I guess that depends on where your 'seats' sat there, Jack_TX.

No...it's pretty well established.  Protests and rioting everywhere.  "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"  

He was so shitty his own party forced him not to run for re-election.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.169  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.158    one week ago
I'm not sure how to break it to you that there are tens of millions of Americans who are not controlled by our emotions.  In our world, known as "reality", the economy is very robust, we are beyond full employment, businesses and investments are thriving.  The half of us that actually pay taxes are doing very well.

Yawn. Your suppositions have 'cabinet' suppositions I see. On one hand you SAY you not one a part of Trump 'throngs,' but on the flip side you jack around quite a set of 'red' talking points for good measure. For a good deed, keeping the Obama economy continuously hot and red hot, I do not fault Donald Trump.

I fault Donald Trump for being a jerk, liar, cheat, a "do as I sayer and not as I doer," for maligning (and firing) good men and women who simply want to do their jobs descriptions properly (and without drama from the "Drama-king"), for double-talk and repeat double-talk, for fight meaningless but costly fights simply because "It can happen," and for being 'foul' to John McCain and any other veterans who won't bow down to him. Lastly, for being a monster-banker on Deal or No Deal  2007 Episode 1 where he low-balled the contestant for a solid hour! (And, that was not even Trump's money.) Actulaly, the show ratings may have been a injured by the way the contestant was made to 'lackluster' while Trump basked in the limelight of being the banker.

As for work, you can't prove what you do because people are anonymous in the virtual world. You could be a pimp or a "ho"  in finance as far as anyone will ever know for certain.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.170  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.159    one week ago

For making money (many of us are for that matter) legally, I do not fault you. But, be warned people, your children if you have any, will pay for this Trump Administratioin tearing down of the much need status quo stretching and having been applied  around the globe. At that time Jack, we or somebody will see how much you feel for the youth, if that is possible.

Now let me confront you head on with your "I'm all about the benjamins" BS.

"I've made a little money during the Trump presidency, and he hasn't interfered with it."

This is not all about you. Many people have lost their livelihoods (farmers, the coal industry, manufacturers who can not stay open in the Trump era), LGBTQ people who are being put back out in the 'fields' where they will sooner than later have to fend for themselves again in a cruel business and personal environment, and more. And, "objectively" you are not emotionally attached to their well-being. Whoopee-do for you. I am committed to some of these folks, because they are 'my people.' I have a 'dog' in this Trump war on liberal America.

And I will keep pushing it up into your face, where even if you won't react to it - you will get a damn good look and whiff of it. Oh, and don't confuse being an opportunist with being objective. The two, are on parallel tracks.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.171  CB   replied to  CB @6.3.170    one week ago

Oh and we don't need Trump to make money for us. It is a lie straight from Hell that 'only Donald Trump' can make and keep 'America Great.' (It is a slogan, nothing more than that.) If we like some of the actions Donald has done keep them on the books and still get rid of the poisonous man himself!

 
 
 
CB
6.3.172  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.168    one week ago
He was so shitty his own party forced him not to run for re-election.

What do you mean? Give context. Because right now you are being quite vaque and non-descript.  I mean, I can think of a 'world' of people who have killed babies using one rationale or another. And, if it party forced LBJ out supply the setting for it.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.173  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.167    one week ago

I didn't see it. Busy days, you know. And fhit happens, so they say! Sheesh! Good for you (and me) and there you go. See, it just goes to show we can find harmony if we strive together for it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.3.174  TᵢG  replied to  CB @6.3.172    one week ago

First remember that LBJ was not well.   There were serious doubts that he could survive another term as PotUS.   This mostly weighed on him and the first Lady and no doubt took much of the fight out of him.   But given the unpopularity of the Vietnam war and the corresponding split in his party, getting D support was going to be a major uphill battle.   Then when Eugene McCarthy (anti-war) showed strong in the NH primary LBJ no doubt realized how much the war was a political boat anchor for him.   If that was not enough, not only was he compared to the iconic JFK, but JFK's brother RFK —carrying with him the spirit of his very popular assassinated brother— decided to challenge LBJ in the primary.

I suspect LBJ would have continued in spite of these odds if he had been healthy because he was mean, stubborn and full of himself.    But given he had to be very careful with his stress levels during his first term of office he no doubt realized that he did not have the health to fight the battle he faced.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.175  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.3.174    one week ago

Several points I would like to make about LBJ. And, they will not rival your points, but come from my sphere:

  1. LBJ honored the legacy of JFK in his presidency and in his speeches to Congress.
  2. LBJ passed civil rights and voting rights legislation during his presidency.
  3. The Vietnam War was disastrous for all the presidents involved.
  4. I did not know much about or pay much attention to Eugene McCarthy as it was before my interest in politics.
  5. Honestly, I did not know LBJ was not a well person at any point of his presidency.

All this said, LBJ did not bother me as a person, but rather I approved of many of his acts establishing programs known as 'The Great Society.'

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.3.176  TᵢG  replied to  CB @6.3.175    one week ago

LBJ did do good (even if not for the 'right' reasons all the time).   He did not bring us into the Vietnam war but he (stubbornly) escalated our involvement in it.

I was not really trying to bash on LBJ, but rather explain why the D party was not fully behind him as incumbent and why, given that, he chose to not run.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.177  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.3.176    one week ago

Understood.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.178  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.166    one week ago
1. I'm not young. 

There is nothing wrong with being young.

2. You are convinced that if Hillary Clinton were president you would have fallen to the depths of despair financially,  something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. 

Please cite such a statement or inference I've made at any time, ever.

3. Your comments are so odd I am not interested in them . 

Points 2 and 3 are clearly pouts.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.179  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.169    one week ago
Yawn. Your suppositions have 'cabinet' suppositions I see. On one hand you SAY you not one a part of Trump 'throngs,' but on the flip side you jack around quite a set of 'red' talking points for good measure.

I deal in reality.  The numbers are what they are.

For a good deed, keeping the Obama economy continuously hot and red hot, I do not fault Donald Trump.

Then we are in agreement.

I fault Donald Trump for being a jerk, liar, cheat, a "do as I sayer and not as I doer," for maligning (and firing) good men and women who simply want to do their jobs descriptions properly (and without drama from the "Drama-king"), for double-talk and repeat double-talk, for fight meaningless but costly fights simply because "It can happen," and for being 'foul' to John McCain and any other veterans who won't bow down to him.

OK.  None of that affects my daily life one iota. 

Lastly, for being a monster-banker on Deal or No Deal  2007 Episode 1 where he low-balled the contestant for a solid hour! (And, that was not even Trump's money.) Actulaly, the show ratings may have been a injured by the way the contestant was made to 'lackluster' while Trump basked in the limelight of being the banker.

Why....in God's name....would you actually watch that?  Do you not have Netflix?

As for work, you can't prove what you do because people are anonymous in the virtual world. You could be a pimp or a "ho"  in finance as far as anyone will ever know for certain.

True.  It is your choice to believe me or not.  That choice also does not affect my daily life one iota, so you choose however makes you happy.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.180  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.170    one week ago
For making money (many of us are for that matter) legally, I do not fault you. But, be warned people, your children if you have any, will pay for this Trump Administratioin tearing down of the much need status quo stretching and having been applied  around the globe. At that time Jack, we or somebody will see how much you feel for the youth, if that is possible.

People will adapt and prosper.  Or they won't.  I don't control that.

This is not all about you.

Again... the numbers indicate that prosperity is happening for lots of people. 

Many people have lost their livelihoods (farmers, the coal industry, manufacturers who can not stay open in the Trump era), LGBTQ people who are being put back out in the 'fields' where they will sooner than later have to fend for themselves again in a cruel business and personal environment, and more.

The numbers indicate that many, many, many more people are prospering.  Once again, you're talking about emotions, which I disregard.

Nothing lasts forever.  We will all find ourselves in a much less friendly business and economic environment eventually.   Those of us who are wise will be saving in advance of that inevitability.

And I will keep pushing it up into your face, where even if you won't react to it - you will get a damn good look and whiff of it.

You imagine that this would matter to me in some way.  You imagine this because it matters to you, and you struggle to comprehend a view as different as mine.

 
 
 
CB
6.3.181  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.179    one week ago
OK.  None of that affects my daily life one iota. 

So why are you here interacting with this? This is a comment board and we talk about life, news, and other miscellaneous issues, generally and specifically affecting us as people, a nation, and a world. In this case, it's politics. That you are not 'bothered' personally is not a local, statewide, or national concern. Again, why are you here in the 'front row'?

That said, let me probe deeper. What is your view of climate change? Do you assent to the scientific approach or this president's perspective—they are diametrically opposed to each other. Do you care that this president has not acted positively in any significant way with the scientific community of this nation or other nations in regards to this world's climate?

 
 
 
CB
6.3.182  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.180    one week ago
the numbers indicate that prosperity is happening for lots of people. 

Again, "eat" your coin of the realm when the climate, and overall quality of life fails, all around you. As facts, truth, and figures will continue to become fungibles with lies and this specific president's other 'alternatives.'

 
 
 
CB
6.3.183  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @6.3.180    one week ago
And I will keep pushing it up into your face, where even if you won't react to it - you will get a damn good look and whiff of it

I repeat.

I am not impressed by any assent to unprincipled opportunism at the expense of other people. Not. At. All.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.3.184  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  PJ @6.3.1    one week ago

The ones that support the draft dodger in chief are no longer members of my extended military family.  They can pound sand for all I care.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.3.185  MUVA  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.3.184    one week ago

That means most of the special ops guys you know this right?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.186  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.181    one week ago
So why are you here interacting with this?

I find the discussion with people who do not think like me to be educational.

This is a comment board and we talk about life, news, and other miscellaneous issues, generally and specifically affecting us as people, a nation, and a world. In this case, it's politics. That you are not 'bothered' personally is not a local, statewide, or national concern. Again, why are you here in the 'front row'?

There is a difference between "things I find interesting" and "things that affect my life". 

That said, let me probe deeper. What is your view of climate change?

The whole issue is impractical.  I think we have other environmental issues that are exceedingly more urgent and that the "climate change" debate is a waste of time.  If we don't clean up the Pacific Garbage Patch and many other similar problems, climate change will be the least of our worries.  If history is any indicator, the economic advantages of new technologies will likely render the climate change issue moot anyway.

Do you assent to the scientific approach or this president's perspective—they are diametrically opposed to each other.

I do not agree with Trump on climate change.  Nor do I agree with AOC, BTW.

Do you care that this president has not acted positively in any significant way with the scientific community of this nation or other nations in regards to this world's climate?

I do not think the US should enter into agreements with other countries that put us at a disadvantage.  IMO, the Kyoto Protocol was such an arrangement.  

I do not think it's any president's responsibility to take the lead on every topic under the sun.   Private industry has taken the lead on the production of clean energy, and the economics of the situation will continue to drive that.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.187  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.182    one week ago
Again, "eat" your coin of the realm when the climate, and overall quality of life fails, all around you.

The coin of the realm will incent brilliant American minds to solve problems.

As facts, truth, and figures will continue to become fungibles with lies and this specific president's other 'alternatives.'

I realize the actual numbers are wholly inconvenient for blind partisans of either tribe.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.3.188  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.3.184    one week ago
The ones that support the draft dodger in chief are no longer members of my extended military family. 

That "family" must be pretty small by now, what with you disowning Trump supporters and Bill Clinton supporters.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.189  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @6.3.183    one week ago
I repeat. I am not impressed by any assent to unprincipled opportunism at the expense of other people. Not. At. All.

You aren't actually repeating.  To "repeat", you would need to have said it before.

What you are doing again is falsely diagnosing something in a feeble attempt to justify your emotions on the subject.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.3.190  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @6.3.174    one week ago

He was indeed mean, stubborn and full of himself.  And a rat bastard.

 
 
 
WallyW
6.4  WallyW  replied to  PJ @6    2 weeks ago
  I never imagined so many would not care about right and wrong.
You don't care about right or wrong. You put the Democrat party above honesty, fair play, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. This whole shameful episode is simply politically motivated

 
 
 
CB
6.4.1  CB   replied to  WallyW @6.4    one week ago

Let's test your theory of what constitutes a right and a wrong. WallyW:

  1. is it right or wrong for a president to lie continuously to the citizens of this country?
  2. In your opinion, WallyW is Donald Trump a continuous, excessive liar?

DISCLAIMER: If there are other astroturfers immediately closeby, please delay answering this question until time avails itself of privacy. Or, you may prefer to use a personal computer afterhours. /s

 
 
 
WallyW
6.4.2  WallyW  replied to  CB @6.4.1    one week ago

No, Trump is not a continuous and liar.

Saying he is is a lie.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.4.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @6.4.2    one week ago
No, Trump is not a continuous and liar.

What is it with Trumpsters and bad, jumbled grammar?  We see it all over the place from these people. Maybe it is how they pass messages to one another in code. 

 
 
 
katrix
6.4.4  katrix  replied to  WallyW @6.4.2    one week ago
No, Trump is not a continuous and liar.

He actually is, Wally. Honesty, you should stop commenting in here if you're going to deny such obvious facts and make such continually ignorant comments [-No value]

Trump continuously and excessively - his lies are well documented. And since you can't possibly excuse those lies, you just deny them, [Skirting]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.4.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @6.4.2    one week ago
Saying he is is a lie.

Trump continues to say his phone call with Zelensky was perfect. He is probably the only person on the face of the earth who has seen the 'transcript' that continues to think it is 'perfect'. 

In other words, he is lying, in the hope of bamboozling the simple minded among his followers. It's too bad there are so damn many of them. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.4.6  TᵢG  replied to  WallyW @6.4.2    one week ago

Trump, if anything, is a practiced liar. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.4.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.4.3    one week ago

Aren't all liberals geniuses? Crack the code, JR!

LMFAO!

 
 
 
MUVA
6.4.8  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @6.4.7    one week ago

They are also extremely wealthy that’s why some push for wealth redistribution.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.4.9  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.4.3    one week ago
'What is it with Trumpsters and bad, jumbled grammar?'

And their rambling ranting incoherent nonsense?

[Removed]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.4.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.4.3    one week ago
bad, jumbled grammar?

Like people who constantly confuse and post "butt" instead of "but"?

jrSmiley_14_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
6.4.11  CB   replied to  WallyW @6.4.2    one week ago

Donald Trump utters: A noun + verb + lie + repeat of several past lies + everyday!

You're kidding. I forgive you.

 
 
 
CB
6.4.12  CB   replied to  TᵢG @6.4.6    one week ago

Thank you and Katrix for entering here. I know you do not agree with everything I or others might write, but that right there is a breath of fresh air coming through here and we can all fill our lungs with it!

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.5  Tacos!  replied to  PJ @6    2 weeks ago
so many have put their party before the country

While I agree that sometimes that happens, the Ukraine event is not an example of that. The country is just fine as a result of that incident. Or it would be, if the Democratic Party weren't scandalizing the event. Except for the awkwardness of impeachment drama, our relationship with Ukraine is just fine.

And as you ponder that, consider also this: It's putting party before country to seek the impeachment of a president who hasn't even taken office yet. It's also putting party before country to talk about impeachment with every act the president takes or word he speaks.

While some states will impeach a civil servant for being bad at his job or being a jerk, the founders considered and rejected that idea for the president. The standard remains high crimes and misdemeanors. That hasn't happened. So, there's plenty of "party before country" to go around.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.5.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @6.5    2 weeks ago
Except for the awkwardness of impeachment drama, our relationship with Ukraine is just fine.

So you disagree with Mr. Morrison, Trump's NSC aid. Why? 

It's putting party before country to seek the impeachment of a president who hasn't even taken office yet.

When did that happen? Link? 

It's also putting party before country to talk about impeachment with every act the president takes or word he speaks.

Didn't happen is not happening now. 

The standard remains high crimes and misdemeanors. That hasn't happened. So, there's plenty of "party before country" to go around.

Abuse of power is a high crime. PERIOD, full stop. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.5.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @6.5.1