Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[jjbrr]

What does that have to do with the number of jobs trump has promised to create?

[RedSpawn]

When the stock market is surging nobody wants to listen to a wet blanket.

 

My day to day life does not depend on the djia. I usually don't know its level within 1000 points, or whether it has gone up or down in the previous week. Some swings get my attention.

 

I would like to see good decisions fostering long term economic health.

 

Let's face facts. The guy in the WH made a lot of money screwing suckers. Get in, say anything, make a buck, get out. He has now taken his act to the presidency. Long term, this is not good.

 

I get along with conservatives. I am more conservative than many who post here. But I don't like having a scam artist as president. Basically, that's the whole story with me.

 

Economists worry, but the guy in the street thinks "The market is going up, who cares what the eggheads say?". Now might be a time to think a bit about that.

 

Nobody has to totally surrender all of their social views, I am simply suggesting they give some thought to the character of the person who has been elected.

Character is irrelevant when F.E.A.R. and values/policy issues are allegedly more important.

 

Source: https://www.vox.com/2017/10/4/16346800/donald-trump-christian-right-conservative-clinton

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/05/a-match-made-in-heaven/521409/

[PassedOut]

As usual since 1980, when republicans get control of the US government, deficit spending skyrockets. That's because the republican base is basically a bunch of red-state freeloaders, parasites on the more productive blue states.

 

Yes, the democrats are spenders too, but they aren't the ones pushing for those completely irresponsible tax cuts. The freeloader approach is to grab the benefits of government spending now, while jamming the bill for that spending down the throats of our children and grandchildren.

 

Of course when the next democrat assumes the presidency, the republican rhetoric will reverse itself again, and the associated finger-pointing will resume. I regret my past habit of voting in republican primaries. The national republicans today lack character, intelligence, and personal responsibility. The whole bunch makes me sick.

[ldrews]

As usual since 1980, when republicans get control of the US government, deficit spending skyrockets. That's because the republican base is basically a bunch of red-state freeloaders, parasites on the more productive blue states.

 

Yes, the democrats are spenders too, but they aren't the ones pushing for those completely irresponsible tax cuts. The freeloader approach is to grab the benefits of government spending now, while jamming the bill for that spending down the throats of our children and grandchildren.

 

Of course when the next democrat assumes the presidency, the republican rhetoric will reverse itself again, and the associated finger-pointing will resume. I regret my past habit of voting in republican primaries. The national republicans today lack character, intelligence, and personal responsibility. The whole bunch makes me sick.

 

Budget Deficits By President:

https://www.thoughtco.com/historic-budget-deficits-by-president-3368289

[Al_U_Card]

Budget Deficits By President:

https://www.thoughtco.com/historic-budget-deficits-by-president-3368289

Seems to me that the economy does (pretty much what it will) about the opposite of the "classical" interpretation of Dems= tax and spend and Reps = austerity and tax cuts IIRC.

The 2009 bank heist ranks with The great crash of '29 and JPMorgan's overthrow of US finances at the turn of the previous century. Symptoms of a plutocratic malaise that afflicts the country like waves of the bubonic plague used to ravage the old world.

Most of the hoi polloi don't even know (or care?) how the financial system works. Never in their favor or for their well-being.

[PassedOut]

The rational way to look at the US national debt is as a percentage of the GDP. After WWII, the debt had risen to over 117% of GDP. After that, the debt as a percentage of GDP dropped steadily until Reagan took office.

 

Here is the reference from which I've extracted the following chart: History of the United States public debt

 

1941–1945	Roosevelt	    +67.1
1945–1949	Roosevelt, Truman   -24.4
1949–1953	Truman	            -21.7
1953–1957	Eisenhower          -11.0
1957–1961	Eisenhower	     -5.2
1961–1965	Kennedy, Johnson     -8.3
1965–1969	Johnson	             -8.3
1969–1973	Nixon	             -3.0
1973–1977	Nixon, Ford	     +0.2
1977–1981	Carter	             -3.3
1981–1985	Reagan	            +11.3
1985–1989	Reagan	             +9.3
1989–1993	Bush Sr.            +13.0
1993–1997	Clinton	             -0.7
1997–2001	Clinton	 	     -9.0
2001–2005	Bush	 	     +7.1
2005–2009	Bush	 	    +20.7
2009–2013	Obama	 	    +18.5

 

I don't yet have the number for Obama's last term, but the increase will be significantly lower than for his first term -- heading in the right direction, albeit too slowly.

 

Now the numbers will start in the wrong direction once again, and dramatically so. The government passed an irresponsible tax cut knowing full well that they were going to increase spending as the next step. These are the actions taken by irresponsible people to buy votes from their irresponsible minions.

[Winstonm]

I have not been a fan of the Democratic party since Clinton - mostly because of the move away from protections of workers - but the Republican party I always found to be worse. My history with the Democratic party goes back to Kennedy and LBJ. LBJ would be my choice today even though I hated him at the time for escalating the Vietnam war.

 

Anyone from the South who had the courage and integrity to ramrod through the Civil Rights Act was the real deal in my estimation.

 

PS: McFredo blocked the release of the Democratic memo - what a shock. <_<

[ldrews]

I have not been a fan of the Democratic party since Clinton - mostly because of the move away from protections of workers - but the Republican party I always found to be worse. My history with the Democratic party goes back to Kennedy and LBJ. LBJ would be my choice today even though I hated him at the time for escalating the Vietnam war.

 

Anyone from the South who had the courage and integrity to ramrod through the Civil Rights Act was the real deal in my estimation.

 

PS: McFredo blocked the release of the Democratic memo - what a shock. <_<

 

It is shocking to have a President that apparently follows the Rule of Law and handles sensitive national security info appropriately.

 

My understanding is that Trump sent the memo back to Congress for them to remove the sensitive national security info that had been put in and then resubmit it. Trump has ordered the DOJ/FBI/NSA to help them do so.

 

Do you think this was the wrong thing to do?

[kenberg]

It is shocking to have a President that apparently follows the Rule of Law and handles sensitive national security info appropriately.

 

My understanding is that Trump sent the memo back to Congress for them to remove the sensitive national security info that had been put in and then resubmit it. Trump has ordered the DOJ/FBI/NSA to help them do so.

 

Do you think this was the wrong thing to do?

 

During the super bowl there were several calls on the field which were reviewed for accuracy. This is proper. Having the review done by the coach of the Patriots or by the coach of the Eagles would have been improper.

 

Most everyone could see early on that this dueling memo idea was nuts from the start. Having a dueling memo battle where Trump gets to decide which memo meets proper standards and which doesn't? This is not defensible. It simply isn't.

 

I have enjoyed many conversations over the years on BBO but some of the posts over the last few months I regard as beyond absurd. This isn't fum anymore.

[Winstonm]

Keep in mind that every idiocy of Devin Nunes is committed only with the full blessing of Paul Ryan.

[jjbrr]

It is shocking to have a President that apparently follows the Rule of Law and handles sensitive national security info appropriately.

 

My understanding is that Trump sent the memo back to Congress for them to remove the sensitive national security info that had been put in and then resubmit it. Trump has ordered the DOJ/FBI/NSA to help them do so.

 

Do you think this was the wrong thing to do?

 

This isn't even true, right? Schiff sent the memo to the DOJ to vet before sending it to the WH. Any further redactions at this point are political rather than for security.

 

Mr. Schiff, who has traded bitter Twitter messages with the president after Mr. Trump called him one of “the biggest liars and leakers” in Washington, warned this week that Mr. Trump might call for “political edits” intended to erase embarrassing parts of the memo, not information related to national security.

 

In a statement on Friday night, Mr. Schiff said that Democrats had provided their memo to the F.B.I. and the Justice Department for vetting before it was approved for release by the committee. The Democratic memo was drawn from the same underlying documents as the Republican one.

[ldrews]

This isn't even true, right? Schiff sent the memo to the DOJ to vet before sending it to the WH. Any further redactions at this point are political rather than for security.

 

If I remember correctly there were reports earlier that the Schiff memo had security problems. I do not remember any report of Schiff having his memo vetted. Both memos supposedly rely on the same underlying data which we don't currently see. Perhaps the only way to resolve the issue is to declassify and release the underlying documents. Then we can all make up our own minds what is the truth of the situation.

 

Nunes and his staff apparently took great care to make sure that the Nunes memo did not contain national security info. We can all read it and see that that is indeed the case.

 

Schiff and his staff apparently did not exercise the same caution, either carelessly or intentionally. It would be great theater for Schiff to be able to claim that Trump refuses to release the Schiff memo or redacted it with political bias. Instead Trump sent the memo back and essentially said to clean it up and then he would be willing to release it. So all Schiff has to do is clean out the national security info and resubmit it.

 

I doubt that will happen, it doesn't fit the political theater that Schiff wants.

[ldrews]

For those that may be interested in the unfolding story behind the Nunes memo, here is the confirming evidence:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456287/grassley-graham-memo-affirms-nunes-memo-fisa-steele-dossier

[hrothgar]

For those that may be interested in the unfolding story behind the Nunes memo, here is the confirming evidence:

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456287/grassley-graham-memo-affirms-nunes-memo-fisa-steele-dossier

 

The only thing that this confirms is that Trump has pictures of Lyndsey Graham's dick in another guy's mouth...

[cherdano]

Is that the same Lindsey Graham who told CNN he lied about the "shithole" remark "to make sure that I can keep talking to the president"?

Just asking.

 

Btw, when President Kelly and his Director of Twitter communications Donald Trump cheer on ICE to break up families by deporting immigrant with no criminal record, does that speak to their character or to their personality?

Oh, Little Larry is in favour of that? Does that speak to his character, or to his personality?

[andrei]

The only thing that this confirms is that Trump has pictures of Lyndsey Graham's dick in another guy's mouth...

 

Still standing by your little fantasy story about Steele and the dossier?

 

4. Page 2 says Steele prepared the dossier "on behalf of" the DNC and Clinton—suggesting he knew he was working for them, or that he *was* working for them, which he wasn't. He was working for Fusion GPS as a sub-contractor—and had no idea who Fusion's clients were. This is a critical point—as this lie is the one Nunes uses to argue that Steele both had a conflict of interest and was biased, when in fact neither was true. Steele was not getting paid to please the DNC and/or Clinton because he literally did not know his work was for them. In fact for the first 8 months that Steele working on the project he was being funded by the Washington Free Beacon.

[andrei]

Is that the same Lindsey Graham who told CNN he lied about the "shithole" remark "to make sure that I can keep talking to the president"?

Just asking.

 

This hasn't ever happened, has it?

[hrothgar]

Still standing by your little fantasy story about Steele and the dossier?

 

I made a mistake

 

I confused the length of time that Steele was on the project with the length of time that the project was ongoing.

It was sloppy and should not have happened.

[PassedOut]

Richard very rarely makes a mistake, but notice how he handles it when he does. This shows character, a trait not exhibited by the trolls.

 

Nor by Trump and his enablers: Trump concocted a story about a border agents death. The truth wont catch up.

 

This is the autopsy of a lie.

 

On the night of Nov. 18, Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez was found dying on the side of an interstate in West Texas. There were immediate signs it had been an accident. Martinezs partner, Stephen Garland (who suffered a head injury and doesnt recall the incident), had radioed for help, saying he thought he ran into a culvert.

 

But President Trump and his allies saw an opportunity to whip up anti-immigrant fervor. At a Cabinet meeting Nov. 20, Trump announced, with cameras rolling, that we lost a Border Patrol officer just yesterday, and another one was brutally beaten and badly, badly hurt. . . . Were going to have the wall. He also issued a similar tweet.

 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, offered a reward to help solve this murder and to help us catch this killer.

 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) declared the incident a stark reminder of the ongoing threat that an unsecure border poses.

 

And then there was Fox News, reporting that a border patrol agent was brutally murdered and going with the headline Border Patrol agent appeared to be ambushed by illegal immigrants, bashed with rocks before death. Fox News host Tucker Carlson reported that Martinez was attacked at the border in the most gruesome possible way.

 

The FBI swung into action, mobilizing 37 field offices, and this week it announced its findings. Although the investigation has not conclusively determined what happened, none of the more than 650 interviews completed, locations searched, or evidence collected and analyzed have produced evidence that would support the existence of a scuffle, altercation, or attack on November 18, 2017.

 

Compared with the original allegations, the findings got little attention. There was no corrective tweet from Trump or the others and no retraction by Fox News, which buried the FBIs findings with brief mention.

 

In business, one lie and you are done -- and no one in business deals with Trump any more. I'm a conservative businessman, but I'll likewise never vote for a politician having such deep character flaws. I couldn't care less about personality.

[jjbrr]

Oh look, a car chase!

[Winstonm]

Richard very rarely makes a mistake, but notice how he handles it when he does. This shows character, a trait not exhibited by the trolls.

 

Nor by Trump and his enablers: Trump concocted a story about a border agent’s death. The truth won’t catch up.

 

In business, one lie and you are done -- and no one in business deals with Trump any more. I'm a conservative businessman, but I'll likewise never vote for a politician having such deep character flaws. I couldn't care less about personality.

 

There is "politics", and then there is propaganda. They are not one and the same.

 

What this article does is show how by first taking a fact and distorting that fact to fit a narrative, and then with people in position of authority repeating that narrative until it is picked up as "news", those who consume only right-wing news sources are fed false information. The president then receives that false "news" and reports it as again as fact. When fact-checkers look into the story, it is shown to be false. No further mention of that fact makes the "news" and no one who orchestrated the spread of the lie ever refutes it or attempts a correction. This is the spread of propaganda.

 

 

However, this does not get to the heart of the problem with our McFredo supporters. The questions we need to ask are these: Do you believe the "news" story is true? If not, why don't you believe it?

 

And if you don't believe it, what does that say about the president?

[jjbrr]

This hasn't ever happened, has it?

Of course it did

[cherdano]

This hasn't ever happened, has it?

 

"Can you tell me what happened in that meeting, in your own words?" -

"No! I can tell you this..."

"Why not, why can't you?"

"Because I want to make sure I can keep talking to the president."

[andrei]

Is that the same Lindsey Graham who told CNN he lied about the "shithole" remark "to make sure that I can keep talking to the president"?

Just asking.

 

 

"Can you tell me what happened in that meeting, in your own words?" -

"No! I can tell you this..."

"Why not, why can't you?"

"Because I want to make sure I can keep talking to the president."

 

 

When did Graham "told CNN he lied about the "shithole" remark"?

 

https://nypost.com/2018/01/12/graham-says-he-confronted-trump-over-comments/

 

Durbin says that Graham “spoke up and made a direct comment on what the president said.”

 

“For him to confront the president as he did, literally sitting next to him, took extraordinary political courage and I respect him for it,” he told MSNBC.

 

But, in what appeared to be a direct jab at Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue, Graham said, "My memory hasn't evolved. I know what was said and I know what I said." Sen. Tim Scott, R-North Charleston, said Friday that Graham told him media reports of what Trump said were “basically accurate."

[cherdano]

Durbin: "Trump said 'shithole'"

Tom Cotton and fellow nutty senator: "Trump did not say that. Uhm oh, maybe he said 'shithouse'. Uh no, maybe not."

"Senator Graham, can you confirm what was said at the meeting?" - "No I cannot."

 

Ok if you don't want to call it a lie, be my guest. So instead your beloved President outs himself as a racist to everyone who hasn't heard it before. Two senators of your beloved party lie about it. (To repeat, two senators, each of them one of the three or four most important representatives of their state flat out lie to the American public about what the US president said.) Senator Graham finds it too important to suck up to the president to clarify what happened.

And you think you win an argument by trying to score the point whether "I cannot confirm" is a lie?

 

I'd have more respect for andrei, and for Senator Cotton, if they were just able to openly say that they agree with the President's shithole remarks.