Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

It's their party and they can decry if they want to.

 

Is it time for the party of Putin to start crying? Not nyet.

[Chas_P]

A week passed already and still no defence has been offered. Could it be that the actions are simply indefensible?

 

As yet I have seen no evidence of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Therefore, I see no need to offer a defense for a crime I haven't seen committed. If you have, I respect your right, as an American citizen, to voice your displeasure to your duly-elected representative to Congress. Who is your duly-elected representative to Congress?

[hrothgar]

As yet I have seen no evidence of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

Have you actually bothered to look?

You might find the following to be a useful primer...

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/24/20926891/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-trump-impeachment-whitaker

 

Therefore, I see no need to offer a defense for a crime I haven't seen committed.

 

When has your own ignorance and stupidity every stopped you from bloviating in the past?

[awm]

While I'm generally a supporter of Elizabeth Warren, I'm not a fan of her plan to pay for Medicare for All.

 

Her plan involves a new tax on businesses which is exactly what they've paid for health care in previous years. This penalizes exactly the kind of "socially conscious" businesses that Democrats usually support, as they will have to pay a high tax (since they provided high-quality insurance) while their competitors pay a much lower tax or none at all. Adding a tax on employers to support medical care seems okay to me (employers bear most of the cost of the current system anyway) but it should be applied in a more equitable manner.

 

I've also got questions about how much tax is fair for the wealthiest citizens. While I agree that they should pay more than they do today (it seems fairly uncontroversial that the very wealthy should pay a higher percentage of income than the average citizen, and today they pay less) there must be some limit. Under Warren's plan, a billionaire who earns 10% on her wealth by investing will pay more than 40% of that in capital gains tax (taxed as income, when the money is made and not when shares are sold). Then she will pay 6% of her net wealth, landing her at a net loss even though she had better-than-average investments. Ordinarily I don't think people should have to pay more in tax than they made in income! While I support a low-level wealth tax because it seems to prevent some of the shenanigans surrounding capital gains (i.e. reclassifying/delaying income), I don't think a punitive wealth tax that typically charges people more than they could make by "normal" investment of the wealth would be fair.

 

Ms. Warren's plan seems like a political way to claim she will not raise middle class taxes, but given that the middle class receives a massive benefit (free health care) for which they are currently paying a lot of money, it seems quite reasonable that middle class taxes should go up a bit. I thought this was the point she was making earlier (costs will go down) and understood the unfair framing that the right wants to tar her with (basically, $5000 in "taxes" is somehow horrible while $10000 in payment to "private insurance business" is somehow better). But this plan seems like it's either a terrible idea or proposed in bad faith.

[Winstonm]

While I'm generally a supporter of Elizabeth Warren, I'm not a fan of her plan to pay for Medicare for All.

 

Her plan involves a new tax on businesses which is exactly what they've paid for health care in previous years. This penalizes exactly the kind of "socially conscious" businesses that Democrats usually support, as they will have to pay a high tax (since they provided high-quality insurance) while their competitors pay a much lower tax or none at all. Adding a tax on employers to support medical care seems okay to me (employers bear most of the cost of the current system anyway) but it should be applied in a more equitable manner.

 

I've also got questions about how much tax is fair for the wealthiest citizens. While I agree that they should pay more than they do today (it seems fairly uncontroversial that the very wealthy should pay a higher percentage of income than the average citizen, and today they pay less) there must be some limit. Under Warren's plan, a billionaire who earns 10% on her wealth by investing will pay more than 40% of that in capital gains tax (taxed as income, when the money is made and not when shares are sold). Then she will pay 6% of her net wealth, landing her at a net loss even though she had better-than-average investments. Ordinarily I don't think people should have to pay more in tax than they made in income! While I support a low-level wealth tax because it seems to prevent some of the shenanigans surrounding capital gains (i.e. reclassifying/delaying income), I don't think a punitive wealth tax that typically charges people more than they could make by "normal" investment of the wealth would be fair.

 

Ms. Warren's plan seems like a political way to claim she will not raise middle class taxes, but given that the middle class receives a massive benefit (free health care) for which they are currently paying a lot of money, it seems quite reasonable that middle class taxes should go up a bit. I thought this was the point she was making earlier (costs will go down) and understood the unfair framing that the right wants to tar her with (basically, $5000 in "taxes" is somehow horrible while $10000 in payment to "private insurance business" is somehow better). But this plan seems like it's either a terrible idea or proposed in bad faith.

 

I think this is a reasonable criticism. Most working middle class pay a portion of the cost for insurance while the company they work for pays the rest. Warren's plan redirects the company's part to the government - and I would hope that the same would apply to the portion paid by employees. Yet, I think it is important to talk about redirection of payments rather than increased taxes. As Fox knows, how you frame an idea is critical, and it is much easier to defend a change of direction for money you already pay each month than talk about higher taxes.

[PassedOut]

Did Warren Pass the Medicare Test? I Think So

 

Am I enthusiastically endorsing this plan? No. I still think that a public-option-type plan, which lets people buy into Medicare, would have a better chance of actually becoming reality and may well be where a President Warren actually ends up if she gets to the White House. And the plans optimism on costs and revenues could be wrong.

 

But this is a serious plan that reflects hard thinking. In particular, its nothing like the snake oil that passes for policy analysis on the right, whether its the continual insistence that tax cuts pay for themselves or Paul Ryan budgets that assumed that discretionary spending could be cut to Calvin Coolidge levels.

Constance and I went to Des Moines yesterday to hear the democratic candidates speak at the Liberty and Justice dinner there, and Warren had a lot of enthusiastic supporters cheering her on. So did Mayor Pete and Kamala Harris.

 

There's always some oddly interesting things at events like this. For example, a neatly dressed man introduced himself to us at the dinner, handing us cards identifying himself as Michael E. Arth and told us that he was withdrawing from the race for the nomination. He wanted to be sure that we knew that he is throwing his support to Elizabeth Warren.

[barmar]

While I'm generally a supporter of Elizabeth Warren, I'm not a fan of her plan to pay for Medicare for All.

Do you have a link to the plan itself? All I can find are news stories that describe in general terms.

Her plan involves a new tax on businesses which is exactly what they've paid for health care in previous years. This penalizes exactly the kind of "socially conscious" businesses that Democrats usually support, as they will have to pay a high tax (since they provided high-quality insurance) while their competitors pay a much lower tax or none at all. Adding a tax on employers to support medical care seems okay to me (employers bear most of the cost of the current system anyway) but it should be applied in a more equitable manner.

I read in one of the articles that it's actually 98% of what they've been paying, to sweeten the deal. But it does seem weird to base the tax on what that company was previously paying, rather than just a specific tax rate (probably graduated by the size of the business). If companies see this coming, they'll probably cut their health insurance spending in the year before the law takes effect.

I've also got questions about how much tax is fair for the wealthiest citizens. While I agree that they should pay more than they do today (it seems fairly uncontroversial that the very wealthy should pay a higher percentage of income than the average citizen, and today they pay less) there must be some limit. Under Warren's plan, a billionaire who earns 10% on her wealth by investing will pay more than 40% of that in capital gains tax (taxed as income, when the money is made and not when shares are sold). Then she will pay 6% of her net wealth, landing her at a net loss even though she had better-than-average investments. Ordinarily I don't think people should have to pay more in tax than they made in income! While I support a low-level wealth tax because it seems to prevent some of the shenanigans surrounding capital gains (i.e. reclassifying/delaying income), I don't think a punitive wealth tax that typically charges people more than they could make by "normal" investment of the wealth would be fair.

How do you figure it's a net loss? I ran the figures for someone worth $2B and earning 10% on it. It comes out to $55M in wealth tax and $80M if the CG tax is 40%. That's $135M of the $200M growth. Admittedly, that's a huge tax (67% of the growth), but it's not a net loss.

 

Also, your assumption of 10% growth seems extremely generous. That's been the average historic growth of the stock market, but they probably won't have all their wealth in the market. A big chunk of it will be things like expensive homes, cars, yachts, private jets. I'm not even sure how the wealth tax will account for these -- will they need to do annual assessments? But I'm not sure that they grow like the market.

[Winstonm]

Do you have a link to the plan itself? All I can find are news stories that describe in general terms.

 

I read in one of the articles that it's actually 98% of what they've been paying, to sweeten the deal. But it does seem weird to base the tax on what that company was previously paying, rather than just a specific tax rate (probably graduated by the size of the business). If companies see this coming, they'll probably cut their health insurance spending in the year before the law takes effect.

 

Under ACA they are required to provide it so it is not optional. They would have to reduce staffing.

[Winstonm]

It's no surprise that a businessman would demand a quid pro quo; after all, a quid pro quo is necessary for any valid contract.

That leads to the possibility of a previous Ukraine quid pro quo with Trump, as reported by the WaPo:

 

....What led to Trump’s first meeting on June 20, 2017, with Ukraine’s then-President Petro Poroshenko? Ukraine had hired the lobbying firm BGR Group in January 2017 to foster contact with Trump, but nothing had happened . . . and then the door opened. Why?

 

On June 7, less than two weeks before Poroshenko’s White House meeting, Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, had visited Kyiv to give a speech for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, headed by a prominent Ukrainian oligarch. While Giuliani was there, he also met with Poroshenko and his prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, according a news release issued by the foundation.

 

Just after Giuliani’s visit, Ukraine’s investigation of the so-called black ledger that listed alleged illicit payments to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was transferred from an anti-corruption bureau, known as NABU , to Poroshenko’s prosecutor general, according to a June 15, 2017, report in the Kyiv Post. The paper quoted Viktor Trepak, former deputy head of the country’s security service, saying: “It is clear for me that somebody gave an order to bury the black ledger.”

 

The New York Times reported in May 2018 that Ukraine had “halted cooperation” with Mueller’s investigation. The paper quoted Volodymyr Ariev, a parliament ally of Poroshenko, explaining: “In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials.”

 

Was there any implicit understanding that Poroshenko’s government would curb its cooperation with the U.S. Justice Department’s investigation of Manafort, who would later be indicted by Mueller?

 

Why was Marie Yovanovitch , the U.S. ambassador to Kyiv, fired in May? Trump, Giuliani and their allies had been attacking her since early 2018, but for what reason? Lutsenko, the Ukrainian prosecutor, told the Hill in March that she had given him a “do not prosecute” order, an incendiary charge that Donald Trump Jr. promptly echoed on Twitter. But Lutsenko later recanted, and the State Department said the story was a fabrication.

 

So why were Trump and Giuliani so eager to dump the ambassador? Here’s what Yovanovitch said during her Oct. 11 testimony to House investigators: “Individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.”

 

The former ambassador may have been referring to Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas , two Giuliani clients who were indicted last month on suspicion of arranging secret contributions to help foreign governments. (Fruman and Parnas have pleaded not guilty.) Their biggest project, according to an Associated Press Oct. 7 story, was a plan to sell U.S. natural gas to Ukraine, aided by Giuliani and Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s lobbying of Naftogaz, the Ukrainian gas company.

 

Trump’s effort to play politics in Ukraine is described in an ever-widening stream of documents and testimony. The House must now assess whether Trump’s behavior makes him unfit to continue in office.

[awm]

How do you figure it's a net loss? I ran the figures for someone worth $2B and earning 10% on it. It comes out to $55M in wealth tax and $80M if the CG tax is 40%. That's $135M of the $200M growth. Admittedly, that's a huge tax (67% of the growth), but it's not a net loss.

 

Also, your assumption of 10% growth seems extremely generous. That's been the average historic growth of the stock market, but they probably won't have all their wealth in the market. A big chunk of it will be things like expensive homes, cars, yachts, private jets. I'm not even sure how the wealth tax will account for these -- will they need to do annual assessments? But I'm not sure that they grow like the market.

 

It wasn't a very complex calculation. If a very rich person has wealth W, then they pay (6%)W in wealth tax, plus (40%)(10%)W in capital gains on 10% appreciation, which means they pay 0.1W in tax on 0.1W in gains. The max capital gains rate is actually a little more than 40%, so net negative. Admittedly the wealth tax is not 6% on the full amount of wealth (I think the 6% bracket starts at a billion) and income tax is not 40+% on the full amount of income, but for someone sufficiently wealthy these numbers are about right. I agree that the 10% capital gains is generous; if you reduce this you have a lot more people winding up net negative (by a much larger amount).

 

Again, these are the wealthiest people in the world and I'm okay seeing them pay more in tax, but these rates seem a bit extreme.

[Winstonm]

This sounds about right.

 

Political scientists have a term for what the United States is witnessing right now. It’s called “regime cleavage,” a division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing system itself—in the American case, our constitutional democracy. In societies facing a regime cleavage, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions and laws may be ignored, subverted or replaced.

 

And there are serious consequences: An emerging regime cleavage in the United States brought on by President Donald Trump and his defenders could signal that the American public might lose faith in the electoral process altogether or incentivize elected politicians to mount even more direct attacks on the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. Regime cleavages emerge only in governing systems in crisis, and our democracy is indeed in crisis.

[y66]

I don't understand a concept of fairness that requires a candidate for the Democrats' nomination for president to devise tax plans that let the ultra rich preserve 100% of their wealth. It's called a wealth tax for a reason.

[johnu]

Build that wall :rolleyes:

 

Smugglers are sawing through new sections of Trump’s border wall

 

Smuggling gangs in Mexico have repeatedly sawed through new sections of President Trump’s border wall in recent months by using commercially available power tools, opening gaps large enough for people and drug loads to pass through, according to U.S. agents and officials with knowledge of the damage.

 

The breaches have been made using a popular cordless household tool known as a reciprocating saw that retails at hardware stores for as little as $100. When fitted with specialized blades, the saws can slice through one of the barrier’s steel-and-concrete bollards in a matter of minutes, according to the agents, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the barrier-defeating techniques.

The stable genius may have been correct that nobody would climb over the wall. Why bother climbing when you can cut a hole large enough to drive a convoy of tanks through.

[Chas_P]

Have you actually bothered to look?

You might find the following to be a useful primer...

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/24/20926891/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-trump-impeachment-whitaker

 

 

 

When has your own ignorance and stupidity every stopped you from bloviating in the past?

 

Well you boys have your own little anti-Trump circlejerk going on here and get your panties all in a wad if anyone offers an opposing point of view. If that makes you happy, please carry on. I want you to be happy. But when you get right down to where the bear s**t in the buckwheat we all have exactly the same number of votes...one each. I plan to cast mine.

[y66]

From The Happy, Healthy Capitalists of Switzerland by Ruchir Sharma at NYT:

 

Like many progressive intellectuals, Bernie Sanders traces his vision of economic paradise not to socialist dictatorships like Venezuela but to their distant cousins in Scandinavia, which are just as wealthy and democratic as the United States but have more equitable distributions of wealth, as well as affordable health care and free college for all.

 

There is, however, a country far richer and just as fair as any in the Scandinavian trio of Sweden, Denmark and Norway. But no one talks about it.

 

This $700 billion European economy is among the world’s 20 largest, significantly bigger than any in Scandinavia. It delivers welfare benefits as comprehensive as Scandinavia’s but with lighter taxes, smaller government, and a more open and stable economy. Steady growth recently made it the second richest nation in the world, after Luxembourg, with an average income of $84,000, or $20,000 more than the Scandinavian average. Money is not the final measure of success, but surveys also rank this nation as one of the world’s 10 happiest.

 

This less socialist but more successful utopia is Switzerland.

 

While widening its income lead over Scandinavia in recent decades, Switzerland has been catching up on measures of equality. Wealth and income are distributed across the populace almost as equally as in Scandinavia, with the middle class holding about 70 percent of the nation’s assets. The big difference: The typical Swiss family has a net worth around $540,000, twice its Scandinavian peer.

 

Switzerland did draw 15 minutes of media attention around 2010, when Obamacare was still new — but only for its health care system, which requires all residents to buy insurance from private providers and subsidizes those who can least afford it. Admirers said Swiss health care had something for everyone: universal coverage for liberals, private providers and consumer choice for conservatives.

 

But for the most part, intellectuals ignore Switzerland as a model, perhaps put off by its exaggerated reputation as a shady little tax haven, where Nazi gold and other illicit fortunes hide behind strict bank secrecy laws. In 2015, Switzerland agreed under pressure to share bank records with foreign tax authorities, but that has not slowed the economy at all. Switzerland always was more than secretive banks.

 

Capitalist to its core, Switzerland imposes lighter taxes on individuals, consumers and corporations than the Scandinavian countries do. In 2018 its top income tax rate was the lowest in Western Europe at 36 percent, well below the Scandinavian average of 52 percent. Government spending amounts to a third of gross domestic product, compared with half in Scandinavia. And Switzerland is more open to trade, with a share of global exports around double that of any Scandinavian economy.

 

Streamlined government and open borders have helped make this landlocked, mountainous country an unlikely incubator of globally competitive companies. To build wealth, a country needs to make rich things, and an M.I.T. ranking of nations by the complexity of the products they export places Switzerland second behind Japan, well ahead of the Scandinavian countries, whose average rank is 15.

 

The Swiss excel in just about every major industry other than oil, often by targeting specialized niches, such as biotech and engineering. The country is home to 13 of the top 100 European companies, more than twice as many as in the three Scandinavian nations combined. And most top Swiss firms dwarf Scandinavian peers. Nestlé, with a stock market value of $320 billion, is 15 times larger than its closest Scandinavian rival.

 

Though major multinationals are concentrated in big cities, the Swiss economy is as decentralized as its political system. Traveling southwest from Zurich to Geneva recently, I was struck by how many iconic Swiss exports also originate in its provinces — Swiss Army knives from Schwyz, watches from Bern, St. Bernard puppies from a mountain pass in Valais, cheese and chocolates from Fribourg. Small companies anchor the economy, accounting for two of every three jobs. Only one in seven Swiss work for the government, about half the Scandinavian average.

 

No other nation’s currency has been rising faster against its trading partners, and normally a rising franc should erode Swiss exports by making them more expensive. Instead, while most rich countries (including Scandinavia’s) saw their share of global exports fall over the past decade, Switzerland’s continued to rise. Such is the reputation of its engineers and chocolatiers that customers readily pay more for Swiss goods.

 

The premium the world is willing to pay for Swiss goods and services helps deter capital flight and stabilize the economy. Switzerland has not been hit by a domestic financial crisis since the 1970s; the Scandinavian countries were wracked by crises in the 1990s and suffered sharper downturns than Switzerland did following the global crisis of 2008.

 

If there is any fault line, it is that in trying to slow the rise of the franc, Switzerland cut interest rates to record lows ahead of its European peers, triggering a lending boom that has driven private corporate and household debt up to 250 percent of G.D.P., a risky height. No paradise is perfect.

 

For all its local charms, Switzerland is worldly in the extreme. The Swiss are a polyglot mix of German, French and Italian speakers, many intimidatingly fluent in multiple languages. The foreign-born population has been increasing for more than a century and accounts for a quarter of the whole, 40 percent non-European Union.

 

True, the rise of anti-immigrant parties across Europe has an offshoot in Switzerland. The country has always been choosy, accepting new arrivals based on their professional résumé more than family ties or humanitarian need. But Australia and Canada also filter immigrants to fill jobs and are widely studied models of how rich economies can survive the aging of their domestic work forces.

 

Switzerland has been welcoming more immigrants than any Scandinavian country since the 1950s. It is on track to accept more than 250,000 immigrants between 2015 and 2020, expanding its population by 3 percent. That immigration rate is nearly double the Scandinavian average, and one of the highest among large, developed countries. Immigrants are also significantly more likely to hold jobs in Switzerland, in part because most are required to land one before they arrive.

 

The Swiss labor force gets an added boost from a meritocratic public school system that starts steering students as young as 12 toward their academic strengths. The world-class universities charge average annual tuition of only $1,000 and leave graduates thousands of dollars less in debt than many Scandinavian schools.

 

Die-hard admirers of Scandinavian socialism overlook the change of heart in countries such as Sweden, where heavy government spending led to the financial crises of the 1990s. Sweden responded by cutting the top income tax rate from nearly 90 percent to as low as 50 percent. Public spending fell from near 70 percent of G.D.P. to 50 percent. Growth revived, as the largest Scandinavian economy started to look more like Switzerland, streamlining government and leaving business more room to grow.

 

The real lesson of Swiss success is that the stark choice offered by many politicians — between private enterprise and social welfare — is a false one. A pragmatic country can have a business-friendly environment alongside social equality, if it gets the balance right. The Swiss have become the world’s richest nation by getting it right, and their model is hiding in plain sight.

[hrothgar]

Well you boys have your own little anti-Trump circlejerk going on here and get your panties all in a wad if anyone offers an opposing point of view. If that makes you happy, please carry on. I want you to be happy. But when you get right down to where the bear s**t in the buckwheat we all have exactly the same number of votes...one each. I plan to cast mine.

 

Nice attempt to deflect Chas...

 

No one here is claiming that you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

What we are trying to understand is just how stupid / ignorant someone needs to be to continue to support Trump...

 

So, let's jump back to the actual question at hand:

 

1. Did you bother to read the Vox article that I posted or are you still going with "Hear no evil / See no evil" as a defense?

2. Do you agree with the article's claims that Trump has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

3. Multiple individual (including direct witnesses) are testifying that Trump was extorting and bribing Ukrainian government officials. Trump's Chief of Staff as well as Rudy Giuliani have both confirmed that this is true. How does this not constitute an impeachable offense.

[johnu]

The troll continues to soil himself.

[hrothgar]

Well you boys have your own little anti-Trump circlejerk going on here and get your panties all in a wad if anyone offers an opposing point of view.

 

Pointing out that your posts are largely lies and that you are grossly uninformed is hardly getting our "pantsies all in a wad".

The main thing that you are able to do is convince people that the strong Trump supports are too stupid to engage with on a rational level.

 

Once again, if you were able to actually respond to people's questions / comments with anything other that evasion and lies, we might see a different dynamic...

[cherdano]

What are we doing here - I thought chas' eloquent defense of Trump's actions speaks for itself..

[hrothgar]

What are we doing here

 

Making sure that Chas understands that he is operating at the level of an eight year old who only craves attention, but can't differentiate between good attention and acting like an ass.

 

Also repeatedly driving home that his posts do absolutely nothing other than make him look ill informed and pretty damn stupid.

[Winstonm]

Preet Bharara explained on Firing Line this simple explanation:

 

A. Trump's actions demanding a this-for-that with Ukraine's president were acts of extortion

B. Why it is extortion rather than policy is because it was done for personal gain.

[Zelandakh]

As yet I have seen no evidence of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Therefore, I see no need to offer a defense for a crime I haven't seen committed. If you have, I respect your right, as an American citizen, to voice your displeasure to your duly-elected representative to Congress. Who is your duly-elected representative to Congress?

So you are going for the "Nothing to see here" head in the sand defence. Is that really something you genuinely believe? I think you are being disingenuous here.

 

As for me, if I ever move to America I will take your comment under advisement. In the meantime I will remain a neutral observer looking over from Europe.

 

Having looked over as much of the publicly available evidence as possible, it is to my mind impossible not to reach the conclusion that the current POTUS has committed impeachable acts, at least when approached with an open mind and not from a partisan perspective. To that end it would be great to hear some kind of defence from an educated conservative. The defences currently being offered from the politicians are essentially aimed at non-educated Americans and those that are apathetic about politics, essentially based around the assumption that few will have bothered to assess the evidence for themselves. I am yet to hear a believable defence based on the evidence - if it exists it is well overdue to offer it up.

[Zelandakh]

Preet Bharara explained on Firing Line this simple explanation:

 

A. Trump's actions demanding a this-for-that with Ukraine's president were acts of extortion

B. Why it is extortion rather than policy is because it was done for personal gain.

In the long run, that might be the real legacy of the current administration. It has been laid bare for everyone in the world to see that the US Government routinely engages in international extortion. While that has always been the case it has in the past always been at least partially hidden behind some other point. I hope the EU learns from this that giving 100% trust in America is no longer sustainable and that financial constructs need to be set up to trade commodities internationally in Euros as well as dollars. Hopefully the next administration can at least re-establish the USA as a trustworthy partner against regimes in the world that want to spread disorder and restrict personal liberties. I fear it could take a long time to re-establish a reputation as a positive force in the world though. And that is probably considerably more damaging even than the specific abuses of power currently coming to light.

[Winstonm]

In the long run, that might be the real legacy of the current administration. It has been laid bare for everyone in the world to see that the US Government routinely engages in international extortion. While that has always been the case it has in the past always been at least partially hidden behind some other point. I hope the EU learns from this that giving 100% trust in America is no longer sustainable and that financial constructs need to be set up to trade commodities internationally in Euros as well as dollars. Hopefully the next administration can at least re-establish the USA as a trustworthy partner against regimes in the world that want to spread disorder and restrict personal liberties. I fear it could take a long time to re-establish a reputation as a positive force in the world though. And that is probably considerably more damaging even than the specific abuses of power currently coming to light.

 

No doubt the U.S. has used its muscle to help sway other countries actions - that is policy. The problem now is that there is no policy other than self-enrichment of the president, his family, and his allies.

 

Or, to put it more simply, we now have banana republic level corruption endorsed by the president.

[Winstonm]

Here's a little something from the FOIA Buzzfeed received concerning redacted material from the Mueller report. It is now confirmed that Sean Hannity was part of the Trump campaign and Manafort never actually left it:

 

We have to avoid this guy (Manafort), they are going to try and say the Russians worked with Wikileaks to give this victory to us. Paul is a nice guy, but we can’t let word get out he is advising us.