Rumors or where there's smoke there's something

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As long as you claim it it must be true

Thanks for claiming that. But I stand on what I said as being true. Rebut it if you can.

Long economic expansions are always felt as safer the longer they last. This one started under Obama and has continued steadily since.

None last forever--few, if any, without interruptions. Determining the start point in a continuously fluid national economy is prone to biased interpretation. Where we are now started around 1776--with bumps and changes evolving to what we have now.

If we must attribute an economy to the President who presides over it, then Trump's economy is better than Obama's. I don't see the damage it has created that must, as you say, be fixed.

This administration has chosen which businesses had to pay tariffs.

Businesses that created a competitive advantage for themselves by buying foreign components or manufacturing in foreign countries.


Redistribution of income, choosing who can succeed is socialism.

That is nonsense. All buying and selling redistributes income. And that process "chooses" success and failure. Businesses fail annually by the thousands because they are not able to redistribute others incomes into their coffers. That is not socialism.

What we commonly, politically, refer to as redistribution of income, is government taking of income by taxes and directly redistributing it to those who have done nothing to get it, buy it, or earn it. That kind of redistribution of income is not the collateral effect of competition nor the monopolization of manufacturing nor the gaining of competitive edge by avoiding taxes and regulations, nor of hiring cheaper labor or buying cheaper resources, nor the placing of tariffs on any of those practices.


Tariffs were the only tax the USA had for more than a century.

I essentially said that in a bit lengthy edit of my post while you were replying, so didn't see your post till after I finished editing. So, indeed, tariffs are not a new tax for Americans as you claimed.

Trump is more protectionist than Bernie and he threatened to penalize Harley if they offshored their production to offset the retaliatory tariffs.
He’s a conman
����

Protectionism is not socialism. As I said, the founders were protectionists, and for good reason. Our national sovereignty is in a vulnerable position now because much of the strong manufacturing sector that we once had, and which produced all we needed for defense has been "offshored" to foreign nations, some of which are now our greatest enemies.

There is no "con" in trying to correct that. Nor will it be easy. Nor does opposing everything Trump tries to do helpful.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Damage isn’t tied to the economy, it’s withour allies and the lost trust in how the US values the agreements it enters into. The environment is the big loser in Trump world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is a talking point that Trump has damaged trust in us by our allies. The notion that there is this unified cluster of allies who are all trustworthy is nonsense. Can you name a European country that has not changed its policies, or governmental structures, or economic and trade policies since the U.S. entered an alliance with them. They are all in a constant state of flux. And the only component in which they truly put a trust in us is our power and the hope that we would be the big brother who protects them and their interests. Interests, BTW, which have often been at odds with ours.

[Pete F.]

Here you go
How to apply for exemption from paying tariffs that are decided on a case by case basis.
https://www.interlogusa.com/answers/...china-tariffs/

You can think that our historical allies are not eyeing this administration skeptically perhaps you could ask the Israelis, Ukraine, South Korea, Japan, North Korea, Russia, China, Taiwan, etc

They all see that Florida-man has no well considered foreign policy and flies by the seat of his pants using either his gut or the great and unmatched wisdom he claims to have.
He is easily manipulated, his word has no value because it can change in a moment for no discernible reason.
Just keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here you go
How to apply for exemption from paying tariffs that are decided on a case by case basis.
https://www.interlogusa.com/answers/...china-tariffs/

You can think that our historical allies are not eyeing this administration skeptically perhaps you could ask the Israelis, Ukraine, South Korea, Japan, North Korea, Russia, China, Taiwan, etc

They all see that Florida-man has no well considered foreign policy and flies by the seat of his pants using either his gut or the great and unmatched wisdom he claims to have.
He is easily manipulated, his word has no value because it can change in a moment for no discernible reason.
Just keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great analysis!! Very coherent, simply put, easy to follow, and the true key to solving the problem. You really do know so much about Trump and the rest of the world and what they all think. You would make a fabulous, well admired, and first rate talking head on CNN.

[Sea Dangles]

Poor guy,he is getting close to snapping.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

I bet he was up all night in his bunker taping articles and pictures on the wall convincing himself of things that aren't true

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Great analysis!! Very coherent, simply put, easy to follow, and the true key to solving the problem. You really do know so much about Trump and the rest of the world and what they all think. You would make a fabulous, well admired, and first rate talking head on CNN.

As you would on RT
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Lindsey’s view in essence
"He’s incompetent. He's a large malevolent child. You can't hold him to the same standards of other humans let alone presidents. So there’s just no way they could have executed this."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Lindsey’s view in essence
"He’s incompetent. He's a large malevolent child. You can't hold him to the same standards of other humans let alone presidents. So there’s just no way they could have executed this."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lindsey's view in specific on the impeachment inquiry "This, to me, is a manufactured issue created by some unknown whistleblower who needs to be known, and the phone call is the basis for the impeachment allegation," "I don’t think the president did anything wrong."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Lindsey's view in specific on the impeachment inquiry "This, to me, is a manufactured issue created by some unknown whistleblower who needs to be known, and the phone call is the basis for the impeachment allegation," "I don’t think the president did anything wrong."

And now Lindsey is taking the goalposts and going home, because there is no defense to what Trump did.

Start here with Colludy

Rudy Giuliani
@RudyGiuliani
The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption, was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproven.

So is this what he is saying: I was directed by the President to conduct foreign policy to further his personal interests, not to serve the American people.

That’s devastatingly incriminating for Trump, in terms of both impeachment and the criminal law.

Or perhaps you still don't understand even one of the crimes committed.

Maybe it would help you to understand if the facts were applied to a CEO. If we learned that Jamie Dimon's personal lawyer, on Dimon's orders, was sabotaging the company and its profits to defend Jamie personally, that would obviously be a breach of his duties to JPM.

Or if you are in my field, construction: Imagine you’re accepting bids for a job for your employer. You tell one of the bidders that you’ll award him the contract if he tells your employer that one of your rivals for a promotion was taking bribes from bidders on the job. Your employer would fire you.

Or—you’re a company salesman and the company gives you a credit card to use on your sales trip. You take the credit card and throw a big party for yourself. If the company catches you, you get fired, and they report you to the cops.

Here, Floridaman wasn’t playing with a measly credit card; he was abusing the powers of the presidency for his own personal benefit— including withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally appropriated military aid to an ally against Russian hegemony.

[Sea Dangles]

This portrayal is simply not accurate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This portrayal is simply not accurate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And now Lindsey is taking the goalposts and going home, because there is no defense to what Trump did.

Hey, you're the one who started the let's quote Lindsey game.

Start here with Colludy

Rudy Giuliani
@RudyGiuliani
The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption, was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproven.

So is this what he is saying: I was directed by the President to conduct foreign policy to further his personal interests, not to serve the American people.

No, that's not what he said.

That’s devastatingly incriminating for Trump, in terms of both impeachment and the criminal law.

Or perhaps you still don't understand even one of the crimes committed.

Maybe it would help you to understand if the facts were applied to a CEO. If we learned that Jamie Dimon's personal lawyer, on Dimon's orders, was sabotaging the company and its profits to defend Jamie personally, that would obviously be a breach of his duties to JPM.

Giuliani was not sabotaging the company, he was defending his client against false charges. Giuliani was searching for evidence which would help him to defend Trump against false charges.

Or if you are in my field, construction: Imagine you’re accepting bids for a job for your employer. You tell one of the bidders that you’ll award him the contract if he tells your employer that one of your rivals for a promotion was taking bribes from bidders on the job. Your employer would fire you.

Giuliani was not accepting bids for a job. There were no rival bidders.

Or—you’re a company salesman and the company gives you a credit card to use on your sales trip. You take the credit card and throw a big party for yourself. If the company catches you, you get fired, and they report you to the cops.

There was no party. There was serious investigation into corruption and evidence that would help to fight against false charges.

Here, Floridaman wasn’t playing with a measly credit card; he was abusing the powers of the presidency for his own personal benefit— including withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally appropriated military aid to an ally against Russian hegemony.

And then you end the nonsensical framing of your argument with a flourish of pontification. Very much like a prosecutor or defense attorney making the usual slanted summation to the jury in hopes that it will obfuscate any truth that might damage his case.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And then you end the nonsensical framing of your argument with a flourish of pontification. Very much like a prosecutor or defense attorney making the usual slanted summation to the jury in hopes that it will obfuscate any truth that might damage his case.

You have no truth, Trump withheld the aid for his benefit.

“The president’s interests” are not the goal of U.S. foreign policy.
Trump is not the sole author of U.S. policy.
The whole scandal is about the president arbitrarily withholding aid to Ukraine that had been approved by the U.S. Congress.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Why?

It is a poorly constructed fable that was created for gullible detractors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

It is a poorly constructed fable that was created for gullible detractors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep believing as Floridaman goes

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You have no truth, Trump withheld the aid for his benefit.

The "President's interests” are not the goal of U.S. foreign policy.
Trump is not the sole author of U.S. policy.
The whole scandal is about the president arbitrarily withholding aid to Ukraine that had been approved by the U.S. Congress.

Yeah, I have a truth. I have many. In this regard, I have not fully expressed my truth. I have pushed back against much of what has been said that I disagree with. But I haven't spoken my whole truth.

My truth is that there is far more going on in our country, and in the world, than Trump's foibles. I have expressed that much. And I think that what has been attempted against Trump, from the beginning of his election and well before is more about the larger movement in our politics. Trump is just the current obstacle to that movement. And whatever it requires for that movement to take him down justifies for it any lack of truth. The stakes are too high for it to care about honor or truth.

As far as Trump is concerned, I think that he is bigly angered over what was done to him with the whole Russian collusion attempt to take him down. And very understandably angry. And he tends to fight fire with more and greater fire. Does that blind him to what is prudent? Perhaps so. But he fights back with whatever means are available to him, including those that have been used against him. Perhaps especially those that have been used against him.

The levers of government corrupted by political desires and aims have been used to try to take him out. He probably will use, as much as he thinks he can, the same to do back to those who did it to him. He has not gone as far, yet, as creating some huge hoax, some totally fictitious and destructive narrative. But he is fiercely using whatever political and legal levers available to vindicate himself and punish those who tried to destroy him. And while that self serving, if successful, benefits him politically, it would certainly benefit the country to expose what has been attempted and who did it. And it would, collaterally put a chink in that greater movement to which I referred.

This Ukraine stuff, carefully framed by his opposition to finally get him, and carefully framed by him and his supporters to appear perfectly fine, is too small an incident for me to care about. The Ukraine got its money. It made a statement that it doesn't have to comply with if it wishes not to, and may harm or help Biden win a nomination. Whatever I may think of Trump in a negative way, that can be amplified doubly towards Biden. I see Biden as the useful, corrupt, flotsam that helps to further erode our constitutional republic into the totally antithetical Progressive system of government which, if fully implemented, will very quickly evolve into full socialism and worse. And it is perfectly "legal" to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden corruption in Ukraine. Biden is not immune simply because he is a political opponent. And it is acceptable to withhold aid for the purpose of assuring that corruption will be addressed. That is essentially what Biden did. That is the kind of "quid pro quo" that is involved in all foreign aid--not necessarily about corruption, but some kind of benefit to the country that gives it.

The mountain out of a molehill concern over investigating the Bidens for corruption, which I believe surely exists and deserves investigation and exposure, definitely as much or more than the Russian collusion nonsense, is chicken chit compared to what wdmso would call the big picture. I don't doubt that Biden is every bit, if not more, corrupt than Trump, except that he has not had to be in the risky and economically perilous arena of the market place to display it. He's only been a gland-handing, self promoting and self aggrandizing politician helped by the Party machine to which he owes his success, and so been responsible for politically helping us down the road, as Hayek would say, to serfdom.

So no, I don't "believe" in Trump, as you continuously insist. But I believe he is far less the evil to our Republic than is the direction of the Democrat Party. And if "saving" Trump is necessary to combat that direction, that is worth it to me. And don't give me the nonsense that if Trump gets away with whatever little piece of dirt you think he is guilty of that it will destroy some rule of law or "our democracy." That kind of dirt has been around since the beginning. It's up to us voters to determine, unfortunately in this case, what is the bigger and more harmful dirt.

And yeah, I will engage in the careful parsing of words to match or combat the same well crafted ones that are thrown against Trump. Because my truth is, we have arrived at a seminal point in the evolution of this country's political framework that the direction will either be reversed toward the founding principles or develop into a fully authoritarian state (a supposedly "benevolent" one) and then quickly subsumed into a global one.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, I have a truth. I have many. In this regard, I have not fully expressed my truth. I have pushed back against much of what has been said that I disagree with. But I haven't spoken my whole truth.

And yeah, I will engage in the careful parsing of words to match or combat the same well crafted ones that are thrown against Trump. Because my truth is, we have arrived at a seminal point in the evolution of this country's political framework that the direction will either be reversed toward the founding principles or develop into a fully authoritarian state (a supposedly "benevolent" one) and then quickly subsumed into a global one.

If the Republican party are the cards you are playing, I am afraid that you will lose.

Your Trump is neither a libertarian, a conservative or a republican and could care less about anyone else. He consistently works for his own benefit. I also think he has too much power, presidential power has consistently grown for decades. The President is an administrator, not a King.

Perhaps with term limits the people could again gain control of Congress and control the administrative branch, but with a permanent political class (who Trump controls one side of) we have little hope.

I see a greater chance of the right moving to a fully authoritarian state (not a benevolent one) than the left.

case in point


The left may try and take your money and waste some but the right will take your soul and make it so others can slowly bleed all you have while you thank them for the opportunity.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This Ukraine stuff, carefully framed by his opposition to finally get him, and carefully framed by him and his supporters to appear perfectly fine, is too small an incident for me to care about.

Interesting how you pick and choose your "constitutional" battles to fight. I think almost all the deposition transcripts are providing the evidence of quid pro quo, the money and aid was dependent on the Ukraine leader starting an investigation into the Bidens and for Trumps PERSONAL political gain. The it's all about corruption smoke screen is just that an attempt to hide the real reason for holding back the aid.

Its an abuse of power, it's asking for foreign help in our elections, it's what he admitted on camera he is ok doing; it's clear as a bell. Too funny you think the Democrats framed this all to take Trump down, the corruption is usually either in plain sight, or so poorly devised and played out, he can't help but get caught.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I think almost all the deposition transcripts are providing the evidence of quid pro quo,

that must be why they're not calling it a quid pro quo anymore

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

it's asking for foreign help in our elections,

wrong

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

that must be why they're not calling it a quid pro quo anymore

Floridaman isn't, but the witnesses are

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
False stories are being reported that a few Republican Senators are saying that President Trump may have done a quid pro quo, but it doesn’t matter, there is nothing wrong with that, it is not an impeachable event. Perhaps so, but read the transcript, there is no quid pro quo!

The transcript still has not been released but there is plenty of evidence of quid pro quo, besides the Memo of Telecon

1. Ukraine Diplomat Bill Taylor's text messages
2. Bill Taylor's testimony
3. Gordon Sondland tells Sen. Johnson
4. Gordon Sondland lawyer's comments
5. Fiona Hill's testimony
6. Lt Col. Vindman's testimony
7. Tim Morrison's testimony
8. Mick Mulvaney's public comments

Trump's defense is failing as fast as his casinos or his foundations since the great and all-knowing Stable Genius must pay $2M judgment for improperly using his Trump Foundation charity to further his 2016 presidential campaign, judge rules Thursday.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Floridaman isn't, but the witnesses are

try to keep up democraps are changing their tune....they are all very nervous...hope that whistleblower testifies

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

try to keep up democraps are changing their tune....they are all very nervous...hope that whistleblower testifies

Look, we keep on using this euphemistic expression 'quid pro quo.' The actual term for what occurred is extortion, and extortion is a crime.

Just keep looking for needles

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Look, we keep on using this euphemistic expression 'quid pro quo.' The actual term for what occurred is extortion, and extortion is a crime.

Just keep looking for needles

There you go now you are up to speed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Here this will help you follow along
https://www.justsecurity.org/66972/a...ine-witnesses/

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Interesting how you pick and choose your "constitutional" battles to fight. I think almost all the deposition transcripts are providing the evidence of quid pro quo, the money and aid was dependent on the Ukraine leader starting an investigation into the Bidens and for Trumps PERSONAL political gain. The it's all about corruption smoke screen is just that an attempt to hide the real reason for holding back the aid.

Its an abuse of power, it's asking for foreign help in our elections, it's what he admitted on camera he is ok doing; it's clear as a bell. Too funny you think the Democrats framed this all to take Trump down, the corruption is usually either in plain sight, or so poorly devised and played out, he can't help but get caught.

How do you know that investigating possible corruption by the Bidens would be a personal gain for Trump? Are you sure that corruption, illegality, by the Bidens would be found?

[Pete F.]

This isn't complicated:

1) Trump corruptly demanded something of personal value in exchange for official action.
2) That's the legal definition of bribery.
3) The Constitution specifies bribery as grounds for impeachment.

To say there's no impeachable offense is just nonsense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This isn't complicated:

1) Trump corruptly demanded something of personal value in exchange for official action.
2) That's the legal definition of bribery.
3) The Constitution specifies bribery as grounds for impeachment.

To say there's no impeachable offense is just nonsense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is asking for an investigation into Biden corruption a personal value for Trump?

[Sea Dangles]

👍🏿🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device