SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,384
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 19, 2017 10:00:35 GMT -5
Can't argue with hard numbers, higher GDP, lower unemployment, higher consumer optimism. Trumps in office when this happened he gets the credit. If the market never corrected and we went into recession the day after he took office that would be on trump right? Oh, you absolutely can argue with the numbers. It's all built on a short term orgy of cashing in on the removal of all of our safeguards - doing away with environmental regulation, destroying the government's revenue, cuts to education, doing away with bank regulations. None of it seeds long term development or growth, none of it improves quality of life, and it'll all be wiped away in our next crash, our next disasters, our next recession - and we'll be in a worse place for it. It's a bunch of looting. Republicans refused to give Obama any credit for job numbers because wages weren't rising. Wages still aren't rising. www.factcheck.org/2Candidate Donald Trump won the election claiming “our country is stagnant.” But President Trump actually inherits an economy experiencing steady if unspectacular growth in output, jobs and incomes. Jobs — The economy has added nearly 2.2 million jobs in the most recent 12 months. It has gained jobs for 75 straight months – the longest streak on record. Income — Trump enters the White House at a time when incomes have begun to rebound after years of stagnation. In 2015 median household income jumped 5.2 percent — the largest one-year percentage increase since records began in 1967. Unemployment — Obama also leaves Trump an unemployment rate that is well below the historical norm. Poverty — Trump also takes charge with millions of Americans still mired in poverty. In 2015 there were 43.1 million Americans with incomes below the poverty line. Economic Growth — Trump inherits an economy that is growing steadily — but more slowly than the 4 percent annual rate he proposed as a “national goal” during his campaign. Corporate Profits — As Trump takes over, corporate profits are running at near-record levels. Home Values — Trump takes office as sales prices of existing single-family homes finally have recovered from the housing crash, at least in non-inflation-adjusted dollars. As Trump takes charge, a lower percentage of Americans lack health insurance than at any time on record — thanks to a program he vows to replace. Debt – Trump inherits a rising tide of red ink, on top of a federal debt that has more than doubled under Obama. Trump takes office with stock prices near historic highs, after an eight-year run-up that will be a tough act for Trump to follow. Trump inherits a murder rate that has turned upward again, after reaching the lowest point in decades in 2014. www.factcheck.org/2017/01/what-president-trump-inherits/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 10:02:58 GMT -5
Funny cartoon but remember you told me during the primary, when the DNC and Podesta were hacked by the Russians that you didn't care where the info came from, all you cared about was the truth. That hasn't changed, right? Because what Mueller did is 100% legal, the other was not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 11:06:39 GMT -5
White House lawyers are expected to meet with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s office late this week seeking good news: that his sprawling investigation’s focus on President Trump will soon end and their client will be cleared. But people familiar with the probe say that such assurances are unlikely and that the meeting could trigger a new, more contentious phase between the special counsel and a frustrated president, according to administration officials and advisers close to Trump. People with knowledge of the investigation said it could last at least another year — pointing to ongoing cooperation from witnesses such as former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, as well as a possible trial of two former Trump campaign officials. The special counsel’s office has continued to request new documents related to the campaign, and members of Mueller’s team have told others they expect to be working through much of 2018, at a minimum.www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-teams-meeting-with-muellers-office-poised-to-ratchet-up-tensions/2017/12/18/15dac668-e41d-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.d567c797bd87
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 19, 2017 12:42:05 GMT -5
Great point Ed - SS, you're not being fair if you don't search out nonsense propaganda as well. LOL! The rebuttal addresses the "legal" arguments of TFA. One would think that the TFA lawyers would present their best legal arguments in support of its position. In essence, there are no legal arguments that supports bogus claims in the letter to Congress. That's why TFA didn't file anything in court where one would go if there were any colorable legal claim. Those who are not lawyers don't seem to understand that. Moreover, if Mueller's actions are legal in procuring the emails, not certain how anything reflects badly upon Mueller in procuring them from a government server in which there is no expectation of privacy and TFA signed an MOU explicitly indicating it understood that. lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/legal-analysis-heres-why-muellers-seizure-of-transition-emails-likely-violated-the-law/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 13:02:15 GMT -5
LOL! The rebuttal addresses the "legal" arguments of TFA. One would think that the TFA lawyers would present their best legal arguments in support of its position. In essence, there are no legal arguments that supports bogus claims in the letter to Congress. That's why TFA didn't file anything in court where one would go if there were any colorable legal claim. Those who are not lawyers don't seem to understand that. Moreover, if Mueller's actions are legal in procuring the emails, not certain how anything reflects badly upon Mueller in procuring them from a government server in which there is no expectation of privacy and TFA signed an MOU explicitly indicating it understood that. lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/legal-analysis-heres-why-muellers-seizure-of-transition-emails-likely-violated-the-law/Saw Drudge link this article earlier but a judge, not Trump's lawyers, decide if there's a 4th Amendment violation. If they believe that's the case why didn't Trumps lawyers file a complaint in court? If Mueller didn’t follow the law, a court would suppress the evidence so it couldn’t be used. Instead they sent a letter asking Congress to change the law and leaked it to FoxNews...
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Dec 19, 2017 13:25:47 GMT -5
Funny cartoon but remember you told me during the primary, when the DNC and Podesta were hacked by the Russians that you didn't care where the info came from, all you cared about was the truth. That hasn't changed, right? Because what Mueller did is 100% legal, the other was not. I have no legal problem with what Mueller did. Here's an interesting take, though, on how he arguably should have gotten them. link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 13:31:19 GMT -5
Funny cartoon but remember you told me during the primary, when the DNC and Podesta were hacked by the Russians that you didn't care where the info came from, all you cared about was the truth. That hasn't changed, right? Because what Mueller did is 100% legal, the other was not. I have no legal problem with what Mueller did. Here's an interesting take, though, on how he arguably should have gotten them. linkRead that before and the argument seems to be he should be nicer about it... Reason he probably wasn't: The twist: The sources say that transition officials assumed that Mueller would come calling, and had sifted through the emails and separated the ones they considered privileged. But the sources said that was for naught, since Mueller has the complete cache from the dozen accounts. www.axios.com/scoop-mueller-obtains-tens-of-thousands-of-trump-transition-emails-2517994590.htmlIf the claim is that it was "Executive" privilege, Trump wasn't an Executive at the time...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Dec 19, 2017 13:41:22 GMT -5
The other argument the NR makes is he could have got all the records by not requesting them of GSA, and that the Trump team would have just turned everything over. I snorted water through my nose reading that.
How many revisions has Jared Kushner made to his disclosure forms again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 13:41:45 GMT -5
Read that before and the argument seems to be he should be nicer about it... In contrast, Comey didn't even convene a grand jury in his Clinton email investigation. I've practiced law for 30 years and in my opinion neither of them acted appropriately. Do you decide that, or does a judge? Again if they violated the Law why haven't Trumps attorney's argued their case in actual court instead of the court of public opinion?
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Dec 19, 2017 13:55:23 GMT -5
In contrast, Comey didn't even convene a grand jury in his Clinton email investigation. I've practiced law for 30 years and in my opinion neither of them acted appropriately. Do you decide that, or does a judge? Again if they violated the Law why haven't Trumps attorney's argued their case in actual court instead of the court of public opinion? I wrote IN MY OPINION neither of them acted APPROPRIATELY. Who said anything about violating the law? A prosecutor has the legal right to do lots of things; it doesn't mean he should.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Dec 19, 2017 14:06:10 GMT -5
I wrote IN MY OPINION neither of them acted APPROPRIATELY. Who said anything about violating the law? A prosecutor has the legal right to do lots of things; it doesn't mean he should. Okay - just so I understand your position - you have no legal problem with what he did, but you and NR have the vapors because Mueller has the audacity to treat Donald Trump like he might not be telling the truth, and they should be treating Donald Trump like a good-faith actor as a matter of appropriateness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 14:10:47 GMT -5
Do you decide that, or does a judge? Again if they violated the Law why haven't Trumps attorney's argued their case in actual court instead of the court of public opinion? I wrote IN MY OPINION neither of them acted APPROPRIATELY. Who said anything about violating the law? A prosecutor has the legal right to do lots of things; it doesn't mean he should. Hard to figure out your stance because you appear to be trying to have it both ways. I have no problem with it but here's a link to an article about why it's inappropriate An attorney has legal rights to do many things but maybe arguing their case in the RW media blogosphere is the better option.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 19, 2017 15:57:58 GMT -5
You Trump supporters are lucky there is no god. Most Ridiculous comment of the year. On the contrary, it's one of the wisest things posted on this board ever.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Dec 19, 2017 16:12:49 GMT -5
I wrote IN MY OPINION neither of them acted APPROPRIATELY. Who said anything about violating the law? A prosecutor has the legal right to do lots of things; it doesn't mean he should. Hard to figure out your stance because you appear to be trying to have it both ways. I have no problem with it but here's a link to an article about why it's inappropriate An attorney has legal rights to do many things but maybe arguing their case in the RW media blogosphere is the better option. I wrote I have no legal problem with what Mueller did. Again, in my opinion, he had the legal right to do what he did, but that doesn't mean he should have done it that way.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,636
|
Post by DallasHoya on Dec 19, 2017 16:17:13 GMT -5
I wrote IN MY OPINION neither of them acted APPROPRIATELY. Who said anything about violating the law? A prosecutor has the legal right to do lots of things; it doesn't mean he should. Okay - just so I understand your position - you have no legal problem with what he did, but you and NR have the vapors because Mueller has the audacity to treat Donald Trump like he might not be telling the truth, and they should be treating Donald Trump like a good-faith actor as a matter of appropriateness. I would like prosecutors investigating individuals who are not yet charged with a crime and are represented by counsel to treat them consistently, reasonably, and in good faith. And I think Andrew McCarthy knows a bit more than you or I do when it comes to criminal prosecutions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 17:55:10 GMT -5
Hard to figure out your stance because you appear to be trying to have it both ways. I have no problem with it but here's a link to an article about why it's inappropriate An attorney has legal rights to do many things but maybe arguing their case in the RW media blogosphere is the better option. I wrote I have no legal problem with what Mueller did. Again, in my opinion, he had the legal right to do what he did, but that doesn't mean he should have done it that way. Ok, but again you had no issue with the Russians aquiring emails illegally from Podesta and the DNC... You said you just wanted the truth, and didn't care how they were obtained. The process at that time didn't matter. Now you linked me to an article that's core argument is the process was inappropriate. What Mueller did was legal, as you noted, and there's an article stating the Trump transition was planning on withholding some of those emails. So it was their plan to withold some of the truth and he outmaneuvered them. So that leads me to believe that if the tables were turned you would have a different outlook on this.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,484
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Dec 19, 2017 18:15:00 GMT -5
Most Ridiculous comment of the year. On the contrary, it's one of the wisest things posted on this board ever. Hmmm. Sounds like a comment Trump would make, since he always speaks in superlatives.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Dec 19, 2017 20:39:23 GMT -5
I would like prosecutors investigating individuals who are not yet charged with a crime and are represented by counsel to treat them consistently, reasonably, and in good faith. I'd like prosecutors not to get played by a President who has fired the head of the FBI after demanding a loyalty pledge, appears willing to use pardon power to protect his circle, and whose inner circle has lied again and again about their dealings with Russia. He's not prosecuting someone here, he's writing partisan drivel for the National Review.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,384
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 20, 2017 6:23:08 GMT -5
More irresponsible Fox punditry. Remember Pizzagate? OK City Bombing (which came in the wake of the right wing calling federal law enforcement "jack booted thugs")? This kind of talk may have real world consequences. www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/20/fox-news-contributor-channeling-alex-jones-suggests-fbi-plot-to-assassinate-trump/?hpid=hp_rhp-morning-mix_mm-fox%3Ahomepage%2FstoryTime for Hoftstadter: American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind. In using the expression “paranoid style” I am not speaking in a clinical sense, but borrowing a clinical term for other purposes. I have neither the competence nor the desire to classify any figures of the past or present as certifiable lunatics. In fact, the idea of the paranoid style as a force in politics would have little contemporary relevance or historical value if it were applied only to men with profoundly disturbed minds. It is the use of paranoid modes of expression by more or less normal people that makes the phenomenon significant. harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 20, 2017 6:23:29 GMT -5
Andrew McCabe spends 7.5 hours getting questioned with nary a leak...
Makes you wonder which side is doing all the leaking...
|
|