Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 14:31:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 14:36:12 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 14:53:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 4, 2019 15:37:06 GMT
trump... ”Very good call yesterday with President Putin of Russia. Tremendous potential for a good/great relationship with Russia, despite what you read and see in the Fake News Media. Look how they have misled you on “Russia Collusion.” The World can be a better and safer place. Nice!” This one tweet alone is reason enough trump on why trump is unfit to be president. Not enough to prosecute. But it was there per Mueller's report! Lots of Russians charged! Americans guilty and have done jail time, doing jail time, will do jail time! Something was there dt!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 15:47:36 GMT
David Rothkopf...
”Impeachment may divide our country. The failure to impeach will wound our system, perhaps fatally. It is no contest really. If doing the right thing divides us, so be it. Better temporarily divided, than to be the generation who rendered the American experiment a failure.”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 4, 2019 19:19:57 GMT
"President Trump on Friday lamented social media "getting worse" for conservatives, writing that he was "continuing to monitor" alleged censorship on online platforms. “ I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!” Trump tweeted Friday. ** Trump's comments came one day after Facebook announced that it had permanently banned a host of prominent figures it described as "dangerous" from its platform." ** thehill.com/homenews/administration/442095-trump-laments-social-media-getting-worse-for-conservativesSays the one who blocks desenters to his Twitter account when SHS or whoever says that it is his official way to speak to us..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 20:30:45 GMT
"President Trump on Friday lamented social media "getting worse" for conservatives, writing that he was "continuing to monitor" alleged censorship on online platforms. “ I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!” Trump tweeted Friday. ** Trump's comments came one day after Facebook announced that it had permanently banned a host of prominent figures it described as "dangerous" from its platform." ** thehill.com/homenews/administration/442095-trump-laments-social-media-getting-worse-for-conservativesSays the one who blocks desenters to his Twitter account when SHS or whoever says that it is his official way to speak to us.. Ugh, my nephew was on Tucker Carlson's show last night, discussing this topic. He was the one who was a senior engineer for Facebook and left the company (very publicly) because of their beliefs. Last night's segment was about Facebook being wrong for banning certain users. I couldn't be more disappointed in him.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 4, 2019 20:34:34 GMT
Ah didn’t North Korea just test some missiles? So right you are!! Geez @fred did you take an advanced word salad interpretation class?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 22:23:50 GMT
ABC Drum..
”“It's not only a political crisis but a moral crisis. Because you cannot shame these people any more. And what can you do against someone who is constantly lying? You say shame on you. If they’re no ashamed what else have you got?” @etemelkuran #auspol #TheDrum”
Good point and a good question.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 22:48:08 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 22:50:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2019 23:10:44 GMT
Oh Lord! How did I know that it would be in FL? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Help me moveeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
P.S.: I'm having a mental-breakdown kinda day... why can't I attach pics anymore???
Attachments:![](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/thumbnailer/KsKzSXBbWWTjoRisYETw.png)
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 4, 2019 23:32:17 GMT
I love SCOHOL !!!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 5, 2019 0:17:17 GMT
Something to keep track of!! Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) on Saturday called on leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold a hearing next week with Trump administration officials about a potential U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. "The brutal Maduro Regime has caused unspeakable suffering amongst the citizens in Venezuela and I commend the brave Venezuelans who are standing up for their freedom and for their basic human rights," he said. "However, I am concerned by reports of possible U.S. military intervention in Venezuela," "I am calling on the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold immediate hearings with key members of the administration next week to discuss their plans for Venezuela and to explain any plans to deploy U.S. forces to the country," he added. The Hill reached out to Sens. James Risch (R-Idaho) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who are the committee's chairman and ranking member, respectively. ** thehill.com/homenews/senate/442144-republican-senator-calls-for-hearing-on-military-intervention-in-venezuela
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 0:55:40 GMT
Max Boot - Washington Post.
“This nation is at the mercy of a criminal administration”
“Imagine that you live in a town that has been taken over by gangsters. The mayor is a crook and so are the district attorney and police chief. You can’t fight city hall. But at least you know you can turn for help to the state or federal government. Now imagine that it’s not a city or state that has been taken over by criminals — it’s the federal government. Where do you turn for help? That is not a theoretical concern. After the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, it’s our grim reality.
Even before Mueller’s probe ended, federal prosecutors in New York had implicated President Trump in ordering his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to violate federal campaign finance laws. Mueller then documented at least six ironclad incidents of obstruction of justice by Trump along with numerous instances of misconduct that, while not criminal, are definitely impeachable. The New York Review of Books reported that two prosecutors working for Mueller said that if Trump weren’t president, he would have been indicted.
Now the administration is obstructing attempts to bring the president to justice for obstruction of justice. William P. Barr isn’t the attorney general; he is, as David Rothkopf said, the obstructor general. We now know that Mueller wrote (in Barr’s description) a “snitty” letter objecting that Barr’s deceptive summary of his work, designed to falsely exonerate Trump, “threatens to undermine … public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”
Yet when Barr testified to Congress after receiving the Mueller letter but before releasing the Mueller report, he claimed not to know whether Mueller disagreed with his conclusions. “He lied to Congress,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) charged. But even if it could be proved that Barr committed perjury (no sure thing), who would prosecute him? Is he (or his deputy) going to appoint a special counsel to investigate himself? Unlikely. And if he did appoint a special counsel, would he heed the counsel’s conclusions? Also unlikely.
Barr’s jaw-dropping performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday dispelled any lingering confidence in the impartial administration of justice — the bedrock of our republic. He actually testified that if the president feels an investigation is unfounded, he “does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate the proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused.” Given that no president has ever felt justly accused of any misconduct, this means that the president is above the law. Barr is endorsing the Nixon doctrine: “Well, when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
The administration makes clear that this is precisely its intent with its scandalous stonewalling of Congress. Barr himself refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Trump is suing to prevent his accountants and financial institutions from sharing his business records with Congress, while his treasury secretary is refusing to comply with a lawful demand for his tax returns. Trump is also blocking numerous current and former officials, including former White House counsel Donald McGahn, from testifying about his misdeeds. His conduct is redolent of the third article of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon for failing “to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas” from Congress.
While conferring legal immunity upon himself, Trump is eager to weaponize the legal system against his opponents. The Mueller report documents three separate occasions when Trump demanded a Justice Department investigation of Hillary Clinton. Now, the New York Times reports, Trump and his attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, are attempting to instigate a criminal probe of his leading 2020 opponent, Joe Biden, on what appear to be trumped-up charges of corruption. In one of the more chilling exchanges during his Senate testimony, Barr would not say whether “the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested” that he open an investigation. If the answer were “no,” he would have said so.
It is hard to think of any president in the past 230 years, including Nixon, who has ever sabotaged the rule of law so flagrantly or so successfully to protect his own hide. And, sadly, it is hard to imagine that anything can be done about it before Nov. 3, 2020. The House could try to compel compliance with its subpoenas, but the Justice Department will never file criminal charges, and the courts could take years to decide a civil suit. The House could vote to impeach Trump or Barr — which they richly deserve — but that would be a purely symbolic act and could backfire politically because Senate Republicans, like the O.J. Simpson jury, would vote to acquit regardless of the evidence.
So for the next 18 months, at a minimum, this nation is at the mercy of a criminal administration. I am in despair as I have never been before about the future of our experiment in self-rule. Before Mueller filed his report, it was possible to imagine the president being brought to justice. That fantasy is no longer tenable. Instead we are left with the dismaying likelihood that the president will now feel emboldened to commit ever greater transgressions to hold onto power — and thus delay a possible post-presidential indictment.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 0:59:45 GMT
MSNBC..
”“I was packing my bags for Afghanistan while he was working on season 7 of Celebrity Apprentice. ... At the end of the day, it’s not about him, it’s not about me. It’s about … the American voter."
- Mayor Buttigieg on criticism that he is too nice in comparison to Pres. Trump”
Let’s don’t forget it took just shy of 2 years for the Commander-in-Chief to visit our troops in a war zone. And yes it is about trump and his lack of character.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on May 5, 2019 1:28:43 GMT
That’s how you spell it when you graduate from a for profit charter school! 🤪
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 1:43:04 GMT
Paul Waldman - Washington Post....
“The ‘electability’ claim is swallowing up the Democratic primaries. But it’s nonsense.”
It's hard to blame them for thinking about it the way they do, because it's what they've been taught for years. And it's completely wrong. Judging by these anecdotal accounts, electability is threatening to swallow the Democratic nominating process.
To begin, we have to confront this simple fact: Every four years we have a discussion about electability, and every four years the consensus on electability is mistaken. A buffoonish, bigoted reality TV star without a day of political experience? Completely unelectable. A 40-something African American senator with an Arabic middle name? Absurdly unelectable.
You know who everyone agreed was electable, though? War heroes with long records as respected legislators. Like John McCain, John Kerry and Bob Dole. Also electable: moderates who know how to reach across the aisle, like Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Al Gore.
Despite all the evidence that the single most important determinant of getting elected president may be whether a candidate can excite their own party’s voters, we never treat that as a factor in electability. We discuss the electorate as though it has a fixed number of voters, and there will be no one who either stays home because they’re uninspired or turns out when they otherwise wouldn’t have because a candidate excites them. If that’s your assumption, then naturally you conclude that all that matters is whether someone can pull votes from the other side.
Not only that, you're actively discouraged from thinking that the person whom you really like might be electable. After all, if you're a partisan, and you love a particular candidate, that must mean they won't be able to appeal to those magical swing voters.
And in the case of Democratic candidates, electability has come to be defined not just as being palatable to Republicans, but to a particular subset of Republicans: conservative white men. They’re the subject of hundreds of profiles: The Midwestern working-class white men sitting in diners talking about how Trump tells it like it is. They’re the voters Democrats need. If you’re not the kind of guy who can appeal to them, forget it.
And it is almost always a guy, and a white guy at that. The entire electability discussion assumes that if there are lots of sexist voters and lots of racist voters, then they must be courted and flattered and catered to, lest they become too angry and vote for Trump. If you have a long memory you might recall how in 2008, it was commonly believed that Democrats were making a mistake nominating Obama because Hillary Clinton was the one who had forged such a powerful bond with the white working class.
The idea that the path to success for a Democrat might lie elsewhere — say, with the candidate best able to organize and mobilize the millions of African-Americans and Latinos who would vote Democratic if they went to the polls — never enters the electability discussion. We seem unable to consider the ability to mobilize votes as a factor in electability, despite all the copious evidence that it is.
If you’re a Biden supporter because you sincerely love Biden, that’s fine. But it’s deeply ironic that with Democratic voters being offered the largest menu of options they’ve ever had, a field full of smart, accomplished, capable, thoughtful, charismatic women and men, those voters might just decide to go with whoever they think will appeal to Republicans, despite the fact that GOP party unity has become nearly absolute (despite all the talk of Republicans having reservations about Trump in 2016, he retained as much Republican support as Romney or McCain had).
But that’s what they keep being told they should do: Ignore their own feelings about candidates, and instead try to make a guess about whom other people will like. There are few worse ways to decide which candidate to support. “Joe Biden has a bunch of advantages as he starts his campaign for president: universal name ID, a network of donors built up over decades in politics, the ability to take advantage of affection for Barack Obama, to name a few.
But it has quickly become clear that no factor is benefiting him more than the perception that he’s “electable.” In other words, there are lots of Democratic voters who may or may not like him, but they think that Republicans will like him, for a very particular set of reasons.
I’m picking on Biden here only because he’s the candidate who is benefiting right now from the completely wrongheaded way we talk about electability. The Post’s David Weigel reports from the campaign trail that he has met many Democratic voters who genuinely like Biden. But Weigel adds:
Just as many voters said that they had come to support Biden because he seemed best positioned to defeat President Trump — sometimes offering the names of candidates they considered more inspiring but less electable.
If you’ve been reading the news about the campaign closely, you’ve probably seen a dozen quotes from primary voters expressing that belief just in the past couple of weeks. Polls seem to back this up; Biden is far ahead of everyone else when Democrats are asked which candidate has the best chance of defeating Trump.
It's hard to blame them for thinking about it the way they do, because it's what they've been taught for years. And it's completely wrong. Judging by these anecdotal accounts, electability is threatening to swallow the Democratic nominating process.
To begin, we have to confront this simple fact: Every four years we have a discussion about electability, and every four years the consensus on electability is mistaken. A buffoonish, bigoted reality TV star without a day of political experience? Completely unelectable. A 40-something African American senator with an Arabic middle name? Absurdly unelectable.
You know who everyone agreed was electable, though? War heroes with long records as respected legislators. Like John McCain, John Kerry and Bob Dole. Also electable: moderates who know how to reach across the aisle, like Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Al Gore.
Despite all the evidence that the single most important determinant of getting elected president may be whether a candidate can excite their own party’s voters, we never treat that as a factor in electability. We discuss the electorate as though it has a fixed number of voters, and there will be no one who either stays home because they’re uninspired or turns out when they otherwise wouldn’t have because a candidate excites them. If that’s your assumption, then naturally you conclude that all that matters is whether someone can pull votes from the other side.
Not only that, you're actively discouraged from thinking that the person whom you really like might be electable. After all, if you're a partisan, and you love a particular candidate, that must mean they won't be able to appeal to those magical swing voters.
And in the case of Democratic candidates, electability has come to be defined not just as being palatable to Republicans, but to a particular subset of Republicans: conservative white men. They’re the subject of hundreds of profiles: The Midwestern working-class white men sitting in diners talking about how Trump tells it like it is. They’re the voters Democrats need. If you’re not the kind of guy who can appeal to them, forget it.
And it is almost always a guy, and a white guy at that. The entire electability discussion assumes that if there are lots of sexist voters and lots of racist voters, then they must be courted and flattered and catered to, lest they become too angry and vote for Trump. If you have a long memory you might recall how in 2008, it was commonly believed that Democrats were making a mistake nominating Obama because Hillary Clinton was the one who had forged such a powerful bond with the white working class.
The idea that the path to success for a Democrat might lie elsewhere — say, with the candidate best able to organize and mobilize the millions of African-Americans and Latinos who would vote Democratic if they went to the polls — never enters the electability discussion. We seem unable to consider the ability to mobilize votes as a factor in electability, despite all the copious evidence that it is.
If you’re a Biden supporter because you sincerely love Biden, that’s fine. But it’s deeply ironic that with Democratic voters being offered the largest menu of options they’ve ever had, a field full of smart, accomplished, capable, thoughtful, charismatic women and men, those voters might just decide to go with whoever they think will appeal to Republicans, despite the fact that GOP party unity has become nearly absolute (despite all the talk of Republicans having reservations about Trump in 2016, he retained as much Republican support as Romney or McCain had).
But that’s what they keep being told they should do: Ignore their own feelings about candidates, and instead try to make a guess about whom other people will like. There are few worse ways to decide which candidate to support.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 2:07:16 GMT
linkFiveThirtyEight.. “Why Democrats’ Most Liberal Wing Is Struggling To Gain Power” “I argued in a piece published earlier this week that the “Super Progressive” bloc of the Democratic Party was largely losing its fights with the party’s Progressive Old Guard wing. Big ideas pushed by more liberal Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — such as the Green New Deal, the impeachment of President Trump and single-payer health care — just aren’t getting much traction right now in the House, which Democrats control. In particular, it seems like the most progressive wing of Democrats is not as influential under Democratic control of the House as the Freedom Caucus — the bloc of the most conservative House Republicans — was when the GOP controlled the chamber. So why are the Super Progressives struggling? I don’t think that there is one simple explanation. But here are a few theories, based on my own thinking and that of some congressional experts. “The Democrats’ base is more moderate than the GOP’s”
“The number of Democratic voters who identify as liberal has been increasing for some time, but the party is still about equally split between people who call themselves “liberal” and people who call themselves “moderate” or “conservative.” In the GOP, by contrast, people who say they’re “conservative” outnumber liberals and moderates. And you can see this difference in how elected officials behave. Polls suggest that more aggressively liberal positions (like impeachment) garner a fair amount of opposition 1 among Democratic voters. This makes it easier for House Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi to sideline those ideas. Instead, Pelosi is pushing forward proposals that are nearly universally popular among Democrats, such as allowing Americans to register to vote on Election Day. “Progressive media and activists would not reward the most aggressive tactics,” said Gregory Koger, who is a political science professor at the University of Miami and studies Congress. “In 2013, there were conservative groups and media arguing sincerely that they could repeal the ACA by shutting down the government. If a super-progressive House member tried to argue on MSNBC or on Daily Kos that the House Democrats could force the Republicans to overturn the 2017 tax cut if Nancy Pelosi had the ‘courage’ to hold the debt limit hostage, he or she would be heckled.” “ The Democratic moderate wing is powerful too”
“The Congressional Progressive Caucus is bigger than ever; it boasts 96 of the 235 Democrats in the House as members. But the New Democrat Coalition, a bloc of more moderate members, is bigger than ever too, and it now includes 101 members. Many of those members are not particularly excited about single-payer health care, the Green New Deal or other lefty stances. And while most of these members don’t have the same national profile as rising liberal stars such as Ocasio-Cortez, they have the same one vote that she does. Perhaps more importantly, many of these members are in swing districts — and Pelosi is focused on making sure these members can get re-elected in 2020. “Pelosi is clearly keeping her eye on the prize of a Democratic Congress and White House,” said Matthew Green, a political science professor at Catholic University who specializes in congressional politics. “Her strategy is very similar to the one she followed as speaker in 2007 and 2008 — bring up bills popular with the base that also force moderate Republicans to break with their party, while staying clear of polarizing issues that could galvanize the opposition or alienate moderate voters.” Green predicted that, if Democrats have control of the House, the Senate and the presidency after 2020, Pelosi might be willing to push more liberal goals, as she did in 2009 in embracing Obamacare and a cap-and-trade environmental bill. And speaking of Pelosi … “Pelosi is a powerful speaker”
“The Freedom Caucus — perhaps because they are more closely aligned with GOP voters than the Congressional Progressive Caucus is with Democratic voters, and because Fox News and Trump are able to galvanize the party’s activists — was often able to run roughshod over the speaker, overpowering John Boehner or forcing Paul Ryan to bend to its will. Pelosi, in contrast, seems fairly willing to ignore her party’s left wing — and as the speaker, she ultimately has the power to determine what bills come up for votes in the House. But Green argued that Pelosi’s power does not come just from her role as speaker. “I don’t think Pelosi’s formal power alone explains why she is more immune to her party’s extreme wing than Boehner or Ryan, who also had substantial formal power. Her informal power is probably more important. She commands the support of committee chairs, whom she had substantial say in appointing,” said Green. “The Super Progressive bloc may be too big”“You would think having more members would make a congressional bloc more powerful, but its broad membership might be having the opposite effect. “The Congressional Progressive Caucus is far larger than the Freedom Caucus, making it harder for them to reach agreement on strategy,” Green said. (The Freedom Caucus does not publicize its membership, but estimates in 2017-18 put its number at around 30.) The progressive bloc includes some members of Congress who are more closely allied with Pelosi than with Ocasio-Cortez, for example. Indeed, she has floated the idea of creating a smaller, closer-knit group outside of the formal Progressive Caucus. I think that might be a more effective way for the most liberal members to pursue their goals. “The Super Progressives won’t blow things up”
Cohesiveness aside, though, the Freedom Caucus members were influential in part because they were willing to engage in very aggressive tactics (opposing must-pass bills to fund the government and to increase the nation’s debt ceiling, for example). That approach gave them a lot of leverage. There is no indication at this point that the Democrats’ liberal wing will take similar steps — they are part of the pro-government party after all. “The ties that bind the Freedom Caucus together seem to be more ideologically-oriented or value-oriented than to be about specific policies,” said Jennifer Victor, a political science professor at George Mason University. “The fact that the Progressive Caucus is more policy-oriented suggests they may be more willing to negotiate within their party than the Freedom Caucus was.” Add all this together, and you get a Super Progressive bloc of Democrats that, at least so far, is struggling to push the Democratic Party to the left. I’d emphasize so far, however. Remember that in 2009 it was considered a fairly left wing position to propose including a public option — a Medicare-style plan Americans could opt into — as part of the health insurance choices offered through the Affordable Care Act. Now, the public option is considered a more centrist position, and many Democrats are going a step further and backing single-payer health care (in which Americans would get their coverage through a government-run system). So the progressives may, over time, push the party left. But the first months of 2019 suggest that progressives won’t be successful immediately — and maybe no one should have expected them to be.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 14:12:53 GMT
Excellent thread.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 5, 2019 14:13:19 GMT
Right. I don’t doubt David Cay Johnston because I’ve read his books and he’s obsessive about sticking to facts he can prove with actual documents and court records. But here’s my question: Who will bring charges when the DOJ is led by Barr? Even if we had a Sally Yates-type in a position of some authority in the DOJ, Barr’s decision will prevail because he’s the AG. Even if the House sues in federal court, that will likely not be resolved until well after the 2020 election. My preference is to impeach them all now just to prove the House can and will exercise its powers. Impeach Mnuchin, Rettig, Barr, and anyone in the gov’t who doesn’t comply with congressional subpoenas even if the Senate doesn’t convict, and let the GOP Senate answer for its inaction. To me, it'll be a powerful statement that the House isn't going to put up with anymore BS. Seriously. I think that’s what’s needed.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 5, 2019 14:30:12 GMT
lizacreates a question... IF the House were to arrest Barr on the contempt charges and jail him, what might that do to the rest? I would like to see Mnuchin arrested and jailed.... he is so prissy and has shown he really thinks he is above all of us!
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on May 5, 2019 14:34:58 GMT
lizacreates a question... IF the House were to arrest Barr on the contempt charges and jail him, what might that do to the rest? I would like to see Mnuchin arrested and jailed.... he is so prissy and has shown he really thinks he is above all of us! I’m not even sure that can be done. I’m assuming you mean have the Sergeant at Arms arrest him? You and I both have been around a very long time. Have you actually seen this happen?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 14:46:50 GMT
trump....
”The Kentuky Derby decision was not a good one. It was a rough and tumble race on a wet and sloppy track, actually, a beautiful thing to watch. Only in these days of political correctness could such an overturn occur. The best horse did NOT win the Kentucky Derby - not even close!”
Its KENTUCKY!!! Does he not understand what the red line under the word means? Candidate. Presidential race Here let me fix this “The best horse did NOT win the Kentucky Derby - not even close!”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 15:00:26 GMT
linkBloomberg.... “Bush inherited a slowing economy and responded with tax cuts, high spending and deregulation. The result? A boom, then a bust leading to the worst recession since the Great Depression. Don't be surprised if Trump's economy ends up the same bloom.bg/2Vedcqy via @bopinion” “Don’t Be Shocked If Trump’s Economy Goes the Way of Bush’s”From the artice.. “Although the economic contexts for the start of the Donald Trump and George W. Bush administrations were very different, both presidents responded with essentially the same economic formula — tax cuts, higher spending and aggressive deregulation. In both cases, as expected, the economy responded to the stimulus with boosted growth of stocks and gross domestic product. For Trump, the good numbers on unemployment, GDP and stocks were more immediate, owing to the much more favorable economy when he took office, than they were for Bush. Both presidents were also offered a similar opportunity: to put the nation’s finances on more solid ground. What happened under Bush may give us a window into what is coming in the next few years.” Oh goody.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 15:21:33 GMT
Washington Post...
“House Democrat says Mueller and Judiciary Committee tentatively agree on May 15 for his testimony on Russia investigation”
“A key member of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has tentatively agreed to testify on May 15.
The committee has been seeking to hear from Mueller amid disagreements about whether Attorney General William P. Barr mischaracterized the special counsel’s report in his congressional testimony and statements.
Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) said on “Fox News Sunday” that the panel and Mueller’s representative had reached a tentative agreement for his testimony.”
I wonder what trump is going to do to try and stop Mueller from testifying on the 15th?
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on May 5, 2019 15:23:03 GMT
linkBloomberg.... “Bush inherited a slowing economy and responded with tax cuts, high spending and deregulation. The result? A boom, then a bust leading to the worst recession since the Great Depression. Don't be surprised if Trump's economy ends up the same bloom.bg/2Vedcqy via @bopinion” “Don’t Be Shocked If Trump’s Economy Goes the Way of Bush’s”From the artice.. “Although the economic contexts for the start of the Donald Trump and George W. Bush administrations were very different, both presidents responded with essentially the same economic formula — tax cuts, higher spending and aggressive deregulation. In both cases, as expected, the economy responded to the stimulus with boosted growth of stocks and gross domestic product. For Trump, the good numbers on unemployment, GDP and stocks were more immediate, owing to the much more favorable economy when he took office, than they were for Bush. Both presidents were also offered a similar opportunity: to put the nation’s finances on more solid ground. What happened under Bush may give us a window into what is coming in the next few years.” Oh goody. Your suppose to live & learn from your mistakes. I bought trickle down economics the first time it was sold. Reagan began it & was a good salesman. BUT what he ignored and I was too young & naive to realize. Most people & businesses don’t work that way. It didn’t ‘trickle down’ They were more than happy to keep the profits in thier pockets. IN FACT one could argue that the first go round of trickle down economics was the most devastating to the middle class workers. It spelled the end of lifetime employment, the end of pensions in private industry, the beginning of the downfall of benefits packaged all over. The first go round with trickle down economics changed the workplace environment so drastically many simply could not recover from those changes. Here in NJ we are still recovering from that devastation but it’s not bad. The mid west manufacturing states may NEVER recover How far apart will it set us this time? Of course Trump & friends want to try this again, it’s what best for the plutocracy at the top, not what’s best for society. They know full well that it not going to work for the average person. THATs the point.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 26, 2024 6:01:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2019 15:41:23 GMT
Julia Davis...
”#Russia's state TV says Trump and Putin discussed a wide range of important topics, but "only joked about the supposed election interference." "Trump was literally attacked by the U.S. media," complains the anchor, "because they didn't appreciate the humor."
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 5, 2019 16:39:31 GMT
I’m not even sure that can be done. I’m assuming you mean have the Sergeant at Arms arrest him? You and I both have been around a very long time. Have you actually seen this happen? Not necessarily the AG, but they did someone in 1935(?) or so they have said on TV! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/MNrJDkDuSwqIMVw33MdD.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 5, 2019 16:47:05 GMT
Both presidents were also offered a similar opportunity: to put the nation’s finances on more solid ground. What happened under Bush may give us a window into what is coming in the next few years.” What's coming needs to come in ONE year + into the summer! Before the 2020 election.
|
|