Page 130 of 135 FirstFirst ... 121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135 LastLast
Results 1,936 to 1,950 of 2015

Thread: 2018 American Political Scene

  1. #1936
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,988

    When should we stimulate the economy?

    Short answer: not now.

    The proposed federal infrastructure spending package is an excellent idea, but only if it is implemented when the economy has the capacity to absorb it. Sadly, when the economy most needed a fiscal stimulus it was shot down by House GOPers for the simple reason that Barack Obama was president at the time.

    Here’s some basic numbers that should be taken into consideration, over a very long span. When real GDP growth, the federal budget deficit or inflation are high, stimulation spending – even if it is necessary spending – is not a great idea.

    _ _ _ _ Real GDP _ _ CPI _ _ Unemp _ _ Fed Bal
    2005-06 _ 3.2 _ _ _ _ 3.3 _ _ _ 4.8 _ _ _ _ -2.7
    2007-08 _ 0.9 _ _ _ _ 3.4 _ _ _ 5.2 _ _ _ _ -4.3
    2009-10 _ 0.2 _ _ _ _ 0.7 _ _ _ 9.4 _ _ _ _-11.0
    2011-12 _ 1.9 _ _ _ _ 2.6 _ _ _ 8.5 _ _ _ _ -9.1
    2013-14 _ 2.2 _ _ _ _ 1.5 _ _ _ 6.8 _ _ _ _ -5.1
    2015-16 _ 2.2 _ _ _ _ 0.7 _ _ _ 5.1 _ _ _ _ -4.6
    2017-18 _ 2.5 _ _ _ _ 2.3 _ _ _ 4.2 _ _ _ _ -5.3
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  2. #1937
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,815
    The proposed federal infrastructure spending package is an excellent idea, but only if it is implemented when the economy has the capacity to absorb it. Sadly, when the economy most needed a fiscal stimulus it was shot down by House GOPers for the simple reason that Barack Obama was president at the time.

    Here’s some basic numbers that should be taken into consideration, over a very long span. When real GDP growth, the federal budget deficit or inflation are high, stimulation spending – even if it is necessary spending – is not a great idea.
    as said, not politically realistic. but, given the state of US infrastructure I'd argue that the long-term economic efficiency would still make this worth it, even if it doesn't have the short-term stimulative effects that it would have had in 2009. this isn't a case of china/japan-like building bridges and dams for the sake of building bridges and dams.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  3. #1938
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,815
    a more serious matter than the not-going-to-happen infrastructure bill-- last-second power grabs to weaken incoming state governors/public officials. in additional to Wisconsin, the previous case of North Carolina and now also Indiana.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...82f_story.html

    Wisconsin Republicans are trying to subvert the will of the voters. They’re part of a larger trend.

    Donald P. Moynihan is the McCourt chair at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. He served as a professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Madison from 2005 to 2018.

    Wisconsin Republicans endured a tough election last month, losing all major statewide offices. In response, the lame-duck legislators are calling a so-called extraordinary session. Their agenda? To make it harder for citizens to vote and to strip away powers from newly elected Democratic officials. Michigan Republicans have similar plans, and both are following in the footsteps of their North Carolina peers.

    This is part of a distinctly partisan and anti-democratic trend in state politics: When Republicans lose, they turn away from democratic processes and the will of the people. The impact of the proposed changes are on a par with Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s signature Act 10, which effectively destroyed public-sector unions and incited bitter polarization in the state .

    The new power grab brazenly subverts the outcome of the election. For example, Walker and his opponent, Tony Evers (D), repeatedly clashed on Walker’s decision to join a lawsuit attacking Obamacare, prompting Evers to promise that he would withdraw from the lawsuit if elected. Given the clear contrast between the candidates, the now-governor-elect has a mandate to do so, but the proposed legislation would remove Evers’s power to act on that mandate.

    Evers would also lose power historically reserved by Wisconsin governors to seek waivers from federal programs to innovate. It’s how then-Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) developed welfare reform and how Walker imposed work requirements on Medicaid recipients. No longer. If Republicans get their way, the legislature would take charge of federal waivers. In the short run, this would mean that Evers could not withdraw from Walker’s new Medicaid work requirements . Similar work requirements have led thousands to lose their health insurance in Arkansas.

    And it’s not just the governor. Republicans also want to eliminate much of the new attorney general’s powers. Under the proposed changes, the legislature would have final say on legal cases involving the state and could choose their own private lawyers instead of the attorney general when state laws are challenged in court. This raises the question: Why even have the position of attorney general if they are allowed to practice law only when a Republican holds the position?

    One would think that after such a disappointing election, Wisconsin Republicans would want to find a way to reconnect with voters. But in fact, they’re proposing new restrictions on early voting — even though a similar effort in the state was deemed unconstitutional in 2016 because of its clear partisan intent. This comes after Republicans passed a strict voter-ID bill in 2011; passed a bill in 2015 disbanding a nonpartisan elections board after it looked into Walker’s campaign-finance practices; and created one of the most gerrymandered states in the country, in which 46 percent of the vote won Republicans 63 percent of the state Assembly this year.

    Republicans also want to rejig the electoral calendar to improve the reelection prospects of a state Supreme Court justice, who as a private lawyer defended those gerrymandering practices. The law currently specifies that the election should fall in April 2020, which coincides with the state’s presidential primary, so Republicans propose moving the primary election up to March. Such a change could cost the state an estimated $7 million (despite Walker’s argument this year against holding special elections because they cost too much ). The vast majority of Wisconsin’s county election clerks oppose the change, which would require them to run three separate elections in three months.

    Wisconsin Republicans did not campaign on any of the above policies, and they are making little effort to defend them. Clearly, they no longer trust the voters who select them, so they’ve decided to select the voters themselves. They don’t like the governor or attorney general that Wisconsinites picked, so they are stripping them of their powers. And they disagree with policies that people supported, so they are putting unprecedented constraints on the new governor to keep him from implementing them.

    Democracies ultimately depend on having stable rules and norms that support those rules — even when things don’t go your way. We agree to this basic logic as citizens; it’s central to our social contract with the state. We should expect the same of our elected officials. Politicians who change the rules of the game because they don’t like the outcomes are a danger to democracy.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  4. #1939
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,570
    "Danger to democracy" rhetoric should be reserved for things that are actually a threat to democracy, not elected officials changing laws in accordance with how the law is structured. The existence of corrosive or maladaptive norms is not a threat to democracy, and norms are designed to be changed: that's partly why they are norms and not laws.

    For example, an extremely corrosive American norm is the hard-on everyone has for "infrastructure spending" and politicians slapping their names or program names all over it so they can score political points. There is nothing anti-democratic about this, even though it's stupid, and even though other moronic populist politics ARE anti-democratic (in the way we understand democratic, anyways).

    WRT infrastructure spending, I don't mind spending the money now if it's positive value, but I'm not sure how much I trust politicians to pick good projects. For instance, if you look at the national infrastructure report card, you'll see rail is one of the highest rated items at "B." Yet politicians keep wanting to fund high-speed rail, because other nations have it, and it's a great way for politicians to get their name out there. Now, as for the fact that we are apparently wasting 15% of our drinking water because our pipes are leaking? That's not sexy, that's not getting votes, so that has to be tacked on to the sexy spending, like high-speed rail.
    Also, Americans love roads, way, way, way too much. Practically every city needs to do a better job with their public transit situation, including light rail.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  5. #1940
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,815
    "Danger to democracy" rhetoric should be reserved for things that are actually a threat to democracy, not elected officials changing laws in accordance with how the law is structured. The existence of corrosive or maladaptive norms is not a threat to democracy, and norms are designed to be changed: that's partly why they are norms and not laws.

    For example, an extremely corrosive American norm is the hard-on everyone has for "infrastructure spending" and politicians slapping their names or program names all over it so they can score political points. There is nothing anti-democratic about this, even though it's stupid, and even though other moronic populist politics ARE anti-democratic (in the way we understand democratic, anyways).
    mm, equating last-second rule changes to hamstring the next elected government/change the electoral process with infrastructure spending as "extremely corrosive norms"...is not a strong argument.

    especially when the former IS happening and the latter isn't.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  6. #1941
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    mm, equating last-second rule changes to hamstring the next elected government/change the electoral process with infrastructure spending as "extremely corrosive norms"...is not a strong argument.

    especially when the former IS happening and the latter isn't.
    You don't find the argument persuasive because you think the infrastructure spending is useful. Here, I'll recast for a center-left audience:
    For example, an extremely corrosive American norm is the hard-on everyone has for employer based healthcare, which no politician will touch so they don't appear to be heartlessly evil, even though it's an obvious tax loophole that benefits wealthy people. There is nothing anti-democratic about this, even though it's stupid, and even though other populist policies ARE anti-democratic
    Here, I'll recast for a far left audience
    For example, an extremely corrosive American norm is the hard-on everyone has for massive military spending, which allows politicians to appear tough on defense despite the lack of major geopolitical threats. There is nothing anti-democratic about this, even though it's stupid, and even though other populist policies ARE anti-democratic
    Pick whichever one you like best for your ideological leanings.

    These "norms" arguments are being broadly applied to the point where they are increasingly pointless. There is plenty of argument about blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland, there is absolutely no legitimate argument on the Wisconsin front. These are political offices and political moves by one branch of government to wrest power from another branch because of political disagreement, within the rules of the system, which is ENTIRELY within the realm of normal, acceptable politics. I can't even fathom what kind of bizarre ideology requires the legislative to just go along with every single campaign promise by a governor who won by .2% of the vote because he has some mythical "Mandate," nor can I fathom what kind of bizarre ideology considers the legislative branch asserting itself over the executive to be anti-democratic.

    If you have an issue with early voting, start with Pennsylvania and New York, which do not permit no-excuse absentee voting. These are still democratic states, they are not North Korea, and "danger to democracy" rhetoric is entirely uncalled for.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

  7. #1942
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,815
    GVChamp,

    there is absolutely no legitimate argument on the Wisconsin front. These are political offices and political moves by one branch of government to wrest power from another branch because of political disagreement, within the rules of the system, which is ENTIRELY within the realm of normal, acceptable politics. I can't even fathom what kind of bizarre ideology requires the legislative to just go along with every single campaign promise by a governor who won by .2% of the vote because he has some mythical "Mandate," nor can I fathom what kind of bizarre ideology considers the legislative branch asserting itself over the executive to be anti-democratic.
    this argument would be stronger if the legislature attempted to jam a last second -policy- bill through-- say a tax cut or something.

    -that- is within norms.

    what is NOT within norms is to make significant changes to the -political structure- itself at the last second. when Jim Doyle vacated office he certainly didn't try to hobble Scott Walker in the same way.

    to remark on a contemporary issue, when Bush Sr left office he certainly didn't try to do one last piss in Clinton's cereal on behalf of the GOP.

    and of course, the whole thing is made worse by the fact that this legislature's composition is only due to egregious gerrymandering to begin with.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ing-wisconsin/


    The current assembly was elected in 2016. That year, Republican assembly candidates earned about 161,000 more votes than did Democratic candidates. In total, they won about 52 percent of the votes cast.

    The election left them with a 64-to-35 majority in the assembly. By winning 52 percent of the vote, the Republicans won 65 percent of the seats.

    ...

    The results of the 2018 election were even more lopsided. Democrats won 205,000 more votes than Republicans statewide — but swung only one assembly seat!

    They won 53 percent of the vote and only 36 percent of the seats.

    However, that can be explained in part by the fact that Democrats had far more seats in which they weren’t running against a Republican opponent. Nearly half of the votes the Democrats earned were in districts where their candidates didn’t face significant opposition. In contested races, Republicans won more votes than Democrats.

    ...

    In raw terms: Republicans won 57 percent of the vote in contested races in 2016 and won 43 of 50 seats. In 2018, Republicans won the same percentage of the vote in contested races — but won 56 of 63 seats.

    That’s how gerrymandering works. Even the fact that so many more Democratic seats are uncontested is by design: By making certain districts heavily Democratic, many others can be more easily made slightly Republican. In this case, the result of the gerrymandering is a chamber that is more empowered to enact changes that weaken the governor now that the governor no longer shares its party affiliation.

    ...

    The problem, of course, is that such post-election moves — like rampant gerrymandering — undercut the ideas that underlie our political system.

    As Georgetown University public policy professor Donald Moynihan put it to The Washington Post: “Politicians who change the rules of the game because they don’t like the outcomes are a danger to democracy.”

    Especially when they seem to have the power they do, in part thanks to district boundaries they themselves have drawn.
    Last edited by astralis; 04 Dec 18, at 20:45.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  8. #1943
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,988
    The only way to make the GOPer actions in Wisconsin even begin to smell less than rotten is if the actions were taken between an election and the assumption of office by a GOPer. When such actions are ONLY taken when they lose, the reason becomes very obvious.

    cf North Carolina.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  9. #1944
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    8,604
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    Any thing that is not specicially aimed at China/ Pakistan but incidentally damages them (like the Tariffs policy) is nothing to goad at because it can hit India too. Your point about lower prices aside, India WILL be hurt if it becomes a target for Trump.
    Why will India become a target for Trump ?

    Last time Modi met Trump was a year ago. some said it didn't go well. That tells me Modi gave it to him straight where are lines are. At the G20, he agreed to meet Modi on Japan's behest. It's not a big deal but his behaviour hasn't been very coherent at the G20 any way. He couldn't wait to get back : D

    Indian's trade with the Us includes 28 bill of services exports, a lot of which is already at risk.
    You make it sound like we don't want to buy anything from the Americans. Arms trade has reached $15bn presently. A pretty big deal considering it was insignificant only a decade back. Think it could go up further now that they've given us STA-1 ?

    How many big economies are there to sell to. India is expected to surpass France next year in nominal terms. Not even the Chinese will screw with that.

    IT services comapnies have been hurt by the visa regime already.
    He's hard balling and Indian IT companies have been gaming the visa regime. I'm not bothered with Indian concessions as the Americans have been good to us.

    While your experts gloat about the damage done to China and Pakistan due to Trump's stupid policies, I will worry more about the actual harm done both to the US and Indian economic interest by those same policies.
    I don't know how far he plans to go with China. At G20 he called a truce till Jan, that means things are being worked on. A China deal soon doesn't benefit India. The trade dispute has to deepen and trend that way for India to have an opening. A survey carried out by the american chambers of commerce Shangai of 430 companies found none at the present moment had plans to leave China.

    I'm not worried about economic interests you have two business men in office that are both loud and populist. I expect a lot of head butting and deals coming out of it. Defense is a harder nut to crack. If US Russia relations otoh get worse that makes it harder for us to get weapons. He blew off Vlad at the G20 because of domestic compulsions. We're not cutting the Russians off.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Dec 18, at 18:53.

  10. #1945
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,815
    The only way to make the GOPer actions in Wisconsin even begin to smell less than rotten is if the actions were taken between an election and the assumption of office by a GOPer. When such actions are ONLY taken when they lose, the reason becomes very obvious.

    cf North Carolina.
    speaking of stuff going on in North Carolina-- NC-09, where there's -actual- voter fraud.

    perpetuated by the Republican campaign.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  11. #1946
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,443
    The White House Has No Plan for Confronting the Mueller Report

    Nobody knows how the White House plans to respond to the Mueller report—including the people who work at the White House.

    The special counsel is reportedly nearing the end of his probe. Sentencing memos are dropping. Plea deals are being struck. The president’s legal team expects a response to his written interview “soon.”

    When the report will hit is the question. That it will hit, and that it will contain at least some new problems for President Donald Trump and those close to him—especially as House Democrats take the majority—seem certain.


    But while most organizations, political or otherwise, might take the time to prepare for this kind of slow-moving train, the Trump White House is all but winging it. According to a half-dozen current and former White House officials, the administration has no plans in place for responding to the special counsel’s findings—save for expecting a Twitter spree.

    The one thing they do know, Rudy Giuliani told me, is that they’re going to fight.

    If Robert Mueller’s team tries to subpoena the president, “we’re ready to resist that,” Trump’s attorney said.

    Giuliani said it’s been difficult in the past few months to even consider drafting response plans, or devote time to the “counter-report” he claimed they were working on this summer as he and Trump confronted Mueller’s written questions about the 2016 campaign.

    “Answering those questions was a nightmare,” he told me. “It took him about three weeks to do what would normally take two days.” [Of course it was a nightmare Rudy...you work for this nation's first special needs president. - TH]

    There are numerous other reasons no response plan has been produced, White House sources said, including the futility of crafting a strategy that Trump will likely ignore anyway. There have also been few frank conversations within the White House about the potential costs of Mueller’s findings, which could include impeachment of the president or the incrimination of his inner circle. Those close to Trump have either doubled down on the “witch hunt” narrative, they said—refusing to entertain the possibility of wrongdoing—or decided to focus on other issues entirely. Former Press Secretary Sean Spicer has even taken to treating the probe like a game: On Wednesday he tweeted a (quickly deleted) link where followers could place bets on “how many tweets containing #mueller” the president will send “before the investigation is up.”

    Attempting to plan “would mean you would have to have an honest conversation about what might be coming,” a former senior White House official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, told me. [Yeah, good luck with that in this Administration - TH]

    The lack of planning for potential outcomes of one of the highest-stakes investigations of the past two years illuminates many of the key operating principles of this White House—a follow-the-leader approach, a frequent resort to denial, and a staff constantly in flux. Many of those tactics have allowed Trump to maintain favor with his base, but Mueller’s report will represent the biggest test yet of how they fare against legal, rather than political, challenges. And that test was likely sharpened on Tuesday night, when Mueller revealed in a court filing that former National-Security Adviser Michael Flynn had cooperated extensively with his investigation.

    It’s not that White House officials are altogether unwilling to confront the topic. But many current and former White House staffers I spoke to stressed the problem that has plagued them since the beginning of Trump’s presidency: making plans and sticking to them when the “communicator in chief” will, inevitably, prefer his own approach.

    “We would always put together plans with the knowledge that he wouldn’t use them or they’d go off the rails,” one recently departed official told me. “And at this point, with Mueller, they’ve decided they’re not even going to do that.”

    “It’s like, ‘Jesus, take the wheel,’” the source added, “but scarier.”

    Nevertheless, the thinking is that it’s “safer to follow potus’s lead,” the former senior official said. This has allowed staffers to “focus on other pressing matters,” the official allowed, “but leaves you naked when it comes to the final scene of this play.”

    Giuliani initially pushed back on the prediction that Trump would take center stage after the report drops. “I don’t think following his lead is the right thing. He’s the client,” he told me. “The more controlled a person is, the more intelligent they are, the more they can make the decision. But he’s just like every other client. He’s not more … you know, controlled than any other client. In fact, he’s a little less.” [That's a polite way of saying your client is a completely unhinged wank stain with a serious impulse-control problem - TH]

    For Giuliani, letting Trump guide the response post-report may not be ideal, but “I don’t think there’s anyone in the world that can stop Donald Trump from tweeting,” he acknowledged. “I’ve tried.” [And that's the best part about this. It'll be Donald Trump himself that stands up and screams "YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DID!!" - TH]

    The dearth of communication about the probe has left the president’s top lieutenants on Capitol Hill anxious about the fallout, according to multiple congressional GOP sources. “We haven’t heard from the White House at all on this. You’d think there’d be more of an effort to have a coordinated response,” one senior Republican aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to damage the aide’s relationship with the White House, told me. “Members want to help, but can’t if they’re not getting any information.”

    There was the sheer problem of finding time—Giuliani recalled one instance when they were working on the list and Chief of Staff John Kelly broke in to tell Trump about the migrant caravan, which grabbed the president’s attention immediately. And there was the specificity of the questions themselves: “He’s got a great memory,” Giuliani said. “However, basically we were answering questions about 2016, the busiest year of his life. It’s a real job to remember.”

    The president has also devoted much of his energy to following Paul Manafort’s case rather than prepping for the full report. “The thing that upsets potus the most is the treatment of Manafort,” Giuliani said. When Trump learned that the former campaign chairman was in solitary confinement, Giuliani said, “he said to me, ‘Don’t they realize we’re America?’”

    Throughout it all, West Wing officials have been hamstrung by a vacant White House counsel’s office. In October, Trump appointed Pat Cipollone to replace Don McGahn for the top post. But according to Politico, a “longer-than-expected security clearance process” has prevented Cipollone from taking over and building out his team over the past two months, a frustrating situation as the Mueller report nears and House Democrats prepare their oversight demands. Yet even with McGahn, who focused the bulk of his tenure on shuttling through Trump’s judicial picks, prepping for the Mueller probe was not top of mind.

    The Trump team’s strategy in advance of the Mueller report is a far cry, for instance, from how the Clinton White House prepped for the Starr Report. “I’m not trying to argue retroactively that we were geniuses,” former Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart told me. “But our strategy was very clear: We were never going to have the president talk about the investigation, ever. He was never going to portray himself as a victim, that he was being treated unfairly, even though, yes, he thought that privately.”

    Lockhart said the team focused extensively on a counter-report so that it could deliver a robust rebuttal immediately. “We wanted people to look at the reports side by side, as a he-said-she-said, instead of have just one bombshell, unrefuted report.”

    Yet Lockhart and a former George W. Bush communications official, who asked for anonymity to speak freely, both suggested that the Trump White House may struggle more with a variable that they, in their respective administrations, didn’t: honesty. “We would’ve been able to make some set of contingency plans,” the former Bush official told me, “because there at least would have been a circle of people who knew what was possibly coming.”

    “If there’s no sense in the White House and legal team of what really happened [during the election],” Lockhart echoed, “you have to have maximum flexibility in your response.”

    Perhaps, he suggested, leaving it to Trump—and his Twitter feed—is the best way to accomplish that.

    And for now Trump’s allies, even those caught up in the investigation themselves, are fine with that. With this president, there’s “not really” a need for a plan, Roger Stone told me. “Trump holds all the cards.”

    Asked whether the White House had a plan in place for when Mueller closes in, the spokesman Hogan Gidley declined to comment. Link
    ______________

    Tick tock tick tock....

    I wouldn't put money on Trump himself getting into legal trouble when the report is released (gotta love that executive immunity) but I bet his borgata is gonna get gutted lol.
    Last edited by TopHatter; 07 Dec 18, at 00:34.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  12. #1947
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,127
    If this is the nadir of our times - and honestly I feel we have passed that with the US mid term elections - I will be content. I hope to bash a few more of Putin's idiots over the heads before we start actually getting Western leadership again.

  13. #1948
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    3,664
    I don't think I would put Giuliani on the same level, intellectually, with Mueller.

    Nothing like bringing a knife to the O-K Corral.

  14. #1949
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,521
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    I don't think I would put Giuliani on the same level, intellectually, with Mueller.

    Nothing like bringing a knife to the O-K Corral.
    Even if Rudy is as smart as Mueller, he is a prosecutor by profession with a fool for a client. A fool with the biggest soapbox in the world and an itchy twitter finger.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  15. #1950
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,815
    Rex Tillerson unloading on his old boss...lol. because "f*cking moron" wasn't enough!

    ====

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...llegal-things/

    “What was challenging for me coming from the disciplined, highly process-oriented Exxon Mobil corporation,” Tillerson said, was “to go to work for a man who is pretty undisciplined, doesn’t like to read, doesn’t read briefing reports, doesn’t like to get into the details of a lot of things, but rather just kind of says, ‘This is what I believe.’ ”...

    “He acts on his instincts; in some respects, that looks like impulsiveness,” Tillerson said. “But it’s not his intent to act on impulse. I think he really is trying to act on his instincts.”...

    “So often, the president would say, ‘Here’s what I want to do, and here’s how I want to do it,’ " Tillerson said, according to the Houston Chronicle, “and I would have to say to him, ‘Mr. President, I understand what you want to do, but you can’t do it that way. It violates the law.’ ”
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2017 American Political Scene
    By YellowFever in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 2571
    Last Post: 29 Dec 17,, 20:34
  2. Lotsa great American political news out there today...
    By Bluesman in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 27 Aug 10,, 20:00
  3. American political duplication between Riyadh and Israel
    By ahmed in forum International Politics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 29 Apr 07,, 22:06

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •