Another Bear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Classic fascist move. Self-inflicted political turmoil...START A WAR to flip the script. Sadly we'll see how much of a fascist.

Bannon and the chicken hawks nazis are jacking off to this right now.

---

My guess is that the public isn't going to buy it this time. Dubya used up this trick in Iraq, which is now widely viewed as a mistake.

---

Agree...the public likely won't buy it and even some GOP leadership would say no (the non idiot variety, which are becoming more rare.)

---

I'm skeptical of your claim.

The depths to which this current generation of GOP "leaders" will cave has amazed me, so I wouldn't put it beyond them at all.
They are not "leaders". They are lackeys.

Elect those willing to stand up, as you suggest: Jeff Flake, John Kasich, Bob Corker, John McCain - THEY have backbone.

Had McCain had this moment 10 years ago, he'd likely have become president.

Ryan isn't leaving because he got his tax cut, he's leaving because he won't be majority leader after '18 and the GOP are screwed for a generation or two. The GOP bought the farm on the Trump deal, the Mercers, the Koch Bros, the Wing Nuts, the Bible Humpers. They're done.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Trey Gowdy forever sacrificed whatever integrity he may have once had due to the corrupt politicization of his Clinton investigations. The phoniness of which was admitted to by Republican members of his committee and by the Podliska case.

A lot of Republicans are getting makeovers because they refuse to be part of team Trump. That doesn't eradicate their history of lies and corruption. Just because Republicans keep rolling out bigger jackasses doesn't mean the lesser jackasses are any less jackassy.

---

Interesting.
I never considered.
Can you provide a good summary of this "Podliska" case? Never heard of it.

---

It's amazing that the "liberal" media obsesses over every tiny little Clinton accusation for months-on-end, but barely covers matters that may exonerate them, to such an extent that nobody has ever heard of Podliska. Article below.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/benghazi-committee-settles-lawsuit-from-ex-investigator-who-alleged-wrongdoing/2016/12/19/c0a34d04-c21d-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.ca0d469fb170

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Ryan is an old-school corrupt politician. He is resigning now because after the tax cut for the wealthy he can now go to the private sector and receive his payback. His kids will be unbelievably wealthy thanks to him.

---

It seems to me that the tax cut on the corporate side was not out of line - we need to be competitive with rest of world to a degree. I'm not sure how far out of whack we were but capital is mobile, so....
Certainly there is an argument to be made that it should cost more to operate in this efficient and large market, but it can't cost too much more.

The problem with the tax bill that was passed is that it did not find offsetting revenue, and it relies too much on a growing economy to be the offset. It already was going to add $1T to the national debt, and if they are wrong about their growth projections, then it will be much larger than that. This increased debt merely punts the ball further down the road to our children and grandchildren and does not protect America's position as the only country that can print money (as it is THE reserve currency worldwide). Once that goes away, we are just like everyone else, and if we run our debt too high, that privilege will be lost forever. And that would be HORRIBLE.

So, the debt is playing with fire.

And Republicans have long stood for low debt levels, at least publicly. They ran on that this cycle, too. And yet, they did the OPPOSITE, which I find shameful.

I don't agree with your cynicism re Ryan's motivations. Sure, he'll get paid somehow. But I think he left not to get paid but because he knows his run in the race of politics was coming to a close. Better to step off while still appearing as a winner. Last gasps.

The Dems are going to end up controlling all 3 chambers, and then it will be very interesting to see what plans they can come up with. I'd love it if they could get the debt under control, but we are very likely going to have to suffer a decline in growth in order to do so. Better that, however, then the debt bubble pops. I do not believe that we can continue to prime the economy thru debt spending.

And look, the economy is always cyclical, and we have been on an up cycle for 10 years now, which is historically unprecedented. The Trump projections aside, I think we are overdue for contraction. And the longer that we artificially prop things up with debt spending, the worse the correction will be. Same thing we went thru last cycle.

---

I agree with most of what you write here however, in my opinion, we are not priming the economy through debt spending. We are undertaxing the wealthy, who use their fortunes to bid up capital markets, luxury real estate, and buy Treasury bonds. That does not stimulate the economy, it merely creates asset inflation and volatility that in the long-term destabilizes and weakens the economy. Deficit spending that primes the economy, in a Keynesian sense, would require getting money into the hands of less wealthy people.

iwantwinners said:

---

Shillary has loads of integrity I assume? I don't think there's one person who thinks Trump isn't a slimebag, including his supporters. Yet he triggers you. It's sad to see.

---

What's sad is that you acknowledge that your political leader is a slime bag but that doesn't trigger indignation in you. For such a cynic, you sure talk about principled beliefs a lot.

concordtom said:

---

the guy in the back right blew it by looking down at the water.

---

It's still a pretty amazing photograph. The one guy screwing up actually makes it more interesting.

concordtom said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Concord, I see you've had your mad as hell moment.

Seems like shiit is about to hit the fan with today's news. Trump's three minutes of comments about the "despicable" "break-in":

---

Yes, but now I'm having a happy as hell moment, as I listen to Paul Ryan announce that he's jumping ship. He has been emblematic of the sorry sack of GOP legislators who were against trump all during the primaries, and then, oh, when trump won, suddenly they lost their conviction on issues. No backbone.

Who is going to be left to fan back the flames of the anti-Trump sentiment?

Odds that trump completes his full 4-year term just dropped.

---

So I have a question for the politico-types. With 6 months to go before the midterms, did Paul Ryan hurt his party's chances of retaining his seat by waiting so long to do this? Or is that plenty of time in a safe district for the party machinery to do its thing?

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

bearister said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Shillary has loads of integrity I assume? .

---

If HRC lacks integrity and is corrupt why does she have the respect of people like Leon Panetta and Gen. Stanley McChrystal?
Do you have a list of names of people who have publicly stated Hillary lacks integrity and is corrupt? Do you have a list of supporting facts that provides evidence that Hillary lacks integrity and is corrupt? If so, please state those facts and your source (s).

---

Bearister,

I asked an open question on these boards - what is it, specifically, that causes the anti-Hillary crowd to believe she is corrupt or lacks integrity, at least by the standards of a high-level politician? One hears the accusation ("Shillary", lock her up, etc.) a lot. But the anti-Hillary crowd never details the facts to support the accusation. Is is that her husband was a philandering dawg who abused his power for sex? Is it the email thing? Benghazi? Uranium One? Did she do speeches for money on Wall Street? I got crickets. No one wants to engage on that subject. Should we conclude there are no good factual reasons to conclude she is corrupt? I honestly would like to know if and why I am supposed to despise her - something more substantive than a mindless chant led by Michael Flynn to lock her up (ironic, I know).

If the anti-Hillary crowd won't give their reasons, they should keep the accusation to themselves. It is by definition an unfounded accusation.

My gut feeling is that she is about average for a Democrat who has served or is serving in a high-level position. (Politics at a high level will involve a certain amount of sausage-making; that's just reality.). But I'm still open to hearing the Republican counterargument.

---

Hillary Clinton is probably not significantly more corrupt than any politician who has either been in major office or immediately adjacent (as Bill's wife) for as long as she has. Honestly, I think the biggest problem (beyond external issues like institutionalized sexism, Bill's philandering, etc.) is with how she responds to scandal. She kind of clams up and denies access, which allows the speculation to run wild. As bad as Trump is, he will just go on TV and rant about it for a while, so at least his supporters can convince themselves that he has "addressed" it and we should all just move on. Hillary gives you nothing.

concordtom said:

---

But if you are going to just root for your GOP team in the face of Trump's horrible persona just for the sake of "winning", I will rue that.

---

Liberals/Democrats did this very thing with Shillary. As are you, presumably.

Quote:

---

Republicans do not need to go down. Trump needs to go down, and those that can't distinguish between good policy and idiotic politics need to go down.

---

"right" policies depends on what ideology, values and priorities that inform them. What you think is idiotic strikes others (many others) as sensible, moral, and long overdue (e.g. immigration).

Quote:

---

Paul Ryan has thrown in the towel. Hallelujah. In the end, he cannot deny truth. Standing by the devil too long either taints you, or turns your stomach against you. Paul was starting to grow horns, but will be redeemed by the love he finds waiting for him back at home. The devil is alone.

---

You pretend Trump is related to Ryan's resignation based on nothing whatsover because it suits your narrative. Republicans in congress publicly support Trump but clearly do not like him and think he's bad for the party. They have no choice, they're stuck with him. Just as Democrats wouldn't publicly denounce Shillary for being a robotic, soulless, two-faced, lying career political pragmatist had she won the presidency. The Republican congress hasn't helped Trump at all advance his top priorities (e.g. immigration)

sycasey said:

---

Hillary Clinton is probably not significantly more corrupt than any politician who has either been in major office or immediately adjacent (as Bill's wife) for as long as she has. Honestly, I think the biggest problem (beyond external issues like institutionalized sexism, Bill's philandering, etc.) is with how she responds to scandal. She kind of clams up and denies access, which allows the speculation to run wild. As bad as Trump is, he will just go on TV and rant about it for a while, so at least his supporters can convince themselves that he has "addressed" it and we should all just move on. Hillary gives you nothing.

---

"Institutionalized sexism"?

Pretty much agreed on everything else. I will say Hillary is probably the most insincere politician in the modern era, this plays out in the citizenry's repeated criticism of her: she's unrelatable, almost inhuman (robotic). A pure political pragmatist who will attach herself to whatever will get her elected.

sycasey said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

bearister said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Shillary has loads of integrity I assume? .

---

If HRC lacks integrity and is corrupt why does she have the respect of people like Leon Panetta and Gen. Stanley McChrystal?
Do you have a list of names of people who have publicly stated Hillary lacks integrity and is corrupt? Do you have a list of supporting facts that provides evidence that Hillary lacks integrity and is corrupt? If so, please state those facts and your source (s).

---

Bearister,

I asked an open question on these boards - what is it, specifically, that causes the anti-Hillary crowd to believe she is corrupt or lacks integrity, at least by the standards of a high-level politician? One hears the accusation ("Shillary", lock her up, etc.) a lot. But the anti-Hillary crowd never details the facts to support the accusation. Is is that her husband was a philandering dawg who abused his power for sex? Is it the email thing? Benghazi? Uranium One? Did she do speeches for money on Wall Street? I got crickets. No one wants to engage on that subject. Should we conclude there are no good factual reasons to conclude she is corrupt? I honestly would like to know if and why I am supposed to despise her - something more substantive than a mindless chant led by Michael Flynn to lock her up (ironic, I know).

If the anti-Hillary crowd won't give their reasons, they should keep the accusation to themselves. It is by definition an unfounded accusation.

My gut feeling is that she is about average for a Democrat who has served or is serving in a high-level position. (Politics at a high level will involve a certain amount of sausage-making; that's just reality.). But I'm still open to hearing the Republican counterargument.

---

Hillary Clinton is probably not significantly more corrupt than any politician who has either been in major office or immediately adjacent (as Bill's wife) for as long as she has. Honestly, I think the biggest problem (beyond external issues like institutionalized sexism, Bill's philandering, etc.) is with how she responds to scandal. She kind of clams up and denies access, which allows the speculation to run wild. As bad as Trump is, he will just go on TV and rant about it for a while, so at least his supporters can convince themselves that he has "addressed" it and we should all just move on. Hillary gives you nothing.

---

Nice observation but I would like to point out that this is still not a substantive response as to why one should conclude she is corrupt and lacks integrity. You're basically saying she is bad at PR and let her opponents frame the debate, something her opponents tried very, very hard to do, to the point of concocting investigations they knew were a partisan, political sham.

iwantwinners said:

---

concordtom said:

---

But if you are going to just root for your GOP team in the face of Trump's horrible persona just for the sake of "winning", I will rue that.

---

Liberals/Democrats did this very thing with Shillary. As are you, presumably.

---

False equivalence. You are saying Trump's dishonesty, indecency and corruptness is in the same ballpark as Hillary's?

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

A source present at the taping says James Comey's interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, airing Sunday at 10 p.m. as a "20/20" special, is "going to shock the president and his team."

---

Thanks for the heads up.
I'm giddy.

---

I would have preferred the photo if it was of attractive participants in a Femen protest in the Ukraine.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Shillary has loads of integrity I assume? I don't think there's one person who thinks Trump isn't a slimebag, including his supporters. Yet he triggers you. It's sad to see.

---

What's sad is that you acknowledge that your political leader is a slime bag but that doesn't trigger indignation in you. For such a cynic, you sure talk about principled beliefs a lot.

---

"My political leader"? He's yours too. I think you meant "support". I still really don't know what that means. I support the things he does that I like, I don't support the things he does that I don't. He's not my child or family, so I don't ever feel compelled to blindly cheer for him and everything he does and stands for (I don't actually think I'd do that for a family member either, though). I roll my eyes and cringe at some of Trump's antics. But no, I'm not offended, or rife with indignation. That's better served for murderers, thieves, criminals, rapists, wife beaters (e.g. Stephon Clark). People actually and intentionally destroying lives, communities. In 16 months this guy has cut taxes. Jesus, the indignation you must feel.

You actually viewing being TRIGGERED as some sort of moral signpost says a LOT.

It's not Reverend Obama or Pastor Trump. Nobody (presumably) is selecting Trump to be a Godfather to their children. I agree with a few of his stated political priorities, I think his disdain for PC is a positive thing for culture, his unwillingness to acquiesce race baiting and class envy or the propagandist social movements built on lies of the last decade. His letting the poor and middle classes keep more of their money. Him calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat ugly pig.

Politicians of all stripes hated him in part because he was vulgar, divisive, ignorant and unpresidential, but it was also part jealousy: They hated the fact that this guy was winning while saying things they wanted to say, in a manner in which they wanted to say, but could never do it and keep their seats. They and their souls were bought and sold a long time ago and here is this guy saying whatever crazy s h i t comes out his mouth -- and winning primaries and elections. Just about every single Republican (and many Democrats) want to halt immigration in drastic ways, to make America more like an employer or a university where it only accepts those that benefit the country and the citizens already here (including legal immigrants) rather than filling quotas and taking on the destitute illiterates of other countries. But it's a political hot potato that neither party wants to touch it. If they can avoid it, they will.

The rest I can do without.

iwantwinners said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Hillary Clinton is probably not significantly more corrupt than any politician who has either been in major office or immediately adjacent (as Bill's wife) for as long as she has. Honestly, I think the biggest problem (beyond external issues like institutionalized sexism, Bill's philandering, etc.) is with how she responds to scandal. She kind of clams up and denies access, which allows the speculation to run wild. As bad as Trump is, he will just go on TV and rant about it for a while, so at least his supporters can convince themselves that he has "addressed" it and we should all just move on. Hillary gives you nothing.

---

"Institutionalized sexism"?

Pretty much agreed on everything else. I will say Hillary is probably the most insincere politician in the modern era, this plays out in the citizenry's repeated criticism of her: she's unrelatable, almost inhuman (robotic). A pure political pragmatist who will attach herself to whatever will get her elected.

---

More insincere than Trump, who lied on the campaign trail about nearly every single thing other than wanting a wall? More insincere than McConnell? Ryan? The guys who just increased the deficit by a gajillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future (probably two gajillion once the economy inevitably turns south)? The family values guys who are caught in bed with crack smoking male prostitutes? The ones eager to impeach a Democratic president over sexual picadillos but actively thwart investigations into attempts to collude with Russia?

And who is this "citizenry" you mention? The majority of voters in Nov 2016 that voted for HRC?

You state conclusions without evidence. At least provide some examples. Otherwise it just sounds like Republican propaganda. To use your turn of phrase: "You pretend Trump is related to Ryan's resignation Hillary is the most politically dishonest politician in the modern era based on nothing whatsover because it suits your narrative."

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

Nice observation but I would like to point out that this is still not a substantive response as to why one should conclude she is corrupt and lacks integrity. You're basically saying she is bad at PR and let her opponents frame the debate, something her opponents tried very, very hard to do, to the point of concocting investigations they knew were a partisan, political sham.

---

Well, I already stated that I don't think she actually is corrupt (or at least no more than the average politician). Just trying to explain the phenomenon of people thinking she is despite a lack of solid evidence.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

More insincere than Trump, who lied on the campaign trail about nearly every single thing other than wanting a wall? More insincere than McConnell? Ryan? The guys who just increased the deficit by a gajillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future (probably two gajillion once the economy inevitably turns south)? The family values guys who are caught in bed with crack smoking male prostitutes? The ones eager to impeach a Democratic president over sexual picadillos but actively thwart investigations into attempts to collude with Russia?

And who is this "citizenry" you mention? The majority of voters in Nov 2016 that voted for HRC?

You state conclusions without evidence. At least provide some examples. Otherwise it just sounds like Republican propaganda. To use your turn of phrase: "You pretend Trump is related to Ryan's resignation Hillary is the most politically dishonest politician in the modern era based on nothing whatsover because it suits your narrative."

---

I'd enjoy this much more if you would not engage in cheerleading. Hillary has clinged on to her husband and the poltical evolutions (or devolutions in some respect) of her positions over the decades. I think she is more presidential than Trump, but not more sincere.

Regardless, it doesn't matter to me in the grand scheme. If Hillary espoused political positions I supported more than her opponent, I'd prefer her to her opponent. It's that simple. It doesn't so much matter whether she lied or ate babies....voting or "supporting" someone does not confer all of that candidates thoughts, ideas, ideologies onto you. You do not carry the burden of everything that person does.

iwantwinners said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Shillary has loads of integrity I assume? I don't think there's one person who thinks Trump isn't a slimebag, including his supporters. Yet he triggers you. It's sad to see.

---

What's sad is that you acknowledge that your political leader is a slime bag but that doesn't trigger indignation in you. For such a cynic, you sure talk about principled beliefs a lot.

---

"My political leader"? He's yours too. I think you meant "support". I still really don't know what that means. I support the things he does that I like, I don't support the things he does that I don't. He's not my child or family, so I don't ever feel compelled to blindly cheer for him and everything he does and stands for (I don't actually think I'd do that for a family member either, though). I roll my eyes and cringe at some of Trump's antics. But no, I'm not offended, or rife with indignation. That's better served for murderers, thieves, criminals, rapists, wife beaters (e.g. Stephon Clark). People actually and intentionally destroying lives, communities. In 16 months this guy has cut taxes. Jesus, the indignation you must feel.

You actually viewing being TRIGGERED as some sort of moral signpost says a LOT.

It's not Reverend Obama or Pastor Trump. Nobody (presumably) is selecting Trump to be a Godfather to their children. I agree with a few of his stated political priorities, I think his disdain for PC is a positive thing for culture, his unwillingness to acquiesce race baiting and class envy or the propagandist social movements built on lies of the last decade. His letting the poor and middle classes keep more of their money. Him calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat ugly pig.

Politicians of all stripes hated him in part because he was vulgar, divisive, ignorant and unpresidential, but it was also part jealousy: They hated the fact that this guy was winning while saying things they wanted to say, in a manner in which they wanted to say, but could never do it and keep their seats. They and their souls were bought and sold a long time ago and here is this guy saying whatever crazy s h i t comes out his mouth -- and winning primaries and elections. Just about every single Republican (and many Democrats) want to halt immigration in drastic ways, to make America more like an employer or a university where it only accepts those that benefit the country and the citizens already here (including legal immigrants) rather than filling quotas and taking on the destitute illiterates of other countries. But it's a political hot potato that neither party wants to touch it. If they can avoid it, they will.

The rest I can do without.

---

So you agree he's a slime bag but he is doing what you want:

1. Improving race relations and class envy (ha)
2. Cutting taxes ever so minutely for the middle class (with huge ones for corporations and the wealthy, all to come at the expense of taxpaying generations to come)
3. Saying whatever comes to mind, PC be damned, because PC is itself the enemy, never mind whether it is substantively good or bad in any particular instance.
4. Reform immigration to a merit based system, and deport those here illegally.

Did I miss anything you stated?

And you disagree at some level with everything else he does but are willing to look past it given the above.

That's why you support Trump? I don't want to put words in your mouth here.

iwantwinners said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

More insincere than Trump, who lied on the campaign trail about nearly every single thing other than wanting a wall? More insincere than McConnell? Ryan? The guys who just increased the deficit by a gajillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future (probably two gajillion once the economy inevitably turns south)? The family values guys who are caught in bed with crack smoking male prostitutes? The ones eager to impeach a Democratic president over sexual picadillos but actively thwart investigations into attempts to collude with Russia?

And who is this "citizenry" you mention? The majority of voters in Nov 2016 that voted for HRC?

You state conclusions without evidence. At least provide some examples. Otherwise it just sounds like Republican propaganda. To use your turn of phrase: "You pretend Trump is related to Ryan's resignation Hillary is the most politically dishonest politician in the modern era based on nothing whatsover because it suits your narrative."

---

I'd enjoy this much more if you would not engage in cheerleading. Hillary has clinged on to her husband and the poltical evolutions (or devolutions in some respect) of her positions over the decades. I think she is more presidential than Trump, but not more sincere.

Regardless, it doesn't matter to me in the grand scheme. If Hillary espoused political positions I supported more than her opponent, I'd prefer her to her opponent. It's that simple. It doesn't so much matter whether she lied or ate babies....voting or "supporting" someone does not confer all of that candidates thoughts, ideas, ideologies onto you. You do not carry the burden of everything that person does.

---

Then why keep bringing up her sincerity, honesty, integrity, etc.? Doing so belies your statement above.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Shillary has loads of integrity I assume? I don't think there's one person who thinks Trump isn't a slimebag, including his supporters. Yet he triggers you. It's sad to see.

---

What's sad is that you acknowledge that your political leader is a slime bag but that doesn't trigger indignation in you. For such a cynic, you sure talk about principled beliefs a lot.

---

"My political leader"? He's yours too. I think you meant "support". I still really don't know what that means. I support the things he does that I like, I don't support the things he does that I don't. He's not my child or family, so I don't ever feel compelled to blindly cheer for him and everything he does and stands for (I don't actually think I'd do that for a family member either, though). I roll my eyes and cringe at some of Trump's antics. But no, I'm not offended, or rife with indignation. That's better served for murderers, thieves, criminals, rapists, wife beaters (e.g. Stephon Clark). People actually and intentionally destroying lives, communities. In 16 months this guy has cut taxes. Jesus, the indignation you must feel.

You actually viewing being TRIGGERED as some sort of moral signpost says a LOT.

It's not Reverend Obama or Pastor Trump. Nobody (presumably) is selecting Trump to be a Godfather to their children. I agree with a few of his stated political priorities, I think his disdain for PC is a positive thing for culture, his unwillingness to acquiesce race baiting and class envy or the propagandist social movements built on lies of the last decade. His letting the poor and middle classes keep more of their money. Him calling Rosie O'Donnell a fat ugly pig.

Politicians of all stripes hated him in part because he was vulgar, divisive, ignorant and unpresidential, but it was also part jealousy: They hated the fact that this guy was winning while saying things they wanted to say, in a manner in which they wanted to say, but could never do it and keep their seats. They and their souls were bought and sold a long time ago and here is this guy saying whatever crazy s h i t comes out his mouth -- and winning primaries and elections. Just about every single Republican (and many Democrats) want to halt immigration in drastic ways, to make America more like an employer or a university where it only accepts those that benefit the country and the citizens already here (including legal immigrants) rather than filling quotas and taking on the destitute illiterates of other countries. But it's a political hot potato that neither party wants to touch it. If they can avoid it, they will.

The rest I can do without.

---

So you agree he's a slime bag but he is doing what you want:

1. Improving race relations and class envy (ha)
2. Cutting taxes ever so minutely for the middle class (with huge ones for corporations and the wealthy, all to come at the expense of taxpaying generations to come)
3. Saying whatever comes to mind, PC be damned, because PC is itself the enemy, never mind whether it is substantively good or bad in any particular instance.
4. Reform immigration to a merit based system, and deport those here illegally.

Did I miss anything you stated?

And you disagree at some level with everything else he does but are willing to look past it given the above.

That's why you support Trump? I don't want to put words in your mouth here.

---

I support some of the things Trump does and/or wants to do.

I never said he is imporving race relations. Not sure anybody can when the media and leftist mob are ALL IN on racial and class conflict. Obama did acquiesce propaganda social movements (in some ways he outright endorsed them) and the conflict rose under his administration.

No, I'd prefer the middle class cuts be larger in % than the corporate tax rate.

No, I never said saying whatever comes to mind is good, but I do appreciate his candidness -- some of it is harsh but true, others are just cringeworthy.

Yes on immigration. The quota (let's take X amount from this [3rd world] country this year, just because) and a meritless based system has no legitimate policy defense -- be it economical, social, or moral. Support of it devolves into "they're people too!", more or less broadcasting one's moral blindness at the hands of irrational empathy that obliterates the costs and benefits of all other parties.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

More insincere than Trump, who lied on the campaign trail about nearly every single thing other than wanting a wall? More insincere than McConnell? Ryan? The guys who just increased the deficit by a gajillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future (probably two gajillion once the economy inevitably turns south)? The family values guys who are caught in bed with crack smoking male prostitutes? The ones eager to impeach a Democratic president over sexual picadillos but actively thwart investigations into attempts to collude with Russia?

And who is this "citizenry" you mention? The majority of voters in Nov 2016 that voted for HRC?

You state conclusions without evidence. At least provide some examples. Otherwise it just sounds like Republican propaganda. To use your turn of phrase: "You pretend Trump is related to Ryan's resignation Hillary is the most politically dishonest politician in the modern era based on nothing whatsover because it suits your narrative."

---

I'd enjoy this much more if you would not engage in cheerleading. Hillary has clinged on to her husband and the poltical evolutions (or devolutions in some respect) of her positions over the decades. I think she is more presidential than Trump, but not more sincere.

Regardless, it doesn't matter to me in the grand scheme. If Hillary espoused political positions I supported more than her opponent, I'd prefer her to her opponent. It's that simple. It doesn't so much matter whether she lied or ate babies....voting or "supporting" someone does not confer all of that candidates thoughts, ideas, ideologies onto you. You do not carry the burden of everything that person does.

---

Then why keep bringing up her sincerity, honesty, integrity, etc.? Doing so belies your statement above.

---

to point out that you guys are full of s h i t. To illuminate the double standard, double-speak, feigned outrage disguised as principled ethics

iwantwinners said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

More insincere than Trump, who lied on the campaign trail about nearly every single thing other than wanting a wall? More insincere than McConnell? Ryan? The guys who just increased the deficit by a gajillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future (probably two gajillion once the economy inevitably turns south)? The family values guys who are caught in bed with crack smoking male prostitutes? The ones eager to impeach a Democratic president over sexual picadillos but actively thwart investigations into attempts to collude with Russia?

And who is this "citizenry" you mention? The majority of voters in Nov 2016 that voted for HRC?

You state conclusions without evidence. At least provide some examples. Otherwise it just sounds like Republican propaganda. To use your turn of phrase: "You pretend Trump is related to Ryan's resignation Hillary is the most politically dishonest politician in the modern era based on nothing whatsover because it suits your narrative."

---

I'd enjoy this much more if you would not engage in cheerleading. Hillary has clinged on to her husband and the poltical evolutions (or devolutions in some respect) of her positions over the decades. I think she is more presidential than Trump, but not more sincere.

Regardless, it doesn't matter to me in the grand scheme. If Hillary espoused political positions I supported more than her opponent, I'd prefer her to her opponent. It's that simple. It doesn't so much matter whether she lied or ate babies....voting or "supporting" someone does not confer all of that candidates thoughts, ideas, ideologies onto you. You do not carry the burden of everything that person does.

---

Then why keep bringing up her sincerity, honesty, integrity, etc.? Doing so belies your statement above.

---

to point out that you guys are full of s h i t. To illuminate the double standard, double-speak, feigned outrage disguised as principled ethics

---

It's not a double standard if
1. One has a standard.
2. HRC meets that standard
3. DJT falls below that standard.

It's a single standard!

You seem to ascribe to the false belief that HRC and DJT have equivalently bad characters. But what if we made a list of all the "bad character" stuff they have each demonstrably said and done? I'm not even talking about legit policy stuff like tax cuts and immigration, because reasonable people can disagree on what is best for the nation. We would just list the "character" stuff like lying, cheating, racism, sexual assault - you know, basic standards of human decency. Do you really think the two lists would look similar?

I agree that if HRC and DJT had equally bad character, the anti-trumpers could be legitimately accused of a double standard, feigned outrage -- all your cute talking points. But the premise fails; they are not equally bad. One is far, far worse than the other. The two lists just wouldn't be anywhere near the same.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Classic fascist move. Self-inflicted political turmoil...START A WAR to flip the script. Sadly we'll see how much of a fascist.

Bannon and the chicken hawks nazis are jacking off to this right now.

---

My guess is that the public isn't going to buy it this time. Dubya used up this trick in Iraq, which is now widely viewed as a mistake.

---

Agree...the public likely won't buy it and even some GOP leadership would say no (the non idiot variety, which are becoming more rare.)

---

I'm skeptical of your claim.

The depths to which this current generation of GOP "leaders" will cave has amazed me, so I wouldn't put it beyond them at all.
They are not "leaders". They are lackeys.

Elect those willing to stand up, as you suggest: Jeff Flake, John Kasich, Bob Corker, John McCain - THEY have backbone.

Had McCain had this moment 10 years ago, he'd likely have become president.

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

The poor people of Syria are soon to pay for success of the Mueller investigation.

---

The poor people of Syria have been paying since 2011- nothing can be worse.

---

Well, of course I knew that when I wrote it, but every little bit of pain is every little bit of pain.
I wouldn't put it past Trump to provoke something MUCH wider than just Syria in order to stay in power.
He'd probably covertly stage something in concert with Putin in order to make it look real, while the leaders know that they are just posturing.

It's dishonest to claim you actually care about who is more "rotten". I don't think you should care, I just think it's tedious and laborious to claim that you do. Your (not necessarily YOU, rather everyone's generally) grievance are partisan in nature -- i.e. they are masturbated too ad nauseam because they despise his politics (you despise his character too, but that's not why you care to criticize) while they pretend this is a character issue -- i.e. "I'm against him because I'm a good person, to not despise him is to be morally abhorrent".

This bleeds into the few policy discussions on here because there is already a demonstrated willingness to be partisan not principled. The evidence for this is this entire section of the board for months and months.

I've already conceded I get it, which is to say I sympathize (as oppose to empathize) with the dilemma here. It's hard to lose when you're so passionate and your certitude is so absolute. 11/8/16 was and is, in no exaggerated sense, a trauma of sorts evidenced by the content on this board. People are not of their right mind when working through the 7 stages of grief, they are not speaking to their own (or others') "better angels".

dajo9 said:

---

I agree with most of what you write here however, in my opinion, we are not priming the economy through debt spending. We are undertaxing the wealthy, who use their fortunes to bid up capital markets, luxury real estate, and buy Treasury bonds. That does not stimulate the economy, it merely creates asset inflation and volatility that in the long-term destabilizes and weakens the economy. Deficit spending that primes the economy, in a Keynesian sense, would require getting money into the hands of less wealthy people.

---

Okay, well, I'm totally down with having a sound economic discussion on all this - all I know is that it's out of whack!

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

bearister said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Shillary has loads of integrity I assume? .

---

If HRC lacks integrity and is corrupt why does she have the respect of people like Leon Panetta and Gen. Stanley McChrystal?
Do you have a list of names of people who have publicly stated Hillary lacks integrity and is corrupt? Do you have a list of supporting facts that provides evidence that Hillary lacks integrity and is corrupt? If so, please state those facts and your source (s).

---

Bearister,

I asked an open question on these boards - what is it, specifically, that causes the anti-Hillary crowd to believe she is corrupt or lacks integrity, at least by the standards of a high-level politician? One hears the accusation ("Shillary", lock her up, etc.) a lot. But the anti-Hillary crowd never details the facts to support the accusation. Is is that her husband was a philandering dawg who abused his power for sex? Is it the email thing? Benghazi? Uranium One? Did she do speeches for money on Wall Street? I got crickets. No one wants to engage on that subject. Should we conclude there are no good factual reasons to conclude she is corrupt? I honestly would like to know if and why I am supposed to despise her - something more substantive than a mindless chant led by Michael Flynn to lock her up (ironic, I know).

If the anti-Hillary crowd won't give their reasons, they should keep the accusation to themselves. It is by definition an unfounded accusation.

My gut feeling is that she is about average for a Democrat who has served or is serving in a high-level position. (Politics at a high level will involve a certain amount of sausage-making; that's just reality.). But I'm still open to hearing the Republican counterargument.

---

Lol.
Right on, brother.

My brother, not at all intelligent on these matters (no, seriously) was like "oh my god, she's a criminal". But he knows nothing in terms of Why.

Someone else I know said that we gave Iran a bunch of money with the Nukes deal.

Uh, NO. We allowed the return of money of theirs which we had previously held up as sanctions against them. It was locked in some bank somewhere, and since they came back to the table and negotiated nukes with us, we then used that as bargaining leverage to get as good a deal as the negotiators felt they could get. (As Obama admitted, we couldn't stop them forever unless we invade their country.

I still don't know about the Benghazi thing. Someone did not fulfill the request for more security?

And what was in the emails that I should be so bothered about? I know they got stolen?
Oh, that she had a server that could be hacked?
Hmmmm. High crimes.

No wonder she wanted a private server. She knew everyone would try and hack her - AND THEY DID!
(fail!)

But, again, why are we even discussing Hillary.
It's not about her anymore.
It's about the idiot Trump and why he should not be our President.
Discussing Hillary just buys Trump more time - adds to the confusion, which he is a master of.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

So I have a question for the politico-types. With 6 months to go before the midterms, did Paul Ryan hurt his party's chances of retaining his seat by waiting so long to do this? Or is that plenty of time in a safe district for the party machinery to do its thing?

---

Who cares?
As long as Trump is gone.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

the guy in the back right blew it by looking down at the water.

---

It's still a pretty amazing photograph. The one guy screwing up actually makes it more interesting.

---

Right.
That's why I posted it.
Pretty good stunt by some guys having fun!

sycasey said:

---

Hillary Clinton is probably not significantly more corrupt than any politician who has either been in major office or immediately adjacent (as Bill's wife) for as long as she has. Honestly, I think the biggest problem (beyond external issues like institutionalized sexism, Bill's philandering, etc.) is with how she responds to scandal. She kind of clams up and denies access, which allows the speculation to run wild. As bad as Trump is, he will just go on TV and rant about it for a while, so at least his supporters can convince themselves that he has "addressed" it and we should all just move on. Hillary gives you nothing.

---

Fair.
It's like an athlete that has that IT factor.
She is lacking the final finishing touch.
Smart as heck. Capable. But not quite there.
That said, Trump made it across the finish line and he is a goddam wreck, so that would disprove the theory.

concordtom said:

---

Had McCain had this moment 10 years ago, he'd likely have become president.

---

I doubt any Republican was going to beat Obama in 2008, especially given the economic crash and how badly Bush's popularity had cratered. Just a bad year for him to have gotten the nomination.

concordtom said:

---

Fair.
It's like an athlete that has that IT factor.
She is lacking the final finishing touch.
Smart as heck. Capable. But not quite there.
That said, Trump made it across the finish line and he is a goddam wreck, so that would disprove the theory.

---

2016 featured two not-so-great candidates. Both had negative favorability in polling.

iwantwinners said:

---

concordtom said:

---

But if you are going to just root for your GOP team in the face of Trump's horrible persona just for the sake of "winning", I will rue that.

---

Liberals/Democrats did this very thing with Shillary. As are you, presumably.

Quote:

---

Republicans do not need to go down. Trump needs to go down, and those that can't distinguish between good policy and idiotic politics need to go down.

---

"right" policies depends on what ideology, values and priorities that inform them. What you think is idiotic strikes others (many others) as sensible, moral, and long overdue (e.g. immigration).

Quote:

---

Paul Ryan has thrown in the towel. Hallelujah. In the end, he cannot deny truth. Standing by the devil too long either taints you, or turns your stomach against you. Paul was starting to grow horns, but will be redeemed by the love he finds waiting for him back at home. The devil is alone.

---

You pretend Trump is related to Ryan's resignation based on nothing whatsover because it suits your narrative. Republicans in congress publicly support Trump but clearly do not like him and think he's bad for the party. They have no choice, they're stuck with him. Just as Democrats wouldn't publicly denounce Shillary for being a robotic, soulless, two-faced, lying career political pragmatist had she won the presidency. The Republican congress hasn't helped Trump at all advance his top priorities (e.g. immigration)

---

1. I am not rooting for "my side" to win. I have voted for Presidents in the Republican party, the Democrat party, and a 3rd party. I have been registered Republican and Independent, yet worked for a Democrat in Dirksen Senate Building. You are mistaken, buddy.

2. Absolutely "right" policies depend on ideology. You are correct. But I never said anything about immigration, for the record, and by you're saying that I cannot tell what policy you'd espouse there.

3. Yes, I DO think that Ryan's departure is do to Trump's base falling apart. That IS the narrative I'm going with today, and think it will be the narrative that goes down in history.

But wait a minute... Republicans ABSOLUTELY have had a choice about Trump. You say they didn't have a choice? You are so wrong.

4. Please detail for me how Hillary is:
robotic - why does this matter?
soulless - matters, but how has she exhibited this?
two-faced - please expand with supporting evidence.
lying - same as above, so never mind. Redundant.
career political pragmatist - Is this a bad thing?

The Republican congress has absolutely helped Trump advance many of his priorities. They've had plenty of choices along the way. They are beholden to their party. The two-party system sucks. Too much power at the top creates too many lemmings. Not what the founding fathers had in mind.