I'm praying that his syphillis incapacitates him in short order. He's already in that crazy phase.
NYCGOBEARS said:
I'm praying that his syphillis incapacitates him in short order. He's already in that crazy phase.
For some time, the SEC and Justice have allowed corporations to pay large fines in order to avoid criminal prosecutions of executives. Great for executives, great for the government's pocket book, great for the prosecutor's reputation and lousy for shareholders.dajo9 said:
If Trump has dirt on Kennedy's son (which based on media reporting, is very believable) then it wouldn't be hard at all for Trump to force a retirement on Kennedy.
In the long view, a big lesson from this ordeal will be that white collar crimes have to be prosecuted. They used to be, but somewhere along the way we began glorifying CEO's and other white collar types and catering to them. That has only emboldened white collar criminals, such as the type that destroyed our economy a decade ago and are now criminally running the country.
Generally yes, and always yes when it comes to financial companies. Some companies have faced shakedowns for being on the wrong side politically, especially by state governments.dajo9 said:
You forgot to say lousy for America
The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world. Our dog group marched in two local July 4 parades yesterday, one in WLA and one in Orange County, where everyone now seems to dress their young kids in shirts that say things like "United States means United Families", "Build the Wall", " We preach tolerance" and "Laws matter" among others. Its nice to see young children now being used as political props. (Sarcasm). You can probably guess at which parade we saw which shirt.Another Bear said:
This is true. She ignored the Rust Belt, and they went for Trump...even if he had Russkie help.
It's like Sonny Dykes not playing D..you're giving it away and will have limited success if you don't cover major components.
Yes, HRC was a flawed candidate, a corporate Dem. But she would have made a fair better POTUS. We woudln't be in the current clusterfcck if she were in. But that's an IF.
or you work for the Chronicle.Another Bear said:
MSNBC and CNN fact-check. That right there is a big deal. Yes both have an editorial bends (like Fox) but using fact-checking is a big step in transparency and an on-the-level discussion. If you use facts, a debate or conversation has value. If you're not fact-checking and simply making stuff up, there is no value except to propagandist.
I'm not sure I understand all this, but the point I tied to make is that this country is now been reduced the level of Italian politics and remain deeply divided. Obama was stifled (frustrated?) by checks and balances, and while IMO he brought some level of international stability by simply withdrawing or capitulation (a good read is Obama's aide's book "The World as It Is") to international limitations, on domestic affairs, he basically overturned numerous executive policies or took on new initiatives that failed legislatively, and I suspect will ultimately tank. Now we have someone who sees no boundaries on either the international or domestic front. So yes, I will take stability. I guess the last businessman to run the country was Jimmy Carter. Enough said. Good luck to the Italians.Another Bear said:
I agree Clinton and Romney types provide stability...but the question is for who and at what expense. Once the SCOTUS said corporations are individuals and people, and the mortgage derivatives scandal happened...I believe it's fair to question the stability, and for who, and if that kind of stability is sustainable because it sure doesn't look like it. Lucky for the bankers, Obama trusted his Ivy League buds on giving them a pass. They got away scot free. I understand his logic, it was a waste of time and the priority was economic recovery. The fall out however is still coming.
Yeah...stability, Obama brought it, but I guess he doesn't count. The conversatives hated him mostly because of race. That's much of the impetus behind Trump's roll backs...that and destroying government. Stability except you know...white supremacy.
Trump is the natural extension of the corporate angle gone amok, as in we want everything to tilt further right. A BUSSINESS MAN IS RUNNING COUNTRY, as so many conservatives wanted. I believe the coming trade war with China, Canada and Europe will sour many people. It is going to hurt like a motherfccker.
As for OC, I was born in Hoag, raised down there and went to school with John Wayne's grandchildren. I have a good idea what's going on down there. OC is changing...it's going to turn blue. What will flip it is Trump crapping on the economy, and that process has begun in earnest. South county should consider joining SD, but it might not matter. What is really ironic of course is OC is a traditional Cold War GOP base...and Trump is sucking off the Russkies. It will be interesting to see how that plays when Mueller drops the hammer.
Well, they don't see well then. The economy is the same as under Obama's 2nd term except with increasing deficits, immigrant levels are very low historically and the business complaint is of a worker shortage, and Trump is going around saluting North Korean generals and cozying up to Putin and every other two-bit dictator around the world.wifeisafurd said:The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world.Another Bear said:
This is true. She ignored the Rust Belt, and they went for Trump...even if he had Russkie help.
It's like Sonny Dykes not playing D..you're giving it away and will have limited success if you don't cover major components.
Yes, HRC was a flawed candidate, a corporate Dem. But she would have made a fair better POTUS. We woudln't be in the current clusterfcck if she were in. But that's an IF.
We see the world vastly different, but then again, I have to take on personal risk in what I do.dajo9 said:Well, they don't see well then. The economy is the same as under Obama's 2nd term except with increasing deficits, immigrant levels are very low historically and the business complaint is of a worker shortage, and Trump is going around saluting North Korean generals and cozying up to Putin and every other two-bit dictator around the world.wifeisafurd said:
The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world.
But I'm glad you are enjoying your tax cuts and don't have to see that woman on tv when you look up Presidential news, wiaf
In my view, nobody who voted for Trump gets a pass. Certainly not a person like you, who is viewed by many as a leader. Your vote is more important than just one vote - and it went towards the person who represents base vulgarity and a rejection of the norms of democracy, which was plain to see during the election. You don't get a pass for being in California.wifeisafurd said:We see the world vastly different, but then again, I have to take on personal risk in what I do.dajo9 said:Well, they don't see well then. The economy is the same as under Obama's 2nd term except with increasing deficits, immigrant levels are very low historically and the business complaint is of a worker shortage, and Trump is going around saluting North Korean generals and cozying up to Putin and every other two-bit dictator around the world.wifeisafurd said:
The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world.
But I'm glad you are enjoying your tax cuts and don't have to see that woman on tv when you look up Presidential news, wiaf
You failed to visualize the failure of Clinton's diplomatic efforts and failed analysis, which left Obama in the position of diplomatic policy by missile (reflecting Clinton's hawkishness) and then after she left with simply "do no harm" as Obama aides now bemoan publicly. You seem to conveniently forget that Clinton's primary appeal was inevitability and that she will be our first woman president. Her policies were intentionally vague, and her primary focus seems on indentity politics. Symbols aside, the more important question rests with how her economic policies would affect the lives of business and the working, and other thant a tax increase she could never get though Congress, she had nothing specific to offer. You forget she was as divisive and unpopular as Trump, even in her own party, and it certainly left those of us conservative on business matters, but socially liberal, with no real choice. I went with my business view, thinking she would be absent on the economy, and from that sense I was probably correct. She wasn't one for compromise and we likely would still be in sequester.
As for the economy, I could not disagree more. Tax cuts and agreed upon spending increases with Democrats have stimulated the economy, so much so that FED is worried about the economy being overheated. The malaise of the Obama economy is gone, capital has returned to the market, wages are starting to rise, rents are rising, and shortages are starting to appear. I look forward to enjoying my tax cuts (when you get rents, you don't see less withholding) and I have developed and spent, creating jobs.
What I didn't foresee is a President who seems off the rails. I assumed, incorrectly, that a guy who ran a large business would know how to handle employees and avoid massive turnover, and would hire somebody to handle foreign affairs. Wrong on both accounts. (BTW, I agree with the overtures to North Korea). I think Clinton would have made a better administrator than Trump, and in retrospect, would have been a better manager as President. Go figure.
I voted in California, so while in your self-rightousness, you constantly and bitterly blame me for Trump, my vote didn't matter.
wifeisafurd said:We see the world vastly different, but then again, I have to take on personal risk in what I do.dajo9 said:Well, they don't see well then. The economy is the same as under Obama's 2nd term except with increasing deficits, immigrant levels are very low historically and the business complaint is of a worker shortage, and Trump is going around saluting North Korean generals and cozying up to Putin and every other two-bit dictator around the world.wifeisafurd said:
The two tribe world of US voters, the other tribe just see's the strong economy, a wave of immigrants overwhelming the US taking jobs and dropping wages, and someone finally standing up to those other countries around the world.
But I'm glad you are enjoying your tax cuts and don't have to see that woman on tv when you look up Presidential news, wiaf
You failed to visualize the failure of Clinton's diplomatic efforts and failed analysis, which left Obama in the position of diplomatic policy by missile (reflecting Clinton's hawkishness) and then after she left with simply "do no harm" as Obama aides now bemoan publicly. You seem to conveniently forget that Clinton's primary appeal was inevitability and that she will be our first woman president. Her policies were intentionally vague, and her primary focus seems on indentity politics. Symbols aside, the more important question rests with how her economic policies would affect the lives of business and the working, and other thant a tax increase she could never get though Congress, she had nothing specific to offer. You forget she was as divisive and unpopular as Trump, even in her own party, and it certainly left those of us conservative on business matters, but socially liberal, with no real choice. I went with my business view, thinking she would be absent on the economy, and from that sense I was probably correct. She wasn't one for compromise and we likely would still be in sequester.
As for the economy, I could not disagree more. Tax cuts and agreed upon spending increases with Democrats have stimulated the economy, so much so that FED is worried about the economy being overheated. The malaise of the Obama economy is gone, capital has returned to the market, wages are starting to rise, rents are rising, and shortages are starting to appear. I look forward to enjoying my tax cuts (when you get rents, you don't see less withholding) and I have developed and spent, creating jobs.
What I didn't foresee is a President who seems off the rails. I assumed, incorrectly, that a guy who ran a large business would know how to handle employees and avoid massive turnover, and would hire somebody to handle foreign affairs. Wrong on both accounts. (BTW, I agree with the overtures to North Korea). I think Clinton would have made a better administrator than Trump, and in retrospect, would have been a better manager as President. Go figure.
I voted in California, so while in your self-rightousness, you constantly and bitterly blame me for Trump, my vote didn't matter.
Across the globe we are creating divisions with our democratic allies and cozying up to dictators. Some of you have to get out of your left-right modal thinking and take a look at what's going on.Anarchistbear said:
The major difference between Trump and Obama foreign policy is that our current foreign policy is run out of Tel Aviv. There's been a massive tilt to Israel and Saudi Arabia and move away from engagement with Iran and towards confrontation. War clouds are gathering.
The malaise of the Obama economy was related to the republican insistence on not providing sufficient stimulation. Now that we don't really need it but the republicans can take credit for it, they are pumping in additional stimulus (as they always do) in a last-ditch move by baby boomers to supercharge their retirement earnings. Of course all of this was entirely predictable but the idea that Trump should get credit for doing what Obama wanted to do but Republicans in congress forbid, is pure sophistry. Of course, sophistry is just a euphemism for how Trump and his cronies are defending what he's doing to this country.wifeisafurd said:
As for the economy, I could not disagree more. Tax cuts and agreed upon spending increases with Democrats have stimulated the economy, so much so that FED is worried about the economy being overheated. The malaise of the Obama economy is gone, capital has returned to the market, wages are starting to rise, rents are rising, and shortages are starting to appear. I look forward to enjoying my tax cuts (when you get rents, you don't see less withholding) and I have developed and spent, creating jobs.
Anarchistbear said:
Obama was a disaster. Let the bankers go free with no prosecutions, no investigation into the Iraq War, adopt a Republican health care plan and call it reform, nothing on immigration, nothing on tax reform, puny stimulus negotiated with Republicans, expansion of the security state. He was a sheep in sheep's clothing. He spent the first year "reaching across the aisle" but mostly shaking hands with his own overflated imaginary self.
Clinton with a Republican Congress would be another disaster, more going sideways while touting progress because we've increased the number of trans gender marines by 3%. She'd also be a foreign policy disaster having never met a war she didnt like. And it's likely she'd be a one term President after 12 years of Democrats, which means another four years of misery
The good news is we've gotten rid of Obama and Clinton and Bushes and in four years we may get a real reformer not another corporate *****.
Your prior post was a good laugh.Another Bear said:
The tax cut was good for corporations and shareholders and that's it.
Tax cut sparks record-setting $178 billion buyback boom
As for NOT seeing how a businessman can't run a country, you seem to lack the understanding that government is NOT a business and running government like one is a good way to start a DEPRESSION, because that's what's coming from Trump's policy.
Right now Trump is running the USA just like a business and it shows. Did you see what happened in Korea? He set that up like a real estate deal and the Koreans PLAYED HIM LIKE A FIDDLE because government and international diplomacy is more complicated than selling crap or doing business.
The trade war Trump started is even crazier. That's how NYC real estate moguls think...tit for tat, baseline aggressive business...not suitable for international trade, which takes finesse and diplomacy...both things Trump lacks in spades.
You do ask a legitimate question. I suppose Trump would argue that in Korea we are trying to disarm an erratic nuclear country (with irony, sorta like Iran), and that are friends were trying to take advantage of us. I'm giving you the argument, not support for the argument. The way our allies have even handed defies logic. I get trying to befriend North Korea.dajo9 said:Across the globe we are creating divisions with our democratic allies and cozying up to dictators. Some of you have to get out of your left-right modal thinking and take a look at what's going on.Anarchistbear said:
The major difference between Trump and Obama foreign policy is that our current foreign policy is run out of Tel Aviv. There's been a massive tilt to Israel and Saudi Arabia and move away from engagement with Iran and towards confrontation. War clouds are gathering.
Think about the steps that go into play for turning a country from one in which voters choose their leaders into one from which leaders choose the voters. Why would our President want to befriend the latter and anger the former?
Gamble? HAHAHAHA...I guess you're not much into history, which is a shame for a Cal grad. But I get it, your privilege and well being gets in the way or rationale thought. You know, because the last time the US imposed those kinds of protectionist tariffs, it resulted in the Great Depression. Given how much tech depends on imports, it's going to be extra devastating to California if this goes full bore. Smartphones will go from $600 to $2,000. It's also going to hurt the auto industry and farmers. But maybe that's Trump's plan to kill off the economy and help Puitin.wifeisafurd said:
I don't even no where to begin on the rest of the post, other than to say,(1) the federal government is not bing run like a business presently and (2) imposing tariffs seems like a huge gamble.
wifeisafurd said:
But wait, there is a link to an article that says corporations sitting on cash made distributions to shareholder in the first quarter that the tax cuts were in effect, as suggesting the bounty from the tax law is going to evil shareholders (you know those pesky employee funds for starters).