Yogi Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

To assert that you simply can't understand the rationale of tens of millions of people for voting for one candidate over the other, and vice versa, is an indictment of your depth of thinking and ability to understand human nature and the totality of the political landscape. It' not an indictment, or "embarrassment" , for anybody else.

---

I do understand it. They're either:

a) Stupid and voting against their own interests. Middle-class and poor whites who've been screwed by the new economy and thought Trump was going to bring back manufacturing jobs.
b) Racists
c) Selfish people like wifeisafurd who voted their personal financial interest over the good of the country.

So no. He never gets to say he doesn't like Trump. He never gets to forget that he voted for Trump. And if you voted for Trump, that stain is on you as well.

---

Good post.

Yogi Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

To assert that you simply can't understand the rationale of tens of millions of people for voting for one candidate over the other, and vice versa, is an indictment of your depth of thinking and ability to understand human nature and the totality of the political landscape. It' not an indictment, or "embarrassment" , for anybody else.

---

I do understand it. They're either:

a) Stupid and voting against their own interests. Middle-class and poor whites who've been screwed by the new economy and thought Trump was going to bring back manufacturing jobs.
b) Racists
c) Selfish people like wifeisafurd who voted their personal financial interest over the good of the country.

So no. He never gets to say he doesn't like Trump. He never gets to forget that he voted for Trump. And if you voted for Trump, that stain is on you as well.

---

a) Would Hillary have fared any better than Trump in advancing the interests of middle class and poor whites? Trump at least seems to have a semblance of a national industrial policy, and he's repealed the TPP, NAFTA, and is redrawing trade agreements with China and the EU.

b) Somehow those racists voted en masse for Obama, twice. As well, open borders has contributed to the decrease in purchasing power and economic stagnation of the middle/lower class, there is a strong economic case against unfettered immigration for those who are outside the coastal new economy.

Trump is less of a neoliberal than Clinton, the race to the bottom ushered in the 90s with unfettered globalization has generated great wealth at the top and hurt the middle/working classes.

c) Usually personal financial interest goes hand in hand with the good of the country, except perhaps for the the banking elite, which has often greatly benefited at the expense of the middle class (outsourcing, restructurings, LBOs etc).


I think Trump has underperformed in his first 2 1/2 years, particularly on foreign policy, where he actually run to the left of Hillary as a non-interventionist. Bolton, Abrams and Pompeo are about as bad as it gets. Still, overall, he's better than Clinton, and probably better than Buttigieg, who I believe will be the nominee. I also think PB will be defeated, he's not the right candidate for the Dems.

Poll of Iowa Democrats

What are the one or two most important issues to you in deciding who to support for the Democratic nomination? [LIST WAS NOT READ]
[Note: Results add to more than 100% because multiple responses were accepted]
April
2019
Jobs, unemployment 13%
Bills, food, groceries 1%
College tuition, school costs 3%
Health care 51%
Social Security, seniors 7%
Taxes 7%
Climate change, global warming 17%
Environment, pollution 12%
Opioids, drug use 0%
Safety, crime 1%
Guns, gun control 1%
Terrorism, national security 4%
Immigration 14%
Schools, education 14%
Civil rights 8%
Reproductive rights, women 2%
Honesty, integrity 5%
Competence, experience 3%
Income inequality, wages 2%
Infrastructure 1%
Foreign policy, world standing 3%
Balance budget 1%
Donald Trump, beating Trump 10%
Other 10%
Don't know 2%
(n) (351)

Basically economic security and the environment

Anarchistbear said:

---

Poll of Iowa Democrats

What are the one or two most important issues to you in deciding who to support for the Democratic nomination? [LIST WAS NOT READ]
[Note: Results add to more than 100% because multiple responses were accepted]
April
2019
Jobs, unemployment 13%
Bills, food, groceries 1%
College tuition, school costs 3%
Health care 51%
Social Security, seniors 7%
Taxes 7%
Climate change, global warming 17%
Environment, pollution 12%
Opioids, drug use 0%
Safety, crime 1%
Guns, gun control 1%
Terrorism, national security 4%
Immigration 14%
Schools, education 14%
Civil rights 8%
Reproductive rights, women 2%
Honesty, integrity 5%
Competence, experience 3%
Income inequality, wages 2%
Infrastructure 1%
Foreign policy, world standing 3%
Balance budget 1%
Donald Trump, beating Trump 10%
Other 10%
Don't know 2%
(n) (351)

Basically economic security and the environment

---

health care?

I regard health care as part of economic security

Cal88 said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

To assert that you simply can't understand the rationale of tens of millions of people for voting for one candidate over the other, and vice versa, is an indictment of your depth of thinking and ability to understand human nature and the totality of the political landscape. It' not an indictment, or "embarrassment" , for anybody else.

---

I do understand it. They're either:

a) Stupid and voting against their own interests. Middle-class and poor whites who've been screwed by the new economy and thought Trump was going to bring back manufacturing jobs.
b) Racists
c) Selfish people like wifeisafurd who voted their personal financial interest over the good of the country.

So no. He never gets to say he doesn't like Trump. He never gets to forget that he voted for Trump. And if you voted for Trump, that stain is on you as well.

---

a) Would Hillary have fared any better than Trump in advancing the interests of middle class and poor whites? Trump at least seems to have a semblance of a national industrial policy, and he's repealed the TPP, NAFTA, and is redrawing trade agreements with China and the EU.

b) Somehow those racists voted en masse for Obama, twice. As well, open borders has contributed to the decrease in purchasing power and economic stagnation of the middle/lower class, there is a strong economic case against unfettered immigration for those who are outside the coastal new economy.

Trump is less of a neoliberal than Clinton, the race to the bottom ushered in the 90s with unfettered globalization has generated great wealth at the top and hurt the middle/working classes.

c) Usually personal financial interest goes hand in hand with the good of the country, except perhaps for the the banking elite, which has often greatly benefited at the expense of the middle class (outsourcing, restructurings, LBOs etc).


I think Trump has underperformed in his first 2 1/2 years, particularly on foreign policy, where he actually run to the left of Hillary as a non-interventionist. Bolton, Abrams and Pompeo are about as bad as it gets. Still, overall, he's better than Clinton, and probably better than Buttigieg, who I believe will be the nominee. I also think PB will be defeated, he's not the right candidate for the Dems.

---

thanks, '71 still is whining over the election. Many people voted for what they thought was the lesser of two evils. BTW, in a capitalist society, we act and vote in our financial interests. '71 still hasn't figured that one out yet.

Clinton would raise taxes on the highest earners and impose another new minimum tax to pay for a pandering of pet programs to key constituencies. She promised to boost growth by giving tax cuts to her definition of the middle class (not you folks on this board) and small businesses, though the details of her plan suggested to the accounting world small businesses actually would pay more in tax (sorta like being a California resident under the Trump tax cut). She pledged to reduce income inequality by raising the minimum wage, though a number far below what almost all Democrats wanted. She would have raised short-term capital gains taxes for those earning $400,000 a year. She would add to the Obama administration's wave of new regulations. And she also committed to a balanced budget (the numbers didn't add, but then again neither did her opponents), despite wanting to make huge dollar investment In infrastructure.


At the time, the U.S. government can borrow money for 10 years at about 1.5 percent and for 30 years at about 2.25 percent. That's incredibly inexpensive. If this money borrowed is used to strengthen growth in U.S. productivity then it would be money well spent IMO. Looking at the issue from another view, "taxing the wealthy to subsidize the less wealthy" might promote some people's ideas of 'fairness,' but would not necessarily do anything for economic growth or job creation. The capital gains rate elimination would do a great deal to move liquid capital outside the country. But most capital gains are long-term, thus preserving the tax benefit for Hilary's Wall Street benefactors. Cutting taxes would make more sense to me if the tax cuts were targeted on factors designed to promote growth, such as by expanding credits for spending on new equipment; and research and development; and building up the skills in the labor force, or investments in small business growth (approx. 70% of new job growth traditionally comes from small business). However, she just thought the middle class would increase spending (as opposed to save) which is a nice elitist attitude. Most successful small business owners would have been taken in by the new alternative minimum tax and thus has less money to invest. Clinton wanted to make her tax policy revenue neutral, which meant a lot of unspecified cuts, but that would require Congress to pass legislation and whether there would be sufficient Congressional support in even her party to pass such legislation is doubtful.

Hilary wanted this $10 billion give away to manufacturing. She said it was a jobs issue. She would also charge a exit tax for manufacturer leaving the US (something that made sense but might not be legal if forging entities were used). It's not really about more jobs. The United States is nearly at what economists view as "full employment" now, so job creation isn't the priority. What people really want is more jobs that pay better. Employment in manufacturing has been falling for decades because of increasing productivity and outsourcing. Manufactured goods have been less expensive and people have chosen to spend a larger share of their incomes on services rather than on manufactured products. So why should the US invest in more manufacturing other than Clinton wanted to pander to this group? Those of us involved in capital markets believe a focus more on overall economic growth and let the location of the jobs within different sectors evolve on their own works the best, without declaring that one sector is more important than another. But that is not how it works in identify politics. A tax cut for all that Trump promised (but didn't give for all) and no governmental mandated winners or losers is more attractive. As for the exit tax that probably would not be held legal as violating numerous tax treaties, it would be better to make the tax system less complicated and lower the tax rates so people and companies have less incentive to avoid taxes by creating lots of subsidiaries and engaging in transactions that are just designed to legally avoid taxes.

But a better perspective is the majority of swing voters though Trump's policies would do a better job on the economy. And we all gladly wear that stain, as economic growth continues and wage growth. There are a lot of problems with Trump, more that I realized (turnover and International affairs are a complete disaster). But Hilary would have been a disaster as well. There would be hearing after hearing on every Hilary scandal, the news media still continues to focus on every Trump tweet about crooked Hilary. With Republicans in charge of both chambers of Congress, Clinton never enacting her legislative agenda, the government shuts down repeatedly, the economy limps along, Clinton remains unpopular. There are no Obamacare fixes (which means we still are where we are), Republicans continue to push talk about voter and immigrant fraud on Hilary's narrow elector college victory, every time an immigrant does something bad, the headlines persist. The media which never warmed to Hilary digs more and more into her past. The 5th circuit knocks down every Clinton issued Presidential order, and we all get to see how Justice Kennedy votes on the 8 seeded court. Congress moves to impeach Clinton. And '71 bears the stain of voting for her.


'71 bears the stain of continuing to support an inferior candidate, and if he and his true believers keep that up an bring another inferior candidate to the table, they can enjoy another 4 year's of Trump. My view is Harris for President ('71 might try reading her tax and medicare ideas)!

Hilary Clinton spends a significant portion of her post-election book explanins why Benie Sanders' economics will never work. I'm sure it will be widely quoted when Bernie or some other socialist wins the nomination.

calpoly said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

You guys don't get it. Redactions generally are for matters referred out to another prosecutor. Dems need to move on from this report fast and focus on what is next. Why is that so hard to understand? Telling people there was collusion (stupid Adam Schiff types) and then getting a report that concluders opposite is a loss. The season is not over. The redactions represent potential wins. Move on to the rest of the f-ing schedule.

---

I find it insulting that trump supporters like you telling Democrats to move on. BTW, calling Congressman Adam Schiff stupid does not help your cause.

If Adam Schiff had all the evidence he claims he has, why didn't he turn it over to Mueller?

Schiff is the biggest fraud in Congress, a real loser.

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I regard health care as part of economic security

---

Okay, understood. I see health care as a real GOP weakness, by not offering an alternative to what ultimately will be a failing Obamacare system. IMO, candidates like Harris, who assert polices to fix health care will have the leg-up.

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The 5th circuit knocks down every Clinton issued Presidential order, and we all get to see how Justice Kennedy votes on the 8 seeded court. Congress moves to impeach Clinton. And '71 bears the stain of voting for her.

---

LOL at your false equivalencies to try to make Clinton seem as bad as Trump, let alone worse.Wrods in

---

Words in mouth again? Just indicated that her Presidency would be marked with problems.

She is an experienced politician that would, for example, not be ranting around the White House, making pronouncements that are constantly ignored by staff, staff turnover, making us into third rate country from a foreign affairs standpoint, etc.

Think on this: most criminal defense attorneys think that Trump's ineffectiveness prevented Mueller from making a determination that he obstructed justice.

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The 5th circuit knocks down every Clinton issued Presidential order, and we all get to see how Justice Kennedy votes on the 8 seeded court. Congress moves to impeach Clinton. And '71 bears the stain of voting for her.

---

LOL at your false equivalencies to try to make Clinton seem as bad as Trump, let alone worse.

---

Here is my message to you on the whole Mueller matter and Trump:

Bernie Sanders just gave the best answer on impeachment @CNNPolitics https://cnn.it/2Gv0dXn

wifeisafurd said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The 5th circuit knocks down every Clinton issued Presidential order, and we all get to see how Justice Kennedy votes on the 8 seeded court. Congress moves to impeach Clinton. And '71 bears the stain of voting for her.

---

LOL at your false equivalencies to try to make Clinton seem as bad as Trump, let alone worse.

---

Here is my message to you on the whole Mueller matter and Trump:

Bernie Sanders just gave the best answer on impeachment @CNNPolitics https://cnn.it/2Gv0dXn

---

That's nice. However, if you have a dangerous man in the office, you need to do all you can to remove him, even if the outcome of that exercise is fruitless. Let the Republicans have to own not voting Trump out of office and deal with that in their next senatorial election. Our elected officials have a constitutional duty to uphold, but they are playing presidential politics instead.

If shoes was on other foot, Dems wouldn't impeach either. Not saying it's wrong or right.

GBear4Life said:

---

If shoes was on other foot, Dems wouldn't impeach either. Not saying it's wrong or right.

---

Maybe. I guess we'd have to have a Democratic president do the things Trump and Nixon did so we can find out.

...while we are on the subject, I don't think Kelly and Mattis are the patriots they are made out to me. My guess is that they know some real horrifying stuff about tRump's emotional and intellectual competency and they are standing mute....unless they have advised their military buddies on the inside and there is a secret stand down order with regard to certain edicts tRump May issue to the military. This would be analogous to all those in the Administration that failed to carry out his orders in the civil arena as listed in the Mueller Report and the tweet below:

The tweet is in response to tRump's statement that "No one refused to carry out my orders.

Yogi Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

If shoes was on other foot, Dems wouldn't impeach either. Not saying it's wrong or right.

---

Maybe. I guess we'd have to have a Democratic president do the things Trump and Nixon did so we can find out.

---

Yogi, I think there is a distinction from our posts and the Mueller report you are not focused on. Trump hasn''t succeeded in doing things - as the Mueller Report suggests he is highly ineffectual, he runs around ranting a lot and largely being ignored by staff. Even to the extent of asking aides how to cooperate with Mueller, after forgetting he previously ordered them to fire Mueller. This speaks to his capacity to carry out his duties. You can dislike Trump's policies, but they are at least vetted (with the proviso I'm not sure all his foreign policy decisions are, or that many are just made on the fly). But his behavior is becoming more erratic, or at least his erratic behavior is becoming more known. That said, I'm not sure Congress cares. My sense again is that there is private stuff Trump did which eventually will lead to a bi-partisan impeachment.

Nixon was the opposite. He was scary good at carrying out his office and implementing things. He succeeded in spying on people he didn't like, having his aides cover-up indiscretions, being very calculating. He ran a tight ship. I'm not seeing that in Trump.

"Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff, made it clear in a meeting this year that President Trump equates preparation for Russian interference in the 2020 election with questions about his own legitimacy, per the N.Y. Times.

"Mulvaney said it 'wasn't a great subject and should be kept below his level.'"
"The White House did not provide comment." Axios

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/us/politics/russia-2020-election-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Once again...why is on the Democrats to fix the Russian stuff and Trump? It's not a party problem, it's a country problem. The fact the GOP and RWNJs are sitting on their hands in the face of Russia is insane and frankly treason.

So again...why is it on the Dems to fix this problem? The GOP have no skin in the game, or are they now only about party..and screw the United ******* States of America!

Another Bear said:

---

One thing was clear, the Russians f*cked with the 2016 U.S. elections. The question seems to be, what to do, and how to you get around Trump and the GOP's laziness or unwillingness to investigate or put up cyber security measures...and don't forget he defunded it.

So pretend for a moment you're in charge or you have a cabinet post and the POTUS is not a a Russkie boot lickers... What measure do you put in place to curtail further interference? Also are we in a new cold war?

Further, since the question of America's soul was brought up...this is what I'm talking about. We live independent of foreign interests and keep our soul...or look the other way and forgetaboutit.

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/07/24/nsa-launches-cybersecurity-arm-to-defend-the-u-s-from-foreign-adversaries/#14bc0f0f55c4

Quote:

---

Under President Donald Trump, the NSA has been engaging in a more aggressive strategy to defend against foreign adversaries such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea (CRINK). Led offensively by the Cyber Command and supported by the NSA's intelligence collecting, these efforts have predominantly focused on stopping election interference.

---