You know, the one sitting in the corner
of the room? That 800 lb gorilla. The one who is waiting for just
the right, or wrong, moment to fall? In this case it's China. A
couple weeks ago, before I got sidetracked with snow issues, I
decided to look again at China's economy, as we are so closely
linked. Coincidentally a friend was also doing the same thing. And, of course, with this trade war we have going on it
seemed a good time to do so. When thinking of China people tend to
immediately think of their manufacturing capability and how it
affects us. But they have an Achilles heel. Something that does not
bode well for their future prosperity. Something that is causing a
huge property bubble that is slowly deflating.
First lets look at the surface:
Now lets look at the cause, or their
Achilles heel:
So you have many people investing in
real estate, so much of which is sitting empty. Now lets look at
some of that investment real estate. Hat tip to a friend for this
video.
And another tour:
Is the bubble bursting? There are
those that think so. Again a hat tip to a friend for this link.
Over here we're dumping the excess collections of money into our stock market. That's gonna hit a wall as well (not quite as obvious as the Chinese real-estate boom, but our stock markets have become our "Tulip Craze" of this era).
McConnell has given up on resisting the House-passed resolution rejecting Trump's emergency immigration declaration. The White House is still resisting, trying to keep defections to a minimum, but McConnell has given it up (at least in public). WashingtonPost
Trump will veto the resulting bill, and the veto will almost certainly survive. So, it's on to the federal court system next.
...our stock markets have become our "Tulip Craze" of this era).
But at least I would hope that some of the companies behind those stock prices are worth the price. Many of those houses in China were just shells of homes and crumbling shells at that.
I noticed that the year's inflation rate just lately came in and it appears to have gobbled up all of the recently reported (and recently high on Trump's list of things to brag about) wage increases in these United States. In fact, ate the wage increases and then a little bit more, which means that, adjusted for inflation, American wages are actually going down under Trump.
According to an article in my paper the other day it appears that someone has started to fight back against those Russian trolls who have been trying to tamper in our elections. There was an effort to shutdown their activity during our last election that was somewhat successful.
Some inflation has been pretty much a constant for several decades now. However, it's picking up a little speed these days after getting knocked down to damn near, but not quite, zero for several years during the Obama administration (ran around 1% to 1.7% annual, as best I recall, over the course of those eight years).
I've been noticing a marked reluctance on the part of Congressional Republicans to go along with the Democrats' efforts to begin oversight hearings on the Trump administration. They appear to be working on the assumption that IF Mueller doesn't come back with accusations of (and really, really solid evidence of) collusion with the Russians by The Donald himself, then they can safely dismiss all lesser allegations a ‛small stuff’ compared to what the Democrats were accusing. They seem to think they can get away with the ‛small stuff’. So far as their dedicated Trumpkin base is concerned, this is probably true. In fact, it's probably also true that the dedicated Trumpkins will, if necessary, finally shrug off actual, proven--dead to rights, hand-in-the-cookie-jar, beyond a shadow of a doubt collusion with the Russians to swing the outcome of the 2016 election in Trump's favor. They don't want to get caught doing that, so they'd really like to pretend it didn't happen, but if pretense is no longer feasible they've got a fall-back position, and that's to shrug it off--just don't care now that they're pinned down to it. Proven collusion will not get Trump convicted by this Republican Senate on an impeachment action.
That's not a good reason for the rest of us to let it slide.
Our now absent obnoxious Swede was once arguing for the superiority of white folks IQ on the basis of tests designed by white folks to measure IQ. He can now argue in favor of an inherent ability in white folks to remotely control self-driving vehicles, as it now appears that white folks are more likely to repel assaults against their persons by said self-driving vehicles. (I.e. black folks more likely to get run over by the computer-driven cars than are white folks.) Vox This is maybe even better for white folks than supposedly being slightly smarter, and is probably at least as good a reason to send the black folks back to Africa.
Proven collusion will not get Trump convicted by this Republican Senate on an impeachment action.
I fear you are right. And the even sadder thing is that there are Americans who will go along with this. In apparently a distant past that would have been called selling out your country(treason) to a foreign power.
And some people wonder why we talk so much about Trump. For some of us this is a serious offense.
Interestingly someone who was a big fan of the Republican led government has downgraded that to "we should just get rid of everyone". If we could just turn that into voting for a Democrat in the next election we might get somewhere.
A small weather aside, apparently we are on track to get a large amount of heavy wet snow this Saturday. I have heard anywhere from 8 to 20 inches. I hope they are wrong. But it does make me glad I had someone pull some of the snow off of my roof. I just wish I had done more. Perhaps they will be wrong about the line between rain and snow.
"…someone who was a big fan of the Republican led government has downgraded that…"
Probably don't need to get them to vote for Democrats in the next election. It'll probably be enough if they just don't vote. Trump was already a fluke, not just a minority President, but the single largest loss on record in modern times (post-Civil War) who nevertheless managed to pull out an electoral college win.
What we need to do is get the Senate away from the Republicans (and hold the House, but I don't think that's gonna be a problem this next round--takin' the Senate will be the big deal).
You may recall that the neo-cons didn't abandon Bush until after he lost them the Senate as well as the House and the White House. With that the neo-cons basically disbanded and went back to their respective sub-sets of the old Reagan Republican Order. Evangelicals, small-government anarchist types masquerading as ‛libertarians’, rich folks trying to pawn off the cost of civilization on the poor folks, and the facist/racist coalition (fair degree of overlap of that last group with both the Evangelicals and the anarchist-qua-libertarian types) The unifying theme of this Republican coalition is that they do not tolerate losers. They jointly pronounced curses upon Dubya after his administration resulted in the disgrace of the neo-con foreign policy and delivered the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives to the Democrats. Up until then they were content to excuse his excesses and his deviations from conservative orthodoxies (Medicaid prescription drug coverage being the prime example).
They could put up with all of that until he cost them control of all three branches of the federal government.
The Democrats take back the Senate and hold the House in 2020 and Trump will suffer the same sort of disgrace and abandoment among his current backers.
We need to see to it that the Democrats take back the Senate; that's likely to be the biggest lift. To that end we need to get a lot of Senate Republicans on record in a "last-stand" defense of Trump--even though that defense is almost certain to prevail--we need to get the Republican Senators to voting on that; make them do it, and make them do it on the record, where it'll count.
And, of course, the advantages to making the Republicans save Trump ↑↑ only accrue if we've already convinced the American public that Trump needs to be impeached. The public's not there yet. That awaits public hearing to be held in the House of Representatives these next eighteen months.
It appears that the Democrats are lining up all sorts of requests for information from Trump's family and associates. Last tally was 81 letters of inquiry sent out. I'm not sure, but that could backfire. Some people may believe they should wait for Mueller's report. I tend to lean that way. Duplicate investigations are kind of a waste of time. Of course, that will not stop me from voting for someone other than Trump when the time comes.
Mueller's purview is the question of whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to increase Trump's chances in the 2016 campaign. The 81 letters of inquiry sent out by the House Judiciary Committee are looking at the fairly serious questions of corruption within the Trump administration, at the highest levels.
Whole different ball game. No need to wait the corruption investigation on Mueller, who's not going there unless he just happens to stumble across corruption he can't ignore during the Trump/Russia investigation.
They need to get that distinction more widely known, obviously.
It looks like Trump's tax cuts and spending have already ballooned the deficit by 77% since the start of the year, with no response from Washington. Someone may notice.
Trump has noticed. He's already indicated that he intends to use the ballooning deficit as an argument against the Democrats' spending proposals. (This has, traditionally, worked for the Republicans, but it may be a mistake to try that one again. There's already a schism threatening between Trump's populist supporters and the more traditional Republican coalition elemenst, who're covering for him because he's giving them stuff they want. Trying to shut down popular spending may exacerbate this potential schism. And, they've already got a very uneasy coalition with the populist Trumpkins, one that will not survive the end of Trump's presidency.)
No need to wait the corruption investigation on Mueller, who's not going there unless he just happens to stumble across corruption he can't ignore during the Trump/Russia investigation.
Maybe he has. Collusion to tip an election could be the result of previous events which could be construed as corrupt.
There are also investigations going on in New York, I believe.
One thing I thought rather odd was all of the Republicans who were vilifying Cohen as a liar and a fraud didn't seem to connect the dots that he was a long time associate of Trump. There is that old saying that birds of a feather flock together. The very fact that not too long ago Trump was calling him a "good guy" should raise red flags for anyone who is willing to look.
He's already indicated that he intends to use the ballooning deficit as an argument against the Democrats' spending proposals.
I have always thought anyone who would fall for that line to be not too bright. To blame something on s future possibility is lame. The deficit increased under Trump's watch. Whatever the Democrats may or may not do if elected is irrelevant at this point.
But, it's worked for them before. (Not so much because their supporters aren't bright, but rather because their supporters cared much more about keeping the Reagan Republican Coalition alive than they cared about the deficit.)
The reason the typical Republican voter today is so easily lied to now is because they've trained themselves to demand lies from their leaders over the course of the decades since Ronald Reagan first made it a winning political play.
So, now they demand lies from their leaders. The truth will not do. The problems develop when they then demand that their leaders somehow make the lies become true.
It's been a long enough time since Reagan, and that philosophy is finally running out of running room. The result is an uncontrollable anger among the Republican base--and then Trump.
One thing we might mention to the dedicated Trumpkins we meet in the real world. The U.S. trade deficit reached an all time high in 2018. So much for Trump's ‛easy win’ on those trade wars he decided to instigate.
Perhaps that's because the federal sentencing guidelines for his particular crimes in this case call for something between 19 and 24 years. The judge seemed to think that was kinda harsh (I'm not even gonna speculate on what the hell the judge thinks could have justified such a substantial deviation from the general guidelines. Perhaps he'll write up a written opinion and order explaining it, but I'd actually bet not.)
Can Biden beat Trump? Which of the Democratic candidates has the best chance?
One analyst, I forget who now, was talking about various Democratic candidate's chances of becoming the nominee and he was thinking along the lines of Kamala Harris, although he didn't rule out Amy Klobuchar as a dark horse if she could take Iowa.
If the election were held today, Biden would beat him handily. However, Biden has managed to blow two presidential campaigns in a row. It's conceivable that he could screw up and blow his lead a third time. (Same risk applies to just about anybody though--they could, conceivably, screw it up. I suspect Warren has the best chance of doing that. She's not been noted in the past for being a good campaigner; her attraction has been her policy chops once already in office.)
Keep in mind that The Hill is strongly conservative, and has become fiercely pro-Trump over the course of the last couple of years (they discovered that they needed to compete for clicks and advertising dollars with FoxNews and Breitbart).
And even they have Biden beating Trump by 6 percentage points. TheHill
Still wonder how so many people would still vote for Trump. I get that the die hard Republicans are at the point where they won't vote for any Democrat, kind of like the never Trumpers won't vote for Trump, but does what Trump has done to this country not give any of them pause?
Or are they just so uninformed on what the ramifications of Trump's policies are?
That major storm managed to bi-pass my area, we only got 5 inches on the ground. Now they are talking lots of rain for next week, which translates into flooding.
"…but does what Trump has done to this country not give any of them pause?"
None. You seem to forget that, ‛Well, then, let's just burn the damn thing down if we can't get our way!’ is their fall-back position. They've made no attempt to hide that.
Adam Gropnik, writing in TheNewYorker opens with some practical arguments for why the Democrats should not impeach Trump, even if they have the goods on him. (And arguments that do not swing on the simple fact that the Republicans will vote him out of danger in the Senate.)
(Let it not be said that I don't consider opinions other than my own.)
"…but does what Trump has done to this country not give any of them pause?"
Op-Ed from the LATimes may explain it better. Trump's attacks on non-Trumpkin America are a major part of what they like about him. He can't keep many, if any, of his other promises, but he can keep dishing out the hatred, and, if that's all he's got for them, then that enough for them--they're still with him; that's enough right there to keep them satisfied.
Adam Gropnik, writing in TheNewYorker opens with some practical arguments for why the Democrats should not impeach Trump, even if they have the goods on him.
It appears that Nancy Pelosi agrees with him. She has come out and said she doesn't believe that Trump should be impeached, that he isn't worth it.
I can certainly see the advantage to letting the voters kick him out. I just hope they do, because it's time we took our country back.
Apparently he hasn't given up on his border wall, adding more than $8 billion to the budget for it.
Trump's attacks on non-Trumpkin America are a major part of what they like about him.
And it is a classic example of playing on people's fears and hatred of "the other". It seems that "liberals" or "elites" are the perfect target. Never mind that everyone has contributed to building this country.
"…it is a classic example of playing on people's…hatred of ‛the other’."
You and I know one dedicated Trumpkin in common. She was fairly straightforward about her desire to ‛burn it all down’ if they couldn't get their way on things. Trump didn't create that hatred for America; he's just playing on it. She was like that before Trump came along.
"Apparently he hasn't given up on his border wall…"
He hasn't given up and will never give it up. And it's not because he thinks The Wall is worth it. (He doesn't really give a shit about The Wall--Hell, he hires illegals for his own businesses whenever he gets the opportunity.) The Wall is the symbol of their anger. Demanding The Wall helps to inflame that anger (even better yet if he never gets The Wall, then he's always got the claim on how he's defending their symbol).
I've been running Pelosi's statement on impeachment through my head whilst doing a little handiwork this evening…. Pelosi's a shrewd ol’ gal. She doesn't make moves like that for no good reason.
It seems to me that she's gonna have folks considering the Republicans' protection of Trump. Journalists are gonna be asking Republicans about it. "Is she right?" they'll ask. "Are you guys gonna keep on protecting Trump after the Mueller report comes out?"
Gonna make 'em feel all squirmy well before the Mueller report actually comes out.
I think so. She has weighed the political cost of trying to impeach Trump when there aren't currently the votes and determined it isn't worth it. However, she is leaving open the possibility if Mueller comes up with something that could prove without a doubt that Trump has committed some kind of crime.
If that is the case then anyone who stands with him is also guilty for trying to protect him.
Looks like there is still no resolution for the UK's exit from the EU. May was turned down again, although not by quite the same margin as earlier. But it was a turn down none the less. If they can't figure a way out they should just stay.
"…the political cost of trying to impeach Trump when there aren't currently the votes…"
I'm thinking the relevant criterion should be public opinion--the general population thinks Trump should be impeached. NOT whether there's enough votes in the Senate to get it done. If the public thinks Trump should be impeached, then they should vote the impeachment in the House, and make the Senate Republicans save him from the general public.
But, as I've said before…. First we gotta convince the American public.
Teresa May is gonna havta call for new elections. This is the equivalent of a no-confidence vote. She's gotta call elections now. Maybe she's gonna havta resign as party leader.
Too bad for her. She didn't actually want this job. (Nobody wanted this job, but it fell on her and she tried to do it, failed, but tried.)
I'm thinking the relevant criterion should be public opinion--the general population thinks Trump should be impeached.
Perhaps that's what Nancy Pelosi is waiting for. She won't want to spend political capital if she doesn't have a majority on her side.
If the public thinks Trump should be impeached, then they should vote the impeachment in the House, and make the Senate Republicans save him from the general public.
It would be a good plan for the Democrats, I'm thinking.
It's an impossible job. There are too many complicating factors, not least of which is the situation in Northern Ireland. I don't know where that will end.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin has very strongly hinted (without saying it outright) that he will refuse to turn over Trump's tax returns to House Committees authorized by a 1924 law to acquire and inspect Trump's tax returns. The language of the statute is that the Secretary "shall furnish" those tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee upon request. Mnuchin has strongly hinted that "shall" means ‛only if they want to’ to the Trump administration, and, in this case, the Trump administration don't want to. NBCNews
The House of Representatives just voted 420-0 to make Robert Mueller's coming report public.
Four Republicans took a pass on the vote (responded ‛Present’ when it came time to vote).
There will be no vote on this bill in the Senate because Mitch McConnell won't call it up for a vote. So, now it just dies. But the new Attorney General has been put on notice.
I seem to recall that you are a fan, so I thought I'd mention that PBS is running a special called "Celtic Thunder X", billed as "Celtic Thunder perform traditional Irish Songs including classic hits, love songs, nostalgic and fun retro songs".
I'm not sure how "fun retro songs" fits into "traditional Irish Songs", but there it is.
(Nope, they've still not got that tower back up to full power, so I'm still without PBS myself. I have to try to follow some of my favorite PBS programs via internet feeds; not my favorite way to watch NOVA or Nature or such. And a lot of the better stuff doesn't give internet access.)
The Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin has very strongly hinted (without saying it outright) that he will refuse to turn over Trump's tax returns to House Committees authorized by a 1924 law to acquire and inspect Trump's tax returns.
I seem to recall that you are a fan, so I thought I'd mention that PBS is running a special called "Celtic Thunder X"..
I did notice that in my TV guide. Unfortunately, what with the time change and being extremely busy at work, I'm afraid I've been falling asleep the last couple of nights. So I tend to miss shows.
The talking heads are saying the two mosque shootings are a symptom of the rise of the extreme right and the hatred they are encouraging. They say they are a growing threat. I think that is what Marcus was warning about.
I find it odd though that it manifested itself in New Zealand. I'm not sure why.
Shields and Brooks on PBS Newshour do their first five minutes on the New Zealand massacre. Then comes a segue Trump's contribution to ethnic violence by white folks, and then on full Trump, but the first five minutes are on the New Zealand massacre.
TheHill which is, as I've mentioned before, an ex-conservative now turned dedicated Trumpkin publication, opines that the recent charges filed against Paul Manafort by the State of New York, which charges are immune to any pardon by Trump…, the State charges probably significantly increase the odds that Manafort will now roll on Trump (on account of Trump cannot pardon Manafort against these State charges)
Another, seemingly quite reasonable argument against impeaching Trump, by E.J. Dionne, (whom most conservatives would denounce as a ‛flaming’ liberal).
Let it not be said I will not entertain opinions in conflict with my own.
Shields and Brooks on PBS Newshour do their first five minutes on the New Zealand massacre. Then comes a segue Trump's contribution to ethnic violence by white folks, and then on full Trump, but the first five minutes are on the New Zealand massacre.
76 comments:
Hmmm...just a small aside. Apparently even Rand Paul isn't too enthused by Trump's power grab. We may be seeing a Trump veto.
Over here we're dumping the excess collections of money into our stock market. That's gonna hit a wall as well (not quite as obvious as the Chinese real-estate boom, but our stock markets have become our "Tulip Craze" of this era).
McConnell has given up on resisting the House-passed resolution rejecting Trump's emergency immigration declaration. The White House is still resisting, trying to keep defections to a minimum, but McConnell has given it up (at least in public). WashingtonPost
Trump will veto the resulting bill, and the veto will almost certainly survive. So, it's on to the federal court system next.
...our stock markets have become our "Tulip Craze" of this era).
But at least I would hope that some of the companies behind those stock prices are worth the price. Many of those houses in China were just shells of homes and crumbling shells at that.
Trump will veto the resulting bill, and the veto will almost certainly survive. So, it's on to the federal court system next.
With any luck it will be hung up there until after the election next year.
"I would hope that some of the companies behind those
stock prices are worth the price."
I believe tulips still have some value.
I noticed that the year's inflation rate just lately came in and it appears to have gobbled up all of the recently reported (and recently high on Trump's list of things to brag about) wage increases in these United States. In fact, ate the wage increases and then a little bit more, which means that, adjusted for inflation, American wages are actually going down under Trump.
I think we've had stealth inflation for a long time, the way that companies shrink products, rather than raise the price.
According to an article in my paper the other day it appears that someone has started to fight back against those Russian trolls who have been trying to tamper in our elections. There was an effort to shutdown their activity during our last election that was somewhat successful.
Some inflation has been pretty much a constant for several decades now. However, it's picking up a little speed these days after getting knocked down to damn near, but not quite, zero for several years during the Obama administration (ran around 1% to 1.7% annual, as best I recall, over the course of those eight years).
Yes, that was when we were actually more concerned with deflation.
I've been noticing a marked reluctance on the part of Congressional Republicans to go along with the Democrats' efforts to begin oversight hearings on the Trump administration. They appear to be working on the assumption that IF Mueller doesn't come back with accusations of (and really, really solid evidence of) collusion with the Russians by The Donald himself, then they can safely dismiss all lesser allegations a ‛small stuff’ compared to what the Democrats were accusing. They seem to think they can get away with the ‛small stuff’. So far as their dedicated Trumpkin base is concerned, this is probably true.
In fact, it's probably also true that the dedicated Trumpkins will, if necessary, finally shrug off actual, proven--dead to rights, hand-in-the-cookie-jar, beyond a shadow of a doubt collusion with the Russians to swing the outcome of the 2016 election in Trump's favor. They don't want to get caught doing that, so they'd really like to pretend it didn't happen, but if pretense is no longer feasible they've got a fall-back position, and that's to shrug it off--just don't care now that they're pinned down to it.
Proven collusion will not get Trump convicted by this Republican Senate on an impeachment action.
That's not a good reason for the rest of us to let it slide.
Our now absent obnoxious Swede was once arguing for the superiority of white folks IQ on the basis of tests designed by white folks to measure IQ.
He can now argue in favor of an inherent ability in white folks to remotely control self-driving vehicles, as it now appears that white folks are more likely to repel assaults against their persons by said self-driving vehicles. (I.e. black folks more likely to get run over by the computer-driven cars than are white folks.) Vox This is maybe even better for white folks than supposedly being slightly smarter, and is probably at least as good a reason to send the black folks back to Africa.
Proven collusion will not get Trump convicted by this Republican Senate on an impeachment action.
I fear you are right. And the even sadder thing is that there are Americans who will go along with this. In apparently a distant past that would have been called selling out your country(treason) to a foreign power.
And some people wonder why we talk so much about Trump. For some of us this is a serious offense.
Our now absent obnoxious Swede...
Yes, Marcus does seem to have faded into the ether. I will refrain from speculation.
Interestingly someone who was a big fan of the Republican led government has downgraded that to "we should just get rid of everyone". If we could just turn that into voting for a Democrat in the next election we might get somewhere.
A small weather aside, apparently we are on track to get a large amount of heavy wet snow this Saturday. I have heard anywhere from 8 to 20 inches. I hope they are wrong. But it does make me glad I had someone pull some of the snow off of my roof. I just wish I had done more. Perhaps they will be wrong about the line between rain and snow.
"…someone who was a big fan of the Republican led government
has downgraded that…"
Probably don't need to get them to vote for Democrats in the next election. It'll probably be enough if they just don't vote. Trump was already a fluke, not just a minority President, but the single largest loss on record in modern times (post-Civil War) who nevertheless managed to pull out an electoral college win.
What we need to do is get the Senate away from the Republicans (and hold the House, but I don't think that's gonna be a problem this next round--takin' the Senate will be the big deal).
You may recall that the neo-cons didn't abandon Bush until after he lost them the Senate as well as the House and the White House. With that the neo-cons basically disbanded and went back to their respective sub-sets of the old Reagan Republican Order. Evangelicals, small-government anarchist types masquerading as ‛libertarians’, rich folks trying to pawn off the cost of civilization on the poor folks, and the facist/racist coalition (fair degree of overlap of that last group with both the Evangelicals and the anarchist-qua-libertarian types)
The unifying theme of this Republican coalition is that they do not tolerate losers. They jointly pronounced curses upon Dubya after his administration resulted in the disgrace of the neo-con foreign policy and delivered the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives to the Democrats. Up until then they were content to excuse his excesses and his deviations from conservative orthodoxies (Medicaid prescription drug coverage being the prime example).
They could put up with all of that until he cost them control of all three branches of the federal government.
The Democrats take back the Senate and hold the House in 2020 and Trump will suffer the same sort of disgrace and abandoment among his current backers.
We need to see to it that the Democrats take back the Senate; that's likely to be the biggest lift. To that end we need to get a lot of Senate Republicans on record in a "last-stand" defense of Trump--even though that defense is almost certain to prevail--we need to get the Republican Senators to voting on that; make them do it, and make them do it on the record, where it'll count.
And, that would be Medicare prescription drug coverage that Dubya supported and signed into law; not Medicaid. ↑↑
And, of course, the advantages to making the Republicans save Trump ↑↑ only accrue if we've already convinced the American public that Trump needs to be impeached.
The public's not there yet.
That awaits public hearing to be held in the House of Representatives these next eighteen months.
It appears that the Democrats are lining up all sorts of requests for information from Trump's family and associates. Last tally was 81 letters of inquiry sent out. I'm not sure, but that could backfire. Some people may believe they should wait for Mueller's report. I tend to lean that way. Duplicate investigations are kind of a waste of time. Of course, that will not stop me from voting for someone other than Trump when the time comes.
Mueller's purview is the question of whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to increase Trump's chances in the 2016 campaign. The 81 letters of inquiry sent out by the House Judiciary Committee are looking at the fairly serious questions of corruption within the Trump administration, at the highest levels.
Whole different ball game. No need to wait the corruption investigation on Mueller, who's not going there unless he just happens to stumble across corruption he can't ignore during the Trump/Russia investigation.
They need to get that distinction more widely known, obviously.
It looks like Trump's tax cuts and spending have already ballooned the deficit by 77% since the start of the year, with no response from Washington. Someone may notice.
Trump has noticed. He's already indicated that he intends to use the ballooning deficit as an argument against the Democrats' spending proposals. (This has, traditionally, worked for the Republicans, but it may be a mistake to try that one again. There's already a schism threatening between Trump's populist supporters and the more traditional Republican coalition elemenst, who're covering for him because he's giving them stuff they want. Trying to shut down popular spending may exacerbate this potential schism. And, they've already got a very uneasy coalition with the populist Trumpkins, one that will not survive the end of Trump's presidency.)
No need to wait the corruption investigation on Mueller, who's not going there unless he just happens to stumble across corruption he can't ignore during the Trump/Russia investigation.
Maybe he has. Collusion to tip an election could be the result of previous events which could be construed as corrupt.
There are also investigations going on in New York, I believe.
One thing I thought rather odd was all of the Republicans who were vilifying Cohen as a liar and a fraud didn't seem to connect the dots that he was a long time associate of Trump. There is that old saying that birds of a feather flock together. The very fact that not too long ago Trump was calling him a "good guy" should raise red flags for anyone who is willing to look.
elements not elemenst
"…didn't seem to connect the dots that he was a long
time associate of Trump…"
That woulda been kinda counter-productive. Hannibaugh would have noticed and denounced them for that.
He's already indicated that he intends to use the ballooning deficit as an argument against the Democrats' spending proposals.
I have always thought anyone who would fall for that line to be not too bright. To blame something on s future possibility is lame. The deficit increased under Trump's watch. Whatever the Democrats may or may not do if elected is irrelevant at this point.
But, it's worked for them before. (Not so much because their supporters aren't bright, but rather because their supporters cared much more about keeping the Reagan Republican Coalition alive than they cared about the deficit.)
That woulda been kinda counter-productive.
True, but it still makes them look clueless.
...their supporters cared much more about keeping the Reagan Republican Coalition alive than they cared about the deficit.
We have seen how the Republicans seem more intent on their own agenda than what is good for the country.
The reason the typical Republican voter today is so easily lied to now is because they've trained themselves to demand lies from their leaders over the course of the decades since Ronald Reagan first made it a winning political play.
So, now they demand lies from their leaders. The truth will not do. The problems develop when they then demand that their leaders somehow make the lies become true.
It's been a long enough time since Reagan, and that philosophy is finally running out of running room. The result is an uncontrollable anger among the Republican base--and then Trump.
One thing we might mention to the dedicated Trumpkins we meet in the real world. The U.S. trade deficit reached an all time high in 2018. So much for Trump's ‛easy win’ on those trade wars he decided to instigate.
Manafort got 47 months. Somehow that seems too light.
"Somehow that seems too light."
Perhaps that's because the federal sentencing guidelines for his particular crimes in this case call for something between 19 and 24 years. The judge seemed to think that was kinda harsh (I'm not even gonna speculate on what the hell the judge thinks could have justified such a substantial deviation from the general guidelines. Perhaps he'll write up a written opinion and order explaining it, but I'd actually bet not.)
Chelsea Manning seems to be developing male pattern baldness.
Perhaps he'll write up a written opinion and order explaining it, but I'd actually bet not.
Bet not too. There does seem to be a double standard in our justice system at times.
They indicted Smollet for the false claims of that attack. Now that was a really weird case.
"Now that was a really weird case."
I'd go for "unusual". But, actor seeks attention…. Weird? Maybe not so much.
I don't have the same frame of reference, so to me it seems weird.
Another small aside:
Can Biden beat Trump? Which of the Democratic candidates has the best chance?
One analyst, I forget who now, was talking about various Democratic candidate's chances of becoming the nominee and he was thinking along the lines of Kamala Harris, although he didn't rule out Amy Klobuchar as a dark horse if she could take Iowa.
"Can Biden beat Trump?"
If the election were held today, Biden would beat him handily. However, Biden has managed to blow two presidential campaigns in a row. It's conceivable that he could screw up and blow his lead a third time. (Same risk applies to just about anybody though--they could, conceivably, screw it up. I suspect Warren has the best chance of doing that. She's not been noted in the past for being a good campaigner; her attraction has been her policy chops once already in office.)
Keep in mind that The Hill is strongly conservative, and has become fiercely pro-Trump over the course of the last couple of years (they discovered that they needed to compete for clicks and advertising dollars with FoxNews and Breitbart).
And even they have Biden beating Trump by 6 percentage points. TheHill
Still wonder how so many people would still vote for Trump. I get that the die hard Republicans are at the point where they won't vote for any Democrat, kind of like the never Trumpers won't vote for Trump, but does what Trump has done to this country not give any of them pause?
Or are they just so uninformed on what the ramifications of Trump's policies are?
That major storm managed to bi-pass my area, we only got 5 inches on the ground. Now they are talking lots of rain for next week, which translates into flooding.
"…but does what Trump has done to this country not
give any of them pause?"
None. You seem to forget that, ‛Well, then, let's just burn the damn thing down if we can't get our way!’ is their fall-back position. They've made no attempt to hide that.
Adam Gropnik, writing in TheNewYorker opens with some practical arguments for why the Democrats should not impeach Trump, even if they have the goods on him. (And arguments that do not swing on the simple fact that the Republicans will vote him out of danger in the Senate.)
(Let it not be said that I don't consider opinions other than my own.)
"…but does what Trump has done to this country not
give any of them pause?"
Op-Ed from the LATimes may explain it better. Trump's attacks on non-Trumpkin America are a major part of what they like about him. He can't keep many, if any, of his other promises, but he can keep dishing out the hatred, and, if that's all he's got for them, then that enough for them--they're still with him; that's enough right there to keep them satisfied.
Adam Gropnik, writing in TheNewYorker opens with some practical arguments for why the Democrats should not impeach Trump, even if they have the goods on him.
It appears that Nancy Pelosi agrees with him. She has come out and said she doesn't believe that Trump should be impeached, that he isn't worth it.
I can certainly see the advantage to letting the voters kick him out. I just hope they do, because it's time we took our country back.
Apparently he hasn't given up on his border wall, adding more than $8 billion to the budget for it.
Trump's attacks on non-Trumpkin America are a major part of what they like about him.
And it is a classic example of playing on people's fears and hatred of "the other". It seems that "liberals" or "elites" are the perfect target. Never mind that everyone has contributed to building this country.
"…it is a classic example of playing on people's…hatred of ‛the other’."
You and I know one dedicated Trumpkin in common. She was fairly straightforward about her desire to ‛burn it all down’ if they couldn't get their way on things. Trump didn't create that hatred for America; he's just playing on it. She was like that before Trump came along.
"Apparently he hasn't given up on his border wall…"
He hasn't given up and will never give it up. And it's not because he thinks The Wall is worth it. (He doesn't really give a shit about The Wall--Hell, he hires illegals for his own businesses whenever he gets the opportunity.) The Wall is the symbol of their anger. Demanding The Wall helps to inflame that anger (even better yet if he never gets The Wall, then he's always got the claim on how he's defending their symbol).
I've been running Pelosi's statement on impeachment through my head whilst doing a little handiwork this evening…. Pelosi's a shrewd ol’ gal. She doesn't make moves like that for no good reason.
It seems to me that she's gonna have folks considering the Republicans' protection of Trump. Journalists are gonna be asking Republicans about it. "Is she right?" they'll ask. "Are you guys gonna keep on protecting Trump after the Mueller report comes out?"
Gonna make 'em feel all squirmy well before the Mueller report actually comes out.
Pelosi's a shrewd ol’ gal.
I think so. She has weighed the political cost of trying to impeach Trump when there aren't currently the votes and determined it isn't worth it. However, she is leaving open the possibility if Mueller comes up with something that could prove without a doubt that Trump has committed some kind of crime.
If that is the case then anyone who stands with him is also guilty for trying to protect him.
Looks like there is still no resolution for the UK's exit from the EU. May was turned down again, although not by quite the same margin as earlier. But it was a turn down none the less. If they can't figure a way out they should just stay.
"…the political cost of trying to impeach Trump when
there aren't currently the votes…"
I'm thinking the relevant criterion should be public opinion--the general population thinks Trump should be impeached. NOT whether there's enough votes in the Senate to get it done.
If the public thinks Trump should be impeached, then they should vote the impeachment in the House, and make the Senate Republicans save him from the general public.
But, as I've said before…. First we gotta convince the American public.
Teresa May is gonna havta call for new elections. This is the equivalent of a no-confidence vote. She's gotta call elections now. Maybe she's gonna havta resign as party leader.
Too bad for her. She didn't actually want this job. (Nobody wanted this job, but it fell on her and she tried to do it, failed, but tried.)
I'm thinking the relevant criterion should be public opinion--the general population thinks Trump should be impeached.
Perhaps that's what Nancy Pelosi is waiting for. She won't want to spend political capital if she doesn't have a majority on her side.
If the public thinks Trump should be impeached, then they should vote the impeachment in the House, and make the Senate Republicans save him from the general public.
It would be a good plan for the Democrats, I'm thinking.
Nobody wanted this job..
It's an impossible job. There are too many complicating factors, not least of which is the situation in Northern Ireland. I don't know where that will end.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin has very strongly hinted (without saying it outright) that he will refuse to turn over Trump's tax returns to House Committees authorized by a 1924 law to acquire and inspect Trump's tax returns. The language of the statute is that the Secretary "shall furnish" those tax returns to the House Ways and Means Committee upon request. Mnuchin has strongly hinted that "shall" means ‛only if they want to’ to the Trump administration, and, in this case, the Trump administration don't want to. NBCNews
(May be more than one impeachment on the horizon.)
The House of Representatives just voted 420-0 to make Robert Mueller's coming report public.
Four Republicans took a pass on the vote (responded ‛Present’ when it came time to vote).
There will be no vote on this bill in the Senate because Mitch McConnell won't call it up for a vote. So, now it just dies. But the new Attorney General has been put on notice.
@ Lynnette:
I seem to recall that you are a fan, so I thought I'd mention that PBS is running a special called "Celtic Thunder X", billed as "Celtic Thunder perform traditional Irish Songs including classic hits, love songs, nostalgic and fun retro songs".
I'm not sure how "fun retro songs" fits into "traditional Irish Songs", but there it is.
(Nope, they've still not got that tower back up to full power, so I'm still without PBS myself. I have to try to follow some of my favorite PBS programs via internet feeds; not my favorite way to watch NOVA or Nature or such. And a lot of the better stuff doesn't give internet access.)
On a more somber note: Looks like things are hotting up in the Middle East 'tween the Israeli and the Palestinians. Reuters
The Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin has very strongly hinted (without saying it outright) that he will refuse to turn over Trump's tax returns to House Committees authorized by a 1924 law to acquire and inspect Trump's tax returns.
It makes me really wonder what he has to hide.
"It makes me really wonder what he has to hide."
My guess is that Mueller already knows what's in those tax returns; all of it.
I seem to recall that you are a fan, so I thought I'd mention that PBS is running a special called "Celtic Thunder X"..
I did notice that in my TV guide. Unfortunately, what with the time change and being extremely busy at work, I'm afraid I've been falling asleep the last couple of nights. So I tend to miss shows.
Multiple shootings at two mosques in New Zealand
The talking heads are saying the two mosque shootings are a symptom of the rise of the extreme right and the hatred they are encouraging. They say they are a growing threat. I think that is what Marcus was warning about.
I find it odd though that it manifested itself in New Zealand. I'm not sure why.
Shields and Brooks on PBS Newshour do their first five minutes on the New Zealand massacre. Then comes a segue Trump's contribution to ethnic violence by white folks, and then on full Trump, but the first five minutes are on the New Zealand massacre.
The Labour Party government in New Zealand is now threatening to ban private ownership of semi-automatic weapons.
Trump is threatening to issue his second veto of his Presidency.
TheHill which is, as I've mentioned before, an ex-conservative now turned dedicated Trumpkin publication, opines that the recent charges filed against Paul Manafort by the State of New York, which charges are immune to any pardon by Trump…, the State charges probably significantly increase the odds that Manafort will now roll on Trump (on account of Trump cannot pardon Manafort against these State charges)
Another, seemingly quite reasonable argument against impeaching Trump, by E.J. Dionne, (whom most conservatives would denounce as a ‛flaming’ liberal).
Let it not be said I will not entertain opinions in conflict with my own.
...the State charges probably significantly increase the odds that Manafort will now roll on Trump...
Manafort does seem to be in deep sh*t. But it was his choice. He will have to live with it.
Who is Trump really?
Shields and Brooks on PBS Newshour do their first five minutes on the New Zealand massacre. Then comes a segue Trump's contribution to ethnic violence by white folks, and then on full Trump, but the first five minutes are on the New Zealand massacre.
It seemed a natural segue.
Post a Comment