Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

SeamusFX

So increasing the deficit is actually a good thing, as it just puts more money into the economy. So we’ll just give everyone Health Care, add all the costs to the deficit. Job done!

Also Kevin Hassett has zero credibility, he’s a lifelong Republican, who was appointed by Trump. Do you think he would ever give Any credit to Obama or the Democrats?

everlast75

mcmoustache wrote: »

According to Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq), errors and omissions happen a lot but rarely meet the threshold of criminality.

This may be premature from Ted unless he knows something not in the public sphere.

https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/1103003121729589250

I think that the number of incidents sets it apart from any common place "error"?

KyussB

SeamusFX wrote: »

So increasing the deficit is actually a good thing, as it just puts more money into the economy. So we’ll just give everyone Health Care, add all the costs to the deficit. Job done!

Also Kevin Hassett has zero credibility, he’s a lifelong Republican, who was appointed by Trump. Do you think he would ever give Any credit to Obama or the Democrats?

No it's not a black/white good/bad thing like that, that's not what was said.

everlast75

Roger seems intent on sending himself to jail


https://twitter.com/dmartosko/status/1103011245437931520?s=19

oscarBravo

KyussB wrote: »

No it's not a black/white good/bad thing like that, that's not what was said.

...unless there's a Democrat in the White House, in which case deficits bad!!

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

I think that the number of incidents sets it apart from any common place "error"?

It's rather exceptional to be sure and he shouldn't have been granted clearance.



My understanding is that people who lie or omit details from their forms generally just don't get clearance but not charged.


This situation is a little unusual in that the ultimate classification authority overrode the concerns of the intelligence agencies and he is legally allowed to do that. It's wrong but not illegal, although it should be.


This particular issue would be better dealt with by hauling him in front of a public committee because unless lies and omissions are regularly prosecuted, the DOJ is unlikely to touch this. Again, I think it's best to deal with a right-v-wrong issue in the court of public opinion than with the DOJ when it looks like the President has the right, rightly or wrongly, to do what he did.



I'm mostly going on my layman's knowledge here and I'll hold my hands up if the DOJ goes the other way.

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

Roger seems intent on sending himself to jail


https://twitter.com/dmartosko/status/1103011245437931520?s=19

I really hope the Judge incarcerates him. He's a conetmptible individual. Is it on the 11th that we'll know?

SeamusFX

KyussB wrote: »

No it's not a black/white good/bad thing like that, that's not what was said.

Actually, that’s exactly what they said. They said driving up the deficit was a good thing, because it puts more money into the private sector!

KyussB

SeamusFX wrote: »

Actually, that’s exactly what they said. They said driving up the deficit was a good thing, because it puts more money into the private sector!

That depends on whether or not the private sector needs more money in it. If the economy hits Full Output and proper Full Employment, then the deficit needs to be pulled back.

Whether it's good or bad depends on other economic variables - with Full Output and Full Employment being some of the major considerations.

It's very popular to portray these policies as "unlimited deficits forever" - primarily as a political means of attacking these policies, by pretending something completely different was advocated, and attacking that instead.

aloyisious

KyussB wrote: »

That depends on whether or not the private sector needs more money in it. If the economy hits Full Output and proper Full Employment, then the deficit needs to be pulled back.

Whether it's good or bad depends on other economic variables - with Full Output and Full Employment being some of the major considerations.

It's very popular to portray these policies as "unlimited deficits forever" - primarily as a political means of attacking these policies, by pretending something completely different was advocated, and attacking that instead.

I can see that it's like an ipso facto that if there was full employment and full output in the private sector that there would be no need to use tax funds to promote trade and sales and the tax funds could then be used to reduce any deficit originally caused by a need to increase support for private industry.

Now if during the Trump term in office there were to be both full employment and proper full output, would it (IYO) be a good policy for his admin to roll back on the tax refunds so the treasury could then have more funds to pay off the deficit? I'm assuming in your "If the economy hits Full Output and proper Full Employment, then the deficit needs to be pulled back" you are referring to trade stimuli being no longer necessary from tax funding. Do you think Don would be likely to reverse track on his "trickle down" tax cuts policy if there was both full employment and proper full output in the US?

Do your variables include trade tariff wobbles? It's probably worth a thread on it's own but would you also include pork barrel politics as part and parcel of the trade stimuli?

I've noticed that in Ireland it seemed to be a Finance Dept and financial world notion that it was a good thing to have a deficit, even a small one, in order for it to control public spending, that to have no deficit would be an unusual thing and assume there would be a similar train of thought in the Fed. It's like the full employment and proper full output desire is in effect a pipe dream, highly desirable but unrealistic, so to speak.

KyussB

I don't think the US economy is going to reach true Full Employment under Trump, so that moots a lot of questions there. It'd take the policies Sanders promotes (Job Guarantee), to do that.

Yes the views I discuss make heavy use of this macro accounting, which includes the foreign sector i.e. trade. It's just easier to talk mainly in terms of public and private sectors, to keep it simple - but it does account for trade.

banie01

Last month Ivanka denied outright that Daddy had any influence on her security clearance.
Today CNN have broken a story claiming they have confirmation Trump intervened to fast track clearance...
So further lies from the WH and further proof of at the very least Nepotism as well!


https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1103098766683447299
https://twitter.com/RanttMedia/status/1103127347820224517

amandstu

banie01 wrote: »

Last month Ivanka denied outright that Daddy had any influence on her security clearance.
Today CNN have broken a story claiming they have confirmation Trump intervened to fast track clearance...
So further lies from the WH and further proof of at the very least Nepotism as well!


https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1103098766683447299
https://twitter.com/RanttMedia/status/1103127347820224517

Maybe he lied to her too. How would she know except him telling her?

banie01

amandstu wrote: »

Maybe he lied to her too. How would she know except him telling her?

The lie in question would be that he has outright denied on multiple occasions that he intervened in Ivank's and Kushner's clearance process.

Stallingrad

Trump lied?

Wouldn't it just be easier and more newsworthy now to highlight when he tells the truth?

duploelabs

Stallingrad wrote: »

Trump lied?

Wouldn't it just be easier and more newsworthy now to highlight when he tells the truth?

[Insert homer/lie detector clip/]

amandstu

banie01 wrote: »

The lie in question would be that he has outright denied on multiple occasions that he intervened in Ivank's and Kushner's clearance process.

True. I should keep the eye on the ball.

looksee

But he probably did not intervene as such, you can hear him musing...wouldn't it be great if I and J got security clearance...I would be really happy if it happened...and of course I would need to remember how helpful (you) have been in sorting this, or not, of course.

Ultros

Anyone know what this is. Mueller's report being released in book form?

https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Special-Counsel-Collusion/dp/1510750169/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=9893DT8NM38GBF6QPEXY

hill16bhoy

Ultros wrote: »

Anyone know what this is. Mueller's report being released in book form?

https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Special-Counsel-Collusion/dp/1510750169/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=9893DT8NM38GBF6QPEXY

Yes.

It's a load of Republican propaganda garbage dressed up to look "official" in order to fool people into thinking it is - in exactly the same way the anti-abortion campaign dropped "official" looking propaganda booklets in the door of every household in Ireland before the referendum in order to try and fool people.

Ultros

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Yes.

It's a load of Republican propaganda garbage dressed up to look "official" in order to fool people into thinking it is - in exactly the same way the anti-abortion campaign dropped "official" looking propaganda booklets in the door of every household in Ireland before the referendum in order to try and fool people.

Washington post are releasing one too

https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Washington-Post/dp/1982129735

Leroy42

Ultros wrote: »

Anyone know what this is. Mueller's report being released in book form?

https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Special-Counsel-Collusion/dp/1510750169/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=9893DT8NM38GBF6QPEXY

Have you read Proof of Collusion yet?

Penn

looksee wrote: »

But he probably did not intervene as such, you can hear him musing...wouldn't it be great if I and J got security clearance...I would be really happy if it happened...and of course I would need to remember how helpful (you) have been in sorting this, or not, of course.

From what I've read, Trump wanted it done but John Kelly and Don McGahn both refused to give them security clearances, so Trump actually had to grant them himself.

Leroy42

Penn wrote: »

From what I've read, Trump wanted it done but John Kelly and Don McGahn both refused to give them security clearances, so Trump actually had to grant them himself.

And quite entitled to do it.

The real issue is why he continually, and those around him continually, lied about it?

Which begs the 2nd question, if he and they are so willing to lie about something they are legitimately allowed to do, doesn't that point to the very real probability that they would lie in regards of anything they did that wasn't legitimate?

Ultros

Leroy42 wrote: »

Have you read Proof of Collusion yet?

Nope. Flip-side I haven't read anything supporting Trump either like Dershowitz's book. I will read the Mueller report when it's released, hopefully soon!

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

And quite entitled to do it.

The real issue is why he continually, and those around him continually, lied about it?

Which begs the 2nd question, if he and they are so willing to lie about something they are legitimately allowed to do, doesn't that point to the very real probability that they would lie in regards of anything they did that wasn't legitimate?

Quite simply, he's a habitual liar, probably on the way to being a recidivist liar, refusing to see that everyone knows he's a liar.

looksee

aloyisious wrote: »

Quite simply, he's a habitual liar, probably on the way to being a recidivist liar, refusing to see that everyone knows he's a liar.

Or more likely, doesn't even recognise that he is lying.

mcmoustache

More Great News from Trump who just can't stop WINNING!



Trump has fulfilled another milestone in his quest to be the most awesome God Emperor President ever by boosting the trade gap by 20% in just two short but unprecedentedly successful years.

If the trends of the past year and economists’ expectations hold true, trade data to be released Wednesday will show the U.S.’s deficit in goods and services with the world topped $600 billion in 2018. That means Trump’s presidency will have seen the U.S. trade shortfall -- the main metric by which he judges countries to be winning or losing -- grow by more than $100 billion.

Put another way, by Trump’s own benchmark the U.S. is 20 percent worse off than it was at the end of 2016, just before he took office.

Trump promised us the bigliest trade gap ever and true to his word, he has achieved this in his most winningest display ever.





I'm sure some of you anti-Trumpers will view this as insignificant or somehow misrepresented but that's only because you've been brainwashed by the mainstream leftist media and I don't care because I'm too busy winning.

GO TRADE DEFICIT!

Leroy42

No, mcmoustache, you have got it all wrong.

Trade deficits are great, even through Trump repeatedly stated that they weren't. But they are now.

And the national debt is great too, as it is totally free money and everyone wins. You might point out that Trump promised to get rid of the debt within a few years, but now its actually better to balloon it cause of reasons and things.

PropJoe10

Leroy42 wrote: »

And quite entitled to do it.

The real issue is why he continually, and those around him continually, lied about it?

Which begs the 2nd question, if he and they are so willing to lie about something they are legitimately allowed to do, doesn't that point to the very real probability that they would lie in regards of anything they did that wasn't legitimate?

Honestly, I think his mindset is that whatever he says is the truth, regardless of whether it's actually the truth or not. It relates back to when he said he uses Twitter to speak directly to the people as only what he says should be taken note of, not what the media reports. I don't think he's got any grasp or concept of the difference between the truth and a lie.