Political Roundtable Part XVIII

[nate33]

When did I say that Fox News propaganda isn't effective? You are living proof of that

Which is it? I thought you said nobody agrees with me. 55% of America agrees with me. Maybe it's you that is being fooled by propaganda.

[nate33]

I look at how the USA is run and I frankly shake my head it is being run like a sh-thole country financially and both parties are complicit! Dckingfan and others on the board agree that changes need to be made and a looming problem in inflation can multiply the problem. 30 year treasury bills are at 2.75% during the Reagan years they reached a peak of 14% which would add astronomically to the USA debt. With Dr. Yellan gone from the Federal Reserve and Jerome Powell taking over a key position is questionable and typical of the Trump White House. There needs to be grownups in each party to show fiscal reality and not dogmatic approaches such as from the Tea Party. But real life solutions being honest with the American people creating programs that are streamlined and yes increases in taxes but getting real value from those increases.

For now, the argument has been, why not borrow and spend when interest rates are so low? Factoring inflation, the government is borrowing at less than 1%.

Nothing interesting will happen unless interest rates rise. Until then, neither party will feel much pressure from deficit spending.

[cammac]

I look at how the USA is run and I frankly shake my head it is being run like a sh-thole country financially and both parties are complicit! Dckingfan and others on the board agree that changes need to be made and a looming problem in inflation can multiply the problem. 30 year treasury bills are at 2.75% during the Reagan years they reached a peak of 14% which would add astronomically to the USA debt. With Dr. Yellan gone from the Federal Reserve and Jerome Powell taking over a key position is questionable and typical of the Trump White House. There needs to be grownups in each party to show fiscal reality and not dogmatic approaches such as from the Tea Party. But real life solutions being honest with the American people creating programs that are streamlined and yes increases in taxes but getting real value from those increases.

For now, the argument has been, why not borrow and spend when interest rates are so low? Factoring inflation, the government is borrowing at less than 1%.

Nothing interesting will happen unless interest rates rise. Until then, neither party will feel much pressure from deficit spending.

When a deficit reaches about 100% of GDP it is a crisis and especially the USA since much of that debt isn't internal like in the case of Japan.

[dckingsfan]

I look at how the USA is run and I frankly shake my head it is being run like a sh-thole country financially and both parties are complicit! Dckingfan and others on the board agree that changes need to be made and a looming problem in inflation can multiply the problem. 30 year treasury bills are at 2.75% during the Reagan years they reached a peak of 14% which would add astronomically to the USA debt. With Dr. Yellan gone from the Federal Reserve and Jerome Powell taking over a key position is questionable and typical of the Trump White House. There needs to be grownups in each party to show fiscal reality and not dogmatic approaches such as from the Tea Party. But real life solutions being honest with the American people creating programs that are streamlined and yes increases in taxes but getting real value from those increases.

For now, the argument has been, why not borrow and spend when interest rates are so low? Factoring inflation, the government is borrowing at less than 1%.

Nothing interesting will happen unless interest rates rise. Until then, neither party will feel much pressure from deficit spending.

This isn't quite correct. We are already squeezing many other discretionary programs. Additionally, you save in times of expansion.

The Rs are now completely complicit in creating an unsustainable government with both their runaway spending bill and their poorly conceived tax bill.

They will pay at the poles and become the minority party soon enough.

The real question in my mind is will the Ds get it right in 2020 or will they make the same mistakes sending the Rs back to the majority party.

[closg00]

Tell me, Nate, what from the dossier has been debunked? Last I checked nothing’s actually been disproven.

What has been proven? Seriously anything other then he went to Russia once?

You aren't aware because you remain on a steady diet of non fact-based Fox News

Here are some things that have been verified from Steele:

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.
Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.
Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116

Again, Republican's know that Steele is a highly credible source of information and his background is solid. The GPS Fusion testimony (behind closed doors of-course) was devastating to Trump. The dots have been connected, but not all of them proven. I am betting that Mueller can close the loop on at-least some of the others open questions.

[stilldropin20]

Tell me, Nate, what from the dossier has been debunked? Last I checked nothing’s actually been disproven.

What has been proven? Seriously anything other then he went to Russia once?

You aren't aware because you remain on a steady diet of non fact-based Fox News

Here are some things that have been verified from Steele:

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.
Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.
Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-one-year-later-what-we-know-777116

Again, Republican's know that Steele is a highly credible source of information and his background is solid. The GPS Fusion testimony (behind closed doors of-course) was devastating to Trump. The dots have been connected, but not all of them proven. I am betting that Mueller can close the loop on at-least some of the others open questions.

I’m clearly not going to change your mind, But you should really reread your list of “verified facts” over and over. Like 20 times. just let it sink in what exactly you have their list.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, I admire the professionalism of alt-right propaganda. They have their hooks in good and solid, to a lot of people who on first glance would appear to be independent minded critical thinkers, like Nate.

It actually doesn't matter if any of the allegations in the memo is correct, Rachel Maddow points out that the whole purpose of the memo is political cover to fire Rosenstein. We're in a slow motion saturday night massacre and it is succeeding.

The only silver lining of this is that every time Trump takes a step that looks like obstruction of justice he extends the investigation another month. So hopefully the full report with all the facts will come out right before the 2018 midterm elections and the alt-right propaganda machine won't have time to make up a bunch of lies to counter it (which is why they are spending so much time now trying to put the FBI on trial). Given the trumposphere's imperviousness to the truth the only thing that matters right now is surviving until 2018 and somehow overcoming the 2011 gerrymandering to pry congressional power away from the forces of evil.

[gtn130]

When did I say that Fox News propaganda isn't effective? You are living proof of that

Which is it? I thought you said nobody agrees with me. 55% of America agrees with me. Maybe it's you that is being fooled by propaganda.

Which is it?!?!

I was saying nobody in this thread agrees with you. As in, nobody who is remotely tuned in agrees with you. The ratio in this thread is like 9:2 with the 2 being you and an unstable lunatic.

The single objective of the Republican media apparatus is to make a bunch of noise so people who aren't paying attention say, "wow lots of stuff goin on with both sides here! Something about a memo! Hillary's emails did something bad, right?"

Anyone who drills down on these SCANDALS can see pretty quickly that it's a bunch of propaganda - the problem is most people don't take the time to do that.

[gtn130]

Well, I admire the professionalism of alt-right propaganda. They have their hooks in good and solid, to a lot of people who on first glance would appear to be independent minded critical thinkers, like Nate.

It actually doesn't matter if any of the allegations in the memo is correct, Rachel Maddow points out that the whole purpose of the memo is political cover to fire Rosenstein. We're in a slow motion saturday night massacre and it is succeeding.

The only silver lining of this is that every time Trump takes a step that looks like obstruction of justice he extends the investigation another month. So hopefully the full report with all the facts will come out right before the 2018 midterm elections and the alt-right propaganda machine won't have time to counter it. Given the trumposphere's imperviousness to the truth the only thing that matters right now is surviving until 2018 and somehow overcoming the 2011 gerrymandering to pry congressional power away from the forces of evil.

Nate is arguing in bad faith.

[nate33]

I've got an honest question for the anti-Trump liberals on this board about this whole Russia thing.

Basically, the allegation against Trump was that he was working with Russians to rig the election. By "working with Russians", we mean that Trump and his people were having covert meetings with various Russian operatives to try and get political dirt about Clinton. The evidence of this is basically Carter Page's contacts with Russians, Papadopoulous bragging about contacts with Russians, Donny Jr.'s meeting with a Russian, and the fact that Trump has done business with Russia in the past. Do I have that essentially correct?

Let's just assume this is all true, and that furthermore, let's assume Trump knew about it all. You guys would basically characterize this as treason worthy of impeachment. Correct?

Here's my question:

Why don't all these arguments also apply to Clinton?

We know that Clinton has had several dealings with Russia including the Uranium One deal. Whether or not there was anything shady involved, it's fair to say that the Clintons have profited off of those Russian deals. Fair? So that's roughly analogous to Trump profiting in the past from his business deals in Russia. We know that Clinton has had hired directly or indirectly several operatives to talk with Russian operatives trying to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign. These people include Christopher Steele and Cody Shearer. We even know that the CIA received (allegedly fake) dirt on Trump in a recent transaction involving an exchange of $100,000.

Why is it that everyone is focused on the Trump working with Russians, but nobody focuses on Clinton working with Russians? How can you not say that Clinton attempted to "rig an election" with the same fervor as Trump?

[Zonkerbl]

I've got an honest question for the anti-Trump liberals on this board about this whole Russia thing.

Basically, the allegation against Trump was that he was working with Russians to rig the election. By "working with Russians", we mean that Trump and his people were having covert meetings with various Russian operatives to try and get political dirt about Clinton. The evidence of this is basically Carter Page's contacts with Russians, Papadopoulous bragging about contacts with Russians, Donny Jr.'s meeting with a Russian, and the fact that Trump has done business with Russia in the past. Do I have that essentially correct?

Let's just assume this is all true, and that furthermore, let's assume Trump knew about it all. You guys would basically characterize this as treason worthy of impeachment. Correct?

Here's my question:

Why don't all these arguments also apply to Clinton?

We know that Clinton has had several dealings with Russia including the Uranium One deal. Whether or not there was anything shady involved, it's fair to say that the Clintons have profited off of those Russian deals. Fair? So that's roughly analogous to Trump profiting in the past from his business deals in Russia. We know that Clinton has had hired directly or indirectly several operatives to talk with Russian operatives trying to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign. These people include Christopher Steele and Cody Shearer. We even know that the CIA received (allegedly fake) dirt on Trump in a recent transaction involving an exchange of $100,000.

Why is it that everyone is focused on the Trump working with Russians, but nobody focuses on Clinton working with Russians? How can you not say that Clinton attempted to "rig an election" with the same fervor as Trump?

Nice "whatabout" tactic there Nate. Irrelevant to whether Trump is guilty. What is the obsession with Clinton anyway? Evil won the election. Move on evil!

[gtn130]

I've got an honest question for the anti-Trump liberals on this board about this whole Russia thing.

Basically, the allegation against Trump was that he was working with Russians to rig the election. By "working with Russians", we mean that Trump and his people were having covert meetings with various Russian operatives to try and get political dirt about Clinton. The evidence of this is basically Carter Page's contacts with Russians, Papadopoulous bragging about contacts with Russians, Donny Jr.'s meeting with a Russian, and the fact that Trump has done business with Russia in the past. Do I have that essentially correct?

Let's just assume this is all true, and that furthermore, let's assume Trump knew about it all. You guys would basically characterize this as treason worthy of impeachment. Correct?

Here's my question:

Why don't all these arguments also apply to Clinton?

We know that Clinton has had several dealings with Russia including the Uranium One deal. Whether or not there was anything shady involved, it's fair to say that the Clintons have profited off of those Russian deals. Fair? So that's roughly analogous to Trump profiting in the past from his business deals in Russia. We know that Clinton has had hired directly or indirectly several operatives to talk with Russian operatives trying to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign. These people include Christopher Steele and Cody Shearer. We even know that the CIA received (allegedly fake) dirt on Trump in a recent transaction involving an exchange of $100,000.

Why is it that everyone is focused on the Trump working with Russians, but nobody focuses on Clinton working with Russians? How can you not say that Clinton attempted to "rig an election" with the same fervor as Trump?

Hillary lost afaik and isn't president (I think!), which is why it's not something I care about.

That said, Uranium One doesn't hold up against any scrutiny whatsoever, and I don't care to go down this rabbit hole with you because it, invariably, will result in you being like "ah fair point! didn't check my sources!" then you move on to the next conspiracy theory, which you uncritically accept as gospel. I don't care to play whack-a-mole with you on every RWNJ fantasy tale, so we can fast forward.

You're also missing a bajillion bullet points on Trump/Russia, but again, not going down the rabbit hole.

[nate33]

I've got an honest question for the anti-Trump liberals on this board about this whole Russia thing.

Basically, the allegation against Trump was that he was working with Russians to rig the election. By "working with Russians", we mean that Trump and his people were having covert meetings with various Russian operatives to try and get political dirt about Clinton. The evidence of this is basically Carter Page's contacts with Russians, Papadopoulous bragging about contacts with Russians, Donny Jr.'s meeting with a Russian, and the fact that Trump has done business with Russia in the past. Do I have that essentially correct?

Let's just assume this is all true, and that furthermore, let's assume Trump knew about it all. You guys would basically characterize this as treason worthy of impeachment. Correct?

Here's my question:

Why don't all these arguments also apply to Clinton?

We know that Clinton has had several dealings with Russia including the Uranium One deal. Whether or not there was anything shady involved, it's fair to say that the Clintons have profited off of those Russian deals. Fair? So that's roughly analogous to Trump profiting in the past from his business deals in Russia. We know that Clinton has had hired directly or indirectly several operatives to talk with Russian operatives trying to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign. These people include Christopher Steele and Cody Shearer. We even know that the CIA received (allegedly fake) dirt on Trump in a recent transaction involving an exchange of $100,000.

Why is it that everyone is focused on the Trump working with Russians, but nobody focuses on Clinton working with Russians? How can you not say that Clinton attempted to "rig an election" with the same fervor as Trump?

Nice "whatabout" tactic there Nate. Irrelevant to whether Trump is guilty. What is the obsession with Clinton anyway? Evil won the election. Move on evil!

Do you honestly think there would be this type of witch hunt if Clinton had won? Seriously.

[nate33]

Hillary lost afaik and isn't president (I think!), which is why it's not something I care about.

So you are saying you would be screaming for Clinton's impeachment if she had won?

[cammac]

I've got an honest question for the anti-Trump liberals on this board about this whole Russia thing.

Basically, the allegation against Trump was that he was working with Russians to rig the election. By "working with Russians", we mean that Trump and his people were having covert meetings with various Russian operatives to try and get political dirt about Clinton. The evidence of this is basically Carter Page's contacts with Russians, Papadopoulous bragging about contacts with Russians, Donny Jr.'s meeting with a Russian, and the fact that Trump has done business with Russia in the past. Do I have that essentially correct?

Let's just assume this is all true, and that furthermore, let's assume Trump knew about it all. You guys would basically characterize this as treason worthy of impeachment. Correct?

Here's my question:

Why don't all these arguments also apply to Clinton?

We know that Clinton has had several dealings with Russia including the Uranium One deal. Whether or not there was anything shady involved, it's fair to say that the Clintons have profited off of those Russian deals. Fair? So that's roughly analogous to Trump profiting in the past from his business deals in Russia. We know that Clinton has had hired directly or indirectly several operatives to talk with Russian operatives trying to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign. These people include Christopher Steele and Cody Shearer. We even know that the CIA received (allegedly fake) dirt on Trump in a recent transaction involving an exchange of $100,000.

Why is it that everyone is focused on the Trump working with Russians, but nobody focuses on Clinton working with Russians? How can you not say that Clinton attempted to "rig an election" with the same fervor as Trump?

Nice "whatabout" tactic there Nate. Irrelevant to whether Trump is guilty. What is the obsession with Clinton anyway? Evil won the election. Move on evil!

Do you honestly think there would be this type of witch hunt if Clinton had won? Seriously.

Absolutely it went on during the Obama years and would have continued if she had of won!
You know that!
Hell Obama could have went after the Bush administration which was guilty as hell but choose to try for "National Unity" in a crisis economic situation propagated by 43.

[nate33]

Nice "whatabout" tactic there Nate. Irrelevant to whether Trump is guilty. What is the obsession with Clinton anyway? Evil won the election. Move on evil!

Do you honestly think there would be this type of witch hunt if Clinton had won? Seriously.

Absolutely it went on during the Obama years and would have continued if she had of won!
You know that!
Hell Obama could have went after the Bush administration which was guilty as hell but choose to try for "National Unity" in a crisis economic situation propagated by 43.

So you honestly think there would have been a media clamor for a special prosecutor? I think that's delusional.

Also, it's interesting to note what you said about the Bush Administration. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush operatives talked to foreign agents to dig up dirt on the Obama's. And it wouldn't surprise me if Obama agents did the same thing. That's another point I'm trying to make. This stuff happens all the time. Candidates dig up dirt on their opponent from wherever they can get it. You could have this witch hunt after every election, but it's only happening to Trump. What does that tell you?

[Zonkerbl]

OMG if Clinton had won I honestly think the Trumpies would be running around in armed bands shooting people right now. No there wouldn't be a special prosecutor because we'd have an open civil war now.

[gtn130]

I've got an honest question for the anti-Trump liberals on this board about this whole Russia thing.

Basically, the allegation against Trump was that he was working with Russians to rig the election. By "working with Russians", we mean that Trump and his people were having covert meetings with various Russian operatives to try and get political dirt about Clinton. The evidence of this is basically Carter Page's contacts with Russians, Papadopoulous bragging about contacts with Russians, Donny Jr.'s meeting with a Russian, and the fact that Trump has done business with Russia in the past. Do I have that essentially correct?

Let's just assume this is all true, and that furthermore, let's assume Trump knew about it all. You guys would basically characterize this as treason worthy of impeachment. Correct?

Here's my question:

Why don't all these arguments also apply to Clinton?

We know that Clinton has had several dealings with Russia including the Uranium One deal. Whether or not there was anything shady involved, it's fair to say that the Clintons have profited off of those Russian deals. Fair? So that's roughly analogous to Trump profiting in the past from his business deals in Russia. We know that Clinton has had hired directly or indirectly several operatives to talk with Russian operatives trying to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign. These people include Christopher Steele and Cody Shearer. We even know that the CIA received (allegedly fake) dirt on Trump in a recent transaction involving an exchange of $100,000.

Why is it that everyone is focused on the Trump working with Russians, but nobody focuses on Clinton working with Russians? How can you not say that Clinton attempted to "rig an election" with the same fervor as Trump?

Nice "whatabout" tactic there Nate. Irrelevant to whether Trump is guilty. What is the obsession with Clinton anyway? Evil won the election. Move on evil!

Do you honestly think there would be this type of witch hunt if Clinton had won? Seriously.

LOL!

How many Benghazi hearings and investigations were there? How many hearings/investigations about her emails?

Literally the SCANDAL with her emails was that she used a private email server!

[gtn130]

Hillary lost afaik and isn't president (I think!), which is why it's not something I care about.

So you are saying you would be screaming for Clinton's impeachment if she had won?

No?

[gtn130]

So you honestly think there would have been a media clamor for a special prosecutor? I think that's delusional.

Funny how this immediately becomes the bar to clear. Always arguing in bad faith.