Posts Made By: David Cotterell

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

No, apparently you do NOT understand. Let me reiterate for the buffoonish out there, winning the electoral college does Not mean you came in 2nd place.

Try to rub your 2 brain cells together and spark a synapse.  I realize that must be a tough task when you seem to be exhibiting signs of Dementia.

Do you need some medication for your condition?  We have great pharmaceutical companies down here in the states that your entire nation relies upon, because we know that your Canadian Socialism doesn't produce much in the way of pharmaceuticals that help you in your advanced state of Alzheimers disease.  

What's gonna' happen for you when the socialists destroy pharmaceutical companies?

Maybe you'll just sit in the corner drooling, while someone spoon feeds you.  But hey at that point who cares anyway?  

You were a teacher for how many years, and you are still unaware that the Electoral College win, means you came in Number 1? 

Oh well, Consider this a teachable moment. I can send you a book if you like.   

Of course you are right, Richard.  Winning the electoral college means that Trump wins the presidency - that Trump came in first. We see his tweets every day as a reminder of this.

   And getting fewer popular votes than Hillary means he came second by that measure (a measure that does not determine the actual outcome, a fact I also know...)

So is born the little joke paralleling the Kentucky Derby results with the presidential results...

Jeez, Rich, you are a bit tightly coiled...........

Dave


 

So, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a drop-kick is a good guy with a drop-kick?

Dave

....https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript

".. if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

"...under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

"... explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing."

 Quote #1:   Trump committed crimes.  

Quote #2 :   But he cannot be charged criminally for those crimes.  

Quote #3:   He can be charged with the crimes by something other than the criminal justice system.  So, what is the body other than the criminal justice system that can accuse a sitting president of wrong-doing?  Congress....

Interesting times...

Dave 

Too bad Ronald Reagan and his mates weren't in on the joke.  But, hey, let's keep pushing for the massive re-distribution of wealth - UPWARD - and hope that a crumb or two will make it down to the lady who puts mints on the pillows in your fancy hotel...

https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke?fbclid=IwAR2swOl23CruoUE1WDgwWvwgEIC02TIsgJw8CGka42J7Je7ZkL27uzJcGsI

Dave

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi David:

The "joke" premise would be a lot more interesting, if Reagan or his staff ever used the term "trickle down" to describe their economic policies.  But they did not.  Trickle down economics is a pejorative used for decades by Keynesian economists, Democrats,  and the press to spin Reagan's policies.  Let's consider your hypothetical maid.  Is her economic status in life better now than it was in 1980?  How about in 1940?  How about in 1870?  Maybe 1500?  They did have inns and maids back then, you know.

Jim 

Well, maybe Reagan didn't call it that but his budget director sure did      

David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:[3][4]

"It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory".

— David Stockman, The Atlantic
(Wikipedia)

The question is whether or not giving the biggest and best tax breaks to the uber-rich and to corporations results in increased or decreased economic quality of life and access to upward mobility for the middle class or the poor.  The ever-widening Rich-Poor gap in most western countries says that "Supply-side" or "trickle-down" or whatever it is called is most definitely not a blessing for anyone outside of the top few percent of earners....

And as for the hotel worker..... Shall we compare the ratio of the annual income of the CEO of the hotel chain to the annual income of the hotel maid in 1850, 1900, 1950, 2000 etc.   

Well, here's a graph just from 1965 to the present.  

 
Dave

" When asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if he would accept help from a foreign government to win reelection in 2020, Trump said he would.

"If somebody called from a country—Norway—we have information on your opponent—oh. I think I’d want to hear it," Trump said.

"You want that kind of interference in our elections?" Stephanopoulos queried.

"It’s not an interference, they have information—I think I’d take it," Trump responded without missing a beat.

Trump added that "maybe" he would notify the FBI. When Stephanopoulos reminded Trump that FBI director Christopher Wray told Americans they should definitely notify the FBI in such an instance, Trump shut it down. "The FBI director is wrong," he said unequivocally.


Meanwhile...

Mueller's main conclusion: "“I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.”

“That allegation deserves the attention of every American.”


And meanwhile:

"Mitch McConnell has successfully prevented election security proposals from reaching the Senate floor.

The Senate will not consider bills meant to protect the next elections from Russian interference due to Republican opposition to election security proposals.



Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) decided not to bring any bills meant to protect American voters from foreign meddling, according to Missouri Senator Roy Blunt (R).

Among the bills the Republican leader has effectively blocked are the Secure Elections Act, the Protecting the Right to Independent and Democratic Elections (PRIDE) Act, the Protecting American Votes and Elections (PAVE) Act, and the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which requires the same transparency from online ads as from ads in other media."

So in 2020,  a) Trump's side will actively accept foreign-sourced info on their opponents to use against them,  b) There was massive Russian interference in 2016 and there is likely to be the same in 2020 and c) Trump's team has blocked any bills which will attempt to protect the integrity of the election process. 

These people are stealing your Democracy.....

Dave

I did not say there was collusion.  Neither did Mueller and neither was it proven via the Steele Dossier.  No collusion.  I get it.  Wasn't my point. 

1). Did Trump say he would take any offered intelligence from foreign sources which he might use against his opponents in the 2020 campaign?  Yes he did.  Is this an alarming thing to hear from the POTUS? Your call....

2). Did Mueller find massive interference in the 2016 election? Yes he did.  Did he say which candidate/party benefitted from the interference? No he didn't and neither did I.  Is interference by any foreign power in favour of any party an alarming thing to hear? Your call...

3). Did McConnel block all those bills which were intended to combat foreign interference in future elections?  Yes he did.  Is this in and of itself a danger to your democracy?  Your call.....

Is the COMBINATION of all three a threat to your democracy? Your call.....

Dave

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Obviously his opponents didnt have a problem with it when the shoe is on the other foot

https://bongino.com/flashback-hillary-endorsed-obtaining-political-dirt-from-foreign-sources/?fbclid=IwAR08IQT1x0WgEYFXuWSEESt9y5dWPBYj2jUuofAnqoqR8yoPtXC9PELWHRU

Oh boy! Another "But Hillary" rebuttal.  Well, at least you didn't squeeze out a "Snert"....

Simple question:

Do you care that the Russians are interfering in your elections or not.  

Dave

Noted lefty rag, The Guardian, destroys "supply-side" economics in this article. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/12/why-are-we-still-pretending-trickle-down-economics-work?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR1WsYSXjscUP4cyg8tv5Ltxje3eoAht5_1DLXvZS1uwh1KzNNTMLFNyg6s

The main point is in two paragraphs.

"Each and every time state or federal governments have tested Laffer’s trickle-down theory, deficits balloon, rich folks hoard their wealth at the top, and average Americans suffer.

The greatest periods of growth in our country, such as the 1950s and 1990s, have coincided with decisions to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations." 


Dave

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-judge-blocks-trump-administration-policy-that-would-keep-asylum-seekers-locked-up/ar-AADLaRf?ocid=spartandhp&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Perhaps this will bring this shameful chapter to a merciful close....

Dave