Andrew

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,006 through 1,020 (of 1,191 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Andrew
    Participant

    I think it’s fair to argue that George W. Bush “won popular support” in 2004 when he was re-elected by a three million vote margin over Kerry (but a razor thin win in the Electoral College – which Bush won only by barely winning Ohio).

    Not to say Trump will ever win “popular support.” Trump has made George W. Bush look like Abraham Lincoln. Who would have thought that possible? Still wondering if this wasn’t all a conspiracy by the Bush family to get Jeb! to run and take a fall and help elect Trump, just to make George W. look better…

    in reply to: New Trump Comm Director is a fraud? #30742
    Andrew
    Participant

    I never watched Spicer give a briefing, as far as I can remember. I’m trying to avoid the news as much as possible since the election, except for print articles. So I don’t care how good or bad Sanders is, really.

    I think Trump’s ability to stay in office in the first term will depend a little on how Democrats do next fall. Still not optimistic about that – but crossing my fingers. If Republicans keep both houses, I don’t really see how Trump gets kicked out, unless Mueller comes back with too-hot-to-ignore indictment recommendations or something. Not counting on that, either.

    in reply to: New Trump Comm Director is a fraud? #30739
    Andrew
    Participant

    As I understand it, Scaramucci was hired over strong objections from chief of staff Prebius and the now-departed Sean Spicer – but Scaramucci was recommended to daddy Trump by his kids. So he listened to his kids.

    But in the end, what difference does it make? The whole Trump operation is a farce. Sounds like Scaramucci will fit right in.

    in reply to: Something YUGE is going to happen this week! #30734
    Andrew
    Participant

    Bacon: “The media would be fawning over Hillary.”

    Riiiiggght – just like they did during the 2016 campaign, where they reported breathlessly on the fake email scandal, over and over and over again. Seriously – do you think the media thought that 24/7 coverage of the email scandal helped Hillary – and that’s why they covered it so much? Or when she got the flu? Or when they reported all of those leaks of stolen documents (by the Russians) from the DNC and the Clinton campaign???

    Andrew
    Participant

    Trump has reportedly been audited by the IRS many times. So his tax returns had presumably already been scrutinized many times even before he ran for president. Are are we to believe IRS auditors would have seen criminal activity during these audits and ignored it?

    Andrew
    Participant

    One of the few predictions I’ve made since the election was that the GOP might just let Obamacare die. They certainly have the power to do so, without passing new laws. Trump has some authority in the executive branch (e.g. not enforcing the mandate). From Trump’s comments, it sounds like that’s the direction he wants to go.

    Obamacare really does need to be fixed. Let’s hope in 2021 we might finally be able to do that and that not too many people must suffer in the meantime.

    Andrew
    Participant

    As I said on an earlier thread: those two Dem Senate pick-ups in 2016 look huge now.

    in reply to: If you want to limit abortion….. #30650
    Andrew
    Participant

    Yeah, silly me for wanting fewer unwanted pregnancies. Better to have more so we have something to rail against, I guess.

    in reply to: If you want to limit abortion….. #30645
    Andrew
    Participant

    “Killing babies” is illegal everywhere in the United States.

    I support Planned Parenthood’s efforts to limited unwanted pregnancies and support women’s health with cancer screenings, etc. The more unwanted pregnancies you have, the more abortions you’ll have – simple inconvenient fact.

    in reply to: Social Security Trust Fund runs out in 17 years #30611
    Andrew
    Participant

    The “trust fund” is SUPPOSED TO “RUN OUT.”

    It was never a part of the original Social Security Act. The original idea was that current workers would pay for current retirees, with more workers always entering the workforce and paying more in taxes as people retired; with a streadily growing population, you’d always have more workers added than people retiring.

    But the population growth isn’t always linear. The “baby boomers” were one such aberration in growth rate. Planners foresaw a slowing rate of new workers replacing baby boomers once they retired. Social Security wouldn’t be able to pay out the benefits from the taxes of current workers – it would be in deficit.

    The solution (co-produced by Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil) was the “trust fund:” raise payroll tax rates on the boomers (and everyone) early, make them “pre-pay” for their retirement benefits, instead of having big tax increases on future workers later. This also provided a neat solution to “borrow” the big surplus in payroll taxes to make federal deficits look smaller.

    If workers had died off exactly as predicted, if social security costs had risen exactly as predicted in the 1980s, then when the last one died, the last penny of the “trust fund” would be paid out, and, in theory the 1980s tax rate increase could revert to the lower rate. Of course, people are living longer than expected and costs have risen more.

    The solution is pretty easy: raise payroll taxes again once Social Security goes back into deficit. It’s not like this is some major crisis with no easy solution. Just common sense.

    If you raise or eliminate the “cap” on earnings, would you also raise or eliminate the “cap” on benefits?

    in reply to: Collusion: It's what's for dinner #30605
    Andrew
    Participant

    Yeah, the FBI appointed a special counsel to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 election because of some liberal media conspiracy. Trump’s kid meeting with Russian intelligence, Trump firing the director of the FBI due to the Russia investigation – that’s all made up. Trump and Trump Jr. haven’t changed their story four or more times in the last year – all fake news. But you’d have to watch Fox “News” to know that.

    in reply to: Trump Jr. "scandal" will have no impact. #30586
    Andrew
    Participant

    I wouldn’t get so cocky to assume that the Trump Jr. emails really will have a huge impact on Trump’s presidency. Remember how you felt in the fall of 2016 after the Trump “Grab ’em by the p***y” video was released? Did you ridicule people who said it wouldn’t have a big impact on the election? Hey, I probably would have.

    Trump’s presidency may indeed seem pretty paralyzed at the moment, but that doesn’t mean he can’t sign horrible bills from the Republican Congress if they can get their act together. I only hope the Congress continues to stumble – so far, their ineptitude has been a welcome surprise.

    in reply to: Collusion: It's what's for dinner #30571
    Andrew
    Participant

    Even a “political novice” should have had the common sense to call the FBI, instead of hoping to exploit something shady – possibly illegal – for his father’s benefit. And when you’re the candidate’s son – his namesake no less – you really need to be careful about who you talk to. What an idiot!

    in reply to: Collusion: It's what's for dinner #30562
    Andrew
    Participant

    Wow, I guess we’ll see how flexible that MS Word template on the White House network for “Presidential Pardon” really is! Would love to see if they still use the old version of Word with the dancing paper clip. Tip: did you mean “Don” or “Pardon?”

    in reply to: Collusion: It's what's for dinner #30549
    Andrew
    Participant

    Bacon:

    President. He got a hot lead for dirt on Clinton and he jumped on it. Do you really blame him for that? Do you think Hillary wouldn’t have as well in a reversed situation?

    I assume her campaign would have done the right thing and called the FBI if contacted by the Russians offering information on potential Trump crimes. It’s not Donald Trump Jr.s job to obtain this information on behalf of the US government.

    As it turns out, there was nothing there anyway. So why should they have admitted they “colluded” when there was nothing gained by the meeting?

    If I shoot at someone and miss, am I guilty of a crime? I mean, the person wasn’t hurt…

    Is this meeting by a member of the campaign with a Russian attorney sufficient to charge him or his father with a crime?

    I guess we’ll find out in a few months when Mueller’s report comes out.

    Was it unethical? Was it so horrible that a President should resign over it?

    Unethical: of course. Trump Sr.’s big liability may be the same as Richard Nixon’s: the cover-up, not the crime he may have known nothing about. Trump Sr. may already be guilty of obstruction of justice.

    According to Rasmussen, Trump has 45% approval, which is close to his vote share. Rasmussen polls people who vote.

    I don’t care – what matters to me is his approval rating among independents, which is a big indication of whether he will lose Congress or not in the next election.

    It’s just astounding to me that this is such a big deal, which speaks to me of the desperation of some of Trump’s opposition. And it’s not the same as Hillary because Hillary destroyed evidence and Hillary was working in a high level government position while raking in big bucks.

    She did not destroy evidence, and she was not making “big bucks” while working as SoS. Just more right-wing conspiracy nonsense.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,006 through 1,020 (of 1,191 total)