Trump?

[Cliff Varnell]

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

Did I exonerate Comey?  No.  I just think the Bradley Effect is much more credible and convincing.  

If you read those two articles I posted on the other thread, one from WSJ and one from Politico, you will see that the professionals (those fascist pigs) knew about this factor a long time ago.  That is why micro analytics is so important today in these elections.  The Clinton campaign completely missed this.

Excuse me?

DiEugenio Monday November 14, 2016 9:48 am

<quote on>

When you or anyone else finds an equivalent document showing the principals involved in back street skullduggery in the Clinton/Comey case, then I will listen and consider.  Until then, to me, this is just pre Peter Scott musings. 

<quote off>

Nov 14 1:22 pm

<quote on>

All I am saying here is that no one knows anything about there being any deliberate violation of the Hatch Act by Comey.  I am not a lawyer, but I think to commit a crime there has to be intent.  IMO, Comey is a fairly honest guy.  To compare him with Hoover is kind of wild. At least as far as I can see.  He explained what he did before he appeared before congress. And he kind of had to since Lynch compromised herself with that meeting with Bill Clinton. He said that because of all the controversy, he was trying to be transparent in the process.  

Was that the right decision? Who knows.

<quote off>

Anyone who shrugs off an FBI director loudly announcing the renewed investigation of a Presidential candidate 11 days from an election is a fascism-apologist.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

20 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Tulsi Gabbard.

 

 

 

She's great too!

[James DiEugenio]

Cliff:

Anyone, except you who reads those two comments, will see that I am waiting on the evidence.

As I said, there is a more convincing way to explain the polls, as the professionals have.

When you come up with genuine evidence against Comey, show it to me.

Until then, just call him a fascist pig.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Cliff:

Anyone, except you who reads those two comments, will see that I am waiting on the evidence.

As I said, there is a more convincing way to explain the polls, as the professionals have.

When you come up with genuine evidence against Comey, show it to me.

Until then, just call him a fascist pig.

 

I did provide evidence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-emails_us_581fe27de4b0aac62485334d

He could have checked out those e-mails in the time it took to write his letter to Congress.

Any FBI Director who intrudes into an election 11 days out then 9 days later says false alarm is a fascist sack of bovine offal.

You like an election determined by the head of the FBI?

Edited November 17, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I did provide evidence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-emails_us_581fe27de4b0aac62485334d

He could have checked out those e-mails in the time it took to write his letter to Congress.

Any FBI Director who intrudes into an election 11 days out then 9 days later says false alarm is a fascist sack of bovine offal.

You like an election determined by the head of the FBI?

 

Here's a report from Oct. 31.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3891838/Now-Huma-claims-never-used-laptop-seized-Anthony-Weiner-FBI-explain-ended-containing-Clinton-emails.html

<quote on>

There is a chance some of the emails could be duplicates of those they have already seen, but investigators could also find it is a trove of messages Clinton deleted from her server.

<quote off>

They knew they were duplicates.

They knew none of the e-mails were to or from Clinton.

They knew they were going to have a determinative impact on the race.

The 2016 election was illegitimate.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

That list of yours is, for me, kind of paltry for a Democrat in office for eight years.

The record proves you wrong.

 I mean I could do the same for Truman or even LBJ.

No you can't. Look below for some proof.

And i could really go to town with FDR and JFK, even though he was in office for just three years.

FDR maybe. JFK no.

Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower.

 

Jim,

Your unsubstantiated, sweeping statements against the Clintons betray your irrational bias against them. For example...

You say, "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower." Yet he left office with a 90% job approval rating among Democrats:

 

You say that you could make lists for Truman and LBJ just as impressive as the list of accomplishments I made for Bill Clinton. Oh really? Let's do some comparing.

How about violent crime. Here's a chart I found for homicides. (I couldn't find a "violent crime" chart that dates back before 1960. But the shapes for "violent crime" and "homicide" charts are pretty much the same.)

Look at that big drop during Clinton's term. In contrast there is no drop during Truman's or JFK's terms. And violent crime actually rose during LBJ's term.

What about budget deficits? Look here:

See the green bars over on the left? Those are Clinton's budget surpluses. No other president's surpluses come close.

Not only did Clinton have record surpluses, but he reduced the budget deficit every year he was in office. No other president can make that claim.

Unemployment rate:

The greatest drop -- from first day of term to final day of term -- occurred during Clinton's presidency... a drop of 3.5 percentage points. Truman had a drop of 2 percentage points, and JFK had little change. Unemployment did decline significantly under Johnson, but not by as much as under Clinton.

Related to that is the number of new jobs created:

 

Compare Clinton's record to all others'. (I didn't realize till now how well Carter did in this respect.)

No wonder Bill Clinton's job approval rating among Democrats was 90% when he left office. That's right, Bill Clinton... the person you seem to think Democrats didn't approve of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Why do so many of you have a problem with criticizing Clinton.

I have no problem with it at all, if it's true.

DiEugenio named a lot of the things that got passed under Bill Clinton that were not good for the country.

They're not good for the country in your and DiEugenio's opinions.

If you disagree with things Clinton did, fine. If you think they were bad for the country, fine. But remember, not all of us necessarily agree.

My biggest problem is with the "everything with the Clintons is bad" attitude. And the seeming fact that people who think that way tend to believe the right wing lies about the Clintons.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Take a look at this montage.

It is priceless.  It shows just how stupid, arrogant, and smug the media was about Trump.  These multimillionaires who makes so much cash to do what?  And then they end up with pie all over their faces.  When in fact, they were part of the problem.  Michael Moore is the only one I can think of who  warned about this.  Meanwhile, everyone else was talking about Alicia Machado and Billy Bush.  

PS Edward Snowden sitting in Russia is not evidence.

 

[James DiEugenio]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

delete

 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a look at this montage.

It is priceless.  It shows just how stupid, arrogant, and smug the media was about Trump.  These multimillionaires who makes so much cash to do what?  And then they end up with pie all over their faces.  When in fact, they were part of the problem.  Michael Moore is the only one I can think of who  warned about this.  Meanwhile, everyone else was talking about Alicia Machado and Billy Bush.  

PS Edward Snowden sitting in Russia is not evidence.

 

Oh Jim, thank you for sharing. (I assume you're trying to broaden your political base before Lancer's? heh heh) Oh I get it, you're trying to show how wrong the mainstream media was, as if you knew along what the results would be. And yet somehow it would be so important to you that Julian Aassange would be "Time's Man of the Year for 2016'". Hmmm, you think that's got legs, Jim? Maybe if you just keep dutifully adding Assange into your bullet points for the next 6 weeks. Who knows? We are the change that we can hope to make happen. Or something like that, I forget.

But of course I understand, he did a great service for you. As being an advocate for Hillary earlier this year, you just had no idea the Clinton's were conflicted at all, or that both parties were corrupt, and had no skepticism of media coverage of the campaign before this, so  I understand he was the agent of a great epiphany in you.

And with great zeal, you boldly parachuted into our post election analysis with the true dope on the Clintons, and the parties and the media, and gave us your  new guidance for which we all owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank You!

 

[Douglas Caddy]

 

The Way to Stop Trump

 By David Corn

The New York Review of Books

 

From the article: There is no way to guarantee that Trump will not try to implement at least some of his campaign promises. He has already vowed to deport two to three million people, and to repeal and replace major parts of Obamacare. The time to stop him in his tracks was at the voting booth, and we failed to do that. But as the fate of the Bush administration’s counter-terror measures illustrates, even when the executive seems most invincible, he can be checked. Doing so will take an engaged citizenry, a persistent civil society, a vigilant media, brave insiders, and judges and other government officials who take seriously their responsibility to uphold the Constitution. (I look forward to taking part in this effort myself, as I become the National Legal Director of the ACLU in January, a few days before Trump takes office.)

We live in a constitutional democracy, one that is expressly designed to check the impulses of dangerous men. It will do so if and only if we insist on it. 

                                                   

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/14/way-to-stop-trump-lessons-of-war-on-terror/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR Brain schools Trump&utm_content=NYR Brain schools Trump+CID_5a9edb3a4e7bd8d2015c58b250d54c5b&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=The Way to Stop Trump

 

[Douglas Caddy]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/11/andrew-p-napolitano/beware-secret-police/

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/17/fbis-decision-to-reopen-clinton-email-probe-enabled-donald-trump/

[John Simkin]

The election of Donald Trump on 8th November, 2016, was the most significant political event since Adolf Hitler managed to persuade the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act on 24th March 1933. I say this not because I believe Trump is a fascist who is about to become some sort of dictator. In fact, I think over the next four years he will illustrate just how difficult it is for the President of the United States to implement his political ideas. Even if he was allowed by Congress to carry out his his proposed programme, it would not solve the economic problems faced by those who voted for him. If there is a great deal of dissatisfaction now, it will be far greater in 2020. 

Why the election of Trump is so significant is that it dramatically reflects the crisis in our economic system. It was the Wall Street Crash in October, 1929, when shares lost 47 per cent of its value in twenty-six days, that created the Great Depression. At the time many thought this was the end of capitalism and large numbers of people became socialists and communists. Others were attracted to the far-right and became committed fascists. 

Politicians responded to the crisis in different ways. Ramsay MacDonald, the 63-year-old British prime-minister, was slow to react to the crisis that caused large-scale unemployment. Relying on the advice of the economist John Maynard Keynes, the former prime-minister, David Lloyd George, published a pamphlet, We Can Conquer Unemployment, where he proposed a government scheme where 350,000 men were to be employed on road-building, 60,000 on housing, 60,000 on telephone development and 62,000 on electrical development. The cost would be £250 million, and the money would be raised by loan. 

Philip Snowden, his Chancellor of the Exchequer, rejected this proposal and wrote in his notebook on 14th August 1930, that "the trade of the world has come near to collapse and nothing we can do will stop the increase in unemployment." By December 1930, 2,725,000 people in Britain were recorded as being unemployed (20% of the insured workforce), and exports had fallen in value by 50%.

Snowden was mainly concerned about the impact of the increase in public-spending. At a cabinet meeting in January 1931, he estimated that the budget deficit for 1930-31 would be £40 million. Snowden argued that it might be necessary to cut unemployment benefit. Margaret Bondfield looked into this suggestion and claimed that the government could save £6 million a year if they cut benefit rates by 2s. a week and to restrict the benefit rights of married women, seasonal workers and short-time workers.

In March 1931 MacDonald asked Sir George May, the retired former company secretary of the Prudential Assurance Company, to form a committee to look into Britain's economic problems. At the same time, John Maynard Keynes, the chairman of the Economic Advisory Council, published his report on the causes and remedies for the depression. This included an increase in public spending and by curtailing British investment overseas.

Philip Snowden rejected these ideas and this was followed by the resignation of Charles Trevelyan, the Minister of Education. "For some time I have realised that I am very much out of sympathy with the general method of Government policy. In the present disastrous condition of trade it seems to me that the crisis requires big Socialist measures. We ought to be demonstrating to the country the alternatives to economy and protection. Our value as a Government today should be to make people realise that Socialism is that alternative."

When the May Committee produced its report in July, 1931, it forecast a huge budget deficit of £120 million and recommended that the government should reduce its expenditure by £97,000,000, including a £67,000,000 cut in unemployment benefits. The two Labour Party representatives on the committee, Arthur Pugh and Charles Latham, refused to sign the report. 

On 5th August, Keynes wrote to MacDonald, describing the May Report as "the most foolish document I ever had the misfortune to read." He argued that the committee's recommendations clearly represented "an effort to make the existing deflation effective by bringing incomes down to the level of prices" and if adopted in isolation, they would result in "a most gross perversion of social justice". 

The vast majority of Labour MPs refused to support the May Report and MacDonald went to see King George V and offered his resignation. Under pressure from the king he was persuaded to form a National Government that was mainly made up of Conservative and Liberal MPs.

On 8th September 1931, the National Government's programme of £70 million economy programme was debated in the House of Commons. This included a £13 million cut in unemployment benefit and a 10% cut in public sector wages. Tom Johnson, who wound up the debate for the Labour Party, declared that these policies were "not of a National Government but of a Wall Street Government". In the end the Government won by 309 votes to 249, but only 12 Labour M.P.s voted for the measures.

Of course the cuts did not have their desired impact on the economy. Snowden's measures were deflationary and merely reduced purchasing power in the economy, worsening the situation, and by the end of 1931 unemployment had reached nearly 3 million. By 1933 over 25% of the insured workforce were out of work.

In the 1932 Presidential Election, the American people rejected the austerity policies of Herbert Hoover and elected Franklin D. Roosevelt to office. As William E. Leuchtenburg, the author of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal (1963), has argued: "Franklin Roosevelt swept to victory with 22,800,000 votes to Hoover's 15,750,000. With a 472-59 margin in the Electoral College, he captured every state south and west of Pennsylvania. Roosevelt carried more counties than a presidential candidate had ever won before, including 282 that had never gone Democratic. Of the forty states in Hoover's victory coalition four years before, the President held but six."

During the election campaign Roosevelt promised to reduce taxation. After taking office he initially rejected the idea of increased public spending. However, by the spring of 1933, the needs of more than fifteen million unemployed had overwhelmed the resources of local governments. In some areas, as many as 90 per cent of the people were on relief and it was clear something needed to be done. His close advisors and colleagues, Frances Perkins, Harry Hopkins, Rexford Tugwell, Robert LaFollette Jr. Robert Wagner, Fiorello LaGuardia, George Norris and Edward Costigan eventually won him over to a new approach to the problem.

On 9th March 1933, Roosevelt called a special session of Congress. He told the members that unemployment could only be solved "by direct recruiting by the Government itself." For the next three months, Roosevelt proposed, and Congress passed, a series of important bills that attempted to deal with the problem of unemployment. The special session of Congress became known as the Hundred Days and provided the basis for Roosevelt's New Deal.

The government employed people to carry out a range of different tasks. These projects included the Works Projects Administration (WPA), the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the National Youth Administration (NYA), the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Public Works Administration (PWA). As well as trying to reduce unemployment, Roosevelt also attempted to reduce the misery for those who were unable to work. One of the bodies Roosevelt formed was the Federal Emergency Relief Administration which provided federal money to help those in desperate need.

To help pay for these measures Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass the Wealth Tax Act in August, 1935. It was a progressive tax that took up to 75 percent on incomes over $5 million. Roosevelt admitted that the tax had created a great deal of hostility: "The forces of organized money... are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match."

When Roosevelt took office the national deficit was nearly $3,000,000,000 and the unemployment-rate was 23.6%. His Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, and aides within the Treasury Department favored an approach that sought to balance the federal budget. But other advisers in the President's inner circle, including Harry Hopkins, Marriner Eccles and Henry Wallace, had accepted the recent theories of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that technically advanced economies would need permanent budget deficits or other measures (such as redistribution of income away from the wealthy) to stimulate consumption of goods and to maintain full employment. It was argued that it was the attempt to balance the budget that was causing the recession.

President Roosevelt was eventually convinced by these arguments and he recognized the need for increased government expenditures to put people back to work. An important part of his New Deal programme was increased spending on government expenditures for relief and work schemes. From 1933 to 1937, unemployment was reduced from 25% to 14%. 

Roosevelt was much attacked by his political opponents for not concentrating on reducing the national deficit. However, as Roosevelt explained in a speech in 1936: "To balance our budget in 1933 or 1934 or 1935 would have been a crime against the American people. To do so we should either have had to make a capital levy that would have been confiscatory, or we should have had to set our face against human suffering with callous indifference. When Americans suffered, we refused to pass by on the other side. Humanity came first."

Roosevelt was attacked for not keeping his promise to balance the budget. Some went as far as accusing Roosevelt of being a communist. Those on the left hated Roosevelt because they believed that his policies helped save capitalism. However, his economic policies were popular with the American people and he defeated his Republican presidential candidates in 1936 (Alfred M. Landon), 1940 (Wendell Willkie) and 1944 (Thomas E. Dewey). 

After the Second World War it European countries that were attracted to the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes. Up until the late 1970s it provided a growing economy and low unemployment rates. It also help to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. For example, the data available shows that the share of income going to the top 10% of the population fell over the 40 years to 1979, from 34.6% in 1938 to 21% in 1979, while the share going to the bottom 10% rose slightly. 

The 1973 oil crisis resulted in high inflation. In the UK inflation reached 26.9% in the 12 months to August 1975. In an effort to maintain the living standards of their members, trade unions demanded higher wages which in turn led to even higher inflation. The number of industrial disputes also increased during this period. On 22nd January 1979 more people in the UK took strike action, than on any day since the General Strike of 1926. 

Margaret Thatcher was elected to power in Britain in 1979 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. They both embraced the economic theories of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman that became known as Neo-Liberalism. This was a return to the world before the Great Depression in the 1930s. It was the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. They were also the economic policies that Karl Marx believed would lead to a socialist revolution.

Neo-Liberalism meant privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. It also involved passing legislation that weakened the trade union movement. These policies completely reversed the move towards a more equal society. Since the early 1980s the gap between rich and poor has widened considerably. 

During this period China has emerged as America's main economic rival. Although it claims to be a communist country, in reality it is state capitalist economy. This gives it great advantages over laissez-faire capitalism. For example, it has totally control over the cost of labour. (This is what happened in Germany in the 1930s.) It also has complete control over investment in certain industries. It can therefore give out state subsidies to industries in trouble, for example, steel. It also invests in other countries and controls over 30% of America's national debt. 

The second Great Depression took place in 2007. Its consequences are still being felt today. This time the major problem is not unemployment. Yesterday it was announced that Britain has an unemployment rate of 4.8%. The lowest in 11 years. USA has an unemployment rate of 4.9%. Why, therefore, did American workers vote for Trump? The reason is low wages. The majority of the American people have seen a fall in their living standards since the end of the 1970s. 

Will the proposals of Donald Trump work? Will Congress allow him to place high tariffs on goods imported from abroad? If they do it will cause inflation and is unlikely to persuade capitalists to invest in manufacturing in the United States. Do the businessmen who fund the political parties in America really want an end to the cheap labour provided by Mexico? 

In his first speech after being elected Trump spoke of a massive investment in America's infra-structure. In other words, something similar to Roosevelt's New Deal. However, he is also committed to reducing taxes for the wealthy. How is he going to pay for this? Will Congress allow him to increase public borrowing? 

I think he will probably cut defence spending and significantly reduce America military commitment to Europe and other areas, especially in the Middle-East. But this will not be enough to please those people who voted for Trump in the election. What kind of candidate will Americans vote for in 2020? 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, John Simkin said:

I think he will probably cut defence spending and significantly reduce America military commitment to Europe and other areas, especially in the Middle-East. But this will not be enough to please those people who voted for Trump in the election. What kind of candidate will Americans vote for in 2020? 

Don't bet your money on it, John.

That's not the Donald Trump I know.

The Donald Trump I know is a super hawk who can't wait to go to war.

His infrastructure project won't get past the House but his tax cuts and military build-up will.