i mean absolutely accurate. 600 billion debt to 1.3 trillion, u might get 2.1 % growth but its not a miracle. how about giving people health care?

Oh I do not disagree with that Republicans believe cut taxes make the rich eicher and it will all trickle down.

I also believe if the democrats win and do not pursue Trump to the fullest extent of the law than they have failed the American people and why did they attempt to impeach him.

Any politician who says the country needs to heal is full of it

Chris Matthews noted the agony that befalls suddenly-out-of-power pols. They quickly find out "who their friends are" when people who routinely returned their telephone calls suddenly ignore them. For many of these pols, it comes as a great shock. (Ask Joe Crowley how great life has been since he [unexpectedly] lost to AOC.)

Much as it would be fun to see all of this happen to a dude who was President, the reality is that is not going to be the case to that extent. There will be a ton of books by his former loyalists saying how they stayed there to help the country yadda yadda, and those will be fun in that they will be all over the place, but the stuff you guys are talking about is, to be polite, wishful thinking.

u really think a 75 year old fat loser by 10 points to joe biden, with all his dirt coming out and a lost senate and normalcy returning to our national dialogue...he will be like dick cheney.

Joe Crowley or any other typical pol is a completely different situation than Trump. Trump is not going to go quietly into the night. He has power and influence that will continue even if he loses the election. You can't say that about Joe Crowley or Eliot Engel, who also seems to have lost his primary. I guess it's possible his "i can shoot someone in 5th avenue and won't lose support" base will suddenly turn on him once he has the whiff of being a loser, but his penchant for turning lemons into lemonade all throughout his life makes that an unlikely prospect.

For sure, I agree with that. In the argument that judicial institutions should be allowed to be just that, we certainly need to have oversight and review of those institutions.

Trump, for all his idiotic traits, have revealed glaring weaknesses in many institutions - and if I were American I would really want a debate on how such review and oversight should start to become truly independent of the executive branch. Savvy presidents can (and many may already have) certainly abuse such tendencies without people noticing.

But if the president after Trump (whenever this might be) goes on record with "we need to make sure <political opponent> is locked up" or some politically prettied up variant, this is bad.

And yes, this is absurd and unfair, considering the current President of the United States has violated these norms since his first days in office and he does it with a disrespectful glee that will be a stain on the presidential office for a long time. Still, these are important norms, there is a lot of power vested in the presidential office.

Crowley is still a power broker and fundraising machine in NY. He’s also making (presumably good) money on K street.

He is going to be around for a long time.

It's a challenge, for sure.

The system of AG nominated by a POTUS was shown to be completely impotent when the Senate (the Check) is a complete lackey to said POTUS.

I've seen the call for a newly created Independent Prosecutors office that is permanent and has a mandate to investigate any and all potential crime within politics.

I doubt the politicians wold want or allow that. To create a true self policing body with prosecution powers.

I think the current Inspector General system could work, if they remove the ability of a POTUS or anyone to remove them during their term. They should get 4 or 6 year terms, and be able to appoint an Independent Prosecutor, after they go through certain procedures and feel that despite that 'crimes may be occurring'.

I can appreciate someone just trying to cheerlead for their team, but let's not try to pretend like democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Like, we're sitting here bitching about Trump and a $2 trillion dollar stimulus, but the left wanted $2500/mo for every man woman and child in the country for the entirety of the COVID scare? It's spending that you'd have agreed with perhaps, so you can look the other way.

I have a several hundred million dollar democrat boondoggle roll past my office window every 20 minutes here in downtown Milwaukee.

Tell us more about the fiscally sound Clinton presidency, Grandpa Cuepee. More like: Thank you welfare reform, the 90s tech boom and higher tax rates, and a distinct lack of military conflict.

Clinton kicked people off welfare to increase labor participation rates. Your next progressive heroes are ready to implement a system by which everyone gets paid a "livable wage" for simply existing. What could possibly go wrong?

Your analogy was just very very poor. Dems don't try to fix deficits with reduced spending, they increase revenue via taxation.

Fun thought experiment. Can you imagine if the Clinton era welfare reforms had been proposed by a modern day Donald Trump? We'd have to come up with a new word for racism, sort of how "ginormous" made its way into the lexicon because giant and enormous weren't descriptive enough.

Sir, this is the Trump thread.

I am not a Dem. Don't confuse my dislike of Trump for being a Dem.

I don't care about your spin of the facts. Here are the facts.




GOP Presidents Have Been the Worst Contributors to the Federal Debt
Republican presidents have added far more to federal debt levels than Democrats, as a percent of GDP...


In terms of total increase in "federal debt to GDP" under U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era, Republican presidents during their terms have contributed far more to the debt load of the nation than Democrats.

Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all added to the federal debt significantly on a percent of GDP basis. On the Democratic side, President Obama -- who inherited the worst financial crisis in this era from his predecessor -- also ranks high in terms of contributing to the federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

Who reduced debt as a percentage of GDP the most?

When comparing by presidential term as in the chart to the side (click image to make larger), the big winner is Harry Truman, followed by Bill Clinton. Eisenhower is next, followed by Johnson and Nixon, the Kennedy, and finally Jimmy Carter. All of these presidents reduced debt as a percent of GDP.





...When looking at the charts this way, it is fascinating to see what a stand-out the Bill Clinton presidency was in balancing the budget and achieving revenue surpluses.

Clinton's achievement was being the guy who happened to be getting his dick sucked in the Oval while a post cold-war USA went HAM on technological innovation.

I'm not going to derail further on this, but go check out some of the other threads on the front page here to see how "facts" can come with a "but it's more complicated than that" asterisk next to them.

The Weinstein Bros have assured me America stopped innovating. Saw it on the little computer in my pocket that lets me access practically the entirety of human knowledge--and connect with just about any one anywhere instantly

The world is basically always more complicated. C'est la vie.

Are these ads running on TV? I'm in a battleground state - Florida - and haven't seen any Lincoln Project spots.

Speaking of Florida:

Florida Democrats gain vote-by-mail advantage

https://www.politico.com/states/flor...antage-1294263

At this point, Trump's only hope is a vaccine, with 100% efficacy rate, before the November election.

Maybe that'll be the October Surprise?

Not sure where the ads are running, this one should be run everywhere though.

Who wants to use a vaccine that hasnt been long term tested? I thought the reason they took a long time to develop is because u want to know long term effects.

+1

I'm not taking the first iterations of the vaccine(s). I'm not going to be Bunker Boy's guinea pig.

Trump could have sailed Obama's economy into zero deficits and deficit reduction if he WANTED to.

He would have had zero issue being the first modern day Republican to do so.

Instead he chose a path that has lead to some of the largest deficits.

So, I continue to say I don't care about the games you try and play re any Dem (Clinton or other) who ACTUALLY achieved a positive result because you want to pretend it was just going to happen.

You give Trump, CLinton's economy and Trump still runs massive deficits.

The fact remains, Republicans run massive deficits and Dems don't no matter the spin as tto why.

I didn't mean to imply I'd take said vaccine.

I don't get a yearly flu shot, because it's not a vaccine and it's efficacy rate is usually laughable.

So since there won't be a vaccine by November, Trump is cooked.


But, from a psychological standpoint, I think it'd be interesting to see how many Trumpty Dumpties would fervently and unconditionally back a vaccine that he touts. Real neat since some of his base still believes vaccines correlate with autism.

You really destroy these guys

Fun to read

synth:

Is declaring bankruptcy five (or how many?) times a good example of how one turns lemons into lemonade?