Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Jeff Buchanan]

Do "conservative" groups realize how dumb and, frankly, dangerous this argument is? Congress has no business examining or investigating the President's foreign policy decisions? I beg your pardon?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

I took the poll then clicked to see the unbelievable results"

News Poll.JPG

[Jeff Buchanan]

I think you overplay the disaster of the alternative Democratic candidates, maybe you are watching too much Fox News. If they get elected, they would be fairly normal. You only need to look to Bernie Sanders voting record as a fairly conventional Democrat to see that his bark is worse than his bite. Warren might cause some trouble, she was a pain in the neck to the Obama administration.

Maybe ....... let's ask talent for his opinion on the "fucking disaster" anyone but Joe Biden getting elected as a D president would be.

I do think the moderating effect of the courts and the opposition in congress can have on a reasonably responsible president (Trump is not that) is a real thing in the US. But the free money things all the socialist candidates are talking about comes from the crock of shit called MMT or Modern Monetary Theory. It sounds very appealing and apparently is to the I want free stuff millennials and other cohorts who see the US government as the means to a satisfying life style.

But it would be disastrous for American business interests, future economic growth and employment. All you have to do is look around the world to find governments of countries that have gone down that path are collapsing. In my view you have to accept some level of bad ethics and wage inequality in a capitalist economy. It can be moderated with sensible governance - something I thik is hard to achieve these days in bi or multi partisan democracies with those partisans all having conflicting interests. But here in America, the stage is set for an administration policy that would be too heavy on re-distributive and costly environmental policies at the expense of entrepreneurship and the private funding that accelerates it and corporate capital investment and expansion that spurs employment.

[Jeff Buchanan]

On believing Pelosi has acted illegally ........ I've tried to follow the legal and political issues on this question. For the life of me, I cannot find a single act associated with the impeachment proceess, which by the way, the speaker is duty-bound to undertake - that violates House protocols or processes, is unethical or is in any way illegal in a civil sense.

That's why those results of that poll are surprising - sure the cohort that follows MSNBC or Fox exclusively might be expected to see it this way but FGS, voters can't be that fooled ..... or can they?

[Dr. Strangelove]

On believing Pelosi has acted illegally ........ I've tried to follow the legal and political issues on this question. For the life of me, I cannot find a single act associated with the impeachment proceess, which by the way, the speaker is duty-bound to undertake - that violates House protocols or processes, is unethical or is in any way illegal in a civil sense.

That's why those results of that poll are surprising - sure the cohort that follows MSNBC or Fox exclusively might be expected to see it this way but FGS, voters can't be that fooled ..... or can they?

Online polls almost never have any connection to reality. One side or the other floods the poll.

Nearly every talking head on Fox has been flooding the zone with talk about how the President is entitled to set the terms of his own impeachment. It has no basis in law; but then, most Fox viewers only respect Trump Law.

[froot loops]

The thing you call a crock of shit has been the defacto policy when Republicans are in charge since the days of Reagan. MMT is not new and the Trump administration is running a variation of it. He's running higher deficits and continually calling for the Fed to lower interest rates to increase the money supply. You are kind of worried about something that is already here in some form. The big change when AOC says something it indicates that the Democrats want to join the same strategy. Both the Clinton and Obama administrations did give in to some sort of budget controls. In Obama's case it hurt the recovery from the 2008 crash.

[Tom W]

But it would be disastrous for American business interests, future economic growth and employment. All you have to do is look around the world to find governments of countries that have gone down that path are collapsing. In my view you have to accept some level of bad ethics and wage inequality in a capitalist economy. It can be moderated with sensible governance - something I thik is hard to achieve these days in bi or multi partisan democracies with those partisans all having conflicting interests. But here in America, the stage is set for an administration policy that would be too heavy on re-distributive and costly environmental policies at the expense of entrepreneurship and the private funding that accelerates it and corporate capital investment and expansion that spurs employment.

Thankfully, enough people still realize this. They just don't have the tech savviness, time, patience or stupidity to get in dogfights on social media.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Thankfully, enough people still realize this. They just don't have the tech savviness, time, patience or stupidity to get in dogfights on social media.

Those people also miss Wagon Train, think windmills cause cancer, drive 55 in the left lane, and ask their kids to come over and set the clock on the VCR every time the power goes out.

[iam416]

Those people also miss Wagon Train, think windmills cause cancer, drive 55 in the left lane, and ask their kids to come over and set the clock on the VCR every time the power goes out.

And they have jobs. So, you know, they're not pro-communist.

[iam416]

I think you overplay the disaster of the alternative Democratic candidates, maybe you are watching too much Fox News. If they get elected, they would be fairly normal. You only need to look to Bernie Sanders voting record as a fairly conventional Democrat to see that his bark is worse than his bite. Warren might cause some trouble, she was a pain in the neck to the Obama administration.

Well, the only reason it wouldn't be a disaster is the institutional genius of our government. The shit Sanders and Warren are openly running are would be entirely and completely disastrous. Full stop.

But, the institutional genius of our government keeps shit mostly in check. It's why PDJT was never going to be a tangible disaster. He's a disaster for a lot of reasons, but not for substantively fucking up the economy. The areas where he is most dangerous are those without the checks and balances we need -- or, rather, where those were ceded by idiotic legislation. So, foreign policy. Whether he's been a disaster there is open for debate, but domestically we've weathered the storm. Entirely.

So, we would likely weather the preposterous proposals of Warren and Sanders. But only because of our genius Constitution.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Congress' dereliction of duty on trade and foreign treaties, going back decades, has led us to the point where a President can unilaterally impose taxes on foreign diapers or Scotch whiskey and use 'national security' as a justification to do so.

RE: foreign policy, we've mostly gotten lucky that the world has been pretty quiet for the past 3 years. The worst thing Trump's done there, perhaps, is made us look unreliable. That's possibly hyperbolic but there's truth in it too. Trump clearly didn't feel bound by deals made by Clinton, Bush, or Obama, so why should a future President be bound by anything Trump has told a foreign government? That HAS to be occupying the back of the mind of all foreign leaders. "What value does a deal with this man's country have once he's gone?" I'm sure there are examples of other Presidents doing this but I doubt anyone has ever entered office and immediately threatened to overturn widespread commitments the way Trump did.

[iam416]

I agree with basically all of that.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Mr. Strangelove, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Well, the only reason it wouldn't be a disaster is the institutional genius of our government. The shit Sanders and Warren are openly running are would be entirely and completely disastrous. Full stop.

But, the institutional genius of our government keeps shit mostly in check...........

So, we would likely weather the preposterous proposals of Warren and Sanders. But only because of our genius Constitution.

Well, you and I agree on the "genius constitution" and what it does to keep crazy shit in check.

But I can see legislative action during a presidential term that any number of D candidates not named Joe Biden, who might be elected precedent in the wake of the Trump presidency optics, would undertake in the House and pass. I'm not sure the Senate can withstand such an assault - I don't consider the turtle invincible in that regard.

DSL, that's a pretty good take on FP. Trump has simply taken undue advantage of what the Congress has ceded to the Executive. Maybe worth reviewing and rescinding some of those powers during the next session - the one where for a part of it anyway Trump will be out and a lame duck Pence in.

[Tom W]

And they have jobs. So, you know, they're not pro-communist.

Money, guns and ammo too..And they don't like giving up ANY of them easily.

[froot loops]

But I can see legislative action during a presidential term that any number of D candidates not named Joe Biden, who might be elected precedent in the wake of the Trump presidency optics, would undertake in the House and pass. I'm not sure the Senate can withstand such an assault - I don't consider the turtle invincible in that regard.

What in tarnations are you talking about? I think you do watch too much Fox News. Pelosi is running the House and when the Democrats are in power in the House they have an awful lot of moderates that can easily lose. They needed 60 votes in the Senate and they had House members that knew they were walking the plank when they voted for Obamacare. You give in too easily to fever dreams.