world

Bannon's 'treasonous' comment directed at Trump Jr, not Manafort: author

71 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

Fortunately he committed political and professional suicide, alienating himself not only from Trump but the "alt-right" and Breitbart. But not before he left us a gift - on the record, taped interviews about this dumpster fire of an administration. Thank you for that "Sloppy Steve" from your genius with big hands and a sound mind lol

So when Bannon said Ivanka is "dumb as a brick," was he confusing her with Manafort too? Completely understandable mistake.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Fortunately he committed political and professional suicide, alienating himself not only from Trump but the "alt-right" and Breitbart. But not before he left us a gift - on the record, taped interviews about this dumpster fire of an administration. Thank you for that "Sloppy Steve" from your genius with big hands and a sound mind lol

Seems like more and more inaccuracies are coming out of the book, anyway, in a month this too, shall pass and we’ll all be laughing about this.

So when Bannon said Ivanka is "dumb as a brick," was he confusing her with Manafort too? Completely understandable mistake

Ivanka has more brains than half of the Democratic Party, business woman, hugely successful in her own right and on top of that, she looks hot.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

I don't believe there's any way back for Mr Bannon at this point

More accurately, there's no coming back for any of them. There is a large amount of legal consequence, though.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

“and on top of that, she looks hot.”

Would you go out of your way to mention that kind of aspect if you were talking about, for instance, Trump’s son?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Seems like more and more inaccuracies are coming out of the book

Such as?

, anyway, in a month this too, shall pass and we’ll all be laughing about this.

You hope.

Ivanka has more brains than half of the Democratic Party,

Statistically, democrats are far more educated than repubes, so . . .

business woman, hugely successful in her own right

Thanks daddies money and contacts. Nothing like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

and on top of that, she looks hot.

Mysogeny at its finest. Kuddos to mysogenists! ROFL. Don't even go there. I know you didn't just say that. I wasn't debating that despite me having just done so for the past two days.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Such as?

From various people that know Wolff and that were in the WH with him and observed him and disputed many of the things Wolff claimed.

You hope.

Not my hope, going by history. This will blow over soon.

Statistically, democrats are far more educated than repubes, so . . .

And yet, they can never ratain power, build a strong economy or have any clue of what it means to be self-reliant, but taxing people, imposing income redistribution, they are the best, I will admit that.

Thanks daddies money and contacts. Nothing like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Not that’s smart, statistically speaking of course.

Mysogeny at its finest.

He said, he didn’t do it.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

From various people that know Wolff and that were in the WH with him and observed him and disputed many of the things Wolff claimed.

Very specific answer. ROFL.

Not my hope, going by history.

Prove it.

This will blow over soon.

You desperately hope.

And yet, they can never ratain power, build a strong economy or have any clue of what it means to be self-reliant, but taxing people, imposing income redistribution, they are the best, I will admit that

None of this refutes that Ivanka is more than likely dumb as a post given her father is. It also doesn't refute that Dems are more educated than repubes.

Also, there has never been income redistribution. I have challenged you on this repeatedly, but true to form, you just gloss over it.

The self-reliant part is rich given the last three democratic presidents have all been truly selfmade whereas the last three repube presidents had mommy' sand daddy's money.

Obama lowered taxes.

Not that’s smart, statistically speaking of course.

No, it doesn't take intelligence when you have mommy's and daddy's money. Glad you admit that.

He said, he didn’t do it.

Who said he didn't do what? This isn't relevant to my post that commentating how hot Ivanka is was mysogeny at its finest. LOL. Good lord. Oh my. Smh.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

The book....depicts a chaotic White House led by a man who is mentally unstable and unfit for the job.

Sounds about right.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

When I worked with Michael Wolff at the magazine New York, he always tripled checked facts and double checked quotes. I find it hard to believe he would ever fabricate anything.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Very specific answer. ROFL.

You mean the way the President disputed Wolff’s claims. Could be, very possible.

Prove it.

Can you prove that it won’t?

You desperately hope.

I’m never desperate, I just go with history, nothing more.

None of this refutes that Ivanka is more than likely dumb as a post given her father is. It also doesn't refute that Dems are more educated than repubes.

Hmmm..never met a dumb person that was an executive with money, private jets, amazing student. I guess that would be an awesomely smart dumb person. Something to aspire in life!

Also, there has never been income redistribution. I have challenged you on this repeatedly, but true to form, you just gloss over it.

I did, you see it with all the companies leaving, welfare benefits increased, unemployment increased the lack of jobs in the private sector, Democrats have always stood for income redistribution, that’s like saying, Republicans hate the NRA.

The self-reliant part is rich given the last three democratic presidents have all been truly selfmade whereas the last three repube presidents had mommy' sand daddy's money.

Self-made is one thing in a true democracy, but I’m talking about the people and trust me, to rich people when someone makes an adolescent remark, you got your money or help from your daddy, I say, Yup! For me and many rich kids, it was easier, but I had a small boost, not a 24/7 lifeline and the same goes for most rich people, but I’m proud of what I am and I’m sure most rich people are and feel the same and if people want to hate, it’s ok. It’s not taking anything away from us.

Obama lowered taxes.

Yes, Obamacare was so cheap, everyone that had loved the cast saving benefits of it, the middle class in States like Hawaii, California and NY are overly satisfied with the cheap and affordable housing they offer, might be in the deep ghetto, but the low taxes are a huge attraction to those States.

No, it doesn't take intelligence when you have mommy's and daddy's money. Glad you admit that.

The goal in life is to be able to live a good life and many of us go to school and university to get a competitive edge to get into a good career that can pay us good money and to have a decent prosperous life and if you can get there without an education, who cares, the main thing is, you have the assets to afford a lucrative living to have a great life and take care of your family. This is exactly what the left don’t get and why they lost the election and over 1000 legislative seats and that’s because they think they are better or they are insignificant and that kind of cockiness is what keeps the Dems from winning anything on a grand scale, because THEY think, they are the smartest tool in the shed, but have to call someone to screw in a lightbulb for them.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

By now everyone should know Trump Jr. was coordinating with Wikileaks about the release of Clinton's emails.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

You mean the way the President disputed Wolff’s claims. Could be, very possible

No, I mean your answer was not specific, just more vague assertions. My words were rather clear.

Can you prove that it won’t?

I did not make the original assertion that it would blow over, so it ain't on me to prove anything, homie. LOL!

I’m never desperate, I just go with history, nothing more.

That why you constantly defend Trump's misdeeds and repeat falsehoods about the FBI being corrupt? Kuddos.

Hmmm..never met a dumb person that was an executive with money, private jets, amazing student.

Then you've clearly never met a rich kid.

I did, you see it with all the companies leaving, welfare benefits increased, unemployment increased the lack of jobs in the private sector, Democrats have always stood for income redistribution

No, you didn't. Unemployment is a form of welfare. Welfare is not income redistribution, it is a safety net. Obama increased jobs in the private sector. (Here we go with more denials of facts, just like the past two days of denials that Obama tripled the stock market. Smh.)

Self-made is one thing in a true democracy, but I’m talking about the people and trust me, to rich people when someone makes an adolescent remark, you got your money or help from your daddy, I say, Yup! For me and many rich kids, it was easier, but I had a small boost, not a 24/7 lifeline and the same goes for most rich people, but I’m proud of what I am and I’m sure most rich people are and feel the same and if people want to hate, it’s ok. It’s not taking anything away from us.

This in no way undermines my refutation of your assertion that Dems aren't/don't teach self-reliance. ROFL.

Yes, Obamacare was so cheap, everyone that had loved the cast saving benefits of it, the middle class in States like Hawaii, California and NY are overly satisfied with the cheap and affordable housing they offer, might be in the deep ghetto, but the low taxes are a huge attraction to those States.

Glad you finally admit Obama lowered taxes. Obamacare has nothing to do with lowering taxes. Housing costs have nothing to do with lowering taxes. How'd that tax lowering work out for Kansas? No wonder repubes lost a national senate seat in the most evangelical state in the country. Kuddos to Jones!

they think they are better

It's not a liberal that keeps bloviating about how amazing cons are or telling us how much money they have made investing.

or they are insignificant

I'm not sure what this even means in the context of your post.

and that kind of cockiness is what keeps the Dems from winning anything on a grand scale,

We went from winning anything to winning anything on a grand scale. Move those goalposts.

because THEY think, they are the smartest tool in the shed, but have to call someone to screw in a lightbulb for them.

If Dems are poor, how can they afford to pay someone to change a lightbulb?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

By now everyone should know Trump Jr. was coordinating with Wikileaks about the release of Clinton's emails.

Prove it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

That why you constantly defend Trump's misdeeds and repeat falsehoods about the FBI being corrupt? Kuddos.

Because the “top” echelon of the FBI are corrupt, not talking about the entire organization as a whole.

Then you've clearly never met a rich kid.

I’m from OC our private school never had poor kids.

No, you didn't. Unemployment is a form of welfare. Welfare is not income redistribution, it is a safety net. Obama increased jobs in the private sector. (Here we go with more denials of facts, just like the past two days of denials that Obama tripled the stock market. Smh.)

Yes, I Most definitely did. Where does that money come from? From the tax payer, how do they get that money? Voluntarily? From the taxes we pay, but since in the Obama years welfare skyrocketed and welfare skyrocketed, you have to raise taxes especially if you have a sluggish economy in the private sector and having a GDP under 2.0% that’s not going to cut it. No jobs in the private sector, but at least there was substantial growth in the government sector, but with a slow economy, and the Dems raising taxes, so many small businesses went under like the Titanic.

It's not a liberal that keeps bloviating about how amazing cons are or telling us how much money they have made investing.

The liberals are the poster children of cons, as a matter of fact, they have it down cold. Conservatives make horrible cons, since in your opinion they are so dumb, they can’t be anywhere close to a con like status, they always get caught unlike the Democrats. So, you are right on that, the left takes the title.

We went from winning anything to winning anything on a grand scale. Move those goalposts.

But the right at least have goal posts, the left would impose a tax on moving it. Lol

If Dems are poor, how can they afford to pay someone to change a lightbulb?

increase taxes and impose income redistribution, robbing Paul to give to Peter.

Prove it.

Check Wikileaks, all of John Podesta’s are there laid out like a smorgasbord to see. The woman’s battleship was sunk!

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Because the “top” echelon of the FBI are corrupt, not talking about the entire organization as a whole.

So you mean the people involved in investigating your side are corrupt and everyone else is straight.

I’m from OC our private school never had poor kids.

Nice assumption that everyone knows what OC means.

Yes, I Most definitely did.

Nope.

Where does that money come from? From the tax payer, how do they get that money? 

So only rich people pay taxes? We've had the same tax code since Reagan. This means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Trump are also responsible for income redistribution by your logic.

in the Obama years welfare skyrocketed and welfare skyrocketed, you have to raise taxes

That's not how it works. The government does not look at the number of people on welfare and suddenly decide to raise taxes.

especially if you have a sluggish economy

The economy was sluggish because repubes ran it into the ground by allowing the financial crisis through deregulation.

No jobs in the private sector, but at least there was substantial growth in the government sector,

It is a fact that has been repeatedly pointed out to you that government jobs shrank and private sector jobs grew under Obama. Why do you insist on repeating falsehoods?

but with a slow economy, and the Dems raising taxes, so many small businesses went under like the Titanic.

The Dems did not raise taxes in the sense you are implying. Another falsehood you constantly repeat. He raised the tobacco tax and imposed a tax on tanning. He did raise taxes on investment income, but that only applied to high earners. (Did that stop anyone from investing? Of course not. Nobody says, "If I can't keep it all, I don't want any.). The penalty for not having insurance can be considered a voluntary tax raise because people could avoid it by getting health insurance.

Obama also extended Bush II's Taxpayer Relief Act, except for those earning $400k or more. (Oh, the horror of wealthy people paying anything.)

Small business went under bevause of the credit crunch, which is to say those business and patrons of those businesses could not obtain money to operate and purchase goods and services.

The liberals are the poster children of cons, as a matter of fact, they have it down cold. Conservatives make horrible cons, since in your opinion they are so dumb, they can’t be anywhere close to a con like status, they always get caught unlike the Democrats. So, you are right on that, the left takes the title

First, it was painfully obvious that "con" was shorthand for "conserbative." But since you mentioned cons in the sense of those that perpetrate fraud, Trump University.

Second, this does nothing to refute the fact that it isn't liberals constantly blociating about how smart they are, etc.

But the right at least have goal posts, the left would impose a tax on moving it. Lol

Goalposts are meaningless if you keep moving them. ROFL! No wonder repubes lost a national senate seat in Alabama. Kuddos to Jones.

increase taxes and impose income redistribution, robbing Paul to give to Peter.

This does not answer how poor people could pay someone to change a lightbulb. ROFL.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Increase taxes and impose income redistribution, robbing Paul to give to Peter.

Your favorite line. Except your comprehension of that saying is backwards according to what is happening in reality.

Paul = Lower income/middle class and Peter = Wealthy elitists.

It's a perfects example the rich get richer and everyone gets much poorer to satiate the greed of those on the top.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Honest D: Brilliant!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I’m from OC our private school never had poor kids.

Normally don't respond to your posts but couldn't pass this classic by. Mater Dei?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Considering all of Trump's outbursts in the last year, the kindest possible description of his behavior and frame of mind is childish.

I am tired of the White House spokespeople's self-righteous umbrage, and of the Republican leadership's eggshell walking around the elephant in the room.

All of it is gaslighting, pure and simple.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Then there was the other rabid Steve (Miller) briefly on State of the Union before he was kicked off. Miller was calling the book "tragic". Hmm, yea, a real tragedy. I am sure people are crying all across America over the book.

Miller reminded me of a movie with a Hitler characterization with Hitler shouting nien nien like a petulant child.

No wonder Trump likes Miller. I just can't understand how this kind of spokesperson (MiIler and Trump for that matter) is representing the U.S.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

. I just can't understand how this kind of spokesperson (MiIler and Trump for that matter) is representing the U.S.

With all due respect (we have the same level of education), it's probably because you underestimate the power of ignorance/stupidity.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So you mean the people involved in investigating your side are corrupt and everyone else is straight.

I never said that, I just said the upper echelon of the FBI are Most definitely corrupt. Anyone don’t give me that garbage! When the same situation happened to Clinton, the left thought Ken Starr was Lucifer incarnate and tried everything to get him and his team off Clinton’s back. Now the tables are turned and the conservatives just have to accept Mueller and merrily band of liberal investigators dig anything they can get their hands on about Trump.

Nice assumption that everyone knows what OC means

But you do, that’s the point.

Nope.

Oh, Most definitely.

So only rich people pay taxes? We've had the same tax code since Reagan.

Yes, factor in inflation gasoline was under $1.30. I think gas prices, cost of living has risen just a tad bit these days. So it would be in the best interest of the people and corporations to lower the tax code to allow growth, more money for companies to grow and expand, you know, the average thing that makes Americans feel good, but makes liberals feel so bad.

This means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Trump are also responsible for income redistribution by your logic

Yeah, to liberal Unicomverse logic perhaps, not to the real world, but I guess if you think like that, teaching people self-reliance, keeping the government small and increasing jobs in the private sector and NOT spooning off the the government, then it’s a good form of socialism then.

That's not how it works. The government does not look at the number of people on welfare and suddenly decide to raise taxes.

Correct, but the Democrats do. I have never met a Dem that didn’t love a tax hike.

The economy was sluggish because repubes ran it into the ground by allowing the financial crisis through deregulation.

Because the two Democrats responsible Chris Dodd and Barney Frank believed that every person should be able to buy a home and there was no oversight by them (intentionally) and allowed thousands of people to buy homes, people that didn’t qualify and had no business buying homes they could never afford, Bush should have never appointed those 2 stooges to oversee the Housing market and would work with these banks to allow these loans to go through and as a result, these people defaulted on their loans the the two regardless kept up the practice.

It is a fact that has been repeatedly pointed out to you that government jobs shrank and private sector jobs grew under Obama. Why do you insist on repeating falsehoods?

Because it’s a complete falsehood. Here is the light.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/9/federal-workers-hit-record-number-but-growth-slows/

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It's a perfects example the rich get richer and everyone gets much poorer to satiate the greed of those on the top.

Ahh and what are the liberals proposals? (Crickets) now all of a sudden they worry about financial inequality? What a bunch of bull crap! You guys had 8 years to fix that, but instead, you guys piled on the debt, increased regulations, increased spending, increased the debt, welfare, unemployment. Astonishing! So once again, what is the lefts proposal to fix this so called injustice.

Normally don't respond to your posts but couldn't pass this classic by. Mater Dei?

I take that as a compliment, but No Not Even close. ROFL

Obama also extended Bush II's Taxpayer Relief Act, except for those earning $400k or more. (Oh, the horror of wealthy people paying anything.)

And taxed the capital gains tax as well. Not good, not good.

Small business went under bevause of the credit crunch, which is to say those business and patrons of those businesses could not obtain money to operate and purchase goods and services.

How with the current tax code in place, it was impossible to run let alone own a business and that’s why you see in overtaxed Washington State, NYC and California a lot of empty businesses. But thank God, that will change very soon. Thank you Mr. President for giving the country a much needed IV.

Second, this does nothing to refute the fact that it isn't liberals constantly blociating about how smart they are, etc.

Liberals always brag how smart they are. I’m from California, every liberal is a gen-I-us.

Or so it seems....

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Ahh and what are the liberals proposals? (Crickets)

Liberals don't need to propose anything. The democrats are the opposition right now. As the right showed during the last presidency, the path to regaining the presidency is to obstruct, not to propose. Did you forget that already?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The average thing that makes Americans feel good, but makes liberals feel so bad.

Surely many Americans are liberals. Is it possible you have failed to understand the implications of Hillary Clinton winning 48.1 percent of the popular vote in 2016 against Trump's 46 percent, and Obama's 51 percent against Romney's 47 percent in 2012?

Have things really degenerated to the point that an American like yourself doesn't actually understand what American means - or has taken it upon himself to pick and choose?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Liberals don't need to propose anything.

If they want to win something, they ought to. Can’t run on wanting to impeach Trump, that’s not helping the people, that’s helping the party.

The democrats are the opposition right now. As the right showed during the last presidency, the path to regaining the presidency is to obstruct, not to propose. Did you forget that already?

Here’s the downside to that analysis, the GOP already controlled the House and the Senate, The Democrats on the other hand, have nothing. Ok....one Senate seat in Alabama, a vulnerable Democrat, but nonetheless...

Surely many Americans are liberals. Is it possible you have failed to understand the implications of Hillary Clinton winning 48.1 percent of the popular vote in 2016 against Trump's 46 percent, and Obama's 51 percent against Romney's 47 percent in 2012?

I don’t care about that, that’s not our system, so I don’t need to banter about, what if, could’ve been, it ought to be....doesn’t matter, we have the Electoral College system. Why should California have more to say than Maine or Wyoming? It’s not right.

Have things really degenerated to the point that an American like yourself doesn't actually understand what American means - or has taken it upon himself to pick and choose?

Homie, I probably understand it a lot more than most of you guys and that’s why I support the President. The last 8 years made me realize, the country is going downhill and I wanted to make a change.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

And taxed the capital gains tax as well. Not good, not good.

Taxed a tax?! That's extreme.

There are basically four revenue streams: labor, imports, sales, and assets. However you balance them, they should roughly equal expenditure (unless you're GOP, in which case you can simply borrow). The second is constrained by international treaties, while the third does not exist under Federal law; this leaves us with the first and last. So what you're saying is that labor should be taxed higher than capital? - that the average working man should see his/her tax burden rise so that the likes of Trump can see a tax reduction?

I liquidated a relatively large amount of equities this year (two kids in college) and was hit by a substantial tax - but better that than on my earnings.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I never said that, I just said the upper echelon of the FBI are Most definitely corrupt.

And your evidence is what?

But you do, that’s the point.

No, I do not know what OC means. Original character? An additional assumption that I know what it means.

Oh, Most definitely.

Most definitely not.

Yes, factor in inflation gasoline was under $1.30. I think gas prices, cost of living has risen just a tad bit these days. So it would be in the best interest of the people and corporations to lower the tax code to allow growth, more money for companies to grow and expand, you know, the average thing that makes Americans feel good, but makes liberals feel so bad.

How does this answer the question that only rich people pay taxes? Or refute that we've had the same tax code since Reagan, which means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Trump are also responsible for income redistribution by your logic. Oh, it doesn't. But it is yet another attempt to obfuscate. ROFL!

Yeah, to liberal Unicomverse logic perhaps, not to the real world, but I guess if you think like that, teaching people self-reliance, keeping the government small and increasing jobs in the private sector and NOT spooning off the the government, then it’s a good form of socialism then.

Again, an irrelevant response as it was to the assertion that the tax code was the same under Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and the first year of Trump and that means that if Clinton or Obama redistributed wealth, so did those repube presidents. Additionally, it is full of misinformation and falsehoods. Bush II was responsible for the largest expansion of the federal government in history. Obama increased jobs in the private sector and decreased government jobs.

Correct, but the Democrats do. I have never met a Dem that didn’t love a tax hike.

This does nothing to refute your assertion that if the welfare roles expand, the government raises taxes. Also, Obama did not hike taxes, which I succinctly explained in my previous post. That said, please keep repeating this falsehood if it makes you feel better/helps you sleep at night.

Because the two Democrats responsible Chris Dodd and Barney Frank believed that every person should be able to buy a home and there was no oversight by them (intentionally) and allowed thousands of people to buy homes, people that didn’t qualify and had no business buying homes they could never afford, Bush should have never appointed those 2 stooges to oversee the Housing market and would work with these banks to allow these loans to go through and as a result, these people defaulted on their loans the the two regardless kept up the practice.

There is so much incorrect information here. Presidents do not appoint Senators to do anything, which means Bush did not appoint Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to oversee the housing market. Dodd and Frank never worked with banks to allow any loans to go through. The republicans gutted banking regulations and that gutting allowed the banks to have no oversight, so the banks engaged in predatory lending on their own. Dodd-Frank was passed as a response to the financial crisis and strengthened regulations. You know, the Dodd-Frank that Trump recently gutted. Nice try.

Because it’s a complete falsehood. Here is the light.

No, it is a fact that government jobs shrank under Obama. Here is the light:

https://newrepublic.com/article/118954/public-sector-payrolls-under-obama-much-lower-other-presidents

That one has a pretty graph, which may make it easier for Trump supporters to understand.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/14/job-shifts-under-obama-fewer-government-workers-more-caregivers-servers-and-temps/

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If they want to win something, they ought to.

Why wouldn they? Obstructionism been shown to be a winning strategy. Why would they go with something else?

Can’t run on wanting to impeach Trump, that’s not helping the people, that’s helping the party.

The republicans were successful with party over people. Again, it’s a winning strategy.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You guys had 8 years to fix that, but instead, you guys piled on the debt, increased regulations, increased spending, increased the debt, welfare, unemployment. Astonishing!

You bring up unemployment as if we're supposed to believe the rate was simply rising during the Obama presidency. Let's have a look at it in graph form:

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/2.5.16.2.jpg?itok=h8SlpGcJ

Oh. Not quite how you described it.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Here’s the downside to that analysis, the GOP already controlled the House and the Senate, 

Not in 2014 they didn’t. And they were obstructionist well before that.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This:

Ahh and what are the liberals proposals? (Crickets) now all of a sudden they worry about financial inequality? What a bunch of bull crap! You guys had 8 years to fix that, but instead, you guys piled on the debt, increased regulations, increased spending, increased the debt, welfare, unemployment. Astonishing! So once again, what is the lefts proposal to fix this so called injustice.

in no way refutes, or is relevant to this:

It's a perfects example the rich get richer and everyone gets much poorer to satiate the greed of those on the top.

Moving on.

And taxed the capital gains tax as well. Not good, not good.

I covered this. It was only for those earning $400k or more. Again, nobody ever says, "If I cannot keep all the money, I don't want any."

How with the current tax code in place, it was impossible to run let alone own a business and that’s why you see in overtaxed Washington State, NYC and California a lot of empty businesses. But thank God, that will change very soon. Thank you Mr. President for giving the country a much needed IV.

If this were even slightly accurate, the economy would not be roaring along under the current tax code. Or have you changed your mind about the state of the current economy?

Liberals always brag how smart they are.

Yet, on these threads, it is a self proclaimed conservative that is constantly blowing hard about how much money they have made in the market and how amazing conservative ideology is. ROFL. Kuddos to those with a memory/ability to go back through comments.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Tommy, "OC" refers to Orange County. Careful as there are two, one in Florida and one in California, but the latter is better known. It's home to Disneyland and industry and corporate headquarters and some very expensive housing - and used to be home to many GOP congressmen, but they're increasingly endangered. Ed Royce, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, just announced yesterday his retirement, so his seat is up for grabs, as is that of my own representative, Dana Rohrabacher 'cause he's so unpopular - and both districts will likely flip Democratic, two of the 24 seats the Dems need to capture the House. This is historical: OC has always been red, but not any longer.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If they want to win something, they ought to. Can’t run on wanting to impeach Trump, that’s not helping the people, that’s helping the party.

They can run on wanting to impeach Trump, and undo the damage he has done. Helping the people and helping the party are not mutually exclusive. That is a false duality.

Here’s the downside to that analysis, the GOP already controlled the House and the Senate, The Democrats on the other hand, have nothing. Ok....one Senate seat in Alabama, a vulnerable Democrat, but nonetheless...

The downside to this analysis is it assume the GOP will still control both houses in 2020.

I don’t care about that, that’s not our system, so I don’t need to banter about, what if, could’ve been, it ought to be....doesn’t matter,

Correct, the popular vote is not the system we have. However, the popular vote demonstrates the will of the people as it counts each person's vote.

we have the Electoral College system. Why should California have more to say than Maine or Wyoming? It’s not right.

California has more say than any state under the Electoral College because it is the most populous state. 55 for California. 4 for Maine. 3 for Wyoming.

Yoinks.

Homie, I probably understand it a lot more than most of you guys and that’s why I support the President. The last 8 years made me realize, the country is going downhill and I wanted to make a change.

That is funny in light of this:

This is exactly what the left don’t get and why they lost the election and over 1000 legislative seats and that’s because they think they are better or they are insignificant 

So, I repeat my assertion that it is conservatives on this site that think they are better or are significant, homie. ROFL. Don't even go there. I know you didn't just say that. No wonder Repubs lost a national Senate seat in the most evangelical state.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And your evidence is what?

Not one single conservative and 22 Democratic donors that’s the evidence and oh, did I mention, they don’t like Trump, 8 of them have strong ties to the Democratic Party as well as donated heavily to Democratic causes and none to the GOP. That’s the smoking gun. But again, when the GOP and Ken Starr were doing the same exact thing, the left had a mental seizure, but now we are supposed to believe this team is honest? Hey, you can believe that, I won’t.

No, I do not know what OC means. Original character? An additional assumption that I know what it means.

Then I can’t help you, Sorry.

Most definitely not.

Definitely

Again, an irrelevant response as it was to the assertion that the tax code was the same under Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and the first year of Trump and that means that if Clinton or Obama redistributed wealth, so did those repube presidents.

Not at all. Welfare increased 3 fold under Obama as well as unemployment benefits, less jobs in the private sector, more people were sitting on their money, now one was spending, the middle class have been leaving by the thousands to get way from the out of control tax States like California and New York, wages down, but the taxes in these States became unbearable. At least Clinton to his credit did welfare reform and imposed limits and lowered it. Can’t say the same for President 44.

Additionally, it is full of misinformation and falsehoods. Bush II was responsible for the largest expansion of the federal government in history. Obama increased jobs in the private sector and decreased government jobs.

I never said that Bush was a bonified conservative in the purest of sense.

Also, Obama did not hike taxes, which I succinctly explained in my previous post. That said, please keep repeating this falsehood if it makes you feel better/helps you sleep at night.

No, I feel spectacular that he’s gone, better can’t describe my inner feelings.

https://www.atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996

There is so much incorrect information here. Presidents do not appoint Senators to do anything, which means Bush did not appoint Chris Dodd and Barney Frank to oversee the housing market. Dodd and Frank never worked with banks to allow any loans to go through. The republicans gutted banking regulations and that gutting allowed the banks to have no oversight, so the banks engaged in predatory lending on their own. Dodd-Frank was passed as a response to the financial crisis and strengthened regulations. You know, the Dodd-Frank that Trump recently gutted. Nice try.

Sorry, their job was to convey oversight and they didn’t do that, yes, the collapse happened under Bush, but the main culprits were Dodd and Frank for allowing the practice to go through. No wonder they retired quickly, there was no way, those two clowns could have won re-election again.

No, it is a fact that government jobs shrank under Obama. Here is the light.

Not at all not only did they rise, but wages were becoming so stagnant a lot of people were moving back home and taking themselves out of the job market, but it’s a normal thing for Dems to accept a sluggish economy “mediocre” is the new comfort zone for the left

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Yoinks.

Indeed. Wyoming voters already have 3.6 the weight of California voters due to the structure of the electoral college (one vote for each of the two senators, who preside regardless of population, and one vote for each representative, who are based on population). Find out where your state's at - the higher its population, the lower each individual vote counts for the presidency. (And this is precisely why Repubs have twice in recent years managed to snag the presidency while losing the popular vote. It is a problem.) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Presented with the numbers that show him to be wrong, yet he still claims:

Not at all not only did they rise

Typical Republican. Pretends facts he doesn’t like don’t exist. Then criticized Liberal logic! Rofl homie don’t go there!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Not one single conservative and 22 Democratic donors that’s the evidence and oh, did I mention, they don’t like Trump, 8 of them have strong ties to the Democratic Party as well as donated heavily to Democratic causes and none to the GOP. That’s the smoking gun.

Just because conservatives cannot set aside their political ideology to do their job does not mean everyone else cannot either. Not exactly a smoking gun.

But again, when the GOP and Ken Starr were doing the same exact thing, the left had a mental seizure, but now we are supposed to believe this team is honest? Hey, you can believe that, I won’t.

Criticizing something is not the same as being dishonest.

Then I can’t help you, Sorry.

Spoken like a true conservative. Funny, Laguna had no issue assisting me.

Definitely

Nope

Not at all. Welfare increased 3 fold under Obama as well as unemployment benefits, less jobs in the private sector, more people were sitting on their money, now one was spending, the middle class have been leaving by the thousands to get way from the out of control tax States like California and New York, wages down, but the taxes in these States became unbearable. At least Clinton to his credit did welfare reform and imposed limits and lowered it. Can’t say the same for President 44.

Again, not relevant to the assertion that the current tax code has been the same since Reagan, so if Clinton and Obama redistributed wealth so did the Republican presidents since Reagan.

As for the unemployment benefits, who cause the financial crisis that tanked the economy. Oh, that's right, Bush and republicans. The financial crisis was also the reason no one was spending.

Ummm . . . people are leaving California because of housing costs, not taxes. People are leaving New York because of housing costs, consumer costs, and they are retiring to warmer places like Florida; not because of taxes. A little research goes a long way.

I never said that Bush was a bonified conservative in the purest of sense.

This is irrelevant to my post that the tax code has been the same since Reagan, so if the democratic presidents redistributed income, so did the republican presidents.

No, I feel spectacular that he’s gone, better can’t describe my inner feelings.

Then leave it at that instead of intentionally repeating falsehoods.

Sorry, their job was to convey oversight and they didn’t do that,

Legislatures do not dictate regulation. It was the gutting of regulation of the banking sector by Bush II that led to the financial crisis.

yes, the collapse happened under Bush, but the main culprits were Dodd and Frank for allowing the practice to go through. No wonder they retired quickly, there was no way, those two clowns could have won re-election again.

See my immediately preceding two sentences.

Not at all not only did they rise,

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. It does indicate that there is little reason to engage the person repeating the falsehood.

but wages were becoming so stagnant a lot of people were moving back home and taking themselves out of the job market,

Not exactly true.

but it’s a normal thing for Dems to accept a sluggish economy “mediocre” is the new comfort zone for the left

Sure. That's why the economy was roaring along under Clinton. Obama had to deal with the republican created financial crisis, so certain deserves some leeway.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

 (And this is precisely why Repubs have twice in recent years managed to snag the presidency while losing the popular vote. It is a problem.)

And I guess we won’t know over the last two elections as to how many illegals or dead people voted as well.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

If you want to say the GOP are sneaky, then you have to be fair and criticize the Democrats as equally being sneaky.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

Typical Republican. Pretends facts he doesn’t like don’t exist.

They do exist, but not the unicornverse facts, Sorry. By the way, I’m not a Republican.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

And I guess we won’t know over the last two elections as to how many illegals or dead people voted as well

We know it was not in any significant number.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

bass: Not one single conservative and 22 Democratic donors that’s the evidence and oh, did I mention, they don’t like Trump, 8 of them have strong ties to the Democratic Party as well as donated heavily to Democratic causes and none to the GOP. That’s the smoking gun. 

Then why aren't Sessions or Rosenstein concerned?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Just because conservatives cannot set aside their political ideology to do their job does not mean everyone else cannot either. Not exactly a smoking gun.

Democrats have been obstructing the president from day one, if you want to talk about ideology talk to Nancy and Chuck.

Criticizing something is not the same as being dishonest.

Oh, no you don’t. Ok, so then the left are disastrously dishonest, they go nuts when their President is being investigated, but demand the right trust the system when a conservative President is being investigated. Hypo-crits to the max! 

Spoken like a true conservative. Funny, Laguna had no issue assisting me.

Ok, so both of you don’t know, Sorry. I’m sure someone that’s from California will get it. 

Nope

Most definitely.

Again, not relevant to the assertion that the current tax code has been the same since Reagan, so if Clinton and Obama redistributed wealth so did the Republican presidents since Reagan.

It is relevant, States like looney California and NYC are so out of control with their taxes, unless you make a lot of money, you’re just living paycheck to paycheck. Why would I give all my money to the dreaded blood sucking government? California technically is a welfare State.

As for the unemployment benefits, who cause the financial crisis that tanked the economy. Oh, that's right, Bush and republicans.

Actually, it was Dodd and Frank, but I do agree it happened under Bush’s watch.

Ummm . . . people are leaving California because of housing costs, not taxes. People are leaving New York because of housing costs, consumer costs, and they are retiring to warmer places like Florida; not because of taxes. A little research goes a long way.

I hope you live by your words.

https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/63520-16-reasons-people-are-leaving-california-by-the-millions.

California has the highest state income tax rates in the entire nation. For many Americans, the difference between what you would have to pay if you lived in California and what you would have to pay if you lived in Texas could literally buy a car every single year.

The state government in Sacramento seems to go a little bit more insane with each passing session. This time around, they are talking about going to a single-payer health care system for the entire state that would cost California taxpayers $400 billion a year.

This is irrelevant to my post that the tax code has been the same since Reagan, so if the democratic presidents redistributed income, so did the republican presidents.

Not nearly as much as the last President Who spent money like a drunken sailor. $11 Trillion won’t go away magically.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. It does indicate that there is little reason to engage the person repeating the falsehood.

And yet you do it, why is that?

Not exactly true

Very, very true.

Lowest labor participation rate since the 70’s, 95 million Americans out of the Labor force worst recovery since the 1940s, lowest home ownership rate in 51 years, almost 13 million more Americans on food stamps, over 43 million Americans living in poverty. 

Sure. That's why the economy was roaring along under Clinton.

Yes, it was very good. 

Obama had to deal with the republican created financial crisis, so certain deserves some leeway.

Yes and now Trump needs to do the same so, give the man some leeway as well to deal with this mess Obama left us in.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

I remember the beautiful phrase ‘one man, one vote’.

Well, we have GW Bush and Trump as a result of the system. There is a movement for reform to a direct presidential election, but it would require a constitutional amendment that many smaller states vehemently oppose (for obvious reasons), so I son't see it happening in my lifetime.

Ironically, the presidential vote disparity is higher than even in Japan's Diet elections.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Laguna

Isn't it a fact that the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections? Yet, some people post about 'the people' speaking or 'the people' having enough when their preferred candidate loses on the popular vote.

It's thing to defend the system, but to post about 'the people' in this way is mind-boggling.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Didn’t Obama once call Bush unpatriotic?

By now everyone should know Trump Jr. was coordinating with Wikileaks about the release of Clinton's emails.

By now everyone should know that Hillary and the DNC paid for Russian propaganda in order to interfere with the 2016 election. And there is actually evidence that she did so via a political opposition research company called Fusion GPS. Not to mention the corrupt Obama DOJ who worked to use that misinformation as insurance to impeach Trump in case he somehow beat Hillary. There has been unbelievable corruption before in American history and we have seen it again under Obama. There is no money trail between Trump and Moscow. There is a money trail from Hillary and the DNC to Moscow. Dems are trying as hard as they can to deflect from that fact.

This ridiculous effort at #resistance is not only criminal but could end up getting a clown like Trump re-elected. That isn’t doing anyone any good.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Wolf, Obama didn't call Bush unpatriotic, he called his policies unpatriotic. Here is the quote:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents — number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic.

Now, legitimate arguments may be made whether the amount of debt incurred by Obama was fundamental in the US's recovery or wasted spending (I lean towards the former - the US's recovery speed far surpassed other G9 nations) - and legitimate questions exist about the wisdom of the recently passed GOP tax bill.

But, no: Obama did not call Bush unpatriotic. He was clearly referring to a policy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Micheal Woolf can say whatever he likes because he is promoting his book. This kind of opportunity is once in a blue moon for Micheal Woolf. He is trying to make his golden egg bigger and bigger.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass: OK, then you can believe that liberal mantra if you want, I don’t

Liberal mantra? It's been shown time and time again when people drill down the numbers what's really happening. You're free to "not care" if you want but it's the primary reason why your voter suppression laws fail in court over and over again. When it comes time to show evidence/proof of fraud, the GOP can't because the standard in court is much higher than the standard on Fox News. Don't care all you want, just don't whine when you lose in court.

There is more than approve, I’ve given you proof

Your stats do not prove voter fraud in any way.

Yes, the easiest way o curtail any potential problems is issuing voter ID cards to everyone, problem solved,

I asked for evidence that the GOP is tackling mail in voter fraud, something that is much more open to fraud than in person voter fraud. You have no answer for it because the GOP doesn't talk about it.

Every liberal would flatly except it?

You have shown zero evidence that bias is impacting their ability to do their jobs. Zero.

Rosenstein is equally as bad.

Of course. You don't get a decision to go your way so you instantly claim corruption.

You've written so, so many words without proving anything. Your supporting evidence is "I'm from California" and "don't try that" and "I'm not falling for that". Waste of time from an actual adult to think that's a winning strategy in a debate.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Love it or hate it, one thing you can say about the Trump presidency is that it creates a lot of opportunity. Both Wolff and Bannon are going to bank on this story. Wolff is capitalizing on the hunger for dirt on everything Trump and for sure he's going to sell way more books now that there is some "extra"controversy to spice it up. Bannon is back in the spotlight again (exactly where he wants to be) and that goes a long way promoting his ongoing quest for relevance. And as the drama deepens, it will be analyzed and discussed, commentators will offer opinions, debates will ensue and at every step there will be some amount of income generated for somebody. It's a winning situation all around, the viewing public gets to watch the players dance and people get paid to put on the show. Good entertainment and good for the economy, too.

There's even an opportunity for Trump in this episode. It could end up being an entire chapter in "The Trump Twitter Dairies" (volume I).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It's hilarious that after speaking truth, Stevie boy gets the boot from Breitbart.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This does nothing to refute my assertion that Mueller's team is capable of setting aside their politics to do their jobs in an unbiased manner.

OK, if you want to believe that, do so, but I am not buying it, for some reason none of you libs would answer my question, so I will, of course you guys would be outraged if the roles were reversed and you would have an investigative team made up of conservatives. But you believe what you want and so will I.

Nancy and Chuck are politicians, which means their politics are central to their jobs.

Sure, it goes both ways.

It's over the top Funny to hear conservatives whine about obstruction after what they did during the Obama years.

Not on a minute by minute basis.

So you're saying OC doesn't mean Orange County California

That's exactly what I was referring to, very good.

No.

Most definitely

Not relevant to, nor refutes the fact that the tax code has been the same since Reagan,

And now changed, so we will see a reduction and more businesses and incentives to come back to the States and advantage of what was a sluggish and stagnant economy and the revitalize the small business community as well as the corporations.

Nice try using an opinion piece in an attempt to refute why people are leaving California and New York.

Everything is an opinion, but if you want facts, but it has nothing to do with the massive exodus of those States by the middle class

More from the fake news network.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/pf/people-moving-out-california/index.html

Nope

Very, very true.

Glad you admit Dems aren't okay with a sluggish economy.

No, I was specifically talking about Bill Clinton, there were many things I didn't like about the man, especially his behavior with women, but as a President overall, not that bad.

It's good you acknowledge republicans are respomsible for the financial crisis.

I never said that, I said the collapse happened on Bush's watch, but if Dodd and Frank did their jobs that they were assigned to, we wouldn't have been in that situation and I lost a lot of money, so I have a very personal disdain for those two men.

If Obama left the country in such a mess, how did the current bull market begin under him and how is the economy roaring along so well now?

Trump came in, got rid of the regulations and did what he does best, make money. Obama? ROFL

too funny. so the Prince of welfare is responsible for the boom? WOW! What on earth do you guys read, High Times?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

OK, if you want to believe that, do so, but I am not buying it, for some reason none of you libs would answer my question, so I will, of course you guys would be outraged if the roles were reversed and you would have an investigative team made up of conservatives. But you believe what you want and so will I

I do believe you haven't refuted my assertion that just because conservatives cannot set aside their bias does not mean others are incapable of doing so.

Sure, it goes both ways.

Keep up. You were using Chuck and Nancy being political in an attempt to refute my assertion that Mueller's investigators are not bias. So, for politicians it goes both ways, but we were discussing FBI investigators.

Everything is an opinion, but if you want facts, but it has nothing to do with the massive exodus of those States by the middle class

Patently false.

More from the fake news network

The article you linked supports my position. I did not get my info from CNN, but thanks for the assist.

Very, very true.

Very, very, very untrue.

No, I was specifically talking about Bill Clinton, there were many things I didn't like about the man, especially his behavior with women, but as a President overall, not that bad.

Ummm . . . Okay. This does nothing to refute that you agreed that the economy was roaring under Clinton, which demonstrates that Dems are not okay with a sluggish economy.

I never said that, I said the collapse happened on Bush's watch, but if Dodd and Frank did their jobs that they were assigned to, we wouldn't have been in that situation and I lost a lot of money, so I have a very personal disdain for those two men

And I explained that Congress, which is where Dodd and Frank worked, do not control regulation. I also explained that Bush gutting regulation was responsible for the financial crisis.

Trump came in, got rid of the regulations

and did what he does best, make money. Obama? ROFL

It is a demonstrable fact, which has repeatedly been demonstrated to you, that the current bull market began under Obama. The idea that Trump repealed regulation within a week of inauguration comes straight from the unicornverse.

Kerp in mind what deregulation under Bush caused: the financial crisis. ROFL! Oh my. Don't even go there. Smh.

too funny. so the Prince of welfare is responsible for the boom? WOW! What on earth do you guys read, High Times?

Welfare recipients increased because of the financial crisis republicans left for Obamacare to fix, which Obamacare did. The fixes are what started the current bull market.

I would ask what conservatives read, but I know the answer is only things that confirm their bias instead of multiple sources. Lol.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

*Obama, not Obamacare.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I do believe you haven't refuted my assertion that just because conservatives cannot set aside their bias does not mean others are incapable of doing so.

Again, you believe that, I won’t and liberals can play that came all day, I just don’t want to hear the BS that they are doing a fair and impartial investigation, that’s like saying, the Democrats are the most honest party on the planet.

Keep up. You were using Chuck and Nancy being political

They are and they know it and another reason as to why Pelosi doesn’t want impeachment charges filed because she knows it could lead to their downfall or at worst case, a President Pence Which would destroy the Democrats agenda overall.

Patently false

Not at all.

I did not get my info from CNN, but thanks for the assist.

I’m glad we agree, thanks to Trump, this republic can be saved another day closing and that’s 3 quarters of straight growth.

Ummm . . . Okay. This does nothing to refute that you agreed that the economy was roaring under Clinton, which demonstrates that Dems are not okay with a sluggish economy.

Very true.

But I was talking about Bill Clinton and the 90’s for the record.

And I explained that Congress, which is where Dodd and Frank worked, do not control regulation.

But they had oversight, that was their position and they totally mucked it up for thousands of people and the market as well.

It is a demonstrable fact, which has repeatedly been demonstrated to you, that the current bull market began under Obama.

And ended in in one of the worst economic recoveries ever.

Lowest labor participation rate since the 70’s, 95 million Americans out of the Labor force worst recovery since the 1940s, lowest home ownership rate in 51 years, almost 13 million more Americans on food stamps, over 43 million Americans living in poverty. 

Welfare recipients increased because of the financial crisis republicans left for Obamacare to fix, which Obamacare did.

Ahh, so that’s why so many insurance companies left the exchanges and it’s in its final death throws with the highest premiums and climbing. Thank God the GOP got rid of that mandate for starters. That’s a phenomenal accomplishment.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

With all due respect (we have the same level of education), it's probably because you underestimate the power of ignorance/stupidity.

Just naivete assuming people are rational and can see blatant fascism for what it is. And, I don't really know to many ignorant and stupid people. These boards are enlightening in that respect.

I’m glad we agree, thanks to Trump, this republic can be saved another day closing and that’s 3 quarters of straight growth.

Ignoring the growth trend before your fearless leader? How convenient and utterly biased. Are you Stephen Miller in disguise? Or, do all Trumpets engage in self-delusion.

Don't worry, there is a bubble in the works that can burst at any moment. The growth trend has been the longest on record since the one starting from the 1960s, and that trend is unsustainable. Several economists think the bubble will burst in 2019.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ignoring the growth trend before your fearless leader? How convenient and utterly biased.

The growth trend looks great, what are you talking about?

Are you Stephen Miller in disguise?

Would that be a bad thing?

Or, do all Trumpets engage in self-delusion.

I think liberals are the ones that are living in total denial and in a constant and total delusional state.

Don't worry, there is a bubble in the works that can burst at any moment. The growth trend has been the longest on record since the one starting from the 1960s, and that trend is unsustainable. Several economists think the bubble will burst in 2019.

Oh, here we go. At the same time, if we can cut spending, cut all the unnecessary entitlements and social programs and increase growth in the private sector and offer more incentives, there are many economists that predict the exact opposite.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bass: Again, you believe that, I won’t and liberals can play that came all day, I just don’t want to hear the BS that they are doing a fair and impartial investigation

Rosenstein's recent comments:

"We recognize we have employees with political opinions. It’s our responsibility to make sure those opinions do not influence their actions. I believe that Director Mueller understands that, and he is running his office appropriately.”

"I know what he's doing," Rosenstein said. "If I felt he was doing something inappropriate, I would take action."

From Trump, soon after:

“There’s been no collusion. But I think he’s (Mueller) going to be fair."

Can you tell us what evidence you have that they don't have?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Rosenstein's recent comments:

"We recognize we have employees with political opinions. It’s our responsibility to make sure those opinions do not influence their actions. I believe that Director Mueller understands that, and he is running his office appropriately.”

I fell out laughing when I saw that and to many in the agency, a lot of agents were totally shocked by his comments. Either the man is delusional, a liar or believes his own or hopes that dumb people believe his .

"I know what he's doing," Rosenstein said. "If I felt he was doing something inappropriate, I would take action."

Not buying that for a second.

“There’s been no collusion. But I think he’s (Mueller) going to be fair."

Well, now all of a sudden, we have to take Trump’s words seriously? You guys are a crack up!

Can you tell us what evidence you have that they don't have?

I can’t, just as you can’t say definitively or prove that these people are not corrupt.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Can you tell me about specific incidents of bias by the investigators?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Can you tell me about specific incidents of bias by the investigators?

Sure thing. Having a team of Democratic investigators, zero conservative investigators, zero conservative donors, 9 out of the 22 Democratic donors. Weissmann and Rhee are some of the most bias anti-Trump people on the team, we had Strzok that was on the team making outrageous comments.

Need more? I got all day.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Can you tell me about specific incidents of bias by the investigators?

Sure thing. Having a team of Democratic investigators, zero conservative investigators, zero conservative donors, 9 out of the 22 Democratic donors. Weissmann and Rhee are some of the most bias anti-Trump people on the team, we had Strzok that was on the team making outrageous comments.

That's weird. You said you were going to answer the question, then went on to write a bunch of stuff that didn't answer the question. Are you going to actually answer it?

Need more? I got all day.

Ok, then how about you actually answer the question?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Need more? I got all day.

How about NY FBI agents leaking information to Gulianni about emails found on a Clinton aide's PC?

Which forced Comey to come out early with an announcement about the investigation.

Let me guess, it doesn't count.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How about NY FBI agents leaking information to Gulianni about emails found on a Clinton aide's PC?

From the Pedestal files, what's wrong with that, by the way, is she running? By the seems like Abedin is in some serious hot water.

Which forced Comey to come out early with an announcement about the investigation.

Comey had no business coming out with ANY information about a possible indictment, that is the job of the DOJ, wasn't Comey's.

Let me guess, it doesn't count.

Again, is she running.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bass: agency, a lot of agents were totally shocked by his comments

What evidence do you have of this, something where I can confirm?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Best would be best for the moron and USA to pass sound republican-led bipartisan immigration and entitlement reform bills and then godspeed the moron through the WH main gate and all his ilks too, for goodness’ sake.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What evidence do you have of this, something where I can confirm?

I saw two on TV in an interview and read another one online in an article giving an interview that said so.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Statistically, democrats are far more educated than repubes, so . . .

Gobbling up wholesale the liberal establishment's agenda, which is what most colleges and universities sell nowadays, and then getting a degree for it doesn't necessarily mean one is educated. It's like that scene in that movie "Goodwill Hunting" where Matt Damon--supposedly un-educated--has a short debate in the bar with the Harvard "educated" guy who could ramble of the top of his head the words of all the so-called intellectuals, but had a hard time thinking for himself. In short, having a liberal arts degree, being able to quote word-for-word Marx, Adorno, and all the other left, doesn't mean you're educated.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

In short, having a liberal arts degree, being able to quote word-for-word Marx, Adorno, and all the other left, doesn't mean you're educated.

Actually, it does. Having a degree means the person has gone through education, and is therefore educated.

I think the word you were looking for is 'smart'.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Actually, it does. Having a degree means the person has gone through education, and is therefore educated.

I think the word you were looking for is 'smart'.

A degree is “A” But there is never a guarantee that you will find a high paying job or a career in the field of your study. Doesn’t mean you are smart or dumb. There are millions of millionaires and billionaires that didn’t receive the best education or no education and still made it, the main thing is, on e you’ve made it to the top and after 30 million dollars in the bank, who’s counting? You got to the mountain top and whether with an education or without, When you reach the top, No one cares.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't see how any of that post relates to what I was saying, or what the poster I was replying to said.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Will the world, and the US, survive Putin's Puppet? Only time will tell.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites