Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Upon hearing the news, Trump has been tweeting his tweeter off and states he shouldn't testify. 
Why shouldn't he? IF Barr and all the "experts" on Fox news are so correct in their opinions, then Donald doesn't have to block his testimony, now does he?

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Trump logic works like this:

1. The Mueller report is a "total exoneration," and that explains why I repeatedly tried to fire Mueller, why I refused to be interviewed by Mueller, and why I'm now trying to silence Mueller. It also explains why I routinely call the Mueller report an unfair political document written by "18 angry Democrats."
2. The first two years of his Presidency were the most successful in history, but the Democrats also stole them.
3. Free speech pertains to maligning Seth Rich and spinning his murder into a political conspiracy for political gain. Free speech relates to pushing anti-vaxxer propaganda. Free speech allows for harassing parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook. However, kneel at an NFL game, to protest social injustice, and you are a whiny son-of-a-bitch that should be fired!

It's amazing that anyone takes this man seriously anymore. You don't even have to satirize him at this point. He is so absurd that his routine behavior is self-parody.

I think the fact that people don't take him seriously anymore(other than his base here and at his rallies) actually had a redeeming effect of the stock market today. After tanking big time on Trump's tweet about a tariff war all over again, people(investors) realized this was simply Trump tweeting poop out of his keister and the market settled down and ended with a mild loss... 

Mueller complained to Barr that his summary letter had "not fully captured the context, nature and substance" of the special counsel's work or conclusions.
https://abc7.com/politics/mueller-tentatively-set-to-testify-to-house-judiciary-committee-/5286250/
While I feel the above statement is succinct and to the point, others somehow see the word, "media" in the above, call it "snitty", or believe it was commentary from a staffer even though it was signed by Mueller. 
I think Mueller was just plain pissed. We'll find out...

Originally Posted by James Lacey

These facts are undoubtedly a better testimony to the success of your career than, say, for example, Bill Barr's rebuke by his entire profession of peers for hackery and misrepresenting the case for obstruction in the Mueller report against Trump.

James, 
So what if a plethora of former US attorney's from the justice department stretching back to Eisenhower believe Trump ought to have been prosecuted for felonies resulting from obstruction of justice. Trump's current weekly Real Clear Politics aggregate approval rating is 44%. What else could matter compared to that?...

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I'm with Trump on increasing Chinese tariffs without needed reforms. Now that we are knee-deep into this, we have a once in a generation opportunity to correct the massive theft of US intellectual property and tame a geopolitical enemy. Much of the damage of the tariffs to the US has already been done, and we might as well finish this gambit. At least make the pain worth it.

My understanding is a deal may have already been struck in principle but enforcement is another matter. Corruption is said to reign widespread in China so that even if you achieve some sort of an agreement, the probability of honoring it is low on the part of the Chinese.
As an aside, I watched CNN last night and they had on a financial whizz who followed the money Trump made. You know how Trump did it? He secured loans from a brokerage firm and used the money to establish a position in an established corporation while letting leak out that the Trump organization was infusing further into ther company and then when the stock of the particular company rose, he quickly sold the stocks in it for a big profit without doing anything for the company, leaving his fellow investors to hold the bag. The SEC would have stopped him but he stopped it himself first because word of what he was doing hit the streets so potential investors wised up. But by then, he had made millions...

Here's the reality of the effects of the tariffs:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/05/10/trump-china-how-tariffs-will-affect-consumers-foreman-pkg-lead-vpx.cnn
And as far as the theft of the intellectual property goes, China will continue to steal whatever they can get their hands on...

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Can anybody name a policy that Obama enacted that led to the recovery? 

The stimulus, auto-company bailouts, quantitative easing, and more. None of it was perfect, but it was necessary to overcome the great recession. Had McCain been elected instead, he would have done essentially the same things...

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

They admitted that didn't go as well as they thought it would. A lot of that money gets spread around as political favors and payback. And don't forget the money that always disappears into the bureaucracy. No small amount. The Dems favor a large bureaucracy. 

Neither did the invasion of Iraq but Bush and company didn't admit it although Trump said it was the greatest mistake ever made. Greg said at the time, however, that he "didn't know enough about it" to take a position on it...

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

"None of it was perfect" SNORT!!! You got one thing right at least.....

What was it 800 billion he gave away for "shovel ready jobs"?  Can you name even one that actually happened?

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/05/522629542/fact-check-trumps-claim-2009-stimulus-measure-built-nothing

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

I guess you would have preferred I lied? LOL

No, I would preferred you answer the question directly since you have no equivocation is stating in other posts that American intell agencies were wrong on WMDs in Iraq so when Trump offers up the same reason for accepting Putin's word that he didn't interfere with our elections instead of taking the word of  own intell agencies, you hop on the band wagon with him. But somehow you can't comment on Trump's claim that the invasion of Iraq was the biggest mistake ever because you say you don't know enough about it  even though Bush predicated his decision to go to war in Iraq based largely upon the intell agencies information at the time during the run-up to the war. And you can't see the cognitive disconnect with that? As far as I'm concerned, your answer that you don't know enough about it to offer up an opinion on it is bogus.
It's your version of a cut and run.
Beyond that, it's equally bogus to use Trump's inane reasoning that because an intell agency in the past with different people in it than what we have now was wrong back then so they must be wrong now as well is total nonsense, too. That's like thinking a hurricane won't take out my house when a government agency says it will because a forecast ten years ago was wrong because it missed my house by a block...