After "Obamacare" was up and running, it was not possible to watch a session of Congress without hearing GOP members referring to Obama's "big lie" — "If you like your doctor you can keep him."

Fast forward to the passage of the "Trump Tax Cut" legislation. On many occasions, I heard Trump extolling the tax cuts as middle-class benefits that would not benefit him, his family, his businesses, nor his rich friends. The tax cuts as enacted granted to Trump and his rich friends a 6.6 percent reduction in their personal income tax rate; a 40 percent reduction in their business income tax rate; and an additional 20 percent carried interest rate reduction for those in special businesses, including real estate and hedge fund management.

Over 84 percent of the tax cut benefits go to those earning over $75,000. This is a huge gift to the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Trump Tax Cuts, I have not heard a word about Trump's egregious lie.

The difference between Obama's and Trump's untruths?

Obama's was an unrealized aspirational hope. Trump's was a distraction from his self-enrichment.

Sad!

Jerome Bourgeois

League City

(69) comments

Carlos Ponce

"Over 84 percent of the tax cut benefits go to those earning over $75,000. This is a huge gift to the wealthiest Americans."
A non-issue, Jerome. So you consider those making a little over $75,000 rich? Interesting. Pew defined middle class households as those earning 67%-200% of a state's median income. median income was $59,055 in January 2018. That makes the middle class earning between $39, 566.
"Tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich" is the mantra being parroted by Liberal Trump haters. Since the "wealthy" pay most of the taxes, why not? Liberals sound like SPOILED children: "Their tax was bigger than mine. Boo hoo!" It's tax cuts for ALL Americans! Communist love class welfare. Looks like the party symbol of the donkey is being replaced by a hammer and sickle.
And look at the results of the tax cuts: Black unemployment down to historic lows, Hispanic unemployment down to historic lows, women's unemployment down, fourteen states have set new records for low unemployment rates. Even Liberal California has hit a historic low of 4.1% - the lowest since the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) started reporting it. Texas has a lower unemployment rate at 4.0%. Take home pay has risen across the nation.
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
"Where is the outrage over Trump's untruths?" What "untruth"? The middle class got their tax cuts.So did the "wealthy". So what? It could have been more but Congress changed the parameters set by President Trump.
Come November I'm not voting for the party who chose NOT to give me a tax cut. I'm keeping more money out of the same TRS retirement annuity. I'm going to thank those who voted for that!

Carlos Ponce

Sorry, I posted before completing the statistics on what a middle class earner makes.
Pew defined middle class households as those earning 67%-200% of a state's median income. Median income was $59,055 in January 2018. That makes the middle class earning between $39,566 and $108,110. So people making over $75,000 are in the MIDDLE CLASS. I'm at the low end of "middle class" but my TRS annuity check is higher due to the tax cuts. [beam]

Carlos Ponce

Change the typo: $118,110 is the high end of middle class.

Ron Woody

When are we going to stop the class warfare and just look at the facts. Here are the most complete facts that I can find based on 2014 information. Historically the percentages stay within 3% of those listed.

In 2014, 139.6 million taxpayers reported earning $9.71 trillion in
adjusted gross income and paid $1.37 trillion in individual income taxes.
· The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to
20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also
rose, to 39.5 percent.
· In 2014, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all
individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining
2.7 percent.
· The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (39.5
percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (29.1 percent).
· The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax
rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom
50 percent (3.5 percent).

So how much more should those at the top pay. Remember those in the top percentages are the ones providing jobs for the others. Someone please tell me where the inequity lies. BTW I am not one of the top percentage earners. Living in DC I am very much in the middle class and have never been jealous of those that work hard and take risks keeping the profits they have earned.

Paul Hyatt

Just another liberal who can not stand to see Pres. Trump undo mess that Obama and his ilk made out of this nation.... What these people will never understand is that you can not make a poor man rich by making the rich poor.... If you could then the poor in this nation would be rich as there has been a wealth transfer of over 20 trillion dollars since the mid 60's when the so called "great society" was created.... Besides who creates jobs in this nation? The Rich and the small business person who takes risks with THEIR money and works very hard to create wealth for them and their families, and some just want the government to take it all away from them to give it to the ones who have not taken any risks on their own....

George Croix

The left is NEVER going to stop the class warfare because that and race baiting and spending OPM is all they've got to offer.
'Let me be clear', it must really gall them that their most recent champion has already been wildly 'trumped' (OK...but it fit.....[wink]) despite their best efforts to divert, distract, and deflect at every single step of the way, by an economy moving about 3 times better in one year than their guy managed in 8, and that the middle class they point to so often is NOW seeing long time and/or all time record low unemployment, income increases, opportunities increases, and is no longer mired in a 'progressive new normal', and is returning from where the last guy deposited them...which was in SECOND place behind Canada, the FIRST time in this nations history that our middle class was behind any others. This by a guy who is more concerned with being productive than with being liked....imagine that....
Only the left would B about lower food stamps and welfare use while at the same time calling actual in our pocket with some of our OWN earned money bucks back tax breaks 'crumbs'.
Maybe Nobel should have saved that prize, awarded for what our ex 'might accomplish' for a guy who, despite deep flaws and not being poersonally adored, has actually got a clue, and ACTS on it, how to deal with an economy and with both our 'allies' and enemies.
If the ex wasn't the type of person he is, he'd return the 'award' as the exercise in futility it was, or better yet give it to a guy who knows how to be President, and doesn't worry about just looking 'presidential'.....[whistling]

Gary Miller

Keeping his promises is not lying. Calling 20 hours a week a job was the new normal of BHO and HRC. Getting a real job is the correction to BHO/HRC new normal. Sure looks like Trump and congress gave American workers the right tax reform to produce jobs. A lot of Americans who were not paying any taxes [ on welfare of some kind ] are becoming taxpayers. If people rich enough to employ people use their tax cut to hire more people the reform is doing a good job. Who got a tax cut is not as important as who got a job.

Steve Fouga

There's plenty of outrage over Trump's untruths. That's one reason his approval rating has hovered in the high-30s to low-40s for the past year.

Carlos Ponce

Trumps approval rating has been in the high 40s to low 50s according to Rasmussen. Why choose Rasmussen over Gallup and the others???? Rasmussen Presidential preferential polling was CLOSEST to the actual vote in 2016. When the others over poll Liberals and Democrats, what else do you expect? But if you believe in GARBAGE POLLING, that's your business. Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

Steve Fouga

I believe in aggregation of polling. You're a mathematician; you should believe in it too.

Carlos Ponce

I believe in HONEST polling. Skewing the demographic sampling to the Left is DISHONEST. It does not represent the real United States. Check the demographics of the pollsters who give Trump a low rating. But even Gallup admits "Trump's Re-Elect Figures Similar to Those of Obama, Clinton"
http://news.gallup.com/poll/233000/trump-elect-figures-similar-obama-clinton.aspx

George Croix

Hmmmm.... maybe there's some correlation at this point in a term of office between higher approval rating and low economic and foreign policy accomplishment, vs lower approval rating and lot of accomplishments in both areas....
Maybe.....
[innocent]

Steve Fouga

Hahaha! I think Trump's rating is low because he's a detestable person. He lies, he cheats, he appears to be a racist and misogynist, he's unfriendly, etc. I'd be willing to bet we eventually find out he's a crook and a traitor. Detest is not too strong a word for my opinion of him as a person.

But judging him on accomplishments alone, I'm pretty pleased. His policies that I agree with have mostly succeeded, or succeeded thus far, and his policies I disagree with have either failed, or failed thus far, or it's too early to tell.

Carlos Ponce

"he's a detestable person. He lies, he cheats, he appears to be a racist and misogynist, he's unfriendly, etc. I'd be willing to bet we eventually find out he's a crook and a traitor."
Sounds like you've been following FAKE NEWS. Don't be so gullible, Steve.
"I'd be willing to bet we eventually find out he's a crook and a traitor."
How much do you want to bet?

Steve Fouga

A whole lot.

Paul Hyatt

With all of those great descriptive adjectives, I could have sworn you were talking about Obama, Hillary, Lynch, Holder etc.... or all of the minions that served from 2009 till the beginning of 2018....

Bill Cochrane

Steve - Sounds like a Love / Hate thing you have going with Trump. Love him when you agree, hate when you don't. Normal politics.

Steve Fouga

No, Bill, I never love him. I tolerate him because I have no other choice.

Carlos Ponce

" I never love him." Are you Christian? Christians love everybody, even their enemies. And he said he loves you.
"To everyone still recovering in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, California, and everywhere else — we are with you, we love you, and we will pull through together." State of the union message.

George Croix

And to think that even with all that, there's been a heckuva improvement...[beam]
Personally, I would always rather work at, well, work with someone I disliked greatly who'd actually work and do a good job than with a friendly screw up and slacker.....
But, that's just me....

Steve Fouga

Even better is a highly competent, honorable, trustworthy, friendly person. This is the type of person we should elect. Hopefully one will run, one of these days.

Randy Chapman

Sorry guy; Reagan is dead, and there's no one on the horizon to fit your criteria. You get what you get and have to live with the ugly side.

Carlos Ponce

"Even better is a highly competent, honorable, trustworthy, friendly person. This is the type of person we should elect. Hopefully one will run, one of these days."
Mike Pence will run in 2024.

Paul Hyatt

Trustworthy, honest? And you voted for Obama and Hillary???? Really????

George Croix

Make up your mind, Steve....ya wanna talk politics, or fantasy.....[whistling]
Actually, that sounds a lot like a Republican, that curious breed of politico who simply can't be happy with some of the pie, but wants the whole darn thing or by golly they'll just pick up their cards and screw up everybody elses game.
That's where Democrats are politically smarter...they don't give a hoot what runs for office...they'll all get behind it as long as enough promises are made to reward votes cast....[rolleyes]

Steve Fouga

Trump and his legal team have received a subset of their "final exam" questions from Mr. Mueller. I say "a subset," because this is just the take-home portion of the exam. A few toughies in there. You might have to access mainstream media to see them. Of course an honest, innocent dude would have no trouble with them.

Carlos Ponce

"Trump and his legal team have received a subset of their "final exam" questions from Mr. Mueller."
As reported by the New York Times from "undisclosed sources". [rolleyes]
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/us/politics/questions-mueller-wants-to-ask-trump-russia.html
They sound like more FAKE NEWS to people in the know. The NYT does not have a good track record on items reported from "undisclosed sources". Most of it was MADE UP. Read them if you like.
"What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions?"
Already public record.
Who really believes this excrement?????

Steve Fouga

Carlos asks: "Who really believes this excrement?????"

I do, but more importantly, Trump's legal team does. Trump's equanimity in the face of these questions led to John Dowd's resignation. It's likely that Trump's legal team leaked the questions to White House staff so they could leak them to the Times, as the first step in preparing us for Trump's "skipping the exam," as George suggests below. They will claim that some of the questions go beyond the special counsel's mandate, and implore Trump not to answer them. He would be wise to follow their advice.

George Croix

Any client is wise to not help a prosecutor....
There really is no longer any question that Mueller has abandoned 'collusion' and is now just tossing rocks over fences to see if any dogs bark when hit...
And, through all this, one person we KNOW (actually, several, counting aids...), for a fact, in fact thousands of facts, is avoiding comeuppance...so far....
Shame on the so-called 'Justice Dept....past and present.....
imo....

Carlos Ponce

Steve, just read the questions. They sound like they were written by an amateur who knows little about legal matters. But if you believe in such excrement, that's your business. Again, the NYT has a POOR track record with their undisclosed sources.[rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes]

Steve Fouga

"There really is no longer any question that Mueller has abandoned 'collusion' and is now just tossing rocks over fences to see if any dogs bark when hit..."

You must not have read the questions. Plenty are collusion-oriented. I think obstruction is emphasized over collusion because Mueller feels he has the collusion aspect nailed, and now wants to focus on the president's attempted coverup.

My personal opinion is that a half-dozen to a dozen Trump associates colluded with Russia, but that Mueller realizes it would be impossible to pin this on the president himself. On the other hand, it might be possible to show that the president tried over and over to impede the investigation into said collusion, thus his inclination to focus on the coverup rather than the crime.

Trump is probably safe from collusion charges, but I'd watch my back if I were Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort, Stone, etc...

Carlos Ponce

Steve, there is PROOF (not opinion, not innuendo) that the DNC and the Hillary campaign COLLUDED with the Russians to create that fake dossier. Mueller is ignoring the evidence but the Inspector General isn't. Look for indictments. The anti-Trumps will be screaming, "WHAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!" and create social unrest.

Steve Fouga

Carlos says of the NYT-reported questions: "They sound like they were written by an amateur who knows little about legal matters."

You are probably right, Carlos. They were most likely leaked by idiots on Trump's staff. A former Mueller aide says these appear to be "notes" taken by White House staffers, and then expanded upon. He points out that lawyers would never word the questions as they were, and that there are grammatical errors. He concluded that the notes were leaked by Trump staffers at the president's behest.

Carlos Ponce

"They were most likely leaked by idiots on Trump's staff." Highly unlikely since Trump has denounced them being leaked.

Steve Fouga

"Highly unlikely since Trump has denounced them being leaked."

Surely you've learned by now that you can't take the president at his word! Come on, Carlos, pay attention!

As for Hillary and the DNC, fine. If they're guilty of collusion, they should be prosecuted. I want the Russians out of our politics, out of our computers, out of our power grid...

Carlos Ponce

"Surely you've learned by now that you can't take the president at his word! Come on, Carlos, pay attention!"
I'll take his word on this if you don't mind. It is logical and passes the "smell test" of truth.

Steve Fouga

By the way, it turns out Jay Sekulow wrote the questions based on a list of topics provided by Mueller.

Carlos Ponce

"By the way, it turns out Jay Sekulow wrote the questions based on a list of topics provided by Mueller.'
That was presented by WAPO "The Post sourced its report on 'three of the four people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly'." Really? More "anonymous" sources? [rolleyes]
If true they're NOT actual questions from Mueller. "Trump and his legal team have received a subset of their "final exam" questions from Mr. Mueller." Steve Fouga Apr 30, 2018 10:42pm
Looks like Steve is changing his story already. Or as a Liberal would say Steve's stance is "evolving"?[rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes][rolleyes]

Steve Fouga

A liberal would say these are examples of the softball-type questions Trump would have to answer if interviewed by Mueller or questioned by a grand jury. They are nothing like the detailed questions that the opportunity for follow-ups will present. These questions were undoubtedly worded by Sekulow so the mental midget in the White House could understand the gravity of his situation -- a tactic that apparently didn't work. Perhaps Fox News hosts can broadcast them to the president in terms he can understand, and warn him away from an interview.

George Croix

Pres. Trump should skip the exam.
HRC was given a pass before even being interviewed by the fBI and despite overwhelming actual right there on display evidence of criminal acts....
Of course, she had friends doing the D of J 'investigation'.....

Steve Fouga

"Pres. Trump should skip the exam."

Absolutely right, from a Trump supporter's standpoint. I wish he would agree to the interview with Mueller, but there's no way his legal team will allow it. They understand that Trump can't stick to the truth long enough to answer questions this complicated without eventually lying under oath. My prediction is that he will be talked out of taking the exam -- by his legal team, Gen. Kelly, Ivanka, Jared, et al, and others likely to be collaterally damaged in the ensuing melee.

George Croix

I'm not a Trump supporter, Steve. I don't like the man on a personal basis.
What I am is a results of the current Presidency to date supporter as it relates to our economy, employment, businesses, foreign relations, etc....
I didn't vote for him for his charm and ability to give a speech, but for results more in line with an America on the rise, rather than decling in what was called 'new normal' for lack of a better excuse for failed 'progressive' policies....
It was simple choice at the time between voting for one of two deeply flawed candidates, one of whom wanted to make us better and one of whom wanted to maintain status quo....
But then, I am just a simple 'ol soulless jackal.....

George Croix

ps:
The way that 'stick to the truth' obfuscation as it relates to this issue works is that during this attempted questionnaire fishing expediition, there's really no doubt that the questions have been made up to reflect information that Mueller already knows, but that does not constitute any crime or 'collusion' (else that would already be hailed from the ramparts and charges made) and is instead to see if the Pres. can be made to give an answer different from one he gave in the past.
All that's needed is ANY deviation...even a difference in recalled time or place or whatever...and then there's the 'crime' of 'lying to the FBI/Justice Dept., one curiously applied to current Admin. people but not to previous.....
It's easy to see the 'intent' of this scam....just have to avoid trying to look through eyelids...[beam]

Steve Fouga

"there's really no doubt that the questions have been made up to reflect information that Mueller already knows, but that does not constitute any crime or 'collusion' "

I definitely agree with the first half of this sentence, because some of the questions reflect information that WE already know, through press conferences, interviews, leaks, tweets, etc..., and because it's simply good prosecutorial practice.

But I have to part ways with you on the second half. Mueller has evidence of the crime of collusion, probably not by Trump himself, and now he wants to prove that Trump is complicit in the coverup.

By the way, if Trump impedes an investigation, even if no crime was committed, he is obstructing justice. He won't be indicted for it, but he could be impeached or tainted so badly that he couldn't be re-elected. From Mueller's standpoint, and mine, those are good reasons for this "scam," as you call it.

I won't address the previous administration, because they are no longer of any concern to me, and because it's totally within the power of the current administration to pursue them, should they choose to do so.

George Croix

"Mueller has evidence of the crime of collusion..."
??? Well, it wouldn't be the first relatively recent removed-from-the-rear-end decision as to what is/is not criminal activity...staututes be darned....

Collusion is not a crime, Steve....

I'll stick with this latest investigation question list as scam, which rhymes with and goes so nicely with the current and recent DOJ sham investigations...
Maybe investigatory bias should be a crime......?

I'm sure many criminals yet brought to justice would agree with and encourage the notion that their acts no longer matter because different people have come along since then....
Might as well get rid of those pesky statutes of limitation and just forget about equal justice under the law.... [wink]

Steve Fouga

"Collusion is not a crime, Steve..."

Really? Here is a portion of a brief from the U.S. Department of Justice describing one of the topics Mr. Mueller is allowed to investigate in the Manafort case:

"Allegations that Paul Manafort:

Committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law..."

So apparently it IS a crime if the intent was to abet another crime.

George Croix

IF is a really big two letter word, Steve....and 'intent' has already been used outside it's, well, intent, to let one fish off the hook...for now....
But, now, we ALREADY know that the DNC and the Hillary Campaign colluded with AND PAID the Rooskies and a former spy for digging up dirt on Trump in an effort to effect the outcome of the election.
So, what we've got there is not an 'if' but a definite and documented case, and even ongoing after the election to try (to the tune of some 50 million bucks expended according to one source...)to deligitimize the election results, of Hillary, et al, guilty for sure of what so many are trying to find then candidate Trumo guilty of, but, have been unable to do so to date, and that's OK???
She lost so just forget it...when we KNOW she and the DC were in it up to their pantsuit waistbands??
Hmmm...you do recall that it was the SAME 2016 election involved, and therefore any investigation into effects on that 2016 election interference should be directed at ALL, well, effecters...shouldn't it....?
Of course it should, but too many want to pretend that it was somebody else's fault that Hillary was more concerned with going to the Russians for dirt than going to Wisconsin for votes.... [whistling]....
They call themselves 'The Resistance'......appropriately, but not for the reason they portray.....[beam][beam][beam][beam]

Steve Fouga

George, for the record, I'm fine with the Justice Dept pursuing the Clintons and the DNC for past crimes. I'm just saying it's up to them to do it, they're in power now. It's Trump's administration, he can pursue the heck out of them if he wants.

I'm just not going to worry about Hillary's legal problems, because she's not the current president. If she had been elected, she would be facing almost exactly the same legal headwinds as Donald Trump, plus an unfriendly congress.

Carlos Ponce

Steve writes. " If she [Hillary] had been elected, she would be facing almost exactly the same legal headwinds as Donald Trump..."
Only the gullible believe that. No way!

Carlos Ponce

"Allegations that Paul Manafort: Committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government..."
That's from Rosenstein. But......
"Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

George Croix

This darn keyboard simply refuses to spit out the right spellings.....
[innocent][innocent]

George Croix

Steve, the issue is supposedly about who tried to 'collude' with the Russians to interfere with our 2016 elections....not about who got elected.
If Hillary had gotten elected, it's fantasy to say she'd be facing the same things as Trump....the MSM alone would see to most of that, and the type people who say "no matter what she did" would attend to the rests.
Pure fantasy.
You yourself, for instance, put aside KNOWN, DOCUMENTED, payments and involvement by her and the DNC just because she didn't get elected.
IF the issue is REALLY 2016 'election interferring', then we should all want ALL who had a hand in it pursued and attended to.
Anything else is just partisan deflection.
Personally, I think McConnell should get off his useless B-hind, go nclear, exactly like the other Paerty WOULD do in his acse, and let Pres. Trump dump the useless AG he's got now, and put somebody in there who wants to catch all the crooks, not just the ones that CNN don't approve of.....

Steve Fouga

George and Carlos sound a little defensive to me! You guys WON the election, for crying out loud! I can't imagine how insufferable you'd be if you had lost... [beam]

Now you'll just have to ride it out as the president is slowly exposed as a criminal, and potentially a traitor.

George Croix

That's a deflection and a dodge, Steve...if not an outright projection....
Calling for ALL parties who attempted to interfer in the 2016 election to be dealt with equally as any guilt is found (or, in the one case, already known and proven...), not excusing anybody just because they didn't get elected, is not 'defensive', it's comprehensive, and exclusive of likes and dislikes of the people involved...
That used to be called 'being fair'....

Oh, well.....chivalry is not the only casualty of a 'modern era'.....

Steve Fouga

No deflection, no dodge, just stating how it appears to me. You and Carlos haven't offered a single argument showing that Trump is NOT guilty of collusion or obstruction. You just bitch that he's being investigated and Hillary is not, as if that's proof of his innocence.

The impression I take from your comments, and Carlos's, is that you would be pleased if the Trump-Russia investigation were simply dropped, and he were allowed to keep bumbling through his presidency, even if he DID collude with the Russians. You're just happy he was elected. In other words, the ends justify the means. On the other hand, even though the alleged Hillary-Russia collusion had no effect on the outcome of the election, you would like to "lock her up."

I'm not saying that's what you really believe, that's just how your comments come across to me. Believe me, George, I have ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE with DoJ pursuing Hillary. None. You've got a Republican administration, House, and Senate, and a conservative court. Pursue her; maybe she's guilty. If she is, she should be punished. I care so much about the Trump-Russia investigation because I think he's guilty as hell of collusion to influence an election and probably of money laundering, because I believe his and his family's and associates' conflicts of interest pose a genuine danger to our security, and because I feel he is truly bad at his job.

George Croix

No, Steve.
I've never said Trump's NOT guilty. Just that so far...so far...after about 15 months or so, nothing's been proven that he is, while exactly the opposite is the case for the 2016 loser....evidence abounds....and the pre-decided exoneration by Comey whose job it was not to do so anyway does not change the fact that a 12 year old reading the Espionage Act can see that 'intent' is NOT a factor....it was just a cover for the crookedest DOJ pretty much ever to let a favorite daughter escape...for now....
Your impression is NOT correct vis-a-vis, well, me.... and I only speak for myself and am only engaged in a one to one here with you so far....I don't do tag team matches, as I like my own comments to stand for themselves.
I have NO problem with the 2016 election 'collusion' investigation continuing, Steve, if that's what was being investigated, and if ALL of the 'collusion' factors for 2016 were being evaluated and investigated. But I fail to see how investigating EITHER the winner or loser of 2016 prior to their time(s) of candidacy for public office has squat to do with effects on the 2016 election, which was the reason for the investigation.
Steve, in your words:
"On the other hand, even though the alleged Hillary-Russia collusion had no effect on the outcome of the election, you would like to "lock her up."
You can't have it both ways, saying that Hillary's KNOWN payoffs and attempts to dig dirt don't count and had NO EFFECT on the outcome of the election but Trumps purported yet unproven ones did. Losing might have been an even bigger loss absent manipulating in the background, or perhaps even a win had she not downplayed Wisconsin...she DID get the popular vote, thanks to big voting in the states viewed as most 'progressive', and one might well conclude with a high probability of likelihood that is the exact population /demographic most likely to get their opinions from internet 'news' and 'facts'.
Steve, if we had an Attorney General who was one, we'd be investigating BOTH the Trump and Clinton 2016 election apparatus and cohorts. For that matter, if high ranking members of the FBI and DOJ had not been and were not even now corrupt and in the tank for the loser, we'd not be having this interchange. Can't replace Sessions now, because McConnell won't go nuclear, and Chuck knows he won't, so the position would go unfilled....Actually, I'm not sure we'd notice a difference if it did...... .
I'm sure you know that the 'Repubs have got it all' stuff is the mantra of folks who have no clue or no honesty about how their own Government works, specifically the Senate with the 60 vote rule, so cut it out...you're way smarter than that.
Anyway, 'Maybe' she's guilty."???
Steve, even the basement potty server aside, she ADMITTED trashing 30,000 plus email docs under Congressional subpoena and destroying subpoenaed evidence in the form of electronic devices...each incidence is a crime...each.....in a sane world....
If anyone can or does catch Trump having done the same thing(s), then they'd both deserve an orange jumpsuit...I'm in this on this subject to support equal justice, not support a politician or his/her Party.
Actually, I'd agree that Trump is pretty terrible at being 'Presidential', in fact, he sucks at it, but then we've had a long string of acting out pretend competence on the job but not delivering on it, so I don't give a hoot HOW screwed up his presentation is or mannerisms are as long as we get good results...the end of that justifies the means, to me, to avoid the end of the America I saw coming under 'progressives'.
I'd say that the current record low unemployment and near full employment and higher income figures and tax cuts for ALL who actually pay income taxes and no-more-but_-kissing-foreign-countries and increased revitalization of business in this country, et al, are EXACTLY what he was elected to do by the people who voted for him, and an honest media would care more about the LOWEST minority unemployment EVER and now even the two Koreas are talking for the first time in 65 years, than a porn star or tweets ...and report it...but, nooooo
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.....I think you're way off base on this subject , but, nobody's perfect....[smile]

BTW, point of fact: I respect Carlo's abilities and scholarly efforts very much, but we are not a team, and I post to present and back up, or try to, my own points....I could never match his smarts anyway.....so kindly keep that in mind.....

Steve Fouga

"I think you're way off base on this subject , but, nobody's perfect"

George, this is exactly my opinion on your comments, but I enjoy them nonetheless. I will comment separately on Carlos's comments.

Carlos Ponce

Defensive? Why not? There were those who understandably confronted Obama on the issues but the coordinated constant attack on President Trump on every little thing by the press, the Liberal Leftist media in addition to Leftist elected officials is undeserved. It's absurd and asinine to say he deserves all this derision.
Was there collusion? Yes, between Trump, those who voted for him and GOD!
By questioning Trump you're discrediting those who voted for him.
Let it go, Lefties, Let it GO! Hillary lost because she ran a poor campaign. Liberals are trying to undo the election.

Steve Fouga

"By questioning Trump you're discrediting those who voted for him."

That's laughable, and sounds defensive, Carlos. You could say the same about questioning any elected official. Questioning public officials is our civic duty.

George Croix

It IS our duty to question.....all of them.......[beam]

Carlos Ponce

Question, yes. But some Liberals including those in these forums go too far, Belittling, ridiculing, questioning every move he makes is beyond the norm. And you are holding Trump to a much higher standard than any other president.
Yes, question the sexual allegations against him. But did it happen in the White House, since he's been elected like some other Democratic presidents we know???? Were there claims he fondled a woman and put her hand on his genitals during an Oval Office meeting?
When he allegedly called an African Nation a "sh*t hole" (which is disputed whether he did or did not) was it worse than a Democratic president definitely calling an African nation a "sh*t show"?
When Trump (pre-presidency) used the f-bomb is it worse than when VP Joe Biden used it?
They twist and turn every tweet, every spoken word then pronounce him a racist. When President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama called for stopping illegal immigration and beefing up the border security that's okay but WHOA! when Trump calls for the same almost verbatim it is suddenly "racist".
Pollsters skew their demographic sampling to favor anti-Trump groups.
Hundreds more examples.
Voting for Trump was not a mistake. I'll do it AGAIN!

Steve Fouga

I admit, Carlos, that Trump is the first president I've ever felt disrespect for, though there have have been a few I thought did a poor job. I feel he deserves ridicule. He would deserve ridicule if he were running a grocery store or gas station. He deserved ridicule when he was just a corrupt, racist New York City businessman and a reality TV host, and in fact he routinely received such ridicule.

I'm far more disturbed about his potential harm to national security than I am about sexual exploits that happened long before he was president. I'm genuinely worried about his conflicts of interest and his possible indebtedness to Russia, and Kushner's possible indebtedness to China.

I would suggest not getting too fired up about how well the economy is doing; that can turn around in a heartbeat, given Trump's volatility, views on trade, and lack of a long-term strategy. Likewise Korea. I hope, hope, hope that N. Korea decides to join the world order as a peace-loving participant, but let's not hand out the Nobel just yet. We saw how that worked the last time.

Steve Fouga

Yep, George, all of them. I consider all of them my employees, though not employees I have much control over.

Carlos Ponce

"I admit, Carlos, that Trump is the first president I've ever felt disrespect for, though there have have been a few I thought did a poor job. I feel he deserves ridicule."
In other words you believe the excrement put out by the Leftist media . So sad.[sad]
History will show otherwise.

Steve Fouga

Carlos say's, responding my derision of the president: "History will show otherwise."

I hope you're right, Carlos. As the president himself so often says, "We'll see what happens."

Carlos Ponce

[beam]

Mike Zeller

Trump now remembers about the $130,000 payoff.[beam] "FAKE NEWS"[beam]

Carlos Ponce

Did he Mike? He remembers paying the bills his lawyer sent him. He was unaware some of the money went to Stephanie A. Gregory Clifford at the time.

"WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump wasn’t aware that he had reimbursed his longtime attorney for a payment to a former adult-film star when he told reporters last month that he had no knowledge of the payment, a White House spokeswoman said Thursday.
'This was information that the president didn’t know at the time, but eventually learned,' Sarah Sanders told reporters at Thursday’s White House briefing."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-acknowledges-payment-to-porn-star-stormy-daniels-1525347160?mod=trending_now_

George Croix

Just imagine the bunched up drawers in B-hinds if years ago Trump had been President Trump and had a woman in flagrante delicto right there in the Oval office with his wife asleep down the hall....

Oh.....somebody else, huh......

Never mind......

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.