The Trump Presidency

[Tiassa]

This is how it worked out on the west coast of the U.S., today:

1) Trump's press conference on Syria and Turkey.

2) Congressional Republicans violating scif, disrupting deposition.

3) WH acknowledgment of foreknowledge and encouragement.​

That's three unbelievable things before noon.

Add in New York, for a fourth:

4) Lev Parnas suggesting his SDNY case might require Trump to invoke executive privilege.​

Look, I come from the other Washington. Yeah, that one. The good one. What the fuck is going on, out there, because holy shit.

No, really: No other country, or some such? And what was that about deciding what to do with the oil? And, really, what is it about the Cooper deposition that so terrifies Republicans? And with House GOP members skiffing into felonies on the basis of two-bit, ahistorical petulance, they actually gave us a #pizzagate. Add in the the White House acknowledgement of knowing about the plan and encouraging it, and, well, now we have a whole new layer of apparent criminality.

Meanwhile, true, Parnas can't expect executive privilege.

Well, y'know, unless he can. Because, while it's easy enough to agree with analyses saying he can't, what in the world makes anyone think Trump won't try? When the Parnas case comes back to him, we already know Trump thinks he's out of reach.

But, yeah, that was all before noon.

 

[Beaconator]

Criminality... Yeah....
Punish the honest people while the dishonest blame their own actions on another.

Let's allow prejudice to overshadow character, hail fallacious science while psychology remains incomplete, and place someone who is less decisive into presidency.

 

[origin]

place someone who is less decisive into presidency.

Trump is the least decisive President we've ever had. I guess it is difficult to be decisive if you no moral compass.

 

[Vociferous]

Um, taxation is still progressive.

Nope. Very rich people pay similar to lower tax rates than poor people, on average, in the US.

Source? Here's mine:

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.[2]

• In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent.
• The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/​

To people paid significantly more than subsistence level wages, sure.

Nope, the research I cited addressed that:

The kinds of flexible workplace benefits the professional class often take for granted — maternity and sick leave, time off for family emergencies, control over their work schedules, telecommuting — rarely trickle down the pay ladder. Yet, studies show that workers at or near minimum wage are most in need of such benefits. The working poor are more likely to hold down more than one job, have greater health care needs, are more likely to be single parents and caregivers, and report greater difficulty commuting to their jobs.
https://psmag.com/economics/work-life-balance-benefits-low-wage-workers-employers-35733​

Not in response to you, and not when stating common knowledge.
You don't know what a "leftist talking point" looks like compared with a simple fact, and you have not supported any claim of yours in this thread.

Your "common knowledge" is obviously just a cop out for not supporting your own claims. It's intellectually dishonest, at best.
You just quoted a post where I cited a source, and I cited several in this post: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-189#post-3602193 So you're claim that I haven't "in this thread" is demonstrably false, and you justifying your own inability to support yours.

Nope. It falls more heavily on the least productive and least competent businessmen.

Evidence?

They cut hours, benefits, and/or number of positions, or simply go out of business altogether

Having those businessmen who can only increase productivity by cutting wages go out of business is a benefit to everyone else.
Being able to increase productivity without downsizing is what natural competition between businesses is all about.

Straw man, or just you completely misunderstanding, as that is the result of a mandated $15/hr minimum wage, not increasing productivity. What part of "mandated" do you not understand? It means they can't cut wages any further.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Source? Here's mine:

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.[2]

• In 2016, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 3 percent.
• The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent).
• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/​

Nope, the research I cited addressed that:

The kinds of flexible workplace benefits the professional class often take for granted — maternity and sick leave, time off for family emergencies, control over their work schedules, telecommuting — rarely trickle down the pay ladder. Yet, studies show that workers at or near minimum wage are most in need of such benefits. The working poor are more likely to hold down more than one job, have greater health care needs, are more likely to be single parents and caregivers, and report greater difficulty commuting to their jobs.
https://psmag.com/economics/work-life-balance-benefits-low-wage-workers-employers-35733​

Your "common knowledge" is obviously just a cop out for not supporting your own claims. It's intellectually dishonest, at best.
You just quoted a post where I cited a source, and I cited several in this post: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-189#post-3602193 So you're claim that I haven't "in this thread" is demonstrably false, and you justifying your own inability to support yours.

Evidence?

Straw man, or just you completely misunderstanding, as that is the result of a mandated $15/hr minimum wage, not increasing productivity. What part of "mandated" do you not understand? It means they can't cut wages any further.

All very easy to pull off by drastically understating your taxable income using shrewd accounting to fudge the system.
Have you evidence that the top earners are declaring their income honestly?

 

[Vociferous]

All very easy to pull off by drastically understating your taxable income using shrewd accounting to fudge the system.
Have you evidence that the top earners are declaring their income honestly?

If you're making the claim, the onus falls on you. Otherwise you're trying to shift the burden.

Even Bernie Sanders said he takes tax exemptions he voted against.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you're making the claim, the onus falls on you. Otherwise you're trying to shift the burden.

Even Bernie Sanders said he takes tax exemptions he voted against.

You missed my point ... why?
I stated taxable income amount before claiming exemptions....
Example: Wealthy claims exemptions of only 10% of their actual taxable income and increases their tax avoidance even more so...
Also: If there isn't a problem then Trump publishing his tax returns would be something he would volunteer and not fight against.
he could after all claim to be a true patriot and gain political benefit from doing so but he doesn't. He can't.

What would any reasonable thinker believe as to why Trump is fighting to have his tax returns made public? ( Especially given the significance of his office and the tradition of full disclosure to avoid allegations of corruption)

Do you like being ripped off?

 

[Tiassa]

We have occasion to revisit this point:

Reporting by The Hill claims the prosecution was ongoing. I'm afraid Trump got his wish, they got into public discussion a possible conflict of interest, at the very least, on Biden's part

Previously, I responded↑ by noting the reporter, John Solomon is a conspiracist right-winger who was leaving The Hill in a couple days to start his own website, and based his article on a conspiracist deposition filed by the fired prosecutor, Shokin, at the request of attorneys for Dmitri Firtash, who in turn faces charges in the U.S.

And, y'know, that is what it is.

Except, well the tale of John Solomon is just getting started:

Last March, a veteran Washington reporter taped an interview with a Ukrainian prosecutor that sparked a disinformation campaign alleging Joe Biden pressured Ukrainians into removing a prosecutor investigating a company because of its ties to the former vice president's son. The interview and subsequent columns, conducted and written by a writer for The Hill newspaper, John Solomon, were the starting gun that eventually set off the impeachment inquiry into the president.

Watching from the control booth of The Hill's TV studio was Lev Parnas, who helped arrange the interview.

Parnas and his partner Igor Fruman were working with the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to promote a story that it was Democrats and not Republicans who colluded with a foreign power in the 2016 election. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted the duo this month on allegations that they illegally funneled foreign money into U.S. political campaigns.

Interviews and company records obtained by ProPublica show Parnas worked closely with Solomon to facilitate his reporting, including helping with translation and interviews. Solomon also shared files he obtained related to the Biden allegations with Parnas, according to a person familiar with the exchange. And the two men shared yet another only recently revealed connection: Solomon's personal lawyers connected the journalist to Parnas and later hired the Florida businessman as a translator in their representation of a Ukrainian oligarch.

(Pearson, Spies, and McSwane↱)​

How about that media bias?

Then again, wasn't it The Hill that published Michael Flynn's lobby article for Turkey↱ on election day?
____________________

Notes:

Flynn, Michael T. "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support". The Hill. 8 November 2016. TheHill.com. 26 October 2019. http://bit.ly/2BPCwa0

Pearson, Jake, Mike Spies, and J. David McSWwane. "How a Veteran Reporter Worked with Giuliani's Associates to Launch the Ukraine Conspiracy". ProPublica. 25 October 2019. Propulbica.org. 26 October 2019. http://bit.ly/2BJJFsA

 

[RainbowSingularity]

big announcement coming soon ... so the news says ....

the optimist in me is hoping it will be a big infrastructure spend with government loan systems to primary producers in the usa for business start ups.
(with no interest for green energy business start ups)

 

[Seattle]

big announcement coming soon ... so the news says ....

the optimist in me is hoping it will be a big infrastructure spend with government loan systems to primary producers in the usa for business start ups.
(with no interest for green energy business start ups)

Who is saying that?

 

[Vociferous]

You missed my point ... why?
I stated taxable income amount before claiming exemptions....
Example: Wealthy claims exemptions of only 10% of their actual taxable income and increases their tax avoidance even more so...
Also: If there isn't a problem then Trump publishing his tax returns would be something he would volunteer and not fight against.
he could after all claim to be a true patriot and gain political benefit from doing so but he doesn't. He can't.

Why did you miss my point? You made the broad claim that the rich hide their taxable income, and it's on you to support that claim. I didn't make a claim either way on that count.

What would any reasonable thinker believe as to why Trump is fighting to have his tax returns made public? ( Especially given the significance of his office and the tradition of full disclosure to avoid allegations of corruption)

Do you like being ripped off?

Well that's just laughable, as you're claiming his true income wouldn't show on his tax returns anyway. You can't have it both ways. Either he claimed it all and the returns would only be damning due to exemptions, or he didn't claim it all and the return won't show that. So what, they might show he lied about how rich he was? And?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Well that's just laughable, as you're claiming his true income wouldn't show on his tax returns anyway. You can't have it both ways. Either he claimed it all and the returns would only be damning due to exemptions, or he didn't claim it all and the return won't show that. So what, they might show he lied about how rich he was? And?

no I am claiming:

What would any reasonable thinker believe as to why Trump is fighting to have his tax returns made public? ( Especially given the significance of his office and the tradition of full disclosure to avoid allegations of corruption)

Do you like being ripped off?

What would any reasonable thinker believe as to why Trump is fighting to have his tax returns made public? ( Especially given the significance of his office and the tradition of full disclosure to avoid allegations of corruption)

Do you like being ripped off?

Why did you miss my point? You made the broad claim that the rich hide their taxable income, and it's on you to support that claim. I didn't make a claim either way on that count.

You need to consider the amount of money invested in shrewd accounting and corporate structures. The working classes don't have access to that sort of resource.
Example:
It is inevitable that Joe Billionaire would rather pay his son a few million tax free dollars to cook his books rather than pay the government what it is legitimately owned. Or shift money to be laundered in the Bahamas or some such...

 

[Vociferous]

no I am claiming:

What would any reasonable thinker believe as to why Trump is fighting to have his tax returns made public? ( Especially given the significance of his office and the tradition of full disclosure to avoid allegations of corruption)

Do you like being ripped off?

That Trump is trolling the left just like Obama trolled the right by taking so long to show his birth certificate. That he always over-exaggerates everything, including his wealth. That the left was out for impeachment from the moment he won the nomination. Take your pick, there's probably many more.

Personally, I'm not paranoid enough to presume I'm being "ripped off" with some actual evidence.

You need to consider the amount of money invested in shrewd accounting and corporate structures. The working classes don't have access to that sort of resource.
Example:
It is inevitable that Joe Billionaire would rather pay his son a few million tax free dollars to cook his books rather than pay the government what it is legitimately owned. Or shift money to be laundered in the Bahamas or some such...

And the rich can just as easily and legally take on enough losing investments to offset their gains. But when you imagine mustache twirling villains, I guess it would be easy to think otherwise. C'est la vie.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That Trump is trolling the left just like Obama trolled the right by taking so long to show his birth certificate. That he always over-exaggerates everything, including his wealth. That the left was out for impeachment from the moment he won the nomination. Take your pick, there's probably many more.

Personally, I'm not paranoid enough to presume I'm being "ripped off" with some actual evidence.

No again you miss my point...
try it again,

What would any reasonable thinker believe as to why Trump is fighting to (not) have his tax returns made public? ( Especially given the significance of his office and the tradition of full disclosure to avoid allegations of corruption)

 

[Write4U]

Just saw a few people who espoused the great state the US is in, low unemployment, high stock markets, what could be better?

I bet that 90 % percent of these people have no idea of the National debt Trump has loaded on the backs of tax payers.

Trump liked to think he does things in a big way. It's true. The National Debt has grown allarmingly and may well lead this country into bankruptcy.

 

[iceaura]

Source? Here's mine:
The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be very progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.[2]

Oh c'mon - not even you guys are that out to lunch.
Your source doesn't even mention effective, or real, tax rates for the rich - let alone analyze them for the poor, or compare anything.
And we weren't talking about the "US individual income tax", isolated from the rest.
Why are you posting a source of the Federal personal income tax tables?

You just quoted a post where I cited a source, and I cited several in this post:

Your claims that those are sources for your assertions are false.

Straw man, or just you completely misunderstanding, as that is the result of a mandated $15/hr minimum wage, not increasing productivity. What part of "mandated" do you not understand? It means they can't cut wages any further.

What part of "competent" do you not understand? The more competent businessmen, faced with paying higher wages, will be able to better employ the established increase in productivity etc. So the burden of those wages will fall more heavily on the less competent - those who have no idea what to do except fire people and downsize.

Your "common knowledge" is obviously just a cop out for not supporting your own claims.

This stuff you don't know is in fact common knowledge - just not in your political faction. You think everyone is as ignorant of the physical reality surrounding them as you guys are?

Here's the relevant example. Since 1982 or so, lower class (blue collar) productivity has increased, in the US, much faster than lower class wages. The US minimum wages have actually fallen, at the same time as lower class productivity increased. That's common knowledge.
- - -

That Trump is trolling the left just like Obama trolled the right by taking so long to show his birth certificate. That he always over-exaggerates everything, including his wealth. That the left was out for impeachment from the moment he won the nomination.

The implications of those possibilities seem to have escaped you.
Along with the facts:
Obama's birth certificate was public information in 2008 - posted on the internet, and not withheld for trolling or any other purpose: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
The left wanted impeachment for cause - another example of the left being correct about the real world. The more pertinent question is why the "right" was derelict in its duties both civil and (in the case of Congress) sworn and official. Trump was in violation of the Emoluments Clause as soon as he took the oath of office, after showing signs of mental instability for many months.
Trump does not "over-exaggerate" (another illiteracy from the fountain). He lies, in order to cheat and betray.

So what, they might show he lied about how rich he was? And?

They also reveal - and provide clues to - where his money came from, and where it went. As with other bigtime swindlers, that is likely to prove him a criminal.

Personally, I'm not paranoid enough to presume I'm being "ripped off" with some actual evidence.

Paranoia is not involved. Contempt and outrage are involved. And if you guys haven't seen any evidence, you haven't been paying attention - everybody else has.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"[Al-Baghdadi] was a gutless animal...He died like a dog. He died like a coward...Our canine, I call it a dog, a beautiful dog, a talented dog, was injured and brought back."
-- Trump

 

[Bells]

"[Al-Baghdadi] was a gutless animal...He died like a dog. He died like a coward...Our canine, I call it a dog, a beautiful dog, a talented dog, was injured and brought back."
-- Trump

Yeah.. About that..

Announcing Baghdadi’s death, Trump claimed that the ISIS leader was “whimpering” and likened him to a “dog” in his attempt to escape U.S. forces. Five senior Trump administration officials who watched in real time as the president spoke on Sunday morning each told The Daily Beast that they had no idea where the president got the “whimpering and crying and screaming” detail. Two officials recounted how after they heard that on Sunday, they immediately began messaging each other questions and comments like “uh where is he getting that?”

The comments confused officials in the Pentagon as well, some of who told The Daily Beast that there was no way Trump could have heard Baghdadi’s voice on the Situation Room livestream Saturday night because it did not have audio. Two senior officials said while President Trump could have spoken to commandos on the ground who carried out the raid, they said that has not often been the case in past operations.

And on Monday, questions about where the president got his information continued to make their way to administration officials. At a press briefing Monday afternoon, reporters peppered Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley with questions about Trump’s remarks about Baghdadi “whimpering” and “crying.” Asked whether he too had heard the whimpering and crying from Baghdadi, Esper said: “I don’t have those details.” Milley said the president had planned to talk to unit members involved in the raid, but that he didn’t know the source of the Baghdadi description Trump used.

​

 

[Write4U]

This has uncanny resemblance to current affairs in the US.

On this day in 1934, Adolf Hitler, already chancellor, is also elected president of Germany in an unprecedented consolidation of power in the short history of the republic.

In 1932, German President Paul von Hindenburg, old, tired, and a bit senile, had won re-election as president, but had lost a considerable portion of his right/conservative support to the Nazi Party. Those close to the president wanted a cozier relationship to Hitler and the Nazis. Hindenburg had contempt for the Nazis’ lawlessness, but ultimately agreed to oust his chancellor, Heinrich Bruning, for Franz von Papen, who was willing to appease the Nazis by lifting the ban on Hitler’s Brown Shirts and unilaterally canceling Germany’s reparation payments, imposed by the Treaty of Versailles at the close of World War I.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-hitler-becomes-president-of-germany

We all know what happened next.

 

[Beaconator]

Trump is the least decisive President we've ever had. I guess it is difficult to be decisive if you no moral compass.

I think you have that backards...

I can't agree that it is easy to be decisive with a moral compass.