The Impeachment Thread

#35,027
#35,027
utvolpj said:
the numbers you're using were deliberately misleading and without context

Why the pass? Trump had a same party legislative branch for 2 years
Click to expand...

How come GJ numbers are without context but Trumps are?
I am not giving Trump a pass as he has some culpability. Just pointing our that Johnson was not as fiscally conservative as indicated per his record, hence maybe not as much a different candidate as suggested.
Having the same legislative branch is basically irrelevant as both parties are big spenders. That does not necessarily mean that GJ and Trump are.
I am just asking you to apply the same standard but you refuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#35,032
#35,032
Orangeburst said:
How come GJ numbers are without context but Trumps are?
I am not giving Trump a pass as he has some culpability. Just pointing our that Johnson was not as fiscally conservative as indicated per his record, hence maybe not as much a different candidate as suggested.
Having the same legislative branch is basically irrelevant as both parties are big spenders. That does not necessarily mean that GJ and Trump are.
I am just asking you to apply the same standard but you refuse.
Click to expand...
I did apply the same. Exec vs legislative. Now if you want to argue that Trump's actually a dem and was therefore hindered by the gop then I'll listen. It's fact he had Congress and did nothing

When you dig into the situations you realize that numbers without context are essentially worthless. I went thru these when NR published them and am familiar with how they came about
 
#35,033
#35,033
utvolpj said:
I did apply the same. Now if you want to argue that Trump's actually a dem and was therefore hindered by the gop then I'll listen. When you dig into the situations you realize that numbers without context are essentially worthless. I went thru these when NR published them and am familiar with how they came about
Click to expand...

That is so much malarkey. GJ has circumstances but no way in hell Trump has any with mandatory spending that exceeds 60% of the budget.
 
#35,034
#35,034
Orangeburst said:
That is so much malarkey. GJ has circumstances but no way in hell Trump has any with mandatory spending that exceeds 60% of the budget.
Click to expand...
Circumstances: For 2 years he had a phone, pen and a gop Congress. Even Obama deceased the deficit. Should have been away least some progress from the guy who said he could eliminate all debt "fairly quickly"
 
#35,035
#35,035
utvolpj said:
Circumstances: For 2 years he had a phone, pen and a gop Congress. Even Obama deceased the deficit. Should have been away least some progress from the guy who said he could eliminate all debt "fairly quickly"
Click to expand...

You can argue that controlling state level spending is much easier as well.
If GJ was President he would be facing the same hurdles as Trump. It really cannot be addressed until mandatory spending is included and so far Trump has not addressed it, but you cannot say with certainty that GJ would have with his record and the realities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#35,037
#35,037
utvolpj said:
Circumstances: For 2 years he had a phone, pen and a gop Congress. Even Obama deceased the deficit. Should have been away least some progress from the guy who said he could eliminate all debt "fairly quickly"
Click to expand...

Wasn't the "fairly quickly" idea linked to his "very stable genius" insight that he could just print extra money to pay off the debt?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#35,039
#35,039
evillawyer said:
No reason to bring Ivanka's face, body and personality into this.
Click to expand...
iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#35,040
#35,040
utvolpj said:
Circumstances: For 2 years he had a phone, pen and a gop Congress. Even Obama deceased the deficit. Should have been away least some progress from the guy who said he could eliminate all debt "fairly quickly"
Click to expand...
Obama did decrease the deficit in that in 2015, we only spent $438 billion more than we took in. However, you seem to have forgotten that his deficits went back up his last 2 years , to $594 billion in the hole. The debt went up every year by at least $438 billion or more. You make it sound like he lowered the debt. I think the budget sequestration may have had something to do with the drop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#35,041
#35,041
hog88 said:
Not the way it works. Roberts has no say in how this trial is ran, he can only enforce the rules the Senate decides on.
Click to expand...
So much for relevant questions and witnesses then.
But of course that's exactly the way Trump and his merry band of trumpers want it.
Were we to have relevant witnesses and questions, Trump would be toast.
We are now just sitting back and watching how the Senate avoids a fair trial in order to save the Trump presidency.

That will be the historic take.
 
#35,042
#35,042
1972 Grad said:
Obama did decrease the deficit in that in 2015, we only spent $438 billion more than we took in. However, you seem to have forgotten that his deficits went back up his last 2 years , to $594 billion in the hole. The debt went up every year by at least $438 billion or more. You make it sound like he lowered the debt. I think the budget sequestration may have had something to do with the drop.
Click to expand...
So what's Trump and the GOP's excuse?
 
#35,043
#35,043
1972 Grad said:
Obama did decrease the deficit in that in 2015, we only spent $438 billion more than we took in. However, you seem to have forgotten that his deficits went back up his last 2 years , to $594 billion in the hole. The debt went up every year by at least $438 billion or more. You make it sound like he lowered the debt. I think the budget sequestration may have had something to do with the drop.
Click to expand...
You know I've gotta say it..........
The rate of increase in deficit spending is ALWAYS higher under republican administrations.
More true under Trump than ever before.
 
#35,045
#35,045
Mick said:
So what's Trump and the GOP's excuse?
Click to expand...
The debt will go up every year, no matter who is in charge. The media would eviscerate Republicans for starving children, and pushing granny over the cliff due to "draconian cuts." And, the Democrats won't be criticized by the media, but they won't make any cuts either. They will not take money away from their constituency that depends on them for a living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, Rickyvol77, AM64 and 1 other person
#35,048
#35,048
luthervol said:
So much for relevant questions and witnesses then.
But of course that's exactly the way Trump and his merry band of trumpers want it.
Were we to have relevant witnesses and questions, Trump would be toast.
We are now just sitting back and watching how the Senate avoids a fair trial in order to save the Trump presidency.

That will be the historic take.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much the same rules as Clinton's trial, are you saying he didn't get a fair one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#35,049
#35,049
luthervol said:
So much for relevant questions and witnesses then.
But of course that's exactly the way Trump and his merry band of trumpers want it.
Were we to have relevant witnesses and questions, Trump would be toast.
We are now just sitting back and watching how the Senate avoids a fair trial in order to save the Trump presidency.

That will be the historic take.
Click to expand...
Maybe those witnesses and evidence should have been handled by the House whose responsibility it was to conduct the investigation prior to sending articles of impeachment over to the Senate?

I know, how silly of me to expect that they do their job and not leave it to somebody else to do.

But look on the bright side, if they had, they wouldn't have such a good reason to whine, so there's that going for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#35,050
#35,050
luthervol said:
You know I've gotta say it..........
The rate of increase in deficit spending is ALWAYS higher under republican administrations.
More true under Trump than ever before.
Click to expand...


I saw Kudlow this morning on CNBC dodge the same point. Claims that growth will rescue us, and that they can do a lot more on the spending side if R's control both houses next year. The question was asked re Medicare and SS, but he totally stayed away from that, of course.

I find his point about a GOP House and Senate to be a remarkable claim because all the crazy spending and tax cuts happened in the first two years, when Trump had a GOP House and Senate. What makes anyone think he would do anything as a lame duck and a host of GOPers looking to replace him. They aren't signing off on SS or Medicare cuts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top