Jump to content

Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)


chasfh

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, pfife said:

It's because the media has a very strong conservative bias in addition to an even stronger pro trump bias.

I don't know about a conservative bias, but they LOVE Trump and will do anything they can to make sure he stays in the news.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't know about a conservative bias, but they LOVE Trump and will do anything they can to make sure he stays in the news.  

I kinda look at the media as having sort of a "Ralph and Sam" relationship with Trump / GOP.... on one hand, they are adversarial and lock horns a lot, on the other hand they want the access and need them in order to drive news, which in turn helps drive ratings and clicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if raising the debt ceiling is considered a concession by the GOP, doesn't that imply that they favor the US defaulting?

Their current political champion has publicly called for the U.S. to default on its debt. because after all, they reason. who's going to get blamed for it when next year's presidential election comes around?

So, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They won't default.  They may play chicken for a few days, but a default would cause economic catastrophe.  Trump doesn't care because he is not currently in office and he's an amoral psychopath who thinks he can personally benefit from a catastrophe.  At the very least, others won't want to look bad when their voters start losing SS benefits.  And it is possible some of them may have actual human emotions where they might get a little guilty upon seeing widespread human suffering. That might be a liitle too much to ask, but I think the former is true.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Their current political champion has publicly called for the U.S. to default on its debt. because after all, they reason. who's going to get blamed for it when next year's presidential election comes around?

So, yes.

I think the results of a default would be too quick and too brutal to wait for an election.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

They won't default.  They may play chicken for a few days, but a default would cause economic catastrophe.  Trump doesn't care because he is not currently in office and he's an amoral psychopath who thinks he can personally benefit from a catastrophe.  At the very least, others won't want to look bad when their voters start losing SS benefits.  And it is possible some of them may have actual human emotions where they might get a little guilty upon seeing widespread human suffering. That might be a liitle too much to ask, but I think the former is true.   

I don't think there will be a default either as it wouldn't likely be all that good for either side, tbh. 

But man, it is really frustrating to have to live through this stupidity every few years over an arcane rule that shouldn't even exist. Especially when peoples lives or livelihoods are on the line.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if raising the debt ceiling is considered a concession by the GOP, doesn't that imply that they favor the US defaulting?

I have mixed feelings about this. One one hand, I can approve of a 'no negotiation with hostage takers' stance by Biden if it comes down to it. But on the other hand, Biden also may have a "Nixon goes to China" moment here if he is clever and skilled enough to use it. There have to be many things that have become somewhate sacred cows of spending that even a liberal old hand like Biden must know can and should go. Here is a chance for him to get a little useful reform if he can control the process. Give away things he doesn't want anyway, let the GOP get their fig leaf, and all the while the Dems can still blame it all on the GOP to the complaining constituencies (which there always are). 

That's IF Biden is that smart/clever. I don't know if he is.  but I would guess he does have some kind of 2nd level strategy for his decision to engage after initially saying he woudn't. Say what you will about the man, if there is anything we should know about him by know, he thinks tactics/strategy in longer terms than your average DC pol.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oblong said:

A government employee with a security clearance making business deals with China is a non story?

A foreign adversary, China, giving sweetheart licensing deals to a government employee who is the daughter of the President of the United States, in an attempt to politically influence the POTUS in the adversary's favor... is a non-story?

 

 

Edited by 1984Echoes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

... There have to be many things that have become somewhat sacred cows of spending that even a liberal old hand like Biden must know can and should go. Here is a chance for him to get a little useful reform if he can control the process. Give away things he doesn't want anyway...

Can you define this please?

Because Republicans have their own SPECIFIC list of cuts that they want. They are NOT going to accept Biden's "list of cuts" in lieu of their own... which, I don't even know how that would be defined... wanna take a stab at it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oblong said:

A government employee with a security clearance making business deals with China is a non story?

I didn't say it was a non story, I said it ended up being a non story after it was learned that the patents that were awarded, weren't influenced by Trump.  They were pushed through on the China side, with the hopes to influence no doubt, but turns out they were patents that had been sitting for years for things Ivanka was no longer involved with, thus no value to her anyway.  This is why the issue eventually died out, after I believe it was the NYT's, much to their chagrin I'm sure, discovered that.

Additionally this was for business that happened prior to her role in the White House, I keep getting told that doesn't matter when we're talking about 10% for the 'big guy'.

I'm not trying to defend the Trump family, but there are plenty of legit things to complain about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I didn't say it was a non story, I said it ended up being a non story after it was learned that the patents that were awarded, weren't influenced by Trump.  They were pushed through on the China side, with the hopes to influence no doubt, but turns out they were patents that had been sitting for years for things Ivanka was no longer involved with, thus no value to her anyway.  This is why the issue eventually died out, after I believe it was the NYT's, much to their chagrin I'm sure, discovered that.

Additionally this was for business that happened prior to her role in the White House, I keep getting told that doesn't matter when we're talking about 10% for the 'big guy'.

I'm not trying to defend the Trump family, but there are plenty of legit things to complain about.

I didn't follow the whole thing but...

Yeah, this would end up in the "non-issue" bin at the end of the day based on the above...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 1984Echoes said:

I didn't follow the whole thing but...

Yeah, this would end up in the "non-issue" bin at the end of the day based on the above...

And to stress again, it absolutely should have received the scrutiny that it initially did for the reasons both you and Oblong stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Wouldn't that make genius here the first Speaker to preside over a default as well?

Especially since Congress "controls the purse strings"? That's what this whole thing is about, including the ceiling.

Biden should unilaterally 14th amendment the ceiling up by $3 trillion to guarantee US Debts, Treasury should write checks for a Trillion of that (covered by immediate new Debt Issuances, T-Bills and such), in payment of bills and such, immediately.

Then I'd like to see the Supremes come back with that as "unconstitutional" with us already spent over and above the old ceiling by a Trillion. I believe June Treasury cash receipts were expected to also be near a Trillion (forget where I saw that).

Maybe Treasury should spend an immediate $1.5 Trillion in bills and such...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Very important 

Nor yet enough 

 

More false info here. A quick internet search will show Trump never said he would pardon Rhodes.  In the CNN townhall, Trump said he would look at pardons for a lot of the people but not all of them.  He sais some of them had done some very bad things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      285
    • Most Online
      625

    Newest Member
    Hinchman11
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...