Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[bbhack]

There's approximately 360 million in the US. If I hurry and find a "judge" and prove I have the same or better qualifications than Acosta, I can get a free roaming pass before they run out! Because, duh!

[C-dub]

Okay, here we go. These are my thoughts and I think they're worth at least a nickel, but actual value may only be a penny, if that much.

I think acosta did use his left arm to push that interns arm down and away from the microphone. I'm not sure if that means he assaulted her or not, but he probably did since I'm sure she did not want to be touched like that by him.

Anyway, I had a long drive today and was listening to Chris Salcedo, Mark Steyn, and Rick Roberts. Some of their callers had some interesting ideas. For me, I think the best would be to not have any live press conferences until the case has been decided. Then after I returned home something else hit me. I wonder if cnn wasn't just played by Trump. Or for that matter, the entire liberal media. Trump has been playing them for almost three years now. What if ...

Trump et al. planned this whole thing after acosta assaulted that intern? It might a no lose situation.

Possible scenarios:
1. cnn doesn't whine to a judge and just sends a different person. They still have 49 others with White House press passes.
2. cnn whines to a judge and the judge immediately rules against because they don't have a case.
3. cnn whines to a judge and the judge agrees with cnn and demands they give acosta his press pass back because he was denied due process and they must develop guidelines to be able to follow due process in the future.

Why do I think #3 is still a win for Trump? If the White House would have developed guidelines on their own and required the press to abide by them or be ousted everyone would have been yelling and screaming that they've never had to do that before and refused. However, now they're being ordered to by a judge and the left thinks they've won.

IDK, maybe I'm crazy.

[Gator Guy]

Ideally, the President would walk out of the press room if a reporter is rude, ending the press conference. Give the press the opportunity and obligation to police themselves. If they refuse, they all lose. The WH can post press releases on the WH website and cut out the middleman. The mainstream media is becoming as obsolete as buggy whips anyhow.

However, I don't think Trump has the willpower to walk away from the spotlight, so a technical solution run by the WH staff will work better. They can get mics that can be cut off remotely and use multiple microphones. Have one reporter "at bat" and the next one "on deck" and if the batter strikes out, cut off their mic and turn on the mic for the next reporter.

Even better, don't give a mic to accoster in the first place.

[philip964]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... orest-fire

Make America Rake Again.

Trump walks with Newsom and Brown in fire ravaged area.

Meme I can’t find again says :

How could you bozos let this happen?

We were busy making gun free zones, Newsom says

And banning plastic straws, Brown follows up.

[Bitter Clinger]

[RoyGBiv]

3. cnn whines to a judge and the judge agrees with cnn and demands they give acosta his press pass back because he was denied due process and they must develop guidelines to be able to follow due process in the future.

Why do I think #3 is still a win for Trump? If the White House would have developed guidelines on their own and required the press to abide by them or be ousted everyone would have been yelling and screaming that they've never had to do that before and refused. However, now they're being ordered to by a judge and the left thinks they've won.

IDK, maybe I'm crazy.

I don't think you're crazy. Well, crazy like a fox, maybe.

[Bitter Clinger]

[mojo84]

Trump’s tax cuts still haven’t benefited the economy

So what did the Trump administration accomplish by cutting tax rates? Well, there is the higher federal deficit and larger indebtedness for the country. But that’s not an accomplishment. That’s a nightmare.

What he said
https://nypost.com/2018/11/23/trumps-ta ... e-economy/

http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... ic-growth/

[03Lightningrocks]

Good night nurse. Why are you even on this forum Philbo/dale?
Maybe find a good socialist forum? Might be more your kind of people. You know. Sheep.

[Abraham]

In the past, I abstained from using the 'ignore' feature, but since a few lefties have shown up here to spew they're annoyance the 'ignore' feature works quite well for me...

I don't give a hoot what they say or think.

socialist/commie types cause me no ire as I completely, utterly ignore them.

Not one word of their blather soils my eyes.

So, let em bark, it doesn't matter. They're nonsense is completely invisible to me.

[strogg]

http://www.investors.com/politics/edito ... ic-growth/

Trump’s tax cuts aren’t paying for themselves
The increase in revenues at the beginning of the year can be attributed to a growing economy, but that growth was not offset by the loss of revenue due to the tax cuts.

Now that the 2018 fiscal year is over (as of Oct. 1), we can say with some confidence that the cuts have not begun to pay for themselves yet. The budget deficit has swollen under Trump’s hand to $782 billion, some $116 billion more than the year before. The wider gap can be attributed entirely to a shortfall in tax revenue; in particular, corporate tax receipts plunged $92 billion year-on-year...

Thanks to a growing economy, the US spent less this year as a share of GDP despite a nominal increase in outlays of $129 billion. But as a result of the tax bill, revenue fell 0.7 percentage points of GDP, driving up the deficit. In absolute terms, the US collected $13 billion more in revenues this year than the previous one—but if the old tax policies still held, it would have collected another $200 billion this year, according to a budget forecast created by the CBO in June 2017.

https://qz.com/1434388/trumps-tax-cuts- ... hemselves/

You're saying that lowering tax rates have resulted in a smaller tax revenue to GDP ratio? Well, no frikkin duh. That's first grade math. The point of the tax returns is to spur GDP and increase revenue, which you have literally showed us. The only way this will be a losing situation is if the ultimate goal is to get maximum tax revenue by GDP. If that's the case, the government will have all the spending power in the world for $100,000 toilet seats while having stagnating GDP.

[strogg]

Harvesting in a trade war: U.S. crops rot as storage costs soar

More farmers winning thanks to tRump's trade policies that act against free trade and capitalism.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1NQ0GA

I actually applaud this. Yes, this will cost us, but ultimately, China needs to be put in their place. That is far more important right now than the economy, as the Chinese are a great danger and national security risk to everyone domestically. I bet they regret stealing all of Hillary's emails right about now. Hillary would have been a lot nicer to them.

[oljames3]

In the past, I abstained from using the 'ignore' feature, but since a few lefties have shown up here to spew they're annoyance the 'ignore' feature works quite well for me...

I don't give a hoot what they say or think.

socialist/commie types cause me no ire as I completely, utterly ignore them.

Not one word of their blather soils my eyes.

So, let em bark, it doesn't matter. They're nonsense is completely invisible to me.

[rotor]

You're saying that lowering tax rates have resulted in a smaller tax revenue to GDP ratio? Well, no frikkin duh. That's first grade math. The point of the tax returns is to spur GDP and increase revenue...

Granted that the spin on the tax cuts was that it was going to spur GDP and increase revenue to offset any loss it would otherwise cause. Only problem is that no one at the time could explain in specific terms how this would happen. Now that the numbers are in it appears that the tax cuts will likely never pay for themselves and the deficit will increase to record highs... something I and others have stated all along.

Even that might not be so bad, except that tRump's trade policies may damage his tax plans even more than expected. But, I'm sure this is more winning for tRump and his believers.

Wall Street falls as Trump's threat sparks trade worries
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... op+News%29

GM warned Trump that his China tariffs would hurt jobs. He now complains that it's happening.
https://www.thisisinsider.com/china-tra ... fs-2018-11

Finally, while you may be ok with tRump's "easy to win " trade war and applaud farmers forced to lose their crops as a necessary expense, I respectfully disagree that such a policy is in America's best interest.

What would have been America's best interest. HRC? Why don't you tell us what you would have liked. Four more loser years of Obama? Liberal judge in supreme court to take away 2A rights? What exactly would philbo like? Every Trump talking point is true, lowest unemployment rate, salaries going up, confidence up, military up, no bombs from North Korea, etc. What did you want philbo? Another democrat? Did you want another republican beside Trump? Perhaps Beto is more to your liking. Maybe Bloomberg in 2020? Rather than telling us what you don't like tell us what you want. And when you tell us, tell us why.

[strogg]

You're saying that lowering tax rates have resulted in a smaller tax revenue to GDP ratio? Well, no frikkin duh. That's first grade math. The point of the tax returns is to spur GDP and increase revenue...

Granted that the spin on the tax cuts was that it was going to spur GDP and increase revenue to offset any loss it would otherwise cause. Only problem is that no one at the time could explain in specific terms how this would happen. Now that the numbers are in it appears that the tax cuts will likely never pay for themselves and the deficit will increase to record highs... something I and others have stated all along.

Even that might not be so bad, except that tRump's trade policies may damage his tax plans even more than expected. But, I'm sure this is more winning for tRump and his believers.

Wall Street falls as Trump's threat sparks trade worries
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... op+News%29

GM warned Trump that his China tariffs would hurt jobs. He now complains that it's happening.
https://www.thisisinsider.com/china-tra ... fs-2018-11

Finally, while you may be ok with tRump's "easy to win " trade war and applaud farmers forced to lose their crops as a necessary expense, I respectfully disagree that such a policy is in America's best interest.

Let's continue here, shall we? I don't see how name calling accomplishes anything in an intelligent discussion.

I can conversely say that not passing the bill will result in the same level of risks and unknowns. The economy is incredibly hard to predict in the long run, but seeing as how our current economy is going in a different kind of trend than it was before, passing a new tax bill to follow the trend makes sense. Just keep in mind that I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with the tax bill. I am merely saying that the current generalized good and bad that have resulted from the bill are pretty much expected. We will see in a few years time what will actually come of it. I am by no means an economist, so I'll leave it at that.

As for for Wall Street and the trade wars, I will agree with you that stocks are going a bit wild due to the worry of unknown and fear. One of the few things I know about the stock market as a whole is that it is very much psychologically driven. When people are in a state of worry and fear, yes, it will drop. When people feel confident, it will rise. Once the trade talks are settling, we'll see the stock market stabilize again and life will move on. Just because stocks fall for a day or two is hardly a reason to dump on Trump. Again, let's see what happens in the long run.

GM reducing their North American product line is not a surprise, to be honest. I figured it was bound to happen. Ford did a very similar move a few months ago (long before China was a real issue). They are both dropping their products that are least profitable and focusing on their bread and butter: larger vehicles. A big reason behind Ford's decision may be the EPA regulations that have made making smaller passenger vehicles much less lucrative and a bigger pain in the rear end. Ford never came out and said it, though. Nor can I read minds, so I'm just going to leave it at a "maybe". GM is just following their coattails, claiming pretty much the same reasons Ford did when reducing their lineup. Was a reason for GM's lineup reduction due to the EPA? Maybe. I don't know. Trump and China a reason? Maybe. I don't know. I can't read minds. Unless they come out and say that it is a clear reason why they did it, I can't claim those statements on them, and nor should anyone else.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on the China thing. I will have to admit that I have a preexisting bias against them. I was raised to believe that their government since after Mao took over back in the 40s is filled with lying, untrustworthy weasels that do not have the best interest of their citizens or other foreign states at heart (I'll give you one guess where my ancestors came from). But seeing as how recently we are seeing them being the center of the war on drugs (think Fentanyl), their overt espionage, toxic government, friendliness to our foreign enemies (like North Korea and Iran), militant aggressiveness toward our allies (like Taiwan), etc., it's pretty obvious to me that they need to be put in their place. Diplomacy hasn't really worked in the last 70 years. I don't think it will start working now.