NY Times: Mueller Report More Damaging Than Barr Let On

This is so sad...I bet you’re not aware he is a republican but you don’t hear us whining that he’s a rightie
No one failed...obstruction of justice is serious...but to you a birth certificate is more important than Russia being involved in our election. Trump sure knows his base

 

Why didn't you learn that lesson while Obama was in office?

Hitler actually handed out jobs to Germany and plenty of social benefits. Sounds like claims made about Obama to me.

 

Another daily dire warning and "this is it" moment. Toss it on the pile of dire warnings you guys have posted for the last 2 1/2 years.
It's more than just old. It smells like Pelosi. Put up or shut up.

 

Your logic is horrendous.

Here is a story: There is a black SUV parked at the end of the driveway alongside my house right now.

Is that story true or false?

 

Why the hell wasn't it the job of Obama to have good elections? He promised there would be no meddling. Said it was not possible. Trump was not president in November 2016.

 

Who said I didn't?

Trump is doing that...or so you guys say.

Don't get me wrong, Robert. I am not comparing Trump and Hitler. Hitler was much smarter...and a much more effective speaker...so I shy away from doing that.

 

How should I know with no more info than that?

Do you have a house?

Has anyone else seen the black SUV?

But if you give us your address at least there is a place to start

 

We do not encounter much of that Hitler admiration here. And just how do you know how smart Trump is?

Trump signed a tax change that spurred growth of jobs. The way Obama admirers treat him, he dropped his shorts and crapped new jobs. No Obama loyalist i have read can explain why his system should have worked.

 

With his address, at least we can use Google maps to see if one was there the day Google rolled past.

 

Uh, no. Tax cuts did not "spur job growth". The job growth is due to a decent economy to begin with.

What spurs job growth is demand. Demand is not created by tax cuts for a small segment of society.

 

Yes, I read the piece by the liberal nutjob Nancy LeTourneau claiming Democrats would like to release their own summary.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/04/muellers-team-wrote-their-own-summaries/

If anyone is interested in why Tom never provides links to his claims it's mainly due to his info is usually from loons like this....

https://twitter.com/Smartypants60

 

Except he could give us alec baldwin or jesse smolletts address instead of his own

 

We shall never agree. Jobs create demand. Tax cuts spur company investing in faster machines, etc.

Why didn't Obama teach your system? He kept handing money to corporations. Faster he said than tax cuts. Why didn't he create demand?

 

As you well know, economists agree with my position, and not yours. You might want to reconsider your position in light of that not so unimportant fact.

 

The ex-bartender from NY is an ecomonist

And she’s an idiot

 

Which economists are you saying support you?

Here is the nuts of my position. More cash to be inserted into the market (tax cuts) = ability to procure more products = better economy.

 

Nothing is more than what you have.

 

Without a named source, there are no consequences. There are no consequences for spinning the story or completely fabricating it.

 

This is MAGA country *squirt squirt*

 

You must have memory issues. I posted a series of sources when we had the very same discussion.

And your theory lacks support.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...follow-tax-cuts-for-the-rich-and-corporations

https://www.thenation.com/article/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-create-jobs-they-enrich-ceos/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckj...x-cuts-havent-spiked-job-growth/#13adeb902df9

 

You are one of the spokespersons for the Democrats.

Yes, I do not recall what they tell me. I heard it thousands of times. So without them saying it, I do recall their form of arguments.

 

Ok....maybe I did infer too much. Maybe a better way of phrasing it would be: "point is, your comparison of the popularity of Hitler to the popularity of Trump (and you did make that comparison)....."

I agree that Trump is odious. However, he is not even close to the odiousness of Hitler....at least when compared to the known odiousness of Hitler AFTER all the evidence has been collected. He was not seen as odious by many Germans, at least when he rose to power, as history proved him to be.

Though I do not really like Trump, I do not completely see the claims of "racism" or "dictatorship" or "criminality" as many try to paint him as. Has he had some shady businesses and shady practices? Most certainly. The same could be said of about every person of his stature and in the same type of business he is in (development). this is not an excuse for him. It is just a fact of life. I would suspect that if the business dealing of our Congress members were as deeply examined as Trumps have been, we would find just as much "shadiness" from most members from both sides of the aisle.

 

No, I'm not. Empirical studies are not "partisan", and all economists are not Democrats.

My "form of argument" is to use credible sources.

 

I have never seen this mentioned by any Democrat so far. And that is over a span of time of more than 20 years.

Errors and Omissions insurance.

This is purchased by firms that want to escape the punishment brought to them by errors or omissions. Firms can be insured for problems.

Such as the Trump university. I know about the school by having studied it's claims and courses and costs.

Frankly I see no way for the typical person to profit. They may want to take the courses (no longer available) to get an education on real estate. Each person has their own expectations.

I managed for 2 weeks the company of a friend. I had also owned a company and I hit a bump due to divorce. Anyway, he had on his desk a pile of files. I would guess at the time perhaps 10 or 12. I asked him why he put up with the suits? I noticed they were focused on a particular agent. He said the profit for the deals were higher than his costs so he did not mind that his E&O insurance would cover the problems. It is hard to lecture the guy who hired you to run his firm for his vacation time. So I probably let it go. It was not my company anyway.

Other brokers I know would put a lot of effort in making sure an agent was not a problem. They would manage the agent very well. And though also covered with E&O insurance, not manage an office that had any real problem with suits.

We do not hear who paid for the suits that hit Trump but my guess is he was covered with an insurance policy for the costs.