I think we’re arguing two different points. I am presenting the evidence for why he SHOULD be impeached, and you appear to be arguing that he WON’T be impeached. On that account, we are in agreement. However, that is due to a failing to acknowledge reality on the part of Trump’s supporters, and a lack of political bravery on the part of Republicans in Congress.

That’s actually a third point. I’ve said all along that if there’s a crime committed here that suggests that Trump knew that a crime was being committed by the Russians for whatever reason, and said nothing, then that would indeed disqualify him in the eyes of his supporters.

You seem to be willing to impeach him for things that are lesser than that.

It’s not unusual for Russians to pay 2x the going rate for property? Okay, whatever.

It was 2008. You’re reaching.

Make up your mind. Are foreign contributions to organizations close to a prominent politician cause for concern or not?

Yes.

Does it bother you that powerful members of the government hold financial obligations towards hostile countries or not?

Depends on the circumstances. Note that you’ve used the qualifier “hostile” which is questionable when applied to Russia in 2017. I’m not seeing Russia making any hostile gestures towards the US over the last couple of decades.

The business empires of Trump and his family owe billions of dollars to foreign banks and agencies, the extent of which they refuse to disclose. How are you okay with that?

A foreign bank is not a foreign government. You seem to think that the two are the same. A businessperson is in constant search for preferential treatment when it comes to financing. That’s normal.

What is the basis for your concern?

A constant drumbeat of negativity regarding the Trump Administration, which ultimately acts to undermine confidence in the Admin among the citizens. I find it amusing (and not in a good way) that the same media who moans when Trump belittles the intel agencies (which in the past have give us plenty of reason to distrust them) as being “dangerous” engages in the same behavior, times 10, when it comes to anything Mr. Trump does.

But it’s not news that our intel agencies are a little fucked, after 9/11 and the Iran fiasco. What, you don’t believe in accountability for major mistakes that cost American lives?

You don’t think changes have been made to the IC since then?

I do not know. From the way government circles to defend itself when attacked, I think there’s substantial risk that no changes have been made.

And what Iran fiasco are you talking about?

Sorry, Iraq.

And you agree that his attacks on the media and the FBI are damaging, but oh well, at least he lowered taxes (and never mind the debt)? That mindset doesn’t make sense to me.

Which mindset? I think we can all agree that it would have been better if the tax package was revenue neutral, but we should also all agree that you can’t tax your corporations at 39% when the world average is 24% and expect them to compete successfully.

Sure, the Dems closing ranks around Clinton may have postponed the national discussion you’re talking about, but let’s not pretend that he was the first powerful man to take advantage of a young woman. How about we get indignant about John Kennedy instead? Or Hugh Hefner? Or Newt Gingrich?

Ah. Two wrongs make a right. I see.

That is necessary to avoid blowing massive holes in the deficit like the GOP just did.

1.5T over 10 years is 30% over the current forecasted baseline. Is that a “massive hole?”, in your use of the English language?

How many times did you expect him to extend a hand, only to have it slapped away, before he stopped extending it?

I would have settled for just once extending it honestly. But he was an ideologue, and ideologues don’t do compromise.

The business environment has been growing steadily for years now, though Fox News never reported it.

I can’t say what Fox does or does not report; all I know is that “Fox” comes up when a lefty is losing the argument. What I do know is that the average annual GDP growth for Obama’s last four years was 2.04% PRECISELY, and that, my friend, is a number associated with a sick sick sick economy which is barely growing against inflation, low as inflation has been (officially).

iPerhaps you noticed that the Dow almost tripled on Obama’s watch.

I did. It is amazing what 0% interest rates, which means that the taxpayer is funding the working capital of major corporations for free, will do to earnings, and thus to the Dow, which is tied to those earnings.

However, it is always important to remember that when it comes to the Dow, about 50% of those revenues comes from overseas, meaning that the Dow is not a proxy for the US economy, but for the growth in overseas markets, as more and more people in China and India start to consume like Americans.

As far as the economy is concerned, he started on third base…he didn’t hit a triple.

You think Obama got farther than a weak single? Really? :-) At 2.04% and SINKING as he left office? (The last Obama quarter, 1Q17, and the previous were two of his least impressive quarters.)

Written by

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store