The Many Faces of US Politics...

[whitey]

Obama directly interfered in the Brexit vote by publicly stating the at Britain would have to go to the back of the line in terms of a new trade deal if they left the EU. 

Haha....I think Trump came out the next day and said hed bring them to the front of the line

[NAG1]

Obama directly interfered in the Brexit vote by publicly stating the at Britain would have to go to the back of the line in terms of a new trade deal if they left the EU. 

Haha....I think Trump came out the next day and said hed bring them to the front of the line

Neither of which means jack sh*t when it comes to the sh*t show that is and is going to be Brexit

[seafoid]

Obama directly interfered in the Brexit vote by publicly stating the at Britain would have to go to the back of the line in terms of a new trade deal if they left the EU. 

Haha....I think Trump came out the next day and said hed bring them to the front of the line

Trump also promised a wall, jobs for rust belt towns, and cheaper and better healthcare

[whitey]

Democrats up in arms because of "interference" when their own leader "interfered" in the Brexit vote

I also remember Obama mocking Romney during a debate about the Russian threat....maybe the "annointed" one isn't quite as clever as he (and the media) would like us to believe

[Declan]

This clown just gets better & better. Trump tried to explain economics to The Economist and it went just like you think it did

Donald Trump Tries to Explain Economics to The Economist. Hilarity Ensues.
By  Jonathan Chait   

Donald Trump has now spent enough time listening to Republican economic advisers that he can give an interview to The Economist in which he attempts to regurgitate the ideas that have been fed him. At various points in the interview, Trump tries and fails to think of the word "reciprocity." ("We need reciprocality in terms of our trade deals," he asserts.) Asked to flesh out his vision for a fair NAFTA in more detail, he can only come up with synonyms for "big":

It sounds like you're imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like?

Big isn't a good enough word. Massive.

Huge?

It's got to be. It's got to be.

The interview really starts to go downhill when Trump explains his tax plan:

Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit? Ronald Reagan's tax reform didn't.

Well, it actually did. But, but it's called priming the pump.

It is in fact well known among economists and policy experts that the 1986 Tax Reform Act was designed to be revenue neutral. The interviewer lets this go and continues:

But beyond that it's OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?

It is OK, because it won't increase it for long. You may have two years where you'll ... you understand the expression "prime the pump"?

Yes.

We have to prime the pump.

It's very Keynesian.

We're the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?

Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.

Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven't heard it. I mean, I just ... I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It's what you have to do.

It's ...

Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.

A few facts. First, the United States is not "the highest-taxed nation in the world." It is one of the lowest-taxed nations in the OECD:

Second, Trump did not invent the phrase "prime the pump." It has been around since at least the 1930s and is extremely familiar to economists. Nor does it describe his plan. Priming the pump refers to a program of temporary fiscal stimulus to inject demand into an economy stuck with high unemployment. Trump is instead proposing to permanently increase the deficit in an economy with low unemployment. Telling The Economist you invented the phrase "priming the pump," to describe a plan that does not prime the pump, is a bit like sitting down with Car and Driver, pointing to the steering wheel on your car and asking if they have ever heard of a little word you just came up with called "hubcap."

[J70]

and finally

the hypocrisy of the democrats is unbelievable. Here they go bleating on and on about interference in the US elections from a foreign country and then Obama goes public and endorses a candidate in the French Election.

but that's ok, right?

Publicly endorsing a candidate = unleashing your minions to dig up and slowly release embarrassing information and emails from one side only.

Gotcha.

There's no such thing as "good" interference and "bad" interference. Obama purposely waded into foreign election with the intention of using his profile to endorse a candidate. How is that any different to what democrats claim (and again, Obama is the only one who is proven to have interfered in an election) Russia did in the US election? Seriously. Your explanation doesn't quite work.

The democrats will obviously fail to grasp reality yet again and there's more than a stink of hypocrisy coming from their side.

On the one hand, a very public, honest, endorsement, which could be taken or left, depending on one's attitude to the endorser. Just like George Clooney or Ted Nugent endorsing someone in the states. You know where they're coming from and why they're coming down on a particular side.

On the other hand, a hidden, unclaimed attempt to influence an election by secretly targeting one side only by slowly releasing embarrassing emails.

So why is Obama endorsing a candidate in a foreign election? is he not trying to use his 'influence'? Seriously?

Pop stars and actors have no real political credibility, you saw that in the US election. Obama on the other hand is a former 2 term kenyan president of the USA. That is massive, especially when you have naive young voters who will turn out because he's telling them to vote for all that politically correct nonsense he advocated.

Even if Russia was behind the wikileaks hacks all that did was inform voters of what was going on behind the scenes in the democrat camp. I fail to see how this was a bad thing.

Is the "kenyan" bit supposed to be funny?

Of course Obama is trying to use his influence. Why else would he or anyone make an endorsement?

The difference between that and the Russian stuff (AGAIN!) is that he is doing so openly, just like Trump did with LePen.

If you can't see the difference...

And (AGAIN!), the issue with the leaks is that it was one-sided. We DIDN'T get to see what was going behind the scenes with Trump and the GOP. And given the cut-throat, back-stabbing, corrupt nature of politics across the board, its a guarantee that whenever the shit is let out in the open for the GOP, it will be embarrassing for them too.

Trump did not endorse LePen. Please provide evidence where he did or retract your statement.

You've just said it - Obama used his influence in the french election. He interfered in an foreign nations election process by endorsing one candidate. I really don't know why you want to keep debating when you've already debunked your own argument. You're a decent guy J70, stick to the facts.

Look - democrats are clinging to the Russia myth as its the only strand of credibility they have left after the election.
America rejected them and they still can't believe it. Focusing on the bogeyman and how it interfered with the election is nonsense.

The biggest problem democrats have with the Russia myth seem to be just pissed that wikileaks highlighed the clinton campaign. You wouldn't have heard a peep out of them if it had highlighted trump. Sore losers. Sad.

Even the Telegraph ruled his comments as an endorsement of LePen! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/donald-trump-wades-french-election-apparent-endorsement-marine/

As for the difference between an open, public, endorsement and covert, unclaimed, leaking of embarrassing emails, I've gone through it twice already. If you don't want to concede the bleeding obvious, suit yourself.

On investigating the Russian interference, which EVERYONE bar Trump concedes occurred, if Trump and his acolytes did nothing wrong, surely they should welcome a transparent investigation?

On partisanship, we had about ten different congressional investigations into Benghazi, with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, one of the top men in the House, letting slip that it was being done purely to harm Hillary Clinton's election prospects. Whereas here, even some GOP Senators are calling for special prosecutor at this point.

[seafoid]

This clown just gets better & better. Trump tried to explain economics to The Economist and it went just like you think it did

Donald Trump Tries to Explain Economics to The Economist. Hilarity Ensues.
By  Jonathan Chait   

Donald Trump has now spent enough time listening to Republican economic advisers that he can give an interview to The Economist in which he attempts to regurgitate the ideas that have been fed him. At various points in the interview, Trump tries and fails to think of the word "reciprocity." ("We need reciprocality in terms of our trade deals," he asserts.) Asked to flesh out his vision for a fair NAFTA in more detail, he can only come up with synonyms for "big":

It sounds like you're imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like?

Big isn't a good enough word. Massive.

Huge?

It's got to be. It's got to be.

The interview really starts to go downhill when Trump explains his tax plan:

Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit? Ronald Reagan's tax reform didn't.

Well, it actually did. But, but it's called priming the pump.

It is in fact well known among economists and policy experts that the 1986 Tax Reform Act was designed to be revenue neutral. The interviewer lets this go and continues:

But beyond that it's OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?

It is OK, because it won't increase it for long. You may have two years where you'll ... you understand the expression "prime the pump"?

Yes.

We have to prime the pump.

It's very Keynesian.

We're the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?

Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.

Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven't heard it. I mean, I just ... I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It's what you have to do.

It's ...

Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.

A few facts. First, the United States is not "the highest-taxed nation in the world." It is one of the lowest-taxed nations in the OECD:

Second, Trump did not invent the phrase "prime the pump." It has been around since at least the 1930s and is extremely familiar to economists. Nor does it describe his plan. Priming the pump refers to a program of temporary fiscal stimulus to inject demand into an economy stuck with high unemployment. Trump is instead proposing to permanently increase the deficit in an economy with low unemployment. Telling The Economist you invented the phrase "priming the pump," to describe a plan that does not prime the pump, is a bit like sitting down with Car and Driver, pointing to the steering wheel on your car and asking if they have ever heard of a little word you just came up with called "hubcap."

Trump  may have dementia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TCR5oC5ZQs

[seafoid]

and finally

the hypocrisy of the democrats is unbelievable. Here they go bleating on and on about interference in the US elections from a foreign country and then Obama goes public and endorses a candidate in the French Election.

but that's ok, right?

Publicly endorsing a candidate = unleashing your minions to dig up and slowly release embarrassing information and emails from one side only.

Gotcha.

There's no such thing as "good" interference and "bad" interference. Obama purposely waded into foreign election with the intention of using his profile to endorse a candidate. How is that any different to what democrats claim (and again, Obama is the only one who is proven to have interfered in an election) Russia did in the US election? Seriously. Your explanation doesn't quite work.

The democrats will obviously fail to grasp reality yet again and there's more than a stink of hypocrisy coming from their side.

On the one hand, a very public, honest, endorsement, which could be taken or left, depending on one's attitude to the endorser. Just like George Clooney or Ted Nugent endorsing someone in the states. You know where they're coming from and why they're coming down on a particular side.

On the other hand, a hidden, unclaimed attempt to influence an election by secretly targeting one side only by slowly releasing embarrassing emails.

So why is Obama endorsing a candidate in a foreign election? is he not trying to use his 'influence'? Seriously?

Pop stars and actors have no real political credibility, you saw that in the US election. Obama on the other hand is a former 2 term kenyan president of the USA. That is massive, especially when you have naive young voters who will turn out because he's telling them to vote for all that politically correct nonsense he advocated.

Even if Russia was behind the wikileaks hacks all that did was inform voters of what was going on behind the scenes in the democrat camp. I fail to see how this was a bad thing.

Is the "kenyan" bit supposed to be funny?

Of course Obama is trying to use his influence. Why else would he or anyone make an endorsement?

The difference between that and the Russian stuff (AGAIN!) is that he is doing so openly, just like Trump did with LePen.

If you can't see the difference...

And (AGAIN!), the issue with the leaks is that it was one-sided. We DIDN'T get to see what was going behind the scenes with Trump and the GOP. And given the cut-throat, back-stabbing, corrupt nature of politics across the board, its a guarantee that whenever the shit is let out in the open for the GOP, it will be embarrassing for them too.

Trump did not endorse LePen. Please provide evidence where he did or retract your statement.

You've just said it - Obama used his influence in the french election. He interfered in an foreign nations election process by endorsing one candidate. I really don't know why you want to keep debating when you've already debunked your own argument. You're a decent guy J70, stick to the facts.

Look - democrats are clinging to the Russia myth as its the only strand of credibility they have left after the election.
America rejected them and they still can't believe it. Focusing on the bogeyman and how it interfered with the election is nonsense.

The biggest problem democrats have with the Russia myth seem to be just pissed that wikileaks highlighed the clinton campaign. You wouldn't have heard a peep out of them if it had highlighted trump. Sore losers. Sad.

He did endorse her

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/donald-trump-wades-french-election-apparent-endorsement-marine/

[Hardy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TCR5oC5ZQs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXhfdiQ6sB8

[foxcommander]

Even the Telegraph ruled his comments as an endorsement of LePen! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/donald-trump-wades-french-election-apparent-endorsement-marine/

As for the difference between an open, public, endorsement and covert, unclaimed, leaking of embarrassing emails, I've gone through it twice already. If you don't want to concede the bleeding obvious, suit yourself.

On investigating the Russian interference, which EVERYONE bar Trump concedes occurred, if Trump and his acolytes did nothing wrong, surely they should welcome a transparent investigation?

On partisanship, we had about ten different congressional investigations into Benghazi, with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, one of the top men in the House, letting slip that it was being done purely to harm Hillary Clinton's election prospects. Whereas here, even some GOP Senators are calling for special prosecutor at this point.

So a newspaper "ruled" his comments as an "apparent" endorsement. Er...did he go on record like obama and endorse the candidate publicly to the french voters? No he didn't. You're wrong J70.

Interference, covert or not, is still interference. 

If you're having problems with the actual word here's the entry from dictionary.com
Interfere - to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):

Exactly what Obama did in the French election. I think that's enough clarification. Democrats are hypocrites.

[seafoid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TCR5oC5ZQs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXhfdiQ6sB8

More Scarborough

Trump asked Comey to swear loyalty to him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxzb7OKz9zM

[J70]

Even the Telegraph ruled his comments as an endorsement of LePen! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/donald-trump-wades-french-election-apparent-endorsement-marine/

As for the difference between an open, public, endorsement and covert, unclaimed, leaking of embarrassing emails, I've gone through it twice already. If you don't want to concede the bleeding obvious, suit yourself.

On investigating the Russian interference, which EVERYONE bar Trump concedes occurred, if Trump and his acolytes did nothing wrong, surely they should welcome a transparent investigation?

On partisanship, we had about ten different congressional investigations into Benghazi, with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, one of the top men in the House, letting slip that it was being done purely to harm Hillary Clinton's election prospects. Whereas here, even some GOP Senators are calling for special prosecutor at this point.

So a newspaper "ruled" his comments as an "apparent" endorsement. Er...did he go on record like obama and endorse the candidate publicly to the french voters? No he didn't. You're wrong J70.

Interference, covert or not, is still interference. 

If you're having problems with the actual word here's the entry from dictionary.com
Interfere - to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):

Exactly what Obama did in the French election. I think that's enough clarification. Democrats are hypocrites.

Not just one newspaper. Numerous.

Besides, just how do you interpret "strongest on borders", "strongest on what's been going on in France", "toughest on radical Islamic terrorism" etc., issues key to Trump's own election and platform, if not an endorsement?

He could just have said "no comment". He didn't. He outlined her perceived strengths in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. That's an endorsement any day of the week.

As for the rest, deny it all you want, but "covert" and "open/public" is a very key difference. Everyone knows where Obama is coming from when he makes an endorsement. There is no secret motivation and the opponent of the endorsed could even wear it as a badge of honour and an angle of attack on the endorsed. Do you think Hillary was upset when David Duke endorsed Trump? Or Newt Gingrich or the entire Fox News team? Or Trump when some celeb endorsed Hillary?

Whereas the hacking and selective publication of emails, targeting only one side, leaves one side with a clear advantage and the other at a major disadvantage.

[foxcommander]

Even the Telegraph ruled his comments as an endorsement of LePen! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/21/donald-trump-wades-french-election-apparent-endorsement-marine/

As for the difference between an open, public, endorsement and covert, unclaimed, leaking of embarrassing emails, I've gone through it twice already. If you don't want to concede the bleeding obvious, suit yourself.

On investigating the Russian interference, which EVERYONE bar Trump concedes occurred, if Trump and his acolytes did nothing wrong, surely they should welcome a transparent investigation?

On partisanship, we had about ten different congressional investigations into Benghazi, with Congressman Kevin McCarthy, one of the top men in the House, letting slip that it was being done purely to harm Hillary Clinton's election prospects. Whereas here, even some GOP Senators are calling for special prosecutor at this point.

So a newspaper "ruled" his comments as an "apparent" endorsement. Er...did he go on record like obama and endorse the candidate publicly to the french voters? No he didn't. You're wrong J70.

Interference, covert or not, is still interference. 

If you're having problems with the actual word here's the entry from dictionary.com
Interfere - to take part in the affairs of others; meddle (often followed by with or in):

Exactly what Obama did in the French election. I think that's enough clarification. Democrats are hypocrites.

Not just one newspaper. Numerous.

Besides, just how do you interpret "strongest on borders", "strongest on what's been going on in France", "toughest on radical Islamic terrorism" etc., issues key to Trump's own election and platform, if not an endorsement?

He could just have said "no comment". He didn't. He outlined her perceived strengths in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. That's an endorsement any day of the week.

As for the rest, deny it all you want, but "covert" and "open/public" is a very key difference. Everyone knows where Obama is coming from when he makes an endorsement. There is no secret motivation and the opponent of the endorsed could even wear it as a badge of honour and an angle of attack on the endorsed. Do you think Hillary was upset when David Duke endorsed Trump? Or Newt Gingrich or the entire Fox News team? Or Trump when some celeb endorsed Hillary?

Whereas the hacking and selective publication of emails, targeting only one side, leaves one side with a clear advantage and the other at a major disadvantage.

All of the above you wrote is irrelevant. The point is that Obama interfered in a foreign election.
Democrats can't quite grasp the hypocrisy of their position.

You're just trying to divert attention away from that fact rather than just agree.
Anyway, you keep believing your own version. Seems par for the course for democrats these days.
Block free speech, riot at public gatherings, hysterical protests etc.

[seafoid]

He didn't interfere in an election. He didn't attempt to destabilise the UK 

[stew]

This clown just gets better & better. Trump tried to explain economics to The Economist and it went just like you think it did

Donald Trump Tries to Explain Economics to The Economist. Hilarity Ensues.
By  Jonathan Chait   

Donald Trump has now spent enough time listening to Republican economic advisers that he can give an interview to The Economist in which he attempts to regurgitate the ideas that have been fed him. At various points in the interview, Trump tries and fails to think of the word "reciprocity." ("We need reciprocality in terms of our trade deals," he asserts.) Asked to flesh out his vision for a fair NAFTA in more detail, he can only come up with synonyms for "big":

It sounds like you're imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like?

Big isn't a good enough word. Massive.

Huge?

It's got to be. It's got to be.

The interview really starts to go downhill when Trump explains his tax plan:

Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit? Ronald Reagan's tax reform didn't.

Well, it actually did. But, but it's called priming the pump.

It is in fact well known among economists and policy experts that the 1986 Tax Reform Act was designed to be revenue neutral. The interviewer lets this go and continues:

But beyond that it's OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?

It is OK, because it won't increase it for long. You may have two years where you'll ... you understand the expression "prime the pump"?

Yes.

We have to prime the pump.

It's very Keynesian.

We're the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?

Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.

Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven't heard it. I mean, I just ... I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It's what you have to do.

It's ...

Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.

A few facts. First, the United States is not "the highest-taxed nation in the world." It is one of the lowest-taxed nations in the OECD:

Second, Trump did not invent the phrase "prime the pump." It has been around since at least the 1930s and is extremely familiar to economists. Nor does it describe his plan. Priming the pump refers to a program of temporary fiscal stimulus to inject demand into an economy stuck with high unemployment. Trump is instead proposing to permanently increase the deficit in an economy with low unemployment. Telling The Economist you invented the phrase "priming the pump," to describe a plan that does not prime the pump, is a bit like sitting down with Car and Driver, pointing to the steering wheel on your car and asking if they have ever heard of a little word you just came up with called "hubcap."

Trump  may have dementia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TCR5oC5ZQs

You have no shame, you know full well he would never have been potus if he had.

Fake news from the looney left, whodah thunk?