Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

It looks like Mueller leaked an end to his investigation in common form to this witch hunt. The news is that he will wrap up this "investigation" after the mid-term elections. It is not known if the investigation results will be made open to the public, of course the media wants them to be open to scrutiny.

This fits my theory, that Mueller has a tiger by the tail, and wants to let go in a way where he won't get rendered. I figure he will have to make a public address, make Trump sound as bad as possible WITHOUT incurring Republican or Trump wrath.

Out of all this, so far, I think the rottenest thing Mueller did was set up Papadopoulos for a fall. They used him, then they made sure he became a scalp on Mueller's belt. I hope Mueller gets what he deserves for that. They set up a stooge, it worked, it was an international effort, and they sent an innocent man to prison.

The Steele dossier, that is another matter, along with the lawsuit against the Democrats by Carter Page because of FISA corruption, I hope this is all going to prove justice hasn't died in the USA. I hope.

To think that if Hillary won we wouldn't know any of this corruption took place.

1 Reply

@KingReef,

KingReef wrote:

Out of all this, so far, I think the rottenest thing Mueller did was set up Papadopoulos for a fall. They used him, then they made sure he became a scalp on Mueller's belt. I hope Mueller gets what he deserves for that. They set up a stooge, it worked, it was an international effort, and they sent an innocent man to prison.

Democrats do things like that. Remember Scooter Libby?

The sooner we outlaw the Democratic Party in America, the sooner we can end their scourge against the innocent.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

kingreef wrote:

Out of all this, so far, I think the rottenest thing Mueller did was set up Papadopoulos for a fall. They used him, then they made sure he became a scalp on Mueller's belt. I hope Mueller gets what he deserves for that. They set up a stooge, it worked, it was an international effort, and they sent an innocent man to prison.

oralloy wrote:

Democrats do things like that. Remember Scooter Libby?

The sooner we outlaw the Democratic Party in America, the sooner we can end their scourge against the innocent.

I wouldn't want them to outlaw the Democratic Party, it would suggest that we have become like them; autocratic, anti-first amendment, intolerant. I would rather the FBI get a FISA warrant and sack their computers and files. I figure there are many illegal operations, hit jobs, obvious and admitted attempts to defame people wrongfully, and possibly human trafficking on their servers.

But essentially I hope they do go down. The DNC is Hydra, if only Captain America was a real person.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

KingReef wrote:
Out of all this, so far, I think the rottenest thing Mueller did was set up Papadopoulos for a fall. They used him, then they made sure he became a scalp on Mueller's belt. I hope Mueller gets what he deserves for that. They set up a stooge, it worked, it was an international effort, and they sent an innocent man to prison.
Democrats do things like that. Remember Scooter Libby?

The sooner we outlaw the Democratic Party in America, the sooner we can end their scourge against the innocent.

Yeah, then there are no obstructions left to make Trump president for life, and make the position hereditary to boot! You have always said the Republicans would be in power for the next twenty years, right? Well, if your plans go through, then the country will be Republican forever!!!!

2 Replies

@najmelliw,

najmelliw wrote:

Yeah, then there are no obstructions left to make Trump president for life, and make the position hereditary to boot! You have always said the Republicans would be in power for the next twenty years, right? Well, if your plans go through, then the country will be Republican forever!!!!

It's already supposed to be 'Republican forever,' because it's a republic. The Democratic party tries to tweek the institutional structures of the government to function as a central economic control system, which it is not supposed to be. Now they are attempting to use, 'checks and balances,' to completely oust Republican obstruction to their coordinated centralized control economic-structuralists governing paradigm.

That's not what they're supposed to do with their democratic political power. They are supposed to engage in public discussion of how to govern and work with others despite their diverse views. That is very hard for people who treat their opposing party as an obstruction to total, centralized control.

Now, I will admit it is hard for them to understand the difference between a republic and democratically-controlled central sovereignty because I think most of the world's governments operate with that centralized paradigm. With a republic, it's not supposed to be that the central government controls the economy and the various political parties discuss how to do it. It's supposed to be that the economy is a decentralized free market, and the various parties in government discuss how to keep it free without that resulting in negative effects for the public good. Very different governing paradigms.

0 Replies

@najmelliw,

Why would any sane person support the GOP? They want to make major cuts to Obamacare, and replace social security with self funding to give bigger tax cuts to the rich. Obamacare doesn't need replacement, it needs to be fixed. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/07/22/three-steps-to-fix-obamacare. We all pay into social security; it's not government funded program. Does social security need to be fixed? Absolutely, but congress sits on their arses and do nothing. There's enough money in the social security trust fund to last until 2034. All congress need to do is to extend the age of benefit and/or increase taxes on the wealthy. These fixes are easy to do if they act now. Waiting until the crisis hits is the wrong thing to do.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why would any sane person support the GOP? They want to make major cuts to Obamacare, and replace social security with self funding to give bigger tax cuts to the rich. Obamacare doesn't need replacement, it needs to be fixed.

The problem with ACA is the problem with the US economy in general when it comes to socialism, which is that it costs too much. Not only to doctors and all the other personnel that work for health insurance payments want to be paid much more than in other socialist medical systems, the pharmaceutical companies of the world milk the US for huge amounts of money they need to fund the welfare systems of Europe and elsewhere.

So some socialism in the US could work if it was kept as a very small quantity of GDP by preventing so many people/businesses from milking it, but that is just so unlikely considering the driving interests behind it are those who stand to make the most money off it. Also, note that the focus is always shifted away from those making money off the system by focusing on program beneficiaries, who don't really get very much value considering how much is being spent on their behalf.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

A capitalistic country is not socialism although there are some government programs that are socialistic to some degree such as education, national and local security, and social security/Medicare. We still enjoy the freedom of speech, of travel, and freedom of the press. Everybody has the same degree of opportunity to do well. Some without a college degree have become the richest in our country. Trump's obstructionism: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/times-president-trump-obstructed-justice.html

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

A capitalistic country is not socialism although there are some government programs that are socialistic to some degree such as education, national and local security, and social security/Medicare. We still enjoy the freedom of speech, of travel, and freedom of the press. Everybody has the same degree of opportunity to do well. Some without a college degree have become the richest in our country. Trump's obstructionism: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/times-president-trump-obstructed-justice.html

You can see in the Democrats' approach to government that they approach government as a control/dominance approach where they have to secure sufficient votes/judges/etc. to pass bills and policies that achieve socialist goals, not just for the US but for the benefit of global growth/investment, which is how non-US governments fund their welfare states.

To put it in simpler terms, it is the same approach to economic governance as someone who treats individuals as thieves from the common economic growth paradigm if they don't work as hard as possible to make and spend as much money as possible, which feeds into the overall economy.

In a free market and free society, you can choose what to invest your time, effort, and money in and what not to. If you want to be a subsistence farmer, or get a part time job and live in a tent, or whatever, that's your prerogative because your individual independent economic existence is respected.

With a collectivist/socialist paradigm, it is different. Each individual (or national economies as well, for that matter) are not respected as having political independence or freedom. They are expected to tow the line of the larger economy, which is seen as a all-for-one-and-one-for-all system. That's why, for example, Democrats get so upset about Republicans who don't want to support certain medical procedures due to religious dissent. Their view is that everyone has to support health-care for everyone else and if you don't, you're not towing the line for the collective.

From a independence perspective, however, it is just collectivist/socialist domineering to subjugate people to working for the collective good. In that paradigm, individuals may contribute to each other's benefit, but only voluntarily and without any responsibility to an overall collective. In short, the state, nation, globe, or whatever is supposed to be a free republic where individuals respect each others' liberty. Democracy is a conversation about how to govern, not a set of institutions to gain control of in order to exercise central control over the economy.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

In a democracy, both parties work to win control of the administration and congress. Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses. That’s the reason I’m an independent. I understand our politics and economics well enough to be in the top 10% of the wealthy in this country. That I studied micro and macroeconomics have helped considerably. That has allowed me to ignore financial pundits, and their recommendations on how to invest. Our savings is also in the top 10%. I have traveled to 128 countries around the world, and my brother who is a doctor can’t understand how I’m able to travel so frequently around the world. It’s by saving and investing wisely.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

In a democracy, both parties work to win control of the administration and congress. Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses. That’s the reason I’m an independent. I understand our politics and economics well enough to be in the top 10% of the wealthy in this country. That I studied micro and macroeconomics have helped considerably. That has allowed me to ignore financial pundits, and their recommendations on how to invest. Our savings is also in the top 10%. I have traveled to 128 countries around the world, and my brother who is a doctor can’t understand how I’m able to travel so frequently around the world. It’s by saving and investing wisely.

I'm not really concerned about rich people. My concern lies with having a free/voluntary society/democracy and an economy that respects and honors that freedom instead of pushing people to sell their freedom to maintain high GDP growth and thus inflation.

As far as I'm concerned, if people with money, whether they are rich or middle-class, would live like Scrooge and spend as little as possible, that would fiscally discipline the rest of the economy in such a way that everyone would have to minimize resource waste, which would result in environmental/resource sustainability. As it is, too many people seem to think it is good to spend their money and they are entitled to 'live it up' because they made it. Imo, it is not good to take away people's money with taxes, but it is good for them to save and not spend it. When they spend and invest it liberally, that contributes to inflation, which disproportionately harms those who make less and save less, because their savings is more precious than someone who saves so much money they can lose half of it to inflation and still have millions in the bank.

That all said, what we were talking about was how Democrats view government and the economy as a centrally-controlled growth-system. They see a need to control government to effectuate spending in so many ways that growth persists regardless. They don't care about inflation because they are in positions where they can just continue to tax and otherwise take cuts of wherever money is flowing. They are not low-income people who would like to save up enough to retire. They are people who can basically retire while working, i.e. because they have cushy jobs with lots of paid vacation, freedom to travel for work, and basically enjoy what they do more than they would want to quit.

Other people do work that needs to be done because others don't want to do it, and they get paid accordingly; but they would like to save up enough to stop earlier rather than later. For these people inflation is a problem, whereas for people who make their money from taxes or investment income, their incomes are tied to and stimulated by inflation, so they are terrified of deflation (which would be great for people with saved money).

3 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote livinglava:

Quote:

. My concern lies with having a free/voluntary society/democracy and an economy that respects and honors that freedom instead of pushing people to sell their freedom to maintain high GDP growth and thus inflation.

Okay, so it's settled then: livinglava is anti economic growth. Therefore, we can ignore everything you post on economics from now on.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Not all wealthy people are into resource wasting. What I have learned early in life is that by buying quality at higher cost, the product you buy lasts much longer with less need for maintenance. Even then, one must do due diligence to ensure that the product has a good overall consumer rating. My 2006 Acura lost a transmission, and it would have cost about $4,000 to replace, but the car was worth only $7,000. It's over 13 years old, and I didn't believe the investment to repair was worth it, so I'm now in the market to buy another Acura, because I like the overall quality of the car. My wife and I visited a Acura dealer today, and the prices they have quoted sounds quite reasonable off of MSRP, but we decided to wait until we return from our vacation later this month. We will probably visit a couple more dealers before we decide to buy. Edmunds.com is a good place to find a good price for cars.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote livinglava:

Quote:
. My concern lies with having a free/voluntary society/democracy and an economy that respects and honors that freedom instead of pushing people to sell their freedom to maintain high GDP growth and thus inflation.

Okay, so it's settled then: livinglava is anti economic growth. Therefore, we can ignore everything you post on economics from now on.

That's amazingly rude and anti-democratic. What you are suggesting is that democracy should be growthist-fascist, i.e. that there should be total intolerance for any view that questions the absolute support of growth as the best and only economic option.

Growth may be good or bad in various ways, and democracy shouldn't shy away from discussing it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not all wealthy people are into resource wasting.

No, of course there's nothing that prevents a wealthy person from giving up driving, minimizing their energy usage and resource consumption, etc. It just so happens that when money is invested into businesses/corporation that pay people who participate in all the economic/consumer activities that waste resources and harm the environment, such as driving, sprawl-consumerism, and energy waste; they are contributing to it by paying other people to do it and then making money when those waste-consumers spend money on the businesses that provide all the waste-consumption opportunities.

Quote:

What I have learned early in life is that by buying quality at higher cost, the product you buy lasts much longer with less need for maintenance.

Well, think beyond the purchase itself. Let's say you buy an Iphone X for $1000 or some other pricey Apple gadget because you know it will last forever and small electronic device use practically no energy and materials anyway, right?

Right, but now consider what happens to the $1000 you spend after you have spent it. Apple pays people, it pays shareholders, etc. Those people then go out and drive cars, buy new furniture, clothing, travel, etc. etc. In short, when people are making good money, they don't typically reduce their spending and consumption. They just go on spending and supporting the economy and then look at all the people who clamor for the economy to provide them with the money they need to go on driving, shopping, and paying for all the other unsustainable waste that goes on?

So, imo, until the public and the business community change their behavior to stop wasting resources, developing land without re-integrating natural ecology into the developments, and generally achieving sustainability and reforestation; we shouldn't be supporting economic growth. Now, of course that would be different if economic growth was resulting in progressive reforestation and other positive environmental/sustainability reforms, but the reason it's not is because the business community knows how to greenwash industrialism to market it it to the public without actually changing it to become sustainable, so we are basically dealing with lies that keep us going in the wrong direction while simultaneously confronting us with affirmative pressures to support the greenwashed industrial growth economy.

Quote:

Even then, one must do due diligence to ensure that the product has a good overall consumer rating. My 2006 Acura lost a transmission, and it would have cost about $4,000 to replace, but the car was worth only $7,000. It's over 13 years old, and I didn't believe the investment to repair was worth it, so I'm now in the market to buy another Acura, because I like the overall quality of the car. My wife and I visited a Acura dealer today, and the prices they have quoted sounds quite reasonable off of MSRP, but we decided to wait until we return from our vacation later this month. We will probably visit a couple more dealers before we decide to buy. Edmunds.com is a good place to find a good price for cars.

Cars/driving cause pavement and sprawl that has been the primary cause of expanding deforestation for about the last century.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

There's nothing wrong with our economy. We represent less than 5% of the world's population, but we are the richest and strongest. If California was to be a country, we would be the 6th largest economy in the world. California is not a socialist country. Capitalism is what makes us a strong economy. Apple is the richest company in the world, and their headquarter is located about 3 miles from where we live. Apple has built a huge campus in our city, Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale is also the safest city in the country. What! Me worry? LOL.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I'm not really concerned about rich people. My concern lies with having a free/voluntary society/democracy and an economy that respects and honors that freedom instead of pushing people to sell their freedom to maintain high GDP growth and thus inflation.

This is what we have. Anyone who works hard has the opportunity to live a very comfortable life in this country. That mostly means getting a college education in the right field, and have the motivation to prove your economic worth to your boss. What's your problem?
We were very poor, because our mother was the sole provider for four children. Yes, we lived on welfare, and our living conditions were not the best, but we all got our college education. My older brother became an attorney, my younger brother a doctor, and my sister an RN. I got my degree in Accounting, and ended up working in management or doing consulting work for over 80% of my working career, and retired early. I traveled the world having visited 128 countries and all across the USA. If our family can do it, so can everybody else. Trump is an anomaly who will serve only one term. His favorability rating is 36% and dropping. He's a divider, bigot, and pathological liar. Our country can do much better.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

There's nothing wrong with our economy. We represent less than 5% of the world's population, but we are the richest and strongest. If California was to be a country, we would be the 6th largest economy in the world. California is not a socialist country. Capitalism is what makes us a strong economy. Apple is the richest company in the world, and their headquarter is located about 3 miles from where we live. Apple has built a huge campus in our city, Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale is also the safest city in the country. What! Me worry? LOL.

You just avoided everything critical I explained because you don't want to face the possibility that it's true and there are real, deep-seated problems that cause environmental problems, climate change, and other unsustainabilities as well.

Are you really so enamored with your own success story that you can't think critically?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I'm saying that steady economic growth is the primary measure of economic success. And it is.

Are there some things that also play a factor? Possibly. As you've spent the last several posts dancing around and throwing out impenetrable generalities trying to make yourself seem like an authority, name some specific examples.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

There is no deep seated problem in this country; we have almost free education, freedom of speech and to travel, opportunities for all, and a legal system that protects privacy and our properties. It's not perfect, but it's the best any large country such as ours with so many races, religions, and cultures living - mostly peaceably - is the miracle of our founders. There is no equivalent country to ours based on our mix of peoples. It's just sad to see the discrimination blacks must endure for the longest time in our country's history.

1 Reply

Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know