HawkShack.com

The Capitol riot:

So far, federal prosecutors have charged at least 235 people for their alleged roles in the riot and opened over 400 investigations into possible criminals.

Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said last month, "The scope and scale of this investigation in these cases are really unprecedented, not only in FBI history but probably DOJ history."

So much for comparisons to BLM arrests and prosecutions.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-ri ... 021-02-20/

Trump's legal troubles:

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for prosecutors in New York City to receive eight years of former President Donald Trump’s tax returns and other financial records as part of an ongoing investigation into possible tax, insurance and bank fraud in Trump’s business empire.

The justices issued no explanation for the denial and no member of the court publicly noted any dissent.

Trump's accountability in the Capitol riot:

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and the NAACP sued former President Donald Trump, his attorney Rudy Giuliani and the far-right groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers Tuesday over their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol building, alleging they conspired to stop Congress from finalizing the presidential results by inciting the riot and that they violated the Ku Klux Klan Act.

And lastly, Trump's attempt to subvert the Georgia election:

A prosecutor in Fulton County, Georgia, has opened a criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump for his "attempts to influence the administration of the 2020 Georgia general election."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/10/politics ... index.html

That's quite a pallet, and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. Any others?

Depends on what happens with the Republican party going forward. Before it's all said and one you might be able to add the dissolution of the party as we know it and the genesis of a 3 party (all be it Big One/Little Two for a while) system.

c_hawkbob wrote:Depends on what happens with the Republican party going forward. Before it's all said and one you might be able to add the dissolution of the party as we know it and the genesis of a 3 party (all be it Big One/Little Two for a while) system.

I doubt that will be one of the lasting legacies, but whether it is or isn't, it won't become apparent for quite some time. 18 months is a lifetime in politics. We'll see what the R's look like after the mid terms.

Another part of Trump's legacy could be how his lawyers like Rudy G and those that pursued his false claims of a stolen election in court fare. Rudy is already being sued by Dominion Voting Systems, the company that sells the voting machines that the Trump camp claims were responsible for the 'stolen' election as is the "My Pillow" CEO. There are lawyers that represented Trump in court that made false claims to judges that may face disciplinary action. There's consequences for attorneys that lie to a judge or submit frivolous lawsuits and wasting the court's time.

In any event, Trump is going to be in the news for quite some time to come.

It might take a little longer than 18 months RD. The lines are clearer than ever. 24 hopefuls are running as far away from trump as they can or embracing him as tight as they can.Rep Adam kinzinger is raising millions off of Trump opposition as is Nikki Haley. McConnell has made clear he wants no part of Trump. Lindsey Graham on the other hand swears the party is dead without him, that his inclusion is essential.A Republican Pac is spending millions on Fox blasting Trump and praising the Rs who stood up to him

Trump has been invited to Cpac to make his first public remarks as a loser former guy and is reportedly planning to throw down a marker claiming control over the party, announcing plans to primary everyone who voted against him in the impeachment and also possibly declaring himself a candidate for the presidency in 24.Hes got 110 million in his account right now. Good luck with that Trumplican party

Then to the polls whatever faith one has in them. Approximately 50 million people believe the election was stolen with zero evidence. About that amount love him even more for what happened at the capitol than before.They loved it like every other abnormal unfit thing he's done. Well over 40% would follow the trump party and leave the republican party if trump ran as an independent.Interesting another 20% would become independent leaving only around 30% of the party as actual republicans. And Trumps already proven he doesn't care about the party one bit. If he did he'd have conceded gracefully and the Rs would have the Senate.

Again it's polls but just based on my interactions with his supporters it might be as underestimated as his support was on election day. His legacy is that of the first leader of a STRAIGHT UP CULT to be president.A terrible failure as president , cost us stature in the world we will NEVER GET BACK, costy us 500K lives with his ineptitude, bankrupted our coffers, emboldened our enemies and alienated our allies. And 50 million people say bring it on.

The legacy of Trump is that of an unhinged mentally ill evil wanna be despot who ruined american elections forever. Now Clarence Thomas came out with some wild dissent on the decision by SCOTUS not to review the Pennsylvania election actually giving life to the crazy election steal scheme that ruined american elections forever.I know his wife is a total MAGA nut so he probably wants to get along. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 540788001/

Its the worst legacy ever in american history and 50 million people at least want him back


This isn't going to be over in 18 months.

Who?

Hawktawk wrote:It might take a little longer than 18 months RD. The lines are clearer than ever. 24 hopefuls are running as far away from trump as they can or embracing him as tight as they can.Rep Adam kinzinger is raising millions off of Trump opposition as is Nikki Haley. McConnell has made clear he wants no part of Trump. Lindsey Graham on the other hand swears the party is dead without him, that his inclusion is essential.A Republican Pac is spending millions on Fox blasting Trump and praising the Rs who stood up to him

The pandemic should be over by November of 2022, so at least that part of the equation will be behind us. With their short memories, voters won't feel compelled to vote for or against based on responses to the crisis. A lot will depend on how the economy rebounds.

Hawktawk wrote:Trump has been invited to Cpac to make his first public remarks as a loser former guy and is reportedly planning to throw down a marker claiming control over the party, announcing plans to primary everyone who voted against him in the impeachment and also possibly declaring himself a candidate for the presidency in 24.Hes got 110 million in his account right now. Good luck with that Trumplican party

Then to the polls whatever faith one has in them. Approximately 50 million people believe the election was stolen with zero evidence. About that amount love him even more for what happened at the capitol than before.They loved it like every other abnormal unfit thing he's done. Well over 40% would follow the trump party and leave the republican party if trump ran as an independent.Interesting another 20% would become independent leaving only around 30% of the party as actual republicans. And Trumps already proven he doesn't care about the party one bit. If he did he'd have conceded gracefully and the Rs would have the Senate.

We also have the various legal issues that will play out in the coming months, ie the witch hunt. Will they make him into a martyr and attract voters or will it leave him with just that 25-30% that would follow him if he marched off a cliff?

Again it's polls but just based on my interactions with his supporters it might be as underestimated as his support was on election day. His legacy is that of the first leader of a STRAIGHT UP CULT to be president.A terrible failure as president , cost us stature in the world we will NEVER GET BACK, costy us 500K lives with his ineptitude, bankrupted our coffers, emboldened our enemies and alienated our allies. And 50 million people say bring it on.

The legacy of Trump is that of an unhinged mentally ill evil wanna be despot who ruined american elections forever. Now Clarence Thomas came out with some wild dissent on the decision by SCOTUS not to review the Pennsylvania election actually giving life to the crazy election steal scheme that ruined american elections forever.I know his wife is a total MAGA nut so he probably wants to get along. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 540788001/

Hawktawk wrote:Its the worst legacy ever in american history and 50 million people at least want him back. This isn't going to be over in 18 months.

I didn't say it was going to be 'over'. I said that we wouldn't know which direction the Republican party would be heading for at least 18 months. We could have to wait and see who the nominate for POTUS in 2024.

RiverDog wrote:
I didn't say it was going to be 'over'. I said that we wouldn't know which direction the Republican party would be heading for at least 18 months. We could have to wait and see who the nominate for POTUS in 2024.

I assure you the Republicans who have developed a conscience are rooting for the legal issues you listed as much as the democrats. Scotus has cleared the way for the tax probe. Merrick Garland has made it clear he will be looking at the capitol riot and white extremism. Obviously the Georgia election interference investigation looks like a slam dunk any other politician would already be locked up for. It wouldnt even be a witch hunt for any of these prosecutors to be moving against him. Its just doing their jobs. He may also be answering questions regarding rape under oath with his immunity and his personal attorney Bill Barr gone.

As for the party we see where its headed right now which is a crack up. At present no candidate has an electible number. Trump might well win another primary if the 50 million kooks say so. Then good luck with that in the general. Aint happening. The only chance for the republican party to even exist much less win nationally ever again is if Trump is gone. And the more gone the better. the party is doomed as long as he's around. The federal pen would be a nice place for him.

His confidants and attorneys are very concerned he may say things that implicate himself in the capitol riots in his Cpac speech sunday. I hope he does.

Hawktawk wrote:I assure you the Republicans who have developed a conscience are rooting for the legal issues you listed as much as the democrats. Scotus has cleared the way for the tax probe. Merrick Garland has made it clear he will be looking at the capitol riot and white extremism. Obviously the Georgia election interference investigation looks like a slam dunk any other politician would already be locked up for. It wouldnt even be a witch hunt for any of these prosecutors to be moving against him. Its just doing their jobs. He may also be answering questions regarding rape under oath with his immunity and his personal attorney Bill Barr gone.

We don't know what effect Trump's legal problems will have on voters. IMO they're not going to change anyone's mind. All they can do is to keep him in the news and keep his base fired up.

One of the problems with any trial is going to be finding an impartial jury. It would be true of any major politician not to mention a former POTUS. Nearly everyone has a personal opinion about DJT, and under normal circumstances, would be disqualified from serving. Are you going to be able to find 12 jurors that are willing to convict? Given all the violence and death threats, how comfortable would you be serving on Trump's jury?

At this point it's looking like the Republican party is about to split. However, they have a great ability to come together before an election, so it wouldn't surprise me if they
had a strong showing in both 2 and 4 years.

I read a headline yesterday saying Georgia was trying to put in legislation to stop the process of charging Trump with any election tampering or having run afoul of the State Election laws.
I didn't read the story, but it seems par for the course and it feeds into the Qanon conspiracy theorists ideas that Trump is still running things and will return to power.

NorthHawk wrote:At this point it's looking like the Republican party is about to split. However, they have a great ability to come together before an election, so it wouldn't surprise me if they
had a strong showing in both 2 and 4 years.

I read a headline yesterday saying Georgia was trying to put in legislation to stop the process of charging Trump with any election tampering or having run afoul of the State Election laws.
I didn't read the story, but it seems par for the course and it feeds into the Qanon conspiracy theorists ideas that Trump is still running things and will return to power.

I have a hard time seeing how changing a law can affect a crime already committed against existing statutes . Not shocking they would try though . They are already working to greatly reduce availability of absentee ballots , fewer polling places , shorter window of early voting so they can supress voters and hold power .

Does the legislator have authority over criminal prosecution ? I think sundays Cpac speech by Cheeto will be interesting in terms of further clarifying this split but it’s the Grand Canyon . If the trump wing wins they will never win another national race .

McConnell has said he would support Trump if he's the GOP nominee in 2024.
That's what Republicans do. They come together in an election regardless of their infighting.
It's the lust for power by any means that drives them.

NorthHawk wrote:McConnell has said he would support Trump if he's the GOP nominee in 2024. That's what Republicans do. They come together in an election regardless of their infighting. It's the lust for power by any means that drives them.

You can substitute the word "politicians" for "Republicans."

But otherwise, I agree with you about McConnell. For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that an individual was responsible for a riot that left several people dead and gave strong indications that they can or should be prosecuted criminally could within a matter of weeks indicate that he would support him for the highest office in the land.

I do think Dems are more prone to dissent within the party than republicans.

But otherwise, I agree with you about McConnell. For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that an individual was responsible for a riot that left several people dead and gave strong indications that they can or should be prosecuted criminally could within a matter of weeks indicate that he would support him for the highest office in the land.

He and the R’s will do anything to attain or hold onto power. It’s why they supported Trump even though he was dangerously close to damaging the democracy that’s been built over the years and why they gerrymandered their way to political victory in the past. It’s also why the State R’s in some states are changing the voting rules to suppress turnout by minorities. McConnells actions are in keeping with this mindset.

c_hawkbob wrote:I do think Dems are more prone to dissent within the party than republicans.

I think it varies. Depending on how far you want to go back, the R's have had some major divisions within their party. There was a big split in the 1960's between the conservatives, led by Barry Goldwater, and the moderates, led by Nelson Rockefeller, that didn't get resolved until Reagan was able to unite them in 1980. Nixon dissed the party in '72, didn't campaign for any R candidates or mention the party name in his ads, a decision that came back to haunt him two years later. The Republicans have seen more in their fold, or at least within their philosophy, run independent Presidential campaigns, two of which had major impacts on the election: John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992, and Pat Buchanan in 2000.

But recently, I agree that the Dems are a little more of a scattered lot. The thing of it is that the R's need to show a little more dissent if they are going to recover from these past few months. I don't think lining up behind Trump is going to get them anywhere.

RiverDog wrote:I think it varies. Depending on how far you want to go back, the R's have had some major divisions within their party. There was a big split in the 1960's between the conservatives, led by Barry Goldwater, and the moderates, led by Nelson Rockefeller, that didn't get resolved until Reagan was able to unite them in 1980. Nixon dissed the party in '72, didn't campaign for any R candidates or mention the party name in his ads, a decision that came back to haunt him two years later. The Republicans have seen more in their fold, or at least within their philosophy, run independent Presidential campaigns, two of which had major impacts on the election: John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992, and Pat Buchanan in 2000.

But recently, I agree that the Dems are a little more of a scattered lot. The thing of it is that the R's need to show a little more dissent if they are going to recover from these past few months. I don't think lining up behind Trump is going to get them anywhere.

Schooling people with history. Most of the independents or outsiders have been Republicans. McConnell likes to keep the fighting in house. But the Libertarian movement is right leaning and they have divided the Republicans. Just as Trump is a huge outsider.

Democrats have run business as usual candidates for years. They torpedoed an outsider like Bernie Sanders from the inside.

Yet here are C-bob and Northhawk pretending the Democrats are less united, when their party powers literally take down outsiders in the party and keep it as quiet as possible. Hilary Clinton manipulated her way to the nomination torpedoing Bernie Sanders in 2016. Nancy Pelosi is working to limit AOC's power in the House. And Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were all follow the establishment, centrist Democrats.

But sure, it's the Republican Party that does anything to hold power and is more united because McConnell said so. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about where people are so out of touch with reality even when the facts are right in their faces as to their wrongness. It's not just one side, but both sides. I actually had a Republican Trump supporting buddy post something about Andrew Cuomo that if he apologized, he would be forgiven. I was so utterly flabbergasted he could have this sensible opinion about Andrew Cuomo, but not see that the same advice could apply to the moronic Donald Trump.

It's astounding how much people adjust their personal beliefs to make excuses for those they support to make it seem like they are better or do something differently than the people they are against. It's not at all true, but the media arm of their favored party says it is so it must be because most are incapable of seeking information that isn't fed to them by the media.

We've seen tons of dirty from both these groups for ages. Dirty political parties throwing scraps to the people while making tons of money for them and theirs.

Sounds like Trump may actually run in 2024. Republicans are already piling on Biden and what the Democrats are pushing. It will be interesting to see how things end up around 2023 when candidates start getting vetted. The nightmare may not be over.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Sounds like Trump may actually run in 2024. Republicans are already piling on Biden and what the Democrats are pushing. It will be interesting to see how things end up around 2023 when candidates start getting vetted. The nightmare may not be over.

Par for the course in politics. I don't see much willingness or attempts at bipartisanship from either party, and don't expect to see any from here on out.

Trump wouldn't be able to win if he ran today, but 4 years is a lifetime in politics. Voters have short memories and a lot of things could change. I agree 100% that our nightmare might not be over. If the pro Trumpers in the R's hold their grip on the party and the Dems overplay their hand and shoot for the moon, I absolutely can see another 4 years of the orange buffoon.

Sorry I haven't checked in in a while...life is a bit hectic these days! I was a bit surprised (but not shocked) that Trump spoke at CPAC and STILL is pushing his stolen/rigged election claims. Let me clarify that statement; making that BIG LIE is entirely consistent with who he is, but I would think he understands there is an ongoing investigation about the roots of the Jan 6 riots, that people are going to be prosecuted, and that no one is immune from being pursued. So by continuing to push himself as the author of the BIG LIE, he is keeping himself in the crosshairs of that case. But then again, it's nothing new. Is he that dumb or that smart? I've read past reports where he was concerned about his legal liability for the riots. Thoughts anyone?

Donald Trump has survived every legal attack on him. It is extremely difficult to attach legal cause for the actions of others on a politician. It's one of those slippery slopes that politicians walk a fine line on. Because if Trump becomes legal liable for the riots based on rhetoric, suddenly you can blame a lot of people for the actions of loons doing violence or any variety of actions based on political speech. I would suggest anyone thinking they can pin this on Trump look up who has been accused of causing riots and such based on political and criminally prosecuted. I would think they must have used any such laws for this type of situation during the Civil Rights movements where the rhetoric for protest and resistance drove a lot of folks to rise up and cause at least social disruption. Maybe see if anyone was prosecuted for speaking violently about the police which led to police killings by citizens during this last round of protests.

It really comes down to incitement and conspiracy and if you can prove Trump's rhetoric would fall under some of those laws.

Trump pays a lot of very good lawyers. He has a lot of powerful friends. He seems able to avoid most blame or prosecution for most things and always seems to have someone willing to shield him. Donald seems very careful about providing himself an out for almost anything.

I agree with most of what you say, except the last paragraph. His entire legal team quit days before the Senate trial, and I'm sure payment (or non-payment) had something to do with it. Based on the calibre of the 2 attorneys that did represent him, the quality isn't what it used to be me, and maybe recognized that he didn't really need high calibre lawyers with all his friends in the Senate.

This Jan 6 investigation is different, and there is simply no precedence that can accurately predict what will happen.

I-5 wrote:I agree with most of what you say, except the last paragraph. His entire legal team quit days before the Senate trial, and I'm sure payment (or non-payment) had something to do with it. Based on the calibre of the 2 attorneys that did represent him, the quality isn't what it used to be me, and maybe recognized that he didn't really need high calibre lawyers with all his friends in the Senate.

This Jan 6 investigation is different, and there is simply no precedence that can accurately predict what will happen.

I've been hearing things are different with Trump for years and he keeps on dancing away. So I guess we'll see.

Not sure any charges will disqualify him from running again. If he runs again, then he probably pardons himself as another presidential first. And things get more insane.

I wish this guy would just go away.

I think he would go away if a) he died, b) went to prison or c) if the party leadership soundly rejected his influence.

At this point, a is more likely than b or c, c being a near impossibility, based on the lack of evidence that spinal structures exist inside the GOP leadership.

I-5 wrote:I think he would go away if a) he died, b) went to prison or c) if the party leadership soundly rejected his influence.

At this point, a is more likely than b or c, c being a near impossibility, based on the lack of evidence that spinal structures exist inside the GOP leadership.

GOP leadership responds to the people. I'm not sure if you know any Trump supporters, but the ones I know are still fully on board with Trump and in their minds Biden is the aged Dark Lord being drained by the evil witch Kamala Harris who will run against Trump in 2024 where the great savior Trump will defeat her and defeat the Democrats sending their evil, oppressive, hateful influence to an end. That is where Trump supporters are at. To them everything Democrat is evil and against America and Trump is the only guy who still stand up to and beat the Democrats.

This is what happens when you have political parties that build each other up as enemies fighting each other in some kind of culture war for the soul of America.

I'm really not sure how you reach a point of good sense when both sides view each other in such a negative light. None of this has to be this extreme, but human history has clearly shown that humans are not very sensible and tolerant as a group.

I-5 wrote:Sorry I haven't checked in in a while...life is a bit hectic these days! I was a bit surprised (but not shocked) that Trump spoke at CPAC and STILL is pushing his stolen/rigged election claims. Let me clarify that statement; making that BIG LIE is entirely consistent with who he is, but I would think he understands there is an ongoing investigation about the roots of the Jan 6 riots, that people are going to be prosecuted, and that no one is immune from being pursued. So by continuing to push himself as the author of the BIG LIE, he is keeping himself in the crosshairs of that case. But then again, it's nothing new. Is he that dumb or that smart? I've read past reports where he was concerned about his legal liability for the riots. Thoughts anyone?

Good to see you again, I-5! I was a bit concerned that you decided to bolt ala so many other posters have over the past few years.

I wasn't at all surprised at Trump's remarks at the CPAC. He's a certified narcissist that can never admit defeat. He'll cling to his conspiracy theory as long as he lives. As far as his going to jail, no matter how guilty we feel that he is, I don't think he comes close to being convicted. There is no way he can ever receive a fair trial. I was once disqualified from a jury because I knew of the defendant as he worked for the same employer, or to say that I had heard his name but had never actually met him. How many people have a fixed opinion of Trump? Could you ever get 12 jurors taken at random to agree? I can't see Trump getting convicted of spitting the sidewalk.

As far as Trump's effect on the Republicans, I wouldn't want to even guess at this point. Indications today are that he still maintains his grip, but there hasn't been enough time for an alternative to emerge and one probably won't for quite some time. We'll see what happens in the mid terms, how many of his clones win elections. Nikki Haley is supposedly considering a run for POTUS.

A little over 2 weeks after saying following Trump was wrong and that he should not be part of the future of the party Nikki Hayley tweeted out "great speech" after his huge Cpac lies . Watching these vile political animals trying to figure out how to handle a seditionist who needs a bullet in the chest courtesy of a firing squad to be honest is sickening. Any party with Trump as its figurehead will never win another election.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
GOP leadership responds to the people. I'm not sure if you know any Trump supporters, but the ones I know are still fully on board with Trump and in their minds Biden is the aged Dark Lord being drained by the evil witch Kamala Harris who will run against Trump in 2024 where the great savior Trump will defeat her and defeat the Democrats sending their evil, oppressive, hateful influence to an end. That is where Trump supporters are at. To them everything Democrat is evil and against America and Trump is the only guy who still stand up to and beat the Democrats.

This is what happens when you have political parties that build each other up as enemies fighting each other in some kind of culture war for the soul of America.

I'm really not sure how you reach a point of good sense when both sides view each other in such a negative light. None of this has to be this extreme, but human history has clearly shown that humans are not very sensible and tolerant as a group.

Gop people are in a cult. Biden Harris are downright normal in comparison. Trump is an evil man and those who follow him still and love him more after an insurrection, utterly destroying the fabric of our electoral system are given over to an evil mind. That's the reality. The hell with them. If they ever win democracy is over.

Hawktawk wrote:Gop people are in a cult. Biden Harris are downright normal in comparison. Trump is an evil man and those who follow him still and love him more after an insurrection, utterly destroying the fabric of our electoral system are given over to an evil mind. That's the reality. The hell with them. If they ever win democracy is over.

Sorry, I don't see them as normal. Neither does a lot of America. That is part of the problem.

You have Sanders and his lot trying to push through 2000 constant payments. A pointless minimum wage increase that will just cause inflation then eventually need to be increased again and again and again as it fails each time to do what they want it to do and drive up prices as it increases the wage floor that competes for the same impoverished standard of living they are trying to overcome which causes everything else to inflate. This is basic economics, yet they always seem able to find an economist to say this isn't true when it is basic economics that is true every time. When you have experts able to find "scientific" evidence to back nearly every position, science no longer has the luster it once did for figuring things out. And most Americans are incapable of understanding and interpreting the studies and evidence used in a study to determine if it is a good study.

Then this voter bill looks like a Republican dream for the next election cycle. Remember Democrats were crying about states rights and now they're introducing a voting bill to take away state voting rights.

Then you have Democrats trying to push through reparations for slavery 150 plus years after it ended.

Then there is the continued attack on cops.

Sorry, both of these parties look crazy to me. I want something new soon. I'll never vote for these two parties as they are now. They are bad for America. They don't seem to have any idea of what American values are. The Democrats are more interested in turning us into Europe than being America. I don't want to be Europe. I would move there If I wanted America to be Europe.

And Trump is stupid, crazy, and vulgar. I want nothing more to do with the guy. He shouldn't be near the White House. He's a selfish, narcissistic idiot who is out of touch with reality to the point he himself believes the election was taken from him. No one who has had that type of psychotic break from reality should be president.

It's a bad time to be an American. I feel bad for this younger generation who has to grow up in this garbage time where mainly the technology is good, but the social environment is nutty.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You have Sanders and his lot trying to push through 2000 constant payments. A pointless minimum wage increase that will just cause inflation then eventually need to be increased again and again and again as it fails each time to do what they want it to do and drive up prices as it increases the wage floor that competes for the same impoverished standard of living they are trying to overcome which causes everything else to inflate. This is basic economics, yet they always seem able to find an economist to say this isn't true when it is basic economics that is true every time. When you have experts able to find "scientific" evidence to back nearly every position, science no longer has the luster it once did for figuring things out. And most Americans are incapable of understanding and interpreting the studies and evidence used in a study to determine if it is a good study.

I'm not against raising the minimum wage, but now is a really bad time. Business owners, especially those in the hospitality industry, one of the most affected by a hike in the minimum wage and one of, if not the most, affected industries of the pandemic, are going to suffer even more. This could cause many to go out of business permanently. Plus they're not just talking about an incidental change of 10% or 20%. They're more than doubling it, from $7.25/hr to $15.00. This could very well be counter productive, force a lot of small companies out of business.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Then this voter bill looks like a Republican dream for the next election cycle. Remember Democrats were crying about states rights and now they're introducing a voting bill to take away state voting rights.

Then you have Democrats trying to push through reparations for slavery 150 plus years after it ended.

Then there is the continued attack on cops.

Sorry, both of these parties look crazy to me. I want something new soon. I'll never vote for these two parties as they are now. They are bad for America. They don't seem to have any idea of what American values are. The Democrats are more interested in turning us into Europe than being America. I don't want to be Europe. I would move there If I wanted America to be Europe.

And Trump is stupid, crazy, and vulgar. I want nothing more to do with the guy. He shouldn't be near the White House. He's a selfish, narcissistic idiot who is out of touch with reality to the point he himself believes the election was taken from him. No one who has had that type of psychotic break from reality should be president.

It's a bad time to be an American. I feel bad for this younger generation who has to grow up in this garbage time where mainly the technology is good, but the social environment is nutty.

Don't forget student loan forgiveness and free college. It's as if they're taking garbage sacks full of taxpayer money, walking out on stage, and "making it rain". How long can we last by just printing money whenever we have a problem that needs to be solved?

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the Dems could easily overplay their hand. If they shoot for the moon and use their newly acquired power to ram through their progressive agenda, they could end up re-enabling Trump or Trump-like clones.

Their counter argument is the min wage increase is to be phased in over years, not a big jump at once. And they also suggest that corporate welfare is always looked at favorably but helping individuals out is always opposed. The Dems have to do some real selling or counter the expenditure with taxing the ultra rich. But they have to get a short and succinct message out that can stick in people’s minds and not give
haughty explanations that ordinary people don’t have the time or desire to listen to and absorb.

NorthHawk wrote:Their counter argument is the min wage increase is to be phased in over years, not a big jump at once. And they also suggest that corporate welfare is always looked at favorably but helping individuals out is always opposed. The Dems have to do some real selling or counter the expenditure with taxing the ultra rich. But they have to get a short and succinct message out that can stick in people’s minds and not give
haughty explanations that ordinary people don’t have the time or desire to listen to and absorb.

I don't disagree with eventually raising the minimum wage, but not now. Small businesses, particularly restaurants, are the ones that have been hit the hardest by the pandemic. Many restaurants already operate on very thin margins, so even a small increase in what they have to pay their employees could push them over the brink. Even Biden himself has admitted that raising the minimum wage could have a negative effect on some businesses.

It must really suck to be a small business owner in Seattle nowadays. Not only has the city turn their backs on them when it comes to crime and safety, but now they're talking about raising the minimum wage. Although it's a bit off topic as the closures have as much if not more to do with rampant crime and homelessness, but over 160 businesses in downtown Seattle alone have closed during the pandemic:

https://www.king5.com/article/news/crim ... 5b5fc16969

Don't forget student loan forgiveness and free college. It's as if they're taking garbage sacks full of taxpayer money, walking out on stage, and "making it rain". How long can we last by just printing money whenever we have a problem that needs to be solved?

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the Dems could easily overplay their hand. If they shoot for the moon and use their newly acquired power to ram through their progressive agenda, they could end up re-enabling Trump or Trump-like clones.

Although I identify as a democrat, I'm not for 100% loan forgiveness or free college. Having lived in Canada for 5 years now, it just makes me ask, why does everything in the US always have to sound so polarized and extreme?

What I would be for is lowering or forgiving just the INTEREST rate on student loans - as opposed to forgiving the loan itself.

As for free college, I would support government providing up to 2 years of tuition assistance for those that apply and show financial need at a local community college. I myself applied for, and won, a scholarship that was created to help students with financial need (in my case it was the Evans Scholarship, founded in 1930 by amateur golf champion Chick Evans as a way to help other young golfers attend college who could not afford it otherwise). I have my high school advisor to thank for pushing me to apply, and am now a proud Evans alum who supports the program.

One thing I don't understand about fiscal 'conservatives' is why they are more than comfortable lowering federal revenue by granting gigantic tax breaks to those that realistically need it the least. To me, that's as bad as throwing money away. The only way it makes sense to me is if they themselves are benefiting from it. But If someone can neatly explain that to me how it helps with the national economy without going into Reaganomics, I would welcome it.

Don't forget student loan forgiveness and free college. It's as if they're taking garbage sacks full of taxpayer money, walking out on stage, and "making it rain". How long can we last by just printing money whenever we have a problem that needs to be solved?

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the Dems could easily overplay their hand. If they shoot for the moon and use their newly acquired power to ram through their progressive agenda, they could end up re-enabling Trump or Trump-like clones.

I-5 wrote:Although I identify as a democrat, I'm not for 100% loan forgiveness or free college. Having lived in Canada for 5 years now, it just makes me ask, why does everything in the US always have to sound so polarized and extreme?

What I would be for is lowering or forgiving just the INTEREST rate on student loans - as opposed to forgiving the loan itself.

As for free college, I would support government providing up to 2 years of tuition assistance for those that apply and show financial need at a local community college. I myself applied for, and won, a scholarship that was created to help students with financial need (in my case it was the Evans Scholarship, founded in 1930 by amateur golf champion Chick Evans as a way to help other young golfers attend college who could not afford it otherwise). I have my high school advisor to thank for pushing me to apply, and am now a proud Evans alum who supports the program.

One thing I don't understand about fiscal 'conservatives' is why they are more than comfortable lowering federal revenue by granting gigantic tax breaks to those that realistically need it the least. To me, that's as bad as throwing money away. The only way it makes sense to me is if they themselves are benefiting from it. But If someone can neatly explain that to me how it helps with the national economy without going into Reaganomics, I would welcome it.

One of the problems I have with any kind of student loan forgiveness is that it rewards those that chose not to save or work for their education. My daughter went through 5 years of college not taking out any kind of loan, drove a 20 year old Honda, worked during the summer, didn't go to the beach on spring breaks, etc. She had help, both from her mother as well as me, but both of us had lower middle to middle class income and made major sacrifices in order to help our daughter get through college. Is anyone going to compensate us for the expenses we incurred?

There's also those that borrowed heavily but paid off their loans. I worked as a mentor for a number of them. Are we going to retroactively waive the interest that they paid on their loans and give them some sort of a rebate? What makes them any different than those that are delinquent on their loans?

Having said that, I recognize that college expenses has gotten way out of whack, and would be for an increase in subsidizing education and for providing more scholarship and grant opportunities, tax breaks for employers that provide educational assistance to their employees, etc. But college should always be a major financial undertaking for any student, rich or poor, in order to provide sufficient motivation for doing something during their college experience other than partying and chasing skirts. Not only is it a waste of taxpayer money, but it compromises the learning environment for the serious students.

RiverDog wrote:I'm not against raising the minimum wage, but now is a really bad time. Business owners, especially those in the hospitality industry, one of the most affected by a hike in the minimum wage and one of, if not the most, affected industries of the pandemic, are going to suffer even more. This could cause many to go out of business permanently. Plus they're not just talking about an incidental change of 10% or 20%. They're more than doubling it, from $7.25/hr to $15.00. This could very well be counter productive, force a lot of small companies out of business.

Minimum wage is an ineffective way to improve quality of life. It just becomes the new poverty wage. Minimum wage has been in effect for 87 years and it's not that effective at doing what it is supposed to do. It raises the amount of money on the low end that is going after the same goods and services. A minimum wage might work if they capped the upper end of income, but with no top end income capped it just becomes an ever increasing poverty wage the government raises as a token, temporary effort to combat poverty.

Anyone that has taken economics or designed a business plan knows wages are a variable cost that raises the cost of production and thus eventually gets passed onto to the consumer to maintain profit margins causing inflation. Businesses do not eat the cost of increased wages with lost profits. It's good for the government because it increases payroll tax revenues and eventually sales tax revenues. So they don't mind doing it so much the overall effect is a net benefit to the government, not so much the worker.

Don't forget student loan forgiveness and free college. It's as if they're taking garbage sacks full of taxpayer money, walking out on stage, and "making it rain". How long can we last by just printing money whenever we have a problem that needs to be solved?

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the Dems could easily overplay their hand. If they shoot for the moon and use their newly acquired power to ram through their progressive agenda, they could end up re-enabling Trump or Trump-like clones.

I don't mind student loan forgiveness, especially if the government didn't show loan oversight by lending money for overly cost programs that have little to no commercial value thus indebting citizens due to a lack of oversight and a lack of looking to see if their education investment was worthwhile. If the government is going to guarantee student loans, they should do so intelligently by overhauling the education system so students aren't taking tons of useless classes that have little to do with their field of expertise. Why the hell do we have schools structured as they are with so much money spent on remedial classes? Why is the government loaning money to people for degrees with a low possibility of an income capable of repaying the loan?

Then these loans are not able to be including in bankruptcy when they are for low value, bankrupt degrees that cost extra because of the failure of the government to move away from this 4 year paradigm into focused degrees like a nursing degree with less BS classes that students are forced to take and pay for.

I'm way on board with student loan forgiveness given how poorly the government has handled education. That would be far more productive than minimum wage increases. But hey, the government wants all the money it can get it. And student loan forgiveness doesn't put that money back in the taxpayer coffers. Even the government trying to turn citizens into debt slaves. It's a sad state of affairs.

Not sure why you're that worried about taxpayer dollars given how poorly the government spends that money as it is on top of the fact you'll never see that money again anyway.

I-5 wrote:Although I identify as a democrat, I'm not for 100% loan forgiveness or free college. Having lived in Canada for 5 years now, it just makes me ask, why does everything in the US always have to sound so polarized and extreme?

What I would be for is lowering or forgiving just the INTEREST rate on student loans - as opposed to forgiving the loan itself.

As for free college, I would support government providing up to 2 years of tuition assistance for those that apply and show financial need at a local community college. I myself applied for, and won, a scholarship that was created to help students with financial need (in my case it was the Evans Scholarship, founded in 1930 by amateur golf champion Chick Evans as a way to help other young golfers attend college who could not afford it otherwise). I have my high school advisor to thank for pushing me to apply, and am now a proud Evans alum who supports the program.

One thing I don't understand about fiscal 'conservatives' is why they are more than comfortable lowering federal revenue by granting gigantic tax breaks to those that realistically need it the least. To me, that's as bad as throwing money away. The only way it makes sense to me is if they themselves are benefiting from it. But If someone can neatly explain that to me how it helps with the national economy without going into Reaganomics, I would welcome it.

Lowering taxes on corporations and on people in general helps the economy by pushing money towards more productive activities.

You know the economics equation? https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/gdp-formula/

The government portion of the GDP equation is one of the least productive ways to spend capital because the government doesn't in general spend for profit and doesn't spend as efficiently as companies because they don't have competition and don't have the same incentives for efficient use of capital. There are times when government projects can be highly productive like building a stadium, public transportation to major job centers, or building highways. Generally government expenditures are effective when used to pick up the slack for a dead economy like The Great Depression. But a healthy economy in general is the best time for austerity as Keynes expected. Keynesian economics was of the mind that when the economy is doing very, very well, the government should restrict spending and pay off debt and the like. When the economy was going badly, then the government should step in and provide stimulus including the government engaging in infrastructure programs and the like. It should not be permanent and sustained enlargement of government as government is an inefficient user of capital with little incentive to spend capital efficiently due to a lack of competition.

Government is not a great way to grow and improve the economy. It's much better to have money in private hands being used in a productive manner to grow and improve the economy with the government stepping in during downcycles.

We don't operate in a highly efficient fashion because we're human beings. Humans as a group aren't very efficient unfortunately.

Why do you think money in the hands of the government is a good idea? The government often pays a subsistence or low wage with good benefits at least, doesn't provide much innovation on a mass scale, doesn't have much incentive to use your tax dollars well, and often spends your money in a way that is worse than how you might spend it yourself. You've seen how these politicians operate. Why do you want your money in their hands? You could probably design a more intelligent method of using a pool of collected cash for human benefit than most politicians.

One of the problems I have with any kind of student loan forgiveness is that it rewards those that chose not to save or work for their education. My daughter went through 5 years of college not taking out any kind of loan, drove a 20 year old Honda, worked during the summer, didn't go to the beach on spring breaks, etc. She had help, both from her mother as well as me, but both of us had lower middle to middle class income and made major sacrifices in order to help our daughter get through college. Is anyone going to compensate us for the expenses we incurred?

Which is why I said I’m not in favor of student loan forgiveness...just get rid of or lower the interest.

Lowering taxes on corporations and on people in general helps the economy by pushing money towards more productive activities.

You know the economics equation? https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... p-formula/

The government portion of the GDP equation is one of the least productive ways to spend capital because the government doesn't in general spend for profit and doesn't spend as efficiently as companies because they don't have competition and don't have the same incentives for efficient use of capital. There are times when government projects can be highly productive like building a stadium, public transportation to major job centers, or building highways. Generally government expenditures are effective when used to pick up the slack for a dead economy like The Great Depression. But a healthy economy in general is the best time for austerity as Keynes expected. Keynesian economics was of the mind that when the economy is doing very, very well, the government should restrict spending and pay off debt and the like. When the economy was going badly, then the government should step in and provide stimulus including the government engaging in infrastructure programs and the like. It should not be permanent and sustained enlargement of government as government is an inefficient user of capital with little incentive to spend capital efficiently due to a lack of competition.

Government is not a great way to grow and improve the economy. It's much better to have money in private hands being used in a productive manner to grow and improve the economy with the government stepping in during downcycles.

We don't operate in a highly efficient fashion because we're human beings. Humans as a group aren't very efficient unfortunately.

Why do you think money in the hands of the government is a good idea? The government often pays a subsistence or low wage with good benefits at least, doesn't provide much innovation on a mass scale, doesn't have much incentive to use your tax dollars well, and often spends your money in a way that is worse than how you might spend it yourself. You've seen how these politicians operate. Why do you want your money in their hands? You could probably design a more intelligent method of using a pool of collected cash for human benefit than most politicians.

By that logic, you should be in favor of Biden’s Covid relief plan...getting the money out of the gov’t’s hands and into average americans’ hands, especially households with less than $150k annual income. Right?

I-5 wrote:By that logic, you should be in favor of Biden’s Covid relief plan...getting the money out of the gov’t’s hands and into average americans’ hands, especially households with less than $150k annual income. Right?

The economy is fine. GDP rose by over 4% and unemployment dropped sharply last quarter, so the economy doesn't need the stimulus, at least not now.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... uxbndlbing

My wife and I are both retired. Filing jointly our AGI was around $75K. We're empty nesters, our house is paid off, and we have no other debts, so we live quite well on that income. We also have a hefty amount saved up in our IRA's, of which only our taxable withdrawals count against the stimulus. The government giving us another $2800 isn't going to cause us to spend anymore money than we otherwise would have. I don't know how typical our situation is, but it's a complete waste of taxpayer money to give us a stimulus.

I understand that there are people out there that are still suffering due to the pandemic and I am not opposed to giving them some assistance. But the economy doesn't need it and at least from my point of view, it is very poorly targeted. I was for the first stimulus last spring as the country was in much worse shape, both in terms of the economy and unemployment, and I could understand pushing through a poorly targeted stimulus as crafting the perfect piece of legislation would have taken many months and there were people out there suffering, so it's understandable that some undeserving people received a payment. But the situation is much different now than it was in the 2nd quarter of 2020.

Don't confuse stock market returns with the general economy and people not having jobs.
The report you liked said the unemployment rate is around 6%, but officials think it's really around 10% as some have given up looking.
The stimulus money will help those on the lower end of the scale and the smaller businesses as people without much money will spend it locally.
Some may just pay off debts, but many will buy things they need to get by for the next couple of months. The question is where do you draw the
line for getting it and not getting it? How long would it take to weed out those like you who are now empty nesters with no debt and steady income
from those making the same money but had to take on bills for medical expenses or emergency home repairs? People could end up waiting months
if not years to get $1400 while it's sorted out. By setting the line where they have, it creates a starting point to proceed. It may end up that the line
for getting it is less if there is a lot of wrangling in the Senate - or at least more targeted as you suggest. It's odd that the previous regime gave back
$750 billion to billionaires and hundred millionaires who need tax breaks the least, but balk at giving back ~ $2 Trillion to those who really are in need.

NorthHawk wrote:Don't confuse stock market returns with the general economy and people not having jobs.

Who said anything about the stock market?

NorthHawk wrote:The report you liked said the unemployment rate is around 6%, but officials think it's really around 10% as some have given up looking.

There's always going to be a certain percentage, of which can only be estimated, of people that are long term unemployed that do not show up in the statistics. There's also a certain number of that 6% that is always going to be drawing unemployment no matter what the job market is like as there as there are some people, like my next door neighbor, that will work for 3-6 months then collect unemployment until it runs out. There's also a lot of variable work, like construction, that will go through naturally occurring cycles of layoffs and re-hiring, and there's going to be people in transition between jobs. But the point is that the job outlook is much, much better now than it was 10-11 months ago when the pandemic first started.

NorthHawk wrote:The stimulus money will help those on the lower end of the scale and the smaller businesses as people without much money will spend it locally.

Then give it to those lower end folks and small businesses. People like me don't need it. It's a poorly targeted, wasteful piece of legislation.

At this point, the economy is on much better footing and unemployment much lower than it was in the late 70's when I got out of college and started looking for work, and no one gave us a freebie or supplemented unemployment benefits then. I simply don't see the need for a stimulus. And just so I'm not accused of being a hypocrite, I held the same position regarding the Trump tax cuts 3 years ago. The economy didn't need it. I would much rather keep those weapons in their sheaths for a time when we really need it, such as the 2nd quarter of 2020.