Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, October 11, 2019

Lawfare: Is it constitutionally acceptable for the House speaker to initiate an impeachment "by means of nothing more than a press conference"? In short, yes.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

... Also, no, the President doesn't get to defend himself in the House, subpoena witnesses, or cross examine anyone. ...

The House impeachment investigation is similar to a Grand Jury. It's purpose is to gather information and decide whether or not to recommend a trial.

The trial, if recommended by the House, occurs in the Senate and during the Senate proceedings the President does get to do the things you note.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-10 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Been trying to keep a tally these since the impeachment inquiry was officially announced. Chalk these up to debunked Republican lie #47, #48, #49, #50, #51, and #52. So. Much. Winning.

#2 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-10-10 05:19 PM | Reply

A great assumption to be tested in the courts. So, expect no cooperation from the executive branch.

#3 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-10 07:04 PM | Reply

The authors of the article obviously haven't consulted with our Constitutional expert, er, I mean real estate attny, Rudy O. Center!

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-10 07:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

and neither McCarthy nor Cipollone points to one.

Hmmmmm...bad counsel? Or there's no there there?

#5 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-10 07:52 PM | Reply

Easy thing to do would just have a vote right? Why are the Dems scared to do that?

#6 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-11 12:04 PM | Reply

"So, expect no cooperation from the executive branch."

And you can expect more people to ignore the President and testify despite his orders not to. Expecially since his compulsive decision to pull the troops out of Syria, the slaughter of the Kurds is not going over well inside nor outside the administration.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-11 12:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Must the House Vote to Authorize an Impeachment Inquiry?

Easy answer: No.

They've done so in the past, but that doesn't mean they have to do it now, and there's nothing in the Constitution that says they have to do it.

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-11 12:27 PM | Reply

@#8 ... Easy answer: No. ...

Not only the easy answer, but also the correct answer.

Having a vote has little benefit and some downsides, such as slowing down the investigation.

I'd rather that the House focuses on finding information, and avoid the distractions that the Republicans seem to be throwing onto the wall to see what sticks.

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 12:39 PM | Reply

Kangaroo courts don't allow the defense to present evidence. It delays the conviction.

#10 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-11 12:49 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kangaroo courts don't allow the defense to present evidence.

#10 | Posted by visitor

An Impeachment Inquiry is NOT a trial, therefore the House cannot be considered to be even close to a 'Kangaroo Court'. That will come later in the Republican-controlled Senate.

OCU

#11 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-11 01:01 PM | Reply

Easy thing to do would just have a vote right? Why are the Dems scared to do that?

#6 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Why do you want them to vote so bad?

I know why. Because Republicans are still sticking by Trump. You are afraid that if we wait till we have some actual evidence (as opposed to a somewhat unverified whistleblower report) then when confronted with committing themselves publicly with a vote they might vote against him.

Republicans want to polarize the debate (and the country) further because they think it is in their benefit. As it is now, it would basically be a party line vote. Democrats want to investigate more so they can find convincing evidence (not just accusations) so that the vote for the impeachment inquiry will be bipartisan.

#12 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-11 01:04 PM | Reply

Having a vote has little benefit and some downsides, such as slowing down the investigation.
I'd rather that the House focuses on finding information, and avoid the distractions that the Republicans seem to be throwing onto the wall to see what sticks.
#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 12:39 PM

The executive will continue to reply with 'executive privilege' to any subpoena that does not have the weight of a voted-upon-impeachment-inquiry backing it.
And this will go to the courts.
Not voting is the slower method of handling this.
House members aren't dumb. They know that this is the slower method and protects their vulnerable purple district members from putting their name on the vote.

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-11 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#10 ... Kangaroo courts don't allow the defense to present evidence. It delays the conviction. ...

That statement reflects a misunderstanding of the process, a misunderstanding that seems to be bouncing around in the right-wing echo chamber of late.

The House is not a trial.

It is an investigation to find evidence, similar to the purpose of a Grand Jury.

If appropriate evidence is found in the House investigation, then the proceeding is referred to the Senate, where a trial is performed.

During that trial in the Senate, witnesses are called and cross-examined, and the defense can present evidence.

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 01:09 PM | Reply

SomeHouse members aren't dumb. They know that this is the slower method and protects their vulnerable purple district members from putting their name on the vote.
#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-11 01:05 PM

Fixed that for myself.

#15 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-10-11 01:11 PM | Reply

@#13 ... House members aren't dumb. They know that this is the slower method and protects their vulnerable purple district members from putting their name on the vote. ...

Yes and no.

Yes, that aspect shows how smart the House Democrats are.

Another aspect is that once a vote is taken and the investigation is opened via the vote, then House Republicans get more powers that allow them to slow down proceedings.

As I've been saying all along, impeachment is a political process, with all the baggage that carries. You seem to be saying that the Democrats are navigating this political process quite well.

What really amazes me throughout this entire process is how Pres Trump seems to get a lot of silence but little support from his admin and the Republicans in Congress. Probably a reflection of the purple Republicans, and the general lack of a backbone we've seen from the Congressional Republicans in most things regarding Pres Trump.

#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#13 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Executive Privilege only goes so far. My understanding is it is used to protect communications and deliberations within the executive branch. So, anything that is not internal to the executive branch is not protected (for instance, a conversation with a foreign official)?

Trump is trying to use "Executive Privilege" as an all encompassing power of the executive branch, but I very much doubt that the courts will agree. Previously the courts have tried to avoid specifically defining it and let the other two branches negotiate it. But, that implies that both sides are being reasonable, and Trump is most definitively NOT reasonable. So the courts might be forced to actually weigh in on it and decide what its limits are.

#17 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-11 01:22 PM | Reply

Easy thing to do would just have a vote right? Why are the Dems scared to do that?

#6 | Posted by fishpaw

Easy thing to do would to stop hiding documents and blocking testimony. Why is the con man scared to do that?

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 01:27 PM | Reply

Kangaroo courts don't allow the defense to present evidence. It delays the conviction.

#10 | Posted by visitor_

Kangaroo court = any court not controlled by members of trump's fascist cult.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 01:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I believe the vote narrows the scope of the inquiry to what impeachable acts were voted on. If the Dems had hurried to vote on impeachment following Meuller and the 10+ obstruction counts, they would have missed the abuse of power thats bubbling up from Ukraine. I think the rush to vote pushed by the GOP is because there's more bad acts in that server and elsewhere waiting for more whistleblowers.

#20 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2019-10-11 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The House can set whatever rules it wants. The Constitution is intentionally vague about how impeachment in the House is conducted. I do find it amusing to watch the Executive Branch whining about how they're going to engage in the process...as if they have a say in the matter. The subject of investigations doesn't get to tell the investigators what to ask and where to look.

I've said this before, but I guess it bears repeating:

The Republicans are pushing for a vote so that they can pivot to "You rushed into impeachment with no evidence," push for a speedy trial and then try to shut it down in the Senate. We're what, 2 weeks into the official inquiry? With no hearings yet, and scheduled appearances being stonewalled by Executive Branch employees who have no legal standing to do so. Impeachment isn't a trial, that comes next. After this has been hung around the necks of every Republican in Congress and the White House, not before.

Bill Clinton's impeachment was basically, "Here's the Starr Report, let's go to trial." This is completely different.

#21 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-11 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I want so see how this cabal of House Democrats enforce their subpoenas.
When the same cabal of House Democrats vote to impeach, I want to see how they legitimize it.

#22 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 01:32 PM | Reply

A legitimate investigations would allow exculpatory information and witnesses to be presented. #witch-hunt #kangaroo-court

#23 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-11 01:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#4

And Dorkus of Nothingham clearly failed to read the article, which carefully avoids even discussing the inability of Congress to enforce Legislative Subpoenas when an Executive Privilege objection is made without Court intervention.

That is the key point that all of the "Grand Jury" comparisons miss- Grand Jury subpoenas are criminal subpoenas with limited acceptable objections, a Congressional Subpoena is a legislative subpoena that is just a more glorified letter requesting cooperation. Huge difference.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-10-11 01:50 PM | Reply

Congress has options. They have the ability to enforce subpoenas in one of 3 ways, though the first two haven't been done in ages. The most likely way is to get a Civil "Contempt of Court" ruling, which then would fine and/or imprison. We'll see if they actually do anything.

Yovanovitch rightly ripped Pompeo and Giuliani to shreds today. Two of Guiliani's buddies are in jail. One other is in jail, and another one expected to be in custody soon. Sondland will appear, and looks like he's seen the writing on the wall and needs to do something to save his a**. And another witness is set to testify Monday, IIRC.

So the whole "enforce the subpoenas" may not be necessary, except as more evidence of Obstruction of Congress - another Impeachment charge.

#25 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-11 02:05 PM | Reply

@#23 ... A legitimate investigations would allow exculpatory information and witnesses to be presented. ...

Once again, your comment confuses an investigation, similar to a Grand Jury, with an actual trial.

The House impeachment investigation is a not a trial.


#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A legitimate investigations would allow exculpatory information and witnesses to be presented. #witch-hunt #kangaroo-court

#23 | Posted by visitor_

You're describing a TRIAL not an INVESTIGATION dum dum.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 02:10 PM | Reply

I want so see how this cabal of House Democrats enforce their subpoenas.
When the same cabal of House Democrats vote to impeach, I want to see how they legitimize it.

#22 | Posted by Ray

Oh now they're a cabal. That'll show em. Just like the CABAL of cops that show up when someone robs a bank.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 02:11 PM | Reply

"A legitimate investigations would allow exculpatory information and witnesses to be presented. #witch-hunt #kangaroo-court"

It operates much like a Grand Jury, the defense gets its chance in the trial which is held in the Senate.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-11 02:17 PM | Reply

Huge difference.
#24 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Sondland sounds like he's going to obey the subpoena and go against the State Department's demands.

Enough folks do that, the House should have plenty of evidence to convince most non-Trump ---- -------- in the House to vote to impeach; executive privilege be damned.

www.nationalreview.com

#30 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-11 02:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So the whole "enforce the subpoenas" may not be necessary, except as more evidence of Obstruction of Congress - another Impeachment charge.
#25 | POSTED BY YAV

See #30, you're probably right.

#31 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-11 02:20 PM | Reply

"Thirteen legal experts respond to the Trump administration's refusal to comply with the House's impeachment inquiry."

www.vox.com

Nancy was correct about giving Trump enough rope to hang himself, which he has done, rather than listening to RoC whine about how she should have prematurely, ahead of the American people, push for impeachment.

Not what she has, that's not good enough either for the pettifoggers.

The courts may have to weigh in, but that only reinforces the outcome.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-11 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speak

Until the investigation is put to House vote, cabal fits close enough.

A cabal is a small group of people united in some close design, usually to promote their private views of or interests in an ideology, state, or other community, often by intrigue and usually unbeknownst to those outside their group. The use of this term usually carries negative connotations of political purpose, conspiracy and secrecy
en.wikipedia.org

Here's a list of the committees involved.
www.reuters.com

#33 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 02:23 PM | Reply

#30

Given the fact that Sondland was the Ambassador that was siding with Trump on the quid pro quo issue, I have a feeling that he, like Volker, has been tacitly given the green light to testify. If that is the case, then the likelihood of that transcript also being withheld from the public by Schiff like Volker's was is fairly high.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-10-11 02:39 PM | Reply

I want so see how this cabal of House Democrats enforce their subpoenas.

Should they hold you in contempt and throw you in jail to show you how it works?

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-11 02:44 PM | Reply

A cabal is a small group of people united in some close design, usually to promote their private views of or interests in an ideology, state, or other community, often by intrigue and usually unbeknownst to those outside their group. The use of this term usually carries negative connotations of political purpose, conspiracy and secrecy

#33 | Posted by Ray

By that definition, youre admitting that investigating and prosecuting crimes are only the interests of democrats. Which means you are saying repubs are just fine with people committing crimes.

Your definitions much more closely fits trumps white house - the ones making everyone sign NDAs, stashing public records on top secret servers, hiding documents, and stopping witnesses from testifying.

Your follow your cult leaders strategy - accuse your opponent of your own weaknesses and crimes.

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 02:48 PM | Reply

I thought Ray was apolitical and didn't vote. Why does he GAF if a Democrat cabal goes after a Republican president?

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-11 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#35 | POSTED BY JOE

That's not an answer.

I'm referring to the internecine conflict between the House Democrats and the White House.

#38 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 02:51 PM | Reply

#38 It's absolutely an answer if you're familiar with the House's inherent contempt powers. But you don't vote so i'll give you a pass for being stupid.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-11 02:54 PM | Reply

It's absolutely an answer if you're familiar with the House's inherent contempt powers.

Ask Eric Holder and William Barr how effective those inherent contempt powers are in compelling testimony or being arrested for refusing to comply with a Legislative Subpoena.

#40 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-10-11 03:06 PM | Reply

By that definition, youre admitting that investigating and prosecuting crimes are only the interests of democrats.

No. Prosecuting fake crimes is in the interests of Democrats.

Which means you are saying repubs are just fine with people committing crimes.

Not when they are real crimes.

As I've said on past occasions, I see government as a criminal syndicate. There is nobody to keep them honest.

#41 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 03:06 PM | Reply

"There is nobody to keep them honest."

There's Ray.... Oh I get it!

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 03:08 PM | Reply

No. Prosecuting fake crimes is in the interests of Democrats.

#41 | Posted by Ray

how incredible that you have enough info to declare this to be a FAKE crime before the investigation is even done.

Moron.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#38 It's absolutely an answer if you're familiar with the House's inherent contempt powers.
#39 | POSTED BY JOE

What police or army is the House going to send?
It's a simple question.

#44 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 03:09 PM | Reply

Ask Eric Holder and William Barr how effective those inherent contempt powers are in compelling testimony

The House isn't going to arrest anyone that high leve for contempt as it would set off a Constitutional crisis. But i'm 50/50 on whether they continue to let POS bagmen like Sondland slide.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-11 03:11 PM | Reply

No. Prosecuting fake crimes is in the interests of Democrats.
#41 | Posted by Ray

Bias noted.

#46 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-11 03:12 PM | Reply

What police or army is the House going to send?
It's a simple question.

You're right, that is a simple question. The House Sargeant at Arms will send the U.S. Capitol Police. Anything else?

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-11 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#42 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
#43 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

It must be painful to read my posts.

#48 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 03:16 PM | Reply

#48

That's true for anyone. Any time.

#49 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-11 03:17 PM | Reply

"It must be painful to read my posts.
#48 | POSTED BY RAY"

^
"Doc, it only hurts when I laugh...."

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 03:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#27 ... You're describing a TRIAL not an INVESTIGATION ...

For example:

Rudy Giuliani's relationship with arrested men is subject of criminal investigation
abcnews.go.com

...The investigation is being conducted by the FBI's New York field office and prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, the same U.S. Attorney's office Giuliani ran before he became mayor of New York....

is an investigation. If a trial is needed based upon the evidence discovered, that trial will come at a later time.

#51 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 03:29 PM | Reply

Joe
The House Sargeant at Arms will send the U.S. Capitol Police. Anything else?

You know Trump is on record as declaring the investigation by House Democrats illegitimate.
Suppose he calls on the Secret Service to send the Capitol Police away?

It could come down to that or be decided by the Supreme Court.
Just thinking ahead.

#52 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 03:30 PM | Reply

"Doc, it only hurts when I laugh...."
#50 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Reminds me of the Joker in the movie.

#53 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 03:33 PM | Reply

Reminds me of the Joker in the movie.

#53 | Posted by Ray

Your hero. A guy whose life sucks so bad that he wants everyone else to suffer too.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 03:43 PM | Reply

t must be painful to read my posts.

#48 | Posted by Ray

Is it painful for you to justify why these are FAKE crimes that the dems are investigating and how you know that?

#55 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 03:44 PM | Reply

@#52 ... You know Trump is on record as declaring the investigation by House Democrats illegitimate. ...

Pres Trump is on record for saying a lot of things that just are not true.

... Suppose he calls on the Secret Service to send the Capitol Police away? ...

Suppose it is not legal for him to do so and the Secret Service does not follow the illegal order.


#56 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 03:47 PM | Reply

Getting a picture of how the leftist brain works. They only want to look at one side of an issue before coming to a conclusion. That's why the concept of an investigation that includes exculpatory information is so abhorrent.

In their world the would police only talk to witnesses for the prosecution. Alibi witnesses would never be questioned.

I can think of examples in history. It's the way Marxists are wired.

#57 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-11 03:55 PM | Reply

Your hero. A guy whose life sucks so bad that he wants everyone else to suffer too.
#54 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Obviously, you've given no thought to the damage you leftists are doing to undermine public confidence in government.

Here we are three years later and you people are still trying to overturn election results. I've never seen such viciousness in all my decades of watching politics. This is one of the signs of a falling empire.

#58 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 03:57 PM | Reply

Trump's Stonewalling on Impeachment Shows Cracks With Testimony
www.bloomberg.com

...Three days after the White House said it was going to block all cooperation with the House impeachment inquiry, one State Department official testified and another plans to.

Their appearances raise questions about whether the Trump administration may back down from its threat to stonewall House Democrats' request for testimony and documents, or whether the White House is being selective in how it proceeds.

On Oct. 17, the committees will hear from a witness Republican lawmakers expect will be friendly to the president: Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union who donated more than $1 million to Trump's inauguration.

On Friday, three House panels heard testimony damaging to Trump from former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who said in a closed-door session that she was removed from the post "under pressure" from Trump and a "concerted campaign" against her.

Yovanovitch still works in the State Department, and the Democratic chairmen of the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight and Reform committees said Friday the department "at the direction of the White House" directed her "not to appear for her voluntary interview." They said the Intelligence panel responded by issuing a subpoena to compel her to testify....


#59 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 03:59 PM | Reply

Here we are three years later and you people are still trying to overturn election results. I've never seen such viciousness in all my decades of watching politics. This is one of the signs of a falling empire.
#58 | POSTED BY RAY

You're a joke. Not a good one. Just a sad one.

Trump broke the law. I'm sorry.

#60 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-11 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#57 ... That's why the concept of an investigation that includes exculpatory information is so abhorrent. ...

No one is wanting to prevent exculpatory or any other valid evidence from being discovered during an investigation. Indeed, that is the purpose of an investigation, to find the evidence to see if it is worth bringing to trial.

However, during an investigation, the so-called defense does not confront witnesses and present information. That's for the trial.

#61 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 04:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump broke the law. I'm sorry.

#60 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2019-10-11 04:04 PM | FLAG: NEWSWORTHY

#62 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-11 04:06 PM | Reply

Is it painful for you to justify why these are FAKE crimes that the dems are investigating and how you know that?
#55 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

To stay objective, I keep an emotional distance.
Decades ago, I could see this country following the same pattern as earlier empires.
Mounting debts. Chronic wars. Political divisiveness. A corrupted monetary system. Growing impoverishment among the people.

The next decade promises to get a whole lot more ugly. The Democrats are leading the way.

#63 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 04:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That's why the concept of an investigation that includes exculpatory information is so abhorrent.

What evidence can you point to that even suggests the investigation is ignoring exculpatory information?

#64 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-11 04:07 PM | Reply

Getting a picture of how the leftist brain works. They only want to look at one side of an issue before coming to a conclusion. That's why the concept of an investigation that includes exculpatory information is so abhorrent.
In their world the would police only talk to witnesses for the prosecution. Alibi witnesses would never be questioned.
I can think of examples in history. It's the way Marxists are wired.

#57 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Damn. That's one of the dumber posts on here.

Of course there will be exculpatory evidence...or there would be if the White House turned over documents or let people testify.

But you can't have exculpatory evidence if you refuse to release anything.

Have you considered the problem is that there is no exculpatory evidence?

#65 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-11 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The next decade promises to get a whole lot more ugly. The Democrats are leading the way.
#63 | POSTED BY RAY

Good thing for you that you don't care either way.

#66 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-11 04:07 PM | Reply

I can think of examples in history. It's the way Marxists are wired.

#57 | Posted by visitor_

When your side only serves plutocrats and billionaires, you have to lie to voters and tell them their only other choice is MARXISTS.

#67 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 04:08 PM | Reply

To stay objective, I keep an emotional distance.
Decades ago, I could see this country following the same pattern as earlier empires.
Mounting debts. Chronic wars. Political divisiveness. A corrupted monetary system. Growing impoverishment among the people.

The next decade promises to get a whole lot more ugly. The Democrats are leading the way.

#63 | Posted by Ray

Oo you almost had an accurate post for once. Then you broke your ankles on the landing.

#68 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 04:09 PM | Reply

I've never seen such viciousness in all my decades of watching politics.
#58 | Posted by Ray

Yeah its almost like a bunch of morons elected a guy who's entire elections strategy was lying and name calling and inflaming cultural paranoia. Why can't people just be nice to someone like that? Wahhhhhh

#69 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 04:11 PM | Reply

@#58 ... people are still trying to overturn election results ...

Perhaps, just perhaps, if Pres Trump had not acted in the manner he has been acting, I might agree with your assertion.

However, Pres Trump's actions have appeared to be rather egregious, warranting, even asking for, such investigations.


And fwiw, the election results won't be overturned unless Pres Trump's Senate trial (if the impeachment proceedings go that far) determines to remove him from office.

#70 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-11 04:12 PM | Reply

Trump broke the law. I'm sorry.
#60 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Who are you kidding?
If the law was so important, you people would have been calling for a full investigation of the Clintons and the Bidens.

#71 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 04:16 PM | Reply

Yeah its almost like a bunch of morons elected a guy who's entire elections strategy was lying and name calling and inflaming cultural paranoia. Why can't people just be nice to someone like that? Wahhhhhh
#69 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Oh yes. The left knows better than the deplorables. That's typical of leftist arrogance.

#72 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 04:21 PM | Reply

Ray - are you a deplorable?

#73 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-11 04:23 PM | Reply

Oo you almost had an accurate post for once. Then you broke your ankles on the landing.
#68 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Should a Democrat win the presidency, I'm sure the Republicans will match the Democrats in viciousness.
Then they will have taken the lead.

#74 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 04:25 PM | Reply

Ray - are you a deplorable?
#73 | POSTED BY YAV

Certainly not by my opinion of myself.
Remember, I don't vote and I don't support political parties.

I'm not defending Trump because I have any like for him.
What I see is you leftists making connections that aren't there.

#75 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 04:33 PM | Reply

I do remember that, which is why I found the previous interactions peculiar. Thanks.

#76 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-11 04:43 PM | Reply

"Political divisiveness."

You'd prefer single party rule, Ray?

It's downright hilarious, an anarchist being distraught by "political divisiveness."

"Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 04:52 PM | Reply

KellyAnne Conway isn't standing on the White House lawn joking to reporters about handcuffs anymore.

I think we're all curious to see how it plays out. New York is in play, too. I imagine Pelosi's team is making sure all the bases are covered.

Criminals tend to show their stupidity when the pressure's on. We're watching that play out in real time.

Delusional wingnuts that get their civics lessons from Hannity et al are all subject to a 2-day reaction time, as they're unable to respond to the news when it comes this fast.

Hey, DR righties, answer this question:

Is it OK for the president of the United States to withhold Congressionally-appropriated military funds from a foreign ally in return for a campaign favor?

Why?

#78 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-11 05:00 PM | Reply

You'd prefer single party rule, Ray?

No. I prefer no rule. By definition, ruling is an act of aggression.

It's downright hilarious, an anarchist being distraught by "political divisiveness."

Distraught? Only in your imagination.

I've had plenty of time to get used to the idea of the US in decline. There is nothing I or anybody else can do about it.

#79 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 05:07 PM | Reply

"There is nothing I or anybody else can do about it."

Trump can't do anything about it?
You sure about that?
He can't, say, make it happen faster or slower?

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 05:10 PM | Reply

"No. I prefer no rule."

No rule?
So, I can just come to your house and take your stuff, so long as I can get away with it, or what?
Isn't that the way it is right now???

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 05:12 PM | Reply

So, I can just come to your house and take your stuff, so long as I can get away with it, or what?
Isn't that the way it is right now???
#81 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yes. That's what government does every day to every American.

#82 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 05:23 PM | Reply

Trump can't do anything about it?
You sure about that?
He can't, say, make it happen faster or slower?
#80 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You people have pretty much have railroaded Trump into filling up his days defending himself.

On the positive side, the more you people fight among yourselves, the safer this country is from the harms Washington does.

On the negative side, it undermines public confidence in the political process.

As far as faster or slower, it depends on how fast the economy is sinking into a depression. Mainstream news on the economy are hiding the rot under the surface.

#83 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 05:39 PM | Reply

"Mainstream news on the economy are hiding the rot under the surface."

Is this the rot, or the good part?

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

Or maybe this. Rot, or good part?

"Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income."

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 05:44 PM | Reply

Is it OK for the president of the United States to withhold Congressionally-appropriated military funds from a foreign ally in return for a campaign favor?

Why?

I post this question everywhere, and I have yet to hear a single not-liberal answer it.

#85 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-11 05:52 PM | Reply

Oh yes. The left knows better than the deplorables. That's typical of leftist arrogance.

#72 | Posted by Ray a

Yes. Because the left doesn't get their info from a network created to lie to the country.

Facts aren't arrogance. And ignorance isn't a virtue, not matter how much trump and fox praise you for it.

#86 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 06:00 PM | Reply

Mainstream news on the economy are hiding the rot under the surface.

#83 | Posted by Ray

Your cult leader is the one saying the economy is awesome.

Warren is the one saying there are serious problems that need to be addressed and the game is rigged for the rich and powerful. Maybe you should send her a campaign donation? You would if you actually want populist reform. But you don't. You want blame democrats for republicans burning down the country.

#87 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 06:02 PM | Reply

"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."
"Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income."
#84 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The economic system is built on credit. When you subtract the massive debts, the economy is in decline. With the exception of the US government, massive defaults are inevitable. Right now, the dollar is the strongest currency on the planet. Europe, Japan and third world countries are in bad shape.

The downward trends are there. They continue until they can't.

#88 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 06:05 PM | Reply

Facts aren't arrogance.

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

LOL Says the one who freaks out when presented with them.

#89 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-11 06:06 PM | Reply

Yes. Because the left doesn't get their info from a network created to lie to the country.

I don't watch network TV.

Warren is the one saying there are serious problems that need to be addressed and the game is rigged for the rich and powerful. Maybe you should send her a campaign donation? You would if you actually want populist reform. But you don't. You want blame democrats for republicans burning down the country.

The electorate continues voting for lying politicians who promise free stuff and empower the rich. That's why the economic system is going broke and social order is breaking down.

#90 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 06:11 PM | Reply

Speaking of Warren. This is what the best the Democrats can do. Says she:

Adding to her rhetorical flip-flops, Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has said that transgender inmates are "entitled" to sex reassignment surgery on the taxpayer's dime, calling her earlier views a "bad answer."

Warren insisted "gender-affirming surgery" was both "important and the appropriate medical care" for prison inmates, whose healthcare is taxpayer-funded, at Thursday's LGBTQ town hall hosted by CNN.


www.sott.net

A nut job.

#91 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 06:22 PM | Reply

"for prison inmates, whose healthcare is taxpayer-funded,"

Prisoners have more rights than you and I.
It's in the Constitution.
Go figure.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 06:25 PM | Reply

"When you subtract the massive debts, the economy is in decline."

Show me.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 06:28 PM | Reply

#93 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Government spending is included in GDP figures. But government spending does not contribute to economic growth; it lives off the market economy through taxes. To get a real sense of economic decline, subtract government spending. You can do that yourself.

You should ask yourself, how can a government that can't manage its own spending manage something far more complex as a market economy? They can't! It's impossible.

#94 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 06:44 PM | Reply

"But government spending does not contribute to economic growth."

Show me.
Show me how the Eisenhower Interstate System did not contribute to economic growth.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The electorate continues voting for lying politicians who promise free stuff and empower the rich. That's why the economic system is going broke and social order is breaking down.

#90 | Posted by Ray

The economic system is going broke and the social order is breaking down because morons like you can't tell the difference between the side which is making those things worse and the side which is trying to make them better.

Bankers are terrified of warren. If you really want to fight the bankers you'd vote for her. But you dont. You want to protect republicans and help them pretend dems are as bad as they are.

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 06:55 PM | Reply

Adding to her rhetorical flip-flops, Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has said that transgender inmates are "entitled" to sex reassignment surgery on the taxpayer's dime, calling her earlier views a "bad answer."

Warren insisted "gender-affirming surgery" was both "important and the appropriate medical care" for prison inmates, whose healthcare is taxpayer-funded, at Thursday's LGBTQ town hall hosted by CNN.

www.sott.net

A nut job.

#91 | Posted by Ray

Haha so Mr. I HATE THE ELITES is spreading propaganda for them to keep their biggest foe from getting elected.

And MR. I DONT WATCH THE NEWS prefers to get his info from SOTT.NET. Where the REAL brains get the secret talking points against climate activism.

#97 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 06:58 PM | Reply

"government spending does not contribute to economic growth"

Riiiiiiiiiiight. That's why no one ever builds housing, or buys property, or opens a business near a new government facility.

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-11 06:58 PM | Reply

Not the roads again. We'll never know what a private road system would look like.

You can't produce wealth by transferring money from those who produce wealth to those who do not produce wealth. That's a prescription for impoverishment. People trade for gain. Wealth is created when people are free to trade among themselves because both sides profit from exchange.

#99 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 06:58 PM | Reply

You can't produce wealth by transferring money from those who produce wealth to those who do not produce wealth. That's a prescription for impoverishment. People trade for gain. Wealth is created when people are free to trade among themselves because both sides profit from exchange.

#99 | Posted by Ray

Gather round everyone! Mr BUY GOLD DOW WILL DROP TO 1400 is giving an economics lecture!

#100 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 07:03 PM | Reply

"You can't produce wealth by transferring money from those who produce wealth to those who do not produce wealth."

Once the money is transferred, and those who receive the money spend it, why isn't wealth created when the increased demand in turn increases production, employment, and profits?

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 07:05 PM | Reply

I have a knack for hitting leftist hot buttons.

#102 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 07:06 PM | Reply

Ray: "We'll never know what a private road system would look like."

Reality: A private highway is a highway owned and operated for profit by private industry. Private highways are common in Asia and Europe; in addition, a few have been built in the United States on an experimental basis. Typically, private highways are built by companies that charge tolls for a period while the debt is retired, after which the highway is turned over to government control. This allows governments to fulfill immediate transportation needs despite their own budget constraints, while still retaining public ownership of the roads in the long term.
en.wikipedia.org

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 07:08 PM | Reply

I have a knack for hitting leftist hot buttons.

#102 | Posted by Ray

You have a knack for whining about the elites then spewing bankers' propaganda.

#104 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 07:14 PM | Reply

Once the money is transferred, and those who receive the money spend it, why isn't wealth created when the increased demand in turn increases production, employment, and profits?
#101 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I think you are saying wealth is created by the production of money. That's what Keynesian economists preach. That's what got the world economy overloaded with massive debts. Initially it produces economic growth until the debts mount to such massive levels where they choke off capital spending. It's at the core of boom-bust cycles.

In a viable economy capital comes from savings. When consumers withhold spending, they make more capital available to producers.

#105 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 07:23 PM | Reply

You have a knack for whining about the elites then spewing bankers' propaganda.
#104 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I have no idea what you're talking about.

#106 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 07:31 PM | Reply

I have no idea what you're talking about.

#106 | Posted by Ray

Shocker.

#107 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 07:55 PM | Reply

#107 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Sorry. I can't read gibberish.

#108 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 07:58 PM | Reply

Sorry. I can't read gibberish.

#108 | Posted by Ray

But you sure can write it.

"The elites have ruined the country!...also... The candidate who wants to fight the elites sucks!"

#109 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-11 08:30 PM | Reply

- you leftists are doing to undermine public confidence in government.

Something rwinger have made a dedicated tradition of doing with their Presidents... from the criminal Nixon to the traitor Reagan to the bumbling fool GW to the trifecta Trump who is merely the logical next step of 3 in 1.

#110 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-11 08:49 PM | Reply

"The elites have ruined the country!...also... The candidate who wants to fight the elites sucks!"

That must be your opinion. It's not mine.

#111 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 08:50 PM | Reply

Corky - that's irrelevant to what I was talking about.

Obviously, you've given no thought to the damage you leftists are doing to undermine public confidence in government.
Here we are three years later and you people are still trying to overturn election results. I've never seen such viciousness in all my decades of watching politics. This is one of the signs of a falling empire.
#58 | POSTED BY RAY

#112 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 08:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think you are saying wealth is created by the production of money."

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying when more money is spent by consumers in the economy, it increases demand for goods and services, and when that increased demand is satisfied through increased production, that ought to result in the creation of more wealth.

Now, I suppose if you don't think (capitalist) businesses are (typically) in the business of creating wealth in the first place, then you can disagree. If doing business doesn't create wealth, then doing more shouldn't change that.

"That's what got the world economy overloaded with massive debts."

The Debt to GDP ratio was far worse in the 17th and 18th centuries, so I don't really believe in this notion of "overloaded."

Presuming you're referring to the Great Recession, I don't agree it was the "world economy" that got overloaded with massive debts, it's just that a very large amount of debt was created by institutions which also operate in the much more mundane day-to-day financial reality of operating a bank, and that left them without enough ready cash to operate as banks. Calling it the "world economy" is a lazy dodge.

"Initially it produces economic growth until the debts mount to such massive levels where they choke off capital spending"

Yeah, no, that is not what happened. What happened was it rose to such massive levels that it choked off liquidity.

"In a viable economy capital comes from savings. When consumers withhold spending, they make more capital available to producers."

I have no idea what you're trying to say there.
Is capitalism a viable economy?
Is capitalism the only viable economy?
Is anarchy an economic system in its own right, or is it just laissez-faire capitalism?

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 09:15 PM | Reply

"I've never seen such viciousness in all my decades of watching politics."

By whom?
Take Lee Atwater's famous quote, for example.
Seems vicious enough to me, and it's what got us here.

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 09:16 PM | Reply

I'm saying when more money is spent by consumers in the economy, it increases demand for goods and services, and when that increased demand is satisfied through increased production, that ought to result in the creation of more wealth.

That's known as Keynes Law. Say's law makes more sense to me because wealth has to be created through production before it can be consumed.

"Say's law of markets is a classical economic theory that says that production is the source of demand. According to Say's law, the ability to demand something is financed by supplying a different good."
www.investopedia.com

Say's Law states that supply creates its own demand; Keynes' Law states that demand creates its own supply. ... If aggregate demand shifts to the right or left in the Keynesian zone, it will determine the resulting level of output, and thus unemployment.
www.google.com

I'm not done answering.

#115 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 09:39 PM | Reply

Now, I suppose if you don't think (capitalist) businesses are (typically) in the business of creating wealth in the first place, then you can disagree. If doing business doesn't create wealth, then doing more shouldn't change that.

Profits are a measure of how much wealth a business is creating. That's determined by consumers. Remember, voluntary exchange benefits both consumers and business. Wealth is created through exchange. Say you buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks for a dollar. You paid the dollar because the coffee is worth more to you than the dollar. Starbucks gains because the dollar is worth more to them than the coffee. For a business to be losing money means consumers see no gain from their products.

The Debt to GDP ratio was far worse in the 17th and 18th centuries, so I don't really believe in this notion of "overloaded."

GDP is a poor measure of debt because debt increases GDP. Look at debt relative to income. Or debt per capita. I think the ratio is in the tens of thousands of dollars per capita.

A debt based economy is designed to self destruct. That's because the interest on all the unpaid balances compound year after year. The compounding is not noticeable at first. As the debts get into the trillions like now, that absolute numbers accelerate towards infinity. It's really a Ponzi scheme. It has to grow or it will collapse.

Not done.

#116 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 10:05 PM | Reply

What happened was it rose to such massive levels that it choked off liquidity.

As I said in the previous post, a debt based economy is a Ponzi scheme. The money supply must expand faster and faster to keep the economy from collapsing.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there.
It's too late to explain in more detail.

Is capitalism the only viable economy?

Yes. Because capital provides the means for production. Free market capitalism serves the consumer market. Politicized capitalism serves the political class.

Is anarchy an economic system in its own right, or is it just laissez-faire capitalism?

Laissez-faire capitalism. It serves both producers and consumers in most efficiently. Government intervention distorts prices thereby misdirects consumer and capital spending.

#117 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-11 10:21 PM | Reply

And you can expect more people to ignore the President and testify despite his orders not to. Expecially since his compulsive decision to pull the troops out of Syria, the slaughter of the Kurds is not going over well inside nor outside the administration.

#7 | Posted by danni

Especially when the news that the plan to clear northeast Syria of our Kurdish allies was agreed to on September 16th by Putin, Erdogan, and Iran's president, Rouhani, and Trump played right along. Which has horrified our own national security, military, and diplomatic personnel.

#118 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-11 10:34 PM | Reply

= trying to overturn election results.

Trying to impeach a President that is imminently worthy of the honor.

You're disassociative whining about it being just politics notwithstanding.

#119 | Posted by Corky at 2019-10-11 10:49 PM | Reply

"Remember, voluntary exchange benefits both consumers and business."

No it doesn't.
If I voluntary smoke cigarettes, I don't benefit consumers.

"That's known as Keynes Law. Say's law makes more sense to me because wealth has to be created through production before it can be consumed."

Holy ---- dude.
They both make sense because they're both mathematically sound.
You don't get to like one more; that's not how math works.
Keynes' Law and Say's Law in the AD/AS model
www.khanacademy.org

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 11:18 PM | Reply

""Remember, voluntary exchange benefits both consumers and business."
No it doesn't.

If I voluntary smoke cigarettes, I don't benefit consumers.
POSTED BY SNOOFY"

I'm pretty sure RJ Reynolds employees are consumers.

#121 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-11 11:22 PM | Reply

"Government intervention distorts prices thereby misdirects consumer and capital spending."

I need you to explain to me how having the government enforce that weights and measures are accurate distorts prices and misdirects consumer spending. Because to me it quite clearly does the opposite.

Obviously you think you know something I don't know. I'd like to know what that something is.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 11:23 PM | Reply

"I'm pretty sure RJ Reynolds employees are consumers."

It benefiting a tiny fraction of consumers is not what Ray meant, when he said it benefits consumers.
He meant it benefits all consumers who are doing any exchange.

He's wrong. Smoking doesn't benefit smokers.

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 11:25 PM | Reply

In terms of economics, a benefit is:

"An economic benefit is any benefit that we can quantify in terms of the money that it generates. Net income and revenues, for example, are forms of economic benefit. Profit and net cash flow are also economic benefits.

An economic benefit may also refer to a reduction in something such as a cost. For example, lower raw material or labor costs are economic benefits. In this context, labor refers to the workforce.'"
marketbusinessnews.com

Smoking, therefore, doesn't confer an economic benefit to smokers.
It certainly doesn't provide a health benefit.

In a very perverse sense, it could provide an economic benefit "to consumers" if that means everyone, by having smokers die earlier, which eases the burden on Social Security, etc., but those are artifacts of how the welfare state is architected; not because there's a raw economic benefit to dying before your time.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-11 11:32 PM | Reply

"He's wrong. Smoking doesn't benefit smokers.

#123 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

Well, snoofy again you are substituting your words for his. You should know me well enough by now that I don't play that game.

I took your words EXACTLY as you wrote them and replied thusly. I didn't twist them. I didn't interpret them. I didn't spin them. You should take a lesson on how that's done. Your game playing gets pretty ------- old

Bye, now snoofygames (tm)!

#125 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-11 11:32 PM | Reply

"This is certainly the end of Glompf", said the increasingly nervous leftist to xis democratic-socialist comrade for the 2738th time since November, 2016.

#126 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-10-12 01:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Smoking doesn't benefit smokers.
#123 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It actually does .... not long term, but there is a short term gain.

#127 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-12 01:11 AM | Reply

Libertarian economic theories start out sounding sensible...for about 30 seconds. Then the bat guano insanity kicks in and Pinocchio never becomes a real boy. Soon thereafter comes the straw man army and flood of substance-less insults masked as "debate."

Troll points: 45

#128 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-10-12 01:46 AM | Reply

No coincidence that Snoofy likes stupid games like a no vote, no minority participation House impeachment.

The better question is why would the Dems want to not vote?

No evidence, no witnesses, no real subpoenas. All for show, hoping to give cover to Democrat representatives that hail from one of the many states that Trump won, and will win again.

Why are Dems willing to be so transparently feeble?

Because they've got less than nothing, yet so much to hide.

#129 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2019-10-12 02:50 AM | Reply

When the process gets to the presentation stage then the president should have some due process rights. During an investigatory stage, not so much.

#130 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-12 04:20 AM | Reply

They both make sense because they're both mathematically sound.
You don't get to like one more; that's not how math works.
Keynes' Law and Say's Law in the AD/AS model www.khanacademy.org
#120 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Mathematics is irrelevant. It's a matter of physics.
Economic goods can't be consumed if they don't exist.
Production comes first. Production starts with consuming what already exists in order to create new economic goods.

Smoking, therefore, doesn't confer an economic benefit to smokers.
It certainly doesn't provide a health benefit.
#124 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You're mixing economic theory with biology. In economics, we're talking about value judgments. People exchange for mutual gain.

#131 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-12 06:01 AM | Reply

I need you to explain to me how having the government enforce that weights and measures are accurate distorts prices and misdirects consumer spending. Because to me it quite clearly does the opposite.

Weights and measures are constant. Expanding the money supply is at the root cause of inflation. Prices are always changing in ways people can't accurately anticipate.

Obviously you think you know something I don't know. I'd like to know what that something is.
#122 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Austrian Theory. It was dismissed by academic economists because it identifies the expansion of credit money as the root cause of boom-bust cycles. Keynesian Theory justifies government intervention.

See "The Failure of the New Economics" by Henry Hazlitt

#132 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-12 06:12 AM | Reply

I'll end the discussion on this happy note.

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved"
Ludwig von Mises

#133 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-12 06:23 AM | Reply

You know Trump is on record as declaring the investigation by House Democrats illegitimate.
Suppose he calls on the Secret Service to send the Capitol Police away?

I'm taking about sending the Capitol police to enforce a contempt order against one of his minions, not against him. He can't keep tabs on bagmen like Sondland.

#134 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-12 09:17 AM | Reply

Joe

I seem to recall that some of Trump's minions have ignored subpoenas. I think Barr was one.
What's your take on that?

#135 | Posted by Ray at 2019-10-12 09:39 AM | Reply

July 25, 2008, John Conyers made people feel sad. Bush was not being impreached. He said that for an impeach inquiry, there must be vote. The hearing in question about Bush was not an impeachment.

Subpoena power, questioning witnesses, public record...?

#136 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-10-12 04:25 PM | Reply

Subpoena power, questioning witnesses, public record...?

Republicans changed the House rules in 2015. But you already know this because you posted on the very thread about it.

Why so disingenuous Petrous?

#137 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-12 04:31 PM | Reply

"Keynesian Theory justifies government intervention."

Come on, Ray.
You switched from Keynes Law to Keynesian Theory.

Keynes Law still holds true in the absence of government intervention.
The curve doesn't care where the money comes from, but it is generally predicts the response to the stimulus.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-12 04:46 PM | Reply

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion."

That's like saying there is no means of avoiding the collapse of the WTC after two planes fly into it.
Sort of ignores why the WTC collapsing is bad.
Sort of assumes the WTC collapsing would be equally as bad for you if you were in it, or safely a thousand miles away.

It's like you wouldn't think to foam the runway when a plane is coming in on fire.

You operate under a paradigm where man's purpose is to serve the economy.
I operate under a paradigm where the economy's purpose is to serve man.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-12 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"But government spending does not contribute to economic growth."
Show me.
Show me how the Eisenhower Interstate System did not contribute to economic growth.

#95 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yeah, and how about that ARPANET thingie.

#140 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-10-12 11:00 PM | Reply

I love going down the Anarchist rabbit hole.

Should there be a yellow line down the middle of the road, Ray?
Oh... right... there shouldn't even be public roads!

Ray longs for the America when goods traveling by rail from Baltimore to D.C. had to be unloaded at Ellicot City and put on a new train, and then had to be unloaded in Beltsville and put on yet another train, because three separate railroads operated three separate private tracks, each on a different gauge.

Those are the kinds of efficiencies the government just can't match, in Ray's mind.

Ray would you consent to taking a fMRI while you talk about politics? I'd love to know how a Ray happens.

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-12 11:15 PM | Reply

Just posting news. The R's changed the rules. So, will the R's get to subpoena anyone in the House? If not...

Subpoena power exists in the Senate.

#142 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-10-13 01:23 PM | Reply

It's rather simple, in the House? No.

Subpoena power lies with the committees, which means defacto those who hold the majority issue, so the minority can't issue subpoenas

#143 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-10-13 01:39 PM | Reply

In the Senate, the R's have majority, so they can subpoena and deny any D subpoena.

I cant guess if the Senate would remove.

Strategic, Trump removed, Pence president, can Pence win 2020?

Strange, I suspect Trump removed will cause R's to not vote 2020. I project landslide Dem president with Trump removal.

I dont see Pence winning, just finishing.
I see Pence pardons for Trump just like Ford with Nixon.

Not sure about House and Senate 2020

#144 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-10-13 02:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort