Why Is The GOP Senate So Afraid To Call Witnesses??

[Superbadbrutha]

So in 2016 we were still losing 800,000 jobs a month, had a shrinking economy, and the unemployment rate was 10%.

No, in 2009 Obama gave us double digit unemployment

And the most jobs lost in a month under Dubya was less than 600,000

Are you serious, the man was given a recession and high unemployment when he took office in January 2009.

He was indeed and he took that recession and turned it into the slowest recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office! Barack Obama was "Superbad" at economics!

….and yet when he handed it to Trump every facet was thriving well. Now tell us specifically what Trump did to turn around a good thing that was given to him.

Actually, it wasn't. Donald Trump estimated that we had 90 million unemployed in 2016, the markets were significantly lower and unemployment a lot higher.

Further, had Hillary Clinton been elected, we'd be looking at close to double digit unemployment and a Dow at 6000. The Democrat idea was economic malaise, so that people would be open to new government programs.

There you go predicting again, unemployment had it's biggest drop in what year?

 

[Oldstyle]

But they didn't start until the people saw that the Obama Regime was over on Election Day 2016. Trump's election gave the people REAL hope, not the phony hope that Obama promised.

I remember the date of Obama's Immaculation, 20 January 2009.

The liberals, and especially the black liberals, thought their ship had come in. They felt they were finally would be living on Easy Street as the brother ascended the American throne. A lot of joy that day that people were feeling.

The Obama Program was a complete failure however. All he provided was free money, free phones, free food. Kept the people on the Democrat Plantation.

So in 2016 we were still losing 800,000 jobs a month, had a shrinking economy, and the unemployment rate was 10%.

No, in 2009 Obama gave us double digit unemployment

And the most jobs lost in a month under Dubya was less than 600,000

Are you serious, the man was given a recession and high unemployment when he took office in January 2009.

He was indeed and he took that recession and turned it into the slowest recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office! Barack Obama was "Superbad" at economics!

….and yet when he handed it to Trump every facet was thriving well. Now tell us specifically what Trump did to turn around a good thing that was given to him.

The economy was faring well by the time Trump was sworn into office but that had little to do with Barack Obama's economic programs. The American economy is remarkably resilient. All you need to do is give it an opportunity to grow and it will. If you burden it with record levels of new regulations...threaten taxes and make awful deals like the Paris Accord that gave American competitors like China and India years before they have to stop polluting while we promise to do it now...businesses are going to do the math and decide it's not worth risking capital. Do you remember Barack Obama complaining that so much American investment capital was "sitting on the sidelines"? He couldn't understand why they wouldn't invest and the answer to why they wouldn't was him! They didn't feel like he ever had their backs. He was the "You didn't build that!" President!

 

[Ethos Logos Pathos]

Dems broke the laws by keeping the WB anonymous and not letting Trump/Congressmembers question the WB validity.

Keeping the whistle blower anonymous is the law, for the IG who the whistle blower goes to, to report their complaints....

the IG guidelines tells the IG that the WB must be kept anonymous, unless a court order deems otherwise.

Let me ask you..... do you think the law was written that the IG who receives and investigates the complaint and the only person who actually knows for certain, who any of the WB'ers truly are, is to keep the identity of WB anonymous for no reason?

I mean, if it is against the law for the IG, WHY IN THE WORLD would think it would be OK for congressmen to reveal their identity, or the president, or the president's admin, or the president's son to REVEAL their identity?

It is NOT okay for other gvt politicos to reveal the WB identity and demonize them, and put their lives in danger, and family in danger, and make their life miserable at work, even if they are not fired.

To me and logic used, that DEFEATS the entire purpose of the IG requirement by law, to keep them anonymous.... and defeats the purpose of making it easier for whistle blowers to come forward to the IG with the fraud, abuse, or corruption they know about... seriously.

Those congress critters and admin and the president should be censured and reprimanded for what they did and were trying to do in the press to out, demean, cause vengeance upon the WB.... imo.

Nope. The law is not designed to keep a whistleblower, anonymous, but to ensure they do not face retaliation/do not get fired, for doing the snitching.

 

[bodecea]

trump and his cronies have things to hide.

 

[Jackson]

Democrats Are Daring Mitch McConnell to Call Impeachment Witnesses

Less than a couple of months ago -- Trump's BFF at Fox & Friends said this....

"If the president said, I'll give you the money, but you've got to investigate Joe Biden, that'd be off the rails wrong" --- and thru the UNDER OATH TESTIMONIES of Trump's own officials, they proved that is exactly what happened....and what did Steve Doocy do?? Pretend that he never said what he said, why?? Because he and most other Trumpers are full of shit.....

View attachment 295699

And in the spirit of being full of shit, Mitch McConnell doesn't want to call any witnesses..even tho Trump wants to have a long drawn out trial with lots of witnesses, even tho Democrats wants to call witnesses who Trump claims will exonerate him -- it is the GOP who is refusing to call any witnesses, why??

"Chuck Schumer on Thursday tore into Mitch McConnell for “breaking precedent” in announcing he will be in lock step with Donald Trump’s legal team throughout an impeachment trial, accusing him of helping the president skirt accountability. “We ask: Is the president’s case so weak that none of the president’s men can defend him under oath?” Schumer said on the Senate floor, after McConnell dismissed the historic vote to impeach Trump as a “partisan crusade.” “If the House case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and documents?”

For months, all I have seen from you trumpers was "just wait until it gets to the Senate, then Trump can present his case" …"just wait until Trump presents his secret evidence that will totally own the Dems" --

Witnesses were called in the last impeachment trial, why not this one?? Why aren't you demanding that the GOP Senate Leader give Trump what he claims he wants?? Or is this tough talk about witnesses and evidence just shit he tells yall -- even tho both you and he knows all of yall are full of shit...

Biff, it isn't that Trump doesn't want to call witnesses. Pelosi wants him to call HER list of witnesses. Trump said, no way is she going to call the shots on the Senate's trial. She can send managers , but no witnesses.

 

[Ethos Logos Pathos]

trump and his cronies have things to hide.

Well Obama and his cronies did exactly hide things in Ukraine, since 2014, and when Trump was about to expose it? Dems go scream, "Impeach him!! For going after his opponents!"

lol

Since UkraineGate & FISAgate proved that the Dems will stoop to crazzzzy levels of dishonesty then ........ If you don't make haste and abandon ship, instantaneously, then you might deserve what you get once the Dems' mechanism starts to eats its own ---and you're on the menu!... Look at how the Dem party has turned on our darkskin-Black USA citizens, their most loyal and integral success element for 65 years now ... lol ... luckily President Trump has now scooped those good people up. Ann Coulter exactly laid this out in 2011.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Have you ever read the constitution?? Here is a short list of what the Constitution deems are impeachable offenses...

(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;
(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and
(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Congress than makes the decision that a president is guilty of said offenses and put it to a vote....if you feel only presidents you don't worship should be impeached -- either (a) move to a country ruled by dictatorship -- or (b) change the constitution.....or...(c) shut the fuk up....

But I expect you will do (d) -- keep whining like a bitch....

It is all politics and that is why the votes in the House went the way they did and that is why in the Senate the vote will go the way it is predicted to go.

So therefore, impeachment should be removed from the constitution because after all...its all politics...big deal.....

Until someone you don't worship gets back in office..then suddenly you will be back to carrying around your little pocket constitutions whining about the rule of law...

I see it for what it is. With Clinton it was the same deal. You knew the House would impeach and the Senate didn’t have the votes to convict. Gabbard had the right idea, censure him and put an end to the posturing. The longer this plays out the worse it is for America and if the holds the articles for long, them Democrats will look worse to independents. I’m voting Gabbard, she is at least sane. Trump and the rest of the Democrats are nothing but grandstanders and ego stokers. They are supposed to serve the American people, they only serve themselves.

Oh, so you support her Medicare For All plan...cool...

• Tulsi strongly supports the Medicare for All Act and serves on the Medicare for All Caucus
• Tulsi believes that our present healthcare system is organized by and for the benefit of big insurance and pharmaceutical companies and not the American people, which must be changed
• We pay far more in this country on healthcare costs than any other country in the world and get worse results. Far too many Americans in this country are sick and unable to get the care they need.
• Tulsi supports Medicare for all to make sure that every American gets quality healthcare - we must also focus on reducing the cost of healthcare overall, preventive health, bring down cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare to negotiate those prices down, and ensure transparency so people know exactly what the cost is and what they’re paying for.
• Tulsi believes that the Affordable Care act was a step in the right direction, but points out that issues remain with the number of uninsured and high costs related to deductibles, copayments for medical services, and prescription drugs

Medicare for All

She supports bringing America together. She is not going to be abrasive, like Trump and Warren, she is not going to be senile and forgetful like Biden or Sanders. I can see her reaching across the aisle unlike the others. She is willing to compromise, she is willing to work for America. I don't see any other candidate that will work for America.

I named policies, you talked about your feelings...

This is why folks like you are so easily conned and are politically all over the place with who you claim to support....because its all about your feelings and then you project them onto the candidate....


Why do you think reaching across the aisle is important when on one side of the aisle is a party who consistently caters and appeases the worst segment of America?? Republicans are the problem....

Obama tried that "reach across the aisle" -- Obama ditched the public option and settled for a healthcare plan that was a republican idea until the black guy was for it...

Obama tried that "reach across the aisle" bullshit when he appointed republicans to his cabinet -- what did that get him??

Obama was even willing to cut social security and medicare in order to "reach across the aisle" -- what did that get him??

I care about policies, period.....reaching across the aisle doesn't mean shit if you can't talk policies

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Nowhere is mentioned Obstruction of Congress.

Except for very explicitly, in the law i posted to you, which you not only never read (despite begging for someone to spoonfeed it to you), but which you also have repeatedly attempted to misrepresent.

Hey look, here it is again!:

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

"

It falls under Obstruction of Justice, which should have been their Article of Impeachment...but, they knew better

It's obstruction of congress because Congress is not involved in a criminal investigation you dunce....

If Trump intervened to obstruct an open criminal investigation (which he did, see the Mueller report) -- then that would be obstruction of justice...

And if Pelosi and democrats weren't such pussies, they would have included the 8 or 9 instances of obstruction of justice that was in the Mueller report.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Obama and his attorney general knowingly sold semi automatic weapons to the mexican drug gangs

That was an impeachable offense

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

They sold nothing.
They allowed illegal cross border sales so they could track them.

This is sound policy when trying to break up smuggling operations. Let so go through to see where they go.

It was a local office effort & a local office botched plan.

They allowed sales that they knew were going to cross the border and end up in the hands of narco terrorists and that they KNEW they couldn't track! The Bush Administration attempted to track gun running across the board with the full cooperation of the Mexican Government but stopped the program when they realized that they couldn't track those weapons. The Obama Administration didn't inform the Mexican Government about what they were doing with Fast & Furious. Why? Because they never intended to track the weapons!

Actually, they thought they could track them. If they couldn't track them, why do the program?

What is stupid is you NRA fed morons who permitted people to buy AR-15 40 at a time, no questions asked. THAT is fucking stupid.

The White House & the DOJ was not driving this operation.

Obama knew they could not track the weapons

Obama had no idea about the operation you dunce...

Just like Bush most likely had no idea about Operation Wide Receiver.....which was basically the same type of operation....

 

[Mac-7]

why was it impeachable, in your opinion?

was it cheating? was it self dealing? was it self enriching? was it abusing his power?

or was it a crappy, imperfect, policy decision?

They sold nothing.
They allowed illegal cross border sales so they could track them.

This is sound policy when trying to break up smuggling operations. Let so go through to see where they go.

It was a local office effort & a local office botched plan.

They allowed sales that they knew were going to cross the border and end up in the hands of narco terrorists and that they KNEW they couldn't track! The Bush Administration attempted to track gun running across the board with the full cooperation of the Mexican Government but stopped the program when they realized that they couldn't track those weapons. The Obama Administration didn't inform the Mexican Government about what they were doing with Fast & Furious. Why? Because they never intended to track the weapons!

Actually, they thought they could track them. If they couldn't track them, why do the program?

What is stupid is you NRA fed morons who permitted people to buy AR-15 40 at a time, no questions asked. THAT is fucking stupid.

The White House & the DOJ was not driving this operation.

Obama knew they could not track the weapons

Obama had no idea about the operation you dunce...

Just like Bush most likely had no idea about Operation Wide Receiver.....which was basically the same type of operation....

Obamas wingman knew about it and let it continue

Afterward obama used executive privilege to prevent congress from investigating

 

[Care4all]

Says WHO? Although they may not have had any F-ups, wasn't it also done under President Bush2 policy as well?

Yes

it was a stupid idea that did not work and was terminated

obama comes along and does it again after it has already been demonstrated not to work

See, that's a case that perhaps could be made, if a charge could be made against them... and if congress truly believed it was illegal as you claimed previously, what congress should have done is insisted on Eric Holder recusing himself as AG over this case and had the DOJ appoint a Special Counsel, to investigate any criminality.... imo.

but see, because it was policy, another likely route would be a suit against them, claiming it was unconstitutional for them to do this, perhaps? the good Lord knows, Republicans and their groups sued the Obama admin for absolutely everything.... they won some of those suits and lost some of those suits....

but with God as my witness, this issue with what president Trump has done, is not about US Policy differences... or making a mistake with US Policy....

it is about him self dealing, cheating, abusing his power for his own personal and political benefit, above US Policy of which he takes an oath of office to always put above his own or anyone else's.

And even though he got caught on this one, what else is he doing in his presidential position to self deal himself? What else has he done already?

Now maybe the president can have some first hand witnesses that help him claim it was not self dealing...? But he has YET to do that.....

What is "US Policy" on dealing with corrupt foreign governments, Care? What policy was it that Trump violated when he asked the President of the Ukraine to look into suspected corruption involving the Biden's and Burisma?

The policy of not using federal funds to bribe foreign officials for personal gain.

Where is the "bribery"? All that you have is that Ukraine felt NO PRESSURE at all, to investigate Sleepy Joe- who is just one of hundreds of liberal extremists that have hatred for President Trump.

Does the fact that someone hates Trump exempt them from the laws of the land?

The question for you is :

if this were a politician that loved and supported trump to no end,

Would he go after them with a vengeance,

send his personal consiglieri Giuliani to hook up with bunch of Ukrainian Russian sympathizers, crooked oligarch and ex kgb, a corrupt ex prosecutor, and bring two other ex Soviet American goons in to the search, to find or create this conspiracy against this person and their son,

and make the Uke President make a public CNN announcement about an investigation opened on this Trump supporter, before the Uke President could get their aid and DC meeting at the white house?

Do you really think Trump would go after a politician that was a huge supporter of his for so called corruption, to the extent of bringing in Giuliani to be some faux personal Elliott Ness?

 

[Mac-7]

Yes

it was a stupid idea that did not work and was terminated

obama comes along and does it again after it has already been demonstrated not to work

See, that's a case that perhaps could be made, if a charge could be made against them... and if congress truly believed it was illegal as you claimed previously, what congress should have done is insisted on Eric Holder recusing himself as AG over this case and had the DOJ appoint a Special Counsel, to investigate any criminality.... imo.

but see, because it was policy, another likely route would be a suit against them, claiming it was unconstitutional for them to do this, perhaps? the good Lord knows, Republicans and their groups sued the Obama admin for absolutely everything.... they won some of those suits and lost some of those suits....

but with God as my witness, this issue with what president Trump has done, is not about US Policy differences... or making a mistake with US Policy....

it is about him self dealing, cheating, abusing his power for his own personal and political benefit, above US Policy of which he takes an oath of office to always put above his own or anyone else's.

And even though he got caught on this one, what else is he doing in his presidential position to self deal himself? What else has he done already?

Now maybe the president can have some first hand witnesses that help him claim it was not self dealing...? But he has YET to do that.....

What is "US Policy" on dealing with corrupt foreign governments, Care? What policy was it that Trump violated when he asked the President of the Ukraine to look into suspected corruption involving the Biden's and Burisma?

The policy of not using federal funds to bribe foreign officials for personal gain.

Where is the "bribery"? All that you have is that Ukraine felt NO PRESSURE at all, to investigate Sleepy Joe- who is just one of hundreds of liberal extremists that have hatred for President Trump.

Does the fact that someone hates Trump exempt them from the laws of the land?

The question for you is :

if this were a politician that loved and supported trump to no end,

Would he go after them with a vengeance,

send his personal consiglieri Giuliani to hook up with bunch of Ukrainian Russian sympathizers, crooked oligarch and ex kgb, a corrupt ex prosecutor, and bring two other ex Soviet American goons in to the search, to find or create this conspiracy against this person and their son,

and make the Uke President make a public CNN announcement about an investigation opened on this Trump supporter, before the Uke President could get their aid and DC meeting at the white house?

Do you really think Trump would go after a politician that was a huge supporter of his for so called corruption, to the extent of bringing in Giuliani to be some faux personal Eliot Ness?

Trump sent giuliani because he cannot trust the FBI, DOJ or State Dept

And I dont blame him

I dont trust them either based on the way they have acted since 2016

 

[Superbadbrutha]

So in 2016 we were still losing 800,000 jobs a month, had a shrinking economy, and the unemployment rate was 10%.

No, in 2009 Obama gave us double digit unemployment

And the most jobs lost in a month under Dubya was less than 600,000

Are you serious, the man was given a recession and high unemployment when he took office in January 2009.

He was indeed and he took that recession and turned it into the slowest recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office! Barack Obama was "Superbad" at economics!

….and yet when he handed it to Trump every facet was thriving well. Now tell us specifically what Trump did to turn around a good thing that was given to him.

The economy was faring well by the time Trump was sworn into office but that had little to do with Barack Obama's economic programs.

So it just was happening, smfh.

The American economy is remarkably resilient. All you need to do is give it an opportunity to grow and it will. If you burden it with record levels of new regulations...threaten taxes and make awful deals like the Paris Accord that gave American competitors like China and India years before they have to stop polluting while we promise to do it now...businesses are going to do the math and decide it's not worth risking capital. Do you remember Barack Obama complaining that so much American investment capital was "sitting on the sidelines"? He couldn't understand why they wouldn't invest and the answer to why they wouldn't was him! They didn't feel like he ever had their backs. He was the "You didn't build that!" President!

You are not answering the question. What specific policies or bills did Trump put in place that has the economy thriving.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes

it was a stupid idea that did not work and was terminated

obama comes along and does it again after it has already been demonstrated not to work

See, that's a case that perhaps could be made, if a charge could be made against them... and if congress truly believed it was illegal as you claimed previously, what congress should have done is insisted on Eric Holder recusing himself as AG over this case and had the DOJ appoint a Special Counsel, to investigate any criminality.... imo.

but see, because it was policy, another likely route would be a suit against them, claiming it was unconstitutional for them to do this, perhaps? the good Lord knows, Republicans and their groups sued the Obama admin for absolutely everything.... they won some of those suits and lost some of those suits....

but with God as my witness, this issue with what president Trump has done, is not about US Policy differences... or making a mistake with US Policy....

it is about him self dealing, cheating, abusing his power for his own personal and political benefit, above US Policy of which he takes an oath of office to always put above his own or anyone else's.

And even though he got caught on this one, what else is he doing in his presidential position to self deal himself? What else has he done already?

Now maybe the president can have some first hand witnesses that help him claim it was not self dealing...? But he has YET to do that.....

What is "US Policy" on dealing with corrupt foreign governments, Care? What policy was it that Trump violated when he asked the President of the Ukraine to look into suspected corruption involving the Biden's and Burisma?

The policy of not using federal funds to bribe foreign officials for personal gain.

Where is the "bribery"? All that you have is that Ukraine felt NO PRESSURE at all, to investigate Sleepy Joe- who is just one of hundreds of liberal extremists that have hatred for President Trump.

Does the fact that someone hates Trump exempt them from the laws of the land?

The question for you is :

if this were a politician that loved and supported trump to no end,

Would he go after them with a vengeance,

send his personal consiglieri Giuliani to hook up with bunch of Ukrainian Russian sympathizers, crooked oligarch and ex kgb, a corrupt ex prosecutor, and bring two other ex Soviet American goons in to the search, to find or create this conspiracy against this person and their son,

and make the Uke President make a public CNN announcement about an investigation opened on this Trump supporter, before the Uke President could get their aid and DC meeting at the white house?

Do you really think Trump would go after a politician that was a huge supporter of his for so called corruption, to the extent of bringing in Giuliani to be some faux personal Elliott Ness?

Why wouldn't you send Giuliani? He has a long background fighting organized crime and corruption. He's not a "faux" Elliott Ness...he's actually as close to the real thing as you can get. Giuliani cut his teeth going after the Mafia in New York City.

 

[Oldstyle]

No, in 2009 Obama gave us double digit unemployment

And the most jobs lost in a month under Dubya was less than 600,000

Are you serious, the man was given a recession and high unemployment when he took office in January 2009.

He was indeed and he took that recession and turned it into the slowest recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office! Barack Obama was "Superbad" at economics!

….and yet when he handed it to Trump every facet was thriving well. Now tell us specifically what Trump did to turn around a good thing that was given to him.

The economy was faring well by the time Trump was sworn into office but that had little to do with Barack Obama's economic programs.

So it just was happening, smfh.

The American economy is remarkably resilient. All you need to do is give it an opportunity to grow and it will. If you burden it with record levels of new regulations...threaten taxes and make awful deals like the Paris Accord that gave American competitors like China and India years before they have to stop polluting while we promise to do it now...businesses are going to do the math and decide it's not worth risking capital. Do you remember Barack Obama complaining that so much American investment capital was "sitting on the sidelines"? He couldn't understand why they wouldn't invest and the answer to why they wouldn't was him! They didn't feel like he ever had their backs. He was the "You didn't build that!" President!

You are not answering the question. What specific policies or bills did Trump put in place that has the economy thriving.

First and foremost, Trump has cut government regulations. He instituted the policy that if a government agency wanted to add a new regulation they were required to cut two regulations. The amount of time and money that American businesses have to waste attempting to comply with government regulations had reached absurd levels. Running a business required so much time be spent filing paperwork to satisfy Washington that you had little time to spend on growing the business. Trump has addressed that.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

See, that's a case that perhaps could be made, if a charge could be made against them... and if congress truly believed it was illegal as you claimed previously, what congress should have done is insisted on Eric Holder recusing himself as AG over this case and had the DOJ appoint a Special Counsel, to investigate any criminality.... imo.

but see, because it was policy, another likely route would be a suit against them, claiming it was unconstitutional for them to do this, perhaps? the good Lord knows, Republicans and their groups sued the Obama admin for absolutely everything.... they won some of those suits and lost some of those suits....

but with God as my witness, this issue with what president Trump has done, is not about US Policy differences... or making a mistake with US Policy....

it is about him self dealing, cheating, abusing his power for his own personal and political benefit, above US Policy of which he takes an oath of office to always put above his own or anyone else's.

And even though he got caught on this one, what else is he doing in his presidential position to self deal himself? What else has he done already?

Now maybe the president can have some first hand witnesses that help him claim it was not self dealing...? But he has YET to do that.....

What is "US Policy" on dealing with corrupt foreign governments, Care? What policy was it that Trump violated when he asked the President of the Ukraine to look into suspected corruption involving the Biden's and Burisma?

The policy of not using federal funds to bribe foreign officials for personal gain.

Where is the "bribery"? All that you have is that Ukraine felt NO PRESSURE at all, to investigate Sleepy Joe- who is just one of hundreds of liberal extremists that have hatred for President Trump.

Does the fact that someone hates Trump exempt them from the laws of the land?

The question for you is :

if this were a politician that loved and supported trump to no end,

Would he go after them with a vengeance,

send his personal consiglieri Giuliani to hook up with bunch of Ukrainian Russian sympathizers, crooked oligarch and ex kgb, a corrupt ex prosecutor, and bring two other ex Soviet American goons in to the search, to find or create this conspiracy against this person and their son,

and make the Uke President make a public CNN announcement about an investigation opened on this Trump supporter, before the Uke President could get their aid and DC meeting at the white house?

Do you really think Trump would go after a politician that was a huge supporter of his for so called corruption, to the extent of bringing in Giuliani to be some faux personal Elliott Ness?

Why wouldn't you send Giuliani? He has a long background fighting organized crime and corruption. He's not a "faux" Elliott Ness...he's actually as close to the real thing as you can get. Giuliani cut his teeth going after the Mafia in New York City.

Giuliani is part of the corruption, are you telling us he is better at fighting organized crime and corruption than the FBI and the DOJ. Come to think of it what is Giuliani's official title and who is paying him?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Are you serious, the man was given a recession and high unemployment when he took office in January 2009.

He was indeed and he took that recession and turned it into the slowest recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office! Barack Obama was "Superbad" at economics!

….and yet when he handed it to Trump every facet was thriving well. Now tell us specifically what Trump did to turn around a good thing that was given to him.

The economy was faring well by the time Trump was sworn into office but that had little to do with Barack Obama's economic programs.

So it just was happening, smfh.

The American economy is remarkably resilient. All you need to do is give it an opportunity to grow and it will. If you burden it with record levels of new regulations...threaten taxes and make awful deals like the Paris Accord that gave American competitors like China and India years before they have to stop polluting while we promise to do it now...businesses are going to do the math and decide it's not worth risking capital. Do you remember Barack Obama complaining that so much American investment capital was "sitting on the sidelines"? He couldn't understand why they wouldn't invest and the answer to why they wouldn't was him! They didn't feel like he ever had their backs. He was the "You didn't build that!" President!

You are not answering the question. What specific policies or bills did Trump put in place that has the economy thriving.

First and foremost, Trump has cut government regulations. He instituted the policy that if a government agency wanted to add a new regulation they were required to cut two regulations. The amount of time and money that American businesses have to waste attempting to comply with government regulations had reached absurd levels. Running a business required so much time be spent filing paperwork to satisfy Washington that you had little time to spend on growing the business. Trump has addressed that.

Again nothing, which government regulations has he cut. Be specific.

 

[Oldstyle]

Probably the biggest shot in the arm to the US economy was his redoing of the corporate tax structure...specifically moving from a worldwide to a territorial system of taxation and the repatriation of profits made overseas by US corporations.

 

[Oldstyle]

He was indeed and he took that recession and turned it into the slowest recovery from a recession since FDR was sitting in the Oval Office! Barack Obama was "Superbad" at economics!

….and yet when he handed it to Trump every facet was thriving well. Now tell us specifically what Trump did to turn around a good thing that was given to him.

The economy was faring well by the time Trump was sworn into office but that had little to do with Barack Obama's economic programs.

So it just was happening, smfh.

The American economy is remarkably resilient. All you need to do is give it an opportunity to grow and it will. If you burden it with record levels of new regulations...threaten taxes and make awful deals like the Paris Accord that gave American competitors like China and India years before they have to stop polluting while we promise to do it now...businesses are going to do the math and decide it's not worth risking capital. Do you remember Barack Obama complaining that so much American investment capital was "sitting on the sidelines"? He couldn't understand why they wouldn't invest and the answer to why they wouldn't was him! They didn't feel like he ever had their backs. He was the "You didn't build that!" President!

You are not answering the question. What specific policies or bills did Trump put in place that has the economy thriving.

First and foremost, Trump has cut government regulations. He instituted the policy that if a government agency wanted to add a new regulation they were required to cut two regulations. The amount of time and money that American businesses have to waste attempting to comply with government regulations had reached absurd levels. Running a business required so much time be spent filing paperwork to satisfy Washington that you had little time to spend on growing the business. Trump has addressed that.

Again nothing, which government regulations has he cut. Be specific.

 

[Oldstyle]

I really don't want to waste the time to list each and every one of the above deregulations. It would take hours.