Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


It's a big improvement for me. $24k is a bigger deduction than we ever got from itemizing and with our kids added in we're getting a $30k deduction next year which will be the largest deduction we've ever had. The bulk of our itemized deductions were always mortgage interest and property taxes but those were never close to $24k.

I believe you misunderstand the tax changes. First off, your kids don't get you any deduction. You only get the $24k. However, you are losing $8.1k of exemptions. So really, it's a hair under $16k now. Basically if you could itemize before and you can't now, you're likely losing deductions. It really wasn't that big of a change ($1,600 in reality) and the amount is going up slower due to inflation than it was before.

Plus you're losing the ability to itemize any form of work related expense. We had to radically restructure what we were doing to avoid being screwed by the new tax law. I do taxes for one of my jobs and the new tax law is a giant middle finger to the middle class. I've explained it that way to several of my clients

Our kids don’t get us an itemized deduction they get us the child tax credit that is doubling from $1k/child to $2k/child. That’s why I wrote “and with our kids added in” because the tax bill is also doubling the child tax credit (and creating a $500 deduction for no child dependents).

Our mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax and charity donations are already less than the $12.7k standard deductions how am I losing anything when the standard deduction goes up to $24k?

The avg income is $45k how is a “middle class” family affording over $24k annually in mortgage interest, state taxes, charitable donations and work expenses? I guess my family is farther from being middle class than I thought.

So Cohen's office home and hotel room were raided and documents seized (iirc) and they got documents related to the Stormy Daniels case among other things, don''t think they've fully released what was grabbed yet obviously.

 Wolfblade wrote:
So Cohen's office home and hotel room were raided and documents seized (iirc) and they got documents related to the Stormy Daniels case among other things, don''t think they've fully released what was grabbed yet obviously.

So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?

Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?

EDIT: well to be honest...the crimes Cohen is reportedly being investigated for are bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He provided the probable cause for that out of his own damn mouth in public...such that, he wouldn't shut up.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And sometimes, jobs just go away and never come back.

Is it the government's job to make sure you always got your union job available to you?

It is if enough voters say it is.

THE EBIL SOCIALIZIM!!!!!!!111!!1!1!1! Let the invisible hand of the free market fix everything! Government interference with business is always wrong!

See how stupid that sounds? It sounds just as dumb when it's said in support of conservative policies too.

Regardless of the side I'm pretty sure the thread is better off with posts like this. This is the kind of thing that got the last one closed. I understand these things can be infuriating and I've certainly made my own toxic comments in the past, but something like this just undermines any legitimacy to the argument you are trying to make.

 whembly wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
So Cohen's office home and hotel room were raided and documents seized (iirc) and they got documents related to the Stormy Daniels case among other things, don''t think they've fully released what was grabbed yet obviously.

So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?

Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?

I'm not sure of the exact details of the search warrants obviously, but I'd like to point out you're pulling the ol' "whataboutism" tactic, and that clinton has been investigated more than a few times.

(and while we're on the subject of emails, the Trumps were caught doing the exact same thing, and yet I don't see any outrage over that from you)

 Wolfblade wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
So Cohen's office home and hotel room were raided and documents seized (iirc) and they got documents related to the Stormy Daniels case among other things, don''t think they've fully released what was grabbed yet obviously.

So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?

Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?

I'm not sure of the exact details of the search warrants obviously, but I'd like to point out you're pulling the ol' "whataboutism" tactic, and that clinton has been investigated more than a few times.

Well... if you think they were all above board, then nothing I can say would convince you.

(and while we're on the subject of emails, the Trumps were caught doing the exact same thing, and yet I don't see any outrage over that from you)

THROW THE BOOK AT 'EM!

Seriously, I'd yammer at that had US Poltics forum weren't Lord Voldemort'ed at the time.

 whembly wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
So Cohen's office home and hotel room were raided and documents seized (iirc) and they got documents related to the Stormy Daniels case among other things, don''t think they've fully released what was grabbed yet obviously.

So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?

Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?

I'm not sure of the exact details of the search warrants obviously, but I'd like to point out you're pulling the ol' "whataboutism" tactic, and that clinton has been investigated more than a few times.

Well... if you think they were all above board, then nothing I can say would convince you.

(and while we're on the subject of emails, the Trumps were caught doing the exact same thing, and yet I don't see any outrage over that from you)

THROW THE BOOK AT 'EM!

Seriously, I'd yammer at that had US Poltics forum weren't Lord Voldemort'ed at the time.

I'm no fan of Clinton, I do doubt that EVERYTHING was totally above board 100% of the time, if after something like 19 investigations (not sure where I heard that, so take it with a grain of salt I guess), and they haven't found anything I seriously doubt any number of raids would find anything.

 whembly wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
So Cohen's office home and hotel room were raided and documents seized (iirc) and they got documents related to the Stormy Daniels case among other things, don''t think they've fully released what was grabbed yet obviously.

So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?

Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?

EDIT: well to be honest...the crimes Cohen is reportedly being investigated for are bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He provided the probable cause for that out of his own damn mouth in public...such that, he wouldn't shut up.

What precedent? The issue with Stormy Daniels is simple, did the money she was paid by Trump/his people come from his campaign funds? If the money came from campaign funds then that was an illegal act. The best way for the .gov to trace the money is to seize the books and correspondence from Trump’s staff and legal team that pertains to Daniels and track the money and decision making process.

I don’t see how Daniels leads to an impeachable offense for Trump unless there’s evidence that Trump knew/directed that campaign funds were used. Being a philanderer isn’t a crime and the Republicans have been embracing and making excuses for “family values” hypocrites in their ranks for as long as I’ve been alive, it’s sad and embarrassing but I’m numb to the outrage of it.

If there was a similar possible crime hanging over HRC or TCF I’d want it investigated too but I can’t think of one at the moment.

Well, it's an attach on the country as a whole though!

Also, quick "I am not a lawyer" question:

Attorney-client communication is privileged, but that privilege can not be used to hide the commission of a crime if I am thinking the right way. You can "hide" a crime if someone tells their attorney "yes, I did it, now get me off" or something like that. If I send an email like that to my lawyer, it's protected communication and can't be used against me. But I can't email my lawyer and tell him "hey, help me break this law", and then try to hide that information behind attorney-client privilege. So "help me get away with this crime" is okay, but "help me commit this crime" is not, do I have that roughly correct?

I also think that judges are usually VERY touchy about getting even remotely close to any warrant that even remotely has the possibility about violating attorney-client privilege. So if a judge singed off on a warrant to raid an attorneys communication records, I would think that there was a pretty smokey gun somewhere.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
So Cohen's office home and hotel room were raided and documents seized (iirc) and they got documents related to the Stormy Daniels case among other things, don''t think they've fully released what was grabbed yet obviously.

So with this precedent when can we expect the US attorney and FBI raids on Perkins Coie or the law firms handling the highly suspect (RICO and/or Logan Act anyone?) matters of the Clinton Foundation?

Shall I hold my breath? ...or is it some animals are more equal than others?

EDIT: well to be honest...the crimes Cohen is reportedly being investigated for are bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He provided the probable cause for that out of his own damn mouth in public...such that, he wouldn't shut up.

What precedent? The issue with Stormy Daniels is simple, did the money she was paid by Trump/his people come from his campaign funds? If the money came from campaign funds then that was an illegal act. The best way for the .gov to trace the money is to seize the books and correspondence from Trump’s staff and legal team that pertains to Daniels and track the money and decision making process.

I don’t see how Daniels leads to an impeachable offense for Trump unless there’s evidence that Trump knew/directed that campaign funds were used. Being a philanderer isn’t a crime and the Republicans have been embracing and making excuses for “family values” hypocrites in their ranks for as long as I’ve been alive, it’s sad and embarrassing but I’m numb to the outrage of it.

If there was a similar possible crime hanging over HRC or TCF I’d want it investigated too but I can’t think of one at the moment.

The precedent being that the NY FBI office raided a sitting President's personal lawyer over attorney-client privileged documents.

The FBI *had* to get several prior authorizations from Federal Magistrate and either approval from DOJ, or invoked existing regulations. The bar is REALLY high to go after this... meaning, they have something specifically that a judge signed off to do this.

If all this is kosher... Cohen is fethed.

My point is simply this: They better have the goods on Cohen. If they don't... woah momma, buckle your seatbelts.

EDIT: what 'D' said.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


It's a big improvement for me. $24k is a bigger deduction than we ever got from itemizing and with our kids added in we're getting a $30k deduction next year which will be the largest deduction we've ever had. The bulk of our itemized deductions were always mortgage interest and property taxes but those were never close to $24k.

I believe you misunderstand the tax changes. First off, your kids don't get you any deduction. You only get the $24k. However, you are losing $8.1k of exemptions. So really, it's a hair under $16k now. Basically if you could itemize before and you can't now, you're likely losing deductions. It really wasn't that big of a change ($1,600 in reality) and the amount is going up slower due to inflation than it was before.

Plus you're losing the ability to itemize any form of work related expense. We had to radically restructure what we were doing to avoid being screwed by the new tax law. I do taxes for one of my jobs and the new tax law is a giant middle finger to the middle class. I've explained it that way to several of my clients

Our kids don’t get us an itemized deduction they get us the child tax credit that is doubling from $1k/child to $2k/child. That’s why I wrote “and with our kids added in” because the tax bill is also doubling the child tax credit (and creating a $500 deduction for no child dependents).

You do not get ANY deductions for having kids any more. Child tax credit is a credit not a deduction. Completely different animals that do completely different things. (It's better in most cases, but you're still misunderstanding it).

Our mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax and charity donations are already less than the $12.7k standard deductions how am I losing anything when the standard deduction goes up to $24k?

You're actually able to deduct less money from your income. Before you had 12.7k standard deduction plus 16.2k in exemptions for a total of 28.9k in deductions. Now you only get 24k in deductions.

The avg income is $45k how is a “middle class” family affording over $24k annually in mortgage interest, state taxes, charitable donations and work expenses? I guess my family is farther from being middle class than I thought.

You are loosing when before you could deduct anything over $12.7k AND take advantage of exemptions (This year is $4,050 per person in the household). In other words, if your itemized deductions are at least $16k you will be taxed on more income than you were before assuming you are married. If you were single, anything over $8k in itemized deductions and you're taxed on more income.

Granted, there's a lot of moving parts and most people are better off then before, the middle class (People with mortgages and especially non-reimbursed work related expenses) are less well off compared to others or even sometimes worse off than before. Depends on where you live and the taxes there. I know if I had the same exact situation and filed the same exact way next year as I did this year, I would owe more taxes. I've had several clients that were in the same boat.

Add in that the deduction is going up slower than it was before and the new benefits are expiring as part of a deceptive way to 'pay' for the tax cuts. The people complaining about the national debt and the deficit raised spending while cutting revenue. There's an issue there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, it's an attach on the country as a whole though!

Also, quick "I am not a lawyer" question:

Attorney-client communication is privileged, but that privilege can not be used to hide the commission of a crime if I am thinking the right way. You can "hide" a crime if someone tells their attorney "yes, I did it, now get me off" or something like that. If I send an email like that to my lawyer, it's protected communication and can't be used against me. But I can't email my lawyer and tell him "hey, help me break this law", and then try to hide that information behind attorney-client privilege. So "help me get away with this crime" is okay, but "help me commit this crime" is not, do I have that roughly correct?

I also think that judges are usually VERY touchy about getting even remotely close to any warrant that even remotely has the possibility about violating attorney-client privilege. So if a judge singed off on a warrant to raid an attorneys communication records, I would think that there was a pretty smokey gun somewhere.

I believe that a lawyer cannot knowingly allow anyone to lie on the stand. So if you tell the attorney you did the crime, they cannot call you as a witness and have you lie about not doing it.

The attorney general for the Souther District of New York has raided the offices of the president's personal lawyer over a breach of campaign finance laws. The act is entirely seperate to Mueller's investigation of the Russia scandal, but despite this everyone, including the president, has lost their collective gak. The Republican party acted within 5 minutes of the raid's announcement to take down the site which listed Cohen's as deputy chairman of the RNC's finance committee.

Think about how this whole thing would have played out in a political environment with no investigation in to Trump/Russia. It would be legal trouble for one of Trump's bagmen, and a few cycles of negative news.

Then imagine if the Trump/Russia investigated existed, but it had gone nowhere and people inside Washington knew there was nothing to it. People wouldn't even connect the two things. No-one will ever see an FBI raid and panic and say 'oh no what if this has documents that relate back to that false charge being investigated by entirely different people'. So it'd be the same as above, some negative news cycles and nothing more.

But the reaction to this raid has been nothing like that, because despite what a lot of people claim on tv they all know Trump/Russia is real. Because the real thought is 'oh no, this will likely produce evidence in that very real crime that we've been dishonestly claiming isn't real'. So if you go and look at all the people who are freaking out about this and saying Mueller should be fired, what you are looking at is people who know at the bottom of Trump/Russia are some serious crimes and their reaction has been to lobby to end Mueller's investigation before those crimes are uncovered.

Remember that when everything finally comes to the surface. They knew, and they used their places in the media to try and prevent it being revealed.

nobody wrote:
And honestly she hadn’t even tried to market it to those areas either, most of her campaigning was to run up the scoreboard in areas she was already winning.

Yeah, that was one of the weirder complaints I've seen about Clinton's campaign, that she focused on running up big margins in urban areas to offset rural areas. It's a really weird complaint to make against Clinton, because it was the exact same strategy that Obama used successfully.

Granted, the odds of anything passing in the current Congress was already nil.

Pennsylvania is a swing district that includes marginal seats held by both parties. No way in hell either party would stand in the way of special funds going there. Washington is in a logjam, but essential porkbarrel to competitive areas would still get through.

 Frazzled wrote:
Those workers won't be retrained. That's politician nonsense. When older workers lose their jobs, they almost never get something comparable.

 Frazzled wrote:
It is if enough voters say it is.

In the space of two posts Frazzled goes from arguing that retraining programs are politician's nonsense that can't help, to claiming that politicians will save free market jobs if enough voters say they should.

This is pure, shameless nonsense.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
When I've seen the democrats speak of these area's it's always in that same elitist tone with that same constant insult of being nothing of worth except to fly over to the more "progressive and better cities". Insulting them and their way of life and with such a derisive tone (that's constantly been sprinkled throughout this thread as well) that it makes it hard to swallow anything. It doesn't help that many policies from them seem to have failed to account for them as well. When all you hear from this party is constant derision and the only reason they seem to want to help you is out of misplaced pity.. Why would you want to take that?

I agree there are issues with Democratic messaging, and especially with Clinton's. However at the same time that Democrats need to consider working on those issues, a large number of voters need to take a really deep look in to how they make their political decisions. When a chucklewit can stand on a podium bragging that 'the uneducated love me' and that doesn't make people write him off as arrogant, and brag about his great wealth and business success, it becomes clear the issue isn't really about arrogance at all.

It's about feelings of inferiorty. One key thing about Trump is no-one ever listened to him and got the impression they were dumber than him. Clinton would give that impression often. That's what voters reacted against, it wasn't Clinton's arrogance, it was how she made them feel like maybe they personally didn't have all the answers.

The last year or so of purebred stupidity in Washington should maybe cause people to re-consider whether picking the candidate who's intelligence isn't threatening is a sound way to decide one's vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Cling to their Bibles and their guns? Just a whole bunch of deplorables?

And here's more of the delusion. Here's what Obama said,
"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress, uh, when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in, in, Pennsylvania, a lot, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced 'em. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or ... uh, anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So here was a politician saying that because successive administrations from both parties had failed, the voters responded. And people like Frazzled took the conservative misquote, believed that lie entirely, and then bring it up again 8 years later as 'evidence' of Democratic arrogance.

Meanwhile this guy is currently working in Trump's cabinet, but no-one is worried about arrogance or elitism there;

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Hey, anyone want to talk about the war with Syria that Trump is now mulling over?

I think you should probably start a new thread for that TBH. The ban on US politics never applied to international US politics, only domestic US politics; so it would seem keeping them compartmentalized would be good bookkeeping.

Additionally both US politics and Syria tend to general large numbers of posts in bursts as events unfold so you'd see them drowning each other out.

my 2 cents, anyway.

 whembly wrote:
I'm laughing so so much, because it's a freaking trainwreck... Missouri Governor looking more & more like a victim of prosecutorial over reach:
Greitens filing claims ex-lover testified to only seeing phone or camera in 'dream'

You read junk and embarrass yourself repeating it here. She has testified she saw a flash through the blindfold, after which he threatened her. None of that was retracted or thrown in to doubt. The big shocking bit of pretend news you've reposted here is that when asked if she saw the camera after the event, she said she wasn't sure, she thought she had, but it might have been in a dream after the event. That's it.

Of course Greitens' lawyer took that bit out of context to mislead the public, and of course the liars in the conservative media rushed to print stories repeating that crap, and of course you believed it.

 Ouze wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Hey, anyone want to talk about the war with Syria that Trump is now mulling over?

I think you should probably start a new thread for that TBH. The ban on US politics never applied to international US politics, only domestic US politics; so it would seem keeping them compartmentalized would be good bookkeeping.

Additionally both US politics and Syria tend to general large numbers of posts in bursts as events unfold so you'd see them drowning each other out.

my 2 cents, anyway.

Approved. Last thing we need in this thread is the pro-Russian posters locking horns with others in here and adding to the tensions. US pols is touchy enough as js

 whembly wrote:
EDIT: well to be honest...the crimes Cohen is reportedly being investigated for are bank fraud and campaign finance violations. He provided the probable cause for that out of his own damn mouth in public...such that, he wouldn't shut up.

It's good you added this edit. Because Cohen being in clear breach of the law is exactly why this is treated differently.

There are two key things to keep in mind with all matters relating to Trump and his associates;

1) These people have no moral boundaries.
2) They are not smart people.

If you think I'm being dismissive, especially about a lawyer who surely must be a little bit smart, just remember Michael Cohen went to the hassle of getting a Delaware shell company, because Delaware's extremely lax regs means it is a great place to set up shell companies to hide your money movements, but after going through that, Cohen put his own name on the board of directors. He could have used an alias and none of this would have been discovered, but Cohen is an idiot, because all of Trump's people are idiots.

The only time I've been wrong about Trump and his associate's behavior so far is when I assumed they had limits, or would be smart enough to assess the long term risk wouldn't be worth the short term gain. I don't make that mistake anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I don’t see how Daniels leads to an impeachable offense for Trump unless there’s evidence that Trump knew/directed that campaign funds were used. Being a philanderer isn’t a crime and the Republicans have been embracing and making excuses for “family values” hypocrites in their ranks for as long as I’ve been alive, it’s sad and embarrassing but I’m numb to the outrage of it.

Which is why the FBI was given a warrant to raid Cohen's office, to locate any correspondence showing Trump knew. And it might exist. On the one hand, these are some real idiots with almost no idea about covering the tracks of their crimes; "If it's what you say, I love it. Especially later in the summer." On the other hand, Trump isn't one for using email much himself, so at best you'll have a Trump aide talking about Trump approving, or organising payment or something.

But of course, that's not what this freak out is about at all. Because at worst Trump is found guilty of a technical breach of campaign laws. Democrats aren't going to push for impeachment based on something that minor, they'd never get near the necessary votes in the senate, and more than that I think they'd rather run against Trump in 2020 than have him impeached on something so minor.

But this morning there was a huge freak out by Trump & Friends. Remember this raid wasn't even by Mueller, but Trump's first words to the press this morning, unprompted, was an extended rant against Mueller and his investigation. There's a big reason for that - the FBI now has the emails and records of one of Trump's longtime bagmen. Remember the late campaign news about the FBI maybe having some more of Clinton's emails, it didn't turn out to be anything, but it was found not through investigation of Clinton, but the FBI investigation into Wiener's wiener. Once the FBI has a warrant to investigate one crime, then discovery of evidence of any other crime is a big deal.

Then remember Michael Cohen was identified very early on as a key player in the Trump campaigns contacts with Russia. That's what this is about. That's what got and his friends worked up.

I wonder what the end-game for the Mueller investigation is actually going to be.

1.) Impeachment is not going to happen. No matter how badly the GOP gets rocked in the midterms - and that's far from a given since the Dems can always be counted on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - there is no way they are going to get the numbers needed.

2.) Although this is a grey area, I don't think a sitting president can be indicted, criminally.

3.) The most likely outcome, I think, is Mueller is going to be fired. I think some of Trump's inner circle, beyond what has happened already, will be indicted in New York State when there is jurisdiction, which puts them beyond the reach of a pardon.

What do you guys think?

Perhaps Trump won't be impeached, but how many crimes will be linked to how many top GOP members? How much of the party is dirty, and how much sunshine can they survive? Perhaps the endgames is to make being an accessory to corruption seem like a losing strategy.

I don't think it's going to reach into the larger GOP at all. Those guys all kind of hate Trump and wanted Jeb! instead, and then there was a frantic anyone-but-Trump push when Jeb! flamed out.

 Ouze wrote:
I wonder what the end-game for the Mueller investigation is actually going to be.

1.) Impeachment is not going to happen. No matter how badly the GOP gets rocked in the midterms - and that's far from a given since the Dems can always be counted on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - there is no way they are going to get the numbers needed.

2.) Although this is a grey area, I don't think a sitting president can be indicted, criminally.

3.) The most likely outcome, I think, is Mueller is going to be fired. I think some of Trump's inner circle, beyond what has happened already, will be indicted in New York State when there is jurisdiction, which puts them beyond the reach of a pardon.

What do you guys think?

I think likely Trump will be presented with the evidence behind the scenes and come down with an illness. If that doesn't happen, I do think that impeachment is a possibility. They will only come out with the evidence if it is overwhelming enough to get even the republicans on board. It really depends on how far down the rabbit hole things really go.

I'm about 70-30 in favor of Mueller not getting fired. There are enough Republican congressmen who are (rightfully) stating that the investigation needs to be allowed to complete that I think Trump would be wary of firing Mueller. Not so much because he thinks its a bad idea but because its always a popularity contest to him. But then, Trump is Trump.

IF he does fire Mueller then gak will hit the fan. Leaving congressional action aside there would be mass protests and riots. Trump property would probably be targeted and the whole thing will graduate from mere gakshow to gakstorm.

Would Trump give up though. He's pretty much a man that believes in the offense being the best defense. Surprisingly he's been pretty quiet on this topic.

If anyone is wondering how big of a deal today's raid was, here's how Tucker Carlson chose to cover it on his show tonight.


And yes, that is real. You can tell the really big stories when FOX News goes from making up lies claiming actually Hillary Clinton did it, to instead just pretending it isn't happening.

 Ouze wrote:
I wonder what the end-game for the Mueller investigation is actually going to be.

1.) Impeachment is not going to happen. No matter how badly the GOP gets rocked in the midterms - and that's far from a given since the Dems can always be counted on to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory - there is no way they are going to get the numbers needed.

2.) Although this is a grey area, I don't think a sitting president can be indicted, criminally.

3.) The most likely outcome, I think, is Mueller is going to be fired. I think some of Trump's inner circle, beyond what has happened already, will be indicted in New York State when there is jurisdiction, which puts them beyond the reach of a pardon.

What do you guys think?

1) a) Impeachment isn't impossible. Much like Nixon, when the news just gets worse and worse every day, there comes a point where congressmen have to accept the president needs to go. But like Nixon, when it reaches that point it will almost certainly be resolved with GOP leaders meeting with Trump and telling him they will impeach if he doesn't resign. I'm not saying that will happen. I don't even think it is more likely than not, because these are very partisan times and a lot of the evidence appears to be flipped witnesses and similar things that sufficiently partisan people can deny. But it is a possibility, if Mueller's case is overwhelming.

1) b) There is also a question on how hard Democrats will push for impeachment. There is no person in the United States that Democrats want to run against in 2020 more than Trump. Republican policy has helped a lot, but Trump is a major reason for the blue wave.

2) I agree indictment won't happen. If they have a case strong enough to charge a sitting president, its not a case they'll waste by risking a loss on an obscure legal matter.

3) I'm less sure of this. Firing Mueller makes Trump's guilt certain in the mind of anyone who isn't a rabid partisan. That would make it political suicide for Republicans in congress to carry on pretending everything is fine. I think this is the balancing act that's kept Mueller's investigation still going so far. I think the best option for Trump & Republicans is to deny, distract and discredit from the sidelines, then when Mueller tables his report Republicans control the release, if they still hold the House. They can stop any really damning findings reaching the public, at least long enough for it to minimise the electoral impact (post 2020).

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
[Guess they're screwed then. Because all of those things you shot down can all potentially work, trying to bring back obselete jobs certainly won't. Which raises the question of if people like you even want things to work out or would rather make excuses for people mooching off welfare.

"People like you" The insulting and condescending tone is not really needed at all. Also "Mooching off welfare" comes back to my thoughts on people looking down on such people and you've managed to prove my point on that account while ignoring everything else I've said on the matter.

I want things to work! Why would I want people to suffer in area's that are increasingly becoming problems for the people to live in it. To think that I'm making excuses for people while pointing out the issues with such programs because nobody really seems to give a damn about the people that live in them.

It's more that you complained about a situation, people offered solutions, and you shot them down. It reads as a simple refusal to help oneself so you can see why that generates a negative attitude. Doubly so when these are the same people bemoaning how lazy my generation (millenials) is. So yeah, I do resent the attitude you are expressing. 'Treat others the way you want to be treated' cuts both ways; I am returning the lack of sympathy that these people are demonstrating they want to be treated with.

That said you are right I shouldn't have said 'people like you' and phrased it as 'people with your opinion' instead.

Shot them down? I mentioned how they worked and how they didn't work. You can clearly say "Do this and that for instant success!" but reality tends to have an effect when things are put into actual practice. Bemoaning that I simply "complained" when it seems like you skimmed over what I said as I clearly was discussing what happened with each and why not all of them are directly feasible without full help, and given what you are saying here it sounds more like you are using me as a target for people you clearly dislike rather then actually arguing with me in good faith.

And returning the lack of sympathy to me who has not expressed any such views.. Well, good luck with that then.

You are making a dishonest argument based off misrepresenting the discussion.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Right then! Having lived in one of those towns for a while I can certainly mention the issues with such.

A different job: Many jobs in those sorts of towns tend to end up being service level jobs either working in a gas station, Walmart sort of supercenter or local variety, or a variety of other local area's that are trying to get by either as a craftsman. The issue with the last bit is that in many such towns there's already major competition with those that are already established and many times there's not much point in going further out with it.

Different skill: Same as the first, you can get all you want but most of the time you'll be getting low level jobs regardless of how good a degree and education you may have. If you are lucky you may be able to get an apprenticeship at a local shop for something major but in most cases you'll be out of luck

Moving: You already live in an area where you are struggling to make funds meet.. The issue is now you have to make money and somehow achieve enough to exit out and still have funds to move along with money to buy/rent in another city and have enough that you can potentially find a job in an area before your fund runs out and you end up on the streets.

At it's core many of these towns practically rely on people helping each other because there's really not much else. There's no people coming in and there's no jobs coming in to help refresh the population but you don't tend to have the money to be able to relocate either. So you're stuck in said dead end area just hoping that something will come along. You can say "Get a job elsewhere" but the reality is there's many barriers to achieving such.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think it's going to reach into the larger GOP at all. Those guys all kind of hate Trump and wanted Jeb! instead, and then there was a frantic anyone-but-Trump push when Jeb! flamed out.

Nunes has actively covered for Trump through manipulating the House Intel committee. Ryan has received multiple, substantiated complaints of Nunes behaviour, and done nothing. During the campaign McConnell, along with other party leaders, received an intel briefing during the election about the investigation in to Trump - McConnell responded by saying if any of it was made public he would make the whole thing a partisan issue.

And of course, Pence has spent this whole time claiming he didn't know about what was that happening, but it's already been proven he lied about at least a few instances, and of course he was the guy that Manafort hand picked for the VP position. That might have been just an astute piece of politics (he really helped bring in the evangelicals), but at this point who knows.

Now, if nothing really damning about Trump is ever found, then probably none of the above matters. But consider how those will look in an environment where it is proven that Trump worked with Russia, or something similar. Not saying it will happen, but a lot of stuff that's happened that's looks suss will look absolutely appalling in an environment where Trump is known and proven to be clearly guilty.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think it's going to reach into the larger GOP at all. Those guys all kind of hate Trump and wanted Jeb! instead, and then there was a frantic anyone-but-Trump push when Jeb! flamed out.

This is why IMO impeachment is a possibility. The party wants an R in the white house and will take Trump over a D, but not at the expense of going down with the sinking ship. If the case against Trump gets bad enough his usefulness ends and they'll turn on him to try to salvage their re-election chances.

It's a sad day when "at least they're not Trump" is a valid campaign strategy.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is why IMO impeachment is a possibility. The party wants an R in the white house and will take Trump over a D, but not at the expense of going down with the sinking ship. If the case against Trump gets bad enough his usefulness ends and they'll turn on him to try to salvage their re-election chances.

Giving up Trump may be a way for Republicans to end the investigation and avoid it spreading out and dragging in more and more people on the fringes of whatever it was that happened. Its important to remember how much the party got Trumpified after he won the nomination, and then even more after he won the general. Today's raid wasn't just a raid of Trump's lawyer, it was also a raid of the Deputy Chair of the Republican National Finance Committee.

Then note that the first guy to be sentenced in this investigation was Alex van der Zwaan, he was convicted of lying to the FBI, but he was in that position because he started out doing some professional work for Manafort* which put him in a compromising position. How many people in the greater Republican machine would be similarly compromised by work done with Trump, Manafort, Cohen etc during the 2016 campaign? How many people in Republican inner circles would be comfortable sitting in front of the FBI to answer questions about the timing of Kushner's loan request from Qatar, and US approval of the Saudi blockade?

It could be at some point Republicans decide giving up Trump and is pretty cheap compared risking the investigation becoming a blackhole.

Of course, that's all speculation dependent on what Mueller finds. But it gives another possibility for how Republicans might shift loyalty very quickly.



* Also he's married to the daughter of a Russian oligarch, he wasn't a guy out of nowhere, but still.

 d-usa wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
why coal miners are treated with such reverence, and yet it's socially acceptable to mock fast food workers as losers.

Same kind of cultural reason that we’re supposed to worship a guy who drove an army truck in Germany for 3 years but it’s ok to gak all over educators that are bringing up our kids and actually affecting the future of our country.

Great solution to that, EVERY public sector employee makes $40,000-50,000 a year. No exceptions. Teachers. DMV workers. The President and every member of Congress. All across the board. OR drop all their pay to the level of teachers.

Are you aware that the median salary required to own a home in the San Francisco bay area is $170,000 a year?

Well, clearly the Nuclear Physicist, Cardiac Surgeon, Accountant, and the Janitor can all house together to pool their $40,000-50,000 in order to make rent.

And how many of those occupations are public sector? I realize that you feel this overwhelming urge to twist Rule #1 into a pretzel while shilling your beliefs, but I at least thought you had some reading comprehension skills.


Now, take those skills and look up some of the ridiculous government employee salaries. You know, the ones paid for by the same taxes as the teachers? Well, maybe not federal money. Fair point. Federalize the teachers' jobs. Make them federal employees.


The point I was trying to make, that I really should have written an in depth book to explain the subtleties of, is that we seem to have no problem with our legislators making 6-7 figures a year while our teachers barely exceed minimum wage. We don't need to increase government spending to increase teachers' salaries, pay the government employees that make 6-7 figures a year less.

Nuclear Physicist, Cardiac Surgeon, Accountant and Janitor are all government jobs. Those people could all be employed in the public sector somewhere. Cutting one persons wage to pay another makes no sense at all, unless you can point to a government employee that makes way beyond the market rate? Making every government employee pay the same makes no sense at all, unless you are a communist country (and no, I'm not making one of those hyperbolic communist references, it is literally the only place that has flat wages, and even then they end up very quickly having to incentivise).

If you have flat wages you end up having some jobs impossible to fill. How many medical officers will be willing to work for the department of veteran affairs for $40000?