Electoral College Votes Today

The Electoral College is poised to pick Donald Trump today.

Buckle up and hold on tight, it will be a rough ride for the next four years, if he doesn't get impeached or quit before then.

#GrabYourWallet. Don't shop at stores that sell Donald or Ivanka Trump products. Don't stay at Trump Hotels or Resorts. In other words, #BoycottTrump.

< UnPresident Sunday | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Does Poland... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 01:17:39 PM EST
    give us a glimpse of life under Trump?

    Ugh! I would say except for the lowering of the (none / 0) (#2)
    by vml68 on Mon Dec 19, 2016 at 03:23:26 PM EST
    retirement age, we most definitely seem to be headed in that direction.

    its so refreshing to hear (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 09:36:25 AM EST
    the gym guys tell me the recent uptick in the stock market is due to Trump being elected.  Such wonderful friends that I only have to see three times a week for one hour.  I learn so much from them, like what to not think.

    Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 11:28:34 AM EST
    has backed out of performing at the Trump inaugural.


    The Italian tenor had reportedly been courted by Trump in person last week after a performance at Madison Square Garden in New York, and was said to be pondering the offer.
    Trump is known to be a huge fan of the blind singer, and has previously booked Bocelli to perform at a private party at his club in Florida.
    However, under pressure from a backlash by his fans on social media, Bocelli has now stepped back from the proposed performance.

    Paging Mr. Nugent.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 01:49:12 PM EST
    Mr. Ted Nugent...Trump needs a performer for the inaugural.  

    Or maybe he can cajole his new buddy Kanye, but I don't think the base would like that too much.


    Maybe if they could get Kanye to tap dance (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    and play the banjo.

    That would just confuse folks... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    "Look Honey, The Donald snagged Al Jolson!"

    Pretty sure he won't be able to snatch up P&ssy Riot.  


    Ted Nugent would be totally awesome! (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    In fact, one particular song of Nugent would be absolutely fitting and proper as the theme for Trump's inaugural.

    I would have suggested... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    the Irish tenors but you know how those no good drunken  Micks like to come over on a visa and never leave...Build That Sea Wall!

    Who needs Andrea Bocelli (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peter G on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 09:04:50 AM EST
    when you can get the Rockettes?

    Rockette Phoebe Pearl posted her disdain for both the decision and Trump himself on Instagram today:

    "I usually don't use social media to make a political stand but I feel overwhelmed with emotion. Finding out that it's been decided for us that Rockettes will be performing at the Presidential Inaugural makes me feel embarrassed and disappointed. The women I work with are intelligent and are full of love and the decision of performing for a man who stands for everything we're against is appalling. I am speaking just for myself but please understand that after we heard this news, we've been performing with tears in our eyes and heavy hearts #notmypresident"

    This afternoon, Madison Square Garden Co., which produces the Rockettes, released a public statement which specifically notes that no Rockette will be compelled to perform at Trump's inaugural against her will.

    That clarification from the Rockettes' employer came after the American Guild of Variety Artists, their union, had summarily dismissed any talk of a possible Rockette boycott of Trump's inaugural as "invalid," in an email which bluntly informed the ladies that all full-time dancers are contractually obligated to perform at their employer's directive:

    "This has nothing to do with anyone's political leanings (including AGVA's), it has to do with your best performance for your employer, period. ... It is a job, and all of you should consider it an honor, no matter who is being sworn in. [...] If you are not full time, you do not have to sign up to do this work. If you are full time, you are obligated. Doing the best performance to reflect an American Institution which has been here for over 90 years is your job. I hope this pulls into focus the bottom line on this work." (Emphasis is the AGVA's.)



    From the "Can't Make This Sh*t Up" file: (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:21:19 PM EST
    "That's a beautiful old growth tree up there. Naturally, his people stole it from a public park."

    Simply Digby at Hullabaloo.

    That reminds me ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:35:28 PM EST
    of when the owner of the Washington Redskins, Daniel Snyder, cut down 130 federally protected trees because they ruined the view from his mansion.

    Fox Business News Channel (none / 0) (#5)
    by fishcamp on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    has the best large readout of the stock market, so I check in now and then, because it's easy to read.  Today the bottom runner keeps repeating this is the ninth time the market has gone up since Trump was elected.  I mention to my Republican 'friends' that the same thing would probably have happened had Hillary been elected.  They show their ignorance of both politics and the stock market by telling me 'oh no, not in a million years'.  They deserve Trump.  I tell them to wait until they have no medical insurance and social security to speak to me again.  It's impossible to reason with them.

    They are going to get (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    some tough love and that's the only thing that is going to snap them out of it so to speak. Yes, the ability to reason is lost on them so don't waste your time.

    And the people excited about the stock market are Vichy Republicans.


    Most commentators who actively follow (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 02:36:28 PM EST
    the stock market say this is clearly a Trump rally. It's because investors believe corporate taxes will be cut, corporate profits will go up, regulations will be cut, and infrastructure spending will likely be increased. Most of my clients believe the business climate will improve under Trump.

    Because you believe (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    and because of your anecdotal observations.....

    So, does it work the other way too?


    MKS, don't understand your comment/question (none / 0) (#32)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 05:04:58 PM EST
    If you really don't understand my point, then it is pointless to discuss it with you.

    Okay, if you wrote better, (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 05:55:06 PM EST
    everyone would understand.

    The rat-a-tat of (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:11:26 PM EST
    GOP talking points on the economy by you tells me it is not worth the effort.

    If you read the business news (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 11:16:31 PM EST
    you would understand that today's stock prices are priced based on what the market thinks will happen in the future.

    As Trevor said, Trump's economic plan of cutting corporate and personal taxes, reducing regulations and bringing the millions of dollars home will increase profits and spur growth.

    Thus it is the "Trump Bump."


    So (none / 0) (#68)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 07:39:15 AM EST
    after Puckering up for Putin now you are Sucking up to Sachs(Goldman).

    You seem awfully glad that Wall street is doing a happy dance in anticipation of windfall profits(aka corporate welfare).


    Yep yep.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    the stock market is no kind of economic indicator for people who work for a living...it's just gamblers gambling.  

    And the gamblers are betting on the swamp drains being on backorder for at least 2-4 years.


    I noted one time (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 02:55:34 PM EST
    that the difference between Las Vegas and the stock market is that if you are a big loser at the crap table the casino will give you "free" food, booze and a place to stay.

    Your stock broker?? No way.

    And then there's the fact that most people engaged in stock speculating know less about the game than most black jack players know about black jack.


    What rhymes with Obama (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 07:58:37 AM EST
    ... the POTUS under which we've had the highest market growth in decades,  despite those regulations and corporate tax rates.?

    And of course Obama gets credit (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 02:52:02 PM EST
    for the vast increase in the Stock Market since he was elected, right?

    And, do you think Trump can beat Obama's record rate of increase in the Stock Market?

    Do tell.


    MKS, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 04:26:07 PM EST
    I realize that after the big market decline/crash since the big decline at the end of the Bush years, the market has climbed very significantly (during the Obama years). Not as much measuring the Obama climb compared to the Bush peak. What credit are the knowledgeable commentators giving Obama for the market increase? Nothing jumps out at me, so I guess I should do some digging. Maybe you can name some things off the top of your head, to give me a head start.

    Under Obama, the GDP gains and similar economic measurements have been the worst in many decades. Deficits have been the worst ever. Real job growth has been very bad in recent years. Most knowledgeable commentators seem to believe that the economic recovery has been way too slow.


    If you are really going to do some digging... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by vml68 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 04:54:41 PM EST
    look at what the stock market does historically from late November through December. Most of the time you are going to get a Santa Claus rally. It is basically end of the quarter "window dressing" for mutual fund/ portfolio managers. The aim is to make their balance sheets look good. Towards the end of the year you will start to see some selling when they want to book their capital losses for the year. Then you start seeing the "January Effect". Another time of the year that historically sees market gains.

    The time to judge Tr*mp's effect on the stock market is after he has been president for a few years not before he has even been elected.


    Vml, there has absolutely been a Trump (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    rally going on. That is really not disputable, in my view. Or, do you disagree? If so, feel free to provide some detail. The rally may be temporary. Yes, I agree that Trump will have to be judged over time. However, the immediate question was whether there has been a Trump rally since the election. Yes, I know the stuff you mention. I have been active in the securities area for over 40 years.

    Correlation v. causation (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:12:15 PM EST
    There is a difference.  

    Causation in the case of the Trump rally (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:34:48 PM EST
    Not so much causation in the case of the large stock market rise under Obama. Much of it was just recovery of losses after the market decline/crash later in the Bush last term, plus some other additional increase. In my view.

    Recovery of losses (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:53:24 PM EST
    caused by economic recovery.

    So, yes, Trump gets credit, even before he takes office; and, no, Obama gets no credit for record highs in the Dow Jones, etc.  Just because that is the way you feel.  Unreal.


    Jeez, look on the internet (none / 0) (#64)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 11:56:56 PM EST
    Virtually every good business commentator and good market follower is now saying there has been a Trump rally in the market. The market is generally excited at this point for Trump, rightly or wrongly. How can you ignore reality?

    "Virtually every GOOD commentator" (none / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 08:15:40 AM EST
    You mean the ones that take a position you agree with?


    That's bit "reality" - just an opinion you like.


    Feel free to link any articles (none / 0) (#74)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:05:28 AM EST
    written by credible business/market commentators since Dec. 1 or so that outline and argue that there has not been a Trump rally. Would love to see them. Don't bother with articles within a few weeks of the election, as the data and analysis have changed and the view has solidified showing the Trump rally. It has occurred. Of course, it may only be temporary.

    Re-read what I wrote (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:08:48 AM EST
    See if you can tell the difference between what I wrote and what you think I'm saying.

    It's not hard.


    See if you can find any credible articles that (none / 0) (#78)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    support your view. See if you can write more clearly so that your posts are understandable.

    My post was very clear (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    I don't need any articles to support what you think is my view.

    Reading.   Harder for some than for others.


    Since when (none / 0) (#81)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    did stock market rallys get names? It's a fools game to assign correlation to causation in any case.

    Here's a pretty good article from Money (none / 0) (#76)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:23:47 AM EST
    "How to play the Trump stock market rally"

    "In the four weeks since Donald J. Trump was elected president, many stocks have soared and the market's winners have been clustered around a specific theme: an inflating economy.

    "Investors have concluded that at least in the short run, many of Mr. Trump's policies, including increased spending on infrastructure projects, could lead to faster economic growth than was expected.

    "If you have big tax cuts and more infrastructure and defense spending, that adds to demand, which is likely to spell inflation," said David Kelly, chief global strategist for J.P. Morgan Funds.

    "That is partly why shares of big banks like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase and blue-chip industrial companies like Caterpillar and General Dynamics have surged since election night."

    Money article.


    Oops, meant to say "Your Money" article (none / 0) (#79)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    in NY Times.

    This is the largest post-election Dow Jones (none / 0) (#83)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    rally ever, in this time period. Articles all say it is based on the anticipation of more growth in the economy. Dow Jones is the the perfect measurement stick, but it's what many use.

    Does Everybody On Wall Street (none / 0) (#88)
    by RickyJim on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 12:40:42 PM EST
    believe that Congress will approve do deficit infrastructure spending just because a Republican President is asking for the appropriations?    

    Look (none / 0) (#95)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:21:52 PM EST
    Specifically as to what sectors are being influenced.
    energy, financials are skyrocketing in anticipation of relaxed regulations.

    Health sector, a lot of uncertainty in that sector.


    You should tell somebody ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    ... who cares.

    You should just admit that the Trump rally (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:37:31 AM EST
    exists. Why is it so hard for you to accept reality? It's just a narrow point. It exists. No one, or certainly not me, is saying that it is particularly meaningful.

    You should just read slower (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:53:50 AM EST
    Guess I'll have to spell it or for you.   I never said it didn't exist.  But feel free to continue to post about things that aren't "particularly meaningful", ...

    ... and claims I'm not making.   I'll feel free to correct you.


    Okay, then can you just state that you agree (none / 0) (#89)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    that there has been a Trump rally in the stock market? Then, we can move on.

    Okay, so you've learned to read (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    Now you can learn that you don't have the power to speak for others or make them say what you want.  Then we can move on.

    Or, continue to believe otherwise,  and I'll continue to point and laugh.


    You didn't admit that you agreed that there (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:28:05 PM EST
    was a Trump rally. You are the one who needs to learn to write--assume most can't understand what you were saying. Talking in circles. And your manners on TL can be pretty bad. Let's have some business discussions. Would love to see what you have to say.

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 08:07:18 PM EST
    I'm not interested in discussions with Obama-hating, concern trolls who push wingnut CTs and negative memes about actual Democrats.  Work on basic reading skills get back to me.  

    The one is for the insullt (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 08:17:03 PM EST
    Your comments, regardless of how you say you voted, consistently take the conservative/GOP side of the question at issue.

    So, why not leave the insults behind?   Your condescension is quite apparent, and unjustified imo.  Plenty of people here know about business issues.  Or microeconomic issues.  

    Your business experience is something you just have a need to tell us about.  But, really, none here are going to grant you expert status, and your business experience is more likely than not observations about individual markets and not a macro-economic view.  Keynes still rules there, anyway.

    So, you sound very trollish to me.  Is there not a conservative site more interested in your insights than this Leftist site?


    Well, Trump is apparently (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:13:27 PM EST
    proposing tariffs.   What does your 40 years' experience tell you about that?

    I don't like Trump's views on trade or tariffs (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:26:55 PM EST
    or globalization, or his false hopes of bringing manufacturing jobs home. I'm not a Trump supporter. Was Hillary all the way. Thought Bill was a good or very good president. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been a pretty good Trump rally.

    If (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    Irony were not dead, she would appreciate this, Goldman Sachs accounts for 24% of Dow's spectacular Trump rally.

    So anticipation (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:56:09 PM EST
    by the market of Trump would include Trump's tariffs, no?

    Perhaps, the Stock Market is reacting to factors other than Trump.

    But in your Orwellian world, Trump gets credit for all good things, and Obama gets no credit for the good things.

    Since we are just stating opinions here, in mine, Obama' statute will only increase over time.  We will appreciate him more and more over time.


    Obama's "stature" will only increase (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:56:28 AM EST
    Per Market Watch (none / 0) (#52)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 07:03:03 PM EST
    The "Trump rally" that has taken the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.12%   to the brink of 20,000 resumed this week, driven by favorable seasonal factors, a stronger economy, and optimism about pro-business policies the new Trump Administration might adopt.

    But on closer inspection, the rally has been dominated by three sectors--energy, financials, and industrials, each of which has substantially beaten the S&P 500 index SPX, -0.19%  thus far in 2016 and would benefit greatly from tax cuts and regulatory changes under President Donald Trump and a Republican Congress.

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 07:28:27 PM EST
    funny how the plutocrats are so damn happy that the "populist" won.

    I am sure the WWC are thrilled that GS stock price is through the roof.

    You got conned.


    That is the GOP slant (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    And as has been pointed out, although the growth has been slow, it has been steady, and not marked by intervening slowdowns or recessions.  So what good is 5% growth, if you have intervening recessions?

    And, why not just credit Obama for the Stock Market turnaround, rather than search for a commentator?

    And deficits as a metric?  We are now back to 100% Republican control, which means the Dick Cheney rule now applies:  Reagan proved deficits don't matter.  The GOP just uses deficits as a debating point to cut programs for the middle class and the poor:  Not enough money for Medicare or Social Security in the  future, they say, so better to cut now.

    No one will care two figs about the deficit while the GOP is in power.  The truth is the Democrats do much better at reigning in the deficit than the GOP.  


    Nope, not the Repub slant (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:24:26 PM EST
    It is the view of most people in business and of many economists. Obama inherited a horrible economy, but GDP growth has also been very slow year to year and overall. Also very slow in world economies. More people in US below the poverty line. I don't think Obama has done a good enough job, but I also don't blame him for all the low metrics.

    Deficits do matter. Large deficits are not sustainable in the US. Will eventually wreak havoc on the markets and economy, in my view.

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are just spouting an uninformed view based on your politics and not economics?

    No, Dems don't do better at reigning in deficits, but some Repubs don't do a good job either. I think every Obama deficit has been larger (or equal to in one case) the highest annual deficit ever.

    Do you think social security is sustainable without some changes? Trust fund reserves depleted in about 2037. Taxes will then pay about 75% of what's owed. So, let's tax the rich--is that your answer?


    I don't think those are the facts (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by mm on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 07:08:29 PM EST
    In fiscal year 2009, which started almost four months before Obama's presidency began and ended eight months into it, the deficit was 9.8 percent of GDP. The 2014 shortfall is 2.8 percent of GDP -- a decrease of 71 percent. So that's where the claim comes from.

    The situation largely tracks if you use real dollars. Using the same comparison with Congressional Budget Office figures, the deficit fell from $1.4 trillion in the 2009 fiscal year to $486 billion in the 2014 fiscal year --a drop of about 66 percent.

    And the DEBT has expanded and expanded (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 03:01:31 PM EST
    from 10 trillion to 20 plus...and you're proud of that???

    That's like a two packs a day smoker saying he's cut back to one...


    It (none / 0) (#93)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 03:43:06 PM EST
    takes willful ignorance to confuse the debt with the deficit. The explosion in the debt is largely from the "deficit's don't matter" Bush era.

    No one is confusing (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 08:19:33 PM EST
    the two.

    I just thought you were informed enough to know that the debt has doubled while the deficit was going down.

    Evidently I was wrong.

    Like I said. Bragging about that is like a two packs a day smoker boasting about reducing his intake to one.


    Not (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 07:36:40 AM EST
    arguing the numbers, just your understanding the mechanics of it. The debt is a decades long entity spanning many administrations, past and future. On the other hand the deficit is a year by year accounting of paying the bills.

    The best a president can do is eliminate the deficit (Clinton) or at least reduce it (Obama). The worst a president can do is run up the deficit while planting fiscal time bombs for future administrations(Bush).

    The record is clear, Bush inherited a budget surplus and a solid economy and still managed to explode the deficit and run up the debt. Obama inherited those deficits (Bush's budget busting tax cuts and wars) and a cratering economy yet managed to reduce the deficit eventually. In those a conditions a run up in the debt was inevitable, a good part of it was already baked into the cake before he even took office.


    The best barometer (none / 0) (#114)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 07:43:47 AM EST
    Is just to look at how much the debt increased over their presidency. That will cover all annual fluctuations in the deficit

    Sigh (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    Uh, speaking of willful ignorance, you are willfully trying to say things that anyone reading my comment would know that I was saying that the debt grew under Bush from 5 to 10 and under Obama from 10 to over 20 and that it grew because of deficit spending and that cutting the deficit does not stop the debt from growing. It just grows slower.

    Clinton inherited the end of the Cold War and a technology boom that fueled a boom that increased taxes and GDP. But he didn't reduce the budget and by the end of his presidency the NASDAQ, which had driven the economic boom in tech companies, was dropping like a rock. It ran off 50% between Match of 2000 and February of 2001. Folks were talking about 1929 in comparison.

    So Bush inherited a big problem, just as Obama did. It was compounded by 9/11 that spun the country into a recession. He also increased spending; much of it caused by the WOT. But 2007 set a record for revenues that wasn't topped until 2012.

    Obama inherited a nasty situation and the stock market was around 6000 in 2/09. The Feds have given the banks free money for almost 8 years that has given us the almost 20K DJIA yet the U6, the figure that shows real unemployment, is at 9.3% while in 1/08 was 9.2%...so there has been no change in 8 years and the labor force participation rate is in the 70's range. People are unhappy. Family incomes have decreased. People are on edge.

    Trevor notes correctly that the spending is bipartisan. Watching the pigs belly up to the infrastructure spending is instructive.

    But the President has a telephone and a pen and Obama could have forced Congress's hand anytime he wanted to. He didn't want to.

    The current economy is very fragile. As the Feds increase the interest rate all of the Adjustable Rate Mortgage payments will jump and we'll be moving towards a housing slump. Too much and the much smaller bubble may burst. OPEC is saying they're going to decrease production and increase prices. Increased energy prices in 2008 was the straw that finished off the collapse.

    So Trump's tax and regulation cuts had better show growth.

    The market's are betting with him. Are they right? Stay tuned.


    Funny stuff (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:22:41 PM EST
    Obama increased the debt by 68%.  Your boy GW Bush by 101%.  Your boy Reagan by 186%.



    The amount of increased debt is more important (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Green26 on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    than the percentage increase. Prior presidents were dealing with a smaller denominator, so that increased the percentages. Obama was dealing with a larger denominator. He has almost doubled the US debt figure, i.e. equal to what all prior 43 presidents did. There was almost no inflation during the Obama's years. Plus interest rates on the debt were very low, so interest didn't significantly increase the size of the debt.

    This is what I mean about a lot of dems and liberals not understanding business, jobs or economics.

    I could be wrong, but I don't think the articles on the possible Trump increase in debt approach the amount of the Obama increase. And, of course, Trump's figures are much lower than those large predictions.


    Percentage of GDP (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 07:46:36 PM EST
    does matter.  The bigger the economy, the more debt it can carry.

    But nice of you to carry water for Trump and to continue the GOP trope that liberals just don't have the head for math or business.  Do you realize how patronizing and wrong you are?


    That's nice you think so (none / 0) (#103)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 08:02:31 PM EST
    Also nice you provide am example of "dems and liberals not understanding business,  jobs or economics. "  You're the perfect example.

    BTW - $12 trillion dollars under Trump's plan,  and that's with Trump not being handed an economy in free fall, as Obama was.



    I got a funny feeling (none / 0) (#109)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 09:19:42 PM EST
    That The Donald will set markers for a HUUUUGE Deficit.
    Infrastructure, military spending.
    Unless Congress reins in his spending dreams, or the economy gets a dose of steroids, the deficit and debt will skyrocket

    Of (none / 0) (#111)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 06:26:23 AM EST
    course, there is one simple rule regarding the deficit, if a Republican is in charge they don't matter. Thanks for your honesty, or did you just get your programming updated early?

    Who said it doesn't matter? (none / 0) (#112)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 07:11:30 AM EST
    But I really have no choice in the matter, do I?

    The little Cuban fella, my preferred choice, was a fiscal conservative.

    I got stuck with The Donald, just like you.

    But I don't consider him a end of times precursor either, I like most of his Cabinet picks


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 08:22:35 PM EST
    Numbers don't lie but liars figure.

    Say it anyway you like it.

    Bush increased it by $5 trillion.

    Obama has increased it by $10 trillion.

    Would you rather owe $10 trillion or $20 trillion?


    Hmmmmm.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    So you're saying you "figure".


    No, I do not "spout" (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    an uninformed view.

    Yes, raise taxes to support Social Security.  And, in fact, with historical rates of immigration, no need to raise taxes at all.

    I favored the "donut hole" approach, raising the cap on wages taxes for FICA at a certain higher income--perhaps 250k, but not lifting the cap across the board.

    You say you voted for Hillary but you don't seem to support many of her or traditionally Democratic policies.  It appears you say that as some type of talisman to ward off criticism.  I am skeptical.


    Don't think that increased taxes are going (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:41:58 PM EST
    to be the bulk of what will be done to stabilize social security. Do you?

    I am an independent. My two biggest issues are jobs/economy/growth and national security. I don't agree with Dems on lots of their issues, except for many social ones. I don't agree with the Repubs on most of their issues, but believe Repubs are way better on jobs/economy than Dems in recent times. Hillary was pretty much fine for me on national security. Never liked Obama's cautious approach. Don't agree with Trump on much so far, and think he's a dreadfully awful person, but can see why many business people think Trump will be good for the economy and business.

    Don't think many of the posters on this site know much about business.


    Green26: "Don't think many of the posters on this site know much about business."

    Speaking for myself only, I co-founded, co-own and co-run my own business consulting firm with my partner, who's also a Democrat, and we're doing pretty good for ourselves. In fact, I'd estimate that about half our clients are Republican or GOP-leaning. Your TL host Jeralyn is also the longtime owner of a widely renowned and very successful law practice.

    Have YOU ever successfully run your own business?


    Yes, I've been a partner in my business (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Green26 on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 11:34:56 PM EST
    for decades and was on the small committee that made all major decisions for the business for years. Have headed a small region of our business in more recent times. Think we have over a thousand employees.

    I stand by the original comment.  You may know something about business. I've certainly never noticed an indication of that, but I will look more closely at your posts.

    Speaking of condescending and insulting, you may want to start looking at your own posts.


    Dont know much about business (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:58:09 PM EST
    That is such a tired taunt leveled by GOP supporters.

    I think we know plenty.  


    Which is my big fear (none / 0) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:39:21 PM EST
    The Donald will spend like a drunken sailor, and most likely equal Obama in deficits.
    And, yes, it is not sustainable.
    SS, Medicaid and Medicare are all going to grab a larger portion of the yearly budget.
    And best yet, as interest rates rise, as they must, the interest expense on our national debt will also grab a greater portion of our annual spending bill.
    Now, it might not be all gloom and doom, if the economy can once more hit 4% GDP growth, the additional revenue might scale back the deficit spending....But...
    Nah, these are politicians, they thrive on spending OPM.  The more , the merrier.

    Get ready (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 07:14:35 PM EST
    Trump is pushing tariffs.

    Plus, the GOP Freedom Caucus has caved and will ask for 50% of the $1 billion Trump infrastructure to be paid for.

    And, with tax cuts, the deficit will become much, much bigger.  And all those Tea Party folks?  They will love it.

    So, I predict Yellen will raise interest rates, and Trump will threaten to abduct her.


    Yellen (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 07:29:48 PM EST
    has said there are going to be three substantial interest rate increases next year due to Trump's desire to add 10 trillion to the deficit.

    Haha. I love the "don't know anything about business garbage". I own my own business too. Tax cuts do nothing but give me more money 'cause I won't be hiring anybody unless demand increases. GOP economics are that tax cuts should make me hire somebody to sit around and twiddle their thumbs. There's a reason Hillary won the business economy. She understands the basics of economics unlike Republicans.


    The Fed has been (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    talking about interest rate increases for a year now...Long before anyone thought Trump would win.

    They actually (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:24:16 PM EST
    Held off increases the past 6 months, not wanting to ding the economy before the election, that wouldn't help the incumbent party. Right after the election, presto, rate increase

    Actually (none / 0) (#58)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 09:21:09 PM EST
    That is a good thing

    Plus, the GOP Freedom Caucus has caved and will ask for 50% of the $1 billion Trump infrastructure to be paid for.

    At least getting half paid for. And there is a plan to have private investment also get involved


    They had been at 100% (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 09:58:13 PM EST
    Slip sliding away.....

    Yes (none / 0) (#60)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 10:07:35 PM EST
    That is called compromise and negotiation.
    Otherwise nothing would ever get done in government, unless you plan on governing with only executive actions.

    So, they just discovered (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 10:21:51 PM EST
    the concept, and had no idea about doing so during Obama's administration?

    And the Tea Partiers were all about never compromising.  

    These people are all about principles.....

    GOP does not stand for anything but cultural reaction.


    ObamaCare (none / 0) (#66)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:38:02 AM EST
    Is the mess it is,

    and will get no help from the Republicans

    Because it was done behind closed doors, with NO INPUT whatsoever from any Republican, RINO or otherwise.

    The negotiations conducted were between Democrats and the the insurance industry, those were your partners for ObamaCare.

    Obama never wanted negotiation, he shut it down....John, the election is over. I won.

    And to Cantor I believe, Elections have consequences. I know the lament here and on the Great Orange is that Obama's fault was he tried to negotiate, but he never did. He never negotiated anything in his life, he wanted everything his way. And he backed off when his base screamed when concessions were offered.

    The sign of a real negotiation and compromise, is when liberals and conservatives both are upset with the resulting deal. but that is the only way anything gets done.


    That sure is full (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:59:35 AM EST
    of GOP blame shifting and tired old talking points. The reason Obamacare took a year is because he kept trying to get Republicans on board. However as you are proving it was an effort in futility because Republicans were never going to work with him. Mitch McConnell said it from day one even before one piece of legislation was ever written.

    You guys now own taking away people's insurance since that apparently is what you all plan to do. Let's see end Medicare and Medicaid, SCHIP, and the veteran's administration. The military is now going to get Ryan coupons for their health care.


    Lol (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:25:42 PM EST
    They were locked out of the room. The ONLY negotiation was with Democrats, and the insurance industry.
    Remember good ole Ben Nelson, he got his pound of flesh for his vote

    It has (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:05:41 AM EST
    been shown without a doubt, that Republicans only care about the deficit, when a Democrat is in the oval office, deplorable.

    This is seriously funny (none / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 08:22:07 AM EST
    No, Dems don't do better at reigning in deficits, but some Repubs don't do a good job either.

    Some Repubs?!?  What Republican Presidents HAVE done a "good job"?  

    I'm curious if anyone actually believes any if this "concern" from a "Hillary supporter".  I don't.


    The Trump stock market (none / 0) (#77)
    by fishcamp on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 10:24:24 AM EST
    rally bubble has already burst with the market going down for the last three days.  Not much of a rally.

    Trump bump (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by mm on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 12:07:00 PM EST
    Hit a pothole, maybe invest in fallout shelters

    It has been (none / 0) (#99)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Dec 23, 2016 at 06:27:51 PM EST
    The largest rally ever post election. After 2 months, it sometimes is good to let the market cool off. It cannot rise every single day. And people take profit, sell offs do occur.

    See where it is after a year or two.


    Trevor, you're moving the goalposts. (none / 0) (#115)
    by fishcamp on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 07:45:40 AM EST
    The topic began with the recent Christmas rally, and now you want to talk about two years from now.  Of course the stock market will be different in two years, along with everything else, that is if we even have a stock market after Trump gets his greedy fingers into everything where money is involved.  You will now be on anchor duty if you come fish with me. (-:

    Well the goalposts (none / 0) (#116)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 09:01:13 AM EST
    Are still,

    The biggest post election rally , even with 3 days of quiet.

    I do expect (outside of catastrophic world events) a very bullish stock market over the next 4 years as The Donalds policies are enacted. The energy sector is rising on expectation of less EPA interference, likewise the financial sector as some Dodd Frank provisions are expected to be rolled back. Once policies are in place, the rise should continue.

    US stocks have surged since the Nov. 8 election. The Dow has jumped 9 percent and the S&P 500 has gained 6 percent, with traders betting that President-elect Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress will embark on steep tax cuts and fiscal spending to stimulate the economy.
    "People are taking a pause and they want to see what's going to happen," said Chris Zaccarelli, Chief Investment Officer for Cornerstone Financial Partners. "In his first 100 days in office, it will be interesting to see what legislation they can get through Congress and what regulations they will repeal."

    Wall Street: Dow Jones slips from historic high, post election rally over?
    (Reuters: Shannon Stapleton)
    The Dow Jones Industrial Average moved further away from the historic high of 20,000 points overnight, with analysts suggesting the post-election rally has run its course and worn investors out.

    Hoo Ray (none / 0) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 09:19:17 AM EST
    for Goldman Sachs! Wall street scores again! Getting the old team of massive tax cuts and corporate welfare back together again! Let's get rid of those silly regulations, who needs Dodd-Frank anyway? "Scouts honor, we learned our lesson, we promise not to crash the economy again, by the way can we hold some of that Social Security money for you?".

    That's some kind of populism you are cheering on there.


    I sorely wanted Wall Street reform (none / 0) (#118)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 09:28:44 AM EST
    But Dodd Frank is not the answer

    I WANT to END Too Big To Fail

    Dodd Frank doesn't do that, in fact Dodd Frank hurts the smaller community banks.

    Not all regulation is created equal, smart financial regulation is desired.
    Reviving Glass Steagall would be nice


    I admit (none / 0) (#120)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    that Dodd-Frank was not strong enough, but now you are sounding like Bernie with your too to big fail buzz words, all while cheering the current success of those very same TBF institutions, I don't know how you don't suffer whiplash.

    FYI, DF does address TBF and partially reinstates Glass-Stegal (see Volker Rule). You of course, instead of wishing to strengthen the bill just want to ditch it all foe some unspecified regulation that simultaneously reinstates GS, ends TBF quickly and is no burden whatsoever on the industry, and I ain't buying that it only hurts the little guy BS. Fact: regulations on TBF and GS issues have very little to do with community banks, while there may be some unintended consequences for small banks they probably can be mitigated by improving the legislation.


    Actually (none / 0) (#122)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 11:49:01 AM EST
    Sounding like most Americans. I don't know of many that wat a bank to be too big too fail, ever again.
    And yet , they are bigger than ever. And that was the damn purpose of the bill.
    And yes, community size banks and savings institutions have been hurt by Dodd Frank, they do not have a Compliance unit to handle all of these regulations. Dodd Frank also affects the big boys, but they can easily absorb the cost, the little guys can't.

    http://tinyurl.com/z4zp47r  Harvard Business School working paper

    However, community banks' share of U.S. banking assets and lending markets has fallen from over 40 percent in 1994 to around 20 percent today. Interestingly, we find that community banks emerged from the financial crisis with a market share 6 percent lower, but since the second quarter of 2010 - around the time of the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act - their share of U.S. commercial banking assets has declined at a rate almost double that between the second quarters of 2006 and 2010. Particularly troubling is community banks' declining market share in several key lending markets, their decline in small business lending volume, and the disproportionate losses being realized by particularly small community banks.

    I live in a small town (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    We had two banks. One was swallowed up by Regions, and one was merged into three other area banks.

    And the cost of every service has went up.

    Fancy that.


    Sounds like free enterprise. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Dec 27, 2016 at 09:43:19 PM EST
    So now you are against THAT if it negatively impacts YOU? What a hypocrite!

    Lol (none / 0) (#132)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 28, 2016 at 05:19:17 AM EST
    The new federal regulations make it too expense for the small community banks to survive.

    Not exactly free enterprise.

    Large onerous unnecessary federal over regulation can be absorbed by large business but can be a death knell for the small business.


    How (none / 0) (#133)
    by FlJoe on Wed Dec 28, 2016 at 07:20:33 AM EST
    many small community banks got crushed during the great recession? All caused by the financial sector practicing "free enterprise".

    I don't know (none / 0) (#134)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 28, 2016 at 05:16:35 PM EST
    I do know that Too Big  to Fail Dodd Frank has been successful at putting small banks out of business.

    I thought Dodd Frank was to NEVER AGAIN have us face a too big to fail scenario.

    And it doesn't do that, at all. It does put small banks out of business.

    If Dodd Frank did what they advertsed, I would be for it.

    But , like ObamaCare advertised, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

    How in the world do you expect anyone to believe anything coming out of Washington, from either political party?


    Interference from the EPA? (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 10:48:08 AM EST
    Yes, clear air and water and protecting wildlife habitat is "interfering."   Said like a true Republican.

    No (none / 0) (#121)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    I am all for clean air and water.

    When the EPA starts writing law regarding stock ponds on private property, and emissions emanating from plant life and bovines,

    time to rein them in a little bit


    TrevorBolder: "I am all for clean air and water. When the EPA starts writing law regarding stock ponds on private property, and emissions emanating from plant life and bovines, time to rein them in a little bit"

    But whether we ever actually have it should be entirely voluntary on the part of businesses and corporations, and not mandated by government overreach and overregulation -- right?

    It's clownish ideologues like you who once argued the exact same thing about dams and reservoirs located on private property, that government had no business regulating either, or even conducting safety inspections except upon request -- and who's asking? No, we need to trust people to do the right thing on their own, they said, or let the marketplace of ideas determine the right thing to do.

    And then this happened. By the subsequent calculations of state investigators, the wall of water was estimated to be 70 feet high and 100 yards wide. The casualty count included a bride and groom on their wedding day, a toddler and a pregnant woman.

    Of course, it was then argued that it wasn't the owner's fault. How could it be? After all, it's never the fault of owners and management when things go horribly, catastrophically wrong. Somebody else has to be to blame, like the same state safety inspectors who were time and again over the years refused entry onto private property. Fortunately in this particular case, our judicial system saw it otherwise.

    You're as much an expert on the economics of environmental regulation and public safety, as you are on population demographics and communications law. You show up here armed with nothing but GOP talking points, conservative platitudes and right-wing clichés, and then you just spin away like a child's toy top. In that regard, you're like Tucker Carlson on Fox News. You stick resolutely to script while talking past, around and over people, without ever really knowing what you're talking about.



    That wasn't a stock pond. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 08:05:15 PM EST
    Yes, the GOP is all for (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 12:39:14 PM EST
    clean air and water--except for the regulations that give us that result.  I mean, who can be against clean air and water? (You guys really are when all be told.)   And the EPA helps, or tries to, give us that.

    Stock ponds and other emanations are part of the environment.  Conservatives have resisted almost all forward progress, such as it is, that has been achieved with respect to the environment.


    Just a stock pond (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    ... on private property - heh.  Just ignore the fact that he dammed a tributary of the Black Fork and Green rivers which required a permit,  he ignored multiple warnings, and that water flows downstream into other states.

    Every creek is a tributary (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 02:47:37 PM EST
    of some river.

    This description sounds as though Johnson simply dug a hole and added water. In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA found that in order to create the pond, he constructed a dam on Six Mile Creek, a waterway deemed by the EPA to be a tributary of the Blacks Fork River, which in turn is a tributary of the Green River, which is a "navigable, interstate water of the United States."

    So using the EPA's logic they can regulate every creek...evbemn though the creek itself is not a navigable river and doesn't cross state lines.

    Wanna know why Trump won?

    That is just one of the many reasons.


    No, every creek is not (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 24, 2016 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    ... am interstate waterway subject to federal jurisdiction.  But you're right.   False "facts", exagerrations, hyperbole and poor logic are a YOOOOOGE part of why he won.  But it's nice to know you think someone should be permitted to dam amd poison waterways as long as they do it on their own property.   Sucks for everyone downstream,  buuuuut...

    Hey for a mere million buckaroons... (none / 0) (#8)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    you can buy access to Trump and get to shoot sh!t with the two young Trump ghouls.  Proceeds to go to some unnamed conservation charity (wink, wink).

    This epitomizes the corrosive concept of ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:07:05 PM EST
    ... "pay for play." It's so very wrong on so many levels that I really hope that the media pushes back on this, and pushes hard.

    Well I am a really lousy shot (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    I would not be tempting people if I were them. They might get the Cheney treatment.

    Austrian far right " Freedom Party" (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:30:54 PM EST
    leader, Heinz-Christian Strache signed a cooperation agreement with Russia's (Putin's) ruling party.  Word of the agreement was the latest sign that the Kremlin is forging bonds with political parties across Europe in a coordinated attempt to meddle in their affairs and weaken Western democracies.

    The reactionary right wing Austrian Freedom Party was founded in the 1950s by ex-Nazis.  Herr Strache reported the signing of the agreement with the Kremlin on Monday of this week, along with his announcement that he visited General Michael T. Flynn, the designated national security adviser to the President-elect, at Trump Tower.

    Herr Strache did not reveal what was discussed at the meeting with Flynn and others at Trump Tower.  It may have been as benign as exchanging ideas on new uniforms for Trump's private security guards he plans to take to the White House to "augment" the Secret Service. Sort of a Preatorian guard idea similar to that attempted by Nixon who was --admired by Trump.

    They (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 03:55:30 PM EST
    don't even try to hide it anymore, not that they really ever did.

    Colluding with ex-Nazis and ex-KGB? WTF, it looks like we just vaporized the last 75 years of America's blood, sweat and tears. Deplorable.


    "They don't even try (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by JanaM on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 10:17:42 AM EST
    to hide it anymore . . ."

    Hopefully that will lead to their downfall.


    Yes, Republicans just (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    can't help being Republicans. We can depend on them to over-reach.  However, I am less hopeful on this score with Trump and the Trumpettes.  It seems that even  Republican office holders are bullied, and, of course, Trump supporters and cultists are just revving up and they have no sense of proportion.

    It is really (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:40:17 PM EST
    outrageous.  Austria's Freedom Party was founded by Anton Reinthaller, an early member of the Nazi Party and a member of the SS.  Here is more about Herr Reinthaller and a photo.

    What you say may be true, KD, but (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    that link goes to what sure looks like a classic "fake news" site, written in pseudo-English by someone, somewhere (unknown) who does not speak anything resembling our language. It does not generate any confidence from me.

    Peter G, my (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    first comment regarding Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of Austria's far right wing "Freedom Party" provided a link to "Business Insider," although this story has been widely reported (e.g, WSJ, NYTimes, HuffPo).

     My second, or response,comment related to the founder and provenance of the "Freedom Party," the Nazi, and SS officer, Anton Reinthaller--who served in prison after WWII and started his party in the mid-1950s.

     The link to "Real News-on line," was offered, primarily, to provide a photo of Herr Reinthaller during his halcyon years of the Third Reich. The story and his photo are also  available through other sources.  This may or may not make a difference in your confidence department. But, I offer this as information.   Surely it  will not impact Trevor or Trump supporter's thinking one iota.

    The reported tete-a-tete between Trump's National Security advisor  and Stracke is disturbing and scary.  Strache has offered his good offices as a "neutral and reliable intermediary and partner" between the Trump White House and Russia."  And, while Strache is no doubt inflating his importance, he is using whatever relationship that exits to propel his party unto the international stage.

    The tragic turn in Poland since its take over by a "populist" right wing party has impacted  the news media, state prosecutors, courts, and, now, cracked down on public gatherings.

     Historically, populist leaders claim to represent the "will of the people" (perhaps why Trump freaks out over his massive loss of popular vote and lies about it) and, therefore, believe they are entitled to ride roughshod over any person, institution or law that gets in their way.

    I see dots.  Too early to connect them with confidence, but not too early to keep watch.


    Trump meeting (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    with the Austrian Nazis was reported in the Wall Street Journal.

    Real News (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:36:30 AM EST
    is not a fake news site. As GA, below, notes, this story was reported in the WSJ.  Indeed, it was reported widely, including in the NYTimes.

    Nazi (neo) leader (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:49:14 AM EST
    of far right Austrian Freedom party: NYTimes.

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 22, 2016 at 06:51:40 AM EST
    hard to get a NYTimes link.

    We've officially (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 20, 2016 at 04:31:52 PM EST
    reached Orwell control of the language. Freedom now means slavery.