patrick.net

Thingsthatmakeugohmmm says

0

0

▼
If there was no collusion or obstruction why does tRump have his panties in a bunch over Mueller testifying?

Because for the last couple of years Mueller has been colluding to obstruct the presidency.

Those quotes leave out Mueller's stuttering and mumbling.

Poorly if you consider back firing a bad thing.

There is a reason he won't comment on the source of the investigation today and the dossier. Those 'ongoing matters' are going to bite a lot of lefty fucks in the ass.

good luck with that - no billionaire has ever been successfully prosecuted. "Hope springs eternal"

Onvacation says

Because for the last couple of years Mueller has been colluding to obstruct the presidency.

To earn money for a few law firms while carefully balancing to not offend any side of the investigation would be my guess.

Mueller is obviously tainted. He is a Globalist Blasey Ford political tool. He needs to be fined for every penny of taxpayer money he wasted.

applause?

Maybe he and Mueller can be cell mates. Give 'em each a shank and see who comes out alive.

HEYYOU says

Prime trolling

I never open a heyyou thread until someone comments.

I think I do recall they said something coherent once, but I could be mistaken

Trump doesn't give a shit but the Democrats keep having dog and pony shows hoping that the lie will become reanimated like a corpse.

After 2020 you may expect to see assholes like Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et. al under the hot lights for their mischief in 2016.

The whole testimony was a disaster. Mueller barely knew what planet he was on, and looked bumbling and fumbling.

Mueller only came today in an attempt to reignite the impeachment fires and try to distract from the upcoming FBI/Obama Administration investigation into collusion to interfere with the Election.

He was only good in a couple of movies. Because he played the same rough and rugged dark drifter in them.
The rest of his movies sucked. He wasn't dynamic enough for any role beyond The Hitcher.

His Blind Fury was a rip off of a Japanese series Zatoichi.

OccasionalCortex says

Trump is not in control of the eGOP. As you yourself reinforce when you say, "And I fail to see why R's are not holding Trump's feet to fire - they in theory are the party of fiscal responsibility...but apparently only when D's are in power."

If Trump gets a second term tho, that is when he can strike -- if he choses to do this -- by vetoing budgets left and right.

He is blowing deficit out of water with tax cuts he pushed through, although tax cuts will probably delay recession until after elections. In any case, at some point deficit will become unmanageable, and we will end up in an economic cataclysm.

d6rB says

In any case, at some point deficit will become unmanageable, and we will end up in an economic cataclysm.

No doubt. What can't go on forever won't go on forever.

Robert Mueller doesn't seem fit enough to run a senior citizens bingo event let alone an independent investigation into a president of the United States.

HEYYOU you should take yourself out of that propaganda world that you read every day. You are making yourself go crazy if you just listen to constant stream of left wing bullshit.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

slavery

NO! Selling plebes and their children for organs is much more profitable. WIN-WIN! Fresh organs, increased life spans for Masters of Universe (TM) and a lot of economic activity, with GDP growing fast!

They have re-named the Mueller Report 'The Senile Report'. The Dems couldn't crowbar a new indictment out of that fucker if they promised him a Snickers and new nappies.

He lived a long time for a Replicant.

I dunno, other countries have negative interest rates, so why not us too. If people are willing to buy treasuries and get less back for them at maturity than they initially paid, mathematically the federal debt can continue to increase forever. Of course, realistically the system will implode at a certain point, but with negative interest rates that point may be further than most would guess.

Now they'd just complain they couldn't play anything without a pension and three times as many taxes.

HEYYOU says

FortWayneIndiana says

HEYYOU you should take yourself out of that propaganda world that you read every day. You are making yourself go crazy if you just listen to constant stream of left wing bullshit.

Iraq has WMD!

that won't solve your problem.

Sorry guys, it was boring as shit and I fell asleep.

OccasionalCortex says

No he isn't. Tax cuts do not cause deficits; spending does. ALWAYS.

Does not make sense at all. If we cut taxes to 0 and do not decrease spending at all, is it still problem with spending? Seems to me that it is a balance, and both tax cuts or insufficient collection and bloated spending is a problem.

HeadSet says

Squad Insurrection Problem

Squad Insurrection Situation Increasing Exponentially (SISIE)

OccasionalCortex says

Yup! Because the very concept of 'deficit spending' involves spending money one did not bring in revenues to cover it. Don't take my word for it. I didn't establish that definition. So this isn't about my 'opinion' but established fact. This is why they call it 'deficit spending'.

Then Trump should perhaps start vetoing spending...I think he can line-item veto it. But he does not do it - why? He also sounded support for increased military spending - your link says "One place to start is with rolling back our military spending".

Unfortunately Obama and W both did not implement new aircraft, the B-52 is 50-60 years old, the F-16/F-15/A-10 systems 40 years old. Most of our Naval Vessels are also up there, but there is no way to get around aging airframes of Fighters and Strike Aircraft. Big Bombers, Cargo Aircraft fly mostly straight and level and are overengineered to carry big payloads. But Refurbishing Fighter/Strike aircraft is almost as expensive as building new.

What we need is a new A-10 and a replacement F-16, rather than build out all F-35s. The USAF trying to use F-16s to replace A-10s is simply retarded Anti-CAS bias of the Force.

HonkpilledMaster says

Unfortunately Obama and W both did not implement new aircraft, the B-52 is 50 years old, the F-16/F-15/A-10 systems 40 years old. Most of our Naval Vessels are also up there, but there is no way to get around aging airframes of Fighters and Strike Aircraft. Refurbishing them is almost as expensive as building new.

Something needs to be cut, and military and some "unfunded entitlements" such as Medicaid seem most reasonable.

OccasionalCortex says

It's like you didn't read a damn thing I wrote.

Your whole Hate Trump crap was entirely predicated on this bs notion of deficit spending caused by tax cuts. I blew that away with something called 'factual reality'. Now you do a 180 in the conversational context but try to do it like you were continuing on to support your original point while trying to avoid acknowledging it was total bullshit.

Prob is: I don't play that game, pal. Find some other sucker. What do you take me for, a Libtard?

I don't take you for a libtard, do not worry. But if you say that "spending" is a problem that causes budget deficits, then "spending" needs to be cut - and one way how Trump can do it is by line-item veto. If budget is not brought in order, it WILL detonate, no matter what our semantics are. I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

Great scene in 'Split Second' ...

www.youtube.com/embed/hH69ZrCmgm8

Best psycho-Nazi blue eyes in the Biz.

OccasionalCortex says

All the Feds have to do is reign in the GROWTH of spending relative to the growth of GDP.

Hopefully they will do it - but unfortunately their track record says otherwise.

OccasionalCortex says

Clinton v. City of New York,

Thanks, I was 20 years out of date with my knowledge. However, President can veto spending bills -

Regardless of the final form the appropriations bills take, the last step in enacting program funding consists of the president signing the bills. As with more traditional legislation, the president has the authority to veto appropriations bills, and Congress can then attempt to override the veto. A two-thirds vote is required in both chambers to overturn a veto.
https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/A-Brief-Guide-to-the-Federal-Budget-and-Appropriations-Process.aspx

Donald Trump Thanks Democrats for Robert Mueller Hearings

President Donald Trump mocked Democrats on Wednesday for holding hearings with former special counsel Robert Mueller on the Russia investigation.

“I would like to thank the Democrats for holding this morning’s hearing,” he wrote on Twitter ahead of Mueller’s additional testimony in front of the House Oversight Committee under chairman Adam Schiff on Wednesday afternoon.

“Now, after 3 hours, Robert Mueller has to subject himself to #Shifty Schiff – an Embarrassment to our Country!” Trump continued, referring to the chairman.

SEE: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/24/donald-trump-thanks-democrats-robert-mueller-hearings/

Mueller: "Mueller Report? Whose Mueller? Oh, it's ME!"

Misc says

. If people are willing to buy treasuries and get less back for them at maturity than they initially paid,

Why would anyone want to do that? You might as well buy gold or even bitcoin.

OccasionalCortex says

Learn basic accounting and economics...

Well said!

HEYYOU says

When will they be playing "Highway to Hell"?

@HEYYOU Sorry for saying you never say anything coherent earlier.

Sometimes it seems you are trying to get more ignores than A'fuck. Looks like you are up one more to 28 now.

It is hard to understand this, but I will try. An individual can save money, and I highly recommend individuals do so. However, a society cannot save money. At the societal level all savings schemes are ponzi.

Views on interest rates pertaining to the federal government should also be examined. Over the last 30-40 years the federal deficit and total debt has been increasing, however, interest rate have been declining. Anyone thinking 30 years ago or even 10 years ago, that interest rates would rise based on the federal government spending more than it takes in would have made incredibly poor financial choices.