Donald Trump jumps on anti-tech bandwagon, gets everything wrong Combining his three favorite pastimes – trying to steal the news cycle, getting all his facts wrong, and spreading brain farts on Twitter – Donald Trump went on anti-Amazon tirade on Thursday. While Facebook continues to be hauled over the coals for its loose relationship with the truth, and Google looks down with its hands …
Irony is Trump making claims that others are not paying their fair share of income tax while he uses the excuse that his own taxes are still being audited by the IRS* as the lame reason for not releasing his income taxes.
* For tax evasion. The IRS does not go around auditing folks taxes hoping to find over payments in order to pay the taxpayers back.
Trump's tax avoidance strategies became publicly available during his election, but for some reason most of the press were distracted by some skilled attention seeker. For years, Trump paid hardly any tax (probably about 1%) because he was a real estate professional. Real estate professionals do not have to pay tax, but they have to spend 750 hours per year in the real estate business.
After Trump had campaigned full time for months in the primaries it became that even if he dropped out and spent the rest of the year buying, selling and developing property he would still not qualify for real estate professional tax avoidance. Gradually the story came out. Trump had lost such a huge amount of money in the real estate business that he could offset the losses against tax for years. He was in debt and such a bad risk that only bank that would lend him money was Deutsche Bank.
There are people out there who still think Trump much be a genius because he is so rich. If they catch on before the next election, the next US president will be Elizabeth Holmes.
"He was in debt and such a bad risk that only bank that would lend him money was Deutsche Bank."
It's actually worse than that.
None of the commercial banks want to loan Trump money. He defaults and fights it in court, and lost pretty much all access to the commercial money markets some time ago. Most of Deutsche Bank won't lend to him.
His "business" loans and mortgages are through a private bank, which is indeed now owned by Deutsche. There are some people who are quite upset about that, as there are good reasons why you don't want to be his creditor.
Most of his money has come from other sources since then. Some of which he clearly didn't do enough/any due diligence on. I believe he even quoted Clay Davis of the Wire: "I'm not going to ask someone where their money comes from"
Real estate professionals do not have to pay tax, but they have to spend 750 hours per year in the real estate business.
Real estate professionals most certainly do have to pay taxes, the 750 hour rule is about whether they can deduct paper losses like amortization from their income. This allows reducing their taxes quite a bit over what they would otherwise be, but unless they aren't making much money they will still owe some taxes. Owning real estate would benefit Trump by lowering his taxes, but couldn't account for years of paying nothing. The only way you could do that would be if you had huge losses you were carrying forward, like if you were the worst businessman in the world who managed to go bankrupt owning a casino.
Trump inherited his money from his father, he did not earn it. One can argue that his claim to fame is that he managed to avoid losing all his inherited wealth-- although barely, by ignoring his lawyers and scamming the IRS successfully to avoid bankruptcy. Indeed, that is probably why President Spanky ignores his current tattered legal team...
As for his taxes, he learned from the mistake of Romney disclosing tax returns. All those marginal "expenses" and "businesses"[1] look almighty scurrilous in the light of day.
[1] Romney had several businesses that advantaged his friends and family, consistently losing money, but by being anointed by expensive ex-Federal IRS tax attorneys the IRS just accepted the business deductions. Don't try this at home, Club Fed isn't all THAT attractive. (for those that don't know, Club Fed is the white collar federal penitentiary, mostly free of bubba, but still a pen)
Not only did he inherit his money and get what he called a "small loan" of $1 million (back in 1970 when $1 million was real money!) from his father to start investing on his own, his father also bailed him out to the tune of nearly $100 million in the early 90s when he bankrupted a couple of casinos and would have bankrupted his whole empire (and personally) if it hadn't been for daddy. Not very many people are lucky enough to not only have a father worth hundreds of millions of dollars to bail them out when they get in over our heads because they're a clueless dolt, but have a father willing to bail them out (after demonstrating to him they're a clueless dolt)
Had he had simply invested his inheritance in an index fund and reinvested dividends, his net worth would actually be higher than the $10 billion he claims he's worth! Which makes him a terrible businessman in my book - if you can't beat passive investing you obviously have no clue what the hell you're doing. Why go to all the hassle and stress of running a business if you're making less money than you could make sipping drinks on a yacht 100% invested in the S&P 500 and not even having to pay brokerage fees?
There was an interview with one of Trumps accountants. He said that Frederick Trump's tax records were meticulous. Frederick could prove to the cent exactly how much tax he owed. Donald's were a mess. It would take a determined effort to prove anything one way or the other. Donald did not show any interest during the meeting, but Ivana had many questions.
> The second one is "remove from office"
IMHO that would be an even worse situation. Pence not only thinks that The Rapture is coming soon but will try to ensure that it will - with . Trump is merely a corrupt criminal liar, Pence is insane.
@ Richard P:
That sadly is what scares me more than a braggart of a con man being president. I'm *almost* certain that the reason Trump accepted Pence was him thinking "That guy is batshit crazy religious nutbar, There's no way in hell they'll impeach me if he's my VP"
Worse is that I'm starting to think that the extreme edge of the 'publicans *will* consider impeaching Trump.
Impeachment is the first step. The second one is "remove from office".
Really the second step is the trial (by the Senate, and if the defendant is the POTUS, presided over by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS). If a two-thirds majority of the Senate vote to convict on one or more of the charges listed in the Articles of Impeachment (which come from the House of Representatives), then the defendant is removed from office.
So removal is really a consequence of the trial. You could call it part of the "second step" (since the Constitution doesn't specify the process in terms of "steps"), but mainly that second step is the trial itself.
Note that all the Senate can do is remove the convicted defendant from office and optionally bar him or her from holding Federal office in the future. To actually put Trump or any other former President in prison, there would have to be a regular criminal trial after impeachment, conviction, and removal.
In Trump's case, it's all but certain that Pence would pardon him. Ford pardoned Nixon, and that was political suicide; but an impeached Trump would see a large swathe of his followers digging in their heels and proclaiming his innocence. They would be instant Pence supporters. So we're not likely to see Trump in prison, if he gets impeached.
What if Trump got impeached, convicted, and removed from office, but prosecutors waited for a friendlier President before bringing charges? Pence could still pardon Trump. Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon when no charges had been brought, for every Federal offense he "may have committed".
There's been much discussion of whether Trump could pardon himself. Some legal scholars say no; others say it's unclear. Presumably if he tried it SCOTUS would have to decide.
So, the only way to get Trump in prison, at least on a Federal conviction, would be for someone not sympathetic to him to become the next President (otherwise he'll get preemptively pardoned), and either for him to not try pardoning himself (and what does he have to lose?), or for SCOTUS to rule that he can't.
The same, of course, would apply to some hypothetical other President who might run afoul of the law. I can't see that ever happening, though. Usually they're swell folks who hold themselves to the highest ethical standards.
Irony is Trump making claims that others are not paying their fair share of income tax while he uses the excuse that his own taxes are still being audited by the IRS* as the lame reason for not releasing his income taxes.
It isn't irony, it's hypocrisy. Trump isn't sufficiently self-aware to know this, or he just doesn't care because he knows his target audience will cheer him to the rafters even when he states six contradictory things before breakfast.
The Washington Post used to do real journalism, but in the last decade it has declined significantly. Half or more of any of the stories they publish are sensationalist click bait better suited to a tabloid. They are low on fact, high on inference, don't check their sources, and are more editorials than real journalism in the form of investigative reporting. Still, even at 50% they are better than many other formerly great papers who now have a much lower percentage.
Many Journalists seem to have forgotten what journalism really is - and Kieren McCarthy is no different in that regard. While the rest of his article was based on facts, and correctly trounced on Trump for his errors, his closing statement claiming that Trump is anti Washington Post because of journalism is a fabrication without any supporting facts. It detracts from what would otherwise have been a good article.
However, if you look back at Kieren's articles you will find that fabrications when it comes to stories about the US government are not at all uncommon. Just read his closing paragraphs and then go back to his named sources to see if they support his conclusions. Many times you will find that they don't. Still, he is much better than anything you are going to read on Fox or MSN.
RE Anonymous Coward
You criticize KM on the basis of unspecified past articles without reference to anything we can use to check your own accusations accuracy. I looked through several articles and their references and have thus far failed to find any actual inaccuracies other than those that are clearly opinions with which you may disagree. I charge that you have also forgotten what journalism is and are merely offering more opinions with which we are free to differ. Have a nice day.
Check for the story where he said Amazon and other retailers will have to disclose full shopping histories of their customers to the government on demand, if X legislation goes through. It was based on dubious understanding of the law at best. I wish I could find the article for ya, but I can't.
pretty sad when you can tell who wrote the article just from from the headlines.
really don't care for trump but in end was choice of someone I don't care for or someone I really detest.
and since my state is one of the 2 that awards electoral votes correctlly had to vote fr the egomaniac.
> really don't care for trump but in end was choice of someone I don't care for or someone I really detest.
What you should have asked yourself was "Why do I detest Hillary?". Was it because she used poor judgement running mail servers, which doesn't seem reasonable when compared against "I just grab 'em by the pussy".
Or was it because of a continuing series of lies and distortions created since the 90's, perhaps starting with the, almost believable, Whitewater scandal (only investigated 3 or 4 times, including by people that despised her politically and STILL had to find her not guilty), continuing with ridiculous stories suggesting she had people killed and culminating in (somehow, even more ridiculous) levels of untruth which beggar belief.
Or was it because she tried to enact some modicum of gun-control legislation, resulting in a useful ban on Assault rifles, the ending of which shows a marked increase in homicides.
Or was it that she tries so hard to get Universal Health Care legislation passed and so nearly accomplished it. The children's heath care act that did get passed has been responsible for saving countless lives since it passed.
So, genuinely, please state here the reasons you hate her so much and we will simply judge you on them. If you care to tell us the reasons you also came to find a moronic, misogynist, selfish, lying liar of a non-tax-paying sociopath preferable, then do enlighten us.
I imagine you will get short shrift around here and this is NOT a leftie paradise by any means (as witnessed by my down votes when saying anything 'leftie').
Or was it because she tried to enact some modicum of gun-control legislation, resulting in a useful ban on Assault rifles, the ending of which shows a marked increase in homicides.
Wow, you really don't know what really happened, do you?
"Assault rifles" were ever only used in well under 1% of gun murders (closer to a tenth of that). Bare hands kill far more people in the US each year than "assault weapons," without exception. Even if NO ONE could get "assault weapons" despite the ban (prohibition worked wonders with drugs, right?), and if NONE of the criminals who killed people with them would have done so by other means, the most the murder rate could have declined was way under 1%.
Also, the so-called assault weapon ban (AWB) ended in 2004. Completely. Like it never even happened. The murder rate has continued to drop since then (far more than 1%), even as the number of states that went from never issuing (or practically never issuing) concealed gun licenses to issuing them to anyone without a criminal record skyrocketed. At the start of the AWB (1994), 20 states issued to anyone without a criminal record (a short one-day training course is typically required, but this is but a formality; no one fails it), 17 issued with discretion, meaning that law enforcement gets to choose whether to issue them on an individual basis, and 12 did not issue any permits to anyone.
Now we have thirteen states where no license _at all_ is required to carry concealed guns, up from only one (Vermont) prior to 2004. Twenty-nine more issue them to anyone without a criminal record. The remaining eight issue them with discretion by law enforcement. Zero states of the fifty don't issue them at all now.
While all of that change in carry laws was happening, the US murder rate was in a steep decline. It is now _half_ what it used to be during the peak of the crack epidemic, which was about when the trend of liberalized concealed carry started as well as the now-defunct AWB.
These are facts; if you don't believe any of them, please feel free to look it up. You may not like that this is how things are, but that doesn't change that it is. Downvote if you must, but be aware that you're downvoting verifiable and objectively true statements, and think about what that means...
Perhaps because despite a lifetime of criminal activity, Hillary Clinton has never been brought to the account she richly deserves.
And you show all the hallmarks of the clintonistas. You buy into the myth that her email server is a minor matter, it isn't. She had classified information on it in ways that are strictly illegal, and for lesser exposures of such information multiple people have gone to prison, so why is she exempt ?
Whitewater, you clearly do not understand what happened. Very briefly there was a bank fraud where the owners and directors of a local bank used the bank's money to bail themselves out of a disastrous real estate development (Whitewater Estate) leaving the bank insolvent and ultimately the Fed bailed it out. The convicted fraud conspirators were advised by a lawyer from the Rose Hill Law partnership, and the investigators wanted to charge thgat lawyer in the case as well, but because that person was "famous" (they were FLOTUS at the time) they wanted to be sure so specifically sought the billing records from the firm to unequivocally demonstrate that the lawyer had met with the conspirators to plan the fraud - and client privilege does not extend to criminal conspiracy.
Unfortunately when the investigators subpoena the firm and arrived to collect the records, not only had the firms computers been wiped of the relevant data, but the paper back records had entirely disappeared. At this point the Monica Lewinsky affair erupted and the investigators decided to just charge the original conspirators, who were duly convicted.
Funnily enough, when the statute of limitations for that bank fraud occurred, the law firm's paper billing records turned up - one set in the White House, and one in the apartment of alleged suicide Vince Foster. One surely has to wonder quite how those records just happened to get into the White House. So that lawyer got away with fraud by removing and concealing evidence under subpoena - sound familiar - almost reads like a Clinton MO doesn't it.
And let's not mention that she lied under oath to a federal judge over her emails - she claimed that she had released all relevant emails from her server, yet the FBI recovered hundreds if not thousands of official emails that had been deleted and not released. That's perjury. Email records under subpoena were deleted after thge subpoena was issued - that's obstruction of justice.
And contrary to your assertions, no one unbiased has yet really investigated Clinton or the Clinton Foundation despite the voluminous evidence of considerable potential wrong-doing.
Trump attacks any critics and their owner / advertisers with worse lies and slander he sues others for doing to him. You can't find a more clear blatant hypocrite in office and it only illustrates how little you know when you agree with the man. (not that Trump is wrong 100% of the time but if you don't double check and question him you are an idiot.)
Like any teenager, when you verbally lash out at somebody you try to find some basis in reality to make it hurt more. Trump is fine with outsourcing his highly marked up products and could easily have cut profits to pay Americans while still making a profit. He attacks others using what people want to hear and the little information he has in his senile mind oblivious to contradiction.
Lying Sack of Trump is in continuous need of deflecting attention from himself so facts don't matter. LSoT pretends to be for the ordinary man, not person, while pushing money into the hands of elites. By the way, LSoT supporters are still waiting for all those coal mining jobs to come back. They are terminal optimists.
Same Old Shit, Different Day.
I'm a solid Centrist. I favor minimal taxes, but as high as needed to fully fund government commitments. I also favor parts of the Liberal Agenda, but only if the gains are solid AND we can afford to pay for them.
I consciously try my best to avoid the "Echo Chambers" of the Extreme Right and the Extreme Left. Both make far more errors than valid points.
But the PoTUS Tweet stream is beneath dignity on all levels. A true travesty, no matter which side of the aisle you are on, especially so for me in the middle.
The first and finest service Twitter could do for the USA would be to delete @realDonaldTrump.
Although 'Used Books' from random sellers marketing on the Amazon Marketplace universally arrive in the postal mail box; I've never figured out how to get Amazon themselves to put anything into the mail system.
It's always FedEx, UPS, Puro(much)later. These courier services involve standing beside the front door waiting for them. Otherwise they leave a card and then you need to drive 245 miles to go fetch the package yourself.
If they leave the box on the front step, then somebody steals it. Then you spend the rest of your life trying to make dog poo explode when the package thief steals yet another package.
The whole Delivery-thing is a fiasco.
Lots of times USPS gets used for delivery here. There's no specific way to choose one delivery service or not, except indirectly by changing delivery time.
Presumably Amazon picks whichever bids the cheapest price between UPS versus FedEx versus USPS versus their own delivery service. But also sometimes UPS packages also end up going into USPS for final delivery - apparently it's sometimes cheaper to do this than to send a UPS truck round.
But if you're ordering items that need signature this may restrict you to not-USPS. Or this may depend on where you live -- some locations may always be cheaper via UPS?
Yep then you have smart post. Which starts off FedEx but is delivered by USPS even on sundays.
Surely you jest. The Post Office delivers... anything? I can't get them to deliver a letter on any day of the week (no one in my zip code can), and packages... the best I ever got was a little slip that said I had something waiting in the post office.
"[Amazon uses] our Postal System as their Delivery Boy"
Errr, isn't that how everybody uses it? By paying to use a nationwide delivery service as a nationwide delivery service? He's just got so far beyond any sort of coherent sense that all you can do is wince whenever you're confronted with the latest nonsense. Thw worrying thing is that some people are still thinking that he's making sense, or not caring that he isn't.
Round here Amazon uses UPS for lots of deliveris. Which is a pity because they are completely incompetent. If I use my home address they consistently return items as undeliverable, presumably because the driver doesn't want a long drive down country roads. Even when I use my office address (on the basis that they deliver here at least once a week for business) I've still had drivers phone me to ask where it is. The post office gets it right, every time.
If there was a "don't use UPS" box on Amazon, I'd tick it every single time.
"If they leave the box on the front step, then somebody steals it"
I've never had that problem [nor do I know anyone else who has] but I've seen videos taken of package thieves broadcast on the news, and as such, know that it occasionally happens.
'Robbing the mail' is a federal offense in the USA and carries a stiff penalty (according to an online search, up to 5 years in prison, up to $250k fine). No joke. A serial package thief could theoretically be charged with MULTIPLE felonies and spend the rest of his life in prison. Good riddance.
As for Amazon itself, it *appears* as if they *might* be engaging in either "unfair business practices" (an FTC issue), or even PREDATORY marketing practices (also an FTC issue, and violation of anti-trust laws). I would expect that Trump's concern is that Amazon may be causing retail businesses to go under, such as 'Toys R Us' (very recent).
That being said, Amazon is ALSO involved in the Demo-rat Party with contributions, etc. just like Faecebook (for what it's worth). It may *seem* that Amazon has way too much political clout, and as such, might be a threat to Trump's agenda. THAT much should be acknowledged as well, if you're being honest.
So I think Trump wants to investigate Amazon via the FTC to see if they're engaging in ANY kind of activity that violates federal law, specifically with respect to predatory practices and collection of sales taxes in states where they have a presence, INCLUDING for those "online stores" that use Amazon as a 'store front'.
Personally, I think that stores that adapt [Target, Walmart, etc.] by having an online presence and "pick it up at the store to avoid postage" are doing what needs to be done. So I'm not really concerned about Amazon, UNLESS they're engaging in activities that violate the law.
Back in the day, when "mom and pop" grocery stores were the way people got their food, the supermarkets ended up putting them out of business. In the 1960's we had milk men and independent butcher shops [who still had the best meat]. But most of the groceries came from supermarkets, who had lower prices and better selection. This put the "mom and pop" groceries out of business, except for those that converted themselves into "convenience markets".
Queue up modern times, and Amazon vs "mall shops". That kind of thing.
You seem to be trying to imply that this is surprising.
He's got a beef with Amazon paying low taxes? Using WaPo's losses to offset Amazon's profits?
This from the guy who claimed to pay no taxes? And how exactly was he managing that, if not using losses in one place to offset profits elsewhere?
Or is "being smart" all it takes. I don't remember seeing a box to tick on my tax form labeled "credit for being smart – 100% of what you would otherwise owe." TurboTax doesn't seem to know about that box either.
"This from the guy who claimed to pay no taxes? And how exactly was he managing that, if not using losses in one place to offset profits elsewhere?"
Of course he would use losses in one place to offset profits elsewhere, or more accurately, losses in any place to offset profits in any other place. That is the way it works. His "being smart" comment was not in reference to cheating, but to imply that he wasn't stupid enough to pay taxes that he wasn't required to pay. Listen to the entire debate again. When Clinton accused him of taking advantage of loopholes purposefully placed into the tax code to give the wealthy tax breaks, he admitted to taking advantage of the loopholes, pointing out that everyone in his position did, including Soros and other wealthy Clinton supporters, because that was the law. And of course that a Congress that included Clinton had done nothing to remove those loopholes. It wasn't so much a smart move on his part as a blunder on her part.
I think the man is an ass, but not for using tax loopholes. Those tax laws were in place long before he was, and since he never previously held an office, he certainly cannot be blamed for the skewed US tax law. In fact, I believe that he won the election precisely because he had no previous political experience.
The tone of your article belittles your professionalism as a journalist and supports Trump's arguments that the media is biased against him. This article is living proof of that.
Needlessly adding old details from the election doesn't help either.
I suggest that if the media wants to convey a real message it stops pandering to people's emotions and writes real journalism avoiding incendiary phrases.
I'm no fan of Trump but the way you and most of the rest of the media write about him shows a totally biased approach. If you want to beat him then time to change approach and stop ranting like the man you're criticising.
I have a few US friends... some republican, some democrat.
After the election, the republicans were like "Yay... Trump won.. hooray"
And the democrats were like "well he won, lets see what hes like in office"
Within a month the democrats were like "He's an asshole"
Now, my republican friends are like "Hes an asshole"
And I thinking "Hes really been working for the democrats all along to make sure the republican party never gets into power again.... "
And I thinking "Hes really been working for the democrats all along to make sure the republican party never gets into power again.... "
Sadly he didn't get elected because the Republicans voted for him, it was because the Democrats couldn't find a credible candidate. There's still no sign that the Democrats will find anyone for next time, so Trump may be in again by default. :-(
"Sadly he didn't get elected because the Republicans voted for him, it was because the Democrats couldn't find a credible candidate. There's still no sign that the Democrats will find anyone for next time, so Trump may be in again by default. :-("
By the time his term is up (I hesitate to call it his first term since that implies another), he might just appear to be bat-shit crazy enough to his own party and supporters that Krusty the Klown might seem a credible alternative.
See, here's the difference between Repubs' view of Obama, and Dems' view of Trump:
Reps: Illegitimate president; Kenyan Muslim! He's gonna take our guns! (and, by the way, he's BLACK!)
Dems: WTF? This guy's not smart enough to tie his own shoes. And he seems to have put the office of President up for sale to industry. (Oh, and all his friends seem to have Russian connections)
And, FWIW, I'm a Dem. I immediately accepted him as President. I wasn't happy, but was willing to be proven wrong. That hasn't happened. I wasn't in love with Hillary, but, JFC, she's able to put together a sentence. And she has foreign policy experience. But that's water under the bridge. We're stuck with him. At least, until he shoots off his own...whatever.
And you recognize that the overwhelming majority of Republicans had no issues with Obama as Black, didn't claim he was illegitimate, and probably didn't care if he was Muslim. Whereas the great majority of Democrats seem to believe an equally strange set of untruths about Trump. And you forgot to add, Democrats believe (by the way, he's White and Male).
Most republicans I have contact with disliked Obama for a number of reasons, but unrelated to race or religion. They believed him incompetent (pretty much proven by his record), acted unconstitutionally (which he did, and if it is true, as it seems, that he deliberately allowed the FBI and DOJ to spy on the Trump campaign to aid the Democrats, drastically illegally so), he ran a foolish and misconceived foreign policy (Libya, Syria etc), and seemed set on dividing the country rather than as per his speechifying, unifying it.
And I thinking "Hes really been working for the democrats all along to make sure the republican party never gets into power again.... "
That was my cynical early impression of him, that he wouldn't win or he'd be impeached in short order, but at least he'd burn both parties to the ground. But let's be real. The Republican party was dead by 2010-12, and Hillary sunk the Democrats in 2016.
If the Republicans come back, they're not the same party, they're Trump's party now. Whether they'll be any better than the neocon era Republicans remains to be seen.
Well duh. After 12 solid months of pointing out his many, many mistakes, calling him out on it and being brushed aside or lied to, I say we and the press are perfectly justified in having a bias against him because he is literally incapable of telling the truth.
Most of the time he is barely able to talk about what he is supposed to talk about, and veers off on tangents that are starting to become perpendicular.
Yes, there is a bias against him, and he is the only person responsible for it. Had he started as President by acting like one, speaking responsibly and making decisions based on facts, I'm sure he would have been given a chance. In fact, I'm pretty sure the press was initially totally ready to listen to him as his position required. But Trump thinks of his position as a clown's act for the gallery. He mocked "being Presidential" as if it were ridiculous. And he's the one who started the whole "fake news" thing.
So yeah, now the press is biased. Big surprise, and just one more point in a sea of low points for this orange buffoon who makes a mockery of intelligence, respectability and Democracy in one brain-farting package.
Mueller, for God's sake wrap up your investigation and get this failure of a human being thrown out.
"Mueller, for God's sake wrap up your investigation and get this failure of a human being thrown out"
Not unless he takes VP Pence with him. Trump is so unpredictable that he tends to cancel out anything he does that the hard right want. Pence is apparently more GOP compliant and has a fundamental religion character.
The only way Trump is impeached in the House is if the democrats win control of it this fall. There's no chance of a republican led House bringing an impeachment measure to the floor even if Mueller uncovered a video of Trump on his knees giving Putin a blow job.
Actually removing him from office would be even more difficult since it would require 2/3 vote in the Senate meaning over a dozen republicans would have go along with it, but the Senate doesn't have the hyper-partisan edge the House does so its at least possible if Mueller produced an airtight case. If that happened and Pence became President the democrat majority in the House would act as a check against Pence accomplishing the conservative agenda that Trump is mostly managing to flub thanks to his epic incompetence (and that he doesn't really believe in it)
Not unless he takes VP Pence with him.
It's close, but I think you're right.
Trump's saving grace is that he's largely incompetent. He's done a lot of damage with judicial and cabinet appointments, but on the legislative side most of his fantastically stupid ideas stalled. Yeah, tax cuts went through but those were largely what Congress wanted, not what Trump wanted. And even the judicial appointments were more to do with McConnell than Trump.
Pence, as you rightly stated, is more dangerous. Firstly because he's relatively competent. Competent by Republican standards (i.e., compared to Scott Walker or Bobby Jindal) and fantastically competent when compared to Trump. Not very competent in absolute terms, but enough to achieve a lot of what he wants.
Pence is less easily swayed. Trump has no policy objectives and tends to agree with the last person to talk to him and tell him how much praise he'll get for doing whatever it is that person wants him to do. Pence defers to Trump because Pence is subordinate to Trump; give Pence the helm and he'll have a set course he won't deviate from (straight onto the rocks).
Pence is a talebangelical nutter. His vision for the US is The Handmaid's Tale.
So if Mueller does manage to take down Trump, we have to hope that Pence is tied into the mess so that they both go down at the same time. If Trump goes first, Pence gets to be President long enough to appoint a VP. Sarah Palin, perhaps.
But even if Trump and Pence go together, that then gives us President Ryan. Not the one Tom Clancy wrote about, the Republican who was nevertheless a decent human being, but the Zombie-eyed Granny Starver. The guy who went to university courtesy of social/welfare benefits and who, while at university, dreamed of taking such benefits away from everybody else.
You have to go down many levels in the line of Presidential succession to get to one who is at least partially sane, and there's no way Mueller is going to take out all the insane ones at the same time as Trump and Pence.
So probably the best option we have is that Trump continues in office until the mid-terms, and that his continued arrogance, incompetence and stupidity help the Democrats take control of the House and Senate. Preferably 60+ seats in the Senate so they have full control, including the ability to impeach and indict.
"If Trump goes first, Pence gets to be President long enough to appoint a VP. Sarah Palin, perhaps."
OMFG! For a moment there that sounded like a good idea! Palin, for just a moment there, seemed like the voice of reason!
You have to go down many levels in the line of Presidential succession to get to one who is at least partially sane
Well, Orrin Hatch is President pro tempore, so he's up after Ryan. I'd say he's "partially sane". He'd be a disaster as POTUS, though: he favors the police state (he's a terrorism fearmonger) and badly wants a balanced Federal budget (which is a defensible position, but we certainly can't switch to one at the drop of a hat without massive economic turmoil). On other matters he's rather a mixed bag - anti-gay-marriage but pro-civil-union, pro-religion but applies that to all religions, and so on. Something to annoy everyone, I guess.
Dig down a few more and you come to Jim Mattis, who is a bit of a cipher, since he's ex-military and has not been a political figure for long. On foreign policy, though, he does seem to be a pragmatist interested in improving geopolitical stability. Beyond that, who knows?
But, yeah, not a lot of appealing options in the current line of succession.
But, yeah, not a lot of appealing options in the current line of succession.
Doesn't matter. If (hopefully WHEN) Trump is impeached we will get Pence. He's no prize, and he's definitely a nutjob when it comes to religion, but he's otherwise sane when it comes to more important stuff like foreign policy and won't be licking Putin's balls or prepared to go to war with North Korea if Kim Jung Il says mean things about him.
"he is literally incapable of telling the truth"
your opinion has been noted. Any proof?
I've seen Trump tell the truth quite a bit, such as the successes from his policies with respect to the economy. So, in my opinion, he's QUITE capable of telling the truth. Has he ever LIED? Probably. But from what I can tell, not as President, at least not like Bill Clinton nor Barack Obaka did. Or as a candicate, like Mrs. Clinton.
"It was a video" <-- Ben Ghazi - big fat lie, classic example
I'll just leave this with "just because you proclaim it does not make it true". But you're probably pandering to a perception, like so many do these days, and acting AS IF it is true, to get the "me too" crowd to upvote you. And I expect the 'howler monkey' to downvote me for saying so.
icon, because, facepalm
Bob, the problem with "reading between the lines" as you claim to do, is that what you're reading is of your own invention.
I've seen Trump tell the truth quite a bit, such as the successes from his policies with respect to the economy.
According to most economists, Trump's economic policies, up until the gigantic tax cuts, had negligible effect upon the economy. The economy had been coasting along under Obama policies for a year. This sort of lag is true after any presidential transition, it just went on for longer in Trump's case because of the inability of the party that controls the presidency, the house, the senate and the supremes to actually get anything done.
Has he ever LIED? Probably. But from what I can tell, not as President, at least not like Bill Clinton nor Barack Obaka did. Or as a candicate, like Mrs. Clinton.
Several media source have compiled lists of the lies he's told as a candidate and as a president. They give references, which you can check. You'll probably dismiss those references, but In quite a few cases there are links to video clips of the man himself, so they're not inventing those.
One great example is audio of the man admitting that he made shit up when talking to Trudeau recently.
See The Washington Post's database of Trump lies. The New York Times' database of Trump lies (only goes as far as Dec 14th). Politifact's Trump score card (the "pants on fire" link there leads to much hilarity).. There are others.
Most amusing are when the likes of Trevor Noah, Seth Meyers and even Stephen Colbert expose his lies.
Do you remember candidate Trump criticising Obama for all the golf he played and saying that he (Trump) wouldn't have time to play any golf at all? He's now played more hours of golf as president than Obama did in 8 years.
The problem with reading between the lines is that you're ignoring the lines themselves.
I'll just leave this with "just because you proclaim it does not make it true". But you're probably pandering to a perception, like so many do these days, and acting AS IF it is true
Oh, the projection. Oh, the irony.
such as the successes from his policies with respect to the economy
Which are? The economy was growing, the stock market was rising, and unemployment falling the last 7 years of Obama's term, and continued under Trump. They would have continued under Hillary. The tax cuts will have a brief stimulating effect, but the massive deficits they will create when coupled with the recent spending bill that had plenty of pork for republicans and democrats alike are going to cause us real problems. With reasonable economic growth and very low unemployment, we should not be running deficits of the size we are right now and for the next couple years. When the next recession hits, we are going to be in real trouble - and I'm sure you and Trump will somehow blame it on Obama!
"Which are?"
somehow I think that giving you unrefutable and intuitively obvious facts (such as the lowest unemployment rate in DECADES and more GDP growth than the entire time Obaka was president) won't be enough. You'll continue like in the last post, quoting the talking points for [P]MSNBC and [F,C]NN. 'growing at a snail's pace (2% GDP) isn't "growth" it's barely above stagnation, for one example' Mrs. Clinton wanted to push socialism EVEN FURTHER, disregarding the facts that it's THE SOCIALISM that stagnates the economy.
You can spend an hour watching one episode of 'Hannity' on "the other news" for enough evidence in support of my point. Or you can watch half of the other shows (same idea). Or you can read the articles over on foxnews.com . Or you can listen to Rush Limbaugh. But as long as you only listen to the "toxic fake news media" (aka PMSNBC, FNN, ABS, NBS, CBS, PBS, and web sites like 'motherjones') you won't ever "get it". The distorted facts you present are simply the talking points of Media Matters and other left-wing organizations that support the "anti-Trump" and "never-Trump" agenda. Even if Trump's success were SO blatant [unemployment rate at record lows, particularly for minorities, isn't enough I suppose] and SO obvious that even the most casual observer would have to acknowledge it, PMSNBC and FNN and the 'BS' networks would all be saying the opposite, because they are...
P A N D E R I N G _ T O _ T H E _ P E R C E P T I O N
and that's my point.
What do you mean by "more GDP growth than the entire time Obaka (sic) was in office?"
It is a few tenths of a percentage point higher, but he will need to have 4-5 years at the current GDP growth rate to have more GDP growth than the entire time Obama was in office. I'm sure Fox News tries to slant their reporting to make it sound like the economy has already grown more in an absolute sense under Trump than it did during Obama's entire term, because they know a lot of drooling morons will lap it up, but I graciously assume that's nice you since I figure the average Reg reader is a lot smarter than the average person, let alone the average Fox viewer.
Telling me to listen to Hannity's constant stream of lies as proof for Trump's accomplishments is laughable. He is where Trump gets most of the lies he tells, because low IQ Trump just laps up whatever he sees on TV (so long as it is said by someone who says nice things about him) just like the typical drooling Fox viewer. Fox News used to be the conservative alternative viewpoint to balance the slanted (but not nearly as much as you seem to believe) viewpoint of other media outlets. Since Trump was elected they've gone off the deep end, and are now into the same bag of outright lies and deceit as Rush (who I see you are also stupid enough to think tells the truth) and Breitbart.
You might as well have told me to watch Alex Jones for the truth, for as much good as telling me to watch a moron like Hannity is going to impress me.
"The tone of your article belittles your professionalism as a journalist and supports Trump's arguments that the media is biased against him. This article is living proof of that."
It's not bias if you point out in a news outlet that someone is repeatedly lying. It's called 'reporting'.
@Frenchie: I agree with your point that the overt partisanship of media coverage is unhelpful. But it is certainly not "living proof that the media is biased against him".
In the first place, The Register has never pretended to offer impartial journalism - on any subject. That's not what people come here for.
In the second place, The Register is hardly typical of "the media". It's a cliquey news site for tech professionals with a strong British bias. (Also, I suspect, a "middle-aged" bias and a "male" bias, but those are rather less strong.) Time Magazine it ain't.
Your suggestions to "the media" would be more helpfully addressed to the New York Times, The Atlantic, Washington Post, CNN...
that's right, anyone who disagrees with YOU must be BANNED, right?
nothing like a one-sided argument, especially when your position is WRONG. Shout down that opposition until they're silenced. Then, you *WIN*. *NOT*
icon because it's funny.
[I don't like silencing the opposition. I'd much rather let them say what they want, so that we might all know them for who they are]
Wow, way to fly off the handle and miss there Bob.
I'm not saying Trump should be banned from speaking. I'm saying it would be funny as hell (and probably better for the US) if Trump got booted off Twitter. Maybe that'd give him enough pause to think for a bit. Even better if all the other "social" media do the same at the same time. IMHO a US president shouldn't be using commercial products like Twitter for communication in the first place. And a, shall we say, less patient politician like Trump especially can be a danger to political goodwill because he doesn't filter (or think) what he says on media like Twitter.
I'm not saying the guy is an idiot, but he certainly doesn't have much of a filter between what he thinks and what he says...
@Bob:
For a politician running one the most powerful countries in the world actively interfering in civil wars happening in other continents and having a large influence on the worldwide economic system?? HELL YES!!!!!!!
THE most important thing as leader of a country is to keep those that might in the future come in handy on your side and those that are enemies appeased enough not to do anything stupid. Trump has been alienating pretty much everybody else. With China gaining power in Asia, Russia renewing it's posturing, Europe getting overrun with economic "refugees" and ACTUAL war refugees and in the the tail end of an economic crisis (caused by the US I might ad) that is a VERY bad thing. The US should either go FULL isolationist, pull out off all countries they are operating in and leave the rest of the world to do whatever they want, or he should have some actual foreign policy. It's not he sort of thing that can be done off the cuff. The confusion on what the hell Trump is actually planning to do is having repercussions worldwide and it's NOT a good thing.
This post has been deleted by its author
This story is a typical political attack on Trump for stating the truth about Amazon who has many issues not the least of which is listing merchandise as "IN STOCK" when they in fact do not have the merchandise available to ship to consumers. Then they string the customer along for weeks until the customer finally cancels the order. I have numerous firsthand experiences with Amazon in this regards.
Another wonderful treat when dealing with Amazon is that they use low cost delivery services that are unregulated and IME completely unreliable. As a result they show up at a business before 8:00 am to deliver a package and then do the same day after day after day and return the package as undeliverable because they can't read the hours of operation on the front door.
In regards to Trumps statements on Amazon he is correct they pay little local taxes compared to what local businesses pay. Amazon costs local businesses sales revenue by squeezing manufacturers on price and then selling goods below wholesale prices in many cases. This hurts everyone in the supply channel. Amazon's customer service is laughable. They talk the talk but don't come close to walking the talk. Amazon is actually overwhelming the poorly run U.S. Postal service adding to financial losses and poor customer mail service.
So despite the attacks by the Washington Post and others, Trump is in fact accurate on his statements regarding Amazon. He just hit the highlights. Amazon has serious issues IME.
This story is a typical political attack on Trump for stating the truth about Amazon who has many issues not the least of which is listing merchandise as "IN STOCK" when they in fact do not have the merchandise available to ship to consumers.
Which is nothing to do with what Trump said, but whatever.
Then they string the customer along for weeks until the customer finally cancels the order
In which case they get no money. Your point?
Another wonderful treat when dealing with Amazon is that they use low cost delivery services that are unregulated and IME completely unreliable. As a result they show up at a business before 8:00 am to deliver a package and then do the same day after day after day and return the package as undeliverable because they can't read the hours of operation on the front door.
Another way of cheating themselves out of revenue. If this is a common problem, it's a self-correcting one because Amazon will shortly go bankrupt. What's the problem?
In regards to Trumps statements on Amazon he is correct they pay little local taxes compared to what local businesses pay.
I'll type this slowly so you can understand it:
Whenever someone makes an industry more efficient, that means its expenses go down. And then the taxes it pays on those expenses also go down.
When Henry Ford introduced the $100 car, the tax he paid per car was a lot lower than the tax paid by his rivals who were still charging $1000 per car. This is efficiency, it's a good thing. The alternative is sheer waste. If you want to embrace that - well, that's the mistake Britain made in the 1960s/70s, or the communist bloc for its whole lifetime.
Amazon is actually overwhelming the poorly run U.S. Postal service adding to financial losses and poor customer mail service.
So which is it, should Amazon use the "poorly run" USPS or should it use "low cost delivery services that are unregulated"? You can't have it both ways. If delivery is such an issue for you, then pay for the delivery option you do want. Or, and here's a thought, do your shopping elsewhere.
Amazon is definitely responsible for "putting many thousands of retailers out of business." Ever hear of Toys-R-Us? Many retail employees will tell you that it is normal for potential customers to walk in, look closely at the products available for sale, and then leave without buying. Some have asked about certain colors, so they can be sure that when they buy it online, it will be the color they desire.
And El Reg completely neglected to mention the conditions of Amazon warehouses in the U.S. where there is no AC, but there is an ambulance waiting outside during the summer to transport employees who faint.
Okay, we understand how much El Reg hates Trump. Get over it and do your job.
Right on. These pedants love to pick apart tiny factual errors in Trump's tweets to discredit what he's actually saying. Personally I find it refreshing to have a president who doesn't focus-group and rehearse everything he says.
What he's actually saying is, to make America great again we must stop Amazon from destroying local economies and flooding the market with cheap junk from China (often extra-crappy knockoffs) which by the way are burying us under mountains of toxic garbage (lefty environmentalists, where are you??)
But in America we have free speech. If y'all wanna die of cancer/starvation/genocide/humanicde in a corporo-socialist sh*thole, that's your prerogative.
Re: "Using USPS as its delivery boy" - Amazon made a secret exclusive deal with USPS, a taxpayer-subsidized enterprise, giving Amazon better terms (including Sunday delivery and allegedly below-cost rates) than other USPS customers. Those responsible should be in prison! (And in a non-crazypants world, leftists would be leading the charge.)
To be fair, El Reg is doing its job. Who do you think pays them?
"USPS, a taxpayer-subsidized enterprise"
The USPS is not taxpayer-subsidized -- or at least, it's not in the usual sense of the term. They do get a preferential interest rate when they borrow money from the government, but that's as close to a subsidy as they get. And, in terms of subsidies, it's a tiny one.
Amazon from destroying local economies and flooding the market with cheap junk from China (often extra-crappy knockoffs) which by the way are burying us under mountains of toxic garbage
So, NO amazon 'cause it's bad. American Companies Only -- Goooooo Walmart!
Amazon made a secret exclusive deal with USPS, a taxpayer-subsidized enterprise, giving Amazon better terms
A) Citation:
B) You have a legal system that is *designed* to solve this issue. Use it.
If we are spouting off fevered theories about the death of Toys-R-Us, then I would point out that While salaries have remained stagnant for the past 10 years, inflation has been happening at about 3% per year. So each year your average wage-slave has been getting an annual 3% reduction in effective pay. (Not even counting insurance premiums and losses of benefits)
Toys-R-Us sells non-essential luxury goods (toys, in the common vernacular); historically when resources become scarce, luxuries are the first to go.
Toys-R-Us is/was a very niche market that catered to the baby boomers for their kids. The last 5 years so Toys has been headed downhill. Dirty stores, insolent even insulting staff, and many products that people wanted either weren't in stock or even carried by them.
"Many retail employees will tell you that it is normal for potential customers to walk in, look closely at the products available for sale, and then leave without buying."
Which, on its face, means nothing. I, and most people I know, have been doing that long before you could buy stuff on the internet. It's always been part of the usual shopping pattern.
@ JohnFen
I've done that, but have stopped unless the savings is substantial. I'd rather keep some people employed locally. Actually, I find that I now look for items on Amazon to check the reviews, sometimes helpful, and then see find I can find them at local retailers. As I said above, if the price is near the same vicinity I buy it locally.
"Ever hear of Toys-R-Us"
worth pointing out, 'Toys R Us' could have adapted by having an online presence, combined with marketing that gets people into their stores. A good start: store pickup of online orders, to save money on postage (Target and Walmart do this).
Also in many ways, Target and Walmart are 2 additional reasons why 'Toys R Us' went under. So it's not 100% Amazon's doing, but Amazon was a major factor. In My Bombastic Opinion.
Now, if it can be demonstated that Amazon has been engaging in predatory practices, a lawsuit may result. The creditors in the 'Toys R Us' bankruptcy would be the beneficiaries.
> Amazon is definitely responsible for "putting many thousands of retailers out of business." Ever hear of Toys-R-Us?
Interesting choice of example, since its looking increasingly like the reason Toys-R-Us went under was because of "investors" using it to leverage debt it could never pay for short-term gain. I.e. doing stuff that falls under the cries "let the market regulate itself" whenever any dem... sorry, commie, tries to introduce regulation to try and protect people's livelihood.
Did they have a problem with competition from Amazon? Almost certainly. But I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say that having your "owners" generate you debt to fund their other investments isn't a good survival tactic for a business.
Toys-R-Us went under was because of "investors" using it to leverage debt it could never pay for short-term gain.
Hmmmm... Leseee:
TRU UK -> titsup
TRU US -> titsup
TRU CA -> still running at the moment.
tries to introduce regulation to try and protect people's livelihood.
It does seem to be interesting what happens when there are decent financial regulations about.
(mine's the one with the international financial regulations guidebook in the pocket)
Try reading the many articles regarding how badly Amazon treats its employees. Most people cannot handle the frantic pace that Amazon requires, with turnover being high. Amazon does not have AC in its warehouses, so in the summer many people faint. Amazon's solution is to have an ambulance waiting outside for the victims.
"I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor/
"Amazon warehouse jobs push workers to physical limit"
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon-warehouse-jobs-push-workers-to-physical-limit/
Amazon treats employees like the oligarchs did during the Gilded Age, over which selfish libertarians drool. For a good idea of how that era went, read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
(motherjones link)
uh, ok. I'd usually call that "fake news" just from the URL. Maybe once or twice they get things right. And I doubt 'seattle times' is much better.
if the work environment sucks, they should, *ahem*, FORM A UNION. Yes, I said that.
and the latter 1/3 of "The Jungle" is COMMUNIST PROPOGANDA. Anyone who actually READ the thing woudl know that.
"I'd usually call that 'fake news' just from the URL"
There are lots of articles written by journalists who worked there for a week or two. All of the accounts ring the same. And the stories about the AC were repeated in just about every news source other than Fox News.
"FORM A UNION"
Republicans hate unions because they take away from CEOs receiving obscene bonuses. Libertarians hate unions because they all believe they are really Gilded Age oligarchs who have not yet made their mark. And Democrats today only care about Muslims, illegal immigrants, and LGBTs. Yes, I said that.
"the latter 1/3 of 'The Jungle' is COMMUNIST PROPOGANDA"
Uh, no, actually it's only the last few pages. I remember because I was shocked at how the tone of the book changed so drastically.
@ Anonymous Coward
I found "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair on Amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/Jungle-Upton-Sinclair/dp/1543285708
All joking aside. This is where the wealthy are pushing us working class and technical folk by way of a bought, paid for and wholly owned political system.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
