John Bolton's Book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir

Tiny - Trump's inability to control his mouth is going to cost him the election and may shut Republicans out of government until 2025 or later.


I wish you were incorrect - and i think u are in the date of 2025.

If the LibDPST's win House, Senate, and POTUS - the SC will be packed with liberals to get a majority, voting mechanisms will be fixed to ensure Dem only victories, and all the socialist radical policies will be voted in.

There will never again be a two party system in America - only an Orwellian dystopia ruled by a Dem nomenklatura. kalifornia is the model . Originally Posted by oeb11

Oeb, I'm more fearful of demographic changes in America than underhandedness by the left. The Millennials are a radical bunch, and they'll be voting in bigger and bigger numbers going forward. I believe a majority say they favor socialism over capitalism.

.


Regarding the issue of Bolton's controversial book:



The biggest surprise related to all of this, in my mind, occurred the very day it was announced that Trump appointed Bolton to his last post. As a noisy, full-throated neocon, wasn't he the antithesis of the non-belligerent, non-warmongering vision Trump seemed to espouse all through his campaign? Why the hell did he pick this clown to begin with?

Yes, I referred to the overall or global trade deficit. You need to look at the numbers before 2017.

As you said, Trump started to impose tariffs in March, 2018. Click on the five year graph here:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOPGSTB

You'll see the trade deficit increasing through 2018, then appearing to start to go the other way around September, 2019. Still, except for February, 2020, the deficit has been mostly higher than when Obama left office. And by April, 2020 it looks like we're losing ground, although I bet a lot of that was Covid related.

Again, we should give Trump credit for the corporate tax cuts and deregulation, which made American businesses more competitive. That's a much better way to cut the trade deficit, if you consider it a problem, than applying tariffs willy nilly.

Very good point about energy self sufficiency. Not only did it used to be the biggest component of the trade deficit, but it's something that affects national security -- remember how the OPEC nations had us over a barrel in the 1970's. Biden has caved to the Progressives in his party and not only wants to put the country on a path to "0" carbon emissions, but even said in March that he wanted to ban fracking. I hope this doesn't come to pass, it wouldn't be good for the USA. Originally Posted by Tiny

Just a couple of points:


The trade deficit with China indeed slid a bit during the last couple of years. Although tariffs certainly played a role, I see this at least in part as a function of the slight downshift in the run rate of real GDP growth, which was a bit higher in the second half of 2017.


The corporate tax cuts, in my view, were necessary -- not only to make US firms more globally competitive, but to disincentivize tax-avoiding shuffles such as corporate inversions as well. Whacking away the worst of the regulatory regime's growth-impeding junk was highly desirable, too.


Additionally, I agree with you that energy self-sufficiency is also critical, and that it is a national security matter as well as an important economic one.


Does anyone remember Jimmy Carter's infamous " malaise" speech of 1979? He told us we were all just going to have to do with less.


Today's Democrats seem eager to take us back to those days.



In my mind, here is a key question. If Biden is elected and if the Democrats get a Senate majority, will they really go all-in on trying to enact the ridiculousness they babble about?


Perhaps they will be constrained by the most prominent of their big-money donors, who may not take the more radical rhetoric seriously. Are these people really down for a fracking ban? (Or even serious reduction?)


Bullshit gets thrown all around, but a lot of things get left out when it comes time for the nitty-gritty of policymaking, and especially when the well-connected and "elite" might be faced with the prospect of footing a hefty bill.


Remember all the discussion in 2007 of ending the tax break for carried interest?


Kudos to anyone who can name the two well-known, influential Senators that privately -- but quickly -- killed stone dead any talk of the idea going any further in committee discussions.


(And one of them was arguably the most outspoken public figure with regard to advocating for elimination of that tax break!)


.

.

Oeb, I'm more fearful of demographic changes in America than underhandedness by the left. The Millennials are a radical bunch, and they'll be voting in bigger and bigger numbers going forward. I believe a majority say they favor socialism over capitalism. Originally Posted by Tiny

Demographically, the millennials carry a lot of weight due to sheer numbers, as the US birth rate started rising again in the early '80s. I remember when many journalists referred to that cohort as "echo boomers," since they were the kids of the population bulge we call the "baby boomers" (b. 1946-1964).


Yes, many of them lean left, to be sure. So did many of us "boomers" in the late '60s! Thankfully, most wised up and became at least someone more conservative with age. Maybe the younger group will, too. The only problem is the risk that an insufficient number of them will do so in time to get the nation on a reasonably sane track within this next decade.


One columnist (can't remember who offhand) wrote last year that most millennials are too ignorant to know what socialism is, and too young to remember what it does to the citizens of nations that practice it!
.

.
Regarding the issue of Bolton's controversial book:

The biggest surprise related to all of this, in my mind, occurred the very day it was announced that Trump appointed Bolton to his last post. As a noisy, full-throated neocon, wasn't he the antithesis of the non-belligerent, non-warmongering vision Trump seemed to espouse all through his campaign? Why the hell did he pick this clown to begin with? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Agreed 100%. Trump says he used Bolton as a negotiating tool. You bring him to the negotiating table and everyone thinks the U.S. is ready to go to war. There's wisdom in that, although it's an awfully difficult act to pull off. The problem is that Bolton like you said was a poor fit. Trump would have benefited by having someone in the position who shared his goals, who had a lot of experience in foreign policy, and who Trump respected and would listen to.

The rest of your post is spot on, and the only thing I can add to is this:

Does anyone remember Jimmy Carter's infamous " malaise" speech of 1979? He told us we were all just going to have to do with less.


Today's Democrats seem eager to take us back to those days. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I don't remember the speech but I damn well remember the results. First and foremost a Windfall Profits Tax on oil, which channeled capital away from American oil and gas companies that they would have used to increase U.S. production, thus digging us into an even deeper hole with our energy security and trade deficit. Just as stupid was the way he regulated natural gas. People were drilling lots of deep 15,000' wells, because they could sell the gas at uncontrolled prices over $10 per MCF. And totally ignoring some of the shallower deposits that were price controlled. We could have exploited those at much, much lower costs than the deep gas. That would have helped with energy security, air quality and probably even inflation. We don't want to go back to this.

Remember all the discussion in 2007 of ending the tax break for carried interest?

Kudos to anyone who can name the two well-known, influential Senators that privately -- but quickly -- killed stone dead any talk of the idea going any further in committee discussions.

And one of them was arguably the most outspoken public figure with regard to advocating for elimination of that tax break!)
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Chuck Schumer has to be one of them. I've got no idea who the other one was. Hope you'll clue us in if nobody comes up with the right answer.

It has been written
"If You are not a liberal when young, you have no Heart.
If you are not a conservative when mature, You have no Brain. "
Tiny - You may be correct about the millennial vote.

OP....Looks like Bolton is on a book tour now.

how many morning shows will he get appearances???
LOL

.


Regarding the issue of Bolton's controversial book:



The biggest surprise related to all of this, in my mind, occurred the very day it was announced that Trump appointed Bolton to his last post. As a noisy, full-throated neocon, wasn't he the antithesis of the non-belligerent, non-warmongering vision Trump seemed to espouse all through his campaign? Why the hell did he pick this clown to begin with? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

He fit the role after the first one didn't know how to keep his mouth shut.

The ringmaster needs to assign his head clown. The clown department is crucial when it comes to national security. It is essential, and I would argue imperative, that you set the world's stage with your likeness for a circus.

Why was it such a surprise for the president to select Bolton? The president is to the modern GOP (Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush etc.), as Bolton is to the old GOP (the old Bushes, Reaganites, and fiscal conservatives).

9500- where does Robespierre fit into the LibDem authority circus ringmaster power structure. ???

Exactly why do you think President Trump wasn't proposing to become a foreign asset in return for help with the election? In Bolton's unredacted book (before it was censored by the government), Trump's quoted as telling Xi, "Make sure I win. I will probably win anyway, so don't hurt my farms. Buy a lot of soybeans and wheat and make sure we win."


Here's the problem "why do you think....." is asking to prove a negative or put another way, where is the proof that he was proposing to become a foreign asset of China? Damn, didn't we just go through 4 years of this "foreign asset crap" with no proof and you want to start that up again? How about you provide any proof at all that Trump proposed a quid pro quo because as it is and if true, it sounds to me like Trump if asking for China to buy more soybeans so he could be re-elected, contained nothing about what he would do in return for such a gesture. Does Bolton say what Trump said he would do for China? And please define "asset" because I take that to mean doing something in the interest of China that hurts the US. That's what an asset does. So where is any proof at all that Trump did anything to hurt the national interest of the US in favor of China? We simply can not/ I will not entertain this argument until I'm provided proof of a quid pro quo that hurts America's national interest.

"Trump is quoted as telling XI". And who if anybody is corroborating this? Is it in writing, voice? So we are to believe Bolton because one might think "that sounds like something Trump would do"? Really? That's how we are to judge things from now on with no proof and speculation by one man? Come on! I've been saying for 4 years now, show me the proof and I'm still waiting.

"Buy a lot of Soybeans and make sure we win". First, buying more soybeans isn't going to make sure Trump wins because there could be plenty of farmers who think Trump started something that cost them big time and buying more soybeans won't help at this point and again, with out a quid pro quo promised, that stand alone statement "if" made, does nothing to hurt the national interest of the US.

But Bolton may be lying. Maybe Trump was going to take what help he could from Xi with the election and give nothing in return. Fair enough.


Yes, it is fair in the absence of corroboration so any fair minded person drops that whole line of thinking.


Then how about the phone call with Zelensky, the President of the Ukraine. He asked for help with CrowdStrike. Anybody with half a brain knew there weren't computer servers hidden in the Ukraine that would provide some kind of smoking gun to torpedo the Democrats in 2020.


Yes, how about that phone call? Let's examine shall we. I can't believe we still have to do this but here goes.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...ied09.2019.pdf


The· President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your weal thy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There- are a lot. of things that went on, the· :whole situation .. I think you are _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I . would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to ·get to the bottom of it. As you say yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance-, _but they. say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, ·it's very important that· you. do it if that's possible.



How the hell is "I would like you to find out", illegal or unethical or a quid pro quo? It isn't. And if everybody knows Ukraine wasn't involved, who could it hurt? Certainly not Biden. And where is the talk about aid being held up if the investigation doesn't take place? And where is this indication as Adam Schiff suggested that if you can't find anything, make something up or else? I said it before and I'll say it again, if Trump had said those words, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been impeached including a majority of Republicans and I would certainly have voted to impeach him but he never said or even suggested that except in the mind of Adam Schiff and Democrats. And last but not least, we now have the previously unreleased testimony of the CEO of Crowdstrike saying

https://justthenews.com/government/c...irmed-russians

Responding to a question from Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), he said, “There is evidence of exfiltration, not conclusive, but indicators of exfiltration off the DNC.”
Henry said that based on the evidence his firm reviewed, they believe “70 gigabytes of data” were exfiltrated from the DNC’s network. However, when asked by Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) whether he could “unequivocally say it was or not was exfiltrated out of the DNC, from what you know of?”

Henry responded, “I can’t say based on that,” according to the 80-page

transcript

.

So at the very least the whole Crowdstrike story is not neatly tied in a bow as Democrats would like us to believe. There's seemed to be plenty of room for asking what role if any, Ukraine played in the the run up to the 2016 elected and then.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

Wow! Hello! Trump had no business asking if Ukraine had anything to do with the 2016 election? My God, how much more evidence is needed to say YES, asking Ukraine to get to the bottom of what may or may not have happened in the 2016 election was legitimate. Could that information be helpful to Trump Trump and hurt Hillary and Democrats? Possible but there was a legitimate purpose in asking the President of Urkaine to look into the whole "Crowdstrike affair".

Another interesting part of the call had Zelinsky saying this

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019...ipt-annotated/

Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

And how did CNN interpret this?

Within a few sentences of Zelensky asking for missiles,

Really? is that what you read? I read "we are almost ready to buy more missiles".

And Trump IS playing with a full deck. Was he angling for Zelensky to fabricate something about CrowdStrike or Joe Biden?


Did he SAY as Adam Schiff suggested that he wanted Zelensky to fabricate/ make something up if he couldn't find what Trump wanted him to find and would be punished if he didn't? Nope but I guess in some people's mind, that passes for proof.


What would Zelensky get in return? Military aid?



Did he say that in the conversation? Hell, why don't we just say Trump threatened to kill Zelinsky and his entire family if we are just going to make shit up.

Originally Posted by Tiny

More from the phone call.

The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who· was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. _·A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_ mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney· General.· :Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could _speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United $states,· the woman., was bad news and the people she was dealing with in .the Ukraine .were bad news so I just want to_let you know that The other thing, There's a lot talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.


What Biden actually did was tell Zelinsky to either fire the prosecutor or Ukraine wouldn't get the billion dollars, the purest definition of a quid pro quo but "this} quid pro quo was perfectly OK because Obama and European officials approved of firing the prosectutor. So at least now we have a definition of when a quid pro quo is bad or good and it sounds to me, that if the President likes it, it's OK. So what's the problem? Oh, I forgot, we are talking about Trump not Obama.



President Zelensky: I wanted to tell ·you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand arid I'm kn6wledgeable .about the situation. Since we have won· the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor .general will be 100%_ my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start. as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look. into the situation, specifically to the company that you -mentioned in :this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of.that and wi11·work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide ·to µs, it would_ be very helpful · for the investigation to make· sure that we administer justice in our country with regard: to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one. who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President· well enough.


Justification from the President of Ukraine not just Guiliani talking in Trump's ear, that the Ambassador was not appreciated by Zelensky and that is reason enough to fire her.


Nothing at all was said in that conversation about holding up aid if you "don't do want I want you to do" but of course that is how the Democrats spun it as having been said or "implied". Sorry but implied is an interpretation and when we have the transcript of the actual call, interpretation is not needed.


So in conclusion. Trump made no quid pro quo with China or Ukraine although as I said, I think we established from Biden legally demanding a quid pro quo from Ukraine that if the President is OK with it as Obama was, then THAT kind of quid pro quo quo is perfectly acceptable, right?

Here's the problem "why do you think....." is asking to prove a negative or put another way, where is the proof that he was proposing to become a foreign asset of China? Damn, didn't we just go through 4 years of this "foreign asset crap" with no proof and you want to start that up again? Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I'm not going to say I made a strong argument. But it's a hell of a lot stronger than any argument anyone can come up with for calling me a Chinese Asset, which is what started this.

.
For the record, here is the text of Carter's 1979 speech:


https://www.americanrhetoric.com/spe...confidence.htm

I don't remember the speech but I damn well remember the results. First and foremost a Windfall Profits Tax on oil, which channeled capital away from American oil and gas companies that they would have used to increase U.S. production, thus digging us into an even deeper hole with our energy security and trade deficit. Just as stupid was the way he regulated natural gas. People were drilling lots of deep 15,000' wells, because they could sell the gas at uncontrolled prices over $10 per MCF. And totally ignoring some of the shallower deposits that were price controlled. We could have exploited those at much, much lower costs than the deep gas. That would have helped with energy security, air quality and probably even inflation. We don't want to go back to this. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thanks for the note on natural gas regulation. Although I was not aware of that particular point, I do recall people in the industry talking about how stupidly designed and destructive the regulations were at the time.


The "windfall profits tax" was ill-considered and poorly implemented, and for that matter was not even a tax on profits. It was in fact an excise tax, levied on the gross margin by which the current price of oil exceeded a fixed index price.


And it backfired -- big time!


Soon it was announced that Amoco would be slashing its capital budgets and laying off several thousand (middle class) workers. Before long, several other majors followed suit.


At about that time, one of the well-known (and quite ignorant) progressive columnists wrote, "Good! Now, maybe some of these big oil fat cats will be forced to pay their "fair share" of taxes!"


In reply a conservative (and much smarter) columnist publicly asked, " Just who is Exxon's largest shareholder? Some greedy billionaire, no doubt. Actually, it turns out that far and away the largest shareholder is the teachers' retirement fund of the state of Illinois!"


Could be one of the reasons that George H. W. Bush, campaigning with Reagan in 1980, said that when Democrats start talking about taxing "the rich," it's a good idea for middle-class Americans to be sure to hang on to their wallets.

Chuck Schumer has to be one of them. I've got no idea who the other one was. Hope you'll clue us in if nobody comes up with the right answer. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, indeed! And the other half of the dynamic duo was none other than -- Hillary Clinton!


And those two, if nothing else, are honest politicians -- at least in the sense that when it comes to finance industry money, when they get bought, they stay bought!!
.

And those two, if nothing else, are honest politicians -- at least in the sense that when it comes to finance industry money, when they get bought, they stay bought!!
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

If they are honest politicians, who would you consider to be a dishonest politician

.
For the record, here is the text of Carter's 1979 speech:


https://www.americanrhetoric.com/spe...confidence.htm

Thanks for the note on natural gas regulation. Although I was not aware of that particular point, I do recall people in the industry talking about how stupidly designed and destructive the regulations were at the time.


The "windfall profits tax" was ill-considered and poorly implemented, and for that matter was not even a tax on profits. It was in fact an excise tax, levied on the gross margin by which the current price of oil exceeded a fixed index price.

And it backfired -- big time!

Soon it was announced that Amoco would be slashing its capital budgets and laying off several thousand (middle class) workers. Before long, several other majors followed suit.

At about that time, one of the well-known (and quite ignorant) progressive columnists wrote, "Good! Now, maybe some of these big oil fat cats will be forced to pay their "fair share" of taxes!"

In reply a conservative (and much smarter) columnist publicly asked, " Just who is Exxon's largest shareholder? Some greedy billionaire, no doubt. Actually, it turns out that far and away the largest shareholder is the teachers' retirement fund of the state of Illinois!"

Could be one of the reasons that George H. W. Bush, campaigning with Reagan in 1980, said that when Democrats start talking about taxing "the rich," it's a good idea for middle-class Americans to be sure to hang on to their wallets.

Yes, indeed! And the other half of the dynamic duo was none other than -- Hillary Clinton!

And those two, if nothing else, are honest politicians -- at least in the sense that when it comes to finance industry money, when they get bought, they stay bought!!
. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The Democratic Party totally owned this. It controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress from January, 1977 to January 1981. With their price controls and extortionate taxation of oil companies, they somehow managed to do the exact opposite of what anybody with an ounce of brains would do to try to end an energy crisis.

So what do we have to look forward to? The Democrats will probably be in the same position come next year. The progressive wing of the party, which holds free markets in contempt, is gaining at the expense of the old guard. And the progressives, and now Biden if you believe him, want to reduce net carbon emissions to "0". What do they want, to send us back to the stone age? Presumably when they figure out you can't have planes or diesel trucks, or even electricity when it's not sunny or windy, they'll backtrack. But they can do a lot damage before we get to that point.

Here's a little more about the natural gas situation back then, from The End of Energy: The Unmaking of America's Environment, Security and Independence.

The Associated Press described the Natural Gas Act of 1978 as a "beastly tangle. During the period from the end of 1978 until the scheduled decontrol in 1985, at least 26 different categories of natural gas were subject to various pricing regimes, which reflected a mixture of deregulation goals, distributional considerations, and favors to special interests. Prices ranged from 25 cents to several dollars per thousand cubic feet (MCF). (Tiny's note: people were paying over $10 per MCF for decontrolled, deep gas during this period.) Residential customers were assured lower prices than industrial or commercial users, but this distinction created enormous legal and economic complexities. For example, because the legislation immediately exempted from price controls any gas produced from wells of 15,000 feet or deeper but retained controls on shallower wells until 1985, an expensive "deep gas" boom occurred in 1978-1982, when for the same costs much more gas could have been produced from cheaper, shallower wells. The American Gas Association estimated that the 1978 law would increase gas bills by a little more than 8% annually by 1985. In fact, residential gas bills rose more than twice as fast, an average of 19% a year from 1979 through 1983.

If they are honest politicians, who would you consider to be a dishonest politician Originally Posted by Hotrod511

I think you know this, but CaptainMidnight is being facetious. They're honest in that if you drop suitcases full of money off in their Senatorial offices, figuratively speaking, they're not going to stab you in the back.