I Was Wrong About Mitt Romney

[ori]

Late to the party, I see...

Ok, 2 things:

1. if Mitt is going to hide behind his "oath to God" or whatever his schtick is today, does it not also apply to "being honest with your fellow man" - as in, maybe not lie about your identity and make up a fictitious supporter named Pierre Delecto? how do you square your oath to God while simultaneously tricking folks with a fake supporter?

2. You Utah folks got some splaining to do: https://www.ksl.com/article/46716462/ne ... mneys-vote

I know KSL is a die-hard Romney supporter, so this poll result is right in line with their politics- as in, of course they want to publish it. My question is- they don't divulge the data for the poll- only one number - "500 people". What is the breakdown of those folks? how many: democrats? republicans? mormons? non-mormons? what location - SLC proper, or ? Just doesn't quite pass the sniff test if you don't release the data behind your results, IMO.


Mitt is a Craven politician. change my mind.

I live in Utah and I think Mitt's vote was quite clearly wrong. I agree with you that "Mitt is a Craven politician."

Paid for by the Trump 2020 campaign.

















































OK, kidding about that last bit.

[ori]

The statement read by the interviewer was from the Handbook.

Thank you Lizzy. I guess that would mean Mitt is the exception? Not only does he support abortion, but he has also donated to planned parenthood, as well as profited immensely off the disposal of aborted fetuses. If the handbook is correct, how has he not been disciplined?

As a rule, we don't discipline our public figures / politicians. Think Mike Reid.

Technically, the General Authorities are not supposed to be involved in who is disciplined or not, and that is left up to local leaders, but in practice it seems exceptions are made.

Did Mike Reid do something that could be considered to be disciplinable? I googled a bit and couldn't find any dirt on him. From my quick googling, seems to be a respectable guy....

[Sarah]

Late to the party, I see...

Ok, 2 things:

1. if Mitt is going to hide behind his "oath to God" or whatever his schtick is today, does it not also apply to "being honest with your fellow man" - as in, maybe not lie about your identity and make up a fictitious supporter named Pierre Delecto? how do you square your oath to God while simultaneously tricking folks with a fake supporter?

2. You Utah folks got some splaining to do: https://www.ksl.com/article/46716462/ne ... mneys-vote

I know KSL is a die-hard Romney supporter, so this poll result is right in line with their politics- as in, of course they want to publish it. My question is- they don't divulge the data for the poll- only one number - "500 people". What is the breakdown of those folks? how many: democrats? republicans? mormons? non-mormons? what location - SLC proper, or ? Just doesn't quite pass the sniff test if you don't release the data behind your results, IMO.


Mitt is a Craven politician. change my mind.

You seem to be in the same category of "not being honest with your fellow man" by calling yourself mudflap. I doubt that's your real name.

[Sarah]

Trump even has his own wiki page about his fake names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonym ... nald_Trump

[mudflap]

Late to the party, I see...

Ok, 2 things:

1. if Mitt is going to hide behind his "oath to God" or whatever his schtick is today, does it not also apply to "being honest with your fellow man" - as in, maybe not lie about your identity and make up a fictitious supporter named Pierre Delecto? how do you square your oath to God while simultaneously tricking folks with a fake supporter?

2. You Utah folks got some splaining to do: https://www.ksl.com/article/46716462/ne ... mneys-vote

I know KSL is a die-hard Romney supporter, so this poll result is right in line with their politics- as in, of course they want to publish it. My question is- they don't divulge the data for the poll- only one number - "500 people". What is the breakdown of those folks? how many: democrats? republicans? mormons? non-mormons? what location - SLC proper, or ? Just doesn't quite pass the sniff test if you don't release the data behind your results, IMO.


Mitt is a Craven politician. change my mind.

You seem to be in the same category of "not being honest with your fellow man" by calling yourself mudflap. I doubt that's your real name.

Difference being I'm not fawning all over myself.

[Lizzy60]

Late to the party, I see...

Ok, 2 things:

1. if Mitt is going to hide behind his "oath to God" or whatever his schtick is today, does it not also apply to "being honest with your fellow man" - as in, maybe not lie about your identity and make up a fictitious supporter named Pierre Delecto? how do you square your oath to God while simultaneously tricking folks with a fake supporter?

2. You Utah folks got some splaining to do: https://www.ksl.com/article/46716462/ne ... mneys-vote

I know KSL is a die-hard Romney supporter, so this poll result is right in line with their politics- as in, of course they want to publish it. My question is- they don't divulge the data for the poll- only one number - "500 people". What is the breakdown of those folks? how many: democrats? republicans? mormons? non-mormons? what location - SLC proper, or ? Just doesn't quite pass the sniff test if you don't release the data behind your results, IMO.


Mitt is a Craven politician. change my mind.

You seem to be in the same category of "not being honest with your fellow man" by calling yourself mudflap. I doubt that's your real name.

Difference being I'm not fawning all over myself.

Another difference -- you are not a public figure. It doesn't matter if we know your real name or not, because no one knows you AS A PUBLIC FIGURE.

[mudflap]

It's a great idea, actually. ...

<Mudflap rubbing his hands together, plotting to create another user named "tailpipe", just to fawn over mudflap>

[Sarah]

Late to the party, I see...

Ok, 2 things:

1. if Mitt is going to hide behind his "oath to God" or whatever his schtick is today, does it not also apply to "being honest with your fellow man" - as in, maybe not lie about your identity and make up a fictitious supporter named Pierre Delecto? how do you square your oath to God while simultaneously tricking folks with a fake supporter?

2. You Utah folks got some splaining to do: https://www.ksl.com/article/46716462/ne ... mneys-vote

I know KSL is a die-hard Romney supporter, so this poll result is right in line with their politics- as in, of course they want to publish it. My question is- they don't divulge the data for the poll- only one number - "500 people". What is the breakdown of those folks? how many: democrats? republicans? mormons? non-mormons? what location - SLC proper, or ? Just doesn't quite pass the sniff test if you don't release the data behind your results, IMO.


Mitt is a Craven politician. change my mind.

You seem to be in the same category of "not being honest with your fellow man" by calling yourself mudflap. I doubt that's your real name.

Difference being I'm not fawning all over myself.

Looks like from this article, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... s-one.html Romney had his son create the account in 2011, a month after he announced his presidency, intending to mainly follow people to keep up on the political conversation.

From the article...
"Then we have the tweets. Pierre has only ever tweeted 10 times total, and all of them have been replies to other tweets—certainly the sort of behavior one might expect to see from a self-described “lurker.” The account’s first tweet, coming a whole four years after its initial registration, was a show of frustration at Fox News for not yet having a New Hampshire presidential poll up."

10 tweets in 8-9 years, I'd hardly call that fawning over himself. The article has all of his tweets, and actually, the first one about the NH poll was in 2015, and all the others it looks like have been recent, in 2019, dealing with the impeachment mess. And by then he was only a Senator, so it actually shows his character that he resisted in promoting himself for President all the time he had this account.

[mudflap]

Sorry, Sarah, I don't think you can win this one. When baby killing democrats and the msm love your guy, it's time to let him go. We'll help you get over the break up. I promise. (Right, guys and gals? Can I get an amen? )

[mudflap]

Late to the party, I see...

Ok, 2 things:

1. if Mitt is going to hide behind his "oath to God" or whatever his schtick is today, does it not also apply to "being honest with your fellow man" - as in, maybe not lie about your identity and make up a fictitious supporter named Pierre Delecto? how do you square your oath to God while simultaneously tricking folks with a fake supporter?

2. You Utah folks got some splaining to do: https://www.ksl.com/article/46716462/ne ... mneys-vote

I know KSL is a die-hard Romney supporter, so this poll result is right in line with their politics- as in, of course they want to publish it. My question is- they don't divulge the data for the poll- only one number - "500 people". What is the breakdown of those folks? how many: democrats? republicans? mormons? non-mormons? what location - SLC proper, or ? Just doesn't quite pass the sniff test if you don't release the data behind your results, IMO.


Mitt is a Craven politician. change my mind.

You seem to be in the same category of "not being honest with your fellow man" by calling yourself mudflap. I doubt that's your real name.

Difference being I'm not fawning all over myself.

Looks like from this article, https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... s-one.html Romney had his son create the account in 2011, a month after he announced his presidency, intending to mainly follow people to keep up on the political conversation.

From the article...
"Then we have the tweets. Pierre has only ever tweeted 10 times total, and all of them have been replies to other tweets—certainly the sort of behavior one might expect to see from a self-described “lurker.” The account’s first tweet, coming a whole four years after its initial registration, was a show of frustration at Fox News for not yet having a New Hampshire presidential poll up."

10 tweets in 8-9 years, I'd hardly call that fawning over himself. The article has all of his tweets, and actually, the first one about the NH poll was in 2015, and all the others it looks like have been recent, in 2019, dealing with the impeachment mess. And by then he was only a Senator, so it actually shows his character that he resisted in promoting himself for President all the time he had this account.

It may have been his son who created it, but Romney was the one pushing the tweets and liking tweets. And tweeting 10 times might seem like a small thing, but reading the text of them is another. But I think it's the likes that are telling:

According to Slate, Delecto liked nearly 70 tweets that either came directly from Romney’s official accounts or were posts quoting from those accounts.

there's your fawning over yourself...

Screen shots from the account show Delecto liking tweets that praised Romney’s criticism of Trump’s Syria decision.

...and there's your craven politician.

either way...

[Sarah]

Sorry, Sarah, I don't think you can win this one. When baby killing democrats and the msm love your guy, it's time to let him go. We'll help you get over the break up. I promise. (Right, guys and gals? Can I get an amen? )

Well I'm sorry, I think you are making a big deal out of nothing, and your comment about how he sided with the Dems confirms you are locked into this us vs them mentality which is exactly how everyone is being played. That is not important. It is all one party in the sense that they are manipulated into doing what the banks want. There is an illusion of a two party system to keep the masses distracted with battling a each other, all the while our dollar is being destroyed. Every president continues doing the same things to advance the power of the elites. Continual wars, enriching Wall Street corporate elites and the big banks, calling for 0 or lower interest rates so the entire nation is built on debt. We are all slaves to the Federal Reserve. There is an illusion of prosperity bit it is all built on massive amounts of debt, and Trump has been even worse than Obama in creating the debt bubble.

[mudflap]

I'll agree with you, except on this point:

Every president continues doing the same things to advance the power of the elites.

Trump - slightly yes, but very much "LESS SO" . I've never seen a president so hated. Name one president in our lifetimes that "they" (the elites) have hated more than Trump- I'll bet there isn't one. The Muller investigation, Russia, Ukraine, the impeachment- I've never seen so many attempts to remove someone. He isn't getting money from wallstreet - that is really something- it almost tells me everything I need to know. But as I said- I'll agree with you on the increasing the debt, etc. Much of that is out of Trump's control. It's too simplistic to think that Trump has 100% control over spending- almost every penny has been pre-allocated under a previous congress- not a lot of breathing room. But the space force? come on. dumb idea. rockets in syria? dumb idea. dropping more bombs than Obama? yeah, there's that. Still, Romney never joined the "March for Life". why not?

Romney is right there with the elites/bankers/wallstreet/democrats. I think Romney is just mad that Trump out-flip-flopped him.

[Sarah]

I'll agree with you, except on this point:

Every president continues doing the same things to advance the power of the elites.

Trump - slightly yes, but very much "LESS SO" . I've never seen a president so hated. Name one president in our lifetimes that "they" (the elites) have hated more than Trump- I'll bet there isn't one. The Muller investigation, Russia, Ukraine, the impeachment- I've never seen so many attempts to remove someone. He isn't getting money from wallstreet - that is really something- it almost tells me everything I need to know. But as I said- I'll agree with you on the increasing the debt, etc. Much of that is out of Trump's control. It's too simplistic to think that Trump has 100% control over spending- almost every penny has been pre-allocated under a previous congress- not a lot of breathing room. But the space force? come on. dumb idea. rockets in syria? dumb idea. dropping more bombs than Obama? yeah, there's that. Still, Romney never joined the "March for Life". why not?

Romney is right there with the elites/bankers/wallstreet/democrats. I think Romney is just mad that Trump out-flip-flopped him.

The elites are not the democrats. The dems and repubs may be working with them, but they don't control the money. So all your examples of the elites trying to get rid of Trump is part of the show to make it look like "the deep state" is out for Trump when it really is just the dems or certain actors who are out to get Trump, and it all has come to nothing hasn't it. The elites love Trump because he is making them rich. Tax cuts are nothing. The rich make their money in stocks. If the Dems and media really wanted to get conservatives to dislike Trump, they could be talking about the Fed, or the wars, or spending, but they don't. All they want to talk about is Russia collusion and how he hates minorities. The media simply says what they are told to say. It is all a narrative. And it has distracted everyone from what Trump really has been doing or not been doing. Trump doesn't need wall street money when he has a $950 million loan from China and his business deals have been financed by Deutsche Bank, and Russian and other block country back channels. And all you can say is that Romney never joined the "March for Life?" Wow, neither did I and I am pro-life.

[mudflap]

The elites are not the democrats.

no. you are completely wrong on this. I have some reading for you:

The reality is that the Democratic Party has become the party of the rich (including rich suburbs) and the poor, and the GOP the party of the forgotten and increasingly disempowered middle class.

Want proof? At the conclusion of the election, Democrats control all 20 of wealthiest congressional districts in the country (They won the top 10 by an average vote of 65-34 percent).

Republicans are allegedly the party of the rich and big business. The biggest winners of the Tax Cuts and Jobs act were both the top 1 percent and the 90th percentile and up. Yet, data suggests these affluent voters have pocketed the tax cut and went out and voted for the Democrats.

Given the dominance of Democrats in wealthier areas, it was perhaps unsurprising to see that they also dominated the GOP in fundraising, continuing a trend from 2016 in which Hillary Clinton almost doubled Trump’s fundraising haul.

from : https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/41 ... ddle-class

and

socialism itself has never been a system intended to help anyone, anyone other than the elite ruling class of a nation who see it not as a way to raise up the poor and working class but as a way to keep them down and under control, stifling their ambition and upward mobility.

Socialism is slavery or serfdom, pure and simple. I’m from South America, so I know a little about tyranny. And socialism is tyranny.

Even Marx saw socialism as only the phase preceding communism. However, far from the “withering away of the state,” socialism’s final stage — communism — leads only to a totalitarian terror state that bulldozes human liberty and enslaves the human soul.

The socialism (or what is currently mislabeled “progressivism”) that the Democratic Party offers new arrivals from abroad — be they legal immigrants or illegal aliens — is not the freedom they crave, but the slave state of political and economic regimentation lorded over by a ruling elite that seeks only to expand and maintain its power.

That is exactly what Pelosi, Schumer and company seek — not to help a suffering population or rescue those escaping poverty or persecution abroad, but to use these unfortunate people in a cynical political power play to solidify their electoral position through creating a permanently dependent underclass willing to trade its votes for the promise of cradle to grave security.

the Democratic Party today is the party of the billionaire plutocrat elites — the Steyers and Soroses and Bloombergs — which draws its greatest strength from the millionaire enclaves of Silicon Valley, Manhattan and suburban Washington. D.C.

from here: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/201 ... vemasters/

and here:

Their comments are the exact kind of sneering condescension that provoked the election’s anti-elitism backlash, said Bruce Haynes, a GOP strategist in Washington. “And what is interesting is that we always suspected that these people felt this way, but now they are not even hiding behind the façade anymore,” he said.

Most Americans simply don’t want or desire the same things that these people hold up as valuable; they don’t need a mansion, they don’t rack up frequent-flyer miles. They want different things — a place to live, a decent job, education for their kids.

https://nypost.com/2017/01/11/why-liber ... e-america/


I think you're basing your opinion on the definitions of the Democrats and Republicans from 50+ years ago, where Repubs were the elite tightwad bankers, and dems were the blue collar voters. IT IS COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE now. And I should know- I was here in Alabama when, for the first time SINCE THE CIVIL WAR, Republicans took over the state legislature. It's got everyone scratching their heads - how did Alabama flip from Democrat to Republican? The answer is easy: Dems don't represent family values anymore, something most Southerners DO value. Dems want endless wars, endless taxes, endless beuracracy. Repubs generally don't. This isn't to say Repubs are all shiny and whatnot- Only reason Repubs win these days is because dems are such a wreck - not that Repubs have any principles. But Wall street figured out that to make a lot of money, you just need a lot of wars. Bankers always knew this, but once dems under Clinton figured it out, the idea took off. Show me the last speech Trump gave on Wall street - (never. he attacks the FED at every turn- somewhat for his own self interest, but not 100%- did you see his new nominee is a "pro-gold standard advocate"? , compared to the last one Hillary gave https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/p ... leaks.html - shows her elitism: "Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street". )

[Sarah]

The elites are not the democrats.

no. you are completely wrong on this. I have some reading for you:

The reality is that the Democratic Party has become the party of the rich (including rich suburbs) and the poor, and the GOP the party of the forgotten and increasingly disempowered middle class.

Want proof? At the conclusion of the election, Democrats control all 20 of wealthiest congressional districts in the country (They won the top 10 by an average vote of 65-34 percent).

Republicans are allegedly the party of the rich and big business. The biggest winners of the Tax Cuts and Jobs act were both the top 1 percent and the 90th percentile and up. Yet, data suggests these affluent voters have pocketed the tax cut and went out and voted for the Democrats.

Given the dominance of Democrats in wealthier areas, it was perhaps unsurprising to see that they also dominated the GOP in fundraising, continuing a trend from 2016 in which Hillary Clinton almost doubled Trump’s fundraising haul.

from : https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/41 ... ddle-class

and

socialism itself has never been a system intended to help anyone, anyone other than the elite ruling class of a nation who see it not as a way to raise up the poor and working class but as a way to keep them down and under control, stifling their ambition and upward mobility.

Socialism is slavery or serfdom, pure and simple. I’m from South America, so I know a little about tyranny. And socialism is tyranny.

Even Marx saw socialism as only the phase preceding communism. However, far from the “withering away of the state,” socialism’s final stage — communism — leads only to a totalitarian terror state that bulldozes human liberty and enslaves the human soul.

The socialism (or what is currently mislabeled “progressivism”) that the Democratic Party offers new arrivals from abroad — be they legal immigrants or illegal aliens — is not the freedom they crave, but the slave state of political and economic regimentation lorded over by a ruling elite that seeks only to expand and maintain its power.

That is exactly what Pelosi, Schumer and company seek — not to help a suffering population or rescue those escaping poverty or persecution abroad, but to use these unfortunate people in a cynical political power play to solidify their electoral position through creating a permanently dependent underclass willing to trade its votes for the promise of cradle to grave security.

the Democratic Party today is the party of the billionaire plutocrat elites — the Steyers and Soroses and Bloombergs — which draws its greatest strength from the millionaire enclaves of Silicon Valley, Manhattan and suburban Washington. D.C.

from here: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/201 ... vemasters/

and here:

Their comments are the exact kind of sneering condescension that provoked the election’s anti-elitism backlash, said Bruce Haynes, a GOP strategist in Washington. “And what is interesting is that we always suspected that these people felt this way, but now they are not even hiding behind the façade anymore,” he said.

Most Americans simply don’t want or desire the same things that these people hold up as valuable; they don’t need a mansion, they don’t rack up frequent-flyer miles. They want different things — a place to live, a decent job, education for their kids.

https://nypost.com/2017/01/11/why-liber ... e-america/


I think you're basing your opinion on the definitions of the Democrats and Republicans from 50+ years ago, where Repubs were the elite tightwad bankers, and dems were the blue collar voters. IT IS COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE now. And I should know- I was here in Alabama when, for the first time SINCE THE CIVIL WAR, Republicans took over the state legislature. It's got everyone scratching their heads - how did Alabama flip from Democrat to Republican? The answer is easy: Dems don't represent family values anymore, something most Southerners DO value. Dems want endless wars, endless taxes, endless beuracracy. Repubs generally don't. This isn't to say Repubs are all shiny and whatnot- Only reason Repubs win these days is because dems are such a wreck - not that Repubs have any principles. But Wall street figured out that to make a lot of money, you just need a lot of wars. Bankers always knew this, but once dems under Clinton figured it out, the idea took off. Show me the last speech Trump gave on Wall street - (never. he attacks the FED at every turn- somewhat for his own self interest, but not 100%- did you see his new nominee is a "pro-gold standard advocate"? , compared to the last one Hillary gave https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/p ... leaks.html - shows her elitism: "Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street". )

This is not about the citizens and which party members are richer or poorer. Trump is supporting a socialist, communist financial market. He is encouraging and allowing and not speaking up about the Fed giving trillions of dollars to the banks. Yes, the banks, free money for one sector of the economy. And that money makes its way into the stock and bond markets, making corporate CEO's of certain companies very very wealthy. Trump has even said at times that he thought certain companies were a good buy and of course that sent their stock through the roof. The only times that Trump has criticized the Fed since he has been in office is to complain that they are not lowering rates fast enough. He is calling for negative interest rates - talk about socialism and rigging the markets! He wants to devalue the dollar because every other nation is devaluing their currency, and we supposedly cannot stay competitive unless we do so. But he knows what happens with run-away inflation. And the poor and middle class are the ones to suffer with inflation. We have a nation that can't afford to live without borrowing on their credit cards.

[mudflap]

[Mike Griffith]

This is not about the citizens and which party members are richer or poorer. Trump is supporting a socialist, communist financial market.

HUH? Just HUH? I'm sorry, but, good grief, this is sheer fantasy. Far from "supporting a socialist, communist financial market," Trump has been the greatest deregulator in modern times.

He is encouraging and allowing and not speaking up about the Fed giving trillions of dollars to the banks. Yes, the banks, free money for one sector of the economy. And that money makes its way into the stock and bond markets, making corporate CEO's of certain companies very very wealthy. Trump has even said at times that he thought certain companies were a good buy and of course that sent their stock through the roof. The only times that Trump has criticized the Fed since he has been in office is to complain that they are not lowering rates fast enough. He is calling for negative interest rates - talk about socialism and rigging the markets! He wants to devalue the dollar because every other nation is devaluing their currency, and we supposedly cannot stay competitive unless we do so. But he knows what happens with run-away inflation. And the poor and middle class are the ones to suffer with inflation. We have a nation that can't afford to live without borrowing on their credit cards.

Whoosh, a lot to unwrap here. First off, negative interest rates encourage banks to lend to businesses and consumers, who don’t get paid to borrow. Negative interest rates also compel banks and other financial institutions to pay interest for parking excess reserves with the central bank.

Yes, Trump wants a weaker dollar to combat the brazen currency manipulation practiced by other nations, especially by China. Tell me, has China suffered by keeping the yen weak for trade purposes? The last time I checked, China's GDP growth has dwarfed ours for the last 10-15 years. In conjunction with his call for a weaker dollar, Trump has enacted tariffs to protect American consumers from unfair foreign competition so that our companies are not competing against foreign companies that can get away with paying dirt wages and/or that are heavily subsidized by their governments. Abraham Lincoln strongly favored protective tariffs. So did Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Calvin Coolidge, Howard Taft, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Under Trump, for the first time in a decade, wages have risen substantially, and we have seen a huge jump in manufacturing jobs (whereas under Bush and Obama wages were virtually flat, and under Obama we suffered a net loss in manufacturing jobs). Those are not accidents but are the results of Trump's deregulation and tax relief.

[Sarah]

This is not about the citizens and which party members are richer or poorer. Trump is supporting a socialist, communist financial market.

HUH? Just HUH? I'm sorry, but, good grief, this is sheer fantasy. Far from "supporting a socialist, communist financial market," Trump has been the greatest deregulator in modern times.

He is encouraging and allowing and not speaking up about the Fed giving trillions of dollars to the banks. Yes, the banks, free money for one sector of the economy. And that money makes its way into the stock and bond markets, making corporate CEO's of certain companies very very wealthy. Trump has even said at times that he thought certain companies were a good buy and of course that sent their stock through the roof. The only times that Trump has criticized the Fed since he has been in office is to complain that they are not lowering rates fast enough. He is calling for negative interest rates - talk about socialism and rigging the markets! He wants to devalue the dollar because every other nation is devaluing their currency, and we supposedly cannot stay competitive unless we do so. But he knows what happens with run-away inflation. And the poor and middle class are the ones to suffer with inflation. We have a nation that can't afford to live without borrowing on their credit cards.

Whoosh, a lot to unwrap here. First off, negative interest rates encourage banks to lend to businesses and consumers, who don’t get paid to borrow. Negative interest rates also compel banks and other financial institutions to pay interest for parking excess reserves with the central bank.

Yes, Trump wants a weaker dollar to combat the brazen currency manipulation practiced by other nations, especially by China. Tell me, has China suffered by keeping the yen weak for trade purposes? The last time I checked, China's GDP growth has dwarfed ours for the last 10-15 years. In conjunction with his call for a weaker dollar, Trump has enacted tariffs to protect American consumers from unfair foreign competition so that our companies are not competing against foreign companies that can get away with paying dirt wages and/or that are heavily subsidized by their governments. Abraham Lincoln strongly favored protective tariffs. So did Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, Calvin Coolidge, Howard Taft, and Dwight Eisenhower.

Under Trump, for the first time in a decade, wages have risen substantially, and we have seen a huge jump in manufacturing jobs (whereas under Bush and Obama wages were virtually flat, and under Obama we suffered a net loss in manufacturing jobs). Those are not accidents but are the results of Trump's deregulation and tax relief.

Any positive you might see from negative interest rates will never outweigh the potential negatives. Your stance means that you see nothing wrong with more debt. You don't mind that everyone from top to bottom is underwater and will never get out of the massive debt without a reckoning. Yes, it would encourage more lending, but isn't that what we've had for the last 10+ years? That's what has kept our economy going. The federal funds rate has been below 2% (historically very low) since 2008. We've been in a lending and spending spree for 11 years and you want the Fed to continue the free money? The reason the Fed started pumping trillions of dollars into into the banks and Wall street since last September is because the time of reckoning has come. These are bank bailouts. Without 50+ billion being given to the banks every day, they would sink. We are propping up a fake economy and fake financial system, and Trump is their biggest cheerleader AND distraction. The American people are being played. https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/01/ ... ek-period/

Negative rates would mean that you and I would be paying the banks to keep our money there. It would mean the bank pays the homeowner to take out a loan. We pay them instead of them paying us. Doesn't sound good policy for savers or for small banks. Negative interest rates are meant to stimulate the economy when it is very weak and needs a boost. And Trump keeps saying how great our economy is! If our economy is so great, why do we need to stimulate more debt? Usually you want to raise rates to stem inflation in a hot economy. Here where I live, the only people that can afford a home purchase are West Coast transplants because the home prices are so inflated.

Trumps token efforts at deregulation and tax relief will mean nothing when the bubble pops. He is doing this to keep his base happy.

Tariffs, I'm sure there are positives and negatives, but if we are going to have tariffs, we might as well be benefiting financially from them. What they do mean is that we will see higher prices here in the U.S. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1SR1UI

And China simply throws tariffs our way anytime Trump threatens more tariffs on them. It's all a plan to have a trade war meant to bring us to real war with China. Real wars often start with trade wars, you know? https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-op ... shows-will

[ParticleMan]

On some of Mitt's shady connections.


"So You Wanna Take Down the Deep State?"

[DreamTheater1976]

I don't know what's worse. Mitt Romney/Pierre Delecto or his cult of followers. They think he is a hero, can't do any wrong, will fulfill the white horse prophesy, will save Zion and conquer Babylon, etc. Mitt Romney is a Gadianton poster child.
People who don't do any research on political candidates are too stupid to vote. If anyone can deceive the very elect it's this guy. That's exactly what he is doing.