KanchanaburiGuy

All I see here is you congratulating yourself for being skeptical. Meanwhile, you've shown nothing that disproves either my claim, or theirs. You asked for a link; I gave you one. I assume that if I post a photo of an empty shelf with no Donald Trump passports on it, but with a DOJ business card belonging to a person of sufficiently high rank.......... THAT will satisfy you? Pffft! * I made a claim; you questioned it. * You asked for a link; I provided one. * I backed up what I said by proving there was a reason for me saying what I said. Pffft! Enough!

It is a general principle of law that everything is legal........ until there's a law that says it isn't. For example, Roe v Wade did not make abortion legal. It said the States could not have laws that made it illegal. Same with "gay marriage." Yes, the effect is the same, but the circumstances are very different: There were LAWS that said you couldn't.......... then........ those laws got struck down! Then, suddenly, you could! Generally speaking, if there's no law saying you can't.......... then you can! And if there are two laws that contradict each other, it's the passive position that must win, not the aggressive position. (Laws that are in opposition to each other......... have the same effect as there being NO law. The individual cannot be punished for being unable to read the mind of the judge who might eventually decide!)

A judge issuing a warrant is merely expressing an "opinion," also. An opinion can be well-informed, poorly-informed, or completely uninformed. Because of this, we cannot know the value of an opinion until we know how the person arrived at it-----what they considered......... and what they overlooked or ignored. You, of course, are trying to use "opinion" as a perjorative. You're trying to dismiss it because it's, ahem, "just an opinion." [My words, not yours] But the author[s] of the Wall Street Journal piece believe they have a basis for having that opinion.......... (just like the judge believed there was a basis for his, yes, opinion that a warrant was justified!) -------------- Personally, I think it's probably safe to assume you are incapable assailing the basis for the proffered "opinion," since you stayed well clear of even mentioning it. Maybe you didn't even read it? Instead, you went for the perjorative: "Opinion!"............ hoping, I assume, others will dismiss it, accordingly. Except opinions can be well-informed, can't they? They can be very well-informed! They can be very well-informed, as......... I hope........ the judge's opinion was, when he issued the warrant! ------------- So.......... did you have anything you wanted to say about the CONTENT of the opinion piece, or, say, how the Presidential Records Act [PRA] does or does not apply to this situation? Or were you planning to just dismiss it based on where it happened to appear, rather than what it actually says? --------------- (The above, of course, is "just" my opinion! lol)

Link requested........ https://gazette.com/news/us-world/doj-offers-trump-his-passports-back/article_19a07a80-7dda-57a8-9d57-da0f9a4e793a.html Fourth paragraph....... Budowich made the revelation in response to a tweet from CBS Evening News anchor Norah O'Donnell, who said a DOJ source informed her the department was not in possession of the passports." But as I said earlier....... this is nothing but a distraction. It has NOTHING to do with the point made in the relevant post!

And had I said anything about "Executive" Privilege, this would be a solid response. But I talked about "Attorney/Client Privilege," not "Executive" Privilege.

The FBI's bosses........ the DOJ....... denied having them. I never said the FBI denied having them. But whether or not the FBI or the DOJ denied having them........ isn't the point, is it? The point is......... the thing I responded to was.......... laughing inappropriately...... [I want say crazily! lol]......... at the idea that documents taken in the raid were "his property." The passports having been taken during the raid......... proves that Trump's concern is valid. Generally speaking.......... valid concerns .........are not the things one laughs at!

From the very beginning, concern was expressed that there could be privileged Attorney/Client documents among those taken. One of the jobs of a Special Master is to confirm that the FBI/DOJ are blocked from reading communications they are not supposed to. If Trump told his attorney things in confidence........... about illegal or questionable activities........ and the prosecutors get a chance to see that.......... the Court could hold that Trump's 5th Amendment Right to not Self-Incriminate.......... has been violated. Seeing that there were concerns about Privileged Communications being expressed from the very beginning............ Asking for a Special Master makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is why it took so long to ask for one! Is it possible that waiting so long to ask for a Special Master was a tactic? Is it possible they can now claim the evidence has been tainted........ because the prosecution had so much time to see a variety of things they "shouldn't have?" If indeed the documents taken include Privileged Communications.......... having a Special Master review them before disseminating them.......... is both sensible and appropriate. In fact, it is so sensible and appropriate............ that it should have been done much earlier! (Indeed, it is SO sensible and appropriate that........ as soon the concern about Privileged Commications came up............ a clever prosecutor would have insisted upon it himself!)

Not sure why you'd laugh. We already know they took his passports......... then denied they had them...... then returned them. So yeah, there could very well be any number of things that are, in fact, HIS documents. We've already seen that proved with his passports. Laughing at appropriate times, that's one thing. But laughing at inappropriate times? Well......... my........ ...........That usually falls back on the one doing the laughing! Ah Ha A-hahaahhaha! (Sometimes with buggy, Marty Feldman eyes!) *wink*

I think the answer to "not lately" is this..... Inflation. But part of inflation is the chance/the necessity to sell existing inventory......... inventory purchased at the old, lower prices........ at the new, higher selling prices. This creates additional income, without the need for additional production. But ultimately, that's temporary, fleeting. A lot of people don't understand that when you sell something, you should sell it based on what it costs you to replace it, not based on what you paid for it! (If the one on your shelf cost you $10, but the replacement for it will cost you $12, you should sell the $10 one at whatever price the $12 one will sell for. That's the only way you can get the $12 you need to pay for the new one! A lot of people think this is "unfair;" that you're gouging people. But it is really just a sound business practice. People think the seller is making a bunch of "extra profit." But they're not! The "extra profit" is gone----It's being used to buy the new, higher-priced replacement!) So, when you have inflation and are only looking at a short time window.......... it can look like GDI growth is exceeding GDP growth. But when you step back and look at it from a little farther away......... you'll probably see it all balances back out. (Which is to say......... when you look at time-windows that are too small............ it may lead to making erroneous conclusions! Lol)

I'll accept that clarification with thanks, then wholeheartedly disagree with it! Lol A couple of bad months should never be called a "Recession." That's exactly why the "2 Quarters" standard is two quarters---specifically to prevent a couple of bad months being called a "Recession." Now, those were two spectacularly bad months! But the term "Recession" should describe a trend, not an incident. And a mere two months is an incident, not a trend. After all, if two months can be a "Recession," why not a month? Why not two weeks? A week? NEWS FLASH! "We had a Recession today, but tomorrow promises to be better!" Lol If I were the NBER, I would say something like this........... "The economic indicators we track all lined up in a way we could, technically speaking, call it a Recession. But because they were a reaction to outside forces and in no way indiciative of the health of our economy overall, we are NOT calling it a Recession. The affected time period was just too short lived. Severe, but short lived." I believe: The NBER erred when they called those two months in 2020 "a Recession."

Hmmm. Is a Recession/ Not a Recession? Hmmm. I took a look at how a "Recession" is determined, and who has the job of calling it that, "officially." The National Bureau of Economic Research [NBER] is the answer. (Here's a link to the White House's explanation of it, which I think is a little easier to understand than NBER's own explanation........ https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/07/21/how-do-economists-determine-whether-the-economy-is-in-a-recession/ ) ---------------- Hmmm. The more I read about how the NBER decides when a Recession has occurred (from the NBER website, not the White House's)............ honestly......... the more skeptical and suspicious I became! I kept remembering what my father taught me as a late teenager: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with b-llsh-t!" (He never intended this as a lesson, but I took it as such, anyway! LOL!) The more I read about what trends they follow; what they call a trough and a peak; how they determine when a trend has trough'd or peak'd; how they'll "restart the clock" based on a short, simple blip of inconsistency in either direction; and on and on........... ............the more it seemed like they were trying to "baffle us with b-llsh-it!" --------------- ............The more it seemed like the goal was not to accurately decide when a Recession has occurred.......... ............but to minimize how often a Recession CAN BE declared! And that suggests they are less interested in actual economic clarity....... and more interested in reducing how often their bosses have to report The Bad News to the American Public! (Yeah, I'm talking politics! Except its the kind of politics that both sides can take advantage of, when it's their turn!) ----------------- So here's my take......... I'm going to stick with the "unofficial" 2 Quarters of Negative GDP Growth is a "Recession." I'm going to stick with it because it is a Macro approach that simply addresses where we were and where we are. Yes, there are all these metrics waving around......... moving up and down and all around.......... between the beginning and the end. But once we GET to the end, that's where we are! And how can I justify taking this non-expert, contrarian view? Well, it's simply because among the 11 times a Recession has been declared since WWII.......... every single time........ there were also at least 2 consecutive quarters of Negative GDP! Every single time! So, because GDP gives us a Macro view that inherently incorporates all those other swings and changes anyway.......... and because the Negative GDP growth almost perfectly mirrors the NBER's more complex standard for what they call a "Recession" anyway........... I'm perfectly okay with that! Lol ----------------- ----------------- (I kind of think of it like speeding. If the speed limit is 60MPH............ and a cop is able to prove that I covered 60 miles in less than 60 minutes.......... it really doesn't matter that I may have driven 30MPH part of the time and 90MPH part of the time! If I've driven 60 miles in less than 60 minutes, I MUST HAVE BEEN speeding! Lol I think that's the same thing that looking at the Macro View....... Negative GDP performance...... does, too!) Cheers!

Not really. The stock market is a reflection of confidence........ (or lack thereof).......... and much less a reflection of performance or reality. Yes, performance plays some part in how confident people may be. But a quick look at the P/E Ratios..........(Price to Earnings Ratios)......... tells a very different story. The "dotcom" bubble bursting is fairly instructive, here. We had dozens of companies with massive unwarranted P/E's........... because there had been huge investments in stock, in companies that had never made a dime! (Many of them never even produced a product! Lol) The whole "dotcom" craze was based on CONFIDENCE........... not facts, not reality! ----------------- In my view, the stock market is a quick and easy way to gauge what a certain class of people are thinking............. ...........but is not a very good indicator of actual economic performance or outlook. --------------- (Simply put, I've seen too many times when companies have shown nice profits, but missed their projections............ [their predictions!]........ by a small, small margin......... only to have their stocks plummet by 15 or 20% ! -------- Stock drops by 20% because they guessed wrong? .....Even though they still showed a good, solid profit? Pffft! Sorry, but this ain't anything like REALITY! ????)

Y'know, for those who think things out, there is more to this situation than merely obeying or disobeying laws. Part of our position in the world relies not just on economic and military superiority, but on moral superioriry, also. We have been able to tell other countries, "Look to us for guidance; look to us to see how it should be done." --------------- We have always been able to say, "We have never had a coup. We have never needed to force a President out of office in shame. We have never had the kind of systemic corruption that other countries......... (many countries!)...... have had." We have been able to say to other countries, "Follow our lead! Do things the way we have done---democracy, first! Of the people, by the people, for the people!---then your future will be bright!" We have been able to claim a moral superiority, a philosophy that has proven itself better than all the others! (((Nevermind the fact that much of it is provably bullpoop! It is still how we try to shine a light on ourselves!))) This is how we have wanted to be perceived in the world.......... and how we HAVE BEEN perceived in many quarters, to one degree or another. But then Nixon resigns, as did his VP, Agnew. And Clinton gets Impeached. And Trump gets Impeached TWICE. Two of our last four presidents have been Impeached! Ultimately, what is on the line is not just whether Trump committed crimes and will be held accountable for them. There is something MUCH BIGGER on the line, too! And it's that MUCH BIGGER situation that explains the whys of delays and procedures that seem, on the face, both illogical and confusing. The people who make these decisions......... who take these actions........... don't have the luxury of JUST considering the "law and order" aspects of these circumstances, these events, like you and I have. They have to also consider how their actions might affect the very foundational principles of our Nation............ and how those philosopies and principles are perceived by others in the wider world. After all, what answer can we give when trying to advise someone toward an open, democratic system, when they can respond, "Sorry, but it seems your system is incapable of keeping crooks out of office! Why would we ever want to emulate THAT?" Because they're bound to be far more impressed by our inability to keep crooks OUT........... than they'll ever be by the fact we were able to hunt them down, afterwards! Cuz, you see, the thing about "Too little, too late" is........... it's too late! It is, as the saying goes, "Closing the barn door......... after the horse has already escaped!" So, do we just ignore it? Do we let him get away with it? No. But we don't move forward without keeping in mind that......... for our Nation........ there is a very important International Relations BIGGER PICTURE involved, with both Cause-and-Effect and Unintended Consequences to consider! -------------- This is yet another of those situations where if you think the answers are easy........... it really just means you haven't thought it out far enough, yet! Cheers!

The dot-com bubble burst shortly before Bush took office, and there was an 8-month recession from March to November, 2001. Bush took a beating for that, even though he clearly didn't deserve to be blamed for it. Then 9/11 happened and yes, he got a reprieve for a short while. But it was truly only a short while. Not long after 9/11, they started back in with severe criticism of his "tepid recovery" from the recession, much of which, though, was actually a lingering consequence of 9/11 and fear, and had little or nothing to do with his economic policies and efforts! Then, of course, the criticism of his response to 9/11 began to rage in earnest. People complained about what kept getting called "lies," but weren't. And ultimately, far, far, FAR more lies were told ABOUT him, than BY him! So yeah, 8 years of Bush-bashing! Absolutely!

Well, personally, I see it going all the way back the the Robert Bork confirmation hearings. As far as I can recall, everything turned rather nasty, thereafter. Then Clinton got impeached. And the Democrats would have LOVED to return the favor with Bush II, over Iraq. (Only stopped, I believe, because the "optics" would have looked exactly like what it was: petty payback!) ---------- (But look at the BEATING GWBush took in the press for 8 years!) And then the Republicans would have LOVED to impeach Mr Obama, but he was saved two ways. First, he was black. The FIRST black President. And that was........... er......... problematic! Second, that would have been the second one in a row........... second DEMOCRAT in a row! And that would have looked downright vindictive! ("Optics," again!) ---------- (But Obama got eviscerated on talk radio and TV opinion shows!) * So, the Democrats beat up on Bork. * Then the Republicans retaliate on Clinton. * Then the Democrats would LOVE to get even on Bush, but can't. * Then the Republicans would love to get even for Bush's bad treatment, but are hindered. And then along come a conman, a serial liar, a classless, no-nothing buffoon: Trump! And the Democrats at this point have STILL never "properly gotten justice"----that is, payback for Bill Clinton's impeachment! They've been waiting a long, long, frustrating time! -------------- These things stopped being "politics" a long time ago. This sniping at the President ain't politics.......... It's a feud! It's the Hatfields and McCoys! And not only did Trump walk into the middle of it, he was the Perfect Guy to walk into the middle of it! Because he proved......... again and again......... that he was SO DESERVING of what the Democrats wanted to do! If the Democrats were determined to exorcise their angst on a Republican President........... they couldn't have chosen any better than the one that got elected! I can just picture the Behind-the-Scenes at the DNC: "Sorry Hillary, sorry you didn't get elected. But can you believe we got *heeheehee* DONALD TRUMP instead!!!" ------------- So no, I don't see anything unusual, unexpected or unprecedented here. And it makes no difference that he is an "ex-President." Because what's going on here is a good old-fashioned feud; a feud that's been going on since the Robert Bork confirmation hearings, many moons ago! And when you're talking about a feud, nothing is off the table, and the only thing you should reliably expect........... is that you're going to be hit with the unexpected!

I'm sorry, I'm trying to work this out...... Is Biden supposed to be "vengeful" because he WON??? That's certainly not been my own experience of human nature, but, well......... ! Lol

All due respect, opinions have certain word structures that make it clear that they are merely opinions. What you've done in the couple of posts that have been questioned is make declarative statements: e.g. -- "There is no evidence." Just saying "There is no evidence" is not an opinion statement; it is a declarative statement that is intended to be accepted as fact. This is a casual conversation environment, so there's really no need to say each and every thing just so. But to make bold declarative statements like you have..........and later claim they were "just my opinion".......... crosses that mystical line separating workable communication from poor communication............ even in a casual conversation environment, such as this! Cheers!

Hmmm. Do you believe that Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right, as the saying goes? Apparently you do. Because here you are arguing that because a previous President did something you believe was very wrong, but was not held to account for it......... ("millions dead!")........ that means that Trump should also not be held accountable for what he has [allegedly] done wrong. Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right? Seems to me that you agree that ex-Presidents should be held accountable for their actions............ (one law for everyone)........ because you yourself provided an example of one you believe hasn't been, and your tone suggests you're not very happy about it. So it is confusing why you would then use that as an explanation for why Trump shouldn't be held accountable.......... when it seems the correct reaction would be to use the previous "failure"........... as added encouragement.......... to do the right thing, THIS TIME! Very baffling. Because I've never believed that just because the last guy managed to get away with it, the next guy ought to be allowed to get away with it, also! So, I'll ask again. Do......... Two-Wrongs-Make-A-Right?

I wouldn't worry about it. It was just a throwaway troll post, anyway.

You might want to double check that. In Pennsylvania and Michigan.......... two of the States with the most questionable "comebacks".......... neither allows counting of mail-in and absentee ballots before election day. So there ARE NO "pre-counts" to contrast with post-ballot-closing counts, for those States. ALL the mail-in and absentee ballots in those States were left uncounted until election day. Both States require walk-in ballots be counted before mail-in and absentee ballots get counted. So, if you want your claim to be believed, you're gonna have to back it up with something. Cuz when I went looking, all I could really find was that ~2/3 of States don't even allow "pre-counting." https://ballotpedia.org/When_states_can_begin_processing_and_counting_absentee/mail-in_ballots,_2020 If roughly 2/3 don't even allow "pre-counting".......... it's not really even possible to do the kind of compare-and-contrast you have described.

Listen, this sort of thing happens in sports all the time. First half, one team gets a big lead. They go into the locker room and the coach reminds them to not get discouraged: "If they can go up by 20 points in one half, we can do the same to them in the second half, and more! Grrr!" It is tacitly understood that if one guy can do it......... the other guy can do it, too! Sports are riddled with stories exactly like this: "The Big Comeback!" Yes, at one point on election night, Trump had a big lead. Did you assume that Trump achieving such a big early lead on was because he had cheated? No, of course not! But when you see that Biden has done the exact same thing that Trump had done......... lots of votes on one side, not the other.......... that it MUST BE because he was cheating? Think about how inconsistent that logic is.......... One guy proves it is possible. But when the other guy does the exact same thing, you accuse him of cheating? Trump's "lead" proved it was possible for one candidate to get that many votes ahead, in a relatively short period of time. Biden's "Big Comeback" merely proves it can work both ways. It doesn't even remotely prove that cheating occurred! Golf -- Down by 6 to 8 strokes going into the final round, and win the tournament. Football and Basketball -- Down by 20 points at halftime but still win the game. Baseball -- Down by 7 to 9 runs going into the 8th, and win the game. Boxing -- Pummeled and outboxed for 7 rounds, then deliver a knockout blow. 7-game Playoff Series -- Lose the first 2 or 3 games, then win the next four to win the Series. ------------------ These things happen all the time! Yet no one accuses the person who got the big lead in the first place of cheating.......... and no one accuses the "comeback" player or team of cheating! ----------------- As far as we know, Trump may have had his big lead........... only because he cheated! Or......... we can be rational and reasonable, instead......... We can assume that neither the "Big Lead"......... nor the "Comeback"......... were the result of cheating! Heck......... maybe the truth is......... BOTH cheated......... and it all balanced out! Hahahaha!

Someone back in the past stared at a solar eclipse and discovered that they shouldn't have; that it could blind them, fully or partially. Should everyone thereafter who is considering looking at a solar eclipse............NOT talk to this poor sap that blinded himself, to find out what went wrong, and why? Trump has been President of the United States. He equates to 20% of the people alive who have ever had that job: 1 of 5. When there are only 5 people in the world who know what you're up against ........... shunning one of them is foolish! Even if that one is a buffoon like Trump!

Man, that means I should've stopped reading about 30 pages ago!

Don't try to blame me for your own bad behavior. How I responded is not the point. Your bad behavior is the point. In a world of Cause and Effect, it's Cause that earns the blame, not Effect! Ultimately, you didn't get an answer your question.......... because your decision to be snarky proved you didn't deserve an answer. Pffft!

Bush receives them. Carter receives them. Obama receives them. Clinton receives them. What I didn't know until today........... which I acknowledged above........... is that Biden decided that Trump shouldn't receive them.......... the first ever former President to be so denied. Be that as it may, if Biden has decided that he should never consult with Trump, he's being foolish. A President has to consider things that no one else has to consider. Having an opportunity to consult with someone who's been in the same position, is invaluable........... regardless of who they are. Good information is good information, regardless of the source!