U.S. The downfall of Joe Arpaio

No it was a ton of outside money that got him outed

Soros spends $2 million to defeat Arpaio - POLITICO

If Soros stopped pumping money into this crap it would all stop. Ever wonder who feeds all these protesters? These things are hardly organic any longer. The occupy movement was a prime example. Magic food trucks showed up throughout the day and feed people for free.

 

That is 100% correct. It's not an organic uprising. Instead, it's a paid-for, to include all the rental-riots that have been on TV. It's all been strategically calculated and financed in the following way:

- One-hundred financiers donated one million dollars (each) into a PAC. Thus, there was over 100 million dollars to implement their socialist ideology.

- During a round-table discussion, gates were identified for targeting political targeting.

All of the major media outlets are now controlled and financed by this group, which explains their biased news coverage. They no longer report the news, but they create it to form a socialist ideology for Americans to accept. Many Americans believe the ideology, but conversely, many don't, which explains the rise in alternative news sources.

The next 16 years of a Trump/Pence administration is not going to be affected by this strange ideological strategic plan. Trump will be a wrecking ball for the first eight years against that ideology -- and then in the second eight years, Pence will continue the Constitutional agenda (as designed by the framers of the Constitution).

All will be well, despite the crap that you see on mainstream media.

 

Dream on.

No political party has had a 16 year run in modern history. The record, I believe, is 12 and that was George HW riding Reagan's coattails to a single term.

It doesn't matter which party wins. After about eight years all of the problems get blamed on that party and the other is seen is the savior for the nation.

A big reason Obama won was that people were tired of the multi-front war that Bush insisted on. Yeah, Democrats voted to authorize it. They are just as guilty. But the perception to the U.S. public is that the president is solely at fault. So we had eight years of Clinton followed by eight years of Bush followed by eight years of Obama. Quite possible we'll get eight years of Trump.

But, again, at the end of these four years we'll have a Hillary not in prison, no wall that extends across the entire southern border, likely no more jobs and possibly rising inflation if Trump foolishly just withdraws from NAFTA on "Day 1" as he swears he will do.

Throw in what are sure to be some epic showdowns with Congress and it all spell disaster for Pence. Not to mention the Democrats have 8 years to come up with their next candidate.

This isn't an ideological difference. It's a two party system and it consistently bounces back and forth.

 

Don't be surprised if they run Elizabeth Warren up the flagpole in 2020, which if they did, would truly mean that they didn't learn the lessons of 2016.

 

As a businessman, it's highly unlikely that Trump will authorize "continuous wars" because they are too expensive on the GDP. The United States has had a prosperous [sic] war industry since the Vietnam conflict. However, instead of sinking investments and profits exclusively in the war industry, much of that finance can be redirected into infrastructural and economic-domestic needs of the United States. Granted, this is a gross oversimplification.

We will have eight years of a Trump administration, followed by at least four years of a Pence administration (but probably a full eight).

All will be well. This is not the end of the world and things will unequivocally improve under Trump's decisive leadership skills. There are many people (atheists, agnostics and Christians alike) who are incorrectly preaching that this is the end of the world. They are wrong. The end is not yet. We have two or three more centuries that lie before us -- and the technological marvels that will unfold will be miraculous i.e. the discovery of new energy sources and technologies, etc.

Pence will do very well as vice president. It is outstanding training that prepares him to take the reigns of the presidency after Trump serves for eight years.

That's fully understood.

 

The President doesn't give a damn about our GDP.

Bush involved us in two international conflicts and, in the process, outsourced sizable chunks of our military to the company that his vice president was CEO of just before taking the VP job.

Gee, what a special coincidence.

If you think that Trump isn't going to use this opportunity to enrich himself further and to enrich his business partners then I think you are, indeed, living in a dream land.

And there were people who said, with utmost authority, that Hillary was to win. You have no way of predicting the success of the Trump administration's next four years let alone 2-3 presidential elections in the future (which hinge upon the success of the Trump administration during the next four years).

You confuse common sense with some mystical doom-saying, it seems. Trump's most ardent supporters are looking forward to construction of a new wall beginning in January. A wall which would be a logistical and financial disaster if it ever gets off of the drawing board. And one which we cannot force Mexico to pay for.

Trump's constituents are relying on all of these promises. If you fail to deliver on these promises then you face political challenges.

It's not a job that's difficult to do very well. It has very few official duties. And I'm sure that Trump will enjoy having his political savvy on his side. Of course, that favor will run thin if Pence decides to try to steal away the Donald's camera time...

 

At least I agree with this part.

 

Neuhaus, how do you know that Trump "doesn't give a damn about the national GDP"? Or are you speculating?

Here is an interesting article: Donald Trump Bucks Precedent If He Refuses President Salary

To be Constitutional, Trump may have to accept a nominal dollar as his salary, in lieu of complete rejection of personal enrichment. Or he could donate it to a charity.

Trump said he wants to "drain the swamp." Look at how the elite GOP attempted to sabotage and undermine his credibility. Even Bush Sr. was initially quoted as saying that he was going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Drain the swamp!

 

Trump isn't the President. I wasn't speaking about Trump. I was speaking about the role, broadly, of President. Presidents act in the interests of their party and themselves, and not always in that order.

Don't be thick.

Trump doesn't need the salary. He can easily refuse it. That doesn't mean that he isn't getting any benefit to his business interests during his presidency. Appoint business allies to cabinet posts, give family members (the ones running your business in your "blind trust") access to classified information and the money and connections you make can dwarf the amount you would have received in salary.

He did say he wanted to drain the swamp. And his first move toward doing that appears to be to first pump in more swamp water.

But yeah, gas executive overseeing the Department of Interior, if you think that isn't going to end with fracking in our national parks then perhaps you are truly out there far enough to not realize that there is probably some benefit to Trump personally as well.

 

Steve Bannon is an outstanding choice, although leftists have vilified him with accusatory lies that have no substance in reality. Wait and see his performance in the White House before lodging false allegations against him.

Interesting article on Bannon: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-steve-bannon-really-as-bad-as-all-that/2016/11/15/3c74af12-ab81-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.a276d77728cc

 

So by "false accusations" you mean court filings and statements that he made on the record?

Wait, I'm curious, what's your spin on his not serving the legally required 120 day "cooling off" period between working for a Super PAC and joining the campaign? More leftist spin?

The Anti-Defamation League is hardly a leftist rag. They lean pretty heavily right. And they are vehemently against this guy. So I would seriously consider who is "lying" and who the real bad guy in this situation is.

 

Yes, that's exactly what's meant.

Is that the first stone that you've ever cast? Or is that simply a retaliatory stone? Where is Dr. Levicoff? Both parties have done egregious things, although DNC operatives seem to be more violent; and DNC operatives are much more effective than skinheads at orchestrating and organizing "paid-for" violent rental-riots throughout the United States involving:
- burning American flags
- hitting, punching, pushing and carjacking Trump supporters
- blocking traffic from driving to Trump rallies
- destroying public and private property

The Anti-Defamation League is a good organization. However, if Trump trusts Brannon to work for the good of the United States, then Brannon is an excellent choice for the selected position. He will do well.

 

So Steve Bannon says he supports the alt-right. Is on record supporting the alt-right. We have video of him saying he supports the alt-right. But pointing out that Steve Bannon supports the alt-right is a lie. Gotcha.

That was a very nice red herring. But it doesn't address the fact that, by all appearances, Steve Bannon violated two federal laws during this election. That has nothing to do with burning American flags, hitting or punching people or blocking traffic at Trump rallies. Nothing whatsoever.

The problem seems to be that you have very falsely equated any criticism of any part of Trump's administration with an embrace of people who protest Trump. It simply isn't true.

What is true is that a few weeks ago folks on here were hooting and hollering about how reprehensible it was that Hillary had confidential emails on her email server, just like Colin Powell, George Bush and Karl Rove did. That it was horrendous that she was "warned" about Benghazi and did nothing, even though Condoleeza Rice was "warned" about a potential 9/11 shortly before it occurred.

The justification for not being mad about Colin Powell or Rice was that neither were running for President.

We either care about the law or we don't. We either insist upon laws being enforced or we don't. Steve Bannon broke the law. And he did it not really giving a damn because he likely knows he can receive a presidential pardon in just a few weeks and carry on with his activities.

The ADL has condemned the Bannon hire and rightly is concerned about the presence of an anti-semite in the incoming administration.

But, since you evidently support anti-semitism I'm not terribly surprised that you dismiss the concerns of the ADL.

For the record, it would be a lot easier if you just admitted that you hated the Jews rather than go through such an illogical defense of one of the now most powerful anti-semites in the country.

It would, at the very least, be more honest.

 

I have not followed the story closely. However, as I understand it, the allegations are misconstrued to characterize Bannon as saying that he espouses certain beliefs, which he does not.

 

Yes Neuhaus, you are correct: Hillary Clinton attempted to drag Colin Powell down with her by alleging that he too was sending NSA Top Secret information via his personal email account. Colin Powell repudiated Hillary's counter-allegation.

Here is Hillary's classic Modus Operandi:
- First, admit nothing.
- Second, demand proof.
- Third, if that doesn't work, then make counter-allegations.

Only a loose cannon would create a personal email account and then send NSA TS information over it. It's against established NSA rules, regulations and laws.