[hrothgar]

y66, on 2018-September-02, 09:33, said:

Re: the tax cut and who benefits, here's a very readable op-ed by Bethany McLean at NYT that argues that the shale oil industry is economically unsustainable, has net debt of over $200 billion as of 2015 and is "a bit reminiscent of the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s when internet companies were valued on the number of eyeballs they attracted, not on the profits they were likely to make". And a related story by Justin Makula at DESMOG about the "persistent paltry returns" of cash burning shale oil companies and how windfalls from the tax bill are obscuring what looks like a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Funny, I posted the same fraking piece to FB

[hrothgar]

y66, on 2018-September-02, 09:33, said:

Re: the tax cut and who benefits, here's a very readable op-ed by Bethany McLean at NYT that argues that the shale oil industry is economically unsustainable, has net debt of over $200 billion as of 2015 and is "a bit reminiscent of the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s when internet companies were valued on the number of eyeballs they attracted, not on the profits they were likely to make". And a related story by Justin Makula at DESMOG about the "persistent paltry returns" of cash burning shale oil companies and how windfalls from the tax bill are obscuring what looks like a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Funny, I posted the same fraking piece to FB

[hrothgar]

y66, on 2018-September-02, 09:33, said:

Re: the tax cut and who benefits, here's a very readable op-ed by Bethany McLean at NYT that argues that the shale oil industry is economically unsustainable, has net debt of over $200 billion as of 2015 and is "a bit reminiscent of the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s when internet companies were valued on the number of eyeballs they attracted, not on the profits they were likely to make". And a related story by Justin Makula at DESMOG about the "persistent paltry returns" of cash burning shale oil companies and how windfalls from the tax bill are obscuring what looks like a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Funny, I posted the same fraking piece to FB

[Winstonm]

Why is Dennison attacking Bruce Ohr? Author Craig Unger suggests ties to the Russian Mafia.

Quote

Ohr’s job in the Justice Department involved facing off against Russian crime boss Semion Mogilevich....If one tracks Trump’s ties to Russia, the name Mogilevich pops up more than any single name....

Quote

....beginning in 1984 when alleged Mogilevich operative David Bogatin bought five condos in Trump Tower for $6 million in cash. Over the years, no fewer than 1,300 Trump-branded condos were sold in all cash purchases to anonymous shell companies — the two criteria that set off alarm bells among anti-money laundering authorities

Quote

In 2002, after Trump had gone belly up in Atlantic City, Bayrock, a real estate development company that allegedly had ties to Mogilevich, moved into Trump Tower and partnered with Trump—in the process bailing out the bankrupt real estate mogul and putting him in a position to eventually run for the presidency.

This would come as no surprise and make sense as it is well known that learning to work with the American mafia was part of the training in New York City real estate deal so dealing with the Russian mafia would certainly be a natural progression - especially if you were desperate for cash.

[Winstonm]

This may indicate that the con job is starting to fail: (From Jennifer Rubin)

Quote

We now have one more poll:

Just 36% say they approve of the job President Trump is doing, a 5-point drop from last month, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll. Fifty six percent disapprove of Trump’s job performance, up from 53% the month before. …

Trump lost significant ground on job approval with Republicans this month, which fell from 83% last month to 76% this month. Among independents, Trump’s approval dropped 4 points to 33%. Democratic approval has never been above the low single digits.

He also saw a big drop in support from men (it went from 49% last month to 40% today).

Bolstering the theory that the trade wars are a turnoff, Trump’s numbers “among rural dwellers plunged 15 points — going from 60% to 45%.”

Again, even two polls do not make a trend, but Republicans surely have reason for alarm. As with a slew of other pols, the IBD/TIPP poll shows a big lead for Democrats in generic polling. (“The current poll shows Democrats with an 11-point advantage. Fifty percent now say they’d prefer Congress controlled by Democrats, with 39% favoring Republican control.”)

[johnu]

Dennison Says Bob Woodward Has ‘A Lot Of Credibility Problems’

Dennison complaining about anybody else having credibility problems is comedy gold

[Winstonm]

This from the NYT anonymous Op-ed published today - the claim is that it was written by a high-level member of the Dennison administration who is known the the Times by name but who could not release his name publicly. https://www.nytimes....resistance.html

Quote

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

Given that earlier in the statement the author claimed the problem is this president is totally amoral, then what explains his incessant urge to relieve Russia of sanctions? It appears there is only one motive that ever drives this president, and that is profit. Does he personally profit from removing sanctions of Russia's billionaires?

[ldrews]

Today is the 594th day of the Trump Presidency. But I am sure that tomorrow he will finally be ousted from the White House. Mueller is certain to indict him, the While House is in utter chaos, Trump continues to be an awful person, Congress will surely impeach him.

Tomorrow will be the 595th day of the Trump Presidency. But I am sure that the next day he will finally be ousted from the White House. Mueller is certain to indict him. The White House is in utter chaos. Trump continues to be an awful person, Congress will surely impeach him.

The next day will be the 596th day of the Trump Presidency. .......

[ldrews]

Have you watched the SC confirmation hearings! The Democrat protesters, many invited by Democrat Senators, have turned the hearings into a protest circus. Kavenaugh's children had to be escorted to safety. 30 or so protestors were arrested. Witnesses attesting that protestors were being paid to protest by money holders just outside the hearing room. One of the Democratic invitees actually physically accosted Kavenaugh.

Kavenaugh looks like he will be confirmed by about a 55/45 vote. And Kavenaugh probably will have a long memory of this treatment, and he will be on the Supreme Court for decades. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

[johnu]

ldrews, on 2018-September-05, 15:52, said:

Kavenaugh looks like he will be confirmed by about a 55/45 vote. And Kavenaugh probably will have a long memory of this treatment, and he will be on the Supreme Court for decades. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

So you are basically agreeing that Kavenaugh will not make rulings based on law which makes him unfit to be a Supreme Court judge? Fortunately for you, being unfit to service is not a disqualifying feature for Dennison and his deplorables.

[Winstonm]

The confirmation has always been a given; however, elections do matter as SC justices, as well as presidents, can be impeached and removed. Much can change over the next 20 years.

[ldrews]

johnu, on 2018-September-05, 16:29, said:

So you are basically agreeing that Kavenaugh will not make rulings based on law which makes him unfit to be a Supreme Court judge? Fortunately for you, being unfit to service is not a disqualifying feature for Dennison and his deplorables.

You do like to put words in my mouth, don't you. Do you always practice assassination politics?

I have no idea how Kavanaugh will react to all of this. Apparently he is a superb jurist. However, he is also a human being and a father. I would imagine that watching his girls be subjected to such vitriolic behavior would be disgusting and a genuine cause for anger. Wouldn't you? Or are you so immersed in partisanship that you have lost empathy?

[cherdano]

ldrews, on 2018-September-05, 15:52, said:

Kavenaugh looks like he will be confirmed by about a 55/45 vote.

Ok let's make a bet. If Kavanaugh gets confirmed with 53 or more votes, you win. 52 votes or less, or if he doesn't get confirmed, I win. 20 Bridgebase Dollars?

[johnu]

ldrews, on 2018-September-05, 18:26, said:

You do like to put words in my mouth, don't you. Do you always practice assassination politics?

I have no idea how Kavanaugh will react to all of this. Apparently he is a superb jurist. However, he is also a human being and a father. I would imagine that watching his girls be subjected to such vitriolic behavior would be disgusting and a genuine cause for anger. Wouldn't you? Or are you so immersed in partisanship that you have lost empathy?

You have no problem putting stupid words in your own mouth

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-September-05, 14:36, said:

This from the NYT anonymous Op-ed published today - the claim is that it was written by a high-level member of the Dennison administration who is known the the Times by name but who could not release his name publicly. https://www.nytimes....resistance.html

I see this as a serious lapse of judgment on the part of the Times, I think they will catch heat for it from people other than the Trumpies, I believe they will come to regret this.

I am ok, or at least I see it as regrettable but necessary, for a reporter to cite unnamed sources. But then the reporter, in signing the piece, is taking some responsibility for the content. He is saying, or should be saying, I have checked enough of this, and my experience with this person is such, that I believe what he is saying is credible. As this piece was done, who is taking responsibility? Dao? Maybe, but really it's more than a little amorphous.

The above is my strongest objection. But also the piece seems derivative. Take your quote "On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."

I think just about everyone is aware that Trump and his security team can be at odds. So this is recycled. And "he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior". Wait. He was there was he not, he could offer a direct quote. I doubt that Trump said "I am very frustrated that the United States continues to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior". Ok, he is paraphrasing. A direct quote would be new, the paraphrase we have heard before.

My main point is the first one. I want to see a name attached. If not the name of the accuser, then the name of a reporter who is willing to say "I regard this unidentified person as credible".

In this time when the press is so much under attack, I regard it as important to call out a media source that I in general have great regard for, but who in this instance I feel has seriously erred.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-September-05, 20:04, said:

I see this as a serious lapse of judgment on the part of the Times, I think they will catch heat for it from people other than the Trumpies, I believe they will come to regret this.

I am ok, or at least I see it as regrettable but necessary, for a reporter to cite unnamed sources. But then the reporter, in signing the piece, is taking some responsibility for the content. He is saying, or should be saying, I have checked enough of this, and my experience with this person is such, that I believe what he is saying is credible. As this piece was done, who is taking responsibility? Dao? Maybe, but really it's more than a little amorphous.

The above is my strongest objection. But also the piece seems derivative. Take your quote "On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."

I think just about everyone is aware that Trump and his security team can be at odds. So this is recycled. And "he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior". Wait. He was there was he not, he could offer a direct quote. I doubt that Trump said "I am very frustrated that the United States continues to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior". Ok, he is paraphrasing. A direct quote would be new, the paraphrase we have heard before.

My main point is the first one. I want to see a name attached. If not the name of the accuser, then the name of a reporter who is willing to say "I regard this unidentified person as credible".

In this time when the press is so much under attack, I regard it as important to call out a media source that I in general have great regard for, but who in this instance I feel has seriously erred.

I have to disagree - the Times had a duty to report.

Quote

"The first duty of the press is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time, and instantly, by disclosing them, to make them the common property of the nation. The statesman collects his information secretly and by secret means keeps it back; he keeps back even the current intelligence of the day with ludicrous precautions, until diplomacy is beaten in the race with publicity. The press lives by disclorures; whatever passes into its keeping becomes a part of the knowledge and history of our times; it is daily and for ever appealing to the enlightened force of public opinion--anticipating, if possible, the march of events--standing upon the breach between the present and the future, and extending its survey to the horizons of the world." Times, London, 1852

The error(s) have been committed by this group of non-elected officials who are in essence acting out a soft coup d'etat. The danger is in not exercising constitutional provisions to prevent excessive abuse by a president or in retaining a president incapable of performing those duties.

This whole mealy-mouthed sneak attack has the earmarks of a weasel like Mike Pence, IMHO. I cannot stand Dennison and would care not a second if he choked to death on a Big Mac, but unless he is removed by constitutional means he is the president and he is in charge, for better or worse.

[y66]

That anonymous NYT Op-Ed was lame and so was the decision to publish it.

[Winstonm]

Vox points out that not only does the Times report but the Woodward book Fear makes many similar claims.

[awm]

It does seem like there are a lot of stories indicating that Trump has little understanding of (or desire to learn about) policy, changes his mind constantly, goes on rants about his election win or “crooked Hillary” for no apparent reason, and proposes clearly terrible ideas that his aides have to talk (or trick) him out of.

This has been stated many times by multiple books and articles and interviews all of which source former Trump employees or (anonymously) current staff. I think these things are also apparent to anyone who has listened to Trump speak or read his tweets.

But each new source saying the same thing is covered as if it’s breaking news. Is there anyone left who believes we have a “normal” president and will be as shocked and surprised to hear otherwise as the news media claims to be? It just seems repetitive and pushes real news out of the headlines.

[cherdano]

Ken, his name is James Bennet. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialboard.html

I think you are completely wrong about this. That a member of the cabinet wants to say these things publicly is newsworthy enough. It was irresponsible (among other things) to write this op-ed, but it was an obvious decision to publish it.