OANN reported last night that the RNC and the President have broken a record for donations to his campaign. The RNC has $157 million in it's coffers.

The DNC has just $8.6 million. They may never recover from the 2016 campaign of hillary.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
They may never recover from the 2016 campaign of hillary.

Hillary severely wounded the DNC, but I think it's the current crop of socialistic, insane, morons who are going to cause it to code. I so hope November of next year is going to be the biggest bloodbath in American election history.

Trump rally in Mississippi tonight at 8 pm EST

A gofundme for the "whistleblower" has raised $223,000

The site does not give a specific name

The lawyers for the WB run the group that has the gofundme

Supposedly the lawyers have said there is no ongoing dialog to have the WB testify to congress

Eric Ciaramelia has not made a public statement that I know of.

Every day that goes by reinforces that he is the leaker hiding behind the WB law.

Hopefully Ciaramelia is feeling some heat.

Why is "mud" in sudden need of money, what warrants a go fund me?

The 2 lawyers who represent the "WB" are Andrew Bakaj and Mark Zaid.

Bakaj in the past served 3 U.S. senators: Daniel Moynihan, Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton.

Bakaj is also former CIA. (and worked w WBs)

Bakaj started working with CIA in 2012, and helped ensure the agency was complying with President Barack Obama’s new directive to protect whistleblowers

In an issue that is not clear, Bakaj lost his security clearance and in 2015 retired from CIA.

He started Compass Rose Legal Group.

https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/andrew-p-bakaj/

Mark Zaid is a founding member of nonprofit Whistleblower Aid (started in Sep 2017)

are you getting the picture ?

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
Why is "mud" in sudden need of money, what warrants a go fund me?

His lawyers have to be paid somehow.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
Why is "mud" in sudden need of money, what warrants a go fund me?

His lawyers have to be paid somehow.

flashguy

Maybe a dumb question but what does he need lawyers for?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

In an issue that is not clear, Bakaj lost his security clearance and in 2015 retired from CIA.

He was hired to develop a whistle blower reprisal program, an Obama admin directive.
When he reported concerns for coworkers to the IG office, CIA then learned who the whistleblowers were.

Clearance revoked.

That's what I recall from a new article in September. Sorry no link, looking for it.

--chris

US opens national security investigation into TikTok

Nov. 01, 2019 - 5:03 - Senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center Rick Fisher discusses issues related to U.S.-China relations, such as the social media app, TikTok, China leasing the island of Tulagi and more.

https://video.foxbusiness.com/...636001#sp=show-clips

I think we need to stop playing footsie with China. There will never be an agreement since they can not be trusted and keep playing games.

GoFundMe For Ukraine “Whistleblower” Started By Former SPLC Employee

Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Has Raised $138,000 on GoFundMe (Sept. 27, 2019)

GoFundMe currently at:
$223,145 of $300,000
Donations are 100% tax deductible.

Never would have thought a GoFundMe would be setup for the Whistleblower.
Sneaky Democrats, who would’ve guessed.

Let me go out on the limb here.
Anyone want to make a bet on the next Democratic stooge getting a GoFundMe fund drive?

Kimber,

at first I didn't believe your post, but you are correct.

The gofundme is under the signature of John Tye who is another founder of WhistleBlower Aid that I mentioned above.

And it is indeed tax deductible to the donors.

Started in Sep 2017.

Whistleblowers to attack Donald Trump and the taxpayers kick in 25 to 30 % because the donations are tax deductible. Damn that makes me mad.

I am going to write some members of congress to take a hard look at how these coup plotters are 501(c)(3)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

adding: just saw this

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...ng-trump-informants/

Rep. Ted W. Lieu, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee helping to lead the impeachment process, previously used his Congressional position to promote Whistleblower Aid, a small nonprofit started by the attorney for the so-called whistleblower at the center of the impeachment claims.
Upon its founding in September 2017 in the wake of Trump’s presidency, Whistleblower Aid blasted advertisements around D.C. actively seeking whistleblowers during the Trump administration.

The week that Whistleblower Aid commenced operations, Lieu promoted the group using language clearly meant to encourage anti-Trump whistleblowers.

Whistleblower Aid did not sit around waiting for whistleblowers when it was launched in September 2017.

Upon its founding, Whistleblower Aid actively sought to attract the attention of Trump administration government employees by reportedly blasting advertisements for its whistleblower services on Metro trains, using mobile billboards that circled government offices for 10 hours a day, and handing out whistles on street corners as a gimmick to gain attention.

When Whistleblower Aid was first formed, the main banner for the mission statement of its website contained clearly anti-Trump language.

Speaking to the Washington Post just after Whistleblower Aid’s founding, John Tye, who co-founded the organization with Zaid, claimed, “This is not a partisan effort,” and then went on to express seemingly partisan alarm about Trump.

Tye continued, “At the same time, yes, the rule of law starts with the office of the president. Like many other people, we are definitely concerned about things that are happening in the administration. The decision to fire [FBI Director] James Comey. The lack of transparency. A lot of people have questions about whether this administration respects the rule of law.”

An interesting read and the writer's personal opinion, on the Dems and the cost of healthcare for all, written by Sam Clench, news.com.au, Nov 2 2019.
Mr Clench writes about Australian and US politics. His articles are also on muckrack.com.


One pivotal decision could decide whether Donald Trump is re-elected next year. At its heart is an argument worth an astonishing $30 trillion.

Trump’s political enemies confront $30 trillion dilemma


This week, 232 members of America’s Congress voted to formally proceed with an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Not a single Republican was among them.

Consider that a reminder of the incredibly important fact that is so often forgotten amid the daily avalanche of impeachment-related news – this process is almost certainly not going to end with Mr Trump being turfed from office.

At least 20 Republican senators would need to vote in favour of removing their own President. Those same senators have spent the last three years defending his every move. It is not going to happen.

Which means the only way to get rid of Mr Trump is to beat him at the election next year.

The Democrats have already blown one supposedly unlosable election. They could be on the cusp of doing it again.

The party is currently in the process of picking its candidate, and by extension, the policies it will present to the American people.

That process is long and complicated, but it essentially boils down to a struggle between the Democrats’ ideologically pure progressive wing, led by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and the more pragmatic moderate wing led by Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg.

One hugely symbolic policy is at the epicentre of that struggle – “Medicare for all”.

Ms Warren and Mr Sanders both advocate virtually abolishing private health insurance and putting everyone in the United States onto a universal public system. They consider it a litmus test for any Democrat who wants to be president.

Mr Biden and Mr Buttigieg support a more incremental change, which would give everyone the option of joining a public system without getting rid of private coverage.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because we are talking about a reasonable approximation of Australia’s health system. Mr Buttigieg calls it “Medicare for all who want it”.

This is the most significant argument of the Democratic primaries. If the Democrats select Ms Warren or Mr Sanders to be their presidential nominee, they will be staking the election on a $30 trillion gamble

Thirty trillion is one of those numbers that’s so large it practically loses all meaning. I may as well be talking about a billion gazillion dollars.

So why am I bringing it up? Because give or take a couple of trillion, that is how much Medicare for all will cost America’s federal government over the next 10 years.

For context, the entire US budget this year was $4.7 trillion. Medicare for all would add another 60 per cent on top of that already astronomical amount of money.

So, the obvious question is how Ms Warren or Mr Sanders would pay for their plans. Neither of them has an adequate answer.

During interviews and debates, Ms Warren has repeatedly been pressed on whether she will raise taxes on America’s middle class to pay for her health care policies.

She has typically dodged that question by saying “costs” will come down for the middle class, and go up for the rich.

Reading between the lines, we all assumed that meant yes, taxes would go up, but she wasn’t prepared to admit it. Ms Warren’s argument was that a reduction in health care costs would leave people, on net, better off.

Overnight, after weeks of pressure to explain herself more clearly, she finally released an actual strategy to fund Medicare for all. Astonishingly, it claimed no middle class tax increases would be necessary.

That was only possible because Ms Warren rather conveniently estimated the cost of her own policy to be $20 trillion – well below the projections of independent experts.

In other words, her plan still has a $10 trillion black hole.

Mr Sanders has at least been honest enough to publicly say taxes on the middle class will rise. But the measures he has outlined only account for about a third of the money he will ultimately need.

“You’re asking me to come up with an exact, detailed plan of how every American – how much you’re going to pay more in taxes, how much I’m going to pay. I don’t think I have to do that right now,” he told CNBC reporter John Harwood this week.

The reality here is that neither of them can fund Medicare for all by taxing the rich alone. It is not even close to possible.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a think tank whose purpose should be pretty obvious from its name, has conducted a detailed analysis of what would actually be required to raise enough cash.

Its ideas include more than doubling America’s individual and corporate income tax rates, cutting the federal government’s non-health spending by 80 per cent, increasing the national debt by 108 per cent of GDP, or implementing a 42 per cent value-added tax.

Those would all be political poison.

So Ms Warren and Mr Sanders are left with two options.

They can either explain exactly how they will pay for their health care plans – without fudging the numbers this time – or they can try to obfuscate for another 12 months and let Mr Trump mount as potent a scare campaign as he can imagine.

And anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at the news over the last three years knows that Donald Trump’s imagination is pretty damn potent.

On top of that, Ms Warren and Mr Sanders risk angering the 150 million or so Americans who would be kicked off their existing private health insurance plans and forcibly shifted onto a government program.

The polling shows how fraught this argument is for the Democrats. At the moment, support and opposition to Medicare for all is split almost evenly down the middle.

By contrast, support for a system that gives people a choice – the one Mr Biden and Mr Buttigieg are advocating – is at more than 70 per cent.

One of these ideas is a political slam dunk. The other is an enormous risk.

The Australian election earlier this year taught us that progressive political parties cannot expect to win without properly acknowledging and explaining the cost of their plans.

Nothing hurt Bill Shorten (insert: Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) from 2013 to 2019) more than his repeated refusal to say exactly how Labor’s climate change targets would affect the economy.

He dodged that question for five weeks. The US election is still an entire year away. That is far too long for Ms Warren or Mr Sanders to keep stonewalling.

If the Democrats choose either of them to take on Mr Trump, they will have 30 trillion reasons to worry.

Trump 'deserves to take a victory lap' for strong economy: Expert.

Nov. 01, 2019 - 6:46 - FOX Business' Edward Lawrence and NatWest Markets Managing Director Michelle Girard discuss the U.S. market in relation to the S&P and Nasdaq closing at record highs. FOX Business' Gerri Willis responds on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

6+ MINUTE VIDEO:

FOX BUSINESS NEWS > https://video.foxbusiness.com/...46001/#sp=show-clips

If you didn't watch the Mississippi rally, take the time to do so. He was slaying.

quote:

Trump’s political enemies confront $30 trillion dilemma
In other words, her plan still has a $10 trillion black hole....

I don't think her voters care. They don't care about math. Math is racist. Math is sexist.

They would happily bankrupt this country to gain complete control over healthcare and the life/death decisions of every person.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
They would happily bankrupt this country

We're probably already there with $22,000,000,000,000 of debt. Who thinks we can or will even try to repay that?

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
They would happily bankrupt this country

We're probably already there with $22,000,000,000,000 of debt. Who thinks we can or will even try to repay that?

My opinion: Most of "them" don't care... it's somebody else's money. They'll still get their money, and that's all they're worried about.

quote:

We're probably already there with $22,000,000,000,000 of debt. Who thinks we can or will even try to repay that?

At some point there will be a global "reset". All of the worlds major currencies are linked through central banks. None of them are backed by anything but rapidly mounting debt. They will all crash and become worthless at once. It will be epic. It's a matter of when, not if.