Free Republic

Let's look at today's news in context. Donald Trump is trying something heroic, saving the United States from financial disintegration by growing the economy out of the deficit. No one else can do what he is doing, he is the only man for the job. But in doing so he is necessarily playing politics. All of this is to squeeze the Fed to drop interest rates a half a tick to further stimulate growth and close the deficit and level the hill that must be climbed when the country pays interest on its debt at current levels.

That would be a wonderful event if it can be made to happen. But we have the Fed precisely as one of the checks and balances of the kind envisioned by the framers in a different context. Presidents always want growth because growth means votes but hard times mean electoral defeat. The Fed is charged with wanting the survival of the system, that is, control of inflation and the encouragement of employment.

We conservatives reject socialism precisely because when politicians control politics they do so not do it by submitting themselves to the truth of the balance sheet, they do so with greedy eyes on the latest polls. The results when politics control the marketplace? San Francisco and derelict city-owned shopping centers in Cleveland.

If Republicans were put on earth to cut taxes, the Fed was designed to say no to presidents. That is half the equation. Equally, presidents are there to pressure the Fed to obey his version of the popular will. President Trump is playing politics, good on him, that is what is supposed to do. When the context is somewhat different, for example when Fed and the president are in alignment concerning intrastate levels, we often find the opposition party in Congress attacking the Fed. They are doing what they are supposed to do. The system can go out of balance when you have a weak president like Jimmy Carter who must be brought back into reality by a Paul Volcker.

Until we can reform the Fed, we can at least understand that all the actors are on the stage playing their parts.

What exactly are our alternatives to the Federal Reserve Bank?

In the latter half of the 19th century, culminating in a near disastrous panic in 1906 and in the absence of a federal reserve system, private banker J.P. Morgan had to ride to the rescue and save the economy. He did it with a coterie of private bankers, some today would call robber barons, who pooled their wealth and heroically saved us from a depression. In stages thereafter the government moved to a federal system culminating in the Federal Reserve act of 1913 because leaving the fate of the nation's economy to the market simply didn't work. That libertarian or free market had been whipsawed by waves of "panics" and booms in the latter part of the 19th century.

If the alternative to the Federal Reserve is no federal system at all, who then? Shall we turn over the fate of the economy to the Marxists of the Democrat party? After all, that party will someday take power.

Shall we turn over the banking system control to a national plebiscite? Do we really want the economy to be pushed about by the mob? We don't let the mob control speech, our justice system, our national defense, our international relations, or, importantly, the creation of our national debt in the first place-that power we relinquished to Congress.

Those on this thread who are championing the abolition of the Fed should question whether they seek austerity, or even rational budgeting, and if do will they will get that wish fulfilled when people can vote themselves another sugar high?

Shall we turn control of the banking system over to a few oligarchs, digital prestidigitaters who will manage our affairs with their algorithms? Shall we let them control our currency in digital form? Even mob rule would be better than digital hell.

It is easy to scream for the abolishment of the Fed when it is the Fed that sometimes puts the brakes on the profligacy of Congress. It is harder to plead for the reform of the Fed, a commonsense plea that seems to be glaringly absent from our discussion.

You really want our enemy to prevail over the side we support?

A question I have been asking on this forum for some time. Evidently, Make America Patriotic Againn, is unevenly applied.

Pretty silly as Russia will take it at some point.

Actually, the smart money believes that Trump flipped because he was briefed that Russia is on the brink of internal disintegration and he wants to get ahead of the parade while he can.

Cramer's record of prognostication is even worse than that of Colonel MacGregor.

Please understand the self-limiting codicils I attached to my comments. I referred to them at least three times as "speculation." Once as "rank" speculation and another time as, "pure" speculation.

As to observations about Carlson's Episcopalian upbringing, I refer to his own comments to the effect that the Anglican church meant to him something much less than muscular Christian faith.

If, repeat if, he had a conversion experience, one would assume some sort of departure from his earlier Episcopalian/Anglican exposure.

He would see the world then as one who experienced an epiphany sees the world, according to a new paradigm.

AI is going to take care of the lack of worker problem. Baby boomers and Gen X will probably be ok. After that, it’s going to be rocky.

I think you've identified the fulcrum. AI has the potential of converting the worker problem from lack of workers to too many workers as it converts a system where goods and services are produced by workers into a system in which goods and services are produced by intelligent technology.

As and when that happens, the capacity of AI to produce wealth will be enormous. Elon musk has said the cost of goods will go to zero; no doubt an exaggeration but one that makes the point. The problem will be to create a system that preserves capitalism rather than a system that absorbs the wealth created by AI into government, a system in which government owns everything or the owners of robots own everything.

The reality is that a huge population will be idle because robots create goods and services but those who own the intelligent technology will expect to own the profits that will dwarf the wealth of today's American digital oligarchs. The idle population will have to be cared for while the fundamental rights of property must be maintained, or we will descend into technological communism.

The population that must be cared for is not an asset, not a source of producing wealth, but a liability, a source of demand for distribution of wealth created by robots and their owners. Democracy will be pushed to the limit.

So striving to increase a demographic of human worker bees is not only misplaced but counterproductive because it aggravates the problem.

We have to devise a new just system to cope with this new technology but the solution will not be found in a blue pill.

President Trump has stepped up weapons deliveries to Ukraine big time. Lots of C17 and C130 transport flights today.

I was told the cupboard was bare?

I was told we were broke?

Oh well, better late than never.

Ok.

The question is, which one applies in this case?

I was about to respond to your post #108 when #109 popped up and I was about to observe that I could not expect a more complete or better answer if I had consulted Perplexity Pro directly.

Thank you, your examples illustrate the rigor with which you contribute to this forum.

You sold me, I will sign up for Perplexity Pro for a month to test the legibility of the font.

Oh yes, I would be grateful for the material to be sent via freep mail.

To refine my previous comment:

A conversion experience actually converts the way one sees the world. An Islamicist does not see the world the way you and I do; he filters it through the closed loop of his faith. So it is not so much that he rejects Western culture, he simply does not have room for it because he is invested in sharia.

It is possible that a Christian convert now sees the incessant, often grubby, squabbles within the Beltway as something utterly irrelevant to a new reality. The daily stuff that occupies us here on Free Republic is all beside the point.

The new reality is not strictly anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism or pro-Russian bias, but a judgment of the world according to a new paradigm.

Superficial observation of Tucker Carlson's recent works, interviews and speeches suggest that he has undergone some sort of personal epiphany. An epiphany in the traditional sense of the word, a religious experience leading to a renewed and very compelling Christian faith.

This is rank speculation but, if true, it would explain much of Carlson's political positions. It would suggest that he's not become anti-Semitic but rather Pro Christian. It is possible to see his criticism of Israel as part of his peace and love prospective generated by a conversion experience.

Similarly, his harsh criticism and borderline conspiratorial understanding of the American system might also be the product of a spiritual view of the world that does not tolerate corruption.

It is possible that he is not so much Pro Russian and anti-American or anti-Israel as might appear, rather he simply supports Russia's policies because he sees Russia as a defender of Christianity.

I would add further speculate that his abstinence from alcohol may well be tied into his new worldview and connected to a Christian conversion.

Again this is pure speculation but I note that the complaint of anti-Semitism being brought against Carlson his essentially a collection of innuendo and inference against which Carlson has issued vehement denials. In other words one set of speculations vs. another and confronted by denial.

But when accusing someone of anti-Semitism, like racism, the duty of proof is very heavy indeed because the damage is likewise very heavy.

I have read this reply and the incorporated reply, both produced by Perplexity Pro and I am very much impressed by the quality of AI produced.

Perplexity (the free version) is my favorite of all the free services offered but it produces a washed out print image that I can scarcely read. The cost of the Pro version, $200 per year, seems reasonable, if legible.

Would you be kind enough to address a few questions: 1 why did you choose Perplexity Pro? 2 does it print out a legible product dark enough to actually read? 3 how does the Perplexity Pro price point compare to other Pro versions - if you know?

I think you are making an important contribution to this thread and to the issues and elections debate with the Democrats. Incorporating this AI product is a real wake-up call about how discourse in this forum will be conducted in the near future.

As I said in my original post on this thread, I think the ordering of a revised intelligence assessment is a core constitutional act of the president. As such, he is immunized for the obvious criminal act committed by Obama.

I tried to get around this by arguing that the criminal act complained of is not the ordering of a new intelligence assessment but the ordering of its distribution, knowing it was false. I suggested that the criminal intent to falsify and further a conspiracy could be considered in defining the act, that is, in determining whether the act complained of was core or otherwise.

Later, I extensively quoted the language of the supreme court ruling out that approach.

I've come to terms with the balance struck by the court, the value of a president free from fear of lawfare outweighs the danger of a president committing crimes, when immunity extends only to official acts.

But you do agree with Sotomayor because you both agree that the test is criminality. You both would send Donald Trump to a fate decided by a leftist judge, hearing a leftist prosecutor in a blue city with a blue city jury.

The sickening reality is the leftists will have their way and you will be revulsed by the results. If the lawfare of the recent years has taught us anything it is that the left seeks to put Donald Trump in jail for the rest of his life. It also teaches us that when he gets to trial in a blue city he has virtually no chance.

Trump did not have criminal intent Obama did.

Have you learned nothing? Do you think a Washington DC jury is gonna say, central_va says Trump did not have criminal intent so we have to acquit Donald Trump. Oh yeah, central_va says that Obama does have criminal intent so we will convict him?

It may well be that the only thing that saved Donald Trump from dying in jail was the fact that he won his election. Now the Supreme Court has put another barrier between the president and the mob, the decision that you disdain.

The point is that the Constitution wants a President free to exercise his best judgment without worry about that DC jury. To your surprise it has done its duty faithful to common sense, and good practical common sense at that.

Think of this as a good news bad news situation.

Good news: the Constitution is not a vehicle to please Justice Sonia Sotomayor (even though you agree with her)

Bad news: the Constitution is not a vehicle to please your common sense or your morality.

In other words the Constitution is not a place from which either you or Justice Sonia Sotomayor can rationalize backwards to make yourselves happy.

It is a Constitution we are expounding, not a soap opera, but a rulebook to be applied uniformly and consistently, even if doing so makes you feel indignant.

Here is my cyber spit in your face you loser.

Oh, now you slid back from all the good progress you made.

Are you confusing Harod who did John the Baptist with Solomon did not do the baby?

When someone observed to Mae West, "goodness what a beautiful ring!"

She replied, "goodness had nothing to do with it."

John Marshall said, "it is a Constitution we are expounding."

He was saying the court was making rules that apply equally to both sides. Our common sense and our morality might tell us, as they do in this case, that Barack Obama is evil and deserves exposure and incarceration, but the Supreme Court is fashioning a rule under the Constitution which takes into consideration not just your predilections, nor mine, but a rule for governing that apply equally to both sides and preserve the vital role of a president who, in the nuclear age, we entrust to act as a patriot and not as a man in fear of lawfare.

Yes, because it was not his own baby or ordered for any other private purpose.