2020 Presidential Election

[kcrufnek]

Aug 22, 2019 9:55:55 GMT -6 soonernvolved said:

www.breitbart.com/economy/2019/08/22/weekly-jobless-claims-fall-more-than-expected/

The number of Americans filing initial claims for unemployment benefits tumbled sharply last week, indicating that the labor market was unshaken by stock market volatility, the inverted yield curve, and concerns the economy is at risk of falling into a recession.

Jobless claims fell 12,000 to a seasonally adjusted 209,000 for the week ended August 17. Economists had expected a smaller drop to 216,000.

The prior week was revised up by 1,000 to 221,000.


Weekly claims can be volatile so economists tend to look at the four-week moving average as a better gauge of the health of the labor market. This edged up by 500 to 214,500.

Obana economy.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

hamodia.com/2019/08/22/house-democrats-less-likely-get-trumps-tax-returns-2020-election/

House Democrats appear increasingly unlikely to secure President Donald Trump’s tax returns before the 2020 presidential election, according to interviews with legal experts and several lawmakers, as resistance from the Trump administration has stymied the party’s efforts to obtain his personal financial records.

Several Democrats involved in oversight, including Ways and Means Committee member Rep. Daniel Kildee of Michigan, see a long path to getting a final court decision, even if they expect to win in the end. Trevor McFadden, a Trump-appointed judge who was assigned the case in July, will hear the case first, and any decision is likely to be appealed to higher courts, up to the Supreme Court.

For it to be resolved by fall 2020 would amount to Democrats drawing a possible but improbable legal “perfect straight,” according to Harry Sandick, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

[soonernvolved]

him to escape the accountability that he deserves for what he is doing to this economy,” said Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, a 2020 candidate for the presidential nomination. “He’ll try to blame every other person. The blame rests with Donald Trump. Now it’s incumbent on all of us to call this out.”

“Whether it’s this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high — and growing,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, another 2020 candidate, wrote in July.

2020 longshot John Delaney said Wednesday that some Democrats are “cheering on a recession”

[soonernvolved]

“For them, it’s about money. They’ll put up any amount of money to protect their investments of degrading the environment and the rest. Guns and all that,” Pelosi said at a DNC summer meeting flanked by DNC chief Tom Perez.

“So you have to be ready to take a punch. You’ve got to be ready to take a punch. And therefore you have to be ready to throw a punch — for the children! Throw a punch for the children.”

She added, “So are we ready to win have we decided that we are going to debate our differences, unify behind our candidates? Are we going to strengthen our majority in the House? To win the United States Senate for the American people? To win the White House for America?”

[soonernvolved]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-biden-asks-audience-to-imagine-obamas-assassination/ar-AAGeYwB

My senior semester they were both shot and killed,” Mr. Biden said. “Imagine what would have happened if, God forbid, Barack Obama had been assassinated after becoming the de facto nominee. What would have happened in America?”

I think of where we are at the moment. You know, none of you men are old — women are old enough, but a couple of you guys are old enough to remember. I graduated in 1968. Everybody before me was, drop out, go to Haight-Ashbury, don’t trust anybody over 30, everybody not getting involved. I’m serious, I know no woman will shake their head and acknowledge it, but you guys know what I’m talking about. Right? But then what happened? Dr. Ki— I only have two political heroes. I have one hero who was my dad, but I have two political heroes were Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. My senior semester they were both shot and killed. Imagine what would have happened if, God forbid, Barack Obama had been assassinated after becoming the de facto nominee. What would have happened in America?

.......

[soonernvolved]

Joe Biden is in New Hampshire. He thinks he’s in Vermont:

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/24/report-kamala-harris-campaign-brought-in-crowd-to-boost-cheering-during-her-dnc-speech/amp/

Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-CA) campaign brought in dozens of cheering supporters to enthusiastically react to her Democratic National Committee (DNC) speech in San Francisco Friday, according to The Atlantic’s Edward-Isaac Dovere.

Harris delivered a speech at the DNC meeting Friday and reportedly had dozens of supporters — purportedly supplied by her campaign — who cheered during her speech and promptly left after it was finished.

“It’s time to turn the page,” Harris said during the stump speech.

“To do that, I believe we must have the ability to successfully prosecute the case against four more years of Donald Trump, and it’ll take a prosecutor to do that,” she said, repeating one of her key lines.

However, some say Harris’s support was not organic.

“Kamala Harris’s speech at the DNC was boosted by a cheering section of about 40 people that her campaign brought in, erupting every time she hit a big line — and then that group got up and walked out as soon as she finished,” Dovere wrote:

Chants of “She’s smart! She’s strong! With Kamala, you can’t go wrong!” also broke out among her ground-level hype team, following her speech:

Harris has been losing support following her lackluster performance in the second debate. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), who was, by most measures, declared the winner of the second Democrat debate in Detroit, grilled Harris on her prosecutorial record, further halting Harris’s momentum.

A CNN poll released this week showed the California senator dropping a whopping 12 points since June, descending from 17 percent to five percent support. The current RealClearPolitics average shows Harris in a distant fourth place, with 7.4 percent support.

[soonernvolved]

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/21/trump-is-product-narcissistic-media-age/?noredirect=on

Trump is the product of a narcissistic media age
........

HILLSBORO, Ohio — I recently watched the 1980 presidential debate between incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter and his Republican challenger, former California governor Ronald Reagan. The debate is striking in retrospect, not because of memorable zingers (Reagan’s “There you go again” barely qualifies), but because of a tone and tenor that today’s audiences and TV execs would find downright tedious.

The members of the media panel didn’t interrupt the candidates or inject themselves into the debate. The candidates didn’t talk over each other, and neither accused his opponent of being a racist, a Russian agent, an anti-Semite, a baby-killer, a communist or a liar.

At one point, after a Reagan critique, Carter responded, “Governor Reagan is making some very misleading and disturbing statements.” Similarly, an allegation by Carter brought this rejoinder from Reagan: “The figures that the president has just used about California is a distortion of the situation there.” That’s as nasty as it got.

The journalists didn’t dispute the answers or try to create memorable moments for themselves, instead respecting the public’s ability to decipher obfuscations. ABC News’s Barbara Walters came closest to inserting herself into the fray when she observed, “I would like to say that neither candidate answered specifically the question of a specific policy for dealing with terrorism.” But rather than badgering the candidates until she was satisfied, she understood that the event was not about her and moved on.

It wasn’t that the political issues of four decades ago didn’t lend themselves to the theatrics we see today. Reagan’s proposals and gubernatorial record were regularly criticized as bad for minorities. Carter’s inability to free the hostages in Iran left him vulnerable to claims of weakness and, worse, he was once menaced by a rabbit. Carter could have called Reagan a “racist,” and Reagan could have ridiculed “Little Jimmy” to no end.

To understand why none of that happened merely requires us to recall the media world of 1980. The first 24-hour cable news channel, CNN, had debuted just a few months before the Carter-Reagan debate and was available in fewer than 2 million homes. There was no MSNBC and no Fox News. There was no Internet, and, therefore, no hate-spewing blogs, no insulting memes, no disgusting tweets, and no fake, manipulated images capable of immediately reaching millions.

But as cable TV and, later, digital platforms flourished, so did the need for revenue. What became evident was that Americans would tune in to watch a good fight, which brought us “Crossfire” on CNN and countless imitators on other channels pitting left vs. right, each one louder and more aggressive than the one before. Americans were encouraged to choose sides, driving us deeper into our partisan corners.

On the entertainment side, television struck gold with “reality” programming, placing seemingly ordinary citizens in voyeuristic and titillating settings, asking viewers to cheer one contestant, jeer the other and cast their votes.

Out of this divisive and salacious swamp climbed the combative, shocking and polarizing Donald Trump, stepping onto a cultural stage constructed almost specifically for him. The billionaire businessman’s years of self-promotion and pervasive tabloid presence culminated in his stint as ringmaster of “The Apprentice,” one of the most popular reality shows of all time. As a candidate and president, against a sea of traditional politicians still practicing the old proprieties, Trump flourishes because he says and does that which fits perfectly within the gaudy landscape created by our modern news and entertainment media.

He is the political pioneer of the Narcissistic Age. He cannot be too outrageous, because shocking and offensive are spoon-fed to America as the norm, courtesy of both unscripted and scripted television, which grows bolder with every new series in portraying what was once taboo language and scandalous behavior.

Pundits wonder why millions of Americans aren’t shocked by Trump. The shouting demagogues on cable news who bemoan our polarized politics and our lowered standards, and the producers and entertainers in Hollywood who curse his name, should come to terms with the fact that Trump is the progeny of their own talents and efforts.

Issues won’t decide the 2020 election. In presidential years, millions of ballots are cast by Americans who are ambivalent about politics and hang up on pollsters but who get pushed to the polls by the get-out-the-vote machines. When uninterested citizens feel compelled to vote next year, which candidate will once again be most comfortable and familiar to them based on their daily media intake?

After watching a recent Trump rally, a friend who cares little about politics smiled and said, “You have to hand it to him. He’s entertaining.” Chalk up another vote for Trump.

[soonernvolved]

[kcrufnek]

[kcrufnek]

Set your Tivos. Both Steve Bullock and de Commio are having town halls on CNN. Expect plenty of lying to go unchallenged.

[soonernvolved]

President Trump at the G7:

[soonernvolved]

Never Trumper running against President Trump as a Republican:

[kcrufnek]

Joe "if Muslums don't like it here then they can leave" Walsh.

[kcrufnek]

[kcrufnek]

Aug 25, 2019 9:06:44 GMT -6 kcrufnek said:

Set your Tivos. Both Steve Bullock and de Commio are having town halls on CNN. Expect plenty of lying to go unchallenged.

[soonernvolved]

Joe Biden says under his climate change plan that renewable energy workers will be paid a minimum wage of $25 an hour.

[soonernvolved]

Remember how everyone says that the Fed is non political, etc? Well, this kind of ends that narrative.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-27/bill-dudley-shocker-ex-ny-fed-president-urges-feds-powell-prevent-trump-re-election

Bill Dudley Shocker: Ex-NY Fed President Urges Fed's Powell To Prevent Trump Re-election
..........

At the start of August, we explained how - by scapegoating the global economy for the Fed's July 31 rate cut - the central bank had now trapped itself, having certified before the world that any further escalations in Trump's trade war are effectively a justification for more rate cuts. Whether this was Powell's intention is unclear, although as we said at the time, "it certainly means that Trump is now de facto in charge of the Fed's monetary policy by way of US foreign policy, and it also means that as BofA wrote, "the Fed is unintentionally underwriting the trade war."

Here, the only thing one can perhaps add is that the Fed may very well be intentionally underwriting Trump's trade war. In either case, as Bank of America's chief economist Michelle Meyer said, such a circular framework is a problem for many reasons, and as the bank admits, it is worried about an adverse feedback loop where the trade war hinders economic growth, therefore prompting additional Fed easing, which in turn allows for greater trade war escalation. This is shown in the chart below.



Fast forward to today, when in what in retrospect may be seen as a watershed moment in exposing just how "political" the Federal Reserve always has been despite repeated lies by various officials claiming otherwise, none other than former Goldman chief economist and the former head of the NY Fed, Bill Dudley, after looking at the chart above and having realized that the Fed is underwriting Trump's trade war, made a "modest proposal" in a Bloomberg op-ed in which he advised Powell to take a political stand against enabling Trump's trade war, and potentially go so far as to push the economy into a recession to prevent Trump from getting reelected!

www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-27/the-fed-shouldn-t-enable-donald-trump

Echoing what Powell said in his Jackson Hole speech, where he dedicated a section to Trump's ongoing trade wars, and blaming them for the Fed's rising inability to interfere in the US economy, Dudley begins with what is a clear political statement, arguing that "Donald Trump’s trade war with China keeps undermining the confidence of businesses and consumers, worsening the economic outlook."

Dudley, who was among those globalists who enabled China's tremendous ascent, and assured that Beijing will surpass the US economically and militarily at some point by 2032 if the status quo is left unchanged...




... ignores the consequences of his actions, and instead slams Trump for being the one president willing to challenge China's hegemonic ascent and upcoming Thucydides Trap (which as we noted before virtually assures war with China if nothing is done), saying that "this manufactured disaster-in-the-making presents the Federal Reserve with a dilemma: Should it mitigate the damage by providing offsetting stimulus, or refuse to play along?"

Dudley's advice: "If the ultimate goal is a healthy economy, the Fed should seriously consider the latter approach."

While Dudley then spend the bulks of his op-ed explaining the diagram shown at the top, a relationship which our readers are already familiar with, what is of particular note is Dudley's discussion of why the Fed should 'refuse to play along' and refuse to underwrite, as BofA said, Trump's trade war.

One thing Dudley recommends is that "the Fed could go much further" beyond merely warning, as Powell did, that the Fed's tools are not suited to mitigating the damage from trade war, but "could state explicitly that the central bank won’t bail out an administration that keeps making bad choices on trade policy, making it abundantly clear that Trump will own the consequences of his actions."

What immediately stands out here is that it is only Bill Dudley's subjective opinion that Trump is making "bad choices" on trade policy, an argument that immediately becomes political when one considers that Trump was elected on a platform of, among other things, reducing the US-China trade deficit and, by extension, limiting China's economic growth which if left unchecked, would assure war between the two superpowers.

No, instead to Dudley, what a myopic Trump should focus on is today and tomorrow, and leave the long-term to someone else. In other words, do precisely what the Fed has been doing for decades, even though as Mark Carney recently hinted, it was the Fed's monetary policy, that has been responsible for much of the world's crises and wars. You won't find a discussion of that in Dudley's brief op-ed, however.

Going back to Dudley's argument, the former Goldman banker claims that "such a harder line could benefit the Fed and the economy in three ways".

First, it would discourage further escalation of the trade war, by increasing the costs to the Trump administration.
Second, it would reassert the Fed’s independence by distancing it from the administration’s policies.
Third, it would conserve much-needed ammunition, allowing the Fed to avoid further interest-rate cuts at a time when rates are already very low by historical standards.
Here the narrative gets downright absurd, because while Dudley refers to the Fed as apolitical, underscoring that further in the next paragraph where he says that "I understand and support Fed officials’ desire to remain apolitical", he immediately refutes himself by admitting that the Fed has never been apolitical and in fact, it is the US central bank that, through its actions chooses who the US president is, to wit:

Central bank officials face a choice: enable the Trump administration to continue down a disastrous path of trade war escalation, or send a clear signal that if the administration does so, the president, not the Fed, will bear the risks — including the risk of losing the next election.

And the punchline: "There’s even an argument that the election itself falls within the Fed’s purview."

Translation: "there is even an argument", Dudley implies, that the Fed should crush the economy (arguably by hiking or not cutting rates) and start the next recession, thereby preventing Trump from getting re-elected.

And while we appreciate Dudley's de facto confirmation of what we have said for years, namely that the Fed is not only a political entity, one which picks the US president as the former NY Fed president admitted, but that the Fed is an even more powerful entity than the top US executive (an entity which as Bernanke's former advisor once said: "people would be stunned to know the extent to which the Fed is privately owned"). One hopes that finally a discussion can take place, whether in Congress or elsewhere, if such an entity should exist.

As for Dudley's "modest proposal", we look forward to Trump's response, because if there is one thing the US president needed in writing, it was just such an op-ed, one written from a former Fed member to the current Fed chair, recommending what amounts to mutiny against Trump should Trump proceed with his current course of action. Because if things don't work out, well Trump now has documentary evidence that, by extension, the Fed also had the ability to ensure his re-election, and if things seem like they are headed off course on the way to November 2020, we will sit back and enjoy as the war between Trump and the Fed goes nuclear.

[soonernvolved]

Obama wanting to gerrymand districts:

[soonernvolved]

I’ll be pulling for this young lady. She sounds good & supports both the President & the country.

[soonernvolved]

John McLaughlin: You’ve already mentioned they (the NeverTrumpers) lost the 2008 and 2012 race to Barack Obama. And Obama went on to destroy the health care system for middle class America, raise their taxes, lose their jobs. And basically put their sons and daughters at risk in in far off lands and we couldn’t win these wars. So Donald Trump ran on a message of change. And our strategy was to light up the rust belt, the sun belt, the Heartland of America and we brought out millions of new voters. We had a record 139 million voters show up and Donald Trump got 63 million votes because he was saying change and he ran against the Republican establishment and the DC establishment. And to this day he will win reelection because he’s bringing change to Washington. Our last poll said 51 to 38, the majority of Americans want him to continue to fight for change.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/08/27/joe-biden-says-racism-a-white-mans-problem-will-not-promise-black-running-mate/

Joe Biden Says Racism a ‘White Man’s Problem,’ Will Not Promise Black Running Mate
...........

Joe Biden claimed racism is institutional in America on Tuesday, but would not commit wholeheartedly to picking a person of color as his running mate if he were to win the Democrat presidential nomination.

Biden, who has faced scrutiny over his ties to avowed segregationists and opposition to school busing, told a group of reporters that racism is an institutional “white man’s problem visited on people of color” within the United States.

“White folks are the reason we have institutional racism,” the former vice president said. “There has always been racism in America. White supremacists have always existed, they still exist.”

Biden, who leads his fellow 2020 Democrats substantially among black voters, claimed that President Donald Trump had only furthered those divisions by using rhetoric that appeals “to the worst damn instincts of human nature.” Along similar lines, the former vice president has accused Trump of fanning the “flames of white supremacy” in recent weeks, as he attempts to portray the next election as a referendum on the nation’s soul.

In order to succeed in that battle, let alone win the general election, Biden will need to do better among African American voters than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did in 2016. Exit polling from the race indicate that Clinton received 88 percent of the black vote. Although the figure appears high, in actuality it was significantly lower than the 93 percent former President Barack Obama garnered in his successful 2012 reelection campaign.



Political scientists have attempted to explain the discrepancy by pointing out that overall turnout among African American voters was lower in 2016 than 2012. Few, however, have mentioned that Trump’s share of the black vote was greater than Mitt Romney’s in 2012, as denoted by the Roper Center for Public Opinion at Cornell University. In fact, Trump garnered the highest percentage of African American voters since 2004.

Trump’s better than expected margins among black voters, coupled with strong support from the white working-class, ensured he was the first Republican presidential candidate to carry states like Michigan and Pennsylvania since 1988. In Michigan alone, Trump received 15,000 more votes in urban Wayne County—where Detroit is located—than Romney in 2012. Although Trump lost the county by a heavy margin, the increase helped him eke out a win over Clinton statewide by more than 10,000 votes.



As Biden admitted on Tuesday, the eventual Democrat nominee will need to have crossover with both black voters and the white working-class to stand a chance of ousting Trump in 2020. To ensure that he can bring together such a coalition, Biden plans to highlight his “middle class” bonafides on the campaign trail and actively court black cultural institutions, like churches.

When asked if there were elements of his 40-year political career that could damage that strategy, Biden said tha, although he had a “recor,” people knew his “characte.”

“The bad news is I have a long record. The good news is I have a long record,” the former vice president said. “People know me — at least they think they know me. I think after all this time, I think they have a sense of what my character is, who I am.”

“I’ve never, ever, ever in my entire life been in a circumstance where I’ve ever felt uncomfortable being in the black community,” Biden added.

Despite touting his “record” and his attacks on institutional racism, Biden demurred when asked if he would commit to picking a person of color or a woman as his running mate, provided he won the Democrat nomination.

“Whomever I pick would be preferably someone who was of color and who was of a different gender, but I’m not making that commitment until I know that the person I’m dealing with I can completely, thoroughly trust, is authentic, and is on the same page,” the former vice president said.



The question comes as some of Biden’s long held stances on racial issues are increasingly under scrutiny. Earlier this year, the 76-year-old Biden came under fire after praising the “civility” of two ardent segregationists with whom he served in the U.S. Senate during the early 1970s. That situation quickly spiraled when it became known that the two men in question, the late-Sens. James Eastland (D-MS) and Herman Talmadage (D-GA), were allies in Biden’s crusade against busing to integrate public schools.

Biden’s history in that regard, coupled with his support for mass incarceration during the 1990s and his penchant for racial gaffes, have led many within the black community to call the former vice president “woefully ignorant” on the issues impacting African Americans.

[soonernvolved]

Proof that socialism is the gateway to communism. Bernie Sanders praises China for elevating their poor:

www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/27/sanders-china-has-made-more-progress-addressing-extreme-poverty-than-anyone-else-sadly-theyre-more-authoritarian/

Sanders: China Has ‘Made More Progress’ Addressing Extreme Poverty Than Anyone Else – Sadly, They’re ‘More Authoritarian’
........



Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) stated that it is unfortunate that China is moving in a “more authoritarian” direction, but “they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization.”

Sanders said, “I think China is a country that is moving, unfortunately, in a more authoritarian way, in a number of directions. We would have hoped that they would move toward a democratic –more democratic form of government. They’re moving in the opposite direction. And they are a country that vigorously protects their own interests, but what we have to say about China, in fairness to China and its leadership, is, if I’m not mistaken, they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization.”

Sanders also stated that the U.S. should do everything it can to prevent China’s government from denying people in Hong Kong their rights.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/51116/bernie-tries-praise-communist-china-accidentally-ryan-saavedra

Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who is one of the leading Democratic presidential candidates, attempted to praise communist China on Tuesday during an interview with The Hill and accidentally ended up promoting capitalism.

authoritarian way in a number of directions," Sanders told Hill.TV's Krystal Ball. "But what we have to say about China in fairness to China and it's leadership is if I'm not mistaken they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, so they've done a lot of things for their people."

What Sanders did not acknowledge was that free-market principles are what allowed China to lift millions of its citizens out of poverty. Forbes reports:

www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/07/08/chinas-economic-success-proves-the-power-of-capitalism/#72544c4f3b9d

...never before in history have so many people escaped poverty in such a short time as in the past decades in China. According to official World Bank figures, the percentage of extremely poor people in China in 1981 stood at 88.3%. By 2015 only 0.7% of the Chinese population was living in extreme poverty. In this period, the number of poor people in China fell from 878 million to less than ten million...

...China’s success provides clear evidence of the power of capitalism. Under Mao, the state had an omnipotent grip over China’s economy. What has happened over the past few decades can be summed up in a few sentences: China has progressively embraced the tenets of free-market economics, introduced private ownership, and gradually reduced the influence of the once all-powerful state over the Chinese economy. That the state still plays a major role today is simply because China is in the midst of a transformation process that began with complete state dominance of the economy.

Sanders' comment about how China has "done a lot of things for their people" does not stand up well next to scrutiny.

"He did not address how China's communist government has oppressed religious people and minorities, putting at least one million Uighur Muslims in concentration camps while instituting one of the most comprehensive surveillance states in history," The Free Beacon reported. "In China, the Communist Party requires all religions to pledge ultimate loyalty to President Xi Jinping, who is atop a one-party system that does not allow political opposition."

Sanders also did not acknowledge that China's Mao Zedong carried out the largest mass murder in world history against the Chinese people.

"According to the authoritative 'Black Book of Communism,' an estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao's repeated, merciless attempts to create a new 'socialist' China," The Heritage Foundation reported. "Anyone who got in his way was done away with — by execution, imprisonment or forced famine."

That 65 million number is approximately the same number of people who were killed in all of World War II.

[soonernvolved]

[kcrufnek]

Take the time to read the comments. Pure gold.

[soonernvolved]

The train wreck that is Joe Biden continues on......

And on..........



Joe Biden: Japan is in a position where generally women are as well educated as men. The tradition was that once the woman had a child they would drop out of the job market. Because they are xenophobic, because they do not want to invite people from outside their country to come in and make up the work force. They have fewer workers than they have a need for workers. And so what they’ve done is they’ve encouraged women to stay in the job market.

Yes, you read/heard that correctly. The Democrat front runner just accused the Japanese people of being xenophobic.

[kcrufnek]

[soonernvolved]

I'm all for performing a very thorough audit over the Fed due to the political statements of its former member,(to tank the economy to get rid of President Trump).

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/27/rick-manning-dudley-busted-myth-of-federal-reserves-political-neutrality/

President Rick Manning released a statement Tuesday, slamming former New York Federal Reserve President Bill Dudley’s call for the Fed to consider how their policies will impact the 2020 election.

Former New York Federal Reserve President Bill Dudley urged his former colleagues on Tuesday not to help President Donald Trump in his trade war against China. He even urged the central bank to consider how its monetary policy might impact the 2020 presidential election.

The former New York Federal Reserve bank president said that the Fed could and should try to influence the election against the sitting president. Mainstream economists often assert that the Federal Reserve has to stay independent from political influence.

Dudley said:

getliberty.org/2019/08/fed-head-powell-must-denounce-politicization-of-the-fed/

After all, Trump’s reelection arguably presents a threat to the U.S. and global economy, to the Fed’s independence and its ability to achieve its employment and inflation objectives. If the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome in 2020.

ALG President Manning said that Dudley’s call to influence the 2020 president through the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy busts the “myth” of the Federal Reserve’s “political neutrality.”
Manning said in a statement Tuesday:
The myth of the Federal Reserve’s political neutrality has been busted by former New York Federal Reserve President Bill Dudley’s non-plussed urging of the Fed to take 2020 political calculations into account when setting monetary policy in order to defeat President Trump in the election. Now that the illusion of a politically neutral Fed has been annihilated, President Trump’s recent focus on the failure of the central bank to take into account competitive devaluations by China and Europe to boost exports, and of exchange rates is vindicated.
Trump has attacked the Federal Reserve over its reluctance to ease interest rates in the wake of the country’s trade war with China. President Trump has recently questioned whether Federal Reserve President Jerome Powell or Chinese President Xi Jiping is the bigger enemy to the American economy.
Manning continued:
The audacity the non-elected central bank seeking to impact election outcomes and fiscal policies is only exceeded by the 2016 attempt of the nation’s intelligence agencies and Justice Department to stop the election of Trump and their subsequent efforts to unseat him.
“Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell needs to denounce Dudley’s remarks immediately and forcefully if the central bank is to retain any shred of credibility,” Manning added.