Printable View
Trump 101 - attack, attack, attack. Perhaps the Senate will ignore this and restrict things further, but if the fight and air time is over having the sort of powers that his mates in Russia, North Korea and Turkey enjoy everything is in a good place. And of course he can continue to blame the failure to win this "really easy" trade war on everyone else - which is also a trademark.
~:smoking:
Trump 101...I like it. You are certainly correct as to his style Rory. I don't think he understands collaboration at all, simply competition and fall back to compromise if you cannot win outright. Totally one strategy, and not a lot of tactical variation either.
On Trade, in general, Trump hates the fact that we are perennially bleeding cash to the rest of the world, especially China. He thinks our economy is bigger and more necessary to our trading partners then they are to us. To him, that spells power that should be leveraged to get a better deal. All the tariff threats (and so far none have been activated) are to try to force a better more lucrative deal.
I think Trump is underestimating the political angle though. He seems to be viewing this in purely business terms where our economy gives us the leverage and a better capacity to absorb the economic pain of honoring a threat. He believes that our trade partners will therefore blink first. However, they are NOT business people holding political office. They look at the political ramifications FIRST, and I suspect that those ramifications would include, in a number of countries, the following: "Oh, the PM just told Trump to stuff his trade threats up his posterior. Good job!"
I don't know what the full spectrum's standing is, but the lynchpins have all gone into effect by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
US tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada, Mexico, EU: June 1
Canada's retaliatory tariffs: July 1
Mexico's retaliatory tariffs: June 5
EU retaliatory tariffs: June 22
(More to come)
I'm not going to bother looking up the situation vis-a-vis China, but I'm pretty sure at least one round of tariffs has already been implemented on both sides, with more set to go into effect.
This is a serious situation Seamus, not just rhetoric.
Trump and his supporters believe in the ethic of total retaliation, which is the acceptance that you will never be good enough on your own merits, so the best you can do is create chaos and destruction and inflict cruelty and pain on others.
This will be beautiful.
Manufacture a crisis (the bigger the better) buy up any "stressed" assets (Don jr. is not in gov't) foment revolution (They are holding Us back/dragging Us down) declare yourself Pope for Life!
I have a Comm PhD. I assure you that I believe that rhetoric matters and that it is serious; these tariff disputes will have a significant impact. I hadn't realized we were past the start dates on those yet -- crazy schedule this last month for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
My basic point is that Trump is assuming we can take the pain better than our "opponents" in these disputes and that they will cave before we do. I am NOT certain he is factoring things correctly in this.
Aka disaster capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Alright, how about this hypothesis: To the extent Trump or the admin have considered the costs to the US, they think it can be sublimated into an increasingly-authoritarian rhetoric that actually galvanizes the base - even as trade disruption directly impacts large swathes of Trump land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
By now we've seen Trump supporters respond to a different type of logic and discourse, so it may even be a good bet that economic pain will drive them toward Trump, just as his incompetence and vulgarity and the contrition of his enemies have.
I don't know if I said it in this forum. When Trump was running for the candidacy, I warned people that tariffs and counter-tariffs were what worsened the Great Depression. This time, the US is isolating itself and will be the most affected. Other countries have each other for trade.
Meanwhile, here's a nice article from the ultra-right Federalist. The author expounds his fatalist bravado on "not going down without a fight" as America plunges into "socialist abyss". He wants to make the Left feel the pain that the Plains Indians made the American colonizers feel before their ultimate capitulation. Take a few scalps for bragging rights in Hell.
Quote:
They are not political opponents in the sense that you have a debate with them. These modern-day leftists want you to lose your job. They want to destroy you. How do you think they’re going to treat you when they finally sit in the seat of power for good? So fight them tooth and nail. Make them long for the day when you’re no longer fighting them. Be the Lakota.
You know, reading this shit I get a certain feeling. I feel like violence is justified, like I want to see this man die.Quote:
So, back to scalping thing. When you make that long trek to the reservation the leftists have set up for you—and make that trek you will—what memories do you want to take with you? When living in the liberal utopian nightmare of 57 genders and government control over everything in your life, you will want to have been a Lakota. You’ll want to know, to remember, even just cherish the knowledge that, one day, you rode out onto the plains and made them feel pain.
Jesse is a Marine Corps combat veteran, former congressional candidate in Arizona, and host of "Jesse Kelly Brief." Jesse resides in the Houston area with his wife and two sons.
But I don't. I really don't. I'm not constitutionally capable of focused violence. I don't like the thought of genuine, visceral violence. Be it as it may that this is a wargaming/military history forum, but the thought of real violence brings me to tears.
That punch Richard Spencer received way back when, regardless of your abstract position, it's hard to really get worked up about: it was a light jab, nothing more, something to ruffle feathers rather than cause damage. But this other
punch, this is the real thing, the kind of brutality that turns my stomach to look upon. Prior to anything else, my instinct toward such violence is compassion and sorrow.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Call me a bleeding heart.
And yet, a society of their making has no place for people like me (or even many of 'their own' as history shows), so seeing them in power is intolerable.
I wish I knew a way to convince these people that NO, you do not need to kill or subjugate liberals to militate against some prospective Communist purges, you stupid mother fucker. :bigcry:
Possibly, very possibly. His core supporters really are close to 'cult of personality' types. And those sections that voted Trump are as, and in many cases are MORE, likely to take the highest pain of whatever tradewar pain we endure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/h...dor-trump.html
Quote:
Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.
Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.
American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.
When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.
[...]
In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.
The science just isn't in yet.
How do we know that a mother's milk is in anyway better for babies than Nestle sugar/water?
Not all countries are as tightly regulated as western countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
2008 Chinese milk scandal
Trump and trade.
Well there is one person at least who is roundly cheering Trump's trade policy. Peter Navarro is not a fan of China's economic rise, and sees little (to zero) upside to doing anything to bolster that rise. The policy is to return production to the USA and to keep the American market for American producers. Everyone else is just collateral damage:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trum...-war-1.4735828
As the article (above) says: "Maybe if you're willing to stick it out, it's doable over the very long term, but the medium term is miserable," said Jacqueline Best, a political economist at the University of Ottawa.
Of course over the very long-term we're all dead...
Since I'm pretty sure ACIN was being sarcastic, your point is that only tightly regulated mother's milk is truly safe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Every week comes the breast inspector? :clown:
The FBI need to earn their paychecks somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So the T-Shirts are actually wrong and it's really Female Breast Inspector? :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It is known that Donald Trump has for decades largely got his capital financing and credit through Deutsche Bank (and probably from various mafias), whereas other institutions would not lend to him. Long story short, there is good reason to believe whatever has existed of Donald Trump's revenue stream has likely been underwritten by wholesale criminal activity (beyond the petty contractual violations against small contractors).
It has been reported that retired Justice Anthony Kennedy's son, was in a senior role at Deutsche Bank over years in which he worked closely with Donald Trump and his organization, in roles that held authority over real estate capital. The caveat here is that Kennedy (the son) would not have been responsible for managing the entirety of the bank's relationship with the Trumps.
It has been reported (as in the above article), that the Trump administration has since Trump's inauguration maneuvered behind the scenes to get a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Moreover, these efforts have had a special focus on Kennedy, whom we should recall was the key swing judge on the bench. The first show was when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, later confirmed, to fill the SCOTUS vacancy: Gorsuch had clerked for Kennedy, and Kennedy was involved (on invitation) in the swearing-in of Gorsuch.
It has been reported in January that Kennedy had hired interns for his office for October 2018 term. In other words, he was planning to work to at least the end of this year at the beginning of this year. His plans therefore changed, and recently.
But now, it has been reported that Kennedy was in private negotiations with the Trump administration over his replacement, and when it was decided on current nominee Brett Kavanaugh (who clerked for Kennedy), Kennedy agreed to retire. That would, uh...
If these reports prove true in the end, Kennedy will have proven himself a corrupt mother bucker and a stain on the country. And it probably wouldn't be a conspiracy, or blackmail, or anything - just that elites like Kennedy care far more about their relationships with fellow elites like Trump than they do about civic ideals or the law or human suffering or any such fluff.
And to shed some light on who this Kavanaugh character is:
Goody!Quote:
One could imagine, of course, that Kavanaugh’s experience pursuing wrongdoing in the Clinton White House might incline him to a jaundiced view of presidents generally, thus offering a hope that, on the bench, he will be independent of the president who appointed him. But in a 2009 article in Minnesota Law Review, Kavanaugh, by then a life-tenured judge, announced that the independent-counsel investigation in which he served had been a mistake after all: “[T]he nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama Bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots.” He suggested instead that Congress should, by statute, simply provide that a sitting president could neither be sued, indicted, tried, investigated or even questioned by prosecutors while in office. Problem solved.
Sounds like a good choice for Trump! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
He won't have to pardon himself if he is immune to the law anyway.
Kavanaugh it is. A pretty standard issue conservative judge, heritage approved. The most salacious thing about him is the Starr report. One can't help but feel that bit of information found its way to the presidents ears. No doubt, anyone who twists the knife in the Clintons is a great guy.
The Ds are kind of in a pickle here. The specter of Garland is going to haunt them for a long time. Kavanaugh is very much qualified. So, Schumer & Co. will have to fight using the turtles tactics. Make no mistake, the turtle will say he never used those tactics. There was some astroturfed oppo last night, complete with all the possible noms on different colored signs. This morning the strikes against him are beginning to coalesce. We will see which one gains the most traction.
The earliest and spiciest protesting had to do with Kavanaugh writing the following: the nation’s chief executive should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”
Obviously this sticks out like a sore thumb in the "what does Trump get out of nominating this insider" angle of things. No doubt this line of thinking stems from his time working on the Starr report. To be fair to Kavanaugh, in the world of time consuming and distracting, that may take the cake.
In "how things are supposed to work" world, no judge would ever rule on an indictment of a president. The purpose of the impeachment power is to remove then indict. Barring an actual pee tape, no republican or moderate dem congress will do that. However, to be fair to the hopeful justice, this is a question he will never have to answer. It would simply take too long for the case to get to the court. If Mueller unearths enough evidence for indictment the senate repubs will cut Trump loose to avoid that PR nightmare.
The one gaining most traction by some mainstream dems is the supposed swampy quid pro quo Kennedy had in his finally months. Supposedly there meetings and assurances that his guy would be elevated. How very Italian of us. However the dems can't use that because this malignancy runs deep and across the aisle.
Just a personal opinion. I don't think Roe will be overturned. Frankly I think any hypothetical ends in 6-3. I guess one could be worried about death by erosion but that would have been there with Kennedy anyway.
The moral of the story here is YOU SHOULD HAVE FOUGHT HARDER FOR GARLAND. ugh.
So using the SC nominee as cover this happened: http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...0-day-standoff
Trump is appeasing his white nationalist buddies again. These men are terrorists and should be treated as such. Waco and Ruby ridge echo today.
I thought the only reliable intersection of Kennedy's vote with the liberal bench was on abortion and gay rights? He functioned a little in the shape of a Blue-Dog Democrat in the Senate. A Doug Jones is worth rather little [n.b. Doug Jones fits well because IIRC he's pro-abortion rights), becomes worth a lot when set against a Roy Moore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Casey v Planned Parenthood is the ruling we should have our eye on, being as it, while not superseding Roe exactly, did remodel and expand it considerably. So, I agree that it won't be overturned outright, too unpopular and on-the-nose. Republican SOP is death by a thousand cuts, with plausible deniability toward people who aren't paying much attention and don't realize the stakes. After many rulings under the solid 5-4 court, Roe and Casey will still be good law, but really dead letters. Substantively, any state that wants to can effectively reduce legal abortion to ~0.
Think about the fetal-heartbeat limitation in Iowa (?) recently - that's damn near a total ban on abortion, and they'll keep approaching that limit without explicitly meeting the line.
Edit: If I'm wrong and the reactionaries want to be totalitarian about it, they could move to rule somewhere that abortion in general is a human rights or Constitutional violation and so make it vulnerable to criminalization on a FEDERAL level. But that would only reinforce the case for permanently removing the GOP from any position of power. :shrug:
He had that Guantanamo case too. He sided with liberal wing on a lot of things. Of course, not with the money, but that has more to do with the hellscape in which we currently reside. Doug Jones is very good for the dems because it is Alabama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Casey expands Roe because it upholds the right to privacy. From that right, a strict scrutiny can be applied. I don't know how you get rid of Casey without getting rid of Roe. If you can apply a rational basis, there is no right to privacy.Quote:
Casey v Planned Parenthood is the ruling we should have our eye on, being as it, while not superseding Roe exactly, did remodel and expand it considerably. So, I agree that it won't be overturned outright, too unpopular and on-the-nose. Republican SOP is death by a thousand cuts, with plausible deniability toward people who aren't paying much attention and don't realize the stakes. After many rulings under the solid 5-4 court, Roe and Casey will still be good law, but really dead letters. Substantively, any state that wants to can effectively reduce legal abortion to ~0.
This is their best bet and the strategy most serious anti people choose to take. Before the point of viability you need an invasive medical procedure to check for a heartbeat. Surley, one would consider that an undue burden?Quote:
Think about the fetal-heartbeat limitation in Iowa (?) recently - that's damn near a total ban on abortion, and they'll keep approaching that limit without explicitly meeting the line.
Gut feeling, Roberts is not going to gut 50 years worth of upheld precedence. The man is very concerned with the prestige and gravitas of the court. Upholding a bill that works around a constitutional right would be a stain on that. There is a right to privacy, it can not be undone by making the right too burdensome to exercise. Precedence, popular opinion, and expert opinion are all on the side of choice.
Never say never I guess.Quote:
Edit: If I'm wrong and the reactionaries want to be totalitarian about it, they could move to rule somewhere that abortion in general is a human rights or Constitutional violation and so make it vulnerable to criminalization on a FEDERAL level. But that would only reinforce the case for permanently removing the GOP from any position of power. :shrug:
You're optimistic.
Even in the simplest case, it could be (selectively, mildly) reevaluating the government interest against privacy rights wrt abortion, and already almost any state law or butterfly-effect practice can be licensed. If Ginsburg or Breyer goes, it could be as simple as refusing to hear appeals cases when anti-abortion laws or practices are upheld in lower courts (you need 4 justices for certiorari).
Every conservative SCOTUS nominee, at their Senate interviews, has protested that they will seek to neutrally apply or interpret the law, or else avoided the question, when asked about their attitude on Roe. This despite all of them harshly criticizing Roe earlier in their careers, some calling it incorrectly ruled, some calling for it to be overturned. It's pretty clear they're just tactically evasive.
As for Robert's respect for precedent, it seems to be more personal and situational than uniform. So far this year he's helped overrule a lot of precedent. He can also take the long road, such as helping this Court gradually strike down key portions of the Civil Rights Act during the course of the Obama admin - "narrow" rulings beget future narrow rulings, until... Maybe it's not a sure thing that Roberts will fall in, but there's plenty of reason to be anxious.Quote:
Antonin Scalia (1986): “I assure you, I have no agenda. I am not going onto the court with a list of things that I want to do. … There are doubtless laws on the books apart from abortion that I might not agree with, that I might think are misguided, perhaps some that I might even think in the largest sense are immoral in the results that they produce. In no way would I let that influence my determination of how they apply.”
Clarence Thomas (1991): “I believe the Constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue or to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which is a difficult issue. … Senator, your question to me was did I debate the contents of Roe v. Wade, the outcome in Roe v. Wade, do I have this day an opinion, a personal opinion on the outcome in Roe v. Wade; and my answer to you is that I do not.”
John G. Roberts Jr. (2005): “Well, beyond that, [Roe v. Wade is] settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.”
Samuel A. Alito Jr. (2006): “That [a document in which he declared that the Constitution provides no right to abortion] was a statement that I made at a prior period of time when I was performing a different role, and as I said yesterday, when someone becomes a judge, you really have to put aside the things that you did as a lawyer at prior points in your legal career and think about legal issues the way a judge thinks about legal issues.”
Neil M. Gorsuch (2017): “I’m not in a position to tell you whether I’d personally like or dislike any precedent. That’s not relevant to my job … Precedent … deserves our respect. And to come in and think that just because I’m new or the latest thing I’d know better than everybody who comes before me would be an act of hubris.”
In contrast, when the liberal justices were asked the same question in their confirmation hearings, they were perfectly forthright, saying that yes, under the Constitution there is a right to abortion and they’d vote to uphold Roe.
Here's a good article on these things, on Roberts' resolve, on Kavanaugh and his stances, and on the possible processes for disassembling abortion rights and protections.
Strict scrutiny was Roe, and rational basis is I guess one basic or default court metric in evaluating laws. Casey replaced strict scrutiny with "undue burden". Note that Kavanaugh ruled recently, as a federal judge, that an ICE detention center holding a teen immigrant and preventing her from going to get an abortion without first being sponsored by a family would not place an undue burden on her abortion/privacy right. (At least not as extreme as his fellow judge in that panel majority, who later wrote that there is neither a constitutional right to abortion, nor a right of aliens to Constitutional protections. Dayum.)Quote:
Originally Posted by SFTS
Now, look at how effective states and courts have already been at degrading the substantive precedent. In the Vox article above,
Quote:
And “incremental” would still be plenty: Simply overturning the two-year-old Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, for example, would eliminate access in swaths of the country and close the last abortion clinic in Mississippi.
As Litman writes, this could take the form of weakening the standard of review for determining if a regulation is an “undue burden.” In Whole Woman’s Health, the Court ruled that “the ‘undue burden’ standard is more demanding than rational basis review, and requires a state to establish that a law actually furthers its stated purposes,” to quote Litman.
But in a future ruling, the Court could simply require that regulations have a rational basis, and not require the state to prove that they further their stated purposes. That would effectively weaken the right to abortion dramatically to the point of de facto overturning Roe and Casey, because, as Litman says, “when a court applies rational basis review, the law being challenged will almost always be upheld.”
Quote:
Mississippi recently approved a 15-week abortion ban (already blocked in federal court); Kentucky passed a ban applying to dilation-and-evacuation abortions after 11 weeks and Ohio and South Carolina are weighing “total prohibitions.” Just this past May, Iowa adopted a law banning abortions after fetal heartbeats, which again, usually occur at six weeks of pregnancy.
[...]
The incrementalist 20-week approach has been quite successful, with 21 states adopting them. (Of those, Arizona and Idaho’s bans have been blocked by courts.) Twenty-week bans apply about four weeks before Roe has historically allowed states to ban abortions, enabling a future Supreme Court ruling that effectively weakens Roe.
Anyway, you could certainly eliminate, directly or indirectly, enough of Casey that Casey is neutralized, and the rump Roe (Roe's Rump?) has minimal substantive content left. Killing Casey could then leave Roe vegetative, and accomplish the anti-abortion movement's goals, except for that literal goal of overturning the named rulings.Quote:
A conservative circuit court of appeals panel could rogue and decide to disobey Roe and Casey. (This would most likely happen after the post-Kavanaugh Court allows some less dramatic regulations like a 20-week ban to go forward, after which the circuit judges could argue that Roe and Casey no longer apply in the wake of more recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.) And then the Supreme Court would likely be forced to take up the issue.
This is what happened in 2014 to 2015 with same-sex marriage: Circuit courts split on the issue, forcing the Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement.
That eventuality would bring the possibility of overturning Roe entirely to the Court’s door, and it would have little choice but to hear the case. After that point, all bets are off.
Actually, think about the political implications to the anti-abortion movement, of not fully overruling Casey or Roe. It's becomes a double victory like so: Judicially, it allows states free reign as a matter of fact, AND it keeps the abortion issue alive in the minds of Republican single-issue voters who can later be told that "darned baby-killing Roe still hasn't been defeated yet! Keep voting Republican! They're breaking the spines of 9-month-old babies and drinking the soup whargbargl!". Christ, it would be sick and brilliant. To sum up, not having to say that "Roe is overturned" will help Republicans maintain Republican turnout, while preventing a surge in Democratic turnout. Sheer genius. Hopefully they don't follow this track and shoot themselves in the foot.
Are American presidents normally given to telling their British allies which government we should have, and what policies we should follow?
Normally no. The current occupant has nothing resembling discretion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Trump addressing the British public.
https://i.imgur.com/gli9vLL.jpg
Today, Mueller shored the investigation up by indicting a dozen Russian GRU officers in connection to election cybercrimes.
One of the more interesting tidbits in the indictment was that
Trump infamously made this statement on July 27, 2016:Quote:
On or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbfUjotYmUo
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ironically, since Clinton's private email was not breached - the implication that everybody around Clinton was getting their emails compromised, except Hillary herself. Cybersecurity!
There's a little photo story here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/statu...56390541598721
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Lammy
That is absolutely hilarious. Settle down David Lammy.
Underpaid, undersexed, and under Eisenhower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
(and more recently: https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...t-plea/479469/)
Pruitt may be gone at the EPA but his legacy will likely last a long time:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...onment-agency/
Transformation baby :stunned:
The Press seems to have got very het up about Protocol. And the UK really needs to remember that the protocol was created in the main when the UK was a (if not the) Great Power. People sucked up since they wanted something and now they mainly do it since it is quaint. Yes, most humans would be polite to a nonagenarian because of simple manners, but that is a slightly different issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
This reminds me of when Europeans interacted with China. China thought that every other country was a mere vassal and eventually were proved otherwise at the point of a gun.
So the UK is leaving the EU. America needs a lot less from us than we need from them. So the President is a selfish, self aggrandising piece of faecal material. Germany, our other usual ally is pretending not to take over Europe, China has no love for us, Japan follows the USA not us any more.
If freedom to make our own destiny is what we want, part of that is our precious sensibilities will not be followed in the same manner they were 100 years ago.
~:smoking:
I never asked for it. And I've always treated people of that age rather more politely than Trump treated QE2. It's basic civility.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
No you never did, and I never asked to have it taken away from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
He treated her far better than he has treated most other people - he just sets the bar so low - did people really think he'd accept protocol where he was not the centre of attention? Of course not. He was always going to grandstand in petty ways like being first and keeping her waiting. That is just the type of person he has always been - it would have been newsworthy if he'd been civil.
~:smoking:
Rory has the right of it. Trump used about as much deference with QE2 as he has with any other human being on the planet, and far more than he uses with most. I concur that, in such things, the bar is pretty low for DT.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Now I wonder what would happen if someone did what Fragony suggested, acted unpredictably outside protocol like Trump, and literally kicked him in the balls... :sweatdrop:
I guess a twitter tirade, sanctions and potentially war, but even if it were, say, Macron, Merkel or Putin? I guess we'll never know, but the mind wonders... :creep:
Phew!
Well we can all rest easy now.
Both Trump and Putin are absolutely sure there was no Russian interference in the 2016 election:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...eddling-722424
It's nice when two world powers can harmonize and agree with each other.:on_swoon:
It's such a strange world when the Head of State turns out to be a Benedict Arnold.
Several Congressmen and Senators have voiced their surprise and displeasure and will continue to do nothing to stop this nincompoop. I can only hope that the Republicans lose control of the House and Senate in November so that there can finally be some checks to his nonsense though they'll probably focus just on impeachment and social issues instead of reassuring our allies and trade partners.
https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/
Senate
49-51 Republicans currently.
35 seats up. 26 held by Democrats (2 of whom Independent, Sanders and King). It is not mathematically possible for Democrats to win a supermajority, let alone a 2/3 majority, even if they win every race.
Let's take the site's presentation for granted and acknowledge 16 competitive races. Of these, Democrats are defending all but 5 seats. The 5 are: Heller in Nevada, Cruz in Texas, Hyde-Smith in Mississippi, Flake in Arizona, and Corker in Tennessee. The latter two are not running for reelection, so seats are fully contested. (Eventually McCain may retire or die, but it probably doesn't make much difference for this cycle.)
Seems like the Democrats would need a historic black/Latino turnout for midterms just to swap numbers with the Republicans.
House
193-236 Republicans currently.
As for the House, someone can probably grub up articles on gerrymandering. According to the same site above, about 100 seats are competitive. However, of those, the vast majority are Republican.
Maybe this site's assumptions skew optimistic for Democrats, but the Cook Political Report is more or less similar in its margins. Ultimately, the highest utility of polling is knowing what you have to change, which demands at least the present amount of momentum behind Democrats to have any chance. 5 months...
At any rate Trump cannot be impeached this term. I'm sure his base will also guarantee his nomination in 2020. The only formal option left: Vote out, indict, very publicly clean house.
At least narrow majorities in both chambers, if Democrats obtain them, could be used to control committees, the cycle of bills and investigations, plus nominations and confirmation hearings.
Anything can happen in politics. But the hidden truth that liberals are afraid to admit is that Dem turnout is what will make or break this country. There have always been obstacles, the last 30 years of conservatism has made sure of that.
Whether our country survives Trump or not is up to the ability of the Left to inspire and motivate Americans.
A protean platform superior to the Republican one on utilitarian metrics is enough to motivate anyone!Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Any voter who reads this in full is sure to find something they agree with.
EDIT: BTW, Ruskies infiltrated the NRA with money and spies. Legit. No kidding. Look it up.
Quote:
The affidavit claims that on or around March 24, 2015, Butina emailed a proposal for a project called “Diplomacy.” In it, she stated that a major US political party (clearly the Republicans) would likely win the 2016 election. The problem, she wrote, was that the GOP is “traditionally associated with negative and aggressive foreign policy, particularly with regards to Russia.” Butina wanted to change that, and had an idea for doing so. She wrote that within the GOP, a gun rights organization (obviously the NRA) has a “central place and influence,” saying it funds campaigns and sponsors major conferences like the Conservative Political Action Conference. Butina wrote that she and Torshin had already been building ties to the NRA, and proposed that she wanted to go to “all upcoming major conferences” related to the Republican Party before the 2016 elections.
Quote:
BUTINA: By your recommendation, I am setting up the groundwork here but I am really in need of mentoring. Or the energy might to towards the wrong direction. Yesterday's dinner showed that American society is broken in relation to Russia. This is now the dividing line of opinions, the crucial one in the election race. [POLITICAL PARTY 1] are for us, [another major U.S. political party] - against - 50/50. Our move here is very important.
How deep does the rabbit hole go with the American Right?Quote:
BUTINA (to RUSSIAN OFFICIAL): I'm going to sleep. It's 3 am here. I am ready for further orders.
Hilariously, just before this news dropped Trump tweeted this in reference to his vehement denial of Russian involvement in cyberattacks:
They were told they would cruise the swamp for American gold, fire no guns, shed no tears! God, RICO them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trump
Guys, petition to moving forward replace all references to "GOP" or "Republican Party" with "[POLITICAL PARTY 1]".~D
https://youtu.be/UMV34CwNMY0Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Rand Paul the most sensible voice in the McCarthyist circus that is the current US political climate.
McCarthyist?
No arguments as to the USA political climate being in "circensus" mode, but how does that adjective apply?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-russia-722205
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-russia-725044
It's pretty tiresome, really. Critics can't settle between downplaying the attacks "because America did bad things", and rejecting the reality of any serious attacks. You can't have both.
Rand Paul is wrong to say that cyber-intrusions into elections are common on the world stage. They will be now though, seeing as the return on investment can be so magnificent.
There's no comparison between favoring one side in a contest and actively working to directly alter the electoral process and results.
And he blames Obama for "not doing more". Places no accountability on Republicans for restraining Obama, nor on Republicans in the two years since to DO SOMETHING with their control of government to maintain election integrity. Not a single Republican can be taken seriously in their occasional mild criticism of the President if they will never back up their words with action.
Nor does Paul do anything to meet the case against the very legitimacy of the party, which is in serious question even compartmentalizing its domestic policies.
The strawman of "engaging even our adversaries" is also a crock. Obama engaged with Putin. Simply standing next to a foreign leader is not engagement. (Obama did that too anyway.) Lavishing a foreign leader with praise is not engagement. From the perspective of government, what has Trump done to "engage with" Putin? What does he plan to do? Unilaterally drop sanctions? Now look at Trump's actions on a more personal level, in the context of his campaign's relationship to Russia. People need to do a better job distinguishing fantasy from reality. Talk is good > we should talk to Russia > Trump literally talked, to Russia > Trump good... is a stupid line of reasoning.
I mean, it's one thing if you are a disingenuous political operative, but regular people don't need to make up silly stories divorced from the actual characters and events involved.
By the way, the problem with McCarthy was that he lied for personal gain and ruined people's lives in the process. There were absolutely Soviet spies throughout US government and society at the time. If you plan to use the label "McCarthyist", you are making an empirical claim about someone. Are the Mueller indictments without basis? Is there no good case for Trump and associates being venal scofflaws?
The hyperbole is reaching levels of insanity I didn't think were possible. There have been news anchors in the country likening Russia's alleged interference to terrorism. By the way, I use the term alleged with deliberate purpose. It is alleged as they have still not been brought to trial and proven to have committed the supposed crimes they are accused of. The majority of politicians are neocons and neoliberals committed to the idea of American hegemony abroad. Some are easy to pinpoint, such as McCain, while most are subtle. There are people who buck the Establishment line that you need to be at war with everybody at once. There are people who do not agree that you should reaffirm your hostile Cold War mentality toward Russia. These people are immediately dubbed Putin puppets, traitors, treasonous and all other manner of empty insults. The hypocrisy by the anti-Russian camp is also astounding. America has interfered in tons of elections. While it's true that two wrongs don't make a right, it's also true that most of the people harping about Russia the most are also the people who support election meddling or regime change. These people are not against interference in principle. They are only against the idea of any challenge to American supremacy.
No issue in recent history has ruthlessly enforced conformity and stopped other perspectives than Trump/Russia. If you depart from the consensus view you're ostracized and this mass hysteria is only getting worse.
I actually agree.
Even though I love to watch shows like the Late Show with Colbert, I cringe a little every time they bring up impeachment about the Russia collaboration. Nothing about that has been proven yet and it is simply wishful thinking at this point.
Similarly agree about the meddling abroad while loathing it at home. It's especially sad when people do it from whom you'd expect better because they always preach love and understanding for minorities etc.
Let me be blunt: if you believe that Russian actions don't matter because America this or America that, we'll have that discussion. If you willfully blind yourself to the reality of what occurred or is occurring because you don't like the people who are talking about it, then rational discussion is precluded. Call it "alleged" to be technically accurate, but acknowledge the scope of the circumstantial evidence. Acknowledge that America has never been put on trial for anything it has done, yet we know many of what its distasteful actions have been because reality is not so rigidly formalistic as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.E. Bravo
Apparently all the CIA would need to do to redeem itself in the eyes of people like Intercept commenters for instance, who I was half addressing with my exasperated post above, is to buy up a couple of national press institutions, push propaganda through them while seizing privileged press information on sources, and wrap it all in the name of "free speech".
I thought we were talking about the alleged cooperation between Trump and Russia, not the Russian fake news publications, but maybe I'm too tired to read correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I'm not aware that any cooperation was proven so far. There are some hints, but I don't think very strong ones.
We're talking about any of multiple related aspects of Russian efforts in the United States, including, if you read the latest case I linked to above, an apparent effort to buy or compromise national-level Republian politicians. And it is known that Russia funneled millions through the NRA, and it is a serious question of what the NRA leadership did with that money and knowledge as far as donating to Trump's and others' campaigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
What "hints" are you aware of on Trump-Russia cooperation? Then we can compare to what I'm aware of.
Sounds like a huge part of this is the failure by the US intelligence community to protect 'democracy.' I don't understand why it's shocking that this happened, or the outrage about what Trump didn't do in a banal press conference.
So you would have wanted the CIA/NSA/whoever to use dirty and violent means to "protect democracy"? Wasn't that one of the most distasteful elements of the American Century? Regardless, our government as a whole should have attended to election security domestically much more assiduously. Ideally it would have been resolved in 2001, but we kicked the can down the bucket, and as with the other things we keep finding out the Russians achieved more than previously thought. (Deadass, if they did modify any voter rolls that would be mildly illegitimate, but the ultimate possible scenario is so dire it can't be discussed in open online spaces.)Quote:
Originally Posted by A.E. Bravo
It's pioneering unforeseen techniques, up to and including the modification of the election infrastructure through cyber means, and a dystopian level of control over discourse.
The US will probably not have the opportunity to develop these means, which should gratify you. But Russia will continue, as it is doing, to develop them, and this is right up China's alley as well. I hope you like boots stamping on the human face forever!
But let me ask you just this narrow concession, from the narrow perspective of a citizen of the affected country: given what we have learned in the past two years, is it reasonable to desire investigations into our leadership?
For myself, I am less concerned with investigating our current leadership (save to determine whether willful collusion occurred) but profoundly interested in securing the mechanics of the election process to prevent tampering by external actors (and minimize tampering by party hacks as well). I do not believe we can entirely prevent, in a free society, some person, nation, or group from attempting to influence and persuade the electorate. I WOULD like to see efforts made to increase the transparency of such suasory efforts and prevent the most egregious efforts by outside actors to damage the electoral process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Remember kids. Assets don't know they are assets until they are in too deep.
Trumps comments on Montenegro should be the final nail in the coffin. The man knows nothing beyond his vanity and yet can somehow cobble together a coherent, if wrong, statement on the balkans.
yea ok . gif
The system in the USA is not fit for purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
For the President have a proper plebiscite - and why on earth not? The odd system the USA makes no sense.
Have a proper body undertake voting district boundaries. Ideally at a Federal level but I doubt that would work. And some independent oversight.
And wherever possible remove the whole first past the post approach.
But who would want to fix things when it works so well for the current winners? Make a big noise about external influences to the whole broken edifice and ignore the central issue.
~:smoking:
At least 70 infants have been ordered to appear in immigration court after being separated from their parents.
:uhoh:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The Founders, for good or ill, did NOT want a plebiscite. They viewed that as unrestrained democracy and a virtual assurance of demagoguery. The point of the Electoral College was to restrain this.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
As a practical matter, determining the President through a single at large vote might result in a decrease in effective participation, given that so much of the population is congregated in smaller metro areas. The top 50 cities by population represent 50 million persons of our 300 million. Take into account their 'metropolitan areas' and you have almost half the population covered in just these 50 locations. On a practical political level, operatives would tell most candidates to ignore the rest of the country and cater promises, policies etc. to these more populated areas. The potential for a "city mouse trumps country mouse" sea change would be immense.
For whatever flaws it has, the EC system does, at least to some extent, spread the effort candidates must make in reaching the populace with their message (though this too is imperfect). The classic counter argument is, of course, that FPTP systems for ascribing electors to the college is as bad or worse in that candidates can take a small plurality and potentially win an elector rich state with a narrow vote margin that isn't even a majority in the first place. But the system now extent, particularly with two Senators per state being reflected in both Congress and the EC, was designed and still does serve to retain a greater degree of political significance for the smaller polities which make up the union.
Which is not to say that some things could not and should not be improved.
1) FPTP could be improved without discarding the concept by adopting the approach taken by Louisiana. If the winner wins with a majority of the votes cast, it is concluded. If it is only a plurality of the votes cast, they go to a runoff between the two highest vote getters.
2) The EC could be moved to the system currently in use by Maine and Nebraska, with both Electors that reflect the Senate representation going to the overall FPTP winner in the state, while each Congressional district decides its elector based on the votes in that district.
3) The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is, I agree, abominable. There really should be a federal commission that decides these along the longs of the BRAC commission, operating under the aegis of the FEC. This one just plain sucks, and as Rory suggests it needs to be altered.
The EC as originally designed does just as bad a job at representing the rural areas. The number of electors is influenced by the # of representatives, so the EC is in theory skewed against the rural states who don't really matter compared to the likes of CA and NY.
The reason the rural states even matter at this point is because of the Reapportionment Act of 1929. That was the bill that capped the House at 435 members effectively limiting the ratio that populous states have over the least populous states.
This bill was put into place due to Party politics and is actually against the written word of some of the founders themselves, but it worked at the time to screw over one party and no one has touched it since.
All the EC needs as far as reform is to remove this bill and establish a floating cap that prevents the house from going 1,000+ members but giving the bigger states the proper representation they deserve.
I would suggest the Wyoming Rule since it is straightforward and easy to implement. Under the 2010 census the Wyoming Rule would put the House at 545 members.
I cannot stress enough how much this would relieve current tensions in the electoral system:
* EC becomes more aligned with what the founders envisioned.
* Gerrymandering effects are limited since the increase in the number of representatives means a smaller constituency per representative.
* Ability of the political parties to maintain cohesion is reduced. The house would look more like a multi party chamber, close to the current dynamic between the progressives, centrists, moderates, and freedom caucus but amplified.
I don't think the "metropolitian america" argument holds much water. The inner city is very different than the surrounding suburbs. To call America "urban" just because over 50% of people live close to a city is not at all accurate of the rural influences that suburban America has.
The Bundestag has grown to 709 members since the SCOG demanded that representatives of the parties need to be distributed according to the popular vote. Before that, the CDU would go for a lot of direct candidacies to get more representation there than their actual share of the votes would have given them. Now they get the direct candidates and then have to maintain the share on top of that so the total number of representatives grows in an effort to keep the shares intact. I believe the change was a good thing though, because the old system sounds like it can easily be exploited to get a disproportionate representation.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Trump's presidency has highlighted the need to repeal the 17th amendment. His control over the base has left him free of oversight from Congress, as he threatens his own party members with primary actions if they disagree with him. Switching back to senatorial selection by the state governments would remove the populist effect from the equation, leaving at least one house of Congress free to oppose the president without fear of reprisal.
At the start of his term, I was 50-50 on whether he was truly under Putin's influence. Now I'm 100% sure he is fully compromised. And if Trump wasn't so stupid and lazy it could have been worse, imagine someone more subtle, and capable of paying attention during security council meetings.
http://time.com/5342602/donald-trump-idiot-google/Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
ACIN:
Nice point on the Reapp of 1929.
The founders were interested in a House Rep having the potential to really connect with/rep a constituency. The ever-increasing numbers involved with a fixed Congress does change that. A good point.
Not sure it would be enough with the gerrymandering issue, though it would help.
The potential for independents and a viable if smaller third party would be enhanced.
At the outset of the Republic, each congress critter had about 35k worth of constituents to keep track of. With an average household size of 5.5, that meant keeping track of the needs of roughly 6400 households. Retail politics.
Today, a rep has about 709k persons in 272.7k households or thereabouts.
By comparison, the typical UK member of parliament represents a little under 73k persons. Not quite retail, but certainly not cattle-call politics.
Just a constant reminder that what we are witnessing is an attempt to create a permanent underclass of semi legal labor. These numbers may seem small but they have an effect of silencing voices. Doubly so when the administration is so public about it. We are witnessing naked intimidation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
It really frustrates me that no one in the mainstream who is opposed to Trump's immigration policies, that I've seen at least, will dare suggest opening up more avenues for people to immigrate legally so they don't feel compelled to cross the border without papers. I don't understand why we have to kowtow to white nationalists who falsely claim "we're not racist, we just want people to respect the law and immigrate legally" and then talk about ending family based immigration and the diversity lottery as soon as they come into power.
While I am avid in my opposition to illegal immigration, and do want a greater degree of border security, and emphatically agree that penalties need to be ramped way up for those industries/companies who employ illegals and encourage illegal workers,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
it IS also true that our current immigration numbers/procedures and especially our guest worker programs are in DRAMATIC need of reworking.
NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE
Having Bolton, Israel, and KSA whispering into your ear leads to crazy late night tweets.
I can't even begin to fathom what a war with Iran looks like, other than a whole bunch of innocents dead.
Pretty well true of the vast majority of all human conflicts, Strike, unless you are cynical enough to believe that there are no innocents and that we all deserve to get it in the neck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
It would be bloody on both sides' militaries for sure. Unlike Iraq, Iran has the ability to hit US bases in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait and Qatar) to include the actual CENTCOM Headquarters.Quote:
I can't even begin to fathom what a war with Iran looks like, other than a whole bunch of innocents dead.
Iran has so much airspace and such rugged terrain that the air campaign would be more like it was over Kosovo in the 90s than Iraq in the the Gulf War with trees and mountains etc... that mask AAA/SAM.
It would probably get Saudi Arabia involved directly and thereby a much larger and very 'hot' war for the entire region. How it would play out for our Troops in Afghanistan would be an interesting question and how Iraq's pro-Iran government would act would be questionable to say the least. I'd also wonder how Turkey would act, for 2003 they didn't allow the US of their territory to invade Iraq, if they did the same for Iran then the US would be effectively limited to Naval Aviation until it could establish more bases not within striking distance of the Iranian Air Force.
All that aside, I think we were closer to going to war with Iran under George W. than under Trump. Despite his talk about how strong the military is now it's really no better or worse than two years ago, though no longer worrying about budget sequestration.
This is probably just his trying to appear Strong for the whole MAGA thing not to mention distract from the continual fallout from Helsinki showing him as a Russian stooge together with Mueller Probe, Manafort trial, and the Russia/NRA woman.
Iran has spy cells in Kuwait so it's very much possible, but Qatar is where it gets complicated for Iran and some suspect it is partly in its sphere of influence after the Gulf crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_...ndensate_field
That, coupled with its isolation from its neighbors are major reasons Iran is unlikely to hurt Qatar in any way.
Iraq were. bluntly, idiots for even trying to have a stand-up fight with the coalition. Iran would have learnt the lesson and would probably fight as unconventionally as possible, via proxies and moving assets to surrounding countries where possible.
In short, the risk is great and the gain is practically non-existent.
~:smoking:
a few Republicans introduce articles of impeachment on Rosenstein.
Looks like the collapse of our republic is well underway.
Well hopefully nothing comes of it beyond their trying to use it for gain in primary elections.
The Republic is certainly in danger if the legislative branch refuses to check the excesses of the executive, especially if the executive is allowed to fill the judicial with pliant judges. We haven't reach collapse and there is opportunity for the system to check itself, though it looks like the will to do so just isn't there unless the opposition takes at least the senate or the house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I'd replace republic with GOP.
I do not see an existential threat to the USA. I do see Trump's hardcore third of the GOP breaking with the rest of the party, possibly even forming a true third party. This would leave the Dems (to the extent that they are organized) as the largest organized party.
Or, alternatively, the Trump hardcores opt out of politics altogether.
First past the post will force pieces together soon enough - better to have some power than none at all.
~:smoking:
That wing of the GOP should form their own party just as the extreme left should too but with the first past the post system there is zero incentive to do so. By being under the big tent it's more useful for them to try and take control of the party than form their own.
That's why I'm a big fan of preferential voting systems. You can vote for your third party or whatever without throwing your vote away, it would mean people could vote for who they actually like instead of choosing the lesser of two evils.
It would allow the extreme of the the Republicans to actually vote for the Libertarian or Whig candidates or form Christian-Nationalist party (Trumpers) without having to distort what the Republican party has been for decades. Same with the Democrats, let it split into a Social-Democrat party and something else. Might actually help voter turnout if people could vote for the the people they want without having it be pointless if that person isn't the leader of a major party not to mention that third party candidates don't get accusing of spoiling the vote for one of the major parties.
I disagree with that characterization. It is the full whole of the Republican Party we behold: they own Trumpism to the hilt. Why would the fascists split the party they have sown and reaped? This is exactly the logical progression of what Republicans have been doing for 50 years. They made their choices and, faced with their creation, crossed the Rubicon and departed the realm of legitimate politics.
I have to be aggressive here in refusing to countenance anyone apologizing for the Republican Party ever again. Don't indulge in the (understandable) face-saving exercise of pretending that Trumpism is the mark of an extremist fringe of the party rather than its essence, blood, and avatar. Trump is the perfect Republican.
Enjoy this article - Never Trumpers Will Want to Read This History Lesson - on the dissolution of the Whig party and the Democrats who acknowledged that their party was irredeemably degenerate before the Slavery question, swallowed their pride, and joined the Republican Party. Based on the representations you have offered in this forum, you should be prepared to transfer into the current Friedmanite* Democratic Party and pine for the day when progressives and socialists split off into their own party, leaving behind a proper center-right pro-business club.
*Per Larry Summers
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: