Trump Thread

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Not all countries are as tightly regulated as western countries.

2008 Chinese milk scandal

---

Since I'm pretty sure ACIN was being sarcastic, your point is that only tightly regulated mother's milk is truly safe?
Every week comes the breast inspector? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Since I'm pretty sure ACIN was being sarcastic, your point is that only tightly regulated mother's milk is truly safe?
Every week comes the breast inspector? :clown:

---

The FBI need to earn their paychecks somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The FBI need to earn their paychecks somehow.

---

So the T-Shirts are actually wrong and it's really Female Breast Inspector? :clown:

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:

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.

---

Goody!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

And to shed some light on who this Kavanaugh character is:

Goody!

---

Sounds like a good choice for Trump! :laugh4:
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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?

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.

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:

---

Never say never I guess.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

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.

---

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.)

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

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

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.

---

Trump infamously made this statement on July 27, 2016:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbfUjotYmUo

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HlCd...m0oM/giphy.gif

Ironically, since Clinton's private email was not breached - the implication that everybody around Clinton was getting their emails compromised, except Hillary herself. Cybersecurity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Trump addressing the British public.

---

There's a little photo story here.

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/statu...56390541598721

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Lammy

What a disrespectful, discourteous, selfish and appalling way to treat a 92-year-old woman. Let alone the Queen of England, who has served this country faithfully for 66 years.

---

That is absolutely hilarious. Settle down David Lammy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are American presidents normally given to telling their British allies which government we should have, and what policies we should follow?

---

Underpaid, undersexed, and under Eisenhower.

(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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Showtime

That is absolutely hilarious. Settle down David Lammy.

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

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 Pannonian

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.

---

No you never did, and I never asked to have it taken away from me.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

No you never did, and I never asked to have it taken away from me.

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.

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: