US politics general thread

[Arthur]

Hmmm.. Seems like silence from Arthur on this. Curious.

I've been elsewhere.

The Hillary Letter? Fair point. It is a curious situation.

Maybe his hand was forced through internal machinations? The factional schlentering behind the scenes must be quite something.

 

[greg0205]

I've been elsewhere.

The Hillary Letter? Fair point. It is a curious situation.

Maybe his hand was forced through internal machinations? The factional schlentering behind these scenes must be quite something.

Well documented already... In fact the IG clarified today that there will be a separate report into pro-trump FBI agents in the NY area leaking info to help 45, and the pressure it put Comey et al under at the time.

 

[RanzB]

I've been elsewhere.

The Hillary Letter? Fair point. It is a curious situation.

Oh so there was no reason for this lovely nonsense:

:crylaugh: :crylaugh: :crylaugh:

Maybe his hand was forced through internal machinations? The factional schlentering behind the scenes must be quite something.

Or maybe Comey the registered Republican was doing his job.

 

[Arthur]

Oh so there was no reason for this lovely nonsense:

Or maybe Comey the registered Republican was doing his job.

I presume you are aware that not a few GOPers detest Trump more than they do Dems? When it comes to Big Orange, old party lines get somewhat er, deranged.

 

[RanzB]

I presume you are aware that not a few GOPers detest Trump more than they do Dems? When it comes to Big Orange, old party lines get somewhat er, deranged.

So it wasn't political, but personal. And it wasn't even personal, or he wouldn't have re-opened Hilary's case two weeks before the election, handing "Big Orange" an advantage.

Strong logic as usual there Arthur.

 

[cerebus]

I've been elsewhere.

The Hillary Letter? Fair point. It is a curious situation.

Maybe his hand was forced through internal machinations? The factional schlentering behind the scenes must be quite something.

Or maybe your theory is completely absurd because the only political agenda that could make sense is a pro-Trump agenda

 

[Arthur]

So it wasn't political, but personal. And it wasn't even personal, or he wouldn't have re-opened Hilary's case two weeks before the election, handing "Big Orange" an advantage.

Strong logic as usual there Arthur.

The real world is analogue, not binary. There are many hues, shades, degrees and isotopes of political opinion.

Your political/personal binarism is a simplistic and naïve reductionism. Your logic might work in your simplistic binary terms, but it fails to describe reality.

Many Republicans who detest Trump do so for political reasons, not just personal ones.

It might be news to you that most large parties are a broad tent covering a wide range of views which are often not without strong antagonisms. Examples are legion in almost every country and party.

I'm surprised you seem to be unaware of the strong opposition to say Hillary in some quarters of the Democratic Party and to Trump by some in the GOP. For political reasons. Not personal.

 

[RanzB]

The real world is analogue, not binary. There are many hues, shades, degrees and isotopes of political opinion.

Your political/personal binarism is a simplistic and naïve reductionism. Your logic might work in your simplistic binary terms, but it fails to describe reality.

Many Republicans who detest Trump do so for political reasons, not just personal ones.

It might be news to you that most large parties are a broad tent covering a wide range of views which are often not without strong antagonisms. Examples are legion in almost every country and party.

I'm surprised you seem to be unaware of the strong opposition to say Hillary in some quarters of the Democratic Party and to Trump by some in the GOP. For political reasons. Not personal.

So in essence, your post was bullSh*t and you're going to keep waffling to make it seem like it wasn't, even when you backtracked?

The Hillary Letter? Fair point. It is a curious situation.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Trump is the one obsessed, yet Canada is the party with the tariffs on farming.

So even with the dairy tariff, the US has a dairy trade surplus with Canada.

Some U.S. agri tariffs on Canadain products:

• Sour cream 187.8%
• Peanuts, in shell 163%, shelled 131%
• Peanut butter 131%
• Modified whey 63.2%
• Fresh blue cheese 49.8%
• Blended syrup 36.9%
• Cream 35.3%
• Sugar 25%
• Dehydrated yogurt 53.5%
• Malted milk 54.1%
• Butter substitute dairy spreads 46.8%
• Margarine cheese 44.2%
• Baby formula 27.2%-38.4%
• Butter 22.1%
• Cheddar cheese 18.9%

They also have a 350% tariff on tobacco. :erm:

And here's another kicker:

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/12/news/economy/canada-dairy-tariffs-trump/index.html

As one of his first official acts as president, Trump pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But Canada went on to complete the massive free trade deal with 10 other nations, including Japan, Australia and Mexico.

The deal allows signatories to send an increasing amount of dairy products to Canada over the next two decades -- with zero tariffs.

It would have done the same with many products traded with China - introduced zero tariffs.

For the economy as a whole. Not so much for the working class. Which is the critical point of the whole debate.

And yet, where are his tariffs hitting? The working class.

https://apnews.com/6099dc6aaeca45d8889b5f85d890f743

In Oklahoma, Texas and Wisconsin, for example, businesses operating in the furniture, energy and food sectors have outlined the financial difficulties they’d face if they’re not excused from the steel tariff.

And given the retaliatory damage of tariffs on things the working class also need to buy, it's simply dumb.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

When the swamp goes after other swamp dwellers.

Big Ethanol Turns Its Fire on Scott Pruitt

The new ad from the ostensibly free-market group America’s Future Fund appears devastating. “EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is embarrassing President Trump,” the 30-second web spot declares and ticks off some of Pruitt’s recent ethics and spending controversy.

“For the good of the country, Pruitt must go,” it concludes. It even pulls a clip of Trump, in his apprentice years, declaring, “You’re fired!” (AFF appears to have abandoned its 2016 opposition to Trump.)

On its face, the ad is an aggressive broadside from a Republican-oriented group that declares its commitment to free markets—not the sort of organization you’d expect to be going after an environmental official so committed to lifting the regulatory yoke from American industry.

But that’s not what’s going on at all.

AFF, a 501(c)(4) dark-money group, claims it “works to promote conservative free-market principles.” In fact, the group has deep ties to big ethanol—a very politically connected industry whose steady stream of favorable mandates and subsidies Pruitt has put at risk.

The Iowa-based nonprofit was founded in 2008 and received seed money from Bruce Rastetter, the co-founder and CEO of Hawkeye Energy Holdings, one of the nation’s largest ethanol companies. AFF’s founder, Iowa political operative Nick Ryan, later lobbied for Hawkeye and three of Rastetter’s other companies. Ryan also sat on the board of the Rastetter Foundation, according to its latest annual tax filing.

 

[Solarion]

Makes my head spin all of it.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Gosh, what a coincidence.

Defense Contractors Cashing In on Immigrant Kids’ Detention

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Seems Rudy is losing his marbles a bit.

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1007435406281969665

Giuliani: Rosenstein and Sessions have one day to redeem themselves. Mueller Must Be Suspended Tomorrow. Strzok Must be Imprisoned with a week.

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

Sarah Saunders and Jeff Sessions spouting Christian Bible in the course of their political duties.

Come on - are these people really fit to be seen as "leaders of the free world"?

 

[cerebus]

Sarah Saunders and Jeff Sessions spouting Christian Bible in the course of their political duties.

Come on - are these people really fit to be seen as "leaders of the free world"?

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority[a] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see a connection between this passage and the issue of separating children from parents at the border.

 

[konfab]

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see a connection between this passage and the issue of separating children from parents at the border.

Do you consider illegal immigration as a crime or not?

If you do, then what they are doing is completely normal in terms of criminal justice.

 

[cerebus]

Do you consider illegal immigration as a crime or not?

Sure

If you do, then what they are doing is completely normal in terms of criminal justice.

It's not normal. There's no criminal justice necessity to treat criminals inhumanely. And a lot of these people aren't even criminals, they're asylum seekers.

More to the point, the Bible passage he quoted doesn't have anything to say about this policy.

 

[RanzB]

Do you consider illegal immigration as a crime or not?

If you do, then what they are doing is completely normal in terms of criminal justice.

Asylum seekers are not the same thing as illegal immigrants. This has been explained a few times now.

 

[konfab]

It's not normal. There's no criminal justice necessity to treat criminals inhumanely. And a lot of these people aren't even criminals, they're asylum seekers.

[CITATION DAMN WELL NEEDED]

Asylum from what? Mexico? If their home country really is that bad, surely the liberal, diversity paradise of Mexico would be able to take them?

As for the inhumanity about the way they are treated...
Look what they are complaining about.

It is because the US is not giving the people they detain enough healthcare. That is a pretty first world problem..

https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/17/us-immigration-detention-neglects-health

More to the point, the Bible passage he quoted doesn't have anything to say about this policy.

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

So that means that if you go into a country, you are subject to its laws. One of the laws of said country is that illegal immigration is a crime.

If you commit a crime with your children, like stealing. Do you think the state should be obliged to keep you with your children ?

 

[konfab]

Asylum seekers are not the same thing as illegal immigrants. This has been explained a few times now.

Asylum means you actually have to apply for it. They wouldn't be in detention centres if they did everything legally.