US Politics- Stay Gold, Pony Boy

[sToNED_CAT]

Actually what CNN did was IMO far worse - they didn't publish full dossier, but they interpreted the info contained in it in such way that the allegations sounded more serious and substantiated. Buzzfeed actually did DT a favor, by showing that whole dossier was just a bunch of unverifiable rumors and plain factual errors.

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Actually what CNN did was IMO far worse - they didn't publish full dossier, but they interpreted the info contained in it in such way that the allegations sounded more serious and substantiated. Buzzfeed actually did DT a favor, by showing that whole dossier was just a bunch of unverifiable rumors and plain factual errors.

The favor Buzzfeed did was distract that he is not ending any of his conflict of interest with his business.

I honestly do not know what is or is not with the dossier.  I am of full confidence that Russia does have something on him.  

Russia has a great oppritunity to truely show the World that their view will have real benefits.  They make Donald look like a true fool the world will not survive his bruised ego.

[Altherion]

22 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Buy the way, in that tech paper, did they say anything about raising tariffs? I glanced through it quickly. Couldn't find anything about it. Did you find it?

It's not about tariffs. China is subsidizing their semiconductor industry and the American companies want similar subsidies as well as restrictions on what China may buy in the US for security reasons.

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I hate to tell you this, but people who Google brings in on H1B visas (like a couple of friends of mine) are not factory workers.  The designers are located in California, the plants are overseas.

That's why I mentioned both outsourcing and H1B.

18 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Where in the USA are you going to find 150,000, or even 50,000, workers who will work long hours six days a week for minimum wage to meet the demand for cheap iPhones?

You will not. The US cannot compete with China on cheap labor. However, the labor costs of assembling an iPhone are so small that if we made them in the US the price would not increase much. In fact, as the same article points out, even if we made all of the components in the US, the price of a $749 iPhone would only go up by at most $100 (and this is a very conservative overestimate). Given that iPhone profit margins are well over 60%, Apple could even keep the price the same and still make a fairly large profit on each device.

This is possibly the most galling thing about the outsourcing and such: American elites abandoned American workers not because the products they would otherwise make would be unaffordable, but for a marginally larger profit. I do not expect Trump to rein them in (there's still a chance of it, but it's even smaller than before the election). However, even if he does not, their day of reckoning draws near.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The favor Buzzfeed did was distract that he is not ending any of his conflict of interest with his business.

I honestly do not know what is or is not with the dossier.  I am of full confidence that Russia does have something on him.  

Russia has a great oppritunity to truely show the World that their view will have real benefits.  They make Donald look like a true fool the world will not survive his bruised ego.

What is the supposed to do? I don't think it is reasonable to expect him to sell off his life's work before he can be president. Short of letting go of his shares in his businesses, I'd say he has done about as much as he can to create a "Chinese Wall" between himself and his business interests.

[mormont]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What is the supposed to do? I don't think it is reasonable to expect him to sell off his life's work before he can be president.

Why not?

This is exactly what is expected of someone who puts themselves forward for public office. Maybe not to sell it off, but at least to let go of it. This is what public service is, and always has been, about: making sacrifices. If Trump could not bear to give up his life's work he should not have sought the nomination. He knew, from day one, that if he won it would create numerous, serious conflicts of interest. His behaviour so far has made it clear that he considers those problems less important than looking after his business interests.

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Short of letting go of his shares in his businesses, I'd say he has done about as much as he can to create a "Chinese Wall" between himself and his business interests.

He's done pretty much nothing. He could clearly do much more. He could, for example, appoint an independent person or board to run his businesses instead of his children. But then he wouldn't be in control.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

Why not?

This is exactly what is expected of someone who puts themselves forward for public office. Maybe not to sell it off, but at least to let go of it. This is what public service is, and always has been, about: making sacrifices. If Trump could not bear to give up his life's work he should not have sought the nomination. He knew, from day one, that if he won it would create numerous, serious conflicts of interest. His behaviour so far has made it clear that he considers those problems less important than looking after his business interests.

He's done pretty much nothing. He could clearly do much more. He could, for example, appoint an independent person or board to run his businesses instead of his children. But then he wouldn't be in control.

That is your interpretation of the ethical requirement. But it is not the legal requirement. So it is a non-issue, that he can ignore if he so chooses. The only fallout will be more sanctimonious complaining by people who are his detractors in any case. I don't think his base really gives two shits about the issue.

[mormont]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That is your interpretation of the ethical requirement. But it is not the legal requirement. So it is a non-issue, that he can ignore if he so chooses. The only fallout will be more sanctimonious complaining by people who are his detractors in any case. I don't think his base really gives two shits about the issue.

You asked whether it was 'reasonable', not whether it was legal. You also said he'd done 'as much as he can', not that he legally didn't have to do anything at all. My response is that yes, it is reasonable and no, he hasn't done as much as he can, he's done as little as he can get away with.

Legally, yes, you're right. Politically, yes, you might be right. But you're wrong when you say that he's done as much as he can and you're wrong when you suggest it's unreasonable to expect that he can and should do much more.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

You asked whether it was 'reasonable', not whether it was legal. You also said he'd done 'as much as he can', not that he legally didn't have to do anything at all. My response is that yes, it is reasonable and no, he hasn't done as much as he can, he's done as little as he can get away with.

Legally, yes, you're right. Politically, yes, you might be right. But you're wrong when you say that he's done as much as he can and you're wrong when you suggest it's unreasonable to expect that he can and should do much more.

I said short of selling his shares, he has done about as much as he can. And we will continue to disagree over whether it is reasonable to expect him to give up his ownership of his businesses in exchange for becoming president. I think it is absolutely not reasonable. You feel it is.

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Interesting positive view on how Trump handled his first press conference:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/11/opinions/trump-news-conference-stanley/index.html

In short, in this article's view, he nailed it.

[mormont]

38 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I said short of selling his shares, he has done about as much as he can.

You did, and you were wrong. I mean, there's just no dispute about that - it's not an opinion, it's a fact that he could have done much more.

(By the way, I'm not sure that Trump's businesses have shares, aren't they privately owned?)

38 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And we will continue to disagree over whether it is reasonable to expect him to give up his ownership of his businesses in exchange for becoming president. I think it is absolutely not reasonable. You feel it is.

But what's telling here is that you started out talking about whether it was reasonable, and when challenged instantly switched to whether he could get away with it.

Now, I know Trump doesn't really get or care about the difference, but I would certainly hope that you do. Still, when you find yourself switching from the former to the latter like that, it's often a sign that you're not really as certain of your ground as you'd like to be. I think you want to believe that Trump is in the right here, but you really don't. Because, well, a blind man can see he isn't.

[Altherion]

23 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I said short of selling his shares, he has done about as much as he can. And we will continue to disagree over whether it is reasonable to expect him to give up his ownership of his businesses in exchange for becoming president. I think it is absolutely not reasonable. You feel it is.

I tried to find what is the precedent for such situations. The Motley Fool has a list of rich Presidents. As far as I can tell, none of those who had more than $100M at the time they became President sold off their holdings. The same is true of other high offices. George W. Bush sold his shares in the Texas Rangers in 1998 which means that he was Governor of Texas for years while owning them. Dick Cheney sold some Halliburton options in 2005 which means that he had held them for his first Vice-Presidential term.

Based on all of this, I agree with you that it is not reasonable to expect that Trump will sell everything he has -- especially since much of his holdings is in real estate which is not easily liquidated. Some Presidents have done this, but many others have not and it is definitely not a requirement.

[Free Northman Reborn]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

You did, and you were wrong. I mean, there's just no dispute about that - it's not an opinion, it's a fact that he could have done much more.

(By the way, I'm not sure that Trump's businesses have shares, aren't they privately owned?)

But what's telling here is that you started out talking about whether it was reasonable, and when challenged instantly switched to whether he could get away with it.

Now, I know Trump doesn't really get or care about the difference, but I would certainly hope that you do. Still, when you find yourself switching from the former to the latter like that, it's often a sign that you're not really as certain of your ground as you'd like to be. I think you want to believe that Trump is in the right here, but you really don't. Because, well, a blind man can see he isn't.

Thanks for the amateur psycho-analysis.

First, things first, though. Privately owned businesses also have shares. They are just not publicly traded. And the shareholding therefore generally need not be openly declared. So unlike a publicly traded company, the public generally does not need to know what percentage of business X or Y Trump owns. Whether it be 51% or 100%.  

(By the way, privately owned is probably not the right terminology in any case. Businesses are generally privately owned. Even if their shares are publicly traded. The owners of the shares are often still private individuals. The term you are looking for is that his businesses are not publicly listed. Like SpaceX, for example. Although, I qualify that by stating up front that I don't have a full list of all Trump's businesses by any means. Still, they will have shares.)

Now for your attempted analysis of my thought processes.

To correct you, I originally stated that it was not reasonable to expect him to dispose of his ownership in his businesses. That's what you're disputing. And that's what we disagree on.

You then went into a long diatribe on the nature of public service, at which point I tried to put that in context, saying that this is your view of what is "ethical". (And you clearly equate this ethical position with what is "reasonable").  Whereas my view is pretty much that reasonability in this case need not differ from what is legal.

 

[Martell Spy]

How Blackmail Works in Russia
The art of kompromat, a practice that seems to have migrated across the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/kompromat-trump-dossier/512891/

[The guy from the Vale]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I tried to find what is the precedent for such situations. The Motley Fool has a list of rich Presidents. As far as I can tell, none of those who had more than $100M at the time they became President sold off their holdings. The same is true of other high offices. George W. Bush sold his shares in the Texas Rangers in 1998 which means that he was Governor of Texas for years while owning them. Dick Cheney sold some Halliburton options in 2005 which means that he had held them for his first Vice-Presidential term.

Based on all of this, I agree with you that it is not reasonable to expect that Trump will sell everything he has -- especially since much of his holdings is in real estate which is not easily liquidated. Some Presidents have done this, but many others have not and it is definitely not a requirement.

Now we're touting Dick Cheney as a model for ethical behaviour? The mind boggles.

[mormont]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To correct you, I originally stated that it was not reasonable to expect him to dispose of his ownership in his businesses.

I'm not sure how this is correcting me, but OK.

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

That's what you're disputing. And that's what we disagree on.

In fact, I said 'maybe not to sell it off, but at least to let go of it'.

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You then went into a long diatribe on the nature of public service

That 'long diatribe' was one paragraph of six sentences, less than 100 words total, by the way. You could fit it into three tweets.

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

, at which point I tried to put that in context, saying that this is your view of what is "ethical". (And you clearly equate this ethical position with what is "reasonable".  Whereas my view is pretty much that reasonability in this case need not differ from what is legal.

As I said: you've switched from what's 'reasonable' to what he can legally get away with. If you're now claiming that your position all along was that these two things are identical, then maybe I was wrong and you don't understand the difference. But honestly, rereading your initial post, it doesn't read that way at all.

[Altherion]

14 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Now we're touting Dick Cheney as a model for ethical behaviour? The mind boggles.

I admit, I put that in there partly to draw this reaction. However, the example does make an important point: what Cheney did was not illegal and nobody with the power to discipline him objected even when Halliburton was awarded no-bid contracts.

[Free Northman Reborn]

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm not sure how this is correcting me, but OK.

In fact, I said 'maybe not to sell it off, but at least to let go of it'.

That 'long diatribe' was one paragraph of six sentences, less than 100 words total, by the way. You could fit it into three tweets.

As I said: you've switched from what's 'reasonable' to what he can legally get away with. If you're now claiming that your position all along was that these two things are identical, then maybe I was wrong and you don't understand the difference. But honestly, rereading your initial post, it doesn't read that way at all.

To me the issue is quite clear. A vast gulf exists in opinions on what is reasonable in this case.

Some would say anything he did that goes beyond an absolute legal requirement, is more than reasonable. You (and many others) feel a much higher ethical standard should be used to define reasonability here.

I listened to his lawyer's speech from a business person's perspective. And I was nodding along as she presented and discussed the pro's and con's of the various options they had considered.

In each case one had to weigh the potential benefit of an option against its cost (yes, its cost to Trump and his family). You and others who share your opinion clearly feel that the cost to him should not be a major consideration as he entered into this situation willingly and knowingly. The alternative view is that one should not be required to sacrifice even more, after you are already sacrificing years of your life to such a demanding public service.

In any case, the options like blind trusts were in my view very logically dismissed, as still not truly killing off all opportunities for conflicts of interest or appearances of conflicts of interest. And at the cost of rather onerous additional sacrifices from the president-elect.

The same with the options of him disposing of his assets - which I don't even agree with in principal, even before you look at the practical implications. One, he couldn't sell it to his sons because they would have to borrow the money to buy it, creating new potential conflicts of interest. Similarly, if he himself lent them the money, again, new conflicts of interest are created.

Similarly, by selling it to the a random party, it would indeed be a type of fire sale situation, where he is forced to sell assets below the highest value he could have otherwise obtained for it. You say, in essence, so be it, that is the price of assuming this high office. I say it is an unreasonable price to demand from him.

And thus we shall continue to disagree on this.

 

[Hereward]

Mudguard,

Why haven't the intelligence agencies been able to corroborate the reports yet?  The CIA lacks the resources and connections that this one British intelligence agent has?  I find that hard to believe. 

I wouldn't be surprised. All the major HUMINT sources in the Russian state apparatus, at least since the Philby spy ring was closed down, have worked for the British not the Americans, see Gordievsky, Mitrokhin, etc.

[Free Northman Reborn]

10 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Mudguard,

 

I wouldn't be surprised. All the major HUMINT sources in the Russian state apparatus, at least since the Philby spy ring was closed down, have worked for the British not the Americans, see Gordievsky, Mitrokhin, etc.

Let's not miss the point that this guy's private intelligence firm was being paid to produce some dirt on Trump. So in the end he managed to scrape together 35 pages of "hearsay". Hearsay that is totally unverified, based on what some guy in some Eastern European intelligence agency says he had heard. So it is in effect second hand hearsay.

So, there exists a rather large incentive for this Christopher Steele (nice name for a former spy, by the way) to include every bit of fluff he could possibly find into his hard won 35 pages. After all, his fee - and probably future business - depended on it.

Incidentally, I see he asked his neighbour to look after his cat and fled from his Surrey home after his name was leaked in the media. Apparently fearful of becoming the next Litvinenko.

[Hereward]

You may well be right, but I was commenting on the claim about the connections of the CIA versus those of an experienced and connected British agent.