US Politics- Stay Gold, Pony Boy

[Commodore]

John Lewis has been a partisan hack for decades, willing to smear any and every Republican as racist. He compared John McCain to George Wallace.

The fact that some Democrats beat up Lewis a long time ago does not mean present day Republicans have to accept his demagoguery. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 hours ago, Notone said:

I wonder, is anybody familar with US copyright law? Can Springsteen send his coverband a cease and desist letter prohibiting them from using his songs? 

I think he probably could, but it's generally considered to be bad form among musicians. Covers and cover bands are considered to be tributes and a show of respect.

[snake]

5 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I've read plenty of articles where past colleagues vouch for Steele.  I just don't give nearly as much weight to those recommendations as do you.  His reputation is enough for me to take a look at the report, but after reading that mess of a report and the extraordinary claims it was making, I needed to see some evidence that corroborated the allegations.  I come from a science background, and when you make extraordinary claims, you need to back it up with an extraordinary amount of evidence.  This isn't science, so I'm not expecting a ton of evidence, but I do require at least some credible evidence to back up the extraordinary allegations made in the report.  And there has been no corroboration by any intelligence agency or news agency, despite them having the report for many months now.  I don't see why they need another few months at this point.  Expecting corroboration of any of the substantive allegations at this point seems about as likely as expecting the recounts to find evidence of Russian hacking.  If the report was just recently disseminated to reporters and intelligence agencies, I would agree waiting a few months to allow them to attempt to corroborate the allegations.  But we are way past that point already.

The report itself appeared to be shoddily put together.  Numerous typos and factual errors, including falsely accusing Michael Cohen of going to Prague to make deals with Russia, one of the bigger allegations in the report.  If he wasn't fabricating the report, then apparently he didn't really do any fact checking of his own.  The Michael Cohen allegation was proven false within a day or two of the report being released to the public.  Also, the report says nothing about the confidence level Steele had in his sources or the confidence level he had in his allegations.  Why didn't he include this?  How is the person commissioning the report supposed to interpret the allegations properly without that information.  It just presents everything as fact without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, making the report essentially useless as opposition research, but great for tabloid fodder.  This is the only work product I've seen from Steele, and based on what I've seen, I'm not impressed at all.

It's possible that instead of fabricating the report, he was just completely inept and duped by sources feeding him misinformation.  But given his reputation, is it likely that he would be this easily duped to believe all these incredible allegations?  And what who was directing these people to feed this misinformation?  There were at least half a dozen different sources, all with stories that implicated Trump conspiring with Russia, so it seems unlikely that his sources all would have independently created a consistent narrative.  Doesn't seem like Putin would have anything to gain by feeding him allegations that he was conspiring with Trump.

As to why he would have fabricated such a story.  Who knows.  Maybe he hates Trump.  Lots of people hate Trump.  There were reports that suggested that Steele hates Putin for poisoning Litvinenko, who Steele was the case officer for.  I'd like to see Steele give an interview where he defends his report.  Why does he think it's credible?  Does he still think it's credible even after the Cohen allegations have been debunked?  If he wants to rehabilitate his reputation, I think he's going to have to do an interview.

Well, he was getting paid to find dirt on Trump.  It's not like intelligence officers are above making shit up.  Just look at the WMD fiasco.  Some even suggest IC manufactured evidence because their political masters wanted them to back then.  And all those reports were labeled "high confidence".  Now of course the narrative is that these "high confidence" reports are indisputable even without literally any collaborating evidence.  The amount of unbiased, critical reporting on these issues is very scarce and that itself is disappointing.

[Dr. Pepper]

57 minutes ago, Commodore said:

John Lewis has been a partisan hack for decades, willing to smear any and every Republican as racist. He compared John McCain to George Wallace.

The fact that some Democrats beat up Lewis a long time ago does not mean present day Republicans have to accept his demagoguery. 

You're like only two posts away from trying to argue that Hitler was a messiah.
 

You're basically a cartoon villain these days. 

[Mexal]

24 minutes ago, snake said:

Well, he was getting paid to find dirt on Trump.  It's not like intelligence officers are above making shit up.  Just look at the WMD fiasco.  Some even suggest IC manufactured evidence because their political masters wanted them to back then.  And all those reports were labeled "high confidence".  Now of course the narrative is that these "high confidence" reports are indisputable even without literally any collaborating evidence.  The amount of unbiased, critical reporting on these issues is very scarce and that itself is disappointing.

What's one logical reason this guy would make everything up? 

What reports are you suggesting are considered high confidence and indisputable?

[all swedes are racist]

@Commodore, interesting thesis, I would like to hear more. Could you kindly provide me, an admitted ignoramus, with instances of Rep. Lewis has smeared a (any?) republican as a racist, along with evidence with which a reasonable person could conclude such claims are/were unwarranted (as per your implication)? Preferably such instances indicated by action, not just uh... what's the phrase... 'talk talk talk'?

[DireWolfSpirit]

From the reports I've read, the "Women's March on Washington" on Jan. 21st will be epic in size and participation. Much larger than the Inauguration that will be happening the day before. They've already issued over 200 bus permits for the Womens March, versus 30 bus permits for the Inauguration. Friday will be for Le Donalds gang, but the weekend will belong to the people en masse.

For live coverage and commentary Democracy Now will be broadcasting on site, should be very good coverage, much better than your going to get from the MSM Networks. https://www.democracynow.org/live/watch_inauguration_2017_womens_march_live

DC will be one mass protest all next weekend!

[snake]

22 minutes ago, Mexal said:

What's one logical reason this guy would make everything up? 

What reports are you suggesting are considered high confidence and indisputable?

Money I would presume.  Why produce such a shoddy and unverified report with one major false assertion unless you are trying hard to please those that hired you. 

The one released previous to this one.

[DireWolfSpirit]

EPA gives claimants a big middle finger (over toxic river pollution they released, that spread through three Western states). Lawmakers threaten action to make sure the EPA pays claims. This is getting appealed. https://www.yahoo.com/news/epa-denies-1-billion-plus-claims-toxic-colorado-042454554.html

[Commodore]

2 hours ago, chairman lmao said:

@Commodore, interesting thesis, I would like to hear more. Could you kindly provide me, an admitted ignoramus, with instances of Rep. Lewis has smeared a (any?) republican as a racist, along with evidence with which a reasonable person could conclude such claims are/were unwarranted (as per your implication)? Preferably such instances indicated by action, not just uh... what's the phrase... 'talk talk talk'?

electing Romney will send us back to Jim Crow

comparing McCain/Palin to George Wallace

says Jeff Sessions (who marched with Lewis on the Selma anniversary) won't look after black people

he also said Tea Partiers protesting the ACA called him the n-word when he walked through the protest to the capital, never provided any evidence despite lots of audio/video of the event

[OldGimletEye]

20 hours ago, chairman lmao said:

and here is a breathlessly overwrought forbes article on the same thing. 

someone smarter than I (like @Mlle. Zabzie or @OldGimletEye) feel like explaining the implications of a tax like this? is this some kind of (ill-conceived) nod to trumps idea of protectionism? or just a straight up continued fucking of poor and working class by way of (to my eyes) a shitfully regressive consumer tax?

I've been reading about this tax,  and I often see it be compared to a VAT tax. And, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm having trouble comprehending that.

In my mind, a VAT tax doesn't discriminate between those factor inputs that come from domestic sources as opposed to foreign sources. Say, I'm a baker. And I need to buy $100.00 of wheat from a farmer. When the farmer sells the wheat to me, he has to pay a tax on it. Whether the farmer is from a foreign country or from the USA he has to pay it basically.

But, from what I understand from this tax proposal, if I buy a $100.00 of wheat from a domestic source, that get's a write off when I compute my tax bill as a baker. But if I buy the wheat from a foreign farmer, that doesn't get a write off.

That doesn't seem VAT like to me. Maybe, I'm missing something though. Or maybe, I smoked some crack and forgot about it. Either way, I'm not seeing it.

Many of the border adjustment people are saying that exchange rate movements will eliminate price differentials caused by the tax. But, I don't think that is a particularly solid argument. And here is why: the exchange rate adjustments would only happen because there are quantity changes in what is exported and imported. The dollar might very well appreciate by 25% or whatever eliminating any price differential. But that would seem to happened after a new equilibrium is reached precisely because more is being exported and less is being imported.

This whole thing though gets a bit more complicated with Trump's proposed other tax cuts. As his deficits mount, the FED is likely raise Federal Funds Rate, which will in turn cause the dollar to appreciate, making imports somewhat cheaper.

The corporate tax does need fixing. Though I have reservations about this particular proposal or plan.  I'm still thinking about it to be honest.

[ThinkerX]

And here we go again -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2017/01/11/omg-house-republicans-are-preparing-to-hit-consumers-with-a-horrible-new-tax-that-will-harm-trump-and-hurt-the-economy/#778aed95641e

 

Here’s how, in essence, this sneaky, anti-consumer tax works. Importers will no longer be allowed to deduct an item as a business expense. To simplify things, let's say a store imports a pair of sneakers for $40 and then sells them for $50, making a $10 profit on which it would owe taxes. Under the Republican plan, however, the retailer wouldn't be able to deduct the $40 it paid for the sneakers. In fact, it would owe taxes on the entire $50! And who, ultimately, pays this tax? You, the consumer, in the form of higher prices or fewer choices of where you can shop. Retailers and their customers will be hit.

 

I consider the source biased at best.

 

This requires more thought.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think he probably could, but it's generally considered to be bad form among musicians. Covers and cover bands are considered to be tributes and a show of respect.

Generally speaking yes. But if I was a musician, I wouldn't want my art to be tarnished by getting anywhere near that orange racist. And Springsteen is more Democrat leaning and has used some strong words to describe President Elect Orange Blowhard. So I would at least give a cease and desist letter some serious thought, if I was Springsteen.

[Werthead]

Quote

Well, he was getting paid to find dirt on Trump

Partly. He then continued the investigation free of charge because the FBI was not acting on the information he was sending them and he was getting concerned it would not be investigated until he found additional information.

[Lord of Rhinos]

James Kwak has a new article in the Atlantic about the minimum wage and economism https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/economism-and-the-minimum-wage/513155/.  Figured I'd link since OldGimletEye likes his stuff.

[Mladen]

Oh, boy, this is getting ugly... Like, seriously ugly. I mean, like someone should really stop. ASAP.

It is amazing to see entire country going through the "5 stages of grief". And it seems that Americans are currently in "anger" phase. I mean, the initial shock of Trump's victory was soon followed by ideas that somehow Electorate college may vote otherwise. Now, since that didn't happen, we are in full rage mode. And the way I see it is that USA has the very serious problem of looking itself in the mirror and acknowledging what happened. These Russian hacks story, as legitimate as they are, at the end of the day, didn't put Trump where he is now. It was American people who accepted him, who accepted him being orange racist and ultimately vote for him. I find the questioning of the legitimacy of the elections, so publicly and so widely, is truly dangerous and I am afraid to even think what the consequences may be.

But it is interesting to see how it works. Russians, the old-traditional villains, had in part in what many of us thought to have been impossible. Rather convenient, don't you think? Even if it is true, and when it comes to Russian meddling, I take it serious, what has been proven is nowhere close to what people need it to be. 

He is a scum, make no mistake. He is a sexist pig, orange racist, mouthbreather (thank God I didn't need much time to use that one) but he has always been that. That is the personality that American people chose on legitimate elections. Fast-forwarding to acceptance would be the best. Because this vicious circle needs to end. A lot of energy is energy is being wasted on questioning the presidency than to heal the wounds of country and make it stronger and united. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Lord of Rhinos said:

James Kwak has a new article in the Atlantic about the minimum wage and economism https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/economism-and-the-minimum-wage/513155/.  Figured I'd link since OldGimletEye likes his stuff.

Well thanks for that. 

Quote

people who want a higher minimum wage just don’t understand economics

Yep. Republican sorts of people try to pull this shit often.

[TheKitttenGuard]

28 minutes ago, Risto said:

Oh, boy, this is getting ugly... Like, seriously ugly. I mean, like someone should really stop. ASAP.

It is amazing to see entire country going through the "5 stages of grief". And it seems that Americans are currently in "anger" phase. I mean, the initial shock of Trump's victory was soon followed by ideas that somehow Electorate college may vote otherwise. Now, since that didn't happen, we are in full rage mode. And the way I see it is that USA has the very serious problem of looking itself in the mirror and acknowledging what happened. These Russian hacks story, as legitimate as they are, at the end of the day, didn't put Trump where he is now. It was American people who accepted him, who accepted him being orange racist and ultimately vote for him. I find the questioning of the legitimacy of the elections, so publicly and so widely, is truly dangerous and I am afraid to even think what the consequences may be.

But it is interesting to see how it works. Russians, the old-traditional villains, had in part in what many of us thought to have been impossible. Rather convenient, don't you think? Even if it is true, and when it comes to Russian meddling, I take it serious, what has been proven is nowhere close to what people need it to be. 

He is a scum, make no mistake. He is a sexist pig, orange racist, mouthbreather (thank God I didn't need much time to use that one) but he has always been that. That is the personality that American people chose on legitimate elections. Fast-forwarding to acceptance would be the best. Because this vicious circle needs to end. A lot of energy is energy is being wasted on questioning the presidency than to heal the wounds of country and make it stronger and united. 

When you state when more people voted for someone that person gets the most votes.  Trump did not get more votes.  He got more votes in a certain configuration.

Yes Foreign interference in the election is a big deal.  That the country has its own of doing so is still not a justification.

We also have on tape the candidate who one encouraging such interference.

Trump ran on questioning the whole system and how it is delegitimite. He would of questuon the election if he lost a very close race (we have the tweets). There is something of reaping the whirlwind.

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

And here we go again -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2017/01/11/omg-house-republicans-are-preparing-to-hit-consumers-with-a-horrible-new-tax-that-will-harm-trump-and-hurt-the-economy/#778aed95641e

 

Quote

as astute tax expert Dan Mitchell has explained (see this and this).

Just have to say, Dan Mitchell is generally a (libertarian) idiot.
 

Here is a real howler from Mitchell back in the day:

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fallacy-government-creates-jobs

Quote

n part, this is a debate about Keynesian economics, which is the theory that the economy can be boosted if the government borrows money and then gives it to people so they will spend it. This supposedly “primes the pump” as the money circulates through the economy. Keynesian theory sounds good, and it would be nice if it made sense, but it has a rather glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that, in the real world, government can’t inject money into the economy without first taking money out of the economy. More specifically, the theory only looks at one-half of the equation — the part where government puts money in the economy’s right pocket. But where does the government get that money? It borrows it, which means it comes out of the economy’s left pocket. There is no increase in what Keynesians refer to as aggregate demand. Keynesianism doesn’t boost national income, it merely redistributes it. The pie is sliced differently, but it’s not any bigger.

Imagine a world where this no banks, except for the Central Bank and the Government. The Central Bank can decide whether or not to buy bonds. The Government issues for bonds for cash. Is it true that that private holdings of cash just decreased? Not if the Central Bank decides to buy bonds and issue cash for them, which it may very well do, if it is not near it's inflation target.

Further, Mitchell's argument might hold an ounce of water if the velocity of money remained constant. Which it doesn't. Mitchell ought to know that.

Dan Mitchell.

LOL: 

[Werthead]

Quote

He is a scum, make no mistake. He is a sexist pig, orange racist, mouthbreather (thank God I didn't need much time to use that one) but he has always been that. That is the personality that American people chose on legitimate elections. Fast-forwarding to acceptance would be the best. Because this vicious circle needs to end. A lot of energy is energy is being wasted on questioning the presidency than to heal the wounds of country and make it stronger and united. 

I think that's the problem. Someone has taken the presidency whose behaviour and values are repellent to over half the population of the country. How do you heal and become stronger and more united when the person in charge has no interest in meeting you halfway?

The onus isn't on people who voted against Trump or those who chose not to vote on rolling over and accepting the status quo (especially not after eight years of the Republicans and their opponents not doing the same thing), it's on the President to find a way of doing that healing process. Doubling down on plans and policies that will actively hurt millions of Americans is not the way of carrying on if that is his intent.

The problem is that Trump and his policies represent an existential threat to both the American way of life and the international diplomatic consensus, and he has no interest in moderating his approach. That may come in time but I wouldn't bet on it.