Larry of the Lawn Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Let's see what other nonsense, obfuscation, and Constitutional asswiping emerge from the White House this week... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: Let's see what other nonsense, obfuscation, and Constitutional asswiping emerge from the White House this week...tomorrow ftfy We're gonna need about ten more threads to get through the rest of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 From the prior thread, the article that @Commodore cited also has this bit of law opinion, which seems to be pretty well against it. The author of the article thinks she should resign; I think she effectively did. That said, even if something is reviewed by OLC they can simply review it as a legal document; they do not rule on a broad basis if it is constitutional and their word is simply 'does this meet the standards for a legal document'. It does not mean that it is necessarily constitutional. Furthermore, given that a judge already issued a stay on it there's a bit more information than what the OLC had offered, which is what Yates mentioned. I don't expect her to last the week, honestly, but I can see why she did not resign. Quote What about the argument that a state attorney general owes a duty, as a lawyer, to his client—the State or the people—to make an argument in defense of state law? Conservative commentator Ed Whelan’s central criticism of the state attorneys general who have refused to defend the marriage laws of their states is that those attorneys general have abandoned their client. But the problem with that argument is that the state attorney general is the client.42 The state attorney general is an executive officer who ordinarily serves either by appointment of the governor or more often by election as an independent officer. Like any executive officer, the state attorney general takes an oath to support the Constitution in the performance of his duties. The state attorney general, as the chief legal officer of the state government, has duties that are not equivalent to those of a private lawyer representing a client. The state attorney general frequently also serves as the chief prosecutor, a minister of justice who must seek the truth in the performance of his duties. The state attorney general is no ordinary lawyer. His first duty is to the Constitution.43 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392 Hill staffers secretly worked on Trump's immigration order Several House Judiciary Committee aides helped craft the controversial directive without telling Republican leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 We've had lots of senseless Nazi comparisons on past threads. I don't necessarily agree with this article (by David Frum) but it sets out a more plausible way the Tyrant Trump prophecy could come true. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: I don't expect her to last the week, honestly, but I can see why she did not resign. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38805944 Trump just sacked her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I'm pretty sure Yates would have been packing up her desk the minute she hit the send button on her instruction not to draft legal defences for the #Muslimban EO. While most of her staff don't serve at the pleasure of the President, she did and clearly she was actively courting the displeasure of the president and couldn't reasonably expect to last another 24 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I read a series of books by the late Chalmers Johnson several years ago. From his wiki page Quote He wrote numerous books including, most recently, three examinations of the consequences of American Empire: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. A former cold warrior, his fears for the US changed: "A nation can be one or the other, a democracy or an imperialist, but it can’t be both. If it sticks to imperialism, it will, like the old Roman Republic, on which so much of our system was modeled, lose its democracy to a domestic dictatorship."[4] He wrote in these books about the military and the military bases and installations around the world. He did focus quite a bit on Japan and Okinawa because that was where his expertise lay. I found it an informative and thoughtful read about the many US Military bases/installations/radar stations ect; which he thought were >700 at the time. He also discussed some of the contracts the US has with other countries about how the installations came about, which is worth a read. (the last book of the series was published in 2004) If one truly wants to have a look at the history of the expansion of the US military this is a thoughtful series on that subject. He also discusses blowback, how the term came about what he felt that term meant and also what blowback meant for the US. Reading about blowback was an eye opener to me and would I think, explain some of how ISIS came about. ISIS didn't happen in a vacuum, and the blowback from the Iraqi war and all of the messing around in the ME is really, in my opinion blowing back on us real hard now, and I don't see Prez Orange Shit Thing doing anything, anything, to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Even Glenn Beck thinks this statement from Trump is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 @Altherion Quote For example, consider the refugees and immigration in general. Unless there's an exceptional situation wherein additional available labor fuels the need for yet more labor (this sometimes happens in rapidly growing economies, but it's certainly not the case in ours), increasing the labor pool via immigration general lowers the wages in the sectors where the immigrants will compete. I wouldn't deny in your vanilla variety partial equlibrium model that if you increase the supply of something, its price tends to go down. But, there is plenty of empirical evidence that the immigration hasn't had all that negative effect in the US in terms of wages and employment. Why has has this resulted? Maybe because the partial equilibrium model isn't appropriate. Perhaps a general equilibrium model is appropriate. Remember, immigrants aren't just suppliers of laborer, they are demanders of goods and services too. So it's possible, or maybe even probable, the extra demand they are generating is offsetting downward wage pressures. Marshall’s scissors doesn’t seem to be in operation here in the US. Also, immigrant labor tends to allow American workers to do other things, making them more productive. Also, your assumption here seems to be that the American labor market won’t be able to absorb immigration labor, when in fact the real thing to worry about is there might not be enough younger workers in the future, which will probably drag down economic growth. With Americans likely to live longer in the future, America will likely get older. It would actually be helpful to have young immigrant workers come to America. It’s a win for them to be able to come to America and find jobs. And it would be a win for most native born Americans. Immigration can help economic growth. Much of Trump’s rhetoric about immigrants has been built on an intellectual house of cards. Quote For instance, an American worker employed by a large corporation goes to lunch and buys a sandwich from an American vendor. The vendor is effectively being paid by the corporation through the worker. If, instead, the work is done by a third-world worker, the latter will naturally buy lunch from the local vendor and Americans are unlikely to ever see that money again. Okay, I feel a bit compelled to clean this up a little: Suppose the foreign vendor guy sells a sandwich and gets a couple of bucks for it. Then what happens? Now he either: 1. Takes the dollars and buys an American Product. No real problem there . 2. Or maybe he takes the dollar and buys a product within his own country. And then the person who got the dollar turns around and buys a product in the same country, until it winds up with some guy in the same country who holds the dollar because he sees it as a safe store of value. American dollars are often held for that reason, along with American financial assets. 3. Now suppose the original guy just keeps the dollar as a safe store of value, which is similar to the situation above. Then what happens? Well by the guy holding the dollar, the demand for dollars just increased. And the FED would meet that demand by expanding the supply of dollars, well, except, it doesn't really try to manage the quantity of dollars, it instead lowers the interest rate and lets the supply of money endogenously adjust. And lower interest rates should stimulate consumption and investment, restoring full employment. However, there is a somewhat of caveat here. Suppose, American interest bearing assets and money are quite popular stores of value, which they are, and that appreciates the dollar and the import exposed labor sectors can't adjust rapidly to non-tradeable good or export sectors, with the result that the FED lowers the interest rate to a very low level. And then a fairly big demand side shock occurs and the FED lowers the federal funds rate and it hits zero and then The Republican Party, aka The Party of Business!!”, gets elected, preaches Ayn Rand, and claims that the inevitable outcome of trying to help poor people, particularly minorities, will always lead to mass economic destruction, all with the result that no fiscal support is forthcoming or too little of it and lots of people are generally fucked as a result. That’s generally what happened in the 2000s and up to 2008 and beyond. The point here is: Normally whether the foreign vendor guy keeps the dollar or spends it to buy an American product, it isn't the case that jobs were lost or aggregate demand declined. Now there was a particular special case where that happened because there was a huge surge of imports and an enormously high savings rate in some countries. But, a lot of the damage from that has been done. And it doesn’t follow that we should try to reverse the course things because its likely not reversible. And because going forward, things will likely be different. Look, I’m not in denial that trade hurts some folks. It does have distributional effects, even if it doesn't lower output and unemployment. But, it seems a more rational way of handling that situation is helping the people that have been hurt, than losing many of the gains from trade. Also, I'd point out that Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy will appreciate the dollar. Quote Trump's war on both of these is battling against inequality in the US. Of course, it is not against global inequality as the refugees and third-world workers are both significantly worse off if they're denied entry or jobs, but it is against inequality at home and Trump was honest about that (hence "America first"). If Trump is really battling against inequality, then why the tax cuts for the wealthy, which is probably a bigger driver of inequality than trade. Why the criticism of the ACA and Dodd-Frank? And why the 20% Corporate Tax rate when the new proposed tax law will tax new capital investments, at normal profits, at exactly 0%. And why does his infrastructure plan revolve around selling off American public assets to private investors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, Mexal said: I agree with this. Eh. There are a lot of ways to spin this that have nothing to do with interpretation of the law; her comms in particular were deeply insubordinate no matter what, and were asking for a smackdown. That said, the actual text of the press release is one of the most amazingly inept and ugly things I've ever seen in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Extreme vetting is not extreme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I saw a screengrab of Yates' wikipedia page labeling her a traitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Eh. There are a lot of ways to spin this that have nothing to do with interpretation of the law; her comms in particular were deeply insubordinate no matter what, and were asking for a smackdown. That said, the actual text of the press release is one of the most amazingly inept and ugly things I've ever seen in government. It's not the Presidents job to interpret the law, it's hers. If she thinks it's unconstituional, she's doing her job, especially with 4 separate judges ruling against it. I get Trump can fire her, but given the language of the press release, she was fired for not being loyal. That sets a horrible precedent of loyalty over law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Mexal said: It's not the Presidents job to interpret the law, it's hers. If she thinks it's unconstituional, she's doing her job, especially with 4 separate judges ruling against it. I get Trump can fire her, but given the language of the press release, she was fired for not being loyal. That sets a horrible precedent of loyalty over law. I agree with all that, but again - you can easily claim to fire her entirely based on her statement. I don't think he did that, and his statement makes it even more clear what the motivation is (again, shockingly incompetent), but in theory you could have justified it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 36 minutes ago, Stubby said: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38805944 Trump just sacked her. It's interesting that she chose to defy Trump rather than simply resign -- the way she did it effectively handed Trump an easy victory as far as his followers are concerned. Breitbart is almost uniformly exultant right now. 4 minutes ago, Kalbear said: That said, the actual text of the press release is one of the most amazingly inept and ugly things I've ever seen in government. It's not aimed at you and the people it is aimed at love it. 24 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Also, your assumption here seems to be that the American labor market won’t be able to absorb immigration labor, when in fact the real thing to worry about is there might not be enough younger workers in the future, which will probably drag down economic growth. With Americans likely to live longer in the future, America will likely get older. It would actually be helpful to have young immigrant workers come to America. It’s a win for them to be able to come to America and find jobs. And it would be a win for most native born Americans. Immigration can help economic growth. This is the fundamental disagreement and I've heard this argument before with respect to various industries (e.g. the tech industry). As far as I can see, it is simply wrong. There is no labor shortage or even impending labor shortage. If there was, then wages would rise and companies would be willing to train workers rather than demand a ridiculously specific list of credentials. 32 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: Look, I’m not in denial that trade hurts some folks. It does have distributional effects, even if it doesn't lower output and unemployment. But, it seems a more rational way of handling that situation is helping the people that have been hurt, than losing many of the gains from trade. How would you help them? It would be a royal pain in the neck to identify people impacted by trade and it's not clear what to do with them anyway (there are at least millions and possibly even tens of millions depending on how one counts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Altherion said: It's interesting that she chose to defy Trump rather than simply resign -- the way she did it effectively handed Trump an easy victory as far as his followers are concerned. Breitbart is almost uniformly exultant right now. I'm sure they are. It's still incredibly incompetent. 1 minute ago, Altherion said: It's not aimed at you and the people it is aimed at love it. I'm sure that's true. It's still incredibly incompetent. He could swear and call her a cunt, and the people it is aimed at would love that too - and it would be just as incompetent. 1 minute ago, Altherion said: This is the fundamental disagreement and I've heard this argument before with respect to various industries (e.g. the tech industry). As far as I can see, it is simply wrong. There is no labor shortage or even impending labor shortage. If there was, then wages would rise and companies would be willing to train workers rather than demand a ridiculously specific list of credentials. Tech industry wages have risen incredibly high in the last 10 years, even the last 5. I've doubled how much I earn in the last 5 years, and I'm probably getting paid less than I could; I could likely quit my job and double it again right now if I wanted to. Companies do train workers via intern programs but really you need someone with a fair amount of experience starting out, and no one has 3-4 years to invest in someone who may not be around. 1 minute ago, Altherion said: How would you help them? It would be a royal pain in the neck to identify people impacted by trade and it's not clear what to do with them anyway (there are at least millions and possibly even tens of millions depending on how one counts). If only there was some way of redistributing excess profits from super rich corporations and systems to poorer people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, Altherion said: It's not aimed at you and the people it is aimed at love it. Those would be the people who don't care about constitutional government and law; their only concern is seeing their RACISM and LOVE of authoritarian arbitrary rule put into action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, Altherion said: It's not aimed at you and the people it is aimed at love it. Trump could take Yates and hold a public execution in the middle of Times Square and they'd love it because the Breitbart base is made up only of despicable cretins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.