Jump to content

US Politics: Spicey Onion Indigestion in the Age of Trump


Larry of the Lawn

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Is this legit?

Due to an obscure law, Bannon will apparently need a full Senate confirmation hearing to serve on the National Security Council, which will give senators the chance to grill him on his background and will require a majority vote to pass him. Given how many Republicans apparently hate him, he's not going to be likely to get it.

 

 

Nah. Bannon is invited not appointed. He doesn't need to be confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Is this legit?

Due to an obscure law, Bannon will apparently need a full Senate confirmation hearing to serve on the National Security Council, which will give senators the chance to grill him on his background and will require a majority vote to pass him. Given how many Republicans apparently hate him, he's not going to be likely to get it.

 

 

I can't wait to hear about his confirmation hearings. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Maybe he will get rid of gay marriage or maybe he won't. But if Trump and Pence contrive to get rid of gay marriage this won't make the US any more or less autocratic as long as it is done legally.

 

The supreme court has already ruled on this issue, so getting rid of gay marriage will not be done legally.

It's the other parts that worry me though, allowing the discrimination and denial of rights that everyone else has. What kind of effect with that have on the LGBTQ community?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Looks like the paranoia indeed went overboard on the earlier thread, with the doom and gloom predictions about Trump's "imminent" executive orders against the LGBT community. Looking at you Dr. Pepper, if I recall. And one or two other hysterical scaremongers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-protections-lgbt-workers.html?_r=0

To be honest, it seemed out of sync even when it was raised, given Trump's pretty consistent message of support for the LGBT community, even going back to his campaign trail.

Basically, Trump has been doing exactly what he promised he would try to do during his campaign. He promised to focus on security and immigration issues, and he has come out hard on that. He promised to be pro-life, and has put the executive order to the word. By contrast, he made no undertakings that I can recall to target the LGBT section of society. In fact, my only recollection was him praising them after the Florida night club massacre, and promising that they would be safer if he was in power.

I suspect the Trump Administration intentionally leaked the hypothetical LGBT EO. They've been really bad at gauging the public response to their actions, and this would be a perfect way to test it. That said, I still expect Republicans to pass some anti-LGBT legislation and Trump will sign it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I suspect the Trump Administration intentionally leaked the hypothetical LGBT EO. They've been really bad at gauging the public response to their actions, and this would be a perfect way to test it. That said, I still expect Republicans to pass some anti-LGBT legislation and Trump will sign it. 

This.

Thought this was a good argument on way Yates statement was unpersuasive legally.

https://lawfareblog.com/quick-thoughts-sally-yates-unpersuasive-statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am watching a Trump announcement about drug policy. He has decried the fact that Americans pay so much for their drugs. He said he can buy drugs at the drug store for less money than Medicaid pays (???!!!???).

He points out that other countries have lower drug prices, and it's time for that freeloading to stop. American companies are being hurt because they aren't being paid for their research by those freeloader countries, and this has to stop.

I thought other countries have lower prices because they negotiate large scale buying with drug companies? I thought drug companies were obscenely profitable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I suspect the Trump Administration intentionally leaked the hypothetical LGBT EO. They've been really bad at gauging the public response to their actions, and this would be a perfect way to test it. That said, I still expect Republicans to pass some anti-LGBT legislation and Trump will sign it. 

What this reminds me of is conservatives pointing to Peter Theil speaking at the RNC as proof of them not being anti-gay.  "Look, they even applauded for him!"  They always fail to note that the entire convention was rabidly anti-LGBTQ, the platform was one of the most anti-queer the RNC has ever voted for, the person nominated for VP has made it his mission to torture and discriminate against gays, plus Trump who says he doesn't support equal marriage and that he'll sign FADA when it comes to his desk (it will).  Oh but he said Caitlyn Jenner could pee in his hotel so that must be a message of support!

Now these conservatives are going to say "see, he left Obama's protections in place so there's no anti-gay agenda!"  Only, the anti-LGBTQ agenda already exists and will be signed shortly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I am watching a Trump announcement about drug policy. He has decried the fact that Americans pay so much for their drugs. He said he can buy drugs at the drug store for less money than Medicaid pays (???!!!???).

He points out that other countries have lower drug prices, and it's time for that freeloading to stop. American companies are being hurt because they aren't being paid for their research by those freeloader countries, and this has to stop.

I thought other countries have lower prices because they negotiate large scale buying with drug companies? I thought drug companies were obscenely profitable?

Incoherence from him (again) on how he perceives 'Merica is being screwed over by 'foreigners' (again, or rather, continuously).  So, the drug companies overcharging Americans is Canada's fault now?  :bang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Incoherence from him (again) on how he perceives 'Merica is being screwed over by 'foreigners' (again, or rather, continuously).  So, the drug companies overcharging Americans is Canada's fault now?  :bang:

Canadians pay the second highest prices in the world, after Americans. It's those damn Euro-commies, and especially those fuckers in New Zealand, who pay the lowest prices in the world. I mean, come on, NZ is an island pimple at the bottom of the world, how the hell can they do that without cheating? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

I am watching a Trump announcement about drug policy. He has decried the fact that Americans pay so much for their drugs. He said he can buy drugs at the drug store for less money than Medicaid pays (???!!!???).

He points out that other countries have lower drug prices, and it's time for that freeloading to stop. American companies are being hurt because they aren't being paid for their research by those freeloader countries, and this has to stop.

I thought other countries have lower prices because they negotiate large scale buying with drug companies? I thought drug companies were obscenely profitable?

 

I think patents is part of this. Remember how part of the TPP negotations had to do with the Americans trying to extend patents to countries in the TPP and getting serious pushback?

I've been watching a legal battle over a drug called Remicade, a biological drug. A South Korean company basically wanted to make a cheaper generic version and sell it in the US. I think they already do sell it in places like Europe. Anyway the Patent holder for Remade was fightning it, trying to get a few last years of selling Remicade at high prices to Americans. (Looks like they just lost a court battle and lost patent protection, but they were trying to extend it another year to 2018)

So it looks like to me that Trump is basically just scapegoating all foreigners. And the ridiculous thing is if he really wants to extend patents he needs some kind of deal, which is part of what TPP was intending to do. Really don't think he's going to be successful at trying to force countries to extend Big Pharma patents and buy drugs at higher prices at the point of a gun. And he walked away from the bargaining table on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In fact, my only recollection was him praising them after the Florida night club massacre, and promising that they would be safer if he was in power.

After using it as an "I called it, I told you so" sort of a moment. And accepting congratulations from folks for having done so.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mexal said:

I agree with this.

 

Disagree, the unelected DoJ has no constitutional authority independent from the elected Executive/Legislative branches, for good reason.

The AG can't pick and choose which (legal) laws/orders to enforce.

She's drawing a salary from the taxpayer (not to mention her oath of office) to enforce the law. 

Her own legal office said it was a lawful order, and she never said otherwise in her statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

 

I think patents is part of this. Remember how part of the TPP negotations had to do with the Americans trying to extend patents to countries in the TPP and getting serious pushback?

I've been watching a legal battle over a drug called Remicade, a biological drug. A South Korean company basically wanted to make a cheaper generic version and sell it in the US. I think they already do sell it in places like Europe. Anyway the Patent holder for Remade was fightning it, trying to get a few last years of selling Remicade at high prices to Americans. (Looks like they just lost a court battle and lost patent protection, but they were trying to extend it another year to 2018)

So it looks like to me that Trump is basically just scapegoating all foreigners. And the ridiculous thing is if he really wants to extend patents he needs some kind of deal, which is part of what TPP was intending to do. Really don't think he's going to be successful at trying to force countries to extend Big Pharma patents and buy drugs at higher prices at the point of a gun. And he walked away from the bargaining table on it.

The patent issue is a huge policy issue that doesn't get nearly enough attention, in my opinion. I don't think big pharma really needs 20 years or so of patent protection, though they will claim otherwise.

And really we shouldn't be blaming foreigners for own self-inflicted wounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

After using it as an "I called it, I told you so" sort of a moment. And accepting congratulations from folks for having done so.

 

 

Does it offend you that he was right or that he pointed out that he was right and didn't want congratulations? 

Anyone offended by such a  thing probably doesn't have a care in the world, it's a complete non issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Disagree, the unelected DoJ has no constitutional authority independent from the elected Executive/Legislative branches, for good reason.

The AG can't pick and choose which (legal) laws/orders to enforce.

She's drawing a salary from the taxpayer (not to mention her oath of office) to enforce the law. 

Her own legal office said it was a lawful order, and she never said otherwise in her statement. 

Wait. Did you miss that whole thing with Sessions asking her about whether or not she would disobey an illegal order from the President?

Do you not know that there are lawyers who will follow orders, any orders? Did you miss that whole thing about Bush and torture and lawyers who said it was OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

Wait. Did you miss that whole thing with Sessions asking her about whether or not she would disobey an illegal order from the President?

Do you not know that there are lawyers who will follow orders, any orders? Did you miss that whole thing about Bush and torture and lawyers who said it was OK?

She didn't say she disagreed with the OLC's assessment (in fact she never made any legal arguments about the order, just her opinion that it wasn't "wise and just"), and if she did and felt she couldn't comply, she should have resigned.

Otherwise, what's the point of the OLC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Savannah said:

Does it offend you that he was right or that he pointed out that he was right and didn't want congratulations? 

Anyone offended by such a  thing probably doesn't have a care in the world, it's a complete non issue. 

I think most people find it offensive that Trump's first thought, on hearing of these tragic deaths, was of himself, not the victims.

A person who really doesn't want congratulations, by the way, doesn't publicly call attention to the fact that he's been getting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...