Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Zorral said: All of these -- and particularly that disgraceful spectacle he demanded in public in front of the entire world of his people crawling into his a$$hole -- have me so ashamed, depressed and vomitous for my country, I cannot even think words. I can think words, but they're not safe for work... Reggie Watts-F#$k S^&t Stack (NSFW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6GPFn4CQr4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 52 minutes ago, Red Tiger said: I refuse to believe that is real https://quigley.house.gov/sites/quigley.house.gov/files/COVFEFE Act.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 The initial travel ban was for 90 days so that a review of immigration and formal strong vetting process could be developed, right? So it's been way more than 90 days since the first Muslim ban EO. But instead of getting the strong vetting process in place (which in theory should have been in place for at least a month already) they keep fighting to put a Muslim ban EO into action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: The initial travel ban was for 90 days so that a review of immigration and formal strong vetting process could be developed, right? So it's been way more than 90 days since the first Muslim ban EO. But instead of getting the strong vetting process in place (which in theory should have been in place for at least a month already) they keep fighting to put a Muslim ban EO into action. There are simply not enough qualified Extreme Vets available to make this viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: There are simply not enough qualified Extreme Vets available to make this viable. I dunno, I always imagine Ixodes slaying deerticks with a katana while tearing through Alpine meadows and slides on a mountain bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: They certainly didn't vote in a bloc when opposing various cabinet appointments. Republicans voted unanimously in all but one case (the DeVos one). And even then - they had the votes, so they let people defect to give them 'cover'. Really, I just don't see the actual evidence that the Republican party is particularly fragmented or is not doing what they want to do; the sole exception was the earlier AHCA vote in March, which they found a solution to by simply being super conservative. It is far too premature to judge if there is any GOP fragmentation based on legislation. Of laws enacted, Congress usually has only passed 7 percent of their session total at this point (June of the first year) - the percentage does not hit 25 percent until November of year 1. If we look at major legislation, as you say all we have is the AHCA in which the GOP House turned hard right in order to pass. With much less margin for error in the Senate, we will see if they can hold together their caucus. On the one hand, it's pretty much SOP for the House to pass a bill for the base and the Senate to moderate the legislation under unified government. On the other, the schism between the GOP "establishment" and the newer members that refer to themselves as the Tea Party/alt right/whatever is very real, and nothing new. We have seen the latter oust John Boehner and Eric Cantor, and now clearly have Paul Ryan in the crosshairs. Whether they can actually compromise and govern remains to be seen - they have literally zero experience doing so. Using cabinet confirmation votes is not a valid unit of analysis for this discussion. First, every president receives virtual unanimous support from their party, at least in their first year in office, so you're comparing something with no variation. Second, stating the Dems didn't "vote in a bloc" in opposing cabinet nominees is exactly the wrong conclusion to make when comparing Trump's first Cabinet to others - in fact the Dems demonstrated unprecedentedly high levels of opposition, and even unified opposition. For four votes (DeVos, Mnuchin, Price, Sessions) all but 1 Democratic Senator (Manchin for Sessions and Mnuchin, McCaskill abstained for Price) opposed a nominee. Another six nominees received less than 75 votes overall. Of those six, between 56 and 93% of the Democratic caucus voted nay, with an average of 75%. Overall, that's 10 of 15 Cabinet nominees that received majority opposition from the Dems. Compare that to Obama's first Cabinet. Only two nominees received less than 75 votes - Geithner (60-34) and Sebelius (65-31). Moreover, 9 nominees were passed on voice vote (none were for Trump) and the one retention (Gates at SecDef) was replaced by Panetta in 2011 who was confirmed 100-0. Same story with Dubya - 9 voice votes, and only two nominees received any nay votes - Ashcroft (58-42) and Norton (75-24). Here's a table I quickly found that shows once a nominee reaches a vote, there is almost always no opposition - until Trump. This increased resistance to even Trump's nominees should be an encouraging rather than discouraging sign if you favor the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: There are simply not enough qualified Extreme Vets available to make this viable. But are there enough strong vets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: But are there enough strong vets? Maybe? http://queencitypets.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/cover_page.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 29 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Maybe? http://queencitypets.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/cover_page.jpg In the interests of gender balance, my female vet colleague is a champion power lifter and former international competitor in the hammer throw. So I'm sure she would qualify to carry out strong vetting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Okay, I’d like everyone to take some time out, so we all can throw one big fuckin’ pity party for Wall Street. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/12/the-nations-biggest-banks-have-a-common-gripe-they-have-too-much-money/ Quote “Left to our own devices, we wouldn’t hold as much capital as we’re holding,” Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, said in an investor conference earlier this year. "It is clear that the banks have too much capital,” Jamie Dimon, head of JPMorgan Chase, said in his annual letter to shareholders. "We think it’s clear that banks can use more of their capital to finance the economy without sacrificing safety and soundness." Well of course “left to your own devices” you’d hold less capital. But, that’s the whole fuckin’ point of having the regulations in place. I tell ya’ some people have a lot of fuckin’ nerve. Quote With lower capital requirements, the industry argues, banks could buy back more of their own stock or increase dividends, effectively returning the wealth to shareholders. Because more dividends to bank shareholders is what most of us are really concerned about. We wouldn’t actually be concerned about the stability of the banking system, now would we? And by the way, who would probably end up being the biggest beneficiary of stock buybacks? People lke Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon. Quote But that could change under President Trump. The White House has said regulators went too far in regulating the banking industry, making it too hard to get a loan. Higher capital requirements do not impede lending. I’ll leave it to two scholars of banking to explain: Quote Important in this conclusion is our judgment that higher capital does not hamper the aggregate supply of credit. The alternative view appears to posit a choice between bank balance sheet shrinkage, on the one hand, and credit growth, on the other. In fact, there is no inconsistency between making banks safer and ensuring long-run growth of credit. To see why, recall that from the bank’s perspective, equity capital is one of the sources of funds while loans and securities acquisitions are uses of funds. That is, the former is a liability while the latter are assets. In theory, an increase in bank equity can be used to fund an increase in credit provision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 yaknow, i've got an idea that will help with the big banks not holding as much capital, i'm not sure those guys are gonna like it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 You know if they have so much capital they are good candidates for being broken up into smaller entities because now we have two (or more) well capitalized banks that are also not as systemically important/ticking-time-bomb why have Goldman Sachs when we could have Goldman and Sachs as separate entities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Why stop there? We should have Gold, Man, Sach East and Sach West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, Gertrude said: Why stop there? We should have Gold, Man, Sach East and Sach West. +10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 1 hour ago, commiedore said: yaknow, i've got an idea that will help with the big banks not holding as much capital, i'm not sure those guys are gonna like it though Views, subscription, newsletter pleeze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Gertrude said: Why stop there? We should have Gold, Man, Sach East and Sach West. Wouldn't that be sack left and sack right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 I saw a couple articles on this throughout the night: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/337509-trump-considering-firing-special-counsel-mueller Quote A friend of President Trump said Monday that Trump is considering firing special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the FBI investigation into potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. “I think he’s considering perhaps terminating the special counsel,” Chris Ruddy told PBS’ Judy Woodruff on “PBS NewsHour.” “I think he’s weighing that option.” “I personally think it would be a very significant mistake,” Ruddy continued, “even though I don’t think there’s a justification ... for a special counsel.” Ruddy said there are several conflicts that could arise with Mueller as special counsel, including the fact that his former law firm represents members of Trump’s family and that Mueller interviewed for the position of FBI Director after Trump fired James Comey. How will this be in any way be considered a good idea? This article has Ruddy saying no but we have Hannity tonight urging it and I know Gingrich is pushing along these lines. I know they are upset that Comey release of his memos was the tipping point for the Consul but surprise they do not understand it happened like that due to how mammothly incompentently it was done and in such a manner humiliate Comey. To do it again and think it will be a better quite amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis is the man....nis Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Here is a preview of what firing Mueller will result in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted June 13, 2017 Author Share Posted June 13, 2017 Holy shiiiiiiit, CNN just played an interview PBS did with Trump in 1992. Trump is shilling his book Tenaciously Procrastinate. Trump says he is going to wipe the floor with people who were not loyal to him, that he's going to get revenge. The interviewer is Charlie Rose and he asks Trump, are you going to get even with some people? If given the opportunity, he says. They didn't come to my aid, they didn't do small things that would have helped. Rose goes on to say the most interesting aspect of the book is loyalty. "I am so loyal to people....when someone is slightly disloyal to me I look upon it as a great act of horror." The interview is 60 minutes long, the most interesting part being the last 20 minutes. In the first part he talks about why he supported boxer Mike Tyson against his rape charges. ("I saw the images of that girl, she was a dancer and she was dancing at 8:00 am next morning, with a big smile on her face".) Fascinating. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=charlie+rose+interview+with+Trump%2c+1992&view=detail&mid=C2D0E7C248BCBE2BC679C2D0E7C248BCBE2BC679&FORM=VIRE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A True Kaniggit Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 You know, if you wait until the last minute to do something, you finish in one minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.