Aemon Stark Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Just now, Dr. Pepper said: 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. Because it bears repeating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairparavel Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/30/statement-secretary-kelly-presidents-appointment-thomas-d-homan-acting-ice-director So... Quote Today, the president appointed Mr. Thomas D. Homan acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Just now, 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. There are numerous studies that have shown that the impact of immigrant labor on US wages and levels and employment are relatively small and generally impact specific segments. Again, your assuming a partial equilibrium model. That doesn't seem to be correct as shown by studies by Card and others. As to slack labor markets wages, other factors are likely in play like weak overall demand and monopsony power by corporations. And your not paying attention, evidently, to future economic trends where the population will age. Having young and motivated immigrant workers would be helpful. Just now, 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). Do you think its rational to make the overall pie grow smaller to help some people or do you think that it is more rational to make the pie grow bigger and then redistribute the pie? For one, I'd make sure those people had good access to healthcare. Other policy solutions would be job retraining and relocation assistance.Perhaps low cost financing for areas in distress should be in the policy mix. And I'd nix the tax cuts for the wealthy. And also, I shouldn't forget, that a lot of these jobs have been lost to automation. Not all of it's due to trade. So Trumps plans will not reverse what has already happened. Plus, its a different world than it was back in 2001. Many companies have more extensive global supply chains. Simply imposing a trade war Trump style will hurt other folks who aren't necessarily rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 I like how we're pretending firing acting officials from a previous administration who are about to be replaced is a big outrage/massacre. Senate Ds are slow rolling every cabinet official, and some of the acting officials are using that time to engage in insubordination.Highly unprofessional. The unelected Yates was given an order (deemed lawful by her own department) from her elected executive and refused to do her job and carry it out. She offered no legal reasoning for her insubordination. This is why you escort people who have been fired out the door, they have an incentive to cause trouble (or rather, no disincentive not to). Yates will undoubtedly cash in on this in some form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 9 minutes ago, kairparabola said: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/30/statement-secretary-kelly-presidents-appointment-thomas-d-homan-acting-ice-director So... Apparently this was just a swap; the previous one went back to being deputy. Odd timing, but likely not super scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Commodore said: I like how we're pretending firing acting officials from a previous administration who are about to be replaced is a big outrage/massacre. Senate Ds are slow rolling every cabinet official, and some of the acting officials are using that time to engage in insubordination.Highly unprofessional. The unelected Yates was given an order (deemed lawful by her own department) from her elected executive and refused to do her job and carry it out. She offered no legal reasoning for her insubordination. This is why you escort people who have been fired out the door, they have an incentive to cause trouble (or rather, no disincentive not to). Yates will undoubtedly cash in on this in some form. Has anyone here expressed outrage at her firing? The press release regarding it was unprofessional and seemingly personal and nasty. That's about as close to outrage as anyone got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, Commodore said: I like how we're pretending firing acting officials from a previous administration who are about to be replaced is a big outrage/massacre. In the way they fired Yates, it's very, very, very unprofessional and irregular. As is having someone stay on who isn't willing to do the work in the first place; typically they're identified by the transition team and vetted well. 7 minutes ago, Commodore said: Senate Ds are slow rolling every cabinet official, and some of the acting officials are using that time to engage in insubordination.Highly unprofessional. Yes, they are, because that's what they can do. Similarly, McConnell didn't even bother to do his job for a whole year. Also highly unprofessional. That's where we're at - the professionals get fired unprofessionally and all that's left are the unprofessionals. 7 minutes ago, Commodore said: The unelected Yates was given an order (deemed lawful by her own department) from her elected executive and refused to do her job and carry it out. She offered no legal reasoning for her insubordination. It was considered a legal order by the OLC, meaning that it is a correct order. It doesn't make it a legal order as far as the DoJ or the constitution means, and as pointed out by Yates her office has a specific duty to be a lot more broad in decision making than the OLC has. Her legal reasoning is that she believes - correctly - that this is her job and that the DoJ head has the legal right to enforce (or choose not to enforce) laws as they see fit. That is the AG's actual, legal guidance. This even caused issues with Lynch refusing to do the things Obama wanted her to, which (again) was her right and job to do so. 7 minutes ago, Commodore said: This is why you escort people who have been fired out the door, they have an incentive to cause trouble (or rather, no disincentive not to). Yates will undoubtedly cash in on this in some form. She was asked to stay on. By Trump's team. It's their fault for not vetting her properly. Or clearing this order with the DoJ, which they did not do in any way. Or clearing it with congressional republicans. Or the actual state department head that's coming in. Or the head of the DHS responsible for implementing it. I'm sure Yates will cash in on this, though there's not a lot of indication she wants to; she's been in the DoJ since 1988. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Also, ya'll should read this. It's long, and is speculative, but it shows a very chilling example of what an autocratic United States looks like. It isn't some hideous dystopia, it's a kleptocratic nepotist system where people can resist, but no one cares. Quote A scandal involving the president could likewise wreck everything that Republican congressional leaders have waited years to accomplish. However deftly they manage everything else, they cannot prevent such a scandal. But there is one thing they can do: their utmost not to find out about it. “Do you have any concerns about Steve Bannon being in the White House?,” CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Ryan in November. “I don’t know Steve Bannon, so I have no concerns,” answered the speaker. “I trust Donald’s judgment.” Quote The transition has been nonviolent, often not even very dramatic. Opponents of the regime are not murdered or imprisoned, although many are harassed with building inspections and tax audits. If they work for the government, or for a company susceptible to government pressure, they risk their jobs by speaking out. Nonetheless, they are free to emigrate anytime they like. Those with money can even take it with them. Day in and day out, the regime works more through inducements than through intimidation. The courts are packed, and forgiving of the regime’s allies. Friends of the government win state contracts at high prices and borrow on easy terms from the central bank. Those on the inside grow rich by favoritism; those on the outside suffer from the general deterioration of the economy. As one shrewd observer told me on a recent visit, “The benefit of controlling a modern state is less the power to persecute the innocent, more the power to protect the guilty.” Quote In an online article for The New York Review of Books, the Russian-born journalist Masha Gessen brilliantly noted a commonality between Donald Trump and the man Trump admires so much, Vladimir Putin. “Lying is the message,” she wrote. “It’s not just that both Putin and Trump lie, it is that they lie in the same way and for the same purpose: blatantly, to assert power over truth itself.” Quote Donald trump will not set out to build an authoritarian state. His immediate priority seems likely to be to use the presidency to enrich himself. But as he does so, he will need to protect himself from legal risk. Being Trump, he will also inevitably wish to inflict payback on his critics. Construction of an apparatus of impunity and revenge will begin haphazardly and opportunistically. But it will accelerate. It will have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 @Kalbear Do you have your predictions post anywhere at hand? Maybe we should just pin it at the top of every new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: @Kalbear Do you have your predictions post anywhere at hand? Maybe we should just pin it at the top of every new thread. I don't. It'd be interesting to see what I said a couple months back. When I get some time I'll see if I can find it. My next prediction is that in the next 6 months the economy will appear to be getting better, especially for those companies and individuals who are praising and cheering Trump. You'll probably see one of the Big 3 do something flashy to curry favor with him (my bet is GM) and will get some randomly awesome lucrative deals. You'll see banks do better, and some consumer goods do well. Expect Trump's daily company tweet to happen all sorts of ways, especially as companies learn how to manipulate this better. You'll see Republicans jump to his side and support him not just quietly, but strongly, and their argument that these early growing pains are a combination of inexperience of a businessman into a politician + the massive obstruction of the Democratic party. Expect every nominee to succeed, even DeVos, and either dems will capitulate or the Republicans will nuke the filibuster for SCOTUS. Protests will continue and likely bigger ones will be on the way, and that chaos will be encouraged. I would expect the first protester to die fairly soon. The trade war stuff will probably not happen or have an impact for a while. I could also see Mexico capitulate too; the US would be hurt, but Mexico would likely be obliterated in a trade war. I would expect that certain states will see major job improvement as pork barrel projects get approved for only those places. Other states will catch the drift and get in on that. You'll probably see Wisconsin first, maybe Iowa, and Florida as the big first states. Ohio will probably be punished until Kasich is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 38 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Her legal reasoning is that she believes - correctly - that this is her job and that the DoJ head has the legal right to enforce (or choose not to enforce) laws as they see fit. That is the AG's actual, legal guidance. This even caused issues with Lynch refusing to do the things Obama wanted her to, which (again) was her right and job to do so. She was asked to stay on. By Trump's team. It's their fault for not vetting her properly. Truth. That said, during that vetting stage, I doubt when they hooked her up to the polygraph that they asked if Yates took her job description seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 dems are already fucking caving re: scotus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, chairman lmao said: dems are already fucking caving re: scotus Can you elaborate? I haven't seen anything on this topic yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Altherion said: Can you elaborate? I haven't seen anything on this topic yet. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/democrats-supreme-court-battle/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, chairman lmao said: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/democrats-supreme-court-battle/index.html That's an interesting strategy: it's not obvious that another seat will become empty while Republicans control both the Presidency and the Senate so in a sense giving up Scalia's seat without a fight is trading something that exists for something that only might exist. I wonder how many Democrats will go with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 redacted, as it makes no sense without the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, Altherion said: That's an interesting strategy: it's not obvious that another seat will become empty while Republicans control both the Presidency and the Senate so in a sense giving up Scalia's seat without a fight is trading something that exists for something that only might exist. I wonder how many Democrats will go with this. to act otherwise would mean assuming they have some sort of strategy to be competitive in 2018; think we can safely discount that idea.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 [MOD] Folks, please don't embed videos as they will only be deleted. This has always been the policy of this forum, and the only reason it is not disabled at present is because we don't get the option to disable it. [/MOD] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeu Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 hours ago, JEORDHl said: Truth. That said, during that vetting stage, I doubt when they hooked her up to the polygraph that they asked if Yates took her job description seriously. Well, they could have rewatched footage from her confirmation hearings. Or ask Jeff Sessions (of all people...) https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/826289013891821568 https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/826325066124103680 https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/826327824332054529 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 4 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said: I read a series of books by the late Chalmers Johnson several years ago. From his wiki page 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. Operation Ajax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.