Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LongRider

U.S Politics; The Price of Steele

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Apparently the Stable Genius, who is like so smart, did not sign the NDA. The Return of Stormy Daniels:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/stormy-daniels-sues-trump-says-hush-agreement-invalid-because-he-n854246

Do not know how it will be tawdry. High Intrigue is giving the man far too much credit.

He's a dumbass who's been coddled and protected by ratfuckers like Roy Cohn and Roger Stone all his life. The mere fact of his existence is an indictment of our fucked up society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Kellyanne Conway has been cited for several Hatch Act Violations.  Anyone think anything will come of it?  It seems Trump has to discipline her, what are the chances of that happening? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Oh, please tell me there are texts.

On that, Trump doesn't strike me as hugely tech-savvy, what with his 140 year old phone, and his accidental post of cofveve. (Which could also be part or all of a password he typed into the wrong spot, which I also think entirely likely).

I'm still waiting for the day he accidentally tweets a text to his current mistress(es) instead of texting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ants said:

So, Kellyanne Conway has been cited for several Hatch Act Violations.  Anyone think anything will come of it?  It seems Trump has to discipline her, what are the chances of that happening? 

We already know nothing will come out of it. The White House council disagreed with the findings and ended it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, ants said:

So, Kellyanne Conway has been cited for several Hatch Act Violations.  Anyone think anything will come of it?  It seems Trump has to discipline her, what are the chances of that happening? 

Given his behavior since taking office, why would you possibly think that? 

Anyway, no, I do not think anything will come of this. The recommendation from the Office of the Special Counsel is just that, a recommendation, and this administration has shown absolutely no hesitation in breaking a multitude of uncodified political norms up until now. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't continue to be the case, especially given the huge, recent staff turnover in the White House. 

ETA: Ninja'd... didn't know that the issue had been to put to bed so quickly, but there ya go. 

Edited by IamMe90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly they are now pulling the presidential seal golf stuff off the market.  Or so I heard from the radio.  But I haven't found any google confirmation of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

He's a dumbass who's been coddled and protected by ratfuckers like Roy Cohn and Roger Stone all his life. The mere fact of his existence is an indictment of our fucked up society.

Emphasis mine, but fucking A man, if that isn't what it all comes down to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Maybe it's just me, not being a male person, but Trump is greeting the Swedish PM. Sweden is spending over $3 B on a missile defence system, among other things. And was crucial in freeing that unfortunate young man in North Korea.Trump started with saying his daughter really enjoyed watching the US playing Sweden in curling at the Olympics. (Where the US beat Sweden). 

Now, I know many of you will just say this is just friendly razzing, but the difference, to me, is the fact that almost every single press conference Trump has with a foreign leader starts with a put-down of some kind.

And now Trump is complaining that the US has an $800 B trade deficit with the world. Once again, he doesn't mention 4% of the world's population uses 25% of the world's resources, which always puzzles me how the US can not have trade deficits with the rest of the world.

Trump also just said he would put a 25% tariff on European cars, because the EU has a tariff on US cars. Once again, he does not mention the US put a 25% tariff on European trucks and the 10% was negotiated through the WTO.

He also said "we lose $800 B in trade". Stop buying stuff then, you idiot. See how Americans like that.

I mean, yeah. This is Trump and always has been. He's a moron who doesn't understand trade at all and views the world in terms of zero-sum and dominance games.

When you hear him talk about trade (and other stuff too but especially trade) it's always framed in terms of the other side "laughing at us" or the like. In his view if people are making money while trading with the US, then the US is losing money. Foreigners are taking it.

And of course the putdowns are just the same shit he does with handshakes. Every interaction is a chance to put yourself above the other side and achieve social dominance.

It turns out mentally ill morons don't make good leaders.

Edited by Shryke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shryke said:

When you hear him talk about trade (and other stuff too but especially trade) it's always framed in terms of the other side "laughing at us" or the like. In his view if people are making money while trading with the US, then the US is losing money. Foreigners are taking it.

In fairness, we are laughing at America a lot these days. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That would be Leo Gerard. I heard the same interview, as well as a few others he did on NPR and other sites today and I think it's clear that he's being delusional and overly simplistic. He rejects that automation is a major factor in manufacturing job losses, which it is,  and he has no comprehension about the externalities of these tariffs. He didn't even seem to understand that other countries would retaliate. And he cannot see the big picture on how this would be a net loss for many Americans. He only cares about the short term needs of his workers.

 

To be fair, that's his job, no?

I doubt that he does not understand the impact in other industries and for end customers.  Or at the very least that there would be adverse impacts. But why should he be worried about that, at the expense of the people he is representing?

It's the administration's job to weigh those concerns when making policy.  True, this president / administration is totally incapable doing that, but surely that's not the fault of the steelworkers.  

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aeu said:

 

To be fair, that's his job, no?

I doubt that he does not understand the impact in other industries and for end customers.  Or at the very least that there would be adverse impacts. But why should he be worried about that, at the expense of the people he is representing?

It's the administration's job to weigh those concerns when making policy.  True, this president / administration is totally incapable doing that, but surely that's not the fault of the steelworkers.  

  

 

Actually it is the fault of them when they voted for a known fraud committing bag of shit and tried to hold influence over their workers by getting them to vote for him as well. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Actually it is the fault of them when they voted for a known fraud committing bag of shit and tried to hold influence over their workers by getting them to vote for him as well. 

Trump actually did something the Steel Workers Union wanted. There can some quibble on points but in general Trump is delivering.

There has not been an official Democratic statement on these actions. You have some Democratic Representative that are pleased and PA Senator Casey has voiced support. The real push back has been from Republican leadership.

The biggest issue is Trump knows nothing. He has no real strategy and it is causing real damage to the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Now, I know many of you will just say this is just friendly razzing, but the difference, to me, is the fact that almost every single press conference Trump has with a foreign leader starts with a put-down of some kind.

This is Trump's MO and has been all his life. Dominance moves straight out of an '80s management seminar. It's always worked for him and he enjoys it. So, no surprise that it's his opening move in any diplomatic exchange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

The mere fact of his existence is an indictment of our fucked up society.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost impossible to keep up with the firehose of news this week if you are doing anything else at all. What an insane week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, aeu said:

 

To be fair, that's his job, no?

I doubt that he does not understand the impact in other industries and for end customers.  Or at the very least that there would be adverse impacts. But why should he be worried about that, at the expense of the people he is representing?

It's the administration's job to weigh those concerns when making policy.  True, this president / administration is totally incapable doing that, but surely that's not the fault of the steelworkers.  

  

 

Trump's trade policy has been incoherent. Remember the corporate tax bill? Now remember the purpose that bill was to increase the US attractiveness as a place to invest. But you know, if all that foreign investment comes in, ie the US is basically exporting financial claims, then US imports of goods have to increase. And then the deficits created by that sorry ass corporate tax bill likely increases the amount of imports. Well that would have been the standard prediction anyway, except for the corporate tax bills sorry ass territorial provisions, which give incentive for corporations to shift capital out of the country. His fiscal and tariff choices are an incoherent mess.

Also, I'd be remiss, if I didn't mention that at least part of the reason the US runs trade deficits is because basically we are the worlds monetary hegemon. People around the world want to hold US dollars and US interest bearing debt.  Now that gives us some privileges when it comes to borrowing, but it also means we have to run deficits. Trump doesn't seem to understand this.

 

2 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Trump actually did something the Steel Workers Union wanted. There can some quibble on points but in general Trump is delivering.

There has not been an official Democratic statement on these actions. You have some Democratic Representative that are pleased and PA Senator Casey has voiced support. The real push back has been from Republican leadership.

There is always been part of the left that has been uneasy with free trade. And it's not completely void of good reasons. Standard models predict that free trade will redistribute income. The case that the trade with China actually caused job losses rather than merely redistributing income and the configuration of jobs seems fairly strong at this point.

Now the official story is that it is all robots. But for the people that have suffered job losses or have to shift to lower paying jobs are probably very suspicious of that story and well, honestly, they have some reason to be.

When these trade deals had been signed, and had we been more honest, that not everyone was going to be a winner, at least initially, and had taken steps to compensate the losers from trade, then we might not see so much populous backlash against trade.

Overall I tend to be a free trader. And over all. I think it is beneficial. But, I think it was just a tad dishonest to portray everyone as being winners from trade. And both the Democrats and Republicans bear responsibility here.

This is not a defense of Trump's actions as I think they are overall bad and likely just to piss off many of our key allies, who we already have strained relationships with.

I would have preferred more direct aid to have gone to those people that have experienced job losses as result of trade. Certainly, I think we could have done a lot for a fraction of the cost of the ridiculous corporate tax bill.

But, what I want to mainly get at here, I think, is that lets just get this out in the open is that yes some of the left is very skeptical of trade. And I think it's important we understand the reasons why. And it's important I think for the left to understand what it wants to to do about it, should it regain power. And I think it's important for the left to have a little more nuanced understanding of the issues here than the Republican right, which just mindlessly says "the market is always awesome!"

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Trump's trade policy has been incoherent. Remember the corporate tax bill? Now remember the purpose that bill was to increase the US attractiveness as a place to invest. But you know, if all that foreign investment comes in, ie the US is basically exporting financial claims, then US imports of goods have to increase. And then the deficits created by that sorry ass corporate tax bill likely increases the amount of imports. Well that would have been the standard prediction anyway, except for the corporate tax bills sorry ass territorial provisions, which give incentive for corporations to shift capital out of the country. His fiscal and tariff choices are an incoherent mess.

Also, I'd be remiss, if I didn't mention that at least part of the reason the US runs trade deficits is because basically we are the worlds monetary hegemon. People around the world want to hold US dollars and US interest bearing debt.  Now that gives us some privileges when it comes to borrowing, but it also means we have to run deficits. Trump doesn't seem to understand this.

 

There is always been part of the left that has been uneasy with free trade. And it's not completely void of good reasons. Standard models predict that free trade will redistribute income. The case that the trade with China actually caused job losses rather than merely redistributing income and the configuration of jobs seems fairly strong at this point.

Now the official story is that it is all robots. But for the people that have suffered job losses or have to shift to lower paying jobs are probably very suspicious of that story and well, honestly, they have some reason to be.

When these trade deals had been signed, and had we been more honest, that not everyone was going to be a winner, at least initially, and had taken steps to compensate the losers from trade, then we might not see so much populous backlash against trade.

Overall I tend to be a free trader. And over all. I think it is beneficial. But, I think it was just a tad dishonest to portray everyone as being winners from trade. And both the Democrats and Republicans bear responsibility here.

This is not a defense of Trump's actions as I think they are overall bad and likely just to piss off many of our key allies, who we already have strained relationships with.

I would have preferred more direct aid to have gone to those people that have experienced job losses as result of trade. Certainly, I think we could have done a lot for a fraction of the cost of the ridiculous corporate tax bill.

But, what I want to mainly get at here, I think, is that lets just get this out in the open is that yes some of the left is very skeptical of trade. And I think it's important we understand the reasons why. And it's important I think for the left to understand what it wants to to do about it, should it regain power. And I think it's important for the left to have a little more nuanced understanding of the issues here than the Republican right, which just mindlessly says "the market is always awesome!"

I think the main thing is to put better labor protections into trade deals. Rather than say giving enormous amounts of power over countries to unaccountable boards run by corporate lawyers.

As for why some leftists would be skeptical of trade? I think it's a minority, actually. The skepticism on the left is of the whole entire system and the rising inequality that has resulted. The American Right's war on the minimum wage for example has been hugely successful at driving up inequality and has nothing to do with free trade. Rising rents on the coasts and politicians who cater to real-estate developers over regular people have nothing to do with free trade. Student loans and a federal government that caters to big banks and the for-profit education industry have nothing to do with free trade. These are all things that are making poorer people miserable in America right now.

There are some leftists skeptical of free trade specifically, but lots of liberals are on the coasts and people on the coasts tend to benefit from trade in some manner. However, a hot economy can be a sort of two-edged sword. If you fail to keep up, the rising rents can be hard to keep pace with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I think the main thing is to put better labor protections into trade deals. Rather than say giving enormous amounts of power over countries to unaccountable boards run by corporate lawyers.

As for why some leftists would be skeptical of trade? I think it's a minority, actually. The skepticism on the left is of the whole entire system and the rising inequality that has resulted. The American Right's war on the minimum wage for example has been hugely successful at driving up inequality and has nothing to do with free trade. Rising rents on the coasts and politicians who cater to real-estate developers over regular people have nothing to do with free trade. Student loans and a federal government that caters to big banks and the for-profit education industry have nothing to do with free trade. These are all things that are making poorer people miserable in America right now.

There are some leftists skeptical of free trade specifically, but lots of liberals are on the coasts and people on the coasts tend to benefit from trade in some manner. However, a hot economy can be a sort of two-edged sword. If you fail to keep up, the rising rents can be hard to keep pace with.

I can’t stand Trump. And overall I think his and the Republican Party’s approach to things is a disaster for most people.

But, I think it would be wrong to say, “we on the left have been always ardently pro free trade all along!” when that is not true. Surely they are some pro free trade lefties. And there are some anti-free trade lefties. I think it’s important though to understand where the bone of contention lies, so we can come with with a coherent story of what we want do about it or how we are going to deal with it.”

I think a lot of what you say here is true. And overall I’m a pro free trader. But, free trade hasn’t been a great deal for everyone, particularly if your some 40+ person whose just lost his job in the steel industry. You face some significant barriers to entry to re-integrate into the labor market, things like re-training cost and age discrimination to mention a few.

I think my overall point is that we have to be a bit nuanced about this stuff, so we the left can formulate policies to deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I can’t stand Trump. And overall I think his and the Republican Party’s approach to things is a disaster for most people.

But, I think it would be wrong to say, “we on the left have been always ardently pro free trade all along!” when that is not true. Surely they are some pro free trade lefties. And there are some anti-free trade lefties. I think it’s important though to understand where the bone of contention lies, so we can come with with a coherent story of what we want do about it or how we are going to deal with it.”

I think a lot of what you say here is true. And overall I’m a pro free trader. But, free trade hasn’t been a great deal for everyone, particularly if your some 40+ person whose just lost his job in the steel industry. You face some significant barriers to entry to re-integrate into the labor market, things like re-training cost and age discrimination to mention a few.

I think my overall point is that we have to be a bit nuanced about this stuff, so we the left can formulate policies to deal with it.

I'd agree that we have to be more nuanced about this stuff.

I'm really not anti-trade though and I do have some reasons why I could be. I'm 42 and been in the same geographical area all my life. As a result, I've seen the types of jobs different generations had. It's been pretty awful as a whole to the younger generations. While there are a lot of hot tech jobs in this area, these kids are not getting them. 

I just prefer to blame the American conservatives currently plotting how best to further destroy these kids rather than trade, because it is constant and ongoing.

But yes, the fact that the spoils of free trade ended up primarily in the pockets of the wealthy does drive some skepticism of trade on the left. Bernie Sanders for example I think has some skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×