Jump to content

U.S. Politics: The Flood Shall Wash Away The Cobbs


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

Hey guys. When we passed "stand your ground laws" did ya think we meant for it to apply to all people equally?

Ha. Ha. Fooled ya suckers!!!

It was supposed to be stand your ground for certain sorts of people, while it's "law and order" for everyone else.

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/4/17311452/gun-rights-black-lives-matter-michigan-siwatu-salama-ra

Quote

Last summer, a black woman in Michigan defended herself, her mother, and her 2-year-old daughter with a registered (and unloaded) gun against a woman who she and her attorneys say tried to hit them with a car. She was a concealed carry permit holder and living in an open carry state — one with a “stand your ground” law in place.

Now, Siwatu-Salama Ra is serving a two-year prison sentence at Huron Valley Correctional Facility for felonious assault and felony firearm convictions. She’s seven months pregnant, and according to her attorneys, she’s receiving insufficient medical care — including being shackled to her bed during a vaginal exam — even though her pregnancy is high-risk. The case is under appeal, but the judge deciding Ra’s fate, Thomas Hathaway, has already denied a request to postpone Ra’s sentence until she gives birth.

 

.............................................................................................................

The Democratic Party isn't perfect. It screws up. Sometimes a lot.

But, unlike the Republican Party, it's actually capable of getting shit done that means something to average people and not the CEO Business Clowntable bunch.

The Republican Party, along with Trump. simply isn't fit to run a lemonade stand.

The Republican Party has a "skills gap" problem.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-ignored-warnings-the-aca-consumers-will-pay-the-price

Quote

No one should be surprised. When Donald Trump took steps to sabotage the health care system, as part of a political campaign against the Affordable Care Act, every relevant voice in the debate – insurers, hospitals, medical professionals, industry experts, et al – told the president that he would make things worse for the public.

There’s fresh evidence that those warnings were correct.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-gop-no-longer-sees-tax-plan-electoral-life-preserver

Quote

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will today begin a new advertising campaign, airing commercials in key congressional districts, touting the Republicans’ unpopular tax plan as a great idea. The strategy isn’t subtle: with the GOP facing headwinds ahead of this year’s midterm elections, the party’s big-business allies are trying to put a positive spin on the Republicans’ only meaningful accomplishment.

And at face value, this was entirely predictable. When the package of massive tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations became law, it stood to reason that GOP officials and their allies would cling to the tax plan like an electoral life preserver, keeping Republicans afloat during a tumultuous storm. Many assumed the party and its partners would talk about little else.

...................................................................

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/5/4/17320188/jobs-report-natural-rate-unemployment-inflation-economics-april

Quote

Another monthly jobs report, another growing chorus worried that we might be employing too many people and we should hold back the economy lest it overheats. It was announced Friday that 164,000 new jobs were added in April, and the unemployment rate reached 3.9 percent.

It has been 18 years since unemployment was under 4 percent. As unemployment continues to fall, people wonder, how low could it go?

And what if it gets below the dreaded “natural rate of unemployment” that economists like to talk about?

 

Quote

Where did the idea of a “natural” rate of unemployment come from? The more technical term is “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment,” often rendered in shorthand as NAIRU. It’s described to undergraduates — in Blanchard’s popular macroeconomics textbook, for instance — as “the rate of unemployment required to keep the inflation rate constant.” The term was coined in Milton Friedman’s famous 1968 presidential address to the American Economics Association, “The Role of Monetary Policy.”

 

Quote

But the actual natural rate thesis is more complicated, and makes some claims about how economic growth should behave. As Blanchard notes, the natural rate hypothesis actually consists of two interlocking propositions.

 

Quote

The first is the idea that there is a natural rate of unemployment that a well-functioning economy gravitates toward. Policy can’t get us below a certain level without inflation taking off. The best we can do for unemployment, therefore, is to ease fluctuations around this natural path.

 

Quote

And it follows that this is true more broadly about growth: There is a built-in rate of growth, given certain inputs like technology and educational levels, that policymakers can’t push beyond without generating increasing inflation, and that a well-functioning economy will settle on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

People keep throwing around the term "constitutional crisis" when discussing Trump's bad behavior, but this is the real constitutional "crisis. What happens if (and probably when)"

(a) Trump refuses to sit down for an interview with Mueller

(b) Mueller subpoenas Trump

(c) Trump sues arguing that he can't be subpoenaed 

(d) A Judge sides with Mueller )I think more likely than not if we reach this point)

(e) Trump tells Mueller to try to come down to the WH and get him

I think this chain of events is entirely possible, and it could be incredibly dangerous. Normally at this point you'd just impeach the President, but we all know he won't get impeached by this Congress. Many of us have speculated how and why Trump might subvert the rule of law, and this could be an important fulcrum point.

Yes, and I think it's not at all unrealistic to say that Trump would exploit his position as Commander-in-Chief. Would the FBI take on the military? If Trump walks everywhere with armed guards made up of experienced military men (no way he'd have women), what would happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Yes, and I think it's not at all unrealistic to say that Trump would exploit his position as Commander-in-Chief. Would the FBI take on the military? If Trump walks everywhere with armed guards made up of experienced military men (no way he'd have women), what would happen?

I think it's extremely unrealistic actually, for a lot of reasons. Putting aside the various norms (because those can get ignored, some more easily than others) and laws (because those aren't always easily enforced), the big one is that Trump has never fully grasped the power of the Presidency. He basically acts as though he's the mayor of a big city (he was even intensely interested in the city of DC's response to the one moderate snowstorm we had last year) who gets to deal with foreign powers. He complains constantly about various pieces of the executive branch (not just the parts of DOJ investigating him), but in a "why won't the people in charge do something?" kind of way, with no seeming understanding that he actually is the one in charge. And he has no apparent grasp of what he could actually get away with hiding just by claiming executive privilege (which would sadly not be breaking any norm).

There's been tons of articles about how Trump's political views are stuck in the '80s, but I think his understanding of where he fits in the world is also stuck in the '80s. It wouldn't occur to him to just ignore a court order for instance, because he'd never have been able to do that before. Whereas the various cover-up stuff he's been involved with is just an extension of the way he's always been; even the foreign diplomacy isn't that big a stretch for him, they're all just like the foreign investors he's dealt with most of his life! Trump's lack of knowledge and respect for presidential norms cuts both ways; it's allowed him to be endlessly corrupt and disruptive, but its also made him extremely weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

It would be shocking, if white Evangelical Christianity were actually about the teachings of a pacifist redistributionist Jewish radical. But for them, it's about power and control and revenge for cultural grievance.

And of course, just an hour or so after I made my post, it breaks that a Democratic AG engaged in nonconsensual BDSM and is immediately forced to resign. Once again, we see the difference between how the two parties act when it comes to morality. How Republicans can still get away with their holier than thou act is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I really don't think Schneiderman's disgrace is going to have any effect on the Trump investigations.  New York will elect a new Democratic AG in November.  Could be Preet Bharara!

http://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2018/05/who-replaces-schneiderman-and-how/

Quote

Those variable aside, a range of names have surfaced within the last 12 hours of potential candidates who could run for attorney general, including former New York City Councilman Dan Garodnick, Sens. Michael Gianaris and Todd Kaminsky, New York City Public Advcoate Tish James, Cuomo counsel Alphonso David, ex-Financial Services Superintendent Ben Lawsky, former gubernatorial and congressional candidate Zephyr Teachout and former Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner.

As for Schneiderman's situation, unfortunately, there are more people who are into playing doms in BDSM, who are absolutely shyte at doing it, than there are doms who are good, gifted, skilled, and responsible -- just like there are far more people who are lousy partners in every other aspect of romance, marriage, parenthood, and even work, than are good at it.  Or so I'm told. 

What seems odd is if he was indeed engaged in this kind of role play he was the top, not the submissive -- as is so often the case with people in have high stress, powerful, um, positions.  Or so I'm told.  After all in the Stormy Daniels affair, it was the dumpster who got spanked with a rolled up magazine.  Or so we're told. :dunno: :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed Avenatti was bluffing when he said there was more to the $1.6m payment than meets the eye from former RNC fundraiser Elliot Broidy, but this article does a good job at breaking down how it might all be a cover to protect Trump:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/theory-playboy-model-had-affair-with-trump-not-broidy.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. Glad they're now going to prevent Iran from permantly not having a nuclear capability? How are they going  to do that? Undefined. What is the possible options? War. How does this make America look when one organization makes a massive multi-nation deal and the next administration unilaterally pulls out against the wishes of their allies? FUCKING AWESOME.

The end of America power in the world is painful to watch.

More:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

The end of America power in the world is painful to watch.

It's quite distressing that a man who can't find Iran on a map, and doesn't give a shit that he can't, can do this and be cheered on by his idiotic base.   This won't end well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LongRider said:

It's quite distressing that a man who can't find Iran on a map, and doesn't give a shit that he can't, can do this and be cheered on by his idiotic base.   This won't end well. 

Yup. And actually, a perspective I just saw is spot on. The US isn't withdrawing from the deal. They're violating it. Iran hasn't done anything to warrant a withdrawal as confirmed by inspectors, allies and defense department. So the US are actually violating the deal. It's one more reason to never trust Americans again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yup. And actually, a perspective I just saw is spot on. The US isn't withdrawing from the deal. They're violating it. Iran hasn't done anything to warrant a withdrawal as confirmed by inspectors, allies and defense department. So the US are actually violating the deal. It's one more reason to never trust Americans again.

Between this, withdrawing from the voluntary Paris Agreement and torpedoing TPP, why should anyone deal with us so long as Trump is president?

Our standing in the world has been falling for some time, and the follies of the Bush II Administration increased that decline, but good god Trump is just gasoline on a dumpster fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Between this, withdrawing from the voluntary Paris Agreement and torpedoing TPP, why should anyone deal with us so long as Trump is president?

Our standing in the world has been falling for some time, and the follies of the Bush II Administration increased that decline, but good god Trump is just gasoline on a dumpster fire.

The question is less why should anyone deal with us while Trump is president but more, why should anyone deal with us full stop? Trump has created precedent that the United States will violate negotiated deals in the next administration. Not worth dealing with us anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mexal said:

The question is less why should anyone deal with us while Trump is president but more, why should anyone deal with us full stop? Trump has created precedent that the United States will violate negotiated deals in the next administration. Not worth dealing with us anymore.

This touches on something broader I've been thinking about. Trump will pass, probably succeded by a Democratic president, but another one just like him might show up 4 years later. Or 4 years after that. This isn't just a concern for US allies or anyone who might consider a treaty with the US. What about Dreamers? Or anyone who thought they were afforded certain protections by the highest office. I imagine a lot of Americans will never really be able to feel safe again for more than 4 years at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Between this, withdrawing from the voluntary Paris Agreement and torpedoing TPP, why should anyone deal with us so long as Trump is president?

Our standing in the world has been falling for some time, and the follies of the Bush II Administration increased that decline, but good god Trump is just gasoline on a dumpster fire.

Eh, I don't think that's true. GWB harmed american standing but not in a permanent way for the most part and Obama more or less reversed course on that. He basically got a Nobel Peace Prize for a sort of return to normalcy.

Trump on the other hand has a very real possibility of permanently damaging american power and credibility on the world stage. It's essentially going to come down to whether he ends up being an embarrassing blip or the start of a pattern for US leadership. I think he'll end up hurting US image somewhat no matter what but if he gets re-elected or if the next Republican president ends up being Trumpian on foreign policy too, you are gonna see real drops in american leadership potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Eh, I don't think that's true. GWB harmed american standing but not in a permanent way for the most part and Obama more or less reversed course on that. He basically got a Nobel Peace Prize for a sort of return to normalcy.

Trump on the other hand has a very real possibility of permanently damaging american power and credibility on the world stage. It's essentially going to come down to whether he ends up being an embarrassing blip or the start of a pattern for US leadership. I think he'll end up hurting US image somewhat no matter what but if he gets re-elected or if the next Republican president ends up being Trumpian on foreign policy too, you are gonna see real drops in american leadership potential.

Iranian president Rouhani: "Iran will be conferring with the world's two super powers, Russia and China."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shryke said:

Eh, I don't think that's true. GWB harmed american standing but not in a permanent way for the most part and Obama more or less reversed course on that. He basically got a Nobel Peace Prize for a sort of return to normalcy.

Trump's on a whole different scale than Dubya. At least I can't recall him unilaterally bowing out of international agreements on a whim. Trump is setting a bad precedent. Paris was bad, but tearing up the Iranian Nuclear Deal is just outright terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Between this, withdrawing from the voluntary Paris Agreement and torpedoing TPP, why should anyone deal with us so long as Trump is president?

Actually, that's the wrong lesson to learn. Sadly, the lesson the rest of the world took from Bush's era, before being fooled once again by Obama.

The only single lesson is that there's no point making any deal with the USA as a country, period, and not just with some presidents or parties-in-power. Because sooner or later another administration will just shit all over that treaty/deal, just because it feels it can get away with it. I fucking hoped Bush would be the end of anyone considering the US as a nice gentle reliable trustworthy country, that can actually do some good in the world, but most people being short-memory fools, they were lured by Obama's false promise of a new dawn and acted as if moron Bush was an outlier in US politics and presidents. Hopefully, this is over for good now, and no one will ever trust the bloody country as long as the current political regime is in place.

At this point in time, the only sane, logical and realstic option left to the rest of the planet is to make an example out of the USA and go with a total economic war, including an absolute trade blockade of the entire country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mexal said:

 

Boris Johnson’s a clown too but it was fairly bizarre he was in the US just as Trump’s about to do this and he didn’t meet with him. When the British Foreign Secretary’s having to go on Fox and Friends to try and communicate with the US President it’s probably not a good sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Iranians are staying in the deal. Which makes sense since they want to keep dealing with Europe and this gives them an easy win over the US because they can rightly claim the US is violating the deal.

No one, even the US government's own intelligence agencies, can justify this either. It's gonna be pure Trump and the GOP and some of the Democrats. Mostly Trump, who hates the deal cause Obama did it, and the rest because they hate Iran and are itching for a war or a bombing campaign or something.

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...