Jump to content

U.S. Politics: 5.7 Billion Problems But The House Ain't One


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump White House grows eager to escape losing shutdown fight
After a day of failed Senate action, Trump and his advisers realize they may never win over Democrats in a battle that is costing them dearly.

Interesting reporting buried in that link:

Quote

House Democrats themselves were still debating on Thursday what to put in the proposal — which they insisted was not a counteroffer to Trump. Some members were open to the idea of funding for new fencing along the border while others remain adamantly opposed. Most agreed however that, even if they only offer money for border security measures that don’t involve building a physical barrier— including surveillance technology like drones — they will need to meet or surpass Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion in wall funding.

I don't see why they feel that need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More of what Russia owns; all day we've been hearing the US is going to pressure Maduro by withholding Venezuela oil money -- but as Russia had bought them for itself, one does wonder how that would work.

Venezuela’s Military Backs Maduro, as Russia Warns U.S. Not to Intervene

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/24/world/americas/venezuela-news-maduro-russia.html?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Interesting reporting buried in that link:

I don't see why they feel that need.

Meeting that amount, well they have to be roughly in the same ball park imho, whether it's 5bn or 5.7bn doesn't really matter, the idea is that they don't get targeted with they don't care about national/border security nonsense. Exceeding his demand is pure nonsense imho. As that opens them up for another attack.

So the funds are there, they were willing to even spend more, they just (irrationally) didn't want to spend it on a wall, or even worse the WH could spin it as some kind of awesome negotiation tactic, as in see all I wanted was 5.7bn on border security spend, and the democrats even gave me more money.

Although I suspect the latter will be the spin coming out of the WH anyway. Wall just being a symbol yadda, yadda, yadda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So was interested to see which Senators didn't vote today.  Three didn't vote for either:  Rand Paul (R-KY), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), and Jim Risch (R-ID).  Rosen is recovering from wrist surgery.  Paul may be in Canada getting (recovering?) the hernia surgery that's been in the news for a while, but I couldn't find any confirmation of that on a quick google.  He's been active on twitter though as recently as nine hours ago (about when the votes took place).  Wouldn't surprise me if he just chose to abstain cuz he's just too ideologically pure for either proposal.  Can't find anything on Risch with a quick google.  Burr voted for the Trump compromise but abstained from the CR bill.  If that's an indication of waffling, the Dems would only need to get six more GOP votes to invoke cloture.  Of course, I don't think McConnell would be stupid enough to bring a clean CR up again.

9 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Meeting that amount, well they have to be roughly in the same ball park imho

I agree it's a good move to be in the ballpark - depending on the specifics of course.  I don't see why they feel they need to meet or beat it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Winter Bass said:

But with very different impacts. Capital Gains only affects when the assets are sold, inheritance tax when they are passed on. This would tax them while they were held, which means that they disproportionately punish people with their wealth in illiquid assets (imagine a stock portfolio where you have to liquidate part of it every year to pay your share of the tax, or a single-owner company that is asset-rich and cash-poor because they're new or in a really competitive industry).  Jeff Bezos, for example, would be on the hook for $4.1 billion, and since his wealth is almost all Amazon stock that means he'd have to sell some of it to . . . someone (probably foreign buyers, since other US potential buyers would be hit by the same tax unless they're a pension fund). 

Maybe you haven't heard, but there is deep liquid market for equity securities in the United States. So I'm having a hard time understanding your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded to AOC’s comments about the environment by saying the WH doesn’t listen to first year congressmen and women. And besides, a bigger force will look after the environment - God will look after the environment!

Americans really practice strange forms of religion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded to AOC’s comments about the environment by saying the WH doesn’t listen to first year congressmen and women. And besides, a bigger force will look after the environment - God will look after the environment!

Americans really practice strange forms of religion. 

I’ve seen that angle taken many times, considering the overlap between the right and the evangelicals in the US.  Argument essentially being that it is hubris to believe that man could influence something so much greater than ourselves.  How convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNBC reporting that the high-ranking Trump official that Stone communicated with in October of 2016 is Steve Bannon.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/steve-bannon-is-high-ranking-trump-official-mentioned-in-roger-stone-indictment.html

 

Quote

 

Former White House chief strategist and Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is the unidentified "high-ranking Trump campaign official" in special counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of Roger Stone, CNBC has learned.

The indictment released Friday said the campaign official reached out to Stone in October 2016, a month before President Donald Trump was elected, "about the status of future releases by Organization 1." The unidentified organization clearly refers to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

Bannon is the campaign official, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

This person, who declined to be named, added that Bannon has spoken with Mueller's team, along with the Senate Intelligence Committee, about the exchange.

 

 

 

 
From the indictment:
Quote

 On or about October 4, 2016, the head of Organization 1 held a press conference but did not release any new materials pertaining to the Clinton Campaign. Shortly afterwards, STONE received an email from the high-ranking Trump Campaign official asking about the status of future releases by Organization 1," the indictment reads. "STONE answered that the head of Organization 1 had a "serious security concern" but that Organization 1 would release "a load every week going forward."

 

So the question now is what exactly did Bannon say to the Mueller team and the Senate committee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded to AOC’s comments about the environment by saying the WH doesn’t listen to first year congressmen and women. And besides, a bigger force will look after the environment - God will look after the environment!

Americans really practice strange forms of religion. 

Comes up all the time, especially writ climate change. It's right up there with how "arrogant" the idea that humans can effect the climate of the planet is for dumb ass arguments against climate change. A hundred years ago these were the idiots who literally argued it was impossible for humans to cause extinctions, or clear cut entire forests.

 

But yeah, "climate change isn't a problem because god is still up there" - some variant of which has been said by way to many congress critters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Triskele said:

This feels like a total powderkeg now.   As horrible as Maduro is, it feels like Civil War and US v. Russia stuff are all suddenly on the table.  

No, not really. At least with regards to USA vs. Russia. There's no way Russia is going to commit itself that much there and actually deploy military personnel in America's backyard. It's a bit like the Ukraine reversed in a way (also with the comments being mirrored in a way). The US (or the west in general) also did not go as far as to deploy troops in the Ukraine for a reason. Say what you will about him, but Putin is not crazy, and he is totally aware how this could spin out of control.

If the US really desperately needs a quick military win with very little risk, south America is the place to be. I know it sounds cynical, but that's Realpolitik for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S John said:

I’ve seen that angle taken many times, considering the overlap between the right and the evangelicals in the US.  Argument essentially being that it is hubris to believe that man could influence something so much greater than ourselves.  How convenient.

What drives me crazy is that these are the same people who strive very greedily to accumulate wealth, and justify it by saying ‘God helps those who help themselves’.

Why don’t they leave the Wall up to God as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

 

If the US really desperately needs a quick military win with very little risk, south America is the place to be. I know it sounds cynical, but that's Realpolitik for you.

Would it just be fantastic to see that broke ass riffraff they call a 'Carrier' just get swarmed by drones?

I mean, that wouldn't happen, Ol' Donnie would get his Nobel Prize for ceding influence in avoidance of open conflict, but it's fun to think about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

If the US really desperately needs a quick military win with very little risk, south America is the place to be. I know it sounds cynical, but that's Realpolitik for you.

We have all heard that before, about places where years later we either pulled out in disgrace (though not stopping us from declaring, like orange nazi, a big win), or are still dumping military money and lives down the toilet.

Venezuela is a big country and a lot of it is wild.  Like many another Spanish heritage Latin American country , they have long experience in the tradition of Guerrilla warfare.  How easy did the war against the Fark, etc. in Colombia go on?  It never actually ended, just sort of petered out, but has show many a sign of revival this winter again.

Listening to Venezuelans in the region calling in to the public radio talk show -- whether or not they support Maduro, or believe he's legitimately elected, one and all are extremely unfavorable to US involvement of any kind in Venezuela.  Other callers from other Latin American countries agree with, US stay the f*ck out of Latin American affairs!

In the meantime our grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr8 democracy's airports are delaying and halting flights in our airports due to FAA declaration of safety issues.  People are sitting on planes for hours and hours.  Ripple effect from out of Atlanta and D.C. hubs due to lack of paychecks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen the approval numbers mentioned several times in this thread, but i doesn't seem like anything is jumping out. They are within the bands that Trump has fluctuated in the entire time. His base doesn't seem to care at all about this, which is not unexpected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zorral said:

We have all heard that before, about places where years later we either pulled out in disgrace (though not stopping us from declaring, like orange nazi, a big win), or are still dumping military money and lives down the toilet. 

Venezuela is a big country and a lot of it is wild.  Like many another Spanish heritage Latin American country , they have long experience in the tradition of Guerrilla warfare.  How easy did the war against the Fark, etc. in Colombia go on?  It never actually ended, just sort of petered out, but has show many a sign of revival this winter again.

Listening to Venezuelans in the region calling in to the public radio talk show -- whether or not they support Maduro, or believe he's legitimately elected, one and all are extremely unfavorable to US involvement of any kind in Venezuela.  Other callers from other Latin American countries agree with, US stay the f*ck out of Latin American affairs!

In the meantime our grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr8 democracy's airports are delaying and halting flights in our airports due to FAA declaration of safety issues.  People are sitting on planes for hours and hours.  Ripple effect from out of Atlanta and D.C. hubs due to lack of paychecks.

All legit reasons to stay away from it (and easy to ignore, historically speaking). However Russia issuing a hands off warning isn't one of them. Anyway, the US did not really enter an open wars there. Those were mostly CIA and some special forces messing around in South America. Well, and military advisors propping up very appaling people. And besides, with Brazil the US actually might have an ally in the region already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

We have all heard that before, about places where years later we either pulled out in disgrace (though not stopping us from declaring, like orange nazi, a big win), or are still dumping military money and lives down the toilet.

Venezuela is a big country and a lot of it is wild.  Like many another Spanish heritage Latin American country , they have long experience in the tradition of Guerrilla warfare.  How easy did the war against the Fark, etc. in Colombia go on?  It never actually ended, just sort of petered out, but has show many a sign of revival this winter again.

Listening to Venezuelans in the region calling in to the public radio talk show -- whether or not they support Maduro, or believe he's legitimately elected, one and all are extremely unfavorable to US involvement of any kind in Venezuela.  Other callers from other Latin American countries agree with, US stay the f*ck out of Latin American affairs!

In the meantime our grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr8 democracy's airports are delaying and halting flights in our airports due to FAA declaration of safety issues.  People are sitting on planes for hours and hours.  Ripple effect from out of Atlanta and D.C. hubs due to lack of paychecks.

Zero requirement to put boots on dirt. Current engagement techniques in Western Asia are the product of antiquated decision makers attempting to recreate the decisive victories of the 1940's.

Nothing flies, nothing sails, heat signatures indicating presence of motor vehicles can be destroyed at the press of a button.

I appreciate that your first instinct will be to respond 'that's unrealistic!' or something similar, but consider the amount of resources that could be brought to bear if the government were able to make even the slightest case that the U.S. itself could be endangered. If a war on this side of the hemisphere were to be fought, the tools used will be adapted to new and more effective warfare methodologies at a mind boggling pace.

I mean it won't. This is all just for funzies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sperry said:

I've seen the approval numbers mentioned several times in this thread, but i doesn't seem like anything is jumping out. They are within the bands that Trump has fluctuated in the entire time. His base doesn't seem to care at all about this, which is not unexpected.

Sort of.  His approval rating has fluctuated between 38% and 43% for his entire presidency (not counting the first month honeymoon).  In mid december, he was near the top of that range, ~42% approval.  He has been dropping, slowly but steadily, since then, and now he's nearing the bottom of his range.  So yes, this isn't unprecedented, he was definitely this unpopular before, namely at the worst of the Obamacare fiasco and jamming through the tax giveaway.  However, this situation is only going to get worse, and there's definitely reason to think that Trump's numbers will continue to decline.

There is a contingent of Trump's base that is with him to the end, although whether this accounts for 25% or 30% or 33% of the country is hard to say.  But it is definitely not 38%.  In addition, there have been some polls (such as the last CBS poll) where the drop in polling is occurring in Trump friendly groups (namely with independent and republican white men).  But breaking down polling by subgroups is difficult because sample sizes get unreliable and different polls break things down differently. 

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...