US Politics: Don't Panic - Organize

[lokisnow]

57 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The New York media was doing that long before Burnett was on the scene. But speaking of him, when is someone going to steal all the outtakes from that awful show?

It ain’t mission impossible but it might as well be, they’re likely very secure.

You’re better off seeing if people who long ago worked on the show still have emails with transcription attachments. But the transcribers aren’t paid to transcribe non show material, just like the camera operators aren’t supposed to keep rolling if there is a stop down so you won’t get much if anything even if you had the discs or transcripts, because the system is designed to conserve resources, not capture every outtake. Something like grab them by the pussy is a purely inadvertent accident and more of a reality tv thing, but Iirc he was not much involved in the reality tv parts of the apprenticed, just the scripted and controlled boardroom set.

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The New York media was doing that long before Burnett was on the scene. But speaking of him, when is someone going to steal all the outtakes from that awful show?

Yea but while some the New York media (e.g., Post, Enquirer) was in Trump's pocket at times, no one in New York actually liked or respected the dude. It was the Apprentice that brought him to national spotlight and perpetuated the myth of him being an incredible businessman.

[DanteGabriel]

25 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yea but while some the New York media (e.g., Post, Enquirer) was in Trump's pocket at times, no one in New York actually liked or respected the dude. It was the Apprentice that brought him to national spotlight and perpetuated the myth of him being an incredible businessman.

Fuck, the Apprentice even convinced people that Trump has enough courage to fire someone to their face.

[sologdin]

they should've done an apprentice: slumlord edition that showed how he broke rent control by moving crackheads into buildings as a way to force tenants out.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Not my area.  Sorry.

How dare you not know all the laws!

58 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yea but while some the New York media (e.g., Post, Enquirer) was in Trump's pocket at times, no one in New York actually liked or respected the dude. It was the Apprentice that brought him to national spotlight and perpetuated the myth of him being an incredible businessman.

Trump acted in an interesting space in the 80’s and 90’s. My understanding is that New Yorkers disliked him, and that the high society of NYC despised him especially, but outside of NY he was a rather popular pop culture figure. His business failings were also relatively unknown outside of NYC, which made The Apprentice an effective show. You are right though that The Apprentice enabled him to perpetuate a false narrative about his business acumen.

In a dark sense it is interesting to consider just how many people, acting in their own selfish self-interest, laid the path for Trump to rise to the Presidency. Greed begets greed and all that jazz.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How dare you not know all the laws!

Trump acted in an interesting space in the 80’s and 90’s. My understanding is that New Yorkers disliked him, and that the high society of NYC despised him especially, but outside of NY he was a rather popular pop culture figure. His business failings were also relatively unknown outside of NYC, which made The Apprentice an effective show. You are right though that The Apprentice enabled him to perpetuate a false narrative about his business acumen.

In a dark sense it is interesting to consider just how many people, acting in their own selfish self-interest, laid the path for Trump to rise to the Presidency. Greed begets greed and all that jazz.

Mea culpa; mea culpa.

 

[lokisnow]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How dare you not know all the laws!

Trump acted in an interesting space in the 80’s and 90’s. My understanding is that New Yorkers disliked him, and that the high society of NYC despised him especially, but outside of NY he was a rather popular pop culture figure. His business failings were also relatively unknown outside of NYC, which made The Apprentice an effective show. You are right though that The Apprentice enabled him to perpetuate a false narrative about his business acumen.

In a dark sense it is interesting to consider just how many people, acting in their own selfish self-interest, laid the path for Trump to rise to the Presidency. Greed begets greed and all that jazz.

True Oliver Stone creating the “Greed is Good” super hero has more to do with Trump’s ascession  to the presidency than Burnett. Without that sort of 1984 newspeak (which is representative of a much broader cultural mega shift) making the vile and despicable into the venerated and celebrated, we might not be here.

[Zorral]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How dare you not know all the laws!

Trump acted in an interesting space in the 80’s and 90’s. My understanding is that New Yorkers disliked him, and that the high society of NYC despised him especially, but outside of NY he was a rather popular pop culture figure. His business failings were also relatively unknown outside of NYC, which made The Apprentice an effective show. You are right though that The Apprentice enabled him to perpetuate a false narrative about his business acumen.

In a dark sense it is interesting to consider just how many people, acting in their own selfish self-interest, laid the path for Trump to rise to the Presidency. Greed begets greed and all that jazz.

Not only 'elite' and old school wealthy -- all NYers always knew, that like his father, he was a liar, braggart, criminal, grifter and thug -- and a total wannabe gangster (his dad was actually mobbed up).  We also knew him for the mean, cruel, cowardly, ugly clown that he still is.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Mea culpa; mea culpa.

 

It’s all good in the hood. And besides, I think I figured it out. The person who would ultimately have to enforce a Congressional or court subpoena is……………..William Barr.

7 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

True Oliver Stone creating the “Greed is Good” super hero has more to do with Trump’s ascession  to the presidency than Burnett. Without that sort of 1984 newspeak (which is representative of a much broader cultural mega shift) making the vile and despicable into the venerated and celebrated, we might not be here.

That’s the exact opposite message that Wall Street was trying to portray. The movie is all about the self-destructiveness of greed.

[lokisnow]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s all good in the hood. And besides, I think I figured it out. The person who would ultimately have to enforce a Congressional or court subpoena is……………..William Barr.

That’s the exact opposite message that Wall Street was trying to portray. The movie is all about the self-destructiveness of greed.

Yeah but culturally it became a proactive celebration of greed. The 80s mantra of “greed is good” is the upside down 80s equivalent of a  Greedy Lives Matter mantra, for example.

[sologdin]

no one remembers the story or the intention of the film's writers; everyone by contrast recalls charismatic douglas making his sun tzu speech.

barr would have to recuse himself.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

More Positives about Elizabeth Warren, mortgages, the economic meltdown and her history of that -- she said this doesn't work even back in 2005. 

[...]

  just a theory, based on listening to the (older white guys) in coffee shops and Dairy Queens, etc. throughout the country during the campaign season of 2015 - 2016.

I'm a big Warren fan. I think she'd be really good as a President. I like Bernie, but I feel like he would be stonewalled from both sides, while Warren, at the very least, should have party support. In some ways, what she does and advises is very conservative (in the traditional sense, advice like "don't borrow against your home"), and I do think she's centrist by most historic metrics in this country. But she knows people have been screwed, and she wants to help with that too. 

I get your point about her female status, but personally, I find her very inspiring as a leader. 

[OldGimletEye]

Sorry Ass Republican Economist.

Most of this stuff has been talked about at length. Nothing new here, really.

Except, one thing. Where are the Republican leaning economist to admit they were wrong and to come out and say Moore is a clown?

That they haven't done so is pretty telling.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opinion/the-sabotage-years.html

Quote

Paul Ryan and the economist John Taylor declared that the Fed’s policy “looks an awful lot like an attempt to bail out fiscal policy, and such attempts call the Fed’s independence into question.”

For those who don't know Taylor is a Republican leaning economist who worked in the Bush administration, whose the originator of the "Taylor Rule". And he has been a real (conservative) clown over the last few years.

Quote

Aside from Harvard’s Greg Mankiw, not one prominent Republican economist stepped up to oppose Moore, even though he clearly was engaged precisely in the kind of politicization of monetary policy Taylor and Ryan claimed to see in 2010.

 

Quote

As Matt O’Brien points out, you don’t see the same thing on the Democratic side: center-left economists who have argued for years that the Fed was being too conservative are still saying the same thing with Trump in office.

 

Quote

Another example of asymmetric polarization: you don’t see Democratic economists haranguing the Fed to raise rates amidst low unemployment like you did with Republican economists did when it was high.

I guess some people actually care about being intellectually consistent, while others don't.

[Fragile Bird]

The numbers related to losing a billion dollars in 10 years, rounded down from$1.17 B. Trump lost:

$11,416 per hour

$274,000 per day

$8.3 M per month

$100 M per year

every year for 10 years.

Tax losses were part of the game, says Trump. 

[Fragile Bird]

After weeks of negotiations, the Senate Intel Committee has now had to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. in order to get him to come back and answer questions.

Apparently Don Jr. is now just as wary of perjury traps as daddy is. The word is he may either take the 5th, or simply not appear, since there seem to be no consequences for refusing to appear.

[maarsen]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

After weeks of negotiations, the Senate Intel Committee has now had to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. in order to get him to come back and answer questions.

Apparently Don Jr. is now just as wary of perjury traps as daddy is. The word is he may either take the 5th, or simply not appear, since there seem to be no consequences for refusing to appear.

One would hope that the current US policy of the 'divine right of kings' does not extend to their offspring. 

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

The numbers related to losing a billion dollars in 10 years, rounded down from$1.17 B. Trump lost:

$11,416 per hour

$274,000 per day

$8.3 M per month

$100 M per year

every year for 10 years.

Tax losses were part of the game, says Trump. 

Of course it's part of the game.  He paid zero taxes going forward, and not paying taxes is obviously better than any kind of liberal math.

[Martell Spy]

That would be either the worst day ever or the best day ever for the seargant at arms of the House. He might be tired of never getting to arrest anyone. Also, does he do the arrests solo or does he have some sort of team? I'd guess he'd get backup from D.C. police?

 

The Rarely Used Congressional Power That Could Force William Barr’s Hand
It hasn’t been done in nearly a century, but House Democrats could arrest the attorney general after they find him in contempt.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05/house-democrats-could-arrest-william-barr-contempt/588976/

 

Quote

We also have the power—and I should say I’m speaking for myself here, because I don’t know how many people I’ve been able to convince about this—but we do have the power to exercise the so-called inherent powers of contempt of Congress. It was ruled in the 19th century, in a case called Anderson v. Dunn in 1821, that Congress has the power to enforce its own orders. Just as a court can enforce its orders, Congress can enforce its orders. And in the 19th century, Congress had the sergeant at arms arrest and detain people until they complied with lawful orders of Congress. And we would have the power to fine people who were out of compliance with the law. So that provides another avenue.

Berman: If it got to that point, do you think the House would have the attorney general arrested by the sergeant at arms?

Raskin: Well, the vast majority of the Judiciary Committee, much less the House itself, are just not aware of this process. So it’s just premature to be talking about it. But, you know, its day in the sun is coming. We will educate people about the power of the House to do it. The executive branch is acting in categorical bad-faith contempt of Congress. This is not like a dispute over one document or the timing of the arrival of a particular witness. This is the president of the United States ordering the executive branch not to comply with the lawful requests of Congress.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that Congress has the power of inquiry and investigation. This is essential to our lawmaking function. We have a responsibility to research how the current laws are working and what conditions are that might require legislative changes. We also have a specific power, the Supreme Court has emphasized, to investigate corruption, self-dealing, fraud, waste, and abuse in the executive branch of government. So, you know, this is not some peripheral schoolyard skirmish. This goes right to the heart of our ability to do our work as Congress of the United States.

 

 

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

Of course it's part of the game.  He paid zero taxes going forward, and not paying taxes is obviously better than any kind of liberal math.

Not paying taxes for so long a time after a billion dollar loss is also indicative of not really making much money in the years following the losses. No wonder he has been selling everything he can get his hands on and why banks will not lend him a cent. I suspect Trump is so far in debt he will never get out of it.

[ThinkerX]

13 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Donald Trump lost more money between 1985 and 1994 than any other individual taxpayer in the US, more than a billion dollars.

The New York Times has received portions of his tax returns, without schedules, from those years. That includes the year he ‘wrote’ The Art of the Deal.

I was talking about this today with conservative coworker and Trump fan.  He thought the whole thing was hilarious.  Pointed out to him that claiming the greatest losses ten years running, bankrupting multiple businesses  along the way doesn't exactly inspire confidence.  He agreed, shrugged it off.  Gave him the capsule version of how Trump ended up with the Russians - the US banks black listing him, followed by the European ones, which left only the Russians.  He goes 'so what?'  I told him no real difference between Russian State, Russian Banks, and Russian Mafia.   His response: 'So what, they're all crooks.'