Jump to content
Jace, Basilissa

U.S. Politics: You Didn't Think It Would Be So Easy, Did You?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Mance said:

Ahaha, I'm an idiot.  I shall not edit my original post as t'would be the coward's way out.  

I got this from a tweet from a journalist that I assumed wouldn't be joking.  Shame on me.  

ETA:  And I do appreciate the irony that I kinda got deep faked on a deep fake thing.  We are in serious trouble.

ETA2:  In my defense, that does seem like something Pelosi would say. 

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligence Director Dan Coats Puts Barr on Notice Not To Imperil National Security
“Highly sensitive classified information ... if publicly released would put our national security at risk,” Coats said in a statement.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dan-coats-william-barr-trump-intelligence-risk-warning_n_5ce8a6fce4b0512156f19c44

Quote

 

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats issued a warning about national security after President Donald Trump granted Attorney General William Barr broad new powers to declassify intelligence related to the origins of the Russia investigation. 

Coats said in a statement that he is “confident” Barr will follow “standards.” But he also warned that if “highly sensitive classified Information” is released, it “would put our national security at risk.”

Coats also emphasized that the intelligence community will “continue” to share “apolitical intelligence” with the rest of the government.

“I am confident that the Attorney General will work with the [intelligence community] in accordance with the long-established standards to protect highly-sensitive classified information that, if publicly released, would put our national security at risk,” Coats said.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, who would be the recipients of the farmer welfare you ask? None other than the Republican Senator worth over 3 million dollars, as of 2015. 

 

Quote

with an estimated net worth of $3,336,536 in 2015.

https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth?cid=N00001758

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOP senator applies for farm aid, but maintains support for Trump’s trade war with China
Sen. Chuck Grassley owns a farm in his home state of Iowa, and like many of the farmers he represents, plans to apply for tariff relief.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/25/18639904/gop-senator-chuck-grassley-farm-aid-trump-trade-war-china

Quote

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, will apply for financial assistance offered by the Trump administration as part of the latest bailout package for farmers hurt by the White House’s ongoing tariff war with China.

Grassley’s spokesperson, Michael Zona, told The Des Moines Register’s Stephen Gruber-Miller that the senator “receives no special treatment,” and that he is merely participating in programs for which he is legally eligible.

“As a family farmer who experiences the same processes with the federal government after downturns like other farmers in Iowa, Sen. Grassley brings firsthand knowledge and experience on behalf of agriculture and rural America to the policymaking tables in Washington,” Zona said.

Grassley co-owns a 750 acre farm with this son, on which the men grow corn and soybeans. When he previously applied for the first round of tariff aid programs in October, Grassley indicated that would split the money with his son.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Zorral said:

So you don't believe that she requesting a meeting with the CEO, speaking out about this major issue within our total joke of health care in many venues and many places, had nothing to do with Gilead suddenly removing the patent protection a year earlier than they were required to do.  

Yes, let us by all means, denigrate and dismiss everything these women are actually DOING as our elected officials, charged with our public welfare.  That's a whole lot of words devoted to dismissal.

No, the settlement had nothing to do Ocasio-Cortez.  I wrote my "long" post because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt of making a incorrect assumption in good faith, so I provided an explanation of how the pharma and generic industry worked, and then provided you with a citation to a news article that shows that Gilead and Teva settled the Truvada litigation in 2014.  Again, the NBCNews article I cited said the following:

Quote

"Gilead reached an agreement with Teva Pharmaceuticals in 2014 to allow the early launch of a generic version of Truvada into the market in 2020, a year earlier than required," wrote Douglas Brooks, Gilead's executive director for community engagement, in an email shared with NBC News by the advocacy group PrEP4All.

How clearer can it be that Ocasio-Cortez wasn't responsible for this settlement?  At this point, it's clear that my assumption that your initial post was made in good faith was incorrect.  You obviously have no interest in the truth, and even tried to imply that I'm anti-woman.  I guess you're the far left version of Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im actually impressed that Grassley would only have $3million in assets if thats acurrate? 

My gut feeling is that its probably a few times higher than that for a guy in his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see from Facebook (thanks to a boarder) that Trump’s war on China is destroying the goldfish sellers in the US, who just can’t pass on 25% price increases.

Goldfish should be bred and raised in the USA! No foreign goldfish!

Share this post


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

I see from Facebook (thanks to a boarder) that Trump’s war on China is destroying the goldfish sellers in the US, who just can’t pass on 25% price increases.

Goldfish should be bred and raised in the USA! No foreign goldfish!

For about four years, we had a pond in our yard, and kept goldfish in there. We started with five the first summer. Next spring, there were at least thirty fish in the pond. We had the pond supply people clean the pond and take all but five (they were the same people that sold us the fish but said they wouldn't be resold, they'd just live in the ponds at their store, which were extensive). This cycle repeated every year.

If only I'd known, I could have been part of the patriotic goldfish resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mudguard said:

 I guess you're the far left version of Trump.  

If that is so, you're a two legged version of a jack russell terrier -- so cute and doggedly single-track. :laugh: :cheers: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

For about four years, we had a pond in our yard, and kept goldfish in there. We started with five the first summer. Next spring, there were at least thirty fish in the pond. We had the pond supply people clean the pond and take all but five (they were the same people that sold us the fish but said they wouldn't be resold, they'd just live in the ponds at their store, which were extensive). This cycle repeated every year.

If only I'd known, I could have been part of the patriotic goldfish resistance.

I think we've stumbled on the main driver of Trumps trade wars.He's just trying to stop the universe being over run by goldfish.

What a hero!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So long and thanks for all the fish sort of thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since the Green New Deal was introduced, I've seen articles to the effect was that it is not enough. They seem to have become more common in the past month or so. For example:

Quote

You never would know from these encomiums that the Green New Deal cannot stave off calamity by keeping the planet from warming 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures, the threshold endorsed by most scientists. That’s because, like the 1930s New Deal and the 1960s space program, the Green New Deal is focused on the United States.

Yet the United States is currently responsible for only 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and that share is declining as pollution from the developing world rises. So while radical cuts to U.S. emissions — which are the largest per capita after a few Persian Gulf nations and Australia — are necessary, they’re insufficient. Every other rich country also needs to make similar cuts, immediately. The developed nations with large emissions (Saudi Arabia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Britain and others) can afford their own Green New Deals; perhaps they can be persuaded to do their parts, if we do.

But developing nations — such as India, Pakistan, Ecuador and Malaysia — aren’t going to unilaterally constrain their own economies. If carbon-based energy sources help them compete in the global marketplace, that’s what they’ll use — unless, economists say, they get financial help to develop sustainably, with industrialization powered by renewable energy instead of oil, gas and coal. And there’s only one place they can get that help: from wealthy countries like ours. Giving them cash needs to be part of any Green New Deal.

On the one hand, the point regarding the global nature of the problem is perfectly true: even if the Green New Deal were somehow implemented in the US as proposed (this is obviously not happening), its impact on global CO2 emissions would be fairly small. On the other hand, if there is one thing almost guaranteed to be unpalatable to the American electorate, it's handing over large amounts of money to third world countries.

The most obvious way out is to make non-carbon based alternatives cheaper than fossil fuels without any subsidies, but the Green New Deal does not explicitly list this as a major goal and the environmentalists criticizing it barely mention it. Fortunately, between the Chinese and Elon Musk et al, it might happen anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In Trump's America, former members of his staff can refuse congressional subpoenas, but brown people have to produce papers to prove they can exist in the space they occupy, and black people can be shot without consequence if a police officer feels scared, even if he's just scared because they're black.  Make America continue to suck white ass.

 

Eta: and now doctors can refuse transpeople medical care.  

If humans survive another few hundred years this period is going to be the real Dark Ages.

 

Saw a twitter response by AOC to Soledad O'Brian that pointed out this absurd injustice.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

snip

And yet lots of Trump people would tell you that the only real racism today is the racism towards white people.  There's no racism towards blacks cause we elected Obama.

Here's some @Fragile Bird bait:

 

Quote

Back during the prior market downturn, there was still hope that a trade war between the U.S and China would be averted. Plus, reports from the manufacturing sector were upbeat. This month, however, mounting trade tensions have put the prospect of an agreement on ice , with the battle lines hardening in recent days. As for the economy, we found out on Thursday that factory activity is slowing to dangerous levels. The preliminary U.S. manufacturing purchasing managers' index from IHS Markit fell two points to 50.6, the lowest reading in a decade. The drop was led by the new-orders gauge, which showed a contraction for the first time since August 2009. The factory report lends credence to the notion that the primary reason for the better-than-expected gross domestic product report in the first quarter was companies front-loading orders in anticipation of the escalating trade war. What’s even more jarring about the IHS Markit report is that its overall composite index – which combines manufacturing and services – is now below the euro zone’s gauge.

This helps me understand slightly better how Trump's trade bluster has not hit us too hard yet (but how it still indeed could).  

Since "but the economy" has been a big reason why Trump people say Trump is so great if the market does tank I'll be excited to hear how he's still great somehow.   

Share this post


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

Ever since the Green New Deal was introduced, I've seen articles to the effect was that it is not enough. They seem to have become more common in the past month or so. For example:

On the one hand, the point regarding the global nature of the problem is perfectly true: even if the Green New Deal were somehow implemented in the US as proposed (this is obviously not happening), its impact on global CO2 emissions would be fairly small. On the other hand, if there is one thing almost guaranteed to be unpalatable to the American electorate, it's handing over large amounts of money to third world countries.

The most obvious way out is to make non-carbon based alternatives cheaper than fossil fuels without any subsidies, but the Green New Deal does not explicitly list this as a major goal and the environmentalists criticizing it barely mention it. Fortunately, between the Chinese and Elon Musk et al, it might happen anyway.

bullshit rationalization and fear mongering, doing nothing because somewhere someone might also be doing nothing is a stupid way to think about and enact policy. 

We shouldn't do heart surgery because some countries don't do heart surgery! Think of the old people!

And most of those other countries are kilometers ahead of the united states on climate policy anyway. 

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

bullshit rationalization and fear mongering, doing nothing because somewhere someone might also be doing nothing is a stupid way to think about and enact policy.  

And I'll reiterate another key point about thinking about climate change:

Every little bit does help because a six degree increase is so much worse than a three degree increase.  We have to avoid the mentality that if we're going to fail that avoid the famous 2 degree increase that we therefor just give up entirely.  

Share this post


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

bullshit rationalization and fear mongering, doing nothing because somewhere someone might also be doing nothing is a stupid way to think about and enact policy. 

We shouldn't do heart surgery because some countries don't do heart surgery! Think of the old people!

And most of those other countries are kilometers ahead of the united states on climate policy anyway. 

Not to mention, you know, US backing out of Paris Accordsand Kyoto Protocol.  It's not like the rest of the world isn't on board, or couldn't be encouraged to do so.  Hilariously sad that we're willing to go to war because of oil or stupid shit but we won't even try to spend money to cut emissions in the developing world.  It's like there's a bunch of drowning people and instead of holding onto the life raft, we're cutting the anchor loose and trying to bash everyone else over the head with it while we sink.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


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

And I'll reiterate another key point about thinking about climate change:

Every little bit does help because a six degree increase is so much worse than a three degree increase.  We have to avoid the mentality that if we're going to fail that avoid the famous 2 degree increase that we therefor just give up entirely.   

But the question is not whether to do something or to give up entirely; it's about what exactly to do. The various solutions proposed so far are mostly redistributing a great deal of wealth from one set of people to another with only marginal changes in greenhouse gas emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump alone can fix it Just give him dictatorial powers and let him hire the very best people with dodgy pasts.

I wonder, if one were expecting to be raptured and one believed the end times have come, whether climate change would be a priority. Some people also believe that suffering brings people closer to the divine, or that our fate is predestined. And if you take Noah and the Ark literally, than the white male boss guy likes to cleanse the earth of most life forms occasionally. 

Share this post


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

And yet lots of Trump people would tell you that the only real racism today is the racism towards white people.  There's no racism towards blacks cause we elected Obama.

Here's some @Fragile Bird bait:

 

This helps me understand slightly better how Trump's trade bluster has not hit us too hard yet (but how it still indeed could).  

Since "but the economy" has been a big reason why Trump people say Trump is so great if the market does tank I'll be excited to hear how he's still great somehow.   

I've been getting teased with this imminent recession for fucking 2 years now.

Give me job loss or give me death!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Altherion said:

Ever since the Green New Deal was introduced, I've seen articles to the effect was that it is not enough. They seem to have become more common in the past month or so. For example:

On the one hand, the point regarding the global nature of the problem is perfectly true: even if the Green New Deal were somehow implemented in the US as proposed (this is obviously not happening), its impact on global CO2 emissions would be fairly small. On the other hand, if there is one thing almost guaranteed to be unpalatable to the American electorate, it's handing over large amounts of money to third world countries.

The most obvious way out is to make non-carbon based alternatives cheaper than fossil fuels without any subsidies, but the Green New Deal does not explicitly list this as a major goal and the environmentalists criticizing it barely mention it. Fortunately, between the Chinese and Elon Musk et al, it might happen anyway.

So, lead the world by example into safety, and help others to make the change. Or follow the world over the climate catastrophe cliff.

If policy is going to be formulated on how much other countries are going to enrich themselves at the expense of the USA in the decades before everyone is screwed. Then we're already screwed.

Theoretically the Paris climate accords were meant to hold everyone to the same expectations to do their fair share to minimize climate change. Talking about the GND as if it exists in a vacuum where no one else is obligated to do anything is just a lie. 

Share this post


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

×