US Politics: Flaming the Flamenco Flamingo

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

totally not a fascist looking to stay in power 

Ya'll need to chill out about this stuff. Trump isn't talking about a 3rd term; he just has realized that he is going to get beat like a drum next year, and that he'll have to pull a Grover Cleveland to get his 2 terms in, so he's focusing his resources on 2024.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Being sentenced to be plebs in Jaceland? 

Yeah right! Those fucking wretches should be so lucky. I mean seriously, yo. If he wins next year I'm establishing my despotate West of the Tiber. Just like old Cincinnatus.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Ya'll need to chill out about this stuff. Trump isn't talking about a 3rd term; he just has realized that he is going to get beat like a drum next year, and that he'll have to pull a Grover Cleveland to get his 2 terms in, so he's focusing his resources on 2024.

You idiot, that's not what's going to happen at all. Those signs are for Ivanka. What makes one more presidential than designing and selling Nazi themed fashionable jackboots? 

[The Anti-Targ]

If the gig economy has to rely on recategorising employees as contractors to deny them all the benefits of being an employee in order for the gig-corps to be profitable then the gig economy doesn't deserve to exists.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He's a lot more likable and way better at retail politics, and he still enjoys strong support from the AA community.

Retail politics do not matter in the general.  As for strong support among the AA community - so did Hillary in the primary.  That's because older black voters know him, are comfortable with him, and probably assume he has the best shot to win.  All that means is he'll likely have the same issue as Hillary in turning the black vote - he'll get the regulars, sure, but not eat in to the elevated turnout Obama's coalition included.

In terms of likeablity, yes Biden has an advantage over Hillary on that.  How long will that last, though, with Trump at full fire and Biden bumbling across the country?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You idiot, that's not what's going to happen at all. Those signs are for Ivanka. What makes one more presidential than designing and selling Nazi themed fashionable jackboots? 

Egads! I've been bamboozled!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If the gig economy has to rely on recategorising employees as contractors to deny them all the benefits of being an employee in order for the gig-corps to be profitable then the gig economy doesn't deserve to exists.

Funny thing is, they deny them their benefits as an employee and they're still not even close to profitable. Uber lost $5 billion (!) just last quarter.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Funny thing is, they deny them their benefits as an employee and they're still not even close to profitable. Uber lost $5 billion (!) just last quarter.

Exactly. What kind of frackin' economy is this that when some of the most highly valued, massive corps like amazon, don't actually make money?  What they do instead is BUY their rivals of every kind.  What are they buying WITH?

I admit, I am knowledge challenged in these areas of finance and economics.  But they all seem massive ponzi schemes  . . . . 

[The Anti-Targ]

So really the only way to make money in the gig economy is actually advertising and selling information about users to Cambridge Analytica and the likes.

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Exactly. What kind of frackin' economy is this that when some of the most highly valued, massive corps like amazon, don't actually make money?  What they do instead is BUY their rivals of every kind.  What are they buying WITH?

I admit, I am knowledge challenged in these areas of finance and economics.  But they all seem massive ponzi schemes  . . . . 

can you say 'bubble?'

[Bonnot OG]

why the Supreme Court should be abolished as well as the EC so a minority of white supremacists can’t hold us hostage anymore.

 

[Martell Spy]

12 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

why the Supreme Court should be abolished as well as the EC so a minority of white supremacists can’t hold us hostage anymore.

 

Yeah, let's just wipe our ass with international law.

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Ya'll need to chill out about this stuff. Trump isn't talking about a 3rd term; he just has realized that he is going to get beat like a drum next year, and that he'll have to pull a Grover Cleveland to get his 2 terms in, so he's focusing his resources on 2024.

First, no don’t be so confident he’ll lose. You’ll be less depressed in the event he does. Second, I suspect you’re being sarcastic here but I hope you can still recognize the danger in what he’s doing. He’s trying to normalize the idea of him staying in power forever. he’s only joking until he’s confident he could stop pretending he doesn’t want his presidency to be a permanent thing.

After winning the Civil War Julius Caesar, “joked” about the idea of being Rome’s king. For instance once during a speech, a few hecklers(probably plants by Caesar) called, him “Rex” which means king in Latin, and replied “not Rex caesar”. It’s probably only due to the general  crowd not immediately crying out he should be king that Ceasar did not officially dub himself king there. Trump like Ceasar is merely testing the waters.

Any time I get in a debate with a Trumpster over this issue where they’re they’re insisting it’s just a joke I just point Trump’s reaction to the President of China doing away with term limits :https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2135590/donald-trump-praises-china-president-xi-extending

This was never just a joke. It’s not just “trolling the libs”. He makes clear rather plainly he desires the ability to say President indefinitely.

[Gorn]

Fortunately, as others have stated, Trump's no Caesar. He's a lazy coward who can't even fire people in a face-to-face conversation, and who definitely lacks the guts for such a move.

[Free Northman Reborn]

If someone is fleeing from a Central American country in fear of his life, he has reached safety when he crossed into Mexico. 

If he continues through Mexico to try and get into the US, he is doing it for economic opportunity, not to escape persecution. He is therefore an economic migrant not an asylum seeker.

Pretty simple. Unless you believe people should have free movement to work wherever the best economic opportunities are located. But that is not what asylum laws are for.

[DMC]

Trump Flirts With $15 Billion Bailout for Iran

Quote

President Donald Trump has left the impression with foreign officials, members of his administration, and others involved in Iranian negotiations that he is actively considering a French plan to extend a $15 billion credit line to the Iranians if Tehran comes back into compliance with the Obama-era nuclear deal.

Trump has in recent weeks shown openness to entertaining President Emmanuel Macron’s plan, according to four sources with knowledge of Trump’s conversations with the French leader. Two of those sources said that State Department officials, including Secretary Mike Pompeo, are also open to weighing the French proposal, in which the Paris government would effectively ease the economic sanctions regime that the Trump administration has applied on Tehran for more than a year.

This is quintessential Trump.  Create a problem - complete unnecessarily - and then "fix" it later.  What a piece of shit.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If someone is fleeing from a Central American country in fear of his life, he has reached safety when he crossed into Mexico. 

If he continues through Mexico to try and get into the US, he is doing it for economic opportunity, not to escape persecution. He is therefore an economic migrant not an asylum seeker.

Alright, how bout we drop you at the southern border of Mexico with no money, job, or passport and see how you feel being deemed an "economic migrant?"

[sologdin]

the convention on refugees does not include a first country rule, as i recall it, though some states have agitated for it.  the US insistence on considering refugee status 'discretionary' is manifestly unlawful.

[Fragile Bird]

9 hours ago, Zorral said:

Exactly. What kind of frackin' economy is this that when some of the most highly valued, massive corps like amazon, don't actually make money?  What they do instead is BUY their rivals of every kind.  What are they buying WITH?

I admit, I am knowledge challenged in these areas of finance and economics.  But they all seem massive ponzi schemes  . . . . 

Don’t even dream of putting Amazon in the category of Uber. Amazon made $10.1 billion in profit in 2018.

[Fragile Bird]

54 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the convention on refugees does not include a first country rule, as i recall it, though some states have agitated for it.  the US insistence on considering refugee status 'discretionary' is manifestly unlawful.

The EU created the idea to prevent asylum shopping. The first EU country a refugee reaches is the country where they must apply for refugee status and all other EU members agree to abide by the first country’s ruling on refugee status. See ‘the Dublin Convention’.

However, there is a first country agreement between Canada and the US, which essentially states that a person rejected as a refugee in one country can’t then claim refugee status in the other country. Claimants would make it to Canada, cross the border and claim refugee status in the US (where they really wanted to be), get their claim rejected by the US and be deported back to Canada and then claim refugee status in Canada. Canada reserves the right to reject the refugee claim.

What the US seems to be doing is unilaterally claiming some kind of ‘international law’ concept of ‘first country’ or ‘safe third country’ where none actually exists. They are claiming Mexico to be a ‘safe third country’ where the refugee should make their claim. Canada has the ‘safe third country’ concept in refugee law, but the only ‘safe third country’ recognized by Canada so far is the USA. Definitely not Mexico.

Mexico in fact rejected a demand from the US that it agree to be a ‘safe third country’. The idea that the SCOTUS has decided the US can successfully unilaterally make up the concept of ‘safe first country’ or ‘safe third country’ and impose it on other countries instead of negotiating treaties is not, IMO, a very good sign.