US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Catfish]

^ Hey, it's not so easy anymore. Trump is on Putin's side (or in his pocket), so you can't say nasty thing about either

Ok on a serious note.. i do not know what makes him tick, but he sure keeps people talking about him. Why?
Just don't mention him for a while and look at what's on the final bill.
He is now 'the president', it is too late to do anything. If he really does what he says regarding sanctions, tarriffs and all (while it does not look like it at all) there's enough means to counter that.
Don't react if they call you 'snowflake' or 'leftist', all the world needs to see is how he behaves, live. They can support him until hell freezes over, he cannot stop people laughing at him. Getting aggressive about things you cannot change are guaranteed to make you unhappy.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Bleiente

Well that's totally easy - read "The Capital" by Karl Marx.

Are you saying Trump is a Marxist? Are you saying you are a Marxist? Or are you saying I am a Marxist? Pretty hard to tell what you are saying. Try harder.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

He is now 'the president', it is too late to do anything.

Well yes he is President but not for ever. Here in Canada you could be Prime Minister for 20 years. The US system, while not perfect has some safeguards against long term political dissatisfaction. The House of Representatives is reelected every 2 years. The Senate will have 33 of 100 seats up for reelection every 2 years. Theoretically Trump could lose all his legislative power in November. Just ask Obama how that works. People are hysterical for no reason. Trump's power is limited by the Constitution and the Legislative and Judicial branches of the US government. It's kinda funny to hear all this derangement syndrome stuff without any actual substance to back it up.

They can support him until hell freezes over, he cannot stop people laughing at him.

That's the thing though. Not every one is laughing. He still has strong support amongst Republicans and they don't pay much attention to the hysterical voices.

Getting aggressive about things you cannot change are guaranteed to make you unhappy.

You are so right.

[Skybird]

As politologist Jason Brennan remarks somewhere, such "safeties" only make sense when there is an electorate that is intelligent enough to make use of them. Unfortunately most voters are of an knowledge level for the key items on their mind, that disqualifies them for having any right to even just an educated opinion, not to mention: casting a voite (whatever worth that may be) . Because the mentioned education, and the intelligence anywa, often lack. Mobs, and mobs of voters as well, are stupid herds of cattle. The more there are, the less signs of intelligent life to be found, and the easier to control the mass. The holy cow of modenr democracy,m the elecitojn scheme, is nothig but a security valve to give people the illusion that their precious opinio9n count ssomething. That should keep them from either exploding (dead people you canot tax endlessly anymore), or revolting.

After having seen several US presidents in the past almost 30 years now who committed unbelievably stupid and ruthless policies and nevertheless were given the full opportunty timeframe to maximise their damage by giving them a second term, and after watching how the trench warfare in the political America deepens and deepens since 20 years, I have no faith in these claimed safeties. They are just a strawman alibi, usually referred to by those who currently are in control of the power in order to soothe resistence to their rule. Not to mention that in the "mill" of daily adminstraiton, you almost enver can vote potlicians out of poltics, becasue their oarty stays loyal to them and just suttles them arpound on different positions. You just canot vote and makwe them dissappear once and for all, it seems. They stick to you like a bad smell after a fire sticks to your clothing, for decades.

In principle I always do not trust this safeties argument in favour of "democracy". It has also not helped anything to prevent that lobbies and corrupt old boys networks hijack the design and then manipulate and tialor it to their advantage.

As usual, my reminder of that what the modern era mislables as democracy, for the ancient Greeks were no democracy at all, but its antagonist: tyranny. We forge history or abuse it when calling our system today "democracy". Democracy is a feudal government system by a social elite - noble men: free, rich warriors - that knows no right for general elections that eveybody could attend. This elite forms decisions by majoirty vote: but you had to be qualified to attend in that assembly:by your social class and by your good renown (Leumund), proving that you are loyal to the city's culture, your deities, and your family, both dead and alive. Just 5-15% of the Greek city states' populations qualified for that priviliged status and thus were "citizens" eligibly to raise their voise, make their opinion heard, and cast a vote in majority votes to bring a deicison about something.

That we talk today of "democracy, could have been a detail taken directly from Orwell's language correction and history rewriting in 1984.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^

Ok on a serious note.. i do not know what makes him tick, but he sure keeps people talking about him. Why?
Just don't mention him for a while and look at what's on the final bill.
He is now 'the president', it is too late to do anything. If he really does what he says regarding sanctions, tarriffs and all (while it does not look like it at all) there's enough means to counter that.

I'm pretty confident that people who oppose him in politics and the media understand they have the power to stir up the welfare class against him through constant bombardments of hysteria and distortions. Sure, there's a lot of things about Donald Trump to laugh about, but I am beginning to come around to acknowledging he is doing a pretty good job. His policies have caused the EU to come running to Washington and cry "uncle".

President Trump announced Wednesday that he has secured major trade concessions from European Union officials as part of an effort to head off a trade war between the U.S. and the E.U.

https://news.google.com/articles/CAI...S&ceid=US%3Aen

I'm hearing China will be next. The Donald said China has tarrifs on the US and trades unfairly and no other President would stand up to them. He did, he said I'll slap tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods. The Chinese said, oh yeah? Well, we slap $50 billion in tariffs too! Donald said, ok, we'll go to $800 billion. The Chinese said, yikes, we're screwed! We don't have that much coming in from the US.

[Skybird]

The Brtis un derestimated Brussel'S ability to stay united and unmoved when vital key interests of the block are at stake. Neither did the Germans and their car industry come to May's rescue (as I predicted to Jim many months ago), nor was londown sucvcessful to divide the players on the continent and get single deals with this or that nation.



Trump currently seems to amke the same mistake. That Junckers accepted minor concessions (soy beans and liquid gas) for the sake of more important greater benefits, cannot hide that it was Trump hoping to get single deals withEWuropean nations, but he hasn't, and that it was Trump killing TTIP that the Europeans wanted: because of no tarriffs. Now the EU gets what it wanted: no tariffs. And some voting farmers sell soy beans to the EU. Okay, so be it.



You implied that China is acting weak. It isn'T. When Trump said: tariffs up to 50 bn, they retaliated immediately and in less than 24 hours with a similiar return. And they hold plenty of US treasuries, still. Trumps "800 bn, tariffs on evertyhing", so far is just a claim. Now, have you noticed what happened after Russia sold what was left of its US treasuries in the two months before the summit? They once had over 130 bn in US bonds, now they hold just 14 bn, and still selling. That costed your FED 0.4 poin ts in interests it has to pay more for newly sold bonds. And that translates into billions and billions, if you calculate all costs and follow-on costs and interests from that. Now imagine what would happen to your interest rates if China starts toi dumb its US bonds on the market and maybe even in a rush?

They are not weak. They just cushion the ball and make it reflecting, hitting you from an unexpected direction.

And lest face it, if they fully retaliate in tariffs alone, this would be felt in the US. Strongly.

BTW, the EU and Japan have signed a free trade deal that was expected to be negotiated much longer. The catalysator was Trump'S cancelling of TTIP and his threats to Asian economies. The Canadian-EU agreement was speeded up as well due to Trump.

Thank you for that. You made us a little bit stronger and mor eunited there. While the US so far is left out. But as the Brits say: splendid isolation!

Especially in an interconnected world with globalised production chains and delivery-on-time without reserve stocks seen as necessary anymore. Get isolated - and lose.

[August]

Just sayin...

In one of the more stunning revelations contained in the report compiled by the Justice Department’s watchdog, former FBI Director James Comey claimed he doesn’t remember the moment he decided – and put down in writing -- that Hillary Clinton had committed crimes.
We know that on or about May 2, 2016, Comey composed a statement summarizing Clinton’s mishandling of classified documents, concluding that she was “grossly negligent.” Those pivotal words have a distinct legal meaning, and are drawn directly from a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 793(f), which makes it a felony to handle classified documents in a “grossly negligent” manner.
Comey used the exact phrase not once, but twice.
Based on Comey’s finding, Clinton should have faced a multiple-count criminal indictment, since the FBI discovered that she had stored 110 classified emails on her unauthorized, private computer server. Other people had been prosecuted for similar conduct that jeopardized national security in violation of the law. Yet, Comey – despite characterizing Clinton’s actions with the clear language denoting violation of the law - saw to it that no charges were ever brought against Clinton.

Under questioning, Comey admitted to the Inspector General Michael Horowitz that he authored the May 2 statement and penned every word of it himself. But then he offered the implausible claim that “he did not recall that his original draft used the term 'gross negligence,' and did not recall discussions about that issue.”
Comey’s amnesia is preposterous. He would have us believe that, as FBI director, he memorialized in print his decision that the leading candidate for president of the United States had committed crimes, yet later could not recollect anything about the most important decision of his career.
The truth is that Comey well remembers what he wrote, because he participated in subsequent discussions with top officials at the FBI about Clinton’s “gross negligence.” Several meetings were held on the subject and contemporaneous notes prove that Comey was in attendance. Those records show that although Comey was convinced that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in violation of the law, he was determined to clear her notwithstanding. To achieve this somersault and absolve the soon-to-be Democratic nominee, the legally damning terminology would have to be stricken from his statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...ame-trump.html

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I'm pretty confident that people who oppose him in politics and the media understand they have the power to stir up the welfare class against him through constant bombardments of hysteria and distortions. [...]

Mr. Trump is entirely perfectly personally capable and responsible for creating all the hysteria and distortions, alone.

Sure, there's a lot of things about Donald Trump to laugh about, but I am beginning to come around to acknowledging he is doing a pretty good job.

Ok leave laughter and despise out, with what exactly is Trump doing a good job? Alienating allies, starting trade wars, lifting North Korea to international eyesight and 'respect', distorting facts and lying, letting Putin interfere with US politics, elections, espionage and technology, not informing his closest advisers, gagging the press (apart from his court reporting agency Fox or Breitbart). Sometimes I am trying to imagine what had happened, had Obama only remotely tried, what Trump does all the time (what did Trump do when Mueller was serving as a marine?).

Trade wars: So some individuals and big business are now paying a bit less taxes (while paying a lot more on goods and products of any type soon because consumer prices will rise) and amuse yourself seeing all neutral and reasonable people being appalled and peed off due to a buffoon trying to act as a politician?

His policies have caused the EU to come running to Washington and cry "uncle".

Does Trump or you really believe that, or is it just Fox news opinion? Let me just say that America is for now out of the deal, for Europe, and also for Japan and South Korea. Trump has made perfectly clear that we cannot depend on the US, not trade, not defence, we cannot trust and expect fair negotiations, we know that he is doing all to "make America great again" at the expense and disadvantage of all others, and he is isolating the US not only in international trading but also in politics.
I can understand every jota of Trump and his egomaniac behaviour, what i cannot understand is any reasonable person supporting and defending that.

quote:
https://news.google.com/articles/CAI...S&ceid=US%3Aen
Ah, so now no trade war, or a half trade war, or "i never said trade war, you misunderstood me"? Well, this is what i expected. Apart from Europe being a loose aggregation to ease trade and honour certain values, China is one nation disregarding human rights and owning a lot of the US infrastructure, and industry; but maybe they should begin to sell it all, like Russia now does. Bad for your economy? "Wie man in den Wald hinein ruft,..."

Then China, how exactly is trade being unfair to the US?
https://www.cfr.org/blog/right-and-w...-trade-balance
http://econbrowser.com/archives/2018...us-china-trade

Europe, so unfair? You installed key markets and all after WW2 of course with the background of buying opinion and connections, getting your foot in the door while keeping the soviets out of, umm parts of Europe. And now that Russia is not the bad guy anymore it all is suddenly so unfair?
So there is Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech public, Slovakia and lots of other new players after the freedom-for-all-party.
We now even trade with Russia but Trump says instead of buying gas from Russia we should buy it from the US, via liquid gas transport ships, over 5000 miles over the Atlantic? What for?

Unfair to the US? Thinking of software licenses trade surplus of the US, but not only. Detroit. What do you think brought down the US motor industry? It was not competitive, that's all. Do you think the US mines and steel get more competitive with punity tarriffs against the market abroad?
If there are unfair deals all sides we can all sit down and discuss, but not this way.

[Skybird]

The Donald now gags free media and bans a correspondent from Rose Garden becasue she asked questions on Putin that the Donald decided were "unappropriate for the event". Reminds of Putins and erdoghan'S press conferences with their hand-selected questions.

Even Fox News came to align with CNN over this.


If somebody else would have done that here in Europe, many people here already would point fingers and yell about the loss of free speech in Europe.

On the "deal" yesterday: its just evading to mutuallypush each other over the cliff right now. Whats it worth will be seen in the future, and also whether the Donald sticks to it or feels an itching that makes him claiming that it was just a fake announcement. The tarriffs on cars also are something that Europe needs clearness over that they do not come, not now, not in the future.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

His policies have caused the EU to come running to Washington and cry "uncle".

It was Trump who invited Juncker to the White House...

[Onkel Neal]

Juncker had offered during a G7 meeting in Canada earlier this month to make the trip as soon as possible in order to find — if possible — common ground on trade in the automotive sector, which Trump also threatened last week with tariffs. Juncker hoped to offer a comprehensive view of mutual trade in goods and services, investments and profits for the American side, EU diplomats and officials said after the G7 meeting.

Juncker offered to come, Trump extended an invitation, so who got on the plane?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Juncker offered to come, Trump extended an invitation, so who got on the plane?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The Donald now gags free media and bans a correspondent from Rose Garden becasue she asked questions on Putin that the Donald decided were "unappropriate for the event". Reminds of Putins and erdoghan'S press conferences with their hand-selected questions.

I totally disagree with the decision to bar her from the event at the Rose garden. It is not a lifetime ban, just one event. But she wouldn't get any questions for a while.

That being said, this is the typical operating procedure for CNN perfected by Jim Acosta. Their goal is to embarrass the President in front of foreign dignitaries in the name of 'freedom of the press'. The event was between Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The meeting was about trade.

Here are Ms. Collins questions which she asked without being called on.

-Did Michael Cohen betray you, Mr. President?
-Mr. President are you worried about what Michael Cohen is about to say to the prosecutors?
-Are you worried about what is on the other tapes, Mr. President?
-Why is Vladimir Putin not accepting your invitation, Mr. President?

In front of Mr. Juncker at a meeting about trade. CNN. Yep.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Juncker offered to come, Trump extended an invitation, so who got on the plane?

The politer man of the two with more foresight and patience, maybe...?


Trump kills TTIP, Trump imposes tarriffs, EU wanted TTIP, EU wanted free trade. What did they agree in intention yesterday? No tarriffs, free trade.



It all still stands on feet of clay, however. If Trump'S morning coffee was too cold, he will kill it with one tweet again making Junckers shedding his coffee on his lap.


And not forget this: France opposes the concessions made by Junckers.



Good interview with Gabriel Felbermeyer, an Austrian leading the centre for foreign trade at the IFO institute over here.


https://translate.google.de/translat...tml&edit-text=

The trade policy of populist politicians, of course, looks very different from that of the technocrats who have dominated the scene so far. But threats are part of negotiating between mercantilists - that's how I would characterize almost all trade politicians of old or new schools. No one makes concessions without a counter-deal. In a way, Trump had no other choice: because the US tariffs are lower than the European ones, he had little to offer and sat in negotiations on the shorter branch. With his credible threats to break WTO law, or at least to bend it so that it squeaks, he has gained a better bargaining position.
(...)

How serious is Trump? That's really the big question. But you can already see that he sees the costs of his previous trade policy. Otherwise he would not compensate American soybeans now. His policies are also not popular in many areas of industry; On balance, the companies do not create new jobs. Even the washing machine manufacturer Whirlpool , who had indeed initiated and enforced tariffs on foreign competitor products, suffers from higher steel prices and suddenly finds protectionism no longer so great. Maybe this realization is slowly infiltrating the White House. As more press reports about relocation, profit warnings et cetera get around, Trump worries about the upcoming Midterm polls. Many influential Republican senators and deputies have also received the message; they mobilize against Trump's customs policy.
(...)

The EU is not China. That's what Mr. Trump should know. One thing is for sure: If the US charged cars with 25 percent import duty, then the EU would fight back counter-duties, and soybeans would certainly be affected. If Trump renounces the car duties , then the soybean oils of the Europeans are off the table. But even if Mr. Juncker is not available as a bean buyer, the market will do it. Chinese tariffs on US soybeans cause China to buy more from South America, displacing European demanders. These then increasingly buy from the USA.
(...)

the EU can not force anyone to buy expensive liquefied gas from America if cheap pipeline gas from Russia is available. Nevertheless, it makes a lot of sense to invest in liquefied natural gas terminals on both sides of the Atlantic. In the end, this may even lower prices for consumers because the new competition will lead Gazprom to a different pricing policy. Fast relief for the US current account will certainly not. Not even if Germany would do without last minute construction of Nordstream 2.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The Donald now gags free media and bans a correspondent from Rose Garden becasue she asked questions on Putin that the Donald decided were "unappropriate for the event". Reminds of Putins and erdoghan'S press conferences with their hand-selected questions.

Yup, and White House's transcript of the Trump - Putin meeting has been edited to remove the question to Putin whether he wanted to see Trump win the election (to which Putin answered 'yes').

At the time of writing this post, the question and answer are still missing from the transcript:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings...ss-conference/


EDIT: Same with the Kremlin transcript, the question has been removed:
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/58017


EDIT2: To clarify, Putin's answer can be found in the WH transcript, but the question has been edited from:

President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election, and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

to

Q And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

Which makes it look like it was a follow up question to the previous, which it wasnt.