US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

@uCrank You mean Steven Harper was better?

I voted for Stephen Harper in every federal election that he was involved in. Hey it's a free country.

Trudeau has an agenda alright. He makes some bad decisions, alright. What do you think Trump does? By all means, who do you think is the better man?

I'm sure that you could give an extensive list of things you don't like about Trump. I could do the same about Trudeau. What does that prove?

It is all more about voting against someone, instead of for some person, and their views. People are sheep when it comes to voting, it is about gut feelings, not facts

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Not every body who voted for Trump voted against something or someone. Same with Trudeau. I have cousins who worship the ground he walks on. They would bear his children. They voted for a guy with a complete lack of experience simply because of who he was. Sound familiar?

I don't like Trudeau because almost every thing he does is based on political correctness and left wing ideology. Is that wrong? Am I not allowed to have a viewpoint simply because it conflicts with yours?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

We are currently looking for soy bean recipes, since it looks as we have to eat 10 kilograms per week and person soon

No. Chinese demand is affected from boycotts and/or tariffs and so the Chinese evade to South American producers. This leaves European demand - that already existed anyway - to look at the US producers.

Thats why I expected little problem over this part of the "deal" even if the EU cannot make European states or private companies buying soy beans. They will do it all by themselves, voluntarily, because the Chinese occupy the other producers in the world.

With LNG, its not that bad, too, just that American LNG is priced non-competitively, it is too expensive. But to diversify European energy imports by opening more LNG terminals both in the US and Europe will put Gazprom under pressure, and growing trade between the US producers and European customers will increase the trade volkume and thus put prices under pressure, and so the international price hierarchy could drop there in general, with benefits for the US and Europe as well. We should not allow too huge shares of the energy mix for Europe being delivered by just Russia - and not by just America as well. In fact, Germany is less dependent on both than many other European states, having diversified its energy imports amongst over two dozen nations. The often quoted dependency on Russian gas may exist for real - but its not necessarily Germany being affected severly by this. Other EU states are affected by this dependency far stronger.



Typically, Trump does not mention these, he always attacks just Germany. Over fake news accusations for the most.

[Skybird]

https://twitter.com/SteveFenberg/sta...866368/photo/1

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by u crank

I'm sure that you could give an extensive list of things you don't like about Trump. I could do the same about Trudeau. What does that prove?

I don't like Trudeau because almost every thing he does is based on political correctness and left wing ideology. Is that wrong? Am I not allowed to have a viewpoint simply because it conflicts with yours?

I don't like Trudeau because his veterans come back injured and he won't take care of them

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by u crank

They voted for a guy with a complete lack of experience simply because of who he was. Sound familiar?

Many voted in a Jr senator who had very little experience.

The government of the US is a business that happens to write legislations and oversees laws. As such, being a business, Trump qualifies in this arena IMO.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Wow that's a stretch. I said no such thing. Dowly made a correction of my statement about Carter Page. I agreed with him. I said, quote... "I believe, but can't find a source that says that the FISA warrant can gain access to previous communications, emails, phone records etc."

Explain how you get "it appears you would say a suspect in a crime could not have any of his records or communications dated prior to the execution of a warrant scrutinized" from that. Or am I missing something?

The whole point of that response to Dowly was that although Page was no longer a member of the Trump campaign, he and any one he communicated with at any time, including the President, was under surveillance.
arguing that point. At least not me.

On the other hand, why cooperate with Mueller? With the FISA warrants, the Steele dossier, Strzok and Page, Comey and the rest of the clown show the whole thing is a joke. If Mueller thinks he can subpoena the President, let him. I think the fact that he hasn't so far speaks volumes.

I don't recall I specifically said such a thing, I just extrapolated your comments and speculated on the possible logical extensions of such an idea...


As far as the time frame(s) being covered by the Mueller, et al, inquiries, remember not a few of the subjects had already been on the intelligence communities radars some time (in some cases, quite some time) before Trump even announced his candidacy or, later, took office; some were subjects even before the "dossier" was even a factor (in fact, the head of FusionGPS testified, in Congress, under oath, the FBI told him the main reason they were interviewing him about the dossier was to confirm or substantiate intel the FBI had already gathered on subjects)...


I said it before, if I were a member of an intelligence agency tasked with monitoring foreign influence or infiltration into domestic politics, I rather believe it would be a bit of a bell ringer if there was a very large number of a presidential candidate's staff, officials and/or advisors who had known links to a single, hostile, foreign power and had possible influence over that candidate; that many people with ties to Russia, Crimea, Ukraine, etc., all on a single candidate's staff would certainly raise the question of something being more than a 'coincidence'...

Originally Posted by u crank

No one is arguing that point. At least not me.

On the other hand, why cooperate with Mueller? With the FISA warrants, the Steele dossier, Strzok and Page, Comey and the rest of the clown show the whole thing is a joke. If Mueller thinks he can subpoena the President, let him. I think the fact that he hasn't so far speaks volumes.

Actually, if you think about it, Trump's people may be equally afraid Trump would tell the truth; remember, Trump has a nasty habit of mindlessly speaking and spilling the beans at the oddest moments: recall the fact Trump, two days after firing Comey, in a televised interview with Lester Holt, blithely admitted he fired Comey primarily because of the FBI Russia investigation; the face-palms among the Trump staff must have been epic...


The fact Mueller hasn't subpoenaed Trump thus far speaks nothing. If you carefully observe the conduct of the case so far in the courts, with the guilty pleas already gained and the indictments already filed, there is a foundation being built on the way to the "bigger fish"; Trump may, or may not, be the ultimate target in the Russian meddling probes, but he has very much set himself up as a target on obstruction charges and some questionable actions during his campaign and tenure in the Oval Office; just because someone hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean there is no evidence of possible criminal activity on their part, it just means that, perhaps, the investigators may be seeking to build as tight a case as possible before going public with charges; Trump not yet being subpoenaed does not equate to Trump being 'innocent' nor does it mean he is out of the woods...

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

I don't like Trudeau because his veterans come back injured and he won't take care of them

You mean unlike the "quality" care the US VA gives to our returning troops, a substandard of care not helped by Trump's thus far failed appointees to head the VA (one withdrew amid questions over his competency, and another resigned amid ethics scandals)..

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Many voted in a Jr senator who had very little experience.

The government of the US is a business that happens to write legislations and oversees laws. As such, being a business, Trump qualifies in this arena IMO.

"Ms. Jones, do you have the resume for the next CEO candidate, a Mr. Donald J. Trump, is it?"


"Yes, sir, here it is..."


"Let's see...


...Four bankruptcies...
...no major US banks will do business with him...
...a history of non-payment of debts, even rather small ones...
...no reputable law firms will represent him due to non-payment of costs and fees...
...has dubious dealings with offshore entities...
...Has the distinction of being one of the very, very few casino owners to have the casino go belly up...
...has a history of setting up charities and, on top of not paying out funds, including those for a disabled veterans charity, but, also, using the charities as a sort of 'money laundry'...
...is deeply in debt and over-leveraged to an extreme...



...hmmm....


Ms. Jones?"


"Yes, sir?"


"Surely this can't be a serious resume for a business CEO?"


"Sir, I'm afraid, in this case, he is serious."


"Well, I would doing a disservice to the shareholders, employees, and patrons of our firm if I were to put Trump in for consideration."


"Yes, sir. What shall I do with his resume?"


"Tell you what: send on to the Washington DC office. Maybe some one over there knows some one who might be interested; Trump may have what it takes for politics, but not for running a corporation..."...










<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by vienna

I don't recall I specifically said such a thing, I just extrapolated your comments and speculated on the possible logical extensions of such an idea...


As far as the time frame(s) being covered by the Mueller, et al, inquiries, remember not a few of the subjects had already been on the intelligence communities radars some time (in some cases, quite some time) before Trump even announced his candidacy or, later, took office; some were subjects even before the "dossier" was even a factor (in fact, the head of FusionGPS testified, in Congress, under oath, the FBI told him the main reason they were interviewing him about the dossier was to confirm or substantiate intel the FBI had already gathered on subjects)...


I said it before, if I were a member of an intelligence agency tasked with monitoring foreign influence or infiltration into domestic politics, I rather believe it would be a bit of a bell ringer if there was a very large number of a presidential candidate's staff, officials and/or advisors who had known links to a single, hostile, foreign power and had possible influence over that candidate; that many people with ties to Russia, Crimea, Ukraine, etc., all on a single candidate's staff would certainly raise the question of something being more than a 'coincidence'...





Actually, if you think about it, Trump's people may be equally afraid Trump would tell the truth; remember, Trump has a nasty habit of mindlessly speaking and spilling the beans at the oddest moments: recall the fact Trump, two days after firing Comey, in a televised interview with Lester Holt, blithely admitted he fired Comey primarily because of the FBI Russia investigation; the face-palms among the Trump staff must have been epic...


The fact Mueller hasn't subpoenaed Trump thus far speaks nothing. If you carefully observe the conduct of the case so far in the courts, with the guilty pleas already gained and the indictments already filed, there is a foundation being built on the way to the "bigger fish"; Trump may, or may not, be the ultimate target in the Russian meddling probes, but he has very much set himself up as a target on obstruction charges and some questionable actions during his campaign and tenure in the Oval Office; just because someone hasn't been charged yet doesn't mean there is no evidence of possible criminal activity on their part, it just means that, perhaps, the investigators may be seeking to build as tight a case as possible before going public with charges; Trump not yet being subpoenaed does not equate to Trump being 'innocent' nor does it mean he is out of the woods...




You mean unlike the "quality" care the US VA gives to our returning troops, a substandard of care not helped by Trump's thus far failed appointees to head the VA (one withdrew amid questions over his competency, and another resigned amid ethics scandals)..





"Ms. Jones, do you have the resume for the next CEO candidate, a Mr. Donald J. Trump, is it?"


"Yes, sir, here it is..."


"Let's see...


...Four bankruptcies...
...no major US banks will do business with him...
...a history of non-payment of debts, even rather small ones...
...no reputable law firms will represent him due to non-payment of costs and fees...
...has dubious dealings with offshore entities...
...Has the distinction of being one of the very, very few casino owners to have the casino go belly up...
...has a history of setting up charities and, on top of not paying out funds, including those for a disabled veterans charity, but, also, using the charities as a sort of 'money laundry'...
...is deeply in debt and over-leveraged to an extreme...



...hmmm....


Ms. Jones?"


"Yes, sir?"


"Surely this can't be a serious resume for a business CEO?"


"Sir, I'm afraid, in this case, he is serious."


"Well, I would doing a disservice to the shareholders, employees, and patrons of our firm if I were to put Trump in for consideration."


"Yes, sir. What shall I do with his resume?"


"Tell you what: send on to the Washington DC office. Maybe some one over there knows some one who might be interested; Trump may have what it takes for politics, but not for running a corporation..."...










<O>

Trumps net worth 2018, 3.1 billion.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Trumps net worth 2018, 3.1 billion.

Most of it inherited and/or the result of very dubious business practices and/or dealings...


BTW, Trump personally claims far more than US $3.1BN, but has, as usual, nothing to back up his claim; in fact, there is wide spread suspicion Trump's 'fortune' may be at most half of the 2018 net worth and does not take into account his very high debt burden...


It should also be taken into account great wealth does not mean someone is a great business man nor are they competent, secure business persons; there are a great number of very rich persons who attained their wealth through fraudulent activities (Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, and Bernie Madoff, spring to mind) and there are some who have "daddy's wallet" to thank for their own fat wallets...


Let's put it this way: I can be a millionaire because I formulated an idea, worked hard and honestly to put the idea into action and worked hard to attain success, and ensure the well-being of the shareholders, employees, and others related to my endeavors...


...or, I could be a millionaire because I cheated, lied, and bullied my way through life at the expense of others and didn't give a rat's about who I trampled in my path...


One's honest money and the other's sad, weak, pathetic money, probably earned by someone who is, at heart, a snowflake and gets his Pampers in a twist when someone calls his bluffs...


Either way, I know, if I had to appoint a CEO or other sort of leader, with the expectation of quality leadership, which of the two would be my choice...














<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

I don't recall I specifically said such a thing, I just extrapolated your comments and speculated on the possible logical extensions of such an idea...

Really? These are your words.

by your statement, it appears you would say a suspect in a crime could not have any of his records or communications dated prior to the execution of a warrant scrutinized as means of learning the full extent of his crimes and the possible involvement of others in the commission of the act;

But I said...

I believe, but can't find a source that says that the FISA warrant can gain access to previous communications, emails, phone records etc.

The funny thing about this is I'm saying what you said before you said it.

OK. Time for a drink. I'm buying.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Really? These are your words.

Still not showing my specific words...

Originally Posted by u crank

OK. Time for a drink. I'm buying.

Given Guilliani's performances the past few days, I'd say he beat you to the brews and booze. Really enjoying watching him implode on live TV. Now he's saying collusion is not a crime (technically it's really criminal conspiracy), giving the implication the Trump team has gone from denying collusion to trying to pass it off as a 'non-crime'. See, this is what happens when a really rich guy pisses off all the really competent lawyers and firms and is left with the likes of Guilliani and Cohen. It wasn't so long ago Trump was openly boasting how the best lawyers and firms were fighting to represent him; I can only imagine his surprise when there were no battles for his custom and, particularly, when some of the prominent firms went so far as to publicly announce they had no wish to either represent or be associated with Trump or his problems; this is what happens when you have a documented track record of stiffing lawyers and firms: they tend to get a little sensitive about non-payment for services...












<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Still not showing my specific words...

Ok. How about you show them?

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Ok. How about you show them?

They've always been there to see...


...and, since you made the accusation, I do believe the burden is on you...
















<O>

[vienna]

The farce that is the Trump administration summed up in one headline:

Pompeo sets conditions for Iran meeting after Trump says he'll meet without preconditions --


http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...says-hell-meet

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listed specific conditions for President Trump to meet with Iranian leaders, hours after Trump said he would not require any preconditions.


...


His remarks came just hours after Trump held a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, declaring in front of reporters that he would meet with Tehran with “no preconditions.”

“It’s good for the country, good for them, good for us and good for the world. No preconditions. If they want to meet, I’ll meet,” Trump said.


...


CNBC noted that Pompeo in May outlined 12 specific conditions that would needed to be met for the U.S. to hold talks with Iran after Trump decided to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal.



...

Makes you really wonder who, if anyone, is really in charge and just how fractured the Executive Branch under Trump has become...
















<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

They've always been there to see...


...and, since you made the accusation, I do believe the burden is on you...

Sure. No problem.

Originally Posted by vienna

Umm... a warrant would give access to all pertinent evidence including existing communications, letters, emails, etc., and that would, particularly in the case of emails, include currently archived communications; if the investigators were to find a reference to a relevant prior communication, say a response to a cited exchange, any competent investigator would seek to find the contents of the referred to item, if only to affirm the context of the current item; investigations do not just cover what one finds at the time of the warrants execution, they cover any and all paths of inquiry pertinent to the investigation; by your statement, it appears you would say a suspect in a crime could not have any of his records or communications dated prior to the execution of a warrant scrutinized as means of learning the full extent of his crimes and the possible involvement of others in the commission of the act; imagine how effective anti-terrorism would be under your 'guidelines'...

My 'statement' that I can only assume you are referring to is...

Originally Posted by u crank

That is correct Dowly. I believe, but can't find a source that says that the FISA warrant can gain access to previous communications, emails, phone records etc. Or maybe I just dreamed that.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Sure. No problem.



My 'statement' that I can only assume you are referring to is...

Ah, I see...

However, I did not say you "did" say those words; I said you "would" say as in an extrapolation, not a quotation; also, I am at fault for not being clearer; the intent would have been clearer if I had used the generic "one" instead of "you", as in:

by your statement, it appears one would say a suspect in a crime could not have any of his records or communications dated prior to the execution of a warrant scrutinized as means of learning the full extent of his crimes and the possible involvement of others in the commission of the act; imagine how effective anti-terrorism would be under your 'guidelines'...

I do apologize for the confusion...


I'll just leave this little bit behind...

















<O>