Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Any man that is Trumpkin's deputy is dishonourable.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      Listened to your VP recently ?



      A senior intelligence official tells Pence that what Russia is doing in the US or to the US pales in comparison to what China is doing.

      That's all i need to know, this speech vindicates what my guys tells me about this administration and what it means for India

      This is a speech with a pointed statement of intent at China, all Trump, delivered by his deputy but is no less dilute. Foreign observers won't ignore it
      I do not listen to doormats. I do listen to the whatever is going on in the Mueller Investigation, especially in context to Trump's behavior around Putin.

      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      Who are you referring to here ?
      Imran Khan, who else. All the fire and brimstone from Washington, policy wise, did not stop GHQ from installing their puppet.

      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      Why should i pay close to twice you do for the same product that is made in the US ?
      Huh? Tariffs raise your price. If India lowers tariffs then the Indian consumer benefits.

      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      I think they are doing just that. Abe showed everyone the way. See, shouldn't the Chinese also be doing that. That isn't cleaar to me. How long this kerfuffle between China & the US will last ?

      I've always thought Trump was angling for a deal with China and once he got it that everything would be completely ok. This plan doesn't benefit India. Otoh if there is a long term shift in thinking, one which reconfigures business as a result then it would be different.
      China has been fairly controlled in what they say about Trump. However, he ran on a platform blaming China so he will hardly pull back. Notice his current policy has invited retaliatory measures harming his own constituents (soybean farmers).
      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

      Comment


      • Originally posted by antimony View Post
        I do not listen to doormats. I do listen to the whatever is going on in the Mueller Investigation, especially in context to Trump's behavior around Putin.
        You asked to substantiate how Trumps's actions were adversely affecting China & Pakistan. I've provided them. Mueller has nothing to do with this.

        Imran Khan, who else. All the fire and brimstone from Washington, policy wise, did not stop GHQ from installing their puppet.
        Indian analysts don't care about Imran. He's been panned before getting into office and now two months later people are extrapolating what to expect for the rest of his term. Not a whole lot. Nawaz was a PA appointee too, took him ten years to pushback.

        Huh? Tariffs raise your price. If India lowers tariffs then the Indian consumer benefits.
        Indian tariffs on American goods raise my price. Trump is pushing for India to lower those tariffs.

        China has been fairly controlled in what they say about Trump. However, he ran on a platform blaming China so he will hardly pull back. Notice his current policy has invited retaliatory measures harming his own constituents (soybean farmers).
        So this is the thing. He has tried to implement everything he said when running. Checks and balances means some of those things cannot be implemented. But his intent is clear. The rhetoric wasn't empty talk. Congress isn't going to hold his hand wrt to Pakistan & China.
        Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Nov 18,, 12:13.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by snapper View Post
          Any man that is Trumpkin's deputy is dishonourable.
          We are only talking about the Vice president here : )

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            You asked to substantiate how Trumps's actions were adversely affecting China & Pakistan. I've provided them. Mueller has nothing to do with this.
            No, I asked how they were strategically affected. Not a whole lot. The point about the Mueller investigations is that TRump woll not do anything to Russia, which is the point of the investigation

            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            Indian analysts don't care about Imran. He's been panned before getting into office and now two months later people are extrapolating what to expect for the rest of his term. Not a whole lot. Nawaz was a PA appointee too, took him ten years to pushback.
            It means that Kashmir is not going to quiet down anytime soon, regardless of the fire and brimstone from Washington.

            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            Indian tariffs on American goods raise my price. Trump is pushing for India to lower those tariffs.
            That is exactly my point. While you are happy that Trump is punishing the Chinese, India may not be far behind. There is a saying in Bengali that aptly describes this attitude (ghute pore gobor haase - the cowdung laughs at the plight of the upla cake)

            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            So this is the thing. He has tried to implement everything he said when running. Checks and balances means some of those things cannot be implemented. But his intent is clear. The rhetoric wasn't empty talk. Congress isn't going to hold his hand wrt to Pakistan & China.
            My point is, none of that benefits India. The fact that my quarellsome neighbor cannot eat does not benefit me if that does not stop him quarelling. Meanwhile the real world implications of the economic measures are far severe
            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

            Comment


            • Originally posted by antimony View Post
              No, I asked how they were strategically affected. Not a whole lot.
              Well, it isn't aiding their agendas, this policy is complicating it.

              It means that Kashmir is not going to quiet down anytime soon, regardless of the fire and brimstone from Washington.
              Kashmir is an Indian problem. Nation building is a long struggle. Unlike in the 90s the Americans aren't interfering in the process.

              That is exactly my point. While you are happy that Trump is punishing the Chinese, India may not be far behind. There is a saying in Bengali that aptly describes this attitude (ghute pore gobor haase - the cowdung laughs at the plight of the upla cake)
              Lower tariffs on american goods benefits Indian consumers. In the 90s calls from India to the US cost ten times more than the other way around. Then in '99 India joined the ITU and that cash cow went away.

              My point is, none of that benefits India. The fact that my quarellsome neighbor cannot eat does not benefit me if that does not stop him quarelling. Meanwhile the real world implications of the economic measures are far severe
              If they can't eat they have bigger problems, if their narratives are ignored then what else have they left. How severe these economic implications you speak of depends on Trumps willingness to stay the course. Are companies going to move out of China right away, no, as its not clear how long this policy will endure. Is it just a ploy, that isn't clear to me, do i support it for reasons mentioned earlier, yes.

              India's trade surplus with the US is $23 biliion, its nearing 500 with China. I'm not so worried and neither should you be.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                We are only talking about the Vice president here : )
                When a dog bites you it is the owners fault. Not so with people.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                  "Libertarian" in the US typically involves Constitutional textualism, rather than iron-clad strict constructionism. Zraver definitely strikes me as that variety, though I'm not sure how apparent that is to non right-wingers.
                  Bit of both. I think government should leave people alone and that in most cases the market will provide the answer. I am not one of those taxation is thefties, taxes for public goods outlined in the Constitution like roads and courts don't bug me. I've stated before that spending on SNAP while onerous at least keeps the poor too not hungry to tear it all down around us.


                  The intention is not to keep the Constitution as written in 1783, since we have an amendment mechanism. The intention is to interpret the Constitution as it was written by the people who wrote it. In the case of women voting, women have the right to vote since that is in the 19th Amendment. If there were no 19th Amendment, and the Supreme Court decided that women have the right to vote because it is Current Year, that'd be bad law. It doesn't matter that we have "evolved as a society" or whatever, the states would have the right to restrict suffrage based on sex.
                  Pretty much with some caveats. I would argue the 14th underpins the 19th and had it been read properly we would not have needed the 19th. Ditto black voting, gay marriage... I am definitely old school common law in that anything not expressly forbidden is permitted.

                  For instance, the guy fined for refusing the bake the gay wedding cake is a violation of libertarian principles, but it isn't necessarily a violation of legal principles, because the relevant laws are Colorado laws. Conservatives interested in protecting this have to pass Religious Freedom Acts or whatever they are called, because there is no legal principle that automatically gives you the right to refuse service.[/QUOTE]

                  1st Amendment issue, free exercise clause. Sole proprietorship should be able to reflect the mores of the owner absence any type of local monopoly power or generally recognized public service provider like a doctor.

                  I definitely break with many Libertarians on immigration. I think we should only import those we need. Importing unskilled labor only undermines the value of the one thing the poor have of value their labor. This is bad for social cohesion.

                  Oh you can tell that TBM is not from Arkansas, we have a vibrant Libertarian movement that manages to place candidates on most state wide office ballots. We rarely break 5% but we are here.

                  Comment


                  • So I have a question...Hmm bit complicated but as I understand it Trumpkins first delivers written replies to Mueller, then Cohen is called into a Court to plead guilty about lying as to Trumpkin (and his family's) continued business interests in Muscovy well into the time that Trumpkin was a Presidential candidate. Now if Trumpkin has said in his sworn answers to Mueller his old story "Nothing to do with Moscow" etc which Cohen has then disproved (with email evidence etc) then obviously Trumpkin is perjured but what next?

                    Seems at least possible to me that Mueller has pulled a move - if so would charges follow? Can you prosecute a President?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      Well, it isn't aiding their agendas, this policy is complicating it.


                      Kashmir is an Indian problem. Nation building is a long struggle. Unlike in the 90s the Americans aren't interfering in the process.


                      Lower tariffs on american goods benefits Indian consumers. In the 90s calls from India to the US cost ten times more than the other way around. Then in '99 India joined the ITU and that cash cow went away.


                      If they can't eat they have bigger problems, if their narratives are ignored then what else have they left. How severe these economic implications you speak of depends on Trumps willingness to stay the course. Are companies going to move out of China right away, no, as its not clear how long this policy will endure. Is it just a ploy, that isn't clear to me, do i support it for reasons mentioned earlier, yes.

                      India's trade surplus with the US is $23 biliion, its nearing 500 with China. I'm not so worried and neither should you be.
                      Any thing that is not specicially aimed at China/ Pakistan but incidentally damages them (like the Tariffs policy) is nothing to goad at because it can hit India too. Your point about lower prices aside, India WILL be hurt if it becomes a target for Trump.

                      Indian's trade with the Us includes 28 bill of services exports, a lot of which is already at risk. IT services comapnies have been hurt by the visa regime already.

                      While your experts gloat about the damage done to China and Pakistan due to Trump's stupid policies, I will worry more about the actual harm done both to the US and Indian economic interest by those same policies.
                      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                        So I have a question...Hmm bit complicated but as I understand it Trumpkins first delivers written replies to Mueller, then Cohen is called into a Court to plead guilty about lying as to Trumpkin (and his family's) continued business interests in Muscovy well into the time that Trumpkin was a Presidential candidate. Now if Trumpkin has said in his sworn answers to Mueller his old story "Nothing to do with Moscow" etc which Cohen has then disproved (with email evidence etc) then obviously Trumpkin is perjured but what next?

                        Seems at least possible to me that Mueller has pulled a move - if so would charges follow? Can you prosecute a President?
                        I'm pretty sure 'executive privilege' stops Presidents from being prosecuted, sued & otherwise harassed by the law. Not an unvarnished good, but it does make sense (and is quite common around the world). Presidents have to be impeached or removed by other constitutional means (I think Article 25?). Of course, Trump can be prosecuted after his Presidency ends if the statute of limitations hasn't ended or the incoming President doesn't pardon him. There is some discussion about whether or not a President can pardon him/herself. It seems unlikely, but there isn't a legal precedent.
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                          So I have a question...Hmm bit complicated but as I understand it Trumpkins first delivers written replies to Mueller, then Cohen is called into a Court to plead guilty about lying as to Trumpkin (and his family's) continued business interests in Muscovy well into the time that Trumpkin was a Presidential candidate. Now if Trumpkin has said in his sworn answers to Mueller his old story "Nothing to do with Moscow" etc which Cohen has then disproved (with email evidence etc) then obviously Trumpkin is perjured but what next?

                          Seems at least possible to me that Mueller has pulled a move - if so would charges follow? Can you prosecute a President?
                          The Executive Branch has usually claimed a sitting President cannot be indicted on criminal charges. Trump will likely be impeached, but it'd have to be really bad for a conviction in the Senate. But it's definitely possible depending on what Mueller knows, and he almost certainly knows something deeply incriminating about Trump specifically (something almost certainly prosecutable)
                          "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                            I'm pretty sure 'executive privilege' stops Presidents from being prosecuted, sued & otherwise harassed by the law. Not an unvarnished good, but it does make sense (and is quite common around the world). Presidents have to be impeached or removed by other constitutional means (I think Article 25?). Of course, Trump can be prosecuted after his Presidency ends if the statute of limitations hasn't ended or the incoming President doesn't pardon him. There is some discussion about whether or not a President can pardon him/herself. It seems unlikely, but there isn't a legal precedent.
                            What Pete said.

                            Additionally, if it happened in NY State, the State AG of NY can bring charges as NY has some tough laws on anything dealing with fraud, money laundering, etc., because of Wall Street.
                            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                            Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                              The Executive Branch has usually claimed a sitting President cannot be indicted on criminal charges. Trump will likely be impeached, but it'd have to be really bad for a conviction in the Senate. But it's definitely possible depending on what Mueller knows, and he almost certainly knows something deeply incriminating about Trump specifically (something almost certainly prosecutable)
                              Not sure about the impeachment. From a purely political point of view it is not in the Democratic Party's best interests to impeach the president. The majority of the country is not calling for that I believe. Better to run against a severely damaged Trump for the presidency in 2020. Also, Pence is a fairly successful politician and right now he is fairly neutered.

                              What the majority of the country is looking for is legitimate oversight and movement forward on several fronts. An infrastructure bill makes sense for both the House Dems & the White House. It puts people to work on long term jobs and returns tax dollars to the coffers from payroll taxes. And God knows we need it.
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • AR,

                                Not sure about the impeachment. From a purely political point of view it is not in the Democratic Party's best interests to impeach the president. The majority of the country is not calling for that I believe. Better to run against a severely damaged Trump for the presidency in 2020. Also, Pence is a fairly successful politician and right now he is fairly neutered.
                                yeah, impeachment is much more a political calculation than it is a legal judgment.

                                of course, even if the majority of the country DID call for impeachment, that -still- wouldn't matter...it would only matter once the majority of -Republicans- started calling for impeachment that Trump would start sweating.

                                having said that, if 20 Senate Republicans suddenly indicated that Trump deserved to get impeached, Democrats would almost certainly jump through any hoop necessary to impeach and convict the President, whatever that might spell for 2020.

                                can't really see the infrastructure bill get off the ground. Senate Republicans have already poo-poo'd it and Trump won't lean on them too hard. what he certainly WILL lean on them on is holding the line whenever the House investigations get off the ground and whenever Mueller finishes up.
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X