Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Steel & Aluminum Tariffs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whatever relations were slowly improving with Syria pretty much died in the mid-2000s. Bush blamed Syria for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and everyone hated Syria for that Hariri assassination that destabilized Lebanon.

    It, and the ME, definitely got worse under the prior administration, due in part to bad decisions, but I wouldn't say everything was hunky dory in the 2000s either.
    Last edited by GVChamp; 18 Jun 18,, 18:56.
    "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 WABs_OOE View Post
      That's easy. No. The is the USA. He is to have a hands off dealing with all his financial performances are in trust. Trump is under a constant government watchdog to make sure that he has zero dealings in his own financial affairs. It is only after he leaves government that he can resume his private practises.

      Now, you're going to say but that's his son. How much hands off is there? None as far as the US Government is concerned.
      He is getting paid. Not with a wad of money put directly into his hand in the Oval Office right this second, but he is absolutely getting paid. Him, his family, his companies, are all getting paid and rewarded.
      Regardless of the legal fictions dreamed up by Trump's well-practiced lawyers, he is getting paid. This Administration is a kleptocracy, pure and simple.
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
        First of all, I have NEVER question the integrety of the US Government NOR its institutions no matter who was the POTUS. The US has not and did not became a respected world power by being a banana republic. I BELIEVE in the Checks and Balances of ALL Western Nations that I've defended. I BELIEVE in their Institutions.

        This is why I no longer count Turkey amongst us though I still trust their military without questions asked.

        You, however, are questioning and insulting the very country 's institutions you've just became a citizen to.
        It is my absolute right and privilege as a citizen to question my country's institutions, especially since I have got political rights here. It is interesting that you are trying to call me out on this, when the Right has been screaming about compromised institutions and government conspiracies since ages. Remember "jackbooted thugs"? Remember "Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches"? Notice "Deep State"?

        Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
        This is the acutal proof of this. American Institutions will not allow Trump to do otherwise.
        We are not talking about restrictions on his finances, we were talking about his treatment of Russia. If he did not sign that bill, do you think Congress would have dared to do a veto proof majority? GOP Senators and Representatives are even avoiding protecting Mueller, given how Trump has gone after individual Republicans. Just see what he did to Mark Sanford.

        As to his finances, he has already gone around the institutions. Look at how his Trust is set up. Many of these checks and balances are not enshrined in law, but are "gentleman's agreements". No one, till now has challenged them quite like Trump has. For example, no one actually had to see what emoluments meants for a President, till a President came along who wants every penny he can get.

        Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
        The US is about to be plunged into a trade war with China. Feel free to be blind to that.

        They take the same bribes as every world power take. You can bribe them with power, not money.
        Putin's net worth is estimated to be 200 Billion. He has been in government since 2000. You do the math.

        Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
        I'm under no illusion that Trump is an asshole and I do not want him to be my PM. However, it is certainly fun to see a world where Trump don't give a rat's ass about anyone's sensibilities. He can be your best friend and your worst enemy in the span of two hours. Trudeau and Marcon leaned that the hard way. It's fun to see Trump telling Trudeau to take his grandstanding and shove it.

        If you think that Trump has not and would not tell Putin and Xi the same thing, 300 mercs and $100bil (both American and Chinese tarrifs combined) say you're wrong.

        Fact is no one has figured out how to handle Trump. Not the West, not Putin, not Xi, and certainly, not India. And all of this is fun to watch.
        Yes, meanwhile people are actually suffering.
        "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 WABs_OOE View Post
          Major correction here. Russia lost Syria when the USSR collapsed and the US effectively controlled the area with the conquest of Iraq. Obama's action or rather inaction allowed Russian and Iranian forces to gain a foothold in the area and has now escalated into a direct threat to Israel.

          Post British vote and was looking to shift the blame for not striking at Syria. There was no teeth to the offer and I was surprised that known chem weapons factories were not shut down.

          I know tarrifs punish buyers and not sellers but that doesn't change the fact the US will be buying less Chinese goods as a result.

          1. I said Syria was a client state from the USSR days. So, too, says the CIA.


          CIA Memorandum, June 1, 1976
          Subject: Relations between Syria and the USSR
          Political Relations
          "Syria maintains very close ties to the Soviet Union. These ties are based on Damascus’ dependence on Moscow for the supply of military equipment and economic assistance, and on Syria’s desire to be able, in a crisis, to turn to the Soviets for additional political and military support."
          https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...000100290001-4

          CIA Memorandum, January 18, 1983
          Subject: Implications of Soviet SA-5 units in Syria.
          https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...001304040122-8

          CIA discussion paper, December 10, 1957
          Possible Soviet Satellitization of Syria: Targets, Techniques and Indicators.
          https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...000500010001-2

          CIA Memorandum, September 9, 1987
          Subject: Gorbachev’s Policy Toward the Middle East
          … “One of Gorbachev’s most important innovations to date has been a greater willingness than his predecessors to risk upsetting the USSR’s primary Middle Eastern client, Syria, in the pursuit of broader Soviet goals in the Middle East.”
          https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...000800380001-9


          2. Read the memoirs.

          3. The US buys almost nothing from "the Chinese." Rather, it buys massive amounts from foreign-invested firms in China, mainly companies established by Hong Kong, Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese, American and European companies.
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
            He is getting paid. Not with a wad of money put directly into his hand in the Oval Office right this second, but he is absolutely getting paid. Him, his family, his companies, are all getting paid and rewarded.
            Regardless of the legal fictions dreamed up by Trump's well-practiced lawyers, he is getting paid. This Administration is a kleptocracy, pure and simple.
            Then people in the legislative and judical branches ain't doing their jobs.

            Originally posted by antimony View Post
            It is my absolute right and privilege as a citizen to question my country's institutions, especially since I have got political rights here.
            I'm not denying you your rights but questioning your positions. The men and women at Law Enforcement and the Courts mostly want to do the best jobs they can. You either trust them to do their jobs or you don't. If you don't, then, really stock up on canned food and ammunition and a bunker in the middle of nowhere would not hurt.

            Originally posted by antimony View Post
            It is interesting that you are trying to call me out on this, when the Right has been screaming about compromised institutions and government conspiracies since ages. Remember "jackbooted thugs"? Remember "Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches"? Notice "Deep State"?
            I'm not alt-right. At some point, you have to trust people to do their jobs.

            Originally posted by antimony View Post
            We are not talking about restrictions on his finances, we were talking about his treatment of Russia. If he did not sign that bill, do you think Congress would have dared to do a veto proof majority? GOP Senators and Representatives are even avoiding protecting Mueller, given how Trump has gone after individual Republicans. Just see what he did to Mark Sanford.
            Well then, that just disprove your notion that Trump is pro-Putin. If he could have vetoed the bill with zero consquences, why did he signed it?

            Originally posted by antimony View Post
            As to his finances, he has already gone around the institutions. Look at how his Trust is set up. Many of these checks and balances are not enshrined in law, but are "gentleman's agreements". No one, till now has challenged them quite like Trump has. For example, no one actually had to see what emoluments meants for a President, till a President came along who wants every penny he can get.
            Fine. No one foreseen this. Now it's time to correct it. I trust the legislative branch to do their jobs to close this loop.

            Originally posted by antimony View Post
            Putin's net worth is estimated to be 200 Billion. He has been in government since 2000. You do the math.
            The money is the path to his power. Not the other way around. That 12,000 nukes mean more to Putin than that $200bil. What's the difference between $200bil and $150bil to a single man?

            Originally posted by antimony View Post
            Yes, meanwhile people are actually suffering.
            I'm not going to shed a tear because people can't afford the latest IPhone.

            Originally posted by DOR View Post
            1. I said Syria was a client state from the USSR days. So, too, says the CIA.
            And I said Russia LOST SYria with the COLLAPSE OF THE USSR. Russia is NOT the USSR. Former Soviet client states who relied on free arms and money were hung out to dry. If you can't pay (Syria, Vietnam, Cuba) for spare parts and ammuntion, you're SOL. Those with cash (China, India) got what what they wanted.

            Originally posted by DOR View Post
            2. Read the memoirs.
            Red Line In the Sand - August 20, 2012
            Ghouta Checmical Attack - August 21, 2013 - to be clear, there were other chemical attacks before this
            UK rejects Attack - August 29, 2013
            Obama's speech to ask for Congressional Approval August 31, 2013

            Yeah, you want to show me WHERE in 2012 that he was going to ask for Congressional Approval. He only sought Congressional Approval ONLY after the UK withdrew and he blasted the Brits for it.

            To be clear. I supported his position to attack Syria. A military decision should never be based on popular approval. I believed Obama to be in the right to punish Assad for any WMD attack.

            Originally posted by DOR View Post
            3. The US buys almost nothing from "the Chinese." Rather, it buys massive amounts from foreign-invested firms in China, mainly companies established by Hong Kong, Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese, American and European companies.
            Fine. The US will buy less from factories in China.
            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 19 Jun 18,, 19:51.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=WABs_OOE;1042454I'm not going to shed a tear because people can't afford the latest IPhone.[/QUOTE]

              Not sure children of refugees torn from their Mothers are concerned about iphones.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                Then people in the legislative and judical branches ain't doing their jobs.

                I'm not denying you your rights but questioning your positions. The men and women at Law Enforcement and the Courts mostly want to do the best jobs they can. You either trust them to do their jobs or you don't. If you don't, then, really stock up on canned food and ammunition and a bunker in the middle of nowhere would not hurt.

                I'm not alt-right. At some point, you have to trust people to do their jobs.
                Your entire premise is that people will do their jobs. How are they supposed to do that, when their masters are political appointees? Even if the entire EPA is composed of tree huggers, they can't have an impact because Pruitt will decide otherwise. Bureaucrats are supposed to follow their political masters. That is their job. And what happens when someone actually takes action? Sessions, Mueller and Rosenstein are humiliated and villified on a daily basis by Trump. Any politician or bureaucrat making a move against the family will be publicly scathed. They will probably also receive death threats from the basement dwellers that is Trump's supporter base. Who wants that?

                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                Well then, that just disprove your notion that Trump is pro-Putin. If he could have vetoed the bill with zero consequences, why did he signed it?
                Disproves my notion? He backed off sanctions that his own UN Ambassador announced

                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                Fine. No one foreseen this. Now it's time to correct it. I trust the legislative branch to do their jobs to close this loop.
                Please show me any bill, that any Republican is contemplating to make the family more accountable

                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                The money is the path to his power. Not the other way around. That 12,000 nukes mean more to Putin than that $200bil. What's the difference between $200bil and $150bil to a single man?
                That may indeed be true, but don't tell me he does not take money

                Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                I'm not going to shed a tear because people can't afford the latest IPhone.
                Would you shed a tear for this gentleman and others like him?


                Or for kids separated from their families?
                Last edited by antimony; 20 Jun 18,, 07:25.
                "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


                • Bureaucrats are supposed to follow their political masters.

                  That's a negative. And speaking as a bureaucrat let me clear up a few things.


                  1. I do not have a political master. I have a political appointee as the head of my federal agency who sets policy and I follow it so long as:

                  - it does not violate the law.
                  - it does not contravene collectively bargained labor agreements (uncompensated overtime, etc.)

                  2. No elected official or political appointee is anyone's master. In fact they are the servants of the people. Failure to remember that has caused mush grief to those in authority. If you have any doubt how do you think all of this news about Pruitt has gotten out?
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • I don't really know how to take the above post except as mostly quibbling. In concrete terms, who determines legal interpretation? I can tell you that I have to defer to a legal department and that trying to form my own legal opinions is going to result in a case of the "getting fired."

                    Elected officials aren't servants of the people, they are elected officials. Bureaucrats are servants of the people, with authority conferred upon them by one of the other, co-equal branches of the government.
                    "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


                    • Elected Officials are.... elected official! Startling. What are they elected to do if not serve the people?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                        Bureaucrats are supposed to follow their political masters.

                        That's a negative. And speaking as a bureaucrat let me clear up a few things.


                        1. I do not have a political master. I have a political appointee as the head of my federal agency who sets policy and I follow it so long as:

                        - it does not violate the law.
                        - it does not contravene collectively bargained labor agreements (uncompensated overtime, etc.)

                        2. No elected official or political appointee is anyone's master. In fact they are the servants of the people. Failure to remember that has caused mush grief to those in authority. If you have any doubt how do you think all of this news about Pruitt has gotten out?
                        Allow me to explain (my experience is more from the Westminister perspective rather than a US perspective), and I believe it is exactly what you said.

                        Departments are led by political appointees (Ministers or Secretaries) who determine policy. Bureaucrats carry out the policy. Bureaucrats also do not define law, the Legislature does that. So while bureaucrats will determine how to enforce, say, a policy that mandates that Presidents set up a Divested Trust, they will define either the law or the policy.

                        Once the policy is defined, I am sure they will only follow it if it does not contravene the law.

                        I do not, however, see a bureaucrat jumping the gun and taking a policy decision. I do not think they are supposed to.
                        "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 GVChamp View Post
                          I don't really know how to take the above post except as mostly quibbling. In concrete terms, who determines legal interpretation? I can tell you that I have to defer to a legal department and that trying to form my own legal opinions is going to result in a case of the "getting fired."

                          Elected officials aren't servants of the people, they are elected officials. Bureaucrats are servants of the people, with authority conferred upon them by one of the other, co-equal branches of the government.

                          It's the word Master...it sets me off and I won't apologize for that. As a Civil Servant I literally have to take an Oath of Office...very similar to the same Oath I took as a commissioned officer. Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                            Elected Officials are.... elected official! Startling. What are they elected to do if not serve the people?
                            I don't really know how to answer this because I think we're getting into all sorts of loaded terms. Elected officials are not elected to serve the people, they are elected to represent, lead, and govern the people. "Leader" and "servant" don't really belong in the same category: that's like putting a butler in the same category as a general.

                            A better example might be the football captain. Whining like a ninny about your football captain is counter-productive, and he is NOT your servant: he does NOT need to listen to you. YOU need to listen to HIM. Even if you elect the football captain, and he is supposed to "serve" the team, you're actually the subordinate, and he's the leader.
                            Last edited by GVChamp; 20 Jun 18,, 18:01.
                            "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 Albany Rifles View Post
                              It's the word Master...it sets me off and I won't apologize for that. As a Civil Servant I literally have to take an Oath of Office...very similar to the same Oath I took as a commissioned officer. Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way.
                              You are right, that was inappropriate and I do take that back. However, the main essense remains the same. Political appointees define policies, officials execute/ enforce them.
                              "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 GVChamp View Post
                                I don't really know how to answer this because I think we're getting into all sorts of loaded terms. Elected officials are not elected to serve the people, they are elected to represent, lead, and govern the people. "Leader" and "servant" don't really belong in the same category: that's like putting a butler in the same category as a general.

                                A better example might be the football captain. Whining like a ninny about your football captain is counter-productive, and he is NOT your servant: he does NOT need to listen to you. YOU need to listen to HIM. Even if you elect the football captain, and he is supposed to "serve" the team, you're actually the subordinate, and he's the leader.
                                Leading means setting an example. Elected people are elected to represent the people - what is representing them but a service? Who voted for children to held in cages? Nobody as far as I know. How is that representing the people then?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X