Page 19 of 31 FirstFirst ... 10111213141516171819202122232425262728 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 463

Thread: US Steel & Aluminum Tariffs

  1. #271
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,517
    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, at 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

  2. #272
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,280
    Quote 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.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  3. #273
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,106
    Quote 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"?

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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

  4. #274
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,844
    Quote 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!

  5. #275
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    984
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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 WABs_OOE; 19 Jun 18, at 19:51.

  6. #276
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,811
    [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.

  7. #277
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,106
    Quote 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?

    Quote 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

    Quote 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

    Quote 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

    Quote 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, at 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

  8. #278
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,775
    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

  9. #279
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,517
    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

  10. #280
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,811
    Elected Officials are.... elected official! Startling. What are they elected to do if not serve the people?

  11. #281
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,106
    Quote 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

  12. #282
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,775
    Quote 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

  13. #283
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote 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, at 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

  14. #284
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    4,106
    Quote 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

  15. #285
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,811
    Quote 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?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 17 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 17 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Review: Man of Steel
    By gunnut in forum Movie & TV Room
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Jul 13,, 10:15
  2. This Guy Has Balls of Steel
    By Bigfella in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07 Jul 09,, 01:37
  3. Mexico slaps tariffs on U.S. goods in truck feud
    By Donnie in forum International Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 18 Mar 09,, 19:46
  4. U.S airforce using transparent aluminum?
    By canoe in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21 Oct 05,, 03:58
  5. EU scores steel victory over US
    By Ironduke in forum International Economy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11 Nov 03,, 20:15

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •