|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 28 2017 05:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump’s nominee to head the commerce department is facing intense scrutiny over whether the US president or his affiliates have ever received loans from a bank in Cyprus that is partly owned by a close ally of Vladimir Putin.
Wilbur Ross, a billionaire investor who has served as vice-chairman of the Bank of Cyprus since 2014, has received two letters from senators demanding answers about possible links between the bank and current and former Trump administration and campaign officials.
Ross, who has said he would step down from the bank after his final confirmation, has also been asked to provide more details about his own relationship with previous and current Russian investors in the bank, including Viktor Vekselberg, a longtime ally of the Russian president, and Vladimir Strzhalkovsky, the former vice-chairman of Bank of Cyprus who is also a former KGB agent with a close relationship to Putin.
The Senate is expected to approve Ross’s nomination to lead the commerce department on Monday evening. He has not yet responded to the questions from the senators, according to Senate aides.
An attorney for Ross said he was not handling the matter and referred questions about the letter to the commerce department, which declined to respond .
The senators’ scrutiny of Ross’s ties to Bank of Cyprus comes as the Trump administration faces several investigations, including by the FBI, into possible links between Trump campaign officials and Russia.
The first letter, sent on 16 February, was led by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, the top Democrat on the Senate commerce committee, and was co-signed by Cory Booker of New Jersey, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
Details of the letter and Ross’s refusal to answer it were first reported by McClatchy, the US news organisation.
Among other questions, the letter asked Ross if he was “aware of any contacts between any individuals currently or formerly associated with the Bank of Cyprus and anyone affiliated with the Trump presidential campaign or the Trump Organization”. It also asked whether Ross was “aware of any loans made by the Bank of Cyprus to the Trump Organization, its directors or officers, or any affiliated individuals or entities”.
Ross also received a second letter with more specific questions from Senator Booker on Friday. In it, the New Jersey senator said the list of Russian businessmen with ties to both Putin and the Bank of Cyprus was “startling”.
“The American public deserve to know the full extent of your connections with Russia and your knowledge of any ties between the Trump administration, Trump campaign or Trump Organization and the Bank of Cyprus,” Booker wrote. “Americans must have confidence that high-level officials in the United States government are not influenced by, or beholden to, any foreign power.”
Among Booker’s list of 11 questions was a demand to know more about if – and when – Ross first learned about Strzhalkovsky’s ties to the KGB, and whether the former KGB official ever met Trump.
Booker also asked Ross whether he had any knowledge about the 2008 purchase of Trump’s Palm Beach home by Dmitry Rybolovlev, a Russian billionaire and investor in Bank of Cyprus. The beach house was reportedly sold for $95m.
Ross’s nomination to lead the commerce department has so far been relatively uncontroversial, in part because Ross is liked by Democrats and labour unions who credit the private equity investor with saving tens of thousand of jobs in the steel industry after buying up bankrupt steel companies in 2002.
But Ross’s 2014 investment in the Bank of Cyprus has received little public attention amid the broader concerns in Washington over the Trump administration’s potential ties to Russia. Source
Nothing to see here, other than big, giant plumes of smoke. Nothing even close to the scandal of Benghazi.
|
On February 28 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:
Obama couldn’t do it alone. The Republican’s owned congress after 2010 and any attempt to limit the IC community would have needed to be through both congress and the White House. Even if Obama dismantled the NSA data-mining program, he couldn’t create something to replace it on his own.
All indications were that Obama was perfectly fine with the invasive NSA data mining program
|
|
|
On February 28 2017 06:14 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 05:42 Plansix wrote:
Obama couldn’t do it alone. The Republican’s owned congress after 2010 and any attempt to limit the IC community would have needed to be through both congress and the White House. Even if Obama dismantled the NSA data-mining program, he couldn’t create something to replace it on his own. All indications were that Obama was perfectly fine with the invasive NSA data mining program
I have heard that too. I also read that they tried to quietly put more checks and oversight over the program and limit is scope without putting the whole thing out for public review. 2008-2012 were pretty packed years with the whole implosion of the real estate market, Iraq war, oil spill and saving the auto industry.
I’ve never been happy with the response to the NSA program, but I understand why it was never tackled head on until Snowden leaked it.
edit: I think it is adorable that Trump is performing phone checks. Because if you are going to leak something, do it from the thing you carry around all the time and can be searched. Not the 20 other ways created by reporters to keep your identity private.
|
When suddenly not everything is as easy as signing some orders:
President Trump said Monday that "nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated," as Republicans have been slow to unite around a replacement plan for ObamaCare.
"I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," Trump said after a meeting with conservative governors at the White House.
The GOP governors were in town this weekend for their annual conference and met with Trump to talk about a variety of things, but it's likely the conversation largely focused on healthcare.
Governors have been split on what should be done with ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion, which brought health coverage to many even in deep-red states.
Trump didn't publicly address that issue Monday morning, but said ObamaCare's repeal and replacement will give states more flexibility "to make the end result really, really good for them."
"We have come up with a solution that's really, really good I think. Very good."
Trump also dismissed polls that show support for ObamaCare is at an all-time high.
The latest tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that 48 percent view the law favorably compared to the 42 percent who don't.
"People hate it but now they see that the end is coming and they say, 'Oh ,maybe we love it.' There's nothing to love. It's a disaster, folks."
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/321318-trump-nobody-knew-that-healthcare-could-be-so-complicated
|
On February 28 2017 05:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 04:57 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 04:10 KwarK wrote:On February 28 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:NATO allies very clearly don't care about the costs. I wonder what standing armies would look like if NATO collapsed? Interesting question. It might cut into one or two welfare states. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Expecting that Germany pays the same proportion of GDP on the military as the United States when Germany is a regional power with regional interests and the US is a global power with global interests is absurd. If you want to do a direct comparison then compare just the cost of US commitments in Europe with German defence spending. The cost of the US fleet in the straits of Taiwan isn't a relevant factor for the NATO allies. As for what would happen if NATO collapsed. A stronger EU based military policy and the collapse of nuclear non proliferation. That's all. The kind of army the US has is only really useful for projecting power, occupying countries and forcible regime changes. It has no real defensive virtue over a nuclear deterrent and a clear will to use it. You have horse blinders on. Some of that spending is due to global interests. Some is the big fat defense umbrella we subsidize others with. NATO has always been a one way street after the end of the Cold War. I mean is Europe really that hard-up that the US meets 72% of the funding needs for a European-focused defense pact? We'll still be the worldwide big spenders, but the margins will come down. Obligatory shitposter clarification that I don't support the manner in which Trump announced NATO changes or an immediate dissolution of the alliance for obligations nonpayment. Know any enemies that need a combined trillion dollar military force to beat? How about half a trillion? Three hundred billion, maybe there we've got an argument. Of course, it's not like the EU can't double their numbers if a war actually comes.
Because Military defense spending is focused around single enemy warfare. What era were you born in?
Anything to say about the post or you just trying to pick fights and deflect?
|
President Trump said Monday that "nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated," as Republicans have been slow to unite around a replacement plan for ObamaCare.
"I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," Trump said after a meeting with conservative governors at the White House.
Yeah... nobody...
|
Except people who can read and paid attention in 2008-2010.
|
On February 28 2017 06:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 05:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 28 2017 04:57 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 04:10 KwarK wrote:On February 28 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:NATO allies very clearly don't care about the costs. I wonder what standing armies would look like if NATO collapsed? Interesting question. It might cut into one or two welfare states. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Expecting that Germany pays the same proportion of GDP on the military as the United States when Germany is a regional power with regional interests and the US is a global power with global interests is absurd. If you want to do a direct comparison then compare just the cost of US commitments in Europe with German defence spending. The cost of the US fleet in the straits of Taiwan isn't a relevant factor for the NATO allies. As for what would happen if NATO collapsed. A stronger EU based military policy and the collapse of nuclear non proliferation. That's all. The kind of army the US has is only really useful for projecting power, occupying countries and forcible regime changes. It has no real defensive virtue over a nuclear deterrent and a clear will to use it. You have horse blinders on. Some of that spending is due to global interests. Some is the big fat defense umbrella we subsidize others with. NATO has always been a one way street after the end of the Cold War. I mean is Europe really that hard-up that the US meets 72% of the funding needs for a European-focused defense pact? We'll still be the worldwide big spenders, but the margins will come down. Obligatory shitposter clarification that I don't support the manner in which Trump announced NATO changes or an immediate dissolution of the alliance for obligations nonpayment. Know any enemies that need a combined trillion dollar military force to beat? How about half a trillion? Three hundred billion, maybe there we've got an argument. Of course, it's not like the EU can't double their numbers if a war actually comes. Because Military defense spending is focused around single enemy warfare. What era were you born in? Anything to say about the post or you just trying to pick fights and deflect?
The era where all the major military players have not actually attacked each other for over half a century?
You say subsidize like you're actually doing anything with those dollars. Whether the US doubles or halves its military budget tomorrow, the state of the world is not going to be very different for the following years (aside from wars the US itself initiates).
If war actually does break out, industrial nations are shockingly quick to militarize all available resources.
(Oh, and by the way, the combined military budget of every one of your potential enemies doesn't break half a trillion either. Unless you plan on making the rest of the world an enemy as well)
|
On February 28 2017 06:32 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:When suddenly not everything is as easy as signing some orders: Show nested quote +President Trump said Monday that "nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated," as Republicans have been slow to unite around a replacement plan for ObamaCare.
"I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," Trump said after a meeting with conservative governors at the White House.
The GOP governors were in town this weekend for their annual conference and met with Trump to talk about a variety of things, but it's likely the conversation largely focused on healthcare.
Governors have been split on what should be done with ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion, which brought health coverage to many even in deep-red states.
Trump didn't publicly address that issue Monday morning, but said ObamaCare's repeal and replacement will give states more flexibility "to make the end result really, really good for them."
"We have come up with a solution that's really, really good I think. Very good."
Trump also dismissed polls that show support for ObamaCare is at an all-time high.
The latest tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that 48 percent view the law favorably compared to the 42 percent who don't.
"People hate it but now they see that the end is coming and they say, 'Oh ,maybe we love it.' There's nothing to love. It's a disaster, folks." http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/321318-trump-nobody-knew-that-healthcare-could-be-so-complicated
Last time Trump said they'd come up with a solution 2 weeks later the Republicans said they have no idea what to do. Maybe this is like the groundhog seeing his shadow, and every time Trump says this it's another two weeks of nothing.
|
This feels like it is escalating quickly.
|
On February 28 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:
Except people who can read and paid attention in 2008-2010.
Or really anyone who's had to use healthcare in their lifetime without being a millionaire.
|
On February 28 2017 07:05 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 06:46 Plansix wrote:
Except people who can read and paid attention in 2008-2010. Or really anyone who's had to use healthcare in their lifetime without being a millionaire.
The heckler vs performer analogy is never going to get old.
|
On February 28 2017 06:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 06:33 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 05:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 28 2017 04:57 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 04:10 KwarK wrote:On February 28 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:NATO allies very clearly don't care about the costs. I wonder what standing armies would look like if NATO collapsed? Interesting question. It might cut into one or two welfare states. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Expecting that Germany pays the same proportion of GDP on the military as the United States when Germany is a regional power with regional interests and the US is a global power with global interests is absurd. If you want to do a direct comparison then compare just the cost of US commitments in Europe with German defence spending. The cost of the US fleet in the straits of Taiwan isn't a relevant factor for the NATO allies. As for what would happen if NATO collapsed. A stronger EU based military policy and the collapse of nuclear non proliferation. That's all. The kind of army the US has is only really useful for projecting power, occupying countries and forcible regime changes. It has no real defensive virtue over a nuclear deterrent and a clear will to use it. You have horse blinders on. Some of that spending is due to global interests. Some is the big fat defense umbrella we subsidize others with. NATO has always been a one way street after the end of the Cold War. I mean is Europe really that hard-up that the US meets 72% of the funding needs for a European-focused defense pact? We'll still be the worldwide big spenders, but the margins will come down. Obligatory shitposter clarification that I don't support the manner in which Trump announced NATO changes or an immediate dissolution of the alliance for obligations nonpayment. Know any enemies that need a combined trillion dollar military force to beat? How about half a trillion? Three hundred billion, maybe there we've got an argument. Of course, it's not like the EU can't double their numbers if a war actually comes. Because Military defense spending is focused around single enemy warfare. What era were you born in? Anything to say about the post or you just trying to pick fights and deflect? The era where all the major military players have not actually attacked each other for over half a century? You say subsidize like you're actually doing anything with those dollars. Whether the US doubles or halves its military budget tomorrow, the state of the world is not going to be very different for the following years (aside from wars the US itself initiates). If war actually does break out, industrial nations are shockingly quick to militarize all available resources. (Oh, and by the way, the combined military budget of every one of your potential enemies doesn't break half a trillion either. Unless you plan on making the rest of the world an enemy as well)
Then I'm sure you're agitating for Canada to leave NATO, since you say the state of the world is static and industrial nations don't care.
But yeah, let's refocus in our newfound historical perspective of half a century's depth. Seriously, where did you get such a hawkish focus on sudden wars and not spread interests and deterrents? Is this like a Canada thing? Maybe we need Putin 2.0 and a dismantled NATO to bring some thinking in Western countries back to reality.
|
The document is actually pretty interesting... but Trump has an impressive ability to seek and emphasize selectively flattering information.
|
Not sure what it's going to take for Democrats to realize how bad they are screwing up, but being less popular than the party that elected Captain Pussy Grabber has got to be some sort of wake up call.
|
Is that the one thing apart from his 20% --> 27% very positive reception rating that he found?
At least 53% of respondents do not have negative feelings towards him.
That's the majority. Huge majority actually if you substract the illegally called respondents. Landslide like majority.
|
On February 28 2017 07:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2017 06:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 28 2017 06:33 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 05:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 28 2017 04:57 Danglars wrote:On February 28 2017 04:10 KwarK wrote:On February 28 2017 03:31 Danglars wrote:NATO allies very clearly don't care about the costs. I wonder what standing armies would look like if NATO collapsed? Interesting question. It might cut into one or two welfare states. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Expecting that Germany pays the same proportion of GDP on the military as the United States when Germany is a regional power with regional interests and the US is a global power with global interests is absurd. If you want to do a direct comparison then compare just the cost of US commitments in Europe with German defence spending. The cost of the US fleet in the straits of Taiwan isn't a relevant factor for the NATO allies. As for what would happen if NATO collapsed. A stronger EU based military policy and the collapse of nuclear non proliferation. That's all. The kind of army the US has is only really useful for projecting power, occupying countries and forcible regime changes. It has no real defensive virtue over a nuclear deterrent and a clear will to use it. You have horse blinders on. Some of that spending is due to global interests. Some is the big fat defense umbrella we subsidize others with. NATO has always been a one way street after the end of the Cold War. I mean is Europe really that hard-up that the US meets 72% of the funding needs for a European-focused defense pact? We'll still be the worldwide big spenders, but the margins will come down. Obligatory shitposter clarification that I don't support the manner in which Trump announced NATO changes or an immediate dissolution of the alliance for obligations nonpayment. Know any enemies that need a combined trillion dollar military force to beat? How about half a trillion? Three hundred billion, maybe there we've got an argument. Of course, it's not like the EU can't double their numbers if a war actually comes. Because Military defense spending is focused around single enemy warfare. What era were you born in? Anything to say about the post or you just trying to pick fights and deflect? The era where all the major military players have not actually attacked each other for over half a century? You say subsidize like you're actually doing anything with those dollars. Whether the US doubles or halves its military budget tomorrow, the state of the world is not going to be very different for the following years (aside from wars the US itself initiates). If war actually does break out, industrial nations are shockingly quick to militarize all available resources. (Oh, and by the way, the combined military budget of every one of your potential enemies doesn't break half a trillion either. Unless you plan on making the rest of the world an enemy as well) Then I'm sure you're agitating for Canada to leave NATO, since you say the state of the world is static and industrial nations don't care. But yeah, let's refocus in our newfound historical perspective of half a century's depth. Seriously, where did you get such a hawkish focus on sudden wars and not spread interests and deterrents? Is this like a Canada thing? Maybe we need Putin 2.0 and a dismantled NATO to bring some thinking in Western countries back to reality.
If the US left NATO right now, do you think the EU cannot defend itself?
If Canada left all military alliances right now, who is going to attack us?
How many billions of dollars are required to keep China and Russia from invading more than they already are? How many billions of dollars are required to make them back off from the expansionism they're already taking?
Your entire argument seems to be pure FUD that the US' bloated military budget is required for something, and that Europe is entirely reliant on you "subsidizing" their safety.
|
National approval ratings of the parties are of pretty questionable value at this point. Call me in 8 months.
|
On February 28 2017 07:40 Plansix wrote:
National approval ratings of the parties are of pretty questionable value at this point. Call me in 8 months.
And if it's worse then than it is now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
