US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7902

On June 21 2017 03:30 On_Slaught wrote:


I think there is enough evidence to also say they were anti-Clinton winning.

On June 21 2017 03:40 LegalLord wrote:

I would only go as far as to say that they were "fuck Clinton" in nature. I am not convinced that Russia would be particularly upset about Clinton winning given that she would be so bad at her job abroad that she would probably do just as much damage as Trump abroad.

On June 21 2017 03:50 LegalLord wrote:

No sarcasm here, although the damage would be different. Trump goes around like a buffoon and does buffoonish things that make people hate the US. Clinton would do less of that, but would pursue the largely unsuccessful policies that helped lead to the rise of populism - with a Hillary caliber competence at the task. And I have little doubt that we would be right back at Trumptopia in the 2020 elections.

On June 21 2017 03:50 LegalLord wrote:

No sarcasm here, although the damage would be different. Trump goes around like a buffoon and does buffoonish things that make people hate the US. Clinton would do less of that, but would pursue the largely unsuccessful policies that helped lead to the rise of populism - with a Hillary caliber competence at the task. And I have little doubt that we would be right back at Trumptopia in the 2020 elections.

On June 21 2017 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:


I actually think this is really important to point out. If I am being honest, I do think the Trump'ish populism nonsense would have done well in 2020. Whether he or whoever would have won, I can't say. But I do think there is value in populism being given an opportunity to completely shit the bed. It is important that the modern generation understand politicians are valuable and that they do valuable work. Overly cynical nonsense about how all they do is line their pockets and blah blah is simply not true. We, as a country, need to be shown what absence of effective leadership looks like.

Donald Trump's nominee to be the director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, represented an American energy executive in 2006 who was being criminally investigated by the Russian government.

The detail, which was included on Wray's biography on the website of the law firm King and Spalding dating back to 2009, was removed in 2017, according to a KFile review of the Web Archive.

A copy of Wray's biography from the law firm King and Spalding archived in December 2016 noted that Wray had represented "an energy company president in a criminal investigation by Russian authorities." By June of this year, that information had been removed. The line appears to be the one of few bits of information ever removed from the page since 2009, with most of the changes since then consisting of minor word changes and additions.

The name of the client was not disclosed on Wray's biography. A spokesperson for King and Spalding declined to provide the name of client when asked, citing "the Rules of Professional Responsibility regarding client confidentiality." A DOJ spokesperson also would not provide further details.

King and Spalding said Wray made the change himself in January 2017 before he considered whether he might be nominated for any administration post.

"Chris made this change to his bio, along with other minor tweaks, in an attempt to make the material more current. At the time he made the adjustments -- January 12, 2017 -- he was not being considered for, and did not anticipate being nominated for, FBI Director, or any position in government," Micheline Tang, a spokeswoman for the firm said. "Moreover, the representation that was dropped from his online bio related to a matter where Chris, King & Spalding, and the client were adverse to the Russian Government. Mr. Wray worked on this matter in 2006. Other attorneys at the firm worked on the matter in 2006, 2007, and 2011."

"The executive is an American citizen and lives in the United States," she continued. "During the course of the dispute, the Russian government sought to exert leverage against this executive and the company by initiating a criminal investigation in Russia against him. Chris and the firm were engaged to handle the U.S. legal issues that arose from the situation."

Any work Wray did related to Russia is likely to be asked about at Senate confirmation hearings. King and Spalding has worked closely in the energy sector in Russia, according to the firm's website. The firm represented companies in deals with the Russian state-owned oil company Rosneft and Gazprom.

Wray handled the 2006 case after serving as head of the criminal division at the Justice Department from 2003 to 2005 in the George W. Bush Administration. Weeks after President Trump abruptly fired James Comey as FBI director last month amid the bureau's Russia investigation, he settled on Wray as his nominee following the withdrawal of several candidates. His nomination must still be approved by the Senate.

On June 21 2017 04:02 Gorsameth wrote:

You have way more confidence in people learning from their choices then I do.

On June 21 2017 03:59 Mohdoo wrote:


I actually think this is really important to point out. If I am being honest, I do think the Trump'ish populism nonsense would have done well in 2020. Whether he or whoever would have won, I can't say. But I do think there is value in populism being given an opportunity to completely shit the bed. It is important that the modern generation understand politicians are valuable and that they do valuable work. Overly cynical nonsense about how all they do is line their pockets and blah blah is simply not true. We, as a country, need to be shown what absence of effective leadership looks like.

On June 21 2017 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:


Out of curiosity, are there any such polls making democrats look like complete dumbasses? Are there Obama era things that people blame on bush? I imagine I only hear about the polls showing republicans are idiots, but surely there must be a comparable democrat thing. Democrats who think Obama took out Saddam or something like that

On June 21 2017 03:40 LegalLord wrote:

I would only go as far as to say that they were "fuck Clinton" in nature. I am not convinced that Russia would be particularly upset about Clinton winning given that she would be so bad at her job abroad that she would probably do just as much damage as Trump abroad.

On June 21 2017 04:26 Nebuchad wrote:


I find this very naive, on the one hand because Trump might talk like a populist but his policies don't really reflect his message - especially not when it comes to the topic of lining your pockets -, and on the other because even if your premise was true, there's not much that indicates that people would learn from it, as you already had the disaster that was Bush in recent memory and that didn't keep you from electing Trump today.

The next-generation Ford Focus will be built in China and exported for sale in the U.S., Ford Motor Co. said Tuesday, abandoning a plan to build the small car in Mexico. Production of the new car is scheduled to begin in 2019.

Ford says the move will save it $1 billion in investment costs and will make it "a more operationally fit company." It also promises that "no U.S. hourly employees will be out of a job" because of the move to China.

The move is not likely to please the White House, as the topics of manufacturing jobs and the location of auto companies' plants have been recurring themes during the first months of the Trump administration.

Back in January, President-elect Trump tweeted, "Car companies and others, if they want to do business in our country, have to start making things here again. WIN!"

When Ford announced a $1.2 billion investment in three of its Michigan facilities in March, the president celebrated by tweeting, "Car companies coming back to U.S. JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!"

Ford is coming off a record year in China, having sold 1.27 million vehicles there in 2016 — a 14 percent gain over 2015. That figure includes vehicles made in China by Ford's joint ventures, as well as Ford and Lincoln imports. When it opened its sixth assembly plant in China back in 2015, Ford said it could build 1.4 million vehicles a year in the country.

For Mexico, this is the second dramatic shift from Ford in 2017. The new Focus originally was to be built in the central state of San Luis Potosi, but the company canceled construction of a $1.6 billion plant there in January.

Plans then called for building the vehicle at an existing facility in Hermosillo in the northwestern state of Sonora — but the company nixed that plan on Tuesday.

The new development prompted the Mexican business journal El Financiero to recount "the sad story of Ford Focus and Mexico," with sections titled "The Illusion," "The Drama" and "The Outcome."

Ford's operations in Mexico have been a talking point for Trump since last year's campaign.

"Trump criticized Ford during the campaign for its decision to move small-car production from Michigan to Mexico," NPR's Sonari Glinton reported last November. "Trump suggested he might impose tariffs on Ford cars assembled in Mexico."

After the November election, Trump took credit for Ford's decision to keep a production plant for the Lincoln MKC in Louisville, Ky., instead of Mexico — but the carmaker clarified that it had never planned to close the Kentucky plant. Ford executives have said that while it can make money off of SUVs built in the U.S., it needs to produce small cars in other countries to keep their sticker prices low enough to compete.

Back in November, Ford's then-CEO Mark Fields said the company would move forward with a plan to build the Focus in Mexico. But under new CEO Jim Hackett, that plan has changed again.

When Fords shifts production of the Focus overseas after mid-2018, it will also convert its Michigan plant to produce the Ranger pickup truck in late 2018 and the Bronco midsize SUV in 2020.

On June 21 2017 05:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
MAGA!!!



Source[/uirl]

On June 21 2017 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:


It's never been about policy. It has always been about message. And Trump's message was extremely potent and fed on decades of resentment and disappointment. People wanted, perhaps even NEEDED someone who was totally outside the "establishment". People assumed that they were disappointed because people were doing a bad job and that they were doing a bad job because they were establishment elite. Well, now that we've got the opposite of all that, here is a chance to see what happens when you "finally get politicians out of Washington". It goes to shit. We're only 5 months in and here we are. In theory, we've got 43 more months of this.