US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8330

On August 09 2017 05:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Tom Price speaking on the Opiate Crisis... A vaccine for addiction, what?

On August 09 2017 05:38 m4ini wrote:


.. eh? Don't act dense.

Why is there only one leader? Why is there not even the desire for opposition?

Because of the godlike status the dear leader has in NK. What do you think is going to happen in the US if trump just randomly starts throwing nukes? Now ask yourself the same question what would happen in NK, and there's your answer. It really isn't that hard.

On August 09 2017 05:48 Plansix wrote:
It should also be noted that 7 years ago NK sunk a SK navy ship with a sub for literally zero reasons. And they shelled a SK island recently. They are prone to lashing out and we shouldn’t except them to be any different with nukes.

On August 09 2017 05:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Also why Kellyanne Conway speaking during a press briefing about a Health Crisis?

The rate of heroin use among white adults increased by 114% between 2004 and 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate among nonwhite adults remained relatively unchanged during that same period.

On August 09 2017 05:50 Sadist wrote:




NK will cease to exist as a country within hours if they nuke anyone.

WASHINGTON – President Trump has publicly called the widening federal investigation into Russia's election meddling a "witch hunt." But through his lawyer, Trump has sent private messages of "appreciation" to special counsel Robert Mueller.

"He appreciates what Bob Mueller is doing,'' Trump's chief counsel John Dowd told USA TODAY in an interview Tuesday. "He asked me to share that with him and that's what I've done.''

Trump's legal team has been in contact with Mueller's office, and Dowd says he has passed along the president's messages expressing “appreciation and greetings’’ to the special counsel.

“The president has sent messages back and forth,’’ Dowd said, declining to elaborate further.

Trump has come under fire for his prior contacts with former FBI Director James Comey, whom he abruptly fired in May because of his handling of the Russia matter. In a break with longstanding precedent to avoid even the appearance of influencing the nonpolitical law enforcement agency's investigations, Trump spoke privately with Comey on several occasions.

In those conversations, Comey said, Trump tried to convince him to drop parts of the Russia investigation and asked for a pledge of loyalty – accounts that not only led to the appointment of a special counsel, but also an expansion of the probe to include possible obstruction of justice.

Dowd has said all communications with Mueller have been proper.

“We get along well with Bob Mueller; our communications have been constructive,’’ the attorney said. “But it is important that our communications remain confidential. It’s important that there not be any breakdown in that trust.’’

For weeks, Washington political circles have been on high alert for the possibility the president could try to get rid of Mueller or otherwise wrest control of the Russia probe he denounces as a "hoax."

Yet in a sign that forcing out the former FBI director overseeing the federal Russia investigation is politically untenable, a growing number of government officials have moved to tamp down any talk of ousting Mueller – including, apparently Trump himself.

“That’s never been on the table, never,’’ Dowd said of the possibility Trump might try to remove the special counsel. “It’s a manifestation of the media. My dealings with Bob Mueller have always been cordial, respectful — the way it should be."

Trump and his aides have been highly critical of Mueller and his widening investigation into possible collusion between associates and Russians who sought to influence the presidential election. Trump says Mueller's job is unnecessary because he hasn't done anything wrong, and has accused the former FBI director of having unspecified conflicts of interest.

Lawmakers, including Republicans, started sounding the alarm about Mueller after days of concerted attacks on Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The unusual public criticism of a cabinet official who was one of Trump's earliest supporters – months after his recusal from the Russia investigation – raised questions about whether the president was trying to get Sessions to quit or would fire him.

Trump cannot fire Mueller directly, but he can fire Sessions. And a new, more pliable attorney general – without conflicts in the Russia investigation – could oust the special counsel.

Yet the two men appear to be at a stalemate: Sessions has has refused to resign in the face of attacks by Trump, and so far, Trump has not moved to fire Sessions.

And senators from both parties have since introduced legislation that would make it harder for the president to dismiss Mueller. A pair of pending proposals would require judges to to review any presidential firing, and force the president to provide specific legal reasons for taking such action.

What's more, with the public now aware that Mueller has tapped a grand jury for his inquiry into possible collusion between Trump associates and Russians who sought to influence the election, getting rid of the top prosecutor seems like a near impossibility.

One Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said late last month any move against Mueller could be "the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency."

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is sponsoring one of the proposals designed to protect a special counsel, said that "a back-end judicial review process to prevent unmerited removals of special counsels not only helps to ensure their investigatory independence, but also reaffirms our nation’s system of checks and balances.”

A recent poll of battleground districts indicated that firing Mueller would be unpopular with voters as well.

Mueller is supervising a long-running inquiry that focuses on Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election through fake news and hacking political organizations and Democrats close to nominee Hillary Clinton.

The wide-ranging inquiry now includes a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower where the president’s eldest son, Donald Jr., hosted a Kremlin-linked attorney whom he believed had damaging information on Clinton.

Trump Jr. was told that that information would be provided by the Russian government. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort also attended the meeting.

Trump Jr. and the Russian attorney both said no actual information about Clinton was provided at the meeting. The special counsel’s team also is reviewing financial transactions involving campaign officials.

On August 09 2017 05:53 mozoku wrote:
I'm not so sure. I'm usually pretty hawkish on FP issues, but I'm starting think we're not doing anything except wasting political capital on the NK issue. He isn't giving up nukes without military intervention, and that can't happen without horrible consequences. Current sanctions are reasonable, but China won't allow sanctions to be strong enough to cause a rebellion in NK, and NK is going to prioritize nuclear weapons before anything else. So sanctions are never going to achieve the intended effect. They should still be in place for symbolic/signalling reasons, but wasting political capital in coercing other countries to join the sanctions would not be in US interests imo. I don't know what the latest round of sanctions cost the US in terms of political capital, if any.

At this point, it may be best to just let MAD take over. Kim Jong Un hasn't acted totally irrationally; he's never done anything crazy enough to threaten his rule over NK. A nuclear strike on the US or an ally would almost certainly end his life.

I would probably slap some sanctions on China for allowing it's satellite state ruled by a potentially insane dictator to threaten the US and its peaceful allies with a nuclear strike though.

On August 09 2017 05:54 Plansix wrote:

Yep and the entire Asian economy will implode and god knows what else will happen. But that might not be enough for NK. They are deeply delusional.

On August 09 2017 05:56 LegalLord wrote:

Preemptive strike. If we're at the point where hot nuclear war is all but a foregone conclusion there is little else we could do. Better be ready to lose a couple cities too.

On August 09 2017 05:54 Sadist wrote:
You strike with subs if they nuke anyone with 100% international backing. If you pre emptive strike you risk an international shitshow. You have to preseve MAD at all costs