US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9014

On October 18 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
It's a poll of registered voters, though.

On October 18 2017 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:


might as well add the "not sure" to the Republican if you want a more accurate picture of the outcome.

On October 18 2017 08:10 NewSunshine wrote:
He's not even trying to not look like some tinpot dictator at this point. His MO about anything and everything is to shout louder and louder if anything isn't going his way. If you told him he couldn't use any exclamation points in his tweets he'd probably explode.

On October 18 2017 08:15 Gorsameth wrote:

To be fair I understand his MO. It speaks to his core base and everyone else despises him anyway.

He just needs to keep the 80% of Republicans that live in an alternate reality where Trumps actions are acceptable on his side.

President Donald Trump’s former press secretary Sean Spicer met with special counsel Robert Mueller's team on Monday for an interview that lasted much of the day, according to multiple people familiar with the meeting.

During his sitdown, Spicer was grilled about the firing of former FBI director James Comey and his statements regarding the firing, as well as about Trump’s meetings with Russians officials including one with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Oval Office, one person familiar with the meeting said.

Spicer declined to comment. His attorney, Christopher Mead, did not respond to multiple calls and emails requesting comment.

Spicer’s interview has long been expected as part of Mueller’s ongoing and widening investigation into Russia’s potential interference in the 2016 presidential election. Before joining the Trump administration, Spicer served as press secretary to the Republican National Committee, and then worked out of Trump Tower during the end of the general election campaign and during the transition, as part of the Republican nominee’s team.

Mueller’s team has been tight-lipped about its process. But Spicer’s Monday meeting shows that Mueller is starting to ramp up interviews with current and former Trump administration officials. Former chief of staff Reince Priebus met with Mueller last Friday.

Mueller’s team has also interviewed Keith Kellogg, who served as interim National Security Adviser after Michael Flynn was fired.

Current and former White House officials have been asked about former national security adviser Michael Flynn and a misleading statement written on Air Force One about a meeting Donald Trump Jr. had with Russians.

Other White House officials expected to meet with Mueller include communications director Hope Hicks and White House lawyer Don McGahn, although their interviews have not yet been scheduled.

On October 18 2017 09:48 Mohdoo wrote:

Being generally rude and intolerant towards left wing media also helps to make sure the xDaunts of the country show up to vote.

On October 18 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:
The media’s done the same schtick towards Republicans and Republican candidates for overn40 years now. It’s always a welcome treat when Presidents send it right back at them. Unilateral disarmament and appeasement only invites the kind of disingenuous and mean spirited attacks that conservatives are used to. Today it’s Trump, yesterday it was Romney and McCain, tomorrow we don’t know the names but it will be the same even if he/she is a total squish.

President Donald Trump’s promise to renegotiate NAFTA suffered a major setback Tuesday as Canada and Mexico aligned to block some of the most controversial U.S. proposals and the top U.S. trade negotiator accused its partner nations of being obstructionist and unwilling to negotiate.

If all parties become entrenched in their positions, Trump has vowed to withdraw from the 23-year-old agreement altogether. That would usher in the new isolationist era that he has long threatened, potentially endangering tens of thousands of American jobs that depend on cross-border agreements for everything from manufacturing automobiles to the export of beef.

The fourth round of negotiations wrapped up in the Washington area on Tuesday, and officials made clear they were at an impasse on a number of changes specifically sought by the Trump administration that dovetail with its “America First” agenda.

As a result, Canada, Mexico and the United States have agreed to delay their next round of talks by nearly a month, retreating to their respective capitals to work out "challenges" and "significant conceptual gaps among the parties" before meeting again on Nov. 17 in Mexico. Chief negotiators are then planning to meet in Washington in December, and additional rounds will be scheduled through the first quarter of 2018.

"Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer told reporters at a closing press briefing, as he stood at a lectern between Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Mexican Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo. "As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and a reduction in these huge trade deficits."

The delay comes at the close of a fourth round of talks that saw repeated rejections from Canada and Mexico of U.S. proposals regarding provisions on sectors such as automobiles, dairy and seasonal produce. While both Mexico and Canada expressed a willingness to remain at the negotiating table as long as talks continue, they also remained steadfast in their opposition to proposals that Washington has indicated are top priorities.

"We must understand that we all have limits," Guajardo said. "Despite the recurring differences, we must ensure that decisions we make today do not come back to haunt us tomorrow."

Reaching an agreement that benefited all three countries is still an "absolutely achievable" goal, Freeland said, but "that cannot be achieved with a winner-take-all mindset.”

The divide has left open the question of whether the U.S. actually wants to revamp the deal or would prefer to force its demise by pushing near-impossible demands it knows neither Canada nor Mexico will ever accept.

On Capitol Hill, some aides are growing increasingly concerned that the Trump administration has not fully considered the political and economic effects either of withdrawal or of some of its more extreme proposals.“

The debate is, is it a negotiating tactic or is it a real threat?” one congressional aide said. “And you never really know the difference until it becomes an actual withdrawal.”

Mexico in particular remains concerned that the U.S.’ unspoken goal is to push a series of propositions that are unacceptable to Mexico and could drive its officials to walk away from the talks — a scenario that would allow Trump to blame them for NAFTA’s demise, as well as any political or economic ramifications that might come with it.

But in Mexico City, where national presidential elections are on the horizon next year — and where hatred of Trump is at an all-time high — the more politically savvy move is to remain engaged, continue resisting any changes it considers harmful, and prepare for a world without NAFTA.

To that end, Mexico is focusing on locking in contingency plans that involve finalizing a Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal without the United States and boosting commercial ties with Argentina and Brazil, Guajardo told reporters Tuesday.

“Everybody in Mexico is ready for a walkout,” said Jorge Guajardo, a former Mexican ambassador who now works as a senior director at McLarty Associates in Washington. “Everybody’s just going into Plan B mode, sort of in a, ‘NAFTA is over, let’s move on and figure out what’s next.’”

All three ministers have publicly been saying that reaching a deal favorable to all three countries remains the overarching goal. But Lighthizer on Tuesday reiterated his overarching priority of reducing the trade deficit — a measure Canada has consistently criticized as a misguided way to judge the success of a trade agreement. He also stressed that he wants to eliminate “what I consider to be in many cases artificial incentives to encourage investment overseas that are not market-based.”

He lashed out against criticism to U.S. proposals that U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue recently called “poison pills.” Those include proposals that would require up to 50 percent of U.S. content in an automobile made in North America or having the deal automatically “sunset” after five years unless all three countries agree to keep it going.

“I’ve have some people in the business community say, ‘Goodness! Lighthizer’s putting forward proposals that the Mexicans and Canadians don’t agree with,’” he told reporters in a separate briefing on Tuesday. “I’m thinking, ‘Whoa, time out. I thought we were having a negotiation.'”

As the Chamber and other business groups have grown increasingly vocal in their fight to preserve other provisions, Lighthizer signaled that he was equally resolved to make Canada and Mexico regard the renegotiation process as more than just a modernization of the deal but rather an attempt to rebalance trade among the countries.

“I would have liked to have seen some indication of agreement that that is an objective, and at least until now we’ve seen little of that,” he said.

In one example, Lighthizer needled the U.S. business lobby over its demands that the pact retain a strong dispute mechanism that allows investors to directly sue governments for damages related to any breach of their rights under the deal. He added that it was “absurd” for businesses to want to make market-based decisions but “have political risk insurance paid for by the United States government.”

Despite Trump’s oft-repeated threats to withdraw from the deal, Lighthizer said there had been no discussion about any time frame that relates to terminating NAFTA. He added that there was no plan “beyond getting a good agreement.”

But he left open the possibility that the U.S. could still withdraw from the pact.

“If we end up not having an agreement, my guess is all three countries will do just fine,” Lighthizer said. “There’s a lot of trade. There’s a lot of reasons to trade.”

A memorial fund set up to honor the late Philando Castile has raised enough money to clear a year’s worth of student lunch debt across St. Paul, MN.

The Philando Feeds The Children Fund was started by Pam Fergus, a local community college professor who was inspired by stories of Castile having helped pay for student’s lunches with his own money.

“We just had this little idea that we were going to help do Mr. Phil’s job and make sure you guys have good lunch to eat every day,” Fergus told students, according to a WCCO report.

In total, more than 2000 donors helped the fund raise over $72,000—well above the initial $5,000 goal—which was presented to officials at J.J. Hill on Friday by Castile’s mother Valerie.

While the money raised in Castile’s honor is believed to be enough to wipe out St. Paul Public Schools’ $400 per-student lunch costs for the coming year, Fergus noted that the fund’s work is hardly done.

“Kids gotta eat every every semester,”

According to St. Paul Public Schools’ nutrition services director, Stacy Koppen, around 900 students started this school year owing money for school lunches—a number that typically grows to approximately 2,000 students by year’s end.

Last summer, a local auto mechanic also announced plans to fix and replace tail light and license plate bulbs to ensure more people aren’t pulled over by police as Castile was.

“We will be replacing tailight and license plate bulbs indefinitely FOR FREE,” Unity Autoworks, a Twin Cities car repair and customization shop, explained. “A defective bulb should never be a reason to be murdered.”

around 900 students started this school year owing money for school lunches—a number that typically grows to approximately 2,000 students by year’s end.

On October 18 2017 10:07 Aquanim wrote:

Are you claiming that Democrats and Democratic candidates are treated by "the media" in a qualitatively different way? Do you have evidence to support that claim?

On October 18 2017 10:29 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/920364447088234501

In my humble opinion, Sanders got wrecked at the last go-around, but somehow thought a new match was a good idea.

On October 18 2017 10:26 Danglars wrote:

Not any evidence you would like if you didn't observe this from the last election cycle (post-primary) with your own two eyes, the trouble is with your own cognitive dissonance and not for lack of evidence. But go read a history book on the Nixon years, the Reagan years, the Clinton years (ex. of fawning press coverage), Bush years, and the 2008 & 2012 elections. I don't recall if you were personally dismissive, though it fits your MO, but when I brought up how Romney & McCain were variously called racists and sexists in true Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf fashion, it didn't make an intellectual dent. I can only hope to remind people of the two worldviews.