|
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 January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 03:36 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I think the current statutory authority provided by Congress is fine. The recourse is sufficient, as detailed.
[quote]
No. If he fires two-three special counsels (or deputies for not firing them), you can demonstrate that there’s a need. He’s not stopping the investigation even if he fires Mueller. I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person.
Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office?
On January 27 2018 05:34 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. What? Smitt Romley and Job Karrie are as important to the US discourse as ever! I think Trump out of office looks the same as Trump now? Golf every weekend, running crappy restaurants and angry Tweets.
On January 27 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. What part of the system do you think is failing if Mueller submits a referral for obstruction and Congress declines? What if Mueller doesn't submit a referral? Will you consider that to mean the system worked and Trump was clean (enough)? On January 27 2018 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:34 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. What? Smitt Romley and Job Karrie are as important to the US discourse as ever! I think Trump out of office looks the same as Trump now? Golf every weekend, running crappy restaurants and angry Tweets. John Kerry considering presidential run in 2020 Who are you hoping runs in 2020? I mean my personal favorite among anyone that would seriously consider it is Ajamu Baraka, but realistically a Nina Turner that's been studying the stuff I'd like a president to be informed about. Bernie's probably third because he's the best candidate that already is a favorite to beat Trump. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data.
Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked?
|
On January 27 2018 05:34 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. What? Smitt Romley and Job Karrie are as important to the US discourse as ever! I think Trump out of office looks the same as Trump now? Golf every weekend, running crappy restaurants and angry Tweets.
John Kerry considering presidential run in 2020
|
On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I disagree. Congress does not have the staff or means to handle the investigation. That is why they work with the FBI and rely on FBI’s findings. And its not like they can “staff up” for that job. They would still need to rely on the executive branch and justice department. If Trump fired Mueller, they would need to legislate to take control of some part of the FBI to assure he wouldn’t tamper with the process further. Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office?
It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot.
But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things.
|
On January 27 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:34 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. What? Smitt Romley and Job Karrie are as important to the US discourse as ever! I think Trump out of office looks the same as Trump now? Golf every weekend, running crappy restaurants and angry Tweets. John Kerry considering presidential run in 2020
Who are you hoping runs in 2020?
|
On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things.
What part of the system do you think is failing if Mueller submits a referral for obstruction and Congress declines?
What if Mueller doesn't submit a referral? Will you consider that to mean the system worked and Trump was clean (enough)?
On January 27 2018 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:34 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI.
Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree.
Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. What? Smitt Romley and Job Karrie are as important to the US discourse as ever! I think Trump out of office looks the same as Trump now? Golf every weekend, running crappy restaurants and angry Tweets. John Kerry considering presidential run in 2020 Who are you hoping runs in 2020?
I mean my personal favorite among anyone that would seriously consider it is Ajamu Baraka, but realistically a Nina Turner that's been studying the stuff I'd like a president to be informed about. Bernie's probably third because he's the best candidate that already is a favorite to beat Trump.
|
|
|
On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:08 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Congress can appoint and appropriate money to staff special committees on certain topics (see: joint committee on 9/11, select on watergate, select on Iran-contra). It provably has done so and can do so. Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI. Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree. Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things.
In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong.
|
On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI.
Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree.
Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong.
Don’t look to the democratic process for fairness. People knew or decided not to care about the flaws in who they voted for this election. Trump could get away with all the crimes(this assumes they happened, of course). It’s the most powerful office in the nation, only matched by the entire body of congress. Elect better people.
|
On January 27 2018 05:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI.
Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree.
Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. What part of the system do you think is failing if Mueller submits a referral for obstruction and Congress declines? What if Mueller doesn't submit a referral? Will you consider that to mean the system worked and Trump was clean (enough)? Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:34 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. What? Smitt Romley and Job Karrie are as important to the US discourse as ever! I think Trump out of office looks the same as Trump now? Golf every weekend, running crappy restaurants and angry Tweets. John Kerry considering presidential run in 2020 Who are you hoping runs in 2020? I mean my personal favorite among anyone that would seriously consider it is Ajamu Baraka, but realistically a Nina Turner that's been studying the stuff I'd like a president to be informed about. Bernie's probably third because he's the best candidate that already is a favorite to beat Trump.
Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data.
|
On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:On January 27 2018 04:15 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yes, but they have relied on agencies under the control of the executive branch and were not investigating the executive branch. Watergate used the FBI.
Also, the investigation is about Russian involvement in the election, which includes all House member’s elections. They would be investigating themselves to some degree.
Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong.
Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again.
Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data.
Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked?
*screwed up an edit
|
On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Iran-contra and Watergate were investigating the executive branch. And you’ve ceased to be serious if you think Russians elected house members so they’re going to cover up their involvement. Is the echo chamber really so committed to inventing or recklessly expanding conspiracies to justify their positions? I mean I did see Feinstein and Schiff asserting it was Russian bots manufacturing #ReleaseTheMemo, so I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised. Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Show nested quote +Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit
No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections.
|
On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 04:33 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Mueller is tracking a lot of money that the Russians threw around in 2016. Some of it might have been accepted by any number of elected official’s election campaigns, including House members. This isn’t some wild theory about them working for the Russians. Only that they would cover their ass because he might find they were less than diligent about what money they took. Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation. I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed? We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections.
EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then?
What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before?
I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems).
|
On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 04:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Seems people are damn sure Trump and co did some significantly problematic/probs illegal stuff, but a lot less confident Trump doesn't just end up more wealthy, connected, and powerful as a result of whatever they think/know happened with Russia/investigation.
I'm genuinely curious if no one goes to jail for more than a year and it doesn't impact Trump's election chances or his net worth (negatively) is the conclusion from people on the left going to be that the system worked or failed?
We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics. If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response. That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems).
The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds.
The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged.
You have heard nothing about reform because everyone is waiting for the investigation to complete. I anticipate that the findings are going to shocking for a lot of congress members and the public. Because the amount of money Russia was able to dump into this elections that has been reported has been pretty staggering.
|
On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:01 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
We are in full crazy town with this speculation, to be clear. Removing the president from office is the most serious of things and goes well beyond standard politics.
If we assume is he removed from office, I think any attempt for him to retain power and influence with his “base” would be seen as a threat to our democracy by undermining peoples trust in the process. I would expect congress to try to clamp down on any further efforts to back him. And if the wealthy conservative groups and their little media empire tried to undermine congress for removing him, I would expect a pretty harsh response.
That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood]) Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome. Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged.
So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking
All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon.
You have heard nothing about reform because everyone is waiting for the investigation to complete. I anticipate that the findings are going to shocking for a lot of congress members and the public. Because the amount of money Russia was able to dump into this elections that has been reported has been pretty staggering.
There is no way that it will be shocking, anything that even has a hint of a smell of significance will be known before the official finding is announced (part of the strategic problem of constantly headlining every leaker's fart).
I don't follow the minutia of this stuff but is the amount of money reportedly dumped into the election actually significant? Last I saw they didn't even spend .1% in grand total as Trump and Hillary spent on Facebook and Twitter alone (not counting her significant Baghdad following or the CTR troll army).
|
On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's part of why I didn't even mention a potential for impeachment (I'd take a month ban bet he doesn't [particularly with dood])
Even speculating on his election chances is sketchy because he should lose to a generic Dem by 5+ points, so losing in 2020 wouldn't necessarily have anything to with the investigations outcome.
Basically I'm wondering what the bare minimum "bad outcome" for Trump and co would be for the people constantly posting about Russia/the investigation to think the system worked as intended? But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon.
I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money.
|
There's an update on the Bombardier vs Boeing tariffs:
WASHINGTON/MONTREAL (Reuters) - Bombardier Inc shares jumped 15 percent on Friday after the Canadian plane maker won an unexpected trade victory against Boeing Co which means it can sell its newest jets to U.S. customers without heavy tariffs.
The decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission is the latest twist in U.S.-Canadian trade relations that have been complicated by disputes over tariffs on Canadian lumber and U.S. milk and U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire to renegotiate or even abandon NAFTA.
Trump has not weighed in on the dispute personally, but he has often railed against what he sees as unfair international trade practices such as state subsidies hurting U.S. businesses.
The commission voted 4-0 on Friday that Bombardier’s prices did not harm Boeing and discarded a U.S. Commerce Department recommendation to slap a near 300-percent duty on sales of Bombardier’s 110-to-130-seat CSeries jets for five years. Boeing’s shares fell slightly.
“It’s reassuring to see that facts and evidence matter,” said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “This part of the trade policy process works unimpeded despite President Trump’s protectionist rhetoric.”
In a statement, Bombardier called the decision a “victory for innovation, competition, and the rule of law,” and a win for U.S. airlines and the traveling public.
Boeing said it was disappointed that the commission did not recognize “the harm that Boeing has suffered from the billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies that the Department of Commerce found Bombardier received and used to dump aircraft in the U.S. small single-aisle airplane market.”
Delta said it was pleased with the decision and looked forward to introducing Bombardier’s CS100 to its fleet.
Former ITC chairman Dan Pearson praised the decision. “Not a single commissioner was willing to buy Boeing’s arguments,” he said. “I think ‘America First’ is a policy of the White House and the Commerce Department. But it’s not the policy of an independent agency (like the ITC).”
The decision may end up helping Trump’s plan to boost U.S. jobs as the CSeries jets for U.S. airlines will be built in Alabama rather than Canada.
[...]
www.reuters.com
|
On January 27 2018 06:46 Toadesstern wrote:There's an update on the Bombardier vs Boeing tariffs: Show nested quote +WASHINGTON/MONTREAL (Reuters) - Bombardier Inc shares jumped 15 percent on Friday after the Canadian plane maker won an unexpected trade victory against Boeing Co which means it can sell its newest jets to U.S. customers without heavy tariffs.
The decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission is the latest twist in U.S.-Canadian trade relations that have been complicated by disputes over tariffs on Canadian lumber and U.S. milk and U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire to renegotiate or even abandon NAFTA.
Trump has not weighed in on the dispute personally, but he has often railed against what he sees as unfair international trade practices such as state subsidies hurting U.S. businesses.
The commission voted 4-0 on Friday that Bombardier’s prices did not harm Boeing and discarded a U.S. Commerce Department recommendation to slap a near 300-percent duty on sales of Bombardier’s 110-to-130-seat CSeries jets for five years. Boeing’s shares fell slightly.
“It’s reassuring to see that facts and evidence matter,” said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “This part of the trade policy process works unimpeded despite President Trump’s protectionist rhetoric.”
In a statement, Bombardier called the decision a “victory for innovation, competition, and the rule of law,” and a win for U.S. airlines and the traveling public.
Boeing said it was disappointed that the commission did not recognize “the harm that Boeing has suffered from the billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies that the Department of Commerce found Bombardier received and used to dump aircraft in the U.S. small single-aisle airplane market.”
Delta said it was pleased with the decision and looked forward to introducing Bombardier’s CS100 to its fleet.
Former ITC chairman Dan Pearson praised the decision. “Not a single commissioner was willing to buy Boeing’s arguments,” he said. “I think ‘America First’ is a policy of the White House and the Commerce Department. But it’s not the policy of an independent agency (like the ITC).”
The decision may end up helping Trump’s plan to boost U.S. jobs as the CSeries jets for U.S. airlines will be built in Alabama rather than Canada.
[...]
www.reuters.com
I'm torn. I'm team Boeing in some ways, but not in others. A big victory for Trudeau though. Pretty humiliating for Trump.
|
On January 27 2018 06:46 Toadesstern wrote:There's an update on the Bombardier vs Boeing tariffs: Show nested quote +WASHINGTON/MONTREAL (Reuters) - Bombardier Inc shares jumped 15 percent on Friday after the Canadian plane maker won an unexpected trade victory against Boeing Co which means it can sell its newest jets to U.S. customers without heavy tariffs.
The decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission is the latest twist in U.S.-Canadian trade relations that have been complicated by disputes over tariffs on Canadian lumber and U.S. milk and U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire to renegotiate or even abandon NAFTA.
Trump has not weighed in on the dispute personally, but he has often railed against what he sees as unfair international trade practices such as state subsidies hurting U.S. businesses.
The commission voted 4-0 on Friday that Bombardier’s prices did not harm Boeing and discarded a U.S. Commerce Department recommendation to slap a near 300-percent duty on sales of Bombardier’s 110-to-130-seat CSeries jets for five years. Boeing’s shares fell slightly.
“It’s reassuring to see that facts and evidence matter,” said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. “This part of the trade policy process works unimpeded despite President Trump’s protectionist rhetoric.”
In a statement, Bombardier called the decision a “victory for innovation, competition, and the rule of law,” and a win for U.S. airlines and the traveling public.
Boeing said it was disappointed that the commission did not recognize “the harm that Boeing has suffered from the billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies that the Department of Commerce found Bombardier received and used to dump aircraft in the U.S. small single-aisle airplane market.”
Delta said it was pleased with the decision and looked forward to introducing Bombardier’s CS100 to its fleet.
Former ITC chairman Dan Pearson praised the decision. “Not a single commissioner was willing to buy Boeing’s arguments,” he said. “I think ‘America First’ is a policy of the White House and the Commerce Department. But it’s not the policy of an independent agency (like the ITC).”
The decision may end up helping Trump’s plan to boost U.S. jobs as the CSeries jets for U.S. airlines will be built in Alabama rather than Canada.
[...]
www.reuters.com
I feel like Bombardier might've lost out in the overall picture, having half the CSeries taken over by Airbus for not much gain, but this is pretty damn good news regardless for them.
Get wrecked Boeing
|
Wonder if this will impact the NAFTA discussions.
|
On January 27 2018 06:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2018 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:30 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 06:12 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:54 Logo wrote:On January 27 2018 05:48 Plansix wrote:On January 27 2018 05:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2018 05:32 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
But after losing an election, you would be surprised how quickly people fade from political influence. I also think Trump will have a hard time existing in the US after his term, both legally and as an average person. Is that your idea of the system working then? Presuming he has a "hard time" being in the US after leaving office? It is hard to speculate with so many factors. 2018 house elections will be a big deal. If Mueller submits a referral for obstruction charges to the House will matter at lot. But if it was 2020 today, with this congress. No, I do not believe the system is working or would work even if Trump committed real crimes. The people in the House are spineless and they are the branch that holds the president accountable for things. In general it feels like there's not really a proportional response (if everything shakes out in the worst way) available in some ways? Like the money Trump has grifted, the policies he's put into place, the people below him that would take over. There's not really recourse for that short of jail time which Trump could probably trivially avoid by resigning. Not that it'd be easy to just say, "ok all this gets undone" or anything, but it's just... interesting... how much it seems like our system would just drop the offending people and keep moving on like nothing was wrong. Personally I see this ending with Trump's own version of "extremely careless." and him making a gig out of how the media jobbed him in 2020 costing him the election (if Democrats can avoid screwing up so badly again), or maybe Democrats run Kamala or Corey and lose again. Congress. I don’t think Mueller would try to charge trump(the alternative to a referral to the House). Of course, this all assume that the case exists. It may not. I don’t’ have access to all of Mueller’s information, so my belief that the case is solid is based on flawed data. Would you agree if Mueller doesn't even recommend charges, that following all the minutia of every leak and such was a colossal waste of time and attention that could have been directed elsewhere while Mueller worked? *screwed up an edit No. Because he is investigating more than just Trump. I think the Russian attempts to influence the election are the strongest case for campaign finance reform we have seen in 20 years. It is clear that citizens united opened up the floodgates for other countries to completely screw with our elections. EDIT: But that's a yes on the Trump stuff then? What allegations are directly related to citizens united that couldn't have been done before? I've heard virtually nothing tying campaign finance reform and anything Russia so I have a hard time thinking that's the big takeaway or that what Russia did or didn't do is even in the top 5 problems with campaign finance (so likely any solution wouldn't touch the biggest problems). The legal argument around citizens united is that groups like unions and PAC could not influence an election because money wasn’t speech and it wasn’t fair to the general public. The more conservative supreme court ruled that the laws preventing that were wrong and it was speech and could not be prohibited on those grounds. The new grounds would be that unlimited money makes elections terrible and is a threat to democracy because the government cannot regulate that endless arms race of money. Congress could pass a new law with the intent to limit the influence of other nations through funneling money through PACs. New laws could use that argument as a reason to limit the amount of money flowing into elections when those laws are challenged. So there's nothing that is only possible because of citizens united? I don't know how something that is almost wholly unrelated could be strongest case to reform it. That sounds like quite a stretch in general, between congress passing a law effectively limiting the money it can use for campaigns, or that disclosures before or after will significantly prevent anything Russia did, it sounds like hopelessly wishful thinking All this is also predicated on the idea that there's an FEC willing to enforce it, I don't think we have one of those or will be getting one any time soon. I never said it was a wild spread theory. I said it was my opinion, which is what you asked for. I think there will be laws to limit the influence of other countries on our elections, both through regulation and the FEC. To do that, they will need to dig into the money following into elections, which will naturally tamp down on the amount of money.
I wasn't trying to emphasize it's popularity but it's tangential (at best) and unimpressive relation to correcting Citizens United and the extreme unlikeliness that will happen. Which means I am challenging the underpinning notion that all this attention was worth it (as this was your justification for the obsessive following of every whisper from a leaker)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
