|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 07 2020 12:54 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2020 09:37 mikedebo wrote:On May 06 2020 06:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Devil's advocate: If the US is among the first to end up with an immune population, we will be well poised to basically do what we did in WW2 and be dominant through others being weak. When European and Asian countries prioritize drawing everything out, if the US is able to just get fully rolling again quickly, we could be huge manufacturers for what the world needs?
My understanding is that a big part of why Sweden is doing what they are doing is the fact that there will likely be multiple outbreaks. If the US is so negligent that we end up doing 3 outbreaks in 2, would that make us in a commanding position, ethics and human life be damned? I'm curious where people are getting this idea that we'll develop meaningful immunity to this when it really seems uncertain if that will be the case. It's pure assumption that people don't want to think too critically about because the prospect of there not being real immunity is terrifying. Granted, it's what happens with most infectious diseases like this, but there really isn't any explicit proof yet that "infection-and-done" immunity is how this virus works.
I think it's not about whether or not people will be immune (it's pretty save to assume there will be some kind of immunity) but rather how long. As far as I understand it could be anything from a couple of months to 20 years (or even life-long). Hence, herd immunity could prove helpful for a second wave, but it might as well not be... No one really knows right now, which makes the strategy a big gamble, even if we expect other countries to "catch up" in deaths (which I still think is a very optimistic assumption for the strategy).
|
The two most interesting data points I've seen personally on the topic of immunity are that:
1) Human antibodies seem to be targeting the "hooks" on the virus, which is a highly conserved part because it is basically the transmission vector. (Good sign.)
2) This thing has already batshit mutated (no pun intended) in the first wave of global infection. When I saw its phylogenetic tree about a month ago, I seem to remember seeing something like 120 variations mapped. (Spooky sign.)
And that's just the primitives of the situation.
I haven't bothered staying plugged in since then because it is overwhelming to keep up alongside everything else that's going on. If anyone else has relevant, recent data, that would be cool to see -- but I suppose that is more a topic for the coronavirus main thread.
|
Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn
Also, earlier today Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of Mueller grand jury information.
Isn't next week when the Supreme Court hears the cases for Trump's taxes and financial records?
What is this all a sign of?
|
On May 08 2020 03:56 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn
Also, earlier today Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of Mueller grand jury information.
Isn't next week when the Supreme Court hears the cases for Trump's taxes and financial records?
What is this all a sign of?
A known quantity of cronyism within the Trump administration, mostly.
|
Well, "BridgeGate" ends with the Supreme Court reversing convictions, with a verdict that : "The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing—deception, corruption, abuse of power. But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct."
So, corruption and abuse of power, but they are not crimes under the fraud law (kinda make sense in this case I feel). Immediately of course, Trump claims "total and complete exoneration with a 9-0 decision from the SC !!!"
Yep. Corruption and abuse of power, prosecuted under the wrong statute, is complete exoneration and clearly shows a cabal !
The defendants claimed that "the government’s case sought to criminalize “routine” political behavior and that what they were convicted of doing — the ethics of the matter aside — “is a case of bare-knuckle New Jersey politics, not graft.”
Yup, so retaliation against a political opponents using corruption and abusing your office is perfectly legal, just politics. God I hate Trump-world.
|
I like the decision for two reasons. First, it serves as a powerful signpost for what the legislation should look like once folks interested in undoing Trump damage take power and are looking at how to prevent such obvious cronyism. Second, a unanimous decision written by Kagan, a well-known horsetrader in partisan decision lobbying among the justices, likely indicates that conservatives will have a similarly bitter pill to swallow with an upcoming decision.
|
On May 08 2020 04:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2020 03:56 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn
Also, earlier today Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of Mueller grand jury information.
Isn't next week when the Supreme Court hears the cases for Trump's taxes and financial records?
What is this all a sign of? A known quantity of cronyism within the Trump administration, mostly.
The Flynn case is highly unusual, and by unusual I mean unprecedented. An incoming national security advisor was investigated for his communications with foreign governments, and the investigation was premised on surveillance transcripts of his phone conversations with those governments. The investigation was conducted under the authority of the Logan Act, a law passed in the 18th century that has never been successfully used to prosecute anyone and is widely viewed as unconstitutional. FBI personnel expressed a motive to engineer a perjury trap independent of the substance of the Logan Act.
Sure he pled guilty, but that's just a matter of strategic posturing within the machinery of the legal system. Hard to see how a nonpartisan view of this situation would conclude that it's okay.
|
On May 08 2020 06:50 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2020 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On May 08 2020 03:56 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn
Also, earlier today Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of Mueller grand jury information.
Isn't next week when the Supreme Court hears the cases for Trump's taxes and financial records?
What is this all a sign of? A known quantity of cronyism within the Trump administration, mostly. The Flynn case is highly unusual, and by unusual I mean unprecedented. An incoming national security advisor was investigated for his communications with foreign governments, and the investigation was premised on surveillance transcripts of his phone conversations with those governments. The investigation was conducted under the authority of the Logan Act, a law passed in the 18th century that has never been successfully used to prosecute anyone and is widely viewed as unconstitutional. FBI personnel expressed a motive to engineer a perjury trap independent of the substance of the Logan Act. Sure he pled guilty, but that's just a matter of strategic posturing within the machinery of the legal system. Hard to see how a nonpartisan view of this situation would conclude that it's okay.
The unprecedented part is the who not the what right? Because the FBI has been doing stuff like this (not specifically the logan act) its entire existence.
|
On May 06 2020 23:14 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2020 22:57 LegalLord wrote:
I'm not so sure that "this is good for China" is really accurate overall, even from a morbid/cynical perspective. They do get to put on a show of saving everyone else with tests and masks and such, but there's less buying of exports from China and that's likely here to stay.
Probably worse for the US than it is for China since the former has proven to be a show of incompetence in pandemic response, but not great for China either. They're buying a shit ton of real estate for next to nothing in Africa in exchange for medical equipment while the west is getting overwhelmed. We are going to wake up in 6months with every single airport/port/mine in Africa owned by the chinese government.
Do you think people & governments in Africa will put up with that?
Whats to stop African governments pulling a Zimbabwe and nationalising it all back to Govt hands? Especially during an economic crisis.Once one or two do it more could follow.
Besides, we've just seen Japan spend 2.2 billion to relocate it's factories either back to Japan or elsewhere in SE-Asia outside China.Trump is attempting to do similar things.Countries are trying to move supply chains outside of China.To pretend that China is not in trouble and is not overstretched is wrong.I think they're (Chinese government) in real trouble if the economic miracle falls apart - which looks pretty likely.
As for Flynn being proven innocent, well it just makes going back and reading this Washington Post piece titled "The ‘Michael Flynn is an innocent hero’ conspiracy theory suffers a major setback" from 18 months back all the more amusing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/17/michael-flynn-fbi-conspiracy-theories-suffer-major-setback/
|
On May 08 2020 20:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2020 23:14 Erasme wrote:On May 06 2020 22:57 LegalLord wrote:
I'm not so sure that "this is good for China" is really accurate overall, even from a morbid/cynical perspective. They do get to put on a show of saving everyone else with tests and masks and such, but there's less buying of exports from China and that's likely here to stay.
Probably worse for the US than it is for China since the former has proven to be a show of incompetence in pandemic response, but not great for China either. They're buying a shit ton of real estate for next to nothing in Africa in exchange for medical equipment while the west is getting overwhelmed. We are going to wake up in 6months with every single airport/port/mine in Africa owned by the chinese government. Do you think people & governments in Africa will put up with that? Whats to stop African governments pulling a Zimbabwe and nationalising it all back to Govt hands? Especially during an economic crisis.Once one or two do it more could follow. Besides, we've just seen Japan spend 2.2 billion to relocate it's factories either back to Japan or elsewhere in SE-Asia outside China.Trump is attempting to do similar things.Countries are trying to move supply chains outside of China.To pretend that China is not in trouble and is not overstretched is wrong.I think they're (Chinese government) in real trouble if the economic miracle falls apart - which looks pretty likely. As for Flynn being proven innocent, well it just makes going back and reading this Washington Post piece titled "The ‘Michael Flynn is an innocent hero’ conspiracy theory suffers a major setback" from 18 months back all the more amusing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/17/michael-flynn-fbi-conspiracy-theories-suffer-major-setback/ In your scenario what does America do if China were to decide to aggressively defend its new holdings from being forcefully nationalised?
Are you going to go in for another Vietnam?
|
It's worth noting that the DoJ dropping charges did not *prove* that Flynn was innocent, can't believe I have to point that out lol
|
On May 08 2020 20:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2020 23:14 Erasme wrote:On May 06 2020 22:57 LegalLord wrote:
I'm not so sure that "this is good for China" is really accurate overall, even from a morbid/cynical perspective. They do get to put on a show of saving everyone else with tests and masks and such, but there's less buying of exports from China and that's likely here to stay.
Probably worse for the US than it is for China since the former has proven to be a show of incompetence in pandemic response, but not great for China either. They're buying a shit ton of real estate for next to nothing in Africa in exchange for medical equipment while the west is getting overwhelmed. We are going to wake up in 6months with every single airport/port/mine in Africa owned by the chinese government. Do you think people & governments in Africa will put up with that? Whats to stop African governments pulling a Zimbabwe and nationalising it all back to Govt hands? Especially during an economic crisis.Once one or two do it more could follow. Besides, we've just seen Japan spend 2.2 billion to relocate it's factories either back to Japan or elsewhere in SE-Asia outside China.Trump is attempting to do similar things.Countries are trying to move supply chains outside of China.To pretend that China is not in trouble and is not overstretched is wrong.I think they're (Chinese government) in real trouble if the economic miracle falls apart - which looks pretty likely. As for Flynn being proven innocent, well it just makes going back and reading this Washington Post piece titled "The ‘Michael Flynn is an innocent hero’ conspiracy theory suffers a major setback" from 18 months back all the more amusing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/17/michael-flynn-fbi-conspiracy-theories-suffer-major-setback/
Maybe because they have seen what happened after Zimbabwe did that? I wouldnt worry about China. They hold massive (95%+ for some, a third on averafe) amounts of vital resources for high tech, like rare earths they can use that as leverage pretty easily if pressured.
|
|
|
On May 08 2020 20:51 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2020 20:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 06 2020 23:14 Erasme wrote:On May 06 2020 22:57 LegalLord wrote:
I'm not so sure that "this is good for China" is really accurate overall, even from a morbid/cynical perspective. They do get to put on a show of saving everyone else with tests and masks and such, but there's less buying of exports from China and that's likely here to stay.
Probably worse for the US than it is for China since the former has proven to be a show of incompetence in pandemic response, but not great for China either. They're buying a shit ton of real estate for next to nothing in Africa in exchange for medical equipment while the west is getting overwhelmed. We are going to wake up in 6months with every single airport/port/mine in Africa owned by the chinese government. Do you think people & governments in Africa will put up with that? Whats to stop African governments pulling a Zimbabwe and nationalising it all back to Govt hands? Especially during an economic crisis.Once one or two do it more could follow. Besides, we've just seen Japan spend 2.2 billion to relocate it's factories either back to Japan or elsewhere in SE-Asia outside China.Trump is attempting to do similar things.Countries are trying to move supply chains outside of China.To pretend that China is not in trouble and is not overstretched is wrong.I think they're (Chinese government) in real trouble if the economic miracle falls apart - which looks pretty likely. As for Flynn being proven innocent, well it just makes going back and reading this Washington Post piece titled "The ‘Michael Flynn is an innocent hero’ conspiracy theory suffers a major setback" from 18 months back all the more amusing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/17/michael-flynn-fbi-conspiracy-theories-suffer-major-setback/ Maybe because they have seen what happened after Zimbabwe did that? I wouldnt worry about China. They hold massive (95%+ for some, a third on averafe) amounts of vital resources for high tech, like rare earths they can use that as leverage pretty easily if pressured.
Especially when you take into account the need and the uses for phones in Africa in general
|
On May 08 2020 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2020 06:50 Doodsmack wrote:On May 08 2020 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On May 08 2020 03:56 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
Justice Dept. Drops Case Against Michael Flynn
Also, earlier today Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of Mueller grand jury information.
Isn't next week when the Supreme Court hears the cases for Trump's taxes and financial records?
What is this all a sign of? A known quantity of cronyism within the Trump administration, mostly. The Flynn case is highly unusual, and by unusual I mean unprecedented. An incoming national security advisor was investigated for his communications with foreign governments, and the investigation was premised on surveillance transcripts of his phone conversations with those governments. The investigation was conducted under the authority of the Logan Act, a law passed in the 18th century that has never been successfully used to prosecute anyone and is widely viewed as unconstitutional. FBI personnel expressed a motive to engineer a perjury trap independent of the substance of the Logan Act. Sure he pled guilty, but that's just a matter of strategic posturing within the machinery of the legal system. Hard to see how a nonpartisan view of this situation would conclude that it's okay. The unprecedented part is the who not the what right? Because the FBI has been doing stuff like this (not specifically the logan act) its entire existence.
Would not be surprised. The "who" being an incoming national security advisor. It does appear as if the FBI was operating according to its MO here.
I may have it wrong on the Logan Act point. I could have sworn that Sally Yates said it was a Logan Act investigation. According to the NYT though, the investigation was premised on "counterintelligence" and "national security" concerns, which makes it an even more amorphous investigation.
"As investigators discovered the conversations in early January through routine government wiretaps of Mr. Kislyak, and as they learned in subsequent days that he had lied to other White House officials about them, they began to conclude that they had reason to suspect that Mr. Flynn constituted a national security threat."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/us/politics/michael-flynn-case-dropped.html
Who even knows how they knew that Flynn had lied to White House officials. They went in with the intent to get him to lie, with the "lie" being an inconsistency between his statements to them and the phone call transcripts they had in hand. The transcripts weren't obtained on any sort of criminal suspicion.
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is this probably all came out after the fact, and in any case it's unrelated to the actual suspicion of Flynn that they had (national security threat because of Russian collusion or simply because he lied to WH officials about something). In the US we (ostensibly) take this procedure of criminal justice very seriously (when law enforcement initiates an investigation, they need predication, and if they lacked predication at the outset, their criminal case against the defendant is pretty much null and void, no matter what they find). This is the 4th Amendment (or at least the principle behind the 4th Amendment).
|
|
|
On May 09 2020 12:47 Doodsmack wrote:The thing is this probably all came out after the fact, and in any case it's unrelated to the actual suspicion of Flynn that they had (national security threat because of Russian collusion or simply because he lied to WH officials about something). In the US we (ostensibly) take this procedure of criminal justice very seriously (when law enforcement initiates an investigation, they need predication, and if they lacked predication at the outset, their criminal case against the defendant is pretty much null and void, no matter what they find). This is the 4th Amendment (or at least the principle behind the 4th Amendment).
The idea that law enforcement takes procedure very seriously when they initiate an investigation, or that they need predication is one that went out the window long ago for most people.
Just think about liberal haven NYC and stop and frisk, a systematic and habitual abuse of citizens 4th amendment rights dismissed by most of the same people disturbed by it happening to Flynn (that's not you afaik).
The story to me is that his social position was enough to avoid getting railroaded completely. That he's a scumbag and the FBI a criminal gang is a given imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
