US Politics Mega-thread - Page 432

On July 10 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote:

But that is the whole point. What people see as excessive consumerism could just be people owning clothing for different tasks. If I find a pair of jeans I like on sale, I buy two because one will wear out.

Clothing is a weird issue to focus on because it is cheap because it is also easily ruined and designed to protect us from the elements. Rips, stains and other damage quickly make some clothing useless, so it should be cheap to replace.

I would rather have cheap clothing and reign in the stupid TV industry constantly trying to convince me I need to buy a new TV. Or the Iphone design to be obsolete due to battery life in 2-4 years of regular use. Seriously, we can’t replace the battery in the most popular phone in the world so the phone can look pretty. If that isn’t a shrine to consumerism, I don’t know what is.

Republican senators are at their breaking point with Donald Trump’s protectionist trade blitz.

Not a party meeting goes by these days at which multiple Republicans don’t vent that the president isn’t listening to them — and plot how to fight back.

“I’d like to kill ’em,” groused Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a close Trump ally, referring to the administration’s expanding list of tariffs.

The mounting frustration with the Republican president is a warning sign for the party amid what’s been a surprisingly favorable stretch. Trump appears, at least for now, to have weathered the internal GOP backlash against his family separation policy. He has a new Supreme Court vacancy to fill, and he ended last week celebrating the “economic miracle” he said his tax cuts created.

But Republican senators say they can’t get the president to comprehend that his tariffs offensive could upend all of that progress in short order. Commodity prices in the heartland are sagging, U.S. allies are retaliating with tariffs of their own — and GOP leaders are fretting that the booming economy is about to go into a pre-midterms nosedive.

“Individual senators have met with the president, including me. The Ag committee met with him, the Finance Committee met with him. And there’s nobody for this,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the Agriculture Committee chairman. Trump is “a protectionist who has his policy wrapped around the rear axle of a pickup. And it’s hard to get out.”

GOP senators say Trump has heard them out at White House meetings and in phone calls. But he has plowed ahead, anyway: First Trump imposed tariffs on washing machines and solar panels, then slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum imports for Mexico, Europe and Canada, and now is moving toward new levies on foreign cars. The tit-for-tat is accelerating: Tariffs against China take effect this week, and Canada announced retaliatory tariffs on Friday.

After a fruitless diplomacy campaign, some in the party are weighing confrontation. Most notably, Hatch is pushing legislation in his Finance Committee to rein in Trump. The effort seems to have more support from GOP leaders than legislation that would place new checks on Trump’s power to impose tariffs, which Roberts dubbed the “hand-grenade” option.

Hatch “is pretty fired up,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 3 GOP leader. And “there’s definitely a lot of sentiment among members of the Finance Committee that the administration’s tariff positions are going to step on ... the economic gains that we’ve made.”

Republican senators have privately circulated a list of five tweaks that could be made to the “232” law that governs national security tariffs, according to people familiar with the matter. A number of senators believe that Trump has abused that authority with the steel and aluminum tariffs, and they are discussing whether to change the definition of national security to restrict Trump’s actions.

But the action isn’t just in the finance panel, which could takes weeks, if not months, to write and pass a bill that balances the Republicans' support for Trump with their opposition to his trade policies. GOP Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania are now trying to attach their own tariff proposal — which would allow Congress to vote up or down on any tariff with a national security rationale — to almost anything that moves across the Senate floor.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) met privately with Corker and Toomey last week to discuss a strategy for how to get them a vote on their plan as part of the farm bill debate. But when Senate Republicans finally agreed to let them have their roll call on the Senate floor, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) blocked them in a surprising defense of a president from the opposing party.

But Corker and Toomey said they‘re going to keep at it. “We’re not going to abandon our efforts,” the Pennsylvanian vowed.

Corker and Toomey’s tactics annoyed a number of Republican senators who wanted to protect the farm bill from being tarnished with an amendment that might make Trump veto the entire bill. The duo tried to do the same on a defense bill earlier in June, leading Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to snap at the retiring Corker in a party lunch: “You don’t care about the Republican Party because you're leaving."

But those tensions haven’t abated. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has blocked confirmation of Republican judges, hoping to force a vote on the Corker-Toomey plan. Among those thwarted is Georgia Circuit Court nominee Britt Grant, who is on Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

At a party lunch late last month, the typically reserved Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) laced into Flake for blocking a judge from his home state, according to two people familiar with the encounter. He was backed up by McConnell, Isakson recalled.

On July 10 2018 02:48 Aveng3r wrote:
It seems to me that in a world where cooperation should be getting easier and easier, we are determined to move backward at every opportunity.

Can anyone explain how these tariffs could possibly be a good idea?

On July 10 2018 02:53 Plansix wrote:
My favorite part about the Republicans complaining about the tariffs is that they could possibly kill them if they just worked with the democrats. Or at least get a bill in front of Trump and force him to veto it. But that would involve passing a bill with Democratic votes.

On July 10 2018 02:48 Aveng3r wrote:
It seems to me that in a world where cooperation should be getting easier and easier, we are determined to move backward at every opportunity.

Can anyone explain how these tariffs could possibly be a good idea?

On July 10 2018 02:58 ticklishmusic wrote:


It triggers the libs?



Mitch would rather eat shit (or rather have his constituents eat shit) than work with Dems.

On July 10 2018 02:59 zlefin wrote:

in general, they aren't.
but also: good idea for whom?
some of them might be politically good for trump, even if they're terrible for the country.


re: dpm's point, despite some republicans trending left for their state, they're still supporting an awful lot of VERY bad things at the federal level. so is it still a net advantage? or is them just abusing the system better to gain votes while no tbeing there on the thinsg that really matter?

On July 10 2018 03:19 Aveng3r wrote:

Well if they're good for Trump but bad for the country, then he has failed as a representative of his constituents. So I am defining "good" as beneficial for his constituents.

On July 10 2018 02:48 Aveng3r wrote:
It seems to me that in a world where cooperation should be getting easier and easier, we are determined to move backward at every opportunity.

Can anyone explain how these tariffs could possibly be a good idea?

On July 10 2018 03:22 zlefin wrote:

his constituents meaning the whole country, or just the ones who voted for him?

not that it really matters though, either way the answer would be the same: the tariffs are a straight up bad idea. there's simply no reasonable argument that it's a good idea. there's probably some sort of unreasonable/false argument, but I'm not familiar with the details of it.

On July 10 2018 03:33 Aveng3r wrote:

You're splitting hairs. His constituents are the people of the US.

So I am seeing mostly responses that think they are a bad idea, would still like to hear from anyone who can defend the other side of the argument though

On July 10 2018 03:40 JimmiC wrote:


Environmentally clothing is a way bigger issue then TV's or cell phones,(though we should correct that as well) the amount of clothing that goes into landfills is huge not to mention the costs of making it and shipping it. People don't think about the environmental damage of the dyes and so on because now it happens elsewhere in the world.

It is odd that people who are liberals are OK with, child labour, super low wages, environmental atrocities,as long it is far enough away.

On July 10 2018 03:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Here's the thing about McConnell in a way he is a genius, he knows this country has the attention span of a 2 year old. He can be corrupt in pretty much everything knowing full well as soon as the new episode of whatever the fuck comes on, social media, and our news media will concentrating on something else entirely by the end of the week. Besides we are too lazy as a nation to actually go out and do something as we have no empathy for others just ourselves and immediate family.

And with opponents like the Democrats represented by the Corporate old guard there's anything he can get away with.