|
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 July 26 2018 08:50 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
You can't just 'buy more LNG' there is a pretty big infrastructure requirement for it. It´s not something you can decide on the fly. If we will be buying more LNG then it would have been decided a long time ago because you need actual harbors to put it in
Its probably in the negotiations to build said infrastructure. Building the infrastructure would imply a large demand for LNG to exit.
|
On July 26 2018 07:09 Toadesstern wrote:
hey, if this means we're going towards less tariffs and Trump is trying to sell it as a win for him I'm fine with that.
We (speaking from the other side of the atlantic pond) didn't criticize him for trying to get reciprocal trading relations, we criticized him for lying to his base about the state of the situation.
Take the automobile tariffs as an example since that's what inspired this particular meeting.
If this means we'll drop our automobile tariffs to 0% (or whatever else is lower than the current 10%) and the US does the same I'm totally fine with that.
What we didn't like about it was the notion that it's unfair because the US only has 3% tariffs on cars compared to our 10% while ignoring SUVs, trucks etc which are at 25% going into the US. That's a strategic decision the US made. One that prioritizes protection of their SUVs, trucks etc over their "normal" cars because SUVs sell in the US and people in Europe aren't buying US cars anyways.
So honestly speaking, if that's actually what's going to happen somewhere down the line I'm fine with that. It depends on Trump and his ability to make his followers believe that that aforementioned 25% tariff from the US side never was there to begin with and that he hence hasn't given anything in return to the EU. Wether or not people voting in the US are stupid enough to believe that is none of my business~
Do I ever understand that. When I was in France pretty much the only American car I saw was the Ford Focus. Maybe the rare Prius.
|
On July 26 2018 09:12 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2018 08:50 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
You can't just 'buy more LNG' there is a pretty big infrastructure requirement for it. It´s not something you can decide on the fly. If we will be buying more LNG then it would have been decided a long time ago because you need actual harbors to put it in Its probably in the negotiations to build said infrastructure. Building the infrastructure would imply a large demand for LNG to exit. The EU wants to reduce reliance on Russian gas so the demand exists.
|
Building a lot of LNG infrastructure is pretty short sighted. Solar keeps inching towards the golden dream, and once it does, everything else is gonna be kinda pointless except for special applications
Inorganic materials science has had some recent relatively big leaps, mostly due to advances in spectroscopy and electron microscopy. I think we can expect a major solar breakthrough within the next ~15 years.
My feeling when I was surrounded by a lot of solar research was that we are now at that point where we have 6 different things that each have a critical flaw. I see the current situation as being analogous to when we started making big progress on superconductors. We are going to hit a stride where one of the more elusive mechanisms becomes clearer and we'll take a few 10 year steps over the course of a couple years.
|
On July 26 2018 09:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2018 09:12 Sermokala wrote:On July 26 2018 08:50 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
You can't just 'buy more LNG' there is a pretty big infrastructure requirement for it. It´s not something you can decide on the fly. If we will be buying more LNG then it would have been decided a long time ago because you need actual harbors to put it in Its probably in the negotiations to build said infrastructure. Building the infrastructure would imply a large demand for LNG to exit. The EU wants to reduce reliance on Russian gas so the demand exists.
Tbf I don't think that's necessarily true.
Gas from the US isn't bought in the EU because the whole part of making it liquid and then shipping it across the ocean is really expensive.
Like people said you need infrastructure for that and while I do believe that Trump could get tariff reduction simply because it's something both sides want, I don't think the EU wants gas from the US.
That part I'll believe when I see it. And not just some pledge that might not come into place until he leaves the white house
|
After months of leaking documents, leaking unsigned articles of impeachment, and generally being gutless clowns, they have finally pulled the trigger. And now we see if Ryan lets this pile of trash onto the floor or tells mark to fuck off.
|
United States24579 Posts
How often do articles of impeachment get filed for executive branch personnel other than the president? I've only ever heard of it happening to presidents, and even then pretty rarely.
|
|
|
United States24579 Posts
I did a bit of looking online and found only one example of a non-president member of the executive branch being successfully impeached: William W. Belknap, US Secretary of War. I don't think it's as easy to research how many people were targeted by an impeachment where it failed to get enough votes.
edit: this article I am reading came to the same conclusion
|
On July 26 2018 10:26 micronesia wrote:
I did a bit of looking online and found only one example of a non-president member of the executive branch being successfully impeached: William W. Belknap, US Secretary of War. I don't think it's as easy to research how many people were targeted by an impeachment where it failed to get enough votes.
another major complicating factor in researching such would be that most administrations would fire the person/force their resignation before it gets to thta point. or that the investigations take long enough that the person has left their office before it comes up, as in the teapot dome scandal.
|
Impossible to get this passed since it would require a bunch of Dem votes for it in the Senate and 0 will. I agree it's a test to see who the radicals are. I'd like to think not even the house Republicans would approve this by majority vote. But the cowardice is strong with that group, so who knows.
|
That and it is right before recess and everyone goes home for the midterms. So it sounds more like dick swinging to show some conservative support.
|
On July 26 2018 10:38 On_Slaught wrote:
Impossible to get this passed since it would require a bunch of Dem votes for it in the Senate and 0 will. I agree it's a test to see who the radicals are. I'd like to think not even the house Republicans would approve this by majority vote. But the cowardice is strong with that group, so who knows. I could see a bunch of Republicans going along with it to look good for their voters, knowing that it has no chance of passing the Senate.
Same way that it went with the ACA repeals.
|
On July 26 2018 17:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2018 10:38 On_Slaught wrote:
Impossible to get this passed since it would require a bunch of Dem votes for it in the Senate and 0 will. I agree it's a test to see who the radicals are. I'd like to think not even the house Republicans would approve this by majority vote. But the cowardice is strong with that group, so who knows. I could see a bunch of Republicans going along with it to look good for their voters, knowing that it has no chance of passing the Senate. Same way that it went with the ACA repeals.
Good point; could be election fodder for most. Bow down to dear leader and all that. Doesn't make it any less embarrassing or inappropriate tho.
|
So not only does it include top NRA members, but energy interests as well. Wonder if both sides thought they were going to get lucrative trade deals between Russia and the United States thus helped pump money into Trump campaign.
Senior members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) met the wife of the Russian billionaire who allegedly gave financial support to a woman accused of being a secret agent for Moscow in the US.
The NRA members met Svetlana Nikolaeva, who is the head of a gun company that supplies sniper rifles to the Russian military and intelligence services, during a trip to Moscow during the 2016 election campaign.
Nikolaeva’s husband, Konstantin Nikolaev, allegedly provided funding to Maria Butina, a young Russian woman charged with carrying out an illicit spying operation in Washington. Nikolaev reportedly once invested in his wife’s gun company.
The finding sheds further light on the links forged in recent years between America’s powerful gun lobby and well-connected Russians. US prosecutors allege Butina’s activities were directed by Alexander Torshin, a senior Russian state banker and an NRA member.
The NRA and Nikolaev’s companies did not respond to requests for comment.
No senior NRA official has made any public statement about Butina’s case since news of the charges was announced by the US justice department on 16 July.
Butina, 29, was arrested this month and charged with illegally operating as a foreign agent. She is accused of working to infiltrate the NRA as part of an attempt to influence the Republican party and establish secret backchannels with American politicians. She has pleaded not guilty and denies any wrongdoing.
Prosecutors said that her emails and online chats contained details of a Russian billionaire with “deep ties” to the Kremlin, who was described as Butina’s “funder”. He was not identified in the charging documents, but was said to have a personal fortune valued at $1.2bn by Forbes magazine.
During her testimony to the Senate intelligence committee in April, Butina said Nikolaev had given her financial support, the Washington Post reported. The Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that a representative for Nikolaev confirmed he gave money to Butina’s gun rights group between 2012 and 2014.
Forbes currently estimates the net worth of Nikolaev, a transportation magnate, as $1.2bn. Nikolaev has been involved in several business projects connected to allies of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president. His son, Andrey, volunteered for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, according to the Post.
Nikolaev’s wife, Svetlana, is an accomplished gun user who has competed in shooting competitions in the US and Israel. She is the president of Promtechnologies, the parent company of Orsis, and has played a prominent role in the firm’s expansion.
Last year, Orsis began supplying its acclaimed T-5000 sniper rifle to Russia’s armed forces and Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB. The company’s general director and chief gun designer, Vladimir Zlobin, is a former FSB official, according to his biography at a university operated by Russia’s ministry of foreign affairs.
Nikolaev has been named in several Russian media reports in recent years as an early investor in Orsis’s parent company. But the company insisted he was not currently an owner of the firm. “Mr Nikolaev is not connected with the company,” an unidentified spokesperson said in an email. Asked whether Nikolaev held a stake in the company in the past, the spokesperson said: “He is not involved with the company today.” Further questions were not answered.
In December 2015, an NRA delegation including Pete Brownell, then the NRA’s first vice-president, and David Keene, a past NRA president, visited Russia for an expedition partly funded by Right To Bear Arms, a Russian pro-gun group run by Butina with help from Torshin, her alleged government handler.
Source
|
Its difficult to frame this whole Russia-NRA thing as anything but influence peddling. Russia has some very strict gun laws and the NRA does not appear to be trying to get them overturned over there. Seems like a one way relationship.
|
Of course but the NRA is essentially the lobbying arm of the weapons industry and would probably be thinking they could open up a whole new market into Europe.
|
On July 26 2018 09:19 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2018 07:09 Toadesstern wrote:
hey, if this means we're going towards less tariffs and Trump is trying to sell it as a win for him I'm fine with that.
We (speaking from the other side of the atlantic pond) didn't criticize him for trying to get reciprocal trading relations, we criticized him for lying to his base about the state of the situation.
Take the automobile tariffs as an example since that's what inspired this particular meeting.
If this means we'll drop our automobile tariffs to 0% (or whatever else is lower than the current 10%) and the US does the same I'm totally fine with that.
What we didn't like about it was the notion that it's unfair because the US only has 3% tariffs on cars compared to our 10% while ignoring SUVs, trucks etc which are at 25% going into the US. That's a strategic decision the US made. One that prioritizes protection of their SUVs, trucks etc over their "normal" cars because SUVs sell in the US and people in Europe aren't buying US cars anyways.
So honestly speaking, if that's actually what's going to happen somewhere down the line I'm fine with that. It depends on Trump and his ability to make his followers believe that that aforementioned 25% tariff from the US side never was there to begin with and that he hence hasn't given anything in return to the EU. Wether or not people voting in the US are stupid enough to believe that is none of my business~ Do I ever understand that. When I was in France pretty much the only American car I saw was the Ford Focus. Maybe the rare Prius. Not related to anything but Ford is probably the most common car in the UK. Other than Ford though, there's practically no US cars, possibly because most American cars aren't made for the market. But honestly speaking, if a car manufacturer wants to avoid tarrifs, they can just build a manufacturing line on either continent.
|
Even then, it's very difficult for automotive producers to rely purely on domestic steel, which is oftentimes more expensive than its foreign counterpart, so avoiding the tariffs comes at a cost practically no matter what. GM cut its earnings forecast for precisely that reason yesterday.
|
Trump is going to end up slowly smothering the economy and hurting the very people who voted for him, while the rest of the world just cuts trade deals with anyone who isn’t the US.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
