|
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 April 05 2018 04:55 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 04:50 On_Slaught wrote:
It's official. Trump asking the National Guards to the border. Dunno on numbers yet, but no doubt California and maybe New Mexico will tell him fuck no.
Previous times the guard just helped the BP a little here and there at massive cost to the taxpayer. Curious to see what orders they get this time and how expensive it will be. I don't doubt you, but source? Edit: nvm, found one myself  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-calls-military-secure-us-mexico-border-context/
That source title... Trump's call to militarize border comes as illegal crossings last year were lowest since 1971... It's fitting that the one thing he actually had a huge plan and solution for is something that's hardly a serious issue.
|
On April 05 2018 03:33 KwarK wrote:
I’m baffled that after a year and a half Trump still doesn’t know what a trade deficit is.
One more term in office and he’ll get the hang of it. I’m sure.
|
On April 05 2018 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
can the president mobilize the national guard unilaterally? i thought it was only allowed in response to a governor requesting it, or declaring a state of emergency.
Outtake from the link I just..linked:
In 2010, President Obama sent 1,200 National Guard members to help battle drug smuggling and illegal immigration, and in 2006 President Bush sent 6,000 Guard members to assist the border patrol. In both deployments, soldiers had no authority to detain immigrants because federal law prohibits using active duty troops to conduct law enforcement activities in the United States, unless authorized by Congress.
So it appears they can, they're just not very useful doing so as they can't actually enforce the law there.
|
On April 05 2018 04:50 On_Slaught wrote:
It's official. Trump asking the National Guards to the border. Dunno on numbers yet, but no doubt California and maybe New Mexico will tell him fuck no.
Previous times the guard just helped the BP a little here and there at massive cost to the taxpayer. Curious to see what orders they get this time and how expensive it will be.
I would probably trade a kidney for hi-res images/video of US guardsmen from middleofnowhere, Kenarkanbama with bags full of cash from signing bonuses fleeing into Mexico over a wall coming out of this.
On a more serious note, this is obviously an expansion of operation Jade Helm + Show Spoiler +<^/s lol I couldn't help myself
But really, at this point we're more likely to see a military coup than politicians do their jobs.
|
On April 05 2018 04:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
can the president mobilize the national guard unilaterally? i thought it was only allowed in response to a governor requesting it, or declaring a state of emergency.
The gang declares martial law
I won't be surprised when Trump just keeps asking what is necessary to be given the authority to command the national guard or military to do what he wants.
|
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On April 05 2018 01:45 Plansix wrote:On the topic of privacy and with Facebook taking another trip to congress next week, I found this article to be fascinating. It concerns the French lawyer who took on Google to have false information about him removed from it's search and won. But it also shows how we in the US are under the boot of our benevolent overlord, Google. Source Show nested quote +...Google declined to say how many requests the company receives or honors from Americans seeking to remove a search result.
One New York man tried. But to no avail.
He asked not to be named for fear of further damaging his reputation, having lost his career after his name was cited in a news story about a Wall Street investment firm that was misleading investors. He has since asked for and received letters from both the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission confirming his innocence and he has shared them with Google. But despite these affirmations, which he showed NPR, Google would not remove the article from search results. It has been eight years and he still can't get a job. He and his wife want children, but his entire life is on hold.
He mailed a letter to the home of Google CEO Sundar Pichai pleading his case: "Please put yourself in my shoes, and ask how would you feel if your career and entire life's work and savings all were destroyed ... would you not morally and legitimately expect Google to do the right thing ... ?"
Pichai did not respond. One of the Google chief's lawyers, Lee-Anne Mulholland, did write to the New York man in an email: "[W]hile we are very sympathetic to your story, we are unable to remove [the] article."
Google declined to comment further on the case.
"Google is not unable," says Shefet, who bristles at that notion. "They are unwilling. Why do they pretend it's about free speech? There's no principle involved." This is one of numerous stories about US citizens being unable to escape the influence of Googles search engine, while google continues to try to dominate the market. Like Facebook, Google will not take any action to protect citizens until it cuts into their profits. Their use of words like "community" and "partners" when describing their users are simply a cover for what we really are to them, products to be boxed up together for different buyers. They are just trying to run out the clock before the regulation hammer falls.
Funny that, I remember a couple of years ago a man in the UK had the exact same situation and brought a case to court and Google removed all references to him related to the misinformation. I beleive the same would occur throughout most of Europe. That was two years ago, a long time in the tech world. The problem isn't Google "exactly", it's the US government.
|
On April 05 2018 04:58 Plansix wrote:
Except the hotdog vendor is not dealing with a good that can be instantly and endlessly reproduce at zero cost. The reproduction of information is essential free and numerous services preform that test without the consent of the publisher, like RSS feeds and blogs, as cited above. Google is the disseminator of the false information and continues to knowingly do so. They have the power to stop it, do so in other counties. But they refuse to do it here because they know it will open the door for further liability and responsibilities. That would cut into their profits and they will hold onto that until they are forced to give it up.
Those "other countries" wrote Right to be Forgotten laws to address the problem. Not to mention having much stronger libel and defamation laws to begin with.
Unfortunately the US will never touch anything to do with free speech or freedom of the press, because the constitution is sacrosanct.
|
On April 05 2018 04:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 03:33 KwarK wrote:
I’m baffled that after a year and a half Trump still doesn’t know what a trade deficit is. In Trump's dictionary, a trade deficit is when your fourth wife is uglier than your third wife. In all seriousness, I'm not at all baffled that he doesn't understand basic economics. During his campaign, he even said that he wanted the United States to simply default on the national debt. He thinks that he can just treat the country like it's a failing business, because that's the environment he's experienced in.
I'm not 100% against the 'run the country like a business' crowd; but if they want a President who can do that... shouldn't they have picked a businessman whose business model didn't include multiple bankruptcies where he got others to pay for it?
There's nobody to bail out the US if it goes bankrupt. The 'best' scenario is everyone else goes bankrupt too.
|
On April 05 2018 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 04:50 On_Slaught wrote:
It's official. Trump asking the National Guards to the border. Dunno on numbers yet, but no doubt California and maybe New Mexico will tell him fuck no.
Previous times the guard just helped the BP a little here and there at massive cost to the taxpayer. Curious to see what orders they get this time and how expensive it will be. Ehm, unless I'm reading it wrong its not 'official'. Trump said he is considering it and discussing options. Not that the actual call has gone out for the NG to do so. Normally this wouldn't differ much but with Trump its a big gap. He can still turn in any direction.
Its official that he is signing a proclomation, to be specific. DHS getting it ready. They made clear it is going to his desk.
|
On April 05 2018 05:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 01:45 Plansix wrote:On the topic of privacy and with Facebook taking another trip to congress next week, I found this article to be fascinating. It concerns the French lawyer who took on Google to have false information about him removed from it's search and won. But it also shows how we in the US are under the boot of our benevolent overlord, Google. Source ...Google declined to say how many requests the company receives or honors from Americans seeking to remove a search result.
One New York man tried. But to no avail.
He asked not to be named for fear of further damaging his reputation, having lost his career after his name was cited in a news story about a Wall Street investment firm that was misleading investors. He has since asked for and received letters from both the FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission confirming his innocence and he has shared them with Google. But despite these affirmations, which he showed NPR, Google would not remove the article from search results. It has been eight years and he still can't get a job. He and his wife want children, but his entire life is on hold.
He mailed a letter to the home of Google CEO Sundar Pichai pleading his case: "Please put yourself in my shoes, and ask how would you feel if your career and entire life's work and savings all were destroyed ... would you not morally and legitimately expect Google to do the right thing ... ?"
Pichai did not respond. One of the Google chief's lawyers, Lee-Anne Mulholland, did write to the New York man in an email: "[W]hile we are very sympathetic to your story, we are unable to remove [the] article."
Google declined to comment further on the case.
"Google is not unable," says Shefet, who bristles at that notion. "They are unwilling. Why do they pretend it's about free speech? There's no principle involved." This is one of numerous stories about US citizens being unable to escape the influence of Googles search engine, while google continues to try to dominate the market. Like Facebook, Google will not take any action to protect citizens until it cuts into their profits. Their use of words like "community" and "partners" when describing their users are simply a cover for what we really are to them, products to be boxed up together for different buyers. They are just trying to run out the clock before the regulation hammer falls. Funny that, I remember a couple of years ago a man in the UK had the exact same situation and brought a case to court and Google removed all references to him related to the misinformation. I beleive the same would occur throughout most of Europe. That was two years ago, a long time in the tech world. The problem isn't Google "exactly", it's the US government.
It is 100% our government’s problem to deal with. The problem will be that Google, Facebook, reddit and twitter will fight tooth and nail to prevent any regulation or change in the liability exposure. Google is very happy with the status quo, because they get to make a ton of money and don’t have a lot of responsibility to the public.
On April 05 2018 05:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 04:58 Plansix wrote:
Except the hotdog vendor is not dealing with a good that can be instantly and endlessly reproduce at zero cost. The reproduction of information is essential free and numerous services preform that test without the consent of the publisher, like RSS feeds and blogs, as cited above. Google is the disseminator of the false information and continues to knowingly do so. They have the power to stop it, do so in other counties. But they refuse to do it here because they know it will open the door for further liability and responsibilities. That would cut into their profits and they will hold onto that until they are forced to give it up. Those "other countries" wrote Right to be Forgotten laws to address the problem. Not to mention having much stronger libel and defamation laws to begin with. Unfortunately the US will never touch anything to do with free speech or freedom of the press, because the constitution is sacrosanct.
I am not sure, because the press doesn’t’ really enjoy any of the protections companies like google have. They can be directly sued for liable/slander, unlike google. When it comes to the right to be forgotten, the written and broadcast press would likely cheer on any change in liability protection for google just to level the playing field.
|
United Kingdom7084 Posts
The US can default on the national debt. Unfortunately China will be angry and will probably slap USA with what a real trade war will look like, and no one will finance US bonds again, unless there is another global financial crisis, which to be fair there would be another one. So it's a genius plan in some ways. Other the mass human suffering of another reccession. But a business that exists to make money doesn't care about that. Which a nation should not be. And that I don't think he has the power to default unilaterally.
|
On April 05 2018 05:06 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 03:33 KwarK wrote:
I’m baffled that after a year and a half Trump still doesn’t know what a trade deficit is. One more term in office and he’ll get the hang of it. I’m sure.
I see Trump as a one-term president. I'm guessing the guy will probably never really get the hang of the whole media pr relations game. When you're president you're supposed to steer the ship from behind the scenes as George H.W. Bush did. The guy spends too much time catering to his cronies that donated to his political campaign when he was running for president.
edit:
On April 05 2018 05:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The US can default on the national debt. Unfortunately China will be angry and will probably slap USA with what a real trade war will look like, and no one will finance US bonds again, unless there is another global financial crisis, which to be fair there would be another one. So it's a genius plan in some ways. Other the mass human suffering of another reccession. But a business that exists to make money doesn't care about that. Which a nation should not be. And that I don't think he has the power to default unilaterally.
The US isn't in any danger of that happening. I think you over-estimate China and under-estimate the US. The US still has the strongest economy in the world, as it has had since World War II. That being said, definitely there are still some trouble spots & things that could be better than they are right now, for sure. For example, I heard that U.S. Steel stocks went up on the news that Trump was putting a tariff on steel (makes sense). Well, that tariff may or may not happen, so now U.S. Steel stocks have been fluctuating based on what's happening in the news. That's not good. They certainly shouldn't be so responsive to what is going on in the world of the news. While getting trained in on a new skill at work, I heard about the whole U.S. Steel thing.
|
On April 05 2018 05:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 05:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 05 2018 04:58 Plansix wrote:
Except the hotdog vendor is not dealing with a good that can be instantly and endlessly reproduce at zero cost. The reproduction of information is essential free and numerous services preform that test without the consent of the publisher, like RSS feeds and blogs, as cited above. Google is the disseminator of the false information and continues to knowingly do so. They have the power to stop it, do so in other counties. But they refuse to do it here because they know it will open the door for further liability and responsibilities. That would cut into their profits and they will hold onto that until they are forced to give it up. Those "other countries" wrote Right to be Forgotten laws to address the problem. Not to mention having much stronger libel and defamation laws to begin with. Unfortunately the US will never touch anything to do with free speech or freedom of the press, because the constitution is sacrosanct. I am not sure, because the press doesn’t’ really enjoy any of the protections companies like google have. They can be directly sued for liable/slander, unlike google. When it comes to the right to be forgotten, the written and broadcast press would likely cheer on any change in liability protection for google just to level the playing field.
Google can't be sued for libel or slander in the UK (for instance) either, as they're still not the publisher. But the US allows for a lot more weaselly implications than the UK does. I'm pretty sure a guy like Alex Jones would not be able to operate with stricter libel laws.
And I doubt written press would enjoy RtbF laws. The entire point of those is to allow individuals or organizations to scrub information they find harmful from search results, and more often than not this means news articles. News orgs already have enough trouble monetizing internet traffic, it's going to be a whole other ballgame when their content can be scrubbed by non-court channels.
|
On April 05 2018 05:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The US can default on the national debt. Unfortunately China will be angry and will probably slap USA with what a real trade war will look like, and no one will finance US bonds again, unless there is another global financial crisis, which to be fair there would be another one. So it's a genius plan in some ways. Other the mass human suffering of another reccession. But a business that exists to make money doesn't care about that. Which a nation should not be. And that I don't think he has the power to default unilaterally.
If by "the US" you mean Trump, then I'm not sure he can. It would probably be judged an unreasonable seizure of property. If by "the US" you mean Congress with enough support to amend the constitution then ... well, anything is possible really.
|
The US cannot default on its debt. It is literally unconstitutional to do so, so that is not really a concern.
|
On April 05 2018 06:03 Adreme wrote:
The US cannot default on its debt. It is literally unconstitutional to do so, so that is not really a concern.
Violating the Constitution has never slowed anyone down in government. Especially when it comes to not paying a bill. We are more than capable of default on the debt. All we need to do is not raise the debt ceiling and we default.
|
On April 05 2018 06:03 Adreme wrote:
The US cannot default on its debt. It is literally unconstitutional to do so, so that is not really a concern.
Section Four of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that “[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Yeah this one is going to be hard to change, and certainly not something Trump would be capable of doing. It's not impossible for congress I guess, but I question whether they would even remotely entertain the idea.
|
On April 05 2018 06:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 06:03 Adreme wrote:
The US cannot default on its debt. It is literally unconstitutional to do so, so that is not really a concern. Violating the Constitution has never slowed anyone down in government. Especially when it comes to not paying a bill. We are more than capable of default on the debt. All we need to do is not raise the debt ceiling and we default.
Here is what happens. Those that do not get paid file a lawsuit, win said lawsuit and US pays anyway and debt ceiling concept is likely thrown out. The people who are owed will get paid, the US does not save any money, the only thing that happens is the reputation of the US goes down the drain.
|
On April 05 2018 06:14 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 06:06 Plansix wrote:On April 05 2018 06:03 Adreme wrote:
The US cannot default on its debt. It is literally unconstitutional to do so, so that is not really a concern. Violating the Constitution has never slowed anyone down in government. Especially when it comes to not paying a bill. We are more than capable of default on the debt. All we need to do is not raise the debt ceiling and we default. Here is what happens. Those that do not get paid file a lawsuit, win said lawsuit and US pays anyway and debt ceiling concept is likely thrown out. The people who are owed will get paid, the US does not save any money, the only thing that happens is the reputation of the US goes down the drain.
You are right that everyone will get paid on a long enough timeline. After the economy implodes because we get downgraded to junk status and the faith in government bonds disappears. Everyone will get paid by the end of the Great Depression 2.0.
I also think you are over estimating the power of the courts to compel other parts of the federal government to do things. Especially at a moment when the backbone of our economy would be breaking.
|
when we almost had a liquidity crunch during the subprime collapse, the us gov was able to step in; who know how bad it would have been if they hadn't. the crunch if all us government debt became garbage-grade is completely unexplored territory.
it wouldn't be an instant collapse and i bet that there would be enough of the market 'pretending' things were normal or that they would go back to normal for awhile, but unclear if we could actually get back to normal before panic sets in despite that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
