|
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 November 28 2018 04:05 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a better link for the <2 hour confirmation stories. The 24 hour confirmation link will be even stronger tomorrow. And the 48 hour confirmation link will be DJT saying ~So what if Manafort contacted Assange? Podesta has neo-Nazi connections in Ukraine and Ukraine tried to help Hillary!~ https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/paul-manafort-julian-assange-meetings/index.htmlMy dichotomy is not false. You can only (1) play dumb for maybe 48 hours. This is just the start of the confirmation stories. just like every other Trump/Russia story, we are in a (2) situation that will be confirmed in just the same manner.
My favorite part about going through this process every time is that all the same people were scratching their chins wondering if Maybe Flynn was a good guy, continue scratching their chin every time something pops up. People like Glenn don't ever look back and think "wow, I was really skeptical of the last 13 major Russia stories that all ended up being true. Maybe that means this one will also be true?"
|
On November 28 2018 04:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 04:05 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a better link for the <2 hour confirmation stories. The 24 hour confirmation link will be even stronger tomorrow. And the 48 hour confirmation link will be DJT saying ~So what if Manafort contacted Assange? Podesta has neo-Nazi connections in Ukraine and Ukraine tried to help Hillary!~ https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/paul-manafort-julian-assange-meetings/index.htmlMy dichotomy is not false. You can only (1) play dumb for maybe 48 hours. This is just the start of the confirmation stories. just like every other Trump/Russia story, we are in a (2) situation that will be confirmed in just the same manner. My favorite part about going through this process every time is that all the same people were scratching their chins wondering if Maybe Flynn was a good guy, continue scratching their chin every time something pops up. People like Glenn don't ever look back and think "wow, I was really skeptical of the last 13 major Russia stories that all ended up being true. Maybe that means this one will also be true?"
Right? I have taken to framing the discussion in terms of predictable time blocks. I for sure have epistemological gaps in my reasoning. I get it. I can't prove or know everything. But from the available information I have, and the Bayesian inferences I can make from all the past stories and facts in the record ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_investigations_into_Trump_and_Russia_(2018) ), I can be a good 90% confident in next Trump/Russia/Manafort story being true. There is a chance there that the Ecuadorian intelligence service (Senain from the article) documents that the Guardian acquired are bogus. But with all the other available facts, it makes the odds of that document being bogus pretty low. The Guardian would have need to have been lied to, and lied to with knowledge and intent of the consequences of these lies.
|
On November 28 2018 04:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 04:05 Wulfey_LA wrote:Here is a better link for the <2 hour confirmation stories. The 24 hour confirmation link will be even stronger tomorrow. And the 48 hour confirmation link will be DJT saying ~So what if Manafort contacted Assange? Podesta has neo-Nazi connections in Ukraine and Ukraine tried to help Hillary!~ https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/politics/paul-manafort-julian-assange-meetings/index.htmlMy dichotomy is not false. You can only (1) play dumb for maybe 48 hours. This is just the start of the confirmation stories. just like every other Trump/Russia story, we are in a (2) situation that will be confirmed in just the same manner. My favorite part about going through this process every time is that all the same people were scratching their chins wondering if Maybe Flynn was a good guy, continue scratching their chin every time something pops up. People like Glenn don't ever look back and think "wow, I was really skeptical of the last 13 major Russia stories that all ended up being true. Maybe that means this one will also be true?" Because it has nothing to do with the truth. Its about trying to deny anything coming out of the Mueller investigation.
|
The documentary evidence certainly gives the story some legitimacy. Of course it only provides proof of the 2013 story. But I'm sure Manafort was only visiting Assange for innocent reasons.
|
On November 27 2018 05:53 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:
And Trump just said he doesn’t believe the EPAs report on climate change. That is it, he doesn’t believe it. No qualifications or dancing around it, he just doesn’t believe the science. It’s fake.
Edit: it wouldn’t be a UK thread is folks were don’t bemoaning how the UK isn’t as awesome as it used to be, while also feeling bad about all the colonialism. It is his own god damn EPA..... That makes him look horrible
It is somewhat disingenuous to describe it as such. The majority of people working within the EPA have nothing to do with Trump and were hired or appointed by other Presidents. Given that we have had multiple stories in the media about "Resistance" members within the government, it is not exactly correct to say this is "Trump's" EPA. This is similar to the claims about "Trump's own intelligence agencies" or "Trump's own DoJ" and other things. For better or worse, Trump has made no secret about being skeptical, to say the least, about the vast majority of the federal workforce and the anonymous leaks to the media have universally been clear that the feeling is mutual.
|
On November 28 2018 05:10 ReditusSum wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 05:53 IyMoon wrote:On November 27 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:
And Trump just said he doesn’t believe the EPAs report on climate change. That is it, he doesn’t believe it. No qualifications or dancing around it, he just doesn’t believe the science. It’s fake.
Edit: it wouldn’t be a UK thread is folks were don’t bemoaning how the UK isn’t as awesome as it used to be, while also feeling bad about all the colonialism. It is his own god damn EPA..... That makes him look horrible It is somewhat disingenuous to describe it as such. The majority of people working within the EPA have nothing to do with Trump and were hired or appointed by other Presidents. Given that we have had multiple stories in the media about "Resistance" members within the government, it is not exactly correct to say this is "Trump's" EPA. This is similar to the claims about "Trump's own intelligence agencies" or "Trump's own DoJ" and other things. For better or worse, Trump has made no secret about being skeptical, to say the least, about the vast majority of the federal workforce and the anonymous leaks to the media have universally been clear that the feeling is mutual.
Yeah, but its the EPA. They base their report on provable science that will be checked by the scientific community. Our president came out and said he didn't believe scientific testing done by the government he runs. Our president doesn't believe in science, which is a problem.
Also, goverment agencies like the EPA are supposed to be resistant to sweeping reversals to policy by any administration. That is how Congress designed them.
|
5930 Posts
On November 28 2018 05:10 ReditusSum wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2018 05:53 IyMoon wrote:On November 27 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:
And Trump just said he doesn’t believe the EPAs report on climate change. That is it, he doesn’t believe it. No qualifications or dancing around it, he just doesn’t believe the science. It’s fake.
Edit: it wouldn’t be a UK thread is folks were don’t bemoaning how the UK isn’t as awesome as it used to be, while also feeling bad about all the colonialism. It is his own god damn EPA..... That makes him look horrible It is somewhat disingenuous to describe it as such. The majority of people working within the EPA have nothing to do with Trump and were hired or appointed by other Presidents. Given that we have had multiple stories in the media about "Resistance" members within the government, it is not exactly correct to say this is "Trump's" EPA. This is similar to the claims about "Trump's own intelligence agencies" or "Trump's own DoJ" and other things. For better or worse, Trump has made no secret about being skeptical, to say the least, about the vast majority of the federal workforce and the anonymous leaks to the media have universally been clear that the feeling is mutual.
Most anonymous leaks are from the Trump Administration themselves trying to get ahead of stories.
That’s why the New York Times with their ex-Politico staff always underreport Whitehouse specific scandals and Vanity Fair never really implicate Ivanka and Jared.
You just need to read between the lines to tell where the leaks are probably coming from. This isn’t anything new either, that’s the whole basis of spin.
|
On November 28 2018 05:21 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 05:10 ReditusSum wrote:On November 27 2018 05:53 IyMoon wrote:On November 27 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:
And Trump just said he doesn’t believe the EPAs report on climate change. That is it, he doesn’t believe it. No qualifications or dancing around it, he just doesn’t believe the science. It’s fake.
Edit: it wouldn’t be a UK thread is folks were don’t bemoaning how the UK isn’t as awesome as it used to be, while also feeling bad about all the colonialism. It is his own god damn EPA..... That makes him look horrible It is somewhat disingenuous to describe it as such. The majority of people working within the EPA have nothing to do with Trump and were hired or appointed by other Presidents. Given that we have had multiple stories in the media about "Resistance" members within the government, it is not exactly correct to say this is "Trump's" EPA. This is similar to the claims about "Trump's own intelligence agencies" or "Trump's own DoJ" and other things. For better or worse, Trump has made no secret about being skeptical, to say the least, about the vast majority of the federal workforce and the anonymous leaks to the media have universally been clear that the feeling is mutual. Most anonymous leaks are from the Trump Administration themselves trying to get ahead of stories. That’s why the New York Times with their ex-Politico staff always underreport Whitehouse specific scandals and Vanity Fair never really implicate Ivanka and Jared. You just need to read between the lines to tell where the leaks are probably coming from. This isn’t anything new either, that’s the whole basis of spin.
The John Kelly and Don McGahn being resistance heroes puff pieces are pretty funny. I WUNDER WHO LEEKED THEES? McGahn saved the President from impeachable acts? I guess that makes up for covering for KAVANAUGH. DJT thinks Kelly should be making 5 million a year? Really?
|
On November 28 2018 05:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 05:10 ReditusSum wrote:On November 27 2018 05:53 IyMoon wrote:On November 27 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:
And Trump just said he doesn’t believe the EPAs report on climate change. That is it, he doesn’t believe it. No qualifications or dancing around it, he just doesn’t believe the science. It’s fake.
Edit: it wouldn’t be a UK thread is folks were don’t bemoaning how the UK isn’t as awesome as it used to be, while also feeling bad about all the colonialism. It is his own god damn EPA..... That makes him look horrible It is somewhat disingenuous to describe it as such. The majority of people working within the EPA have nothing to do with Trump and were hired or appointed by other Presidents. Given that we have had multiple stories in the media about "Resistance" members within the government, it is not exactly correct to say this is "Trump's" EPA. This is similar to the claims about "Trump's own intelligence agencies" or "Trump's own DoJ" and other things. For better or worse, Trump has made no secret about being skeptical, to say the least, about the vast majority of the federal workforce and the anonymous leaks to the media have universally been clear that the feeling is mutual. Yeah, but its the EPA. They base their report on provable science that will be checked by the scientific community. Our president came out and said he didn't believe scientific testing done by the government he runs. Our president doesn't believe in science, which is a problem. Also, goverment agencies like the EPA are supposed to be resistant to sweeping reversals to policy by any administration. That is how Congress designed them.
Well I'm not really going to comment on the EPA report specifically because I haven't read it and quite honestly don't have the time nor the inclination to give it the required attention to do it justice. However, I will say that as a matter of principle statements like "doesn't believe in science" don't make a lot of sense to me. Are you saying he doesn't agree with this specific scientific conclusion or that Trump rejects the entire philosophy of observational research? I could see both ways to be honest, given how absolutely politicized "science" has become, but I don't want to assume what you are specifically accusing Trump of believing. I feel it is slightly more likely that he rejects this particular conclusion (probably on political grounds) rather than rejecting observational research entirely, though Trump has a... special... personality, so he might implicitly reject the fundamental philosophy of modern scientific reasoning. I doubt he explicitly rejects it, or is aware of rejecting it, but I know some people who reject it without being aware of it, so I could see him being one of those people. Either way, I think his position can be justified on metaphysical and circumstantial grounds.
The second point you made is exactly my point. This is not "Trump's EPA" and to call it such is to misunderstand (or misrepresent) the way the government works. It is simply "the EPA." Trump's rejection of this report is no different, fundamentally, than his rejection of any report ever put out by the EPA. One can make the argument that he is President so now it is functionally worse, because instead of being some random billionaire on Twitter he is the Chief Executive of the United States, but then it is irrelevant whether or not it is "his" EPA.
It's kind of a minor issue, but I am becoming more sensitive to details in rhetoric these days and the effect they have on the thinking of people who read and digest them. The credibility of the EPA report is not increased or decreased by Trump being President.
On November 28 2018 05:21 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 05:10 ReditusSum wrote:On November 27 2018 05:53 IyMoon wrote:On November 27 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:
And Trump just said he doesn’t believe the EPAs report on climate change. That is it, he doesn’t believe it. No qualifications or dancing around it, he just doesn’t believe the science. It’s fake.
Edit: it wouldn’t be a UK thread is folks were don’t bemoaning how the UK isn’t as awesome as it used to be, while also feeling bad about all the colonialism. It is his own god damn EPA..... That makes him look horrible It is somewhat disingenuous to describe it as such. The majority of people working within the EPA have nothing to do with Trump and were hired or appointed by other Presidents. Given that we have had multiple stories in the media about "Resistance" members within the government, it is not exactly correct to say this is "Trump's" EPA. This is similar to the claims about "Trump's own intelligence agencies" or "Trump's own DoJ" and other things. For better or worse, Trump has made no secret about being skeptical, to say the least, about the vast majority of the federal workforce and the anonymous leaks to the media have universally been clear that the feeling is mutual. Most anonymous leaks are from the Trump Administration themselves trying to get ahead of stories. That’s why the New York Times with their ex-Politico staff always underreport Whitehouse specific scandals and Vanity Fair never really implicate Ivanka and Jared. You just need to read between the lines to tell where the leaks are probably coming from. This isn’t anything new either, that’s the whole basis of spin.
The point I'm making is that Trump has been rather ineffective at creating "his" administration and rather seems to have created "an administration" that nominally works for him, but effectively opposes much of his agenda, and that the alphabet soup agencies are that much less affected by his being President precisely because the vast majority of those who work within those agencies and thus decide the day-to-day agenda of the agency are out of his control.
I blame Trump for being an ineffective administrator, but by blaming him for that, I do excuse him from the responsibility of whatever said administration does. They are mutually exclusive.
|
On November 28 2018 04:05 Wulfey_LA wrote:
My dichotomy is not false. You can only (1) play dumb for maybe 48 hours. This is just the start of the confirmation stories. just like every other Trump/Russia story, we are in a (2) situation that will be confirmed in just the same manner.
It is false, you don't allow at all for someone to be inclined to believe or likely believe a story to be true, but hold reservations. It's possible to believe something is likely true, but take a skeptical stance about it.
On November 28 2018 04:09 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 03:59 Logo wrote:On November 28 2018 03:56 Plansix wrote:
Ecuadorian embassy has 10 receptionists? How many people do you think work there? And if one of them has a problem with radioactive tea, do you think the others would keep talking to the press?
Not to say that it is going to happen, but I would be concerned if I were even mildly close to all of this. This is not a game of rational actors. Concern isn't the bar here, there's obviously a base level concern anytime you are being critical of a powerful entity in this way (be is Saudi Arabia, Russia, or someone else). The bar was: Considering how many people related to all this have died, such as this guy: https://www.thedailybeast.com/russian-official-linked-to-natalia-veselnitskaya-the-trump-tower-lawyer-is-deadIt is just common sense to remain anonymous. Being anything other than anonymous when you are ratting out Russia is downright retarded. I still firmly believe that the assassinations in England were only done to show potential rats that they can't hide from Putin. England could be said to be the 2nd highest profile place to assassinate someone besides the US. People need to remember how many people connected to the dossier have died or gone into hiding. Which paints a picture of imminent death to this leaker which is just a ridiculous level to take it to and then that ridiculous level is being reinforced by barely comparable situations. What is ridiculous is that you think that information from one of the best newspapers in the world with one of the highest journalistic standards, does excellent investigative journalism, has unreliable journalism because of anonymous sources, which as is one of the foundations of investigative journalism, because you said so.
Where did I espouse any of these views you are attributing to me?
|
On November 28 2018 05:36 ReditusSum wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2018 05:17 Plansix wrote:On November 28 2018 05:10 ReditusSum wrote:On November 27 2018 05:53 IyMoon wrote:On November 27 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:
And Trump just said he doesn’t believe the EPAs report on climate change. That is it, he doesn’t believe it. No qualifications or dancing around it, he just doesn’t believe the science. It’s fake.
Edit: it wouldn’t be a UK thread is folks were don’t bemoaning how the UK isn’t as awesome as it used to be, while also feeling bad about all the colonialism. It is his own god damn EPA..... That makes him look horrible It is somewhat disingenuous to describe it as such. The majority of people working within the EPA have nothing to do with Trump and were hired or appointed by other Presidents. Given that we have had multiple stories in the media about "Resistance" members within the government, it is not exactly correct to say this is "Trump's" EPA. This is similar to the claims about "Trump's own intelligence agencies" or "Trump's own DoJ" and other things. For better or worse, Trump has made no secret about being skeptical, to say the least, about the vast majority of the federal workforce and the anonymous leaks to the media have universally been clear that the feeling is mutual. Yeah, but its the EPA. They base their report on provable science that will be checked by the scientific community. Our president came out and said he didn't believe scientific testing done by the government he runs. Our president doesn't believe in science, which is a problem. Also, goverment agencies like the EPA are supposed to be resistant to sweeping reversals to policy by any administration. That is how Congress designed them. Well I'm not really going to comment on the EPA report specifically because I haven't read it and quite honestly don't have the time nor the inclination to give it the required attention to do it justice. However, I will say that as a matter of principle statements like "doesn't believe in science" don't make a lot of sense to me. Are you saying he doesn't agree with this specific scientific conclusion or that Trump rejects the entire philosophy of observational research? I could see both ways to be honest, given how absolutely politicized "science" has become, but I don't want to assume what you are specifically accusing Trump of believing. I feel it is slightly more likely that he rejects this particular conclusion (probably on political grounds) rather than rejecting observational research entirely, though Trump has a... special... personality, so he might implicitly reject the fundamental philosophy of modern scientific reasoning. I doubt he explicitly rejects it, or is aware of rejecting it, but I know some people who reject it without being aware of it, so I could see him being one of those people. Either way, I think his position can be justified on metaphysical and circumstantial grounds. The second point you made is exactly my point. This is not "Trump's EPA" and to call it such is to misunderstand (or misrepresent) the way the government works. It is simply "the EPA." Trump's rejection of this report is no different, fundamentally, than his rejection of any report ever put out by the EPA. One can make the argument that he is President so now it is functionally worse, because instead of being some random billionaire on Twitter he is the Chief Executive of the United States, but then it is irrelevant whether or not it is "his" EPA. It's kind of a minor issue, but I am becoming more sensitive to details in rhetoric these days and the effect they have on the thinking of people who read and digest them. The credibility of the EPA report is not increased or decreased by Trump's being President.
I mean that our President is a person who does not believe in provable, evidence based science if it contradicts his world view. Full stop. Science is not unique, as Trump does not believe in anything that constricts his world views. Like when GM said that the tariffs would likely result in lost jobs in the US, which is exactly what happened.
As for the EPA. This is Trumps administration, including the EPA. This is the job he applied for, not the job that he. Not the presidency as he wishes it to be. It is Trump's EPA report, just like Obama’s DOJ Fast and Furious scandal. The government is not going to completely change the way it functions to meet the requirements of Trump’s ego and desired to take ownership. The buck stops with Trump, just like Truman.
The problem for Trump is that he was unwilling to earn the respect of the civil servants in the various agencies, which is a basic requirement for any President, Governor or Mayor. Trump didn’t try to earn their loyalty and openly attacks many of those agencies. So in reality resistance in the agencies have been caused by Trump’s leadership, or lack thereof. They are very much products of how he runs his administration.
|
Trump's ideology precludes any kind of "earn the respect of the civil servants" so it honestly comes down to a lose-lose for him. He either abandons his ideology, which means he doesn't win election and thus never becomes President, or he keeps his ideology and is at war with the government from the day he wins election. I think he is a poor administrator in the sense that for some reason he seemed to be under the impression that his opponents would be willing to meet him half-way but in reality there was never going to be any compromise. He had one chance to tear it all down from the very beginning, while he had a Congress that might be unwilling to impeach; but he missed that chance and now he's gonna have to live with never-ending administrative backstabbing for the rest of his Presidency, regardless of how many terms he serves.
As for whether liberals in large (not accusing you of anything) held the position that Obama owned the Fast&Furious scandal... well, I'll have to let that slide because I have no interest in digging up all the old opinion pieces that called it a "Bush operation".
|
Like when GM said that the tariffs would likely result in lost jobs in the US, which is exactly what happened.
We'll see about that. He might just run GM into the ground to get his ego stroked. Based on the last twitter tirade.
I wonder how our resident "only hitlers regulate the free market" react to that, it's kind of really not that "free markety" if the president of your country tells you to continue to lose money based on decisions he made. Which are easily fixable by reversing the tax imposed on the stuff that cars are made out of - or force, here's a guess, US steel/alu makers to reverse the price hike since the tariffs were imposed. Which of course is exactly what everyone oracled back when it was announced (i know i did).
But nah. Creating billions in added costs for manufacturing cars is just a tiny price to pay. Here's a fun fact: one of the reasons why factories in china don't get closed is not only because labour is cheaper (though it is) - it's also because steel and alu is at least 25% cheaper.
It doesn't take a genius to realise where the problem lies.
|
I do think it's a little disingenuous to say "Trump doesnt believe his own EPA", because that implies some kind of backtracking or self contradiction.
He's actually been uncharacteristically consistent here. He doesn't care about evidence unless it's convenient to him. Agencies like the EPA are almost never going to produce evidence convenient to him, so he would disband them tomorrow if he were allowed to.
"Trump rejects findings of scientists he wishes he could fire," would be a better headline.
|
On November 28 2018 06:25 ReditusSum wrote:
Trump's ideology precludes any kind of "earn the respect of the civil servants" so it honestly comes down to a lose-lose for him. He either abandons his ideology, which means he doesn't win election and thus never becomes President, or he keeps his ideology and is at war with the government from the day he wins election. I think he is a poor administrator in the sense that for some reason he seemed to be under the impression that his opponents would be willing to meet him half-way but in reality there was never going to be any compromise. He had one chance to tear it all down from the very beginning, while he had a Congress that might be unwilling to impeach; but he missed that chance and now he's gonna have to live with never-ending administrative backstabbing for the rest of his Presidency, regardless of how many terms he serves.
As for whether liberals in large (not accusing you of anything) held the position that Obama owned the Fast&Furious scandal... well, I'll have to let that slide because I have no interest in digging up all the old opinion pieces that called it a "Bush operation".
Trump’s ideology does make him bad at being president, because he does not understand government and that it is designed to fuck people over who try to destroy it from within. The only things he has managed to get were given to him by the Republican congress. Trump never had the ability to destroy all the government instructions that is he running poorly. Again, our government is resistant to that destructive form of governance, which is why Trump is so frustrated. He hates that he has to ask congress for things he wants and hates the filibuster. But that is the job, which he is bad at.
And Obama held the buck at the end. I’m sure Bush held some of the blame for when the project started, but it doesn’t matter. I don’t really give a shit about what liberals wrote back in the day. I might have made some misguided defense back then. I honestly don’t remember. But the buck stops at the oval office, so it was Obama’s problem.
|
|
|
United States41476 Posts
Trump has given everyone gaffe fatigue. You can’t react to the lies because there are too many. This is just the new normal now. We should still be upset about the White House using doctored videos to remove hostile journalists, there should be weeks of outrage over that, but there just isn’t time.
In unrelated news YouTube is hosting a bunch of ads paid for by The Federalist Society explaining why trying someone at both the Federal and State level for a crime is wrong, with a friendly Second Amendment example about a relatable white guy who got punished. That seems interesting because it’s that very rule that prevents Trump from pardoning all of the charges against his co conspirators. Seems like they’re laying the ground for a pardon and then a Supreme Court dismissal of a case against Manafort.
|
I'm pretty sure the ads are not admissible as evidence and I doubt the Supreme Court is going to be swayed by that that super dumb argument. Violating a whole bunch of laws at once is unfair and wrong, your honor. Its confusing when there are laws for each level of goverment and my client is really stupid. The Government must pick one crime for a single act and only charge someone with that crime.
Except with black people, they get all the charges at all levels.
|
5930 Posts
On November 28 2018 06:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote + Like when GM said that the tariffs would likely result in lost jobs in the US, which is exactly what happened.
We'll see about that. He might just run GM into the ground to get his ego stroked. Based on the last twitter tirade. I wonder how our resident "only hitlers regulate the free market" react to that, it's kind of really not that "free markety" if the president of your country tells you to continue to lose money based on decisions he made. Which are easily fixable by reversing the tax imposed on the stuff that cars are made out of - or force, here's a guess, US steel/alu makers to reverse the price hike since the tariffs were imposed. Which of course is exactly what everyone oracled back when it was announced (i know i did). But nah. Creating billions in added costs for manufacturing cars is just a tiny price to pay. Here's a fun fact: one of the reasons why factories in china don't get closed is not only because labour is cheaper (though it is) - it's also because steel and alu is at least 25% cheaper. It doesn't take a genius to realise where the problem lies.
Well it isn't completely due to tariffs. Its a stupid combo of tariffs and capacity issues:
The No. 1 U.S. automaker signaled the latest belt-tightening in late October when it offered buyouts to 50,000 salaried employees in North America, with the aim of reducing headcount by 18,000. It plans to trim executive ranks by 25 percent, the source said.
With U.S. car sales lagging, several car plants have fallen to just one shift, including its Hamtramck and Lordstown, assembly plant.
A rule of thumb for the automotive industry is that if a plant is running below 80 percent of production capacity, it is losing money. GM has several plants running well below that. Consultancy LMC estimates that Lordstown will operate at just 31 percent of production capacity in 2018.
GM was already in trouble, they were already scaling back on small car production to match market trends. The problem is that the tariffs just eliminated any room for them to adjust because its killed whatever margins they had on their remaining products. Which is the problem literally every manufacturing business in America is dealing with.
The thing with tariffs is that China is probably circumventing a lot of it like they've done for ages, whether it be some shifty supply chain maneuvering (they've done this for ages with NAFTA aluminium and steel to honey) or simply shifting production overseas (which they're already been doing well before the tariffs in what people sometimes call economic colonialism).
As a side note, I dunno how reports can accurately determine how much the tariffs are hurting China because most reports, like that recent Bloomberg one that claimed the USA isn't paying a high price compared to China in this tariff war, either don't show their working out when calculating elasticity or simply assume China is a good faith actor.
|
United States41476 Posts
On November 28 2018 07:28 Plansix wrote:
I'm pretty sure the ads are not admissible as evidence and I doubt the Supreme Court is going to be swayed by that that super dumb argument. Violating a whole bunch of laws at once is unfair and wrong, your honor. Its confusing when there are laws for each level of goverment and my client is really stupid. The Government must pick one crime for a single act and only charge someone with that crime.
Except with black people, they get all the charges at all levels.
The ads aren’t meant for SCOTUS, the fact that Trump is trying to pack SCOTUS with loyalists is for that. The ads are for dumb people on Facebook.
There is a clear connection between this being the pin holding Trump’s guilty cronies down and this being attacked by the Federalist Society in a 3 minute paid for YouTube ad. The sympathetic white gun owner from Alabama is no coincidence either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
