Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 178: Last Topic Wasn't Fair to Flair [POLITICS]

(+) Yeah! (+)

And it may be that the EU is a good deal for the richer countries in Northern and Western Europe. The institutions of the Union appear to be fairly responsive to what those countries want.
---

red sox 777 posted...

And it may be that the EU is a good deal for the richer countries in Northern and Western Europe. The institutions of the Union appear to be fairly responsive to what those countries want.

You can say the same thing about large/swing states in the US.
---

charmander6000 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And it may be that the EU is a good deal for the richer countries in Northern and Western Europe. The institutions of the Union appear to be fairly responsive to what those countries want.

You can say the same thing about large/swing states in the US.

Yes, I was thinking about this and why I don't feel bothered by the same situation in the US. I think it's because the states in the US that currently effectively have no representation in the federal government (California, New York, etc) also generally have other levers of power. They have money, they run the media, they make all the movies, they're home to the headquarters of most of the big businesses, etc. They have no political power because of how badly they lost the 2016 election (losing each of the branches of government by a small margin), but they retain almost all the levers of soft power. And since most of the 1% live in these states, they will not be utterly abandoned by Republicans either.

I guess that's the explanation, but my guess is, if I were a German citizen, I could probably come up with a similar defense of the EU.
---

Also, I respect the people in power in the EU. They appear to be tough negotiators who know what they want and wield a big stick (the biggest economy in the world). I wouldn't want to send someone like Hillary Clinton to negotiate against them. That would be a recipe for disaster. David Cameron walked into those negotiations with a weak position (I don't want Brexit but my voters might so please give me something), and all he managed was to get himself to resign.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Fun fact about the jobs report: it's illegal market manipulation for Trump to talk about it before it's released!

The problem is that the sole check on the President's power is impeachment, and not even Democrats are talking about that right now.
---

metroid composite posted...

red sox 777 posted...

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

But we don't want their goods. We want people to buy American to bring back the jobs.

damn why don't we just ban all imports then

That's what Thomas Jefferson did. But come on now, you can't expect the 1% to go without their Dom Perignon and Rolexes and Porsches. We don't want to ban things, just make them expensive.

And expensive goods are good, because then the American factory workers making them will earn more money. Will it cost some white collar folks a bit? Of course. But you know, you should have thought about that before losing the election.

I mean...as a videogame developer, banning all imports could torpedo our industry.

Guess where all the console are made? In China. Block all trade from China, and suddenly PS4 goes from $400 to $1000. That would probably kill the US market; like we might actually start focusing on Europe as our primary market.

And videogames are not the only industry that would suffer without imports. A lot of the currently active car factories in the US are foreign companies (Hyundai, Nissan, Toyota, Honda). What happens to these if we impose a ban on foreign goods? A lot of companies also mix and match manufacturing; Ford has plants in the US, but also plants in Mexico (Mexico makes a lot of the parts, Ford imports them to create finished cars).

No one has suggested a complete embargo other than as a hypothetical (and I immediately opposed it). The gaming industry is not one where we have a big trade deficit and I haven't heard people proposing tariffs targeting gaming.

And yeah, cars will be more expensive if the tariffs go in. I'll have to pay more for my next car a few years down the line. That's fine by me if we can help out manufacturing jobs in the US. If it isn't fine by Democrats, well, too bad, elections have consequences.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Fun fact about the jobs report: it's illegal market manipulation for Trump to talk about it before it's released!

The problem is that the sole check on the President's power is impeachment, and not even Democrats are talking about that right now.

Is the president even subject to the STOCK Act?
---

red sox 777 posted...

Also, I respect the people in power in the EU. They appear to be tough negotiators who know what they want and wield a big stick (the biggest economy in the world). I wouldn't want to send someone like Hillary Clinton to negotiate against them. That would be a recipe for disaster.

red sox 777 posted...

And yeah, cars will be more expensive if the tariffs go in. I'll have to pay more for my next car a few years down the line. That's fine by me if we can help out manufacturing jobs in the US. If it isn't fine by Democrats, well, too bad, elections have consequences.

Ok so wheres the benefit of not-Hillary Clinton,
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Also, I respect the people in power in the EU. They appear to be tough negotiators who know what they want and wield a big stick (the biggest economy in the world). I wouldn't want to send someone like Hillary Clinton to negotiate against them. That would be a recipe for disaster.

red sox 777 posted...

And yeah, cars will be more expensive if the tariffs go in. I'll have to pay more for my next car a few years down the line. That's fine by me if we can help out manufacturing jobs in the US. If it isn't fine by Democrats, well, too bad, elections have consequences.

Ok so wheres the benefit of not-Hillary Clinton,

The manufacturing jobs in the US that will pay higher wages. Also, our current trade deals were largely not negotiated by Hillary Clinton. She was only secretary of state for 4 years. By all appearances, Reagan, Bush 41, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were, at a minimum, competent negotiators. Hillary might have been a disaster on the order of Bush 43 if her campaign was an indication of her skills at reading people.
---

Actually, let me correct that. Obama wasn't a competent negotiator in his first term. Probably he was simply naive and inexperienced, qualities which he later corrected, although one could also argue that it was because he was being advised by Hillary.
---

Aren't the tariffs on materials rather than finished goods? Wouldn't that raise the costs for manufacturers in the states, costing jobs more than producing them?

Not to mention the retaliatory tariffs >_>
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Aren't the tariffs on materials rather than finished goods? Wouldn't that raise the costs for manufacturers in the states, costing jobs more than producing them?

Not to mention the retaliatory tariffs >_>

It would help US steel mills. And yes, it would raise costs for auto companies, hence the need for tariffs on finished German cars.
---

red sox 777 posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

Aren't the tariffs on materials rather than finished goods? Wouldn't that raise the costs for manufacturers in the states, costing jobs more than producing them?

Not to mention the retaliatory tariffs >_>

It would help US steel mills. And yes, it would raise costs for auto companies, hence the need for tariffs on finished German cars.

According to Google, there are approximately 150,000 people employed by Steel Mills and foundries combined.

Close to a million people work in the Auto Industry.

Great priorities!
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

JeffreyRaze posted...

Aren't the tariffs on materials rather than finished goods? Wouldn't that raise the costs for manufacturers in the states, costing jobs more than producing them?

Not to mention the retaliatory tariffs >_>

It would help US steel mills. And yes, it would raise costs for auto companies, hence the need for tariffs on finished German cars.

According to Google, there are approximately 150,000 people employed by Steel Mills and foundries combined.

Close to a million people work in the Auto Industry.

Great priorities!

Trump is already working on the auto tariffs. And 150k is much lower than it used to be. US Steel was once the most valuable company in the country. Part of the goal is to bring the jobs back.
---

red sox 777 posted...

US Steel was once the most valuable company in the country. Part of the goal is to bring the jobs back.

Literally after World War II?

You are not making a convincing case.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

US Steel was once the most valuable company in the country. Part of the goal is to bring the jobs back.

Literally after World War II?

You are not making a convincing case.

Before World War II. Around 1900 I think.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Well, look at what happened in Greece. They held democratic elections, the voters elected a government for change, and the EU crushed them.

well yeah. in the last european election i voted for a super anti-EU dutch party - it got like 12 votes. that doesn't mean the EU is "antidemocractic" - that's like saying the US is a dictatorship because the federal government overrules states' rights most of the time or something. it's more like most europeans want a big, powerful EU and the EU says "you got it" (exceptions like the brexit aside, obviously).
---

red sox 777 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

US Steel was once the most valuable company in the country. Part of the goal is to bring the jobs back.

Literally after World War II?

You are not making a convincing case.

Before World War II. Around 1900 I think.

Oh, so before the Automobile was being mass produced.

Much more convincing, thank you.
---

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-kim-jong-un-meeting-north-korea-letter-white-house-summit-a8379796.html

Just after President Donald Trump received a letter delivered by a top aide to the leader of North Korea to the White House, the commander-in-chief said that the letter was very nice then admitted he had not actually read it.

This was a meeting where a letter was given to me by Kim Jong-un, and that letter was a very nice letter oh would you like to see what was in that letter, Mr Trump said.

Reporters gamely asked what was actually in the letter, while Mr Trump egged them on, saying How much? How much?

Trump reportedly swaps steak for fish as part of weight loss diet
But, later, Mr Trump admitted that he could not actually tell the reporters what was in it.

I havent seen it yet, Mr Trump said.

L
M
A
O
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Well, look at what happened in Greece. They held democratic elections, the voters elected a government for change, and the EU crushed them.

well yeah. in the last european election i voted for a super anti-EU dutch party - it got like 12 votes. that doesn't mean the EU is "antidemocractic" - that's like saying the US is a dictatorship because the federal government overrules states' rights most of the time or something. it's more like most europeans want a big, powerful EU and the EU says "you got it" (exceptions like the brexit aside, obviously).

Well, Greece didn't vote that way though. They voted in an anti-EU government and were basically threatened with penury unless they capitulated, which they ended up doing. Britain could do Brexit because they aren't in a position where the EU has the power to cripple their economy, but most of the poorer countries in the EU do not have that luxury.
---

fair point, that is rather antidemocratic.
---

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/politics/trump-north-korea-letter/index.html
---

Sarah Huckabee Sanders regarding Samantha Bee:

Her disgusting comments and show are not fit for broadcast, and executives at Time Warner and TBS must demonstrate that such explicit profanity about female members of this administration will not be condoned on its network.

Thats getting ATOMICALLY CLOSE to the line between merely stating the White Houses opinion, and an actual call for censorship by the White House.
---

(Also I forget, is Ivanka officially part of the administration?

Man, Trump has really gotten off scott-free on his nepotism)
---

That's not censorship. The president isn't taking any action to force the networks to self-censor, just telling them he wants them to.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Sarah Huckabee Sanders regarding Samantha Bee:

Her disgusting comments and show are not fit for broadcast, and executives at Time Warner and TBS must demonstrate that such explicit profanity about female members of this administration will not be condoned on its network.

Thats getting ATOMICALLY CLOSE to the line between merely stating the White Houses opinion, and an actual call for censorship by the White House.

Link please?
---

red sox 777 posted...

That's not censorship. The president isn't taking any action to force the networks to self-censor, just telling them he wants them to.

Thats why I said it was close to the line and not over it.

Must is a very strong verb
---

Just like the time he was "just asking" the head of the fbi to drop the case on his national security advisor. He wasn't really obstructing justice.

-_-
---

Censorship is what ABC did with Roseanne. If Nancy Pelosi advised ABC to cancel Roseanne, that would not be censorship. If Paul Ryan said that the NYT better stop criticizing Ivanka, or Congress will pass a new 90% tax on media earnings, that would be censorship.
---

HaRRicH posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Sarah Huckabee Sanders regarding Samantha Bee:

Her disgusting comments and show are not fit for broadcast, and executives at Time Warner and TBS must demonstrate that such explicit profanity about female members of this administration will not be condoned on its network.

Thats getting ATOMICALLY CLOSE to the line between merely stating the White Houses opinion, and an actual call for censorship by the White House.

Link please?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/politics/samantha-bee-ivanka-trump/index.html

Its a direct quote in here.

And fuck, must isnt the verb there. LOL English degree
---

To be honest, I kind of agree with Nixon's position with regard to obstruction of justice. The Constitution entrusts the enforcement of federal law to the president, alone. All authority of the attorney general, any federal prosecutor, etc. is derivative of the president's and cannot exist without him. Hence, the president cannot obstruct justice. It's like how the Queen legally cannot be prosecuted.
---

Whats the check/balance on that then? Besides waiting for the next election
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Whats the check/balance on that then? Besides waiting for the next election

Impeachment.
---

Impeachment on what charge, if he cant obstruct justice?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Impeachment on what charge, if he cant obstruct justice?

If there isn't an underlying charge, that's another reason he can't be obstructing justice. They have to prove some real offense to the satisfaction of Congress.
---

But if hes just doing something that we would normally perceive as obstructing justice, he cant be impeached then because he logically cant do that. Am I understanding your argument correctly?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

But if hes just doing something that we would normally perceive as obstructing justice, he cant be impeached then because he logically cant do that. Am I understanding your argument correctly?

Right.

Although it's not clear there has to be any illegal action for Congess to impeach. They may be able to charge the president with the sky being blue and remove him from office for that. The Tenure of Office Act of 1867 was passed with the specific objective of creating a charge to impeach the president. He ignored the law as expected, was impeached, and acquitted by one vote. Later, the Supreme Court said the Tenure of Office Act was probably unconstitutional, but that wouldn't have invalidated the impeachment. So, probably, Congress can impeach for reasons that are not crimes at all (an unconstitutional statute is void).
---

Also, sadly perhaps, logic doesn't always win in these situations. Both Charles II and Louis XIV were convicted of treason despite being king. Logically, it should be impossible for the king to commit treason.
---

Okay, so if there is in fact no Constitutional check/balance on it, thats a huge flaw in the document
---

Basically what redsox is arguing is that America is way shittier than any of us ever thought.
---

Maybe it would be better to have intermediate remedies between doing nothing and removal from office. I'm having a hard time thinking of any though.

The people should be entitled to their choice of president, even if he has committed crimes. You can't punish him like a normal person without taking away the people's choice of president.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Maybe it would be better to have intermediate remedies between doing nothing and removal from office. I'm having a hard time thinking of any though.

The people should be entitled to their choice of president, even if he has committed crimes. You can't punish him like a normal person without taking away the people's choice of president.

Again, the people did not choose Donald Trump. The states chose Donald Trump. The people got fucked over.
---

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Maybe it would be better to have intermediate remedies between doing nothing and removal from office. I'm having a hard time thinking of any though.

The people should be entitled to their choice of president, even if he has committed crimes. You can't punish him like a normal person without taking away the people's choice of president.

Again, the people did not choose Donald Trump. The states chose Donald Trump. The people got fucked over.

The states then. It is the United States of America, after all. The states are entitled to their choice of president, notwithstanding any crimes he may have committed.
---

Also, if obstruction of justice means to stop laws from being enforced, then Obama committed obstruction of justice on a massive scale with DACA. It is an express directive not to prosecute millions of people for being in the country illegally. But I think I agree with Obama and Nixon that this is a valid exercise of the president's discretion to enforce the laws according to his priorities. It is up to the people to select a president whose priorities matches their own.

I think the fact that the Constitution also gives the president power to issue blanket pardons supports this interpretation. The president can end any federal prosecution by simply issuing a pardon, why wouldn't he be able to achieve the same effect by ordering his underlings to stop work?
---

red sox 777 posted...

I think the fact that the Constitution also gives the president power to issue blanket pardons supports this interpretation

A pardon issues forgiveness, it does not absolve you of your crimes. You are guilty but forgiven.

Leafeon13N posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I think the fact that the Constitution also gives the president power to issue blanket pardons supports this interpretation

A pardon issues forgiveness, it does not absolve you of your crimes. You are guilty but forgiven.

Forgiveness = absolution. In any case, I think the precedent is that prosecution stops immediately upon the issuance of a preemptive pardon.
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/353322885688987650?s=20

A tweet for everything...stay offended over Samantha Bee though.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The states then. It is the United States of America, after all. The states are entitled to their choice of president, notwithstanding any crimes he may have committed.

What? What's the mechanism by which states vote for president? How would that even work?
---

Kenri posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The states then. It is the United States of America, after all. The states are entitled to their choice of president, notwithstanding any crimes he may have committed.

What? What's the mechanism by which states vote for president? How would that even work?

It's whatever the state legislatures decide. Almost all of them just give all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in the state. In the past, South Carolina didn't hold a presidential election and the legislature simply appointed the electors.
---

And the really interesting thing for people curious about the nuances of constitutional law is that the Supreme Court, in the Bush v. Gore case, said that the federal constitution gave the state legislatures sole authority to choose electors. That's how they got around the Florida Supreme Court ruling in favor of Gore, based on the Florida Constitution. They said it didn't matter what Florida law said, it mattered what the Florida Legislature did, using their power granted under the federal constitution to elect the federal president.

Now, that was probably about as openly partisan a decision as the Supreme Court has ever made, but it's never been overturned, so it's still controlling law for now.
---