The irony is that by that definition the oligarchs own this country, too. We have a larger middle class, yes, but every time a piece of legislation gets passed that skews the playing field in the favor of the large corporations you can be pretty sure that a corporate lobbyist wrote the bill then shopped it until someone sponsored it to committee.
Wal-Mart is what, 20%-25%? They were 21.7% of retail food sales last year.
I think I know which I'd say is more relevant to the decline of brick and mortar retail because of getting too big and in too many areas of commerce.
Well, Walmart is a brick and mortar retailer. Also, though their market share is high there seems to be no real effect on prices. Walmart is still incredibly affordable and pretty much the place to shop for low income Americans.
Apparently there is a new movement for Muslims to join the NRA, "Guns For Allah", I believe they are calling it. I don't believe this has anything to do with enforcing Sharia law.
Question for our Conservative friends, do you support these Americans practicing their God given rights? (Allah given?) According to the website, some 30,000 members have already signed up.
Link
This isn't a real thing as far as I know, someone in a different forum said that the way to get Conservatives to turn away from the NRA would be for Muslims to join en masse. Just wondering what people think.
I don't speak for all conservatives of course, but I couldn't care less if Muslims legally buy guns. I'm sure there are some Muslims in this country that own guns already and I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Wal-Mart is what, 20%-25%? They were 21.7% of retail food sales last year.
I think I know which I'd say is more relevant to the decline of brick and mortar retail because of getting too big and in too many areas of commerce.
Well, Walmart is a brick and mortar retailer. Also, though their market share is high there seems to be no real effect on prices. Walmart is still incredibly affordable and pretty much the place to shop for low income Americans.
All their merchandise is from China too and it's their ties to China through a 1996 joint venture agreement that has kept them above everyone else in the retail landscape.
Clinton had been the subject of heavy lobbying by American business interests and his economic advisers to continue China's trade privileges. With China now the world's fastest growing economy, the United States exports $8 billion a year there, which sustains up to 150,000 American jobs. Many major American businesses see even greater potential in Chinese markets, expecting China to become a massive purchaser over the next decade of the phones, electronic gadgets and thousands of other products made in America.
I personally don't mind that they sell Chinese goods. Affordable products is the main benefit of free trade, even if I don't approve of the Chinese government.
edit/add: Now the Mueller Investigation is *really* getting desperate--they are questioning Russian oligarchs (why they don't just say "business people", I don't know...I guess "oligarch" sounds more ominous), including searching their mobile devices, looking for any evidence of cash they may have sent to the Trump Campaign.
I highly doubt they have the authority to question foreign private citizens who are not even suspected of having given money to a campaign. My advice to Russian citizens being asked to cooperate--don't. The Mueller team cannot prevent you from entering the country for refusing to cooperate. If they are using--excuse me, *misusing*--the FBI to conduct these spot-searches then anything they find cannot be used.
I can't see why they couldn't simply question anyone they wanted to, but it seems clear to me that's not what they're doing anyway. Instead they're following the same process Mueller always uses of following links found from earlier investigations, i.e. the people questioned have not been chosen randomly.
I'm also not sure on what basis you're calling for people questioned not to cooperate. Do you think that even the relatively small amount of restrictions that exist on campaign finance in the US should be abolished?
Anyone care to guesstimate what the final bill will be on Mueller sneakin around? I see it varying up to 5-6 mil through last December alone, now we are another 4 mos. into it.
It just reminds me of the 90's, when Ken Starr ran through around 70 mil over 6 yrs for the Clinton Whitewater thing, and what happened, nothing really, other than Clinton messin round in the White House. There has got to be better things that money could be spent on, if all we are gonna get is a few lies, cashin in $3 bills (in effect ), and less influencing of the public by Russia than all the big money donors and lobbyists in the US combined, even on a non election year.
I mean it feels like we better see dopplegangers strewn all about the White House and beyond or something, certainly more than Clinton forgetting to lock the door anyway. Just asking the question.
Now the Mueller Investigation is *really* getting desperate--they are questioning Russian oligarchs (why they don't just say "business people", I don't know...I guess "oligarch" sounds more ominous), including searching their mobile devices, looking for any evidence of cash they may have sent to the Trump Campaign.
They say "oligarchs" because "business people" doesn't really describe this specific kind of billionaires with ridiculously close ties to the government (not to mention to organized crime). Trump sure seems interested in this kind of system, but even USA has a long way to go before it reaches the insane levels of post-soviet Russia on this.
I'm also not sure on what basis you're calling for people questioned not to cooperate. Do you think that even the relatively small amount of restrictions that exist on campaign finance in the US should be abolished?
I am already on record stating that there should be *more* restrictions on campaign financing, especially contributions. There should *never* be "dark money" which cannot be traced--the only avenue for campaign contributions should be from individuals and *every* contribution should be recorded and made available for public viewing.
What I oppose is the Mueller Investigation waiting at the airport to pounce on these rich Russians and ask them "so, how much money did you donate to Trump's campaign?". That is called "fishing".
What I oppose is the Mueller Investigation waiting at the airport to pounce on these rich Russians and ask them "so, how much money did you donate to Trump's campaign?". That is called "fishing".
If they were simply pouncing on rich Russians I would agree with you, but the story you posted doesn't suggest that is what is happening (at least to me). It suggests for instance that Mueller may be aware of individuals who have made investments in companies and think tanks, which have in turn made political donations. I've no idea of the scale of finance involved there, but if the amounts are significant it would seem to me to be entirely legitimate thing to question whether the investments were genuinely commercial or simply disguised donations.
The idea that all of a sudden the right is going to be concerned about fishing expeditions only works if you erase the entire decade of the 90s. What started out as an investigation of a land deal the Clinton's lost money on ended up focused on a Oval Office blowjob. Moreover, I believe when Clinton was interviewed by Starr's investigators, it was televised. The only thing I have to say about Mueller mission creep is, frankly, tough shit. This standard has more than been set. At least Trump has the benefit of a impartial lead investigator. Ken Starr was a rabid right-wing partisan.
I don't care what "the right" is concerned about; my concerns are different than theirs.
Just like with the Ken Starr investigation (which was only supposed to be about land deals) the Mueller investigation is suffering from both mission creep and fishing. Both wound up trying to find anything, no matter how tenuous or tangential, and try to link it to the sitting President. What is going to wind up happening is that *every* President will begin a new administration with the opposition party calling for a special investigation--the day after Inauguration Day will become Investigation Day. Just watch--as soon as Trump is out (I still maintain that he will lose in 2020) the Republicans will call for a special investigator to look into whoever gets elected, basing their desire for an investigation on some flimsy excuse.
I don't care what "the right" is concerned about; my concerns are different than theirs.
Just like with the Ken Starr investigation (which was only supposed to be about land deals) the Mueller investigation is suffering from both mission creep and fishing. Both wound up trying to find anything, no matter how tenuous or tangential, and try to link it to the sitting President. What is going to wind up happening is that *every* President will begin a new administration with the opposition party calling for a special investigation--the day after Inauguration Day will become Investigation Day. Just watch--as soon as Trump is out (I still maintain that he will lose in 2020) the Republicans will call for a special investigator to look into whoever gets elected, basing their desire for an investigation on some flimsy excuse.
Republicans have already been doing this for an entire year about someone who isn't even in office. Mueller didn't exist when Trump took office. Trump created it when he fired his FBI Director and then pulled a "you're damn right I ordered the Code Red" by telling Lester Holt he fired him because of Flynn and the Russia investigation. Anyone can still go watch it. Democrats had nothing to do with appointing Mueller. Trump's own brazen incompetence did that. The probe exists because of how Trump fired Comey and because Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself from the matter because he lied to Congress about his contacts with Russians during the campaign.
This reminds me a little of the fall of the Republic in Ancient Rome. One of the reasons that Caesar wished to become consul was to gain immunity from the inevitable prosecutions as soon as he laid down his governership of Gaul. Law is a weapon and a tool and when elites start fighting over how to employ it it can break, showering splinters everywhere.
The idea that all of a sudden the right is going to be concerned about fishing expeditions only works if you erase the entire decade of the 90s.
Does every concern someone has need to be met with whataboutism?
It's a little tiresome when someone tries to make a point and is then placed in a position where they are asked to speak for everyone on their half of an imaginary political border. And not just currently; you are asking Mathsorceror to speak for Republicans in the Nineties.
The idea that all of a sudden the right is going to be concerned about fishing expeditions only works if you erase the entire decade of the 90s.
Does every concern someone has need to be met with whataboutism?
It's a little tiresome when someone tries to make a point and is then placed in a position where they are asked to speak for everyone on their half of an imaginary political border. And not just currently; you are asking Mathsorceror to speak for Republicans in the Nineties.
I wasn't even referring to @Mathsorcerer, simply the arguments we are hearing on the political right, or I would have quoted his post. But, more importantly, we are talking about a standard for investigations of this kind that was already set when it was a Democrat being investigated. These are the rules of the game as presented to us by the Republican Congress of the 90s and Ken Starr. Mission creep was the name of the game for half a decade. What's absurd is to think the rules should change now.
I don’t think Mueller’s investigation is at a mission creep state. It is still focusing on finances relating to Trump during the time he declared his bid for the presidency.
If it stays in that realm he’s still doing his job. If he starts interviewing pornstars with no international ties, then I’d say we’ve entered mission creep.
I personally would rather have the full answer that dispels all doubts than half answers which gets filled with conspiracy theories.
Apparently there is a new movement for Muslims to join the NRA, "Guns For Allah", I believe they are calling it. I don't believe this has anything to do with enforcing Sharia law.
Question for our Conservative friends, do you support these Americans practicing their God given rights? (Allah given?) According to the website, some 30,000 members have already signed up.
Link
This isn't a real thing as far as I know, someone in a different forum said that the way to get Conservatives to turn away from the NRA would be for Muslims to join en masse. Just wondering what people think.
I don't speak for all conservatives of course, but I couldn't care less if Muslims legally buy guns. I'm sure there are some Muslims in this country that own guns already and I'm not losing any sleep over it.
I don't see why you'd even respond to that highly aspirational gotcha question.
I personally would rather have the full answer that dispels all doubts than half answers which gets filled with conspiracy theories.
So would we all; unfortunately, we are now in the age where conspiracy theories never die. They may go quiet for a while, but every few months they will flare up again on some fringe website which then spills out into the general Internet for all to see. There are still new videos being made about how jet fuel cannot melt steel beams and that was almost 17 years ago now.
What we already publicly know about Russians, hacking, collusion and obstruction more than justifies the Mueller probe. Whose worried about five million dollars? That's the cost of one of the weekly golf trips Trump takes to his resorts.
If anything we've seen Mueller going easy on Trump guys. Colluding with foreign powers, undermining national security, attempting to make backdoor business deals for yourself over the country, being a lobbyist for a foreign nation while nominally looking out for American interests.
Why is Mueller going easy? Mueller is a Republican right, maybe that's why. Clinton didn't have a Democrat investigating him he had a rapid partisan right wingers why does Trump get kid gloves? That could be why he's going easy, Republican to Republican, or it could be he has the pardons in mind. I believe he knows what he's doing, well I hope.
Suppose he charges Manaford or Kushner or Trump Jr with a serious felony. What's Trump going to do no matter how serious and irrefutable the proof? He will pardon the guy.
If Trump does that why go after a lower level guy like Carter Page or Papadopolous? Those lower guys wouldn't flip. The bigger fish would be forgiven by the law and everything is great - he'd have effectively got away with it. Trump would lie about this is all 'Oh he just hates me fake news' blah blah.
By building the case and charging people Trump is not going to get off so easily.
I think it's worth it to spend a few million dollars to resolve a question that has so deeply divided our country as the Russia question.
While I agree I think it is sad that the vast majority of the interest in the Russia "question" stems from people hoping that it delegitimizes Trump's victory in the election, even if there is no causal connection between Russian action and the results. People not accepting election results and losing faith in democratic outcomes is disastrous.
An interesting piece on how the truth behind the Pulse Nightclub shooting differs from the wild speculation that followed it and the demagoguery that stemmed from it.
One of many reasons I find it especially distasteful when people immediately speculate about the political beliefs of a mass shooter immediately following the events, as if any who share a belief or two are guilty by association.
If it stays in that realm he’s still doing his job. If he starts interviewing pornstars with no international ties, then I’d say we’ve entered mission creep.
Even that would not necessarily be mission creep, in my opinion. The possibility that Russia possesses sexual kompromat on Trump was an issue in this investigation from the start, so it's relevant if Trump has a pattern of behavior of being susceptible to extortion or blackmail based on his sexual activities. There are certainly inappropriate ways to handle that inquiry (e.g., making a public report on his sex life to shame him), but it's not hard to imagine good-faith reasons for Mueller to ask about the mechanics of previous payoffs, especially ones that happened during the 2016 election.
One of many reasons I find it especially distasteful when people immediately speculate about the political beliefs of a mass shooter immediately following the events, as if any who share a belief or two are guilty by association.
No one seems to be speculating about Ms. Aghdam's political beliefs; I suspect this is so that no one connects them to her actions. As far as I can tell she obtained her handgun legally (she had no prior history which would have prevented her from purchasing a gun) so she complied with all the laws which are on the books. To date, though, there is no public outcry because a) there weren't children or teenagers involved, b) it wasn't an "assault weapon", and c) she wasn't an NRA member. It is difficult to push an agenda without at least two of those three conditions being met.
*************
Trump is no more susceptible to blackmail because of his peccadilloes than any other politician in Washington, D. C., many of whom are still currently engaging in their after-hours escapades. No one seemed to mind when any other President did that sort of crap, other than hypocritical Republicans against Clinton.
If it stays in that realm he’s still doing his job. If he starts interviewing pornstars with no international ties, then I’d say we’ve entered mission creep.
Even that would not necessarily be mission creep, in my opinion. The possibility that Russia possesses sexual kompromat on Trump was an issue in this investigation from the start, so it's relevant if Trump has a pattern of behavior of being susceptible to extortion or blackmail based on his sexual activities. There are certainly inappropriate ways to handle that inquiry (e.g., making a public report on his sex life to shame him), but it's not hard to imagine good-faith reasons for Mueller to ask about the mechanics of previous payoffs, especially ones that happened during the 2016 election.
This isn't even a question.
Regardless of whether there was truth or not to Stormy Daniels affair, she was paid $130k as a bribe to keep quiet. He is susceptible to blackmail because of his sexual activities.
I still fail to understand why he even continues to deny the affair, since it's abundantly clear no significant portion of his base gives two shits about it.
Please name a time in the last 50 years when it became public knowledge that a national politician in the U.S. had paid someone off to cover up an affair and "no one seemed to mind."
That is different. Infidelity has always been with us, but I can't think of a sex scandal where it was public knowledge that hush money was involved.
If Ken Starr had ever proven Clinton paid hush money during the campaign to anyone, and ESPECIALLY if he had ever discovered a financial arrangement with Monica Lewinsky, it would have been game over, and Al Gore would have been sworn in within days or weeks. The most that was ever brought to light was that Vernon Jordan, a close confidant of Clinton, gave her a positive referral for a job. They certainly weren't stupid enough to write her a massive check through some fake LLC.
Comments
This is from a nice little article from May 27, 1994.
I'm also not sure on what basis you're calling for people questioned not to cooperate. Do you think that even the relatively small amount of restrictions that exist on campaign finance in the US should be abolished?
It just reminds me of the 90's, when Ken Starr ran through around 70 mil over 6 yrs for the Clinton Whitewater thing, and what happened, nothing really, other than Clinton messin round in the White House.
There has got to be better things that money could be spent on, if all we are gonna get is a few lies, cashin in $3 bills (in effect ), and less influencing of the public by Russia than all the big money donors and lobbyists in the US combined, even on a non election year.
I mean it feels like we better see dopplegangers strewn all about the White House and beyond or something, certainly more than Clinton forgetting to lock the door anyway.
Just asking the question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch
What I oppose is the Mueller Investigation waiting at the airport to pounce on these rich Russians and ask them "so, how much money did you donate to Trump's campaign?". That is called "fishing".
Just like with the Ken Starr investigation (which was only supposed to be about land deals) the Mueller investigation is suffering from both mission creep and fishing. Both wound up trying to find anything, no matter how tenuous or tangential, and try to link it to the sitting President. What is going to wind up happening is that *every* President will begin a new administration with the opposition party calling for a special investigation--the day after Inauguration Day will become Investigation Day. Just watch--as soon as Trump is out (I still maintain that he will lose in 2020) the Republicans will call for a special investigator to look into whoever gets elected, basing their desire for an investigation on some flimsy excuse.
It's a little tiresome when someone tries to make a point and is then placed in a position where they are asked to speak for everyone on their half of an imaginary political border. And not just currently; you are asking Mathsorceror to speak for Republicans in the Nineties.
If it stays in that realm he’s still doing his job. If he starts interviewing pornstars with no international ties, then I’d say we’ve entered mission creep.
I personally would rather have the full answer that dispels all doubts than half answers which gets filled with conspiracy theories.
If anything we've seen Mueller going easy on Trump guys. Colluding with foreign powers, undermining national security, attempting to make backdoor business deals for yourself over the country, being a lobbyist for a foreign nation while nominally looking out for American interests.
Why is Mueller going easy? Mueller is a Republican right, maybe that's why. Clinton didn't have a Democrat investigating him he had a rapid partisan right wingers why does Trump get kid gloves? That could be why he's going easy, Republican to Republican, or it could be he has the pardons in mind. I believe he knows what he's doing, well I hope.
Suppose he charges Manaford or Kushner or Trump Jr with a serious felony. What's Trump going to do no matter how serious and irrefutable the proof? He will pardon the guy.
If Trump does that why go after a lower level guy like Carter Page or Papadopolous? Those lower guys wouldn't flip. The bigger fish would be forgiven by the law and everything is great - he'd have effectively got away with it. Trump would lie about this is all 'Oh he just hates me fake news' blah blah.
By building the case and charging people Trump is not going to get off so easily.
Which, really, is exactly what Putin wanted.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/pulse-nightclub-trial-debunks-anti-christian-narrative/
One of many reasons I find it especially distasteful when people immediately speculate about the political beliefs of a mass shooter immediately following the events, as if any who share a belief or two are guilty by association.
*************
Trump is no more susceptible to blackmail because of his peccadilloes than any other politician in Washington, D. C., many of whom are still currently engaging in their after-hours escapades. No one seemed to mind when any other President did that sort of crap, other than hypocritical Republicans against Clinton.
Regardless of whether there was truth or not to Stormy Daniels affair, she was paid $130k as a bribe to keep quiet. He is susceptible to blackmail because of his sexual activities.