This is basically one step away from everyone who voted for Trump getting a $5000 check. Tell how this isn't "socialism" or "welfare". Of course, it will never get framed that way, because the recipients are going to be overwhelmingly white and conservative. We all KNOW they deserve hand-outs. It's everyone else who is a leech and strain on the system. Anyone who complains about how Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are going to turn us into Venezuela and accepts one of these checks is the biggest hypocrite on Earth. We now seem to be expecting it is going to be MORE than the $12 billion first reported. So this is just going to be an annual thing now apparently. Even if his trade policies end up hitting everyone else at the cash register, Trump is going to make sure HIS people are inoculated from the consequences.
Look, I probably don't agree with this guy on even a SINGLE other thing, but he is the only one besides maybe Elizabeth Warren making the case in these kind of clear terms on a level that is getting requisite attention right now. And he is literally the ONLY Republican lawmaker doing so. Thread:
Look, I probably don't agree with this guy on even a SINGLE other thing, but he is the only one besides maybe Elizabeth Warren making the case in these kind of clear terms on a level that is getting requisite attention right now. And he is literally the ONLY Republican lawmaker doing so. Thread:
The drum-roll has started for replacing Amash here in Michigan. The Republicans are already promoting some competitors in his district and the election isn't for another year-and-a-half!
Look, I probably don't agree with this guy on even a SINGLE other thing, but he is the only one besides maybe Elizabeth Warren making the case in these kind of clear terms on a level that is getting requisite attention right now. And he is literally the ONLY Republican lawmaker doing so. Thread:
The drum-roll has started for replacing Amash here in Michigan. The Republicans are already promoting some competitors in his district and the election isn't for another year-and-a-half!
He would have had to have seen this coming and would know with 110% certainty that Trump would personally attack him as a "loser" the moment he went public. And he also knows that in today's GOP, that is basically a death sentence in the primary. My guess is he has made other plans for 2020, or at least has them ready and waiting in his back pocket. Because Trump will absolutely not only support his opponent, but probably hold mutiple rallies for him. If I was in Justin Amash's district, for this ONE election cycle, I would probably give him my vote simply because this subject is that important.
Like I said, if House Democrats think they have enough upon which to base articles of impeachment then Speaker Pelosi should grab the gavel, convene the House, and call for a vote to impeach. Failure to to do, despite repeated statements that such-and-such is impeachable is equivalent to....you know when you are walking and you see someone with a very small dog that has gone out to the full extent of its leash to yip at you? Talking about impeachment without doing anything about it is exactly like that. The dog thinks it is being ferocious but both you and its owner know that the dog is not a threat.
Should House Democrats be trying to go after Trump's tax returns from a point in time *before* he became a political candidate? Should they be going after the tax returns of his family members? Doesn't turning the IRS into a political weapon set a dangerous precedent? The man was in the real estate business in New York City during the 70s, 80s, and 90s--we *know* that he was connected to organized criminals in some way just by the very fact that he was in that business in that city. If he were truly involved in some sort of underhanded tax dealings during his time before entering the Oval Office, wouldn't the IRS have uncovered it at some point? Once they uncovered it, wouldn't they have gone after him? The IRS is very thorough and very aggressive--the fact that they did not secure some sort of conviction against him means that there wasn't anything worth pursuing down that road, unless you think Trump and his tax lawyers are that much better than IRS lawyers and auditors. I am not saying "don't look over there"; rather, I am of the opinion that playing the tax return card is not going to win that hand of poker.
Speaking of tax records, it appears that Wells Fargo and TD Bank are handing over some of Trump's financial documents over to the House of Representatives. I am still uncertain what good that will do, but if that is how House wishes to spend its time then I see no reason to dissuade them.
Your last point, re Impeachment, - I dont really think I agree that having the discussion today inoculates us from the potential issue later. Honestly - I really believe that Trump will see any impeachment hearing as an illegitimate attempt to remove him from office. If anything, I think that would embolden him to resist congress more (when he's inevitably not convicted), and I dont think it makes him less likely to contest a close election (If anything, maybe more likely to contest a close election).
I agree Trump would do everything he can to resist impeachment, but I don't think the resulting chaos would be as bad as in the immediate aftermath of an election. As for resisting Congress (or at least the Democratic parts of it) I think he'll do whatever he can whether he's impeached or not.
Re: the dangers of impeachment - gotta figure Trump's base is already 'activated' so the downside seems less severe than it might be in a normal cycle.
Re: Trump not conceding - it is very easy to raise those kinds of conspiracy theories after he won. It excites his base, and he's already known to be a liar to everyone else do there is zero downside.
Doing that while the election result us pending is a bigly HUGELY different proposition. He would have to actually lead his faction, and lead them into a major confrontation, and the potential downside is enormous. If you want to get into game theory, this sort of thing will not be an optimal strategy for Trump in almost any scenario.
It looks like a pretty good game strategy for him to me. Trump already faces so much legal trouble if he loses the election that I can't see adding further lies and disruptive behavior would make much difference. It's the upside of potentially winning instead of losing that looks enormous to me and not the downside.
It's possible that he could use an alternative strategy to avoid future problems by trying to do the sort of immunity deal struck with Nixon, but I'm not convinced such a deal would be on the table given the extent of antipathy to him now.
Your last point, re Impeachment, - I dont really think I agree that having the discussion today inoculates us from the potential issue later. Honestly - I really believe that Trump will see any impeachment hearing as an illegitimate attempt to remove him from office. If anything, I think that would embolden him to resist congress more (when he's inevitably not convicted), and I dont think it makes him less likely to contest a close election (If anything, maybe more likely to contest a close election).
I agree Trump would do everything he can to resist impeachment, but I don't think the resulting chaos would be as bad as in the immediate aftermath of an election. As for resisting Congress (or at least the Democratic parts of it) I think he'll do whatever he can whether he's impeached or not.
Your last point, re Impeachment, - I dont really think I agree that having the discussion today inoculates us from the potential issue later. Honestly - I really believe that Trump will see any impeachment hearing as an illegitimate attempt to remove him from office. If anything, I think that would embolden him to resist congress more (when he's inevitably not convicted), and I dont think it makes him less likely to contest a close election (If anything, maybe more likely to contest a close election).
I agree Trump would do everything he can to resist impeachment, but I don't think the resulting chaos would be as bad as in the immediate aftermath of an election. As for resisting Congress (or at least the Democratic parts of it) I think he'll do whatever he can whether he's impeached or not.
Since I figure I better put my money where my mouth is, I just ordered a paperback copy of Mueller Report from Amazon (the Washington Post version is only $9.99 if anyone is interested in having a hard copy). I plan on reading the entire thing starting Sunday when I get back to work from my vacation. My Stephen King backlog can continue to wait as it has for years.
It's possible that he could use an alternative strategy to avoid future problems by trying to do the sort of immunity deal struck with Nixon, but I'm not convinced such a deal would be on the table given the extent of antipathy to him now.
Presidential Pardons work for Federal crimes only, including "obstruction", but accepting one is akin to admitting guilt even though the recipient cannot be charged for those crimes. Those pardons do not extend to State crimes, so the Attorney General of the State of New York becomes the primary antagonist at that point.
It's possible that he could use an alternative strategy to avoid future problems by trying to do the sort of immunity deal struck with Nixon, but I'm not convinced such a deal would be on the table given the extent of antipathy to him now.
Presidential Pardons work for Federal crimes only, including "obstruction", but accepting one is akin to admitting guilt even though the recipient cannot be charged for those crimes. Those pardons do not extend to State crimes, so the Attorney General of the State of New York becomes the primary antagonist at that point.
Which they definitely seem to be working on, but will also be branded explicitly as partisan investigations because those in charge will likely all be Democrats. This is WHY Mueller's work was (in theory) so important. Because it has become abundantly clear that despite Trump's constant harping on the unfairness of the investigation, Mueller went above and beyond to appear neutral and above board, at this point almost to a fault, as he now seems reluctant to testify because he doesn't want to come across as "partisan". Mind you, the only reason he would THINK he would come across that way is because his testimony would be incredibly damaging to the President. It's hard not to feel that Mueller will cling to this sort of noble position even if the whole country starts going up in flames all around him. Trump should be counting his blessings it was someone like Mueller and not someone like Ken Starr who was in charge of things. Because even though he found ALOT, a partisan investigator would have ABSOLUTELY delved into his finances, which Mueller simply did not do (though he may have passed off findings to those that are).
Since I figure I better put my money where my mouth is, I just ordered a paperback copy of Mueller Report from Amazon (the Washington Post version is only $9.99 if anyone is interested in having a hard copy). I plan on reading the entire thing starting Sunday when I get back to work from my vacation. My Stephen King backlog can continue to wait as it has for years.
Is that the redacted version or the unredacted version?
Since I figure I better put my money where my mouth is, I just ordered a paperback copy of Mueller Report from Amazon (the Washington Post version is only $9.99 if anyone is interested in having a hard copy). I plan on reading the entire thing starting Sunday when I get back to work from my vacation. My Stephen King backlog can continue to wait as it has for years.
Is that the redacted version or the unredacted version?
Well, there is no unredacted version as far as I'm aware, and the page previews looked to me to have all the blacked out areas the online one does. I simply don't have the patience to read 400 pages on a computer screen as opposed to a physical copy in book form.
Since I figure I better put my money where my mouth is, I just ordered a paperback copy of Mueller Report from Amazon (the Washington Post version is only $9.99 if anyone is interested in having a hard copy). I plan on reading the entire thing starting Sunday when I get back to work from my vacation. My Stephen King backlog can continue to wait as it has for years.
Is that the redacted version or the unredacted version?
Well, there is no unredacted version as far as I'm aware, and the page previews looked to me to have all the blacked out areas the online one does. I simply don't have the patience to read 400 pages on a computer screen as opposed to a physical copy in book form.
All joking aside, why are they charging for this? Shouldn't this be freedom of information stuff? Every library in the country should have a copy or what does 'freedom' of information mean???
@Balrog99: People still sell copies of Shakespeare plays even though the texts are all public domain. Since it's not copyrighted, anyone can publish it.
The aid package for the farmers is going to clock in at $16 billion dollars, with nearly all of it being direct payouts. For some context, subsidized housing costs the federal government $40 billion dollars a year. Which mean this single package is costing 40% as much as federally assisted housing supplements for the ENTIRE country. And it's happening strictly because Trump cannot afford to NOT pay off these farmers he is depriving of their markets with his trade war with China. Though I will still have to hear them, this should be the end of all the "welfare state" arguments from the right, in the same way the tax cut obliterated their endless rhetoric about the deficit. This is the second bedrock principle of conservative governance that has been exposed as a complete and utter sham in the last two years (well, 3 if you count the whole "morality" aspect of the religious right). So what exactly is the defining principle of conservative political beliefs at this point?? Because as far as I can tell, it has now been reduced to "whatever Donald Trump needs them to be in any given 24 hour period".
Since I figure I better put my money where my mouth is, I just ordered a paperback copy of Mueller Report from Amazon (the Washington Post version is only $9.99 if anyone is interested in having a hard copy). I plan on reading the entire thing starting Sunday when I get back to work from my vacation. My Stephen King backlog can continue to wait as it has for years.
Is that the redacted version or the unredacted version?
Well, there is no unredacted version as far as I'm aware, and the page previews looked to me to have all the blacked out areas the online one does. I simply don't have the patience to read 400 pages on a computer screen as opposed to a physical copy in book form.
All joking aside, why are they charging for this? Shouldn't this be freedom of information stuff? Every library in the country should have a copy or what does 'freedom' of information mean???
You priced a ream (500 sheets) of paper at a Staples lately? Stuff costs money to print.
Edit-Oh, and as someone who HAS filed a FOIA request, that's not free either. It's free for like the first 100 pages or so.
So what exactly is the defining principle of conservative political beliefs at this point?? Because as far as I can tell, it has now been reduced to "whatever Donald Trump needs them to be in any given 24 hour period".
Since I figure I better put my money where my mouth is, I just ordered a paperback copy of Mueller Report from Amazon (the Washington Post version is only $9.99 if anyone is interested in having a hard copy). I plan on reading the entire thing starting Sunday when I get back to work from my vacation. My Stephen King backlog can continue to wait as it has for years.
Is that the redacted version or the unredacted version?
Well, there is no unredacted version as far as I'm aware, and the page previews looked to me to have all the blacked out areas the online one does. I simply don't have the patience to read 400 pages on a computer screen as opposed to a physical copy in book form.
All joking aside, why are they charging for this? Shouldn't this be freedom of information stuff? Every library in the country should have a copy or what does 'freedom' of information mean???
The aid package for the farmers is going to clock in at $16 billion dollars, with nearly all of it being direct payouts. For some context, subsidized housing costs the federal government $40 billion dollars a year. Which mean this single package is costing 40% as much as federally assisted housing supplements for the ENTIRE country. And it's happening strictly because Trump cannot afford to NOT pay off these farmers he is depriving of their markets with his trade war with China. Though I will still have to hear them, this should be the end of all the "welfare state" arguments from the right, in the same way the tax cut obliterated their endless rhetoric about the deficit. This is the second bedrock principle of conservative governance that has been exposed as a complete and utter sham in the last two years (well, 3 if you count the whole "morality" aspect of the religious right). So what exactly is the defining principle of conservative political beliefs at this point?? Because as far as I can tell, it has now been reduced to "whatever Donald Trump needs them to be in any given 24 hour period".
My guess is that these farmers are providing a 'strategic commodity' and that's why they're protected. Any country that can't feed itself is vulnerable to food price fluctuations that can jeopardize their existence. Energy, food and building materials fall under this category. Whether it's 'welfare' is debatable when the supply of strategic resource is in question. Sorry, but folks getting welfare assistance aren't creating anything of value in exchange...
A little bit of a scandal developing in the UZ over numerous European citizens being denied their right to vote at the European elections. As much cock-up as conspiracy given the limited time available but systemic disenfranchisment all the same:
The aid package for the farmers is going to clock in at $16 billion dollars, with nearly all of it being direct payouts. For some context, subsidized housing costs the federal government $40 billion dollars a year. Which mean this single package is costing 40% as much as federally assisted housing supplements for the ENTIRE country. And it's happening strictly because Trump cannot afford to NOT pay off these farmers he is depriving of their markets with his trade war with China. Though I will still have to hear them, this should be the end of all the "welfare state" arguments from the right, in the same way the tax cut obliterated their endless rhetoric about the deficit. This is the second bedrock principle of conservative governance that has been exposed as a complete and utter sham in the last two years (well, 3 if you count the whole "morality" aspect of the religious right). So what exactly is the defining principle of conservative political beliefs at this point?? Because as far as I can tell, it has now been reduced to "whatever Donald Trump needs them to be in any given 24 hour period".
My guess is that these farmers are providing a 'strategic commodity' and that's why they're protected. Any country that can't feed itself is vulnerable to food price fluctuations that can jeopardize their existence. Energy, food and building materials fall under this category. Whether it's 'welfare' is debatable when the supply of strategic resource is in question. Sorry, but folks getting welfare assistance aren't creating anything of value in exchange...
I would guess a strategic commodity was something that wouldn’t be endangered by tariffs because it is something we’d use in the US and not exported to China.
Plenty of service workers receive public assistance. And teachers. I daresay many of the people on public assistance are doing important things for us while these farmers are being hurt by not being able to sell their crops to China. Boohoo.
city. If he were truly involved in some sort of underhanded tax dealings during his time before entering the Oval Office, wouldn't the IRS have uncovered it at some point? Once they uncovered it, wouldn't they have gone after him? The IRS is very thorough and very aggressive--the fact that they did not secure some sort of conviction against him means that there wasn't anything worth pursuing down that road
This is not true. The IRS simply processes tax returns and pays out refunds. They do not prosecute tax crimes, a separate division does. Moreover, the IRS and that division can only prosecute a very small universe of actual tax crimes. Someone's taxes can hold a great trove of evidence of other crimes - frauds, thefts, all sorts of things. But nobody in the IRS is looking for that kind of evidence in people's tax returns. That is only uncovered if investigators find external evidence of criminal activity; only then will they seek to review tax returns to find evidence that corroborates the suspicion or exculpates the subject.
Partially right.
The IRS has the CID (Criminal Investigative Division) who investigates tax crimes. It is within the IRS. They have jurisdiction over investigating ALL tax crimes. But JUST tax crimes. They would have to refer things like, oh, possible national security threats or foreign influence or drug trade or white collar crime such as fraud to other agencies in the Justice or Homeland Security Departments. It is not up to them to decide such things.
The aid package for the farmers is going to clock in at $16 billion dollars, with nearly all of it being direct payouts. For some context, subsidized housing costs the federal government $40 billion dollars a year. Which mean this single package is costing 40% as much as federally assisted housing supplements for the ENTIRE country. And it's happening strictly because Trump cannot afford to NOT pay off these farmers he is depriving of their markets with his trade war with China. Though I will still have to hear them, this should be the end of all the "welfare state" arguments from the right, in the same way the tax cut obliterated their endless rhetoric about the deficit. This is the second bedrock principle of conservative governance that has been exposed as a complete and utter sham in the last two years (well, 3 if you count the whole "morality" aspect of the religious right). So what exactly is the defining principle of conservative political beliefs at this point?? Because as far as I can tell, it has now been reduced to "whatever Donald Trump needs them to be in any given 24 hour period".
My guess is that these farmers are providing a 'strategic commodity' and that's why they're protected. Any country that can't feed itself is vulnerable to food price fluctuations that can jeopardize their existence. Energy, food and building materials fall under this category. Whether it's 'welfare' is debatable when the supply of strategic resource is in question. Sorry, but folks getting welfare assistance aren't creating anything of value in exchange...
I agree, but straka’s point is that it’s Trump’s policies and trade war that compromised these farmers being able to sell their crops.
Trump can boost about how Tariffs are adding to the American bottom line, but if he needs to pay out 40 billion to farmers because they are affected by it then the trade off is moot and the economy and markets are suffering for it.
That money, that 40 billion, could have gone to other things if the farmers still had the status quo to sell to China. Like Canada, China targeted key areas where Trump’s base will suffer the most.
Comments
And then of course we have this, which we already knew was coming:
This is basically one step away from everyone who voted for Trump getting a $5000 check. Tell how this isn't "socialism" or "welfare". Of course, it will never get framed that way, because the recipients are going to be overwhelmingly white and conservative. We all KNOW they deserve hand-outs. It's everyone else who is a leech and strain on the system. Anyone who complains about how Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are going to turn us into Venezuela and accepts one of these checks is the biggest hypocrite on Earth. We now seem to be expecting it is going to be MORE than the $12 billion first reported. So this is just going to be an annual thing now apparently. Even if his trade policies end up hitting everyone else at the cash register, Trump is going to make sure HIS people are inoculated from the consequences.
The drum-roll has started for replacing Amash here in Michigan. The Republicans are already promoting some competitors in his district and the election isn't for another year-and-a-half!
He would have had to have seen this coming and would know with 110% certainty that Trump would personally attack him as a "loser" the moment he went public. And he also knows that in today's GOP, that is basically a death sentence in the primary. My guess is he has made other plans for 2020, or at least has them ready and waiting in his back pocket. Because Trump will absolutely not only support his opponent, but probably hold mutiple rallies for him. If I was in Justin Amash's district, for this ONE election cycle, I would probably give him my vote simply because this subject is that important.
Should House Democrats be trying to go after Trump's tax returns from a point in time *before* he became a political candidate? Should they be going after the tax returns of his family members? Doesn't turning the IRS into a political weapon set a dangerous precedent? The man was in the real estate business in New York City during the 70s, 80s, and 90s--we *know* that he was connected to organized criminals in some way just by the very fact that he was in that business in that city. If he were truly involved in some sort of underhanded tax dealings during his time before entering the Oval Office, wouldn't the IRS have uncovered it at some point? Once they uncovered it, wouldn't they have gone after him? The IRS is very thorough and very aggressive--the fact that they did not secure some sort of conviction against him means that there wasn't anything worth pursuing down that road, unless you think Trump and his tax lawyers are that much better than IRS lawyers and auditors. I am not saying "don't look over there"; rather, I am of the opinion that playing the tax return card is not going to win that hand of poker.
Speaking of tax records, it appears that Wells Fargo and TD Bank are handing over some of Trump's financial documents over to the House of Representatives. I am still uncertain what good that will do, but if that is how House wishes to spend its time then I see no reason to dissuade them.
I agree Trump would do everything he can to resist impeachment, but I don't think the resulting chaos would be as bad as in the immediate aftermath of an election. As for resisting Congress (or at least the Democratic parts of it) I think he'll do whatever he can whether he's impeached or not.
It looks like a pretty good game strategy for him to me. Trump already faces so much legal trouble if he loses the election that I can't see adding further lies and disruptive behavior would make much difference. It's the upside of potentially winning instead of losing that looks enormous to me and not the downside.
It's possible that he could use an alternative strategy to avoid future problems by trying to do the sort of immunity deal struck with Nixon, but I'm not convinced such a deal would be on the table given the extent of antipathy to him now.
A last minute 'visit' to Russia before he leaves office might work. I wonder how long it'd take for him to wear out his welcome?
Maybe do an Assange and seek asylum in an embassy - that could string things out for years ...
Presidential Pardons work for Federal crimes only, including "obstruction", but accepting one is akin to admitting guilt even though the recipient cannot be charged for those crimes. Those pardons do not extend to State crimes, so the Attorney General of the State of New York becomes the primary antagonist at that point.
Which they definitely seem to be working on, but will also be branded explicitly as partisan investigations because those in charge will likely all be Democrats. This is WHY Mueller's work was (in theory) so important. Because it has become abundantly clear that despite Trump's constant harping on the unfairness of the investigation, Mueller went above and beyond to appear neutral and above board, at this point almost to a fault, as he now seems reluctant to testify because he doesn't want to come across as "partisan". Mind you, the only reason he would THINK he would come across that way is because his testimony would be incredibly damaging to the President. It's hard not to feel that Mueller will cling to this sort of noble position even if the whole country starts going up in flames all around him. Trump should be counting his blessings it was someone like Mueller and not someone like Ken Starr who was in charge of things. Because even though he found ALOT, a partisan investigator would have ABSOLUTELY delved into his finances, which Mueller simply did not do (though he may have passed off findings to those that are).
This is the guy we need in charge of the economy!
I don't really think those things!
Is that the redacted version or the unredacted version?
Well, there is no unredacted version as far as I'm aware, and the page previews looked to me to have all the blacked out areas the online one does. I simply don't have the patience to read 400 pages on a computer screen as opposed to a physical copy in book form.
All joking aside, why are they charging for this? Shouldn't this be freedom of information stuff? Every library in the country should have a copy or what does 'freedom' of information mean???
You priced a ream (500 sheets) of paper at a Staples lately? Stuff costs money to print.
Edit-Oh, and as someone who HAS filed a FOIA request, that's not free either. It's free for like the first 100 pages or so.
Rex Tillerson, Good!
Rex Tillerson, Bad!
The philosophy seems to be hate who Trump tells them to at any given point mainly.
Printing costs.
My guess is that these farmers are providing a 'strategic commodity' and that's why they're protected. Any country that can't feed itself is vulnerable to food price fluctuations that can jeopardize their existence. Energy, food and building materials fall under this category. Whether it's 'welfare' is debatable when the supply of strategic resource is in question. Sorry, but folks getting welfare assistance aren't creating anything of value in exchange...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/23/eu-citizens-denied-vote-european-election-polling-booths-admin-errors
I would guess a strategic commodity was something that wouldn’t be endangered by tariffs because it is something we’d use in the US and not exported to China.
Plenty of service workers receive public assistance. And teachers. I daresay many of the people on public assistance are doing important things for us while these farmers are being hurt by not being able to sell their crops to China. Boohoo.
Partially right.
The IRS has the CID (Criminal Investigative Division) who investigates tax crimes. It is within the IRS. They have jurisdiction over investigating ALL tax crimes. But JUST tax crimes. They would have to refer things like, oh, possible national security threats or foreign influence or drug trade or white collar crime such as fraud to other agencies in the Justice or Homeland Security Departments. It is not up to them to decide such things.
I agree, but straka’s point is that it’s Trump’s policies and trade war that compromised these farmers being able to sell their crops.
Trump can boost about how Tariffs are adding to the American bottom line, but if he needs to pay out 40 billion to farmers because they are affected by it then the trade off is moot and the economy and markets are suffering for it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-08/each-word-of-trump-s-tariff-tweets-wiped-13-billion-off-stocks
That money, that 40 billion, could have gone to other things if the farmers still had the status quo to sell to China. Like Canada, China targeted key areas where Trump’s base will suffer the most.