Political Roundtable Part XIX

[verbal8]

I may have been posted already, but the Austin bomber was a deplorable.

A BuzzFeed report revealed that Conduit had been active in a Bible study group called Righteous Invasion of Truth (RIOT) that focused on outdoor survival skills, including how to shoot guns and use knives.

What is Trump doing to protect us from white, male domestic terrorist?

Why, there's no such thing!

There needs to be an insistence on those on the right condemning this and calling it what it is: "white terrorism". Bonus points for including radical, Christian, racist or extremist.
These groups do belong in a similar category with ISIS.

[verbal8]

Often more accurate than Trump.

Unimportant perhaps, but not sure it's fake.

Well if that’s the case, then the national inquirer is real news too.

Sometimes it actually is lol

[dckingsfan]

FAKE NEWS IS NOT NEWS YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH

FAKE NEWS IS LITERALLY FAKE, AS IN FACTUALLY INCORRECT, INVENTED, LIES.

Remember when Breitbart deliberately re-edited Shirley Sherrod's video to make it look like she was saying racist things when in fact she was not, and then published that on their website as if it was real, and then bragged about how effectively they had fooled people afterwards?

THAT IS FAKE NEWS.

How did we become so stupid?

[dckingsfan]

I may have been posted already, but the Austin bomber was a deplorable.


What is Trump doing to protect us from white, male domestic terrorist?

Why, there's no such thing!

There needs to be an insistence on those on the right condemning this and calling it what it is: "white terrorism". Bonus points for including radical, Christian, racist or extremist.
These groups do belong in a similar category with ISIS.

Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. So, technically you are correct - although most of our mass murders don't seem to have a political aim other than to state that they are mentally unhinged.

I do understand your reasoning but would there be an unintended consequence?

Reasoning.
Let's call this act White terrorism.

Then every time there is a murder involving a black you call it black terrorism?

Then every time there is a murder involving a Hispanic you call it Hispanic terrorism?

Then every time there is a murder involving someone from the middle east you call it Islamic terrorism?

The problem is that Trump (and those like him) are baiting us.

Falling into this trap just divides us more. For example: If you are a presidential candidate in the 2020 election cycle and start going on about white racism, how do you think you will fair. Yes, there will be folks on the fringes that won't give a f^%k and won't care about the divisiveness of identity politics. But would a winning candidate?

Rather take this from the point of view of what has worked and what hasn't worked in the past. Try to get voters to agree that the solutions are in the best interests of everyone. Try to convince all voters that we have a problem vs. just vilifying the other side on the issue.

But this is hard work - much easier to label and that is where we are at in our election cycle(s).

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

ah yes, shades of the ol' Clinton line, "i did not knowingly know what i doingly did." Gets em off every time.

these guys know the law. so they know how to "beat" the law.

It's so funny. There are 2 groups of people that just know the law as it relates to them backwards and forwards. inside and out. Lifetime politicians and lifetime criminals. I'm dead serious. If you have a lifetime criminal in your family just ask them how to get off (of their petty crimes). And if you want to know how to get off of "white collar" crimes just follow the Clintons and the law scholars like Obama. Its amazing how they all find very similar ways to skate on technicalities within the law.

Its so odd though. ignorance of the law doesn't work as a defense for nearly all crimes the typical common man or women commit. The DA and judge just dont give a damn about your intent...unless you are a well connected life time politician or a thug on the street.

I'm reminded of what a just a former sitting US appeals judge once told me. Over 98% of convictions that we do not overturn involve a confession of some sort. In other words. If you shut the fxck and lawyer up with a good attorney and/or you yourself know the law so well, you can skate around just about any crime as most crimes have scant to no admissible evidence.

[cammac]

In a earlier post I warned about Trumps reckless tariff war and the consequences not only will countries retaliate and that consumers have the burden of higher prices. That isn't to say that some tariffs are not justified. I believe Trump was correct in the Steel & Aluminum tariff but only in the case of China. That has immense overcapacity in both and are disrupting the market place. The Trump administration has been backtracking on those tariffs 1st Canada & Mexico and now Brazil, Australia & EU. Trade disputes have other effects Obama put a 18.8 tariff on Canadian calendared paper which did raise the price in USA. Canada took this to the WTO and Verso the company that brought the complaint dropped the claim. What happens is the tariff money collected will be returned to the Canadian manufacturers. Boeing had a 300% duty imposed on Bombardier new passenger jets which Boeing doesn't build a equivalent. The duty was overturned and last week Boeing dropped the matter. Did it benefit Boeing? No Bombardier made a strategic alliance with Airbus and the Canadian government is reviewing the purchase of Boeing fighter jets. The two other Canada & USA disputes on softwood lumber & pulp will be settled in Canada's favor as it has in the past and tariffs will be refunded and the American consumer paying the bill.

[stilldropin20]

oh look!! David Hogg doesn't like it that his right "to privacy" is being affected!!!! Imagine that! His rights are being infringed upon. his right to a backback that conceals his stuff. Hmmmmm.

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

you know, the media tried so hard to make the dorky geek Obama, "cool." While all he bagged was the very average michelle. meanwhile trump was tagging anything and everything that was pretty much hot to smoking hot. Hmmmm...,maybe the republicans are actually the cool guys? just sayin. and I think this is going to work against the left in 2020. They somehow are making trump cool and relatable. again.

[Wizardspride]

Take nothing for granted liberals/progressives.

BUT with that being said, as of now it seems a foregone conclusion the Democrats will retake the House.

It's just a matter of how many seats they win.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Wizardspride]

you know, the media tried so hard to make the dorky geek Obama, "cool." While all he bagged was the very average michelle. meanwhile trump was tagging anything and everything that was pretty much hot to smoking hot. Hmmmm...,maybe the republicans are actually the cool guys? just sayin. and I think this is going to work against the left in 2020. They somehow are making trump cool and relatable. again.

Some would disagree about Michelle being average in any way but you're entitled to your opinion.

[dckingsfan]

Guess that banking reform kind of worked:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biggest-three-banks-gobble-up-2-4-trillion-in-new-deposits-since-crisis-1521711001

[dckingsfan]

you know, the media tried so hard to make the dorky geek Obama, "cool." While all he bagged was the very average michelle. meanwhile trump was tagging anything and everything that was pretty much hot to smoking hot. Hmmmm...,maybe the republicans are actually the cool guys? just sayin. and I think this is going to work against the left in 2020. They somehow are making trump cool and relatable. again.

Some would disagree about Michelle being average in any way but you're entitled to your opinion.

Yeah - if you are looking for good looks, smarts and integrity, Michelle is absolutely the bomb.

[cammac]

you know, the media tried so hard to make the dorky geek Obama, "cool." While all he bagged was the very average michelle. meanwhile trump was tagging anything and everything that was pretty much hot to smoking hot. Hmmmm...,maybe the republicans are actually the cool guys? just sayin. and I think this is going to work against the left in 2020. They somehow are making trump cool and relatable. again.

Some would disagree about Michelle being average in any way but you're entitled to your opinion.

Yeah - if you are looking for good looks, smarts and integrity, Michelle is absolutely the bomb.

If she ran against Trump he would be the gum on her stilettos.

[dckingsfan]

You don't get nuance do you

There was much of the rule making that has been burdensome financially on the country and many of those rules aren't pertinent or helpful. And yet no president has rolled any of them back.

Those are dollars that get pulled out of the economy and eventually out of government receipts. It should be a race to regulatory suicide.

The author didn't endorse trump but did endorse that specific action.

Yeah, but there is more nuance than even what you're suggesting. Rolling back regulations isn't even a good thing if other costs associated come about. I mean, whether or not banking or real estate regulations imposed after the housing and financial crashes of not so long ago is actually going to save the government money or going to result in even more bailouts isn't quite so certain, and the potential costs are rather massive overall. Simplifying regulation can be a good thing, but weakening government by slashing regulations outright can allow a country to be overrun by big business, and things don't work out great in the long run when that happens. The author makes no mention of that and rather just lumps everything together and suggests that cutting government costs is good. That isn't always true as costs are sometimes a price worth paying given the alternatives.

I don't disagree with your base point that cutting regulations to cut regulations is a good thing.

I was just pointing out that there is a different perspective that aligns with what Trump is doing.

BTW, I think that slashing banking, insurance or real estate regulations could have a huge risk. But, many of those regulations were put in place due to other government programs. And then new rules to codify those regulations and pretty soon you have to be a big business to comply.

And then we worry that big business is going to overrun us?

Just saying.

I know that this is anecdotal - but those banking regulations have pushed a few number of banks to be really to big to fail. You could pick one, two, ten or a hundred good regulations that banks need to comply with - but at some point only the very large banks will be able to comply. And then big business really does run things.

So, I think the author has a point - even if it isn't well articulated.

[dckingsfan]

In a earlier post I warned about Trumps reckless tariff war and the consequences not only will countries retaliate and that consumers have the burden of higher prices. That isn't to say that some tariffs are not justified. I believe Trump was correct in the Steel & Aluminum tariff but only in the case of China. That has immense overcapacity in both and are disrupting the market place. The Trump administration has been backtracking on those tariffs 1st Canada & Mexico and now Brazil, Australia & EU. Trade disputes have other effects Obama put a 18.8 tariff on Canadian calendared paper which did raise the price in USA. Canada took this to the WTO and Verso the company that brought the complaint dropped the claim. What happens is the tariff money collected will be returned to the Canadian manufacturers. Boeing had a 300% duty imposed on Bombardier new passenger jets which Boeing doesn't build a equivalent. The duty was overturned and last week Boeing dropped the matter. Did it benefit Boeing? No Bombardier made a strategic alliance with Airbus and the Canadian government is reviewing the purchase of Boeing fighter jets. The two other Canada & USA disputes on softwood lumber & pulp will be settled in Canada's favor as it has in the past and tariffs will be refunded and the American consumer paying the bill.

Trump is most certainly flailing... But really, our past presidents didn't flail enough.

What would you do to reduce the US trade deficits?

[montestewart]

you know, the media tried so hard to make the dorky geek Obama, "cool." While all he bagged was the very average michelle. meanwhile trump was tagging anything and everything that was pretty much hot to smoking hot. Hmmmm...,maybe the republicans are actually the cool guys? just sayin. and I think this is going to work against the left in 2020. They somehow are making trump cool and relatable. again.

Some would disagree about Michelle being average in any way but you're entitled to your opinion.

It's like Hands switched parties but everything else remained the same.

[cammac]

In a earlier post I warned about Trumps reckless tariff war and the consequences not only will countries retaliate and that consumers have the burden of higher prices. That isn't to say that some tariffs are not justified. I believe Trump was correct in the Steel & Aluminum tariff but only in the case of China. That has immense overcapacity in both and are disrupting the market place. The Trump administration has been backtracking on those tariffs 1st Canada & Mexico and now Brazil, Australia & EU. Trade disputes have other effects Obama put a 18.8 tariff on Canadian calendared paper which did raise the price in USA. Canada took this to the WTO and Verso the company that brought the complaint dropped the claim. What happens is the tariff money collected will be returned to the Canadian manufacturers. Boeing had a 300% duty imposed on Bombardier new passenger jets which Boeing doesn't build a equivalent. The duty was overturned and last week Boeing dropped the matter. Did it benefit Boeing? No Bombardier made a strategic alliance with Airbus and the Canadian government is reviewing the purchase of Boeing fighter jets. The two other Canada & USA disputes on softwood lumber & pulp will be settled in Canada's favor as it has in the past and tariffs will be refunded and the American consumer paying the bill.

Trump is most certainly flailing... But really, our past presidents didn't flail enough.

What would you do to reduce the US trade deficits?

Strategic planning the TPP deal that Canada just signed they held out to get the concessions in the automotive part of the deal. In NAFTA the major thing Canada wanted was to increase the wages of Mexican workers with real unions so both the USA and Canada would be more competitive and ebb the flow of jobs because of wages. the American negotiators didn't like it. (right to work Republicans) China isn't as in great shape as many would care to believe they have overcapacity in many industries and jobs are being lost to low wage countries in high employment industries like the garment & shoe industry and others will follow suit. The service industry is the key for the USA to balance more of the deficit. Also the USA can be self sufficient in energy. While they will still import product they will also export product to equalize it. Western countries should have also been more aggressive in limited technology transfers when they opened operations in China. While USA States try to buy new factories competing against each other Canada is taking a different approach. Toyota and Honda love manufacturing in Canada they get a highly efficient and reliable work force. They are in a low corporate tax country and one of the most significant costs in USA in healthcare is a fraction of the cost. That was why Toronto offered nothing to Amazon to establish there 2nd headquarters there.Will they get it who knows but I am quite sure they are a top 5 candidate and they aren't selling the taxpayers down the drain.

The USA has a abundance of great minds to solve problems but they are never listened too because of political imperative.

[CobraCommander]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

ah yes, shades of the ol' Clinton line, "i did not knowingly know what i doingly did." Gets em off every time.

these guys know the law. so they know how to "beat" the law.

It's so funny. There are 2 groups of people that just know the law as it relates to them backwards and forwards. inside and out. Lifetime politicians and lifetime criminals. I'm dead serious. If you have a lifetime criminal in your family just ask them how to get off (of their petty crimes). And if you want to know how to get off of "white collar" crimes just follow the Clintons and the law scholars like Obama. Its amazing how they all find very similar ways to skate on technicalities within the law.

Its so odd though. ignorance of the law doesn't work as a defense for nearly all crimes the typical common man or women commit. The DA and judge just dont give a damn about your intent...unless you are a well connected life time politician or a thug on the street.

I'm reminded of what a just a former sitting US appeals judge once told me. Over 98% of convictions that we do not overturn involve a confession of some sort. In other words. If you shut the fxck and lawyer up with a good attorney and/or you yourself know the law so well, you can skate around just about any crime as most crimes have scant to no admissible evidence.

Now that Trump has honestly betrayed his base...he followed it up with a tweet about banning bump stocks.... i guess he is going to do one year as a republican and then the next year as a Democrat. Trump’s “fans” are losing their minds over this....if trump still has the backing of the far right, he will have proven himself right....He can do WHAT EVER and say what ever and they will follow him. Once (if) we get confirmation of that...we need to start really worrying about him following in the footsteps of his boys Xi and Putin and “running” for chancellor... Even you have to be shocked and pissed about the positions trump is taking now... this time im not mad at him persay...im just confused. The agreement for and against bump stocks hasn’t changed but his position did...and this bill...he admitted he didnt like it...didnt read it...and he signed it...uh WTF?

[CobraCommander]

oh look!! David Hogg doesn't like it that his right "to privacy" is being affected!!!! Imagine that! His rights are being infringed upon. his right to a backback that conceals his stuff. Hmmmmm.

Read on Twitter

Stop bro...trump is 100% with this kid and this march...everything he is asking for is being softly supported by trump. Trump is against bump stocks, he said we should take away guns until we can figure out who people are and he is ok with raising the age to buy long guns...all of the things they marching for. Trump didnt go to vietnam because he avoided it because he had bone spurs...this kid has seen more “action” than trump...they are on the same side...only the second amendment loses today...well if you believe it means you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself from a tyrannical government....wait....read my last post....and you will understand why I think trump is on the side of this march...(i know you wish you could down vote me for pointing out the obvious). Y’all were played...now the rest of us gotta pay for it.