Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Enkufka
You'd have to read the actual ruling for the legal reasoning.
Here's the wiki page
. In essence, I believe that for the US government to offer tons and tons of lucrative contracts to Boeing after "competitions" of dubious process was found to be contrary to the principles of free trade. The estimated cost to Airbus was $45bn.
It was a gambit of Boeing's that backfired spectacularly - they were the ones who sued Airbus over "launch aid" (officially called "re-imbursable launch insurance") whereby the EU gives Airbus generous loans which must be repaid (with royalties if the aircraft is a success). Boeing hoped the WTO would put a stop to this - instead, the WTO found Airbus and the EU to be in the clear and Boeing lost Airbus's counter-suit. The distinction boils down to: Airbus ultimately have to pay their, admittedly very generous, loans back with interest, whilst Boeing getting pork-barrel contracts is basically free money.
The obvious solution, of course, is for the USA to simply mirror the EU's trade practices - the same practices found legal by the WTO - but they don't because reasons.
edited 3rd Jun '13 2:05:08 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiYou forgot 4. get a shit ton of campaign cash from Boeing lobbyists.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
You'd think the government would be perfectly fine charging interest on loans by now. I know for a fact they screwed me over on that front. Right now I'm gonna have to work as a cashier in a Pet Co while I find a job my BA is useful for.
It's also a drop in the bucket compared to the millions most of them had from the businesses that elevated them to power, and that they return to after leaving office. Congressional pay is high, but not offensively so when you consider the order of magnitude of wealth disparity.
I would, however, be eager to tie their salary to their constituents. Off the top of my head, I'd put forth averaging the median income of their district and the median income of the country.
GOP Survey Of Young People Reveals They Support Progressive Policies.
Gee, ya think! The divide between Obama and Romney when it comes to young people(18-29) was over 20%. Some of them might have been mislead on what the two stood for but if you've got a huge difference like that I think it's safe to say that young people generally despise what you stand for.
edit: I haven't had time to go through this but it would probably be interesting to read.
It apparently describes what a hypothetical Romney administration would do in its early days.
edited 3rd Jun '13 3:22:35 PM by Kostya
I'm reading through the CRNC's 90-odd page report
.
First thing that comes to mind before they even get to their talking points is that they wrote a 95-page report in a one-pixel-thickness sans-serif font that doesn't scale properly. If that doesn't reflect a disconnect with technology, I'm not sure what does.
What? No! Goddammit, no! I saw maybe two posts about Obama's family during the whole fucking election, and one of them was about rival politicos trying to smear Michelle. Stop trying to turn this into a superficial spin game!
edited 3rd Jun '13 3:33:20 PM by Pykrete
![]()
![]()
Yeah that seems odd to me. I have some fairly liberal friends and I don't really recall seeing much about the Obama's family life. Most of the posts from both sides were about election or campaign issues.
![]()
Why do you need a graphic designer? Open a word document and start typing, it's that simple.
edited 3rd Jun '13 3:44:24 PM by Kostya
You have to legally verify that the source of the DNA came from that person.
Fun tip of the day for keeping out of jail Tropers, if you are ever under investigation, don't throw cigarette butts away in a public place, and if you sit down with a cop do be interviewed by them and are offered/have something to drink, take the cup home with you. Law Enforcement are perfectly justified in taking either of those things to use for DNA evidence if you don't comply with giving a sample legally. It's a relatively old trick. Stake out a suspect who smokes, come get the butt when he's done. Take suspect to a diner, get him a cup of coffee, take coffee cup as evidence when he leaves and get DNA off the lip of the cup.
Stay out of jail folks!
Politicians, like most people, don't really care about fonts. The fact that they chose such a tiny font speaks more to their desire to have a thinner page-wise document than it does to their sensibility.
I have terrible psoriasis so there's no stopping anyone from acquiring my skin cells. And really I'd prefer to stay out of jail by not committing crimes in the first place.
edited 3rd Jun '13 3:47:50 PM by AnSTH
But that's a story for another time.Note to self, if that guy I'm trying to frame smokes, steal a few of his butts.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Sadly that isn't exactly a foolproof way of not getting arrested. And these days, it's almost a non-factor in the legal proceedings, which pressure you for a bargain before bothering to ascertain guilt by trumping up charges that will leave you either impoverished or dead in a prison.
edited 3rd Jun '13 4:01:01 PM by Pykrete
Senator Ted Cruz: ‘Abolish the IRS’
Treasury Inspector General compares IRS scandal to Nixon
Feds approve tighter regulations for ‘systemically important’ financial firms
Obama to fill influential circuit court vacancies
Senator Cruz accuses DOJ of targeting reporters critical of the White House
This. This 10 times.
It was an honorFrom the CRNC report...
...
Problem: seen as boneheaded, uncaring, and intolerant.
Solution: completely ignore this and try to look intelligent and hardworking by continuing to try and talk in vague economic voodoo.
edited 3rd Jun '13 4:28:01 PM by Pykrete

edited 3rd Jun '13 2:03:35 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick