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
One theory I've read that was interesting is that if Mueller assumes everything not under his control will leak (because this administration has more holes than the titanic), he might have told his lawyers that "Trump is not a Target at this time" fully expecting it to get out to try to box Trump into an interview.
Trump's list of Z list lawyers may think that they have the upper hand, but come on.
edited 4th Apr '18 5:44:15 AM by megaeliz
Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that "not a target" can rapidly become "a target" after the subject's interview with the grand jury.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Democrats won all the Special Elections yesterday (as far as I can tell). Most of them were holds, but Rebecca Dallet, a Liberal Judge from Milwaukee, won an important Wisconsin State Supreme Court seat that had been held by Conservatives for a while
. She beat Conservative Michael Screnock, the Judge of Sauk County, for the seat. Due to the laws of Wisconsin, neither judge could be a part of a Political Party, but the Democrats heavily backed Dallet, and the Republicans backed Screnock. Gov. Scott Walker (R) is waving the warning flags that it's appearing that Wisconsin is definitely going to experience a Blue Wave.
Over all, yesterday's Elections were a good sign that the Blue Wave will be going National.
2016 was a wake-up call for Democrats about political complacency. I'm cautiously optimistic that it'll stick at least through this year.
My conscience is clean: I voted in primaries and the national and volunteered to canvass in 2016. I even cast my first ever off-year ballot last year.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This fits with everything we've been saying about this and brings in another aspect.
2. Mueller DID confirm that Trump is a SUBJECT of the investigation (which is the step right before target, it means "we're looking at everything you did, but haven't filed any criminal charge yet").
3. To be clear, a criminal target is Manafort. Now obviously, chances are that Mueller worded things in a specific way in order to um... encourage Trump to speak with him.
4. Repeat: Mueller DID SAY Trump is a SUBJECT of the investigation, so Trump can NO LONGER claim that he is NOT under investigation. HE IS. This also means he can't so much as think of firing Rosenstein or Mueller anymore. Bc oops, direct obstruction.
5. If you prefer Wa Po's wording "Prosecutors view someone as a subject when that person has engaged in conduct that is under investigation but there is not sufficient evidence to bring charges." Which is what I explained.
6. All Mueller is saying her is "we haven't filed charges. YET." And Trump's lawyers know that full well. THIS is assuming that the account of the conversation is accurate, of course. We have no way of verifying that.
6. All Mueller is saying her is "we haven't filed charges. YET." And Trump's lawyers know that full well. THIS is assuming that the account of the conversation is accurate, of course. We have no way of verifying that.
edited 4th Apr '18 7:20:12 AM by megaeliz
So, Trumps newest measures on trade with China have resulted in them going for real retaliation this time (instead of the token 3 billion they targeted in response to the steel and aluminium tariffs). They anounced a list of 50 billion themselves in reciprocal tarriffs.
Also, while the US has targeted very broadly to minimize the impact of the tarriffs on special sectors, China has concentrated their measures on few sectors (particularly agricultural goods) to hit a bit harder. This is a more aggressive measure than many have anticipated.
The Dow just lost over 2% (or 500 points) at the open.
Lets play a game:
Spot the sector(s) that the chinese have announced tariffs for.
Pardon me while I vomit.
"Yup. That tasted purple."For fuck's sake. This was just a disgruntled video maker with delusions of making it big (authorities aren't sure if the story about one of the victims being an intimate partner is correct anymore) and even her own brother realized that there was potential for trouble when she went to SF.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I took the "an ex worked there" thing with a goddamn mine of salt considering any instance of a woman shooter, you know 500% that the first thing someone will claim is A Woman Scorned.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.@M84, 3 fronts at least. If he wants to target Canada or Mexico, he needs to target NAFTA, and since neither government will accept the one sided bilateral deals he wants, if he provokes one he provokes the other.
And Canada and Mexico are likely to go straight for the jugular, slapping billions in counter tariffs on agriculture and energy, industries that are easy to damage. Canada could also specifically target real estate (resources are almost certainly getting involved at some point, and we supply the majority of your lumber, and the largest chunk of your steel), but I doubt its possible to single out the Trump organization. That kind of stuff can cost a lot of jobs and raise the cost of living very quickly. Whole point is to get
There's also a potential 4th front with the entire EU, and he's gone after places like Brazil as well.
Global trade wars are usually multifaceted and everyone attacking everyone else in a panic. Trump's War might just be everyone slapping counter-tariffs as a united front, until Congress/the voters forces Trump to back off.
edited 4th Apr '18 8:56:33 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The question here is a legal/constitutional one: can Congress override his national security tariffs (the only kind he can impose unilaterally) with a bill?
Also, that exemption might be challenged in US courts, as its really hard to make a security justification for tariffs when half your targets are NATO members.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The President has no authority to issue tariffs by himself for any reason. The reason why "national security tariffs" exist is because Congress thought it was a good idea to insert such provisions in the tariff laws, they aren't anything inherent in the office of president. So Congress can strip the president of such authority again.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanAnd if Congress does that then they'll be blatantly going against Trump, which for the Republicans is probably a bad idea with upcoming midterms.
Frankly regardless of what the Republicans do they're going to suffer one way or another.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIt's hard to picture Republican chances in the midterms being any worse than they already are, with consistent 20-point voting swings nationwide. The worry, I suppose, is that they'll lose their hardcore 30-40 percent of committed pro-Trump voters who may rebel if they show the slightest willingness to criticize him, and won't gain back the moderates who have already been turned off from the Republican party.
It's an argument based on the philosophy of "in for a penny, in for a pound", or the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
edited 4th Apr '18 9:26:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, at least that makes him truly representative of the people who elected him. Democracy in action, folks.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"