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
There was a drop in infant mortality too during Prohibition, simply because parents were less likely to be drunk while pregnant and/or looking after their children.
Prohibition gets a bad rap, much of it deserved, but it's worth remembering that, unlike some of its more modern equivalents, it was brought in due to a real problem, and while it might not have been the best solution to said problem, it did have an effect on it at least.
edited 2nd Jun '18 2:12:21 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
![]()
Can I ask where you got that number from?
I can only find this projection on a couple of different sites: https://qz.com/1293821/trump-trade-war-146000-us-job-will-be-lost-to-steel-tariffs/
plus an upper-end estimate of 470k on the BBC.
Apparently the UK sells the US some fancy steel stuff that you use in your military, which is news to me but might mean we can sue you (well, the EU can) through the WTO for unlawful tariff imposition. Yeah, like that's going to work.
Good thing that's not what the joke was about, huh? The joke is that to have any influence over her father, she'd have to play to his desire to bang her, because that's the shit she's chosen to be complicit in.
But sure, keep on trying to exaggerate the heinousness of Bee's joke, and hold her to standards no male comedian is held to.
My rebuttal is different to the Samantha Bee situation.
It was a shitty joke and not terribly funny or good social commentary.
Re: Prohibition
I think the problem with that reasoning is basically the same with the War on Drugs. Many drugs do have horrifying addiction rates and are poison to the body that leaves people in serious jeopardy but the war against them have exhausted the police as well as killed tens of thousands of people.
edited 2nd Jun '18 3:21:46 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Point was over there, you missed it. No one's defending Prohibition. We're saying it did a better job of accomplishing its goals than current anti-sex trafficking laws did. We're not defending the former, we're bashing the latter.
And I can see Trump unironiclay being a fan of The Dukes of Hazzard. Fitting too because he's both racist, a Duke in a sense and a definite hazard.
edited 2nd Jun '18 3:59:36 PM by MorningStar1337
A lot of it seems to be because she used the word cunt, aparently that realy set people of.
Nobody else seems to get this level of shtishown over making jokes about Ivanka and Trump fucking, even though there’s the uncomfortable undercurrent that it might actully have happened and as such Ivanka could be a case of sexual grooming by Trump and as such a victim of him.
It may also come down to the fact that Bee is a women though.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranMore about possibly Sanctioning Trump's companies.
Trade sanctions against America won’t work. Sanctioning Trump himself might.
For Canada and the western allies, diplomatic success in the era of Trump has only meant delaying the inevitable. Eventually, with the inexplicable exception of Russia, Trump punches everyone in the nose.
We are fighting back. Within hours Prime Minister Trudeau announced that we would be adding duties to imported American paper products, among many other things. Likewise, Mexico has promised targeted tariffs, hoping to inflict retaliatory pain on those states which are considered the most politically important to the President.
These efforts, like the diplomatic strategies before now, will not work. If Trump revokes the tariffs, or begins to support NATO, or returns to the Paris Accord, it will not be because our diplomats became more persuasive, our offers more generous, or our tariffs more painful. That is not how this President operates.
As I’ve pointed out before, the President can be successfully engaged, and countries like Ukraine, China, and Qatar have demonstrated this. When they want something from the United States, they skip the State Department, and even the White House staff. Instead of approaching their problem state-to-state, they go state-to-man. These countries focus on what Trump wants on a personal level – to enrich his family. So Beijing granted Ivanka trademarks, Qatar invested in one of Jared’s office towers, and Ukraine, with Slavic candor, simply wired half a million dollars to the President’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen.
For the most part, the western allies understand that if we want the U.S. to do something we must negotiate with the man himself. What we have not grasped yet is, as strange as it sounds, the President of the United States is more concerned about promoting his interests than defending America’s.
Consider that Trump refuses to censure Russia for interfering in the election, because while it may have hurt America, it helped him. And even though these new tariffs will likely cost the U.S. over 140,000 jobs (according to the conservative Heritage Foundation), he will not repeal them because they make him look strong to his base. Other countries that have figured this out have begun to openly bribe the President to get the foreign policy decision they need.
America’s erstwhile allies must also recognize that the President has adopted previously unimaginable new rules, and play accordingly. But, instead of bribing him with personal carrots, I would suggest we consider applying personal sticks. Instead of asking ourselves how we can help the President or his family, we should ask: How can we hurt him? And, Trump has already given us an answer.
Until this President, every previous modern occupant of the White House divested their assets upon assuming office. This eliminated the possibility personal business interests might benefit from political decisions. Conversely, it prevented others from threatening the President by attacking those assets. Trump, by refusing to give up his businesses, and by flagrantly violating the emoluments clause, has inadvertently handed us the perfect stick.
I propose that instead of taxing the import of American serviettes, we tax Trump. In the spirit of the Magnitsky Act, Canada and the western allies come together to collectively pressure the only pain point that matters to this President: his family and their assets. This could take the form of special taxation on their current operations, freezing of assets, or even sanctions against senior staff. Canada could add a tax to Trump properties equal to any tariff unilaterally imposed by Washington. The European Union could revoke any travel visas for senior staff in the Trump organization. And the United Kingdom could temporarily close his golf course.
Arguably, the legislation to do so already exists. Canada’s Special Economic Measures Act and the Foreign Corrupt Officials Act permit us to sanction public officials who are “complicit in ordering, controlling or otherwise directing acts of corruption”. In the case of Trump, we already have several open examples of this and the various ongoing criminal investigations (of his own government) are expected to produce many more.
I recognize this column has the stench of bad satire about it. I am sane enough to know this proposal does not sound sane. But I also know we are confronting an unprecedented crisis and one that would have sounded insane if we’d been warned of it just three years ago: the President of the United States is dismantling the entire liberal international order we have spent a century building, and he is completely focused on promoting his own interests, at the expense of American allies, and at the expense of Americans themselves.
Our attempts to use traditional diplomatic strategies to deal with this crisis are failing. If we do not ask ourselves now, “How do we hurt Trump?”, I predict we will reach that point in the not too distant future. In this case, then, delaying the inevitable will not be a failure, not a success.
Oh sorry, here it is: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/trade-sanctions-against-america-wont-work-sanctioning-trump-himself-might/amp/
edited 2nd Jun '18 5:24:32 PM by megaeliz

The difference being that Prohibition, whatever its myriad other failings, actually did reduce rates of alcoholism, liver cirrhosis, alcohol-related mental illness, etc. While as far as I know current laws against sex trafficking have failed to reduce trafficking at all.