-
It’s about time...
Attorney General William Barr Assigns U.S. Attorney in Connecticut to Review Origins of Russia Inquiry
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.
John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.’s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.
[...]
RELATED:
The doggedness of William Barr
The Democrats won’t give up on impeachment without a fight. Trump and his AG will give them just that
-
The assignment of this guy means there is a definitely a preliminary case here.
Good stuff.He's a serious motherf^^^^^^^er (f***** you Google algorithm)
-
@Frank A bit weak on economics however. Seems to want to control house prices and increase minimum wage but not at all convincing in her answers to Joe's probing on these issues...still better than the other Dem candidates (maybe Yang excepted).
-
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
Trade war with China could lead to nuclear war? Yeah, nah
Yeah she fell off of the logic train a bit there, still a promising young lady, maybe with a few more years experience she could be a good option. Being open to talking with her opposition and some first hand recognition of just how messed up the Democrat party currently is will see her in good stead for the future.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@jegga said in US Politics:
Trade war with China could lead to nuclear war? Yeah, nah
Yeah she fell off of the logic train a bit there, still a promising young lady, maybe with a few more years experience she could be a good option. Being open to talking with her opposition and some first hand recognition of just how messed up the Democrat party currently is will see her in good stead for the future.
That part was embarrassing, I get that presidential campaigns have to be based around a crisis -Yang and ai for example. Trying to frame a campaign around the possibility of nuclear war with China isn’t very credible . I doubt she will have much luck convincing democratic voters that taking away tariffs against China is in their best interests either .
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@jegga said in US Politics:
Trade war with China could lead to nuclear war? Yeah, nah
Yeah she fell off of the logic train a bit there, still a promising young lady, maybe with a few more years experience she could be a good option. Being open to talking with her opposition and some first hand recognition of just how messed up the Democrat party currently is will see her in good stead for the future.
That part was embarrassing, I get that presidential campaigns have to be based around a crisis -Yang and ai for example. Trying to frame a campaign around the possibility of nuclear war with China isn’t very credible . I doubt she will have much luck convincing democratic voters that taking away tariffs against China is in their best interests either .
I'm not so sure. Certainly it ought to help redress the trade deficit and possibly solve the IP issue (both of which are huge issues and long term benefit to the US) but in the meantime the US voters will be paying a shed load more for those goods that are subject to tariffs, and that money goes where? It's quite possible that many will view this as just another tax.
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@jegga said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@jegga said in US Politics:
Trade war with China could lead to nuclear war? Yeah, nah
Yeah she fell off of the logic train a bit there, still a promising young lady, maybe with a few more years experience she could be a good option. Being open to talking with her opposition and some first hand recognition of just how messed up the Democrat party currently is will see her in good stead for the future.
That part was embarrassing, I get that presidential campaigns have to be based around a crisis -Yang and ai for example. Trying to frame a campaign around the possibility of nuclear war with China isn’t very credible . I doubt she will have much luck convincing democratic voters that taking away tariffs against China is in their best interests either .
I'm not so sure. Certainly it ought to help redress the trade deficit and possibly solve the IP issue (both of which are huge issues and long term benefit to the US) but in the meantime the US voters will be paying a shed load more for those goods that are subject to tariffs, and that money goes where? It's quite possible that many will view this as just another tax.
One of the few things Sanders and Trump had in common was antipathy to free trade deals . It seemed to be a pretty popular opinion in the states . Clinton seemed pretty tainted by NAFTA .
I’m no fan of tariffs and subsidies, it was one of the reasons our economy stagnated in the 80s and they are pretty much all gone now .
-
@jegga said in US Politics:
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@jegga said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@jegga said in US Politics:
Trade war with China could lead to nuclear war? Yeah, nah
Yeah she fell off of the logic train a bit there, still a promising young lady, maybe with a few more years experience she could be a good option. Being open to talking with her opposition and some first hand recognition of just how messed up the Democrat party currently is will see her in good stead for the future.
That part was embarrassing, I get that presidential campaigns have to be based around a crisis -Yang and ai for example. Trying to frame a campaign around the possibility of nuclear war with China isn’t very credible . I doubt she will have much luck convincing democratic voters that taking away tariffs against China is in their best interests either .
I'm not so sure. Certainly it ought to help redress the trade deficit and possibly solve the IP issue (both of which are huge issues and long term benefit to the US) but in the meantime the US voters will be paying a shed load more for those goods that are subject to tariffs, and that money goes where? It's quite possible that many will view this as just another tax.
One of the few things Sanders and Trump had in common was antipathy to free trade deals . It seemed to be a pretty popular opinion in the states . Clinton seemed pretty tainted by NAFTA .
I’m no fan of tariffs and subsidies, it was one of the reasons our economy stagnated in the 80s and they are pretty much all gone now .
Coincidentally I was reading a piece today from an investment company written by their economist talking about investment issues globally and the recent US/China escalation was at the heart of it, leading to the possibility of a recession in the US, though he felt that the risks of this were being overstated. The interesting bit (it was mostly a pretty dry old read) as follows:-
"One caveat in all of this is that Trump is “predictably unpredictable”. This latest twist in the trade talks was quite unexpected because everything appeared to be on track for a deal. Furthermore, one wonders about Trump’s economic literacy. He has said more than once that he believes that the US is reaping billions of dollars from the tariffs that Chinese goods are subject to. The truth is that the only people who are paying the tariffs are American consumers, and there is no evidence that Chinese companies are reducing their export prices to offset the tariffs. Meanwhile America’s farmers are drowning in soya beans which China is no longer buying, with the price dropping below the estimated cost of production. It’s almost impossible to guess what his next move might be."
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Trump certainly has a style of his own. So far he has been pretty successful. My money is on China backing down here.
The economist chappy also felt that the trade war was unlikely to happen, his (inferred) view was that neither country wants it or can afford it. He likened it to the weigh in before a boxing match with much posturing but in this instance a complete reluctance for either party to step into the ring. The tariffs imposed though would suggest Trump is prepared. Time will tell I guess, but the thing here is that he doesn't have to be prepared to get in the ring, he only has to appear that he's prepared to do so.
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Trump certainly has a style of his own. So far he has been pretty successful. My money is on China backing down here.
The economist chappy also felt that the trade war was unlikely to happen, his (inferred) view was that neither country wants it or can afford it. He likened it to the weigh in before a boxing match with much posturing but in this instance a complete reluctance for either party to step into the ring. The tariffs imposed though would suggest Trump is prepared. Time will tell I guess, but the thing here is that he doesn't have to be prepared to get in the ring, he only has to appear that he's prepared to do so.
The economist chappy sounds like most economists.. a fucking idiot who is closer to have an arts degree than anything actually useful. The vast majority of economists are either partisal political hacks or dishonest hacks for hire. They use statistics to undermine/promote to instruction. That isnt my opinion, that is a fact. The amount of times there predictions go REALLY wrong is staggering, not a little but wrong, but REALLY wrong. There only real skills are
1/ Manipulatng actual data but selectively to paint a picture as required. Lies damn lies and statistics
2/ Getting away with being drastically wrong time and time an time and time again and still having many think they are credible. No other field.. except journalists get away with that... and that similarity isnt a co-incidence.
As for this clown economists analysis of the tariffs, it fails the very first smell test.
The US will win this trade war, it is over before it has even started. The US is the customer, they are Chinas biggest customer. Consumer countries always win in situations like this, look at how NZ bends over and takes it up the ass for China over trade. China can buy our stuff elsewhere.. we cannot conjure up more customers easily.
The US can and will find alternate suppliers easily, nothing much China produces can not be found elsewhere. Developing countries with an appetite for more customer for generally cheap shite are not rare in the world.
The idea that the US consumers will pay for these tariffs in any meaningful way is laughable. The US suppliers who export to China will pay a price, but not consumers in any real way.
And this revisionist bullshit that Trump is somehow responsible in any way for the agreement falling over shows a complete and utter lack of understanding over what happened.. and just more orange man bad lazy analysis/propoganda. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
The US can and will find alternate suppliers easily, nothing much China produces can not be found elsewhere. Developing countries with an appetite for more customer for generally cheap shite are not rare in the world.
The idea that the US consumers will pay for these tariffs in any meaningful way is laughable.The same price, at an adequate volume, with the necessary shipping infrastructure? I have strong doubts about that. If any of those are not true the cost will be passed on to the consumer.
Even if your assertion is true, there would be a period of time for a changeover to occur. In the meantime the cost would be passed on to the consumer -
@Duluth said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
The US can and will find alternate suppliers easily, nothing much China produces can not be found elsewhere. Developing countries with an appetite for more customer for generally cheap shite are not rare in the world.
The idea that the US consumers will pay for these tariffs in any meaningful way is laughable.The same price, at an adequate volume, with the necessary shipping infrastructure? I have strong doubts about that. If any of those are not true the cost will be passed on to the consumer.
Even if your assertion is true, there would be a period of time for a changeover to occur. In the meantime the cost would be passed on to the consumerNope, the infrastructure is already in place for most of this. Shipping in particular will walk in the park with it. Can you think of things that China produces that other countries cannot easily cover and produce for? And even if you get some resellers that want to pass it on to consumers, how will they when other options exist and will be much cheaper already on the shelves.
Lets talk some specifics. How about t-shirts? You think a consumer is going to pay 25% more for a made in China t-shirt instead of a made in India t-shirt? You think re sellers are just going to on charge this? Seriously? Put yourself in Walmarts shoes... would you add the cost to consumer or change suppliers? You would charge a 25% premium for something made in China? Or just change suppliers? No offence but I dont think you realise how mobile these industries are in regards to supply and what massive capacity exists outside of China.There will obviously be some impact on consumers, but nothing that will really be noticed, and def not compared to the hurt China will feel.
But I am happy to have a wager and just wait and see. China will back down before we ever really get to see. But that will be proof in itself. Chinas problem is the the election is not until the end of 2020, they needed this November and hope that he lost and Biden won.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
Can you think of things that China produces that other countries cannot easily cover and produce for?
Of course not.. but at what price and how much cost/time is involved in changing suppliers
It's certainly not a 'laughable' idea that there will be costs to US consumers. The zero cost claim has been made about tariffs before and the lessons get learnt again every generation
Now maybe the claim is a softer "the cost will be relatively small and will be offset by the gain". Well, I am sceptical of a Government making that call accurately
It's also worth noting the type of consumer that will be affected. It may not have a huge affect on the economy.. But poor people buy cheap consumer goods from China and they are very sensitive to price changes.
From a purely political calculation, it is risky 1.5years out from an election if Trump wants to repeat his successes in the rust belt
US Politics