Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Mar 2018, 6:00 pm

freeman3 wrote:I suspect that someone is going to have "egg" on their face when all this is over.

Trump was willing to work with Russia--that was shown by the Don, Jr. meeting. So the above points about why Trump would not be willing to do it have already shown to be incorrect. He was willing to do it! Else he wouldn't have had his son go to that meeting. Unless you believe that Trump did not know about that meeting.

Trump was willing to be helped by Russia. Russia within a short time after that time did help Trump. Trump officials were thereafter active in cultivating better relations with Russia during the transition.

With all that...pretty hard to be that confident that nothing was going on.


We'll know soon enough.

I can laugh if there's egg on my face, can you?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Mar 2018, 6:46 pm

I don't eat McMuffins! But I think I will be able to laugh at myself if it turns out that I'm wrong...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 1:53 am

Doctor Fate wrote: I knew he would propose old-school Democratic policies--like tariffs.
Well, Jackson was a protectionist, but of course the largest tariff hike in the last century was Smoot-Hawley. Sen Smoot and Rep Hawley were not Democrats, and neither was President Hoover who enacted their Bill.

Smoot and Hawley were building on the tariff hikes of Fordney-McCumber in 1922. Again, Rep Fordney and Sen McCumber were not Democrats and again, neither was President Harding who signed it.

I am sure that Democrats have supported tariffs in the past too, but don't pretend that they have not been a Republican policy as well.

[edit] Oh, and it seems that more recent Republican Presidents have increased tariffs at some point:

Reagan in the 80s
Even though we had the firepower, we lost the battle on trade within the Reagan administration. Remember the infamous “voluntary restraint agreement,” in which the Japanese agreed to restrict car exports to the U.S.? It was all a total horror show, one that Reagan supporters like to sweep under the rug. But as Douglas Irwin suggests, that’s hard to do. Indeed, the share of American imports covered by some sort of trade restriction soared under “free-trader” Reagan, moving from only 8% in 1975 to 21% by 1984.


And of course the last hike of steel tariffs by GW Bush in 2002
The administration has announced a complicated schedule of supposedly temporary high tariffs (ranging up to 30%) on different kinds of steel. Something like $8 billion of imports from Europe, Japan, South Korea and other countries will be affected, about 10% of the world market. It would be bad enough if things stopped there. The policy as it stands will make most Americans worse off, by forcing them to pay more for their steel. Except in the short term it will also do little to help the people it is intended to help—namely, workers in the parts of America's steel industry that cannot compete with foreign suppliers or with America's own more productive mini-mills.


And yes, I know Clinton also increased tariffs in the late 90s, leading to a trade war.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 11:46 am

Yes, yes, all of that to show that Republicans in the past supported tariffs. Good for you.

They are, by and large, out of step with the GOP. Some Congressmen with Rust Belt industries like them, regardless of party.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 6:56 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, yes, all of that to show that Republicans in the past supported tariffs. Good for you.

They are, by and large, out of step with the GOP. Some Congressmen with Rust Belt industries like them, regardless of party.
More to show that your assertion that tariffs are a Democrat thing was...

Well, let's just say embellishment for partisan purposes.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Mar 2018, 7:58 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, yes, all of that to show that Republicans in the past supported tariffs. Good for you.

They are, by and large, out of step with the GOP. Some Congressmen with Rust Belt industries like them, regardless of party.
More to show that your assertion that tariffs are a Democrat thing was...

Well, let's just say embellishment for partisan purposes.


Not these days.

Who is supporting these tariffs? Unions and progressive Democrats, and a few GOP Congressmen from Rust Central.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3219
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 06 Mar 2018, 12:17 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:He's capable of doing a lot of things. However, I don't think he is capable of that.


Why do you think he's not capable of colluding with Russians? I think he's capable of doing and thinking nearly anything. Wondering what makes you think he's not capable of that.


1. I don't think he wanted to win that badly.
2. I see no evidence that there's anything "in it" for him. If he lost, so what?
3. While there are many things he is capable of doing, I don't think that something approaching treason is in his range of choices.
4. If there was anything remotely resembling that, the Republican establishment would be outing him. He has no loyalty there.


To Trump winning is everything.

On point 3, I don't think he would think of it as treason, he would think of it as winning. Use any tool at your disposal and win. That's his character. The fact that you or I would see it as treason wouldn't even occur to him.

On the last point, we don't know yet, and I don't think our Congressmen are more in the know than we are. I hope, I really hope, that if Mueller comes back with something real, that the Rs in congress close ranks, stand strong, and throw the bum out. I'm not confident that they will, but they might.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 06 Mar 2018, 12:26 pm

Perhaps lying to a Grand Jury would qualify as an impeachable offense that should result in removal from office? I think if that was the case it should happen.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Mar 2018, 12:40 pm

bbauska wrote:Perhaps lying to a Grand Jury would qualify as an impeachable offense that should result in removal from office? I think if that was the case it should happen.


It failed once before.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 06 Mar 2018, 12:42 pm

geojanes wrote:On the last point, we don't know yet, and I don't think our Congressmen are more in the know than we are. I hope, I really hope, that if Mueller comes back with something real, that the Rs in congress close ranks, stand strong, and throw the bum out. I'm not confident that they will, but they might.


We don't know yet. In DC, that should tell you something.

If there is evidence of malfeasance, real evidence, not rickyp-scale evidence, they'll get rid of him in a heartbeat. They won't be like the Democrats with Clinton.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6866
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 06 Mar 2018, 1:12 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
bbauska wrote:Perhaps lying to a Grand Jury would qualify as an impeachable offense that should result in removal from office? I think if that was the case it should happen.


It failed once before.


I know. That is my point. For a liberal to say that the Republicans should vote for an impeachable offense is rather hypocritical.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3219
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 06 Mar 2018, 1:17 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:On the last point, we don't know yet, and I don't think our Congressmen are more in the know than we are. I hope, I really hope, that if Mueller comes back with something real, that the Rs in congress close ranks, stand strong, and throw the bum out. I'm not confident that they will, but they might.


We don't know yet. In DC, that should tell you something.

If there is evidence of malfeasance, real evidence, not rickyp-scale evidence, they'll get rid of him in a heartbeat. They won't be like the Democrats with Clinton.


Perhaps I'm just a yokel, but the fact that we don't know anything yet, doesn't tell me anything, other than the people working on the investigation are good.

I hope you're right about the R's. In fact, I think you are right, but I worry.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Mar 2018, 2:55 pm

Are you kidding? The Republicans have been completely amoral with regard to the Trump. They are not moving against him unless the country demands it. Something similar to the missing Nixon tapes. People believe what they see and hear. Testimony of witnesses or documents that don't point directly to guilt won't be enough. Mueller can come up with a convincing case but unless there is smoking gun type of evidence....Republicans will just dispute it. And I doubt we're going to have Trump on tape admitting he did anything wrong.

As for Clinton, context does matter. Republicans went after Clinton on anything and everything and Starr could not find anything, there was a political Supreme Court decision to allow a civil case go forward against Clinton (something that had never happened before), and Clinton did have a hyper-technical defense. I guess nowadays we would be a more sensitive about the possible sexual harassment aspect of it, but back then it just looked like a witch hunt where he was forced to answer a question in a lawsuit that should not have been allowed to go forward and either he would have to admit the allegation which would be extremely damaging to his presidency or lie (or try to answer in such a way that was not a lie under the definition provided in that case). That's why you don't allow politically motivated civil lawsuits to go forward.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Mar 2018, 2:57 pm

geojanes
Perhaps I'm just a yokel, but the fact that we don't know anything yet

But we know lots.
4 people have plead guilty to various charges resulting from the investigation.
Manafort has been indicted on lots of charges.
13 Russians have been indicted.

If this were a hoax, would 13 Russians have been indicted?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3219
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 06 Mar 2018, 6:27 pm

rickyp wrote:geojanes
Perhaps I'm just a yokel, but the fact that we don't know anything yet

But we know lots.
4 people have plead guilty to various charges resulting from the investigation.
Manafort has been indicted on lots of charges.
13 Russians have been indicted.

If this were a hoax, would 13 Russians have been indicted?


Sorry, I wasn't clear, we don't know if the president was involved.