All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[aja_christopher]

"Trump Threatens to End All Trade With Allies"

"Leaving the G7 summit on Saturday, President Trump said that the U.S. might end all trade with America’s closest allies if those countries don’t submit to his demands over reduced trade barriers. Trump also confirmed that he had told the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, and Italy that there should be no tariffs between them and the U.S. of any kind. Whether Trump’s characteristically hyperbolic threat, or overarching proposal, will be taken seriously is another matter.

Referring to what he called “ridiculous and unfair” tariffs on U.S. imports, Trump said, “It’s going to stop — or we’ll stop trading with them. And that’s a very profitable answer, if we have to do it.”

Trump left the G7 while it was still underway so that he could travel to Singapore to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. The trade-warring president claimed that his relationship with other G7 leaders was “a 10,” but the contentious summit clearly proved otherwise.

The Trump administration recently imposed steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the EU and Canada, having already imposed them on Japan. Those countries, along with Mexico, have pledged to impose their own higher tariffs on billions of dollars of U.S. imports in retaliation, as America’s allies appear to have become fed up with the combative and chaotic Trump administration, and are shifting their strategy from trying to reach and educate Trump about the complexities of international trade, to seeking to punish the U.S. economy instead.

“If they retaliate, they’re making a mistake,” Trump said on Saturday, meaning that he believes U.S. allies have more to lose than gain by entering into a trade war with the U.S."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...th-allies.html

[PaulBullion]

We are agreeing with each other in different ways here. If Bernie ran Independent as you suggest. Trump would win. We agree Democrats need progressive wing that would be tempted to vote for him and they need Independents and even moderate republicans in some states that are fed up with Trump's BS.

The point is it is LOSE LOSE for anyone but Trump if Democrats and independents who want him gone and get all GOP out infight.

Will you get single payer as long as GOP are in control of everything? NO you never will. Will we make any progress on gun control at all as long as GOP are in control? Not if the NRA who heavily pays them to halt any talk has anything to say about it.

Making democrats out to be the "enemy" is ridiculous when there is a VERY clear danger to us all. That is GOP and Trump control. If we cant all put the stupid shit aside and get behind that one truth we deserve to lose.

[Gray Lensman]

video here:
https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/sta...82471857061888

I think Faux News is about to be down another blonde.

[Mister Mets]

Sanders might have to give up his Independence:

DNC panel adopts rule requiring candidates to run, serve as a Democrat

Kinda weird that that wasn't a rule before.

There hadn't been a true outsider candidate (not a registered member of the party) to make a credible bid for the nomination, so it wasn't something anyone thought there would need to be rules for.

Part of it is that for generations, the parties were ideologically diverse, in a way that isn't applicable now, so there wouldn't be a need for anyone to be outside the Democratic party.

Sanders is also a very unique case. He does seem to think it is important to maintain his independence outside the traditional political system, and that was part of his brand in a small state where he is very popular. Vermont was seen as a Republican state until quite recently, and in 2006 when Vermont had an open seat, the Democrats wanted Sanders due to his personal popularity, to take over a seat that had gone for the Republican Jim Jeffords in the previous election.

Republicans have nothing to do with it. Either you accept the continued conservative dominance of the Democratic party, or you oppose it. If you stay silent about it -- or more likely, you aren't even conscious of it, because you're always distracted by the Republicans -- then you've accepted it. I get that though. Hey, we can't let go of the Clintons, now can we?

Who are the conservatives who dominate the Democratic party?

The problem with that new rule is that it only requires the candidate to register as a Democrat. It doesn't require that they ever have to vote with Democrats. So they can put a D next to their names the way Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp do, get the committee chairs for Democrats, but then continue to vote with Republicans on so many issues.

The other Senators can always vote against letting someone be a committee chair. They don't want to do that, because they recognize they may need Manchin and Heitkamp to gain and hold a majority.

But it would always be within their power to state clear unambiguous purity tests for committee chairs.

Exactly. Can you imagine if Joe Lieberman got powerful financial backers and decided to run for president?

Would he really do better than he did in 2004? Or in the 2006 Senate primary?

What America needs is a good candidate people will vote for. This “we need someone younger” push just screams “ignore the old popular guy so we can push a focus group younger establishment type coming out of the bullpen”

To be fair, we don't know how Sanders would have performed in a primary where there were alternatives under fifty.

There’s a whole process for the President to choose his line of succession. It’s why the VP is on the ticket.

That works when there's a resignation, or a death. It would be a lot messier if a potentially senile President doesn't want to resign. It's also more complicated if you have a President with wildly different political beliefs than the Vice-President.

I've noted this before, but a President Joe Biden would likely be ideologically close to his running mate, so there wouldn't be much concern that his resignation would result in massive policy changes. With Sanders, there could be that added complication, a conflict between doing the right thing (resigning if he's not up for the job) and accomplishing his policy goals.

[Mister Mets]

Bolded is mine.

Here's the thing, if people had the choice most of us wouldn't be here now. German and Irish and Chinese and Japanese and polish and Jewish were all seen as undesirables. I don't know if you heard about what people would say about these groups, but at different points in history every last one of them was seen as the other here. Drunks, beaters, mobsters, drug peddlers, etc. The list goes on.

And if were talking about deportation, why throw a kid out when we should have been deporting the likes of Capone, who was far more dangerous than some teen boy and a speeding ticket or a dui.

And how many people a year get a dui and get off with a slap on the wrist? A lot, or are teens that have kids, a lot. But ya know, I'm pretty sure that were he some Irish kid he would be alive and well right now.

There are several complex issues here.

As others noted, Capone was born in the US, but you can certainly make the argument that his immigrant parents failed to assimilate and instill in him proper values if he ended up becoming a career criminal associated with Unione Siciliana.

In the late 19th Century, the country also needed a different set of skills than we need now. Education and technical knowledge are much more important.

The alternative to viewing some people as undesirables would be a much more open immigration policy (perhaps excluding only known criminals). If this is what people want, it should be clearly and unambiguously advocated, along with policy suggestions for how to balance that with the welfare state.

I'd say that people are pretty animated. And besides, the real issue confronting Democrats at the national level is 'voter suppression' and 'gerrymandering'.

No, Mets, this isn't an invitation for you to come in and start ranting about 'geographic sorting' again (which is a nonsense way to talk about the urban/rural divide and the fact that people tend to congregate in dense population centers.).

As for Sanders, he'll have to say 'I'm a Democrat' and actually walk the walk and have a 'D" after his name. That shouldn't be a problem for the guy. /If he wins/, he'll have all the leverage he needs to force changes that he approves of. Of course, given his track record with nominees and personal lack of transparency, that may not be such a good thing, no matter how much I agree with things he's said.

If you want to criticize my comments about geographic sorting, please tell me where I'm wrong, and the analysis that backs that up.

[Tazirai]

A joke I saw on Facebook:

Breaking: Justify turns down invitation to the White House. Asked why, the Triple Crown winner said, “If I wanted to see a horse’s ass, I would’ve finished second.”

I'm dead, lol.

[heretic]

So...

Your fix isn't "The DNC should see if they can give those voters a reason to vote for the Democratic candidate."

It's more like "We alienated voters last time. Let's see if we can potentially pick a fight with them this time instead of just alienating them."

Again, your proposal is to let anyone inside or outside the Democratic party seek it's nomination. Is there a reason to have a distinct party in this case?

[numberthirty]

Again, your proposal is to let anyone inside or outside the Democratic party seek it's nomination. Is there a reason to have a distinct party in this case?

If the party is at the point where someone can walk in off of the sidelines and put a run where they actually compete for the nomination?

You tell me.

Never mind that said "Distinct" party and it's base didn't really get it done in a general.

The nomination isn't worth much if it's a true believer who is going to have some difficulty getting votes outside the base come the fall.

[heretic]

I'm sorry. I have no problem with a guy who wants to be the leader of the Democratic party having to be a member of the party. You can have as many unorthodox views as you want but you still have to have a 'D' after your name. The Democratic party has plenty of room for a wide variety of views.

Bernie doesn't get to have it both ways. This shouldn't be up for debate.

Once more, I voted for Sanders in the primary and I remain at a loss to understand how this is such a malevolently anti-progressive policy.

But then I still wonder if people wanted the DNC to chuck the vote totals under existing rules and appoint Bernie to the candidacy.

[heretic]

Besides trade agreements that drag them through the mud, other thing American workers hate is porous borders. Now why is that, you ask? It's because almost everyone who crosses the border illegally is laborer, who if he can will work under the table to avoid detection by the authorities. This makes them much cheaper for Americans to hire.

Is Trump's border wall a silly idea? Sure it is. But contrast it with Hillary Clinton's dream of "a Western Hemisphere without borders."

Speaking as the son of a construction worker who grew up in 1980s Los Angeles? I would be more impressed by cracking down on those hiring people not authorized to work in the U. S. and candidates willing to consider minimum wage hikes than the knee-jerk xenophobia taken straight from 1840s nativist screeds.

[Mister Mets]

I think Faux News is about to be down another blonde.

The host Abby Huntsman is the daughter of former Utah Governor, and current Ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The host Abby Huntsman is the daughter of former Utah Governor, and current Ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman.

Huntsman is probably one of the few Republicans I wouldn't mind being President tbh, probably wouldn't vote for him, but I wouldn't lose my mind the way I did with the last two Republican fields. So it doesn't surprise me his daughter was the one to say that.

Edit: just googled, not a blonde either

[numberthirty]

Huntsman is probably one of the few Republicans I wouldn't mind being President tbh, probably wouldn't vote for him, but I wouldn't lose my mind the way I did with the last two Republican fields. So it doesn't surprise me his daughter was the one to say that.

Edit: just googled, not a blonde either

Uh...

(Assuming things are as they were when I last took note...)

- Ainsley E. - Host During The Week
- Abby H. - Apparently Host On The Weekends

[Mister Mets]

Uh...

(Assuming things are as they were when I last took note...)

- Ainsley E. - Host During The Week
- Abby H. - Apparently Host On The Weekends

Abby Huntsman did apologize for the statement.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-n...untsman-2018-6

[numberthirty]

Abby Huntsman did apologize for the statement.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-n...untsman-2018-6

Kidding around. I assumed the initial post was as well.