2020 US Election (Part One)

[Estebonrober]

Snowden said Clapper lying to Congress is what motivated him to go public

Statute of limitations run out?

I mean why haven't they moved on this?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...timony-before-statute-of-limitations-runs-out

Although spy chiefs lying to congress is a bit different then presidents directing their lawyers to lie to congress.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My point was that the idea of no freeman could have his life or property forfeit without a lawful judgment of his peers - the basics of legal equality- was present in the 13th century, and, if I bothered to track down the Visigothic Code or Ripuarian Code, I can find similar instances indicative of the idea of legal equality of freemen. Specifically, that the idea of legal equality didn't just spring out of the powder-wigged heads of some self-righteous slaveholders in your beloved "neoclassical" period but rather had a long-established precedent in western Europe.

That reminds me of:

 

[onejayhawk]

Wow I really would have to consider fleeing America if he won 53% of the vote after all this, I mean the level of stupid that would demonstrate would be stupefying.

The level of stupidity of 65 million people voting for Hillary Clinton is stupifying.

More to the point, the Democrats are in a generational transition, much like the one Republicans had a decade ago. It will throw their game off.

J

 

[Berzerker]

Although spy chiefs lying to congress is a bit different then presidents directing their lawyers to lie to congress.

I'll say, Trump allegedly told his lawyer to lie about when talks for a Trump Tower in Moscow ended and Clapper lied about trashing the 4th Amendment

 

[Azem.Ocram]

If The D(onald Tr)ump is reelected, I will emigrate. I don’t want to be a citizen of Trumpland. There is still a chance of impeachment or him losing the election, either would result in his indictment and punishment. If The D’ump is reelected and declares war on Mexico, I know which side I’d root for (and as long as I remain a citizen of the USA, I’m subject to the Draft).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If The D(onald Tr)ump is reelected, I will emigrate. I don’t want to be a citizen of Trumpland. There is still a chance of impeachment or him losing the election, either would result in his indictment and punishment. If The D’ump is reelected and declares war on Mexico, I know which side I’d root for (and as long as I remain a citizen of the USA, I’m subject to the Draft).

Interestingly enough, in 2016 I was seriously talking to people about starting a business, which for me would have meant clearing up a bunch of issues that arise from being off the grid for well over a decade. I was really optimistic.

Anyway, if you decide to emigrate I can help you move to Belize if you are interested. Over the past two years everything I was considering investing in that business has been invested...in Belize. Even if the D'ump experiment only runs four years, or less, this country is just too unreliable for my tastes.

 

[Berzerker]

Are you already down there?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are you already down there?

No. Unless something changes with my gf and her job I'll be up here for another few years (barring serious defecation hitting the fan, of course). Which is okay. I manage putting together our truckloads of material and I'm good at sales, so I'm probably more useful here than I would be there.

 

[onejayhawk]

If The D(onald Tr)ump is reelected, I will emigrate. I don’t want to be a citizen of Trumpland. There is still a chance of impeachment or him losing the election, either would result in his indictment and punishment. If The D’ump is reelected and declares war on Mexico, I know which side I’d root for (and as long as I remain a citizen of the USA, I’m subject to the Draft).

I understand. Anyone that is true Blue is not only upset with Trump himself but also what he has done while in office. I know a fairly erudite Democrat. he tossed off 15 complaints about Trump's administration.

1) Implementing a tax cut that greatly reduces taxes for corporations and the wealthy
2) First trying to ban all Muslims from coming to the U.S., and then switching to a plan to ban people from 7 Muslim-majority countries
3) Trying to end the DACA program
4) Trying to end the Affordable Care Act
5) Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement
6) Threatening to pull out of NATO, and in general not supporting our European allies, while backing dictators from countries like Russia, the Philippines, Turkey
7) Trying to end trade deficits by putting high tariffs on goods from China, Canada, and the EU
8) Trying to end NAFTA and the TPP
9) Ending the Iran nuclear deal
10) Not being willing to quickly condemn racists and white supremacists
11) Threatening to hold disaster relief funds from Puerto Rico and California
12) Saying that we need more guns in the classroom, and wanting to arm teachers
13) Vastly expanding offshore drilling
14) Reducing regulations on corporate emissions and dumping
15) Shutting down the government unless he gets a border wall (won't accept more fencing, border agents, and technology)
​

His problem is that the bolded lines are viewed as clear wins by most Republicans. Mostly they either support Trump or do not care about the others.

In any event, his list is a good place to start understanding Trump support outside his core group. Most of the list is clearly left of center. Even if Trump's position is not supported by moderates, neither is the Democrat's.

J

 

[Ajidica]

His problem is that the bolded lines are viewed as clear wins by most Republicans.

The thing is why do Republicans support ending the JCPOA or restricting the ability of the EPA to enforce toxic runoff regulations? I must have missed the mass protests chanting "Permit more mercury-laden fly ash in our rivers!"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The thing is why do Republicans support ending the JCPOA or restricting the ability of the EPA to enforce toxic runoff regulations? I must have missed the mass protests chanting "Permit more mercury-laden fly ash in our rivers!"

Disinformation, pure and simple. The rank and file Republicans, particularly the Trumpists, are buried in a world constructed of outright lies. I mean, look @onejayhawk.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Interestingly enough, in 2016 I was seriously talking to people about starting a business, which for me would have meant clearing up a bunch of issues that arise from being off the grid for well over a decade. I was really optimistic.

Anyway, if you decide to emigrate I can help you move to Belize if you are interested. Over the past two years everything I was considering investing in that business has been invested...in Belize. Even if the D'ump experiment only runs four years, or less, this country is just too unreliable for my tastes.

Thank you very much for your offer but I’m fluent in Spanish and 1/2 my family is in Mexico (mostly Jalisco though I have relatives in DF). Belize would be easier for most Americans I understand.

 

[AdrienIer]

Most of the list is clearly left of center.

Only n°8

 

[onejayhawk]

The thing is why do Republicans support ending the JCPOA or restricting the ability of the EPA to enforce toxic runoff regulations? I must have missed the mass protests chanting "Permit more mercury-laden fly ash in our rivers!"

They (correctly IMO) believe JCPOA facilitates Iran getting nuclear weapons. That's considered a bad thing.

As to the EPA, they do not applaud restricting toxic runoff regulations. They do believe that the EPA should be enforcing clean air and water and not restricting greenhouse gasses. They also believe that all Agencies need to respond to permit requests in a timely manner.

Only n°8

Clearly more than that. ACA, DACA, Paris, NAFTA, TPP, Iran, are all left of center in USA. So #3, 4, 5, 8, 9 at a minimum. Most Republicans think Democrats cry wolf about race to avoid discussing substantive matters, so #10 as well. #2 and #15 are border enforcement issues, so I claim those. Some of the others are the President supporting a right of center position, #1, 12, 13. Some are too vague to tell, eg #14.

J

 

[Ajidica]

They (correctly IMO) believe JCPOA facilitates Iran getting nuclear weapons. That's considered a bad thing.

How does the JCPOA facilitate Iran getting nuclear weapons?
Specifically, the JCPOA was basically an agreement where Iran would give up much of their nuclear program (they said it was civil, the rest of the world was unsure) and nuclear capacity and would accept IAEA inspectors and the installation of various tamper-proof remote monitoring devices. In exchange, numerous sanctions against Iran would be lifted.

Under JCPOA, Iran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98%, and reduce by about two-thirds the number of its gas centrifuges for 13 years. For the next 15 years, Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67%. Iran also agreed not to build any new heavy-water facilities for the same period of time. Uranium-enrichment activities will be limited to a single facility using first-generation centrifuges for 10 years. Other facilities will be converted to avoid proliferation risks. To monitor and verify Iran's compliance with the agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have regular access to all Iranian nuclear facilities. The agreement provides that in return for verifiably abiding by its commitments, Iran will receive relief from U.S., European Union, and United Nations Security Council nuclear-related sanctions.
...
IAEA inspectors spend 3,000 calendar days per year in Iran, installing tamper-proof seals and collecting surveillance camera photos, measurement data and documents for further analysis. IAEA Director Yukiya Amano stated (in March 2018) that the organization has verified that Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
It is one thing to say that Iran may not have been as honest as they should have been regarding the nuclear program, or that their missile testing was still a concern. The JCPOA had problems, but it was also all Permanent Five members of the United Nations Security Council -the United States, France, United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, and the Russian Federation - alongside Germany all agreeing that this agreement would prevent Iran's nuclear program from being able to carry out any concerning activity.
The JCPOA was replaced with - absolutely nothing. US sanctions were put back in place, but remember that the Iranian nuclear program was concerning while sanctions by the P5 were in place. With few sanctions now in place and unclear enforcement of the JCPOA, how has this inhibited the Iranian nuclear program?

As to the EPA, they do not applaud restricting toxic runoff regulations. They do believe that the EPA should be enforcing clean air and water and not restricting greenhouse gasses.

I thought you were going to try and be "clever", so I explicitly referred to fly ash which is not a greenhouse gas, can easily contaminate groundwater, and contains many substances in high concentration that are toxic to humans. Regulating fly ash is explicitly within the EPA's statutory responsibility and it was determined that additional regulation for fly ash storage and disposal was needed.

 

[Takhisis]

How does the JCPOA facilitate Iran getting nuclear weapons?

He does at least state that it's his opinion rather than actual fact.

 

[onejayhawk]

How does the JCPOA facilitate Iran getting nuclear weapons?
Specifically, the JCPOA was basically an agreement where Iran would give up much of their nuclear program (they said it was civil, the rest of the world was unsure) and nuclear capacity and would accept IAEA inspectors and the installation of various tamper-proof remote monitoring devices. In exchange, numerous sanctions against Iran would be lifted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action
It is one thing to say that Iran may not have been as honest as they should have been regarding the nuclear program, or that their missile testing was still a concern. The JCPOA had problems, but it was also all Permanent Five members of the United Nations Security Council -the United States, France, United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, and the Russian Federation - alongside Germany all agreeing that this agreement would prevent Iran's nuclear program from being able to carry out any concerning activity.
The JCPOA was replaced with - absolutely nothing. US sanctions were put back in place, but remember that the Iranian nuclear program was concerning while sanctions by the P5 were in place. With few sanctions now in place and unclear enforcement of the JCPOA, how has this inhibited the Iranian nuclear program?

I thought you were going to try and be "clever", so I explicitly referred to fly ash which is not a greenhouse gas, can easily contaminate groundwater, and contains many substances in high concentration that are toxic to humans. Regulating fly ash is explicitly within the EPA's statutory responsibility and it was determined that additional regulation for fly ash storage and disposal was needed.

Now you are asking me to read minds. I can tell you why I think the JCPOA does exactly the opposite of what it says it does. If you want to know why the average Republican thinks so, You will need to do your own digging.

I covered your EPA point. You made a specific case which can be argued as a specific case but that is not relevant. What is relevant is the new emphasis on getting permit requests out in a more timely manner. You know, do the job. Feel free to disagree, but if he/she knows or cares, the average Republican voter thinks it is a step in the right direction. That said, If I am getting your point correctly, the 2014 standards were widely criticized as being odious, excessive, and lacking significant benefit. This is consistent with the BOA stated goal of driving coal out of business. Fracking and natural gas were doing a fine job of making coal obsolete without the diety intervention.

He does at least state that it's his opinion rather than actual fact.

Actually, I said it was a common opinion among Republicans and that I happen to agree.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Trump merged his campaign's finances with the NRC's. If people thought the DNC was unfair to Bernie, wait till they see how Trump's primary opponents are treated.

 

[Takhisis]

It's not as if Republican candidate didn't get a lot of money from uber-wealthy menschen around the country. The only problem with that is that, right now, Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, etc. are quite please with the rollbacks on financial and environmental regulations Trump has perpetrated.

 

[Estebonrober]

I understand. Anyone that is true Blue is not only upset with Trump himself but also what he has done while in office. I know a fairly erudite Democrat. he tossed off 15 complaints about Trump's administration.

1) Implementing a tax cut that greatly reduces taxes for corporations and the wealthy
2) First trying to ban all Muslims from coming to the U.S., and then switching to a plan to ban people from 7 Muslim-majority countries
3) Trying to end the DACA program
4) Trying to end the Affordable Care Act
5) Pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement
6) Threatening to pull out of NATO, and in general not supporting our European allies, while backing dictators from countries like Russia, the Philippines, Turkey
7) Trying to end trade deficits by putting high tariffs on goods from China, Canada, and the EU
8) Trying to end NAFTA and the TPP
9) Ending the Iran nuclear deal
10) Not being willing to quickly condemn racists and white supremacists
11) Threatening to hold disaster relief funds from Puerto Rico and California
12) Saying that we need more guns in the classroom, and wanting to arm teachers
13) Vastly expanding offshore drilling
14) Reducing regulations on corporate emissions and dumping
15) Shutting down the government unless he gets a border wall (won't accept more fencing, border agents, and technology)
​

His problem is that the bolded lines are viewed as clear wins by most Republicans. Mostly they either support Trump or do not care about the others.

In any event, his list is a good place to start understanding Trump support outside his core group. Most of the list is clearly left of center. Even if Trump's position is not supported by moderates, neither is the Democrat's.

J

1) was terrible for long term health of the nation the way it was done
2) stupidly handled by a stupid administration
3) I know people effected by this, resisting a pathway for people who only know this nation as a home is ridiculous and shows republicans inability to put themselves in anyone else's shoes at a basic level
4) and have done nothing to improve healthcare in this country so we continue to be backwards
5) and now we become followers instaed of leaders in the world in another important sector of global politics
6) The essence of Trump and why he is likely a Russian agent
7) trade wars are easy tho right?
8) trade wars are easy tho right?
9) being Israel and saudi arabia's puppet super power looks so good on us
10) yea no kidding
11) or illegally trying to redirect funds from Puerto Rico to Texas and Florida because he's only president for 35% of the country
12) stupid, stupid, stupid
13) we need to get off fossil fuels sooner rather than later like now
14) yea this is more of the above and proof republicans have no interest in actual regulation at all, they'd have us back to 1890 in 10 years if they could
15) He should declare his national emergency already, he's had a lot of funding for it already offered he's just a bad negotiator

All of the bolded ones indicate why I left the republican party. Since Gingrich they have slowly devolved into a party for small efficient government into the party of bandits trying to get a way with as much as they can as fast as they can. Its all pillage and plunder with no concern for the future or anyone who isn't interested in living a life organized around pillaging and plundering. Its nauseating.