• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Aridas said:
A quibble because it annoys me and is out of place on the list - Big Pharma refers to the big pharmaceutical businesses, not an internal government thing that could reasonably be cut. You fairly certainly knew that, of course.
Click to expand...
I do not presume to speak for angrysoba (he might get angry with me), but medicinal chemist Derek Lowe wrote about the interdependence of NIH and the pharmaceutical industry. He argued (convincingly for me) that the cuts to NIH would hurt BigPharma, and he castigated the executives for not speaking out. "So allow me to advocate a larger view. Gutting the NIH, NSF, CDC and others will demolish one of the pillars that holds up our entire research establishment. It will have terrible follow-on effects in all of biopharma - not tomorrow, not next week, but soon enough. And by the time you can unequivocally point to things that have started going wrong in industry because academic research has been stomped flat, it will be far too late to do anything about it."
 
Aridas said:
A quibble because it annoys me and is out of place on the list - Big Pharma refers to the big pharmaceutical businesses, not an internal government thing that could reasonably be cut. You fairly certainly knew that, of course.
Click to expand...
Of course. These are MAGA characterizations. The same as the formulation about the Commie Liberal Trans Muslim Atheists. It is not me claiming that the schools are run by such a collective, but the fever dreams of the MAGAbots.
 
AmyStrange said:
Of course, it doesn't make sense but isn't that par for the course for the stupid republicans who are now the maga weirdoes?

Trust me, a lot of them in the msn and fox forums are crowing about the idea of getting rid of the free ride the demoCRAPs have been giving the poor since forever.


-
Click to expand...
And yet the biggest recipients of aid are red states.
TragicMonkey said:
Okay then, suppose there's a "deal" with Russia, and it gets its "reward", and it stops attempting to conquer all of Ukraine tomorrow.



What about the next day? What stops Russia from resuming its conquest? You going to bribe it again to stop?
Click to expand...
It worked for Russia when they signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany in 1939. Oh, wait.....
TragicMonkey said:
What stops Russia from attempting to conquer another neighbor? You going to bribe it again to stop? And the next? And the next? And the next?
Click to expand...
It worked for Poland in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Oh, wait.......
TragicMonkey said:
Because surely you're not stupid enough to think Russian ambitions end with half of Ukraine, or all of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Don't be so quick to assume....
 
Andy_Ross said:
The US State Department has dropped a statement from its website which stated that Washington does not support Taiwan's independence - a move which has sparked anger in China.

China said the revision "sends a wrong... signal to separatist forces advocating for Taiwan independence", and asked the US to "correct its mistakes".

The department's fact sheet on Taiwan-US relations earlier included the phrase "we do not support Taiwan independence" - this was removed last week as part of what it said was a "routine" update.

www.bbc.co.uk

China condemns US after line on 'Taiwan independence' cut from site

Beijing demands the US "correct its mistakes" after it altered its factsheet on the self-ruled island.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
And yet, I would give you 100 to 1 odds on that Biden's administration would more properly defend Taiwan's sovereignty than Trampy's would.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Okay then, suppose there's a "deal" with Russia, and it gets its "reward", and it stops attempting to conquer all of Ukraine tomorrow.

What about the next day? What stops Russia from resuming its conquest? You going to bribe it again to stop?

What stops Russia from attempting to conquer another neighbor? You going to bribe it again to stop? And the next? And the next? And the next?

Because surely you're not stupid enough to think Russian ambitions end with half of Ukraine, or all of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Russia already annexed Crimea from Ukraine, ten years ago.
 
theprestige said:
Trump would certainly not be the first president to selectively enforce the edicts of Congress.

And of course Congress can always impeach, if they are sufficiently incensed at the president ignoring their explicit intent.
Click to expand...
The problem with not spending money allocated by congress and signed into law (possibly the same as "selectively enforcing" but maybe a narrower scope) is that doing so effectively gives the President a second veto that cannot be overridden short of impeachment.

I'm not positive from a legal standpoint if it's technically illegal or unconstitutional, but if not, it's certainly a loophole that should be addressed.
The executive branch contains the offices that administer laws and spending. I think it's intended to oversee how it's done, but not whether it's done. there is a duty to actually carry out the laws that are passed.

On the other hand, I tend to favor discretion in other areas, such as whether to prosecute for each and every crime/violation. It's definitely an inconsistency and I'm not sure exactly what a law/amendment to reconcile would look like.

Impeachment should be the hammer by which Congress keeps the executive in check. Since we are so split down the middle between two parties, it is a bar that is so high as to be meaningless. I think a lot of our problems come down to having only two major parties.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Why does the US get to make a deal for Ukraine?
Click to expand...
Because they are the most free and democratic nation on this earth. Their president, the leader of the free worldTM, is ordained by God (in whom they trust) as the arbiter of what is right and proper for all nations. They are the best and the most free.

Also they are considerably richer than you. And they have a really big military. And they're the most special: exceptional, even. And they have a really big military. Lots of nukes.

Did I mention that their military is really big?



TLDR: Because they and their firepower say they do.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
The problem with not spending money allocated by congress and signed into law (possibly the same as "selectively enforcing" but maybe a narrower scope) is that doing so effectively gives the President a second veto that cannot be overridden short of impeachment.
Click to expand...
Yes, and Trump would not be the first president by long shot, to exercise this "second veto".
TomB said:
I'm not positive from a legal standpoint if it's technically illegal or unconstitutional, but if not, it's certainly a loophole that should be addressed.
The executive branch contains the offices that administer laws and spending. I think it's intended to oversee how it's done, but not whether it's done. there is a duty to actually carry out the laws that are passed.
Click to expand...
Tell all this to Congress, which has been happy to tolerate selective enforcement in the past.
 
Ziggurat said:
See, I don't think we are on opposite sides. I think we're on orthogonal sides. I think you're looking at what you want (and in an ideal world, I want it too), while right now I'm looking at what we can actually get. And I'm not seeing an answer from you to indicate I'm wrong about what we can actually get, only an insistence that we should want more than I think we can get. And it's not enough to want it. Where's the plan to get it? "Just keep doing what we're doing" doesn't suffice. Ukraine isn't actually making territorial gains here.
Click to expand...
Not addressed to me, but I'll comment anyway.

As much as I'd like to kick Russia completely out, I think you are probably right. That's probably not going to happen. But why would you state that up front?

A senior official stating from the start that Ukraine will have to concede to pretty much every Russian demand is not negotiating peace, it's negotiating surrender. You go into a negotiation knowing you are not going to get everything you want. But you try to make sure that you get some of what you want and that the other party doesn't get everything they want.

Also, publicly sidelining our allies (and especially Ukraine) is just dumb, weakens Ukraine at the negotiating table, and is not really in the long-term interests of the U.S. Especially if you want someone else to take up some of the security guarantees.

Some of the administration's actions do not make us look like a good faith broker of a peace deal, but rather a client of Russia.
 
theprestige said:
Yes, and Trump would not be the first president by long shot, to exercise this "second veto".

Tell all this to Congress, which has been happy to tolerate selective enforcement in the past.
Click to expand...
It's always been a problem. the fact that other presidents have done it doesn't make it less of a problem. Do you think that Carter/Clinton/Nixon etc. doing something makes it better?

Congress did try to fix it when Nixon tried it, I believe. The administration knows this, and I think their strategy is to make the courts decide if the relevant laws are constitutional, which could leave the only mechanism of repair to be an amendment of some sort. We are finding the holes in the Constitution.
 
Tero said:
Musk scrapping our Social Security would leave about 30 million americans with no income. They will be stealing potato chips from the Dollar Store.
He has not found "150 year old man," so what is his plan?
Click to expand...

As someone said, getting it privatized, so Wall Street can skim off the cream. That's been a Republican wet dream since Bush the Lesser.

Sorry if someone has pointed this out, I'm about three pages behind in the thread since this morning.
 
Last edited:
Wondering what happens if Putin and Trump agree some "peace deal" for Ukraine that Ukraine refuses outright to accept, and continues fighting regardless. Is the USA going to somehow "police" this deal? If so, how? Withholding weapons? They already are. Sending troops to invade Ukraine to enforce the deal? Joining in the war but on the Russian side??!

Ukraine's new battle cry: Slava Ukraine! ◊◊◊◊ Putin! And ◊◊◊◊ Trump too!
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Why does the US get to make a deal for Ukraine?
Click to expand...
There is no US at the moment, there's been a coup and now Madame President Elonia is in charge. I would not be surprised at all if they even move to change the country's name. What about Teslagrad? Elonistan? Muskowy?
 
Safe-Keeper said:
There is no US at the moment, there's been a coup and now Madame President Elonia is in charge. I would not be surprised at all if they even move to change the country's name. What about Teslagrad? Elonistan? Muskowy?
Click to expand...
:D Trumpistan, a small part of the Union of Putinist States (UPS). It's capital city will be Musk-a-Lago, Florida.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom