no, i didn't know that the June 2019 US Politics thread was nasty

Every one of those margins is still too close for comfort. And also a reminder that we need to double our efforts in finding a barge big enough for 1/3 of the American population.

A barge or a rocket. A zeppelin, perhaps? Whatever gets them off this particular landmass is cool with me.

For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon - We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2019

lol of which the moon is a part

🤔

he probably meant "of which the moon is part cheese' but he ran out of characters

It's moments like this that I just want a reporter to ask him a very simple, straightforward question and get his response on record, a simple question like 'where is the moon?' Because there's a very good chance that he thinks it's near Mars. So many missed opportunities along these lines. 'When was the United States founded?' 'How many years are in a century?' 'Briefly summarize a single book that you've read.'

the responses would be the same incoherent flailing he does around all other topics and the effect would be nil

i would gin up an impression but it's all been done before

The Moon (the nipple of Mars)

many people say the moon is actually a part of mars. not a lot of people know that but it's a big concern i hear .. next question

such a jokester, this president

i mean im not even good at that and it to easy

i wonder if he'll be hit by a meteorite

It's heartening that we're so mired in his swill that video of our septuagenarian POTUS reciting the alphabet incorrectly wouldn't elicit more than a resigned shrug.

'Of Course He's Stupid, No One Cares' b/w 'Way to Give that Snooty Fuckin' Alphabet Wit Fer!'

Fact Check: What is the moon? https://t.co/qmavnR0Y54

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) June 7, 2019

surely he was implying that moon would form a part of a mission to Mars? but in that case... why tweet

Why surely?

He might think the moon orbits mars.

Achieve Mind-Blowing Orgasms By Having Your Partner Read Direct Quotes of Democrats Calling for Impeachment: https://t.co/QMrIBi0pYG pic.twitter.com/ApkcS9nMkb

— Reductress (@Reductress) June 7, 2019

i still wanna see ~actually disruptive~ marches with *CLANG CLANG* HIGH CRIMES! *CLANG CLANG* MISDEMEANORS!*CLANG CLANG* HIGH CRIMES! *CLANG CLANG* MISDEMEANORS! *CLANG CLANG* but i don't think the ppl are with me.

by ~actually disruptive~ i mean, like, rudely delaying brunch or a bike ride or a mind-blowing orgasm.

given what trump's doing to kids on the mexican border alone he and his entire administration of enabling lackeys needs to be physically, publicly shamed. chari vari. tar, feathers, the stocks. if it's televised that's just a bonus. they need to pay. everyone who now says they support him should be afraid to admit it. there is no excuse. i don't give a shit about his taxes. but yemenis who are still dying from bombs he continues to sell the saudis, children actually dying on the border through neglect, people treated like dogs and worse - if he's going to treat the public like it's the 1600s let's return the goddamn favor

guys

Andrew Sullivan wrote a column

Shall I link to it

^rhetorical question

this was an actual tweet today from Trump:

"If we are able to make the deal with Mexico, & there is a good chance that we will, they will begin purchasing Farm & Agricultural products at very high levels, starting immediately. If we are unable to make the deal, Mexico will begin paying Tariffs at the 5% level on Monday!"

he said something similar about tariffs on China, like he is actively trying to misinform the portion of the US public that doesn't understand what they are. why doesn't some reporter ask him to explain this?

I'm pretty sure he has had it explained to him, but the lie is so much more beautiful that he quickly forgets the truth and embraces the falsehood, just as a lover who is blind to any blemishes in his beloved.

yes and strictly in terms of dividing/diverting Trump attention during a campaign it's a no-brainer.

Given how successfully she has pwned him in every head-to-head she's engaged in since the mid-terms, this seems plausibly Pelosi's policy.

She's keeping the prospect in the public eye by repeatedly saying it's not the time, which in itself is stoking more of the public and elected Democratic representatives to call on her to initiate it. If this is intentional, then when they finally do launch impeachment proceedings, it will feel more inevitable.

Having him distracted by evidence and hearings and testimony during the (final eight months of his four-year) campaign is going to be of more practical use than letting him rail against it as a witch hunt to a tame media for a year beforehand.

Building a case (or dozens and dozens of cases) that conclude after November 2020 increases the chances of him and, hopefully, his children and members of his administration being actually prosecuted (if she's sincere about seeing him gaoled rather than mildly censured in office, this would check both boxes).

And he's neither going anywhere else as long as he remains in office, nor is he going to get less crime-ier during the next year. She seems to be fairly skilled at playing the long game, and this isn't that long.

This may be true, but the Democrats are coming off as indecisive right now. It's not that they need to impeach immediately, but they need to at least make people feel like they are aggressively moving things forward. Their approach is instead maddeningly passive.

I'm agnostic on whether it's an advisable approach, and it's just speculation on my part. But it fits with everything else that she both says and does publicly.

they need to at least make people feel like they are aggressively moving things forward

It's only a couple of weeks since a 100-week investigation concluded, in a frustrating fashion. I can see value both in optics and strategy in not leaping into something else immediately with no planning.

sometimes you just want thor to cut of thanos's head and then turn into the dude. so to speak.

"off"

Pelosi will come out for impeachment the way Obama came out for gay marriage (i.e. only after it is a political inevitability).

iirc that's the only good thing biden's done -- getting out ahead of obama on gay marriage

iirc Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act?

lol i don't doubt it

Yes, it's a stiff competition (not to mention a competition of stiffs), but I nominate Joe Manchin for the honor of being the only senator more repulsive than Ted Cruz...https://t.co/5adCzJIONN

— Jeffrey St. Clair (@JSCCounterPunch) June 9, 2019

At DOT, Chao hired a former McConnell campaign worker and had him focus on Kentucky grants that could help her husband campaign for re-election. My story this morning with @TSnyderDC.https://t.co/UEBvEtGH8C

— Tucker Doherty (@tucker_doherty) June 10, 2019

our *other* royal family

That Manchin story is almost a year old?

well, has he recanted?

So, anyone have a good grasp of this whole tariffs issue? I feel like they are being covered in a hyper-partisan way. Like, if a dem president used tariffs to try to enforce working condition standards everyone wouldn't be laughing off the tactic as pathetically naive the way they are with Trump.

I mean, duh, tariffs aren't payments from China/Mexico to the USA, but they ARE a way to dis-incentivize US companies from outsourcing manufacturing to China/Mexico. And hitting powerful companies with tariffs seems like as good a strategy as any if you want to influence the politics of another country.

All of this is not to say that Trump's reasons for tariffs (particularly wrt Mexico where he is looking for Mexico to clamp down on their borders) are great, but are tariffs really bad policy?

I think I'm in the minority who believe John Dean testimony before the judiciary committee is exactly the kind of grandtstanding/theater the Dems need in lieu of WH stonewalling....but LOL at "fake liberal news media" CNN MSNBC not broadcasting it because a helicopter landed on a building three hours ago

are tariffs really bad policy?

Tariffs can be a helpful economic policy, under some circumstances, but tariffs are not a helpful foreign policy. The main reason to create a tariff is to shelter a domestic industry from foreign competition by giving that industry a privileged access to your domestic market. This can protect an industry whose domestic presence is seen as a national priority. In a country with a weak currency high tariffs can discourage the outflow of 'hard' currency reserves.

For example, Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum will allow domestic steel mills and aluminum producers an extra margin within which they can raise prices on their products, increasing their profitability. Whether this serves the national interest depends entirely on your parochial interest in the profits made by those industries. A steelworker whose mill might have shut down will be pleased. Every customer who uses steel or aluminum will not be pleased at paying higher prices.

As an instrument of foreign policy, tariffs generally stink, because the odds are that the government you are trying to influence is too insulated from the effects of your tariff to capitulate to your attempts at bullying them. The pain is felt in places too local and too remote from the government to be effectively transmitted, while the sharp indignity of broadcasting your weakness by giving in to the bullying is all too obvious.

Democrats can pledge to move away from two-country tariff wars and instead toward mobilizing an international response with allies against China’s trade abuses. Similarly, Democrats can argue for renegotiated trade deals that raise wage, labor and environmental standards, with the goal of helping U.S. workers via a sensible internationalism in contrast to Trump’s erratic nationalism. ...Democrats can argue for improved regional cooperation on the asylum crisis, including investments in Central America and policies to encourage in-country application for asylum to reduce the impetus to such migrations. They can combine this with a refusal to back off our international humanitarian commitments

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/10/trumps-latest-rage-threat-gives-democrats-big-opening-one-just-took-it/?utm_term=.45fc32241770

https://t.co/daUxFHkrs1

reince preibus is in the navy now

as an ensign. shit. why'd they let him in?

i forgot about prince rebus

Not even funny, just sad.

“Potus took a piece of paper out of his breast pocket and said it’s his deal with Mexico. He declined to show it to us, but said it will go into effect when Mexico tells him it’s okay to release it.” - via pool

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 11, 2019

https://resources.cleanitsupply.com/LARGE/USSCO/147159.JPG

<Jackie Treehorn doodle gif>