US Politics Thread

[Bigga]

Nothing to do with the argument at hand, but for clarity - I’m pretty sure the US Attorney General is part of the executive branch, is a member of the president’s cabinet, and is the head of the justice department (including the FBI); the attorney general represents the United States in legal matters, and the prosecutors in the justice department that he/she oversees bring cases and charges - the biggest in the United States - all the time against crimes, individuals, and institutions of all stripes to include those enmeshed in terrorism, drugs, organized crime, and white collar/financial crime.

That is all under the direct authority of the president of the United States and the executive branch that he or she commands and has authority over.

Meanwhile the judicial branch is, in simple terms, the courts and judges (with Supreme Court being the top rung), who in addition to processing all of those cases also weigh the constitutionality of decisions in the courts, actions and orders of the president and the whole of the executive branch, and the legislation and laws created by congress/legislative branch. (In the legal arena one of the executive/judicial distinctions/separations is that presidents can appoint/nominate both federal US attorneys and federal judges, but can only fire the attorneys, not the judges...and congress has oversight of all of those appointments and nominations via the confirmation process.)

again, not a commentary on the particulars of what any of you are discussing, but it is all to say that the president does have substantial legal powers.

Thank you for your independent post.

And to everyone else:

Just imagine just imagine living in a country where you don't understand the power order only to be told how it works by a non-resident, cos it's COMMON FUCKING SENSE that there HAS to be knowledge and permissions given/ not given at some points! It's the fucking President, ffs!

Case closed? Cool.

 

[west didsblue]

Several inaccuracies here:

1. Inadequate regulation was one of many causes of the Financial Crisis. The baseline factor was homeowners borrowing way more than they could afford. Without that, there would have been nothing for banks to leverage and no opportunity for subprime structured products. Financial illiteracy and the failure of legislators and educators to address this was and remains a major problem.

2. Lack of regulation was consciously fueled by both parties. Arguably the biggest issue was the de-regulation of Fannie and Freddie, which was championed by Barney Frank who was concurrently receiving campaign donations from those same entities. Glass-Steagal was repealed in the late 1990s when Clinton was President. Both parties were and are ridden with special interests and bear responsibility for what happened.

3. Democrats took the House and Senate in the 2006 mid-terms which was almost 2 years before the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the culmination of the crisis. There were no statements and no proposals by Democrats around growing risks or inadequate regulation either when they were in the minority or when they took control.

Sounds like you largely agree with me. Regarding number 3, the GFC started in mid 2007 and the Dems took Congress at the beginning of 2007 after the 2006 elections, so making out they had nearly 2 years to sort out legislation to prevent it is somewhat inaccurate. The collapse of Lehmann's was the culmination of the crisis not the start.

 

[The perfect fumble]

The not-so-special relationship.

From the BBC this morning....

US withdrawal lays bare a not-so-special relationship​

Jon Sopel
BBC North America Editor

There are arguably many reasons to complain about the UK prime minister's handling on any number of issues - but frankly, on the question of US withdrawal, he never stood much of a chance.

Now this isn't me going soft, or in any way being an apologist for Mr Johnson. But from Washington, where I am writing, it is just a statement of realpolitik. It is a statement of the reality of the "special relationship", which is that when push comes to shove, it isn't so special.

America acted unilaterally over Afghanistan - actually maybe that should be Joe Biden acted unilaterally. He wanted out. The warnings of HM Government - and my understanding is they were made strenuously - fell on deaf, indifferent ears in Washington.

In those circumstances, what is a British prime minister to do? The idea that the British armed forces could have swarmed in to fill the vacuum left by a US withdrawal is unrealistic.

It has also been suggested in some sections of the British press that this would never have happened during the supposed acme of the "special relationship" when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Margaret Thatcher was at Number 10. Are you kidding me? Does anyone remember what happened in the Caribbean island of Grenada, in 1983?

I could list countless other examples where America has ridden roughshod over British sensibilities and it doesn't matter whether the president is Republican or Democrat.

 

[inbetween]

The not-so-special relationship.

From the BBC this morning....

US withdrawal lays bare a not-so-special relationship​

Jon Sopel
BBC North America Editor

There are arguably many reasons to complain about the UK prime minister's handling on any number of issues - but frankly, on the question of US withdrawal, he never stood much of a chance.

Now this isn't me going soft, or in any way being an apologist for Mr Johnson. But from Washington, where I am writing, it is just a statement of realpolitik. It is a statement of the reality of the "special relationship", which is that when push comes to shove, it isn't so special.

America acted unilaterally over Afghanistan - actually maybe that should be Joe Biden acted unilaterally. He wanted out. The warnings of HM Government - and my understanding is they were made strenuously - fell on deaf, indifferent ears in Washington.

In those circumstances, what is a British prime minister to do? The idea that the British armed forces could have swarmed in to fill the vacuum left by a US withdrawal is unrealistic.

It has also been suggested in some sections of the British press that this would never have happened during the supposed acme of the "special relationship" when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Margaret Thatcher was at Number 10. Are you kidding me? Does anyone remember what happened in the Caribbean island of Grenada, in 1983?

I could list countless other examples where America has ridden roughshod over British sensibilities and it doesn't matter whether the president is Republican or Democrat.

The special relationship has always been a myth. We have never really had any actual relationship with the US that is tangibly beneficial to most people. The only thing special is how we are somewhat aligned militarily but that's about it and clearly the last couple of weeks has shown that isn't wholly true either.

This isn't about Brexit being good or bad but if the special relationship was truly special then what we had with the EU for 40 years was quite something beyond that.

 

[west didsblue]

The special relationship has always been a myth. We have never really had any actual relationship with the US that is tangibly beneficial to most people. The only thing special is how we are somewhat aligned militarily but that's about it and clearly the last couple of weeks has shown that isn't wholly true either.

This isn't about Brexit being good or bad but if the special relationship was truly special then what we had with the EU for 40 years was quite something beyond that.

In other words we've discarded our real special relationship with the EU on the vague hope that our imaginary special relationship with the US would become even more special, but in fact it's become even more imaginary.

 

[inbetween]

In other words we've discarded our real special relationship with the EU on the vague hope that our imaginary special relationship with the US would become even more special, but in fact it's become even more imaginary.

It sounds like it. If anyone has read anything about US trade talks then they'll know that the US puts the US first and that's why we will never have a trade deal with them. The only way we'll have a trade deal is if we sell ourselves down the river (which I won't put past this government). No deal will ever include something that we might call special like free movement etc.

The reason for this is clear, the biggest US export to the UK is metals but that only totals around $12bn. This is nothing though compared to the $80bn in services that they sell us every year. BUT, we are a service economy too so any future deal will very likely seriously harm UK interests (given it'll put us in direct competition with them).

Basically it isn't going to happen unless we will gladly entertain the idea of becoming a US vassel state without the benefits of being a vassel state. It would literally be like having a burger shop and signing a deal to let Mcdonalds open up a branch across the road.

With the EU we benefited because we didn't have the largest economy on our lawn, we had many smaller economies which indeed bought our services and dare I say even our exports. We voted against that though for the Mcdonalds. There were other reasons to leave which were perhaps valid but the economy was not one of them.

For people like Farage this is fine, he has been touting for free trade with the US to get his green card for years and he'd want nothing more than to abandon the UK so that he can make his money.

 

[bluethrunthru]

In other words we've discarded our real special relationship with the EU on the vague hope that our imaginary special relationship with the US would become even more special, but in fact it's become even more imaginary.

Spot on. Still Beefy Botham is our trade envoy to Australia so we can look forward to their close military support eh?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The special relationship has always been a myth. We have never really had any actual relationship with the US that is tangibly beneficial to most people. The only thing special is how we are somewhat aligned militarily but that's about it and clearly the last couple of weeks has shown that isn't wholly true either.

This isn't about Brexit being good or bad but if the special relationship was truly special then what we had with the EU for 40 years was quite something beyond that.

I generally had the opinion that it stemmed largely from the UK acting as a conduit/explanatory path between the US and Europe.

I think there is more direct communication as the EU is more established.

 

[inbetween]

I generally had the opinion that it stemmed largely from the UK acting as a conduit/explanatory path between the US and Europe.

I think there is more direct communication as the EU is more established.

Perhaps but that conduit only existed because with the US we had to help rebuild Europe in the aftermath of the war. Europe is a very different place nowadays though, Germany has a far bigger economy than we do.

We shared the exact same goal and conduit with the Soviets/Russians who have now gone the other way and transformed into a natural enemy. That natural enemy was formed though on the instruction of the Americans because they feared communism (as do we nowadays...).

Perhaps the only real reason then is we share a language, history and a sort of aligned culture. Beyond that though I don't see what else there is however we just tend to do what they say despite there being no benefit. The US has always used us really to further their own policy goals and nothing more, that's what the special relationship is.

At the end of the day the special relationship is so special that Biden chose to pull his troops out of Afghanistan and at no point did he give a toss about British nationals.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Perhaps but that conduit only existed because with the US we had to help rebuild Europe in the aftermath of the war. Europe is a very different place nowadays though, Germany has a far bigger economy than we do.

We shared the exact same goal and conduit with the Soviets/Russians who have now gone the other way and transformed into a natural enemy. That natural enemy was formed though on the instruction of the Americans because they feared communism (as do we nowadays...).

Perhaps the only real reason then is we share a language, history and a sort of aligned culture. Beyond that though I don't see what else there is however we just tend to do what they say despite there being no benefit. The US has always used us really to further their own policy goals and nothing more, that's what the special relationship is.

At the end of the day the special relationship is so special that Biden chose to pull his troops out of Afghanistan and at no point did he give a toss about British nationals.

Generally, yes - the change in Germany is very significant, but equally there is a vastly higher level of English speaking at government age now, so we're not needed as much.

The combination of the focus moving to the Middle East, and the East/West European frontier having moved east, so there are military sites closer than us - I expect that has added to it, as has the fallout from the Iraq war.

I wonder how close the truth of what happened is to what is broadcast.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Since you mention false equivalences, what was the relevance of bringing Pompeo into a discussion of the current Afghan debacle?

This Mike Pompeo?



The guy on the right is the leader of the Taliban Mullah Baradar who was released from prison in 2018 by order of the former President Donald Trump.

Trump and Pompeo cut a deal with the Taliban, hence the current situation. This deal left Biden no choice other than to do what he did. Despite all these so-called TV news experts saying that everyone expected the Afghan government to fold, NOBODY expected it would only take 11 days for them to capitulate.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Spot on. Still Beefy Botham is our trade envoy to Australia so we can look forward to their close military support eh?

We already have a close working relationship with the Australian military. Especially when you consider the Queen is the head of the armed forces in both countries.

 

[SWP's back]

Ouft. This sounds like a probably for the crazy twat.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Ouft. This sounds like a probably for the crazy twat.

I wish the media would stop with this 'may have violated...' whatever rule or law they have CLEARLY violated.

 

[SWP's back]

This Mike Pompeo?

View attachment 24491

The guy on the right is the leader of the Taliban Mullah Baradar who was released from prison in 2018 by order of the former President Donald Trump.

Trump and Pompeo cut a deal with the Taliban, hence the current situation. This deal left Biden no choice other than to do what he did. Despite all these so-called TV news experts saying that everyone expected the Afghan government to fold, NOBODY expected it would only take 11 days for them to capitulate.

Yeah why would anyone mention him at all…



think that idiot will come back on?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I wish the media would stop with this 'may have violated...' whatever rule or law they have CLEARLY violated.

I agree. This seems pretty blatant and obvious. As a matter of fact she has violated disclosure rules if the facts in this article are correct. There’s no “may have.”

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I wish the media would stop with this 'may have violated...' whatever rule or law they have CLEARLY violated.

I'd guess it comes down to the "according to a rep" - if they can't nail it down, they'll hedge.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I'd guess it comes down to the "according to a rep" - if they can't nail it down, they'll hedge.

The way it reads, she didn't disclose income under the LLC that earned it, period. It is a factual violation. It's entirely possible that it's an unimportant, honest or stupid mistake . . . more likely the last given the convincing, regular demonstration of her rampant idiocy and her long history of lying, in addition to her criminal past, and history as a habitual local code violator as a business person.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The way it reads, she didn't disclose income under the LLC that earned it, period. It is a factual violation. It's entirely possible that it's an unimportant, honest or stupid mistake . . . more likely the last given the convincing, regular demonstration of her rampant idiocy and her long history of lying, in addition to her criminal past, and history as a habitual local code violator as a business person.

Fair enough. I can only see the tweet, which has the caveat.

I appreciate she's a headcase!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

So the answer was “yes he really is that thick”. The Trump apologists we get from time to time on here are never the ones on the right hand side of the IQ bell curve are they.

No, they’re not!

Sadly, they are usually not the ones in the middle, either!