Trump's America

[elengil]

One would think that if nothing else, Kushner could at least succeed at making sure this was done right. But... apparently not.

[Frelga]

My favorite was

“Of course the White House puts Hanukkah on its Advent calendar!” Eric Columbus quipped. “It’s like those crappy new Hallmark/Lifetime movies where Jews learn the true meaning of Christmas, but with your tax dollars.”

[RoseMorninStar]

The small amount of oil to light a menorah for one (eight) night(s) isn't the same global oil/cash game this administration is into.

[River]

Jimmy Carter was the first President to light the National Menorah. Just in case the Trump Admin tries to tell it differently.

[Sunsilver]

The migrants in detention are not allowed to sing carols

Merry Christmas, you bloody hypocrites!

Anyone know if this charity is one worth supporting?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/steelmagn ... jDTwHfGI2w

[narya]

I didn't find "Immigrant Families Together" in Charity Navigator. Perhaps it goes by a different name.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A detailed study by the Federal Reserve demonstrating the negative effect of Trump's tariffs, resulting in loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., and higher prices for U.S. consumers:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/ ... 086pap.pdf

[Túrin Turambar]

The natural advantages which one country has over another, in producing particular commodities, are sometimes so great, that it is acknowledged by all the world to be in vain to struggle with them. By means of glasses, hot-beds, and hot-walls, very good grapes can be raised in Scotland, and very good wine, too, can be made of them, at about thirty times the expense for which at least equally good can be brought from foreign countries. Would it be a reasonable law to prohibit the importation of all foreign wines, merely to encourage the making of claret and Burgundy in Scotland? But if there would be a manifest absurdity in turning towards any employment thirty times more of the capital and industry of the country than would be necessary to purchase from foreign countries an equal quantity of the commodities wanted, there must be an absurdity, though not altogether so glaring, yet exactly of the same kind, in turning towards any such employment a thirtieth, or even a three hundredth part more of either. Whether the advantages which one country has over another be natural or acquired, is in this respect of no consequence. As long as the one country has those advantages, and the other wants them, it will always be more advantageous for the latter rather to buy of the former than to make. It is an acquired advantage only, which one artificer has over his neighbour, who exercises another trade; and yet they both find it more advantageous to buy of one another, than to make what does not belong to their particular trades.

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776. Still perfectly valid.

[Sunsilver]

Sometimes I get a rare insight into just how Trump supporters think, and frankly, it scares the crap out of me. Yes, we do indeed live for the most part in an echo chamber on this board:

We've seen this from the start of his campaign, Trump playing into the fears of his supporters.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ar/498116/

[elengil]

[Frelga]

CNN had a smaller banner saying "US embassy under attack" and a larger one "The State Department policy against Iran is working" and I can't tell if they are being sarcastic.

[Sunsilver]

CNN had a smaller banner saying "US embassy under attack" and a larger one "The State Department policy against Iran is working" and I can't tell if they are being sarcastic.

I'll bet there's an editor or compositor somewhere having a good chuckle!

[elengil]

While this mainly focuses on the impeachment it's also broader discussion on the courts in general so I thought I'd put it here - move if you think that's more appropriate.

I was mostly struck by the following excerpts, in that we've discussed on this board the possibility of waiting on the courts, but it had not been so clearly laid out just how much the courts could, but chose not to, actually reach an expedited decision rather than let the question linger so long that it many may have considered it better to drop the case rather than press it, despite the obvious drawbacks of that decision.

We've gone back and forth on whether the courts should have had to resolve the issue in the first place. But since it came to them (the courts), they should have been obliged to resolve the issue in a time frame consistent with the severity of the circumstances!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... erate.html

What’s stunning is the degree to which the courts are complicit in all this. The courts have aided and abetted the Trump legal team and Mitch McConnell by refusing to behave as if time is a factor in any of these proceedings.
...
But the real coup de grâce was the failure of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts to resolve congressional subpoenas around the impeachment process with alacrity when it was altogether plain what was needed. Had the courts signaled a willingness to act at a pace befitting the needs of the moment, Schiff might have made a different choice. Sometimes the appearance of studied deliberation serves nihilism and chaos, even as it pretends at neutrality and institutionalism.
...
Make no mistake: It is a choice to ignore a congressional subpoena, and it is a choice to claim that only a court can resolve that impasse. When that choice is taken by the president, it seems fair to ask that the courts resolve the matter with something more prompt than the “all deliberate speed” ...
...
Sometimes, not resolving a case in time for relief of any kind is a decision. Calling it lofty institutional deliberation instead of a dodge is a play to the court of public opinion, but not a court of law.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's a good article that makes a very good point. Thanks for sharing it. While I personally probably would have put it in the impeachment thread, I can see why you considered it to be making a broader point and I'll leave it here.

[RoseMorninStar]

Sometimes, not resolving a case in time for relief of any kind is a decision. Calling it lofty institutional deliberation instead of a dodge is a play to the court of public opinion, but not a court of law.

I had read there was another assassination ordered on the same day as Soleimani but the attempt failed. Now I can't find the article. Is anyone familiar with that in the news? I seem to recall it was in Tehran.. but I can't recall the name of the target.

[River]

I heard about it too. The target's name escapes me, but he was also a high ranking officer in the Quds force and he was in Yemen when they tried and failed to kill him.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yeah, I heard about that as well.

[RoseMorninStar]

[Sunsilver]

Trump was interviewed on Fox News, and said that the troops left behind in Syria were there to take Syria's oil. When Laura Ingraham, who was doing the interview had trouble believing what he said, and tried to correct him he replied: "I don’t know, maybe we should take it, but we have the oil,” he said. “Right now, the United States has the oil. We have the oil.”

This is war crime.

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/im- ... bL6eTO0JcE

[RoseMorninStar]

It's really awful to be on the wrong side of history, to be associated with 'the bad guys'. Just awful.