sheeeit

The "Biden" rule was not actually a rule or any piece of legislation. It was just his thoughts on the subject. However, it was the Dems under Harry Reid in 2013 that changed the rules of the senate that have us where we are now. Republicans, at the time, warned that the shoe would be on the other foot at some point and Reid, to his credit, admitted that the Republicans would and should be able to do the same thing if and when they came to a majority. The change was basically an end to the filibuster rule where 41 dissenting votes could tie up nominations indefinitely. There is no question the repubs were using the rule to slow down Obama nominations in 2013 but the dems, via Reid, had the majority and voted for the change to the rule. I actually think it is a good change. People keep forgetting about Gorsuch (side note: it is amazing how people can not even remember things from a year ago) and what the dems were doing. Everyone keeps saying that the dems did not try and sink Gorsuch which is patently false. The dems got 41 senators to oppose the nomination which set up a filibuster opportunity. They told McConnel they were going to filibuster. As a result, McConnel did the exact same as Reid in 2013 and changed Senate rules to avoid a filibuster. The shoe was on the other foot a lot sooner than Reid hoped. As for Garland, we can debate whether he should have been up for a vote or not forever and not agree. But, what is not debatable is that the repubs used the actual rules of the senate to their advantage. What they did was not new either and it had been done before. IMO, the dems and Obama should have formally nominated him and forced the repubs to a vote. They could have used that politically. They did not do it because they assumed Hillary would win. But the repubs used the laws as written to their advantage just like every party does when in the majority.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/01/11/how-many-americans-paid-the-obamacare-tax-penalty-in-2016/ Solid effort. $3,000,000,000 in 2016 in penalties. But you were close.

lol good point. i suppose subtle is a poor word choice but the scenes from say talledega when they are praying are 100x more funny to me than when he is running around the track thinking he is on fire.

Shit. I was all in and laughed at the pics in the first post. Trailer was exactly what I did not want. Those guys are genius when subtle but terrible with slap stick. Actually all slap stick is pretty terrible.

"Some" were. Bullshit. Any city/state that realistically thinks they have a chance to get the facilities will not even consider the scenario you described. It is completely nonsensical. Think about what you are saying. The only possible way that cities would worry about this is if they have 100% employment now and no workers in any industry that pay less than Amazon. No cities have that. As to the announcement, I think it is great for Amazon and their employees and a win for the economy. It is not a coincidence that you did not see this during periods of tepid gdp growth.

This is not so hard to understand. Currently there are little or no US based auto parts manufacturers and auto manufacturers that pay less than $16/hr for line workers. This will have little to no effect on wages in the US. However, there are many US based auto parts manufacturers and auto manufacturers that have, since NAFTA, made significant investment in plants in Mexico, especially glass components. Low wages in Mexico is certainly a factor in these US based companies moving operations to Mexico coupled with an extremely difficult ability for Mexican employees to collectively bargain. So when these US based businesses open their next plants, they will have a much higher incentive to keep them in the US. The wage differential will be closing, Mexican workers can now collectively bargain, the corporate tax rate in the US is now lower than Mexico, and the threshold for tariffs on the % of parts made in the US was increased. Further, and this is a biggie, the US now has the ability to investigate conditions in Mexico independent of Mexico- they do not get to police their own and, of course, they get to do the same to the US. Since NAFTA there has been in excess of $200B in infrastructure investment in Mexico from US auto related companies. Now no one thinks those current plants are going to be closed anytime soon because the costs are sunk but when it comes time for new investment or upgrades to existing facilities, the strong incentive will be for the US companies to do it within the US. This deal evens the playing field tremendously. The property taxes and jobs created from these investments will be massive over time. And everyone keeps ignoring the new regulations regarding intellectual property rights. This is a very big win for the film and music industry. Especially since, as mentioned earlier, the US can go after Mexican and Canadian firms or people accused of violating the agreements. This sets a precedent for new regulations relating to IP around the globe. It will be much harder for asian countries to say the regulations the US wants to impose are not fair when our 2 closets trading partners already agreed to them. There are also new regulations related to the pharm industry. The deal provides extra years in protection from copying US developed drugs in Canada and Mexico and actually lowers it in the US. This is a win for US pharma companies as well as US consumers as the generics can get into the US 2 years sooner now. Again, it levels the playing field and the US wins in all cases. I am not suggesting at all that this is some fantastical new deal that is a panacea for the US (I am quite certain that trump will say that) but it is undeniable that there are very real benefits in the billions of dollars to the US economy and Americans. That is good and it should be acknowledged.

I get what you are saying. You do not like the subsidies provided to dairy farmers. In some ways I completely agree, although it is a complex issue. Where you lose me is how this is a bad deal for Americans. I do not really care if Canadians get less expensive dairy due to increased competition. Bully for them. It affects the US consumer exactly zero. But the point you keep ignoring is that the current subsidies provided to dairy farmers does not go up a single dollar as a result of this deal. In fact, it will go down as a portion of the subsidies involved are for excess supply which will now be purchased by Canadians which means less subsidy dollars from the US. So, again, how is this deal bad for the US? It costs the US tax payer either zero or fewer dollars than they are currently paying in subsidies. It increase employment and profits to US dairy farmers which increases the tax base. If this deal somehow made existing subsidies go up then you would have a point but it does not. With the new deal, now is probably a great time to look at the current govt programs that dairy farmers take advantage of.

Not sure of your point. The new deal had absolutely no impact on the few current govt programs for the dairy industry. People routinely misunderstand subsidies, but this deal made no changes to any existing programs. But if US farmers can sell more product abroad, how is that, in any way, a downside to the US? In fact, a number of the "subsidies" you speak of have to do with over supply domestically. This will go down as more product is sold abroad. Also, I am sure you know that US dairy farmers do not get to set the price for milk in Canada. Why should I care what Canadians pay for milk as long as more revenue from Canadians flow to US businesses. We can debate the few govt programs available to dairy farmers and I would probably agree that they could be abused in some cases. However, this trade deal has no impact on them so using them as a criticism of the deal seems misplaced.

It is really difficult to determine how successful a deal like this is until years down the road. There are unintended consequences in any deal of this magnitude. There will be "experts" on both sides that will have very different interpretations of the fine points. People should take any comments from people not affiliated with the actual industries involved that are for or against the deal with a grain of salt. On the dairy, it is telling the American Dairy Assoc came out in strong support of the deal and the Canadian Dairy Assoc came out in strong opposition to the deal. The US got much better terms than those negotiated with Canada as part of the TPP. The American Auto Assoc came out strongly in favor of the deal. The newer more stringent IP regulations are an absolute win for the US and, likely more important, set a precedent for IP regulations with China and others. I fully expect the dems to downplay the deal and I fully expect Trump to grossly exaggerate the deal. But, imo, I think it is a much better deal for the US going forward but time will tell.

I have zero problem with Soros doing whatever he wants with his money. I think it is silly to say he has less influence than the Kochs as he spends far more money on politics than they do, especially globally. But, again, nothing wrong with that. He plays by the rules of the game so he can do as he pleases. Soros really could be a topic of his own and is and will be a fascinating figure to study, especially his somewhat unique style of trading/betting. One of the most ironic aspects of Soros is that he is pretty universally loved/revered by democrats because he funds their interests lavishly, but the way he made the majority of his fortune represents just about everything most democrats say they despise. He did nothing illegal, that I know of, and I have always argued that morality/ethics is way down the list of things to be concerned about in finance, but Soros used his money and influence to take massive positions against foreign currencies that ultimately paid him and his investors billions but literally drove millions of ordinary people to financial ruin in those countries. Sorry to thread jack but Soros is a fascinating guy.

I am for these guys earning as much as they can. I think police deserve more as the jobs are different. Based on this site (no idea if accurate), base salary for fire fighters in Houston is essentially the same as Austin and Dallas. https://www1.salary.com/TX/Fire-Fighter-Salary.html Almost every firefighter I ever knew (almost all good guys/gals) had a second gig doing something mechanical related- sprinkler systems, light furniture manufacturing, yard work etc. Stuff that could be done in garages and similar and that there was not a deadline for getting something done. None of the cops I have known have second gigs as the schedule does not allow it. On average firefighters have 20 days off per month but technically work more hours than 8-5ers because the hours are in 24 hour blocks. On average, firefighters work 240 hours per month versus 184 for others. There is also an almost unlimited ability for OT. If they got promised a pension in exchange for salary and that changed then they deserve to have the difference made up. There are approximately 4000 firefighters in Houston with an average salary of about $46K. A 32% raise would cost the city about $56,000,000.

I love the rosenstein stuff. Anonymous sources claim rosenstein summoned to wh to be fired by trump! Predictable response here, like teen girls at a justin beiber concert. Speculation runs rampant. Oh wait, rosenstein was going to a regularly scheduled meeting and trump wasn't even in the WH. Why do you mopes keep falling for this stuff? Why do any of you believe any anonymous sourced story about trump? Can any of you at least admit, that in this particular case, every report based on anonymous sources was absolutely dead wrong. 99% of them are bogus. I do not even think the press is relying on sources they know are lying anymore. At this point I think they are just making them up.

How? Feinstein sent the FBI a letter about an alleged sexual assault from 35 years ago and she REDACTED all of the names except for Kav and provided no specific date or location. As part of Kav's background check, virtually everyone he knows has already been questioned by the FBI. The vetting is intense and extremely comprehensive. Not one single person questioned by the FBI in their check even hinted at anything like what is being alleged. So what exactly did you want the FBI to do at that point?

I don't know. I thought you were talking about a dem versus pub thing as that was what was predicted. Boxer was a very popular sitting congresswoman when she ran for the senate and the incumbent dem didnt even run for reelection. Murray won election when the incumbent also chose not to run and was under investigation for sexual misconduct and rape. I would say that had 100x more to do with Murray winning than Anita Hill. Feinstein was a very popular Mayor of San Fran and ran against a pretty weak opponent who was only acting as senator due to Wilson leaving and was never actually elected. I would agree that Braun was most certainly helped by the Anita Hill stuff. But I just do not think 1 senator getting help proves the hearings had much effect. A lot of it is still to be decided. As it stands right now, I fail to see how there are people out there saying they were going to vote for a republican for senator but will now vote for the dem because of the Kav hearings. Right now (obviously things will change if more info comes out) I think there are just as many people that support Kav and think he is being unfairly targeted (by both dems and repubs) as there are people that think he is guilty. I actually think there are probably more people that think this. This board is such a hyper partisan place that it makes people think certain views are more main stream than they really are. Without more evidence, I just do not think 35 year old accusations with no proof are going to move the needle for the majority of the country.

Solid effort. Read Briskets post.

Did you get an answer to this? Are you asking about the sale of private businesses? It happens everyday. There is massive investment in private businesses. The idea in most cases is to provide cash for the business in exchange for a % of the ownership. The business uses the cash to grow the business. If a dividend is paid, as stated, it is taxed accordingly. The hope is that the business grows and then is sold. Think of the Shark Tank guys. they have almost no interest in dividends. They put $100K in a business and get a 10% ownership stake which values the business at $1M. They business uses the $100K to expand and grow and then they hope to sell the business in a few years for $10M. The investor gets a gain of $900K on his $100K initial investment and pays capital gains on the $900K. Personally, I dislike all forms of capital gains taxes because the investments are made with post tax dollars. I see it as double taxation but I completely understand why it exists and realize that it is never going away. But in the scenario above, there is certainly no guarantee that the business that is invested in will actually survive and most do not get the growth they envision. And if you tax the gains from a potential sale at 40% then hardly anyone is going to invest. The performance of the business would have to be spectacular for the investor to justify the investment. But it is good for everyone to have that investment. The investor is likely already rich and needs incentive to fund the endeavors of people that are not rich. The owner still has 90% of the value and has a chance to get rich. The business will create jobs. Using investors is usually much preferred to taking on debt. Debt can be crushing if the business does not ramp up as quickly as hoped. Hope that helps.

Not really. I had to look it up to remember but in the 1992 senate elections the dems actually were down a seat. And then they got smashed in 1994. Maybe I do not understand your point?

Perhaps, but I see no way this event will change any persons mind/vote on their senator/congressman. It just stirs up the already stirred up folks. For every person that thinks this is an example of the gop supporting a rapist there is another person that thinks this is an example of a cheap political trick that smeared a good man with no evidence. Zero sum game.

Fair response. Pos rep. I also do not see the issue with the support letter. If GOLL was up for a supreme court nomination and an allegation from 35 years ago suddenly popped up, I think it would be pretty easy to get signatures of support. Someone writes a letter and emails to friends from that time period and asks for support and asks them to forward to anyone else they have contact info for. This is a pretty educated and, I am guessing, informed group of people. I think it would be pretty easy to get 60 people to sign on in less than 24 hours.

Perfect example of what I posted up thread. No factual basis whatsoever but convincingly asserted as fact. Well done! Of course your theory now calls Fienstein a liar as she publicly said she did not give the letter or disclose its contents to anyone prior to 6 days ago.

This is a tough issue. As usual, the opinions of the zealots on either side of the argument are amusing and, mostly, worthless. This thread is a great example of why communications are so different and dangerous in todays world. People take half stories with limited information and conflate supposition with fact and then create plausible scenarios in their own minds based on nothing and then fight like mad to defend their made up theories. It really is fascinating to watch. We really do not know much at all. Anastasis comes pretty close to a similar opinion of mine. I believe that something most likely happened to Ford. It is possible that she made everything up to garner sympathy at some point in her life (she certainly would not be the first) but I doubt that is the case. Based on what we know right now, though, it is hard to do much with her accusation. I do not know what people expect the FBI to do. She claims that she can not remember the day of the event or the location of the event. That obviously makes it almost impossible to question other potential witnesses. She admits that she did not ever tell anyone what happened until decades later. Nothing wrong with that except how can anyone outside of the people she identified as being in the room possibly comment on the episode. The FBI has her and the now 3 people supposedly involved. As to credibility, she may very well come across as very credible. Obviously Kav is credible as he has been through multiple background checks and has a long history as a judge and attorney. Not sure how credible the other 2 are but each has already released statements that they were not involved in such an event in any way. Again, what exactly should the FBI do? It is almost impossible to ask people about a specific event if no one knows the date or location of the event. Coupled with the fact that Bird said she told no one, there really isnt even a place to start. Also, I am guessing most people do not know how in depth the vetting is for federal judges. I was interviewed by phone (taped) by the FBI for a potential federal judge that I was only peripherally acquainted with. The questions were pretty vague but they asked about any negative story or rumor I had heard about the potential judge. Kav has been through this multiple times. His circle of acquaintances has been asked to identify anything negative on more than one occasion already. I would surmise that if there was such an event as described by Bird and if anyone knew about it, then it would have come out. The fact that it hasnt actually supports Bird's contention that she told no one. I would agree that if another woman comes forward with a similar story that it changes everything. Even a remotely similar event between Kav and someone else would be enough to discredit him. I disagree with Anastasis that just knowing there was a party where he and she were present is enough. Also, I definitely agree that she needs to come forward and tell her story right away. She has a doctorate, she is an intelligent woman. When she sent a letter to Feinstein she absolutely knew where this was likely headed. Not even the crazies could argue that a person can make extremely strong accusations against someone and expect to then be kept anonymous. We do not and should not do that in the US. I really fail to see where this has much impact on Kav. If she never testifies then he gets confirmed easily. If she does testify but offers no additional supporting proof then I think he gets confirmed. And I think he should. If she offers any type of additional proof then he should not get confirmed. As to telling her therapist, I do not find that compelling enough. The decades old story just has so much room for vagueness. To ruin a persons reputation for life, there is going to need to be more clarity. If she can tell us where the party occurred, what was the date, who did she come with, who did she leave with, who else was there. Did she tell her best friend, or parents or siblings. Anything that can be used to verify or corroborate her story needs to be discovered. Finally, if Kav is some sort of creep it is almost impossible to believe that there were no red flags up to this point. If he is some entitled/elitist snob then it would have come up before now. The vetting process for a federal judge includes all sorts of political ramifications and polarizing sorts very rarely, if ever, get those nominations. As far as I can tell, there have not been any stories from people bashing Kav on his personality or behavior. People take issue with some of his legal decisions which is completely normal but no one has attacked his character until now.

I fully support increased teacher pay. But this was a a typical political stunt. Illinois is actually pretty good at teacher pay relative to other states. In the bigger cities teacher pay starts at well above $40K and with a masters it climbs into the $70-$80K range very quickly. That is solid pay for a teacher. Plus, there are a myriad of financial aid packages for working teachers and evening and online classes. The real problem with your suggestion is that Illinois is essentially broke. https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/investing/illinois-budget-crisis-downgrade/index.html

Lol. Wasn’t posting that to correct you. But I was shocked that Michigan has been so poor over the last nine years as well

Just because I am stuck in an airport I looked this up. In the last 9 years Mich actually has won only 5 more games than texas. Less than a game per year difference. Amazing.

It really isnt that hard to understand. The communications in the world are so different today than anytime before. The 24 hour constant presence of media, both professional and amateur, is new. There was no medium to get the news out in real time before. Now there is. People havent changed. We just never had a way for literally everyone to express their opinions in real time before. There have always been crazies and zealots but they never had a platform before. I read an article critical of D Fienstein and the article author quoted a few random twitter responses in support of his position. That is just ridiculous. It is like judging the UT fan base based solely on the tweets of the 5 most ignorant belligerent fans out of the million or more fans in total. I really do not believe we are any different as a people today than we have ever been. Imagine the internet and twitter during WWII or Vietnam or the Kennedy assassination or any major event. The kooks would be out in droves spouting the worst things imaginable and making up ridiculous stories and generally fueling the fire. As to your last point about actually solving the issues of the country as grown ups- the only way, imo, is strict term limits on representatives where not a single one is ever running for reelection while in office.