Lets Get Political

[ktchong]

The US have freedom gas.

But China controls communist metals!

 

Quote

China refines 90% of the world’s rare earths, and even the USA sends its ore to China for refinement to abstract rare earths. I n fact, one of the rare earth metals is exclusively refined in China.  There is a very big difference between the extraction of rare earth (REE) ore, and the refinement of that ore.   The USA has a lot of ore sitting on the surface as a result of Uranium mining from the 1940s onward and from mining - "extracting" - REE’s themselves.  What the USA does NOT have today is the technology that allows America to REFINE that ore into rare earth metals.  The problem with the refinement of REE’s is that the metals are found with three, four or even five elements mixed in together in various states in the ore.  The RE refining technology was once available - but then abandoned - in the USA.  Over the decades, Chinese have developed newer, better, and more efficient technology that allows them to refine rare earths at higher rates and lower costs. Chinese are NOT producing RE at low cost just because of low labor rates, but because they have significantly more advanced technologies available to them today.  Outside China, the only facility that can refine rare earth ore is in Malaysia - and that facility is owned by a Chinese-Malaysian family (i.e., Malaysian nationals of Chinese ethnics) who have ties to China.

The USA would need between five (if lucky) and fifteen years to develop and catch up with China in the rare earth refining technology, at the same level of efficiency as the Chinese.  Based on various reports, the CIA was trying desperately to steal that technology, and their spy ring in China got shutdown in 2015.   Since then, America and the CIA have had no luck whatsoever getting close to that technology.  

In addition, private companies outside China may be unable to compete with China without government subsidies.  China can price its rare earth exports so that rare earths will be significantly more expensive for Americans than for Chinese, but still keep the prices low enough to deter US and foreign private companies from entering the rare earth refining business - and putting in the money to develop and research the needed technology.   Rare earth refinement will be a risky business - because if the trade and price situation changes, all those private companies will be put out of business by China.

 

Edited May 30, 2019 by ktchong

[Gromnir]

curious aside, gorsuch writing has dropped off a bit since he got on the Court. typical takes a year or two for a Justice to find a comfort zone. perhaps following in footsteps o' scalia added unnecessary pressure. regardless, am hopeful gorsuch regains his pre-appointment groove, 'cause as it now stands, he ain't anywhere near kagan or roberts... and we would say such is correct order: 1)kagan and 2)roberts.

as to rare earth metals...

has the last nine years been a dream, 'cause ktchong appears to think it is 2010.

china's rare earth weapon went from boom to bust.

the thing is, rare earth ain't all that rare and the US is gonna have a refinery up and running within a year... but admitted only a single one.  regardless, five and fifteen year estimates look a bit hyperbolic.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 30, 2019 by Gromnir
avoidance o' double-post

[Guard Dog]

32 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

fyi, the vast majority o' Court decisions is actual unanimous or near unanimous; but those cases get little press.  am suspecting in terms o' raw numbers, we agree with all Justices at least 75% o' the time. even so, while we might quibble on the percentage a bit, it is true there ain't any Justice with whom we is complete aligning. such a recognition is precise why we says it is more important to be getting competent Justices who have requisite character to sit on the bench.

scalia got unanimous senate approval. unanimous. can you imagine such happening today? am perhaps too old, but am from an era when ability and character were bipartisan requisites for a Court appointee.

HA! Good Fun!

Unfortunately that stopped being important the day the political factions (not parties) in the country realized the court was a way to get something they wanted through the back door rather than through the front door of the legislature.  Sometimes the justices are willing to do that, sometimes they are not.

[ShadySands]

Hmm, Thomas is only 70. For some reason I was thinking he was closer to Ginsberg age

[Gromnir]

16 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Hmm, Thomas is only 70. For some reason I was thinking he was closer to Ginsberg age

well, it is easy to confuse clarence thomas with clint eastwood's gran torino character

pretty much every clarence thomas opinion could be summarized thusly: "get off my lawn."

clint is 88.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[ShadySands]

Just wanted to say that the differences between the comments on the CNN version of the video and the Fox News version of the same is brain scratching

Edited May 30, 2019 by ShadySands
Youtube comments

[injurai]

If Trump didn't collude, it's clear he benefited from the concerted attack and he further wants to maintain the air of legitimacy around his electoral college only win of the ticket. Further we know his keepers and handlers did either collude, or left themselves open to be influenced when they should have been taking the steps to immunize themselves against such influence. One thing Trump can't escape is the indictment that he is a capricious buffoon of the highest order.

[Guard Dog]

Jesse Dougherty is the Nats beat writer for the Washington Post. I've been a subscriber to the post for years on my Kindle and I've always liked it. But the quality is slipping and here is an example of why. Dougherty ran a column yesterday about a kerfuffle involving the Nats AAA affiliate, the Fresno Grizzlies. During their Memorial Day in-game ceremony they ran a video with pictures of the "enemies of freedom" of some such. AoC's pic was included with Kim Jong Il, and an assorted cast of bad guys. It was a pretty stupid thing to do and the team and person who made the video have apologized. Dougherty opined the person should be fired and if the Grizzlies won't do it the Nats should step in and do it. Just one problem: the Nats have no ownership interest in the Grizzlies. Like 90% of minor league teams they are a privately owned and  operated entity. The Nats could no more have that guy fired than they could call my boss and have me fired. 

Now, I bring all this up because Dougherty published something that was not only wrong it was dumb. And no one caught it. He's been the beat writer for the Nats for 10 years and does not even know how the business he reports on works. His editors didn't catch it. The problem with the media isn't that they knowingly publish false information. It's that they UNKNOWINGLY publish false information. I'm pointing this one thing out as an example. Many journalists bemoan the loss of trust in their profession. But they refuse to see they are the only ones who can undermine their own credibility.

Just my $.02. I'd post a link to the column but it's behind a paywall

[Gromnir]

13 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Just wanted to say that the differences between the comments on the CNN version of the video and the Fox News version of the same is brain scratching

is so difficult to have a meaningful mueller investigation discussion. polarization o' opinion, mostly along party lines, is extreme.

few folks has read the report and mueller left enough opaqueness such that those pundits with an agenda may point to out-of-context quotes to support whatever conclusions they wish to advance.

regardless, and most immediate relevant, mueller made clear he were hamstrung. am disagreeing with the law, but doj says can't prosecute a sitting President. by the same token, accuse President o' a crime at this time would deny him right to a speedy trial.  as such, barr's summary were, at the very least, intentional misleading. am not seeing any way to give barr a pass on his summarization efforts or his characterization o' mueller concerns via his snitty letter.

HA! Good Fun! 

 

[Guard Dog]

How petty is this??? https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-wanted-uss-john-mccain-out-of-sight-during-trump-japan-visit-11559173470

 

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

How petty is this??? https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-wanted-uss-john-mccain-out-of-sight-during-trump-japan-visit-11559173470

 

Trump level of petty.  Funny how his supporters are these loud alpha types when he is like this.

[injurai]

15 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Trump level of petty.  Funny how his supporters are these loud alpha types when he is like this.

Anyone that I've seen salivating over these sorts of things seems to be using it as a form of signalling for some ulterior motive. Usually fundamentalist evangelical identity politics to bolster a narrative of cultural superiority towards non-regarded "others."

[Gromnir]

47 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

How petty is this??? https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-wanted-uss-john-mccain-out-of-sight-during-trump-japan-visit-11559173470

 

is not at all surprising though, is it? that folks in the wh, at highest levels, would demand such stuff to protect the President's ego? doesn't shock. complete lack o' surprise should be a wakeup call for the folks who see story as a nothingburger or falsely lachrymose.  

sadly, it would be surprising if any trump loyalist were offended by efforts taken.

nevertheless, am thinking the navy should review.  currently, the only persons capable o' ordering the navy to take such efforts as described in the story would be the President and the Secretary of Defense (is actual kinda ambiguous if secretary o' navy could do so.) there is no current secretary o' defense, so Trump is only civilian with legal authority to order navy. am thinking navy needs make real clear how such petty and dishonorable demands would need be accompanied by actual orders and folks who followed requests in the absence o' orders should be public censured.  

...

kinda brings up yet another elephant in the room. patrick shanahan is acting secretary.  bill clinton signed into law the fed vacancies reform act o' 1998, but no such law has the effect o' superseding the Constitution's appointments clause. the secretary and senior cabinet positions has authority under the Constitution only after they get senate approval. as such, this acting end-around is not legit.

'course until somebody specific refuses to follow orders and direction o' an acting secretary, this blatant unconstitutional behavior is gonna continue.  having this need be resolved by the Courts is asinine, but am not seeing a solution with divided Congress and multiple chief executives who has knowing exploited a not-loophole.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Quote

I recognize that the “burdens on governmental processes” that the Appointments Clause imposes may “often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable.” INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919, 959 (1983). Granting the President unilateral power to fill vacancies in high offices might contribute to more efficient Government. But the Appointments Clause is not an empty formality. Although the Framers recognized the potential value of leaving the selection of officers to “one man of discernment” rather than to a fractious, multimember body, see The Federalist No. 76, p. 510 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), they also recognized the serious risk for abuse and corruption posed by permitting one person to fill every office in the Government, see id., at 513; 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1524, p. 376 (1833). The Framers “had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked,” Chadha, supra, at 959, and they knew that liberty could be preserved only by ensuring that the powers of Government would never be consolidated in one body, see The Federalist No. 51, p. 348. ...

That the Senate voluntarily relinquished its advice-andconsent power in the FVRA does not make this end-run around the Appointments Clause constitutional. The Clause, like all of the Constitution’s structural provisions, “is designed first and foremost not to look after the interests of the respective branches, but to protect individual liberty.” (GD aside: what a radical notion)

That the Senate voluntarily relinquished its advice-and consent power in the FVRA does not make this end-run around the Appointments Clause constitutional. The Clause, like all of the Constitution’s structural provisions, “is designed first and foremost not to look after the interests of the respective branches, but to protect individual liberty.”

Clarence Thomas

We went wrong when the executive did things that were beyond the enumerated powers of the office and the legislature did nothing. Does anyone have a time machine I can borrow? I'm going to go back to 1911 and kidnap Teddy Roosevelt. If he's not around Taft would be re-elected, WW2 would never happen and maybe... just maybe, the Executive branch of the US would not be out of control.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If I had a time machine I'd kill Hitler tbh.

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

Trump level of petty.  Funny how his supporters are these loud alpha types when he is like this.

His supporters are either boomers or failsons that need a self-help guru to clean their rooms. 

[Gromnir]

25 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

If I had a time machine I'd kill Hitler tbh.

 

says somebody who has clear never watched or read time-travel science fiction. besides which, obvious answer is to stop ww1, which would necessarily avoid hitler's rise to power and would similar prevent a ww2. 

please note am joking 

Barr says Mueller "could've reached a decision" on whether Trump obstructed justice

"The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he is in office, but he could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity," Barr added. "But he had his reasons for not doing it, which he explained and I am not going to, you know, argue about those reasons."

...

barr is being disingenuous not to mention unintentional supporting the argument mueller woulda' found obstruction but for doj policy. IF mueller found criminal behavior by trump, then publishing such findings by a doj prosecutor such as the special counsel would necessarily deprive trump of the opportunity for a fair criminal trial. this were the one point 'bout which mueller were perfect clear in his presser. so unless you believe mueller is being willful obtuse or some other conspiracy theory, the reason for NOT exonerating and simultaneous NOT indicting becomes disturbingly obvious: but for doj policy, mueller woulda' announced existence o' criminal behaviour sufficient for indictment.

again, barr is correct that mueller coulda' found criminal activity but he is again misleading. revealing such findings would only be problematic if mueller announced he found criminal activity worthy o' indictment as such would invoke doj policy against charging a President while he/she is in office. accuse trump o' crime but not allow for a trial would deny trump speedy and fair trial. recognizing mueller could find criminal activity but has refused to exonerate the President is actual a damning condemnation o' those who claim mueller didn't find legal sufficient evidence o' obstruction. is no other compelling argument for mueller to be taciturn than his desire to avoid the doj policy he specific identified in his presser... and virtual every lawyer in Congress knows this. fact so many is pretending to be ignorant and to see mueller's report as some kinda exoneration makes most o' the republicans on the hill complicit in this affront to the rule o' law.

'course we also got a whole lotta venom for the democrats in Congress, more than a few who were clear looking for an excuse to find trump guilty o' crimes regardless o' evidence. is also more than a few democrat hypocrites who defended clinton's perjury who is getting a measure o' comeuppance which they is owed. 

even so, am kinda disgusted by the whole circus, which is wrong as well. am so tried o' it all that am becoming numb to the daily excesses o' this administration. our fatigue is another victory for an administration gone wrong.

[Guard Dog]

Gromnir if it makes you feel any better you would be in exactly the same place you are now had the coin landed the other way in 2016. As much as you value integrity, ethics, character, and adherence to law it could not end any other way for you.  There is absolutely nothing  in the history of Hillary Clinton or the people around her to suggest her administration would not be one of hubris, executive overreach, and malfeasance. The difference being she's a lot more adept at keeping things quiet. Rather than the roaches on the walls and counter tops we have now they would be behind the oven and in the pantry. But you better believe we'd still be hip deep in roaches.

[Guard Dog]

 

This is not a joke. This is for real. Makes sense I guess. She would have a lot to say about the effective disposal of non-volatile memory devices. 

[Malcador]

11 hours ago, KaineParker said:

If I had a time machine I'd kill Hitler tbh.

 

[ktchong]

It has begun...

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by ktchong

[ktchong]

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by ktchong

[ktchong]

22 hours ago, ktchong said:

The US have freedom gas.

But China controls communist metals!

And medicines - those are communist too, and China also controls them!

Here is something being discussed by Chinese, and Americans have not even thought of it.  China has another effective weapon in this trade war, possibly even more effective than restricting rare earths or dumping US treasuries: GENERIC DRUGS.

Almost all of generic drugs in the US are manufactured in China. Americans are a heavily medicated and drug-dependent people. If China cuts off cheap generic drug supplies to the US, then the drug prices in the US will spike.  Many Americans will be priced out of the drugs that they need to stay alive, off pains, and sane.  Restricting or raising prices on generic drug exports will be a most effective – and a most painful – retaliatory weapon for China to inflict on the US population.

Of course the US will be able to switch suppliers over time, (just like they will be able to change suppliers for rare earths or any Chinese imports over time,) but not before a lot of Americans suffer, go bankrupt, and even die from the lack of access to cheap drugs. Many Chinese see this trade war as a war of attrition, of who can outlast the other one. Many Americans who are sick, in pains, and dying cannot wait out or try to outlast this trade war. If China is willing to resort to using this weapon, it will cause tremendous pains and suffering for Americans – and put tremendous pressures on the Trump administration.

That may seem like a cruel and ruthless weapon to fight the trade war, but that is what exactly the US has always used as a weapon for sanctions on Iraq, North Korea, Venezuela and so many other countries. And, based on what I’ve reading in the Chinese social media, Chinese online are calling for their government to restrict or raise prices of generic drug exports as a weapon in the trade war, and "let's Americans have a taste of their own medicine because they love to put sanctions on other countries so much!"

P.S. And antibiotics too.  Most of those - 96 percent, if I remember correctly - come from China.

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by ktchong

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Gromnir if it makes you feel any better you would be in exactly the same place you are now had the coin landed the other way in 2016. As much as you value integrity, ethics, character, and adherence to law it could not end any other way for you.  There is absolutely nothing  in the history of Hillary Clinton or the people around her to suggest her administration would not be one of hubris, executive overreach, and malfeasance. The difference being she's a lot more adept at keeping things quiet. Rather than the roaches on the walls and counter tops we have now they would be behind the oven and in the pantry. But you better believe we'd still be hip deep in roaches.

no.

we woulda' agreed with you at the time o' the election, but the past two years has proven us wrong. the mueller report is far worse than gd believes. am recalling your but for kinda statements regarding those in trump's orbit protecting him from obstruction, but that ain't the law. trump attempts to obstruct justice were crimes and failure o' subordinates to carry out orders only impacted evidentiary strength rather than existence o' criminal activity. mueller also described a systematic pattern o' lies and misrepresentation which we is surprised the media outlets never bothered to compare direct to Nixon, 'cause trump administration lies were far more numerous and arguable worse. trump has attempted to politicize the military and he has used pardon power to help more than one bad actor. numerous senior cabinet member has described trump as stoopid, and a few has pointed out how they necessarily had to step in to prevent him from doing overt illegal. 

mattis and kelly… why did they leave the administration? knowing what you know o' these military men, do you see such persons leaving the administration over disagreement on issues? is hard to imagine these folks leaving  over differences in policy. conscience. similar, mcmaster were effective fired 'cause he insisted on doing his job and advising the President honest. short after all three men left, honorable men who served best possible in jobs trump made difficult, the President criticized all three for either lack o' intelligence or character.

admiral mcraven said trump's attacks on the press is the greatest threat to democracy in his lifetime. no President has so active attacked the legitimacy o' the press. why? 'cause the press has been mean to him. clinton, who no doubt woulda' received bad press, mighta' attacked individual reporters and stories, but am not able to imagine her using "enemy of the people" language. evar. is the kinda stuff we previous thought were reserverved for autocrats and internet hoaxers.

alternative facts and outright lies. claim sound from windmills cause cancer and when confronted with abject stoopidity o' such statements he doubles-down on such. crowd size. mit global warming studies. payoffs to porn stars. authorship o' press releases. could spend tens o' pages discussing trump admin lies... and when he is caught in an obvious lie, he tends to make lie bigger rather than retracting.

ignores the unanimous advice o' intelligence chiefs in favor o' tucker carlson and sean hannity? why? 'cause the fox guys says what trump wants to hear.

attacks on McCain even after the senator's death, and why? 'cause mccain, who were in favor o' obamacare repeal, were having too much integrity to go along with the slapped together replacement plan which were forced through committee w/o debate. (can ff to ~7:00-9:45ish if just wanna hear reasons for voting 'gainst obamacare repeal.)

faked medical condition to avoid military service while ridiculing mccain's efforts in service to his country.

lies. pettiness. willful stoopidity.

oh, and as bad as were hillary emails and the potential damage such coulda' done to US intelligence and diplomatic efforts, within month o' being in office trump spilled israeli secrets to the russians in the oval office and he forced security clearances to be given to family members he were told were in danger o' being compromised.

clinton woulda' been bad, but trump daily lies and character breaches has made gd and others numb to how terrible he is.  we honest could not imagine how terrible trump character as President has been.  had assumed pu$$y grab before being elected woulda' been low water mark, but have been proven wrong almost daily.

your gas station guy is perpetual safe from making good on offer, eh? 

oh, and mexico tariffs? 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

Trump still thinks countries pay tariffs. How much did daddy pay to get him through Wharton?

[Skarpen]

18 hours ago, KaineParker said:

If I had a time machine I'd kill Hitler tbh.

The fact that most people given the opportunity of time travel would resort to killing AH, rather than consider any alternative option, is enough evidence that history would not change significally with or without AH.