The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[Wrathe]

Disagrees mean someone wants Ivanka for themsellllllllffffff...

Women aren't prizes whose ownership is decided upon by a trivial sports game, you misogynist pig!

How am I doing w/ the faux outrage?

 

[Binkster]

Women aren't prizes whose ownership is decided upon by a trivial sports game, you misogynist pig!

How am I doing w/ the faux outrage?

I banged your mom.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That's not actually the case. ISPs are not in competition with SaaS or content providers....

The specific complaint being made was that ISP's that had an ownership interest in a content provider would have an incentive to throttle down competitors of that content provider. If you are saying that is not the case and cannot happen, then the people who have expressed concern about that have nothing to worry about.

And even then, you'd have a very difficult time with ISPs suing each other.... because they could simply wall each other off and force ISPs to pay for packets to traverse their private networks... which is a nightmare scenario where the American internet would regress back to the AOL/Prodigy/CompuServe days of walled gardens.

You wouldn't be talking about ISP's suing each other. The issue would be content providers suing ISP's for the reason I discussed above.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That is a good point, but that shit takes years. And years. In the meantime consumers get fucked.

First, deterrence occurs at the point in time at which legal liability arises, not at the point in time when a verdict is reached or a judgment actually paid. And during that time that consumers would be getting fucked, those treble damages would keep accruing. Which is why those companies would be unlikely to engage in that activity in the first place.

Second, to the extent your criticism is valid, it's not unique to antitrust law. It would apply to virtually all regulations and laws that we use to restrict commercial activity. When a company breaks the law, whether it be environmental, fraud, product liability, etc., it very often takes years to get to a judgment. Yet, we rely on the deterrent effect of those laws to prevent companies from engaging in that in the first place. More importantly, the "it takes years" argument against relying on antitrust laws would be just as applicable to net neutrality regulations because the resolution of those claims could take years as well. So that's no reason to discard antitrust laws as an suitable remedy for any violations.

 

[Wrathe]

I banged your mom.

Ya? Well I'm Republican, I banged your daughter.

 

[Sebastian]

Mike Mulvaney. Hilarious.

Should he also appoint Benrie Madoff to head the Fed?

 

[Binkster]

Ya? Well I'm Republican, I banged your daughter.

Don’t... have one. To my knowledge.

 

[Huber.]

It’s so weird having a president that consistently just makes petty lies such as this. He’s only fooling absolute morons with this shit, but it’s sympomatic of a much larger issue which is that this guy can’t manage to tell the truth.

He’s just lying to stroke his ego and it’s so commonplace now that this won’t matter in about a day. If any previous president did this it’d a massive gaffe highlight, this wouldn’t even scratch a top ten list for this assclown.

In a couple of months we will find out he was somehow right all along. Just like Obama tapping phone lines that he owns.

 

[Jordan]

I've not posted in the politics threads in awhile. I generally still read though. Given the subject, I think this is probably a good place to post my most recent article at The National Interest. If you read it, hopefully you enjoy!

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-must-actively-seek-end-the-qatar-crisis-23353?page=show

 

[Sebastian]

I've not posted in the politics threads in awhile. I generally still read though. Given the subject, I think this is probably a good place to post my most recent article at The National Interest. If you read it, hopefully you enjoy!

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-must-actively-seek-end-the-qatar-crisis-23353?page=show

Trump owes money to the Saudis.

Makes sense that he is throwing yet another ally under the bus.

What do we expect from an immoral, dishonorable, reprobate pathological liar?

 

[Jordan]

Trump owes money to the Saudis.

Makes sense that he is throwing yet another ally under the bus.

What do we expect from an immoral, dishonorable, reprobate pathological liar?

To defend Trump, a bit, I think his grand strategy is mainly one based on retrenchment. It seems like he wants to do whatever it takes to bring the U.S. focus to domestic politics.

Still, I think he has poorly handled America's alliance networks. It is one of those things that has future impacts. I.E., if Qatar continues to get screwed, who is to say they don't demand the U.S. reduce its military presence? Or, even less extreme, what if they say the U.S. can't negotiate with the Taliban in Doha?

 

[Sebastian]

To defend Trump, a bit, I think his grand strategy is mainly one based on retrenchment. It seems like he wants to do whatever it takes to bring the U.S. focus to domestic politics.

Still, I think he has poorly handled America's alliance networks. It is one of those things that has future impacts. I.E., if Qatar continues to get screwed, who is to say they don't demand the U.S. reduce its military presence? Or, even less extreme, what if they say the U.S. can't negotiate with the Taliban in Doha?

I wouldn't say it is Trump's strategy. It may be someone's but the man himself is incapable of thinking in those terms.

He poorly handles our alliances for the above reason as well. What we do see, as you wrote, is parts of his Administration trying to maintain order, while the other half, as well as Trump's indifference and lack of knowledge, sabotaging them (Tillerson, Mattis, McMaster).

 

[Jordan]

I wouldn't say it is Trump's strategy. It may be someone's but the man himself is incapable of thinking in those terms.

He poorly handles our alliances for the above reason as well. What we do see, as you wrote, is parts of his Administration trying to maintain order, while the other half, as well as Trump's indifference and lack of knowledge, sabotaging them (Tillerson, Mattis, McMaster).

I think this is all probably fair analysis.

The Saudis and Chinese should be case studies in how to get Trump to like you. They really laid out the red carpet (China did quite literally).

Still, even if it is not explicitly his grand strategy, I find it really dangerous. I was irritated when Obama eased on America's alliance networks, but Trump is taking it to an extreme, and I do not see this ending well.

 

[Jack Brickman]

To defend Trump, a bit, I think his grand strategy is mainly one based on retrenchment.

I think assuming that Trump has a "grand strategy" is a massive stretch.

 

[Jordan]

I think assuming that Trump has a "grand strategy" is a massive stretch.

I think, as Stannis said, it probably isn't "his." But his administration absolutely does.