ClimateSanity
New member
Do you have an answer to the berean?
Why is income inequality a bad thing?
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
There is no claim that she broke the law. Here is a republican telling us that the facts show that Clinton had no intent to break the law. Nor does he say that she broke the law.
The best he can do without making a false statement, is offer an opinion that she was "extremely careless."
In fact, he said, three emails on Clinton's server had a paragraph "summariz[ing] something" and included a C in parentheses at the beginning of it, indicating the paragraph contained information "classified at the confidential level, which is the lowest level of classification."
But those paragraphs were "down in the body" of the emails, and "none of the emails had headers at the top of the document that said it's classified," Comey said. Because of the improper absence of such headers, it "would be ... reasonable" for Clinton to think the emails did not contain classified information, or she may have missed the C markings buried in the tens of thousands of other emails exchanged, he acknowledged.
Even if she did notice the markings, "I think it's possible — possible — that she didn't understand what a C meant when she saw it in the body of the e-mail like that," he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-...hillary-clinton-email-probe/story?id=41044927
And republicans have done this without anyone calling it a crime:
A secret U.S. military investigation in 2010 determined that Michael T. Flynn, the retired Army general tapped to serve as national security adviser in the Trump White House, “inappropriately shared” classified information with foreign military officers in Afghanistan, newly released documents show.
Although Flynn lacked authorization to share the classified material, he was not disciplined or reprimanded after the investigation concluded that he did not act “knowingly” and that “there was no actual or potential damage to national security as a result,” according to Army records obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...054287507db_story.html?utm_term=.e8f66015312c
If Clinton had done a third of what Flynn got away with, she'd be in jail now.
President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State. ...“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.99f814eb35fc
ClimateSanity
New member
Here is an article that goes directly to the point I was trying to make about NAFTA and globalism:
Multinational corporations and the export of American wealth.
theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/07/17/multinational-corporations-and-the-export-of-american-wealth/#more-135930
There's actually a lot in that post that's right. Multinational companies do much of what is described and more. However, it's wrong to say that they are expropriating wealth to the benefit of less developed countries. In fact, multinationals were exploiting poor and undeveloped countries, often with the backing of those companies' home countries, and often for their benefit, long before it became possible for them to do something similar to those richer countries. At one time, it was necessary for, say, BP, to keep good relations with the United States, because the United States's military and diplomatic dominance was useful for enforcing their rights against "sovereign" nations. Now, some of these companies are powerful enough that they don't need those big militaries and state departments, so they are free to switch to a more extractive model against the populations of those countries too. And they are powerful enough that even if they do need the tools of a country, they can force the government to do their bidding.
Who is the wealth being extracted for? Not the developing world, certainly. They're still being exploited for cheap labor and natural resources. It's being extracted for an increasingly narrow band of investors and financiers, most of whom live in "rich" countries, but who feel little obligation to any of them.
The problem is not that international trade has given the developing world too much wealth. The problem is that we let the protections against a race to the bottom of labor standards be set too weak.
ClimateSanity
New member
The extraction of American wealth is going to less developed countries, but it's their government apparatus and crony's that gets the wealth , not the people. The only people doing well in my wife's home country are those who work for the government or its state owned industries. My wife's uncle's wife works for the state owned electric company and is paid well above the average income of most people who live there and over 60% of the population lives under the poverty line.
Last edited:
ClimateSanity
New member
By the way, extraction of American wealth means from our economy. If any of these financiers live in America, the wealth gained overseas is kept in foreign banks.
So long as we are creating much more wealth per capita than other nations, it's hopeless to wish that a considerable part of it won't end up flowing out of the country, in order for us to get things made elsewhere.
Economics is not a zero-sum game.
Economics is not a zero-sum game.
ClimateSanity
New member
Are we really creating more wealth? Doesn't the article and the other one I posted state that most of our economy is based on fake wealth that is all on paper and not backed up with anything real?
This fake economy has been driving real wealth out of our economy and replacing it with paper wealth (wall street). Our real wealth is in what we make and real services. We don't make anything anymore and now the only real economy we have is service based.
Give me a hint here, what country are we talking about? Our trade relations are different with every country, and it's impossible to generalize about all countries. The biggest thing we import is oil, and we don't really want countries to stop selling us cheap oil just to lower the trade deficit. You want a solution? Invest in good mass transit, infrastructure, and green technologies like EVs.
Trump actually was saying some encouraging things about some of that, although he has an irrational and counterproductive attitude toward green energy. But he's been so hung up on trying to push through an unpopular and ultimately damaging assault on safety protections, and fighting old vendettas that he's put no effort into it.
We give countries dollars that we print ourselves, and they give us oil. Seems like a better deal for us than them.
ClimateSanity
New member
We cannot grow an economy on green energy. It simply cannot do what oil gas and coal can do. The country is in sub Saharan Africa.
ClimateSanity
New member
I wasnt really talking about trade as much as I'm talking about the financial sector making fake money here and then they invest in others countries who do not build their economies with it.
ClimateSanity
New member
It's actually better for us if we produce the oil ourselves rather than buy it from other countries.
That depends. It very well could be a lot more expensive to do that. And really, we need to move away from using oil as we do. The healthiest option is to use green energy to power our transportation.
ClimateSanity
New member
The poor cannot afford green powered cars. The rich pay more for green cars. How is it a good thing for our economy to spend more on transportation than we used to?
Specifically? What can't it do?
Even if we just reduce our imports of oil, it would lower our trade deficit. But not only is Trump not trying to do that, but he's actively eliminating measures that encourage it.
Ok. That doesn't help a lot, but it's something. Are you really worried about disclosing your wife's nationality? I don't want to pry too much, but I wouldn't think that would hurt her privacy meaningfully...
Any wealth transfer between nations is some sort of trade. Unless I'm missing something, it is up to other countries how they invest their money, right?
ClimateSanity
New member
Oil and gas and coal can grow an economy at 6%. A green powered economy will actually shrink.
ClimateSanity
New member
What measures is he implementing that is growing our trade deficit? That's the exact opposite of what he promised.
Can I see the math behind that assertion?
ClimateSanity
New member
Ok. That doesn't help a lot, but it's something. Are you really worried about disclosing your wife's nationality? I don't want to pry too much, but I wouldn't think that would hurt her privacy meaningfully.....
It hurts my privacy meaningfully.
It hurts my privacy meaningfully.
This:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/trum...address-fuel-economy-standards-very-soon.html
Lower fuel economy standards mean we have to use more fuel to accomplish the same productivity, thus we have to buy more oil from overseas, thus increasing our trade deficit.