The Trump Presidency – 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Protecting our IP has much to do with national security especially when you think long term.

That's espionage. Has little to nothing to do with any trade deal. Governments are going to spy on each other.

Originally Posted by Edward64

It how US companies wanting to play in China are forced to compromise in IP or have their IP stolen.

Why does everyone have to suffer so some large companies can make more money in other countries? How does it benefit a farmer to lose a ton of money so Apple can sell phones at a higher profit margin in China?

Just don't understand why anyone here cares about giving some company a global monopoly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

we all know we are still "friends" with Saudi Arabia primarily because of their oil power.

Ehhh..the weapon purchasing plays a big role too. The administrations trip to Saudi Arabia was alongside a bunch of weapon manufacturer CEOs.

Plus you can't count out the personal financial interests. They launder money to him through his hotels. They also invest in his son-in-laws businesses.

I wouldn't put the friends in quotations marks. We've kind of bent over and let them do whatever they want to us. Their policies have been actively hurting us for awhile now. They clearly are the alpha in this relationship.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's espionage. Has little to nothing to do with any trade deal. Governments are going to spy on each other.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I'm thinking you think ...

You - Trade Deal = goods
Me - Trade Deal = goods + IP

Sure governments spy on each other. It is also Chinese companies stealing US companies IP to close the gap in technology. These Chinese companies probably are doing it at the behest of the Chinese government. So it is espionage "through trade".

See article below. There are numerous articles that pretty much say this trade deal is also about protecting IP.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/w...ed-states.html

China’s leader, Xi Jinping, seemed confident three weeks ago that a yearlong trade war with the United States could soon subside, handing him a potent political victory.

He even made a speech saying China would protect intellectual property, encourage foreign investment, and buy more goods and services from abroad — all changes the United States had been demanding as the countries tried to negotiate a deal.
:
:
The Trump administration had demanded stronger penalties for violating foreign patents and tighter laws to prevent the Chinese from demanding that foreign businesses transfer critical technologies. And the administration sought changes to cybersecurity laws that China’s national security establishment saw as interference.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why does everyone have to suffer so some large companies can make more money in other countries? How does it benefit a farmer to lose a ton of money so Apple can sell phones at a higher profit margin in China?

Just don't understand why anyone here cares about giving some company a global monopoly.

Your farmer may lose a ton of money so Apple can sell phones at a higher profit margin but plenty of other farmers are enjoying their iPhones and iPads.

The Apple example is a non-starter for me, its not a global monopoly (well maybe for 2-4 years at the beginning) and its pretty clear Apple has done so much for the US and the world. Although not the first with the "smart phone" clearly the one that made it ubiquitous.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Ehhh..the weapon purchasing plays a big role too. The administrations trip to Saudi Arabia was alongside a bunch of weapon manufacturer CEOs.

Plus you can't count out the personal financial interests. They launder money to him through his hotels. They also invest in his son-in-laws businesses.

I wouldn't put the friends in quotations marks. We've kind of bent over and let them do whatever they want to us. Their policies have been actively hurting us for awhile now. They clearly are the alpha in this relationship.

I wasn't thinking about only Trump. Clearly other past administrations have tolerated the relationship.

Describing it as alpha is too strong for me but the point is taken. Influence/unity of OPEC has been declining and I eagerly await that inflection point with alternate fuels so we don't have to keep on buying drugs from that part of town.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think trying to "fix" and "appease his base" are mutually exclusive. It's a safe assumption that many of his base wants/supports this "fix".

That would be great if he actually knew what he was doing, had any kind of plan, or cared beyond enacting policy over Twitter.

I know you don't support Trump per se, but you come across as treating him like someone who is competent that may just have a different agenda then the left and that just isn't true.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't see it as rich vs poor. I see it as maintaining/enhancing the US long term strategic interest. I certainly don't see this as benefits only a small minority of people.

The poor and middle class are the people getting killed by the trade war with China. We're already seeing recession level bankruptcies from Midwestern farms. The poor and middle class will be the people most impacted by increasea in the cost of goods. Those same people are going to see little to no benefit to IP protection.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Lot of buzz on twitter tonight about Michael Flynn-some unredacted parts of his transcript with the Mueller Report shows that the Trump team/members of Congress tried to interfere with/obstruct him speaking with Mueller. Article does a better job of explaining it then I did. Also a federal judge wants Mueller's team to file a transcript of Flynn's voicemail with the Trump team/Congressmen as well as any recordings they have of him with Russian officials by May 31. This is the judge who called Flynn a traitor at one point:


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...probe-n1006666


Edit: The judge wants all the Flynn material unredacted and released to the public.

Members of Congress - Nunes? Who knows if anything more comes from this but it seems like one of those things that should be of incredible importance with serious consequences in normal times.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I'm thinking you think ...

You - Trade Deal = goods
Me - Trade Deal = goods + IP

Sure governments spy on each other. It is also Chinese companies stealing US companies IP to close the gap in technology. These Chinese companies probably are doing it at the behest of the Chinese government. So it is espionage "through trade".

See article below. There are numerous articles that pretty much say this trade deal is also about protecting IP.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/w...ed-states.html

I'm agreeing that the trade deal is about protecting IP. I'm saying it doesn't matter to 99.99% of this population. Why do I give a shit if someone over in China makes a fake Gucci bag?

And you're right that they steal at the behest of the government. That won't change with this deal. This is espionage and they aren't going to stop that offer a trade deal regardless of the IP protections.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Your farmer may lose a ton of money so Apple can sell phones at a higher profit margin but plenty of other farmers are enjoying their iPhones and iPads.

The Apple example is a non-starter for me, its not a global monopoly (well maybe for 2-4 years at the beginning) and its pretty clear Apple has done so much for the US and the world. Although not the first with the "smart phone" clearly the one that made it ubiquitous.

I'm not saying Apple is a monopoly. I'm saying a patent is a government mandated monopoly on something. The government states that only the patent holder can profit off something.

That's fine. But I don't understand why we have to suffer so that the whole world recognizes our patents.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Radii

Members of Congress - Nunes? Who knows if anything more comes from this but it seems like one of those things that should be of incredible importance with serious consequences in normal times.

Well if the member of Congress is a still active member it could mean the end of their career. But with Trump's administration, I guess it matters just what is revealed. His lawyer John Dowd, seems like he could be in trouble. My guess for who the member of Congress is would start with Nunes-he's already interfered with the investigation. My number two guess would be Rohrbacker-he already has known ties/friendly to Russia. He lost his re-election though, so not sure how much that would affect things, unless they subpoened him.

[Lathum]

It’s almost as if Trump wants to completely tank the American agriculture industry. Between his tariff wars and now this gestapo like aggression on SS numbers and immigrants I can’t see many handling this well. But they will still vote for him.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not saying Apple is a monopoly. I'm saying a patent is a government mandated monopoly on something. The government states that only the patent holder can profit off something.

That's fine. But I don't understand why we have to suffer so that the whole world recognizes our patents.

So then the companies that are innovative enough to come up with things that need patents can recoup and profit from their investments and hopefully come up with more innovative things.

Do you agree no/less patents means less incentive for companies to innovate? If you do, then what is the alternative?

With that said, there is definitely excess and I don't like how pharmas can find a way to extend their patents beyond the original date.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So then the companies that are innovative enough to come up with things that need patents can recoup and profit from their investments and hopefully come up with more innovative things.

Do you agree no/less patents means less incentive for companies to innovate? If you do, then what is the alternative?

With that said, there is definitely excess and I don't like how pharmas can find a way to extend their patents beyond the original date.

We have patents in this country. Their IP is protected here (well if you are wealthy). What happens between those companies and other countries is between those parties. Not sure why you think everyone needs to be collateral damage for something that practically no one here benefits from.

And no, I don't believe less patents means less innovation. I think it creates stagnation in the market and complacency.

But our patent system isn't about encouraging innovation anymore. It's turned into a perverted system where patent trolls and big companies that buy up vague patents to strongarm smaller competition. Larger companies can and do just steal ideas from anyone who doesn't have a decade plus of time and millions of dollars to defend it in court.

I don't have an issue with patents when done right. But this country doesn't do that. So how about we fix our own IP laws before forcing our pathetic ones on countries that have nothing to do with the average American. Like I said, why should someone lose his farm so Apple can make a few more sales overseas?

[RainMaker]

Do people know our copyright protections are based around when Mickey Mouse is set to enter public domain? Whenever it gets close, they pay off a bunch of politicians to extend it.

Everyone who had something to do with the creation of Mickey Mouse has been dead for decades.

[Thomkal]

Justin Amash of Michigan is the first Republican in Congress to call for impeachment of Donald Trump:


https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/18/polit...uct/index.html

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And no, I don't believe less patents means less innovation. I think it creates stagnation in the market and complacency.

But our patent system isn't about encouraging innovation anymore. It's turned into a perverted system where patent trolls and big companies that buy up vague patents to strongarm smaller competition. Larger companies can and do just steal ideas from anyone who doesn't have a decade plus of time and millions of dollars to defend it in court.

I don't have an issue with patents when done right. But this country doesn't do that. So how about we fix our own IP laws before forcing our pathetic ones on countries that have nothing to do with the average American. Like I said, why should someone lose his farm so Apple can make a few more sales overseas?

Kinda counter intuitive for me so did some googling. The gist I get is patents does help innovation but that's not to say there can't be improvements.

Re: Apple - someone loses his farm so Apple can continue innovating and making more iStuff. Additionally, new iStuff has created a bunch more jobs and wealth than those farmers ... so the net impact is positive for the country.

It (probably) comes down to do you believe US should maintain/enhance its technological advantage even at the expense of less fortunate with the inevitable paradigm shifts.

Do people know our copyright protections are based around when Mickey Mouse is set to enter public domain? Whenever it gets close, they pay off a bunch of politicians to extend it.

Everyone who had something to do with the creation of Mickey Mouse has been dead for decades.

Okay, I'll concede I don't give a flip about Gucci or Mickey Mouse.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Justin Amash of Michigan is the first Republican in Congress to call for impeachment of Donald Trump:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/18/polit...uct/index.html

Admirable but unfortunately won't go anywhere. But appreciate his principles.

The Dems are going to have to win this at the polls and lets hope by a large margin so the repudiation is undeniable.

(But still hoping for immigration reform + Wall, taking care of NK, and China before he is booted)

[Brian Swartz]

Amash represents a district a short drive from me. I used to live in it. I wish I could vote for him - he's been principled his entire Congressional career from everything I've seen/heard. Not perfect, nobody is, but if he ever runs for Senate or Governor he's about the only person I know that would be an auto-vote from me.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Kinda counter intuitive for me so did some googling. The gist I get is patents does help innovation but that's not to say there can't be improvements.

Re: Apple - someone loses his farm so Apple can continue innovating and making more iStuff. Additionally, new iStuff has created a bunch more jobs and wealth than those farmers ... so the net impact is positive for the country.

It (probably) comes down to do you believe US should maintain/enhance its technological advantage even at the expense of less fortunate with the inevitable paradigm shifts.

Except Apple stiffed Qualcomm when it came to paying royalties on their patent. Stole their technology and handed it to Intel.

They were found in courts to have stolen the technology for iMessage, FaceTime, and other software on the phone. The company that sued and won was a patent troll who doesn't innovate or build anything. But they still owned the patent you want to protect.

They were found to have stolen the technology behind iTunes. Again, by another patent troll that does not build or innovate anything.

Samsung and Apple routinely steal ideas from each other and buy up vague patents for a neverending battle in court.

In fact, almost the entire technological revolution is built around stolen technology. It's impossible for a little guy to fight the big ones in our system. It is set up for the biggest to be able to raid any ideas they want and sue upstart competition into oblivion.

Apple isn't a victim. Their entire business was built around stolen IP. Forcing other countries to have to abide by our abomination of a system is just bad for

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Amash represents a district a short drive from me. I used to live in it. I wish I could vote for him - he's been principled his entire Congressional career from everything I've seen/heard. Not perfect, nobody is, but if he ever runs for Senate or Governor he's about the only person I know that would be an auto-vote from me.

Huh. I read an article this morning that quoted another prominent republican as calling him a total lightweight and a loser.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Except Apple stiffed Qualcomm when it came to paying royalties on their patent. Stole their technology and handed it to Intel.

They were found in courts to have stolen the technology for iMessage, FaceTime, and other software on the phone. The company that sued and won was a patent troll who doesn't innovate or build anything. But they still owned the patent you want to protect.

They were found to have stolen the technology behind iTunes. Again, by another patent troll that does not build or innovate anything.

Samsung and Apple routinely steal ideas from each other and buy up vague patents for a neverending battle in court.

In fact, almost the entire technological revolution is built around stolen technology. It's impossible for a little guy to fight the big ones in our system. It is set up for the biggest to be able to raid any ideas they want and sue upstart competition into oblivion.

Apple isn't a victim. Their entire business was built around stolen IP. Forcing other countries to have to abide by our abomination of a system is just bad for

Not sure of all the details but Apple has agreed to pay $4.5B to Qualcomm. This is hows patent law work right?

When was the last time a non-Chinese company successfully sued a Chinese company for stealing its patent(s)?

The argument that Apple doesn't innovate much is nonsensical to me. Let's just agree to disagree.

[Radii]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/b...p-kushner.html

A number of financial transactions made by trump and kushner flagged in Deutsche Bank systems used to detect patterns that could suggest money laundering. Analysts recommended reporting this to a federal financial crimes watchdog. Executives at the bank did nothing with this. It does seem like this may just be a pattern of shitty behavior by the bank to protect wealthy partners and not specifically favoritism towards trump.

I guess this is our story of the week that would have been the biggest story for months under any other presidency?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by digamma

I read an article this morning that quoted another prominent republican as calling him a total lightweight and a loser.

Perhaps Trump isn't the best source?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not sure of all the details but Apple has agreed to pay $4.5B to Qualcomm. This is hows patent law work right?

They only paid because Qualcomm has a monopoly on 5G modems and Intel pulled out of the field. Otherwise they would have continued to stiff Qualcomm on royalties.

Originally Posted by Edward64

When was the last time a non-Chinese company successfully sued a Chinese company for stealing its patent(s)?

I don't know. Seems like an issue between China and the companies doing business in China. Don't see why citizens have to suffer while our government plays civil litigator for billion dollar companies.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The argument that Apple doesn't innovate much is nonsensical to me. Let's just agree to disagree.

What major innovations have they made?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Whatever you think of Trump, there is a large portion of this country that already felt crapped upon by the "elitists" and democrats. And Trump came in and spoke directly to them. And they bought in.

It is funny that Democrats are the elitists. Here is taxpayers footing the bill for top shelf liquor party at Trump's country club.

How Taxpayers Covered a $1,000 Liquor Bill for Trump Staffers (and More) at Trump’s Club — ProPublica

[Thomkal]

So if you want some light reading, the House Intel Committee voted to release the deposition of Michael Cohen from late Feb and early March:



https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/I...0520-SD002.pdf


https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/I...0520-SD002.pdf

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is funny that Democrats are the elitists. Here is taxpayers footing the bill for top shelf liquor party at Trump's country club.

How Taxpayers Covered a $1,000 Liquor Bill for Trump Staffers (and More) at Trump’s Club — ProPublica

I did not say the dems were elitists. I said elitists and dems.

I agree that this is crazy thinking, but the supporters feel Trump is one of them.

[Thomkal]

Its looking like a tipping point for impeachment may come tomorrow if Don McGahn does not show up tomorrow in response to a subpoena


Pelosi clashes with fellow Dems in closed-door debate on impeachment - POLITICO

[NobodyHere]

I'm not sure if I want impeachment or not, because you're going to get one of two outcomes:

1) Trump runs around screaming that he has been exonerated and lots of people will believe the BS.

2) President Pence.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm not sure if I want impeachment or not, because you're going to get one of two outcomes:

1) Trump runs around screaming that he has been exonerated and lots of people will believe the BS.

2) President Pence.

1) All ready happening. Will not stop or change, and people already think he's is a saint.



2) Will not happen because the Senate will not confirm it.

[PilotMan]

dola


It cracks me up that the official WH emails go straight to my spam folder without me every having suggested it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'm not sure if I want impeachment or not, because you're going to get one of two outcomes:

1) Trump runs around screaming that he has been exonerated and lots of people will believe the BS.

2) President Pence.

#1 will happen regardless.

#2 I'm good with Pence. I know some here are bothered by his religious beliefs but he's an traditional politician and after 2.5 years of Trump, I'm ready for some "normalcy".

Doesn't matter to me if the impeachment isn't confirmed by the Senate. Go through the process out of principle.

[JPhillips]

lol

The Freedom Caucus voted to condemn Amash, who co-founded the Freedom Caucus, for daring to speak out against Trump.

[Thomkal]

heh

[Brian Swartz]

Also, Amash is going to be primaried now by state rep. Jim Lower. Who represents me, and self-describes as being both pro-Trump and pro-family values (among other things), because of course he does. I also think it's hilarious - although not surprising - how Amash pointed out hypocrisy and poisonous partisanship in both parties, and how most of Congress hasn't read the Mueller report they are out there blabbing about … but nah, what's most important is he had the temerity to say he thinks Trump committed impeachable offenses and therefore we must burn him.

To which I say: Whitmer isn't off to a real good start. Justin Amash for Michigan governor in '22 please.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Doesn't matter to me if the impeachment isn't confirmed by the Senate. Go through the process out of principle.

THIS. Don't set a precedent that all we'll do is talk a lot about how really bad you are but won't actually pursue the constitutional remedy. If Trump's a fraction as bad as this thread in general and the Democrats say he is (and he is), there is no other responsible action but impeachment. And if you don't start it like yesterday, you don't get there before the next election. Which is exactly why the feet-dragging is happening so the public can do their job for them … except that's not at all the same thing and believe me future presidents will argue 'look at what Trump did, and he wasn't even impeached.'

[Chief Rum]

I too want to see Trump go through the impeachment process, even if the GOP Senate won't follow through.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I too want to see Trump go through the impeachment process, even if the GOP Senate won't follow through.

Yeah I think the main reason the House flipped to the Dems, was so there would be some oversight on Trump's Presidency. If they fail to do that, you might as well just let Trump win re-election.

[digamma]

It's a pretty simple political question with a not so apparent answer. What affects turn out the most in 2020? Trump being able to say he was completely exonerated by the US Senate and Muller and treated unfairly by the House, Fake News, Mueller, the courts, the losers and the haters and everyone else. Or Democrats being ticked that the House didn't proceed with impeachment and staying home.

I think that's the math the Dems are trying to do right now. The answer isn't clear to me. It's also why so many of the Presidential candidates are likely hedging, so they can blunt some of Trump's bragging.

[Thomkal]

I think if the Dems don't move to impeach, many will stay home rather than vote-why should we bother if neither party is going to protect the Constitution at this point. I understand waiting for the Mueller Report coming out before the Dems took action of impeachment. But who knows now if we will ever see the full report or even hear Mueller talk about it.



If the Dems want their base to take them seriously in any future election, its time to lock up and fine those who resist the subpoena and begin impeachment hearings. If they do nothing, why should we vote for any of them.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by digamma

It's a pretty simple political question with a not so apparent answer. What affects turn out the most in 2020? Trump being able to say he was completely exonerated by the US Senate and Muller and treated unfairly by the House, Fake News, Mueller, the courts, the losers and the haters and everyone else. Or Democrats being ticked that the House didn't proceed with impeachment and staying home.

I think that's the math the Dems are trying to do right now. The answer isn't clear to me. It's also why so many of the Presidential candidates are likely hedging, so they can blunt some of Trump's bragging.

Respectfully, I think that's the wrong question. I think they should make the determination based on the question, is there enough evidence to believe it is likely that the President has committed crimes? Chasing the best political decision is cynical and will likely backfire. Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may.

[digamma]

Sure, that's what they should do. I don't think it is what they are doing.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by digamma

Sure, that's what they should do. I don't think it is what they are doing.

I agree. They're way too concerned about the political blowback. Nixon had an approval rating well over 60 when the Watergate hearings started.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Respectfully, I think that's the wrong question. I think they should make the determination based on the question, is there enough evidence to believe it is likely that the President has committed crimes? Chasing the best political decision is cynical and will likely backfire. Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may.

THIS.

Fuck politics and 2020. This is the right thing to do.

[lungs]

Rumor has it that soybean farmers are going to get a $2.00/bushel welfare payment for 2019. The thing is, corn planting progress is not good right now in a lot of the main corn growing states. Soybean acres were naturally going to be down this year as market signals have been screaming not to plant soybeans. So those farmers may turn to soybeans, which can be planted later more successfully in order to cash in on the welfare payment. This will make the soybean oversupply problem even worse. As China appears to be digging in in terms of the trade deal, the best bet was to not plant acres that the weather has not allowed to be planted (and take the government subsidized insurance payment on that). At least in that scenario, the supply would at least come down. Next year, with a mountain of soybeans on hand and no trade deal likely, everybody and their brother will plant corn thus killing that price.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lungs

Rumor has it that soybean farmers are going to get a $2.00/bushel welfare payment for 2019. The thing is, corn planting progress is not good right now in a lot of the main corn growing states. Soybean acres were naturally going to be down this year as market signals have been screaming not to plant soybeans. So those farmers may turn to soybeans, which can be planted later more successfully in order to cash in on the welfare payment. This will make the soybean oversupply problem even worse. As China appears to be digging in in terms of the trade deal, the best bet was to not plant acres that the weather has not allowed to be planted (and take the government subsidized insurance payment on that). At least in that scenario, the supply would at least come down. Next year, with a mountain of soybeans on hand and no trade deal likely, everybody and their brother will plant corn thus killing that price.

We'll protect capitalism with Socialism, but Socialism is bad.

[molson]

I hope stance on impeachment is a big part of the Dem nomination race and debates. (at least for those holding national office now or holding influence).

I hope the candidates who have desired to protect Trump and ignore his crimes are fully exposed and have to account for essentially being collaborators in that criminal conspiracy.

[lungs]

Article from October in Foreign Policy about China looking to influence the American electorate.

What better, Russia or China?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lungs

Rumor has it that soybean farmers are going to get a $2.00/bushel welfare payment for 2019. The thing is, corn planting progress is not good right now in a lot of the main corn growing states. Soybean acres were naturally going to be down this year as market signals have been screaming not to plant soybeans. So those farmers may turn to soybeans, which can be planted later more successfully in order to cash in on the welfare payment. This will make the soybean oversupply problem even worse. As China appears to be digging in in terms of the trade deal, the best bet was to not plant acres that the weather has not allowed to be planted (and take the government subsidized insurance payment on that). At least in that scenario, the supply would at least come down. Next year, with a mountain of soybeans on hand and no trade deal likely, everybody and their brother will plant corn thus killing that price.

How many billions in welfare have they given away on this?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How many billions in welfare have they given away on this?

12 billion last year, 15 billion this year (if the numbers hold up).

This is in addition to what they already get.