President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

[Chloé Palmas]

Which is anemic by US standards - annualized growth should be at 4% or higher and it just hasn't gotten that high since the Bush years - Obama and Trump just do not know how to grow an economy with stability.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/one-...-happened.html

The plan faced a lot of opposition, but it ultimately became law. The act raised tariffs on American imports to nearly record levels. But instead of reviving the economy, it actually exacerbated the Great Depression.

Nations across the world were striking each other with tit-for-tit tariffs. European countries put a tax on American goods, which slowed trade between the U.S. and Europe. That made it harder for the U.S. to crawl out of its economic slump.

Nationalist rhetoric was heating up, with countries blaming others for their struggles. All of that eventually escalated, turning a trade war into a real war when World War II began.

That's why after the war ended, nations formed the World Trade Organization to regulate international trade, in the hopes that nothing like the global trade war of the 1930s would ever happen again.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...ancial-markets

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You're mistaken. Their factories are all outside Europe.
USA, Missouri, Kansas City
USA, Pennsylvannia, York
USA, Wisconsin, Menomonee Falls
USA, Wisconsin, Tomahawk
Australia, Adelaide
Brazil, Manaus
India, Bawal
Thailand, Rayong
https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/e...locations.html

This might be an example of Fake news but according to WaPO, Trump is now threatening HD with taxes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8d37d315a9cc

Now it was obvious that they will leave their production line in the US behind...you start imposing tariffs on nations who supply your parts then it is kind of a given that they will leave and go elsewhere, you kind of factor that in. That is what I was saying about "putting your money where your mouth is" and Trump never seems to be able to do that. No surprise given how full it usually is. (Of shit).

Here though, is an example of Fake News:

This is what WaPo said:

President Trump on Tuesday threatened the iconic motorcycle company Harley-Davidson with severe taxes and predicted a public revolt that he said would eventually put the 115-year-old firm out of business, blasting the Wisconsin company for a plan to move some operations outside the United States as a way to avoid getting caught in the middle of an escalating trade war.

They editorialized and ad libbed this tweet:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...al-collapse%2F

This what the tweet said:

A Harley-Davidson should never be built in another country-never! Their employees and customers are already very angry at them. If they move, watch, it will be the beginning of the end - they surrendered, they quit! The Aura will be gone and they will be taxed like never before!

What he clearly meant (to anyone who has half a brain cell) is that is they moved, HD would lose their aura and be taxed like never before by the authority of the nation that they moved to! ...that is not difficult to work out.

Trump can't do anything to them if they do move, even if Congress acted upon levying taxes on them, it would be a BOA, which is unconstitutional, even under the taxing provision of the IRS.

WaPo is screwing this up.

Not be outdone though, Trump is making an even bigger mess of it:

In his Tuesday morning Twitter posts, Trump wrote that “Harley must know that they won’t be able to sell back into the U.S. without paying a big tax!”

Now, using Fatca the US government can tax Americans on overseas income using OIT but not below a certain amount, and that is only ever at the individual and not corporate rate. WaPo corrected that:

It was unclear what he meant. He has threatened such a tax since the 2016 campaign, but he hasn’t imposed one, and Congress has blocked his efforts to craft such a tax. He could be referring to the tariffs he is attempting to unilaterally impose on imports.

He muddled up tax and tariff, the former of which would be impossible to enact without Congress getting involved (which they won't) and the latter is unilaterally retaliatory from the receiving party.

So WaPo reported incorrectly on what Trump meant, Trump then followed it up with more inaccuracies which they corrected him on, or at least second guessed what he meant and he then retaliated against them for the incompetence which they are yet to rectify / correct etc.

What a fiasco...this level of incompetence and inaccuracy (in both reporting, and policy) must be making Theresa May orgasm.

How is it fake news if Trump did indeed threaten taxes?

[Chloé Palmas]

He didn't threaten the tax though, did he?

He said:

The Aura will be gone and they will be taxed like never before!

He never said that the Aura would be gone and that he would tax them like never before, did he?

Actually fair enough although I read it as they'll be taxed on the import of the goods into America than the country they're moving too.

[Chloé Palmas]

Hmmm, you might be correct - that again is a tariff though, so Trump is making a mess of it.

FYI the SC did force a "reconsider" at the state level on Christian objections on religious grounds to gay wedding services so I will reply to that post later on.

I see Supreme Court rejects challenges to Trumps Travel Bans for the 6 main Muslim majority countries. Some have been removed from the list since the challenge, for improving identity checks. The 5-4 ruling says the travel bans were Constitutional arguing that the president has substantial power to regulate immigration.

Bloomberg considering running as a Democrat in 2020: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/06/...sidential-run/

Not a surprise but the confirmation that if he were to run, and he probably will, it will be for the Democratic nomination.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

It wasn't just them, there was a large amount of reporting that suggested it was of limited scope including the SCOUTUS blog which is a pretty well respected outlet for reporting on the court., ABC News and even the right-wing National Review

You may have a different legal interpretation to them, some outlets do, but they weren't isolated in their view of this so I think it's unfair to accuse them of being woefully incompetent. They are clearly in the majority on their interpretation of the judgement.

Okay Damien I have been thinking all day of how to write this response, and it is tough.

First off, I wanted to say, that in absolutely no way is this an "I told you so post" - I am not gloating.

Secondly, some of the tone / language of this message may seem tough / crude. In no way is that aimed at you.

So...Monday the SC ruled that it was declining to hear another case involving a gay couple at a wedding wishing service from those who have a religious exemption:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.f5e7704dca33

The Supreme Court signaled Monday that it is unwilling to immediately answer whether a business owner’s religious beliefs can justify refusing gay couples seeking wedding services.

The justices returned to lower courts the case of a Washington state florist who refused to provide a floral arrangement for a longtime customer when he told her it was for his wedding to another man. A unanimous Washington Supreme Court found that the florist, Barronelle Stutzman, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination, a state civil rights law.

So at first, it may seem like the Justices just went ahead and let the lower court ruling stand....

Not quite:

The U.S. Supreme Court said the case should be reconsidered in light of its decision earlier this month in favor of Colorado baker Jack C. Phillips, who declined to create a wedding cake for a gay couple.

There was one part of the ruling before that was "narrow" in scope that the Supremes ruled ; that this was the one and only time that they will ever have to say as much: religious liberty (deeply held beliefs) will trump all else - the high court will not have to say it again in regards to this issue.

They are as good as telling WA's SC that stare decisis is now in effect which means it was not narrow in scope at all - not one bit. It is precedent setting and every other ruling will have to abide by that.

This is as black and white as it gets:

There is little dispute about the facts of the case. Stutzman had counted Robert Ingersoll as a customer for nearly a decade when he came in one day in 2013 and said he wanted to talk about flowers for his wedding to his longtime companion, Curt Freed. Stutzman said she held his hand and said she had to decline his request because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ.”

You do not get to break the will of Jesus Christ in a person here on Earth...simple as that.

They told the WA state SC that not only do they not get to do that but the high court will break the gay whoring (for lack of a better term) of the WA state SC. Not only will they rule against it though, they are going to make Olympia rule it themselves. Washington isn't going to get over ruled on this, they are going to have to climb down on the issue with all the humiliation that comes with it. The message was pretty clear from the Justices.

They had 3 choices. They could have left the lower case ruling stand / dismissed the appeal, they could have over-ruled or they could have sent it back down to the lower courts and force them to correct themselves, and recognize every person's right to worship in the name of Jesus Christ.

I know that some of the language in this was crass but none of it was aimed at you ; States have messed with Christianity too long and Kennedy has both defended the belief that Christians have, and has protected state's rights from an overarching federal statute by dictating that the states must recognize the religious freedom of the land.

Do not mess with God was the loud and clear message here. Every state that now rules injudiciously (in accordance with the precedent set by the previous ruling) will now be open to punitive civil and criminal punishment. This was as decisive a ruling as you can get Damien.

Like you said, the majority of opinions on the original ruling may have thought otherwise but they were wrong. Woefully so. I knew that I was correct on the issue and I stand by it - religious freedom wins the day and the media opinions that ruled it a "narrow" opinion were wrong, plain and simple. It was not narrow in scope and it was not narrow in majority. The ruling stands, sets precedent an the media got it wrong plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Okay Damien I have been thinking all day of how to write this response, and it is tough.

First off, I wanted to say, that in absolutely no way is this an "I told you so post" - I am not gloating.

I never gave my own opinion of the judgement since I am not an expert on American law. I was pointing out that the Washington Post did not mean 'narrow' in the sense of the vote but in the sense of the scope of the judgement which was the original objection you had. I then pointed out that they were not alone in that judgement.

They are as good as telling WA's SC that stare decisis is now in effect which means it was not narrow in scope at all - not one bit. It is precedent setting and every other ruling will have to abide by that.

Again, not a lawyer but we don't yet the know the outcome of the lower court. The lower court now has to the decide if the cake case does indeed set a precedent that applies in their case. If they come back with the same ruling then we're back to square one and the Supreme Court might have to hear it again or let it stands.

If this ruling was to be overturned and effectively said that it's legal to deny any service to people based on their sexuality then the entire purpose of anti-discrimination law would be challenged. In that case then yes the cake case would have set a huge precedent but I doubt that would be the last we would hear of it.

CEO of Harley Davidson:

https://twitter.com/ironstowe/status...20919524564992

Our decision to move some of our operations is 100% based on President Trumps tariffs. Mr. Trump knows nothing about economics and even less about trade. The man is a moron

[Stephen]

True words.

Not very professional of him though.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

There was one part of the ruling before that was "narrow" in scope that the Supremes ruled ; that this was the one and only time that they will ever have to say as much: religious liberty (deeply held beliefs) will trump all else - the high court will not have to say it again in regards to this issue.

They are as good as telling WA's SC that stare decisis is now in effect which means it was not narrow in scope at all - not one bit. It is precedent setting and every other ruling will have to abide by that.

This is as black and white as it gets:

You do not get to break the will of Jesus Christ in a person here on Earth...simple as that.

They told the WA state SC that not only do they not get to do that but the high court will break the gay whoring (for lack of a better term) of the WA state SC. Not only will they rule against it though, they are going to make Olympia rule it themselves. Washington isn't going to get over ruled on this, they are going to have to climb down on the issue with all the humiliation that comes with it. The message was pretty clear from the Justices.

They had 3 choices. They could have left the lower case ruling stand / dismissed the appeal, they could have over-ruled or they could have sent it back down to the lower courts and force them to correct themselves, and recognize every person's right to worship in the name of Jesus Christ.

I know that some of the language in this was crass but none of it was aimed at you ; States have messed with Christianity too long and Kennedy has both defended the belief that Christians have, and has protected state's rights from an overarching federal statute by dictating that the states must recognize the religious freedom of the land.

Do not mess with God was the loud and clear message here. Every state that now rules injudiciously (in accordance with the precedent set by the previous ruling) will now be open to punitive civil and criminal punishment. This was as decisive a ruling as you can get Damien.

Like you said, the majority of opinions on the original ruling may have thought otherwise but they were wrong. Woefully so. I knew that I was correct on the issue and I stand by it - religious freedom wins the day and the media opinions that ruled it a "narrow" opinion were wrong, plain and simple. It was not narrow in scope and it was not narrow in majority. The ruling stands, sets precedent an the media got it wrong plain and simple.

I think you have got slightly carried away here?

religious liberty (deeply held beliefs) will trump all else

I don't think so. The ability of someone to withdraw their labour or deny their business services to someone because their religion has a problem with the situation will always be contextual. You can not have an absolute here.

BTW, what on earth do you mean by "gay whoring"?

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

CEO of Harley Davidson:

https://twitter.com/ironstowe/status...20919524564992

The irony here is that Harley Davidson is an iconic American brand, one that many a Trump supporter would purchase over an imported alternative.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

CEO of Harley Davidson:

https://twitter.com/ironstowe/status...20919524564992

Someone needed to say it.

Trump is indeed, a moron (and then some).