DeathAndTaxes

Here you go dickfors

quote:

---

Specifically, the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member “acting jointly.” If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote. (Alternatively, the full committee vote could be the first step in the process.) As described in the 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution, this approach balances “maximum flexibility and bipartisanship.”

---

LINK

Figured you wouldn't like that it is a Lawfare article, so I went and dug through the resolution for Clinton to find the language they reference:

quote:

---

It is the intention of the Committee that its investigation will be conducted in all respects on a fair, impartial and bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. In this spirit, the power to authorize subpoenas and other compulsory process is committed by this resolution in the first instance to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member acting jointly. If either declines to act, the other may act alone, subject to the right of either to refer the question to the Committee for decision prior to issuance, and a meeting of the Committee will be convened promptly to consider the question. Thus, meetings will not be required to authorize issuance of process, so long as neither the Chairman nor the Ranking Minority Member refers the matter to the Committee. In the alternative, the Committee possesses the independent authority to authorize subpoenas and other process, should it be felt that action of the whole Committee is preferable under the circumstances. Thus, maximum flexibility and bipartisanship are reconciled in this resolution.

---

LINK

Pull your head out of your asses and get off my dick for a second, you are making yourselves look stupid.

quote:

---

It's not. They don't give a shite about the actual impeachment vote. This will be pure propaganda live for everyone to see and the Republicans will have to sit there with mouths shut. This can greatly affect the perception for voters and I don't think its favorable to Trump.

This has been a campaign ploy from the beginning and public hearings leading up to the election, where the republicans have no voice is not good.

---

I don't know about that. Take someone like me for instance, someone who has stated that not only do I not like Trump, I think he probably had ulterior motives in his request.

If Schiff is actually telling witnesses they shouldn't answer questions, or if the Democrats don't allow Republicans to subpoena witnesses, then my feeling of "I was never going to vote for a Democrat, but I don't feel good about voting for Trump" certainly moves much more to "I was wrong, a reasonable investigation was never possible, and I need to suck it up and do my part insure they can't take the WH."

Didin't get a chance to read the statement, reading now.

ETA: Sooo, yeah, he confirmed the accuracy of the call memo. That shoots down one of my possible reasons.

He also just said what everyone else has already said, that Sondland and Co. made comments and overtures that he felt were inappropriate, and he did what he felt was his duty and reported his concerns to the appropriate person in his chain of command. Certainly nothing new, and doesn't move the needle.

(I'm not saying this because I think you guys need/want my opinion on his statement, just that I wanted to put out there that I'm not blind to evidence that doesn't support the narrative I lean towards.)

quote:

---

GDP is overrated in this new normal, it's all about the stock market dude.

---

This is humor correct?

Because it is possible the call memo (its not a transcript, it says it right in the document, on the very first page), is not accurate. Because they are digging for information that would suggest an ulterior motive. Because they are trying to drag it out hoping someone will say something stupid publicly (looking at you Mulvaney). Because they want to get as much political juice as they can out of it.

There are a whole host of reasons, all of which have been beat to death.

I will say though, the accuracy of the memo should be put to rest today after Vindman's testimony becomes public (leaks.)

Link?

This just sounds like what was floated a couple weeks ago.

quote:

---

You are EXACTLY right.

Poster after poster here has said that we have lost jobs since the seventies. That the Chinese and others have "stolen" jobs yet we have more employment than ever at higher wages than ever.

They listen to what fits their narrative and ignore what does not.

As I said in the OP the share of that economy that the government classifies as manufacturing does not matter to me. Growth in the economy does.

(We are fools to make US manufacturers pay more for inputs like steel and basic chemicals to make the higher value goods we now make. How do we expect them to compete worldwide? Protecting a handful of steel makers at the expenses of ten times the number of companies that use steel is foolish.)

---

WHoa there killer, you went beyond that in your post. You suggested that the tariffs have significantly negatively impacted manufacturing jobs and output, and I don't think that is what the data shows.

My point was that the negative trend hasn't been impacted one way or the other. The fact is that the US is not going to return to being a manufacturing economy, tariffs or not, we are consumers that put out services.

Also, I would level the same point against you that I did against Taurus in the other thread, you are trying to view things in a vacuum.

You can't say that "clearly the protectionist tariffs are harming American manufactures ability to export" without acknowledging that other factors like currency strength and a global slowdown in consumption are contributing.

Real talk though, did anyone think that the point of any of this was to spur on a "manufacturing renaissance" in the US, or believe that is even a remote possibility?

Nothing that has been done is actually going to drive manufacturing back to the US.No, the point is to punish China into agreeing to IP protections and make them wary of market manipulation.

Which is fine, I don't like it because as a free market capitalist I don't like tariffs or subsidies, but I do see how it is a reasonable course of action.

It just comes down to what your goals are. By definition, a dollar can only be consumed once. You either enjoy it today, or you enjoy it down the road. Point is everyone needs to be clear about what they actually want.

quote:

---

You could sidestep that by giving examples of politicians that you evaluate as showing all behavior to be honorable, down to random, off the cuff, expressions?

Who would you start with?
Serious question.

---

I don't think that will sidestep the rancor, and I don't believe any person, let alone politician, is honorable in all of their behavior and actions.

But I would have preferred Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, just as examples.

quote:

---

So you won't vote? Because those will be your two choices.

---

Correct, I would not vote in the presidential election in that case.