Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1118812)	2/19/2019 12:08:13 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574609

That's simplistic thinking. Every economic transaction has at least two sides to it. When you implement a tariff, it increases the cost of that good to your own consumers, that is true, but it also makes it's local competition more cost competitive to the detriment of the good you taxed. So American cars are less competitive in Europe due to tariffs. That has a bad effect on American car companies. The goal is to decrease friction between countries as much as possible. The win-win scenario is zero tariffs between each country in a trade deal. However, when the status quo is every other country has high tariffs on US goods and US is the only country with low to no tariffs on all those countries, then what you have is a de facto US subsidy of foreign companies at the expense of US companies. Why do you think US companies ask for bailouts so often and GM was actually given one recently? Tariffs are not optimal, but a responsible steward of our economy would first request that the opposite country in a trade deal lower their tariff to match the US rates. If they refused, then we'd need to set a deadline for compliance or raise our own to match theirs. It's only fair. Reciprocity levels the playing field so that companies can compete on the merits of the product and the efficiencies of the business, rather than on unfair subsidies by their government. So yes, tariffs create short term pain, but if used as a bargaining chip, they can lead to the long term win win that we all want, which is zero bilateral tariffs. Your rigidity in thought on this issue is to the detriment of the American people, who are supposed to be served by the President of the US. Put it this way. If you truly believe the US should have the lowest tariffs and everyone else should tax the shit out of our imports into their country, then would you mind signing a deal where I buy your car for $50,000 and in return you buy it back from me for $250,000? If not, why not? I thought you just said keeping US tariffs low and the other country tariffs high is fair? If you truly believe that, then you would not hesitate to take the deal I just offered you.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1118812)	2/19/2019 6:48:04 PM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Recommended By locogringo Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574609

Boom. McCabe says the Hillary probe should have been assigned to a special counsel. The frail narratives and fantasies that you liberals have been fond of are coming apart at the seams. ---- McCabe slams Loretta Lynch in new book, says Clinton probe should have gone to special counsel Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, in his new book, rails against President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, for her decisions and actions while the FBI investigated Hillary Clinton’s email server during the 2016 campaign, saying Lynch should have been recused from the probe and a special counsel should have been appointed instead. McCabe wrote in “The Threat,” released Tuesday, that “the tarmac meeting was a horrible lapse in judgment by Loretta Lynch.” Lynch came under fire in 2016 after an infamous tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton days before the FBI decided it would not recommend criminal charges against his wife for her handling of classified information on her private email server. Lynch, reacting to the criticism for meeting with Clinton while the FBI investigated his wife, has claimed she and Clinton only discussed “innocuous things.” But McCabe said Lynch, after the outcry over the meeting, should have stepped away from the probe – which was code-named "Midyear Exam" by the FBI. “She should have recused herself from Midyear at that point,” McCabe wrote. “She did not—she made things worse.” McCabe suggested things would have turned out better had Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, both appointed by Obama, recused themselves even earlier from the case. “It was a fatal choice. Had there been a competent, credible special counsel running Midyear Exam independently—the way Bob Mueller’s Russia investigation has been run – I think circumstances might have been very different, and we would not have been where we ended up in July,” McCabe said. That's in apparent reference to when then-FBI Director James Comey came under heavy criticism during the campaign for his choice to make a public announcement explaining why Clinton was not being charged. He later explained he felt compelled to take the lead on the announcement because of the questions over Lynch’s credibility. McCabe argued that for Lynch and Yates, “Recusal would have been a reasonable and, I would argue, better decision for those political appointees to have made." He added, "I don’t know why they didn’t do that.” “Somehow, they saw the investigation of Hillary Clinton – former first lady and former secretary of state, current candidate for the presidency, likely nominee of the Democratic Party, who was being supported by the president of the United States, to whom they owed their jobs – as a case they could handle without prejudice,” McCabe wrote. McCabe also said FBI agents mocked Lynch’s insistence to Comey to characterize the probe as a “matter” instead of an “investigation” – an apparent attempt to downplay the seriousness of it. “This became a running joke whenever anyone at the FBI felt like Justice was dragging its feet,” McCabe wrote. He said agents would joke, “What have we become, the Federal Bureau of Matters?” Still, McCabe said Comey was concerned about it. “The matter of the ‘matter’ did have a serious effect on the director,” McCabe said. “It planted the question, Was the attorney general trying to minimize what we were doing? The question festered. He’d heard that the Clinton campaign was trying to avoid the word ‘investigation,’ too.” Like Lynch, McCabe’s involvement in the Clinton case has also come under scrutiny. Trump himself has suggested McCabe was in the tank for the Clintons, drawing attention to how McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received donations from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's super PAC while she ran for a state Senate seat in Virginia in 2015. McAuliffe is a close Clinton ally. McCabe did not recuse himself from the Clinton investigation until a week before the election. In the book, McCabe denied a conflict of interest, and dismisses the accusations as a “conspiracy theory.” McCabe was eventually fired last year by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions after an inspector general report said McCabe lied about leaking to reporters about the Clinton investigation. He defended himself, but declined to write much about that episode, citing legal reasons. “As for my own firing and the ostensible reasons behind it, the demands and risks of an ongoing legal process put tight constraints on what I can say, although I would like to say much more,” McCabe said. “I am filing a suit that challenges my firing and the IG’s process and findings, and the unprecedented way DOJ handled my termination. I will let that action speak for itself.”