I don't agree with trophy hunting, I hunt to eat and also to conserve wildlife. Now if you're hunting animals which are a threat to humans or livestock, that's acceptable to take a trophy especially if you're not going to eat the predator (you don't eat many predators when you think about it....bear and bobcat are the only mammalian predators I've had, alligator and rattlesnake which of course are reptilian predators). Invasive species are also animals I do not mind if they are hunted out as they harm local species.
When it comes to lions, there are some lions which need to be hunted they are considered "vulnerable" and IF proper conservation style hunting is implemented the lion population could actually see an uptick in their numbers ditto with elephants and rhinos. The big problem is poaching which of course if we're wide open to allowing trophies back we might see a rise in that conduct as well which would be very bad. It's going to and always was going to come down to people in those nations and other wildlife focused people to protect those species from POACHING not hunting.
CNN can go fuck themselves Ivanka said what she said about CHILD MOLESTERS, to ask her to answer for her father at all is grotesque. When did they opine on Chelsea Clinton answering for Bill? Hmmm? When did that happen? FUCKING NEVER that's when.
"Drown in a vat of whiskey.....death where is thy sting?" - W.C. Fields.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....
...Mr. Trump lifted the armrest and began to touch her. According to Ms. Leeds, Mr. Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt. 'He was like an octopus,' she said. 'His hands were everywhere.'
Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately
New York Times
OCT. 12, 2016
That's quite an impressive tax bill the GOP are trying to pass. Keeps the deductions for private jets but ends them for teachers buying classroom supplies. Personal tax cuts end after eight years but business/corporate tax cuts are permanent. Half of all middle class families get a tax increase. Fifteen million people lose healthcare. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Creates a lower level of corporate taxation on foreign income which will encourage corporations to offshore even more. Ends the mortgage deduction which could cause another financial disaster. It's the most unpopular piece of legislation ever polled apart from the failed Trumpcare bill.
The GOP have so far failed to pass any major legislation. Their first attempt was the most unpopular bill in history, a trillion dollar capital gains tax cut disguised as a healthcare bill that would have taken health insurance away from 25 million people. Their second attempt is the tax bill.
Oh, and they're putting another bank lobbyist in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That's well over 50% of the economy being governed and overseen by lobbyists for those sectors of the economy. Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican party.
Both Bill Clinton and Trump have been accused of rape, Trump by multiple women. That doesn't make them RAPISTS. I'm happy for all the people accusing both Clinton and Trump to have their allegations investigated.
Glad to see Trump finally designate North Korea as a sponsor of terrorism. Hopefully they assassinate that Kim idiot soon.
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster mocked President Trump’s intelligence at a private dinner with a powerful tech CEO, according to five sources with knowledge of the conversation.
Over a July dinner with Oracle CEO Safra Catz — who has been mentioned as a candidate for several potential administration jobs — McMaster bluntly trashed his boss, said the sources, four of whom told BuzzFeed News they heard about the exchange directly from Catz. The top national security official dismissed the president variously as an “idiot” and a “dope” with the intelligence of a “kindergartner,” the sources said.
A sixth source who was not familiar with the details of the dinner told BuzzFeed News that McMaster had made similarly derogatory comments about Trump’s intelligence to him in private, including that the president lacked the necessary brainpower to understand the matters before the National Security Council.
McMaster’s allegedly dismissive comments are the latest suggestion that at least some of Trump’s senior-most aides see their jobs as containing a president who isn’t up to the task. In October, NBC News and other outlets reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the president a “moron” in a July meeting at the Pentagon. Also in October, Republican Sen. Bob Corker told the New York Times that a group of senior administration officials have banded together to try to keep Trump under control.
But these new details reveal that the subject matter of McMaster’s dinner with Catz, which sources tell BuzzFeed News took place on July 18 at the Washington, DC, restaurant Tosca, ranged far from geopolitics. Indeed, three of the sources said that McMaster disparaged multiple members of the administration to Catz, including Tillerson, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, and President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner. Of Kushner, one source told BuzzFeed News, McMaster said he had no business being in the White House and should not be involved in national security issues.
Also, too, this is behind a paywall so I'll post it all. It's worth reading, from the pinkoes at the Financial Times:
Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email email@example.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
How does a political party dedicated to the material interests of the top 0.1 per cent of the income distribution win and hold power in a universal suffrage democracy? That is the challenge confronting the Republican party. The answer it has found is “pluto-populism”. This is a politically successful, but dangerous, strategy. It has brought Donald Trump to the presidency. His failure might bring someone more dangerous, more determined, to power. This matters to the US and, given its power, to the wider world. The tax bills going through Congress demonstrate the party’s primary objectives. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in the House version of the bill, about 45 per cent of the tax reductions in 2027 would go to households with incomes above $500,000 (fewer than 1 per cent of filers) and 38 per cent to households with incomes over $1m (about 0.3 per cent of filers). In the more cautious Senate version, households with incomes below $75,000 would be worse off. This simply is reform for plutocrats. (See charts.) That is far from all. The bill might also increase the cumulative fiscal deficit by about $1.5tn over the coming decade. Yet, according to the independent and respected Congressional Budget Office, the US fiscal position is already on a deteriorating path, with spending forecast to rise from 21 per cent of gross domestic product in 2017 to 25 per cent in 2028-37. The planned tax cuts would worsen the pressure to cut spending. The outcome desired by the Republicans is to slash spending on nearly all of the non-defence discretionary spending of the federal government, plus its spending on health and social security. In all, then, this is a determined effort to shift resources from the bottom, middle and even upper middle of the US income distribution towards the very top, combined with big increases in economic insecurity for the great majority. How, one must ask, has a party with such objectives successfully gained power? In all, we can see three mutually supportive answers to this question. The first approach is to find intellectuals who argue that everybody will benefit from policies ostensibly benefiting so few. Supply-side economics, with its narrow focus on tax cuts, has been the main theory employed, because it directly justifies tax cuts for the very wealthy. But it is untrue that the tax cuts of the Reagan era unleashed an upsurge in trend US economic growth. Since the economy is now nearing full employment, the benefits of fiscal stimulus would be especially small. Supporters of the proposed cuts argue that the reductions in corporation tax will lead to a big rise in business investment. Here are two powerful pieces of contrary evidence: the share of post-tax profits in US GDP has already nearly doubled since the early 2000s, with no beneficial effect on the rate of investment; and the UK has progressively slashed its corporate tax rate from 30 to 19 per cent since 2008 with no identifiable benefit for investment. Lowering the corporate tax rate is merely a windfall for shareholders. If one wanted to raise investment, one would make it fully deductible from tax. The proposed repeal of the estate tax, which is of benefit only to the heirs of the largest 0.2 per cent of estates in the country, really gives the supply-side game away. Who wants to argue that people live longer if death is less taxed? The second approach is to abuse the law. One way has been to give wealth the overriding role in politics it holds today. Another is to suppress the votes of people likely to vote against plutocratic interests, or even disenfranchise them. The third approach is to foment cultural and ethnic splits. This is sometimes described as the “Southern strategy”, which shifted the old South from the Democrats to the Republicans, after the former enacted civil rights. Yet this is too limited a view of the strategy. More interesting is the echo of the antebellum South itself. The pre-civil war South was extremely unequal, not just in the population as a whole, which included the slaves, but even among free whites. A standard measure of inequality jumped by 70 per cent among whites between 1774 and 1860. As the academics Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson note, “Any historian looking for the rise of a poor white underclass in the Old South will find it in this evidence.” The 1860 census also shows that the median wealth of the richest 1 per cent of Southerners was more than three times that of the richest 1 per cent of Northerners. Yet the South was also far less dynamic. The South was a plutocracy. In the civil war, whose stated aim was defence of slavery, close to 300,000 Confederate soldiers died. A majority of these men had no slaves. Yet their racial and cultural fears justified the sacrifice. Ultimately, this mobilisation brought death or defeat upon them all. Nothing better reveals the political potency of tribalism. A not dissimilar threat arises for today’s plutocrats. The economics and politics of pluto-populism have stoked cultural, ethnic and nationalist anger in the party’s base. Skilful demagogues are able to exploit this anger for their own purposes. At least Mr Trump remains a servant of the plutocracy. But his former adviser, Steve Bannon, seeks someone to promote rightwing populism shorn of its more blatantly plutocratic elements. The plutocrats are riding on a hungry tiger. The pluto-populism of the Republican elite brought forth Mr Trump. This is not going to be forgotten. If the current tax bills get through, the tensions within the US are almost certain to get worse. Latin American inequality leads to Latin American politics. The US the world once knew is drowning in a tide of unconscionable and apparently unlimited greed. We are all now doomed to live with the unhappy consequences.
Last edited by Kirkland Laing; 11-23-2017 at 09:54 AM.
OK, there are two links in the previous post. The Bloomberg one and the FT one. The FT are fucking with people who cut and paste their articles elsewhere so it's all in one block and problematical, but it's right on the money.
This tax cut bill is currently polling as the second most unpopular piece of legislation in history. And that's before voters really find out what's in it.
And as soon as it passes, guess what? After adding trillions of dollars to the deficit Republicans will suddenly become deficit hawks and there'll be attempts to make massive cuts to Medicare and Social Security to make up for the losses caused by this tax cut. They're starting already:
Tax reform is only one piece of the overall puzzle needed to revitalize the American economy, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told a group of Washington, D.C., lobbyists and policy analysts this morning at a Politico Playbook Interview sponsored by the Financial Services Roundtable. The other part? Reduce the deficit and offset the cost of the reform, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates at $1.3 trillion.
“I analyze this very differently than most,” Rubio told the crowd. “Many argue that you can’t cut taxes because it will drive up the deficit. But we have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future,” the senator said.
Candidate Trump raged at the rigged economy and promised to unrig it and make everybody better off. Instead he's rigged it even further in the favour of corporations and the wealthy. Surely at some point the people who voted for him are going to realise they've been conned?
I'll just drop this off here
Trump is a true imbecile and the sooner he becomes ex president the better.
Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)