MAGAThread XV: Because Another

[Thuzbekistan]

No degree is useless if you work to find jobs that apply the skills and education you acquired. Some people say history is a useless degree, or any humanities. They're wrong. And each person has the right to decide what degree to get and how to make it useful. That's not up to anyone but them.

What about feminist literature?

Or interpretive dance?

Why wouldn't they be?

[Cekoviu]

Eliminating academic "dead end degree studies" destroys thousands of jobs, and forcing companies to use local labor will deincentivize operating within the United States.

Not for nothing, to me that kind of sounds like “ending drug addiction will put drug clinic workers out of a job.”

You're comparing people studying niche topics with not much application to drug addiction? That's completely insane.

[Thuzbekistan]

Eliminating academic "dead end degree studies" destroys thousands of jobs, and forcing companies to use local labor will deincentivize operating within the United States.

Not for nothing, to me that kind of sounds like “ending drug addiction will put drug clinic workers out of a job.”

Good thing there are no dead end degrees... if there were, wouldn't the market decide that those were useless and those who pursued them would ultimately not be able to make up their investment and that would provide a disincentive to future students to pursue that degree, thus leaving the university no option but to remove the program?

[Tarsonis]

Not for nothing, to me that kind of sounds like “ending drug addiction will put drug clinic workers out of a job.”

You're comparing people studying niche topics with not much application to drug addiction? That's completely insane.

Alright a less egregious example: that sounds a lot to me like “ending our dependence on coal, will put a lot of coal workers out of a job.” The industry my provide jobs, but the damage being done with all these niche topics with regards to student loan debts and unmarketable degrees outweighs the positive effect of all those jobs.

[Fartsniffage]

You're comparing people studying niche topics with not much application to drug addiction? That's completely insane.

Alright a less egregious example: that sounds a lot to me like “ending our dependence on coal, will put a lot of coal workers out of a job.” The industry my provide jobs, but the damage being done with all these niche topics with regards to student loan debts and unmarketable degrees outweighs the positive effect of all those jobs.

So maybe stop education being a for profit enterprise?

[Tarsonis]

Not for nothing, to me that kind of sounds like “ending drug addiction will put drug clinic workers out of a job.”

Good thing there are no dead end degrees... if there were, wouldn't the market decide that those were useless and those who pursued them would ultimately not be able to make up their investment and that would provide a disincentive to future students to pursue that degree, thus leaving the university no option but to remove the program?

You would think, but with the student loan program, universities have a vested interest in creating all these programs to capitalize on that money, and nobody will ever talk to them about the job viability of their degree

[Cannot think of a name]

You're comparing people studying niche topics with not much application to drug addiction? That's completely insane.

Alright a less egregious example: that sounds a lot to me like “ending our dependence on coal, will put a lot of coal workers out of a job.” The industry my provide jobs, but the damage being done with all these niche topics with regards to student loan debts and unmarketable degrees outweighs the positive effect of all those jobs.

First of all, I don’t trust you lot with deciding what is and is not a “useful” degree. In fact, the only one I trust with that decision is the person getting it.

Second, while this rhetoric makes good AM radio, I have yet to see any evidence that the student debt issue is caused by so-called useless degrees and not, say, things like rising tuitions, falling pay, for profit lending, etc. So this is less like coal and more like someone creating a crisis in order to attack an unrelated target.

[Thuzbekistan]

Good thing there are no dead end degrees... if there were, wouldn't the market decide that those were useless and those who pursued them would ultimately not be able to make up their investment and that would provide a disincentive to future students to pursue that degree, thus leaving the university no option but to remove the program?

You would think, but with the student loan program, universities have a vested interest in creating all these programs to capitalize on that money, and nobody will ever talk to them about the job viability of their degree

yeah, 10,000 dollars in student loans is totally what made me want to start on my history degree........

[Bear Stearns]

Not for nothing, to me that kind of sounds like “ending drug addiction will put drug clinic workers out of a job.”

Good thing there are no dead end degrees... if there were, wouldn't the market decide that those were useless and those who pursued them would ultimately not be able to make up their investment and that would provide a disincentive to future students to pursue that degree, thus leaving the university no option but to remove the program?

Things are trending in that direction, but as long as the government guarantees student loans to universities, it's been moving slowly. If student loans were an unregulated market, lenders would only lend to students who will pursue career paths would allow them to realize a return on their investment.

At the same time, a free market means student loans also aren't guaranteed, so universities become more selective in who they admit, because they want to only admit students who will actually be able to afford the tuition. With less enrollment as a result, tuition would drop. People would still be able to pursue dumb degrees, but they'd just pay for them out of pocket, and would in effect, be subsidizing those who pursue STEM or business.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

You're right, without Trump you'll be reconquered by Britain. Only he can save you.

Straw men are bad mmmkay?

I think your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

[Tarsonis]

You would think, but with the student loan program, universities have a vested interest in creating all these programs to capitalize on that money, and nobody will ever talk to them about the job viability of their degree

yeah, 10,000 dollars in student loans is totally what made me want to start on my history degree........

Not you. The schools.

[Tarsonis]

Alright a less egregious example: that sounds a lot to me like “ending our dependence on coal, will put a lot of coal workers out of a job.” The industry my provide jobs, but the damage being done with all these niche topics with regards to student loan debts and unmarketable degrees outweighs the positive effect of all those jobs.

First of all, I don’t trust you lot with deciding what is and is not a “useful” degree. In fact, the only one I trust with that decision is the person getting it.

Second, while this rhetoric makes good AM radio, I have yet to see any evidence that the student debt issue is caused by so-called useless degrees and not, say, things like rising tuitions, falling pay, for profit lending, etc. So this is less like coal and more like someone creating a crisis in order to attack an unrelated target.

You’ll notice I used the word “unmarketable” not useless.

[Zurkerx]

Flynn gave info on attempts to obstruct Mueller probe, court filings show

[San Lumen]

Flynn gave info on attempts to obstruct Mueller probe, court filings show

and Republicans could care less.

[Gormwood]

Flynn gave info on attempts to obstruct Mueller probe, court filings show

But it was a Complete and Total Exoneration...

[San Lumen]

Flynn gave info on attempts to obstruct Mueller probe, court filings show

But it was a Complete and Total Exoneration...

To Republicans it was. They aren't interested in the truth or they would be calling out defying Congress but they are too afraid of primary challenges to care.

[Valrifell]

First of all, I don’t trust you lot with deciding what is and is not a “useful” degree. In fact, the only one I trust with that decision is the person getting it.

Second, while this rhetoric makes good AM radio, I have yet to see any evidence that the student debt issue is caused by so-called useless degrees and not, say, things like rising tuitions, falling pay, for profit lending, etc. So this is less like coal and more like someone creating a crisis in order to attack an unrelated target.

You’ll notice I used the word “unmarketable” not useless.

Functionally synonymous.

[Gormwood]

But it was a Complete and Total Exoneration...

To Republicans it was. They aren't interested in the truth or they would be calling out defying Congress but they are too afraid of primary challenges to care.

Conveniently not suspicious that they are resisting turning over the full Report that supposedly clears Donnie.

[Duhon]

We're here.

In 1787, the framers gave us a president, not a king.

On Tuesday, lawyers for President Trump gave a dissenting opinion.

In the first of many courtroom showdowns between Trump’s executive branch and the legislative branch, Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy argued to U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta that Congress has no authority to pry into Trump’s finances. That was expected. Unexpected was Consovoy’s broader argument: that Congress has essentially no authority to investigate any president for anything. Sorry, Sam Ervin: Even the Watergate investigation would have been illegal under the theory offered by Trump’s team.

Consovoy, a beefy former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, offered two related points:

(A) Congress can’t issue a subpoena or otherwise probe a president unless it is doing so for a “legitimate legislative purpose.”

(B) Any “legitimate legislative purpose” Congress could conceivably devise would be unconstitutional.

As a result, Consovoy argued, Congress can’t investigate to see if a law is being broken, can’t inform the public of wrongdoing by the executive and can’t look for presidential conflicts of interest or corruption, because that would be “law enforcement.”

Forget about the Unitary Executive Theory. This one is closer to the Divine Right of Kings.

Mehta, an Obama appointee, probed for the limits of this breathtaking theory but found none:

Trump’s finances are not subject to investigation?

“Correct,” Consovoy informed the judge.

Congress can’t verify the accuracy of the president’s financial statements?

“Correct.”

If “a president was involved in some corrupt enterprise, you mean to tell me because he is the president of the United States, Congress would not have power to investigate?”

No, Consovoy said, because that’s “not pursuant to its legislative agenda.”

Consovoy, who is representing Trump as he tries to block the president’s accounting firm from fulfilling a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee for Trump’s financial records, further declared that Congress can’t investigate a president to inform the public of malfeasance (“the president is not an agency”), to see whether a president has a financial conflict of interest in a piece of legislation (“it would lack legitimate legislative purpose”), nor to discover whether financial conflicts impair a president’s ability to make sound policy (“that is law enforcement”).

But surely Congress could investigate a president’s compliance with the Constitution’s emoluments clause?

“I respectfully disagree in part,” Consovoy persisted, saying Congress can’t engage in “anything that looks like a law enforcement investigation.”

Even the Whitewater and Watergate investigations exceeded congressional authority?

Here, Consovoy demurred (“I’d have to look,” he said), rather than admit his theory would have indeed banned both.

The Supreme Court has said judges shouldn’t look at Congress’s motives (even if they appear to be political) for investigating the executive, deferring to the legislature on what is a legitimate legislative function. But Consovoy told Mehta that “I don’t think the court can ignore” the Democrats’ motives, as expressed in public statements, and he called their legislative reasons “retroactive rationalizations.” Consovoy’s own argument sounded more political than legal at times. His brief began: “The Democrat Party[...] has declared all-out political war against President Donald J. Trump. Subpoenas are their weapon of choice.”

Consovoy’s argument was so aggressive, it seemed Trump’s lawyers expected defeat in the lower court and were looking for a higher court to reinterpret the law in Trump’s favor or, more likely, for the appeals to stretch until after the 2020 election. Consovoy sought delays for discovery and more arguments, saying it would be a disservice if “I did not go into depth.” But Mehta brushed off these attempts, saying he would close the record this week. And the judge flatly rejected Consovoy’s exotic argument that Mehta should preemptively declare unconstitutional any hypothetical legislation Congress might come up with related to its probe of Trump’s finances.

Douglas Letter, arguing for the House, said Consovoy’s position would require declaring unconstitutional “a whole batch” of laws that require disclosure by the president: the Ethics in Government Act, the Presidential Records Act and the Stock Act against insider trading. Under Consovoy’s theory, Congress couldn’t even investigate whether Trump really took himself out of the lease he had with the General Services Administration to run Washington’s Trump International Hotel.

At one point in the 90-minute argument, the judge asked Letter why the House wanted Trump’s private business records, because “this is not an impeachment proceeding.” And that’s the irony: As strong as the House’s oversight case is now, lawmakers would have more constitutional authority to demand information from Trump if they launched impeachment proceedings. Trump’s reckless legal argument is one more way in which he is goading the House to impeach him.

No oversight for Congress, so no judicial proceedings, nothing that can check the executive, none at all. Congress becomes an advisory body, the judicial system a mere suggestion. Divine right of kings, republican style. This is what happens when you elect a motherfucker who not only does not give a flying a fuck about the system but is doing all he can to free himself (and people like him) from all accountability, from all consequence.

Impeach Trump's ass before he irreparably damages the republic. He simply will not consciously act to further American interests; to assume he will on nothing more than a pinky swear and sweet nothings is fatal.

[Tarsonis]

You’ll notice I used the word “unmarketable” not useless.

Functionally synonymous.

Contextually not though. If I say it’s useless, I’m the one passing judgment. If it’s unmarketable I’m not the determinate, the job market is.

[Duhon]

Let's face it: Whether you like it or not, Trump has steadfeast survived the massive charge of the Democrats who put all their eggs in one basket with the russia investigation instead of focussing their political energy on more actual and urgent issues of which there are plenty around.

Not a good outlook for the democrats in 2020.

If this continues you can chant it with me: Four more years!

There is no more urgent issue in American life than this president trying to set up a dictatorship, accountable only to himself and to those he can trust to keep their mouths shut.

The nuts and bolts of policy platforms are themselves predicated on the president's willingness to be bound to the laws of the land. An unbound president may as well choose to make and unmake policies as he pleases; with no legal way to thwart the worst or even the fickle, the populace will entertain illegal options, up to and including revolution.

[Tarsonis]

We're here.

In 1787, the framers gave us a president, not a king.

On Tuesday, lawyers for President Trump gave a dissenting opinion.

In the first of many courtroom showdowns between Trump’s executive branch and the legislative branch, Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy argued to U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta that Congress has no authority to pry into Trump’s finances. That was expected. Unexpected was Consovoy’s broader argument: that Congress has essentially no authority to investigate any president for anything. Sorry, Sam Ervin: Even the Watergate investigation would have been illegal under the theory offered by Trump’s team.

Consovoy, a beefy former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, offered two related points:

(A) Congress can’t issue a subpoena or otherwise probe a president unless it is doing so for a “legitimate legislative purpose.”

(B) Any “legitimate legislative purpose” Congress could conceivably devise would be unconstitutional.

As a result, Consovoy argued, Congress can’t investigate to see if a law is being broken, can’t inform the public of wrongdoing by the executive and can’t look for presidential conflicts of interest or corruption, because that would be “law enforcement.”

Forget about the Unitary Executive Theory. This one is closer to the Divine Right of Kings.

Mehta, an Obama appointee, probed for the limits of this breathtaking theory but found none:

Trump’s finances are not subject to investigation?

“Correct,” Consovoy informed the judge.

Congress can’t verify the accuracy of the president’s financial statements?

“Correct.”

If “a president was involved in some corrupt enterprise, you mean to tell me because he is the president of the United States, Congress would not have power to investigate?”

No, Consovoy said, because that’s “not pursuant to its legislative agenda.”

Consovoy, who is representing Trump as he tries to block the president’s accounting firm from fulfilling a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee for Trump’s financial records, further declared that Congress can’t investigate a president to inform the public of malfeasance (“the president is not an agency”), to see whether a president has a financial conflict of interest in a piece of legislation (“it would lack legitimate legislative purpose”), nor to discover whether financial conflicts impair a president’s ability to make sound policy (“that is law enforcement”).

But surely Congress could investigate a president’s compliance with the Constitution’s emoluments clause?

“I respectfully disagree in part,” Consovoy persisted, saying Congress can’t engage in “anything that looks like a law enforcement investigation.”

Even the Whitewater and Watergate investigations exceeded congressional authority?

Here, Consovoy demurred (“I’d have to look,” he said), rather than admit his theory would have indeed banned both.

The Supreme Court has said judges shouldn’t look at Congress’s motives (even if they appear to be political) for investigating the executive, deferring to the legislature on what is a legitimate legislative function. But Consovoy told Mehta that “I don’t think the court can ignore” the Democrats’ motives, as expressed in public statements, and he called their legislative reasons “retroactive rationalizations.” Consovoy’s own argument sounded more political than legal at times. His brief began: “The Democrat Party[...] has declared all-out political war against President Donald J. Trump. Subpoenas are their weapon of choice.”

Consovoy’s argument was so aggressive, it seemed Trump’s lawyers expected defeat in the lower court and were looking for a higher court to reinterpret the law in Trump’s favor or, more likely, for the appeals to stretch until after the 2020 election. Consovoy sought delays for discovery and more arguments, saying it would be a disservice if “I did not go into depth.” But Mehta brushed off these attempts, saying he would close the record this week. And the judge flatly rejected Consovoy’s exotic argument that Mehta should preemptively declare unconstitutional any hypothetical legislation Congress might come up with related to its probe of Trump’s finances.

Douglas Letter, arguing for the House, said Consovoy’s position would require declaring unconstitutional “a whole batch” of laws that require disclosure by the president: the Ethics in Government Act, the Presidential Records Act and the Stock Act against insider trading. Under Consovoy’s theory, Congress couldn’t even investigate whether Trump really took himself out of the lease he had with the General Services Administration to run Washington’s Trump International Hotel.

At one point in the 90-minute argument, the judge asked Letter why the House wanted Trump’s private business records, because “this is not an impeachment proceeding.” And that’s the irony: As strong as the House’s oversight case is now, lawmakers would have more constitutional authority to demand information from Trump if they launched impeachment proceedings. Trump’s reckless legal argument is one more way in which he is goading the House to impeach him.

No oversight for Congress, so no judicial proceedings, nothing that can check the executive, none at all. Congress becomes an advisory body, the judicial system a mere suggestion. Divine right of kings, republican style. This is what happens when you elect a motherfucker who not only does not give a flying a fuck about the system but is doing all he can to free himself (and people like him) from all accountability, from all consequence.

Impeach Trump's ass before he irreparably damages the republic. He simply will not consciously act to further American interests; to assume he will on nothing more than a pinky swear and sweet nothings is fatal.

Sauce is required for this pasta

[Tarsonis]

Let's face it: Whether you like it or not, Trump has steadfeast survived the massive charge of the Democrats who put all their eggs in one basket with the russia investigation instead of focussing their political energy on more actual and urgent issues of which there are plenty around.

Not a good outlook for the democrats in 2020.

If this continues you can chant it with me: Four more years!

There is no more urgent issue in American life than this president trying to set up a dictatorship, accountable only to himself and to those he can trust to keep their mouths shut.

Aren’t you a Filipino citizen?

[Gormwood]

There is no more urgent issue in American life than this president trying to set up a dictatorship, accountable only to himself and to those he can trust to keep their mouths shut.

Aren’t you a Filipino citizen?

He can relate with Roddy D. in charge.

[Duhon]

There is no more urgent issue in American life than this president trying to set up a dictatorship, accountable only to himself and to those he can trust to keep their mouths shut.

Aren’t you a Filipino citizen?

Yes, and? Democracies the world over are under heavy siege by authoritarians, their enablers, and their wanton disregard for anything that limits them; they have banded together for their own miserable ends. What is happening in the United States is frankly not a national issue any longer.