Trump Decides The State Should Run US Businesses, Orders Them To Stop Doing Business With China
from the definition-of-'emergency'-is-now-'things-Trump-doesn't-like' dept
President Trump is back at it, misusing his emergency powers to declare difficult situations "national emergencies" so he can get what he wants. When Congress rejected his border wall funding, Trump simply declared an influx of immigrants a "national emergency." How an uptick in families seeking citizenship and/or asylum suddenly became a threat to the nation as a whole went unexplained.
What did go explained were the President's reasons for declaring a national emergency. During his press conference, he made it clear there was actually no emergency. This was done solely to secure the funding Congress said he couldn't have. If our representatives possessed any collective backbone, this would have been rolled back by Congress with a veto-proof rejection of this non-emergency emergency declaration.
Trump has done it again. He's now "ordering" US companies to stop doing business with China. This wasn't delivered as an Executive Order or proposed legislation. Rather, it was delivered via tweets from a miffed president who has declared -- and been repeatedly shown these assertions are false -- that trade wars are:
A. Good
B. Easy to win
....better off without them. The vast amounts of money made and stolen by China from the United States, year after year, for decades, will and must STOP. Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2019
Here's the relevant part of this tweet thread if you're unable to read/see the embed:
The vast amounts of money made and stolen by China from the United States, year after year, for decades, will and must STOP. Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing ....your companies HOME and making your products in the USA.
Going head-to-head with a powerful world economy -- one that also holds 20% of the US government's debts -- is a terrible idea. Since the President assumes trade deals are zero sum, we're stuck with tariffs flying back and forth between the United States and China like chips in the world's stupidest (and most dangerous) game of poker.
Roughly 12 hours after his mini-tweetstorm, the President finally discovered a way to justify his unexpected conversion to Communism.
Here's Trump's devastating riposte to all the haters:
For all of the Fake News Reporters that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc., try looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 24, 2019
If you can't read/see it, it says:
For all of the Fake News Reporters that don’t have a clue as to what the law is relative to Presidential powers, China, etc., try looking at the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Case closed!
Hi, Tim Cushing, Fake News: We've all spent quite a bit of time reading the IEEPA (the "I" stands for "International") of 1977 for years now, since every president since George W. Bush has misused it -- along with the National Emergency Act -- to expand the government's power. In fact, we were just re-reading its domestic counterpart a few months ago when Trump conjured an "emergency" out of thin air to grab money Congress refused to appropriate for his pet project.
The thing is the law doesn't allow the president to use emergency powers in non-emergencies. In both cases -- China and the Border Wall -- there's no national emergency involved. There are only things President Trump has decided to call emergencies so he can use his emergency powers. As Joshua Geltzer explains for Just Security, Trump is going beyond the bounds of the law with this current "order," as well as his border-focused declaration from earlier this year:
Whatever one thinks of the laws currently on the books, Trump is breaking them… An increase in families entering the United States simply isn’t a “national emergency” of the type contemplated by the National Emergencies Act (NEA). It may present a hard policy challenge, but many things do. For President Trump to insist that it’s a “national emergency” represents not statutory ambiguity but presidential lawlessness. And, indeed, we all know why President Trump really invoked the NEA: because he failed to convince Congress to approve his wall funding.
The same form of lawlessness is evident in Trump’s recent reference to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That law specifies that a national emergency can be declared “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” Trump’s escalation of a self-initiated trade war with China and inability to cut whatever deal might be necessary to end it are hardly the type of threat described by the IEEPA’s text. Indeed, to whatever extent we’re now facing an “unusual . . . threat . . . to the . . . economy of the United States,” its source appears to be not “outside the United States” but inside the Oval Office. If Trump in fact invokes the IEEPA to restrict American commercial activity in China, he’ll be replicating his treatment of the NEA not in using federal law but in violating federal law.
The problem is Trump can continue to break the law until one of the other branches stops him. Congress flunked the first test in February when it failed to bring a supermajority to the veto table following Trump's border wall emergency declaration. Five months down the road, it seems doubtful there are enough Congressional reps from Trump's party willing to stand up against the president's abuse of his powers should Trump follow through with another emergency declaration.
That leaves it up to the courts. Fortunately, the courts don't really care what the President thinks about them because they're not -- certain judges aside -- partisan fanboys willing to overlook lawfulness for the sake of owning the libs/destroying the US economy to teach China a lesson.
The quickest route would be Congress. Maybe the House will surprise us this time around. The courts are the longer route, but more likely to actually get the job done. The law may be broad, but it cannot be used to declare tit-for-tat tariffs an "international emergency."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: china, donald trump, national emergencies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yea, stop doing business with a country that has a market 4x the size of our own and middle class larger than our entire population because Trumplethinskin has messed up his own economy. Makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well... I guess that's not too much of an order. After all, according to Trump, all these companies who have operations in / trade with China are un-American and not that great. So the only companies he's ordering here are the ones that don't trade with China, and THEY are ordered to "start looking for an alternative" not to stop trading.
Weasel words can work both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I buy from Chinese sellers on occasion through ebay. All of them with the exception of a couple have been very polite and just want to sell their products and receive positive feedback scores. Its too bad politics fucks up everything it touches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't Wait for a Democrat President Is in Power
I can't wait until there is s democrat president in power that decides that the lack of national healthcare is an emergency and funds it through emergency powers. Or a democrat president decides that the spread of propaganda as a news is a national emergency and shuts down Fox news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 'turnabout is fair play' test
While tempting for humor value if nothing else(watching the same people currently defending Trump's dictatorial behavior throw a fit when someone on the other side uses the same powers would be worth a chuckle or two) I'm not sure how much good that would do, since individuals like that would almost certainly go right back to supporting said use of power when someone on their team was back in office, so it would be useless to teach a lesson, and presidents abusing their power is a precedent that would be better shut down rather than doubled-down on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't Wait for a Democrat President Is in Power
Or recognizes that our media is out of control, and just tried a Russian strawman argument against us for two years and declares that a national emergency and shuts them down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't Wait for a Democrat President Is in Power
I would be just as harsh toward any president abusing their powers regardless of their political party. This crap has got to stop, for everyone. Trump just happens to be the turd presently in the oval toilet bowl. There will be plenty more of all political persuasions to flush when he is gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't Wait for a Democrat President Is in Power
This garbage runs two-way. For a good part of the ridiculous power available to the current nutcase one can indeed say "Thanks Obama" and his majorities. This power grab (partly motivated by the Republicans' "boycott everything Democrat/Obama" stance) was bound to backfire eventually even though at that time nobody could imagine just how badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't Wait for a Democrat President Is in Power
This is why all of the news media is trying to push the idea that Joe Biden is the front runner. He is going to protect Donald Trump from prosecution by further destroying state sovereignty (preventing NY from going after him for state crimes) and also will prevent anything drastic from being done with the elimination of any kinds of limits on national emergencies combined with the elimination of the fillibuster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treat anything he posts on Twitter as opinion, not policy. There are official channels for the introduction of policy and fucking Twitter is not one of them.
Someone take away that child's phone and ground him for the remainder of his term. Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems a little harsh. But since we're speaking of the government running US businesses, how about we transfer his service to Dish Network instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that is how he uses it and both him and the WH have stated that what he says on Twitter can be considered "official policy". And so far, he seems to follow through on a fair amount of what he posts on Twitter. Or at least tries to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And courts have agreed (somewhat). But this is Trump, so of course he's also on record as having said the exact opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This act is preposterous by Trump. This will gut world trade and destroy the dollar's even more in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The real reason the dollar will fail completey is it is an oil born currency. This action by new world order is just a smokescreen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"There are official channels for the introduction of policy and fucking Twitter is not one of them."
Not according to official White House and DOJ statements
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-spicer-sa ys-n768931
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/14/doj-donald-trump-tweets-are-official-sta tements-of/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be awesome to see Trump's administration sue several large companies for not acting promptly on an order that Trump tweeted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything goes so long as no-one tells you 'no'
While he may not have the legal ability to just declare 'emergencies' in order to get his way as noted in the article so long as no-one is willing to tell him 'no' and make it stick that's basically a distinction without a difference.
The democrats lack the guts to actually slap him down and the republicans don't care what he does, they'll back him regardless, so hopefully the courts can manage what congress cannot and will not do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anything goes so long as no-one tells you 'no'
That's a mistake. There are a lot of former republicans thanks to Trump & Friends' antics. His behavior is hurting and dividing his own party.
I have no party affiliation; I vote for the candidate best suited for the job according to my own positions (as we all should). I can say that there are a number of Republican (and Democrat, for that matter) candidates I have on my "never vote for" list due to their behavior so far be it directly from them or through their inaction. I can't be alone in this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anything goes so long as no-one tells you 'no'
A fair point, in the general population I imagine his behavior has indeed resulted in more than a few people deciding that they'd rather not be in/support the same party that includes Trump, my democrat/republican comment was aimed more at those in congress, where barring the occasional wagged finger the republican politicians seem determined to back him/the party no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unfortunately there aren't enough Republicans in government willing to stand up to Trump to slap him down. At best they just stay quiet or plug their ears (with some few exceptions).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Until he actually stops making official policy from his Twitter, there is no reason to treat it as anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dang, replied to the wrong thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Being authoritarians for the most part, they stopped deriding him soon after he took office since he was now teh Prez, and he is doing a lot of vaguely or concretely conservative / Republican things. Given the republican lineup the last few elections, he is a mere retard among other retards. Since they were acceptable, why not him? (Dems have other horrible but different candidate issues as the party is structured differently, and when elected, they turn to outright shit in office.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't a court recently rule that Trump's use of emergency powers to fund his border wall was A-OK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which court would that be? The Breitbart Court of Public Opinion in an Echo Chamber?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not really https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745785115/supreme-court-lets-trump-border-wall-move-forward-but-legal -fight-still-looms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only on a limited and temporary basis, pending review by lower courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are doing Trump an injustice.
It wouldn't be a national emergency with a competent president and government. With the current leader and his fast-revolving bunch of unqualified and/or corrupt sycophants (the others are just revolving too fast to make an impact), anything requiring actual work, policy-making, and thinking through decisions is a national emergency since there are no capacities for actual work, policy-making, and thinking through decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's no excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, but it is an emergency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trade Wars
I think more needs to be said about the self inflicted trade war Trump has imposed. The fact that Trump induced the trade issue, and now expects others to make efforts, not in their best interest, to aid in fulfilling his demented dream seems to be part in parcel of his modus operandi. Create or exacerbate issue then demand others suffer to ameliorate the problem.
I am not enough of an economist or expert in international trade or manufacturing to point to the exact issues, but I think that many companies have already made efforts to move manufacturing out of China. The thing that cannot be moved readily is (as Baron von Robber mentioned in the first post) the enormous market for finished goods that exists in China. To think that Trump really wants US businesses to lose the income from such a substantial market goes to show how little he has thought this through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trade Wars
To think that Trump really wants US businesses to lose the income from such a substantial market goes to show how little he has thought this through.
I suspect you are putting far more thought into it than he has, as he likely only cares about 'winning' this particular spat and hasn't even considered what it is and will do to anyone that isn't him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trade Wars
It doesn't matter what it will do to anyone that is him either. Whatever happens, Trump will declare victory in the trade war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trade Wars
and not only will it be a HUGE victory, it'll be such a huge victory the likes of which have never been seen before!
/sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trade Wars
So has Trump and his family stopped having stuff made in China for their businesses?
Oh wait, he's a hypocrite so never mind.
Oh wait, he doesn't care if people see him as a hypocrite, so I guess really never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trade Wars
How many US companies actually sell finished goods in China though, versus those that just manufacture goods in China but sell exclusively in North America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although this comment probably sounds like an insult, it really isnt meant to be. If there was a US company that could produce the products we use and need and they were produced as cheaply, were as robust, were as stable and lasted as long as those made in China, with the addition of getting updated frequently, then what Trump wants MIGHT be achievable! However, no US company can get anywhere near close enough to what Chinese companies ARE accomplishing. So, pray tell, how the fuck is what he wants to happen, gonna happen? Also, pray tell, are all the US companies that gave products manufactured in China suddenly going to be able to simply start manufacturing those products in the US? The buildings dont exist! The machinery, mechanisms and staff are not available. And even if tge6y were, the cost of each item would sky rocket because the manufacturing costs, the distribution costs, the advertising costs and the wages would sky rocket as well. That means no one would be able to AFFORD TO BUY the stuff anyway!
Forgive me. I am not a business person but equally I'm not a friggin' idiot either, unlike, or so it seems, someone who is trying to pull unpullable strings! However, if my thinking is wrong, please feel free to correct me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, Trump wants to get filthy rich again. Being in control of and anticipating big market movements caused by his erratic announcements is perfectly well doing its job. The agenda is "Make Trump great again", and it works pretty well. It wreaks havoc on the U.S. middle class, sure, but that only increases his relative wealth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only thing China is "good" at is making things cheaper than we can. Their products are anything but robust or stable and don't last long at all. Part of why they're cheaper is because they're cheaply made, not just because wages are lower and working conditions are garbage. Any American company can have their products made here, end up with higher quality and better durability and the only disadvantage would be cost (though some cost is saved in shipping).
US companies, along with much of the rest of the world, choose to have their products made in China because costs are lower. The lower quality is even a strategic choice in that a thing that lasts 10 years doesn't need to be replaced (read: repurchased) for 10 years. It's not about providing the best product. It's about providing the best product at a given price point with a built-in replacement schedule to maximize profits.
As for distribution and advertising, those costs would remain unchanged. They're already having to distribute the products and advertise them in the US. Where they're made doesn't change that at all.
Pulling manufacturing back to the US isn't the insanely costly venture you make it out to be. Remember that factories will churn out mass quantities of stuff. The cost of those facilities is distributed across the cost of all of the things made during the lifetime of the factory. It's not the "sky rocket" you think, not by a long shot.
If costs increased the manufacturers have the choice of absorbing that cost or passing it along to consumers. I'm willing to bet that it would be a mix of both. If all of the costs were passed then the company would sell fewer widgets and revenue would drop. If none of the costs are passed on revenue remains the same but the impact of those costs directly impact profits. Somewhere in the middle is a balance that keeps revenue the same and minimizes impact on profits.
Yeah, overall it might seem to be a move likely to depress the economy. But consider the impact of creating tens of thousands of new factory jobs (or more) and putting all those people to work, generating income and spending it, paying taxes and possibly improving their standard of living. This can only strengthen the economy and tilt the scale back in our direction, away from China.
Then consider what happens when all of our manufacturing is gone, no factory jobs, no technical skills except among the tech elites, nothing but sagging retail and an even greater divide between the haves and have-nots. This is the trend we're on and it needs to be stopped.
Trump is an idiot but this one thing of his I can get behind. Just not for the same reasons he's pushing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree the impact is not as bad as some people predict but the cost of creating those factories is what will really ding companies. Also the time involved to make the transfer to a new factory that also takes time to build, staff, furnish, and supply. Granted some things can be done simultaneously but it takes a big upfront capital investment to start the process.
I'm good with companies voluntarily moving but using his excuse of a fake national emergency is a terrible idea to force companies to change. Also considering Trump has failed a lot at business I doubt he has any understanding of what it takes to keep a business profitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If corporations can't be greedy, if they can't pass these costs on to the consumer and keep their bottom line flowing goldly, what's to say they will move manufacturing to the US? Why not Tibet or New Zealand or TimBucTu? They would probably rather retire their business and pay off investors than move lock stock and barrel back to the US where they are facing the US government in their faces and a crappy US economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is not technically true. In the past, maybe, but China is where most of our electronics are manufactured now, including the considered very high quality iphone.
The problem with the rest of your post is it ignores the fact that some things just can't be manufactured period, or in enough quantities to reduce price, in the US due to availability of natural resources and manufacturing/processing capabilities.
Case in point, China is one of the few places in the world with the natural resources to refine certain materials used in common electronics and computers. Yes there are other places but none that have the large quantity of natural resources that China does.
And yes while the processing facilities that don't require those natural resources could be built in the US, it's not an insignificant cost and it would take several years to get up to the capacity they need to resume full production. In the meantime, that causes a goods shortage causing prices to skyrocket and people not being able to get the items they need.
While your argument has some merit, you are ignoring a lot of other factors that make this a really bad idea. No country can be self-supporting today, they just don't have the natural resources. Even if we process and manufacture all our goods in the US (which is nearly impossible) we would still have to do business with countries like China to import the raw materials because they just don't exist in sufficient quantities on American soil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, are you Chinese? You sound Chinese.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go Hwong Tong. G'en Ho Tze Bi Dio Se.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"no one would be able to AFFORD TO BUY the stuff anyway!"
People in his tax bracket ( or non-tax bracket, depending on your outlook ) will always be able to afford the stuff.
Those are the only people he really cares about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But even those people will feel the pinch if what their factories are producing do not sell, and if they cannot sell those factories their wealth evaporates, because it is invested in those factories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump Decides The State Should Run US Businesses
Well, he's running his own business from the Whitehouse without any repercussions, so it should come as a surprise to no-one he thinks he's entitled to run all American businesses from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing ....your companies HOME and making your products in the USA."
What about that free market thing? The government dictating to business ... isn't that a big part of socialism? I thought the gop hated on socialism, guess they really do not know what the word means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They also like the big socialist handouts to farmers which, ta da, they also caused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Totalitarianism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure this leftist RAG was just fine when Obama was in office, didn't get what he wanted, and did the around with them. As HE said, he has a Pen and a Phone!!!.
Look, he flat out said he can go do what HE wants if COngress is not going to do it. But YOU the leftists are a-ok. What Obama sounds like here is a Dictator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6tOgF_w-yI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*checks past articles from when Obama was President, confirmed articles exist criticizing Obama.
Honestly, what is it with you people and posting lies that are disproven by anyone who can do a simple search? There are plenty of articles criticizing Obama for his policies. That said, Trump has cornered the market on the amount of times he's tried to do an end run around the law when it gets in his way.
Context is key. In some cases, yes, the president can take action if Congress doesn't. That's not unilateral though. In Trump's case, he thinks he can do anything without Congress.
Again, context is key. But that doesn't change the fact Trump sounds just as much like a dictator when he says.
Do pray tell, why should Trump get a pass for breaking the law just because Obama said something similar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm trying to remember here .... uhhh, just a sec,
Did Obama claim to be The Chosen One?
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Obama sure acted like he thought he was the chosen one. And he WAS CHOSEN by the Saudis to pay for his education and put him into presidency for a number of reasons that I can't remember.. sorry, but, there was a lot of dirt on that foreigner who was an illegal president, someone look it up for us, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence.] and [Citation very much needed.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
birth certificate is fake and forged was irrefutably covered up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still [Asserts facts not in evidence.] and [Citation very much needed.]
Link to evidence or it didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It happened whether I link to it or not. A lot of times I feel like if you are so ignorant of the facts and don't look them up like I did, you have no claim to make any determination publicly. Also there is a lot of dirt being covered up everywhere in case you hadn't noticed, but how could you? If you only get the truth according to techdirters, why do you doubt anything you read here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It happened whether I link to it or not"
According to who?
"A lot of times I feel like if you are so ignorant of the facts and don't look them up like I did"
The only places I've ever seen such "facts" are from places known to make crap up, sometimes even sites that declare themselves to be parody sites (though some people are so desperate to believe conspiracies that they'll still be fooled).
Which is why people like myself and the AC above like to ask for actual citations and verifiable sources rather than do the same searches you did and find them not to say what you claimed they do. It saves everyone a lot of time if you provide the information you're basing your own claims upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+fake+birth+cert&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&cli ent=safari
Read a few of these and learn what others know of a person who files fake passport and becomes US President AND NO ONE GIVES A GOD DAMN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
birth certificate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can't keep your story straight I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you got some links there.. I think you are just bitching cuz you are a bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's got some links telling you you're an idiot. Do you have ones saying you're right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know howe to Google. But, I'm not asking you for random samples of articles. I'm asking you for the sources you have used. That you refuse to do this is quite telling about the quality of your sources.
Given that the first couple of articles in the link you provided are telling you what idiots birthers are, and detailing Arpaio's latest free holiday at taxpayer expense, I suspect not very good.
"a person who files fake passport "
That's a new one I'll admit, but even if that was true how does that mean that the birth certificate that was verified by the Republican governor of Hawaii and the corresponding birth announcement visible in the correct copy of the Honolulu Advertiser that was printed on that date are fake?
That's the problem with your entire argument. You have no evidence, you just have "I choose to ignore the evidence I don't like" and latch onto irrelevancies (such as, since owning a fake passport does not cause your citizenship to be revoked, it's irrelevant unless you can otherwise prove he was not entitled to the real one).
So, unless you can provide actual evidence, I can happily dismiss you ads yet another moron who would prefer to believe in a grand conspiracy than accept a black man in the highest office. Since that's backed by far more evidence than you people ever provide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
quite telling about my sources? wtf?!! The long document Obama laid on us was a digital creation that was created with layers that were never merged so it was possible to see the bullshit was pure hoax. Fuck you people are thick. good god
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"quite telling about my sources?"
Yes, the sources that are obviously lying to you. Do you have anything from the non-fiction areas of the internet?
"The long document Obama laid on us was a digital creation"
There's also physical copies of the same documents, plus physical copies of the original birth certificate you people claimed wasn't good enough, and physical copies of the original birth announcement printed the day after he was born, all of which have been verified by Republicans as genuine.
Where's the debunking of those?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, did you not check your search results after doing that search? The first half dozen of those alone talk about how his birth certificate is legit and go into some amount of detail in DEBUNKING the claim that it was forged.
That search does not support your claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"irrefutably"
I look forward to your irrefutable evidence being presented, in that case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.science.co.il/Obama-birth-certificate.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you bums
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As PaulT stated, the link to download the PDF doesn't work. However, having reviewed other copies online, I'm unable to find any evidence of what that site claims. To wit, zooming in doesn't make any numbers "magically" disappear. Come on, really? That's not how zooming works.
You got bamboozled. You bum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fun thing is, even if there were concrete proof that the particular PDF was edited in some way, it would do nothing to change the physical document from where the PDF was created or any of the other evidence available. The only reason why the long form document was released in the first place is because only the short form had been examined (as is usually good enough for any other public figure), and the conspiracy nuts took that as a sign that it was fake.
I could go on, but the typical MO of these guys is that they'll wave away all the concrete proof available and latch on to the flimsiest of straws. You could take them back in time to witness the birth, and they'd probably just claim that the baby was switched out later or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
as I said the original search results have been censored and yes you have to really dig deep on other than google search engines to get the original analysis of digitally created birth certificate. The forged document was created in layers and those layers were easily seperated again digitally using some paint program or other means but the layers had never been permanently merged so as it made it possible to retrace the document's creation. Don't believe it? I couldn't care less how far up your ass your head is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"as I said the original search results have been censored"
They haven't, but why are you depending on random search results? if you have the actual sites, why aren't you just giving those to people rather than asking them to randomly search?
" The forged document was created in layers and those layers were easily seperated again digitally using some paint program or other means but the layers had never been permanently merged so as it made it possible to retrace the document's creation."
The forged document only available on the site you linked to, which is not the document that's available in the publicly visible Whitehouse archive? Yes, probably.
The one that was presented to the public by the original source is fine, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" yes you have to really dig deep on other than google search engines"
Also, if people need to do that, then why is your dumb ass posting Google search links?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those goigle search links were shown in order to show how google covers its iwn censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they were posted because idiot birthers won't link to actual evidence, since it doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
what makes you not an idiot birther, somewhere in your bloodline you were hatched by birthers?!! lol fuck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not all birthers are idiots. Shocking, I know, but there is a world outside your heritage of incompetence and lead poisoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"what makes you not an idiot birther"
I'm not an idiot and don't believe in evidence-free conspiracy theories when there's evidence-rich reality to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol, yeah. "Here's a document that's totally faked. You can't get the original any . more, but our copy shows it's faked!". That seems very strange, considering this link still works, right? https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Are you this easily fooled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is No such thing as DIGITAL EVIDENCE, but that doesn't stop various agencies and search engines from shutting down hosts with copies for view or censoring the search results which is happening at an increased rate from public view. If you are too slow or too unconcerned to know what's happening then its your fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There is No such thing as DIGITAL EVIDENCE"
You're wrong, but even if you were correct, all the evidence that proves that birthers are deranged lunatics is in physical form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Physical form is such a bitch so you have to either spend a lot of time and money collecting physical evidence or rely on whatever has been uploaded to the internet. Discovery might be a process that could unearth gobbs of juicy details, but that requires a costly lawsuit. Who has that kind of money? Look at the mock trials the government has created defending the lie over who shot JFK. Read Bush senior's autobiography and find out he's the only person in America who couldn't remember where he was that day. None of anything is evidence dealing with those above the law. I remember watching him get shot live on tv and I was a tot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This has what to do with anything?
Let me get this straight, there's no such thing as digital evidence and physical evidence is too hard to get a hold of, so we're just supposed to take you at your word with no evidence to prove your claims? Don't become a lawyer, you'll never win a single case and probably be disbarred.
The what now?
So? And you have polled the entirety of America all of them except Bush have confirmed to you that they remember where they were that day?
Gah! English and grammar man! No one can take you seriously, much less understand you, if you can't write in proper English!
Bully for you. Your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you get evidence that proves what I found online is not true then disprove it. You haven't disproved anything all you've done is blindly support that African who enacted laws while being an illegal president and all the laws he signed are null and void, but being that those pushing UN agendas and new world order agendas have really bamboozled America again and sit around laughing about it while they are stealing Trillions of dollars from America. You support them? I can't begin to tell you all how fucked we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"you get evidence that proves what I found online is not true then disprove it"
That's not how this works, moron. You make the claim, you provide the evidence.
"I can't begin to tell you all how fucked we are."
Yes, Trump really did screw you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump is a sock puppet like the last 10 presidents. He does what he does not on his own. Its getting harder now adays for some people to figure out the truth of what is going on and then there are people who just latch on to disinform others with false scenarios and pure bullshit it is amazing some of you are so fucking stupid no wonder America is a sinking ship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"no wonder America is a sinking ship"
Yes, British people living in Spain are the reason why your country is being fucked by a conman :rolls eyes:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
fuck you moron pault idiot I saw the document and can't find it now. It showed the long form was diditally made and layers were never merged this it was easily disseminated as a forged document. Then the lady in Hawaii turns up dead who pushed this document into the State. Fuck you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
all those links were given in lieu of the censored pages showing the original documents a decade ago. Just fresh out of school, couldn't read at the age of eleven? Not my problem. You live in the luxerious times when evidence against those politicians who are fucking you out of the America I once new are easily dispenced so they can spare you from giving a fuck about their tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And your solution is a President who has to threaten his own science people in government to cover up the idea that he was wrong about the weather?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"all those links were given in lieu of the censored pages"
OK, walk me through this because I'm not fluent in moron. If the pages have been "censored", what's the point of linking to searches that you know will return nothing?
Also, if Google are censoring their searches and you know it, why are you depending on them direct them to pages rather than bookmarking the original URLs? Google hiding an address from their index does not cause the original link to stop working.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I saw the document and can't find it now"
Oh, your only evidence is now missing? How convenient...
Luckily the documents that prove that you're wrong are very much still available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, there is. What makes you think there isn't? We use digital evidence in IT every day.
Ok, first, search engines can't shut any hosts down. All they can do is de-list them in their results. That doesn't mean they taken down though. And some government agencies have taken down hosts but context is key. Why did they? You can argue some were not legitimate but that doesn't support your point.
Copies of what? Legitimate content? Or pirated content/content used without the owner's permission? Come on man, you can't make a blanket statement and ignore context.
So what? First off, that's not illegal and they can do so if they so choose. Second, there's no proof of this happening. I can literally go and do searches and find pretty much anything I want.
The only one who doesn't know what's going on here is you. As evidenced by your completely false and baseless accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the search engine that first claimed to be the first search engine censors pages of evidence that you claim can be evidence and it is missing from a rather intense search attempt to satisfy some dubious techdirters and all that happens is a load of crap coming from them with nothing that disproves anything that is getting harder to prove when the facts are no longer available. I get emotional because I do know this crap is happening and feel helpless even more so because of so much ignorance and others placing blind faith in this government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speak english and learn how to make a fact based, logical argument. It's obvious you can do neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
digital evidence hard evidence against crimes committed outside of the internet exchanged online intraagency where sources are not challenged but other than child porn Im talking about evidence that have sources that cant be trusted you will not find to be acceptable evidence uploaded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure that made sense in your head. Could you translate it to English for me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Do pray tell, why should Trump get a pass for breaking the law just because Obama said something similar?"
And that's an excellent point...
Obama got away with it, so why can't Trump?
Bush got away with it, so why can't Obama?
Clinton got away with it, so why can't Bush?
...
And Adams got away with it because Washington started it.
So where does it stop? Do we let politicians get away with things forever because their predecessor did something similar? When do we stand up and say we're not going to take this kind of behavior any more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Define "get away with it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you got anything that isn’t recycled RWNJ propaganda?
Your whataboutobama is well past it’s expiration date bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure this leftist RAG was just fine when Obama was in office, didn't get what he wanted, and did the around with them.
And I'm sure that doing the same as Obama is just what Trump intended to do, as he envies how much Obama was loved compared to him. What better form of flattery than to keep and expand an Obama policy?
I personally love these "what about Obama?" threads. It shows that despite pretending to hate what he did, you fully support people who emulate that behavior, and by proxy, Obama policies.
I'm glad you're supportive of President Obama's legacy! I am as well, comrade!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
World's Greatest Businessman*
Trump Decides The State Should Run US Businesses, Orders Them To Stop Doing Business With China
What a businessman indeed the commander in tweet has unilaterally decided that he will change the fundamental premise of US economics from a market based economy where pricing discovery is accomplished by individuals interacting voluntarily amongst themselves (eg suppy/demand) to a command economy which is centrally planned from the top down without any regard to the whims of individuals (worked well USSR).
Would it be nice if US based transnational corporations moved their manufacturing facilities back to the US?
Yes the benefits would be multifaceted from an increased local tax base (corporations) to increased opportunities for many Americans to earn a true living wage not seen in generations.
*HAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: World's Greatest Businessman*
Well, he said he was going to run the government like a business.
Specifically, Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines, Trump Wine, the Trump Taj Mahal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: World's Greatest Businessman*
The uptick in the prices of consumers goods would drive consumption, and the related companies, into the ground. I also doubt that a true living wage would be paid as the companies struggle to maintain their old price structures.
Some overseas manufacturing has been moved to Vietnam, and I am sure there are more opportunities there as well as other places, but none of this happens overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: families
Families don't emigrate to the US by walking hundreds of kilometers only to cross the border between checkpoints or hidden in the trunks of cars or packed like sardines in semi-trailers. Families apply at their local US consulate, fill out the necessary (and more likely--unnecessary paperwork) and then drive or fly to the US when their visas have been approved. We're not at war with any country who's disgruntled citizens could walk here, so there's nowhere that they're being driven from for fear of their (collective) lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: families
I guess you haven't been to Central America recently. Oh, and it isn't necessary for us to be at war with a country for at least some of their citizens to desire or need asylum.
While your at it, check out the CIA's involvement in the last 40 or 50 years of those countries histories to glean a little about how current circumstances came to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: families
If you had any goals with that comment other than broadcasing your ignorance on the subject, then you failed miserably at achieving them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trade or new cold war.
The Chinese are not our friends and we shouldn't be working with them to strengthen their economy or country. Their government is one of the most tyrannical in the world. This site wouldn't exist there and the owners would be put into prison. The people of China are spied on none stop and with their new social credit system you can't travel or even get a bank account if your score is too low.
Nothing says lets not do business with them more than how they're treating their people. Trump is going about this trade war all wrong. Its not about economics its about having the moral high ground and supporting human rights. We shouldn't be doing business with them because frankly their government is just shy or pure evil. They plan on being the worlds top military and economic power by 2050. I for one would much rather see the United States stay as this power even with all of our own problems, they are nothing close to what a world dominated by China would look like.
This is the start of a new cold war and we should do everything in our power to make sure we win it yet again. Trump should make this point since it would resonate with the American people as it is a actual legitimate reason for a trade war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trade or new cold war.
Have a large portfolio of military/industrial complex stocks, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trade or new cold war.
None. I do think that as a moral nation that is supposed to support human rights we shouldn't do business with countries that continue to violate them at an ever increasing pace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trade or new cold war.
And yet tons of countries still do business with the USA...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trade or new cold war.
The problem is that our failure rate at creating democracies is impressive. Since WWII we have stuck our noses in many places across the world and have yet to create anything worthwhile. Not that I think the current administration has any pretense toward 'fixing' China, I do think a different approach might be prudent, and showing them how the right kind of capitalism along with the right kind of democracy is a better way to go.
Our current systems of both capitalism and democracy have some serious issues, so to some extent we need to clean house and stop the do as I say, not as I do rhetoric. But if we do fix ourselves, and set the good example, I think it would go a long way to convincing populations across the world that it is the right way to go, regardless of their current regimes.
Your methodology uses the threat of force rather than a show of success, and that is a part of our failed approaches in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trade or new cold war.
"I do think that as a moral nation that is supposed to support human rights we shouldn't do business with countries that continue to violate them at an ever increasing pace."
I think that in addition, we as a nation should at least attempt to avoid hypocrisy rather than the outright and blatantly in your face stuff we see today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If that were a valid option you might have a point. It is not, however, a valid option.
Stopping all business with China would be the equivalent of lopping off our arms and legs just to say we took the "moral high ground". And even then we wouldn't be taking the moral high ground because we'd be depriving all the US citizens of much needed goods and services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trade or new cold war.
I do think that as a moral nation that is supposed to support human rights we shouldn't do business with countries that continue to violate them at an ever increasing pace.
Like Saudi Arabia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trade or new cold war.
What moral nation? I don't see any of Trumps kids going to war and fighting for oil in a foreign nation. Or Obama's kids or Bush's kids or Clinton's kids, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That literally has nothing to do with morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
why not? those in power send your kids off to war and don't send their kids off to war. why the fuck not a morality issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the draft ended decades ago, that's why. Anyone who gets sent off to war today is because they made the choice to join the military.
I didn't choose to join the military, does that make me immoral too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you are not one of the first people to salute them when they return to America in a flag draped coffin, it does in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That kind of mindlessness is part of the reason why you have so many of them being returned in such a way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what if I never have the opportunity to? My close friends and family are either not in the military or they are still alive. As such I have never had an opportunity to be one of the first to salute a flag draped coffin.
Also I am not in the military so I believe it would be considered bad form and/or rude for me to salute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
China is one of the largest and/or sole provider of certain natural resources and processing capabilities for common items, especially computer electronics. Not doing business with them at all would cause the price of all things electronic (and many other items and goods) to skyrocket and go into shortages.
I get what you're saying but that is not feasible in today's world with a global economy. It would set the US back, not take us forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trade or new cold war.
This world is already dominated by China. As for them being "one of the most tyrannical" in the world, what would you call this move by our BELOVED leader? I can call it what it is, tyranny, do you see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Last I checked it was not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
oh you checked.. THANK GOD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So states should run US businesses... unless they're ISPs, that makes Richard Bennett piss himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDS is strong with this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, that's why Cushing wrote an article complaining about Obama (and every President since Carter's) use of national emergencies:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141023/08311828924/america-defensive-wars-terrorism-thirty-year s-perpetual-states-emergencies.shtml
Why do you idiots always feel the need to insist that because we criticize this President for the idiotic things he does that we haven't criticized other Presidents? It's almost like you can't take anyone pointing out accurately what a shitshow is going on and feel the need to attack the messenger.
Get lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, some people do get rather deranged any time someone else says something bad about Trump, lashing out and acting as though there couldn't possibly be a valid reason to criticize the Dear Leader, and as such attributing any such negative remarks to a mental deficiency of some sort on behalf of the one issuing that criticism rather than admitting that it could very well be justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I only wish...
... I was running an international business, so I could give Trump the finger in a more tangible way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I only wish...
Its legal to give the President the middle finger ANY way you'd like. Secret service might shoot it off.. but its still legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I only wish...
And.. you can have a Brand new (unbranded) middle finger custom made in Shengzin province if you hurry for under $7.00.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]