America - The Official Thread

[ryzno]

it's a Trump insecurity issue.

Is it? The author admitted there is an internal resistance. Charges? Probably not, can he fire the leaker? Yes.
As deep as our government is he probably does need an investigation so he can fire the right person and the rest of the resistance group and not make a fool of himself like he occasionally does. He has every right to have his cabinet as he wants.

 

[TexRex]

Is it?

Yes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

can he fire the leaker? Yes.

It depends on the identity of the leaker of course.

 

[UKMikey]

Trump has made a surprisingly conciliatory statement to the Daily Caller regarding Nike's contorversial ad sponsorship. Maybe he still thinks that they're tenants of his. Either way I have to give him credit for actually sounding presidential at last. Perhaps after he tweeted that their share price was being hammered only for it to close 0.1% down on Friday the spin doctors have moved in.

“As much as I disagree with the Colin Kaepernick endorsement, in another way — I mean, I wouldn’t have done it,” Trump said.

“In another way, it is what this country is all about, that you have certain freedoms to do things that other people think you shouldn’t do, but I personally am on a different side of it.”

ETA: links

 

[Johnnypenso]

Trump has made a surprisingly conciliatory statement to the Daily Caller regarding Nike's contorversial ad sponsorship. Maybe he still thinks that they're tenants of his. Either way I have to give him credit for actually sounding presidential at last. Perhaps after he tweeted that their share price was being hammered only for it to close 0.1% down on Friday the spin doctors have moved in.



ETA: links

Nike shares are down $1.88 or 2.29%. On a Market cap of $128 Billion that's nearly $3Billion in value lost since the announcement.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nike shares are down $1.88 or 2.29%. On a Market cap of $128 Billion that's nearly $3Billion in value lost since the announcement.

They'll recover that when annual sales figures come out. The stock market is not always a good reflection on how well a company is doing. In the end revenue and profit are more important.

 

[Johnnypenso]

They'll recover that when annual sales figures come out. The stock market is not always a good reflection on how well a company is doing. In the end revenue and profit are more important.

You must have a crystal ball. What if sales are down 5% in the next 12 months?

 

[ryzno]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018...way-to-create-unlimited-renewable-energy.html
I don't recall where we were talking about renewable energy and my alternator/generator thingy that wouldn't work.
But is this a sign of something to come?
Please feel free to tell me where we were talking about it so I can move this there. It's a subject I am interested in!

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018...way-to-create-unlimited-renewable-energy.html
I don't recall where we were talking about renewable energy and my alternator/generator thingy that wouldn't work.
But is this a sign of something to come?
Please feel free to tell me where we were talking about it so I can move this there. It's a subject I am interested in!

Here maybe:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/free-energy.377175/

 

[Joey D]

You must have a crystal ball. What if sales are down 5% in the next 12 months?

I doubt that'll happen, its online sales are up 31%. My guess is that it's just a knee-jerk reaction like many things in the market. I mean look at Tesla, Elon Musk Tweets and the stock price goes all over the place.

 

[UKMikey]

I doubt that'll happen, its online sales are up 31%. My guess is that it's just a knee-jerk reaction like many things in the market. I mean look at Tesla, Elon Musk Tweets and the stock price goes all over the place.

Overall the stocks are up about 28% in 2018 according to the Bloomberg link I posted. In addition Adidas stock also closed about 3% down so it's hard to believe Kepernick is the sole cause of the downturn.

 

[TexRex]

Overall the stocks are up about 28% in 2018 according to the Bloomberg link I posted. In addition Adidas stock also closed about 3% down so it's hard to believe Kepernick is the sole cause of the downturn.

Kippernick? Hide your tins!

 

[ryzno]

I mean look at Tesla, Elon Musk Tweets and the stock price goes all over the place.

Speaking of him. Guess who likes to get high?
http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/tes...usk-smokes-marijuana-during-youtube-interview

 

[Johnnypenso]

I doubt that'll happen, its online sales are up 31%. My guess is that it's just a knee-jerk reaction like many things in the market. I mean look at Tesla, Elon Musk Tweets and the stock price goes all over the place.

Unless they also had a major campaign launch in the same 3 day period the comparison is pretty irrelevant. It's the long term that matters anyway, the first week or two are pretty meaningless which is why I suggested a 12 month comparison which would account for any potential sales lost to boycotting. You won't see that in 3 days necessarily.

 

[UKMikey]

It's the long term that matters anyway, the first week or two are pretty meaningless which is why I suggested a 12 month comparison which would account for any potential sales lost to boycotting.

Even if sales drop by 5% in 12 months I'll rub my crystal ball(s) and predict that the overall stock price will still continue to rise year on year unless maybe the NFL stops using them as their supplier of choice. This is probably why they're not worried about the knock on effect of stunts like this.

Kippernick? Hide your tins!

Bloody Samsung tablet touch keyboard. Sorry for the mistype.

 

[Northstar]

Even if sales drop by 5% in 12 months I'll rub my crystal ball(s) and predict that the overall stock price will still continue to rise year on year unless maybe the NFL stops using them as their supplier of choice. This is probably why they're not worried about the knock on effect of stunts like this.

Bloody Samsung tablet touch keyboard. Sorry for the mistype.

They also supply the NBA as well as the MLB starting in 2020. So they certainly won’t be struggling anytime soon.

 

[Rallywagon]

Speaking of him. Guess who likes to get high?
http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/tes...usk-smokes-marijuana-during-youtube-interview

Not sure hes big on getting high. He took one hit, had no idea what a blunt is, and smoked it like a cigar more than a joint. He is clearly not a huge smoker, just not adverse to it.
That said, it was a great interview, and is currently the highest (see what I did there) viewed episode of the JRE show.

 

[Mr Tree]

So the international courts in Den Haag are considered illegal by the US now that their soldiers are investigated.
How is this ok? Again 5he IS should be allowed to impose sanction and abolishments of certain institutions but when that same gun gets turned on the US it cries foul because it compromises their souvereignity? I belief a Trump 2020 is possible but if it happens I really don't know why the eu would stay besties with the biggest bully in school.

Funny how that goes. Your president is a bully that knows how to dish it out but when on the receiving end goes of and runs away.

Or is it not your president and is it his entire administration I don't know how that works since bolton said it.

 

[Dotini]

So the international courts in Den Haag are considered illegal by the US now that their soldiers are investigated.
How is this ok? Again 5he IS should be allowed to impose sanction and abolishments of certain institutions but when that same gun gets turned on the US it cries foul because it compromises their souvereignity? I belief a Trump 2020 is possible but if it happens I really don't know why the eu would stay besties with the biggest bully in school.

Funny how that goes. Your president is a bully that knows how to dish it out but when on the receiving end goes of and runs away.

Or is it not your president and is it his entire administration I don't know how that works since bolton said it.

It's okay because of American exceptionalism, a new flavor just introduced, "Neocons Delight".

US Threatens International Criminal Court Over Afghan War Crimes Investigations

As the International Criminal Court (ICC) moves to investigate US war crimes committed during the 17-year long war in Afghanistan, the Trump Administration is moving to position itself in direct opposition not just to the investigations, but the court itself.

National security adviser John Bolton says that the US will not only refuse to cooperate with the ICC, but that “for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.” Which doesn’t mean the US isn’t going to move against them.

Rather, officials are suggesting that the US will block any judges and prosecutors from entering the US, freeze any ICC funds in the US financial system, and impose sanctions against the ICC and its officials.

The US has long resisted ICC oversight of its myriad war crimes and misdeeds, and has long insisted that Americans are immune from ICC prosecution. This has tended to work, as the ICC has so far not made any serious moves against any US citizens.

https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/10...-court-over-afghan-war-crimes-investigations/

 

[Mr Tree]

It's okay because of American exceptionalism, a new flavor just introduced, "Neocons Delight".


https://news.antiwar.com/2018/09/10...-court-over-afghan-war-crimes-investigations/

I geuss that's sarcasm

But that final paragraph in the article. Why has the US seen itself immune from ICC prosecution?

 

[Dotini]

But that final paragraph in the article. Why has the US seen itself immune from ICC prosecution?

IMO, it's down to a couple of basic reasons:

1) Sovereignty. Nobody but our own authorities gets to judge and prosecute the actions of US service members performing their duties overseas.
"A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep." - George RR Martin, A Game of Thrones

2) Duty, honor and charity. US service members are performing duty overseas because those we are defending, like Europe, are too weak, poor, or stingy to do it themselves.

 

[Mr Tree]

IMO, it's down to a couple of basic reasons:

1) Sovereignty. Nobody but our own authorities gets to judge and prosecute the actions of US service members performing their duties overseas.
"A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinion of sheep." - George RR Martin, A Game of Thrones

2) Duty, honor and charity. US service members are performing duty overseas because those we are defending, like Europe, are too weak, poor, or stingy to do it themselves.

1) I 'agree' because for as far as I know/understand the us never signed the treaty that accepts these international laws. But I think that's a bad thing. This court and it's laws are imo for the benefit of mankind.
It usually goes over genocides torture and general misconduct like rape in war/conflict zones.

2) So the end justifies the means? Your opinion seems to imply it's ok to not be able to be held accountable for attrocities your nation might commit because they happen within a broader 'altruistic' view. And wheter or not it is altruistic is very much debateble.

But essentially both of them come down to if you think we're wrong come stop us. Or might makes right.

Or am I missing some information here?

Edit: and on point 1 it's like playing a game and bring with your own refferee because nobody but someone from my club can judge me.
Soldiers act in international circumstances so an international tribunal would be more then ok to judge those international actions.

Also does this mean that americans can't/shouldn't be tried in a diffrent country if they broke the law in that country? Or does thid only apply to US military personal (on duty I geuss)?

 

[Rage Racer]

I geuss that's sarcasm

But that final paragraph in the article. Why has the US seen itself immune from ICC prosecution?

Because America has the power to not give a 🤬 about any international laws. It's the right of the strong.

 

[baldgye]

It's the right of the strong.

The right of the strong, is to commit wrongs...?

 

[Joey D]

Because America has the power to not give a 🤬 about any international laws. It's the right of the strong.

Sort of like Russia, who ignores international law as well.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The right of the strong, is to commit wrongs...?

Usually yes.

 

[Dotini]

My friend Bill down at the pool likes to quip, "The strong do as they will, the weak do as they must."

 

[PocketZeven]

You must have a crystal ball. What if sales are down 5% in the next 12 months?

I wish. But it is only speculation ofcourse.

 

[Imari]

The right of the strong, is to commit wrongs...?

Pretty much, yeah. What is anyone going to do about it? Invade the US and physically detain those deemed to have committed war crimes? Through the most powerful single military in the entire world, one that can probably have a decent go at defending itself against every other country put together?

If the US chooses not to partake in international military law, the most they'll get is booted out of the clubhouse. I doubt that means much to the current administration.

 

[baldgye]

Pretty much, yeah. What is anyone going to do about it? Invade the US and physically detain those deemed to have committed war crimes? Through the most powerful single military in the entire world, one that can probably have a decent go at defending itself against every other country put together?

If the US chooses not to partake in international military law, the most they'll get is booted out of the clubhouse. I doubt that means much to the current administration.

A shining beacon of excellence for the whole world, and totally not the exact thing America was founded to get away from then.